The Gun Blogs

LearnAboutGuns.com

Firearm related politics and information, from a pro-firearms perspective.

Gun controllers often say that they desperately need to close the "gun show loophole" because it allows people to obtain guns legally (illegally in their minds) without Government oversight. Apparently they've never heard of this, the greatest threat to peace and goodwill that they want to force upon you: The Manufacturing Loophole.

Wander over and take a tour of the landscape on this little-talked about method for obtaining guns: making your own.

Court Transcripts and Video of the Arguments can be found at:
WWW.FIREARMWATCH.COM

Today the handgun ban in Washington D.C. is argued before the Supreme Court. This is the first gun bill to be heard in the supreme court in 32 years. Several mainstream media outlets reported that if the court lifts the ban, the 2nd amendment right to bare arms includes all weapons at the time that our founding fathers signed the constitution which includes "Fully Automatic" machine guns ( No, not the ones that anti-gunners mistaken for. Those are so-called assault rifles but those are included too. ).
- John Birster

NRA Headline:
Joint Statement from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Regarding Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court Concerning the Second Amendment

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Washington, D.C.’s ban on keeping handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any standard. We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with the overwhelming majority of the American people, more than 300 members of Congress, 31 state attorneys general and the NRA that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, and that Washington, D.C.’s bans on handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense should be struck down.

Through Insty comes these links to new Second Amendment research:

Stephen P. Halbrook, "St. George Tucker's Second Amendment: Deconstructing 'The True Palladium of Liberty,'"

The article also points out deficiencies in Saul Cornell's treatment of Tucker; Cornell has a tendency to quote Tucker's analysis of militia issues as if the analysis were about the Second Amendment, and to gloss over what Tucker actually wrote about the Second Amendment.

"What Does 'Bear Arms' Imply?" Working Paper by Clayton Cramer and Joseph Olson.

Cramer and Olson show that "bear arms" never had an exclusively military connotation, either before ratification of the Second Amendment, or in the following decades.

"Pistols, Crime, and Public Safety in Early America" is another Working Paper by Cramer and Olson.

The authors show that the governments of Founding Era were familiar with handguns, and never regulated them differently from long guns.

Good stuff, there.

Via Instapundit comes this report out of New Orleans:

The National Rifle Association has hired private investigators to find hundreds of people whose firearms were seized by city police in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, according to court papers filed this week.

The NRA is trying to locate gun owners for a federal lawsuit that the lobbying group filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city's seizure of firearms after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.

Say what you want about the NRA on some issues, I don't see the more strident gun rights groups doing this. I doubt they have the resources.

I've never liked metal detectors - well, except for the ones you use to look for lost items and buried treasure. It's the ones set up as barriers that I don't like.

I've been thinking about why I don't like them and realized that it's because they're Un-American.

The American Justice system was founded upon the then-radical principle of "innocent until proven guilty." It's arguable as to whether or not we're still operating on that principle, but in theory that's the basis.

But metal detectors are based on a presumption of guilt.

When I'm getting on an airplane, if you're assuming I'm a good person who is and will be innocent of wrongdoing then you won't really care what I have in my pockets. There are some things you'll want to warn me about using on a plane - for example the altitude tends to make butane lighters somewhat more... enthusiastic than they are at ground level which lead to more than a few signed nose hairs back in the day.

Now if you think I'm not a good person - someone who's likely to do something evil while on the plane then you definitely want to know what I have in my pockets so you can do your best to keep me from causing any problem.

So I'm not ranting against passenger screening - I think it's a good thing. But I am against the procedure they currently do. It's not 'passenger' screening, it's just a shakedown of the passerby. If they want it to work then they'll need to actually pay attention to the passengers rather than their pockets.

Similarly, when I go to a concert or sporting event I not only think they have a right to kick / keep out 'fans' who disrupt the event and/or pose a hazard to others, I wish they'd do a better job of it. But I need someone to please explain to me why you need to see my car keys in order to achieve this?

Wouldn't it make more sense to check on me rather than my possessions? If I'm the upright solid citizen I appear to be then a 1" blade on my fingernail clippers will not present a hazard and does not need to be confiscated.
If I'm a dastardly evil sod intent on creating mayhem you can be sure that there are many, many things that I can not only freely bring in past your metal detector but can also obtain inside that will let me wreak great havok. Weapons are only tools plus attitude. If you don't have the right attitude then you will never be armed no matter what you hold (but you can still be dangerous). If you've got the proper attitude then anything is a weapon waiting for you to use it.

Which is why metal detectors are useless. They won't stop someone intent on doing wrong. At most they'll (slightly) incovenience them. They may cause the malfactor to not use a gun, but they won't stop them from bringing in bottles of flammable liquid. If I really want to use a gun on the far side of your metal detector then I'll either slip myself and/or the gun past it or I'll just shoot your (usually unarmed) 'Security Guard'.

Metal dectectors can really only do one thing (other than annoy): enforce a climate of dependence and helplessness.

And in a country founded on the concept of Individual Liberty that's definitely Un-American.

Via Insty comes this:

"If you create a gun-free zone, you're liable for any harm it causes."

On the surface, it sounds good, but is it? Who should it apply to? State and Federal governments? Private businesses?

I mean, it's a known fact that the police do not have a duty to protect you already. How could this be applied in reference to that?

Common sense, or nannyism?

UPDATE: Robb asks How about the opposite tack?

Advocating a new tool against crime

While I wouldn't cite this as a case of biased reporting - the reporter uses quotes from the advocates and really doesn't show any bias.

However, it IS about microstamping, so I have to highlight and shoot down some of the things in this story. (Pun? What pun?)

[Providence Mayor]Cicilline likened the advantage of microstamping to the police having a suspect’s home address rather than just his partial fingerprints.

Oh, sure thing Mr. Mayor. Although most criminals don't go very high into the triple digit IQ range, do you really think they're going to legally purchase a firearm then use it in a crime? Criminals may not be smart, but they're clever. More on this later.

This one is alarming:

Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy is preparing legislation for introduction in the Senate that would mandate microstamping and Cicilline announced that he will reintroduce microstamping legislation that failed in the last session of the Rhode Island General Assembly.

As is this:

The enactment by California, a huge state, heartened microstamping advocates because of its potential ripple effect.

We may be winning, but the war's far from over. The ripple effect is something the anti's are counting on. They said so themselves when talking about the DC ban. (I wish I could find that)

Read this, it's something you see on CSI at least once a week:

FOR NEARLY a hundred years, firearms examiners have been matching bullets and shell casings to the guns from which they were fired.

Now, read this:

Those inscriptions would enable law enforcers, using an existing federal government firearms database, to quickly trace shell casings to the maker of the gun that fired the casing and to the person or entity to whom the gun was sold.

Notice what's missing? Bullets. Microstamping still won't facilitate crime fighting. It'll just allow an averagely clever criminal to throw out a few red herrings at a crime scene and totally destroy the prosecution's case.

Microstamping eliminates the “tea leaf reading” now demanded of firearms examiners who try to match microscopic scratches among casings, Horwitz declared.

Of course, matching the bullet to the casing will still require persual of the aforementioned tea leafs.

The legislation that Cicilline had introduced in the General Assembly would make handgun manufacturers and dealers civilly liable for selling handguns that lack the microstamping feature and would make it a criminal offense to alter a handgun in an attempt to foil the microstamping.

To quote Bugs Bunny: What a Ultra-Maroon. I'm sure making it a criminal offense will keep it from happening, it's worked so well in other cases. Like handgun bans and stuff.

Finally, there's this:

Advocates say that a microstamping law would not restrict gun ownership or access, would not require the creation of another database, and would impose a minimal cost on manufacturers.

Pardon me? You already have a database of microstamped handguns? Wow, you all are good!

(all emphasis mine, of course)

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.

This should be interesting:

Empty Holster Protests Coming to a College Campus Near You

Organized by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), a nation-wide "empty holster" protest is planned for the week of October 22-26.

Details here
.

Click on the banner at the top of that page for even more info.

Looks like some schools are already threatening disciplinary action for any students who participate. FIRE better get ready.

Hi there I'm an Australian and I'm new to the USA and Handguns.I have only started shooting Handguns seriously about 8 months ago I have joined the NRA as I want to help all shooters as I do not want the people here in the USA to go thru what has happened in Australia at the hands of the anti-gunners. Back home only the criminals have handguns

The_Duke

Ironic kinda sorta...

The juxtaposition is fascinating, isn’t it? Gun control’s history is inarguably racist, and yet the black mayor in a majority black city is trying to preserve a racist gun control policy with caselaw founded in racist efforts to deny black people the means to defend themselves; what’s more, the basis of his policy position on gun control is based on the larger presumption that you can’t trust a bunch of black people with guns.

Well to start off I will say that I am not very impressed with the way the country is heading right now. But that’s that.

My Story

I was convicted of Domestic Violence in 2000 for grabbing my EX-wife’s purse. I know there is two sides to every story but just for the sake of this article take my conviction for what I say it is. I am in the process of going through the legal process in Virginia to get my conviction expunged. This is not an easy task especially after the Virginia Tech Shooting. Of the 100,000+ people who are convicted each year of domestic violence most of them are scumbages. With that said there are small percentages that are not guilty. The hopefully EX women in their lives utilized tactics which have been developed over year by women to manipulate the system.

Now that I am married again to a wonderful woman I look back and realize what an idiot I was for getting married the first time. My lovely wife is at home alone most weeks because as an IT consultant I travel a lot. I specifically provide IT security services for large Fortune 500 companies. One of my preaching points to these companies is Defense in Depth. In essence having multiple layers of security is the only way to defend your network against an attack. I'm sure you are wondering where I am going with this....

I apply the same principal to my home. The last line of defense mainly for my wife would be a use of a firearm. My wife is able to purchase a firearm but I have been advised that she could face charges if she brings a gun into the house.

I find it hard to swallow that my wife cannot protect herself if needed because of my conviction. I had one lawyer asked “Who would attack you? I don’t like guns and having heavily armed civilians is dangerous to society” I responded to his question and statement by saying “I don’t know but ask the victims at the police station they will be able to give you that answer” additionally I stated “Hamas is heavily armed, Al Quiada is heavily armed. American who own guns are just prepared and do not rely on the system for their safety”.

So here is the question I pose to the readers of this blog. Why does my wife have to limit her ability to defend herself because she is married to me? Additionally, how can a person be expected to defend them self and their family if this gun ban in place.

"Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible and safe in the way that you conduct your affairs," Harris said.

District Attorney Kamala Harris

Yes, yes, we can and will come into your LOCKED HOME and make sure you're being responsible!
Where in h#@$ does she think she lives? San FranNAZIville?

You come into a locked home in the dead of the night your just asking for someone to get killed. The officer and civilian live would be at risk just so these Wack-jobs can say they're doing something.
I would be willing to bet that no rich or connected people would be searched.

It freeking insane!

The next time someone says we need a database of gun owners, or that law enforcement is having their ability to track down guns used in crime, point them to THIS.

It's a concise, step-by-step explanation on how law enforcement finds weapons used in crimes. It's also a good explanation of how there's already a de facto gun registration in place.

UPDATE - I think I need to clarify something. The gun registration thing I mention above is my opinion. Tam never said or implied that in her post.

Well, another shooting at a school. When are people going to learn? Now, everybody's going to be yelling more gun controll and we need better gun laws. ever woundered how a single person can walk into a room and blow away 30 people? What do you think would have happened if he walked into class and shot the teacher and then turned and looked at the class only to see most of the class was pointing a gun at him just before they blew him away. IF YOU WANT MORE GUN CONTROLL, HAVE EVERYONE BUY A GUN AND KEEP IT ON THEM AT ALL.I think the good people who go by the law far out numbers the bad people. Then it would be just a matter of time before all the bad guys are done in. I do know this, You would never hear of anyone killing 30 + people. I know that after they shot one person, SOMEBODY is going to shoot them. Think about it? Woodzman

By woodzman

A take on what the proposed (now-dead) assault weapon ban SB.43 would have meant in Maryland.

Don't get your hopes up, but at least one judge in New Jersey did cite Second Amendment rights in a recent decision.

I have another blog, which has rather long posts, and most are extremely political. If you would like it's location, it is at:

http://www.freewebs.com/rattattat/

TITLES:
The Liberal Customized Magical Emotion Wand...
Gun Buyback Nonsense...
Speakout or Lose...
Merry Christmas...
Oprah and Chicken Little...
What Is Your Read?...
Bait and Switch...
Books of Interest...
Party Over Country...
Kerry...
Cartoons the Liberal Press Avoids...
Do People Really Vote Single Issues?...
How Are We Being Affected?...
The Fully Developed Cult of Political Lying...

Via The Shooting Gallery Dude:

Regular reader and SHOOTING GALLERY fan Paul Grant has launched a cool petition drive to have John Browning's birthday proclaimed a national holiday and JMB's likeness on a first-class stamp.

I say, more power to him! I signed...there are 25 names...we can do better than that!

The petition can be found HERE

You go now!