Uncategorized

Helmke On ABC’s Topline

January 17, 2011 by 1 Comment

Paul Helmke was a guest on ABC New’s Topline webcast on Friday. The interview with Helmke starts at about the 4:22 mark.

The best part of the interview was when Jonathan Karl asks Helmke, “Why have you guys been losing this debate for so long?” Helmke never answered the question and admitted their high watermark for gun control was in the first two years of the Clinton Administration.

Unlike most media interviews, Helmke is not let off easily. Karl notes that the 111th Congress seemed the most pro-NRA in his memory even though it was so Democratic. He later questions Helmke on his insistence that the public want more gun control saying “47% (of a poll) is a mandate for more gun control?”

When Helmke says that the Democratic Caucus is more favorable now towards gun control because those Democrats “who played footsy with the NRA lost”, Karl responds that while they may be more pro-gun control there are a lot less Democrats than before.

Uncategorized

Attack Of The Micro-Nines

January 16, 2011 by 3 Comments

SigSauer has the Sig 290, Taurus has the Slim, Ruger has the LC9, and now Kimber has the Solo Carry. Of course, Kel-Tec and Kahr both have had single-stack ultra-compact polymer 9mm’s for some time now. As can be expected with a pistol this size, they are all chasing the concealed carry market and especially for those who want more power than is available from the .380 cartridge.

This is what Michael Bane has defined as Gun Culture 2.0. That is, those who have come to guns not through growing up in a hunting family – Gun Culture 1.0 – but as a result of the concealed carry movement. They tend to be somewhat younger and more budget conscious. Bane felt it was this group more than any others who were responsible for the great sales of the .380s such as the Ruger LCP.

Kimber formally introduced the Solo Carry and Solo Carry Stainless on Friday. It was to my mind a stealth introduction. Unlike the marketing hype that Ruger indulged in when introducing the LC9, the Kimber introduction was without much fanfare. Frankly, I only heard about it because of an email from Iain Harrison of Crimson Trace.

Kimber Solo Carry

The Solo Carry and the Solo Carry Stainless are both single-action striker-fired pistols weighing in at 17 ounces. This puts it at the same weight as the Ruger LC9 but lighter than the Sig P290 and Taurus Slim. Unlike all the other micro-nines mentioned above, both pistols have an aluminum alloy frame with a stainless steel slide. The only other micro-nine that I can find that isn’t polymer is the Rohrbaugh R9.

You can see the 1911 influence on these pistols with their ambidextrous thumb safety as well as the ambidextrous magazine release. The thumb safety is not some little lever but what appears to be a scaled down version of the Kimber 1911’s thumb safety. Sights are three-dot with the rear sight being dovetailed into the stainless slide. Grips are also removable. Currently, the pistol ships with a 6-round magazine but a 8-round magazine is reported to be available in the future.

Kimber Solo Carry Stainless

The Kimber1911 blog has an extensive review of the Solo Carry, many more pictures, and has the video shown below.

Crimson Trace will be making LaserGrips for the Solo Carry as opposed to a LaserGuard. From their press release:

Building on the success of its laser sights for the hot compact pistol market, Crimson trace proudly introduces the latest addition to its portfolio with instinctively activated Lasergrips for Kimber’s new, innovative compact 9mm carry pistol – The Solo. The result of painstaking and exhaustive engineering, these are the thinnest Lasergips yet, bringing the decisive advantage of laser sighting without adding any bulk to this compact package.

“We’ve been working with Kimber for over a year to develop a set of Crimson Trace grips befitting of the quality and innovation that is the new Solo,” said Kent Thomas, Director of Marketing for Crimson Trace. “By partnering with one of the world’s best firearm manufacturers since the inception of the project, we are able to offer both of CTC and Kimber consumers the finest laser sighting systems as soon as ground breaking new models such as the Solo are introduced.”

Available directly from Crimson Trace or as an option from Kimber, the Solo Carry Lasergrips are zeroed at the factory, offer a four hour battery life as well as the most powerful laser permitted by law. The popular rosewood finish seen on Kimber’s Crimson Carry is also incorporated into this model, offering a subtle contrast to the pistol’s stainless or two-tone finish.

In terms of price, the Solo Carry’s MSRP is $725 which makes it a bit cheaper than the Kahr PM9. However, that puts it $250-300 more than the rest of the field (the Sig doesn’t have a price yet). That said, for anyone who wants a micro-nine and doesn’t want a “plastic” pistol, I think they will pay the premium to get the Solo Carry.

I look forward to actually handling and firing this pistol. A head to head comparison with the other micro-nines would be very interesting.

UDPATE: MSRP of the Sig P290 is $758 according to ToddG. He also links to a place where you can win one!

Uncategorized

McCarthy Unveiling Her Ban On Standard Capacity Magazines.

January 14, 2011 by

Politico has the story on Carolyn McCarthy unveiling her new bill to ban standard capacity magazines. You can read the draft bill in the post before this here.

I feel bad for Mrs. McCarthy that she lost her husband in a shooting. Heck, I even feel bad for her that she has arthritis in her fingers (see the swollen knuckles) as I know how painful that can be. However, I have no use for any one who would politicize a tragic event caused by a madman whether on a train on Long Island or at a Safeway grocery store in Tucson.

Uncategorized

Free Speech? Gun Rights? Not If Carolyn Has Her Way (updated)

January 14, 2011 by 1 Comment

From the Oath of Office she swore:


I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The last I knew both the First and Second Amendments were part of the Constitution. What part of “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” does Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy not understand?

UPDATE: Jacob at GunPoliticsNY.com has a draft copy of the proposed McCarthy magazine ban.Sebastian at Snow Flakes In Hell has some analysis of this draft bill.

Mccarthy Magazine Bill

Uncategorized

Ackerman Introduces His Bill: HR 263

January 14, 2011 by

Gary Ackerman introduced his bill yesterday that, in his words, would require recently unlicensed gun dealers to conduct background checks as they disperse their inventory. However, the Government Printing Office only has the title and no text for the bill as of this morning.

H.R.263
Latest Title: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to restrict the ability of a person whose Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] (introduced 1/12/2011)
Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/12/2011 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

From the article in The Hill, Ackerman has introduced this bill in every session for the past few and it has gone nowhere. It was also endorsed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

UPDATE: The text of the bill is now available.

H.R.263 — Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act (Introduced in House – IH)

HR 263 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 263
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to restrict the ability of a person whose Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 12, 2011
Mr. ACKERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

——————————————————————————–

A BILL
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to restrict the ability of a person whose Federal license to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms has been revoked, whose application to renew such a license has been denied, or who has received a license revocation or renewal denial notice, to transfer business inventory firearms, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Fire Sale Loophole Closing Act’.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTIONS ON THE ABILITY OF A PERSON WHOSE FEDERAL LICENSE TO IMPORT, MANUFACTURE, OR DEAL IN FIREARMS HAS BEEN REVOKED, WHOSE APPLICATION TO RENEW SUCH A LICENSE HAS BEEN DENIED, OR WHO HAS RECEIVED A LICENSE REVOCATION OR RENEWAL DENIAL NOTICE, TO TRANSFER BUSINESS INVENTORY FIREARMS.

(a) Restrictions- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(aa)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for a person who has been notified by the Attorney General that the Attorney General has made a determination to revoke a license issued to the person under this chapter to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms, or to deny an application of the person to renew such a license, to–

`(i) transfer a business inventory firearm of the person–

`(I) into a personal collection of the person; or

`(II) to an employee of the person, or to an individual described in section 923(d)(1)(B) with respect to the person; or

`(ii) receive a firearm that was a business inventory firearm of the person as of the date the person received the notice.

`(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to a license revocation or denial determination that is rescinded.

`(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for a person, on or after the effective date of the revocation of a license issued to the person under this chapter to import, manufacture, or deal in firearms, or (in the case that the application of the person to renew such a license is denied) on or after the date the license expires, to–

`(i) engage in conduct prohibited by paragraph (1); or

`(ii) transfer to any other person (except a person licensed under this chapter or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency) a firearm that was a business inventory firearm of the person as of the effective date or expiration date, as the case may be.

`(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with respect to a license revocation or denial determination that is reversed.’.

(b) Business Inventory Defined- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) Business Inventory Firearm- The term `business inventory firearm’ means, with respect to a person, a firearm required by law to be recorded in the acquisition and disposition logs of any firearms business of the person.’.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 923(c) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by inserting `section 922(aa) and to’ after `subject only to’.

(d) Penalties- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:.

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year (or, if the violation was willful, 5 years), or both.’.

(e) Requirement That License Revocation or Application Denial Notice Include Text of Law Prohibiting Dealing in Firearms Without a Federal Firearms License and Restricting Transfer of Firearms After Receipt of Official License Revocation or Renewal Application Denial Notice- Section 923(f)(1) of such title is amended in the last sentence by inserting `, and shall set forth the provisions of Federal law and regulation which prohibit a person not licensed under this chapter from engaging in the business of dealing in firearms or are relevant in determining whether a person is doing so, and the provisions of section 922(aa)’ before the period.

Uncategorized

Eh? Say What? Banned In Canada?

January 13, 2011 by 2 Comments

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council yesterday banned the Dire Strait’s song Money for Nothing as being unfit for play on Canadian radio. The ban was prompted by a complaint from a listener of CMOZ-FM in Newfoundland. The listener complained about the use of the word “faggot” in the lyrics as being homophobic.

The controversy over “Money for Nothing” actually isn’t new.

The song was a massive hit upon its release in ’85. It won a Grammy, reached No. 1 on the charts in Canada and the U.S. and spawned a famous music video that featured crude computer animation and became interwoven with the popularity of the then-fledgling music network MTV.

Yet Cross (Alan Cross is a Canadian radio veteran) points out that sanitized versions of the song have always existed — even its original seven-inch pressing, he said, arrived without the verse in question.

At the time, there was debate over whether the song was homophobic. But songwriter Mark Knopfler responded by pointing out that the lyric was meant with some irony. He has said he actually wrote the song in a hardware store, after he heard an employee watching MTV and complaining about what he saw.

I guess this would be the Canadian equivalent of either banning or sanitizing Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn due to language that is deemed to be socially unacceptable now but not when it was written.

H/T Arfcom

Uncategorized

Benson et al v. Chicago et al – Some Updates

January 13, 2011 by

Benson et al v. Chicago et al is the NRA sponsored suit challenging the City of Chicago’s New Gun Law. It was the first suit filed to challenge the changes Chicago made to their gun laws after losing the McDonald case.

There has been a flurry of activity in the case over the last week and a half.

The first major event is that the case is being reassigned from Judge Ronald Guzman to Judge Edmond E. Chang. This became effective on January 10th. The reason the case is being reassigned is that Judge Chang is a new judge of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and this case becomes part of his initial civil case load. A total of 281 cases were transferred from various judges of the District to Judge Chang. This was the only case involving the suits against Chicago on Second Amendment grounds.

Judge Chang was nominated by President Obama in April 2010 to fill a seat vacated on the court. He was confirmed on December 18, 2010 and was sworn in on December 20th. Judge Chang is 40 years old and is a graduate of Northwestern School of Law. For the past 11 years, he has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. He has served legal clerkships with judges on both the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the Northern District of Illinois.

The other major event is that Brett Benson and Rick Pere are requesting to withdraw as plaintiffs in the case. This was just filed yesterday. As to why they are requesting to withdraw from the case, I have no information. This will leave Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler, Michael Hall, and the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers as the remaining plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested the court’s permission to file a Second Amended Complaint which is unopposed by the City of Chicago. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), Chicago had to consent to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint which they did.

There is a hearing scheduled before Judge Chang on the morning of January 27th.

Uncategorized

Dave Hardy’s Thoughts On The Tucson Shootings

January 13, 2011 by

Dave Hardy, attorney and blogger, lives and practices law in the Tucson area. He is one of the most thoughtful and insightful bloggers around on Second Amendment issues. He just posted some thoughts on the shootings in Tucson and on the shooter Jared Loughner.

From all accounts, the shooter appears to be schizophrenic, probably paranoid schiz, and was giving significant signs of being dangerous long before the shooting. Fellow students and teachers were fearful enough to where the college suspended him unless he could provide a psychiatric evaluation showing he wasn’t dangerous, and they sent campus police to make sure he got the message. But nobody seems to have given a thought to getting the guy committed for treatment — perhaps because doing so would have been so burdensome that running the risk of his going violent was the easier course.

Go here to read the rest of this very insightful post at Of Arms and the Law.

Uncategorized

100 Bad Ways To Die

January 13, 2011 by

Outdoor Life magazine’s website has a feature on the numerous critters in the wild that can kill you. Some are obvious like sharks and crocodiles. Some are not.

Whitetail deer aka Bambi kill more people than any other game animal in the United States mostly due to auto accidents.

While we don’t have puff adders or death adders or green mambas or black mambas in North America outside of zoos and reptile collections, it is still interesting to read about all the ways Mother Nature can get back at us for not paying attention.

Uncategorized

Rasmussen Poll: Majority Say Stricter Gun Control Would Not Prevent Shootings

January 13, 2011 by

The Rasmussen Poll conducted a telephone poll of 1,000 American adults on January 10th and 11th. Included in the poll were questions asking about opinions on gun control.

1* Does the United States need stricter gun control laws?

2* Does the U.S. Constitution guarantee the right of an average citizen to own a gun?

3* Would stricter gun control laws help prevent shootings like the one in Arizona?

4* Does anyone in your household own a gun?

Only 29% of adults think stricter gun control laws would prevent tragedies like the Tucson shootings of Congresswoman Giffords, Judge Roll, and the others. By contrast, 62% disagreed overall and 76% of those whose household includes at least one gun owner disagreed with Question No. 3 above.

Moreover, opposition to new gun controls is at high even with the shootings in Arizona. 56% say that they oppose new gun control laws as opposed to 36% who think the U.S. needs stricter gun control. If gun ownership is factored in, both numbers rise. 76% of gun owners oppose stricter gun control while 53% of those without a gun in the house would be in favor of stricter gun control.

The previous high for opposition to new gun control was 51% in July 2010. While the gun banners are trying to score points on the Tucson shootings, people are voting with their pocketbook and buying more guns as a result – at least in Arizona.