Snowflakes in Hell

Bryan Miller’s idea of justice: getting three years for having a BB gun in your car.  Instapundit thinks tar and feathers are in order.  Maybe it is time to start pushing for airgun rights.

Looks like a guy in New York is using Heller to challenge being prohibited to possess a firearm because of a restraining order.  I’m going to agree that this guy probably isn’t the best plantiff, but using Heller like this was probably inevitable.  It’s worthwhile to consider that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Emerson ruled that there was sufficient due process in the restraining order hearing, but probably barely so.  This is an area the courts are going to be very reluctant to overrule the legislature on, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the door gets left open for misdemeanors and restraining orders to be disabling offenses if the legislature chooses to do it.

Caleb and Squeaky will be interviewing Michael Bane on the Gun Nuts: The Next Generation Podcast.  Listen at 11:00PM EDT.

UPDATE: The stream is available for those who missed.  I highly encourage everyone to listen to the Bane interview.  I make an appearance on the show toward the end.

It was pretty nice of Michael Bane to offer to take Bitter and I to the big gun blogger thing as his guests, since we helped organize the whole blog bash thing.  But I have to wonder what I’ve gotten myself into:

We’re also bringing along a couple of crash test dummies for the shows, the lovely Bitter Bitch and Sebastian…my thinking here is that I can inflict television on them while disturbing the class as little as possible. This, of course, won’t work, and any of you who’ve been around my shows when we’re filming know, but I thought it was a nice gesture.

This should be fun.  Bitter and I were actually pretty reluctant to take Michael’s offer, since we didn’t want to be unfair to the others who didn’t make it.  But we decided to ask a wise oracle what she thought, and she thought we should take the offer.  I’m still not a winner, but I’ll take crash test dummy as a consolation prize.

Howard Nemerov debunks the Brady Campaign yet again:

Results from this survey were collated with Brady’s 2001 grades. After sorting by gun ownership levels, states were divided roughly into quartiles: under 30% gun ownership rates (12 states); 30-40% (14 states); 40-50% (15 states); and over 50% ownership rates (10 states). There is a clear correlation between low levels of gun ownership and higher Brady grades: Only the first quartile of states, incidentally with the lowest levels of gun ownership (average 16.5%), were rated well by Brady, averaging a grade of B+. Quartiles 2-4 had average grades of D+, D+, and D-, respectively. This indicates that Brady’s definition of “sensible” gun laws equates with laws which restrict or prohibit gun ownership.

Well, I guess they are indeed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership.  I do believe that these regulations, especially those like Massachusetts, California, and New Jersey serve to discourage gun ownership.  But I also wonder whether these state have historically lower rates of gun ownership that makes gun control more politically feasible.  I suspect a combination of both.

Janet Napolitano has vetoed two more pro-gun bills, after saying she would sign one of them and then changing her mind.  My fear is that with 2008 looking increasingly like a blow out for Democrats, many anti-gun Democrats will begin showing their true colors, knowing that the gun vote won’t necessarily overcome the tidal wave of pro-Democrat sentiment.

This blogger takes issue with GOA’s handling of the Olofson machine gun case:

I’ve never posted about the Olofson case here, because, in addition to the fact that it was put out by GOA, it never passed the smell test. To believe the story–that an innocent man was charged with and convicted of a felony simply due to a mechanical malfunction occurring with one of his rifles–one would have to ignore the very real fact that intent is a required element of the crime charged, and that an actual malfunction in an otherwise legal and unmodified firearm would totally negate that element. Hell, AR-15 rifles will sometimes trip off multiple shots when the disconnector breaks or wears. Every AR-15 shooter knows this. I just had one that was doing it and I casually mentioned it a few posts ago. Does that make me a felon? No. Because I didn’t deliberately cause it and I remedied it by replacing the disconnector.

I’ve posted similar thoughts here, but I won’t stand by the notion that David Olofson got what’s coming to him, because I just don’t believe what he did should be a crime, nor do I think the public is served in any way, shape or form by him being in prison.  The real injustice is the laws that make using certain naughty gun parts a multi-year felony.

Interesting story in the Canadian media.  Most of the guns they seize at the border aren’t seized off of gun smugglers, as the media would have us believe.

Crossings into British Columbia account for the largest percentage of all gun seizures, and about a third of all handguns, the agency says. A high percentage are in transit to Alaska and not intended for the illicit firearms market, the report says.

Americans travelling through Canada between Alaska and the lower 48 states, often doing seasonal work, can take their guns if they declare them.

My understanding is that you can’t declare restricted firearms, which are basically pistols, and many semi-auto rifles.  For those you need to get a special permit to transport restricted firearms through Canada to Alaska, which you can get if you jump through the hoops.  Still, it’s not shocking that most of the guns seized are from people who don’t realize our government is one of the few to recignize a right to bear arms for self-defense.

The next e-postal match is up.  Hosted by Sailorcurt.  I hope I will have time for this one.  Free in Idaho described last month’s match as an animal cracker shoot, which just makes me giggle every time I think about it.  This month it’s darts, which I think is pretty cool.