Category: Gun Rights

Mitt Romney’s son apparently got asked a tough question last week:

“Your dad recently joined the NRA, didn’t he?” Mac McWilliams asked during the Sangamon County Republican organization’s breakfast.Romney’s son said yes, his father had joined the NRA earlier this year.

“Well then, has his position changed on banning assault weapons?  Because I found that as governor of Massachusetts, he signed a ban into law in 2004,” McWilliams said.

Now, to be clear, the 2004 law Romney signed wasn’t exactly a new ban on assault weapons, it was preserving some definitions in the federal ban that kept certain rifles exempted (Bitter knows more about the specifics than I do).  But you’d expect Romney would have his staffers and son prepared to deal with questions like this.   Nope:

When asked about the ban, Romney’s Illinois campaign chairman State Sen. Dan Rutherford intervened and reminded the audience of his own support of the Second Amendment.

“I wasn’t sure what Rutherford’s views had to do with Romney’s position, but I knew that question time was over,” McWilliams said.

Doesn’t sound like he got his answer.  Romney is a rank political opportunist, and you’d think he’d at least have his folks drilled on how to spin his record to appease gun owners.  Mitt Romney is presenting himself, at least to me, as the Republican version of John Kerry.  Or maybe John Edwards.  Kerry really is a lifelong hunter, unlike Mitt.

… who notice that CheyTec seems to have some pretty impressive hardware they think civilians are too irresponsible to own.  One more reason if I come into a lot of money, I’m getting a Barrett over any of the others.

Kevin does a great fisking of a self-satisfied screed by a gun controller who is a bit confused about which side has to resort to emotions.   Go check it out.

Dave Hardy has this to say about OSHA’s reasoning for regulating the ammunition industry out of business:

One commenter points out that OSHA cites, as a reason for the rule, a 1947 explosion. As OSHA admits, that was a huge detonation of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. I know a bit about it because it gave rise to a Supreme Court case construing the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Basically, in order to get fertilizer to Europe after WWII, the federal government cut a lot of corners. It allowed the stuff to be bagged when it was too hot for safety, allowed it to be put in waxed sacks (more waterproof, but if the wax melts it becomes the equivalent of fuel oil in a ANFO bomb), etc., etc.. The port of Texas City was full of boxcars of the stuff when some of it spontaneously ignited, then detonated — the resulting explosions essentially levelled the town.

Some people sued the government — it had, after all, ignored all the standard industry safety standards. They lost because the Supreme Court ruled that the situation fell under the “discretionary function exception” to the FTCA. The agencies that ignored the safety standards had discretion to do so, and had essentially made judgments that speed of production was worth the risk to life, and that was that.

A rather strange case to invoke for an argument that government regulation is necessary in order to make us safer.

Dave Hardy has the scoop.   California has passed the lead ammunition ban.   Looking at the groups that are behind it, it looks like a total “screw you” to hunters and sportsman courtesy of the California legislature.

Our government at all levels is out of control.   We have to do something or we won’t be a free people in a few decades.

Gun Law News warns us of a proposed OSHA rule that could do some serious damage to the ammunition manufacturers.   This is more evidence that Bush is asleep at the wheel in terms of controlling the federal bureaucracy.  Someone still needs to explain to me how this stuff is not violating separation of powers.

It’s getting tiring posting about this, but it’s important, so I’ll keep doing it.  Via SayUncle, I found a pretty good article opposing HR2640:

No one knows how many of the 21 million records Congress seeks will truly identify Americans who lack the legal right to have a firearm. The effect on guns already owned by people in the 21 million records seems clear — they would be subject to confiscation. At least, a transfer of ownership seems a likely requirement if the law is enacted and those people’s names are poured into the list. There are no plans to notify these people.

Well, you see, the problem is these 21 million or so people are likely already prohibited persons, and thus aren’t able to legally own firearms even currently.   I agree that there are likely to be mistakes, but we have that now with the system the way it is, and there’s little recourse for getting your name out.  There’s also a lot of veterans who get screwed in 2000 who will get unscrewed by HR2640.

It’s also important to note that the reason the bill is moving so fast is so that amendments can’t be tacked on during debate.  We want this to move fast.

It seems to me that this article, though well written and well argued, is really arguing against the Brady Act altogether.  I think that’s a reasonable argument to make, because background checks can be infringing if the records are not accurate.  I wish we could have gotten more out of Congress in this regard.   But we did get something, and something is pretty good for a law that doesn’t really add any new legal restrictions on who may or may not own guns.

Ahab has an update on yesterday’s thread.   Which is good, because of the decosomilining last night, I have nothing this morning.

The signing of a bill to make criminals out of ordinary citizens who fail to report a stolen in Connecticut is making its way around the blogosphere, but it’s always good to read the actual law.   You can read the whole act here.

(a) Any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon under sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a or a firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, that is lost or stolen from [him] such person shall report the loss or theft to [law enforcement authorities] the organized local police department for the town in which the loss or theft occurred or, if such town does not have an organized local police department, to the state police troop having jurisdiction for such town within seventy-two hours of when such person discovered or should have discovered the loss or theft. Such department or troop shall forthwith forward a copy of such report to the Commissioner of Public Safety. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the loss or theft of an antique firearm as defined in subsection (b) of section 29-37a.

Most of these bills, including the one in Pennsylvania, are specific to require reporting after discovery of the theft.   That doesn’t mean you need to constantly inventory.   However, if you notice the part I highlighted in this bill, you will see a big problem with this one.  What defines “should have discovered?”  Who gets to decide whether I should have?   Either you’ve discovered it or you haven’t.   This is RIPE for abuse.

Any person who fails to make a report required by subsection (a) of this section within the prescribed time period shall commit an infraction and be fined not more than ninety dollars for a first offense and be guilty of a class D felony for any subsequent offense, except that, if such person intentionally fails to make such report within the prescribed time period, such person shall be guilty of a class C felony. Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section for the first offense shall not lose such person’s right to hold or obtain any firearm permit under the general statutes.

So it goes from a summary offense to a class D felony on the second count?  Absolutely ridiculous.   If I get two guns stolen, and I discover it two weeks later, and prosecutor decides I should have discovered it, I’m facing a felony count?   Pardon me if I don’t say “screw you” to the politicians in Connecticut.  Connecticuit has always been a moderately anti-gun state.   Looks like they are moving to join their neighbors in being a place that likes to find excuses to lock up law abiding gun owners.

It also adds a new crime of firearms trafficking:

(a) A person is guilty of firearms trafficking if such person, knowingly and intentionally, directly or indirectly, causes one or more firearms that such person owns, is in possession of or is in control of to come into the possession of or control of another person whom such person knows or has reason to believe is prohibited from owning or possessing any firearm under state or federal law. (b) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class C felony if such person, on or after the effective date of this section, sells, delivers or otherwise transfers five or fewer firearms, and a class B felony if such person, on or after the effective date of this section, sells, delivers or otherwise transfers more than five firearms.

This is a bad law, and they are trying to pass similar legilsation in Pennsylvania.  I will continue to fight it here.   My current state rep supports the anti-theft provisions.   I am going to write him about what has just happened in Connecticut, and tell him to make sure it does not happen here.

Six and a half years for a crime that had no victim, and for mere possession of devices that supposedly have some kind of constitutional protection I think I might have heard of somewhere. Why the 1/2? Will the extra half year really teach Mr. Fincher a lesson that the prior six won’t?

I don’t think taking on federal gun laws in this manner is a wise idea, but this kind of time for a man in his sixties who is no danger to anyone seems like a waste of tax dollars and federal prison space that could be used to house, I don’t know, people who are actually violent and willing to harm others.

All in the name of “reasonable restrictions” I suppose?