Call me Ahab

posted by Caleb on Apr 30

Hot news from NSSF:

NEWTOWN, Conn. — Today, a Manhattan-based federal appeals court ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against firearms manufacturers by the City of New York that sought to hold the manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms.

Judge Robert J. Miner, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals, held the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, enacted in 2005, is constitutional and that Brooklyn, NY, federal court judge Jack B. Weinstein misinterpreted the law by not dismissing the case.

 “We think Congress clearly intended to protect from vicarious liability members of the firearms industry who engage in the ‘lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale’ of firearms,” said Judge Miner.

In dismissing the city’s claim that its suit fit within an exception to the act – a claim that would allow its case to go forward – the court wrote that the statute was “intended to shield the firearms industry from the vicarious liability for harm caused by firearms that were lawfully distributed into primary markets.”

Following the ruling by the court, Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the firearms industry’s trade association – said, “Today’s ruling is very gratifying to members of the firearms industry. In passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congress understood that frivolous lawsuits like New York City’s defied common sense and represented a clear abuse of the judicial system that threatened to bankrupt a responsible and law-abiding industry.”

The city’s lawsuit against the nation’s firearms manufacturers was originally filed by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in June 2000 and was continued by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  Mayor Bloomberg is also suing out-of-state firearms retailers. That case will go to trial later this month before Judge Weinstein.

Today’s ruling is seen by many as another major setback for gun-control groups, principally the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which pursued and funded many of the municipal lawsuits, including this New York City case, against the firearms industry.

Big victory for gun owners, gun shops, and gun manufacturers.  I believe this is the first decision where the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act has been used to dismiss a case in favor of the shooting sports industry.

posted by Caleb on Apr 30

HB 68 has been introduced in the Louisiana house - the text of the bill would make it one of the most draconian gun bans this side of of Washington DC.  Here is a partial list of firearms which would banned under HB 68:

Center Fire Rifles: Benelli R1; Browning BAR, Mark II Safari autoloaders, Browning Pump Rifle; Colt, Armalite, Les Baer, etc. Match Rifles; DSA Model SA58; Fabrique Nationale FAL; Harrington and Richardson Models 340, 360; H&K 770, 2000, SL6, SR9, 300, 630, 91, 93; Marlin Camp Carbine, Model 992; Mitchell Model LW-9; M-1 Carbine, all makes and models; Reising Model 60; Remington 7400, 740, 74, 4, 8 semi-autos; Remington Model 7600, 760 pump-actions; Ruger Deerfield, Mini-14, Ranch Rifle, Mini-30; Springfield M1A, Match, Super Match, SAR-48, SAR-4800, SAR-8; Valmet Hunter; Winchester Models 100, 1905, 1907, 1910; .22 Rimfire Rifles AMT Hunter; Anschutz Model 525 Deluxe; Armscorp Model 20C; AR-7 Explorer and Henry U.S.; Beretta Neos; Browning Buckmark; Charles Daly Field Grade, Superior Grade; CZ Model 511, 611; Daisy Models 2203, 2213; Harrington and Richardson Model 700; Ithaca X5-C, X15; Iver Johnson Trailblazer; Mauser Model 105; Mossberg Models 152, 350, 352; Reising Leatherneck; Remington Models 597, Nylon 77, 522; Ruger 10/22; Savage Models 64, 7, 1903, 1909; Marlin Models 522, 7000, 795, 795SS, 70; Thompson/Center Classic Benchmark; Weatherby Mark XXII; Winchester Models 77, 490.

This ban would include pump-action rifles on the list of banned weapons, and would extend to .22 rimfire rifles as well.  Do you like your 10/22?  Tough beans, Cedric Richmond thinks it’s an assault weapon.

I pulled this link from NRA-ILA, where they also have all the contact information for your state reps in Louisiana.  Call and email them now - make it clear that you do not support HB 68.

Note: All State Representatives can be reached during the week in Baton Rouge at (225) 342-6945 

House Administration of Criminal Justice Committee: 

Chairman Ernest Wooton (R-Belle Chasse)
larep105@legis.state.la.us
District Office: (504) 393-5649

Vice-Chairman Damon Baldone (D-Houma)
larep053@legis.state.la.us
District Office: (985) 876-8872

State Representative Roy Burrell (D-Shreveport)
larep002@legis.state.la.us
District Office: (318) 676-7137

State Representative Don Cazayoux (D-New Roads)
larep18@legis.state.la.us
District Office: (225) 638-8725

State Representative Elbert Guillory (D-Opelousas)
larep040@legis.state.la.us
District Office: (337) 943-2457

State Representative Mickey Guillory (D-Eunice)
larep041@legis.state.la.us
District Office: (337) 457-0194

State Representative Chris Hazel (R-Pineville)
hazelc@legis.state.la.us
District Office: (318) 767-6082

State Representative Frankie Howard (R-Many)
howardf@legis.state.la.us
District Office: (318) 256-4135

State Representative Joseph Lopinto (R-Metairie)
lopintoj@legis.state.l.aus
District Office (504) 456-3806

State Representative Nick Lorusso (R-New Orleans)
larep094@legis.state.la.us
District Office (504) 483-4711

State Representative Barbara Norton (D-Baton Rouge)
nortonb@legis.state.la.us
District Office (225) 342-6945

State Representative John Schroder (R-Covington)
schrodej@legis.state.la.us
District Office (985) 893-7272

State Representative Gary Smith (D-Norco)
larep56@legis.state.la.us
District Office (985) 764-9122

State Representative Ricky Templet (R-Gretna)
templetr@legis.state.la.us
District Office (504) 361-6013

State Representative Bodi White (R)
larep064@legis.state.la.us
District Office (225) 791-2199

posted by Caleb on Apr 30

This banner ad was emailed to me by a reader - he was surfing about.com for info on .380 vs. 9mm (get the 9mm - ed) and was sort of tickled by the odd appearance of what we’re calling a Barack Obanner ad.

As always, click to enlarge.

Now, I know that the Obama campaign doesn’t control where their ads on About.com pop up, which is precisely why we found this so funny, because in the context of the article and Barack’s stance on self-defense, it just tickled the old funny bone.

posted by Caleb on Apr 30

Because according to the sergeant that deals with the press, they can tell what the caliber and make of a rifle is just by the sound.

Castano says judging by the noise of the weapon, the gun was likely an assault rifle.

…

He could not confirm media reports the weapon was an AK-47

So was it an assault rifle or wasn’t it?  Now, I’m mostly kidding around with the LA County Sheriff’s Office here, because I’m pretty strongly biased in their favor - but come on, I’ve heard loads of AKs being fired and I couldn’t tell the difference between the sound of an AK, an SKS, or a bolt rifle chambered in 7.62×39.

Making statements like that to the press just feeds the assault rifle fervor - just look at the title of the linked article.

posted by Caleb on Apr 29

So, I am going to buy a gun for pin shooting, but because I’m kind of anal retentive, I want it to be a gun that can pull double duty doing other things.

I’m leaning towards getting a .40 S&W, even though I promised myself I’d never get a .40, it seems like a pretty good choice. If a 158 grain .357 round at 1200 fps will clear pins off a table, shouldn’t a 165 grain .40 at 1100 fps or a 180 grain round at 1000 fps clean the tables right up?

The best part about this is that it gives me a semi-legitimate reason to buy another Beretta auto-chucker, and since I can get a 96D police trade-in for dirt cheap, I might actually be able to justify the purchase to Mrs. Ahab.  An additional side benefit is that .40 S&W ammo is almost as cheap as 9mm ammo.

I know some of my readers (I’m looking at you, Mr. Completely) are dedicated pin shooters, so are there any thoughts on using the .40 S&W for pins?

posted by Caleb on Apr 29

With the upcoming decision in the Heller case, Sebastian is talking about what standard of interpretation we should be prepared to accept or should be pushing for on the 2nd Amendment.

I wanted to note that what I’m speaking of is not what interpretation of the second amendment is most correct historically, but which interpretations protect the widest array of firearms that the federal judiciary would adopt. Note that there is no way the federal judiciary is going to accept a standard that laws regulating any kind of arm is by default unconstitutional.  There will be lines drawn with certain classes of arms being protected, and certain classes not being protected.

The standard that he proposes is one that would set the limit as “general police use”, i.e. if a firearm is considered acceptable for use by the police in their duties, than it should be equally acceptable for a law-abiding citizen.  I also like his three point plan for determining what defines a firearm as acceptable for a law-abiding citizen:

1. Is the arm usable for personal self-defense, or
2. It has a function in the preservation of or practicing skill at arms, and
3. It is of a type or functional variant of a firearm in common police or civilian use.

Using those three standards, you ensure that it would protect all the guns we current have, as well as protecting high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles which are banned in some jurisdictions.

I know that it’s not “shall not be infriiiiiiiinged”, but the reality of the situation is that even with an individual rights decision from the Supreme Court, some gun control is still going to be inevitable.  Where we can win and gain ground will be determined by how and what we push for in the wake of a possible individual rights decision.

posted by Caleb on Apr 29

Yesterday I had sent Dr. McGoff a letter asking his campaign to clarify his position on the 2nd Amendment, to this date I’ve haven’t yet received a response.  However, a little digging into his background has produced some detailed information on his association with anti-gun groups.  If you recall from yesterday’s post, Dr. McGoff is challenging incumbent Dan Burton for the Republican nomination for the 5th District Congressional seat.

Dan Burton has been a friend to Indiana gun owners, and gun owners across the United States as well; while Dr. McGoff claims to support the right to keep and bear arms, his record speaks otherwise.  As I mentioned yesterday, Dr. McGoff has significant ties to anti-gun groups, groups that I’m sure would love to turn Indiana’s gun laws into something that resembles the mishmash in Illinois.

On his bio, Dr. John McGoff claims that he was involved with the Indiana Partnership to Prevent Firearm Violence from 2000-2004; the Partnership currently operates under the name Indiana Partnership to Prevent Violent Injury and Death.  Back in 1999, the Partnership was founded by Indianapolis area doctors, who were “concerned” about the “epidemic” of gun violence.  The initial grant to found the partnership came from none other than our old buddies and funders of anti-gun astroturf nationwide: The Joyce Foundation, to the tune of half a million dollars a year.

In 2003 and 2004, the Indiana Partnership solidified their chops as anti-gun group, first by accusing the firearms industry of not being willing to “help firearms out of the hands of criminals”, and then in 2004 by joining forces with none other than the Brady Campaign to oppose the Indiana House Bill which granted legal immunity to Indiana gun owners if their firearms were stolen and used in a criminal act (this bill did in fact pass - ed).

The Partnership, like many other Joyce funded groups, also has a habit of commissioning “surveys” using questionable sampling techniques to produce meaningless results which they then tout as “popular support” for their proposed restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

In 2005, the Partnership changed their name, removing the “Firearm Violence” in favor of “Violent Death and Injury”.  I can speculate lots of reasons as to why that change was made, foremost being that gun control has long been a losing ballgame in Indiana and they might have been tired of getting creamed.  However, it’s pretty clear that their agenda hasn’t changed, as in that same year they received another grant from the Joyce Foundation; this time to cover all their operating expenses for a year.

If you go to the Partnership’s website check out their list of people on the “advisory board”, about 3/4 down the list you’ll find none other than Marian Towne, of Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence, which is yet another local anti-gun group.

The Indiana Partnership to Prevent Violent Injury and Death seems to be pretty firmly established as an anti-gun group masquerading as a public health group.  Firearms violence isn’t a public health issue, it’s a law enforcement issue and should be handled as such.  Dr. John McCoff’s involvement with this group brings tremendous questions to light about his actual support for the 2nd Amendment.

There are no questions about Dan Burton’s support for the 2nd Amendment, at least to me.  I was going to vote in the Democratic primary in an effort to torpedo Barack the Hopemonger; however it’s more important to me to support a candidate who is going to represent our right to keep and bear arms in Washington.

If you’re a 5th district voter (and I know I have some that read here), make sure you get out on May 6th and vote for Dan Burton in the Republican primary.  The last thing we need right now with the possibility of a Hillary or Obama presidency is to lose a pro-gun Congressman.  It’s also kind of pleasant that I have been able to find something to vote for in this primary that I actually believe in.

posted by Caleb on Apr 28

During all the coverage of the Democrat presidential primary, I’ve neglected to mention a Republican primary race that could have serious ramifications for Indiana gun owners; namely the 5th Congressional District Primary race.

The incumbent, Dan Burton is being challenged in the primary by Dr. John McGoff - Dan Burton has received an “A” rating from NRA, and has an excellent track record of voting for bills which would protect and expand the right to keep and bear arms.

According NRA-ILA, Dr. Goff has/is a member of Indiana Partnership to Prevent Firearm Violence, which is a local anti-gun group with ties to the Brady Campaign. This doesn’t exactly square well with Dr. Goff’s stated position of “protecting” the 2nd Amendment.

NRA has endorsed Dan Burton in the primary, and I agree with that endorsement. I sent a friendly email to the campaign of Dr. Goff asking for clarification on his position on the right to keep and bear arms with respect to his involvement in an anti-gun organization. I’ll keep you posted on any kind of response.

Right now, I encourage residents of the 5th Congressional district who are concerned about their right to keep and bear arms to vote for Rep. Burton on the May 6th primary. I’ll note that if your polling place is the church right off of Brooks School Road, I’ll be there early in the morning to be casting my vote.

Update: NRA-PVF has press release out with a quote from Chris Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA:

“Dan Burton has a perfect pro-gun voting record in Congress, and as a Life Member of NRA, he is a great friend to gun owners in Indiana…The choice is clear. Congressman Dan Burton’s votes and actions have earned the trust and support of NRA members in Indiana. We encourage our members and fellow hunters and shooters to vote Dan Burton for Congress on Tuesday, May 6th.”

posted by Caleb on Apr 28

According to Breda, that is.

but I just don’t get the H&K hype, or the price that goes along with it. I’m thinking it’s the firearms equivalent of buying a Prada handbag. I’m just not impressed by name brands.

Que legions of raving fanboys in 3…2…1…there they go.  But seriously, I don’t get the HK hype either; and I actually own “real guns”.  I guess I’ve always figured that it doesn’t matter what the name on the slide of pistol said as long as when you pointed it downrange it went “bang” when you pressed the trigger, every time.

Anything beyond functional reliability is just an issue of ergonomics for the end user - that individual shooter deciding what feels good to them when they’re running their gun.

posted by Caleb on Apr 28

In this interview in the Sun-Times, Obama says that he supports the right to bear arms, but only if that right is essentially meaningless.

My view continues to be that the constitution, I believe, does provide a right to bear arms; but that local communities, and state governments, as well as the federal government, have a right to common-sense regulations and firearm ownership [rules.]

And since his voting record on guns has pretty aptly demonstrated what he thinks “reasonable restrictions” and “common-sense regulations” are, that pretty much tells me everything that I need to know about Obama on guns.  Thankfully, he rounds it out for me by tossing the “gun show loophole” and Tiarhrt Amendment out there as well.

I’ve said before we should have a much tougher background check system, one that’s much more effective and make sure there aren’t loopholes out there like the gun show loophole. [Or] The Tiahart Amendment [requiring destruction of gun-purchase records.] Here’s an example of something common-sense: The ATF [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] should be able to share info with local communities about where guns are coming from, tracing guns that are used in criminal activity. It’s been blocked consistently in Congress.

Ah, the gun show loophole.  Every anti-gunner’s new favorite saw, because apparently they thing it’s something they can get “closed”, likely because a lot of people are ignorant of what it is and how it works.  And then there’s the Tiahrt Amendment, which prevents gun data from going to private entities, or being used to create a de facto gun registry.  There is nothing in Tiahrt that prevents the BATFE from sharing crime gun data with local police departments and other law enforcement agencies.  The Tiahrt Amendment was supported by BATFE, the Fraternal Order of Police, and many state and local law enforcement organizations.  Do you think they would have done that if it would have interfered with their ability to do the job?

Obama’s record on guns should be troubling enough that any pro-gun liberal should think twice about voting for him - and Hillary should be right out as well.  The thing about Obama is that people are inclined to give him a pass on some issues because he’s a newcomer to Washington; unfortunately his record and words do speak for themselves.  I entreat any pro-gun liberals who read here to think strongly about how much you value your right to keep and bear arms, and if “defeating” the eeeeeeviiiill Republicans is really worth that.