44,000 and Counting

The Anti-gun people must be looking at the news from Wisconsin and pulling out their hair in large clumps in frustration.  According to this story,  44,443 applications for concealed weapon permits have been received, 13,085 approved, and 12, 708 licenses issued to Wisconsin residents.


When was the last time that the Brady Campaign got even 1000 people interested in anything that they are doing?


If most of the 44,443 applications are approved, then the population of license holders is approaching 0.8% of the population.  Given the demand in other states, we can reasonably expect about 2%, or 113,000 people to hold CCW licenses in Wisconsin.


Does one need any better proof that pro-gun views are predominate in the United States?

HR 822 - Bill Passes House 272 to 154

HR 822, a bill that would mandate nation wide reciprocity of concealed carry permits, passed the House today in a bi-partisan vote.  It now advances to the Senate, where odds of passage are much less certain.  Also note that the margin of passage today in the House is not large enough to override a veto in the event this bill gets to the Presidents desk.

There is still a long way to go, and an uncertain chance of a good outcome.

HR 822 - Passed Committee

As reported by The Hill, and elsewhere, HR 822 successfully passed out of the House Judiciary committee and is clear to proceed to the House floor.  The sole Republican member voting against the bill was Rep. Dan Lundgren.  He voted against the bill because of states rights issues, and he had wished to amend the bill:

“I wanted to offer an amendment that the person be a resident of the state in order for the reciprocity imposed by federal law — in other words, a resident of the state that granted the permit,” Lungren said, noting that his concerns were not adequately addressed in committee.

 So, Rep. Lundgren favors a policy that would disarm people holding non-resident permits, as well as the vast majority of California citizens who are unable to obtain a license to carry given the restrictive issue policies of most sheriffs offices in this state.

Or perhaps he is just worried about a lot of "fly-over" states residents carrying in California?  Either way, Dan Lundgren is not a friend of gun rights in this state.  Perhaps the citizens of House District 3 need to remind him for whom he works.

As Read on Common Gunsense

Blogger gregorycamp had this to say in response to this post on Common Gunsense: 

This is your website, so you have the right to do with it as you choose. That being said, I'd like to see you be honest about your actual purpose here. What you want is to make pronouncements and have your audience sing along in a chorus of agreement. So be it. Just don't expect those of us on the other side to be fooled.

Or to continue to waste our time "debating" Joan Peterson.  I have stopped commenting on her posts because I know she and I will never agree.  The differences in world views and values are too profound for total agreement.

About the only things that Joan Peterson and I agree on, after some reflection on my part, is that all firearms transfers should involve a background check, and that a better job must be done to include mental health records in background checks.  I also think that training should be required for a license to carry a concealed weapon, and that training must include a qualification course of fire. Drug or alcohol use while armed should be prohibited, just as it is when operating automobiles.

As is the case now, one is always responsible for the use of the weapon in public, so everyone who carries a weapon must know when, and when not to use it.  However, a person who uses a weapon in an act of lawful self defense should be immune from civil lawsuits.

Other then that, if you are not a prohibited person, you're good to go.  No waiting periods to pick up a gun.  No purchase limits: 1 handgun per month. No weapon-type bans: police officers and citizens get to carry the same weapons.  No registration of weapons, no ammo restrictions, no micro-stamping, no rosters of supposedly safe weapons, unless the police are subject to the very same limits.

I would also limit the definition of sensitive places, and I would not allow private property owners to prohibit weapon carry if they offer sales of services or products to the public.   If schools are deemed to be sensitive, then that should apply to the school property itself, not to zones surrounding the property.

Does President Obama Have Dog?

Because he sure isn't getting any love from liberals.

This story mentions a bit about the attitudes of the Occupy Wall Street protesters:

"When Douglas Schoen, a Democratic pollster, sent an agent to Zuccotti Park, where the protests began, to make inquiries, he got back surprising data. Just 198 occupiers were polled, so this was hardly a scientific sampling, but an experienced pollster nevertheless is careful about whom he talks to. Just 48 percent said they will vote for Mr. Obama next year. Only about 15 percent are unemployed, and they clearly aren’t the downtrodden “99 percent” they claim they are. However, “We’re the 85 percent” wouldn’t make much of a message on a T-shirt."

President Obama is in real trouble if these people are not solidly behind his re-election.

Long Gun Open Carry Event Today

The event will be held at the Bayfair Mall, in San Leandro, from 12 noon to 1 PM today.  Any and all California legal long guns are allowed.  SFGate has an article about the event here:

"The point is to be provocative enough to spur action by the courts or legislators to repeal the new law and restore the right to pack unloaded pistols in the open."

I am sure that they will be provocative, but what they provoke is likely to be a new law banning open carry of long guns.  Any new law could very well be poorly crafted and a huge burden on lawful gun owners, but it seems the open carry advocates are not going to stand down.

Oh, well.

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

Here is a comment I posted on the SFGate site:

"The people holding the event are not gun nuts, they are rights nuts.

Let me explain.

These people believe, as I do, that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the individual to be armed for self defense, both in the home, and in public.  So far, the Supreme Court has validated the "in the home" part of that view, but has not yet affirmed the "in public" part.

Meanwhile, about 40 states in the United States allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons in public legally, after satisfying objective criteria.  However California is not one of these states.  While California does have a concealed weapon law, licenses to carry are very rarely issued in urban counties where the need to be armed is greatest.  In Santa Clara county, only 55 licenses to carry are currently issued to civilians.

The Open Carry movement uses open carry events to protest the current state of the California laws governing law carry of arms in public - laws that almost totally prevent a citizen from carrying weapons openly or concealed, laws which therefore deny thhe exercise of 2nd Amendment rights.

The Open Carry advocates do not want to carry weapons in a way that alarms the public, but the public has not afforded the citizen any other way to carry, and the public prevents effective self-defense by tolerating restrictive laws.  Many comments to this article have mentioned that unloaded guns are useless for self defense, and have wondered why these Open Carry advocates do not conceal their weapons.  The reason is that Open Carry advocates believe in following the law, and not open carry of unloaded long guns is all that is allowed.

This event is a protest, intended to illustrate the stupidity of the current California laws concerning bearing arms in public.  One solution to this situation would be to reform California laws by adopting a shall-issue license to carry system.  Other states do it without many problems, California could as well.  Once this state was a social trend setter, but now it has fallen behind the rest of the nation.

Time for us to catch up."

New Page - Roster of Handguns Uncertified for Sale

I have created a new page for Left Coast: a roster of new handguns that are not certified for sale in California, usually because they are pistols that lack a magazine disconnect.  This page, available here, will be updated as I get time and learn about new handgun models.  Your submissions will also be welcome and added to the page.