Mr Colion Noir takes on Rep. Diana DeGette’s stupid comments about magazines being ammunition and one-time use products. I think the best line is when he says we aren’t talking about latex condoms.
As someone noted in the comments, the scary part is that “these type of idiots are our Law Makers.” I would agree.
I don’t know who writes the Rocky Mountain Right blog but they have a wicked good sense of humor. Their latest post is ostensibly written by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and contains her guide to gun safety.
It contains this warning about those dastardly “assault weapons” and how to recognize them.
WARNING: A RIFLE THAT HAS BEEN PAINTED BLACK IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON, ONLY
HANDLE AN ASSAULT WEAPON IF YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL OR CELEBRITY.
The post even has drawings to illustrate the dangers of certain kinds of ammunition. I didn’t know ammo had dragons in it!
Go to the link above and read the whole thing.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation based in Newtown, Connecticut released the following statement yesterday regarding the passage of that state’s new gun control law. I think the most important part of their statement is the last sentence which says they are studying it for possible legal challenges.
I think this will be a given and not a possibility. The only question will be which gun rights organization files first.
NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, issued the following statement today:
Gov. Dannel Malloy today signed into law a package of gun-control legislation that was assembled in secret by a small group of state legislators and that never received a public hearing. Most legislators had little time to even read the actual bill language.
The unfortunate results of this process, which made it appear that all points of view were being heard when in fact true expertise was shut out when it was most needed, means that mistakes in what is now enacted law will have to be corrected.
For example, language in the new law specifies a procedure for licensed firearms retailers to perform mandatory “universal” background checks on private party transactions that is not permissible based on federal law and regulations governing the National Instant Criminal Background Checks (NICS) system. As we read it, this mistake in lawmaking means that all private party transactions in the state now cannot be accomplished legally.
We share the goal of wanting to make Connecticut safer for our citizens following the unspeakable tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. In the end, however, public safety has not been enhanced and the unintended consequences of behind-closed-doors lawmaking will cause considerable confusion until the General Assembly corrects its mistakes.
Here is where we stand today. Law-abiding citizens of this state now have greater restrictions on their Second Amendment and state constitutional rights while Connecticut’s firearms manufacturers will be forced to seriously weigh the impact on their businesses and their employees of the state’s double-standard of you can build it here, but not sell it here, public policy formulation.
We will be carefully studying all provisions of the law for possible challenge in the courts.
I can’t say anything more about Connecticut’s infamous Bill No. 1160 which was rammed through the General Assembly as emergency legislation than has already been said.
That said, it takes a special kind of arrogance still to proclaim this on the State of Connecticut’s official “About Connecticut” webpage:
Connecticut is often described as the “Arsenal of the Nation.” It gained this reputation as early as the American Revolution. Early in the 19th century, Eli Whitney and Simeon North began making Connecticut firearms with interchangeable parts. This is generally recognized as the beginning of modern mass production.
Then there is there that other thing Connecticut likes to call itself – The Constitution State.
Only in their (lost) dreams.
One of the state nicknames for Maryland is the Free State. With the passage of draconian gun control by the Maryland House of Delegates yesterday, that nickname should be called into question. The bill in question, SB 281, now returns to the State Senate for concurrence.
The bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles with cosmetics the proponents don’t like; would require training, a license, and fingerprinting to purchase a handgun; and would ban the sale and transfer of all magazines with greater than 10 round capacity. The bill would also require the registration of all currently possessed “assault pistols” and “assault weapons”. Failure to do so would result in fines and an up to one year prison term. Maryland Shall Issue has an excellent summary of the provisions of the bill here.
The NRA-ILA issued an alert last night urging Marylanders to contact their state senator and Senate President Mike Miller. As they noted, this will be the last chance to stop this legislation. Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-MD) has been a major proponent of gun control legislation and will sign this bill if passed by the Senate.
UPDATE: The Maryland Senate gave final approval to the bill yesterday and it has been sent to Gov. Martin O’Malley for his signature. At this point, the only thing that could delay its implementation is if opponents gather enough signatures to get it put on the ballot in November 2014 as a referendum item.
Michael Ramirez is the political cartoonist for Investor’s Business Daily and his work is sheer brilliance. As an example see today’s cartoon which mixes pop culture with hoplophobe politics.
I think Ramirez nails it.
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) seems to be in a contest with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) to see who can make the most ignorant, most inane comment regarding firearms.
Rep. McCarthy is famous for response that a barrel shroud on a semi-automatic rifle or carbine is “a shoulder thing that goes up.” Yesterday at a public forum held by the Denver Post on gun control, Rep. DeGette launched into a disquisition on standard capacity magazine that illustrated merely one thing – she doesn’t have a clue about what she is talking about nor what legislation on which she is the lead co-sponsor would ban.
Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
It is a shame that Larimer County Sheriff Justin Justin Smith who was sitting next to her at the forum didn’t just take out a spare magazine, start unloading the cartridges, and then reload them. That would have said just about everything. As it was, the crowd just chuckled after her remarks.
David Codrea reports in the National Gun Rights Examiner that DeGette’s spokesperson doubled down on her boss’ ignorance.
A spokeswoman trying to deflect well-deserved ridicule and criticism made things worse in an issued statement, calling it “political gamesmanship” by “opponents of common-sense gun violence prevention trying to manipulate the facts to distract from the critical issue of keeping our children safe and keeping killing machines out of the hands of disturbed individuals.
“The Congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years, and has been deeply involved in the issue,” Juliet Johnson said. “She simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism.”
Of course, clips can be reloaded just like magazines.
The Second Amendment Foundation was granted a preliminary injunction in their case challenging the state of New Mexico’s requirement requiring US citizenship for the granting of a concealed carry permit. Chief Judge for the District of New Mexico M. Christina Armijo granted the preliminary injunction in Jackson et al v. King et al on Friday.
The decision published on Monday concluded:
The Court, applying the heightened standard applicable to disfavored injunctions,
finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied each of the requirements for obtaining preliminary
injunctive relief.Defendant Hubbard has failed to establish that a legal permanent resident alien
such as Mr. Jackson poses a greater risk of danger by virtue of his or her status alone,
than do citizens, with respect to the carrying of concealed weapons.The Court further concludes that the citizenship provision in Section 29-19-
14(A)(1) is severable from the remainder of the Concealed Handgun Carry Act.IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED and Defendant Hubbard is preliminarily enjoined
from enforcing the citizenship provision in Section 29-19-14(A)(1) of the Concealed
Handgun Carry Act pending resolution of this action.
In a separate order, Chief Judge Armijo dismissed the case against NM Attorney General Gary King for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of standing. She did allow the case to continue against Bill Hubbard in his official capacity as Director of the Special Investigations Section of the New Mexico Department of Public Safety. It was Mr. Hubbard that was enjoined in the above decision.
The Second Amendment Foundation released the following statement yesterday on the preliminary injunction:
BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation has won a preliminary injunction against a part of the State of New Mexico’s concealed carry statute on the grounds that it violates the right of equal protection under the law.
The ruling, handed down by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, was signed by M. Christina Armijo, the chief district judge.
SAF filed the legal action on behalf of John Jackson, a permanent legal resident alien who could not obtain a concealed carry permit under existing New Mexico statute because he is not a U.S. citizen. SAF has challenged similar bans in other jurisdictions.
“We’re delighted with the outcome of this challenge,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The right of self-protection should not be denied to people who are active and productive members of the community simply because they do not meet the citizenship requirement of a state statute.”
In reaching its ruling, the court applied a heightened standard of scrutiny and concluded that the citizenship provision of New Mexico’s law is severable from the remainder of the state Concealed Handgun Carry Act.
“While the law allowed Mr. Jackson to openly carry a firearm,” Gottlieb noted, “there are certain areas and circumstances when doing so would be imprudent or potentially in violation of other legal restrictions. This ruling will make it possible for Mr. Jackson and other legal resident aliens to exercise their right to bear arms.”
Yesterday the Washington Post ran an article about how the push for gun control measures is running out of steam in Congress. It seems that those of us who believe in Constitutional rights and the Second Amendment have been pushing back.
Among the people interviewed for this article was Matt Bennett of Third Way. This “think tank” tries to portray itself as centrist which might be true in DC but not elsewhere. It says it seeks “principled solutions and pragmatic compromise.” Among the items on their agenda is more gun control or, as they call it, “gun safety laws.”
Speaking of the progress on gun control since Senators went home to their states for the Easter break where they have been hearing from their constituents, Mr. Bennett had this to say:
“If there was a secret-ballot vote it would pass overwhelmingly, because
from a substantive point of view most of these senators understand that
this is the right thing to do,” said Matt Bennett, a gun-control
advocate and senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank.
“What’s holding them back is pure politics.”
Yes, and if we had star chambers then all those who opposed so-called progressive laws would be in prison or worse.
Mr. Bennett is the Senior VP for Public Affairs for Third Way. Previously, he worked as an assistant to Al Gore and then Bill Clinton. He was the Director of Public Affairs fro 2001-2004 for the gun control group Americans for Gun Safety among other jobs post-Clinton.
It is rather appalling to read of the anti-democratic principles espoused by gun control proponents. It is all too easy for them to denigrate the voice of those of us in the hinterlands as “pure politics” if we disagree with their “prescriptions”. They should remember that America is not some sort of technocratic autocracy where “our betters” rule. We still retain for now the vote and by God we will vote out those who think so little of our Second Amendment rights.
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit against Nebraska officials over the statutory prohibition against carry permits for permanent legal resident aliens. In 2011, the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit against the City of Omaha in Gonzalez v. Omaha over a city ordinance which prohibited permanent legal aliens from being able to register a handgun. In that case, the City of Omaha settled, changed their ordinance, and sent a check to SAF for legal fees.
Substantial case law exists regarding the civil rights of permanent legal aliens. They are a suspect class and any different treatment for them is held to strict scrutiny. Illegal aliens, non-resident aliens, and others such as those on student
or tourist visas are not considered part of a suspect class. There have been cases in Kentucky and South Dakota involving concealed carry for legal aliens and the courts have always found in their favor. I expect it will be no different here.
From the Second Amendment Foundation:
SAF SUES NEBRASKA OVER CARRY PROHIBITION FOR RESIDENT ALIENS
For Immediate Release: 4/1/2013
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a motion for injunctive relief against Nebraska officials over a statutory prohibition that prevents non-citizens legally residing in the state from obtaining a concealed carry permit.
SAF filed the lawsuit on behalf of 68-year-old Carlos Nino De Rivera Lajous, a Mexican citizen who has been legally residing in Lincoln since 1990. SAF is joined in the action by the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association. Defendants in the lawsuit are Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and David Sankey, superintendent of the Nebraska State Patrol, both in their official capacities.
“Mr. Lajous received a permanent resident visa in 1991, and he has earned three associated degrees from Central Community College in Hastings,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “He has certainly established himself as a productive member of his community over the past 22 years.
“Ironically,” Gottlieb continued, “Mr. Lajous is allowed to carry a firearm openly in Nebraska, except for certain locations where doing so is not allowed under state law. He is prohibited from obtaining a concealed carry permit by state statute, thus making open carry his only option for personal protection, and as a result, he is the victim of what might be called a ‘Catch 22’ in state law.
“There is no rationale for a system in which someone can legally carry openly for self-defense, but yet that person cannot obtain a concealed pistol permit because of nationality,” he said. “SAF has challenged similar problems in Washington, New Mexico and Iowa where non-citizen legal residents faced troublesome local gun laws, and when Mr. Lajous’ Nebraska problem came to our attention, we acted.”
The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David G. Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Ill., and Bernie Glaser of Lincoln.
The complaint for the case of Lajous et al v. Bruning et al can be found here.
by