The 'easily converted to machine guns' myth makes a comeback

Contrary to popular misconception, fully automatic firearms--"machine guns," in common parlance--are not illegal in many states. The National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed extremely draconian federal restrictions on them, but anyone willing to jump through all the hoops, and pay the $200 tax stamp, could own one (or a hundred). Then, in 1986, the so-called "Hughes Amendment," named after its author, Congressman William Hughes (D-NJ), was passed (albeit questionably), banning private ownership of any fully automatic firearm not manufactured or imported before May 19 , 1986. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

Violence Policy Center espouses 'no guns for negroes'

Such laws were, of course, quite a boon to the KKK, who could have more confidence in their victims' inability to fight back effectively. Conversely, of course, this kind of law was very bad news for blacks in the South, which is why the Reconstruction Era Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect Second Amendment rights against restrictive state and local laws, as demonstrated by Senator Jacob Howard's 1866 speech introducing the 14th Amendment (my emphasis added): [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner stole shamelessly from Days of Our Trailers--thanks, Thirdpower.

Republican Senate gains that would be bad for gun rights

Frankly, without even knowing the "gun control" positions of any Democrats either Kirk or Castle might face in a general election, I submit that no Democrat could do any more damage to gun rights than either of them. I would, in fact, take that further, and argue that Democrat victories for those seats, no matter how extreme their anti-gun positions might be, would be preferrable to expanding the ranks of anti-gun extremist Republicans in the U.S. Senate. The Republican Party, currently at least pays lip service to respecting gun rights--rewarding the anti-gun Quislings would serve only to send the message to the GOP that gun rights can be safely ignored, or even trampled. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. I hope to get back soon to posting more at Armed and Safe than just teasers to the GRE articles--please bear with me.

Indiana moves closer to protecting workers' right to keep firearms in parking lot

The failure of last year's similar legislation notwithstanding, supporters might have more grounds for optimism this year, as the House version, HB 1065, seems to have some momentum behind it, having passed a committee vote by a 10-1 margin. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner (better late than never). Take a gander, why doncha?

San Mateo County (CA) 'Only One' threatens to kill people for exercising rights

The open carry movement is gaining ground in, of all places, California.

The Hayward resident is a member of an organization slowly gaining membership in the Bay Area. Open Carry aims to make it possible for Americans in every state to legally carry loaded guns in public. The loosely organized Bay Area chapter is igniting powerful feelings among law enforcement agencies, gun control advocates and ordinary residents

To be California-legal, those openly carrying have to carry their firearms unloaded, with the ammunition (presumably) within easy reach. Sorta like "six seconds from safety" carry in Illinois (six seconds, when under attack, can be a very long way from safety), it is, at least, better than nothing.

Some would disagree. San Mateo County Sheriff's Lt. Ray Lunny, for example, puts it this way:

"Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation," he said. "When police are called to a 'man with a gun' call, they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers have no idea that these people may simply be 'exercising their rights.'

"Should the gun-carrying person "... move in a way that could be construed as threatening, the police are forced to respond in kind for their own protection. It's well and good in hindsight to say the gun carrier was simply 'exercising their rights,' but the result could be deadly," Lunny said.

Lunny didn't bother to elaborate on what he meant by "mov[ing] in a way that could be construed as threatening," but I can't help but note that "could be construed as threatening" covers a great deal more ground than "is threatening."

The article, for example, quotes several frightened herbivores who seem to consider any movement (and, presumably, standing stock still) by those wearing a fiream, but not wearing the trappings of government-sanctioned power (badge, uniform) to be "threatening."

Threatening enough for Lunny to justify killing the peaceable armed citizen? Kinda sounds that way.

Now, who's being "threatening."

'Gun show loophole' laws--a ridiculous new twist

What HB 2477 would do instead is, if a private seller sells a gun without a background check, not knowing that the purchaser is a "prohibited person," and thus incapable of passing the NICS check, the seller will be on the hook for whatever crime is ever commtted with that gun, by anyone. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

More about voting rights for felons

In other words, restrictive gun laws, while doing little or nothing to disarm criminals, do make it more difficult for the rest of us to arm ourselves against them--just as criminals want. It would make sense, then, that they would vote in that self-interest, in favor of every gun law (or, more accurately, in favor of every candidate who pushes gun laws) they can.

And that plays right into the hands of the forcible citizen disarmament lobby. [More]

A rare Saturday St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Ain't ya' lucky?

Yeah--this is the guy who should set gun policy

Where does the Huffington Post find these people?

Click goes the hammer under your thumb. A clammy forefinger starts to pull back on the trigger. You suck in a deep breath and...Ka-WHAM! Everything from your belly button to your scalp shudders with the recoil. Organs jostle. Eyelids involuntarily blink. Your brain sloshes around in your skull, convinced an F-16 just broke the sound barrier inches from your face. A dragon's breath of muzzle-flash momentarily blinds you through your goggles. Endorphins flood every capillary in your being. Your nostrils fill with the smell of cordite. You gasp, finally letting the air escape your lungs. Then laughter bubbles up through your throat - giddy, uncontrollable laughter. Your arms slacken. The laughter subsides, replaced by a plummeting jaw, an overwhelming sense of wonder at the sheer power and violence of it all.

Granted, he's apparently talking about firing the .454 Casull (although he calls it the ".454 Magnum"), which is rather a lot of gun for one's first time shooting since a .22 at Scout Camp--but still, if he's that freaked out, I would probably not want to be at the same range he was.

Actually, though, we soon find out that if Beau had his way, I wouldn't need to worry--because there probably wouldn't be any shooting ranges for the public.

Now let me come right off the bat and say that I'm a strong advocate of gun-control. In fact, I'm the NRA's worst nightmare. I don't merely advocate heavy gun regulation; I'm for outright prohibition. I think all handguns and assault weapons should be outlawed, reserved exclusively for the military and police. As for rifles and shotguns, I think they should only be allowed for purposes of hunting and self-protection from wild animals in rural areas. Any argument along the lines of "Guns don't kill, people do," is bogus as far as I'm concerned. People couldn't kill other people with guns if they didn't have guns to begin with. And the 2nd Amendment is an anachronistic relic of a bygone agrarian society that feared Native-Americans and invasion from larger countries - it simply doesn't apply to 21st century America.

Hmm--"the NRA's worst nightmere," Beau? Mighty impressed with yourself, aren't you? My guess is that very few NRA members--probably very few NRA board members--have even heard of you, let alone had any "nightmares" about you. Anyway, I give him points--a few--for being honest enough to come out and admit his agenda of all out bans, rather than trying to hide it behind "common sense gun control" doublespeak.

He drones on and on (the things I read, so you, dear reader, don't have to--you're welcome), but there were a couple "highlights."

With a little time to reflect, I must say that despite the visceral pleasure I enjoyed at the gun range, the experience only strengthened my anti-gun beliefs. The damn things are just way too deadly and powerful...and way too fun. The closest thing I can describe it to is smoking crack, of which I have first-hand knowledge (don't worry - I've been sober for nine years).

I don't think I really even need to comment on that little revelation.

Maybe the funniest part for me came when he talked about having flown back home to Bloomberg's New York City, and getting curious about repeating his L.A. gun range experience (emphasis mine):

It's slightly less rigid outside the city limits, but not by much. I looked up the gun laws in neighboring New Jersey and Connecticut and found them rigid too. If I wanted to repeat my experience in LA closer to home, I'd have to head to Pennsylvania, which has some of the more lax gun laws in the country, even more lax than California.

"Even more lax than California"--funny guy, that Beau Willimon.

Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling loosens the gag on gun rights groups

"One gun per month laws" are often described, by those of us on the gun rights advocacy side, as "rationing Constitutional rights." Such a concept is, obviously, repugnant to those of us who believe that fundamental rights cannot legitimately be rationed out in dribs and drabs at government whim. Limitations on how much of one's own money can be spent for political advocacy-and when it can be spent--constitute just that kind of rationing. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope you find it worth your while.

AR-15s have a 'sporting purpose'--but don't need one

Still, I can summon little enthusiasm for the idea that we should retreat on the "sporting purposes" front. The Second Amendment--10% of the Bill of Rights--was not bestowed on us to protect our right to engage in sport. Thwarting would-be tyrants is hardly likely to be a fun or relaxing activity--just one that would be utterly necessary to keep our way of life.

By referring to militia-appropriate arms as "modern sporting rifles," are we not, to some degree, acquiescing to the idea of civilian ownership of firerams being limited to those that have a "sporting purpose"? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Spread it around?

A reminder from Haiti: Are you prepared for social breakdown?

"Preying on survivors"--if the quake itself, the lack of medicine, the disease fostered by the unsanitary conditions, the thirst, the hunger, and the weather don't kill you, other survivors may--and the likelihood of the police preventing that is vanishingly small. There is, however, one kind of survivor that would-be predators tend to quickly lose interest in--the well armed kind.

Keep in mind that looters don't have to wish to visit violence directly on you to be a threat to your survival, or your family's. When every quart of potable water, every can of beans, and every first aid kit can mean the difference between life and death, you can die simply by virtue of not being able to defend what is yours. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner (better late than never).

Guns save lives--sometimes in unusual ways

Sometimes, you don't have to use it to shoot, or even scare, a bad guy:

Authorities said the 28-year-old man was driving in his station wagon on Industrial Avenue on the bridge over Pleasant Grove Creek when a hands-free cell phone device activated, startling him and causing the vehicle to veer into the chilly waters just before 9:00 a.m. Sunday.

The man, employed as an armed security officer at Thunder Valley Casino, found himself trapped inside his car about six to eight feet below the surface in the 50-degree water.

The Roseville Fire Department said the man used his handgun to shoot out his vehicle window, giving himself an opportunity to escape and swim to safety.

The anti-self-defense crowd wants to keep handguns out of cars. Maybe I should start referring to such types as the "pro-drowning lobby."

Brady Campaign unhappy with Obama, but that doesn't make him our friend

If Obama has backed away from actively pursuing those goals for now, it is only because he perceives the time as not being right. TImes change, though, as Sen. Dianne Feistein made chillingly clear with her "I'll pick the time and place . . . " to aggressively pursue the forcible citizen disarmament agenda.

I would be extremely surprised if Obama has no "time and place" in mind for a full frontal assault on private gun ownership. To ignore that threat is to enable it. [More]

That's today's St, Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Tell a friend?

Would this boy and his mother survived 'safe storage' laws?

Oleg Volk photo

David pointed out yesterday an incident in which an 11-year-old defended his life and his mother's from armed home invaders who had already wounded the boy.

The child and his mother were hiding in a bedroom when the gunmen tried to force their way in. One of the men shot through the door, striking the boy in the groin area.

The child, who was carrying a .22-caliber rifle, shot back, hitting one of the criminals in the neck. The men fled the scene shortly thereafter, investigators said.

All three suspects have been arrested, and the boy is expected to make a full recovery. This story, by the way, describes the boy's wound as being to his hip, rather than groin--I don't know if that was just euphemism, but it certainly sounds better than the other story.

Either way, the young man is a hero, and I can't help but wonder how different the outcome would have been had this family heeded this advice:

Most kids know if their parents have guns - and they typically know where they're kept.

Where should that be?

In a secure gunsafe or lockbox - unloaded, preferably with ammunition kept in a separate lockbox.

Any other storage arrangement is foolish and dangerous.

And irresponsible.

An accident waiting to happen.

Apparently, the authors of that advice would be willing to accept this outcome.

Is 'law abiding gun owner' what we should strive to be?

That's why I dislike the term "law abiding gun owner," and much prefer my colleague David Codrea's "peaceable armed citizen." A peaceable armed citizen is no more inclined to violence than a peaceable unarmed citizen, but he will not submit to aggression, and he will not meekly shuffle to the back of the bus when told that "the law" requires him to.

What will the "law abiding gun owner" do if a law banning so-called "assault weapons" is passed, or one calling for registration of all firearms, or any of the other restrictions that the Heller ruling considers "presumptively lawful"? Well, if he intends to keep his "law abiding gun owner" status, he'll obey them. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. I hope you find it worth a look.

What would Col. Cooper call these people?

Most of us in the gun rights advocacy community are familiar with the late, great Lt. Col Jeff Cooper's term "hoplophobia," defined as an irrational fear of and/or aversion to weapons (generally firearms). The term is derived from hoplon, a Greek word for arms and armor. Fear of weapons is ridiculous enough, but how much more absurd is a fear of . . . holsters?

Nearly two years ago, Thirdpower brought my attention to a small college in Texas that had banned a Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) empty holster protest, and I expanded on his post a bit here.

Both Thirdpower's post and mine are quite short--take a minute to familiarize yourself with the situation, and I'll be waiting here.

SCCC filed a lawsuit (with, perhaps surprisingly, help from the ACLU), and as it happens, that case just now finally went to court--and the school's justification for banning empty holsters is just plain silly.

When Tarrant County College denied a student the right to stage an empty holster protest in April 2008 at the South Campus, officials feared someone would use the event to bring a weapon on campus.

"There was certainly the expectation that someone was going to show up with a gun in a holster," TCC interim Chancellor Erma Johnson Hadley said under cross examination during a trial in federal court Thursday.

Alrighty, then--let me make sure I'm following along here: you ban the open carry of empty holsters, out of fear that someone will break school rules, risking expulsion (and maybe legal action), by bringing a full holster instead. It didn't occur to you, I guess, that someone could wear a concealed (and full) holster, and you wouldn't know anything about it--and that's most likely what they would do, if they were inclined to bring a gun?

The judge apparently finds that as puzzling as I do:

School officials had the concern even though they had no evidence that anyone would, and U.S. District Court Judge Terry Means told her — when she couldn’t provide any proof of why she thought someone planned to do so — that free speech cannot be limited on the basis of an "undifferentiated fear."

"I can’t see any tangible basis for this fear," Means said.

That's because you're apparently not insane, Judge--that's a bit of a handicap in trying to understand people like that school's administrators.

Note that I'm not even trying to address the irrationality of fearing peaceable armed citizens on campus--that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

A Mayors Against Illegal Guns 'success' story

Regardless of the outcome (which seems pretty much pre-determined), Mr. Baez will apparently now and forever be a "gun felon," incapable of ever so much as touching a gun legally. Seem harsh? To Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, it's an "illegal gun," and a "gun felon," off the street. To anti-gun extremists, that's all that matters. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a read.

U of Penn 'study' authors admit glaring flaw

Just about anyone interested in gun rights has probably heard about the "study," appearing in the American Journal of Public Health, claiming that possessing a gun increases the likelihood (somehow) of being shot, by a factor of 4.46. Led by Charles Branas (who, as David points out, is a beneficiary of Joyce Foundation anti-gun largesse), the study looked at gun ownership in Philadelphia over a period of a few years, and came to the above . . . remarkable conclusion.

Others, like Clayton Cramer, have done a good job of pointing out numerous problems with the study, such as the fact that it made no distinction between peaceable gun owners who have no inclination toward nefarious behavior, and gangbanger thugs who can't wait to show how tough they are by shooting it out with other gangbanger thugs, or with the police.

Like I said, the above is kinda old news--I just included it as background, and a refresher. The new part is something I picked up from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), which in turn quotes an article by Ronald Bailey, of Reason Magazine. It's a February article, and not available online yet, but NCPA provides a tantalizing quote.

According to Reason magazine, however, the one explanation the researchers do not mention is that people who anticipate violent confrontations -- such as drug dealers, frequently robbed bodega owners, and women with angry ex-boyfriends -- might be especially likely to possess guns, just as people likely who jump out of airplanes are especially likely to possess parachutes.

The authors acknowledge that they did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault -- that is, the possibility that a high risk of being shot causes gun ownership, as opposed to the other way around.

In other words, the authors admit that an extremely obvious weakness in their theory of a causal relationship between gun ownership and being shot is left completely unaddressed.

That would seem, pretty much, to be an admission that the entire "study" is a worthless, steaming heap of . . . propaganda.

'Terror gap' laws would 'protect' us from Cub Scouts

An New York Times article from yesterday gives us another reason (if one were needed) to look askance at proposals to use the terrorist "watch list" as grounds for denial of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. What reason would that be? The list is so bloated that it includes an 8-year-old Cub Scout, who has been on the list since he was 2. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

'Licensed' defensive handgun carry: Are we doing it wrong?

It seems to me that similarly, in our willingness to enter into negotiations about what conditions are to be imposed on the granting of liberties that already belong to a free people, we have, in the words of the man in the joke, "already established" what kind of people we are--not free citizens, who command their public servants, but supplicants, who ask the government for a few crumbs of freedom when it suits them to give us a bit more leash. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, and it might ruffle a feather or two.