This is huge: Assault Weapon Ban is Not Favored in TWO Polls.

Read the article here, but this is a HUGE development.  The demon black rifle is no longer universally vilified.  This is a big cultural shift, and is a reflection of ever wider gun ownership and acceptance.  The modern sporting rifle has crossed the divide, and i do believe that the recent efforts of the gun grabbers will be for naught.

Here is the thrust of the Democratic Party: "We want to take your guns, and admit tens of thousands of potential terrorists into the country!" I wonder how down-ticket Democratic candidates feel about that.

The new emphasis on gun control by the Democrats is a confirmation that the party has turned their back on white working class voters.  I hope the Democrats get totally punished at the polls.

The Future: No Handguns For Sale In California

There may come a time when California gun shops may have only a dozen or so new handgun models for sale. Or, perhaps, none. Think that’s an exaggeration? California still has no less than 46 civilian disarmament bills floating around in the Sacramento legislature. It’s a slave state for sure.

That is the intent of the law.  Some bills mentioned in the article indicate that the gun-grabbers are beginning to work in earnest on getting rid of the rifles.  Hey, you hunters, who think "They'll never come after my bolt action rifle." had better starting thinking again.

Creeping Handgun Ban Now in Effect

Today, May 17, 2013, the California Department of Justice has certified that microstamping technology is now available from more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patents.  Because of this event, microstamping will now be a required "safety feature" for all new handguns seeking approval by the DOJ for inclusion on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.

The bulletin announcing this change can be read here.

It remains to be seen how handgun manufacturers will respond, but if they do not comply with this requirement, and many do not comply with the existing requirements, the effect will be a creeping handgun ban in California, with the models available for sale dwindling as the manufacturers allow the existing models to go out of production.

The only way to get this reversed will be either litigation, or boycott by the manufacturers.

Let me be the first to urge all firearms manufacturers to refuse to sell to police departments in California until this intolerable act is repealed. 

The Armed Citizen - Owner Authorized Handguns

The Armed Citizen web site had an article about owner authorized handguns are the new gun control frontier.  Actually, this are not new, and here are the comments I posted in reply:

-----------------------------------------------------------

This is nothing new. Anti-gun rights politicians are trying to jam SB 293 through the California legislature again, a bill which would add the owner authorized requirement to the "safe handgun roster" requirements. To all of you in free states, what the "safe handgun roster" does is define the features required by handguns to be eligible for sale in the state of CA. These requirements make California a market where many new handguns are ineligible for sale to regular people. Law enforcement officers are exempt from the "safe handgun" requirements.

This is a concept that anti-gun people regularly return to, because they think that it will solve a lot of gun control problems. First, stolen guns cannot be used by criminals because the guns are paired with an owner. Second, children cannot accidentally shot themselves or others. Third, the anti-gun people think that this technology can never be defeated.

All three of these assumptions are wrong, as this study shows:

http://books.nap.edu/previewwidget.php?ecord_id=10828&ob=1

But there are some real problems with this concept, the greatest problem is that guns with this technology have a real product liability risk. What if a gun should fire, but does not? What is a gun should not fire. but does? It is very telling that many law enforcement agencies have already indicated that they will not use owner authorized handguns: office safety would be compromised.

That should tell gun owners all they need to know about owner authorized handgun technology.

2013 CA Legislature Gun Bill List - CRPA

The California Rifle And Pistol Association has published a comprehensive list of gun-related legislation currently under consideration.  Please review and contact you representative to make your support or opposition known.

Among the worst bills are SB  374, which would classify any semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine, and those with fixed magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds of ammunition as assault weapons. Existing weapons would have to be registered by July 1, 2014, and further sales of such weapons would be prohibited in the state of California.  Citizens moving into the state would be prohibited from importing their legally owned rifles into the state.

This is a semi-automatic rifle ban.  It would ban, for example, the Ruger 10/22 and the Ruger Mini-14, neither of which were considered assault weapons anywhere else, as far as I know.

SB 374 would instantly wind up in court if it passes, but please oppose this bill!

The Futility of Gun Control

Larry Correia wrote one of the best essays on the futility of gun control that I have ever read.  I am surprised that it has taken me this long to find it.  Outstanding.

The Elephant in the Room is Recognized - For Once

Gun control advocates constantly whine about that nasty NRA, and how, if it were not for the NRA, we could all live in a gun-free, which, therefore, would  be violence-free, utopia.  The NRA only exists, the gun controllers insist, because the gun industry supports them with cash.

Well one reporter finally realized that the NRA is a membership organization, more than most other lobbying groups, and that advantage in membership, nearly 5 million strong, is what gives the NRA its edge. 

Adam Winker wrote in another article that gun control advocates stirred up the mistrust of gun owners:

Focusing on assault weapons played right into the hands of the NRA, which has for years been saying that Obama wanted to ban guns. Gun control advocates ridiculed that idea—then proposed to ban the most popular rifle in America.

To gun control advocates who may be reading this post: make no mistake about it. We absolutely do not trust you to deal wither honestly or fairly on this issue.  The contents of the Schumer background check bill confirms that your intent is to slowly eliminate legally owned firearms, and that was an loud wake-up call to gun owners everywhere.

Yes, the NRA has a lot of money to throw around. Both members and gun manufacturers contribute millions. I myself contributed money for the first time in my life to the NRA-ILA to help fight these bills. But Mayor Bloomberg spent even more pushing gun control in this Congress, and has got precious little to show for it.  

This victory belongs to the NRA, which, like the militia, is composed of people, the membership of the NRA.

The Brady Campaign PAC is Broke

I continue to be amazed that anyone takes the Brady Campaign seriously.  Bitter at Shall Not Be Questioned posts some hilariously satisfying data on the amount of money raised and on hand as reported by the Brady Campaign PAC.  They raised nothing in 2012, and had a whopping $2578 on hand at the end of 2012.

Heck of a war chest ya got there.

Meanwhile, liberal gun control fanatics wonder why the pro-rights people won on the S. 649 this week.  Bottom line: not enough people care about "common sense" gun laws to give a few bucks to the Brady Campaign.  Is perhaps because these "common sense" gun laws are simply unpopular?

How can that be?!

Nancy Pelosi Plays To Her Base

This article on Politico at first seemed to show Nancy Pelosi thinks we are all stupid, but I realized after reading the following, that she is only playing to her base:

Pelosi said voters should now focus their efforts on the House version of the Toomey-Manchin amendment introduced by Reps. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.). The bill calls for expanding checks for commercial gun purchases, including those made at gun shows.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/nancy-pelosi-gun-control-not-over-90278.html#ixzz2QqSNcctD

Come on Nancy! You are the Minority leader, not the Speaker, so how likely is it that your bill will pass the in the House? And if it does, it must go to the Senate for passge there, the same Senate that failed to pass background checks yesterday, and that today had the entire gun control bill (S. 649) pulled from the floor by Harry Reid.

Gun control is dead in this Congress, unless there is another mass shooting.  In which case, the usual suspects will jump up on a soap box filled with dead bodies to shout and bully for more laws that erode the 2nd Amendment.

Anti-Gun Narrative is Not Convincing The Public

It is an important part of the anti-gun narrative is the meme that guns in the home do not make you safer.  The Brady Campaign constantly emphasizes this in their "gun safety" campaign.  But there is evidence indicating that Americans are not buying the notion that guns are not the answer to home security.

A recent poll,commissioned by the Washington Post, posed the question

"Do you think having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be or a more dangerous place to be?"

The results to that question show that 51% of respondents think guns make the home a safer place, 29% of respondents think guns make the home more dangerous place, and 16% think that "it depends".  More surprising is that the trend is for an increasing number of people think that guns make the home safer. The anti-gun advocates are not making their case.

This, and other evidence, such as the increasing numbers of gun sales and increasing numbers of concealed carry permits, and the increasing numbers of women gun owners are indicative of a cultural change in this country, a shift that is in favor of gun rights, including the right to bear  arms in public.

When you read about and watch gun control advocates tearing their hair and gnashing their teeth bout how the NRA derailed gun control in the Senate, reflect on where the power that the NRA comes from: their 4 million plus members, and more indirectly, the many millions of non-member gun owners.

Calguns Call to Action!

Yesterday the Calguns.net forum issued a call to action for all Calgunners and California gun owners generally to resist efforts to pass SB 249 in the state legislature.

Why is this bill so important? Because it affects all owners of rifles equipped with bullet buttons, the device used to covert a CA illegal assault weapon into a CA legal semi-automatic rifle. The number of owners affected by this law number into the hundreds of thousands.

As stated in this press release by State Senator Leland Yee, the intent of SB 249 is to make the bullet button illegal:

Specifically, Yee’s bill will prohibit featured assault weapons with ammunition feeding devices that include but are not limited to magazines “that may be detached from the firearm by depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or bullet.” The bill will also direct the Attorney General’s office to develop new regulations regarding the definition of assault weapons.

The intent is clear: bullet buttons will be made illegal because Yee thinks that this is a loophole in the California Assault Weapon law, a position that the hypocritical Attorney General Kamala Harris now supports, despite her office going on the record in court filings deeming bullet button-eqquiped rifles to be legal:

“In recent years, the gun industry has developed a loophole that undermines California's assault weapons law,” said Harris. “I applaud the Legislature's interest in addressing this problem, and support efforts to pass legislation needed to restore the law's original intent. The Bureau of Firearms stands ready to prepare and implement regulations that will follow this clarifying legislation.”

To stop this bill we need all California gun owners to act. Using the information and guidelines in the above linked Calguns.net article, contact your representative today to voice your opposition to SB 249.

Diane Feinstein Fears Concealed Carry Reciprocity

This week, in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Senate Diane Feinstein (D – CA) described the reasons for her opposition to two concealed carry reciprocity bills currently in the Senate:

"Imagine that a man who has been convicted of a domestic violence crime against a woman he had been dating seeks — and obtains — a permit to carry a concealed firearm from his state of residence," she wrote. "Under the concealed carry reciprocity bills, he could legally travel across state lines and confront his former girlfriend ..."

Comments and articles decrying the apparent cluelessness of this scenario have sprouted up all over the blogosphere, many people incredulous over Feinsteins idiocy. First, Diane Feinstein is not an idiot.  She is actually very smart, and I am sure that she is familiar with the laws the result in one becoming a prohibited person for firearm possession: she wrote or sponsored many of them.

The above  statement is actually a cunning appeal to a certain class of voter, especially women, voters who are ignorant of gun laws and who will accept the scenario without questioning it.  Feinsteins real goal here is to head-off a California problem: the horror of people people from flyover country carrying concealed weapons in California.  What would happen if (or, more likely, when) people started carrying concealed weapons in California and no Wild West Shootouts happened? Would the people of California demand shall-issue or themselves?  What would happen nationally if California went shall-issue?  Is is just possible that entire debate over concealed carry would be over?

Take a look at two maps that illustrate the types of concealed carry permits systems adopted by the various states.  Here is one from 1992, the year Feinstein was elected to the Senate: 

and here is another from 2011, the last year that the status of a state changed. 

Quite a change, almost a complete reversal! Only Illinois among the fifty states still bars public carry of concealed weapons, and only California, New York, and a handful of Eastern states still have may-issue laws, laws that are often interpreted by authorities to result in de-facto no-issue, especially California, which has only  37465 current concealed weapons licenses. 


Diane Feinstein is well aware of these maps, and what they mean politically for gun control, an issue very near her heart, in which a handgun ban was highly desired:

 "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." -- 60 Minutes, Feb. 5, 1995.

What would happen to gun control as a political issue if California, one of the last great bastions limiting concealed carry (Illinois and New York being the other two) were to change from yellow to blue on the map?  I think Feinstein fears that gun control would be  truly dead.

Obama to Defy Spending Prohibitions

Hat tip to David Hardy at Arms And The Law.


President Obama in a signing statement has alluded to his intention to ignore budgetary prohibitions against spending for certain research projects that seek to justify increased gun control.


But David Hardy points out that spending money in ways not authorized by Congress is unconstitutional and illegal.


I wonder, if President Obama proceeds to spend money to fund the prohibited programs, breaking the law, who would enforce the law?  the "Justice" Department?  It is to laugh!

Joan Peterson Is Even More Stupid Than Usual Today

As can be seen in this post on her blog.


Other posts I have seen about the gun replica on a purse have rightly excoriated the stupidity of the TSA.  But for Joan, even a picture of a gun in public is alarming.  Please everyone, stop posting comments on her blog.  If we all ignore her, perhaps she will stop.

Violent Crime in U.K. - Proof That Gun Control Does Not Equal Crime Control

This 2009 article from the Daily Telegraph indicates that, far from the violence free utopia that gun control advocate would have us believe would result, violent crime has increased in recent years until  the U.K. is the most violent country in Europe:

"The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa."

 Clearly, largely eliminating firearms ownership has not helped prevent violent crime.  It is logical to assume that such policies would be equally fruitless in the United States.  The experiment in the U.K. shows that presence, or absence, of an object in society does not have an effect on complex social trends like violent crime.  Violent crime cannot be controlled by controlling guns, only by controlling criminals.

A Pretty Even-Handed article on Gun Control

And it was written by a student no less!  Appearing in City on the Hill Press, Locked and Loaded offers a very even handed exposition of the gun control issue.  I particularly liked this quote:

“I’m not anti-gun control,” said SCPD deputy police chief Clark. “Gun control does have its merits — it does stop some people from getting a hold of one. But we haven’t seen gun control stop gun violence.”

So what can stop gun violence?

“The question is deeper than that,” Clark said.

Clark said the solution “isn’t around gun control but community.”

Exactly.  If I could get one message out to all those knee-jerk gun control advocates, and really get them to believe it, this would be the one.  The article goes on to describe community programs in Santa Cruz country that  are attempting to quell gun violence without layering more gun control laws over those that have failed in the past.

Brits Obsess About U.S. Gun Laws

Over the years I have read many articles in The Guardian about or horrible fascination with guns in this country. I confess that I don't understand why the British should be so concerned about an internal issue of U.S. law and politics.  Our guns laws are our private affair, as their gun laws are theirs.

You sure as Hell don't see American commenting on the almost total gun ban that the U.K. has established, and how whacked out it seems to us.

After reading this posting, I have decided to not pay any more attention to U.K. opinion on U.S. gun laws.  I just don't give a shit that the Brits are so freaked out by out horrible, horrible gun laws. 

Fuck 'em.

Abthony Portantino on AB 144

Anthony Portantino, (D - La Cañada Flintridge) commenting in the Pasadena Weekly about AB 144, his bill to ban the open carry of firearms:

“It does not take anyone’s rights away for owning a weapon,” he said. “But what it does say is the needless display of automatic firearms on Main Street California does not really have a point other than making a political statement. And should we have weapons be a part of a political discussion?”

So, Mr. Portantino, when you disagree with an opponents political message, you feel that the proper response is to outlaw the message?  The  political conversation here is on the question the rights of citizens to be armed in their daily life, a right that is denied to Californians due to the arbitrary and capricious implementation of the CCW policies in this state. If AB 144 passes, then even Unloaded Open Carry will be denied to us.

And take note his use of "automatic firearms" intended to strike fear in people.  Nobody is open carrying automatic firearms.  They are semi-automatic firearms.

Martha Stewart's Daughter - Liberal Hypocrite

I have never seen it displayed better than the following comment made by Alexis Stewart, Martha Stewart's daughter in this New York Times article:

“I don’t believe people should be allowed to have guns in America,” Ms. Stewart, daughter of Martha, said in an interview, explaining that she bought a .357 Magnum after 9/11 — but would be happy to give it up if handguns were banned. “Having a swimming pool is way more dangerous than having a gun,” she added.

But you have a gun anyway Ms. Stewart, why is that?  Is it because your life is somehow more special, being Martha Stewart's daughter after all, so that you are an exception to your longed for gun prohibition?  Or do you want to shore up your liberal cred with your no-doubt liberal, sophisticated friends that will read this article now that you have been outed as a gun owner?

Hypocrite, either way.  If you "believe people should not be allowed to have guns in America" then you should give it up, even without a handgun ban.  If you don't give it up, then your actions seem to imply that you believe that the gun is potentially useful for personal defense, but you want to deny others that possibility.  At least have the stones to stand for what you believe in, either way, rather than use weasel words.

Alexis Stewart: liberal hypocrite.

"Carry" Not A Core Right, Yet

A recently introduced bill in the California State Assembly, AB 144, once again will attempt to outlaw open carry of unloaded firearms. But this bill is quite different from AB 1934 introduced last year. AB 1934 sought to eliminate holstered handguns as an exception to the concealed weapon law, making open carry of an unload holstered pistol the same as carrying a concealed weapon, requiring a California CCW permit. In retrospect this would have created problems for all kinds of occupations that are armed in public, like armored car guards.

AB 144, in contrast, makes the open carry of an unloaded handgun in a public place a crime, a misdemeanor punishable by one year in jail and a fine that cannot exceed $1000. To get around the problems that AB 1934 might have caused, AB 144 specifies a very long list of occupational exceptions, allowing a large number of people to open carry handguns. Only ordinary citizens and criminals are, theoretically, prohibited.

A reader of Left Coast Conservative, asked me if I knew about AB 144, and if I thought that its passage into law would help the Peruta v. County of San Diego prevail. Chris P wrote:

BTW, did you hear about the new attempt to ban open carry (California AB 144)? I think this is gonna get interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the open carry movement yet, but it was my understanding that the San Diego lawsuit regarding concealed carry had a lot to do with the open carry law. Anyway, I thought the ruling was that since California law allowed unloaded/open carry, self defense was not "good cause" to concealed carry. You think this will be significant? I'd like to hear your take on it.

This is, I think the part of the decision that gives Chris P his hopes that AB 144 might actually advance carry rights in California:

Accordingly, Defendant argues that concealed carry pursuant to Penal Code section 12050 is not the sole outlet for carrying a handgun for self defense. Defendant highlights other California provisions that permit unloaded open carry and loaded open carry if the individual is in immediate grave danger.

In other words, the Defendant's administration of the CCW policy is not subject to strict scrutiny because persons can avail themselves of other means to carry weapons for self defense. This inspires me to re-read the decision granting summary judgment to the defendant. What I found was this passage, on page 11:

Neither party has cited, and the Court is not aware of, a case in which a court has employed strict scrutiny to regulations that do not touch on the “core” Second Amendment right: possession in the home.9 If it exists, the right to carry a loaded handgun in public cannot be subject to a more rigorous level of judicial scrutiny than the “core right” to possess firearms in the home for self-defense. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2717 (focusing on the home as the place “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute”); McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting same). If anything, the opposite is true; unlike possession in the home, carrying a concealed firearm in public presents a “recognized threat to public order” and “poses an imminent threat to public safety.” People v. Yarbrough, 169 Cal. App. 4th 303, 313-14 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3105 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“firearms kept inside the home generally pose a lesser threat to public welfare as compared to firearms taken outside . . .”). At most, Defendant’s policy is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

So the first problem that Peruta has is that the judge does not recognize “carry” to be the core right protected by the 2^nd Amendment, so intermediate scrutiny is appropriate to judge the validity of the Defendant's policy. Once this is established the reasoning to grant the Defendant's motion is swift:

Accordingly, Defendant argues that concealed carry pursuant to Penal Code section 12050 is not the sole outlet for carrying a handgun for self defense. Defendant highlights other California provisions that permit unloaded open carry and loaded open carry if the individual is in immediate grave danger.

So, if AB144 is passed, the alternate means is no longer available, so that should open up the CCW policy for litigation, right? Perhaps not. Even though cases cited in Heller (State v. Chandler, Nunn v. State, Andrews v. State, State v. Reid), allowed concealed weapons bans because open carry was available, so the 2^nd Amendment right was not eliminated, passage and adoption of AB 144 will not eliminate the ability of citizens to carry weapons. CCW permits will still be available: apply and you may be issued a CCW permit.

Arbitrary and capricious administration of a CCW policy by a Sheriff will not be cited as unconstitutional until and unless “carry” is ruled to be a “core right” denoted by the 2^nd Amendment. Once “carry” is recognized as a core right, then AB 144 may be used to prevent arbitrary and capricious implementation of CCW policies in Califronia.

For more information about current litigation, please refer to the Calguns Foundation Litigation Past and Present page, your one-stop-shop for guns rights litigation information.

---

UPDATE 2/19/2011:

Maybe I am wrong about what effect passage of AB 144 might have on litigation to liberalize CCW policies.  Take a look at this passage from the Pasadena Weekly:

Here in California, where a bill to prohibit gun owners from publicly carrying unloaded weapons in plain sight is set for debate in the state Assembly, gun rights advocates also doubt that ability. They say the bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, would instead force jurisdictions to issue concealed weapons permits to practically all comers, given recent court rulings affirming the people’s right to bear arms.

“I’m not sure they appreciate the legal can of worms they are opening here,” said Chuck Michel, spokesman for the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

 If Chuck Michel thinks AB 144 might bust things open, I am inclined to take him at his word.