UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: THE HIDDEN COSTS OF “GUN CONTROL”

Amen!!!!!!

CO Governor Hickenlooper: Gun Ban Bills Won’t Hurt Me

Posted on March 5, 2013

According to this report, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has stopped hemming and hawing about whether or not he’ll sign the magazine capacity bill. The Hickster says he’s gonna do it to limit lawful gun owners’ ability to shoot deadly assailants. Or maybe it was something about criminals. Anyway, Mapgpul execs are busy packing both heat and boxes, ready to move to somewhere where their standard capacity mags and mag-making machinery are more welcome than Sandra Scholz at a Playboy crayfish festival. Hickenlooper understands the economic fallout but reckons the loss of 200 jobs won’t hurt his political career. So that’s that then.

Firearms and ammunition manufacturers need to get out of New England at the earliest opportunity! The electorate is divided, the country is divided and it’s time to stop pretending common sense might eventually prevail.

Libtards

As a social scientist, this is a major issue regarding a lot of public policymaking. Predicting second and third level interactions becomes extremely difficult. For example, the first level would be increasing the level of potential criminals violating NY’s strict magazine law. The second level would be how many of these productive citizens and manufacturers will leave and take their money and jobs elsewhere. The third level might be perception by potential criminals that the risk of being shot by potential victims is now much less in New York–thus crime levels go up. Social scientists have a decent track record at recognizing first level effects but are much worse at predicting unintended consequences of bad policy.

In simple terms, for those of you who reload, increasing or decreasing one variable such as the grains of powder in your charge for a cartridge gives you some meaningful insight in predicting how the new charge in grains of powder will react. However, if you substitute another powder, change the weight of the bullet, change the primer to magnum, and then change the grains of powder, predicting the results of this multivariate equation becomes an extremely complex problem and difficult to predict.

The economic consequences of gun control are, or course, only a small part of the picture. I suspect that it would take generations to fully understand the consequences in terms of lost freedom and personal safety that these gun control measures will cause.

I live about an hour away from Ilion and, as far as I’m aware, the Remington plant is the lifeblood of the village. According to Wikipedia, Ilion has a population of about 8,000, so it’s a safe bet that the only non-Remington jobs in the area serve and are paid for by the Remington employees.

The nearest city is Utica, about ten miles away. It is also one of the most economically depressed cities in upstate NY. Loss of the Remington plant will have a ripple effect throughout central NY. None of the cities in this area can afford to lose more jobs.

Of course, The NYC politicians that run this state have proven again and again that they don’t care what happens to upstate NY.

Feinstein: Veterans All Have PTSD And Are Crazy, so Shouldn’t Own Modern Rifles

Posted on March 7, 2013

The Judiciary Committee is meeting today to mark-up the various civilian disarmament bills before the Senate. One of the bills in the frame: Senator Feinstein’s ”Assault Weapons Ban.” Readers watching the proceedings online tell TTAG that a proposed amendment would allow veterans to keep buying their “assault weapons” just like retired cops. Senator Feinstein opposed the amendment on the basis that veterans have PTSD and can’t be trusted with guns. Here’s her exact words:

THE PROBLEM WITH EXPANDING THIS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE ADVENT OF PTSD, WHICH I THINK IS A NEW PHENOMENON AS A PRODUCT OF THE IRAQ WAR, IT’S NOT CLEAR HOW THE SELLER OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM COVERED BY THIS BILL WOULD VERIFY THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WAS A MEMBER OR VETERAN AND THERE WAS NO IMPAIRMENT OF THAT INDIVIDUAL WITH RESPECT TO HAVING A WEAPON LIKE THIS.

[…]

I THINK WE HAVE TO — IF YOU’RE GOING TO DO THIS, FIND A WAY THAT VETERANS WHO ARE INCAPACITATED FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER MENTALLY, DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO THIS KIND OF WEAPON.

These are the same veterans we hand fully automatic machine guns to on a regular basis and send into battle. Feinstein considers them too crazy to own an AR-style rifle back home in the United States. Imagine that. Cspan vidoe of
Senator Feinstein’s exact words. http://www.cspanvideo.org/program/311364-1

How do these idiots keep getting elected and re-elected?

With theses type of politicians staying in office there will never be trust or peace in the USA ever..The line in the sand has been crossed and no legislation or court will smooth it over ever again… soon the 2 nd must be defended with force…as the arrogance of the rulers demands…the time for talking is nearing an end…natural rights are not negotiable with anybody ,especially traitorous politicians

Funny that all of the political stupidity gives me a brain ache. A nice afternoon at the range, whether with a modern sporting weapon or a selection of rimfire rifles and handguns, would help my attitude greatly!

I live in MA, so all hope is practically lost, but I have written reps and manufacturers alike. One aspect that I can’t get my head around is why the NRA supports mandatory liability insurance.
Any explanations here?

New York State “Accidentally” Bans Pump Action Shotguns

Posted on March 7, 2013

I was talking with the guys behind the NY SAFE Act legal challenge and the one thing that struck me as something no one realizes yet is that the “assault weapons ban” provisions aren’t the section of the law that is “taking your guns.” No, the real trouble is with the magazine capacity restrictions. Because by banning all guns that can accept more than seven rounds, New York State has accidentally banned all of the most popular pump action shotguns. And since no one has really realized the implications of that magazine restriction, I figured it deserved to be explained in its own article.

[The following is based on my conversation with John Tresmond, a Buffalo lawyer who is currently spearheading two lawsuits against New York State for the SAFE Act.]

The way the SAFE Act was structured, it edited multiple sections of the NY legal code in a way where one section didn’t necessarily apply to other sections. So while there was a specific exemption for pump action shotguns and other manual firearms in the “assault weapons” section, according to the lawyers I spoke to it didn’t apply to the magazine capacity restriction section. So, for that section, pump guns are fair game.

That section of the law specifically makes all firearms “capable of accepting” more than seven rounds illegal in the state of New York. While it would appear that this doesn’t apply to shotguns we typically think of as five round guns, the reality is that because the “shorter” 1.75 inch shells are commercially available, the reality is that according to the law those guns are technically 8+ round guns (I’ve personally fit 10 such rounds in my bone stock Remington 870).

This isn’t a problem that can easily be fixed, either. Remington and Mossberg designed their guns with a permanent magazine tube which is integral to the gun. There’s no way to easily modify the firearms to only take five of the smaller rounds.

Even if modified with a smaller magazine, the issue becomes one of the availability of magazine extension tubes. The law talks about a ban on magazines that can be “readily converted” to take more than 10 rounds, and since magazine extension tubes are readily available on the market every single tube fed shotgun applies under the new law.

So, because of the magazine design on the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 shotguns, New York State has accidentally banned them. Good job, New York.

I propose a mental competency test for all potential Florida state senators…

Those companies are welcome in Michigan! We love guns here! (Except for a few nut jobs of course.)

Get with the times people…I left NJ in 1990 and have never looked back for this VERY REASON and you are complaining now???!! I even refuse to step foot in the state now, we meet the inlaws in VA to hand over the kids once a year for a month of vacation…NJ will not get one single penny from me. As far as this dude, so,etching is not right. If he has an office in Cherry Hill hiring people would not be an issue if it was such a deal people could live in PA and would,live in PA probably anyway due to taxes and commute. Something else is up…or a lot of other people feel like me and just refuse to step foot in the state 🙂 “Thank you for your support” LOL

wg – in a complex system, with many variables – and many changes in those variables – you’re only going to be able to make a generalization; observe or predict, perhaps, a “critical mass”.

But that’s only when there is no manipulation along the way; no guidance toward a specific outcome. That’s an “all things being equal” situation… and of course, in reality, there’s a hierarchy to the importance (and the motivational power) of policy, propaganda/marketing, and herd behavior.

NRA might support liability insurance if the NRA sells, or brokers insurance for gun owners. Requiring liability insurance is just another scheme to register legal gun owners.

Is there an exemption for revolvers in the NY law? I only ask because I know that Taurus and Smith & Wesson make .44 frame revolvers chambered for eight rounds of .357 Magnum.

Just when you thought it was safe…

ECS

I’ve not heard anything about NRA support for “mandatory liability insurance.”
It sounds like an unfounded rumor that got started and is now smowballing. Where is this in writing?

Richard,

My understanding of the NY magazine law is that you can have a ten-round magazine, but you can only put seven rounds in it. I heard this from Sean Hannity on WABC radio. He lives on Long Island and has a license to carry. He was referring to handguns, not shotguns or rifles.

There was an news article about how Maryland was reworking their law “as far as we can” to try to accomodate Beretta. Beretta still isn’t happy and hasn’t been shy about reminding Maryland exactly how much tax money they’ve paid out. Something around 31 million dollars. The problem is that the politicians don’t really believe they’ll move and that they don’t fully appreciate what that loss of income means. The 31 mil is just the most readily apparent because it’s the direct payments from Beretta. Then there’s the support losses.

The stupid NYSafe law grandfathers 10 round mags here now. Starting in April only 7 round mags can be sold. If you have a 10 round mag you can load it with 10 on range or at home. Otherwise it is a felony to walk around with more than 7 rounds in mag. Plus there is no exception for cops. Morons wrote this moronic law with moronic provisions. But like they say, you get the govt you deserve.

I plan to retire from aerospace in Fall of 2014. Looks like I will be able have a 2nd career in the Firearms Industry in a state where I can stand to live. Since I have 2 degrees in Gunsmithing and over 25 years as a Manufacturing Engineering Planner for military and civilian aviation some of these newly relocated companies may consider hiring me. Good on ’em. I can just hear the Progs whining about how eee-vil it is to use economic warfare on the Liberal Leviathan, and my glee is great. To all the unfortunates who lose their jobs: stop voting for Democrats.

Guntotin mama,
I agree with your response. What my poorly made point was, even without a multivariate model, I can predict that a state that outlaws the sale of magazines will be probably lose manufacturers of that magazine. However, what happens as far as total job loss becomes difficult to predict because of the large number of variables and economic decisionmakers that respond to that new policy. My guess is that Colorado will lose a significant amount of gun related manufacturers and Dems will lose some seats in the legislature in 2014.

Most public policy issues are like an onion because one cannot predict multiple levels very well. Even using tools with hierarchical linear modeling, the responses may not be linear (ie bandwagon effects). Same thing with resistance to new gun laws–a small number of intensely committed activists can often stymie action by a large number of opponents who are not that committed to the issue. That is why gun control advocates always raise the stakes to gun owners being an existential threat to peoples’ lives and why gun owners’ should reply in kind that guns save lives and criminals are the real existential threat. Talking logically about the 2nd Amendment doesn’t reach those who think in emotional terms about fear and risk. A lot of people are willing to trade off their freedoms if they can be persuaded that it will cut down on their risk of dying.

Feinstein: “It’s Legal to Hunt Humans”
Posted on March 9, 2013
This one’s gone viral, ‘natch: Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assertion that it’s legal to hunt humans with high capacity (i.e. standard capacity) ammunition magazines. Har-har. But seriously folks, where’s the scientific study that establishes a connection between magazine capacity and lethality and/or the chances of mid-incident intervention? If we’re relying on anecdotal evidence, Aurora madman James Holmes’ 100-round magazine jammed, forcing him to switch to a second weapon, opening the window of opportunity Ms. Feinstein was prattling on about. If Holmes had had a lower capacity, more reliable mag, he could have swapped mags in seconds and continued the carnage. In short, Democrats disarming civilians based on baseless conjecture, stripping Americans of their Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. Whose hunting whom here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypHaYAv_EEw&feature=player_embedded

Feinstein: “It’s Legal to Hunt Humans”

Posted on March 9, 2013 by Robert Farago
This one’s gone viral, ‘natch: Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assertion that it’s legal to hunt humans with high capacity (i.e. standard capacity) ammunition magazines. Har-har. But seriously folks, where’s the scientific study that establishes a connection between magazine capacity and lethality and/or the chances of mid-incident intervention? If we’re relying on anecdotal evidence, Aurora madman James Holmes’ 100-round magazine jammed, forcing him to switch to a second weapon, opening the window of opportunity Ms. Feinstein was prattling on about. If Holmes had had a lower capacity, more reliable mag, he could have swapped mags in seconds and continued the carnage. In short, Democrats disarming civilians based on baseless conjecture, stripping Americans of their Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. Whose hunting whom here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypHaYAv_EEw&feature=player_embedded

Interview with James Tresmond, Lawyer Behind NY SAFE Act Challenge

Posted on March 7, 2013
On January 15th, 2013 New York State passed the SAFE Act without a single legislator reading the document first. The act modified a number of existing laws, expanding some and creating new penalties in others. And it created the most hostile environment to gun owners in the entire United States. Days after the act passed, James Tresmond filed a number of lawsuits challenging the newly expanded laws. TTAG had the chance to interview Mr. Tresmond and his son Max (a legal researcher) and get some inside information about the cases . . .

As Max said, “The SAFE Act is not really one law, and that’s what’s so difficult for people to understand. It came down like an omnibus bill.” While the SAFE Act was one bill, instead of creating a new section in the penal code it simply updated existing sections of the criminal procedure law, the penal law, the mental hygiene law and others.

The biggest of those changes is in the penal law, where the requirement was added for law abiding citizens to register their firearms with the police, and the new penalty for ownership of standard capacity magazines. According to James, “what it does is ban ‘large capacity ammunition feeding devices’ which are magazines that accept more than 10 rounds, and prohibits the sale of these, prohibits the sale or transfer of ‘assault rifles,’ and prohibits the sale of guns that hold in excess of seven rounds.”

The sticky wicket here is that while it would appear that the magazine capacity only applies to semi-automatic guns, in reality the prohibition on magazines that can accept more than seven rounds applies to every kind of firearm. “The problem with this law” according to Max “is that it is over broad, in so far as it outlaws the sale or transfer of commonly owned pump action shotguns.” That includes the bone-stock Remington 870 or Mossberg 500 pump action shotgun, which has a permanently attached tube magazine that can accept more than seven 1.75 inch mini-shells. The ability to accept more than seven rounds means that the shotgun is now illegal for sale in New York State.

“The law also bans any such magazine that could be readily converted to accept more than 10 rounds, which is virtually any shotgun with a magazine extension tube [available for sale].” In fact, the term “readily converted” could be taken to include drop-in magazine conversion kits for the Remington 700, the most popular hunting rifle in the world.

Since the magazine ban is separate from the AWB, as such the pump action exemption doesn’t apply. “They say that the law wasn’t intended to affect pump action shotguns. It does.”

That’s their first angle of attack. The law restricts citizen’s ability to purchase commonly used and owned firearms, which is exactly the same central point as the Heller and McDonald decisions settled not too long ago. As Supreme Court Justice Scalia put it, common firearms cannot be banned. And the effect of both the New York “assault weapons” ban and the magazine capacity ban is that the most common firearms available on the market are in effect being banned by the State of New York.

Thanks to Heller and McDonald, the right to bear arms outside the confines of militia membership is an established fundamental right. So the idea that guns are only for militia members has once and for all been thrown out, thanks to the Supreme Court. But it also means that any law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms needs to meet the requirements for “strict scrutiny” — namely that the law is narrowly defined, has a compelling government interest, and is the least restrictive means of meeting that government interest. And according to Tresmond, the law meets none of those requirements.

The good news for gun owners is that Tresmond isn’t just challenging the SAFE Act extension of the AWB, but the entire premise of the law. So, if all goes well, the Empire State will soon see a flood of flash suppressors and pistol grips right along with standard AR-15 rifles as sold everywhere else in the United States.

As for the magazine restriction, it looks like the 7 round prohibition is the Achilles heel of the whole thing. There’s a shortcut in the New York legal proceedings that allows the court to issue an injunction for laws that are arbitrary, and since no one in the entire world has done any research on magazine capacity and mass shootings (much less a cost benefit analysis for magazine size) the number they chose was indeed completely arbitrary. There’s no getting around that fact, and thanks to the 7 round limit it looks like the injunction on magazine restrictions (at least) is a done deal.

Going forward, the intent is to challenge the magazine restrictions based on the fact that the constitution requires that seizure of citizen’s property must either be compensated or be for the use of the state. Since the magazines are required to be either sold (not for the use of the state) or destroyed (not compensated), their taking meets none of those criteria.

That challenge is the one that has gotten all of the attention lately. The judge in their case ordered the State of New York to prove that the law is constitutional, and if unable the judge will issue an injunction to stop the police from acting on the law. Its the first step to getting the law completely thrown out.

The other major challenge they’re facing is the “assault weapon” registration requirement, and the way they’re going about challenging the law is actually pretty interesting.

“Historically, since 1968″ says Max, “these registries have been unenforceable. The famous case, which was a landslide 7 to 1 decision, Haynes v. US, it declared that people who are in criminal possession of a firearm cannot be compelled to register their firearm because doing so amounts to self incrimination, which is a violation of their fifth amendment rights.

“What people have been asking on the internet is how this Haynes case relates to New York State. […] The first way is that the registry is unenforceable. People who do not register, they’re going to be breaking the law. If they break the law, then that will put them in possession of an unregistered firearm, which would be a crime under the penal law. The state cannot compel them to register the gun due to the fact that such a registration would constitute incrimination, which the Haynes decision held that a person cannot be compelled to do that because it would violate your fifth amendment rights on self incrimination.”

But what about an amnesty period? Surely if the state allows people to register their “assault weapons” without any ill effects like the NFA amnesty in 1968, and they refuse, then it should pass constitutional scrutiny, no? “The difference is in 1968 the gun control act was passed in response to the Haynes decision, and it did not compel those people who were already in possession of an NFA firearm to register their guns pursuant to the NFA. It created the registration at the point of manufacture. So, basically what happens here is New York State has no amnesty provision and we are litigating the law as it is and not as it might be.”

The argument that the registry is unenforceable is a compelling one, but there’s another facet to their case. Since the registry would create two classes of people (those who register and those who don’t) with no legal ill effects for either (as registration cannot be compulsory), those two classes of people have different levels of privacy. One class of people are on a government list that will probably be published like the Journal news in Westchester County did recently, and the other will remain private. That’s where they get into the equal protection argument, namely that the law forces an inequality of privacy on the population and therefore the lack of equality makes the law illegal. I’m not entirely sure if I understand that argument, but it sounded damn good on the phone.

James Tresmond sounds like a man who has everything under control, and everything going his way. His lawsuits are on solid legal ground, and slowly but surely working their way through the courts despite every attempt by the New York attorney general to derail the proceedings. And when he’s done, the SAFE Act will rightly be in tatters. But that’s not the end of the road for the Tresmonds. Their plan is to take their show on the road, challenging unconstitutional laws wherever they stand. And if their success so far in New York is any indication, they’re going to be a force to be reckoned with.

Loss of jobs, should mean something. I’ve told friends this is trickle down economics. Job loss means business suffers. We can’t buy a home or support our families without industry. Without a steady income, we cannot support the economy.

The faster the police get isolated by the manufactures, the faster the ship will right its self. The truth is there is not enough police only business, the civialians subsidize police firearms use. I have to wonder if the a part of the federal stock up is in antipation of makers shutting off departments.

Richard and Long Island Mike:

Thanks for the correction and clarification. Gun laws are almost as confusing as tax laws.

Remington: SAFE Act? What SAFE Act?

Posted on March 9, 2013

“Following a meeting between executives with the Freedom Group, which owns Remington Arms, and a group of state legislators, we’ve learned that Remington will move ahead with plans to invest $20 million into various upgrades at the plant,” cnycentral.com reports. In light of the firearms industry boycott of Empire State police purchases in protest against New York’s unconstitutional disarmament program (a.k.a., the SAFE Act), nothing. But that’s OK because ”That investment was in the works before the passage of the New York Safe Act, which bans the sale of the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, which is made in New York State. Ilion Mayor John Stephens previously told CNY Central that he hopes Remington Arms stays in Ilion, ‘where they belong.’” Yes, it seems they deserve each other. More specifically . . .

Assemblyman Anthony Brindisi . . . says company executives remain upset with the passage of New York’s tough new gun laws, and other states like North Carolina and Texas continue their efforts to lure the plant away.

So . . . lip service to protest and bring on the tax breaks. Or am I being too cynical?

Anger management for bullets, a really wacko idea, that I think we all know will go no place. The senator is just playing to her base. When it fails she can tell her voters ” I tried ” and her base, knowing little about guns and real solutions, will happily reelect her.. The curse of the low information voter. I’v seen so many interviews since last fall that bring me to the conclusion these people should not be allowed to vote. Many years ago everyone read the paper and watched TV news that you could trust. Everyone was informed Now people seem to take pride in their ignorance.
God save the Republic.

Gabby Giffords’ Husband, Mark Kelly, Testifies Against AR-15s — Then Goes Out and Buys One

Posted on March 10, 2013

Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly using the emotion that comes from her 2011 shooting in Tuscon, Arizona to demand “something needs to be done” to stop “gun violence,” and that something (according to Mark Kelly) is the ban of “assault weapons.” He has testified to that effect before the U.S. Senate, as well as in Colorado. However, it appears that Mark Kelly is another shining example of the belief of the civilian disarmament folks that the same logic they use to try and disarm the general population doesn’t apply to themselves. Breitbart has the story . . .
Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.
Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at a gun store in Tucson, Arizona.
[…]
According to McCabe, witnesses to the purchases claimed Kelly purchased “high capacity” magazines as well.

Only after the purchase was discovered did Mark Kelly post on his Facebook indicating that the AR-15 purchase was an impulse buy, and that he would be turning it over to the Tuscon PD as soon as he got it from the gun store.

This is the exact same firearm that Kelly had testified had no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. So then why was Kelly buying one? And why did he try to keep it a secret? Is Mark Kelly about to go on a mass shooting spree, perhaps the illustration of the need for stricter gun control laws he was talking about? Probably just as likely that happening as any other law abiding citizen — nearly a zero percent chance.

Like I said, another shining example of the double standard gun control advocates apply to firearms. Its OK for them to own guns, but the uneducated rednecks who buy them and are too stupid to be responsible with them (the general public) should be disarmed for their own good.

I think many are are operating on the assumption that these politicians are stupid people who are misguided in their zeal to protect their constituents. Folks, we we need to realize that the guiding force behind these people is a desire to destroy what is(constitutional republic) to their vision of a population of obedient followers of a ruling class. These future “rulers” could care less about the loss of jobs or repercussions for the people they supposedly represent. They are on a mission that has nothing to do with the public good.

one way to attack the firearms rites is to increase the burden of ownership. this can be done by increasing the costs of training, certifications, permits, mandatory insurance, safe storage, etc. they’ll make it such that to own a $500 firearm a person is forced to spend many $1000s to remain “responsible”. safe storage laws can also lead to unwarranted “safety check” searches. it’s an indirect approach but effective to decrease the fan-base in the firearms community. this is like a game of chess. we must be thinking a few moves ahead.

I hope Remington, or at least one of the gun manufacturers moves to NH, where the Free State Project is. It would be a very short move.

Judge Blocks NY City “High Capacity” Ban

The one on high capacity soda, that is. According to the New York Times, a judge in New York has invalidated the city high capacity soda container ordinance (that would have banned the sale of “large” sodas at NY city establishments, ostensibly to fight obesity) based on the fact that the ban is “arbitrary and capricious,” dealing a massive blow to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his tyrannical reign over New York City. Which, by the way, is the exact same argument the Tresmonds are making against the “high capacity” magazine ban that was part of the SAFE Act. And if you look into this ruling a bit more, you can see the glimmer of logic and common sense taking hold in the New York judicial system . . .

Senator John Morse of Colorado: Ignore Constituent Emails, Their Opinions Don’t Matter
Talking on the Rachel Maddow show, Senator John Morse of Colorado stated that his approach to constituents who are trying to contact him about current gun control legislation, and the advice he’s giving his fellow senators, is to ignore them. That rather than have a conversation and debate your opinion with the people who you represent, that you should ignore them and “do what [you] need to do.”
From horse mouth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEfH5bVYCLM&feature=player_embedded

BREAKING: Colorado Magazine Ban Among Gun Control Bills Now Headed to Governor’s Desk

Posted on March 11, 2013

There’s sad news out of Colorado. The magazine capacity limit bill has been passed by both the house and senate, meaning the only thing between it becoming law is the Governor’s signature. Which he has said he will affix should the legislation pass. There was an intense effort by gun rights supporters to keep the bill from passing, but the urge to “do something” to “stop gun violence” in the Democrat controlled state proved too powerful. TheDenverChannel.com has more . . .

Lawmakers who voted no during previous votes were concerned that the bill would not reduce violence and will hurt a Colorado manufacturer of magazines. Monday, it passed by a vote of 18-17.

– House Bill 1228 would revive fee payments for gun purchasers who need background checks. Having been previously approved by the House, it now goes to Governor John Hickenlooper’s desk for a signature.

– House Bill 1229 would add a background-check requirement for many guns sold in private transactions. The bill has been approved by the state House. It now goes to Governor Hickenlooper. Hickenlooper is expected to sign the bill.

– Senate Bill 195 would require people seeking concealed carry permits to take gun training courses in person. People can currently take online courses. That bill now goes to the state House.

– Senate Bill 197 would require courts to order anyone subject to a domestic violence protection order or convicted of domestic violence to relinquish their guns within 24 hours. A judge could extend that to 72 hours. That bill also goes to the state House.

The only two pieces of legislation pulled from consideration were a ban on concealed carry on college campuses and a bill making “assault weapons” owners and “sellers” liable for their product’s use.

The magazine capacity limitation legislation passed by a single vote.

Details of Shumer’s Mandatory Background Check Bill (S. 374)

Posted on March 12, 2013

We’ve finally gotten a look at Chuck Shumer’s proposed mandatory background check bill, and the truth is that this thing is ridiculous. The bill is overly broad, has some crazy penalties, and cracks the door WIDE open for government abuse. The full text of the bill is here, and since it’s in that terrible bill-speak legalese, I’ll try to summarize it for you . . .

The main provision of the bill is that any transfer of a firearm, no matter how fleeting, needs to go through an FFL and the transferee needs to have a background check performed through the NICS system. There are some exceptions, but they aren’t very good ones. Page 11 starts off the meat and potatoes for those following along at home.

In order to qualify for an exception to the rule of all transfers going through an FFL, the following requirements must be met:
1.The temporary transfer takes place at the owner’s house
2.The gun can’t be moved from the property
3.The transfer must last less than 7 days

There’s also a poorly worded exception for hunting and “sporting purposes,” as well as gifts to family members. What that means is if you go on a trip for more than 7 days and leave your guns at home unattended with a roommate, its now a felony under this law. And if I’m reading this right, this applies if you leave your guns with your spouse, but don’t transfer them as a gift.

There’s also no exception for lending guns to friends for the afternoon on the range. I regularly loan out my older competition guns to friends who want to compete in local matches, as the guns can be expensive and its easier to figure out if competition shooting is right for you if you can give it a try. Under this new bill, that would be illegal.

It also appears that it would be illegal to hand a firearm to someone other than the owner, effectively killing range trips with friends.

I quote from the bill the definition of “transfer” includes:

shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition

Broad much? The only exception appears to be handing a gun to a potential buyer to evaluate and lending guns at a shooting range but ONLY IF:

at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;

So, only facilities where the stated purpose in the incorporation documents is conservation (hunting) or firearms proficiency. And if you’re shooting on your own private property, or on BLM land, ANY lending of guns EVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OWNER for recreational shooting would be illegal.

As one of the provisions designed to “alleviate the fears” of the gun-owning public, it looks like there’s a provision in here that permanently sets the price of all FFL transfer fees to the same amount. That number will be set by the Attorney General, which these days is still Eric Holder. The current speculation is that this FFL fee will be used to do what the NFA tax was originally designed to do — make buying or transferring a gun so expensive that almost no one can do it.

In addition to the transfer requirements, it also makes it a federal felony to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm. If the gun isn’t reported to the authorities within 24 hours, that’s a 5-year stretch in a federal pokey you just earned yourself.

The bill also specifically removes the ability for people with state permits to skip the NICS check. Currently in Texas, those with a concealed handgun license can purchase a gun without a NICS check as they’ve already passed a more stringent background check than NICS provides. This puts more strain on the FFL as well as the NICS system.

As written, this bill is a trainwreck. It creates felons out of people who may not have been aware that their roommate (on their month long trip through Asia) even owned a firearm, much less that there was one in the house. It allows the government to regulate the price of background checks, enacting a mandatory fee (read tax) to be paid every time you want to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and lets the government set the fee at whatever level they choose with no recourse. It also creates de facto registration through the NICS checks as well as the paperwork preservation requirements already in place.

You don’t have to pay a fee to vote, as the supreme court ruled that unconstitutional. But for Chuck Shumer, its okay to charge a fee to exercise your Second Amendment right. And he’ll tell you how much to pay.

Remington has been a part of its community since the early 1800s.

Sens. Cornyn, Cruz expected to vote against assault weapons ban tomorrow

By Alexandria Baca
abaca@dallasnews.com
5:26 pm on March 13, 2013 | Permalink

Sen. John Cornyn (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on an assault weapons ban tomorrow, and Texas Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz are expected to reject the proposed bill.

The bill, sponsored by Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, would ban 157 specific semiautomatic guns and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. However, it excludes weapons already lawfully owned, antique weapons and 2,578 named “legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns.”

“This happens often in Congress and in Washington where symbolism tends to play better than substance and the sense is that you have to do something,” Cornyn said during a weekly call Wednesday with Texas reporters, referencing studies funded by the Department of Justice that noted the previous assault weapons ban – in place from 1994 to 2004 – did little to curb gun violence.

(Gun-control advocates and Democrats have countered that there hasn’t been enough conclusive research on gun violence.)

“The something we could do that would actually have an impact would be to improve the mental health reporting for the background check program, which I certainly support,” the senator said.

Cornyn also faulted the Department of Justice for not adequately enforcing laws already on the books intended to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

“I have a hard time seeing why passing new laws that will be either unenforced or ineffective makes America or Texans any safer,” Cornyn said.

Colorado gun control bills near final passage

Ammunition limits, expanded gun background checks nearing final passage in Colorado
By Kristen Wyatt, Associated Press | Associated Press – 5 hrs ago.. .

Associated Press –

Colorado State Representative John Buckner, D-Aurora, listens during a debate period on an amended bill prohibiting the sale of larger-capacity ammunition …more

DENVER (AP) — Fiercely debated ammunition limits cleared Colorado’s Democratic Legislature on Wednesday and were on their way to the governor, who has said he’ll sign the measure into law.

The 15-round magazine limit would make Colorado the first state outside the East Coast to ratchet back gun rights after last year’s mass shootings.

Colorado’s gun-control debates have been closely watched because of the state’s gun-loving frontier heritage and painful history of mass shootings, most recently last summer’s movie theater shooting that killed 12.

“I am sick and tired of the bloodshed,” said Rep. Rhonda Fields, sponsor of the ammunition limit and a Democrat whose suburban Denver district includes the theater. “Whatever we can do to curb the gun violence and the bloodshed, we have a responsibility to do that.”

Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper has said he is ambivalent about the magazine ammunition limit but will sign it. The law gives him 10 business days to do so.

“I wasn’t enthusiastic about it, but I’d be willing to sign it,” Hickenlooper said Wednesday morning on Denver radio station KOA.

Still pending in the Legislature is the Democrats’ other signature gun-control bill, which would require background checks for private and online gun sales. Hickenlooper has more enthusiastically backed that measure, and it was scheduled for a final vote Wednesday.

But a dispute over a Senate amendment has delayed the background-check for at least another day while lawmakers iron out the problem. Democrats are trying to change the bill so that gun owners can give guns to relatives or lend them for short periods without triggering the background-check requirements.

The background-check measure is expected to clear the Legislature, and Republicans have spent hours fretting that rugged Colorado is forsaking its heritage by debating gun restrictions more common to coastal states.

To make the point, Republican Rep. Carole Murray of suburban Castle Rock reminded the House that rural lawmakers once posed for official photos wearing cowboy hats.

“Our state is changing,” Murray said. “We are an outdoorsy state, and part of being outdoorsy is ownership of firearms.”

Democrats repeatedly cited the Aurora theater shooting and last year’s massacre at a Connecticut school as reasons Colorado must take action.

“How many more mass shootings in schools and movie theaters do we have to see before we make changes?” asked Rep. Crisanta Duran, D-Denver.

Two bills in the gun package have not yet faced votes in the House and were just starting consideration Wednesday. Those measures included a ban on online-only gun education required to receive a concealed-weapons permit, and a ban on gun ownership by people facing domestic violence charges.

The fifth and final bill in the Democrats’ gun package went to the governor earlier this week. That measure would revive user fees, likely $10, for gun buyers who need background checks. Currently the Colorado Bureau of Investigation does those checks for free and faces a lengthy backlog.

The governor has two business weeks to sign the fee bill, or it becomes law without his signature. Hickenlooper has said he’ll sign it.

___

Gun Protections Added to Funding Bill in U.S. Senate

By Heidi Przybyla – Mar 13, 2013 7:31 PM MT.
.
U.S. lawmakers included language that would permanently protect some gun rights in Senate legislation intended to fund the government through the end of the current fiscal year.

Gun-rights advocates on the Senate Appropriations Committee added four firearms provisions to the funding bill as part of an agreement between Republicans and Democrats on the panel, according to a Senate aide who asked not to be identified in describing internal discussions.

Republicans on the committee are attempting to protect gun rights as the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee this week advances measures aimed at curbing gun violence in the wake of a mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school in December.

The agreement would make permanent the gun provisions, which have been in U.S. appropriations bills on a temporary basis since at least 2004, the aide said. The accord was an attempt by Democrats to stave off a House-sponsored measure related to semi-automatic rifles strongly opposed by President Barack Obama and gun-control advocates, the aide said.

The provisions would prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from requiring gun dealers to conduct annual inventories to confirm lost or stolen guns, and make permanent an exception for “antique” guns that can be imported outside of normal regulations.

ATF Limitations

Another amendment would prevent the ATF from refusing to renew a dealer’s license for lack of business. A final measure would require the agency to attach a disclaimer to data about guns to indicate that it “cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about fire-arms-related crimes.”

Lawmakers put the provisions into a stopgap funding measure pending before the Senate appropriations panel. The bill would fund federal agency operations through Sept. 30 and avert a government shutdown after current funding expires March 27.

The agreement derailed a House amendment related to so- called long guns that would have prevented the ATF from requiring firearms dealers near the Mexican border to notify the agency when selling two or more semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines to the same buyer within five days. Such weapons are preferred by Mexican drug cartels, the aide said.

Today, the Senate Judiciary committee is expected to approve a ban on assault-style weapons and limit the capacity of ammunition magazines, legislation that has strong opposition in the full Senate and in the House of Representatives.

The bill would be the fourth gun-related measure to clear the panel since the Dec. 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 20 children and six educators. Committee members on March 7 endorsed legislation imposing tougher penalties for gun trafficking, and on March 12 approved expanded U.S. background checks and funding to enhance school safety.

A background check and trafficking bill could be debated by the full Senate the first week in April

Police in standoff with gunman after four people shot dead at barber shop, car wash in upstate NY

Kurt R. Myers, who is believed to be responsible for the shootings at John’s Barber Shop in Mohawk, is still at large. NBC’s Brian Williams reports.

By Elizabeth Chuck and Andrew Rafferty, NBC News

NY State Police

Photo of Kurt R. Myers, upstate New York shooting suspect, released by the New York State Police.

Police in upstate New York late Wednesday remained in a tense standoff with a man suspected of killing four people and injuring two more, according to authorities.

New York State Police believe Kurt R. Myers is holed up in an abandoned building in Herkimer, NY after going on a shooting spree at a local car wash and barber shop.

Troopers exchanged gunfire with the suspect when they first arrived at the scene of now-abandoned sports bar where they believe the 64-year-old is in hiding, superintendent of New York State Police Jospeh D’Amico told reporters at a press conference Wednesday evening.
No officers were hurt but police have so far had no success in communicating with Myers.
Authorities believe that before his rampage, the 68-year-old set his residence on fire in Mohawk, NY, a small town between that lies roughly halfway between Syracuse and Albany.
From there, Myers is believed to have gone to John’s Barber Shop at about 9:30 a.m. EDT, and shot four people, killing two of them, cops said.
“Totally unprovoked, we believe he fired a number of rounds from the shotgun,” D’Amico said. He then allegedly went to Gaffney’s Car Wash in the neighboring town of Herkimer and killed two more people before driving off to the abandoned bar where police believe he currently is in hiding.
“This is truly an inexplicable situation. There was no apparent rationale motive to the best of our knowledge at this time to provoke these attacks,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said at the press conference. State Police identified the victims who died in the barbershop shooting as Harry Montgomery, 68, of Mohawk, and Michael Ransear, 57, of Herkimer. Killed at the car wash were Thomas Stefka, an employee in his 60s, and Michael Renshaw, a man State Police said was in his 40s and is a 20-year-veteran of the Department of Corrections. Myers only other known criminal history was a 1973 arrest for driving while intoxicated. A number of guns and ammunition were found in his residence, according to Cuomo. The areas around the standoff have been evacuated, and D’Amico said police are prepared to be hunkered down for the long hall. James Baron, Mohawk’s 29-year-old mayor, said he doesn’t know Myers but knew several of the people who were shot, including “at least” two of the barbershop victims.The mayor described his town of 2,700 people as close-knit and friendly, “the kind of place where you’d say, ‘Oh, it would never happen here.'”Cuomo echoed those sentiments in front of reporters, noting, “This is just another example that there is no community that is beyond the scope of senseless gun violence, and unfortunately we see this more and more and more.”Michele Mlinar, a bartender in Herkimer, told The Utica Observer-Dispatch that Myers was a regular at The Cangees Bar and Grill where she works.”When I saw his picture, I just got sick to my stomach,” she told the paper, adding that Myers was nice to staff but always “very jittery and nervous.”“It could have been here. It could have been us,” she said.
Cuomo cautioned that the healing process for the small, tight-knit community will last much longer than the standoff with police.

Local schools are on lockdown.

Herkimer and Mohawk are villages that face each other on opposite sides of the Mohawk River, in the state’s Mohawk Valley region.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/51170074#51170074

Rep. Jan Schakowsky: More crackdowns coming, as ‘I’m against handguns’
The Washington Times

Monday, March 11, 2013
Rep. Jan Schakowsky said at a women’s rights rally that a Democratic-backed push to ban so-called assault weapons and to mandate background checks for private gun sales were just the beginning of a larger agenda to clamp down on Second Amendment rights.

Breitbart reported a videotaped exchange between Ms. Schakowsky and a reporter. She called the current political climate on gun control “a moment of opportunity,” and said politicos “want everything on the table.”

Ms. Schakowsky also said “we’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the — you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

The reporter asked if the proposed assault weapons ban was the beginning of something larger, Breitbart reported.

“Oh, absolutely,” Ms. Schakowsky said, in Breitbart. “I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun. … Yeah, I’m a member of that.”

Ms. Schakowsky also claimed a handgun ban was a possibility, despite the guarantees of the Second Amendment.

“I don’t know. I don’t know that we can’t,” she said, suggesting community laws may one day usurp constitutional law, Breitbart reported.

NY Cops Shoot Herkimer Shooter and Brooklyn Teen. Eventually

Posted on March 14, 2013

“Authorities on Thursday killed a man suspected of shooting dead four people a day earlier in separate incidents at a barbershop and a car wash in neighboring upstate New York towns,” reuters.com reports. This after not one but two previous shoot-outs wherein Kurt Meyers avoided ventilation and escaped police. We don’t know how many rounds were expended in their attempt to eliminate Mr. Meyers—any more than we know why Reuters decided to mention the SAFE Act in their coverage of the shotgun showdown. OK, we know that one. So tanks for that and let’s turn to the The Big Apple po-po, two members of which shot a Brooklyn teen yesterday, much to the consternation of local residents . . .

NYPD PR told the Times that Kimani Gray threatened officers with a revolver. Maybe something to do with the fact that they weren’t wearing uniforms? Anyway, clock this post-Empire State Building shootout (nine bystanders wounded) on New York’s Finest’s marksmanship . . .

As officers got out of the car to question him, Mr. Gray turned and pointed a .38-caliber Rohm revolver at them, the police said; two officers fired, hitting the teenager. He was pronounced dead a short time later at Kings County Hospital Center.

Mr. Gray did not fire the handgun, which was recovered at the scene. Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the Police Department, said the six-shot revolver was loaded with four live rounds.

“After the anti-crime sergeant and police officer told the suspect to show his hands, which was heard by witnesses, Gray produced a revolver and pointed it at the officers, who fired a total of 11 rounds, striking Gray several times,” Mr. Browne said.

Several as in . . . three? Four? By the way, how’s that firearms training thing going in New York these days? Has the Glock and Smith & Wesson boycott of NY LEOs gotten under way? Oh, wait. Sorry. Carry on. Or not, as the case may be.

Carney’s Point New Jersey Showdown

Posted on March 17, 2013

shawnmoore81 at deloc.org writes: “The fight has officially been brought to my front door. Last night I was out with a buddy of mine. I got a text from my wife that the cops and dyfs are at the house and they wanna check out my guns and needed me to open my safe. I’m instantly on my way. I get in contact with evan Nappen on the way. I explain the situation. I walk in my house and hand the phone to the first cop I see. Then direct all of em outside. Dyfs got a call because of a pic on my son holding a gun. [below] They wanted to look around and check all my guns out, make sure they were all registered . . .

“Obviously that didn’t go well because I refused. I had Nappen on speaker phone the entire time so they had to deal with both of us. They kept trying to pressure me to open my safe. They had no warrant, no charges, nothing. I didn’t budge. I was told I was being ‘unreasonable’ and that I was acting suspicious because I wouldn’t open my safe. Told me they were gonna get a search warrant. Told em go ahead.

“Nappen (my lawyer) asked me for the dyfs workers name. she wouldnt give it. i asked for credentials and she wouldnt show em. i tried to take a pic of her and she turned around real fast and walked away. After a while of them threatening to take my kids, get warrants and intimidation they left. Empty handed and seeing nothing. People it can happen that fast. Most people wouldn’t have stood up to them like I did.”