Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Gun rights--another casualty in the "War on Terror?"

Today in one of the forums on which I spend an inordinate amount of time, a member from the Philippines asked if there might be a new law that makes on-line purchase of gun parts illegal (or at least difficult). He wants to buy a set of wooden grips for his 1911 pistol. The company (in the U.S.) from which he normally makes such purchases apparently told him that they would no longer conduct such transactions, because they have gotten to be too awkward.

I posted a reply, telling him I knew of no such law. Another forum member helpfully suggested he get in contact directly with the manufacturer of the grips he wants (they do direct sales), and ask them. The prospective buyer replied that due to the large time zone differential, he could not immediately contact the manufacturer, so the member who had recommended he do so made a call on his behalf.

The person to whom he spoke told him that the company no longer conducts international sales because the paperwork has become too onerous, and that they worry about getting "flagged" by the Department of Homeland Security.

What a nation of frightened little mice this once great country has become. Mind you, I'm not really blaming the manufacturer here--I suspect they have valid reasons for their grossly excessive caution. What I am decrying is the atmosphere of fear that our government has fostered--fear that selling something as innocuous as wooden pistol grips to someone in another country could put an American company on a "list" as violators of "homeland security." We are coming to fear our own government and its excesses in providing for our "security"--and those fears may be well founded.

If this is what we have come to, I would say that the terrorists have already succeeded in badly damaging our way of life, and our government seems to be helping them do so--or is it that the terrorists have given the government an excuse to do something it had wanted to do all along?

5 comments:

straightarrow said...

I vote for the opportunism scenario that allows them to disguise their long standing ambitions to create a serfdom as a "security" measure. Who the Hell is going to protect us from the protectors?

45superman said...

StraightArrow, I wish I could say I thought you were wrong.

hairy hobbit said...

I third that.

I wouldn't quite go so far as to say the government did it, but I'm not ruling that out given that we had all kids of surveillance in place before 911, and now we have God knows how much more.

We've been headed down this road for some time, at least since the end of WWII, but I suspect it would honestly go back to the end of the "civil" war.

Who the Hell is going to protect us from the protectors?

It might as well be the Tijuana police force with their slingshots.

sendarius said...

Perhaps I can add something to this.

I am in Australia, and tried to order some .38 Super Comp brass from Starline.

Although Starline happily accepted the order, I had to supply a valid "end-user" certificate, which is essentially an import permit (available from the state police department that handles firearm licensing).

I did this, but when Starline applied for an export permit (a new requirement, not previously necessary for anything gun-related that isn't an actual firearm), the application was rejected "because the import permit did not have six months or more validity". This rejection was from some US .gov entity.

So, YES, things HAVE changed. Whether this is a new law, or a re-interpretation of the existing law, or simply some creative regulation, I can't say.

I complied with the requirements:
A written order
A valid end-user certificate (original not copy)
Paid for the goods

.. and still the order was not met.

No fault of Starline, they did everything that they could and then some, but some faceless prole in .gov was feeling his oats, and nixed a commercial transaction between consenting parties that violated no law. Just because he could.

Sendarius

45superman said...

Thanks for commenting, Sendarius. I would also like to extend my heartfelt apologies for my government's behavior. Your story doesn't surprise me, but it certainly shames me.

This country is better than that--or at least it was, not so long ago.