Category: Gun Rights

Kim asks “So, children, your task for today is to study the list of semi-auto rifles on the list contained in the latest version of the Assault Weapons Ban, and see how many of them you own”:

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
`(ii) AR-10;
`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
`(iv) AR70;
`(v) Calico Liberty;
`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
`(xi) M1 Carbine;
`(xii) Saiga;
`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
`(xv) SLG 95;
`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
`(xvii) Steyr AUG;
`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
`(xix) Tavor;
`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

That’s 5 by name, but if Carolyn McCarthy wants gets her bill, she’ll ban nearly everything in my safe, because of this:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.’.

I collect and shoot military and military patterned firearms.  That’s what I do.  If McCarthy gets her way, my days of collecting are going to be very numbered.

So, Congressworm McCarthy, care to explain to me how taking away guns from people like me would have saved your husband?

Smallest Minority has a long but also rather good post up with a transcript of part of Jim Zumbo’s interview with Tom Gresham.   I  pretty much agree with  Kevin’s take on it.  As I mentioned yesterday, Zumbo can still make it up to me, because I can forgive ignorance on the political aspect of this issue.  But outright anti-gun sentiments I can’t abide by.  Being a hunter doesn’t get you a free pass there.

Michael Bane asks where we go from here as the new masters of the shooting community. My answer is we need to reach out to the hunters, because, while we’re big enough to get the industry to pay attention to us, we still need hunters because of their numbers, the amount of money spent that crosses over to ours, and the generally positive image the public has of hunting.

The black rifle shooting community has made itself known as a force, and we should be happy about that, but it’s time to reach out to hunters and outdoor writers and make sure they understand how the makeup of the shooting sports is changing, and how that affects our respective issues.

Jim Zumbo grew up in a world where more people hunted, and the idea of someone coming after his deer rifle was absurd. That world is gone. One only has to look at what’s happened in states like New Jersey, Massachusetts and California to see that if you like things that go boom, whether you like shooting deer or paper with them, the anti-gun people are coming after you. That might seem far away in Wyoming, but look at this:

Caroline alleges that a gun ban in Washington D.C. has unarmed its law abiding citizens but allowed its criminal to remain armed. The result is a high rate of criminal activity in DC. The answer to that is that no ban will be effective unless it is national in scope and is diligently enforced.

And in virtually all of these hostile jurisdictions, they came after black rifles first, then went after other things. Oh sure, you might get to keep your deer rifle for a while, but they’ll keep making it harder, more burdensome, and more expensive, until most people give up the hobby, leaving us with so little political power, that it won’t be hard to convince legislators to come for that eventually too, or outlaw hunting. Don’t think we’re just paranoid extremists with delusional fantasies, and that it can’t happen, because it’s happened elsewhere.

So what do we do? This is where I’ll suggest some heresy; that we start with Jim Zumbo. He has tremendous reach within the hunting community, and if he can be brought back from the dark side, he could be really useful for outreach to hunters. So I’ll put a challenge out there to Jim: help us spread the message to hunters on the importance of working to preserve our second amendment rights, and I mean everyone’s, whether you shoot an AR-15 at paper or a Winchester at a deer, an AR-15 at varmint, or keep a Glock in the nightstand for self-defense; tell hunters of the importance of this struggle, because both our futures depend on helping each other out with our respective issues. We don’t have the numbers to stand alone. Do that, Jim, and I’ll happily forgive and forget, and I think a lot of other people will too.

I’m a firm believer when a company goes to bat for you, it’s nice to say thank you.  I sent this to Remington a few minutes ago:

Dear Remington,

I want to thank you for your support in the recent controversy over Jim Zumbo’s unfortunate comments that were derogatory the AR-15 shooting community.  While I hope we can find some way to heal the wounds between our community and Mr. Zumbo, I was glad to see Remington so quickly distance itself from his statements.

I often buy Remington ammunition for my AR-15, and will be sure to continue doing so, and will encourage others to do so as well.

Thanks Again,

Sebastian

I think it’s especially important since so many of us jumped the gun and went after Remington over the whole Zumbo thing when they were merely mentioned incidentally.  Sometime soon, I’m going to head up to Cabela’s and buy some Remington .223.  Everyone else should be nice and pick up some too as a thank you to a company who’s willing to stand with us on taking the second amendment seriously.

Folks, I have to tell you, I think we have some real allies out there in the industry who are willing to go to bat for us. This from Cabela’s forums:

While Cabela’s believes everyone has the right to express their own opinions, we strongly disagree with Jim Zumbo’s February 16 posting on his Hunting with Jim Zumbo blog on Outdoor Life’s Web site.

Throughout our 46-year history, Cabela’s has firmly supported all aspects of shooting sports. We strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the right of every U.S. citizen to purchase, own and enjoy any legal firearm of their choosing.

While we fully support Mr. Zumbo’s First Amendment right of free speech, we believe his opinions on this matter are counter to those shared by Cabela’s and many of our customers. Cabela’s Legal Department is currently reviewing contractual obligations and commitments regarding our sponsorship of the Jim Zumbo Outdoors television show.

Wow. This on the heels of Remington severing ties is pretty serious. I think we all need to go to Cabela’s and buy some Remington ammunition or maybe a shotgun, or something, pronto.

I wrote a few days ago about not getting too worked up over McCarthy’s latest attempt at being a bitch, since the bill hasn’t even gotten any cosponsors yet. But there is an assault weapons ban out there we need to pay a lot of attention to. From Pro-Gun Progressive we have this out of Maryland [UPDATE – oops, forgot the link in the orignal post]:

Senate Bill 43, “Assault Weapon Ban of 2007,” sponsored by Senator Michael Lenett (D-19), will be heard by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on Tuesday, February 27 at 1 P.M.

SB43 would designate specified firearms, including many semi-automatics as “assault weapons,” prohibit persons from transporting possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, or receiving a specified “assault weapon(s),” and require the Handgun Roster Board to compile and maintain a roster of prohibited specified “assault weapons.”

Maryland is an important battleground state. What I mean by that is that it’s a state that the anti-gun folks would dearly love to lock up and put firmly in their column, but it’s not quite there yet. The antis have, pretty solidly, CA, NJ, NY, and MA. They have a more tenuous foothold in IL, MD, CT, RI, and HI. IL and MD are the ones to watch out for though, because those are the two states that they are pushing hard to move into the “firmly anti-gun” column, and this assault weapons ban is meant to wrap it up for them there.

The demographics don’t favor us holding onto Maryland: it’s a suburb of DC and has Baltimore. The rest of the state can’t outvote the urban dwellers. In addition, Elrich is no longer there with his veto stamp. It’s important that Maryland not be given up without a fight though. If you live in Maryland, talk to the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association and see if there’s anything you can do to help out. At the very least, show up in Annapolis on the 27th.

This law is BAD. It’s worse than California’s ban in many ways. It’s important that it not be allowed to pass. For those of us outside of Maryland, it should be noticed that the law has no FOPA exception and demands the police seize and destroy any weapon they find on you. So once you get the charges dismissed in federal court, after spending some time in jail initially, you can kiss your rifle goodbye.

OK folks. Take a look at this, it’s the second Brady comment down:

Most non-hunters view scopes as automatic-hit devices that make shooting at any range a piece of cake. Why do you need a scope Mr. Zumbo? Your gentrified fore-bearers undoubtedly hunted without one. Perhaps you are too lazy or unskilled to stalk closer to your game. That statement has as much validity (I hope) as your comments about “terrorist” rifles and those who use them. Try to be a little more open minded and tolerant of your fellow hunters and shooters.

And Brady’s repsonse?

I certainly agree with your sentiments. There is no pressing need for optics that allow shooters to make sniper shots from over one hundred meters.

Posted by Brady Campaign on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 2:11 PM

No, this is not about scary looking rifles. This is about much, much more. Jim, you have totally screwed us! I hope you realize now who the people are you’ve just empowered.

UPDATE: A lot of folks seem to think this might be an impostor, and not associated with the Bradys. I’m willing to accept that possibility. If the Bradys want to disavow themselves of this position, and the poster, I’ll happily print another update saying as much. Until then, you can assess for yourself the veracity of the poster and statement.

UPDATE 2: In the comments, you will note a Brady spokesperson state that this person is not speaking on behalf of their organization.

Jim Zumbo has apologized for his blog entry. I’m inclined to let bygones be bygones, but dude, you suggested we were terrorists! I exepct shit like that from the Brady’s and VPC, but not one of our own.

I’m willing to forgive, but I won’t forget. Once stuff like that gets out there, there’s really no calling it back. I have to agree with Michael Bane:

And how are you going to feel, Jim, when your words are read into the Congressional Record or used by Brady or the Violence Policy Center to continue to destroy our right to keep and bear arms?

Seriously. You think the Brady’s and VPC will care about the apology? No, they’ll happily quote the original blog post and make sure it gets in front of policy makers. You really can’t undo damage like this, and that’s why we have to be exceedingly careful about the things we say.

UPDATE:  Bitter reminds us that we have to remember we’re all responsible for getting the message out there.