Being Denied

Part of the fun about a blog is sharing your experiences. Although we all share common experiences seen through our own eyes and biases, some experiences are decidedly unique to the individual.

Being denied by NICS for a firearm purchase is definitely a unique experience.

Settle in and grab something to drink or munch on. This is a long story.

First, you need some background.

I am a lawful permanent resident of the United States. That is the formal term for what most Americans know as "having a Green Card". Being a permanent resident is like being a citizen, but on probation. It gives you the right to live and work anywhere in the USA (provided you notify the INS whenever you move), it gives you all of the Consitutional protections of a citizen under the law (rights of due process, unreasonable search and seizure, protection against self-incrimination and so on) and gives you some citizens' rights and responsibilities.

Voting isn't one of them but owning guns is.

Yes, a non-citizen can own firearms in the United States provided they are a permanent resident. There is an exception for those who don't have a Green Card but meeting the requirements as a non-Green Card holder are rather difficult and are strict as to what you can own and how. For all practical purposes, non-Green Card holders can't own guns (kind of like Class 3 ownership, they can do it but it is generally more trouble that it is worth).

The requirements for a Green Card holder to own guns is the same as a normal citizen. You must prove state residency, fill out the forms (ATF 4473 and any state forms) and pass the NICS (National Instant Check System) background check. See my previous post here for full details on how the NICS check works.

So, keeping this fact in mind, here is what happened.

My Virginia FFL, Guns and Ammo Warehouse in Manassas, VA had brought in a bunch of used rifles and shotguns. All in various calibers. Most were bolt-action rifles but a few were single shot or semi-automatic.

Kevin, my primary dealer, is always encouraging me to buy guns. He's an enabler of sorts (and there is nothing wrong with that). So here I am trolling the racks. A few nice guns and two catch my eye. One is a hunting rifle in .257 Roberts based on a Mauser action. What was weird about the gun is it had a laminate thumbhole stock for a left-handed shooter. Which I am. But it had a right-handed bolt. Talk about a Frankengun. Suffice it to say, general appeal of that rifle is going to be limited.

To understand this properly, a left-handed shooter using a regular right-handed bolt action rifle will take their left hand off the grip/trigger, reach across the rifle and cycle the bolt in a crosswise pattern. If you watch movies, a beautiful illustration of a left-handed shooter is Private Jackson, the sniper in "Saving Private Ryan" up in the bell tower near the end of the movie. He is a left-handed shooter using a right-handed rifle in this fashion.

This oddball meant you could either cycle the bolt in this manner or maintain your grip and remove your hand from the handguard and cycle the bolt with your right hand. A possible advantage shooting from a prone, supported position but a bizarre setup under normal conditions. And no right handed shooter would want this rifle because it was impossible to use right-handed short of putting a new stock on it. And lastly, there was the cost of feeding it. 20 rounds of .257 Roberts (a great hunting cartridge) costs around $24 for a box of twenty. At $1.20 or more per shot (this stuff can run up to $30 per 20 depending on load and bullet type), this is a very expensive rifle to use for casual shooting. Pretty it was but not a common usage rifle. For comparison purposes, feeding a .50BMG using surplus ammunition doesn't cost much more per shot.

The other rifle I fell in love with instantly. It was a synthetically stocked bolt-action rifle in 6.5mm Swedish, likewise based on a Mauser action. It had a heavy barrel. What hooked me though, was the trigger. It broke with only a minor amount of pressure. A gauge showed a trigger pull of around 3.2 pounds. Absolutely exquisite with no creep. This would make a perfect sniper, cough, target rifle. But the dealer had no 6.5mm Swedish in stock. At around $280, it was a nice rifle. Shiny, crisp bore, clean bolt and chamber. Nothing wrong with it at all.

I fondled both guns over a couple of weeks. Especially the Swede. I just loved it. But I couldn't quite bring myself to commit despite the fact it was calling to me. Then the dealer sweetened the pot. They were having a summer sale and were offering 10 percent off on one used rifle or 25 percent for two. After a bit of discussion, Kevin the Enabler convinced me that these two rifles needed to come home with me. The Swedish for its trigger and the .257 solely for the fact they were going to have that rifle forever due to its layout. So, feeling sorry for it, I decided it at least needed a good home.

Being short of funds, I gave them a deposit and had them put on layaway. The threshold of temptation had been crossed and I said I would be back in a couple weeks to pick them up. Being a fantastic shop for customer service, this was not an issue.

Fast forward to a warm Friday night a couple weeks later.

I brought my paperwork with me and walked into the store. For all of the staff there who know me on sight, this is a sure sign I was there to pick something up. I only brought my proof of residence if I was planning to purchase. However, it was busy and I'm patient. So I waited as the dealer on duty, Bill (who we call 'Uncle Bill', an older fellow who is a truly down-to-earth gentleman) finished up with the other customers. Around 7:30pm, 30 minutes before close, he asked if he could help me out and I raised my paperwork. Realizing it was late, I told him I could wait until tomorrow to pick up my rifles since, for me, a background check generally took an hour or two. He said it wasn't a problem and didn't mind staying past close for me. As I said, truly fantastic customer service. So he pulled out the forms, I paid for the guns and went to retrieve them while I filled out the forms.

Laying all my ID out for him, he got on the phone and started to call in my information. I don't know why I get nervous doing this but I do. I had no problems in the past and I had no reason to believe this time would be any different. However, strangely, I opted to use my utility bills rather than my Virginia concealed carry permit as my secondary ID. I guess I figured since I wasn't buying a handgun, I would just stick to my normal routine.

On the phone, Bill started reading off my height, weight, place of birth and country of citizenship. For any of you who have or will go through a NICS check, when the dealer starts to read off your vital statistics, your check is being delayed. Not a big deal, they just have to dig deeper. Bill said "Thank you." to the person at the NICS center and we looked at each other and said "Delayed." at the same time. It happens to me every time and I know within a little bit, they'll call the FBI and INS and get my approval.

So I browsed around, chatted with Bill about the family, the usual casual talk as we waited. About 8:10pm, ten minutes after closing, the phone rang. All done. Bill answered and started to talk to the folks from NICS. Then he got a funny look on his face and said "Hang on.".

"Matt, they want to know what you are going to use these rifles for." he asked.

Huh? That was a first. So I told him, "Target shooting. What I always use them for.".

He relayed my answer to NICS. Then asked me, "Do you have a hunting license?".

By this point, we both had quizzical looks on our faces. This was not in the NICS script. I replied "No." and he again passed it along. After some back and forth, with "Ma'am, he's a target shooter, not a hunter!" thrown in, he hung up with a "We'll be here." and announced that they would call back in a bit. Then he told me what they kept asking if I had a hunting license. We both felt that was truly bizarre as he had never had NICS ask him that before and I, not being the business of selling guns, had never heard of it either.

We continued to wonder about this until they finally called back around 9pm. Bill answered and prompted blurted, "What?!?". Then continued with "Ma'am, I've sold to this gentleman before and I have his paperwork right here. I can fax it to you. He has a Virginia concealed carry permit!". More argument with Bill defending me to the hilt.

Then he said it, "They want to talk to you.".

Ever had that feeling of your stomach falling through your shoes in dread? I did at that moment.

So I took the phone and the woman on the other end politely informed me that she had to deny my purchase due to the fact that I was a non-immigrant alien. I was stunned. I responded by stating I was holding my Green Card in my hand and could fax her a copy, that I had a concealed carry permit for Virginia and that I had been a permanent resident for a while. She was very apologetic and said it was a problem with the INS and I was going to have to call them and when they fixed it, they would approve me. I thanked her and hung up.

Bill and I were stunned. He felt this was wrong and was very apologetic. As was I. I felt bad keeping him there past closing only to get dragged into this. Sadly, my rifles went back on to my shelf and I said the only thing I could do was to call the INS and get this fixed. So he closed up and proceeded to head home.

It was during the drive home that my natural, irrational paranoia began to kick in. Realizing the Virginia State Police had a record of denial for a firearms purchase to what they thought was a non-immigrant alien, I started to panic. I owned several firearms and I began to serious question the prospect of that denial as being probable cause enough for the VSP to search for previous transactions in my name and learn very quickly that I owned several other guns. Despite having valid approval numbers, the not-unreasonable thought had me wondering if they might want to play better safe than sorry and get a search warrant.

By the time I got home, I was in a full nail-biting panic. Just the thought of having to go through the legal hassle of having to prove my residency and fighting to get my guns back had me dizzy with fright. Wouldn't you be terrified at that moment?

First things first though. I immediately got online and made an appointment with the INS office in Fairfax at the first available date. First available being two weeks later. So I signed up and began to make phone calls to friends asking if they could give a home to my guns in the interim, just in case. Another call to a friend who was ex-law enforcement finally convinced me to settle down with the non-too-pleasant idea that if the police didn't show up within 48 hours with a warrant, odds are they weren't going to.

It was a very long weekend.

The two weeks passed without a visit from the State Police. I guess I just wasn't high enough on their scale to warrant attention. I guess a Canadian possessing all manner of arms was ok. Or maybe they figured I'm harmless. Since when do you hear about a Canadian going on a shooting spree or being a suicide bomber in the name of the right to play hockey?

For those of you who have never been in an INS facility, let me tell you: you aren't missing much. It's like the DMV in Virginia. You wait in a line to get in, get a number and wait more. Except the line to get in takes two hours for fifty people to pass through.

When I finally got to the officer at the desk, she asked why I was there. I told her that the INS had messed up my file saying I didn't have a Green Card when I did. She asked to see it, which I produced and she brought up my record. "Yup, they messed up all right." was the reply as she compared my Green Card to whatever was on her screen, handed me a number and told me to take a seat around the corner.

Just like the DMV except with padded seats. I figure this is because you might as well be sitting comfortably on the part of your body you are about to receive a royal shafting in. Understand, this area with counters is not for people having good things happen. Citizenship and residency interviews happen elsewhere (having been on that floor). This area was for processing and fuckups. I knew which category I was in.

After another two hour wait, I finally had my number called and approached the officer. I then politely informed him that my INS records were messed and they had lost my status. Proceeding to then explain that such knowledge had been brought to my attention was by failing a background check with the State Police for a firearm purchase and could they please fix it before they decided to come and arrest me. He asked for my Green Card. I handed it to him and what happened next was straight out of a bad movie.

He started with "We have you scheduled for an interview in September 2004..." and then trailed off. I managed to squeak out, "An interview for what?!?" and then shut up as I realized the interview was from a year prior. He started intently scrolling up and down on his screen, began muttering to himself. At one point, I swore I heard him say "What in the holy hell?".

Something was obviously wrong and I wasn't about disturb him. Angering INS officer: Not a good idea. But the weirdest part was the whole time he would hit a key, look up at the screen, look down at my Green Card and back again. Flip the card over and over, stare intently at it, me and then the screen. And getting more dour looking with each iteration. This went on for ten minutes.

I was firmly convinced at that time, as I am to this day, that he honestly believed that he was holding a fake Green Card. After all, the computer couldn't be wrong, could it? And was trying to get me to do or say something to slip up and get me to admit it. Which I wasn't because if I had a fake Green Card of that quality, I was in the wrong line of work. Finally, after fifteen minutes of silence and keypunching, he finally handed my card back and said he would have to request my file from the Central Records facility in Missouri and have them re-entered.

Leave it to a government official to deadpan something like this like it was no big deal. I replied ok and asked how long it would take to do and get fixed. His answer was around two weeks. I nodded and asked him if the INS could call me when it was fixed.

His answer: "We don't do that.".

I almost replied with "Well, try." but instead answered, "Ok, could you make an exception or is there someone I can call to confirm everything is ok?".

Reply: "No. They are two different systems.".

Another piece of the immigration process you don't want to know about: Your immigration status is managed in two places. The first is the INS case processing system. This system tracks your progress through the red tape hell that is being a legal immigrant or worker in this country. But all it does is track cases and history. It does not store your actual immigration status (worker on a visa, tourist visa, student visa, Green Card application pending, authorized for work, etc). For legal purposes, your actual status is tracked in a database maintained by the INS and used by people like the FBI, Border Patrol and Customs to check on us aliens to determine what type we were.

The two are not connected and take a wild guess which one was in error? Yup, the important one.

Figures, eh?

So they had to get a copy of my paper file with all my notices, applications and most importantly, approval paperwork, have it sent back up and get some drone to punch it all back in. If any of you out there think that paperless record keeping in any arena (especially government) is a good idea, this experience of mine ought to serve as an example of why you should never do it. Because it was the paper that ultimately saved me. I work with computers so I am very accepting of the idea of it being messed up because I've been there, done that and on occasion, been the reason why.

And the end result of all this: The only way I could determine if the data was corrected in the system was to submit to another background check.

You read that right. To find out if they fixed the screwup, I was going to have to let the State Police take another shot at me.

I waited another month just to be sure and then went in early on a Saturday to try again.

Since I'm writing this, you know what happened. Bill was there as was Kevin the Enabler (who ran the check). And we all breathed a sigh of relief three hours later when it came back clear. I did catch one thing during the process of the call in: The Virginia State Police knew my name because at one point Kevin did say "Yes, it's him again.".

That is a distinction of sorts. I don't recommend it.

I took home four rifles that day. I figured if I was going down, I might as well go down in flames and glory. Because if I failed again, I would wager I'd be seeing the State Police within a couple hours.

I also have another distinction as a result of this experience: I have become what I believe to be a very small number of people who have failed a NICS check spectacularly and come away from it unscathed.

The only saving grace of this is I am glad it happened in a gun-friendly place like Virginia. I shudder to think of what might have happened to me in Montgomery County where I live now in Maryland.

Now you know why I get nervous every time I get near Form 4473.

Or maybe they just don't want Canadians to have guns.

Weapon of War: NOT!!

Courtesy of Keep and Bear Arms, comes this beautiful gem from the Illinois State Rifle Association.

I would have paid to see the look on the Senator's face at this moment:

In his address, Kotowski pointed to a rifle staged as a prop for the event and described it as being a "military" weapon. What Kotowski did not know was that Mr. Mark Westrom, President of Armalite, Incorporated, was in the audience. Mr. Westrom rose to inform the attendees that his company manufactured the rifle in question, and that his company has never sold the rifle to the military. Westrom continued by pointing out that the rifle is purchased primarily by civilian target shooters. Westrom's revelation changed the course of the press conference, to say the least.

Stuff like this makes me smile.

Blogger's Block I

I've got a bunch of stuff percolating around in my head right now on some stuff on want to cover on a variety of topics. Guns (as usual), morality and finding ways to piss off Paul Helmke (that will take a couple of days to get started).

I'm getting my gun show list together. Someone better steal my debit card, this is going to be bad.

For a truly excellent read, I recommend Why the Gun is Civilization by the Munchkin Wrangler. Check it out, you won't regret it.

Finally, I want to have a word with Chris Van Hollen over his co-sponsorship of HR.1022 since I am one of his constituents. With the Maryland gun issues dead for this year (alas, just maintaining the status quo), I am now turning my attention to the Federal level and this spawn-of-Satan gun control legislation. If you thought SB.43 was bad, HR.1022 makes it look positively benign. Everyone is affected by this. More to follow.

What If the DC Council Suffered Cranial-Anal Extraction?

Courtesy of Arms and the Law and the Washington Times is this article about the DC council considering the possibility of changing the law to allow DC residents to possess guns in the wake of the overturning of the DC gun ban.

In trolling around various gun rights blogs, there is concern that a change in the law in DC would be a drastic negative. By doing so, it would have the possibility of derailing appeals to the Supreme Court should an en banc hearing by the full DC circuit overturn the original Parker ruling. If the law is changed to allow legal gun ownership in the District, it kind of makes the whole appeal process moot.

Fortunately, I don't believe the DC council is crafty enough to actually pull their heads free from a certain dark orifice and do something that far-reaching (despite being in their interests, looking at the long-term). Also, I feel if there is a change in the law, it would be, as the article mentions, little more than an amnesty to roll back the restrictions just enough to skirt under the Parker decision without really changing the status quo long term.

In a previous post, I allude to the dangers of government licensing of gun ownership and I believe the DC Council would do everything in their power to make legal gun ownership as onerous as possible within the District. The alternative of having DC residents in control of their own safety and lives is simply too horrifying for them to contemplate. Can't have the riff-raff, gasp, owning guns and exercising personal responsibility! Oh no!

Many gun rights advocates, myself included, would like to see Parker vs. DC heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court. The reason is simple: We want a firm decision, once and for all, that tells us how the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens. Other rights advocates are nervous for the same reason because there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would uphold an individual rights view.

I share in that nervousness. But at the same time, the prospect of the SCOTUS saying the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals is worth it. If they do without dancing around the issue, it will serve as the wedge we need to begin to start rolling back 70 plus years of gun control regulation. It may take a generation to undo the damage but I feel an encompassing ruling of individual rights by the Supreme Court would dramatically change the landscape of America for the better.

It is because of that possibility that gun control groups like the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center are getting truckload orders of adult Depends delivered to them. If the SCOTUS upholds an individual rights view it will destroy their agenda nationwide. The prospect of Parker reaching the Supreme Court with any chance of a ruling for individual rights, quite literally, scares the shit out of them.

As a result, the best thing that could happen for the gun controllers and banners to keep Parker from reaching the Supreme Court. And the DC Council could make it happen by changing the law to deny standing to the Parker plantiffs, especially if the Council feels the decision would be overturned before reaching the Supreme Court. I don't see it happening thanks to the elitist mindset that pervades the DC Council but it is a possibility. Or the decision is upheld by the Circuit and they change the law to prevent it from reaching the high court.

If it didn't make it to the high court, the powermongers, nanny statists and gun banners would breathe a sigh of relief and then a year later, crank the restrictions back into place to stay just below the threshold of Parker. Status quo, away we go.

What I don't think they realize (or maybe they do, I'm not a lawyer) is that if Parker stands without review by the Supreme Court, the damage to the gun control movement remains.

It remains because as an upheld decision, it becomes precedent that can be used and quoted elsewhere. A Federal court upholding an individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment unequivocably (which Parker does) is a powerful weapon in the battle to combat gun control in places like Illinois, New jersey, New York and Massachussets. Sure, the courts can try to sidestep Parker (and other cases like it. The Ninth Circuit is really good at doing that) but more and more, it will play a role in rolling back gun control. It may be slow, grinding and lengthy, but it will happen. Just the prospect of such is enough to scare politicians way outside of DC. We see it and I know people like Bloomberg and Daley see it too.

I don't want to see Parker derailed. At a minimum, I want to see it stand and upheld even if it never reaches the Supreme Court. A couple more rulings like it in other Circuits would spell the end of the "collective rights" view of the 2nd Amendment. With enough precedent on our side, gun control groups, for all practical purposes, would have the same standing as NAMBLA in the eyes of politicians at every level. Gun owners have been villified for so long I would love to see the shoe on the other foot.

As a result, the gun control groups should be grabbing the DC Council members by the shoulders and trying to yank their heads free before it is too late. I think they see the danger to their cause in the bigger, long-term picture. They have to find a way to stop it before it is too late.

I have faith though. Faith that politicians are often blind due to their own ambition and addiction to power.

Especially when your eyes are full of crap.

I'm going to enjoy this for as long as I can.

I Have Earned the Right to Bitch

As any who knows me, I am concerned about issues, not ideology. To paraphrase Chris Rock, "I decide on the issues. On some things, I am liberal. On others, I am conservative.". Gun rights is an issue where I am most definitely conservative.

Illegal immigration is another.

This issue is one where I honestly believe the politicians are blatantly trying to buy future votes. There are 12 to 20 million future voters in their mind, that if given amnesty and free citizenship, they believe will flock to the cause of those who gave it them and thank them by voting for them in future elections. That can be the only rationale. Otherwise, it would mean that the average American is in support of amnesty in numbers great enough to support it. And I don't believe the average citizen is.

This is a case where I feel the government is supremely out of touch of the pulse of America and are willing to sell out the country for their own ends. Or they are trying put forth their personal agenda publicly and getting utterly screamed at in private without telling us for fear of losing face.

I've seen protests on TV (and one in person) with children holding signs saying "We are America!" or "Don't Send My Mommy Away!". What kind of parent would use their children in this way and more importantly, what kind of values are they instilling in their children that says what they are doing is ok?

I read an article published shortly after a recent immigration raid that resulted in many folks being detained and held for deportation. The woman interviewed was legal but crying how it wasn't fair, that these people had a right to work and make a better life for themselves and how was she going to explain to her daughter where Uncle Rojas has gone.

Lady, you be a parent and tell her the bloody truth: Uncle Rojas broke the law by coming here without permission and they sent him back to Mexico (or wherever he was from) for being bad. Anything less and you are teaching your child that some laws are ok to break.

That idea is what really pisses me off at the core of this issue. The idea that it is ok to break the laws of this country, not follow the rules, but really, it is ok because they weren't hurting anyone and just trying to make a life for themselves. Or they have a right to a job or a good education. Or any other similar nonsense. Their "rights" override the sovereignty of this country.

I want to meet an American citizen that agrees with this concept because so far, I haven't met one yet. Just the opposite.

Why does the President keep pushing this idea of comprehensive immigration reform? There is no reform. It is a free pass for anyone able to sob for the cameras and cry about how their lives would be impacted if Mommy or Daddy were sent away. And you are special why?

If Mommy or Daddy American Citizen commits a serious crime, the state doesn't let them off because of the impact it would have on their children. That is part of the price of being a bad parent and engaging in criminal behavior. Actions have consequences and your family will suffer for them. That's part of the lesson you get to learn. But no, a non-citizen is special because their so-called "rights" are more important than the laws of the land.

You can sugarcoat the term "immigration reform" any way you want but at the end of the day it will end up with the result of a "guest worker program" with some provision buried deep in the law that will allow those on it citizenship or permanent residency for illegals at some point in the future when the People aren't looking.

And you know what really chaps my ass? That these people think they deserve amnesty because they are here! Like that confers some special status on them. It doesn't.

What about all the people overseas right now who are awaiting entry visas to come here? People who have been sponsored by a family member or a company here and have been waiting years. Yes, years. On average, it takes two to three years for a family member overseas sponsored by a family member in the USA to get permission to come here. Until then, they wait in their home country. Amnesty isn't fair to them. People who are following the rules get no consideration but those who sneak across the border and then suddenly demand their "rights" are accorded special status? Not on my watch.

I am a legal immigrant. So in this area, I have earned the right to bitch. It is really tough to call me an intolerant, racist bastard since I have sparred with the INS for 8 years on work visas and paperwork snafus. I've earned my stars on this matter. Even today, I am still not free of it. I have seen the good (very rare), the indifferent (commonplace) and the bad (twice is too many times) of the US immigration system. I have been there and done that. As a result, I have an insight into the process that your average American citizen is totally clueless about.

So trust me when I say that I am offended to the point of rage by anyone even suggesting amnesty for illegal immigrants. As in "Which part of 'illegal' in 'illegal immigrant' don't you understand?".

As to the phrase "undocumented immigrant", that is language semantics and designed to deflect criticism. I don't care. Illegal alien or illegal immigrant, I don't care which term you use because they both mean the same thing: criminal. Find them, arrest them, punish them and if they aren't supposed to be here, get them the fuck out of here.

Can you tell this issue bothers me just a little bit?

To grant amnesty is to cheapen and insult every single person who has followed the law and dealt with the process like the good, upstanding citizens they hope to be. Legal immigrants are held to a very high standard. Higher than that of your average American citizen. To us, the idea that you would simply ignore the law and reward behavior that under the current immigration laws would result in your immediate denial is the ultimate in hypocrisy and sells out everything we have endured. It tells us that the law only applies to certain people. And it isn't us. Talk about a stab in the back to every one of us here legally and every person waiting for the honor of coming here.

But some folks will cry "What about the children? This will destroy families! They are citizens! They don't deserve to lose their parents!". To this, my answer is: The parents have a choice. They can either take their children with them or they can leave them here in the care of a suitable, legally residing relative. Either way, the law-breaking parents are not staying here.

But, you cry, the children are US citizens! And?!? The law doesn't say they can't claim their birthright (bought, I might add due to generosity in the Constitution and taken advantage of by illegals). The law just says they have to wait until they are an adult to do it!

I have zero issue with a child of illegal immigrants but who is a US citizen being sent with the parents back to their home country. Is it punishing the child? Most certainly. Is it fair? No. But the parents have a duty to raise their children properly and to educate them to understand that their choices did have a consequence. Direct experience is a fabulous teacher. When that child turns 18, I welcome them back to the USA with open arms. Citizenship is conferred on the children by birth. It does not extend upwards to the parents. The child can sponsor their parents once in this country and let them come in legally then. Until then, deal with it. That is the law of the land.

Give my views on this issue, here my version of comprehensive immigration reform:

1. Deny outright any government service to anyone who cannot prove by birth or legal status that they are entitled to be here. And it has to be the parent. This is to prevent parents using their children to claim benefits. The parents are the legal guardians and thus are responsible for decision making on the child's behalf. Breaking the law to come here isn't very responsible. As a result, no benefits. No government IDs, no programs, no in-state tution, nothing. You want to break the law, you live in the shadows.
2. Fund the Border Patrol and actually let them do their jobs rather than send them to prison! This ought to be obvious. No catch-and-release. Give the BP an express lane at the major border crosses for their vehicles. You get caught in the USA illegally on a border, 48 hours later your are back north or south the border. No exceptions.
3. Finish the border fence. 700 miles is not even a good start. If you don't want to build the fence, fine, I'll settle for armed National Guard troops stationed every 500 yards in groups of four with a Humvee, a radio and a video camera. Anyone they catch is automatically detained and turned over to the Border Patrol. If they are actually fired upon, use of lethal force is authorized. Hence the video camera. It is to document that the invaders shot first. Yes, invaders! If you cross a border illegally with arms, you aren't in a limbo state. You are an armed invader that is either in the border country's army or a terrorist. If you're not in uniform, it kind of narrows it down. The Geneva Convention only applies to armed combatants. If you aren't in uniform, it is a civilian defense or criminal matter. Either way, first priority is the safety of US citizens whether they be civilians, soldiers or law enforcement. Shoot at any of them and you will be responded to in kind.
4. If you are detained in the US, police are allowed to question your immigration status. It is only by gentleman's agreement or treasonous legislation that prevents law enforcement from doing so in some areas. If they don't think you're legal, you should be required to prove it. If you are found to be illegal, you get turned over immediately to the USCIS and deportation proceedings begin in earnest. If this isn't the first time you've been caught illegally, you're on an express train or bus to the border. If you're from overseas, you're on a plane out of here. You can explain your lack of documentation on soil outside of the United States. Caught on an ICE raid? Same thing. If you are illegal and your kids aren't, make a choice because either way, you're leaving.
5. Any employer caught knowingly employing illegal immigrants gets a $25K fine per illegal for a first offense. Second offense, $50K per. Third offense, the owners and officers of the company get to enjoy time in a Federal prison. Say one year consecutive per illegal. To employers trying to weasel out of this by stating they didn't know the documents were fake, we'll increase the list of documents. I am required to present a passport or proof of birth to get a driver's license. We'll demand the same of you. You will make a reasonable, honest effort to verify identity. The I-9 form is pretty straightforward in this regard. Only those wanting to evade the law are going to have a problem with this. And if they are screaming, then the ICE has a good place to start for their raids.
6. I'm not going to argue for a change in the Constitution to prevent the creation of "anchor babies". I've made my stance clear on how that is to be treated previously. Kids can come back when they're 18. Enough said.

At this point, people are probably screaming "Where's your compassion?!?". Compassion was tried in 1986 and it was a disaster. Amnesty was granted then with a promise of vigorous enforcement. The amnesty worked. The enforcement never materialized. Trying again, only harder with more people won't be any different this time. I have little faith that any true enforcement of existing immigration laws will materialize.

But I am not heartless. People can get lucky in the lottery of life and I believe that random acts of kindness are a good thing. I just don't agree with 12-20 million randoms acts of nationally suicidal kindness.

I will accept a green card lottery for 500,000 illegal immigrants. Anyone in this country illegally may apply. To be accepted, they must register with the INS as if they were applying legally. They will submit to checks on 90 or 180 day intervals like you would with a probation officer. They must apply for a social security number and begin to pay taxes like the rest of us. They must pass a criminal background check. If they fail in any of this (i.e. they move and not tell the INS where they are), they are immediately detained and deported without criminal penalty and can apply for admission like anyone else from their country. If they disappear and are caught later, it is an automatic felony and they will never be allowed admission. Ever. In the interim, they will be watched like hawks.

Half a million will be rewarded for being criminals and be allowed to stay. Two parents can apply as a group as a single entry in the lottery but they must be legally married and stay married for a period of two years after the green card is issued. Before you cry out in outrage, let me remind you that this is a modification of a current requirement already demanded by the INS for spousal green cards under current law (the law requires if you have been married less than two years at the time the green card is issued, you are on probation. If you divorce in that time, you lose your green card and can be deported. This provision exists to prevent 'marriages of convenience'.).

Permanent residency will be granted with a 10 year probationary status. That is double the current five year requirement. Only after 10 years have elapsed may a winner of the lottery apply for US citizenship. And while on the green card they may not sponsor any member of their family outside the country.

And lastly, I will only accept this type of lottery, if and only if, that every person overseas awaiting entry or are here already in pipeline have their applications processed and granted unconditionally before any lottery application is processed. The illegals go the back of the line and they stay there until those who followed the process are handled first. If it takes five years for the first illegal lottery winners to be handled, no problem. They will have several years of close monitoring and a chance to begin to assimilate properly. If they fail, they're gone. Yes, they are being held to a higher standard. They have to be. They haven't proven themselves worthy of being held to the standard of a legal permanent resident. Regardless, it is going to be anywhere from 13-18 years before citizenship will be an option for a lottery winner. I am not going to see the law-abiding punished for their crime of not being here illegally first. They get a free pass just like those were are giving amnesty to. It is only fair.

If this is too much for the illegals crying about their "rights" to bear, then they can enjoy the rights of due process before an immigration judge in a orange jumpsuit. And then they can wail about their rights all they like from the safety of their home country.

Where they belong.

Gun Show = Porn for Canadians

There are certain events that we carry with us as memorable or defining moments in our lives. First bike, first kiss, first time you made love, first car, first job and so on. For me, there was one that I always remember:

My first gun show.

For background, as the blog states, I'm Canadian. Born and raised in southern Ontario in a medium-sized town not far from Toronto. For as long as I can remember, I have always had an interest in things military. My lifelong passion was planes, especially fighter aircraft, but anything with wings worked too. As I got older, I branched out into military history and equipment in general. 18th century ships-of-the-line, World War I in general, the Germans in North Africa in WWII, Cold War nuclear weapons, my interests were broad and ranging.

I had some exposure to different small arms in books that I had. Just pictures and some minor info. I liked the guns pictured within because they looked powerful and dangerous. What else would you expect of a boy? But beyond those pictures, guns were distant and unknown. Far away and never touching close to home. Other than curiousity, I was never fascinated with them in the ways I was with airplanes.

When I was 12, I joined the Royal Canadian Air Cadet corps. This is a volunteer thing that has no real equivalent in the USA. It is run by the Department of Defense. There were Sea and Army Cadets too. I joined the Air Cadets because of the influence of some early school counsellors and because of one of the fringe benefits: they took you flying.

For a 12 year old with a love of aircraft, this is a big deal. A chance to fly for free in an airplane?!? Sign me up and my parents did. I look back on those years I served in the Cadets with a high degree of fondness (many things I was not fond of at the time). In addition to allowing me to fly for the first time in my life (another memorable first), they have the honor of providing another first:

It was my first exposure to guns.

I had been in for about a year, gotten through my probationary period and was now eligible. Part of the component of all the cadet corps was exposure to military marksmanship. Even though each branch of cadets specialized in different areas, marksmanship was an all-around skill. Since it was a military organization, you got exposed to many aspects of military life. This was one of them.

For a 13 year old teenager, this was a huge deal. We got a safety class, told the basics of what we would expect and what we had to do. Like any recruit being taught to handle small arms, it was strict and regimented. Once we were done, we were taken downstairs to the indoor range (my cadet unit drilled in the city armory). In groups of eight, we were taken into the range.

Before me was the first rifle I would ever hold in my life. It was a Lee Enfield Mk.4(T). A bolt-action rifle converted to fire .22LR in single shots. The range was 25 yards long. We were each given 20 rounds in a wooden block and told to aim at the targets and shoot. We did. No instruction on sighting. Just on how to feed the ammo and shoot. On a distant circle I could barely see. I had no idea what I was doing beyond aiming and shooting. We did 20 rounds in light to familiarize ourselves. Then we cycled through a second time and did it in the dark by feel.

Looking back, I sucked both times (did not learn about how to use a peep sight until a few years ago). But, it was my first time shooting and I thought it was the coolest thing in the world. My mother did not share my enthusiasm (did not like the fact then they taught me to shoot and doesn't like that fact today I own guns).

We did a few more range sessions in my time in the Cadets and I did a day on a military range during a cadet basic training course. Got to see my second rifle then, what Canada called the C1. Also known as the FN FAL. Again, I thought it was coolest thing in the world. It was then guns began to sit in the back of my mind and was now aware of them. And the fact it was possible to own them. Of course, I was a teenager and I knew that you had to have a FAC to get a gun. Since I was too young and didn't, all I could do was look at the guns in the case in the sporting goods section and dream.

Then life intervened. At 23, I moved to the United States and from there, nothing I planned for myself and how I expected things to turn out has come to pass. And indeliably set me on the course to where I am today.

One of the popular conceptions I had growing up of the States (as we call the USA in Canada) was how easy it was to own a gun. That pretty much anyone could have one. When I moved here, it was something I was aware of. I saw gun racks in the backs of trucks in Texas and was awestruck. Some even had guns in them. I became aware, dimly, of American gun culture.

And that is where it pretty much stayed. I knew things were different here but I didn't know how. Nor did I actively seek out to see for myself how it was different. I knew there were gun shops but never went in one. Even when one was in the shop right next door to the shop of a good friend of mine. I was curious but frightened. And I had no need. I knew that as a non-citizen, I couldn't own a gun so why bother? That and I was still holding onto the classic liberal Canadian view of guns. That there was no need to have one and who would want one if you didn't hunt?

If only I knew how much that would change.

In 1998, I moved to Virginia and in 2000, I met Tom. For what happened from then on in the arena of guns, the blame can be placed squarely and proudly at his feet.

I don't even know how it came about but he mentioned he was looking for a pistol. I asked him for what. He said for home defense since he and his girlfriend (now his wife) were getting pretty serious in living together. I said ok. I knew he was ex-military and figured he knew what he was doing. Then he asked me that memorable question:

"There's a gun show in Woodbridge this weekend at the VFW post. Want to go?".

Huh? A gun show? What was that? Did people go to a show to display their guns in a competition of some sort? No, he said. It was like a bazaar for people to go browse at and buy guns. And he was going to go look for a pistol to buy for himself. For all my lack of knowledge about guns in general in Canada, there was one thing that I did know: pistols were almost forbidden in Canada. And he was going to look for one like it was some casual event? I said "Yes.". I had to see this.

So, that weekend, we drove down to Woodbridge, Virginia and found the show. It was in this small post building not much bigger than a small community center. We paid our entrance fee and walked into the building.

And I stood in the doorway to the hall dumbfounded.

Before me were about 30 odd tables. On two-thirds of them were guns of every description. Rifles, handguns, shotguns, military looking rifles. And people milling around, picking them up and handling them like it was the most normal thing in the world. After a moment, Tom and I went in and began walking the aisles.

I just looked around left and right. I was speechless. Then I started asking questions to Tom. How did you buy one? What were the rules? As we got to the tables of handguns and military looking rifles, it became "Who could own one of these?".

The answer stunned me: "Anyone who passed the background check.".

Anyone?!? Just like that? By about the second table, Tom stopped and was looking at the handguns. Anyone could own a handgun? He picked one up. I asked him if I could pick one up. He told me to go ahead (not knowing then that is kind of bad behavior at gun shows. Now I ask permission). So I did. I was awestruck. I was standing here in the middle of the hall holding a handgun like it was the most normal thing in the world!

We kept wandering and stopped at another table, one offering what I now know are AR-15s. Tom picked one up and began regalling me about his time in the Air Force and how much fun the M-4 was and about how he wanted to get one of these. I learned then the difference between a machine gun and a civilian version of the same. I had been curious about such "military guns" since I was a teenager and here they were right before me! I could touch them. I picked one up and sighted down it. In theory, I could own one! Just like that!

It was like forbidden fruit and I was standing in the middle of the garden. I was hooked at that moment. I was grinning like a chesire cat. It was quite simply one of the most intoxicating experiences of my life. I knew at that moment what it must be like to be a drug addict as we moved along those aisles.

In the end, Tom didn't find anything he liked but in the process I got a crash course in American firearms, laws, ownership and the whole concept of having guns and I thought it was the coolest thing in the world.

Over time, I would settle down but I remember vividly those couple of hours at the show and my eyes probably as wide as saucers, grinning from ear to ear. My mother would have been horrified. But it didn't seem to be a big deal to anyone and I began to think of what it might be like to actually own a gun of my own. It was unbelievable!

Look at it from my perspective. My only exposure to guns had been as a cadet under military conditions. Civilian ownership was a foreign concept. Canada is, by culture, not a violent place and violence only occurred in faraway cities like Toronto and Hamilton where you expected such things. Growing up, my hometown maybe averaged one murder every five years and was so out of the ordinary to warrant special attention. That was in a town of 80,000.

And then I walked headfirst, unprepared and with all kinds of preconceived notions, into an American gun show and was faced with every sterotype I could imagine with regard to guns, their ownership, usage and need. And no one was acting like it was a big deal.

My friend John summed it up with one phrase: "A gun show is like porn for Canadians.".

How right he is! A naked woman could have been enticing me two feet ahead of me and I would have been looking right past her. Penthouse had nothing on the naked display of firepower before me.

That day was the beginning of the end of my Canadian liberalism with regard to guns. And I thought that was a big gun show.

Two months later, I went to the Nation's Gun Show in Chantilly, Virginia and had my perceptions permanently corrected. After that show, I was permanently hooked.

It was all downhill from there. My mother laments my interest. Why couldn't I just stick to models of weapons rather than the real thing?

Maybe because I'm addicted to "Canadian porn"? :)

Now if I can just get my best friend from back home to come down during a gun show weekend and see what happens to him. It's only fair of me to pass along the addiction and let him experience the raw, naked unairbrushed vision that is the American gun show.

Someday. Now, I need to head home and get ready for this weekend's show. Hey, even a porn peddler needs his fix!

You Should Be Allowed a Gun In DC If...

Part of my daily routine is checking on a variety of blogs and news sites. One of them is Keep and Bear Arms. Obviously pro-gun, they are a good source of day-to-day gun news from around the country.

On today's news list, there was a story at the bottom about a debate hosted by NPR. The debate was between two DC mothers on gun control with the overturning of the DC gun ban in Parker vs. DC. I'm not going to discuss the debate itself (which it really wasn't) since I can't stand listening to people who can't shut up for more than five seconds to actually listen to someone else. What I want to discuss is one of the comments left on the site.

Here is the comment:

I am a married father of two and I often worry about my current options if an armed intruder enters my home. On the other hand, I worry about what could happen if I choose to arm myself with a handgun to protect my family.

I prefer the opportunity to make my own choice on the matter. Hopefully the Distict's legitimate gun owners will be forced to regularly qualify themselves via owner licensing, gun registration and continuing education.

As for the interview... there was plenty of irony in Valencia's and Shanda's differing points of view but their heated banter made me nervous. Though this may have been the intent since the presentation of honest, unfiltered, contrasting opinions often have that effect.

- plw

Pretty reasonable comment. What I want to take issue with is his comment in the second paragraph regarding owner licensing, gun registration and continuing education.

Starting in reverse order, he actually answers his own concern about what could happen if he choose to arm himself. Continuing education is the answer. Anyone considering a purchase of a firearm should take the time to at least learn their local and State laws regarding that purchase and if they are going to ever see a need for self-defense with said arm, to take a home defense course, basic markmanship course and so on. Education is the key to overcoming your concerns, plw. On this, I am in total agreement.

This idea with the DC gun ban gone that if the citizens want to have guns in the District they should be licensed and prove their competency seems to be a reaction that on the surface seems reasonable. Reasonable to any liberal, that is, and the District is most definitely a liberal (read: nanny) town.

This idea is coming out as the reality of the possibility of DC residents legally owning guns has started to sink in. People are wondering what it will mean and they are concerned for what is going to happen next. It's a normal reaction as people try to cope with the unknown and with change in general. And then the emotional reaction comes out because someone who has lived in fear of guns for so long since the only guns in the District were held by the police and used by the criminals, they are fearing that guns in the hands of non-criminals will create a new wave of state-sanctioned firearms crime.

So what do they do? They try impose "reasonable restictions" on the legal possession of arms in order to prevent that crime. And by doing so, without even realizing it, what they are really saying is they want the gun ban back. This is essentially what plw is saying even though he doesn't realize it.

Why do I say that? To an average person, the idea that a gun owner in DC should be forced to show qualifications in the form of licensing and registration on its face seems like a reasonable idea. Reasonable until you recognize that, essentially, that is what the gun ban for the past 30 years did.

At its heart, the DC gun ban made illegal the possession of a hangun that wasn't registered prior to 1979. Assembled, functional firearms of any sort were not permitted. And required a permit to move a handgun even within your own home. Those permits were never issued.

The permit was a form of owner licensing. And it succinctly illustrates why permitting/licensing and registration systems that are discretionary aren't a qualification for legal ownership but a denial of legal ownership.

By denying registration of pistols after 1979, you created a defacto denial of rights to anyone who didn't possess the banned item prior to that point or to anyone moving into the District after that point. If you can't register what is supposed to be a legal possessed item, it creates the same effect as an outright ban. But you don't call it a ban. People are ok with registration because that sounds benign. Bans sound bad.

The permit for transport and assembled firearms restriction after that point is simply CYA legislation on the part of the DC council whose sole purpose was to deny the citizens an affirmative defense in the event of a defensive shooting within the home.

Because it was against the law to have a working gun in your house, if you shot someone with it, even if you legally possessed in under the law, you broke the law by using it. So you would be charged. You moved your pistol from the bedroom where it was licensed to be into the foyer without a permit. So not only do you wind up with a dead robber at your feet, you get to go to jail for his misdeeds. The DC gun ban did no less than create a class of citizen criminals for the purpose of making them utterly dependent on the city for their protection and well-being.

Some would argue, "Ok, the DC law was draconian. Let's craft a new law that licenses owners in order to make sure they are going to be responsible.". My sarcastic response to that would be "Fine, criminals first.". But lets go a little deeper, shall we?

Personally, I find the idea of a license to possess a gun to be a bad idea. Solely for the prospect of abuse over time. Licensing a gun owner for the carry of a concealed weapon and licensing a gun owner for mere possession are the same thing to me. Both depend on the benevolence of the government and require absolute care in crafting such licensing rules to ensure they do not get cut off or be used to create a defacto denial of rights in the future.

The first problem with licensing is the tie to competency. Many people proposing such a scheme want owners to show they are competent. Ok, who makes the rules for competency? Who gets to evaluate them? Who has the authority to change them?

To use concealed carry as an example, most states require proof of competency prior to issuance of a carry permit. Virginia is such a place. The competency requirements are pretty easy to meet. A firearms course, hunter safety course, being a certified instructor or being retired law enforcement all qualify. The rationale for this is that anyone actually forced to draw a weapon should at least know how to use it. To most average people, this is a reasonable idea.

However, it is ripe for abuse. Virginia gets around such potential abuse for the most part by simply absolving themselves of the testing for competence and by placing statutory limits on the process. The competency testing, more often than not, is done by civilians unaffliated with the government! In my case, a basic pistol course done through BBSG Academy. It is an NRA course. Not a government official in sight. I like that because it is impartial, non-discriminatory and places the onus on the individual teaching the course.

But what if Virginia amended their concealed carry permit laws to require additional proof of competency? How about a marksmanship component? Maybe it isn't enough to show you know which end of the gun gets pointed at the bad guy? Perhaps you need to show you can actually hit them without endangering innocents around you? Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? So, Virginia decides to amend its law with the following hypothetical marksmanship requirement for the issuance of a CHP:

"An applicant must demonstrate competency with a handgun by providing a fired target signed and dated by a qualified instructor or observer. The applicant will be considered to be competent with a handgun by placing a minimum of 7 rounds of 10 within a 4 inch circle placed at a distance of 15 yards at eye level from a standing position. This must be done in the presence of the qualified instructor or observer as part of an approved or supplemental training course admissible as proof of competency under as required by Virginia law.".

To an average person, this sounds like a perfectly reasonable requirement. To an experienced shooter or gun owner who knows anything about handguns, the phones would be ringing off the hook in Richmond to protest something like this in the strongest possible terms.

The reason is because such a component would be the equivalent of a poll tax on concealed carry. This hypothetical is anything but reasonable. 70 percent hit rate at 15 yards in a 4 inch space is advanced to expert level shooting. That's competitive marksmanship. Police officers aren't even held to such a standard! To those without knowledge of firearms, they would accept such a "reasonable restriction" as such until they themselves had to actually apply that standard. Only then, too late, would they learn otherwise.

Current Virginia law states as long as you take an approved course or demonstrate competency by other means, pay a fixed fee of $50 (which by law is the most they can charge) and pass a background check, they have to give you the permit to carry. The only way in Virginia to be denied is to forget to fill out the application correctly or have something that would disqualify you from owning a gun under any circumstance. Virginia is a classic "shall issue" state. If you qualify, they must give it to you.

The second problem with licensing is by allowing for the ability to place future restrictions or to change the terms of licensing solely at the whim of government, your future ownership of arms will always be at the pleasure of the State (or City in the case of DC). If Virginia raised the permit fee from $50 to $500, would that be a reasonable restriction? Or would it deny poorer residents the option of defending themselves? It would be a hurdle to some. To others, it would be a denial of rights based on income. What if it was $10,000? At that point, "shall issue" becomes pretty much "no issue" because virtually no one will be applying for the concealed carry permit at that point. Same would apply in a owner licensing scheme.

Owner licensing for mere possession of arms is a slippery slope. It is very easy through the legislative process to change those terms arbitrarily. This is especially important given that legislators are the ones who create the rules of the legislative process. If they can change them without citizen input, it isn't a fair process. The potential for subversion is wide open. One need look no further than places like Illinois and Massachussets to see where an owner licensing scheme can lead.

Gun registration often follows in the wake of licensing. What would registration accomplish? If you shoot someone in self-defense in your home, the police are going to know you had the gun and are going to take it as evidence. So registration to know you have it is kind of a moot point. If you shoot someone without cause, it is no different whether you used a stolen gun or a legally registered one, you are going to prison for murder either way.

The sole purpose of registration is to know where some guns are so that when further draconian restrictions are effected, the government will know where the first crop of new potential criminals are. Then give them amnesty for however long to either turn them in or have the police go get them. Nothing more. Registering guns will not prevent crime since the only people who would are law-abiding owners. Like earlier, my response to any registration scheme is "Criminals first.".

I think plw is well-intentioned. But we all know where such intentions lead. Licensing and registration are restrictions on the law-abiding that create an increase in crime. There is no relationship between restrictions on legal firearms ownership and reductions in firearm crime that states that gun crime goes down when legal ownership is curtailed. In fact, the opposite is true. The DC gun ban is sterling proof of that.

Do not quash recently freed rights by imposing different form of the same schemes that have already been tried and failed. Licensing and registration are not the answer. Simple, responsible gun ownership is. Without restriction (at least no worse than exist in other states like Virginia).

As far as I am concerned, anyone proposing such schemes had better be able to prove that they will work beyond mere appeals to emotion because it sounds "reasonable". The history of gun control in places like DC have provided no such proof and ample anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

I think plw, if you want to own a gun, once you are legally able to do so, get one. Get some training and practice responsible ownership. You don't need the government to tell you to do that or second guess you. If they are, what does that say about the ultimate human right to make a choice? The best part about the striking down of the DC gun ban is the empowerment of its citizens to make such choices and take responsibility for themselves.

That is true freedom and one that is long overdue. Anyone who feels otherwise (i.e Mayor Fenty, the DC council and the new police chief) can go pound sand.

No DC Gun Ban, The Blood will Rain! Rain I Say!

Courtesy of Arms and the Law (thank you for the link to my opinion on SB.43), comes this "debate" from the Washington Post. I'm not a big fan of the WaPo. I don't subscribe to them because balanced they are not and honestly, I don't own a bird so I have no use for the newspaper.

Since there is nothing like getting mad at 7:30am, I'm going to fisk away on this.

"It's good one way, and it can hurt you another way," says Leonard Martin, 66, a Vietnam combat veteran and a retired Metrobus driver. "The way I see it is, if you get guns, the crooks are going to break in the house and steal your arms. Second, if somebody is picking at you and they chase you in the house and you think that's them at the door, it could be someone else, but you fire through the door and kill an innocent person. I just think the law should stay where it is."

Leonard, thank you for your service to your country. I respect an honest, hard-working individual. But on this, you're wrong.

One, do you think having a gun in your house is the threshold point at which a criminal is going to decide "Oh, now there's a gun in the house, I'm going to have to break in to steal it."? I doubt it. Seeing your TV through the window might be enough. The only way the criminal is going to know if you've gotten a gun is if they see you bring it in the house. Put the case in a brown shopping bag when you bring it home if that concerns you. Then they'll never know.

Yes, criminals could break in if they know you have guns in the house. But most also have a finely tuned sense of self-preservation. Unless they absolutely know you live alone and know your routine, they are going to realize breaking into your home is a life-or-death proposition. Most criminals prefer to avoid taking such chances.

And two, if they do pick at you and chase you into the house, the last thing you do is fire through the door. That's illegal and dangerous. If they are after you, they'll come through your door. Once they get a few steps in your door (and if the law says you don't have a duty to retreat), fire away. Especially if they have a weapon. But make sure of your local laws. Responsible gun owners who keep guns for self-defense learn their local laws on such matters. Or ignore them at their peril. If you've done your homework properly, your actions in such circumstances are well-thought out in advance and should not be troubling you should you need to act.

The law where it stood didn't even give you the option of making that choice. It placed you at the mercy of that criminal. Baseball bats and oven spray work to a point but aren't going to help you if the criminal breaking in already has a gun and is willing to use it on you. You at least deserve a fighting chance.

"I want a gun, too, but I can't handle one," Martin says. "And you got some regular citizens out here as crazy as people across the street." He is pointing toward St. Elizabeths Hospital.

Ok, Leonard, if you can't handle one, that's fine. That's honest. Don't get one. Don't worry about the "crazy people" across the street though. Odds are good that they couldn't own a gun anyway (because they were committed). You have to pass a background check to buy any gun and that includes making sure you aren't a "crazy person" (through state mental health records).

But Leonard, the truth of the matter is you can handle a gun. You just have to be taught how. It is not some magical device that only the most carefully trained people can wield. Guns are simple devices and it does not take much to teach you the basics. I would be happy to do so with you free of charge. Or sign up for a basic pistol class in Virginia or Maryland. At least then you'll know one way or the other.

And: "More than one-quarter of recovered firearms were 9mm pistols, while 18 percent were .38s or .357s." Most firearms recovered in the District were traced "overwhelmingly to the two surrounding states, Maryland, Virginia, accounting for 43 percent of the total successful traces." In 2004, 119 juveniles were arrested for carrying pistols without a license. In 2005, that figure went up to 165.

This isn't a surpise: they are two closest states! But what is interesting is that the two states combined only accounted for 43 percent. That means the other 57 percent are coming from elsewhere!

What the WaPo doesn't state is the likelihood that these guns are illegally obtained either by theft (where the vast majority of crime guns comes from) or via illegal "straw purchases" in other states. Only a few would come from a dealer selling them knowingly to a criminal without proper paperwork. If there are dealers doing that, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Otherwise, where the guns are coming from is pointless agenda pushing on the part of the Post without some context as to their actual sources.

And 165 juveniles carrying pistols without a license up from 119! My God, it's a crime wave! This is meant to alarm. That is actually a pretty small number given the population of the District. The whole "without a license" thing is funny because juveniles (under 18) in most states can't carry a handgun period as a general rule! They were committing a crime regardless since they wouldn't have been eligible for the license in the first place (such as in Virginia where you need to be 21 to get a permit to carry). Carrying without a license is a charge stacked onto an illegal possession by someone under 18 years of age as a cherry. Just to add the extra charge and get more crime convictions on the books.

At the D.C. Council hearing last week on the confirmation of Cathy Lanier as police chief, a parade of regular people told the panel what was happening in their neighborhoods. "Citizens with proper training should be allowed to have handguns," Joyce Saucier said.

Bzzt, wrong answer Joyce! Take out the "with proper training" part and I would agree with you. Getting training is a responsible thing to do but it must not be a prerequisite to the exercise of a Constitutional right. If that is the case, then I think journalists should get proper training and licenses before exercising their First Amendment rights.

If you want to change this phrase, change it to "Citizens who pass the required Federal background check should be allowed to have handguns.". Then you would be absolutely correct and totally within the bounds of the law as it stands everywhere else in the United States.

Moore, a former D.C. Council member, said he was the only original council member to vote against the gun ban. He has come out this day to praise the ruling that overturned it. "Everybody in my family has a gun. The police aren't responsible for your protection. You have to protect yourself."

Former Councilman Moore is absolutely 100 percent correct. The police are not responsible for your protection. Numerous State and Supreme Court rulings agree as well. Now at least citizens in DC may finally have better ways to protect themselves than with sticks, sprays and shepherds.

Not far from where Moore stood, Kathy Henderson, former ANC commissioner in Carver Terrace, told the council: "The level of violence in Carver Terrace is horrific. Where are our reassurances? My community is filled with citizens who are tired of listening to the helicopters hovering every night."

Outside the hearing, Henderson said that repealing the gun ban "would be a public safety nightmare. A public bloodletting. All the gun violence in the District is attributed to guns coming from Maryland and Virginia. We've had a 30-year ban on guns in the District. If law-abiding citizens are allowed to join the fray, it will be a bloodletting because tensions are already high."

The letters ANC should be a clue right there.

Ms. Henderson, the overturning of the ban does not suddenly mean you can carrying guns on the streets of DC! Even the Court decision stated that was a separate issue. They ruled that the District could not prohibit citizens from having functioning firearms in their homes!

Controlling crime in the neighborhoods that bring the helicopters is likewise separate. But what it does mean is that if crime decides to intrude on the castle walls of someone living in fear there, they will have the option of fighting back.

The next paragraph just floors me. How can this woman actually say that stuff with a straight face and honestly believe it? You're telling me there hasn't been a public safety nightmare growing year after year in the District while the ban was in effect?

Do not even sit there and blame Maryland and Virginia for the crime problems of the District. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the DC Council who want to make victims of every last law-abiding resident of the District. And according to statistics stated earlier in this article, Maryland and Virginia account for less than half of the total crime guns traced in DC. Not only are you clueless but misinformed as well.

The gun ban in the District has been a miserable failure. You acknowledge the "fray". The criminals created it with guns possessed illegally! How did the ban stop them? It didn't!

It's going to rain blood on the streets now! Wrong, it is going to ooze onto the carpets and floors in the home of unfortunate souls in the District unlucky enough to have a violent criminal break into the sanctity of their homes. Bloodletting? Yes. Public? No.

Yes, blood will be spilled. But not much and almost universally it will be the blood of a criminal. And after a few examples are made, the crime patterns in DC will shift dramatically. Bad news on the street travels faster than the speed of light. Criminals will get the word that breaking into the homes of law-abiding citizens in the District is now a life-or-death gamble and will think twice about it. They will move on to "safer" crimes. No crime is right but getting a car stolen from a curb is a damn sight better than a family of three dead in their own home because of a botched robbery and a desire on the part of the criminal to leave no witnesses. Property you can replace. Lives of innocent citizens you cannot.

Once this happens, the only people feeling tension in DC will be criminals (whom I do not care one iota about) and the DC Council who will eventually have to answer for a 30 year failed policy that made the District one of the most dangerous cities in the country.

Ms. Henderson's cluelessness is capped off by this:

In Carver Terrace, she said, "gunshots were as common during dinner hour as dinner. There is gunfire and helicopters, unwelcome daily punctuation to our lives and an unwelcome daily intrusion. Criminals have more sophisticated weaponry than the police, AK-47s. What does that say about civil society when citizens are armed? I think that is tragic."

Hogwash. Criminals, by and large, prefer handguns. The same type of weapon the police carry. I don' think there is a special "criminal issue" handgun out there. AK-47s? I think our former ANC commissioner may have been following former DC Mayor Barry's preference for certain unregulated pharmaceuticals.

I want to see crime reports citing the use of AK-47s in the District to back that one up. There aren't going to be many. And even if there are, guess what, it was illegal to even have the rifle functional to begin with under the ban! The criminals had broken the law before even firing the first shot! The stacking of charges just goes up from there.

And while all this bleating is going on, I would love to know from Ms. Henderson and her ilk precisely what it is about the AK-47 rifle that makes it so deadly? Looks don't kill and frankly, I don't find AK pattern guns all that pretty. The cartridge it fires is about the same in power as that from a middle-power hunting rifle.

If the concern is it can be a "cop killer", fear a single shot hunting rifle more than the AK-47. The hunting rifle will be more powerful and more accurate. It doesn't matter though: both will pierce normal police body armor. That is not a special ability imbued to certain types of "military style" guns. Virtually every rifle above a certain size has that ability.

As to what it says about a civil society when citizens are armed? I say it creates a low-crime, polite, responsible, community-oriented and self-reliant one. One that doesn't treat its citizens like victims and serfs to be lorded over by those who were elected to represent but instead rule.

"The responsible people," echoes Evans. "You should be able to bear arms. I wouldn't say it would be safer. But it would make criminals think twice. They might get what they are trying to put out."

Exactly.

"It's going to get worse before it gets better," Evans says.

Perhaps briefly. But when it does get better, the District may finally start to be a place worthy of being the Nation's Capital and serve as an example as an upholder of American Rights rather than an oppressor of them.

Idiocy of the Daily Kos

This is a little stale since I've been sitting on it for a few days. I wanted to get the SB.43 stuff out first and I did this as an exercise in relieving frustration. Part of why I started to do this was to get my blood pressure to back off a few notches when I read stuff on various sites on topics that I consider important. By getting my views on issues out, even if few people read them, it gives me a record to refer to and makes me feel better.

Pro-Gun Progressive has a link to an article on Daily Kos. I agree with the article itself but I would like to go through and fisk some of the more "interesting" comments. For the record, I am neither a fan or hater of the Daily Kos. My political views cross the spectrum.

So in the interests of educating some misinformed souls, let us proceed...

I wouldn't call myself "pro gun." I would say that I support private gun ownership, to a limited degree, with heavy regulation (registration, ban on fully- and semi-automatics, coded and traceable bullets, etc.).

The fact remains that having a gun is more likely to harm you (or loved ones around you) than to help you.

I don't fear Nazis or Klansmen enough to endanger the children in my home. But if others do, who am I to say no? - HarveyMilk

Well, Harvey, if you're pro-gun, I'd really hate to see what anti-gun looks like.

The type of "heavy regulation" you talk about would essentially mean ownership of bolt-action, pump-action and single-shot rifles only. And no handgun ownership since technically a revolver is a form of semi-automatic weapon (one round per pull of the trigger).

And with your support of registration, when the government has decided that your ownership of the few guns they have so graciously allowed you to own (i.e. what the Brady Bunch calls 'high powered sniper rifles' aka hunting guns), they'll know where to find them.

The idiocy of this comment is revealed in the "coded and traceable" bullets part. Bullets deform on impact. So much for getting much in the way of recoverable markings. I think you mean "coded and traceable" cartridge cases. Either way, such technology does not exist. And how would this help solving crime, precisely? Unless you plan to take the driver's license and/or place on file the ID of every purchaser of ammunition? Sure, like that wouldn't have a chilling effect on legal purchases and create a flourishing black market for "untraceable" ammunition. Not to mention such a regulation would also have to outlaw civilian reloading and casting of their own bullets.

How, precisely, would you enforce such rules? Utopian dreaming. And totally unrealistic.

Lastly, I'll happily take issue with the meme of "you're more likely to be hurt if you have a gun in your home". That constantly gets trotted out. That idea comes from the debunked Kellerman study on gun ownership from 1986. GunCite and Dave Kopel pretty much rip that apart.

there are some people you don't want to have guns -- fortunately my schizophrenic brother-in-law is not a gun fan, else I'd be scared shitless (I'm already worried about my parents-in-law). So a certain amount of gun control is necessary, under the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment... - cardinal

You're right, cardinal, some people you don't want to have guns. I am in full agreement with that. Hence the reason for the existing background check. But that is as far as it goes. No granting of discretionary authority, no registration, no long term record keeping. If you show a predilection towards violence, are a convicted violent criminal (I have no issue with restoring 2A rights to a convicted criminal who isn't violent since they have paid their debt. In the home, for self-defense only) , mentally unstable and committed by the State, then yes, you shouldn't be allowed a gun. Otherwise, yes. My definition of reasonable restriction in terms of limits on gun ownership is pretty narrow.

As to the "well-regulated" part, too many people demonstrate their ignorance on this term. I did too when I first read it because I didn't know the historical underpinnings of it.

"Well-regulated" does not mean laws, rules or regulations. That is a modern interpretation of the term. In the language of the time, it had two generally agreed-upon meanings:

1. To be well-disciplined.
2. To possess a well-regulated firearm with "regulation" refering to the bore possessing the proper dimensions for the ball it was to fire and in being in good condition.

As usual, Guncite goes into immense detail on the origins of the term.

To me, the Second Amendment prescribes the National Guards of the States, as a hedge against the Army of the Federal government. Nothing more, nothing less.

As I said above, I support limited private gun ownership, but I don't think it necessarily flows from the Second Amendment. - HarveyMilk

Interesting Harvey, because the National Guard wasn't created for almost 130 years after the Constitution was ratified. The National Guard came into existence in 1903. They are Federalized troops, something the Founders were mistrustful of (as you do point out but in the wrong way). Hence the whole point of state militias. Militias independent of Federal government control. A goal the current National Guard system does not accomplish. State militias do exist. Maryland and Virginia both possess them, for example.

Multiple guns, even. I think that the Second Amendment is for everyone, not just rightwingers (who can't even shoot, like Dick Cheney).

And I always vote for Democrats no matter what their stance on guns is.

During the primaries, I can vote for the candidate whose take on gun laws is the closest to mine - for instance, I was a Howard Dean supporter last time around.

But Kerry's "anti-gun", and I didn't even hesitate to vote for him.

Also, Dean's gun stance was NOT the deciding factor in my vote for him.

I know a lot of other Democrats who feel the same way.

The issue as a whole is entirely over-rated. Bush got the majority of votes in 2004 because people thought he was doing an awesome job in the War on Terror™, NOT because he let the so-called "assault weapons" ban sunset, or whatever.

So I wish people would stop worrying about the Democrats' stance on guns, and focus on something else. - Plutonium Page

You must have a shifting view of gun laws then. But, you're an idealogue so why am I surprised? Party line all the way and just find the candidate of the hour closest to your views. I don't vote that way. Issues do matter and some issues are more important than others. Issues dealing with actual rights go a little higher on my priority scale than ones dealing with privileges (perceived "rights").

Your last line is the howler. Historically, which party brings out gun control legislation? Hint: It isn't the Republicans. President Bush may have been willing to sign a renewed AWB but it never happened. Most politicians had the good sense to remember what happened in 1996 after the AWB passed could happen to them. And smartly avoided facing that.

So as long as the Democratic Party as a whole (individual candidates may have pro-gun stances and that is good but far too few to make any real difference) continues to bring legislation like HR.1022, they will be mistrusted by those interested by gun rights as a whole.

As an aside, I find the whole two-party system in the USA somewhat amusing. It's kind of sad politics has devolved into two opposing sides. Life is so much more interesting with 4-5 active political parties vying for control.

I am very anti-gun. And I am not sorry. - Diaries

Thank you for being honest and standing up for your beliefs without regret. Just don't deny me my right to choose to own a gun because you happen to disagree. The problem is, too many folks want to impose their views as law on others who don't share the same viewpoint.

If you don't like guns, fine. Don't own one. But your right to deny me my right to own one ends at the tip of your nose. Until there is a substantial change in the laws nationwide and a Constitutional amendment to help enforce it, guns will be a part of the American society. They will be used for good and will be used for evil. Get used to it. Leave the good uses alone and prosecute harshly those who commit evil (with or without a gun).

The Security forces have Guns, is that not enough ?
Yes I understand it's anchored in the Constitution that and all that, but why do you really need them ?
I really think that negatives out weigh the positives so I believe that Guns have no place in a civilized society.
---

I'm Irish and I know what Guns do to people.
---

My point is What do you need a Gun for ?
This is the year 2007.
---

1. Gun related Crime in the US.

2. Gun related accidents in the US

Ban them and it will reduce both of the above incidences. It possibly would also reduce the number of people who go to jail.

- langerdang

langerdang is Irish and apparently living in Ireland. I have no problem with a foreigner commenting on American culture, law and values but if you're going to do so, at least do some research and not resort to emotional-based rhetoric.

Let's take them each in turn, shall we?

If only the Security Forces (aka the Police) have guns, you're living in a defacto police state that can grant or strip away the rights of the populace on a whim. Call it Democracy. Call it a Republic. Call it Parliament. Call it whatever you want but it only exists in a form those in power dictate. And they can pass laws that remove your rights even if the law says they can't. And often do. It's one of the first acts of any would-be dictator. Even if at the end of the day if a Supreme Court of that country decides those in power couldn't do what they wanted, what is to stop them from doing so anyway? Using the guns of the security forces as mechanism of enforcement.

The purpose of the American Constitution including the 2nd Amendment is to specifically limit the power of the Government over the Governed. This is very different from countries like those based on the British Parliamentary model where citizen rights derive from common law rather than being enshrined as the foundation of the country. The United States is unique in this regard. Even in my home country of Canada, the notion of the rights of citizens being protected within a Constitutional framework did not exist until 1982. And Canada has no right to bear arms.

If you want to know why this distinction is important, look no further than your neighbor Britain. Centuries of common law simply ignored because new laws are more important. Laws piled atop more laws to limit and control the citizenry. For example, citizens cannot act in self-defense there under the law. And they can get away with it because there is apparently no enforcable provision in Britain that limits the government power in any fundamental way.

As to guns having no place in civilized society, you're right. But this assumes everyone is acting civilized. We know that isn't the real world. Great fantasy but actual examples of such civilized living are few and far between. "Civilized society" is a shared concept that is both strong and fragile.

Strong in the sense that it can be a powerful unifying force and encourage people to look beyond themselves for the good of others. Fragile in that once you remove the artificial and abstract constructs that form a "civilized society" (it's rules, laws, shared tradition, culture, value and a willingness to abide by them by the majority), civilized society degenerates into chaos and anarchy.

You need look no further than the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans to see how rapidly the facade of civilized society can dissolve. And without the framework of civilized society, a gun is suddenly your best friend. You can hope for the best but you better damn well expect the worst. There are people alive in New Orleans because of their guns (the ones that didn't get them confiscated illegally, that is).

I'm Irish and I know what Guns do to people.

I'm Canadian living in America and so do I. They leave holes in bad people. One of their lawful uses here, I might add. I am quite appreciative of it.

My point is What do you need a Gun for ?
This is the year 2007.

It's called a "Bill of Rights", not a "Bill of Needs". I shouldn't have to justify my needs. I own them for the following purposes: target shooting, self-defense and hunting. And not necessarily in that order. I don't "need" one. I have the "right" to own one and I "choose" to exercise that right. My purpose for my choice is only under scrutiny when I use one in a manner that would attract the attention of law enforcement. As long as I am not committing a crime with my guns, it is not your concern as to my supposed "need". And the law here in most states agrees with that view.

Oh, and thanks for the lesson on which year it is. I sometimes forget.

1. Gun related Crime in the US.

2. Gun related accidents in the US

Ban them and it will reduce both of the above incidences. It possibly would also reduce the number of people who go to jail.

The classic emotional argument with no basis in fact. Bans have been tried (and continue to exist) in the names of "crime control" and "it's for the children!". Guess what? Neither have worked.

For number 1, I need only refer you to a popular and very true slogan that even gun control proponents understand and agree with deep down when pressed on the matter (which I have personally witnessed): "When you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them."

Again, look no further than your neighbor Britain for glaring anecdotal evidence of this simple concept. Private firearms ownership is virtually banned and gun crime on an island is on the increase year after year. Gun-related crime there is at record highs with no signs of abating and you're telling me banning guns will stop gun crime?

It didn't work there and it definitely doesn't work here.

As to number 2, I take a rather straightforward view. There is no such thing as a "gun accident", only "gun negligence". The reason is obvious to anyone familiar with firearms. But I will explain it for you.

Less than 1% of all "gun accidents" involve mechanical failure of the firearm in question. These are true accidents. Unintentional, uncontrolled, unexpected and unpreventable. They are the rarity.

In the other 99% of the cases, it is always a case of negligence by failing to follow basic safety rules that are drilled into every responsible gun owner. Here they are:

1. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. Always leep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
4. Know your target and what is beyond it.

There are variations on these rules but at the heart of it, if you follow these four rules, you will never have a so-called accident. Because to do so implies you failed to follow one or more of these four rules and thus were unsafe and hence negligent in your handling of that firearm.

Guns don't "go off" while cleaning them. That is a failure of following rules #2 and #3 above. You touched the trigger and you were cleaning a loaded firearm. As idiotic as that sounds, irresponsible people do actually do it. I personally find that mind-boggling.

Picking up a gun and it goes off and shoots someone "by accident"? All rules violated. If you don't know the condition of a firearm when picking up, obeying rule #2 at least reduces your possibility of an "accident" by 99% leaving 1% for a possible mechanical failure.

And if it is a child around the gun who has taken the Eddie Eagle program, they'll know not to touch it, tell their friends not to touch it and to find a responsible adult. Simple and powerful education that actually does save lives. But you don't hear about it because kids taught through Eddie Eagle and similar programs don't wind up shooting other kids.

I could go on and on but I think I've made my point.

Your assertions, langerdang, are appeals to emotion, nothing more. Bans have been tried and have failed. Trying again, only harder, will not change the outcome.

Fortunately, "Corwin Weber" does a better number on you than I can here. His comments are well-thought out, supported and correct.

And finally, for this stunner not even related to gun control:

How did the former Soviet people free themselves? Gun ownership was banned, yet the people rose up and ended a tyrannical empire anyway.

For own Revolution, Britain was infinitely better armed than we were. What caused us to prevail? - HarveyMilk

The people, Harvey, did no such thing! The Soviet Union collapsed economically. With the fiction of their economy exposed and out of control, the rest of the edifice could do nothing but fall in on itself. The people simply came out and cheered when it was clear the government wasn't going to shoot them for doing so. It could have gone the other way and descended into a another Revolution. Hell, it still might.

As to the American Revolution, it is real tough to fight a war with slow ships across an ocean against rebels who won't "fight like gentleman". The Continental Army fought like the British did but the militia sure didn't! The British wearing bright red coats didn't help matters either.

Historically, no one has ever won a guerrila war. Which is what the American Revolution partially was. In more modern times, do the names Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet invasion) and Iraq sound familiar? A guerilla force can only be crushed by aggressive, persistent and overwhelming force. And even then, success is not guaranteed.

Go read the comments on the Daily Kos. Only about half are anti-gun. This isn't a bad thing at all.

Gun control is neither a Democratic or Republican issue. It is a citizen issue.

Enjoy.

John Longnecker on the DC Gun Ban

I have nothing to add to this fabulous post by John Longnecker. It should be required reading for anyone interested in gun rights or the rule of law. Absolutely stellar, John.

SB.43 Legal Language Semantics

In my missive below tearing apart SB.43, I have found myself wondering what the legal interpretation of language as written would be. How much reading between the lines occurs and what would a reasonable person interpret the language to mean?

I use the following excerpt from SB.43 as an example. This type of language occurs throughout the bill:

(I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
2. A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
3. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
4. A GRENADE LAUNCHER OR FLARE LAUNCHER;
5. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR; OR
6. A FORWARD PISTOL GRIP;

The issue I have with (I) above is can it be interpreted to read as:

(I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND CAN ACCEPT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

Due to the presence of the words "can accept" prior to "a detachable magazine" and does that qualifier continue forward to also include "any of the following" by association? Or does the lack of the qualifying language for "any of the following" imply the following interpretation:

I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND IS EQUIPPED WITH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

I lean towards the latter interpretation. However, many things depend on semantics and what a person would consider to be a reasonable interpretation. If a prosecutor decided that the law implied the former interpretation, he could successful argue to a jury that that is what the law meant when it was drafted. The defense could argue the latter interpretation but would the jury accept the subtlety as valid with all that would imply? Especially if on the evidence table was that "evil black rifle" staring back at them as a form of negative persuasion? Unless there are gun owners on the jury that truly understand the issue at hand, I'm not so sure they would be swayed when faced with an object of revulsion (as black rifles tend to be in the eyes of the non-gun owning public).

It is on small turns of language like this that mean the difference between freedom and imprisonment. Which is why I care so much about the precision with which a law is drafted.

I'm not a legal scholar or lawyer. Any thoughts out there?

Maryland SB.43 Post-Mortem

I have mixed feelings doing a post like this because I hate the idea of giving our enemies ammunition to use against us in the future. Some feel it is better to let them stumble around and create vague, bad law rather than focused, accurate law. I am all for the stumbling part but at the same time, the more bad law is passed, the wider a net it casts and the more people get swept in, not even knowing they're criminals.

And that has to stop.

I don't know what the future for bans of this sort hold in Maryland in 2008 and beyond. I can tell you I will be there to fight it. But I also want to help get the word out to help show what would have happened in this state had this law been passed. If a gun owner in Maryland who may not have had an interest in "assault weapons" finds this, maybe they'll see how close they might have come to being a criminal and they'll be one more owner willing to write a letter, an e-mail, make a phone call or show up and express their outrage at the stripping of their rights.

Don't think for an instant that the anti-gun folks like the Brady Campaign or Ceasefire are interested in "reasonable gun restrictions". We already have that. For them, not even restrictions like those in Massachusetts or Illinois are enough. Their real agenda is to ban all guns, one type at a time. Trust me, had SB.43 passed, your "high powered sniper rifles" (hunting rifles) and "underpowered varmint guns" (.22 rimfire) would have been next. And then there would have be no firearms left for legal ownership in this state.

Bad law is dangerous law. What follows is my interpretation of what this bill would have meant for Maryland. I am not a lawyer and do not construe any of this as legal opinion or writ. It is merely a layperson's view of the law. Any law, in my opinion, must be understandable by those who read it. And any vagueness or broadness in a law will be happily filled in for you by those with the power to enforce it even if it does not match what your "reasonable interpretation" would be. That is the danger in laws like this.

For reference: the text of SB.43 is here.

For summary, basically what SB.43 did was extend the current assault pistol ban in Maryland to cover so-called "assault weapons" and their copycats. The list of assault weapons that were banned by name is the current regulated firearms list. It banned those weapons by name and any weapon that possessed certain cosmetic characteristics and could accept a detachable magazine.

Let us start with what is banned that is not explicitly listed in the regulated firearms list:

(D) “ASSAULT WEAPON” MEANS:
(1) AN ASSAULT LONG GUN;
(2) AN ASSAULT PISTOL; OR
(3) A COPYCAT WEAPON.
(E) “BOARD” MEANS THE HANDGUN ROSTER BOARD ESTABLISHED UNDER § 5–404 OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE.
(F) (1) “COPYCAT WEAPON” MEANS:
(I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
2. A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
3. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
4. A GRENADE LAUNCHER OR FLARE LAUNCHER;
5. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR; OR
6. A FORWARD PISTOL GRIP;

(II) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS A FIXED MAGAZINE WITH THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS;

(III) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS AN OVERALL LENGTH OF LESS THAN 30 INCHES;

(D)(1) and (D)(2) above are already listed in the current assault pistol and regulated firearms lists. Let's move on to section (F)(1)(I).

I) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

This covers semi-automatic rifles that use centerfire ammunition. Rimfire weapons do not fall under this provision. The key words in this definition are "can accept". Not whether it came standard with but totally open ended for any point in time or any possible configuration. This suggests that if there a centerfire rifle out there that has a fixed magazine but could be modified to accept a detachable one, it would fall under this definition. The SKS comes to mind here.

1. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON;
2. A THUMBHOLE STOCK;
3. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK;
4. A GRENADE LAUNCHER OR FLARE LAUNCHER;
5. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR; OR
6. A FORWARD PISTOL GRIP;

The standard "assault weapon" definition boilerplate. First off, what is a pistol grip and at what point does it protrude conspicuously below the action? Well, section (K) defines this for us:

(K) “PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON” MEANS A GRIP THAT ALLOWS FOR A PISTOL–STYLE GRASP IN WHICH THE WEB OF THE TRIGGER HAND BETWEEN THE THUMB AND INDEX FINGER CAN BE PLACED BELOW THE TOP OF THE EXPOSED PORTION OF THE TRIGGER WHILE FIRING.

A fellow at the SB.43 hearing held up a synthetic stock from a typical hunting rifle and stated, quite accurately, that it could have been considered a pistol grip under the text of this bill. And based on the bend of the stock using this definition, he was correct. The key to the definition is if the space between your thumb and index finger falls below the line of where the trigger first emerges from the receiver, it is considered a "pistol grip". Talk about a deep and deadly trap for the unwary. How many of you think an prosecutor wouldn't hold a ruler up to your rifle while holding it to see if your index finger was below the trigger line? It all depends on your shooting grip.

Thumbhole stock, well, kiss your modified hunting rifles and target rifles goodbye that are based on hunting rifle actions. Or if you buy a Mini-14 so equipped, kiss it goodbye too. Same goes for the folding and telescoping stock. If the pistol grip doesn't get you, the stock layout will. This provision is designed to nail sporterized "assault weapons" and guns like the SVD Dragunov (which makes a decent hunting rifle and civilian versions are sold as such).

As to grenade/flare launchers, there aren't many rifles that come standard with those. I know the Yugo M59/66 SKS does but depending on who is interpreting the law, that rifle may not be covered due to the aforementioned lack of a detachable magazine. But are you willing to wager your freedom on the idea a district attorney is going to consider your SKS not covered? I wouldn't. Oh, and if you own an AR-15 in a standard configuration or with an M-4 profile barrel, you would fall under this provision.

Remember, the phrase is "can accept", not "equipped with". In theory, a civilian AR-15 with either layout could accept an M203 grenade launcher. Highly unlikely but the bounds on this are open-ended. It is not "if you had it" but "could it take it?".

A flash suppressor. Ok, what type and what does it look like? Well, section (H) defines one for us:

(H) “FLASH SUPPRESSOR” MEANS ANY DEVICE THAT IS INTENDED TO OR THAT FUNCTIONS TO PERCEPTIBLY REDUCE OR REDIRECT MUZZLE FLASH FROM THE SHOOTER’S FIELD OF VISION.

Can you say "subjective"? Or does this mean all rifles have to have bevelled target crowns? Muzzle brakes would fall under this as well since they could be interpreted as suppressing flash as well. It doesn't have to be "intended" to do so, just "perceived" to do so. And brakes definitely do redirect the gases from firing away from your field of vision. It just doesn't say how far it has to be. So, pretty much anything with a hole or slot on the end of your barrel is a "flash suppressor".

A forward pistol grip. Well, today, most of these are aftermarket add-ons. Even if you take it off your "tactical" AR-15, the AR is plenty dinged by this by all of the previous stuff. And forget the semi-auto Thompson if it has the forward handgrip in beautiful wood. It's a no-no.

So, basically, under this definition at the discretion of the prosecuting attorney, virtually all semi-automatic rifles in Maryland that can take a detachable magazine by any means either original from the factory, modified to accept or having the potential to be modified to accept one falls afoul of this definition.

Go look in your closet or gun safe. How many of your semi-auto hunting rifles have a "bent stock" and a five round detachable magazine? If the answer is "1" or more, you own an "assault weapon" under SB.43.

And you thought this was about machine guns and so-called "assault weapons"? Don't worry, it gets better and worse.

(II) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS A FIXED MAGAZINE WITH THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS;

(III) A SEMIAUTOMATIC, CENTERFIRE RIFLE THAT HAS AN OVERALL LENGTH OF LESS THAN 30 INCHES;

If you have a rare Chinese or Russian SKS with the fixed 20 round magazine (or if you equipped it with one after the fact), if you avoided having an "assault weapon" under SB.43, you have one now. (F)(1)(II) is for good measure to catch any strays that might have slipped through the first net.

And (F)(1)(III) makes damn sure those remaining strays don't get away. This provision is extremely dangerous. If your hunting auto-loader didn't get nailed by (I) or (II), it is almost virtually guaranteed to get nailed by (III). Get out the tape measure and go measure your rifle. The vast majority of rifles tend to fall in the 26-30 inch overall length range. 26 inches is the minimum due to Federal restrictions. And this doesn't even cover magazine capacity or features. If your carbine is semi-automatic with a 2 round internal magazine with a length of 29 15/16 inches, it is an "assault weapon". I am pretty sure a Norinco or Russian pattern SKS would be under 30 inches long. Bye-bye SKS.

So after all this, I wonder how many rifles are not covered by SB.43? Scary indeed.

Moving right along to other "assault weapons"...

(IV) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A THREADED BARREL, CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, FORWARD HANDGRIP, OR SILENCER;
2. A SECOND HANDGRIP;
3. A SHROUD THAT IS ATTACHED TO OR PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY ENCIRCLES THE BARREL, EXCEPT FOR A SLIDE THAT ENCLOSES THE BARREL, AND THAT ALLOWS THE BEARER TO FIRE THE WEAPON WITHOUT BURNING THE BEARER’S HAND; OR
4. THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE OUTSIDE OF THE PISTOL GRIP;

Whoa! This bill was supposed to be about "assault weapons", not pistols! As I said, it gets worse and this is part of the "worse". This clause effectively bans virtually every semi-automatic pistol in the state of Maryland. Let's examine why.

(IV) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT CAN ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE AND ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

First off, by design, virtually every semi-automatic pistol designed in the past century uses detachable magazines. Also take special note of the fact that they aren't discriminating between rimfire and centerfire pistols. All pistols are covered by this. Even lowly .22 caliber pistols. How many pistol shooters out there don't own at least one .22 for practice?

1. A THREADED BARREL, CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING A FLASH SUPPRESSOR, FORWARD HANDGRIP, OR SILENCER;

Of all the language in the bill, this one is the poison pill that will kill you dead. I heard more about this one sentence in the bill than any other in talking with fellow opposition at the hearing in Annapolis. Understand that we all get the "assault weapon" stuff since the now (and hopefully forever) expired Federal AWB of 1994 gave us the definitions that are now taken for granted as what constitutes an "assault weapon" in the eyes of the uneducated public.

This one sentence exposed SB.43 for its true purpose: a blanket ban on virtually all semi-automatic rifles and handguns in the state of Maryland.

Why?

Because of the phrases "can accept" in (IV) and "capable of accepting" in (IV)(1) together. "Capable of accepting" does not imply "came equipped with" but "could ever be equipped with". Think long and hard about this for a moment. How many semi-automatic pistols out there "can accept" a barrel with a threaded end, either OEM or aftermarket? Practically all.

My Walther P22 .22 caliber pistol is dead-on-arrival. That pistol comes standard with a threaded end designed to accept an adapter for a silencer. Ditto that for many centerfire pistols from Beretta, Smith and Wesson, Walther, H&K and others.

Many pistols come from the factory with the threaded end already on the gun and are merely capped with a removable cover ring. Take the ring off to expose the threads. Other pistols don't come with the threaded barrel but others in the same family do. And if one member of the family can get it, so can every other member. Sort of like germs in your house. And still others can take barrels bought aftermarket with a threaded end. Anyone who has ever disassembled a typical semi-automatic pistol knows precisely how easy it is to drop in a new barrel. All of a few seconds.

In my case, my Sig Sauer was screwed. Sig Arms offers a tactical version of my pistol with a threaded end. All done. My pistol is "capable of accepting" it. It is banned. And probably is every pistol you own too. I overhead one fellow at the hearing state there were only two pistols that he knew of that were not covered by this. Two. Out of thousands. (I would love to hear from you with which two pistols those were).

2. A SECOND HANDGRIP;

Forget all those semi-auto machine pistol type guns. Such as the fold-down grip on some Berettas.

3. A SHROUD THAT IS ATTACHED TO OR PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY ENCIRCLES THE BARREL, EXCEPT FOR A SLIDE THAT ENCLOSES THE BARREL, AND THAT ALLOWS THE BEARER TO FIRE THE WEAPON WITHOUT BURNING THE BEARER’S HAND; OR

Oh, how nice, they let us keep our semi-automatics that have a slide! Pretty pointless considering the barrel language. This is designed to go after any "assault pistol" type weapons not covered explicitly in the assault pistol list. Also, to prevent two-handed use of any pistol.

4. THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE OUTSIDE OF THE PISTOL GRIP;

And here is the other poison pill for pistols. Are we talking about a second magazine strapped to the side of the pistol or a magazine that protrudes from the bottom of the grip? I'm betting on the latter interpretation. On the surface, this is designed to go after guns like the Glock that can accept long extended magazines. But dig a little deeper and you begin to realize it pretty much targets any pistol that has the "capacity to accept" a magazine that isn't flush with the bottom of the pistol grip.

Again, we are caught by the "capacity to accept" language. This provision covers your favorite 1911. You can get 8 round and up single-stack magazines for the 1911 that protrude below the grip. Personally, this affects my Sig Sauer as the larger magazine (one extra round) has a "foot" that sticks out below the grip.

Compact Glocks and similar guns get the royal shaft with this one. On those guns, the magazine can form an extended pistol grip! Thinking of the Glock 27 here. What about a magazine that has a flange around the bottom that rests outside the grip? Glocks almost universally use magazines designed like this. So does the Walther P22 and P99. So do a lot of pistols.

This language is vague and utterly lethal. By leaving the definition of "outside of the pistol grip" open, you snare practically every pistol out there that takes detachable magazines. And remember, it didn't have to come to you that way! If you bought a Sig Sauer P220 with 2 7 round mags, it's banned! Even if you never buy the larger magazines! You've become an instant criminal by the mere possession of the current or future potential for a larger magazine.

Clarification: In studying HR.1022 and this language, it appears I misinterpreted the definition of "outside the pistol grip". I interpreted it as "extending beyond the grip". HR.1022 (as much as despise using that bill as reference), is more clear: (iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip. Hence, a magazine well not in the pistol grip itself (i.e. Carbon 15). However, in my defense, the language in this provision of SB.43 is vague and could be interpreted by a prosecutor the way I have. The lack of clarifying or descriptive language to narrow down what is meant can have undesired effects as I have demonstrated here.

(V) A SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL WITH A FIXED MAGAZINE THAT CAN ACCEPT MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS;

This is just in case we missed any others. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any semi-automatic pistols with fixed magazines but I am sure someone can enlighten me.

That's it for pistols. It appears that revolvers are safe. But then again, maybe not. It all depends on how a revolver is defined in Maryland statutes and whether a prosecutor would consider the idea of being able to swap out the cylinder by breaking open the gun as a "detachable magazine". And if the revolver can accept machining for a threaded end (or comes with one), I am certain that an enterprising prosecutor with an anti-gun bias would happily consider your revolver as falling under this bill. After all, a revolver is the original "semi-automatic" pistol. One round per pull of the trigger. The rest is just details.

And details, especially details unspoken, are the things that get you convicted under the law.

So, this was a fond farewell to pistols in Maryland.

After all of this, the follow-on language for shotguns seems almost an afterthought:

(VI) A SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN THAT HAS BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A FOLDING OR TELESCOPING STOCK; AND
2. A PISTOL GRIP THAT PROTRUDES CONSPICUOUSLY BENEATH THE ACTION OF THE WEAPON, THUMBHOLE STOCK, OR VERTICAL HANDGRIP; OR
(VII) ANY SHOTGUN WITH A REVOLVING CYLINDER.

This is almost a kindness. This actually looks to protect your hunting or skeet/trap shotgun. But you can kiss your home defense "tactical" semi-auto with that collapsable stock goodbye.

The one small mercy is it appears they've left shotgun internal magazine capacities alone. I guess they want us plebians to have something for home defense. Perhaps the drafters considered old-fashioned skeet and trap shooting a real sporting purpose and decided to allow us to keep that one sport for ourselves. How. Bloody. Generous. Of Them.

4–302.
This subtitle does not apply to:
...
(5) the receipt of an assault [pistol] WEAPON or detachable magazine by inheritance if the decedent lawfully possessed the assault [pistol] WEAPON; or
(6) the receipt of an assault [pistol] WEAPON or detachable magazine by a personal representative of an estate for purposes of exercising the powers and duties of a personal representative of an estate.

I'm going to mostly skip 4-302 since it covers exceptions and most of those pertain to government, law enforcement and FFL possession or transfers. 4-302(5) and 4-302(6) are the ones that affect individuals.

It provides one small measure of grace: if you die and you owned the banned weapon legally under SB.43, you can leave it to your children. But if it is illegal, it's gone. Your executor has the right under this bill to possess the banned weapon as well. Probably long enough for the amount of time they'll need to sell it off out-of-state or turn it in.

Now on to 4-303, which is the other "worse" portion of the bill I alluded to earlier. Here it is:

4–303.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not:
(1) transport an assault [pistol] WEAPON into the State; or
(2) possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault [pistol] WEAPON.
(b) (1) A person who lawfully possessed an assault [pistol] WEAPON before June 1, 1994 and who registered the assault [pistol] WEAPON with the Secretary of [the] State Police before August 1, 1994 may continue to possess the assault [pistol] WEAPON.

All they did here was copy the assault pistol language from prior legislation and change the word "pistol" to "weapon". However, they didn't opt to amend the language and created a conflict in the law. We'll get to that.

First, 4-303(a)(1) finishes off competitive shooting in the state of Maryland. It also makes Marylanders criminals if you shoot out of state and come home! Guess what, I would have been one of them. I routinely shoot in Virginia. So, even though I might be in legal possession of the banned weapon while in the state, I become an instant criminal for the act of going somewhere else to shoot and coming home again! My purpose was legitimate and even defensible under Federal transport law but this bill makes no exception for lawful activity. If you take it out and then bring it back, you're a criminal.

Correction: On further analysis, 4-303(b)(1) does provide an exception for transport of a banned weapon into Maryland by a Maryland resident provided the weapon being transported was registered with the State Police beforehand. But only for registered weapons. If you acquire a long gun out-of-state (i.e. at a gun show in Virginia) that fell under SB.43 after December 31, 2007 (see below), you would not be allowed to bring it into the state as there is no provision for possession or registration after this date. Basically, you had until the end of 2007 to get whatever guns were going to fall under the ban for the rest of your life because there would be no more allowed after that.

It also means if a shooting match (i.e. one involving "evil" AR-15 match rifles or any type of service match competition), only Marylanders can participate. If you're from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, etc, you just became a criminal in Maryland if you bring your gun into the state for the day. And vice-versa as a Marylander wanting to attend a competition in another state. There is no exception in the bill for legimate usage (i.e. sporting) and you can't fall back on Federal transport statutes since you aren't covered under them because Maryland is your destination and you would be in violation of State law.

4-303(a)(2) merely repeats existing law. You can't transfer regulated firearms privately in Maryland already. Such transfers in the state have to go through an FFL. Well, not for long. Getting to that.

4-303(b)(1) is the conflict in the law. This section contradicts 4-303(b)(3). How can you lawfully possess and register a gun you bought today if it was supposed to be registered 13 years ago? This clause shows the sloppiness in which the law was drafted. It doesn't matter that the later subsection clarifies possession (as we'll show). Sloppy law means bad law.

(2) A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS, SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, OR TRANSFER AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON THAT THE LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER LAWFULLY POSSESSED ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2007.
(3) A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY POSSESSED AN ASSAULT LONG GUN OR A COPYCAT WEAPON BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2007, AND WHO REGISTERS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE POLICE BEFORE DECEMBER 1, 2007, MAY CONTINUE TO POSSESS THE ASSAULT LONG GUN OR COPYCAT WEAPON.

And here is the final poison pill for gun owners in Maryland. This was the one that initially got me up in arms. The rest of my outrage occurred later but these sections were the ones that made me lose it initially.

4-303(b)(2) gives Maryland FFLs a chance to minimize their losses by selling off any guns they still have in inventory when the bill came into effect. The downside is after the bill takes effect, no more assault weapons. One of the points I made in my testimony to the committee was the fact that dealers in Maryland would be seriously impacted. Although I have no figures, a visit to a gun shop is revealing. About half of the guns (more in some cases) on the walls are "assault weapons". These guns are not cheap and dealers make some money on them. What happens to dealers who are already operating on thin margins (selling guns is not a way to get rich anywhere) when half of their source of income is banned by the state?

They go out of business. And take their livelihoods and tax revenue to the state with them. Wonderful if you're a gun banner. Not so wonderful if you're the out-of-business FFL with a family to support. And the loss of tax revenue in the state's coffers. I honestly figured this bill would have put half of all the gun dealers in Maryland out of business and force the ones remaining to consolidate simply to survive.

4-303(b)(3) is what sent me into virtual orbit. Yes, folks, that is a mandatory registration clause you are looking at. This is the section that also contradicts 4-303(b)(1). Section 4-303(b)(1) should have been modified. But if someone wanted to follow the law as written could prosecute you as an aside under 4-303(b)(1) and you can try 4-303(b)(3) as an affirmative defense. That is probably the only good luck you'd have if you were prosecuted under the terms of SB.43.

Of all the things involving gun laws, mandatory registration is the one that scares the crap out of me. There is no legitimate purpose for registering firearms anywhere except for the sole purpose of future confiscation. DO NOT comment or e-mail stating the guns should be regulated like cars (after all, we register our cars). The reason is simple: cars are not Constitutionally protected items! Owning and driving a car is a privilege granted to you at the whim of the State. Owning firearms is Right that pre-existed the State. Don't believe me? Well, the DC Circuit Court just issued a ruling using language to that very effect in overturning the DC gun ban.

Some moderates may argue "but the Government just wants to know who has guns, they aren't going to take them from you.". Bullshit. It happened in California. They passed an assault weapon ban there. With language in the bill requiring registration and an explicit promise that the registration list would not be used to confiscate the registered firearms.

Well, a few years later, a subtle change in the language of the ban went from "sorta banning" to "fully banning" the registered firearms. The end result was police using the registration lists (and in some cases, using data illegally obtained from the BATF which they aren't supposed to keep either) knocking on the doors of the owners of guns who had registered their now-banned guns with a request to hand them over.

To their credit, the law-abiding citizens complied. The state, in some cases, did compensate them for their lost property. But in many cases not the full value of that taken property. And it was done without a citizen vote, warrant or due process. I won't even go into the larger issue of what happens to a disarmed populace because of such laws. Stalin. China. Rwanda. The Holocaust. Need I say more?

Basically, if you didn't register your guns by the end of the year, make sure they weren't here in 2008. Because there are no second chances. Regulated firearms already purchased in the state of Maryland are automatically registered with the State Police. The purpose of this clause was to get the ones that weren't bought here or brought in legally by someone moving into the State (yes, there is a specific exemption in the law for this).

This section also only gave the Maryland State Police a three-month window in which to complete registration. Not exactly a long time for what would have been tens of thousands of firearms. I'm sure the taxpayers would have loved the funding that exercise would have required. Not to mention the potential for police officers working on registration lists behind a desk rather than being on patrol.

On principle, I will never register a gun with the State unless I have no other choice. And under SB.43, I did have a choice. I would have moved the affected weapons out of the state of Maryland. And then purchased a replacement in the State for self-defense. It would have been terribly inconvenient but I will not take the chance at the State arbitrally deciding they want my property and coming to take it without due process or just compensation. I have rifles worth well over $1000 and I will not have the State decide they are only going to give me $200 for it. Not now. Not ever.

How many of you in Maryland would have complied versus move yourself or your guns out of the state? Would you have been willing to take a chance on the benevolence of a government in letting your keep your guns for long after passing such a sweeping ban? Because at that point, your continued possession of your guns is solely at the whim at the government. I don't trust those whims or the motives that drive them.

After all of this, the rest of the bill covers penalty for infractions. I will comment on section 4-305 and 4-306 briefly because I got to hear about the true impact of these sections during the hearing.

These two sections deal with the Roster Board in Maryland. This Board is the one that maintains the list of regulated firearms in the state. What I did not know about the Board is that it is a voluntary, unpaid position. The people that work on this Board do so on their own time and dime.

Several Board members testified in opposition to SB.43 because of these sections. The bill basically demands that the board compile a list of all affected weapons in the State within 9 months of its enactment. And the Board only meets bi-monthly. And under the terms of SB.43, a person petitioning to get a weapon removed from the roster had to receive an answer within 45 days. Kind of difficult when the Board meets every 60 days.

Furthermore, the language is such that if the Board doesn't give a decision within 45 days of receipt of the petition, the petition is automatically denied. So much for the appeals process. That comes into direct violation of the intent of this subsection and makes a total mockery of the citizen's appeal process to get a weapon off the list. Deliberate or not, the language is crafted to ensure once a weapon is on the list, it stays there. All the Board has to do is time their receipt of petitions opposite their meeting times and a petition would never have to be heard. The bill places the burden on the petitioner, not the board, to prove a weapon doesn't belong there. The gun is automatically presumed guilty once the Board decides it is so.

Furthermore, as another board member pointed out, SB.43 doesn't affect 45 named weapons as the gun-control groups claims, but hundreds. They would have to go through every weapon ever produced by every manufacturer and apply an "SB.43 test" to each one individually. There was no possible way that this could have been done within 9 months. None.

Although neither pro or anti-gun, the Board members did make it known there was a deep personal and practical cost to these provisions that are not often considered. And the Board members are often not firearms experts. Not a comforting thought when they are deciding the future of your firearms.

The infractions section 4-308 adds a few cherries for you if you commit a crime with a now-banned assault weapon. Go read them. A special note: don't ever get caught with a rifle in the house that was under the ban if your wife or girlfriend calls the police on you. Depending on where it was when they arrived, you're looking at serious jail time. The sentencing provisions are absolutely horrific.

The rest of the bill goes on to repeat the current regulated firearms list and clarifies that FFLs can sell them off prior to the bill taking effect.

That's it. A mere 13 pages of the most horrible law you may ever see.

And it almost passed.

Be there in 2008.

What Happened To My Generation?

I recently received an e-mail that was intended as humor that listed the differences between kids growing up in my day (1970s) and kids today. I certainly got a chuckle from it but sitting here just letting my thoughts wander, I began to delve deeper into that e-mail. The more I thought about, the more I began to wonder what in the hell happened to my generation?

I grew up in a time where we would be told to be home by dark. So we'd disappear and not come home until dark. No phone calls, no e-mails or text messages. And worse, we had bikes! Not only we could disappear, we could head off who knows where for miles in any direction! I loved planes and more than once, as a 12 year old boy, I'd ride 10 miles or so out of town to the airport and watch planes. Even offered a free ride once. And we would come home and simply be asked what we did. I'd reply "Went to the airport." and I'd be queried if I had fun and saw anything neat.

I used to be sent to the local corner store by my Mom with a note, $5 and the dog to buy cigarettes for her. Not necessarily the best role model behavior, but I did so (she did encourage a policy of "Do as I say, not as I do" quite actively). Sometimes got a quarter or 50 cents of the deal. Sometimes not. This behavior would be considered horrifying today but the couple who ran that store for 50 years knew every kid in the neighborhood on sight. And was friendly to all of us.

I had to cut my grandmother's grass from the point I could push the lawnmower. One of those old steel and aluminum lawnmowers that was four feet across and probably weighed 40-50 pounds. I was maybe 9. So I would roll the lawnmower around the corner, fill it with gas (which I had to carry as well), put all my arms into it to start it and spend 30 minutes cutting the grass. Then roll it back on home and shove it in the shed. Only thing I ever got from the neighbors was "Off to cut the grass again?". No one batted an eye at the idea of a 9 year old kid starting and using a gas powered lawnmower with a blade as tall as he was without supervision or even an adult in sight. I guess the idea was if I hurt myself, someone would come running or I knew the way home and would get there before I bled out.

We climbed trees in the backyard to dizzying heights. Played in the dirt until we were caked in it. Wandered up to the swamp and caught tadpoles. Rode bikes on twisting trails in the woods without a soul around for miles. When I was a teenager, routinely bought a bus ticket and took the bus into a nearby city to go shopping at their local hobby shops. Which involved a four mile walk out of downtown. In a city of 300,000. And just told to be careful and be home by 6pm. And was. No questions asked.

And on and on.

The only thing we weren't allowed to do was walk the railway tracks behind my house. But it was such an easy shortcut! So we would and we would promptly be grounded when I we got home because we underestimated my Mom's powers of seeing. Or more specifically, the neighborhood had eyes and she had her spies.

I came out of childhood with a few scars from stitches and a dislocated shoulder. That's it. And went forth in life like we all did and forged a path for myself. I realized as I got older just how hard that had to have been on my Mom but her reply was always the same when asked, "I'm not going to hide the world from you and you have to learn to live in it.". She trusted us. She only feared strangers, the things that any parent fears in the back of their minds but trusted that what she had taught us would work and we would ask for the password and run if I we didn't get it. Never had to do it but the conditioning was there.

I understand now that my Mom and so many parents of my time gave us a wonderful gift. They raised us, perhaps without knowing it at the time, to be independent and self-reliant. More than once (and to this day), my Mom laments my independent streak but I turn it on her each time and tell her she has only herself to blame.

My generation (say late 60s to mid-70s) produced hard-working, independent, self-reliant individuals. But we had ties that went beyond ourselves. We also were taught a sense of duty to friends and neighbors, to the community by voting when we were old enough (16 when I was growing up) and to be good to the people around you. If you hurt folks, you were punished and it was often done so publicly. Certain not the Depression-era life my grandmother was raised with but we survived the recession of the 80s. Certainly tough on anyone of blue collar origins like I was.

And with all that self-reliance and trust that was placed in us, I have to wonder why in the hell did my generation piss it all away?

Play dates. Neurotic hovering. Cell phones. Minute-by-minute scheduling of life. Terrified fear of your neighbor. Zero tolerance. And on and on. My generation was the one that produced all this crap.

The idea today of sending your kids out with only instructions to be careful and be home by dark would be met with cries for DFS to be called on you for being irresponsible and neglectful. Hell, I think half the time my Mom did it was simply to have a quiet house to herself for a few hours! And what is wrong with that?

Now prospective parents scope out neighborhoods, looking for the right house, the right schools, everything just right to give their kid that little extra edge. $20K per year for private school is not out of the question to some. When I grew up, whatever school was closest was the one you went to. I thought the kids who went to the Catholic schools were weird and their parents insane since they had to pay for the uniforms out of their pocket. Neither side turned out any worse than the other.

How can a person raised with the carefree but be careful ideal of the world turn out so badly in their approach to raising their kids? I know if I ever have kids, I'm dead. Because I'm going to raise them the way I was raised and that just isn't going to fly here in Suburbia. I'm already considered weird as it is. To raise my kids as I was would be seen as beyond acceptance in today's politically correct, esteem oriented world.

If we wanted something, we had to save our allowance for it. Today, us savers willingly spend $500 on our kid because they whine they want something. Is it to shut them up or simple appeasement to avoid being a parent? Or are they trying to correct what they saw as a wrong from their childhood when they whined and were denied? I think I am a better person for being denied, for at least I learned the value of work and having to earn something.

A car at 16? Don't make me laugh! My Mom would not even entertain the thought. You got on the insurance on the family car and you paid it yourself. You got a car when you paid for it and were living on your own. Today, I see a glut of teenagers getting cars as 16th birthday gifts as a matter of routine. And then have the utter audacity to get pissed if it was the wrong car or wrong color! My Mom would have said "Fine." and returned the car! And not gotten us the one we were screaming for like four year olds! We accepted what we were given or didn't get it. It was simple as that.

The point to all of this is reaching down, I have come to realize how much those small things made such a huge difference in how my life and approach towards it turned out. Certainly not perfect but I was properly equipped with an approach that has worked out well. Why didn't people of my generation raise our kids the way we were? I see damn little of it around me.

We are starting to see the effects of this neglect. The first generation of adults that were raised by kids of my time are starting to enter the world. And the world is, for some strange reason, not matching their expectations. And these over-indulged, unprepared children in adult bodies are screaming why is the world so unfair?

Because your parents were taught that it was unfair early and forced to learn how to live in it. And then promptly forgot those lessons in raising you. So blame them, buckle up and learn to cope because the world isn't going to wait for you.

I know that my friends who I grew up with are raising their kids the way we were raised. Perhaps this generation is an aberration. I can only hope so.

For myself, I can say "Thanks Mom, you did a good job!".

Fingers Crossed on SB.43 - Looks Dead

Courtesy of Pro-Gun Progressive is the rumor that the vote on SB.43 went 5-5, which effectively kills it.

He also notes the vote was held in Senator Jacobs absence, who if she had been there, would have turned the vote 6-5. If that was done deliberately, I change my opinion of Senator Frosh from merely ignorant to downright slimy. Do people not have any morals or conscience anymore? My condolences to Senator Jacobs on whatever is happening in her life and I thank her for her support nonetheless.

If SB.43 is truly done for this session, I have a suggestion for future legislation of this sort in Maryland for 2008:

Don't bring any.

Seriously. Focus your efforts on passing bills that keep violent criminals in jail for the bulk of their sentences, victim's assistance funds, more courts, more jail cells and less "huggy feely", "feel sorry for the criminal and his bad childhood and he really is a nice person inside trying to get out" garbage.

Leave law-abiding Maryland gun-owners alone. We aren't the problem. Criminals are. We vote, they don't. That's another thing to keep in mind.

I'll fire some rounds from the trusty AR-15 carbine in celebration. At the range, in a safe direction, towards a proper backstop and at nothing more substantial than paper. As I always do.

That is too damn close. We better be really on the ball for next year otherwise we'll need to bring 1,000 people to the hearing to have a chance.

Lies, Damn Lies and Paul Helmke

For those in Maryland, the Brady Campaign (who I will not honor with a link because they don't deserve it) are apparently quite upset at Senator Jim Brochin for opposing SB.43 to ban so-called "assault weapons" in Maryland. Senator Brochin decided that based on the vagueness of the bill and the over 200 citizens (vs. 5-10 professional gun control individuals) who showed up to testify against it that he decided he wasn't going to support and came over to our side.

I just got off the phone to Senator Brochin's office to thank him for his continued opposition to SB.43. He will be getting a campaign contribution from me. Thank you Senator for standing tall, having integrity and doing the right thing!

This streak of honor has pissed off Paul Helmke and as a result, he is now running a radio ad up in Baltimore to try and encourage citizens to call Senator Brochin's office and get his to support SB.43. Go visit Pro-Gun Progressive for more information on how low Helmke is willing to go.

As a part of this ill-advised campaign, Helmke put out a press release containing the text of the ad. Let's have some fun, shall we?

Police in Baltimore, across Maryland and around the country are finding themselves outgunned by criminals using military style assault rifles that can fire up to 75 bullets in a matter of seconds. In Maryland, an assault rifle is linked to a crime every 48 hours on average, according to law enforcement data analyzed by Ceasefire Maryland.

75 bullets in a matter of seconds! Wow! Assuming 2 seconds, that works out to over 2200 rounds a minute! Even at 5 seconds (and I'm being real generous with that) that's a firing rate of 900 rounds per minute! We aren't talking about semi-automatic rifles here. We are talking about machine guns!

Guess what, Mr. Helmke, they are already highly regulated to the point of being virtually illegal! This is an out-and-out lie and attempt to confuse the public in believing that semi-automatic rifles fire like machine guns. They do not and never have!

Do take note of the fact of the use of "assault rifle" versus "assault weapon". Again, deliberate obfuscation. An "assault rifle" is a military weapon, not a civilian one. Mr. Helmke is trying to solve a real non-problem as machine guns are already effectively banned. It was done a long time ago. 1934 to be exact.

As to criminals using them, the Maryland State Police states they do not track weapon types. Even worse, they've testified they do not encounter military-style weapons of any stripe in any great numbers (meaning hardly at all) in the hands of criminals. Knives and handguns are preferred criminal weapons and knives outnumber gun crimes several fold.

Mr. Helmke, please provide the link for the proof that Balitmore Police are, in fact, encountering any type of assault rifle on the streets. Because I think the National Guard would want to know where their assault rifles are going. Oh wait, there are no machine guns on the street!

As to the "every 48 hours" crap, Pro-Gun Progressive has the goods on this so-called statistic. If it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit and squishes like bullshit, it is bullshit. If you think Helmke is a liar, the crew at CeasefireMD are into stuff far more halluncinogenic than normal air. Reality and facts obviously do not fit into their worldview.

A bill in the State Legislature would ban these deadly weapons in Maryland. Senate Bill 43 would help ensure that criminals don’t have more firepower than the police. State Senator James Brochin from the Baltimore area is the key vote needed now to pass this bill.

And for one, I thank Senator Brochin again for having common sense and seeing that SB.43 does nothing except serve Helmke's statist control agenda and strip the rights from law-abiding citizens.

To quote Robert Heinlein: "There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.". Guns are objects without soul or intent. The person holding the gun possesses the intent for good or evil.

As to more firepower than police, has Mr. Helmke seen what even a small police force is equipped with? Many departments have fully automatic rifles which civilians do not have. The Baltimore City SWAT team outguns any criminal out there, hands down.

If a criminal shoots at a police officer, does it matter with what he shoots them with? If he has murder in his heart, it won't matter whether the weapon is a zip gun, handgun, bolt action rifle, semi-automatic rifle, illegal machine gun or an RPG. You prosecute the criminal for the act and not thousands of law-abiding citizens who might possess the same weapon as he did legally and safely.

The acts of one or even a hundred or a thousand murderous thugs does not justify the stripping of rights of regular citizens. And no thugs in Maryland are shooting cops with rifles. No police officer has been killed with a rifle of any type since 1980. 1980! 27 years! Rifles are simply not a problem in Maryland.

The only way to make sure police anywhere are not outgunned by non-police is to ban firearms ownership completely by private citizens. Even the smallest bullet going fast enough can penetrate average police body armor. That's a fact. A typical police bullet resistant vest is designed to stop pistol rounds, not rifle rounds. When rifle rounds start to be a threat to police officers, we can come back to this. So far in Maryland, they haven't been and are unlikely to be so anytime soon. And if they are used, punish the person who pulled the trigger to the fullest extent of the law.

Mr. Helmke is trying to manufacture a virtually non-existent threat in order to scare people who don't know any different. In his world, the only people who would have guns would be licensed collectors (and making sure licenses are never issued), the police, the government, the military and his bodyguards.

Mr. Helmke, do you have mirrors in your home? I would assume not because I seriously fail to understand how you can look at yourself in the morning everyday and not be ashamed. It must be terrible to see your own hypocrisy reflected within.

Fortunately, this may be backfiring on him. Lies, like cockroaches, tend to scatter and hide when the light of truth is shone upon them. It appears the people calling to thank Senator Brochin for his continued opposition to SB.43 outnumber those Helmke is trying to persuade by a factor of 100 to 1.

Be one of the majority please! Call Senator Brochin's office at 410-841-3648 and express your thanks to him and urge him to continue his opposition to this encroachment on the rights of the law-abiding citizens of Maryland in the form of SB.43.

No one likes a liar, Mr. Helmke.

We Are Being Invaded

I found this at one of my favorite websites. Unbelievable. Sadly, it is true and it is happening every day as we speak. Don't think the problem of illegal immigration is a big deal? Go check this thread out and absorb it all in. You'll be outraged if you care at all for the rule of law in this country.

If I had the means (like a lottery win), I'd happily buy a tract of land on the border in a gun-rights friendly state and do my own patrolling and apphrehension. Armed. The Border Patrol would learn my phone number by heart. Just think what a few thousand motivated citizens like the one in the thread above could accomplish, legally but prepared, if evenly spaced along the border.

I'll have more to come on this topic, don't worry about that. It is one of my special pet peeves.

How Many Are You Up To?

I remember first encountering this list after getting my first rifle and it started applying after my second and I got started seriously into shooting. In the intervening time, I've gotten above my original six. Here are the ones that apply to me. Feel free to join in and see how many apply to you.

The Gun Guy - You Might Be a Gun Nut If...

1. ...you ever clean a gun that hasn't been shot in the week since you cleaned it last. Sure, can't let dust and crap gather in the bore. A shiny bore is a happy bore.
2. ...you ever bought ammo in a caliber for which you have no gun, because you thought some day you MIGHT get a gun in that caliber. 6.8mm SPC.
3. ...you have more than one gun that "kills on both ends." Mosin-Nagant M1944 Carbine without a recoil pad, five foot sheet of flame from the muzzle. Beautiful gun.
4. ...you buy high capacity magazines for a gun you have not bought yet. HK G3/CETME and FN FAL.
5. ...you take your guns out of the safe each night and handle them, just so you can wipe them off before putting them away. Guns need love and attention too.
6. ...you ever bought two brands of the same weight and type of bullet, just to see if one "shot better." Done it in every caliber I own except 7.62x54R.
7. ...you keep a collection of different cartridges at your place of work as a "conversation piece." No, but I provided a set to a co-worker who did.
8. ...you ever had to explain, "It's NOT the same gun, it's a variation!" AR-15, the Lego kit of the gun world.
9. ...you read that "Brady II" would outlaw possession of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition and think, "I have more than that rolling around loose in the trunk of my car!" Not in the car but definitely in the closet.
10. ...you go to three different gun shows within a month and you're excited every single time.
11. ...your guns are cleaner than your residence.
12. ...you identify the gun on the cover of Dillons Blue Press before you even notice the girl.
13. ...you clean out your trunk and find 1000 rounds of ammo you forgot about. Half-point. Getting together gear for a range trip and found 100 rounds of 62gr .223 I forgot I had in a plastic cartridge holder. Turns out I didn't fire as many rounds at Quantico as I thought six months after the fact.
14. ...you have more GI ammo cans than the local Army Reserve unit. Probably. Depends on the unit.
15. ...you have more guns than some third-world countries. I probably outgun Luxembourg and I am only slightly outgunned by Canada.
16. ...you watch movies just to identify the guns used in them.
17. ...your dream home would have a 100 foot indoor range in the basement. Or a 250 yard outdoor range.
18. ...you have burn scars from hot brass hitting you. Don't wear T-shirts to the range when firing .22 caliber pistol. Those little bastards HURT and doing the "brass dance" on the line is no fun.
19. ...you get misty-eyed when you sell a gun. Done it twice and regretted selling the second one. I had two of the first and it went to a good home.
20. ...you own enough guns to arm everyone on your block.
21. ...when buying a new gun, you plead with your gun shop to keep it until you have space for it. I have my own personal space at the gun shop.
22. ...you would like to see Bill Clinton or Barbara Boxer spend even one hour after midnight at a Washington, D.C.bus-stop without their bodyguards. I'll settle for Carolyn McCarthy or Diane Feinstein.
23. ...you own a BAYONET for a gun you haven't bought yet. HK G3/CETME.
24. ...you buy a gun that is a duplicate of one you already have because the original one might break someday . . . It's called buying spares.
25. ...you'd rather have a $10,000 PSG-1 and drive a $600 car, rather than drive a $10,000 car and have a $600 gun. Hell yes!
26. ...you preach how stupid gun laws/bans are at work when you work in a predominantly ANTI-gun company. Company is gun-neutral (and friendly in certain departments) but most of my co-workers are probably scared shitless of guns.
27. ...you have a callus on your shoulder. Developed one courtesy of aforementioned Mosin-Nagant.
28. ...you go to a marriage counselor, he asks you which you like better, shooting or sex, and you think it's the stupidest question you've ever heard. Thankfully never been forced to actually answer that. Might be a toss-up. ;)
29. ...you spend more on ammo each month than on food.
30. ...a topless joint with free admission is half a mile away, and instead you drive 40 miles to the shooting range on a Saturday night. Sure, who wouldn't?
31. ...your gun collection is worth more than your automobile. And have the insurance policy to prove it.
32. ...when you hear or see the numbers 221 you automatically think "fireball," 257 you think "Roberts," 218 "Bee," 45-70 "government," etc., and can't stop. I do now.
33. ...your pickup is subject to search at any given time because, in your state, empty cartridge cases rolling around the floor are considered probable cause. Canada Customs heading into Canada considers that probable cause too.
34. ...you have framed targets hanging in your bathroom, hallway, or at work, etc. with tight groups that you have shot. Work, in my cube. 20 rounds, AR-15 w/10.5 inch barrel at 50 yards, iron sight. 194 out of a possible 200 on an 8 inch circle. 9 rounds in a 1 inch group around the center X. 5 three-round groups all in 1/2 to 1/4 inch groups. 13 rounds within 1.5 inches of center.
35. ...you read this stuff and don't think it is either unreasonable or funny.
36. ...you save brass and have a case tumbler and you DON'T reload.
37. ...you watch SCI-FI movies and try to figure what they made the blast rifles from. Aliens - M41A Pulse Rifle is made from a Thompson Sub-Machine Gun and a SPAS 12 shotgun. That's the easy one.
38. ...you ever thought you would like to have a rifle made that fired the .50BMG case blown making a straight walled case.
39. ...you ever wanted to fire one of your rifles and it took you 20 minutes of moving .50 Cal. cans to locate the one containing the correct ammo. 10 minutes.
40. ..if, during an idle moment at work, you print out the entire gun nut list and start checking off the ones that apply to you personally. I am up to twenty-four myself.
41. ...if one of your fondest memories is that, after going to gun shows for years with very little money in your pocket, you are able to go to a gun show with $1600 -in cash- and don't intend to leave the show with one penny of it. Got to do it once.
42. ...you have figured out how to defend your neighborhood with your guns (and with whom) in case Y2K turns out the lights.
43. ...you've bought one or more guns so your friends can go shooting with you. (-PMA).
44. ...you look at a very small object 150 yards away, and wish you had a sniper rifle.
45. ...you were more excited when you purchased your first gun than when you purchased your first car.
46. ...you have bought at least one gun just to "see how it shoots" and traded it off a month later. 3 months. CZ40B.
47. ...you were more excited when you got your concealed weapons license than when you got your drivers license.
48. ...you take a part-time job at a local gun shop for the discounts- not because you need the money. Someday.
49. ...you have an AR-15 in at least three different calibers. One upper away.
50. ...loading a magnum slug into a shotgun and having a novice shoot skeet. Not personally but I had a friend who did it to a 16 year old who was barely 90 pounds wet during his first session at the range. And witnesses who confirmed it between the tears and laughter. Nearly knocked him onto his back.
51. ...you read all of the gun mags and actually understand all of the technical drivel.
52. ...the local police ask you for advice on the impending puchase of a sniper rifle. I'd be honored if they did and even have an ideal loaner should they ever need it.
53. ...you take 5 guns to the range, fill your trunk with ammo and discover upon arival that you forgot ammo for one of them. Yes. Brought two .22s and forgot the .22 ammo. Had to shoot up the .17HMR instead.
54. ...you win stuffed animals at the fair so you can use them for targets. Always on the lookout for a Barney the Purple Dinosaur. I have a post and a blindfold I want to introduce him to on the 600 meter range at Quantico. Spongebob works too.
55. ...you use more ammonia cleaning your guns than your wife uses around the house.
56. ...every time you tell your wife you love her she asks what "gun thing" you are wanting to buy.
57. ...your home page is some gun forum or other.
58. ...you can identify handguns on TV at a glance.
59. ...you feel a thrill when yet another LE agency or other has adopted the Sig Sauer as their weapon of choice.
60. ...you buy a gun just because you have a vacant slot in your safe. Or closet. Or gun case. Or behind some furniture. Guns are like mice; ingenious at finding hiding places.
61. ...you know Mikhail Kalashnikov's middle name (Timofeevich). And Eugene Stoner's (Morrison).

Damn. See how you do.

Memorable Quote from the Maryland Hearing on HB.228

From Joyce Thomman, who ended her testimony about being mugged with:

"If you truly want to protect Maryland’s non-criminal citizens I urge you to vote FOR House Bill 228. If you do this, I may have the opportunity to tell my next mugger, 'Friend, I would not hurt you for the world – but since you started this -- you stand where I am about to shoot!'”

Thanks to everyone who went out to support this bill! Maybe we might become a shall-issue state.

Ignorance Must Hurt Like Hell

Courtesy of Alphecca comes this article from this woman in D.C. When I read stuff like this I just have to shake my head. I would honestly love to know how people develop certain worldviews such as those espoused in this article. It serves as an example how if you hear the same concepts, no matter how invalid, repeated over and over, people believe them as truth.

The National Rifle Association and the rest of the huge, powerful gun lobby will spin it as a win for the good, law-abiding citizens of Washington, who deserve the right to protect hearth and home.

That is exactly what it means and it is about damn time. Why is it a city can decide their issues are more important than the Constitutional rights of those who live there?

The city will fight the appellate court’s decision. Indeed, the wonderful, brilliant, progressive new mayor, Adrien Fenty, says he’s willing to go to the Supreme Court if the Circuit Court won’t reconsider its decision.

The man's name is Adrian. At least give him the respect of getting it right. As to wonderful, brilliant and progressive, time will tell unless you mean "progressive" as in "the people of DC are serfs and I am your ruler", then yes, he is progressively heading in the right direction. I, for one, look forward to the Supreme Court hearing this.

The city’s bad guys -- and gals -- will continue to cop their guns from underground dealers or just take a quick subway ride over the river to northern Virginia, where they practically give guns away. Even a 12-year-old can get a rifle or a shotgun over there.

What underground dealers, precisely? Name one. Please. And then call the BATFE to report them for violating the law. I dislike criminals regardless of stripe and an unscrupulous gun dealer who would ignore Federal law on that level qualifies.

A 12 year old can get a rifle or shotgun in Virginia?

Seriously, I want to know where this meme of "guns are easy to get" comes from. People make it sound like you can buy guns like candy in a gun-friendly state like Virginia. Walk in, throw down your money and walk out. Not exactly. Let's explore this for a moment and perhaps help to educate folks out there who are ignorant on the subject of purchasing a firearm. Education is the answer and part of why I started this is to educate. Then at least when the gun-fearing spew their crap, they won't have an excuse anymore.

For one, did you know that firearms are the only consumer product in the United States that requires FBI permission to purchase?

What does it actually take to buy a gun in Virginia? Well, I can speak to that since I have done it a few times. Here is the process.

1. Find and actually enter a gun shop. This alone would scare the crap out of the author of this article apparently. Not to mention that a gun shop has to be the closest thing to anti-matter a hoplophobe will ever encounter.
2. Notice all the guns on the walls and in the display cases. I'm sure something will catch your eye. Ask to see it (nicely) and decide that you want to bring it home.
3. At this point, the guy or gal behind the counter will ask you a standard series of questions. Are you a citizen or permanent resident? Do you have two pieces of ID with you with your address on it, at least one with a photo on it? If the answers to both are "yes", the salesperson will produce a sheaf of forms for you to fill out.
4. One of these is always ATF Form 4473. This form is standard for all firearms purchases anywhere in the country. Take a look at it. Basically all of your personal information. Take special note of section 12. This is a series of "Yes/No" questions you need to answer to validate you can, indeed, purchase a gun. Take special note of a, b, h and i. Note the convicted or even accused of a felony or misdemeanor crime involving violence or domestic violence. Not convicted, accused. That is called "prior restraint". You are being denied rights before being judged by a court of law. Interesting, eh? Don't even need to be judged guilty of a crime and you can't buy a gun. I'll bet you didn't know that.
5. Answer "yes" or "no" to each question and you better tell the truth. Lying on this form is a felony and will most definitely ensure that your first, failed, gun purchase will be the last you'll ever do in this life.
6. If you answer "yes" to any of the questions in section 12, you have just told the authorities you may be disqualified from owning a gun. More on this in a second.
7. Some states, like Virginia, have a state form as well. Virginia's is similar to Form 4473 and asks a few more questions. The State Police uses the information on their forms as part of the background check (coming to that). Some states like Maryland keep this information permanently for registration purposes of guns purchased.
8. Once you've completed the forms and presented your photo ID to the salesperson, they will pick up the phone and call a number for the NICS system. NICS is an acronym for "National Instant Check System". Also known as the Brady Background Check (after the law that brought the system into existence). The salesperson will read off the information you've written on the form along with any "yes" answers you may have provided. Then they wait.
9. The interesting part is happening on the other end of the phone. The NICS worker on the other end is looking up your criminal record on the NICS system by your social security number. They will also look up your DMV records if you used a driver's license (most people do) to confirm that information. When they do this, the system will fan out across a number of state and Federal databases (last I heard it was 54 in total). The system is cross-referencing your criminal history (state and Federal), any court case history (state and Federal), mental health treatment and committal records, FBI records and the Department of Homeland Security, to name a few.
10. If any of these systems comes back with information on you, it will produce what NICS calls a "possible disqualifier". This doesn't mean you can't own a gun; it just means there is something in your records that might disqualify you. If any of this information is known to be a non-issue, then after several minutes the person at NICS will give an answer of "Approved". If NICS is especially busy, they may have the salesperson hang up and they will call back generally within 10-30 minutes. Regardless, the answer is the same and you can then take your gun and head home (following all Federal and state transport laws, of course).
11. Now, if the "possible disqualifier" you have can really disqualify you, this is where it gets truly interesting. The NICS worker will tell the salesperson one word: "delayed". This means, quite literally, they have to dig deeper and check you out. For any system that flagged you, they have to get on the phone and call them for more information and/or log into additional databases and check you out thoroughly. This process can take a few minutes (for a simple double-check) to hours or even days. While this is going on, you have the option of waiting, going to grab a bite to eat and return in a while, or leave and have the dealer call you. NICS must call them back within 72 hours with an answer. If they don't, you get your gun by law (the law assumes automatic approval if NICS can't answer). Until then, the gun isn't going anywhere.
12. Suffice it to say, this process can get quite intense. If you have any criminal history, they will check it. If any crime you were convicted of in the past disqualifies you, that's it. If you're not a citizen, they call the INS (now USCIS) to confirm your immigration status. If you're not a permanent resident (aka Green Card holder), you're disqualified. Committed a crime of violence as a juvenile, disqualfied. Committed to mental health care by the state for any reason, disqualified. And so on. If you're disqualified, NICS calls the dealer back with answer of "Denied". The dealer will call you, apologetically and politely, and arrange a refund for your failed purchase.
13. If you have no disqualifiers and NICS calls back before the 72 hours are up, they will call the dealer back with an answer of "Approved" and you can take your gun home. The dealer will file Form 4473 with their records (they do not get sent to the government, that is part of the law). The state forms they will forward on to the appropriate authority that wants them.
14. And are you ready for the kicker: they do this every single time you a buy a gun.

As to criminals coming into the state and buy guns for resale on the street, the law has a special term for this: a straw purchase. The buyer is misrepresenting their real intentions as to the purchase. By law, if you are buying the gun it must be for you. It cannot be for your sister, best friend, uncle or dog. Your name is on the records. Otherwise, this is a very serious felony and you will go to prison. So yes, they can do it or get someone to do it for them (since most of the criminals wanting the guns would fail a background check instantly). Either way, the person who put their signature on the form will be in serious trouble.

Now, Ms. Mathis, do you really believe that a 12 year old can buy a gun in Virginia like they would a Hershey bar? Go try it sometime, you'd be quite surprised just how thorough this process is. I've gotten nervous every time I've had to go through it and I've even been denied once (I'll tell that story at a later date). Based on this, can you now honestly say that guns are simply magically appearing on our streets?

Columnists who decry the court’s decision will hear from gun nuts like the purported woman lawyer from Nevada, who once got into an email fight with me over an anti-gun column I had written, refused to consider me anything but a traitor and a fool, and then posted it on an NRA chatroom site when I told her to “f--- herself,” which I only regret not having done from the start.

Such an enlightened response. Amazing how your words will haunt you. And you wonder why people don't respect journalists as a general rule.

And the next time a little kid finds his daddy’s handgun in the closet and fiddles with the trigger and kills himself or a playmate, the opponents will say, “See, this is what happens when guns are like kudzu.”

This is not a legal issue, this is a parenting issue. I get really tired of hearing stuff like this. Like somehow it is the government's responsibility to raise your children for you.

Part of raising children with guns is teaching them to respect them and remove them from the realm of a forbidden object (which only raises their allure to a child). The other is to practice safe storage. If you are going to be irresponsible and absolve yourself of doing the proper thing and teach your children about guns then you have a moral duty to at least lock them up securely. If a child is finding a loaded weapon in the house and "fiddles with the trigger", then you haven't done your job as a parent and you should be held legally responsible for the consequences. The number of guns does not matter. A bad parent is a bad parent, period.

Too many people somehow believe that the if the government passes a law for or against something that it will somehow magically occur. All the "safe storage" and "child protection" laws do nothing if a moron who shouldn't have a hamster, let alone a child, leaves a loaded weapon on the coffee table. Laws can't stop bullets. I wish they could, then we could legislate this type of "for the children" stupidity out of existence.

Ms. Mathis, do you think the D.C gun ban was effective in preventing gun crime in the District? You admittedly individual ownership had been outlawed for 30 years. Precisely what did it accomplish and how did it work successfully? If only the criminals have guns, guns are banned to citizens and gun crime is sky-high, then maybe the answer isn't more laws. "Try again, only harder" is not the answer. Bad laws should die. This was one of them and hopefully you'll see that someday.

But probably not, as it sounds like you fear what you do not understand and clearly do not wish to learn. But, if you are a journalist of integrity and are willing to submit to a little education, I make you the following offer:

If you want to at least do a little article research and perhaps, gasp, be fair and balanced in reporting (another bitch people have with journalists), I am willing to take you to the range at my expense and show you safe and responsible firearms usage and what real ownership is like. Maybe you might change your tune. Or at a minimum show everyone that you wish to remain ignorant and that you don't mind the pain that it entails.

Drop me a comment or e-mail and let me know. I am an NRA certified rifle instructor. It doesn't make me a professional (anyone can be an instructor) but it might make you feel better since you probably also believe only professionals should be allowed guns (hint for future article: research the gun qualification requirements for a typical city police officer. You'll be shocked at how lax they are.).

And as a last note and something I found ironic, the title of the browser starts with "BAW".

Sheep indeed.

Thanks, Bastards of the Roanoke Times!

I was going to fisk an article crying about the overturning of the DC gun ban, then I came across this at Pro-Gun Progressive. Which led me to this.

I'm on this list. So is a very good friend of mine. Complete with our names and addresses, permit issue and expiration dates. All posted in the interest of public safety, knowing who's armed around you, who's getting the permits and so on.

And I'm pissed.

Yes, I know these are public records. But I have real problem with posting the list complete with addresses. The media argues that they post lists of sex offenders so why not CCW holders? I'll tell you why...

Sex offenders are criminals, CCW holders are not.

They argue the public has a right to know who is armed. Uh, no, they do not. The whole point of CCW is keep those who would do us harm guessing as to which normal looking person might be the one to stop them from engaging in a little "wealth redistribution" on their terms. They argue your neighbors have a right to know who's armed in the neighborhood. Again, no they do not. If they want to know if I own a gun, all they have to do is watch my front door long enough and they'll eventually see a gun case leave under my arm. I don't hide the fact I own guns, I'm not ashamed of it and will happily tell if you if asked if I think you won't go beserk.

But now the entire state of VA knows and knows exactly where to find guns in the state. Nice handy criminal firearms bazaar shopping list, courtesy of the Roanoke Times.

Admittedly, they did make it a little difficult. You have to know a last name and a city to see who has a permit in that area. At least it wasn't a downloadable file or a complete long list, indiscriminate to the last.

It still doesn't make it right.

Can a CCW holder sue the paper if their house is broken into and one of their guns winds up in the hands of a criminal? Or they catch the guy in the act and assuming he survives, admits the reasons he was breaking in was to get guns because of the list?

With rights come responsibilities. I don't have a problem with public records. They are vital to keeping government abuses in check. However, this is a list of the law-abiding. The people on this list are probably the most law-abiding people out there. I know, I am one of them.

If some panties-in-a-wad soccer Mom wants to know if I have a permit to carry, at least make her have to earn her outrage. Make her have to provide by name and address the person she wishes to check on and pay a fee for the trouble and she gets a "Yes" or "No" answer. Then she can choose to scream from the porch the fact and possibly pay a price for doing so.

I'm not ashamed of being on the list. Quite proud of it, as a matter-of-fact. But there are many gun owners out there and just people in general that want to be left to their own business. If we want you to know who we associate with and what we're interested in, we'll tell you if we want to, not until. It's none of your business otherwise. It's called "privacy".

Gun ownership is not a crime. It is also none of the public's business unless I actually have to put the permit to carry into action. Then I am all for it being the public's business because my decision to act is now subject to public scrutiny. Not until.

Thanks, Roanoke Times. You just made our neighborhoods a little less safe.

PS: To anyone going to my address, I don't live there anymore. I no longer live in Virginia. But if you choose to visit me with malice in your heart in Maryland, you'll get the same response here you would have gotten there.

Update: They've taken the list down. They make it sound like that maybe some addresses should not have been included. Sure, like all of them. I consider everyone equal with regards to revealing information like this. A politician is no more important than a person hiding from an abusive ex. And judging by the comments that I did manage to see, a lot of people did not share the Roanoke Times' view on public records in this instance. Perhaps the Times got a little Zumboed here. Let's hope the list stays down.

Response to Maryland Senate Bill 43 (Proposed Assault Weapon Ban)

This is my follow-up letter to the Senate Committee hearing SB.43, the proposed Maryland Assault Weapon Ban.


To The Committee Overseeing Maryland Senate Bill 43

Dear Senator,

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the committee for allowing me to testify in opposition to Maryland SB.43 (proposed assault weapon ban) and I would like to urge your to give this bill an UNFAVORABLE vote on March 19, 2007. The passage of this bill will do nothing but criminalize the law-abiding citizen and have no effect on violent gun crime in this state.

In support of this position, I would like to offer you the following facts to rebut the testimony provided to your committee who are in favor of this bill. It is hoped this information will be of help to you in this matter.

Mr. Paul Helmke's Remark Concerning the term “Regulated”

Paul Helmke, head of the Brady Campaign, indicated in his testimony that the Second Amendment intended for arms to be “regulated”. Mr. Helmke's testimony was dishonest and not in keeping with the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”.

Mr. Helmke took the term “regulated” out of context. The actual term is “well-regulated” and it has nothing to do with regulation in sense of laws, rules or restrictions. It means “to be well-disciplined” in the context of a citizen militia. Mr. Helmke is trying to twist this term to apply a modern context of what the layman would consider “well-regulated” to mean and in doing so, does not keep with the American tradition the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

For further history on the meaning of the Second Amendment, I refer you to http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html. This link traces the meaning of the Second Amendment using the words of the Founders themselves.

“Spray Fire” and “Shooting from the Hip”

Ceasefire Maryland testified the sole purpose of an assault weapon was to provide for indiscriminate killing, “shooting from the hip”, “spray firing as a weapon of war”. I have studied the combat training manuals for the US Army, US Air Force and US Marine Corps (the US Navy and Coast Guard only do familiarization and do not require formal qualification on the M16 rifle) and in none of these texts is there a single reference that firing a rifle “from the hip in a spray pattern to suppress an enemy” is an accepted tactical use of that weapon. Nor is this technique taught to any recruit in training as a proper use of their issue weapon. In fact, were a recruit were to actually do so in training, they would earn a stern rebuke at a minimum with possible outright dismissal from training for unsafe conduct.

“Spraying from the hip” has never been an accepted or taught usage of any firearm in peacetime on in a combat situation. No firearms manufacturer has ever designed a gun specifically to be fired “from the hip” and as certified rifle instructor, I have never encountered any material that has advocated this technique as a suitable shooting position.

For the mission of providing suppressive fire in combat, soldiers tasked to this duty are assigned fully automatic machine guns that are not available to civilians. They are instructed to provide this type fire by firing these weapons from a supported position from the shoulder using aimed bursts of automatic fire. They never “spray wildly”.

Ceasefire Maryland then goes on to state that a semi-automatic rifle is more dangerous that a machine gun because it is requires aiming to be effective. Huh? They are arguing that semi-automatics are more dangerous than machine guns? If so, why have machine guns been effectively banned since 1934 on the very grounds that they are considered more deadly? They can't have it both ways. Any firearm needs to be aimed in order to be effective. This type of doublespeak is put forth to push their actual agenda: a ban on all firearms.

On the Crimes, Assault Weapons and Effectiveness of Gun Control

The supporters of SB.43 raised three crimes as reasons for the necessity of an assault weapon ban in Maryland. I would like to offer the following facts for your consideration.

Dale Miller offered testimony in support of the assault weapon ban due to the death of her father at the hands of a criminal in 1994. Anyone, myself included, sympathizes with her loss. The circumstances of her father's death do not provide a justification for SB.43 for the following reasons:

1. The crime was committed in the District of Columbia, not Maryland
2. The perpetrator of the crime used a fully automatic MAC-10 machine gun, not a semi-automatic rifle. This weapon was already banned at the time of the crime.
3. Washington DC has the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. It is illegal to possess an unregistered pistol and it is illegal to have an assembled, functional firearm in the District (even within the privacy of your own home). These laws did nothing to deter the perpetrator of this horrible crime.
4. The laws against murder did not stop the perpetrator of this crime.

The 1997 North Hollywood Shooting was committed by two armed bank robbers in Los Angeles using a variety of weapons including a pair of AK-47s. These proceeded to engage police officers in a 44 minute shootout, wounding several officers and civilians before finally being killed. The circumstances of this crime do not provide a justification for SB.43 for the following reasons:

1. The crime was committed in California, not Maryland.
2. The perpetrators used fully automatic AK-47 machine guns. These had been illegally obtained and were already banned at the time of the crime.
3. The perpetrators also used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. This rifle had been illegally modified to fire automatically. This is a serious felony punishable by 10 years in prison or a $250,000 dollar fine. This law was no deterrent to the perpetrators.
4. The crime was committed while a comprehensive assault weapon ban was already in effect in the state of California. This law was ignored by these criminals.
5. The laws against attempted murder did not stop the perpetrators of this crime.

The Beltway Snipers killed 10 citizens in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia in October 2002 using a Bushmaster XM-15 semi-automatic rifle. This two week reign of terror was put to an end when both men were caught and eventually convicted for their crimes. Despite their use of a firearm that would be covered under SB.43, the crime does not provide a justification for SB.43 for the following reasons:

1. The firearm used in the crimes was shoplifted illegally by Lee Boyd Malvo from a gun shop in Tacoma, Washington, not Maryland. The gun shop was found negligent in this circumstance. Malvo obtained this weapon by theft and did not submit to the existing Brady background check required by a lawful purchaser.
2. Both Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad were not lawful permanent residents or citizens of the United States when they committed their crimes. They were not permitted under Federal, State or local laws to possess a firearm.
3. The Bushmaster rifle fires the same .223 cartridge used by many common hunting rifles. Had Malvo stolen a semi-automatic or bolt-action rifle that used the same cartridge instead, the effect on the outcome of this crime would have been no different. The Bushmaster did not possess any greater lethality over a “less-scary looking” alternative.
4. The pair ignored the numerous gun transport and possession laws for regulated firearms already in place in Maryland. These laws did not prevent the crime from happening.
5. The pair ignored the stringent gun control laws in the District of Columbia. Once again, these laws did not prevent the crime from happening.
6. The laws against murder did not stop the perpetrators of this crime.

In summary: Criminals do not obey the law!

Gun control laws like SB.43 do nothing to prevent violent crime. They only criminalize the law-abiding citizen. Any law needs to provide a provable justification to its beneficial effects on the community that far outweigh its detrimental outcomes to the law-abiding. This is especially true where Constitutionally protected rights, not state-sanctioned privileges, are at stake as is the case here. SB.43 does none of this and only strips the rights of the law-abiding citizen based solely on the appearance of a firearm and not its function.

The term “assault weapon” is an invented term by gun control groups and the media to categorize a group of firearms they don't like and to chip away at responsible gun ownership one weapon at a time. These firearms differ solely in appearance from traditional firearms. These are civilian firearms. The military does not use semi-automatic rifles as standard equipment. They are not “weapons of war”.

They are not preferred weapons of criminals since the Maryland State Police testified that they do not track these weapons and have not encountered them in any great numbers in the hands of criminals. No Maryland police officer has been killed by a rifle of any sort since 1980.

If your office has any questions or would like additional information or clarification on anything I have provided, feel free to contact me at my address provided or at ###-###-####.

Once again, I urge you to issue an UNFAVORABLE vote on SB.43. In doing so, you will uphold your support of the rights of your constituents and I will in turn give you my support for doing the right thing.

Thank you for your time and attention.


I will have more on this shortly. If you live in Maryland, please write the Senate Committee and express your opposition to this! If you own rifles or pistols in Maryland, this does affect you!

DC Gun Ban Overturned!

I figure there is no more celebratory way to launch a blog than to do it in the wake of this huge victory for the Second Amendment, one of the reasons I chose to start blogging. On the ruling and the opinions that are starting to flow out of it I offer the following commentary.

For gun rights supporters such as myself, the decision is obvious and very well-thought out. To me, a hallmark of a good legal decision is the flow and logic of the writing in the decision. Legal documents are not written in some strange language only accessible by priests of the legal profession. They are written in English (here at least). If you can follow it and make sense of it, it is a good brief. The decision in Parker vs. DC reads beautifully. Go read it. It does make sense and you will learn something.

For gun rights supporters, the idea that the 2nd Amendment preserves an individual right is as natural as breathing to us. We don't even think about it. It just is. So we when hear stuff that it isn't really an individual right but some nuanced, ephemeral "collective right", we get justifiably pissed. Because, to us, it goes against common sense.

And as the gun control groups and mayors just found out, their definition of "common sense" just got thrown out the window.

When people talk about battle lines being drawn over Rights, folks, this is one of them. This one is going to go to the Supreme Court unless the District of Columbia suddenly develops a sense of honor and decides to be a gracious loser. And I don't see that happening.

Of course, Mayor Adrian Fenty is going absolutely apeshit. You want to know why? Because he just got told he really wasn't the latest in a long line of kings elected to the post of DC Mayor (how many big city mayors view themselves) and that there is, in fact, limits to their power.

I would love to know from Mayor Fenty (and previous DC mayors) how precisely did the now-dead total ban on lawful firearms ownership accomplish in the District over the past 30 years? To them, the mere existence of the law was somehow keeping gun crime at "managable" levels. DC has one of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Sure has worked to me.

Fenty is "outraged", congressman are "concerned and disappointed" and the gun control groups are losing their minds. A lot of people in DC crying that this is going to bring guns back onto the streets of DC? What the fuck? Are people truly this stupid? The criminals already have them!

The overturning of the ban doesn't suddenly create a tidal wave of guns into DC. The ban is still in effect for the next 30 days while the District gets an appeal written and filed. And when the do, the ban will stay in effect pending the outcome of the appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. And even in the unlikely event the ban is no longer in effect while the appeals process is going on, all it means is law-abiding citizens can now have working guns in their homes. That alone would be a good short-term thing.

Think about this. With the ban, DC residents were prohibited from owning a pistol that hadn't been registered or from keeping a firearm in their home that was not disabled from functioning by means of a trigger lock, cable or removal of critical parts. If you were cleaning a shotgun or rifle in your home and you cycled it or had it fully assembled, you just broke the law. In the privacy of your own home. In the case of pistols, they were limited to being stored in one place. You needed a permit issued by the DC Police to move it from one room to another! As a result, if a criminal broke into your house and you shot them justifiably, YOU would be charged for violating DC's gun laws!

If the ban is no longer in effect, now self-defense with a firearm becomes a safe option for citizens and burglary a real dangerous proposition to the criminals. If the ban is gone, expect to see a short spike in justifiable homicides in DC followed by a noticeable drop in many types of crime (like burglary). Hell, you might even be able to graph the downward trend in realtime given how messed up DC has been. A little chaos followed by the city reaching a new, proper equilibirum.

It was because of these restrictions that caused the case to be brought and the basis on which it was struck down. It constituted a defacto denial of an individuals Second Amendment rights and reduced a lawfully owned firearm to a "hunk of metal and springs".

If the Supreme Court upholds this and does it in way that does not puss out and lets the ruling stand in its entirety, I think it will change the landscape for gun rights across the country. This is why the gun control groups are losing it. If the Court says individuals have a right to own guns, especially weapons "suitable to the common defense", it guts their agenda. Tough to have Handgun Control Inc. when handguns are considered Consitutionally protected items.

It is going to be a while for this to play out and there is going to be a lot of nail biting on both sides in the meantime. But the decision, has for once, put the focus on gun rights in a positive light and have the gun controllers and elitists on the defensive.

That alone is enough to do a victory dance. Thank you, Parker vs. DC and the Circuit Court, you made my day!!!