Posts Tagged ‘gun control’

A Quick Roundup of Gun News

Monday, February 18th, 2013

Here’s a Whitman’s Sampler of gun news for you to chew on:

  • The Truth About Assault Weapons, in easy-to-follow graphic form.
  • Dwight is all over Polifact Texas “checking” Ted Cruz’ statements about untracked gun buyers.
  • Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot appeared on a RedState podcast discussing guns.
  • More on the tremendous success of Chicago’s gun control initiative, and how it’s throwing a wee bit of a kink into Obama’s gun control pitch.
  • In the Texas legislature, Rep. James White’s House Bill 1142 would allow firearms safety to be taught as an elective.
  • Missouri Democrats introduce a bill to seize the guns of the law-abiding.
  • What happens when an expert arrives to provide testimony on modern sporting rifles? If you’re a Minnesota Democrat, you actually walk out of the presentation.
  • Borepatch suggests a legislative strategy.
  • Interesting profile of Bond Arms of Granbury, which makes derringers. The article calls them the only gun manufacturer in the DFW area, which I rather doubt.
  • Ted Cruz will be visiting LaRue Tactical to support the Second Amendment. Sadly, Wayne Slater is evidently too unprofessional to bother telling you when Cruz will be visiting. (Do they just not teach “Five Ws and an H” in journalism school anymore?) Since I offer a full-service blog: Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 11:00 AM, LaRue Tactical, 850 County Road 177, Leander, TX 78641.
  • Finally, here’s a fine NSFW rant about how liberal “civil libertarians” are only too ready to watch the rights of gun owners trampled:

    “At the time the Constitution was written, the weapons in question were muskets.”

    You know what? You’re right. And marriage was between one man and one woman. So what’s with gay marriage? No longer will I offer any moral support, oppose any online statements attacking it, speak out for it. They have the same right as anyone—to marry someone of the opposite gender. And given that all gays support raping little boys (just like all gun owners support shooting school kids), I don’t think I can support them. We should do things just the way they were done 220 years ago. That’s the liberal way.

    “The Heller Decision was by an activist court. It doesn’t count.”

    Indeed. Just like Roe v Wade was an activist decision. It doesn’t count.

    “We’re not trying to take your guns away, just have reasonable limits. It’s a compromise.”

    And some people want reasonable limits on abortion, like waiting periods, gestational time limits, ultrasound, etc. It’s a reasonable response to an activist court decision, and reasonable restrictions on a right, for public benefit. Don’t come whining about your right to murder babies, and I won’t come to you whining about my right to shoot school kids.

    And no one is saying you can’t ride the bus. You just have to sit where people think is reasonable. No one is saying women can’t work. They just have to get paid what is reasonable for the work they do, allowing for the fact they’re going to leave the workplace and raise a family. It’s a compromise.

    “Assault weapons are an extreme interpretation.”

    True. And not allowing any religious emblems on government premises is an extreme interpretation. As long as they’re privately paid for, what’s it to you? No one is saying you can’t belong to the Christian church of your choice, just not to extreme groups, like atheists or Muslims. It would be paranoid to think anyone was trying to infringe on your legitimate right to be free from state religion, just like I’d be paranoid to think they wanted to take my guns. Quite a few states had official churches well into the 1800s. This is not an infringement on your freedom of religion.

    “Given Sandy Hook, you have to make reasonable compromises.”

    “We just want licensing and safe storage requirements so the wrong people don’t get guns.”

    “Publicizing the information lets people make informed choices about who they live near.”

    Accepted. In exchange, gay men should make reasonable compromises over Penn State. They will simply have to accept being registered and kept a safe distance from children. This isn’t a violation of their rights. It’s just common sense. The public has a right to know.

    This should apply to protests, too. No reasonable person would object to being identified. They should welcome it—it means they can’t be wrongly maligned. All union members, blacks, gays and feminists should be signed in with ID before a march or gathering, just so we can track the real criminals to keep the rest safe.

    Also:

    First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I’m not black.

    Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I’m not gay.

    Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I’m an atheist.

    When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I’m a legal immigrant.

    Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.

    Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I’d done nothing wrong. So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.

  • Quick Notes from the TPPF Gun Control Conference Call for February 11, 2013

    Monday, February 11th, 2013

    I sat in a Texas Public Policy Foundation teleconference on the current state legislative session, the main topic of which was Texas efforts to fight Democrats gun control agenda at the national level. On hand were Arlene Wohlgemuth, Mario Loyola and James Golsan, though I believe all the gun control points were from Loyola. Here are a few very brief notes on the call:

    There are three main legislative to avoid federal gun control laws being enacted in Texas:

    1. Nullification: Refuse Cooperation. “We don’t think this approach is constitutional or can prevail.”
    2. Keep state employees from becoming agents of the federal government. “Printz vs. United States struck down part of the Brady Act that forced state officials to enforce federal law.” Make it illegal to cooperate.
    3. Gun control version of TSA Groping bill, Rep. Otto sponsored (HR 553). “Arrest those trying to enforce unconstitutional laws, sort it out in court. High risk, high reward.”

    Some Republicans losing their nerve against fighting ObamaCare.

    Loyola: There’s a difference between setting up exchanges and Medicaid expansion. Later is holding a gun to our heads and will bankrupt our country. It’s important for Texas to hold the line rather than giving into blackmail with their own money. Republican governors need to hold the line to prevent Texas from going it alone.

    Once again a federal judge wants Texas to spend more money on education ($2,000 more per student). Smart play is to appeal and take no legislative action while the issue works its way through the court.

    A Dollop of Gun News

    Wednesday, January 16th, 2013

    Lots of news in the world of guns and the Second Amendment today, so here’s a quick lunchtime roundup:

  • So Obama has issued his executive orders on guns. The good news is that the Executive Orders themselves are not nearly as bad as many feared, at least on the surface. But remember that if you give Obama a constitutional inch, he’ll take an unconstitutional mile. His requested legislation, with restoration of the cosmetic Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban and other such mischief, are a different kettle of fish, but I’m cautiously optimistic that none of them will pass muster in the Republican House.
  • Hell even Harry Reid says that the “Assault Weapons” ban is doomed.
  • The title pretty much says it all: Joe Manchin: Lying Sack of Shit on Guns.
  • All Obama’s proposed legislation is just the latest in a long line of passing
    gun laws that in no way would have prevented the crimes they were passed in reaction to
    . (Hat tip: Say Uncle.)

  • “The D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.”
  • Cracked, of all places, offers up a dose of perspective. “Gun violence has, generally speaking, been working out pretty spiffy for us.” The writer’s suggestions are as useless as the “Assault Weapon” ban, but are at least less harmful.
  • An average of 22 children a year are killed on school buses or in bus loading zones. Where’s the outcry for bus safety?
  • Mark Steyn notes that for MSM elites, laws are for the little people.
  • Ruger’s automatic letter generator for your congresscritters.
  • Jeff Soyer at Alphecca could use your help.
  • (Austin City Council is) Breaking the Law, Breaking the Law

    Monday, January 7th, 2013

    I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but the SuperGeniuses on the Austin City Council (along with allies among the Travis County apparatchiks) have gotten it into their heads that it’s just a swell idea to ban gun shows within the city and county limits. Because I’m sure so many criminals are buying their guns legally at a gun show. (Hint: NICS is not, in fact, a misspelling of that TV show with the hot Goth chick.)

    Over at Whipped Cream Difficulties, Dwight has taken the bull by the horns, and provided not only a list of reasons why that’s a really bad idea, but a list of contract addresses for City Council critters, allowing those of you who live within the limits of the City of Austin (I don’t) a chance to express your extremely displeasure with this noxious and ill-advised gun-grabbing regulatory gambit.

    Oh wait, did I say noxious and ill-advised? Add to that one more adjective: illegal.

    As Dwight notes, a gun show ban “will expose the city to legal action under section 229 of the Texas local government code.” Let’s take a look at 229, shall we? The relevant portion states:

    (a) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 43.002 of this code and Chapter 251, Agriculture Code, a municipality may not adopt regulations relating to:

    (1) the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies

    Now, I’m not a simple country lawyer (or a simple hyperchicken from a backwoods asteroid, either), but banning gun shows sounds precisely like adopting regulations pertaining to the transfer of guns to me.

    Much smarter than your average Austin City Counci Critter

    They’d have done better listening to this, er, guy.

    It’s like the entire Austin City Council parading through the center of the state capitol wearing KICK ME signs. And the state legislature just might take them up on it.

    On the other hand, if The People’s Republic of Austin is foolish enough to push this through, I’m sure there are venues in Williamson County that would love to have that business…

    (Subject line hat-tip)

    Email and Phone Numbers: Let Them Know What You Think of Their Illegal Gun-Show Banning Ploy

    Thanks to Dwight, here’s some contact information for Travis County officials, who are evidently voting Tuesday:

  • Judge Samuel T. Biscoe (512) 854-9555 Sam.Biscoe@co.travis.tx.us
  • Ron Davis (512) 854-9111 ron.davis@co.travis.tx.us
  • Sarah Eckhardt (512) 854-9222 sarah.eckhardt@co.travis.tx.us
  • Gerald Daugherty (512) 854-9333 Gerald.Daugherty@co.travis.tx.us
  • Margaret Gomez (512) 854-9444 Margaret.Gomez@co.travis.tx.us
  • And Austin City Council Critters:

  • Lee Leffingwell 512-974-2250 lee.leffingwell@ci.austin.tx.us
  • Sheryl Cole 512-974-2266 sheryl.cole@ci.austin.tx.us
  • Chris Riley 512-974-2260 chris.riley@ci.austin.tx.us
  • Mike Martinez 512-974-2264 mike.martinez@ci.austin.tx.us
  • Kathie Tovo 512-974-2255 kathie.tovo@ci.austin.tx.us
  • Laura Morrison 512-974-2258 laura.morrison@ci.austin.tx.us
  • Bill Spelman 512-974-2256 bill.spelman@ci.austin.tx.us
  • More Gun Control Follies Fallout

    Monday, December 24th, 2012

    The tide of “you must enact liberal knee-jerk gun control legislation now!” editorials from the usual suspects in the MSM seems to have ebbed for now, but the fallout from the Sandy Hook spree continues. Here’s a roundup of some of the more interesting and informative

  • You need to read this entire piece by Larry Correia, but this is one of the most important takeaways: “The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5”
  • Gun-control loving Chicago suffers 3-20 Sandy Hooks this year.
  • Yesterday: Liberals call conservatives “crazy” and “paranoid” for thinking that liberals want to take away their guns. Today: New York Governor Andrew Cuomo calls for mandatory confiscation of certain types of guns. (Hat tip: Alphecca)
  • The number of crimes committed by Texas concealed handgun License (CHL) holders is incredibly small.
  • How small? “Since 1996, when the law took effect, there have been 852,271 convictions of Texans under the 125 gun related offenses prohibited under state law, everything from Class A felonies like murder, aggravated robbery and aggravated rape, to relatively minor offenses like carrying a weapon in a prohibited place. Of those convictions, only 1,972 of them were of individuals who were licensed to carry a concealed handgun at the time of the offense, or roughly .19%.”
  • There’s a Texas school district where teacher’s are armed. Want to guess the number of shootings they’ve had?
  • Stacy McCain asks: “Why should the foolishness of Nancy Lanza and the evil acts of her son automatically impose limitations on people who are neither foolish nor evil?”
  • Why gun control can’t stop spree killings.
  • Some insightful commentary on the NRA from Sebastian: “You go to war with the NRA and the Wayne LaPierre you have, not the NRA and Wayne LaPierre you want. And we are going to war. We are arrayed against the entire left-wing apparatus, and they mean to extract their pint of blood.”
  • Advice on just how to write your congressman. (Hat tip: View from the Porch.)
  • This guy has some serious questions about the media timeline for the Sandy Hook shooting, but then ruins his credibility with 9/11 truther crap. I know that a lot of early reporting on shooting sprees in wrong (for example, almost all initial reports say that “police are looking for a second shooter,” who almost invariably doesn’t exist), but I do remember that all the early reports said the shooter used two handguns, but at some point that switched to all of his spree being conducted with the .223 rifle.
  • Suggestion: Offer Texas Enterprise Fund Money to Blue State Gun Manufacturers Who Relocate to Texas

    Thursday, December 20th, 2012

    I’m not a fan of the Texas Enterprise Fund, because I don’t think government should be picking economic winners and losers; let them succeed or fail on their own merits rather than getting a boost from the Aristocracy of Pull. Some liberal critics have accused the Enterprise Fund of being Rick Perry’s slush fund for donors, but in truth all federal business subsidies are slush funds, and I think the Texas Enterprise Fund is markedly less corrupt than the Obama Administration’s green energy pork for contributors, or its $25 billion Government Motors bailout gift to the United Auto Workers.

    Given that the Texas Enterprise Fund does exit, I can think of at least one good use for it: Helping gun manufacturers relocate from Blue States to Texas.

    After all, it’s obvious that Blue State sentiment is running (at least right now) against legal gun ownership by law-abiding Americans, and that pressure (legal and otherwise) will be brought to bear on them to stop manufacturing certain types of perfectly legal weapons, or to cease business entirely.

    So why not invite them to relocate to Texas? We have a skilled and highly educated non-union workforce, a broad and deep manufacturing base, a thriving economy, a culture that appreciates firearms ownership and their place in American history, stautory protection against frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, and no state income tax. While it’s a pain in the ass to move a manufacturing facility, doing so now could both increase a firearms manufacturer’s profit and prevent political pressure and legal harassment further down the line.

    Companies that might be targeted include:

  • Colt Firearms of Connecticut
  • Kimber Manufacturing of New York
  • Smith & Wesson of Massachusetts
  • Springfield Armory in Illinois
  • Among many, many others.

    Texas could gain millions of dollars worth of economic boost at the expense of state that don’t appreciate firearms manufacturers anyway.

    Worth considering.

    Democrats Can’t Help Wanting to Ban Guns. It’s What They Do.

    Tuesday, December 18th, 2012

    Like a foolish dog returning to eat its own sick, liberals can’t stay away from expressing their long pent-up desire to disarm law-abiding Americans. Their central governing principle is to give more money and power to the federal government (or the UN, when they can get away with it), and independent gun owners stand in their way. The Sandy Hook shooting victims weren’t even in the ground before Democratic lawmakers were calling on Obama to “exploit” (their words) the tragedy to push for more gun control.

    Liberals seem to regard guns like Sauron’s One Ring: as an evil object of magical power that automatically warps and corrupts the user. Frequently, they also seem to see people disagreeing with them as a sign of mental illness. (Check Twitter for how many call 2nd Amendment activists “sick” or “insane.”) I suspect that makes it harder for them to recognize real mental illness. And when they say they want a “dialog” over guns, what they really mean is “Shut up and hand over your guns and I’ll temporarily stop calling you deranged, bloodthirsty killers.”

    When the plan to deter gun use by the criminal and insane starts out “Step 1: Disarm the Sane and Law-Abiding,” I think I see a flaw in their brilliant scheme. It’s as if there were a rash of food poisonings from unlicensed food carts, and the liberal solution was to ban an all food carts.

    Two years ago I said that when push comes to shove, there’s no such thing as a pro-gun Democrat, and this week West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin is the prime example, “A” rating from the NRA notwithstanding. Expect any pro-gun Democrats to either undergo a mysterious conversion to the gun-grabbing cause, or get pushed out of the party, just like nominally “pro-life Democrats” either caved (Bart Stupak and his bloc) or were pushed out (pretty much every national election over the last 20 years).

    Other Sandy Hook shooting fallout:

  • David Kopel notes that “Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.” (Kopel is author of The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy, which I recommend for anyone serious about looking at both sides of the debate over gun control.)
  • Remember that the problem of random mass murder is not a new one. “Mass murder was just as common during the 1920s and 30s as it has been since the mid-1960s.”
  • It’s hard to tell from the media reports, but the .223 Bushmaster reportedly used by shooter Adam Lanza does not appear to have any of the cosmetic features covered by the Clinton-era “assault weapons” ban (i.e., any two of a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, barrel shroud or flash suppressor). Therefore it’s not an “assault weapon.” (The liberal definition of an “assault weapon” is “any gun that looks scary.”)
  • And the result of the Clinton “assault weapon” ban? As per Clayton E. Cramer, “he policy has been tried and found wanting.”
  • Every single recent mass killing save one has taken place in a “gun free” zone.
  • John Lott, author of the essential More Guns, Less Crime, says that we should arm teachers and ban “gun free zones.”
  • Notice how the repeated failure of gun control is always used as the justification for more gun control? Which is pretty much liberal policy on every issue (welfare spending, regulation, etc.) in a nutshell.
  • The record of gun control in reducing crime in other countries is also generally one of failure as well.
  • Here in Austin, the owner of Thai Noodle House (probably the worst Thai restaurant in town) declared that “I don’t care if a bunch of white kids got killed.” Strangely enough this did not win him many friends, and the restaurant is currently closed.
  • For still another view of the problem, read “I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother,” probably the most passed-around article in the blogsphere and Twitter this week.
  • LinkSwarm for March 30, 2012 (Including More ObamaCare Hearings Fallout)

    Friday, March 30th, 2012

    A few nuggets of insight before you head off for the weekend:

  • ObamaCare is bad already, but it’s going to get a lot worse.
  • Why ObamaCare can’t work: “It is a perverse but very real fact of life that the more complex and rich the system to be regulated, the less the ‘experts’ and the goo-goos have the political power to impose their vision on the regulatory process. The more carefully crafted a law needs to be, the more it is going to be full of lobby lollipops and sweat heart deals. A legislative body trying to write a health care law for a country like ours is like a neurosurgeon operating, drunk, with one hand holding a chainsaw and the other in a boxing glove.”
  • Reason notes that ObamaCare’s “limiting” principles sound a lot more like expansionary principles.
  • Is somehow ObamaCare survives to 2014, expect a raft of lawsuits over the elective abortion-premium mandate.
  • Paul Ryan endorses Mitt Romney. That’s a great pickup for him, and it eases, ever so slightly, my concerns that Romney will be a “big spending Republican” in the mode of Bush43 should he get elected.
  • Dwight notes a Hezbollah connection to the story of a chain of Austin bars that weren’t paying their employees what they were owed.
  • From Michael Totten comes word that the Islamists appear to have been defeated in Tunisia, which is good news indeed.
  • Will Azerbaijan help Israel hit Iran? If so, good for them. (Naturally, Obama is objecting.) (Hat tip: JihadWatch.)
  • So a Hispanic Democrat shoots someone who might or might not have been assaulting him, and suddenly Texas Democrats are ready to drag gun control back on the agenda. Thanks Rep. Garnet Coleman (Democrat, Houston)! I was a little worried that gun owners might be not be motivated to go to the polls in Texas in 2012 (what with the House, Senate, and Governor’s mansion all under Republican control), but your proposal to end the castle doctrine is just the tonic we need to get them to the voting booth!
  • Serial torturer killer Robert Ben Rhodes sentence to life in prison rather than the death penalty.
  • The King Street Patriots in Houston have a Democratic Judge rule against their tax-exempt status in a lawsuit brought by the Democratic Party. I wanted to point out the frivolous nature of this lawsuit, but Big Jolly already beat me to it.
  • LinkSwarm for February 3, 2012

    Friday, February 3rd, 2012
  • James Q. Wilson on income inequality.
  • Obama declares war on Catholics.
  • Hey Rocky, watch me pull 1.2 million people out of the labor force in a single month!
  • The blue model is breaking down so fast and so far that not even its supporters can ignore the disintegration and disaster it now presages.”
  • The Cato Institute has put up this handy interactive map of defensive gun use. (Hat tip: Say Uncle.)
  • Over at Shall Not Be Questioned, Sebastian talks about a review of Adam Winkler’s Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, an excerpt of which Clayton E. Cramer was kind enough to examine here. This particular post is notable as both Winkler and Cramer chime in in the comments. I would be most interested in reading a full-length review by Cramer of Gunfight, but I don’t think he’s done one yet.
  • Big labor loses big in Indiana.
  • Mickey Kaus wonders what Obama does all day
  • A bit of followup on that Killeen recall election: this is what democracy in action looks like.
  • More on Lamar Smith Challenger Richard Mack

    Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

    The website for former sheriff Richard Mack, the man who is challenging SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith in the Republican primary for the Texas 21st congressional district, is back up.

    His issues page shows there’s much to like about Sheriff Mack. He’s for restraining spending, controlling the border, and against ObamaCare. Not only does he support the Second Amendment, he was a leading opponent of the Brady Bill, was the very first Sheriff (and very possibly the first person) to file suit to get it overturned, and was the second named plaintiff in Printz Vs. U.S., which overturned key provisions. In addition to SOPA, he also opposes the indefinite incarceration of citizens provision of the NDAA.

    He also seems to be active in Tea Party circles, and was named one of the Top Ten Conservative Challengers (along with Ted Cruz) by the Conservative Texans Political Action Conference.

    As for his opponent, Lamar Smith has long been considered a fairly conservative Republican with some justification, including a lifetime ACU rating of over 92%. But there’s a case to be made that Lamar Smith has not exactly been a tower of conservative virtue in recent years, even apart from his key role in sponsoring SOPA. For one thing, he voted for TARP. For another, he voted to increase the minimum wage. Smith is an example of someone who has simply been in government too long; he was first elected in 1986, and a quarter-century in the House simply too long to expect someone to oppose Leviathan rather than serving it. PACs love, love, love Lamar Smith, to the tune of $467,941 in PAC contributions this election cycle alone (including, ironically enough, SOPA opponents such as Google). (I cannot confirm reports that Rep. Smith spends more time at his house on Cape Cod, which he has owned since 1992, than he does in Texas.) Rep. Smith does not seem to have learned to his lesson about SOPA, as he’s still parroting the recording industry line, and is still working to pass the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (HR 1981), which, while not as bad as SOPA, would still impose fairly onerous Internet data retention and tracking provisions for all American Internet providers.

    Need a final reason to oppose Smith? He’s actually been endorsed by the Austin-American Statesman, in the same editorial they endorsed Lloyd Doggett, which should be the kiss of death for a Republican.

    Rep. Smith’s problem is that of a boarding school boy being paddled for stealing cookies. It’s not that he was the first one to have his hand in the cookie jar (lots of Republicans have supported bad Internet bills in the past), nor will he be the last, but he’s the one with the misfortune to have his hand in the cookie jar at precisely the wrong time, when the headmaster (i.e., voters) were actually paying attention. He has to be punished as an example to the others.

    Just as the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots, so too must the careers of 13-term incumbents be offered up in periodic sacrifice…