Category: Gun Rights

According to SayUncle, Charles Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy have re-introduced the NICS Improvement bill. To be honest, I don’t really oppose the idea of improving NICS records, provided:

1. There are due process protections for adjudicating someone a mental defective. This means there needs to have been a hearing, and the defendant able to make a defense and face his accusers. This might actually require modifying the language of GCA 68 to make what “adjudicated mental defective” means exactly.
2. That NICS receive no other information other than the person is prohibited from possession of firearms.
3. There is an administrative remedy to challenge the system and get your name out of NICS.
4. The bill include a repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Do those things, and I’ll be happy to not oppose this bill. Use this as a covert means to disarm people without due process, and I’m fighting it. The Hughes Amendment thing is really just a goodwill gesture, you know. Considering who’s pushing this bill, I expect something in there to show you’re not just out trying to screw lawful gun owners.

UPDATE 06/11/2008:

Anyone searching for Obama’s record on Gun Control need look no further than this NRA Fact Sheet on the positions Senator Obama has held over the years.

—

SayUncle tells us that Obama is bringing gun control back out to the front and center. Maybe this will give the Republicans a chance to win back their majority.

Also, I don’t know what planet Obama lives on where you would a) shoot at deer with a 9mm pistol, or b) that a Glock 19 can hold 19 rounds of ammunition. I carry a Glock 19. The Glock 19 holds 15 rounds of ammunition. The number 19 is the model number you dummy! Maybe if you ever left Chicago and DC, you’d know that.

If the Democrats know what’s good for them, they’ll tell Obama to shut his stinking pie hole.  There’s nothing more wrong than a politician trying to legislate on something they clearly know nothing about.

UPDATE: Anyone looking for Barack Obama’s record on gun control needs to look no farther than here, which documents his anti-gun voting record in the Illinois Statehouse.

UPDATE: Let’s also not forget Obama’s proposal to ban any sales of firearms within a five mile radius of any school or public park.  We call this the Obama Gun Sales Exclusion Zone.   Here on the blogosphere, we’ve been compiling maps detailing what this means for various metropolitan areas.

… despite the fact that I’ve said I can live with some gun control, I still think it’s pretty much useless. While I think we will have to live with background checks, if you look at the statistics, the number of criminals who obtained firearms through straw purchase increased by just about the same number as the decrease in criminals who got their firearms through licensed dealers before the Brady Act went into effect.

Now the gun control folks think they need to shut down straw purchasing, but of course ignore the fact that it will just probably increase theft and gun smuggling.

But the technology exists to screen at point of sale without affecting my ability to go into a gun shop, pay money, and walk out with my purchase. Shutting down other avenues would mean some serious infringements, and shutting down straw purchases is probably not even possible. Even if you could do it however, the demand would be satisfied through other channels. Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals who demand them is a losing battle. The public demands we make a token effort, and I doubt the courts would invalidate and instant background check as an unconstitutional infringement. But I think it’s important to point out that the token effort is still mostly useless. Where there’s demand for a product, someone will step up to supply that demand. Even if banned civilian sales entirely, there’s always smuggling. It’s not hard to make guns, or smuggle them. We certainly see it done regularly with illegal drugs. Guns aren’t materially different.

Carolyn McCarthy, who doesn’t even know what a barrel shroud is, has proposed new limits to be placed on magazine capacity.   Gun Laws News has the details on H.R. 1859.   Did anyone check to see if she knows what a magazine is?

Can someone tell me how having 10 rounds in a magazine makes a firearm any less lethal?  It takes a few seconds to change a magazine.  The Virginia Tech killer would have had to carry three magazines instead of two?  Pardon me if this sounds rather useless.

The good news is, the bill has no cosponsors, and it’s been two days.  Typically legislation that has legs will have a lot of cosponsors right out of the gate.  We’ll see if she can manage to guilt some of her colleagues onto the bill, but it looks to me like it doesn’t have legs.   Still worth a letter to your Congress Critter though.

There are two things I can see the anti-gun groups, the media, and the politicans pushing out of this.   The first is another law limiting magazine capacity.   The other is stricter mental health screening for gun purchasers.

Magazine Capacity Limitations

They tried this in 1994.  Even if they removed grandfathering, there are a lot of magazines floating around out there that exceed ten rounds, and virtually all magazines exceed five.  Magazines are currently completely unregulated.  There is no way a law banning them will have even minimal compliance.  Magazines exceeding the limit will continue to be common and available, even if Congress bans them.

It also doesn’t take long to change a magazine.  As this killer must have done several times while he was systematically executing his classmates.  Would it have really made a difference if he had needed to carry three ten round magazines rather than two fifteen round magazines?  I doubt this would have altered the end result.  In fact, I can’t really see any situation where magazine capacity limits would save lives.  Magazines are just too easy to change.

More Mental Health Screening for Purchase

It’ll inevitably be proposed that gun purchasers go through more rigorous mental health screening.   Except proposals requiring physician signoff, references, or making anyone who’s had mental health treatment a prohibited person.  This one could be the one we have to worry about the most, because people will more easily see the relationship between the current tragedy and the proposal.   But keep in mind that millions of people are treated every year my the mental health profession, and only a small fraction of them are truly dangerous.  Ever taken anti-depressants?  Want to be a prohibited person because you one saw a psychiatrist?  Do you want your neighbors being consulted and asked if they think it’s OK for you to have a gun?  I Don’t either.  This is a massive invasion of privacy, and we can’t stand for it.  I would also note that Canada does have these strict requirements, and so does Massachusetts.   But it didn’t stop mass killers from committing their acts there.

SayUncle asks us what gun controls we’re willing to tolerate:

So, here’s a fun game for you pro-gun folks: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress decides that all federal gun laws need to be re-written and revised. You are elected/selected/appointed as the negotiator for pro-gun folks. And there will be one negotiator for the anti-gun folks. All federal laws will be wiped clean and you two will negotiate what the new gun laws will be. There will have to be compromise on both sides. So, what will you concede? And what is nonnegotiable?

Whoever says that their position will merely consist of shall not be infringed, step to the front of the bus and exit please. Because that won’t work. We will have gun laws. As much as I admire your consistency, it’s not feasible. Deal with it.

He’s right about the fact that we’re always going to have gun laws. So here’s my take:

I am willing to accept a constitutional regime that recognizes a right for civilians to keep and bear most small arms and light weapons. No right in the constitution has ever been construed to be absolute, but the right does place the burden on the state to prove that regulation is needed, and is non-infringing. Many of our federal and state gun laws would fail this test.

I am willing to accept that people convicted of crimes of violence can have, as part of their sentence, their right to keep and bear arms removed. People who are convicted of crimes can have a lot of their constitutional rights removed. We generally accept that in our legal tradition. I don’t like some of the current laws that turn one into a prohibited person, and keep you one long after you’ve demonstrated to society you’ve reformed yourself, but if you held a gun to someone’s head, and demanded money, or put your wife in the hospital, sorry, but I have no problems with not being able to have a gun as part of your sentence. I am not willing accept anything short of a conviction in this matter, and only for violent felonies.

I am willing to accept state and appropriate federal regulation of importation, manufacture and sale. This would allow background checks at point of sale, etc. I do think people ought to be permitted to purchase a firearm from a dealer in any state. I am not willing to accept waiting periods. Regulation is fine, as long as a law abiding citizen with a clean criminal record is allowed to walk into a gun store, and walk out with his purchase. I do believe people should be able to mail order guns, but federal requirements on background checks and paperwork can apply here, as well as delivery restrictions to be obeyed by common carriers (e.g., they can’t leave it on your doorstep, and you have to show you are who you say you are, by showing ID).

I am willing to accept state and local regulations on explosive ordnance such as grenades, rockets, and other ordnance that would still qualify as light weapons, provided the regulations is narrowly tailored in regards to keeping dense residential areas safe. Sorry folks, having a crate of grenades in your closet is a hazard to your community, and to anyone who tries to put out a house fire, independent of how responsible and law abiding you are as a person. State and local government can have the power to regulate this accordingly. If you have enough land, or build an acceptable armory to house your collection, I have no problem with this, but your right to bear arms doesn’t extend to putting your community, or the communities firefighters, in danger.

I am willing to accept state and appropriate federal restrictions on heavy, crew served ordnance. This could apply to some heavy machine guns, artillery, MANPADs, anti-tank rockets, etc. Ideally I would like to keep ownership of these possible if you’re willing to go through the process, have enough land, and a safe place to house and shoot, but I don’t think even 10% of the population would be willing to go that far.

I would be willing to accept most provisions of the NFA, as currently enacted, except for the Hughes Amendment. Though, I do believe regulating all but the heaviest machine guns (think 30mm cannon, not Ma Deuce) is inconsistent with my view that the constitution protects un-infringed ownership of personal arms. Ideally I would like to see assault rifles (real ones) and such treated as any other firearm, but I don’t know if even 20% of the population would be willing to go for it.

I would not accept any form of licensing as a prerequisite to gun ownership. I would accept that state governments have the power to regulate the wearing of arms, but are not permitted to license bearing of arms in general . Bearing of arms is constitutionally protected, with the states retaining the power to regulate how arms may be worn. Open carry would have to be legal in every state. And by legal, I don’t mean they can drag you in for disorderly conduct, or crap like that. I mean legal as in, you can do it, and they can’t say crap about it. I would not be willing to accept cars as being automatic concealment. I would push for not being a prohibited person as being an affirmative defense against the charge of carrying a concealed weapon.

I don’t think arms just means firearms. I am not willing to accept any restrictions on keeping and bearing knives, clubs, swords, tasers, defensive sprays, stun guns, air guns, bows, slings, or other personal weapon.

So there is my answer. Don’t get me wrong, I generally think arms control is next to useless, but Uncle is correct that we’ll always have it. That’s the compromise with the rest of the population, who doesn’t necessarily see things the way I do, that I’d be willing to live with. When you boil it down, I’m willing to live with a lot of our guns laws. I want to see the Hughes Amendment gone, some of the importation restrictions of GCA 68 gone, laws prohibiting some form of arms bearing in states gone, state machine gun bans gone, Lautenberg gone, state licensing gone, “assault weapons” bans gone, and I’d like the type 3 (C&R) FFL to apply to everything. Do those, my passion for getting rid of the rest starts to trail off.

Whether we in the United State like it or not, some regime of very strict international control on small arms is probably coming down the pike sometime soon.   Kim du Toit talks about the drying up of South African surplus ammo.  I got a few bags of the stuff, and it was good.  I’m sorry to see it dry up.  Kim tells us:

Of course, maybe the reporter just got the thing wrong—yeah I know, reporters never get gun facts wrong—but it’s still clear that Armscor’s fine 7.62x51mm, even though not specifically mentioned in the report, will soon disappear, because the ANC government of South Africa are turning into a bunch of quivering gun-fearing wussies. The move to end “small-arms proliferation” is no doubt inspired by a desire to forestall the day when some embittered group might be angry enough to rise up against them.

We may be winning here at home on the gun issue, but the rest of the world has a consensus that ordinary people are not to be trusted with arms. Most of the cheap surplus ammo that’s available to shooters on the US market comes from overseas sources.  These sources are all vulnerable to pressure from international gun control organizations like IASNA.  It’s a strong possibility we could lose them.  Imagine trying to shoot Kalashnikov, SKS, or your Saiga hunting rifle without a cheap source of ammunition from Wolf.  Russia has fought these treaties so far, but there’s no guarantee that things will stay that way.

Consider this too, C&R collectors, where are most of the interesting pieces coming from these days?  Century and a number of other importers that cater to the C&R market would be out of business in a heartbeat if overseas sources of surplus rifles were to dry up because the international consensus is that surplus small arms be cut up and melted down.

But it gets even better.   All the candidates that the military has been considering to replace the M16/M4 system have been European companies, namely Heckler & Koch and FN Herstal.  As it stands right now, H&K doesn’t seem to want to sell anything that looks politically incorrect to civilians.  Try getting a semi-auto G36.  They stated if the XM8 were adopted, there would be no civilian sales.   Same for the 416.  H&K, a German company, already doesn’t care about your gun rights.   FN has been very kind to the domestic shooter market, and has introduced the PS90 and is working on a semi-automatic version of the SCAR.  They definitely aren’t concerned too much about political correctness.  But FN is a Belgian company, and they will be subject to pressure from their government and subject to the treaties it signs.

Even consider the Glock that I own is produced by an Austrian company, and you’ll see why I think, as shooters, collectors, and people interested in lawful self-defense, we probably have it better today than we will in the future.   Eventually I expect an international arms treaty to shut down the export of these items into the United States for civilian consumption.  We can win all we want at home, but I don’t see us winning internationally.  Spend just 5 minutes talking about the gun issue to a European, and you’ll see what I mean.  Guns are evil to most of the rest of the world, and certainly that’s the prevailing attitude among the European political elite.

That’s why at the NRA convention next week, I’m going to be taking a serious look at Smith & Wesson’s new offerings.  Their M&P line of pistols looks good to me on paper, and I’d like to handle one.   I’ve seen a few of their ARs at gun shows, and while I’ve never shot one, what I have heard from others is they are making a solid product.  Smith & Wesson is American owned, and we don’t have to worry as much about people like Rebecca Peters lobbying them to shut down civilian sales.  In this country, at least for now, we can tell people like her to go to hell.