Category: Gun Rights

In 2004, when the federal ban on “assault weapons” expired, many of us might remember the anti-gun people boasting that they would take the fight to the states, and had at least five to seven other states that they could get one passed in.

Well, it’s now two and a half years later.  I have one question for the gun control advocates:

How’s those state level assault weapons bans you’re working on going?  Looking real successful there.  Got a whole safe full of them.  Getting more too!  Still waiting for those bans you were talking about.  Any day now!

OK, so I’ll have a little fun rubbing it in their faces, but we still need to be vigilant.  I think we may have saved Maryland for another year, but that issue won’t die there, or anywhere.  We’re still the front line of the gun rights movement.

Pro-Gun Progressive has the scoop:

[T]he first question I was asked was universally “what do you need with an assault weapon.” I explained that it wasn’t a question of needs, but a question of rights, but then quickly moved into the pragmatics of the issue–I responded that the most commonly used target and competition shooting rifle in the US was the AR15, probably followed closely by the M1A. I pointed out that the weapons they were looking to ban do indeed have sporting purposes, and that hundreds of thousands of law abiding Americans use them lawfully every day.

I’m glad to see my evil twin representing us so well. It’s very important that the false meme that these rifles have no sporting use is debunked and stomped on. That’s never been true, except in the Bradys’ collective minds.

Good showing to everyone in Maryland. Two hundred and ten folks will definitely make the politicians pay attention. The best news of the day:

As for the bill’s fate, last I heard was that Sen. Jacobs was fairly certain it would die in committee. But this is a dangerous one, and needless to say it bears watching.

Indeed, but color me impressed guys. I think you just killed an assault weapons ban in a fairly anti-gun state! Good show!

The other Sebastian says some very interesting things about the hearing for the MD Assault Weapons Ban. For one, the anti-gunners mentioned the Zumbo statements. For two, he says in the comments about 210 people turned out. That’s a good turnout for a committee meeting! State legislature committee meetings usually don’t attract any attention. That’s likely to get the politicians nervous, and that will work in our favor. I anxiously await PGP’s full report, and will link when it goes up. Good job Marylanders!

Tommorrow is the day the state wide assault weapons ban, Senate Bill 43, will be heard before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.  If you can, it’s important to show up in Annapolis to make your voice heard.  I don’t think I need to tell you all how important it is to stop this, and not just for folks in Maryland.

… to believe the government ought to respect the Bill of Rights? That’s what I’d really like to know from all the people tossing around accusations that we ruined Jim Zumbo because he deviated from the NRA orthodoxy.

And as someone who could be regarded as “liberal” on more than a few issues, and who’s vote is generally up for grabs for either party, how do the Democrat types expect me to identify with them when they like to argue that it’s extreme to shout down those who would disparage the Constitution, or give ammunition to those intent on doing so?

Again, the Zumbo thing wasn’t because he argued that “assault weapons” were a bad choice for hunting. I think most of us would have been happy to debate him on that point without trying to shout him down. The issue was that he said things the anti-gunners would happily latch onto and make sure policy makers knew that “even the top outdoor writer thinks these guns have no sporting use and should be banned”.

On a personal level, I feel bad for what happened to Jim. I do hope that Jim will work with us in the future, and that we can welcome him back into the community of shooters. But I don’t apologize for what happened to him. What he said was so potentially damaging to our community that we had to react, and react strongly. I don’t mess around when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and I would have hoped that was something we all could agree on. Maybe not.

Anyone else noticed the large number of comments from hunters on our blogs defending Jim Zumbo, while at the same time being rather derogatory toward our community? I can’t blame them for being a little angry given how some in our community have been behaving, but a lot of them seem to be pretty ill informed about the issues. So I have a message for them.

A Message To Hunters

We’re not pissed off at Jim Zumbo because we think hunting with “assault weapons” is great (though, if someone wants to, I don’t see what the issue is, if the game is appropriately small for those calibers). We’re pissed off at Jim Zumbo because he a) called our rifles “terrorist rifles” (the anti-gun folks will love to use that one), and that he suggested they be banned from the prairies (another great gem for the anti-gunners). It’s not so much we’re pissed off about the insult, though that is part of it, it’s that this gives a tremendous boost to the anti-gun organization who want to ban scary looking rifles.

Hunting is already in decline, and if you think the image of a guy chasing after a deer with an AK-47 might not be the best image for hunting, I think you’re entitled to that opinion, and I can see your point. But poor image is not the most serious problem for the hunting culture. The declining number of people who participate in the sport is, and that has more to do with fundamental demographic issues than image. But one sure way to make hunting go into a population free fall is for the anti-gunners to end up back on the offensive.

Oh sure, they claim they aren’t coming after your hunting rifle, but if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Take a look at two states that the anti-gunners hold up as their examples of states that have gun laws closer to what they would like: Massachusetts and New Jersey. There are others, but these are states I know. Ask anyone in these two states how healthy their hunting culture is. Ask them how they like spending hundreds of dollars on the licensing that’s required to own a gun, even an air gun (in the case of NJ). Ask them how much they like having to ask the police permission to possess, or continue to possess, their deer rifle or duck gun. In Massachusetts, let a cartridge slip out of your case after a weekend of hunting, your wife takes the car the next day and doesn’t have the appropriate licenses, gets into an accident, and the police discover the round: say goodbye to your wife for a year. She’s now a felon, and there’s a one year mandatory minimum in Massachusetts for even very minor violations of their insane gun laws.

The anti-gun folks aren’t done in either of these states by far. So don’t believe them when they tell you they just want reasonable gun laws and are concerned about violence. That’s what they tell you to buy your acquiescence.

What happened in these two states, and others, is the future that the anti-gunners want to bring to hunting. If you hunters are OK with that, well, don’t cry to hard when most of your fellow hunters decide it’s not worth the hassle, and groups like the Humane Society of the USA and PETA get the political clout to ban hunting. Don’t think it would ever happen? Ask hunters in New Jersey how well their bear hunt went this year. They will ask, “What bear hunt?” Governor Corzine, under political pressure, stopped the bear hunt, despite a burgeoning bear population in The Garden State, and successful and safe hunts happening in previous years.

Understand one thing, hunters, we black rifle shooters are willing to stand with you on these hunting issues, because we recognize that hunters are a part of our community, and we need every man we can get. We understand giving even an inch of ground to the anti-gun and anti-hunting people is an inch closer toward prohibition on each of our respective sports. I’m sorry so many in the black rifle community are so angry that they are insulting hunting and hunters. It’s time for both sides to calm down and start figuring out how to work together.

I’m not sure I’d agree with the assertion out there that we’re about to divide into Fudds and Shooters. I’ve seen few people defending Zumbos actual comments, but I think a lot of people lining up in his corner are defending Jim Zumbo the man, more than defending what he said. We do need to be careful not to be seen by the hunting community as sharks that are tasting blood in the water, and are ready to go into a frenzy.

I agree with folks who have pointed out that Jim is “Stuck on Fudd” with his comments that indicate he still only views AR-15s through the lens of their hunting utility. This really shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering Zumbo is a lifelong hunter. Now, don’t get me wrong, I want to see Jim jump back on the second amendment bandwagon and start helping reach out to hunters to make them understand what’s at stake, but you can’t expect the guy to change who he is, and what he loves to do. We should let Jim remain a hunter at heart, because that’s what he is. He’s never going to become one of us, in all liklihood. All we should ask of him is that he get on board with defending gun rights, all guns rights, period. If he wants to not like AR-15s because he doesn’t like to hunt with them, fine.

The reason it’s important, is because the majory of hunters that Jim can reach have absolutely no idea what went on this past weekend. Unless Outdoor Life runs a summary piece of the incident, you’ll have hundreds of thousands of hunters out there who will get subsequent issues and think “What ever happened to ol’ Jim Zumbo? I really used to love reading his great hunting articles.” It’s those people that we need to reach. Jim would be a good vehicle for that if he can be educated. But we must be patient an tolerant in that process. My vote is let The Nuge work his magic, and we’ll see where it goes from there.

From Phil Elmore of The Martialist:

A man who presumes to tell you that you cannot own a firearm is not just pissing on the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment; he is presuming to tell you how much your life is worth. He is saying he sees no reason to make it easier for you to defend that life, or the lives of your family. He is declaring his supremacy over you by presuming to judge your life and its value. If there is a more tyrannical worldview, I don’t know what it might be.

Whenever your firearms rights are attacked, therefore, you have no choice but to see that attack, ideologically, as an attempt to devalue your life. You are fully within your rights to speak out, loudly and persistently, in opposition to such presumption. You are also correct to be outraged that anyone would presume to tell you what your life is worth.

Yup! Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Hat tip: Of Arms and the Law