Philadelphia Wants Local Gun Laws

The same people behind the H.B. 760, the statewide registration bill are now pushing for a bill that would allow Philadelphia to maintain a gun registry:

State Reps. Angel Cruz and Rosita C. Youngblood yesterday announced another effort aimed at reducing the flow of guns in Philadelphia, this time by allowing the city to create a gun-registry system. Surrounded by reporters yesterday in his storefront office on North Fifth Street, Cruz said “something has to be done” to ease the wave of gun violence that has gripped the city.

Cruz said that while law-abiding citizens purchase guns, “bad people buy guns, too. This way we will know who has the guns.”

So the drug dealers and gang members are going to register their guns with the police? It would seem that is not likely. So what you’re saying is, you’ll know which law abiding people have guns, which, maybe I’m crazy here, seems pretty useless.

But why do something useful, like locking up criminals, when politicians can keep proposing nonsense like this, and tell the people back home that Harrisburg is really responsible for their own failures.

Hat Tip to Classical Values.

ATF Director Clarifies Trace Data

Yesterday, we talked about Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign renewing the group’s push to remove the Tiahrt Amendment. Michael Sullivan, director of the ATF, is running this editorial in several national papers.

Let me be clear: neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data with other jurisdictions once it is in the hands of state or local law enforcement.

So why exactly are the Brady’s so against the Tiahrt Amendment, when law enforcement has said it’s not getting in the way of them catching criminals? Because being able to misrepresent trace data to the public was a great political tool for them to use.

Hat Tip: Dave Hardy

Magazine Ban in Illionis

The State of Illinois is moving through a ban on standard capacity magazines. It was introduced as an amendment to another bill by State Senator Dan Kotowski of Cook County. It’s called SB1007. Here’s the text of the bill.

7   Sec. 24-1.8. Manufacture, possession, delivery, sale, and
8   purchase of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
9   (a) As used in this Section:
10   "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means:
11   (1) a detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or
12   similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be
13   readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10
14   rounds of ammunition; or
15   (2) any combination of parts from which a device
16   described in paragraph (1) can be assembled.

Of course, Police, Olympic competitors, and folks at the World Shooting and Recreational Complex in Sparta. Odd that anti-gun groups and politicians say these devices have no legitimate use, yet they feel the need to except people who, you know, are using them for a legitimate sporting use.

But I guess Senator Kotowski gets to decide what legitimate sporting uses he approves of. If they don’t like your legitimate sporting use, you’re screwed. And of course, these magazines have no self-defense use either, unless of course you’re a police officer, then they do.

Remember that it only takes a few seconds to change a magazine. This bill will not, of course, affect availability of magazines to criminals. Existing magazines are grandfathered, and there are a lot of them out there.

There is also no exception for people traveling through the State of Illinois. There’s FOPA, but that won’t keep you out of jail.

Good News!

David Codrea tells us that Red’s Trading Post is back in business again, after a federal judge issued an injunction against the BATFE:

Judge Lodge noted in making his decision that “the ATF speaks of violations found during the inspections of 2000 and 2005, but fails to reveal that additional investigations in 2001 and 2007 revealed no violations or problems.” He also notes Red’s statement that ATF is exaggerating Red’s conduct by “double counting” certain violations. Also noted was the balance of the ATF’s hardship compared to Red’s hardship. The judge found “that granting the preliminary injunction would not place the public safety in jeopardy” and “that that the relative hardships tip sharply in favor of Red’s.”

Hopefully Red’s will prevail in their case overall.  These kinds of abuses by the ATF really need to stop.  But hey, it’s Idaho.  Lots of guns and not much crime.  I guess the ATF agents have to make a name for themselves somehow, right?

One area I agree with the hard line, no compromise crowd is elimination of the ATF.   I’ve always believed in consolidating most federal law enforcement functions back down to the U.S. Marshall service.  I’ve never understood the logic of having half a dozen separate federal law enforcement agencies.

A New Addition to the Family

My CZ82 pistol has arrived. I was rather disturbed to come home to find it between my security door and storm door. The Nagant came 21+ signature required, so I had to go to the UPS depot and pick it up. I’m glad I don’t have to drive anywhere to get it, but I would gladly do that to minimize the risk of it being stolen.

http://www.pagunblog.com/blogpics/cz82/holster.jpg
It arrived tucked away inside its holster. Like my Makarov holster, this one is designed to be collected. I find it hard to believe anyone would actually carry this. It would seem it’s designed to make it as difficult as possible to draw and fire the weapon.
http://www.pagunblog.com/blogpics/cz82/outside.jpg
It’s a good looking pistol. It fits nicely in my hand, and has a very nice trigger pull. I also like that the magazine is drop free, and can be released with the shooting hand. It also comes with a cord. I noticed in Paris the police having what looked like a phone cord attached to their pistols and then to their body. This seems to me to be ideas politicians come up with who don’t have much regard for the lives of their officers.
http://www.pagunblog.com/blogpics/cz82/chipping.jpg
I’m a little disappointed that the importer’s markings chipped the paint up so bad. I think I can probably correct this though.
http://www.pagunblog.com/blogpics/cz82/chamber.jpg
If this pistol is used, whoever it was issued to hardly ever fired it. The feed ramp, bore, and chamber are all bright and shiny, and there’s no sign of mechanical wear anywhere on the pistol. The rifling in the bore is very difficult to see, which is because the CZ82 uses polygonal rifling. To a casual observer, the bore would appear to be totally smooth.
http://www.pagunblog.com/blogpics/cz82/sights.jpg
The sights on the CZ82 are a marked improvement over typical Makarov sights. You can actually see the front sight post without having to twist your wrist around searching for it. The sites are a little yellowed, but a fresh dab of paint should fix that right up.

The only drawback to this pistol the fact that it employs a non-metallic biological decocker (your trigger finger and thumb). While the hammer is blocked if the trigger isn’t pulled all the way back, a slip up at the moment of truth and you have an accidental discharge on your hands. The pistol does have a safety for carrying it cocked and locked, but the hammer isn’t blocked when the safety is on. I wouldn’t carry it in this mode. Given it’s very smooth and gentle double action trigger pull, carrying with the hammer down would definitely be recommended. The firing pin is held back with a spring, so it won’t have the Makarov’s relatively scary sound of the firing pin moving back and forth.

Overall I’d say it’s a better carry gun than the Makarov, but the true test will be once I get it to the range.

UPDATE: Sailorcurt asks about ambidextrousness.  I didn’t even consider that, but on that subject:

The pistol is completely ambidextrous.  The contours of the grip are the same on both sides.  Holding it in my left hand feels pretty good as well.  Both the safety and mag release are ambidextrous.

The Brady Laundry List

Dave Hardy has the Brady Campaign wish list. It’s in their latest press release. I’ve decided to give this a hearty fisking, in the hopes that its google rank propel it to such heights, that every googler on the subject will know of the crap contained within. Let’s get started.

Pass the NICS Improvement Act, introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy. This legislation provides funding incentives for states to provide appropriate records to strengthen the information in NICS.

I might not oppose this, but not McCarthy’s bill. How about we gun owners get a few things is return if this is so important?

Require background checks for all gun sales, not just those from federally licensed dealers.

We have it in Pennsylvania. It doesn’t work. If it’s so effective, why is your group donating so much time, money, and effort to get another useless control passed, one-gun-a-month? None of this would have stopped either of these two nutballs.

Rescind the requirement requiring that records of Brady background checks be destroyed within 24 hours of purchase approval.

And this helps with stopping crazy people from getting guns how exactly? In the case of these two killers, would it help that we could go back and see “Yep, they passed the background check”. We already know that!

Impose a waiting period under the Brady Law, to allow time to do accurate and complete review of appropriate records.

The VT nutcase bought his guns months in advance. He even got two of them, having managed to overcome Virginia’s one-gun-per-month law. We can search criminal and mental health records instantly. If those records weren’t checked, it’s because they aren’t there. More time isn’t going to help.

Reinstate the Federal ban on ammunition magazines of larger than 10 rounds that expired along with the Federal assault weapons ban in 2004, and pass a ban on military-style assault weapons.

It takes two seconds to change a magazine. The VT nutcase had to have reloaded 12 times in order to fire as many rounds as he did. Would it have mattered if he had to reload 6 more times? He did not use an assault weapon. He used an ordinary pistol. The K.C. nutball killer used an M1 Carbine, which is legal even in the most restrictive states, and isn’t considered an “assault weapon” by anybody. Does it make sense to advocate a ban that’s based solely on cosmetic features rather than function?

Repeal the so-called “Tiahrt Amendment,” which as an annual appropriations rider bars the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from sharing data on the sources of guns used in crimes.

The ATF themselves have stated that using this trace data to draw general conclusions about guns used in crime is a fools errand. The President of the Fraternal Order of Police has also come out against trace data being available for reasons other than criminal investigations. What does it say about the Brady Campaign, that they want trace data, which two law enforcement groups have said can interfere with investigating gun use and gun trafficking by criminals, just because it’s a useful tool for harassing lawful gun dealers and honest gun owners?

Require that new semi-automatic handguns be equipped with technology to allow police to quickly match shell casings found at a crime scene to the handgun from which they were fired. This technology, known as”microstamping,” would enhance law enforcement’s ability to rapidly solve gun crimes.”

This technology is being pushed by anti-gun groups with very little real world evidence that it even works. Criminals regularly file serial numbers off guns to make them more difficult to trace. Ballistic fingerprinting and micro-stamps wear and change over time, and are easily circumvented. They also have no impact on the existing supply of firearms. This type of law has exactly one purpose: to drive up the price of firearms and ammunition, so fewer people particulate in the shooting sport, and fewer people fight the Brady’s politically.

So there we have a laundry list. No new ideas really. It’s the same load of crap we’ve been hearing from the anti-gun groups for years.

De Facto Registry?

Tam says we shouldn’t worry about warranty registration cards, and explains how the BATFE trace process works.  I agree about the warranty cards, but I’m usually too lazy to fill them out and mail them.  She also says that 4473 requirements shouldn’t be considered a registry.

I agree with Tam on the substance of the issue, but I do still think that, technically, it does amount to a form or registration, but not the kind that generally worries us.

To me the real test is whether or not the government can go to a computer and ask “Show me all the guns that Sebastian owns”.  If they can, that worries me, because if a confiscation law is ever passed, I’m a few keystroke away from a knock on the door by someone with a gun, badge and a list.

But the current system doesn’t lend itself to that kind of question.  Given enough time, and legwork, a particular gun can indeed be traced to its last legal owner, but they can’t find out what other guns I own.

But despite that,  on 4473, or even the dealer’s bound book, is contained all the information that would be necessary to make such a registry.  The only thing standing in the way is a change in the law, a giant pile of money from congress, and an army of data entry people.  If a confiscation law were ever to pass, and Congress or a state government thought it was important enough to invest huge sums of money on computerizing all the forms out there, they would have all my guns in due time.  They wouldn’t even really need all the 4473s.   Really, the dealer’s bound book would be all that’s needed.

Also, some larger FFLs have computerized records.  They still keep the 4473, but they keep their bound books in computer form.  I seem to recall the ATF can allow some type 01 and 02 FFLs to do this.  For these larger FFLs, a lot of the dirty work is already done.

But this step would require an Act of Congress.  Naturally, we would fight this as hard, or harder, than we would an actual name, address and serial number registration bill.

But Does it Work?

One of SayUncle’s reader corrects us about Switzerland and says we ought to close the “gun show loophole” which is Bradyspeak for banning private sales of firearms.

Pennsylvania has banned the private transfers of handguns.  In order to transfer a handgun to someone who isn’t an immediate family member, you have to either go through a licensed dealer, or the County Sheriff, both of whom will conduct background checks.

Philadelphia’s murder rate is skyrocketing.  They are currently on track to exceed 400 murders this year.  As best as I can tell, banning private sales of handguns has had exactly no impact on the availability of guns for criminals.  Now the city is calling for the state to implement another anti-gun canard, one-gun-a-month, because the ban on private sales of handguns isn’t working to reduce crime or even reduce straw purchasing.

Why is the solution, if it’s not working, it must mean you’re not doing enough of it?

Gun Free Zones

I was debating whether to make a blog post about this at all, but it seems after tragedy strikes, we’re always a bit eager to find out whether the shooting happened in a gun free zone.   I recognize the political value of pointing things like this out, but I do have to question the practical value when it comes to gun free zones that are not enforced by the law, and are enforced by fine print.

It seems sure that college campuses throughout the country are, for all practical purposes, actual gun free zones.  Either you have force of law backing that up, in cases of states like Texas and Tennessee.  Or you have the threat of expulsion of firing backing it up, in the case of Virginia or Pennsylvania.  But the recent mall incident in Kansas City doesn’t really persuade me.

How many of us honestly follow weapons prohibitions posted in fine print?   Do we read the fine print on doors as we enter an establishment?   I don’t.   I’m sure the malls I carry in on a regular basis have a policy of some sort that prohibits weapons on their property.  I don’t go out of my way to check.  If they want me to notice, they can post conspicuously.

I think it’s more honest just to admit that, just like police can’t be everywhere, people who lawfully carry guns can’t be either.  Sometimes incidents, like the one in Kansas City, are going to happen, and sometimes, there won’t be anyone nearby who is legally armed.

It’s worth it pointing out the uselessness of these prohibitions, but I doubt anyone is actually paying attention to them, including permit holders.  I think for some of these tragedies, it comes down to the odds not working out.   That will happen sometimes.

More From Penn State

Reader Nathaniel points to conflicting reports from both CenterDaily and The Collegian, about a man arrested on campus for weapons possession. First CenterDaily:

A Penn State student remained in jail Sunday night after arriving at an on-campus concert with three weapons, including a gun, and fighting with police as they tried to investigate.

Just before midnight Saturday, university police said they were advised a man in the crowd at the Movin’ On concert on the HUB lawn was carrying a firearm.

As officers approached the man — later identified by police as Isaiah R. Houston, age unavailable, of 137 Creekside Drive, College Township — a struggle immediately ensued, said university police Lt. Bill Moerschbacher.

Houston, who police said was drunk at the time, was carrying an expandable baton and a knife, Moerschbacher said. But the weapons were brandished, he said.

“As it turns out, the firearm was lawfully owned,” he said. “He had a carry permit.”

The charge is carrying prohibited offensive weapons, not carrying of a concealed firearm. The relevant statute is here. Basically the list of prohibited weapons is as follows:

Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

My guess is, depending on the knife, they are charging him with the expandable baton. It is an exception to this part of the statute that the actor was in compliance with the National Firearms Act, so your NFA stamp makes you legal for some of them. It’s important for Pennsylvanians to note that the LTC covers only firearms. It’s legal to carry certain types of knives, but others are illegal. Must bludgeons are also illegal.

From the collegian:

Moerschbacher said Houston did not take out the firearm before or during the struggle.

“He didn’t threaten anyone with the firearm or anything,” he said. “The struggle is really what precipitated that arrest and discovering the other items.”

Jameela Truman, director of Movin’ On, said she witnessed the arrest.

She said she felt threatened by the event, but the police “fully handled the situation.”

Possessing a firearm is illegal on campus, Moerschbacher said. However, he said if the handgun is legally registered, police will ask the owner to leave or surrender the gun to the police. If the handgun is illegal, police will arrest the possessor, he said.

Either the Penn State paper got it wrong, or Moerschbacher is misrepresenting the law here. It is not against the law to possess a firearm on the campus of a University if you’re in possession of a License to Carry Firearms. But they do state the charges here:

Isaiah R. Houston, 137 Creekside Drive, was charged with public drunkenness, resisting arrest and possessing prohibited offensive weapons.

They don’t mention here that he’s being charged with unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm, which tells me that he probably does indeed have an LTC, which he will now lose. His carrying the firearm on university property was not illegal. That said, Houston is clearly a bozo, and is someone who ought not have a license. He’ll lose his, and I’m not going to shed a tear for him, because:

  1. He was carrying his firearm while he was intoxicated
  2. He fought with police when they asked him to leave school property.
  3. He was carrying other weapons which are not covered under the LTC, and were illegal.
  4. He allowed someone to spot his weapon. In my five years of carrying a firearm, I’ve never had anyone notice I was carrying one.

It is for certain that the Penn State Campus Police can’t arrest someone from carrying a concealed firearm unlawfully if the carry on campus while in possession of a valid LTC. But Penn State Campus Police policy has always been to remove anyone from campus found in possession of a firearm. The state’s preemption statute prevents political subdivisions of the state from making rules more strict than the laws of the state, but I don’t know whether Penn State is allowed to exercise its powers as a property holder. I suspect this is a legal gray area.

Unless the legislature wants to clarify this, or the courts make a decision on it, if you’re carrying on campus at a university in Pennsylvania, it’s best to be discrete, and if the police ask you to leave campus, to do so.

UPDATE: Follow the links in the comments. It seems Houston claims he was not, in fact, drunk, and that the Penn State Police basically used physical force to detain him. He is indeed charged with carrying the baton. I don’t know case law to know whether or not this is against the law. The law names several bludgeons by name, but has the catch all at the end. It’s advisable that people be careful about carrying non-firearm weapons.  Yes, it’s ridiculous, but that’s because there’s a better gun lobby than a bludgeon lobby.