Yeah, I know. No cheese with that whine.
Let me join the crowd referring everyone to read Larry Correia's piece on the coming gun control fight. He really does cover it well.
Some other time before the first, listen to Michael Bane's Down Range Radio podcast, largely on the same subject.
Today, I got an email from the NAGR saying Marco Rubio, my senator, is backing off his support for gun rights and it's time to bombard him. They cite this article from "The Hill", which simply begins "Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is open to a "comprehensive study" of gun laws, an aide said." The actual text of the statement sounds quite different to me. It reads:
"In the aftermath of the unspeakable tragedy in Newtown, Sen. Rubio, like millions of Americans, is looking for public policy changes that would prevent such a horrible event from happening again," Conant said in an email to The Hill. "He remains a strong supporter of the Second Amendment right to safely and responsibly bear arms. But he has also always been open to measures that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.Frankly, that sounds pretty sane. As long as by "serious and comprehensive study", they include the elimination of gun free zones almost everywhere and ensuring teachers, janitors or other staff who can legally carry will be encouraged to do so.
"The challenge with gun laws is that by definition criminals do not follow the law. For example, Connecticut's gun laws, some of the strictest in the nation, were not able to prevent this atrocity. Nevertheless, he supports a serious and comprehensive study of our laws to find new and better ways to prevent any more mass shootings."
Listen, I like NAGR, and I send money to them every year, but it's no small coincidence the abbreviation can be pronounced "nagger". They are the biggest nags for money of all of the gun rights groups. Every day is a couple of emails over another crisis and another demand for more money. They are worse than the NRA, and that's saying a lot. At least those come by snail and can be tossed on sight. By contrast, I've never heard a word from the SAF asking for anything. I have to put reminders in my calendar to remember they exist.
And speaking of AWB2, the reaction to the anti-gunners has been nothing short of stunning. Tam has an excellent perspective, based on working in gun stores, and links to these pretty impressive pictures. SurvivalBlog posts a link that Brownells has sold out of - what they thought was - a three and a half year stock of AR magazines in three days. The NRA, demonized and threatened with personal attacks (note to twits writing this: do you think they're not able to defend themselves?) has been having new members sign up at an all time record pace, 8000 per day. Kevin at The Smallest Minority reports from a friend in the biz who talks of selling out over 9300 Magpul Pmags in 12 hours, and one Magpul distributor selling 70,000 last weekend. Stores everywhere are reporting being out of, well, just about anything newbies have heard of. Americans don't take well to being told what they can and can't buy. God love us for that. At least some of that still exists.
So no magazines, no AR uppers, minimal parts for AR builders, almost sold out of handguns, Mosins moving like hotcakes. Way to go Babs, you're creating the country you want. Whether you know it or not.
And the best part is that the AR Kitty is 100% California Compliant.ReplyDelete
Fully! Note it doesn't have one of those evil pistol grips, or the satanic adjustable stocks! We wouldn't want it to be comfortable or adjustable for bigger or smaller shooters, would we?Delete
SiG, you can stop the begmail from the NRA by calling them up and telling them to cease & desist. If they don't stop, write "Refused" on the envelope and take it back to the post office. I didn't have to do the latter, calling them worked very fast for me.ReplyDelete
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Thanks - and Merry Christmas to you, too!Delete
I only get the NRA-ILA stuff now. I have to confess a weakness for their "Win 27 Guns!" contests.
'the elimination of gun free zones almost everywhere'ReplyDelete
Can't very well do that on private property like a school, restaurant or movie theatre, though.
In Florida, the state has declared preemption of ruling gun free zones. For example, there's a county park about half a mile away, and a "no guns" sign means nothing there. A theater or restaurant or hospital can still post those signs, but they have no real teeth.Delete
The only thing they can do if they find you armed is to ask you to leave, and you must. If you don't, it becomes armed trespass, which you can be detained for. On the other hand, as they said in my classes "concealed means concealed", and they shouldn't know you're carrying.
Schools, though, are preempted as gun free zones by the state. I'm not sure if private schools can declare themselves legal for carry, but my guess is that they can't. Since I don't have school age kids or grand kids, I haven't looked into that.
Forcing someone to allow firearms on his or her property would a violation of their property rights which cannot be allowed in a free country. I am sure the Founding Fathers would agree with that.Delete
The opposite is also true; a property owner could demand that anyone who enters his property be armed. Probably most owners would care less either way.
Actually, it seems to me that only a small percentage of the people would have to be armed to deter crime. (kind of like vaccination in a way). The rest would be protected merely by the fact that the criminal would not know who was armed and who wasn’t. In a public place it would be probably that some of them were armed.
Of course nowadays the idea of property rights is considered quaint. I’m sure that argument would fly just about as well as it did for smoking…
By private schools, I assume you mean independent schools; privately owned. My son goes to one of those but it is open to the public so private is not really a good designation. They call themselves independent schools. Sometimes I forget that other types of schools exist.
By coincidence, Jon Gutmacher, whose book on Florida gun law is the nearest thing to a Rosetta Stone for those laws, talks about that. He says:Delete
At this time, Florida law allows only actual law enforcement officers to be armed on school grounds. The definition of school includes any school -- even on private premises -- even day care. I take that to mean any school, public, independent or parochial.
Which seems to me to say the State has declared it has final authority over private property. I wonder if that would withstand challenge?