Anyone remember back in the early 90s when the NRA got in trouble for suggesting that the ATF were a bunch of “jack booted thugs”?  It caused President Bush to resign his life membership.
Category: Guns
John Lott Editorial in Inquirer
John Lott has an editorial running in the Inquirer:
But it is not just a problem of police. The city is seeing lower conviction rates, and it is not keeping criminals in jail for very long. One could make up for this difference by hiring more police – research has shown the number of police officers to be the main factor in reducing crime. But Philadelphia’s problem is how it uses the police it has.
Pointing to more gun-control laws as the solution is simply a way for politicians to pass the blame. Besides, such proposals offer little hope for actually reducing the murder rate. They’ve all been tried before, from one-gun-a-month limits and reporting stolen guns to the ultimate catchall – letting Philadelphia pass its own gun laws again.
Read the whole thing.
Good Advice
Chris Byrne has some good advice on how to handle a robbery situation. Sounds pretty sensible to me.
Bias? What Bias?
There’s certainly none in Cleveland! Actually, once you get over the provocative headline and snarky and misleading introduction, it’s not all that bad.
OSHA Reconsidering
Good job folks. OSHA is backing down it seems.  A busy day indeed!
New Pennsylvania Gun Control?
It’s been a busy day. The PA legislature has passed two bills. Don’t believe anything the Inquirer tells you! They are about as ignorant as on gun matters as a family of drunken gerbils. As best I can tell, these are:
Now, I don’t have today’s session notes yet, so I don’t know these are the bills for sure, but it’s all I was able to find in the database. Now let’s see what they are about. First, HB24:
§ 6127. Firearm tracing.
(a) Illegal possession.–Upon recovering a firearm from the possession of anyone under 21 years of age who is not permitted by Federal or State law to possess a firearm, a local law enforcement agency shall use the best available information, including a firearms trace where necessary, to determine how and from where the person under 21 years of age gained possession of the firearm.
(b) Tracing.–Local law enforcement shall use the National Tracing Center of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in complying with subsection (a).
Notification.–Local law enforcement agencies shall advise the Pennsylvania State Police of all firearms that are recovered in accordance with this section.
(d) Registry.–The Pennsylvania State Police shall maintain registry of all information reported in accordance with this section.
This is a useless turd of a law, and I don’t like the registration bullshit. But it doesn’t change anything. My firearms are already in a state police registry, thanks to our Supreme Court ignoring the plain meaning of our state’s registration prohibition. I’ve been told we can expect a fix to this legislatively at some point (probably when Fast Eddie is out), which would wipe out this law, in addition to the state police registry that already exists. This law doesn’t really change our gun laws, it wastes resources, sure, but it’s not anything to get upset over.
The next one, HB1382:
Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in theft and related offenses, defining “firearm.”
“Firearm.” Any weapon that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
This does not change the definition of firearm under the UFA, this changes it ONLY under the theft and receiving stolen property statutes. Remember my post on UFA oddities from the other day, in Pennsylvania, when the law mentions firearm, you have to define it, because it means different things in different laws. All this law does is clarify that when the receiving stolen property statues say firearm, they mean any firearm, not the UFA definition. I actually thought this was already the case, but the courts would be required to use the definition that most favors the defendant if the statute does make a clear distinction as to which definition they are using.
I don’t know about you, but if some scumbag breaks into my house, steals my guns and sells them on the streets, I want the law throwing a felony indictment his way. I don’t think this law is a turd at all; I actually support it. The Inky makes it out to be a sweeping definition change in state law. It is not.
Hopefully this will allay some of Liberty Sphere’s concerns. The first bill is useless, changes nothing, and likely will be repealed in a few years when the legislature fixes the registration problem, and the second is actually not a gun control bill, but a criminal control bill.
Also, anyone love how the Tiahrt Amendment is keeping the city from tracing all those guns? You’d almost think the Brady Campaign and the media were lying to us about it preventing the police access to the tracing system.
Amanda Not the Only One Coming Unhinged
Hey folks, I think our opponents in the gun control movement are trying to recruit some real grass roots in the blogosphere. This should be fun. Notice that stophandgunviolence.org is making some banners that some lefty bloggers are picking up.
Here’s another example of the kind of frothing at the mouth we can expect to see:
The NRA, with the money at their disposal and their willingness to do anything to win, with an almost gleeful expression as they lessen the security of the American people, are bar none one of the most evil of these groups in the country. The sad thing is not just the Republicans, but good Democrats who bow down before them.
Lessen the security of the American people? Give me a break. How is demanding respect for the bill-of-rights, you know, all of it, not just the parts you like, evil?  If that be evil, I’ll gladly accept that.
I wrote a column three years ago on this subject, so let me quote liberally from that piece, and how today it is even more important as the NRA fights to ensure every terrorist, crimininal, child or mentally imbalanced person has access to an AK:
I really would prefer criminals, children, mentally imbalanced folks, and terrorists don’t have access to guns, but the problem is, if I have access to them, then so do the criminals.  And guess what? If you ban my access to them, the criminals and the terrorists will still have guns. It’s just me you’ll be disarming.
Go have a read. For all those who are picking up on the gun control mantra in the blogosphere: Welcome to the Party. We gun bloggers have been here for years talking amongst ourselves. It’s great that we’ll have some one to actually argue with other than Paul Helmke.
Let the games begin.
Fenty Appeals
Fasten your seatbelts folks, we’re going to The Supreme Court (well, if they take it, but I think they will).
Blogosphere Reactions:
Silvercat’s Lair
Volokh Conspiracy (Johnathan Adler)
SCOTUSblog
Of Arms and the Law
Michael Bane
SayUncle
War on Guns
Countertop Chronicles (thinks DC might just be stalling for time)
Pro Gun Progressive
Blog O’ Stuff
Armed Canadian
If you think you have something to add to the conversation, leave your link in the comments.
Bullcrap from the Blogosphere
This time from Amanda Marcotte:
But Stop Handgun Violence does not advocate banning handguns. John Rosenthal, who led the call, is himself a gun owner, so you know he’s not kidding around when he says they are not pushing for a handgun ban.
Maybe not now, but for sure he wants Massachusetts style gun controls for the whole country, which have done a fantastic job of making Massachusetts a crime free paradise eh? No, sorry, asking the police if I can exercise a constitutional right is not “reasonable”.
What they are trying to do is demonstrate to the American public that one of the most powerful lobbies in D.C. is an extremist organization the enables criminals and terrorists. The NRA routinely opposes common sense measures, even when they fall short of gun registration, like background checks.
The NRA doesn’t support background checks? That’s news to me. The NRA has always supported NICS (National Instant Check System). But can you show that background checks have done anything to reduce crime? Criminals typically break the law in one way or another to obtain firearms.
And why exactly is registration reasonable? Do you think criminals will register their guns? The police can already trace a gun back to me if it’s recovered at a crime scene. In the immortal words of Tam:
When someone asks you about licensing and registration, pick up a pen and a sheet of paper. Tear the paper in half and hand half to your questioner. Say “Okay, this pen is a gun. The paper I’m holding is my license and the paper you’re holding is the registration. Using only these two pieces of paper, explain to me just how you are going to keep me from shooting someone?“
Exactly.
We’re living in a country where the government is tapping your phones, but because of the NRA, genuine members of Al Qaeda can waltz right into a gun show and buy a gun without getting a basic background check. Most people don’t realize that this is an issue, because they’re aware of the Brady Bill, but the federal law only covers federally licensed gun dealers, and 50% of guns sold in this country are sold by unlicensed dealers, mainly at gun shows
I’d like a citation for that 50% of all guns sold in the country are sold by unlicensed dealers at gun shows. You’re misleading people. There’s nothing special about gun shows. The Brady Act doesn’t apply to private sales between citizens and legal residents (knowingly sell to a prohibited person, or someone who isn’t a citizen, and you’re committing a felony) who are not in the business of selling firearms. Whether they are sold at a gun show, or not, is immaterial. For the record, Pennsylvania prohibits private sales at gun shows, and private sales of handguns entirely. There is no way to legally obtain a handgun in Pennsylvania without a background check. Let me tell you, it’s oh so effective.
As you can imagine, criminals and terrorists are well aware of what the laws are in this country and are going to gravitate towards these gun shows to get their guns.
Do you have real evidence of this? Or are you just repeating what John Rosenthal tells you? I’ve been to a lot of gun shows, there is police and law enforcement visible at all of them I’ve ever been to. It’s generally not the kind of place you want to go if you’re a criminal or a terrorist.
The sad thing to me—for those who’ve seen Bowling for Columbine, you’ll remember this—is that the NRA was ostensibly just supposed to be a rifle association, a hobbyist group for people who like guns. Which isn’t necessarily my thing, but whatever, free country. But they’ve drifted and turned into this hard right wing organization that cultivates paranoid fantasies about elitist liberals snatching away their guns the first chance they get.
Yep, and if it wasn’t for people like Michael Moore and John Rosenthal, who basically deceive the public to push an agenda, it would be again. NRA got involved because people started talking about banning handguns. Is it really paranoia? I can dig up dozens of quotes from people in the gun control movement that do, in fact, say they want to ban guns. Let’s just take a look at what Pete Shields, the founder of Handgun Control Inc (now the Brady Campaign) had to say:
“We’re going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the political realities – going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of all guns – is going to take time…..The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.”
Granted that was 1976, but I’ve seen no indication that plan isn’t still being followed. The gun control movement has blown all credibility with gun owners, and that’s why we fight most of this stuff. It’s not paranoia, it’s what they are saying or have said.
Their psychosexual fantasies projected onto real world politics echo the same sex paranoias and misogyny underlying the anti-choice movement. They’re coming to take away your fetuses/guns/whatever the stand-in for your absent phallic power is today. These kind of hateful fantasies shouldn’t have a place in our supposedly reasonable discourse, but not only do fantasies displace reason a lot of the time, they totally trump it, as you can see with the NRA’s insane amounts of power.
If there’s anyone who’s anti-choice, it ain’t me sweetheart. Accusing people of having “psychosexual” issues, last I checked, isn’t reasoned discourse. If you want to have an adult discussion about a topic, you need to treat your opponents as reasonable adults. And you guys wonder why we don’t listen to you?
Needless to say, some of the terrorists that can take advantage of these overly lax gun laws are our homegrown ones of the Eric Rudolph stripe who target abortion clinics. That’s not the sort of thing most people who own handguns or at least support the right to own them would support, and they shouldn’t be supporting the NRA.
Come up some reasonable arguments, and then we’ll talk.
I Won’t Buy Bud Either
I won’t buy it because it sucks. SayUncle is talking about different reasons. I tend to agree with Bitter. Anheiser Busch has been pretty supportive of us, but I’d be willing to bet that it’s not them that throwing the hissy fit, it’s Sesame Workshop, who own the rights to the Sesame Street trademarks. Basically, if they throw a fit about the use of their trademarks, Anheiser Busch probably doesn’t have much room to tell them to get bent. Sesame Place happens to be in my town, and is the only thing we’re known for.
If you want someone to blame here, blame Bryan Miller, who I’m sure was quick to call the Sesame Workshop to report this “malfeasance”. As far as I’m concerned, he can stay over the river in New Jersey where he belongs, and stop trying to peddle his agenda in my state, and my town.
UPDATE: Bitter has more.