Guns – Page 1121 – Shall Not Be Questioned

A Pennsylvania Lesson

Jeff Soyer, who it looks like is a Pennsylvania gun blogger for today, also points out this Penn State Collegian article, by someone who I’m guessing is from my area:

Police rely heavily on databases when looking into gun ownership. Under the new bill, police would be forced to directly contact gun manufacturers in order to obtain gun ownership information. Time is a critical component when investigating crimes, especially those involving guns.

Registries are records of legal gun ownership. Are the gang members shooting it out on the streets of Philadelphia are registering their guns with police? I’m curious exactly how much the writer of this editorial knows about Pennsylvania law and the motivations for pushing this bill forward? It’s been in the making since the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the state law prohibiting registration of firearms within the Commonwealth didn’t actually mean what it said, and that the state police were fine with keeping a record of every gun sold within the commonwealth going back many years. There isn’t supposed to be a registry, yet the state has a record of every pistol I own, which can be obtained by punching my name into a database. Sound like a registry to you? Sounds like one to me.

According to philly.com, since the beginning of this year, Philadelphia has reported 136 homicides — more than New York City, a much larger metropolis. It’s more important than ever that police have an easily accessible record of gun owners.

Philadelphia has among the lowest rates of legal gun ownership in the Commonwealth, yet it has among the highest crime rate. Take Philadelphia out of the equation and Pennsylvania’s crime rates are roughly similar to Western Europe, yet the rest of the state is absolutely armed to the teeth, and issues more than 600,000 licenses to carry firearms. That’s 600,000 or more Pennsylvanians that have a license to carry a loaded handgun on their person in public, and all but 32,000 of them are outside of Philadelphia. It would seem to be that Philadelphia has a criminal problem, because if it was the guns, the rest of the state would be swimming in rivers of blood.

The concept of domestic violence became all too apparent in Centre County on April 8 when Benjamin Barone, 35, of Williamsport, lured his estranged wife to a Sheetz near Mill Hall and shot her, then killed himself. Jodi Barone, 36, of State College, had come to meet her husband where she expected to exchange custody of their three-year-old daughter.

It is a tragedy that Jodi Barone’s life was cut short because of a poor decision by her husband.

However, more lenient gun laws would not have helped the situation and will not aid other cases of domestic dispute.

And more strict gun laws would not have helped either. The guy was willing to murder someone. Do you think he would care whether he had a license to carry his gun?

Responsible gun owners understand they have no reason to worry about the government knowning about their firearms.

Ask responsible gun owners in New York whether they had anything to worry about when the city went around using their registration database to confiscate legally held and licensed firearms when they decided to make them illegal. Ask folks in California who had the same thing happen to them. I can point to a case of someone I’m familiar with in Pennsylvania who was involved in a self-defense incident and had his firearms confiscated by the Philadelphia police, who, last I checked, had still not returned them as they were legally required to do after charges were dropped. How did they know he had more guns? The registry the state police have been illegally keeping.

Talk to gun owners in our state sometime, before jumping to conclusions about what we do and don’t need to worry about.

It Doesn’t Work Here Dude

Bob Mitchell of Delaware Online, an NRA member, thinks private sales ought to be banned.Â Â I presume he’s speaking of Delaware, because Pennsylvania already ban private sales of handguns.Â Do you know what the criminals in Philadelphia seem to have no trouble getting?Â Â If Delaware passes this, the impact on crime, I predict, to be absolutely zero.

Hat tip to Jeff Soyer

Good Advise

Clayton Cramer reminds us:

If You Have a Concealed Carry Permit For Your State

You should feel obligated to be carrying at all times right now. The media attention to the Virginia Tech massacre–and now this tragedy in Kansas City–is going to put ideas into people who may have been thinking homicidal/suicidal thoughts. Protect yourself, your loved ones, and the general public.

He’s right.

In the Mail

The ATF recently reclassified the CZ-82 as C&R, so I decided to place an order for one.

I already keep 9×18 Makarov in stock, so this pistol doesn’t require me to keep yet another caliber of pistol cartridge in stock.Â I’ll get the Nagant revolver later I think.Â It comes with a spare magazine.

I’m pretty sure this pistol is safe for concealed carry.Â I’ll have to check it out thoroughly when it arrives.Â I can get used to the idea of ordering new carry pistols off the internet.

House to House Searches? Why Not

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat writing in the Toledo Blade, writes:

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Dan, buddy. If it ever comes to that I’m turning in my ammunition first. I suspect many of my fellow countryman would too. We have a term for the society you envision. It’s called a police state.

There could conceivably also be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating various of their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue.

Yeah, because the people murdering each other in America are hunters. Not drug dealing gang members. Seriously Dan, how do you call yourself a proud American? Perhaps you’d find Russia, China or some other police state more to your liking.

And how is it that the Toledo Blade thought this was a serious enough editorial as to publish it? Is the Toledo Blade advocating bringing a police state to America? Looks like it to me.

UPDATE: Looks like David found this turd’s article too.
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh too.

This is what happens when I post something before checking other blogs :)

Terror Watch List Purchase Prohbition is Back

The Senate’s token Dinosaur, Frank Lautenberg, who was well on his way toward fossilization when the NJ Democrats brought him back to life to run in place of Robert Torricelli, is pushing more gun control again. This time, adding the terrorist watch list to NICS:

The Justice Department proposed legislation on Thursday that would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.The measure, which was introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, would give the attorney general authority to deny a firearm purchase if the buyer was found â€œto be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism.â€

Suspects on federal watch lists can now legally buy firearms in the United States if background checks do not turn up any standard prohibitions for gun buyers, which include felony convictions, illegal immigration status or involuntary commitments for mental illness.

So Bush’s Justice Department is proposing this? More evidence that Bush is a turd when it comes to this issue. The problem with this legislation is that you’re depriving someone of their constitutional rights administratively, without any due process. Lautenberg isn’t treating gun ownership as a right here, he’s treating it as a privilege that’s granted or revoked at the whim of a federal bureaucrat.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said the process took time because it involved delicate issues, including â€œthe protection of sensitive information upon which terrorist watch listings are based, as well as due process safeguards that afford the affected individual an appropriate opportunity to challenge the denial after it is made.â€

We call this “prior restraint” and it usually doesn’t fly when it comes to constitutional rights. It’s time to remind the Justice Department, and Frank Lautenberg of another part of the constitution they seem to have forgotten:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sorry, some government bureaucrat deciding you belong on a list does not qualify as due process in anyone’s dictionary. Frank Lautenberg should retire. Clearly he’s forgotten the oath he took to uphold the passage stated above.

Hat tip to The Ten Ring

Self Defense Perils

Ahab reminds gun owners of something pretty important:

I carry a gun. I would guess that a pretty big chunk of my readers also have carry permits in the states of their residence. What I find extremely disturbing about the story itself is the media’s reaction. Despite the fact that the DA and the police have decided that the CCW holder was within his legal rights, there is all sorts of outcry from the dead criminal’s family. The news story linked tries to portray the dead criminal as some sort of choirboy, gunned down in the prime of life or some nonsense.

When did we start having sympathy for perpetrators of violent crime? Why is it okay to demonize someone who acted in defense of his own life in the face of violent aggression? To me, this story and the way it’s playing in the media serves as a warning to those that choose to go about armed: even if the law says that you did no wrong you can expect to be crucified in the press. Doubly so if your attacker was a youth, or if he’s a minority and you’re not, or if you shoot your attacker “several” times.

It is unfortunate to me that in this day and age, we would rather have sympathy for a young man that died reaping precisely what he had sown than express our concern for the man who has to bear that death on hisconscience for the rest of his life.

It bothers me too.Â I saw this a few days ago on The Volokh Conspiracy.Â There is a sentiment among some, perhaps many, in the population, that because robbers don’t usually kill their victims, that this man who was carrying a firearm to defend himself was not justified in using deadly force to stop his attacker.

I don’t subscribe to this warped sense of morality, needless to say.Â When someone comes up to me and points a gun at me, what he’s telling me is:

“I value that money or object I want from you more than I value your life; your life is worth no more than whatever you might have in your wallet.”

When someone crosses the line into lowering the value of another human life to that degree, I see no reason why other people should feel any particular reason to value that person’s life at any higher level. Â Whether the robber intends to shoot his victim or not, pointing a loaded deadly weapon at another human being in an inherently dangerous act.Â When you decide to engage in that kind of behavior, you devalue your own life by devaluing the lives of others.Â It matters little to me that this youth was fifteen.Â He was old enough to pick up a gun and go try to rob people.Â If he’s old enough to make that choice, he’s old enough to pay the price with his life for having made it.

I would not feel very good if I were in a position where I had to shoot a teenager in self-defense.Â I suspect that Mr. Wells will also have a tough time dealing with it.Â Most decent people can’t kill another human being without suffering significant psychological consequences. Â I feel bad for the family of the robber, but their child suffered the consequences of his choices in life.Â It’s not fair or proper to put the blame on Mr. Wells, who was merely defending himself.

More People Who Want Us to Lose

Bitter beat me to the story about State Representative Jewell Williams recieving a death threat from someone near Allentown. I sincerely hope that they find the guy and get him off the streets. This is not someone we need on our side. Here’s the story:

For protection, State Rep. Jewell Williams packs a .38-caliber revolver in his North Philadelphia district and while traveling to Harrisburg.But a threatening e-mail he received yesterday has him considering a further precaution: dusting off an old bulletproof vest stored for the last seven years in his closet.

The e-mail, sent by a man Williams identified as a resident of Allentown, said Williams should be shot while in the Capitol. â€¦

â€œNow that I hear this attitude of people recommending lynching, Iâ€™ll probably be wearing my gun more and possibly wearing my bulletproof vest, because we now think weâ€™re being threatened,â€ Williams, a former police officer, said yesterday at a news conference calling for tighter gun laws.

Jewell Williams is a grade A bozo, and hypocrite for calling for tougher gun laws that would disarm you and me while he himself is carrying a firearm for self-protection. Who elects people who think like this?

But threatening Williams is reprehensible. I support William’s right to carry a firearm to defend himself. I really do wish he’d support mine. One bit of advise for Representative Williams, though. Body armor has a limited shelf life, I think along the lines of five years. If that vest has been sitting in the closet for a while, it’s probably better to buy some new gear. The old stuff will probably still stop a bullet, according to its rating, but it’s not a good idea to take chances if the vest is beyond the manufacturers expiration date. Get a new one!

Joining a Club

I’m trying to join a private shooting club.Â The Pennsylvania Game Commission has closed the public outdoor range in my county, and although I maintain a membership at at Classic Pistol, a local shooting range, it’s limited to indoors, 25 yards.Â The cool thing about it, though, is you can shoot full auto, rifle, pistol; pretty much whatever you want, except for black powder and API rounds.Â Their facilities, for an indoor range, are second to none in the area.

But this place I want to join is very local, and the facilities are nice.Â They have a top notch trap and skeet setup, an indoor pistol range, a plinking range, and a 200 yard outdoor rifle range.Â It’s available for shooting all hours.Â There is a downside though.Â They don’t allow magazines to be loaded with more than five rounds, even on the plinking range.

I got a letter today stating that I have to qualify, and be voted in.Â Now, I totally understand qualification; they have an interest in making sure I am not a dummy, and can safely handle and shoot a firearm. Â But what worries me is this part of the letter:

PLEASE NOTE. ALL GUNS MUST BE CASED WHEN ENTERING THE CLUB.Â HOLSTERS ARE NOT A PROPER CARRYING CASE.

It’s a private club, and they can make their own rules.Â But that significantly annoys me, enough to make me reconsider whether or not I want to join.Â On the one hand, they have really nice facilities, and it’s close to where I live.Â On the other hand, it’s shooting club, an NRA affiliated shooting club, in a state where 6% of the population is licensed to carry a loaded concealed handgun, and these guys are uncomfortable with the idea of concealed carry?

I can walk into my other indoor shooting range carrying a concealed weapon with no problem.Â Their only rule is that, in the showroom, the firearm must either be cased or in a holster.Â That’s reasonable.Â Being a gun club, and not being comfortable with carry is kind of stupid.

I’ve been told they’ve had problems with bozos at the clubs doing things that are unsafe.Â I am sympathetic to this, and understand making new potential members jump through some hoops, by requiring sponsorship from current members, having to pass a safe shooting test, getting voted in at a meeting, etc.Â I think these are all reasonable things for a private club.Â But I have no desire to join a club that treats its members as potential bozos, or accidents waiting to happen, and institutes rules that treat them as such.Â That’s what anti-gunners do, and I have little tolerance for it.

So the question is, do I want to tolerate the rules, join, and work to try to change the club from within?Â Or do I tell them to get lost, andÂ continue to drive an hour and a half to Lehigh County every time I want to do some clay or outdoor shooting?Â I’m not sure.Â I’m always a fan of trying to work within the system, but I don’t take kindly to being treated as anything other than an adult who knows how to competently handle, and yes, carry a firearm.

Between a Rock and a Database

I’m glad to see the NRA has finally started to talk to the public, and I like what they have to say. However, now that they are talking again, I really hope they start talking about one, very important thing: the fact that they are working with the Democrats on a bill to get more state records, including mental health records, into NICS.

Now, folks should understand that this doesn’t mean the NRA approached the Democrats and said “Hey, let’s work on a gun control bill together.” In all likelihood the Democrats started working on this, it looked like it had legs, and the NRA wanted to be part of the process. We want the NRA involved in that kind of situation. If they just stood outside of the process and said “We’re taking a hard line stance on this bill and opposing it.”, they are likely to alienate some of the marginal politicians in Congress and make it easier for the hostile politicians, who would love to attach their pet gun control issues to the bill, to influence them.

The NRA can not just come out in opposition to everything that comes down the pike. There are some battles we’re not on good political ground to fight right now, and a battle over NICS is one of those. Politics is an ugly process, and sometimes you’ll get bills like this, which suddenly get momentum because of a tragedy, and there’s absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. The game, at that point, becomes making sure it does no further damage. Given the two clowns who are introducing the bill, it is absolutely vital to make sure that nothing else gets attached to it, unless it’s something to placate gun owners.

NICS is not going anywhere, because there’s substantial support for it. Even the NRA, who actively pushed instant background checks as an alternative a lengthy waiting period, is resigned to the fact that NICS exists and isn’t going away. So if the Democrats are intent on passing this bill, if you’re the NRA, you have several choices:

Oppose the bill, in which case you’re really fighting NICS, which you’ve supported in the past. This will alienate a lot of marginal gun-rights supporters. It will increase the liklihood that the bill might pass with amendments that have more onerous gun controls in it.
Not oppose the bill, on the condition that we get something in return. This might be possible, but it might not be. It depends on how much momentum the bill has. If the sponsors of the bill are struggling to find a majority, more people might be brougt on board by adding pro-gun amendments. My guess is for the NICS bill, we are not in a position to demand much, as they probably already have majority support.
Not oppose the bill on the condition that it contain only the NICS language and absolutely nothing else. This is probably what they are going to end up doing, because it’s about where the NRA can best use its political power in a situation like this.
Actively endorse the bill. I don’t think this is likely. It would piss off too many members, including me. There’s no reason to do this, and it would risk giving too much momentum to the gun control crowd.

Normally, the way you kill a bill that would have broad public support on the floor, is to get your committee members to kill it there, and get the leadership to prevent it from being brought to the floor in the first place. Now that the Democrats are in charge, we have hostile politicians in charge of many of the committees, and a hostile speaker, so what the NRA is probably seeing is that the bill is not killable in committee. If this bill passes, and we get nothing in return for it, don’t blame the NRA. Blame the Democrats. And remember that come election time in 2008.