Disarming Old People.

Recently an article entitled Armed and Aging: Should Older Americans Face Tighter Gun Controls? came over the Facebook transom.

To her credit, the author tries mightily to pretends to be a balanced observer. She even includes a few quotes from older gun owners and some well-known facts about the reality of suicide. However, by the end I realized she simply has no grasp of the principles involved in the gun rights issue. She writes,

State lawmakers in California recently offered a unique solution that could appease both sides: the gun violence restraining order.

The statewide policy, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2016, is based on the domestic violence restraining-order system, in which concerned citizens can turn to the courts for help, said Frattaroli, who serves as associate director for outreach for Johns Hopkins’ Center for Injury Research and Policy.

No one with half a brain still functioning could think the California GVRO is a good idea. It is not just its obvious trampling of due process -- though that is certainly bad enough. The big problem is the enormous potential for abuse by angry, jealous or greedy relatives.

The penalty for a false accusation is a misdemeanor and, five'll get you ten, no false testimony will ever be pursued by a DA. This opens the GVRO to gossip being given force of law. On the victim's side, the penalties are being the subject of a false report of suicidal or homicidal intentions, losing his gun rights for up to a year (extensible to forever if the judge can be convinced he was right the first time) and being disarmed against those who would do him harm.

This from a group claiming it "promotes a positive view of aging."

Edited to fix link

Gays and Guns

An acquaintance once told me that gays are self-loathing and secretly want to be punished and die. I don't buy into collectivist nonsense but the fact the gay community -- via its putative leaders -- continue to advocate disarming in the face of a clear-and-present danger does make me wonder.

Fortunately, not all gays fall in line with the disarmament agenda. Erin Palette is one; Palmer is another. I am sure there are more and I hope they will speak up.

Gay Activist: 'We're Sitting Ducks' in Gun-Free Zones

Also see: Operaton Blazing Sword .

Astroturfing in Pink

Rob Reed the Detroit Gun Rights Examiner writes about an NPR (tax supported radio) show where the "high capacity" magazines were debated. As expected the anti-liberty extremists were well represented but even that advantage was not enough for them. The show offered up Tracee Larsen as a “gun rights advocate and logger.” but, as it turns out, she is nothing of the kind.

Her blog, The Well-Heeled Shooter, appears to be only a few days old. She claims it was stared in 2009 but the earliest activity was from Jan 8, 2011. Sebastion over at Snowflakes in Hell used his google-fu to discover that she was on the Advisory Board for the American Hunter and Shooter Association (website is currently offline*) which many gun rights advocates will remember as a false flag operation that promoted "reasonable" regulation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Near the end of its days, it tried to portray Barack Obama as friendly to gun owners.

I certainly hope the anti-liberty extremists continue to underestimate the intelligence and perseverance of their opponents.

H/T to David Codrea and the The War on Guns

* The Wayback Machine archive of the AHSA website is available here

California AB962 Declared Unconsitutional

For what it's worth, AB962 -- one piece of California stupidity -- has been struck down as unconstitutionally vague. This is a battle won, but the war goes on. The state may appeal the ruling or the legislature may try to pass a new bill with a better chance to pass constitutional muster. However, to make either work the anti-liberty extremists are going to need advice from someone who actually understands guns.

I'm sure as Sin not going to help them.

COURT GRANTS NRA / CRPA FOUNDATION MOTION, INVALIDATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMMUNITION REGULATION STATUTE THAT WOULD HAVE BANNED MAIL ORDER AMMO SALES & REQUIRED AMMO SALES REGISTRATION

In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

The lawsuit was prompted in part by the many objections and questions raised by confused police, ammunition purchasers, and sellers about what ammunition is covered by the new laws created by AB 962. In a highly unusual move that reflects growing law enforcement opposition to ineffective gun control laws, Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include the CRPA Foundation, Herb Bauer Sporting Goods, ammunition shipper Able’s Ammo, collectible ammunition shipper RTG Sporting Collectibles, and individual Steven Stonecipher. Mendocino Sheriff Tom Allman also supported the lawsuit.

The ruling comes just days before the portion of the law that bans mail order sales of so called “handgun ammunition” was set to take effect on February 1, 2011. The lawsuit, Parker v. California is funded exclusively by the NRA and the CRPA Foundation. If it had gone into effect, AB 962 would have imposed burdensome and ill conceived restrictions on the sales of ammunition. AB 962 required that “handgun ammunition” be stored out of the reach of customers, that ammunition vendors collect ammunition sales registration information and thumb-prints from purchasers, and conduct transactions face-to-face for all deliveries and transfers of “handgun ammunition.” The lawsuit successfully sought the declaration from the Court that the statute was unconstitutional, and successfully sought the injunctive relief prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing the new laws.

The lawsuit alleged, and the Court agreed, that AB 962 is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails to provide sufficient legal notice of what ammunition cartridges are “principally for use in a handgun,” and thus is considered “handgun ammunition” that is regulated under AB 962. It is practically impossible, both for those subject to the law and for those who must enforce it, to determine whether any of the thousands of different types of ammunition cartridges that can be used in handguns are actually “principally for use in” or used more often in, a handgun. The proportional usage of any given cartridge is impossible to determine, and in any event changes with market demands. In fact, the legislature itself is well aware of the vagueness problem with AB 962's definition of "handgun ammunition" and tried to redefine it via AB 2358 in 2010. AB 2358 failed in the face of opposition from the NRA and CRPA based on the proposal’s many other nonsensical infringements on ammunition sales to law abiding citizens.

Constitutional vagueness challenges to state laws are extremely difficult to win, particularly in California firearms litigation so this success is particularly noteworthy. Even so, an appeal by the State is likely, but the Court’s Order enjoining enforcement of the law is effective – February 1, 2011 – immediately regardless.

Despite this win for common sense over ill-conceived and counter productive gun laws, additional legislation on this and related subjects will no doubt be proposed in Sacramento this legislative session. It is absolutely critical that those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms stay informed and make their voices heard in Sacramento. When AB 962 passed there was loud outcry from law abiding gun owners impacted by the new law. Those voices must be heard during the legislative session and before a proposed law passes, not after a law is signed. To help, sign up for legislative alerts at www.nraila.com and www.calnra.com and respond when called upon.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA "Local Ordinance Project" (LOP) - a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonaldlegal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP's litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA / CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.
__________________
Tracy Rifle and Pistol
2726 Naglee Rd
Tracy Ca 95304
209 833-9100

Blair Holt Bill

Recently I've received a few emails about the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. This bill would burden firearms ownership (the "keep" part of the Second Amdendment) with licensing, registration and taxes (called fees but they're not fooling most of the people)

It is always important to keep an eye on the license loving fascists in Congress and this is the kind of bill that might be sneaked through in a midnight session. Nevertheless, pro-gun activists, while vigilant, don't seem worried about it. The bill has no co-sponsors indicating of a lack of enthusiasm for it among other congressmen. Politicians, above all things desire power and, historically, it is true that to exercise total power requires the gun owing members of the populace be rendered ineffective to resist. If every Jew in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle, 20 rounds of ammunition and the will to use them, National Socialism would probably be a minor footnote in the history of the Weimar Republic.

As things stand right now, an overt gun control bill would cause the so-called "progressives" to lose power in the upcoming elections. Their leadership (in both parties) is egotistical, openly fascist and would undoubtedly love to waco every decent gun owner in America but I seriously doubt they are stupid enough to risk the ire of the 80 million gun-owning citizens newly energized by the Heller decision and the probable incorporation of the Second Amendment in McDonald. I suspect that the House Democrats will allow the Blair Holt bill to die in subcommittee rather than risk the ire of pro-gun voters. If not then, "Cum ulla sella in pugno taberna."

Any chair in a bar fight.

To Keep and Bear Arms

Tom Palmer, one of the plaintiffs in the partially successful District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 2008), is now trying to sue the District of Columbia to force it to respect the other part of the Second Amendment. Heller partially established the right to own (keep) a gun now the fight is carry (bear) that gun outside the home.

Predictably,

Jonathan E. Lowy, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, says he thinks the case, pending in U.S. District Court, is open and shut.

"To force the general public to be exposed to the risk of loaded guns when they are out with their family in public areas is outrageous and has absolutely nothing to do with the right to defend the home," he says.

Alan Gura, who was counsel in the Heller case and this case as well, simply replies, "The idea that the right to bear arms is limited to walking around your house is silly."

Yes it is silly. I wish him luck.

Dave Workman Finally Admits it!

The truth is out: Workman is a moron

Not really. He is just demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. After ridiculing the anti-gun nuts he concludes with:

For the folks who have been offended by what they read here, please rest assured that I meant every damn word.

Right On, Brother!

Who brings a Bible to a Gunfight?

A new Henry Repeating Arms ad:

"Stupid Christian; bringing a Bible to a gunfight."

I understand the sentiment but it just seems silly to me.

Hat tip to Sipsey Street Irregulars

Annie Le had time to fight back

ABC News reports:

Sources also said investigators are finding evidence that the pint-size scientist who weighed only 90 pounds put up a fierce struggle against her attacker.

Blood spatter was found on a laundry cart, and a bead from her necklace was found on the floor of the basement lab where she was killed and stuffed into a wall panel.

More here

Hat tip to Hecate's Crossroad

Being legally disarmed she would had little chance against a larger stronger attacker like the man accused of the crime.  In light of this new evidence anyone who claim a weapon would have her no good are full of crap or just refusing to live in the real world. Even a small knife would have helped her get away.

Or maybe they just have a secret hankering to commit murder and want to know their victims will be helpless:

Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.

-Alexander Hope, from the novel "Hope" by L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman

I have a daughter not much older than Annie Le.  The thought that she might end up dead because some bureaucrat wants to make it easy for the criminals to ply their trade makes me so mad I can't see straight.

Nordyke v King En Banc

Volokh Conspiracy Ninth Circuit Will Rehear Nordyke v. King En Banc
Law.com Giving Gun Case Another Look

The whole gun rights blogosphere is abuzz with speculation on this. I'll post more as information comes in.