The Gun Blogs

I'm nervous about all of this. I especially find the focus of the question going to the Supremes to be disturbing. (From SCOTUSblog)

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.

It's enough that this bit at SCOTUSblog appears to focus on the "militia" or more accurately the non-militia status looks to me to be concentrating on a minor point of the Amendment and ignoring the "right of the people" part that appears to be so much more important.

Lyle Denniston has a SCOTUSwiki page on the case that is worth reviewing.

David Hardy at Of Arms and the Law shows the variations on how the questions were placed.

Court rephrased the question presented as:

"Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes? "

DC had phrased it as:

"Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."

Parker/Heller had phrased it as:

" Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary, functional firearms, including handguns, in their homes."

I don't like his idea, mainly because I don't agree with the idea that this will add security. I still haven't quite been able to twist logic to the point where awarding criminal activity increases security. This article has an interesting take that makes this even more questionable.

ALBANY - Once they got driver's licenses under Gov. Spitzer's plan, illegal immigrants could arm themselves to the teeth simply by lying about their status, gun experts said Thursday.

"They could definitely get shotguns and rifles," said Thomas King, executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.

King said illegal immigrants could simply go to gun shops, use the licenses as ID, pick out the long guns of their choice and attest on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives forms that they are citizens or legal residents.

As long as a computer check showed the customer had no criminal record or outstanding arrest warrants, the gun dealer would likely complete the sale - because there are no other records that would flag illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg took issue with Spitzer's plan again, saying on CNN that only those who have obtained "secure" licenses should be allowed to buy guns in New York State.

Now on the talking heads shows last night someone stated that these licenses couldn't be used for ID to get on flights. I'm wondering how they are different from the regular licenses. Could that difference be sufficient that all gun dealers will know and understand that they aren't allowed for use for gun purchases?

Spitzer aides called such a scenario highly unlikely. If illegal immigrants wanted a gun, they'd more likely buy them on the streets, they reasoned.

That is true, they could get them illegally, but why would they bother if they could easily walk into a store and buy one? I'm betting that would be faster than trying to find one on the black market, and much less risky.

This article does describe the tiered licensing that NY has gotten an agreement with DHS on.

Under the compromise, New York will produce an "enhanced driver's license" that will be as secure as a passport. It is intended for people who soon will need to meet such ID requirements, even for a short drive to Canada.

A second version of the license will meet new federal standards of the Real ID Act. That law is designed to make it much harder for illegal immigrants or would-be terrorists to obtain licenses.

A third type of license will be available to undocumented immigrants.

Wonder how gun dealers or anyone else who has to deal with these IDs will be able to figure out the difference between the tiers. They could make it real simple like simple colorizing, but nothing says what the differentiator is.

Probably the worst part of all of this is that it will make the dealer's jobs more complicated and more prone to errors.

Fascinating. This is on of the attorneys who are challenging the DC gun ban. He clearly is clueless with regards to gun rights and the debate on gun rights. That is truly frightening.

Neily, who served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs challenging the ban, explained that while some view the Second Amendment as a "collective right," the view that the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to own guns is likely to prevail. He explained that most legal scholars on the subject support the individual rights theory, and that efforts to advocate the "collective rights" theory appear hypocritical.

"There has been a remarkable diversion to individual rights theory by professors, even liberal ones," Neily said. "Guns are not a big part of my life, but it bothers me when an entire part of the Constitution can be written out when you apply a constitutional theory that liberals would never apply to a right they actually care about. If you imagine the right at stake is one you care about a lot. I think you'll be offended to see a court take it as lightly as they take the Second Amendment." However, Tushnet explained that there is support for the collective rights theory in the wording of the Constitution. The "militia," he said, could likely be referring to the National Guard.

That's right. The National Guard is the militia. Seems to me having a military unit that is paid for and trained and can be called up by the federal government would define this as a federal standing army unit. Yes the state can use them, but they don't control them, fund them, or train them. He goes on to try and walk around the statement by discussing the "unorganized militia" which I frankly don't recall ever having heard of.

According to Neily, even a reading permitting gun ownership for militia purposes would not prevent citizens from owning guns due to the true definition of a well-organized militia. Rather than interpreting the "militia" to refer to the National Guard, a concept the federalists would have hated since it would have looked "too much like a standing army," Neily interprets the use of the word "militia" to refer to the unorganized militia.

"All able-bodied men from 17 to 44 are in the unorganized militia, and that's exactly what was meant in 1792," Neily said. "They actually called out the unorganized militia during World War II. When the unorganized militia is called, you're supposed to bring your own gun. You're actually required to bring your own gun. That's what the word well-regulated meant."

Hmm. Interesting but misses the point that there was no such thing. The "well-regulated militia" was all there was in the time of the writing of the constitution. There was a standing army as well, but that is not a militia. If the militias became an unorganized system later, that doesn't have any meaning to what existed in the time of the writing. WWII is completely irrelevant. No constitutional changes related to the second amendment occurred, so it's not an argument.

Then he lamely falls into the "Bazooka problem."

In addition to discussing the Constitutional theories behind the amendment, the speakers addressed what Tushnet described as the "bazooka problem"- the questionable usefulness of a privately-owned firearm in protecting against an oppressive government with large-scale superior weapons not contemplated at the drafting of the Second Amendment.

Tushnet explained this problem by discussing the two primary purposes people see in the Second Amendment-- self-defense and protection from tyrannical government.
"If we're talking about self-defense, handguns work for that," Tushnet said. "The other purpose we mentioned earlier is to guard against an overreaching government. If that is the purpose of the Second Amendment, the "bazooka problem" really is a serious problem. If the function is that you can resist the government and the government has tanks, then it's not clear what use you're getting out of a handgun."

What a pinhead. A member of a militia never did "keep and bear" cannons. The argument is something made up to scare the stupid. Militia's required there men to show up with their long arm and other relevant items which could include hand guns. They also required bayonets and knives for the men, and swords for the officers. I've yet to see a militia order that required any man to fall in with a cannon.

If this is the best the litigants can do for a lawyer, I think they are doomed.

I'd almost give this a hearing, except that Bloomberg is bellowing for it. That makes it more than a little suspect in my mind.

The bill, S. 1237 / H.R. 2074, was introduced by Sen. Lautenberg and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and, for the first time, allows the Department of Justice to prohibit known and suspected terrorists from buying a gun. Currently, terror suspects are not prohibited from purchasing firearms. This bill gives the Justice Department the authority to block such purchases. “It defies common sense that nothing in our gun laws prevents terror suspects from buying a firearm. This 'terror gap' in our gun laws has been open too long and my bill will close that gap,” said Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ). “One of the most glaring mistakes in preventing 9/11 was the government’s failure to share information and connect the dots,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “As you remember, 2 of the 19 hijackers were on a terrorist watch list, yet they were allowed to board an airplane. Today, suspected terrorists cannot fly – but they can still buy guns. We just can’t afford to wait for another attack to take these kinds of basic, common-sense precautions.”

Well, it might be a good idea if the country didn't have a thing called a constitution. Where did they get the idea that you can now punish people because you "suspect" that they are bad? Last I knew punishment could only come after a trial by ones peers.

And how is this common-sense? Last I heard the terror suspect list was a warning tool. It doesn't have any way of vetting the suspects. Hell, it's had children and politicians on it, yet they still are flying. Common sense would dictate that the list actually have vetted intelligence and some specificity to who exactly they are worried about rather than just a name.

No doubt that a terrorist can use guns to great effect, as was seen in Washington D.C. area Beltway snipers. But take a second and think this through. If they can't get them legally, what makes you think they won't have ways of using their network of sympathizers to assist them with a straw-purchase or just a plain old theft?

Currently, there are nine factors, such as status as a felon or evidence of serious mental health problems, under Federal law that disqualify an individual from buying a gun – but being a known or suspected terrorist is not one of those factors. The government is powerless to stop a gun sale to a terror suspect unless he also meets one of the nine disqualifying factors. The Lautenberg / King bill gives the Department of Justice the ability to use terror watch lists to prevent a terror suspect from purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. The bill also allows the Department of Justice to prevent known and suspected terrorists from working with explosives and from becoming a federal firearms license (FFL) holder. These DOJ determinations would be subject to judicial review and, under the bill, a suspect would have the opportunity to challenge the determination in federal court.

Challenge it in court? How will that work when you can't even challenge your name being on the terror suspect list now?

This is security theater at its worst. All we need now is some screeching harpy bellowing that it's for the children.

Go ahead and enact it. It is worthless and will remain so.

Sorry about the really rude spam.

I'll check a bit more often for that.

Internet Gun Trafficking. Yep, That's the problem. At least if you're completely freakin' clueless.

This year's mass shooting incident at Virginia Tech shone the spotlight directly into this murky commercial sector. The Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, purchased his 22-calibre Walther semi-automatic pistol from thegunsource.com, a Wisconsin-based online gun dealer for a mere US$ 267. A snip. In this case, state legislation prevented the pistol from being shipped directly to Cho's campus dormitoryroom, and it was instead delivered to a nearby pawn shop – always a wise precaution.

In addition to handguns, most states allow the online sale of militaryor military-type weapons and ammunition as well. One of the leading online firearms retailers in the USA, www.impactguns.com, offers hundreds of personal defence items for purchase over the web.

You couldn’t make this up, so here it is straight between the eyes as it were. Impact Guns is currently running a "Father's Day Special" on semi-automaticAK-47 assault rifles. For example Dad mightask junior to buy him the Kalashinikov modelAMD65 7.62x39 with a 30 round magazine and folding stock, which apparently makes the weapon easier to conceal. Pops might also get a kick out of a WASR10 7.62x39 AK-47 assault rifle complete with bayonet. So handy for the rush hour don’tcha know.

These weapons are "in stock" ready to be shipped "within 48 hrs" of purchase at the Father's Day sale price of $415.79 dollars, marked down from $461.99.

Now, for those of you with a clue, what do they completely fail to mention here? Could it be that federal law requires that all interstate gun transfers be made between companies or people who have federal firearms licenses? The Cho incidents relation to the gun being purchased on line completely ignores that he had to go through the pawn-shop because it has an FFL. They mention the theGunstore.com and completely fail to mention that their site specifies that the transfer must be through an FFL. They're in WI so the transfer to VA required the involvement of an FFL.

Didn't mention that Cho passed the NICs check either, but hey, when you're distorting the truth you don't actually need facts.

Internet gun sales were, in fact, officially recognised as a problem as far back as 1999, when New York Senator Charles Schumer proposed a bill in Congress called the "Internet Gun Trafficking Act", which sought to "plug a gaping loophole in the enforcement of federal firearms laws--the ability of felons and minors to find guns for sale on-line and illegally acquire those guns without detection."

Schumer's bill got nowhere but, in 2005, a particular piece of legislation covering aspects of the gun industry and weapons ecommerce in the US was voted into law . The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" legally "prohibits civil liability actions from being broughtor continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products."

That pretty much says it all.

Yep, it does indeed say it all. The only problem is that this is the biggest lie I've seen in a very long time. If someone buys a gun online and it doesn't go through an FFL holder, the seller and the buyer are committing a felony. About the only way you could buy a gun online would require the user to purchase it from an individual in his own state who is making a private sale and then must meet all local and state requirements. I would also bet that in the majority of states, even that is illegal.

David Kopel and Christopher Lockwood are debating various gun control and related opinion. (LATimes)

Day one was "Does the massacre at Virginia Tech prove that we need tighter restrictions on gun ownership?

Day two: Why had guns and control died out as an issue in the years prior to the Virginia Tech massacre?

Day three: Should we be concerned that so much of the rest of the developed world believes U.S. gun laws are crazy?

Interesting reading.

News today will go from the actual event to the propaganda war on gun control. This, as most gun owners understand, is the normal progression of things in the MSM. The first day rarely has much discussion of it by the big talking heads, but it only takes a day to turn this into a further attempt to restrict the rights of the law abiding citizen.

The LATimes is fairly typical:

Monday's deadly rampage at Virginia Tech sparked a largely one-sided response in the long-running debate over guns.

Gun control advocates said the shootings pointed to the need for tougher laws, while supporters of gun rights generally kept their heads down.

I always like that they seem to want everyone to believe that the gun owners are hiding from the event, instead of the reality that gun advocates are waiting for all of the information, rather than going ballistic over what happened. Most gun rights advocates want to know whether the guns were legally owned or stolen and more about the situation before making statements that will later be held to account.

And leaders of both major political parties expressed sympathy for victims and their families, while avoiding comment on gun control.

In brief remarks from the White House, President Bush expressed the nation's grief over the carnage in Blacksburg, Va. "Schools should be places of sanctuary and learning," he said. "When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community."

Bush, a longtime champion of the right to bear arms, said nothing about the gun control debate.

Why would Bush say anything about gun control? Why would he dilute the message of sympathy to discuss something that is a peripheral issue at the immediate time of the event? Of course, that is a wonderful way of vilifying the President. But they are fair and balanced in their coverage of his presidency so there is little doubt that they must be fair here. (/sarcasm).

However, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y), whose husband was among six people killed by a gunman who opened fire on a Long Island Rail Road train in 1993, added a political note to her statement of sympathy. "The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if congressional leaders stood up to the gun lobby."

McCarthy, on the other hand, dove right in to stand in the blood and preach. She doesn't know any more than anyone else does about the facts, but it must all be because there aren't enough gun laws.

Virginia's gun laws make it easy to buy and own firearms, including handguns, and the state often has been criticized as the source of guns used in crimes in the Washington area and other East Coast cities. But it is not known what role, if any, state laws may have played in the Blacksburg killings.

Virginia's laws make it easy? What do they do, hand out chits that give you a free gun? As for the "source of guns" concept, that just doesn't fly. We here that in NH about Boston gun crime all the time. The problem with the argument is still the issue of Washington's criminals committing a crime by stealing or acquiring by other illegal means, firearms from another location. Does anyone believe that they will obey another law when they flagrantly disregarded the existing gun laws?

Interestingly they do report on similar reactions by the NRA and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

The National Rifle Assn., the nation's leading gun lobby, expressed its condolences but said, "We will not have further comment until all the facts are known."

Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, sounded an equally cautious note. "I can't say how this will play into the debate until we know how old the shooter was and how he got his guns."

Now, from the start of the article, the NRA must be "keeping their heads down" while the the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is doing what? Sometimes reporters surprise you.

Another report from CQToday gives us the babbling of the politicians that was essentially ignored by the rest of the MSM.

Gun control advocates in Congress quickly cited the Virginia Tech shootings as evidence of the need for tighter firearm restrictions. “I believe this will reignite the dormant effort to pass common-sense gun regulations in this nation,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Monday. The California Democrat has led efforts to renew the expired ban on so-called assault weapons (PL 103-322).

and

Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said gun control legislation “could be” a possibility. “Let’s find out what the facts are,” Specter said.

No surprise from Feinstein. Being in that league of having had a federal concealed carry permit, and no doubt having private security, she can call for more restrictions on those of us that can't afford body guards.

And when is PA going to dump that imbecile Specter?

The article ends with a timeline on the Gun Manufacturer Liability Act. Not sure why, but there it is.

The Blogsphere will be warming up to the topic shortly as well. The Puffington Host had this to say:

The political response to the unspeakable tragedy at Virginia Tech can go two ways.
#1: Put the responsibility on the citizenry. Encourage people to be more suspicious of each other, and to report anyone they think might rampage.

and

#2: Put responsibility on the soft gun laws that allow anyone who wants guns to obtain as many of virtually whatever they want, especially at gun shows, where in Virginia there are no regulations or background checks.

The first is quite interesting, since that is exactly what the libertarians, and most gun rights advocates, want of the citizenry on all topics. Though I wouldn't phrase it that way. Why is it that if someone is acting insanely or dangerously we are being suspicious of them and not just seeing the obvious. Am I being suspicious of someone hiding in a dark alley or being prudent in my assessment of risk? Maybe he just didn't mean it the way it came out. (Not that I believe that.)

The second one is quite funny as well. Background checks are required of all firearms purchases from dealers. Private sales in nearly all states do not require them, even in many of the most draconian gun-control states. The contention that you can just buy a gun anywhere, especially gun shows without a background check is completely factually challenged.

Oddly I found this entry at the scienceblogs.

I'm down in Chile observing at the moment. I woke up to get lunch. The TV is always running here, even if nobody is watching. (It kind of drives me nuts.) Well, today, the news is awful: at least 21 people killed in a shooting rampage in a college in Virginia. Another astronomer, not an American, watching, says, "They need gun control." Isn't that always the response? There's a horrible tragedy with guns, and our first instinct is to further restrict the legality of guns. Now, I know that most of the science bloggers here are firmly in favor of gun control, and indeed that most of the world thinks America is nutty in terms of how legal guns are already. But I think that this "we need more gun control!" that is cried whenever there is a highly publicized gun tragedy is part of a larger, and dangerous, pattern. Something bad happens. It horrifies us. It scares us. We want to feel protected, we want to feel that others are safe and protected. We go to what is practically a feudal response: put the government, put our feudal masters, in more control over us, so that people can't go and do terrible things like that.

Interesting statement.

I won't bother looking at any gun rights advocate sites. The response there will be obvious.

Well, no doubt this will escalate into a shouting match shortly. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.

This is bloody pathetic.

Catherine Crowley tried to change a state gun law after her 18-year-old son killed himself with a shotgun he bought at a Wal-Mart. Her endeavor fell short when lawmakers rejected her idea to require a waiting period for young people to buy guns in Maine. But her effort can now be seen in a new documentary. The 55-minute film, "There Ought To Be A Law," provides a look at Crowley’s experience navigating the legislative system in hopes of getting a law on the books to make it harder for young people to get their hands on guns. Crowley is hopeful the film can carry forward her message. If enough people see it, she might ultimately succeed, she said. "I’m not defeated unless I give up," she said. "If I keep going, eventually I’ll have enough people who’ll say, ‘Enough is enough."’ The film begins with footage of Crowley walking through Woodlawn Cemetery in Auburn with flowers in hand to place on her son’s grave. Larry Belanger Jr. killed himself in his Lewiston apartment on May 23, 2004, but gave no indication why in a note he left behind. Crowley and a friend found her son’s body when they went looking for him in his apartment, located in a house next door to Crowley’s home. When Crowley, a mother of four, learned that her son had bought the shotgun at a Wal-Mart a day and a half before turning it on himself, she went to the store and talked to a manager: How could an 18-year-old, her baby, simply walk in and buy a gun without a waiting period? She was told that Wal-Mart hadn’t done anything wrong; if she didn’t like the law, she could try to it get changed.

I feel sorry for her in a minor way. On the other hand, blaming an inanimate object for her son's death is foolish. I'm wondering how much retrospective she's taken on why he was broken in the first place. People don't commit suicide because they are functioning properly. I may sound harsh, but the logic of going after gun legislation to fix the problem of suicide is to deny the actual cause of the problem. If she were looking for legislation to assist those who are suicidal, I'd applaud.

It strikes me that people that use guns to commit suicide aren't crying out for help. They really do want an end. A person who wants to die that clearly will find other means to do so. Look at Japan for an example. They have nearly no guns at all, yet have a high suicide rate. Lots of jumpers in Japan. Jumping being another method of assured end.

Now the nice misinformation:

Craven’s bill initially called for a 10-day waiting period for people age 22 and under to buy a gun. It was later watered down to require parental consent for 16- and 17-year-olds to buy firearms. In the end, though, the bill was defeated.

Yep. Apparently they want you to believe that a 16 or 17 year old can buy a gun at this time. They can't, with or without parental consent. Federal law requires you to be a minimum of 18.

(F6) Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee?

Yes. Under the GCA, long guns and long gun ammunition may be sold only to persons 18 years of age or older. Sales of handguns and ammunition for handguns are limited to persons 21 years of age and older. Although some State and local ordinances have lower age requirements, dealers are bound by the minimum age requirements established by the GCA. If State law or local ordinances establish a higher minimum age, the dealer must observe the higher age requirement.

[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), 27 CFR 478.99(b)]

But you wouldn't get that from the article.

But the most moving parts are Crowley’s personal story and the agony of losing her son. The film includes footage that leads viewers up a staircase to Belanger’s apartment — the same stairs Crowley ventured up before finding her dead son. It also shows the pain she felt when she came across messages on Internet forums that attacked her, questioned her parenting skills and even blamed her for her son’s death. Even though Crowley favors a waiting period, she says she isn’t opposed to guns in general. Her son was in the National Guard, and she was raised in a hunting family. Her efforts, she said, have been about teen suicide, public safety and families. Craven, who is featured prominently in the film, said she already has submitted a bill for this legislative session calling for a 10-day waiting period for anybody wanting to purchase firearms. The bill won’t pass, she said, but maybe it’ll keep the debate going.

It's sad she was attacked at the forums, but when you attack the deeply held beliefs of others on the AlgoreNet, you're bound to get kicked. Of course, this will certainly play out as the nasty gun nuts attacking the victim of their stupidity. I just don't follow that it's about teen suicide and public safety. Hell, her kid could have offed himself at the National Guard and it wouldn't have involved a purchase. Then what would she have done?

Another wonderful bit of anti-gun propaganda coming to a theater near you.

This is weird, though it does look real. I'm wondering if it isn't an escapee of a draft version of their most recent propaganda line.

In short: Wonkette posted jpeg scans from a digital copy sent in by an anonymous tipster. Elsewhere, some at Daily Kos and a popular gun law forum (and, for a while, me) expressed doubts over authenticity (c'mon, it was so far-out! lobsterrorists!). Then, Wonkette shared the original doc with BoingBoing (PDF link), a Wonkette commenter determined it appears to have been illustrated by Chris Gall, and everyone agreed -- not a hoax (though we're still awaiting response from the NRA). Here's a link to the updated BoingBoing post with embedded blog-drama, and there are fresh posts at Wonkette (Link), Kos (Link) and the CA-CCW forum (Link). And below -- readers say Adobe Reader reveals what are apparently hidden notes from the NRA assigner to the illustrator.

You can look at it yourself. I'm not particularly impressed by the commentators on the topic. It's kind of funny to see many of the loons calling others loony. Like these comments that must be intended to be humorous, but no doubt will be posed by many as serious.

IMAGE: Brochure excerpt. Guns will protect you from tsunamis. Who knew?

And the lobsterrorist thing. Funny if you stick with the humor, but I'm going to bet that the spin of the gun grabbers won't stop there.

I'm betting this is completely real. The NRA does definitely get out of touch with reality periodically.

Anyone heard anything else on this? I'm wondering what the NRA will have to say.

You know I saw this at QandO and had to read it a couple of times. It really couldn't say what it does. Are these people really that clueless?

America’s confusion about the Second Amendment is now nearly total. An amendment that ensures a collective right to bear arms has been misread in one legislature after another — often in the face of strong public disapproval — as a law guaranteeing an individual’s right to carry a weapon in public. And, in a perversion of monumental proportions, the battle to extend that right has largely succeeded in co-opting the language of the Civil Rights movement, so that depriving an American of the right to carry a gun in public sounds, to some, as offensive as stripping him of the right to vote.

Yeah the emphasis is mine. You should really read the whole article.

The topic is on Senator Allen's bill to allow firearm carry in national parks. The old gray corpse appears to think that safety in a national park would be better provided by better funding the parks rather than allowing citizens to defend themselves.

If Americans want to feel safer in their national parks, the proper solution is to increase park funding, which has decayed steadily since the Bush administration took office. To zealots who believe that the Second Amendment trumps all others, the parks are merely another badland, like schools and church parking lots, that could be cleaned up if the carrying of private weapons were allowed. The concealed-weapon advocates are doing an excellent job of sounding terrified by “lonely wilderness trails.” But make no mistake. Senator Allen’s bill would make no one safer. It can only endanger the public.

Well, if you can't use logic, use really bitter rhetoric. This editor of the old-gray-corpse appears to miss the point that the "gun zealots" want to be able to defend themselves anywhere. Seeing that I can carry a concealed weapon on the busiest streets of any city where I can legally be licensed, why is it I can't carry when I am least likely to benefit from any police protection. (Not that I could profit from that in the city either, but they are a lot closer.)

I have no problem with this editor not wanting to be capable of defending themselves, but I take serious offense when they state I shouldn't have the right to defend myself.

Bloody idiots.

This is rather strange article from the Boston Globe.

A tower of power, he stands 7 feet 1 inch, weighs 325 pounds, and bears a tattoo of Superman's signature "S" on his massive left arm. Yet NBA great Shaquille O'Neal protects himself off the basketball court with more than his physical might and inky bond with the Man of Steel.

He is licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

And

In an era in which rich and famous athletes increasingly perceive danger in the worlds they inhabit, legions have armed themselves against muggers, carjackers, jewelry-snatchers, and various other predators they consider potential threats. Players and team officials estimated a vast majority of NBA and NFL athletes carry firearms -- legally or illegally -- and that the number of handgun owners among them has reached an all-time high.Handgun ownership is much less prevalent in Major League Baseball and rare in the National Hockey League."I would say about 90 percent of players in the league have guns to protect themselves," said New England Patriots receiver Jabar Gaffney, who holds a Texas license to carry a concealed weapon.In the NBA, the figure "is closer to 100 percent than it is to 50 [percent]," said a team official who requested anonymity.By adding handguns to their evening accessories, athletes not only have raised the stakes in their pursuit of personal security but may have increased the likelihood they could face criminal charges, as Gaffney learned last summer.

I really didn't expect that the number of athletes carrying would have been that high.

Of course, seeing as this is a Boglobe article, I knew there would be something to vilify the EVIL Gun Lobby:

While it's impossible to tally how many athletes illegally carry firearms, the total number of those who are licensed to carry concealed weapons also is incalculable because of laws backed by the National Rifle Association that prohibit the vast majority of states from license disclosure. Of the 46 states that require permits to carry concealed weapons, only a small number have made those records public, including Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and South Carolina.

That's right. The fact that you carry a concealed weapon should be public knowledge. Just to ensure that if someone does plan to attack you, they know to shoot you quickly before you have any chance of defending yourself. Completely missing the point that knowledge of your ability to defend yourself can be a deterrent and uncertainty is even more effective in the overall deterrence of crime.

Heh, I turned the page and what do you know, they actually report on what I just typed.

In Massachusetts, 203,302 residents were licensed to carry concealed weapons as of August, according to the state Criminal History Systems Board. That's about one of every 23 residents among the 4.6 million who are at least 21 years old, the minimum age to obtain a license. But state law bars authorities from releasing the names of permit holders to "prevent individuals with devious motives from ascertaining who possesses firearms," according to a guide published by Secretary of State William F. Galvin.

Critics contend the prohibition prevents the public from knowing whether individuals with devious motives may possess firearms."Denying the public access to these records significantly impairs efforts to analyze the effects of concealed weapons laws on public safety and even to determine whether the permitting process is working properly," said Laura Cutilletta, a staff attorney for the San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence, which monitors gun laws.

Right. Devious motives? Huh, I guess having devious motives means that you'd resist that use of an illegal firearm. That logic is just stunning in it's complete detachment with reality.

The analysis argument is just as funny. Seeing as it comes from a Frisco anti-gun group, I'm not really surprised. Couldn't possibly trend the effects of concealed carry by looking at states and cities that have higher concealed carry rates compared to those that prohibit concealed carry.

Then of course, they go to how concealed carry is ineffective by looking at the Boston Celtic's Pierce stabbing.

Had Pierce been carrying a gun the night he was stabbed, he was asked, how might things have been different? "It probably wouldn't have been any different," he said. "Stuff happens so fast, who knows if it would have changed the outcome."

That's all the argument they can make. Didn't even bother to point out the specifics of Pierce's attack. They also don't appear to mention that Pierce now has a body guard. Nice if you can afford to have someone watch your backside.

But Rivers echoed NBA commissioner David Stern, who -- in a stunning plea by the head of a major professional sport -- urged players to leave their guns at home. Both the NBA and NFL have policies that bar players from carrying guns on league business and have stepped up efforts through seminars and other educational programs to discourage players from carrying handguns.

Interesting. Kind of that "you can't carry a gun at work" type thing. Couldn't possibly be attacked while on business now could you. Of course, I doubt that any of these guys are licensed to carry in the entire country. But, hey, that's not the companies problem now is it?

Watson and several other professional athletes who shun carrying handguns said their challenge is avoiding potential trouble.

"As far as what happened to [Telfair] and those guys, a lot of it is about where you go and what situations you put yourself in," Watson said. "For me, it's about trying to stay out of those situations."

Another player's suggestion: Don't advertise your wealth. "My thing is, if you don't wear the $50,000 chain, you don't need a gun to protect yourself," said Patriots lineman Jarvis Green, who said he goes unarmed.

Several ranked self-restraint among their best defenses. "You have to learn to walk away if somebody starts something," said Patriots receiver Doug Gabriel, who expressed no interest in carrying a gun.

Indeed a good practice, but still denies that things happen even to those that are very careful. I suppose you could live in a cave when not at work, but that isn't a life. Well, unless you're a monk or the like.

Kopel's concise evaluation of the changes related to the Dems taking control of the House.

The Second Amendment has emerged from the biggest Democratic victory since 1974 with relatively little damage. One reason is that in races all over the country, Democrats returned to their Jefferson-Jackson roots by running candidates who trust the people to bear arms.

Go and read the results. I have to admit, my home state of NH has gone completely off the edge. Hopefully that will be repaired in the next election.

Here's a link to Dave Kopel's election blog entry at the Volokh Conspiracy.

He gives some perspective on the movement of the congress with the changes the newly elected.

I'm hoping to find an updated version of this.

So far the analysis has been pretty slim. But it's early yet.

My Co-Blogger at Chaos-In-Motion "geekwife" doesn't generally post on guns, but I get a kick when she does. This is a good one.

Anyone with a lick of common sense could have told them this would be the case. But now we have a ten-year study, published in the British Journal of Criminology, that says so.

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

and

Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.

Let's mail a copy of this study to the Mayor of Boston.

Ah well, no worry. I'm sure the politicians will admit their mistake and immediately roll-back the ludicrous gun laws, then apologize for being so aggregiously stupid and wasting taxpayer money.

This is a rather odd pro-gun entry at ProgressiveU. The starting paragraph is a typical argument seen from people who think pandering solely to the sport gun users is all that is reasonable.

It’s that time of year about the election and one big topic I’m always hearing about is gun control or anti gun talk. These are brought up by people who have never fired a gun nor understand the whole point of a gun. A gun is not meant as a self defense tool although many people believe it is. It’s a sport, a game. You and a few buddies take the guns out and have small competitions. Nothing different then shooting basketball or playing baseball. The reasons people think guns are bad are because of two reasons which I’m going to address.

It's a game? No, I think sport is alright or competition, but taking it down to buddies shooting basketballs isn't quite there. I shoot, periodically, with friends, but it isn't shooting hoops. There is a great deal more caution and responsibility required. You don't have much risk of dying shooting hoops if you or your buddy screws up.

As for the self defense statement, that's utter rubbish. Historically firearms have been used more for self defense than for sporting. I'd even state that hunting for food has more to do with self defense than sport.

Then the author goes and makes a self defense statement:

Now say if a gun ban had been placed over the US. What if a guy comes up with a knife? What are you going to do? Have a nation wide knife ban then? See violence will always be around. It’s all part of human nature. Human nature is to fight each other. If a person is out to kill someone it will happen. It could be with a knife, a bat, a car, or anything else they can get a hold of. But of course guns are the one thing that is blamed for things.

Yes, that is true, but it's a touch weak if your contention as above is that firearms aren't for self defense. I'm not saying it negates that argument, just makes it less than what it should be.

The rest of the arguments are intelligently played.

Read it yourself.

This is pretty much what you'd expect from PETA.

Installing more metal detectors and locking school doors is all well and good, but it’s not enough. Unless our leaders also examine the hunting culture in rural America—where most mass school shootings take place—and its role in these disturbing incidents, little will change.

Oh, it gets worse:

Not everyone who stalks and kills animals will stalk and kill a human. But every person who picks up a gun, aims it at another living being and fires must deaden a piece of his heart. It’s bad enough when adults are the ones pulling the trigger, but we are turning our children into killers as well.

Yep, hunters are heartless murderers. And by teaching our kids to hunt, we are making them the same. Though I'm thinking that the just as many of the school shooting were perpetrated by people who never had contact with hunting. Not that PETA's article gives any stats, but why offer any facts beyond a couple of examples where there contention works.

Couldn't be that the killers were broken in some other way. Just happens a couple of them had participated in hunting. This contention is as weak as blaming violent TV shows or violent video games. Not that they have any real evidence, but they think that the the government should look into the connections.

Nothing like moving your agenda ahead on the deaths of the unfortunate few.