Obviously False News Report

Georgia man sentenced to life in fatal shooting over $13

This report also says the defendant was already a convicted felon. Since convicted felons can’t pass the background check to buy guns, this is obviously false.

Such bad reporting.

Or maybe he bought it at a gun show. Or on line.

 

“Gun Safety’s” Strategy, One More Time

ConfiscationYesterday, the Poser In Chief, to much fanfare, announced another round of (redundant) Gun Control Safety initiatives, designed to keep him from having to forcea tear or national television.

Nothing he announced is new, and nothing he announced would have prevented the attacks on Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, or Paris.

So, I just wanted to remind everyone, once again, what the real end game is.

The Government is going to eventually expand background checks to nominally include all sales, even those between private individuals. This will likely happen because some much publicized event will happen, and it will be found that the gun was bought from a private seller (better, at a gun show) by someone who was otherwise prohibited from owning a gun. Never mind that what they did was already against the law, there will be a loud call for Universal Background Checks, and it will happen.

In the wording of the new law (or Executive Order or ATF sub-rule, it doesn’t matter) this will apply to all  “transfers,” which the average person will understand to mean a sale, and which will also be explained to mean a gift or an inheritance.

But then the ATF will, suddenly and dramatically, remind us that handing the gun to a friend at the shooting range is, in fact a transfer. And both parties are then arrested and convicted dramatically, and stripped of all future rights as convicted felons.

There will suddenly be a police presence at gun ranges, to prevent these horrible crimes. This will go on, dramatically, for one or two years. But the overall number of gun crimes will not correspondingly decline. Now, it may decline in fact, but the media will make sure that is not apparent.

Then, eventually, the Antis will make the announcement that, since these simple Common Sense Gun Safety changes have made no difference, it must be because the Ebil Militia is still getting guns.

And some Horrible Tragedy will occur (the more children involved, the better, in their eyes) and there will be a clamor for Confiscation.

And our once supportive members of congress will cave. And they will call for confiscation.

The Second Amendment may or may not be repealed, but, for all intents and purposes, this will be the end of freedom as we know it.

At that time, it will be up to us gun owners to decide which side we are on. It won’t be a time for slogans or protests or social media.

I have already decided.

And I pray every day that I am wrong.

The Failure of Background Checks, and What it Means

By now we are all aware of yet another Gun Free Victim Zone “mass” killing, this time at a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana. A nut job killed 2, wounded 9, then turned the gun on himself.

Of course, my first rant is that most of the left wing media insisted on over-reporting the death toll of this killer by a full 50 percent, by including his suicide as part of the Death Count. But I know that’s just them.

But now we learn that the killer apparently passed all the require NICS checks when he bought the gun he used. The linked article outlines the severe mental disorders the man suffered, yet he was allowed to buy.

Here we have, in black and white, a demonstration that the beloved Universal Background Check so demanded by the anti’s does not work, even when allowed to happen. A nut job followed the law, bought a gun, and the rest is history.

My comments on this are two fold:

First, we must come to terms with mental illness in America, and soon. And we must make mental illness more of a factor in allowing the purchase and ownership of firearms, just as we do previous histories of physical violence and law breaking. The problem here is that we must also allow for the eventual removal of those restrictions once the person has recovered, and the evaluations on both sides of the diagnosis must be dispassionate and unbiased. I think there is enough recent evidence, in Colorado and Virginia Tech and elsewhere, that refusing to face these issues just keeps a timebomb ticking that we could otherwise defuse.

Now, how do we allow this mental evaluation, without jeopardizing our inherent rights? Frankly, I don’t know. But my hope and prayer is that men and women smarter than me, who also value the Second Amendment, will see mental illness as what it is – an illness, not a permanent feature or a sin – and a come up with workable solutions.

Why do I call for this expansion of restrictions against the right to keep and bear arms? Because I know that if we do not face this, if we continue to say that All Is Well, we may eventually get to the point where enough people say ENOUGH, and we get the English and Australian solution, confiscation.

And I for one never want to see that day.

Using A Hot News Item to Advance Gun Rights

FlagsGiven today’s Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, many are calling for using the same argument of 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection under the law to push for national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses.

While I have pointed out previously that a national law requiring reciprocity would be unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment (and I won’t go into that argument today), I can see where a 14th Amendment argument might have some merit, provided the result isn’t that they then say that we must adhere to the most stringent carry licensing requirements. And don’t think the left wouldn’t make that argument.

But my point today is that while we need to strike now to take advantage of the hottest news item, let’s go one step further, and take advantage of the slightly less recent full court coverage of America’s new-found abhorrence of all things Confederate.

It should be obvious to anyone who studies the history of gun control in America, but the current concept of licensing concealed carry goes back to the Jim Crow era in the South, following the war. So, we should strike while the anti-racist iron is hot, and demand a repeal of concealed carry licenses altogether. 

If we are going to take advantage of a hot news item, let’s go all the way. Demand equal protection under the law, without government interference, and take it to its logical conclusion.  Anything else is a waste of a good opportunity.

How History Might Have Been Different

Pistol Choices

What if they were Tauruses?

As I have reported before, when I shopping for my first handgun in 1992, I was at a gun store in Marietta, Georgia, and  had decided to buy a Taurus PT92, the Brazilian copy of the Beretta 92. However, when the clerk asked for my identification so he could run my background check, I discovered that, as an Alabama resident, I could not legally purchase a handgun in Georgia.

Why? Good question. The originators claimed it would cut down on gun trafficking by criminals, since they could not be sure that an out-of-state purchaser was legally allowed to by a gun. There was no easy way to run a background check on someone out of state in a reasonable length of time.

Given the improvements in communications since the law was first passed, and especially in light of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, this argument has become invalid.

And, finally, the courts have agreed, as a federal appeals court ruled today that disallowing interstate handgun sales through licensed FFL holders was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

This should mean that eventually, once the BATFE sends guidance to gun stores and FFL holders, we would be able to buy handguns through any FFL holder, no matter where it is located.

Now, given my penchant for Glocks (having bought, instead of the Taurus, a Glock 17, upon return to Alabama), how would my life be different today, had I bought the Taurus?

Would I have won free Tauruses in the Taurus Shooting Sports Foundation matches?Gunny and me

Whose pictures would I have in the office, if not the Gunny?

I can only wonder.

New Gun Control Idea

Remember – you heard it here first . . . .

In an article I read today about a proposed Federal ban on magazines of greater than 10 round capacity, proposed by Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty (D-Connecticut) who represents Newtown, Connecticut, I read this paragraph:

In the five minutes Esty took to explain her and her cohorts’ reasoning behind the bill she said, “Limiting high capacity magazines will save lives and we know this because it has.” She cited that 11 children escaped when Sandy Hook elementary school shooter XXXXXX* stopped to reload. However, the state attorney’s official report on the tragic incident states otherwise. The report says the children had a chance to escape a classroom when XXXXXX paused in his shooting because either the rifle malfunctioned or he had problems reloading—with no conclusion to the reason why XXXXXX stopped shooting.

(* As you know, I refuse to publicize the names of mass killers.)

The bold text is where I see a coming gun control effort – why not a law prohibiting reliable guns? As I see it, clearing malfunctions would be a lot more difficult than magazine changes, and, in the eyes of the gun control crowd, make us a lot safer.

The National Reliable Firearms Prevention Act should be coming by year end. Sponsors? I welcome your predictions.

+++++

Just in case, we should all buy 1911’s. They would be compliant.