Snowflakes in Hell

Daley and his Chicago machine are going to be eager to pass this to get back at gun owners. How dare we stand up for our rights! He’ll make the downstate rubes pay for this one! Todd Vandermyde is making the argument, and it’s a good argument, that the several firearms manufacturers that are located in Illinois will leave the state if this passes. It’ll also shut down high-power competition in the state. Hopefully this can be defeated, but it’s amazing to me the IL legislature is willing to ignore a seven thousand plus rally at the State Capitol. If we turned out those kinds of numbers at our Harrsiburg rally, our politicians would crap themselves in fear. I guess when you’ve been gaming the system as long as the Daley crew have, you get a certain amount of arrogant cockiness about you.

We had no warning of this one before it passed in Conshohocken. MAIG is getting very good at sneaking these things in before we have a chance to react. They are depending on that, in fact, because when we show up and make a case against the ordinances, and point out that they are unlawful, we’ve generally been winning. This round goes to Max Nacheman, Bloomberg’s hired gun, but it’s worth noting that he can only win by subverting the democratic process and trying to sneak these ordinances in under the radar before we have a chance to organize and respond. This is how these people operate. If they can’t beat us by using above board tactics, they’ll beat us by being sneaky weasels. If you live in Conshohocken, I’d be sure to give your elected officials trouble over this. Show up at the next meeting and demand to know why they passed an illegal ordinance without any public notice. You can find contact information here.

UPDATE: I’ve corrected the record. All pro-gun channels were silent on this town, and I heard nothing in the media about it. These are the traditional channels through which we find out. As it turns out, this was put on the agenda in the February Borough Council meeting, and we missed it. MAIG has paid resources to identify and target towns to try to pass this ordinance. We rely on volunteers to keep us abreast of happenings, and sometimes these kinds of things slip by without notice. So I apologize for the accusation that there was no public notice, but Max Nacheman and Bloomberg are still weasels ;)

Go see over at Michael Bane’s. It doesn’t help make me feel any better. Especially this:

We are supporters of the Second Amendment and are not against people exercising that right. We also believe that every Right has a corresponding Duty. We believe training may very well be a key factor in retaining or losing the very right our Second Amendment provides. We applaud those who have willingly sought out training on their own to become educated on gun ownership.

That being said, as firearms instructors we see many students come into our courses for training who have no clue or idea what the laws (both State Statutes and case law) are in regards to owning or using a firearm in self defense or any other purpose, let alone how to safely and properly handle or store their firearms. We feel that it is the informed and knowledge gun owners who will play an important role in allowing us to protect our Second Amendment Rights, not those who choose to remain ignorant of the responsibilities that come with that right. It¹s sad to say, but there are many in our society who will not seek appropriate training on their own. It¹s those who choose not to get training, act negligently and make stupid careless mistakes, who are the greatest threat to protecting our Second Amendment Rights. Mandated training is not the enemy, yet, it could play a very important role in saving our rights in the long run. Therefore in order to protect our rights we will support mandated training whenever it is available.

This is like a love letter to the Brady Campaign. They support making exercising of your right conditional on training. How much training is enough? Do I have to take four hours? If four hours is great, twelve would surely be fantastic. If twelve is fantastic why not forty? Why not limit the right to anyone who hasn’t gone thorough police academy? Why not require it for every gun you buy, just to make sure you stay fresh, and all.

Insight wants to make sure no one bothers to become a gun owner. They do not want the option of gradual introduction into the culture. What they propose will destroy our numbers and our political power right along with it. Once you make gun ownership a priestly class, it will cease to exist as a right issue, and as a political issue. There will not be enough gun owners left to prevent tightening the ratchet. In effect, Insight are slitting their own throat, and ours along with it, by signing on to this. If you live in Arizona, and need training, I would take your business elsewhere.

I am not against training. I think it’s valuable. But if it had been a requirement prior, I would not be a gun owner today, and you would not be reading any of this. I was not unfamiliar with firearms when I bought a gun. I was introduced, or reintroduced into shooting in my mid-20s by a friend who took me out shooting, and I used his firearms before I bought my own. After some initial guidance to break a few bad habits I had, I decided to buy my own guns. I enjoyed my time on the range, but I was not committed to getting back into shooting at this point. If there had been hoops to jump through, I doubt I would have.

Once I got my own guns and started practicing, I started to really enjoy it, and got more committed to the sport. But I did not seek out formal training until I started carrying. Though it is not required in Pennsylvania, training is a good idea. But it’s not the end all be all, and the reason is because of the kind of skill shooting is. I’ll explain that later.

Jeff Soyer notes that Mitt is a panderer. Ask Bitter about Mitt. She had to live under him in Massachusetts, and being very involved with the pro-gun community there, is decidedly not a Mitt fan. The thing is, though, that all politicians are panderers. You really don’t have that many true believers out there among politicians. Everything is up for negotiation depending on where there’s money and votes. But you want your pandering politician to be a rational actor. The problem with a guy like Mitt is, you never know when he’s going to double cross you.

In the end, I don’t care if a politician only agrees with my policy preferences out of rational self-interest rather than true conviction. But I do care whether or not he can be relied on. That’s one reason I’m very wary of Michael Fitzpatrick getting his political career resurrected by the Bucks County GOP.  Fitzpatrick was one of those guys that never really got tested, and I have a lot of reason to believe he wouldn’t be reliable when push comes to shove. Mitt has a lot of work to do to convince gun owners. So does Fitz.

The Chattanooga Times can’t understand the legal difference between a State Capitol and other public places.

State legislators do not allow people to carry guns into the state Capitol for a good reason. They’re afraid a deranged person, disturbed over some perceived legislative intrusion, might walk into their chambers and start shooting.

Their caution is understandable. We’re all well aware of how frequently such violent episodes occur at other places of work. Furthermore, lawmakers and most citizens know that gun violence can be triggered for myriad reasons and can occur randomly in almost any venue, from shopping malls to schools, from churches to colleges to strips of congested highways.

First off, someone deranged isn’t going to be stopped by a law or policy. I don’t know much about how Tennessee’s State Capitol works, but ours is similarly off limits because it’s also a courthouse, containing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. But a courthouse or state capitol is a vastly different type of public place than restaurants, rest stops, parks, or other places where we’ve been demanding our right to carry be respected.

It’s not just different because politicians are there, but is really a distinct kind of public place. The Supreme Court ruling in Heller suggests that state capitols and courthouses are the kinds of government buildings where it’s constitutional to restrict possession of firearms, at least temporarily. Whether you think that was right or wrong isn’t really what I mean to discuss here. The ruling says what it does, and it’s now law, so let’s speak for a minute about which “sensitive places” and “government buildings” might be covered, and why.

A courthouse or state capitol would, under Heller, likely be the kind of government building where firearms could be temporarily restricted. But given that the Second Amendment protects one’s right to self-defense, under what circumstances can this be the case? I think three aspects can make the case, substitution, screening, and storage. Let’s call them the three S’s. Let me explain what they mean.

1. Substitution. Is there an ample law enforcement presence in the building? In most state capitols and courthouses, the answer to this is clearly yes. In Pennsylvania, the Capitol is staffed by the Capitol Police, and courthouses in PA are staffed by the county Sheriff’s office. In both their presence is ubiquitous. There’s very few circumstances where they aren’t going to more ably to deal with a situation than an individual would be. If a gunfight breaks out in the capitol rotunda, I’m far more likely to leave it to the guys with the submachine guns than try my hand at dealing with the matter. There’s a reasonable substitution for your own side arm with the ubiquitous law enforcement presence.
2. Is the building screened? In other words, does everyone go through a security checkpoint? This isn’t perfect, but it’s a pretty good protection against someone disregarding the rules with intent to shoot the place up. In most courthouses I’ve been in, and in state capitols, there’s a security checkpoint with metal detectors and x-rays.
3. Storage is the third aspect. In Pennsylvania, the Capitol Police provide for checking your firearm as is required by state law. This means your Second Amendment rights aren’t infringed upon on your way to and from the building.

But how many public places even come close to passing the “Three S” test? Very few. If you believe in the right to self-defense, and believe in the Second Amendment, there might be reasons, as was mentioned in Heller, that you can’t carry a gun just anywhere, but there needs to be a higher level of concern than just “some random nut” as the Chattanooga Times implies. The random nut is always going to have a gun. If the government is going to disarm citizens, it should be for a damned good reason, and in an environment where the government can provide a reasonable substitute for personal protection. The old adage “I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy” applies. It’s not surprising that media outlets don’t want to go into this issue in that level of detail, but if it’s really a right, it needs to be treated like one. You can’t just declare, “It’s a right, but what about whack jobs?”  We don’t think of other rights that way, do we? “There’s a right to free press, but what about libel?”

Don Kates says he’s a good choice for California, and tells us some details we wouldn’t have known otherwise:

In contrast, I do know Jerry Brown. We went to law school together though we were not big buddies. And when I contacted him about supporting the pro-2d Am position in the McDonald case, he filed an influential pro-2d Am brief w/ the S Ct. I know that he personally made the decision to do this, overruling his staff; and he wrote the brief himself. (He is an able lawyer.) When he was assailed by anti-gun forces, his response was that the 2d am is a “civil rights issue.”

This is not to say that Brown is “pro-gun.” He just thinks – as does everyone rational and informed on the issue – that gun control does not help reduce crime; indeed, that it has nothing to do w/ crime.

I’d sure like more than lukewarm support, but it’s not like Ahhnold has worked out too well for California Gun Owners, has he?

Dave Hardy points out something about the NFA and shotguns over at CleanupATF.org that I think might be incorrect. Dave says:

ATF has consistently taken the position that a shotgun that leaves the factory with a pistol grip and no buttstock, and is kept in that condition, is a pistol rather than a shotgun.

Except I don’t think that’s the case that they consider it a pistol. A pistol grip shotgun is still a shotgun [UPDATE: It's not a shotgun either] as long as its overall length is greater than 26 inches. The National Firearms Act’s definitions are highly convoluted. If you check the ATF NFA Handbook a few of their footnotes on page eight explain their view of the law. It rests in the definition in 26 USC 5845 of firearms and shotguns. See here:

(a) Firearm The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length [...]

(d) Shotgun The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

So I believe ATF still considers a pistol group shotgun to be a shotgun [See UPDATE below, they consider it to be a 'pistol grip weapon'], provided its overall length is greater than 26 inches. It is considered to be a weapon made from a shotgun, but because of its overall length, not subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act. I believe if you were to saw off a shotgun with a pistol grip, it would fall under the definition of “Any Other Weapon” or “AOW” rather than a short barreled shotgun.

The interesting thing about shotguns is they would be subject to the NFA provision that regulates destructive device, except for language in the definition thereof which reads:

any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes

In 1994, this definition was used to reclassify the “Street Sweeper” shotgun as a destructive device under the National Firearms Act, since it was deemed by the Clinton Administration to have no sporting use. The same thing could be done with pistol grip shotguns, if the Obama Administration were so inclined. Definitions in the NFA are screwy, and there’s a lot of room to stick it to gun owners with nuance. This is something we should look at cleaning up at some point if we ever have the political opportunity.

UPDATE: A commenter points out this bit from ATF:

Pistol Grips and Shotguns Firearms with pistol grips attached: The definition of a shotgun under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(5), is “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosives to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or single projectile for each single pull of the trigger. Under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29)(A), handgun means “a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” Federal law provides under 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), that if the firearm to be transferred is “other than a rifle or shotgun,” the purchaser must be 21 years of age or older. Certain commercially produced firearms do not fall within the definition of shotgun under the GCA even though they utilize a shotgun shell for ammunition. For example, firearms that come equipped with a pistol grip in place of the butt stock are not shotguns as defined by the GCA. A firearm with a pistol grip in lieu of the shoulder stock is not designed to be fired from the shoulder and, therefore, is not a shotgun. Since it is a firearm “other than a rifle or shotgun,” the purchaser must be 21 years of age or older. Additionally, interstate controls apply. The licensee and transferee must be residents of the same State. Other questions raised pertain to entries made in the licensee’s required records with respect to firearm “type.” These entries should indicate the firearm type as “pistol grip firearm.”

Clear as a bell. Remember that next time Brady or some other group says firearms are unregulated. So they don’t mention that that it’s a “handgun” but they also don’t mention that it’s a “shotgun” either. It’s some other weird category called “pistol grip firearm” even though it’s treated the same way as a handgun for purposes of 922, since it’s not a rifle or a shotgun. Got that? I think my brain is going to explode.

As I’ve mentioned before, Daryl Metcalfe is a great supporter of the Second Amendment. But he’s also, we believe, a bit off his rocker. First the a house resolution on domestic violence turns into part of the gay conspiracy. Then soliders who exercise their rights as citizens are traitors? Not wanting to give anyone the impression that Rep. Metcalfe might be coming back into the mainstream of Pennsylvania politics, now he’s finding the gay agenda in teaching high schoolers about dating violence:

Specifically, they wanted dating relationships defined as relations between heterosexual couples. Right now, the bill — reflecting the real world that kids actually live in — makes no distinction as to gender.

During floor debate, Metcalfe warned his colleagues — and we swear we’re not making this up — that “a rogue teacher could introduce homosexual relationships into the conversation. And a lot of students could be offended.”

Rep. Metcalfe is curiously concerned about the gay agenda above and beyond your average citizen. While I know that many gun owners are socially conservative, as a lot we’re very tolerant people. For instance, Larry Craig still managed to get approved by the NRA Board Nominating Committee despite his wide stance. I think Rep. Metcalfe would do better to focus on restoring fiscal sanity to Pennsylvania, and continuing to protect the liberties of residents of this Commonwealth, whether they are gay, straight, or otherwise. Give up the witch hunt. That crap is killing the Republican brand with younger voters, and it’s time to move on. This country and State have far bigger problems than this.

Jim Geraghty makes some excellent points about the dynamic between parties when it comes to gun rights:

But there’s a catch. For even the best, most pro-Second Amendment House Democrat, the first vote they cast in the House is to make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House, ensuring the floor schedule is controlled by a woman who is scored an “F” by the organization. And her speakership ensures that F-rated John Conyers of Michigan chairs the Judiciary Committee, and that liberals, often but not always anti-gun, control the important committees.

Meanwhile, if that A-rated House Democrat were beaten by some squishy C or B-rated Republican, his first vote be would make A-rated John Boehner (or perhaps some other Republican) the Speaker.

It’s a very good point, but I’m not sure how you really get around it unless you score the vote on the Speaker and leadership. We don’t want to hitch the gun rights wagon to a particular party, but we do want to hold individual politicians accountable for their positions on our issue, and many Democrats on the issue are quite good. If we refuse to back Democrats who support our issue, we essentially offer the Democrats nothing for their support, in which case, right now, we’d be getting steamrollered in Congress.

So why not score the vote on the Speaker? Because, not surprisingly, politicians are political animals. If the Republicans and pro-gun Democrats can get together to get together and form a majority for the purposes of gun bills, they can’t necessarily get together on other matters, such as the selection of Speaker. The problem is, while the Democratic Party is divided between Progressives and moderate-to-conservative Blue Dogs, the Progressives are the ones in the safest districts, and the ones with the most seniority.

They also represent a voting majority within the party itself. The only way you could get a different Speaker than Pelosi would be if the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats got together and elected a different Speaker. That’s not going to happen. Why? Because the party is in charge of committee assignments according to House rules, and any Democrat crossing the ailes for that kind of thing is going to find himself with the worst assignments. There’s also many many things the party apparatus can do to a Blue Dog to make him cooperate, or punish him for lack of cooperation. The system makes it very difficult for a minority faction within a party to have a whole lot of sway, so it’s very difficult for them to buck their party on a vote like Speaker. Sure, you can grade the vote, but it’s not going to make you popular on the Hill, and you’re not going to win anyway. There’s no easy answer to the Pelosi problem.

What surprises me, is that in a year like this one, you don’t see more Blue Dogs threatening to switch parties if the progressive leadership keeps twisting their arms. Maybe there’s a good reason that move is very hard to pull off in DC, but if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t hesitate to play that card. This is going to be a bad year to be a Democratic. Even worse if you voted for the health care bill.

The Washington Post is doing a bang up job of trying to push the idea of banning private sales of handguns. I think there’s a solution to this kind of problem, but it’s not liable to please the gun control groups. We could have background checks for private transfers, without banning them. But it would require a lot of changes to the current system to deal with our concerns, including opening the system up for everyone to use, full transparency, and anonymized transactions. I don’t see any of the anti-gun groups agreeing to negotiate from that as a starting point. Come to think of it, I don’t see the government agreeing to that level of transparency either.

Chicago area gun stores are preparing for a huge surge in sales. I think they may be underestimating how many obstacles Daley is going to throw in the way of residents who want handguns. Technically it’s legal in DC to get a handgun if you jump through all the hoops, but my understanding is that very few people have. Even if McDonald is a win, it’s not going to be like Chicago residents will be able to head out to the gun shop and pick up a heater. There will still be a process, and it’s probably not going to be easy.

We probably stand a good chance of getting many of those obstacles removed in later cases, but it’s going to take a while.

I have in my possession an e-mail from a reader that would appear to be from Insight Firearms Training Development, which asks folks to express to their elected representatives to oppose removing the requirement to have a permit to carry a concealed firearm. That’s right, it would seem a prominent training house is selling out the Second Amendment for their own financial gain. Click on the link to see the header for yourself. Here’s the letter they suggest people send:

RE: Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108

Dear Representatives:

I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.  Nevertheless, I strongly OPPOSE House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108 which would authorize Arizonans to carry a concealed weapon without the permit that is currently required by Arizona law.  I have recently taken the 8-hour CCW course required by  current law and I can tell you first-hand that it is invaluable and necessary for anyone who plans to carry a concealed weapon. I realized when I took the CCW course offered by Insight Firearms Training Development in Prescott Arizona that there was much that I did not know (or remember as the case may be) about the safe handling of firearms and, importantly, the law applicable to their use for purposes of personal protection in real life (and death) situations.  Persons who carry concealed weapons who are not properly trained and educated will be hazardous to you, me and all of the residents of this state.

The argument often offered in support of allowing a person to carry without proper training is that “criminals do not worry about CCW permits, so why should we require it of good, law-abiding citizens”.  That may be true, but the argument is disingenuous.  Our laws apply to all people – good and bad.  The fact that some choose to violate the laws of our society does not constitute good reason to modify them in a manner that will be injurious to the safety of our communities.  Should we modify every law in our society because the criminals don’t follow them? Should we base all laws of our society on the behavior of the criminals?

The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, does not proscribe reasonable governmental restrictions on an individual’s rights with respect to firearms.  To restrict individuals from carrying a handgun in a concealed manner under any circumstance would be unreasonable.  It is not unreasonable, however, to require that person to demonstrate that he has obtained the proper training and education in the use of that concealed weapon.  With every right comes a corresponding duty an responsibility!  We need to retain that requirement.

Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108

I agree with Insight that training is a good idea, but coming from a state that doesn’t require it, I don’t think it needs to be a legal requirement. I also fail to see how we have a right to “bear” arms if we have to get state permission before we can exercise that right.

I don’t appreciate members of the community crapping on our rights so they can continue to use force of law to extract money us. Has anyone else gotten this e-mail? If so, and you are an alumni of Insight, I would be sure to express your displeasure.

UPDATE: Please don’t confuse Insight Firearms Training Development with InSights Firearms Training of Seattle, Washington. They are separate companies. InSights has nothing to do with this controversy.

I think it’s quite ironic that it would seem that the gun rights movement is particularly strong in Southeastern Pennsylvania. CeaseFire Pennsylvania, in cooperation with Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have brought their preemption violating “Lost and Stolen” ordinances to my neck of Pennsylvania.

This time we had some grassroots action ready to meet them. First in Radnor, which has tabled the bill until April. On the same day CeaseFire Pennsylvania was tying us up in Radnor, Mayors Against Illegal Guns pushed the same ordinance to Hatboro. Hatboro has rejected the ordinance route in favor of a resolution, which they will be hearing Monday March 22nd. We still oppose the resolution, which urges the General Assembly to pass a state L&S law, but we’ve made progress. Ambler Borough has decided not to pursue an ordinance a few weeks ago. Now word has it that Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, a bastion of liberalism even back when Delaware County was solidly Republican, has decided to table its Lost and Stolen ordinance.

This has to be huge embarrassment for Joe Grace, EVP of CeaseFire PA, and it’s a slap in the face to MAIG too. It’s no accident. It’s the work of gun owners getting involved, showing up, and making effective arguments to their elected representatives. We succeeded against a strategy that was designed to spread us thin and wear us out. It has, so far, failed to work. I know many of my readers here were involved in these efforts, and we all owe them some thanks, especially to the people who were residents of these municipalities that showed up and spoke. Let’s hope we can keep pouring molasses over Bloomberg and Grace’s agenda. Let them have nothing without a fight.

UPDATE: PAFOA gives some of its members their due as well.

This time I’m harassing Josh Sugarmann. You can see the original article he wrote that I’m responding to here.

Ultimately, the Albion Borough Council which previously banned guns on city property rescinded their ban after they realized it would cost a pretty penny to defend against lawsuits that they could very likely lose.

The financial cost to taxpayers is a talking point that non-gun owners can identify with, and a major source of contention in Pennsylvania after last year’s state budget fiasco and the simple fact that the Governor has been simply unable to deliver a budget on time since he’s been in office. Local budgets can’t afford partisan political games from Harrisburg, so they definitely don’t have the spare cash to fight lawsuits. It doesn’t have to be your only argument against local gun control, but make sure it gets made.

That’s the attitude of the reverend of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Richmond. He offers up the church which sits across from the Capitol for political use by lobbyists for all sorts of favored causes – unions, healthcare, and gun control. Rev. Wallace Adams-Riley claims that the church is available for just about any lobbyist to use as a headquarters – as long as they aren’t supportive of the Second Amendment. He points out that the one group he would actively turn away is the NRA. One might wonder if he has the same belief about turning away NRA members from his church.

Ed Friedman explains what they are for. Who would have thought fraudsters and embezzlers in the Department of Education were so dangerous? Maybe the Federal Government needs to think about its hiring practices.

Check out this interview with Matt Carmel, owner of Constitution Arms, where he discusses his struggle to sponsor a Little League baseball team, and then sponsor a Rugby Team.

Maybe I need a better analogy, but I said a few days ago in a comment that gaining progress in politics is a lot like flinging pooh at a wall and betting on which pieces of s**t stick. To be successful, you need to fling a lot, until you find the right kind of turd, then repeat the performance as many times as you can.

This is an example of that, only the turd fell off the wall. Time to try again. And really, we never really meant to fling that turd anyway. It was a mistake in turd selection. The goal is to try to get the Delaware Housing Authorities to respect the Constitution. We can accomplish that through legislation or a lawsuit. For various reasons (good reasons in my opinion), NRA is more comfortable with the former than the latter. But we can use the latter to push along the former. I suspect this is going to be one strategy going forward. We can spritz our turds with olive oil before flinging now. It helps with adhesion.

With six to seven thousand people descending on the Illinois Capitol in Springfield, here’s a round up of all the main stream media coverage of the event:

Dave Hardy points out the response from their director of public safety. These are the bureaucrats they believe you should rely on for your protection. I went to school in West Philly. The area we were in wasn’t too bad, but outside of University City, things could get dicy. I remember similar advice being doled out by campus security.

I never had any illusions about whether our campus security would protect me — I knew they wouldn’t. During a heated Teamsters strike, I once witnessed a group of Teamsters threatening a driver who tried to run their picket line. He started an altercation with one of the picketers, who then swarmed and surrounded him, and were obviously looking to teach him a lesson. Campus security bravely stayed on their radios until the Philadelphia Police arrived several minutes later to deal with the malfeasance, and haul off several of the union thugs.

I did not carry during my time in college, since I didn’t get an LTC until I was 28. But I do think students who meet the requirements for a state license to carry ought to be able to carry on their campus. I can understand a university’s concern about firearms in dorms, but there are ways we can deal with that problem that don’t have to leave qualified students defenseless, especially on urban campuses surrounded by bad neighborhoods, like the university I attended.

SayUncle covers a pretty disturbing story about a guy in Oregon who was fired from his government job because he was supposedly disgruntled, and bought some guns, which the police noticed. Uncle asks, “Seems they knew he bought guns from the background checks. He did not purchase multiple handguns in a week which makes me wonder how the police got this info.”

The answer is easy. Oregon is a Point-Of-Contact state for the NICS system, which means Oregon, like Pennsylvania and many other states, has its own system. While funding restrictions prevent the feds from storing information related to background checks, there is no such restriction on the state point-of-contact. The POC provision was put in place by the Brady Act, which allows states to run systems that is an alternate to the National Instant Check System. It’s possible the police have access to the Oregon Instant Check System records, which is how they found out about his purchase.

The Pennsylvania State Police have been abusing PICS for years to operate what we still claim is an illegal registry of firearms sales in Pennsylvania. We’ve had cases where gun owners, being pulled over in traffic stops, have had guns seized from them because when they were run, they were not “registered” to them. Most often this happens because the gun was brought in when they moved here, or any number of other reasons. We’ve also had cases where gun owners have been involved in self-defense incidents, where no charges end up being filed, but during the investigation to police come for the rest of their guns that are in the registry.

This is not uncommon among POC states, and one of the reason some state groups are pushing to have PICS eliminated, and to use the federal system. Our Uniforms Firearms Act was supposed to forbid making a registry out of the PICS data, but the State Supreme Court, in a great example of mincing words, said because the database is incomplete, it’s not a “registry” by law, and therefore the State Police were permitted to keep it. Sounds like a registry to me. Gun owners should start to consider whether, perhaps, they might be better off using the federal system, rather than allowing state level abuses of POC systems. It hasn’t worked out for Pennsylvania gun owners very well, and it looks like it’s not working out very well for Oregonian gun owners either.

Looks like we were a bit premature in celebrating Matt Carmel’s success in his quest to sponsor a sports team:

Matt Carmel’s quest to get the name of his business, “Constitution Arms,” on a team uniform has come up short again, with a rugby league that initially accepted his sponsorship doing an about-face under pressure from other sponsors.

He says this will mark the end of his quest. This is how bad the culture has gotten in New Jersey.

In PA the ruling was called Commonwealth v. Hawkins, and ruled that an anonymous, unsubstantiated report of a “man with a gun” was not sufficient evidence to justify a Terry stop. Now it looks like Indiana has a version of the same.

Looks like Daley is firing a return volley at the Second Amendment just as his city’s handgun ban looks to have a very limited future. What’s surprising is he openly admits this is a counterattack:

“The aggressiveness of the gun advocates is just one reason it’s more important than ever that we work for common-sense gun laws focused on stopping the flow of illegal guns into our communities and keeping the guns out of the hands of the criminals,” Daley said, standing next to tables loaded with weapons confiscated by Chicago police.

Dave Hardy notes that there would be vagueness issues with at least one of the laws. I’m not sure what the point is of closing any gun show loophole in Illinois either, since you are required to have an FOID card to possess firearms in that state. What the point of the licensing if they are still going to claim there’s some kind of “loophole”?

The whole point of these, however, is just to get back at gun owners. Daley won’t be happy unless he’s pissing on the Second Amendment, and he doesn’t appreciate the residents of his city demanding their rights. He’ll teach you!

IGOLD 2010 is tomorrow. Let’s hope for a strong turnout so maybe gun owners in Illinois can teach Mayor Daley a lesson for a change.