Category Archives: Tyrrany

Will Someone Please Reign This Agency In

The BATFEces is at it again. They have changed a 40 year old interpretation of a law.

Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF today posted a ruling declaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, etc.) for a bona fide business purpose to be a “transfer” under the Gun Control Act of 1968.  As a consequence, legitimate business-related shipments will now require the recipient to complete a Form 4473 and undergo a Brady criminal background check.  In many instances, these requirements will force shipments to a third party, thereby lengthening the process and the time that the firearm is in transit.

What do I find troubling about this? It is not that this ruling will affect a large number of people. It is the arbitrariness (Is that a word? If not, it should be.) of it. There is no reason to have made this change. Not one firearm transferred under these conditions has been used in a crime. Yet, they feel the need to suddenly change the interpretation.

Ever Wonder If Obama (and other Dems) Want to Tell People In His Administration “Shut Up!”

Attorney General Eric Holder states that the administration will seek a permanent “assault weapons” ban and other gon control measures.

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.

I will pick apart some of the things that he is attributed as saying in the article:

  1. The AR15 is now one of the most common rifles in the USA. Part of the Heller decision was that firearms in common use can not be banned. Thus, this would fail the test. The same can probably said for other firearms they seek to ban.
  2. The infamous “cop killer” bullets – This usually refers to ammunition designed to pierce body armor, which is already illegal to sale to civilians. The only other thing I can think they are referring to is rifle ammunition. Except for SWAT teams, police officers generally don’t wear body armor that can stop rifle ammunition. The reason is simple, it is extremely unlikely that a street cop will face rifle fire. The only other round I can think they would be wanting to ban is 5.7x28mm round. This round is often called a “cop killer” round because it was originally offered in an armor piercing configuration. Before the law changed, they stopped selling the armor piercing version of the round.
  3. The gun smuggling to Mexico – This has repeatedly been proven to be a red herring. The vast majority of weapons in the drug cartels’ hands are stolen from the Mexican military (these were sold to them legally and with US government support). So, of course they show up as coming from the USA. Their is weapon smuggling. But, it is not the major source of cartel weaponry.
  4. The “gun show loophole” – There is no loophole for gunshows. This is the right of every day citizens to transfer property between each other without government interference. These transactions are still illegal if the seller knows, or even has reason to suspect, that the buyer can not legally possess the weapon. Any firearms dealer at a gunshow has to still perform background checks on any buyers. Just because they are not in their normal storefront location does not change the law.
  5. Right now many Second Amendment rights supporters are willing to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt right now. If the administration and/or party leadership manages to strongarm the Democrats in congress into passing this legislation. The next elections will make the Republican take over of Congress in 1994 look mild by comparison. Most likely, unless the Republicans completely screw up their choice for President, the next Presidential election would also go to them. The fact is, the majority of people in this country do now see gun control measures as being useless and strongly object to them. The Democrats who have been elected to Congress recently have largely been put there with understanding that they will not pass gun control. If it passes, it might destro the Democratic party for a long time.

A not inconsequential side note. The companies that produce the assault weapons (and all of the side gear), employ a good number of Americans in well paying jobs. In the current economy, passing a new AWB will hurt the economy.

8 Year Old Cub Scout On Terrorist Watch List

The TSA says there are no children on the the ‘no-fly’ and ‘selectee’ lists. Yet, little Mikey Hicks (a frequent flyer), has been getting patted and searched since he was 2. Is it any wonder that I find these lists and their proposed expanded usage troublesome.

This is why I had reservations about these laws

They now want to take away more of the rights of those on the “terrorist watch list.” (CNN)

When people on the government’s terrorist watch list have tried to buy guns or explosives in recent years, the government has let them the vast majority of the time.

That’s the finding of a new report by the Government Accountability Office, sent to lawmakers last month and released publicly Monday.

—————————————————————————————————–

The GAO provided the report in response to a request from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey. The GAO said Lautenberg had requested an update to a 2005 report.

In a statement Monday, Lautenberg said, “this new report is proof positive that known and suspected terrorists are exploiting a major loophole in our law, threatening our families and our communities. This ‘terror gap’ has been open too long, and our national security demands that we shut it down.”

The statement said Lautenberg is introducing legislation that would give the U.S. attorney general “authority to stop the sale of guns or explosives to terrorists.”

There is a huge problem with this, nobody on the terrorist watch list has been found guilty of anything. At one time, Senator Edward Kennedy was on the list. The list just has names. And, if your name is similar to someone’s name on the list, you are hit with the same restrictions (this has happened to two-year-old). If we allow the government to arbitrarily restrict this Constitutionally protected right, what is to stop them from restricting others? What is to prevent them from putting all of the current (or future) administrations’ opponents, on this list? What will prevent them from adding you, your friends, and/or your family to this list? This very list is the problem. Unless it is modified such that being put on the list is the result of a court action, where the accused is allowed to defend him/herself, the terrorist watch list needs to go away.

They Just Don’t Get It

Apparently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was on Good Morning America (I can not find a direct link to the transcript, this is the video) saying that they needed to get a compromise on a new assault weapons ban that includes registration and prohibit the transportation of weapons across state lines. First of all, those who believe in the Second Amendment as an individual right compromised from 1934 to 1994. We are sick of compromising. Here is a novel approach. How about going after those who intentionally break the law and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

As to registration, why? Registration will not solve or prevent any crimes. Will the money from firearms registration be used to pay for free public ranges the way the money from vehicle registration does? The only reason I can see to register firearms is to take them away at a later date. If they want compromise, are they willing to accept the registration of printers, printing presses, and other means of using your First Amendment rights?

Also, why do they want to ban the interstate transportation of firearms? Are firearms that are legally transported across state lines that big of a problem?

Not a Smart Pick

President-elect Obama has chosen Eric Holder to be his Attorney General. Here are a few facts about Mr. Holder:

At the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the Assistant U.S. Attorney (Holder) told the panel that the Second Amendment was no barrier to gun confiscation, not even of the confiscation of guns from on-duty National Guardsmen.

As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that “Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence”–a statistic is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as “children.”(Sources: Holder testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommitee on Crime, May 27,1999; Holder Weekly Briefing, May 20, 2000. One of the bills that Holder endorsed is detailed in my 1999 Issue Paper “Unfair and Unconstitutional.”)

After 9/11, he penned a Washington Post op-ed, “Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists” arguing that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also stated that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by various government entities. (In an Issue Paper on the watch list proposal, I quote a FBI spokesman stating that there is no cause to deny gun ownership to someone simply because she is on the FBI list.)

After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder complained that the decision “opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets.”

Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old’s home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez “was not taken at the point of a gun” and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted “very sensitively.” If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling “Get down, get down, we’ll shoot” is example of acting “very sensitively,” his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.

This is a man who will probably instigate a new Ruby Ridge or Branch Davidian incident with his heavy handed tactics and lack of respect for individual rights.

In Honor of United Nations Day (tomorrow)

In Honor of United Nations Day (tomorrow)

This post is slightly political. Though, it has nothing (and everything) to do with this year’s election. I have placed it behind the cut.

read more »

Obama Against Concealed Carry

Article

Quote: “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

My Thoughts: Why should I trust someone who doesn’t trust me with a concealed firearm. If I am legally carrying concealed, I have undergone a thorough background check on the federal, state and county levels. I have also undergone training that has told me when it is and is not legal for me to use deadly force.
The sad fact is, all three of the top presidential contenders support a ban that is based more on looks of weapons than on any crime statistics or facts about lethality. As important (if not more) as the election of a new President, will be the people we elect to congress. If you oppose gun control, you must look closely at the candidates you are voting for and choose appropriately.

Homeschooling May Be Banned In California

The California Supreme Court has ruled that homeschoolers must have an accredited tutor in the home.

This is the most telling quote from the article:

Heimov said her organization’s chief concern was not the quality of the children’s education, but their “being in a place daily where they would be observed by people who had a duty to ensure their ongoing safety.”

This ruling and the law it involves are about controlling people’s children, not about making sure they have the best education possible.