Cuomo: That gun law I signed turned out to be utterly unworkable, huh?

Leave a comment

This is from Hot Air.

Like all true Liberals Andrew Cuomo runs on the,

“We know what is best for the great unwashed.”

The old “We need to do something” is used also.


If Andrew Cuomo has truly had an epiphany about his approach to gun regulation, it’s not really evident from this admission.  The New York Times reports that Cuomo will now try to rush some changes into his banner gun-control legislation that forced New York gun owners to use magazines that no one manufactures, with even the one exception to the rule found to be unworkable (viaLegal Insurrection):

In the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Gov.Andrew M. Cuomo of New York pushed through the State Legislature gun control measures that included not only a tougher assault weapons ban but also a tighter restriction on the maximum legal capacity of gun magazines.

But after weeks of criticism from gun owners, Mr. Cuomo said on Wednesday that he would seek to ease the restriction, which he said had proved unworkable even before it was scheduled to take effect on April 15.

The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines.

Now, one might think that after having been embarrassed by his own ignorance — and in the face of a number of critics who pointed these issues out from the beginning — Cuomo would advise the legislature to repeal the bill and start over again.  One would be … wrong. This New York governor has decided to correct one idiocy with another, emphasis mine:

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.

Er, what? Will the police be around to check how many bullets are loaded into each magazine?  And, by the way, will criminals be deterred from loading rounds 8, 9, and 10 into the magazine?  The whole idea of magazine limits is to limit those with criminal intent from firing too many bullets without having to reload, at which point the law expects the disarmed to rush the criminal rather than shoot back and hope he’s worse at reloading than they will be at beating someone into submission. How will Cuomo’s latest idea deter criminals, who will have zero fear of having a gun inspection before committing their crimes?

“Hey, let’s go rob that bank.  Get your guns ready, and — oh yeah, don’t load more than seven bullets into each magazine.”

Furthermore, if that kind of restriction was at all useful, then why pass a law forbidding 15-round or 30-round magazines at all? Just pass a law that says no one can load more than seven bullets into the magazine, and voila! Problem solved, right?

William Jacobson calls this new idea “irrational and arbitrary.” It’s also dumber than a box of rocks, and anyone with a hint of self-awareness would have realized it before the press release went ou



Magazine Ban

1 Comment

This is from Firearms 101 USA on You Tube.

Boone County,Indiana Sheriff Ken Campbell destroys,

the ban on so-called high-capacity magazines.

This video debunks being able to rush a shooter when the shooter,

is reloading their firearm.

The person that was to rush the shooter was 25 feet away.

The person never got close enough to grab the shooter.

Rushing the civilian shooter failed also. 

Assessing New Gun Control Proposals

1 Comment

This is from The Cato Institute.

The Cato Institute gives many reasons while gun control will not work.

Gun grabbers are not rational logic will not work for them.

American Gun Owners will not be unarmed by liberal ignorance.


Gun control is once again at the center of the national debate. As usual, following tragedies like Newtown, gun-control advocates hope to seize the opportunity to push through long sought-after reforms. The pro-gun rights crowd should be skeptical about the efficacy and constitutionality of such reforms.


Assault Weapons” Ban: You can often tell the difference between a gun-rights advocate and a gun-control advocate by whether they place scare quotes around the term “assault weapon.” Under both the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and newly recommended bills an “assault weapon” is defined by cosmetic features, not by whether the gun has uniquely dangerous functions. Assaultrifles, on the other hand, which are produced for military applications, have selective rates of fire, usually a choice between single shot semi-automatic (each trigger pull discharges one round) and fully automatic (rounds will discharge rapidly for the duration the trigger is pressed). Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the New Deal.

Assault weapons were defined under the 1994 law by features that have little or nothing to do with lethality. One such feature, a folding stock, allows people of different heights use of the weapon. Another feature, a “barrel shroud,” protects the user from touching a hot barrel. Collectively, these features make the guns look more dangerous, meaning they look more like guns used in movies, but they do not make them more dangerous.

Moreover, assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes. In 2011, nearly 13,000 people were killed by violent acts, yet only 343 were killed by rifles of any type. By comparison, blunt objects (hammers, bats, etc.) killed 500. Furthermore, if assault weapons are banned, it does not follow that those 343 people would still be alive. The killers would just choose a different weapon.

Rather than being used for violence, assault weapons are more often used for self-defense (as occurred in Rochester, NY in January) and sport. Supporters often agree that little crime will be stopped by the ban, yet they often say “it’s a start.” The question must be asked: Banning one of the most responsibly used weapons, one that is used less often for violence than are bludgeons, is a “start” to what?

Magazine Limits: Any limit on magazines must comply with the standards of Heller. Firearms that are in “common use” for the purposes of self-defense are strongly protected, and the government must offer sufficient justification if they wish to take those weapons away from law-abiding citizens.

New York’s recent ban on magazines that hold over seven rounds comes very close to unconstitutionality. First, magazines between 12-19 rounds are certainly in “common use.” Most semi-automatic pistols, the most popular type of gun in America, come with a magazine between 12-19 rounds. Second, at some point a low limit on magazine size compromises the right to self-defense. Even experienced shooters will not hit their target every time, and it often takes many shots to bring down an active shooter.

In the face of these considerations, the government must sufficiently demonstrate that magazine limits would curb gun violence while not unduly infringing on Second Amendment rights. Because magazine limits will do little or nothing to curb gun violence, this is a difficult showing to make. Those who want to commit large-scale gun violence, or even common street crime, will not be deterred by magazine limits. A moderately experienced shooter can change magazines in seconds, and anyone who can’t get one of the hundreds of millions of high-capacity magazines already in circulation will simply carry more magazines with him. The Virginia Tech shooter carried a bag with 19 magazines.

Mental Health and Expanding Background Checks: Currently, Brady Bill background checks do not apply to private sales between individuals. Expanding background checks to all sales could be a reasonable move, but we should not expect it to do much to curb gun violence.

The storied “gun show loophole” only accounts for a tiny fraction of guns used in crimes. According to a 2001 Justice Department survey of state and federal prisoners, only 0.7 percent of weapons used by the prisoners were acquired at gun shows. Extending background checks to sales that take place outside of guns shows would be unfeasible without a gun registry that documents transfers, and a gun registry is not only a political impossibility, it is prohibited by the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Furthermore, gun-rights advocates should resist a registry, not only because it will do little to stop gun violence, but because law-abiding Americans should not have to wade through a bureaucratic labyrinth in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

A better proposal would strengthen the communication between the mental health system and the Brady background check. Those with qualifying mental-health issues are already prohibited from purchasing a firearm, but records of mental disorders are often missing from the system. Again, however, we should be aware that this will do little to reduce gun crime. Most people who commit gun crimes are not crazy, they’re merely criminals.

Three principles must guide our thinking on mental health issues. First, firearms should be prohibited only to those with dangerous mental health problems. Merely being depressive or bi-polar is not enough. Second, we should not increase record-sharing in a way that violates therapist-patient privacy. If therapists are required to report every person with violent thoughts, then many people may be reluctant to seek help. Third, we must respect the civil liberties of those who may be mentally troubled. People should not be deprived of their Second Amendment rights based on hunches, but rather through proper adjudicatory channels.

Conclusion and Other Considerations: A serious debate about gun violence in this country should not focus on mass shootings, which are a tiny, albeit horrific, part of gun violence. Many commentators bring up America’s “culture of violence” while ignoring government policies that help create that culture. First and foremost is a failed but perpetual drug war that turns nonviolent people into criminals and helps create a network of black markets where violence is necessary part of doing business. Those black markets are also conduits for illegal weapons. Approximately 20% of guns used in crimes come from these markets.

Second, we must address a failed public school system, particularly in inner cities, that helps perpetuate poverty and crime. Nearly 66 percent of African-American males who drop out of high school will spend at least a year in prison. Schools must be adaptive to these situations rather than locked in to a failed model because of bureaucratic and political inertia. School choice is the only viable option for fixing those problems.

We must pursue well considered laws if we want to lessen America’s gun violence. However, the desire to just “do something” in the wake of a tragedy like Newtown must be tempered by a realistic assessment of the efficacy and constitutionality of the proposals.


Missouri Democrats Introduce Legislation to Confiscate Firearms – Gives Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Weapons

Leave a comment

This is from Gateway Pundit.

It has begun DemocRats in Missouri have tossed down the gauntlet.

The people of Missouri need to stand up and be heard. 

They think they have a mandate because Dumbo Mutumbo get reelected.

They also hear some sheeple saying ban guns because they are baaad.

So the DemocRats are getting into the gun grabbing mode.

Our battle cry needs to be Molon Labe! 

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Dana Loesch Radio reported on the new legislation being pushed by Missouri Democrats:

Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

The Truth About Gun Buying Advice

Leave a comment

This is from The Truth About Guns.

If asked about what gun to buy I tell them this is my two cents worth.

 Personally I favor the Glock but you may want something else.

I ask them if they know of a good gun shop?

If they do I tell them to talk to the person in the shop.

If they do not know of a shop I tell them of a couple of good shops.

I also recommend going to a place to rent and try different guns.

A friend and I were discussing handguns today and we got on the topic of his nephew who’d bought a .357 Magnum revolver (the only handgun he owns) but can’t shoot it worth a damn. It made me think about the husband of one of my employees who’s a retired firefighter, stands about 6′ 4″ has a WWE wrestler’s build and whose only gun is a compact .380. Which he never shoots. In both cases they were out with the guys and got a recommendation from someone as to what gun they should buy. In both cases that recommendation was wrong . . .

We’re assaulted by recommendations from all manner of “experts” who are only too happy to tell anyone who will listen about their idea of the perfect gun. The problem is those who are less knowledgeable often follow this advice without really understanding the implications. Until it’s too late and they’ve plunked down their hard-earned cash for a gun they hate.

I’ve been down that road myself.  I’ve probably purchased something north of a couple of dozen handguns over the last few years in search of the “right” gun for me. I still own about half of them, but the ones that ended up sold provided some valuable lessons (as well as hits to the pocketbook) as to what I like and — just as important — what I don’t.

Lesson One:  There is no such thing as a perfect gun

Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit. Up to their baby blues in it. For most people a perfect gun would be small and easily concealable, lightweight, have a large capacity magazine (at least 15 rounds), have grip big enough to be held comfortably and have less recoil than a .22 while firing a massively potent round.

Absent some sort of Dr. Who-like space/time dimensional warp effect, there isn’t any way to pack all of those characteristics to be in a one gun. A firearm that is small and light will, by necessity, be limited in ammo capacity as well as (to some extent) caliber.  A gun that fires a powerful round needs to be larger and heavier to absorb the recoil, or it would be too difficult to shoot accurately for most people.

And as I’ve said in the past, I prefer the DA/SA firing system over the the SAO, DAO, Glock Safe Action varieties. Any gun that doesn’t have a DA/SA is simply not the perfect gun. For me.

Lesson Two: The right tool for the job

Once we’ve established that there’s no such thing as the perfect do-everything gun, most people are better off getting more than one, each of which is good for its intended purpose. This beats the hell out of settling for one gun that does nothing particularly well.

This is why I own a couple of large frame combat/target pistols for when I don’t need to worry about concealability and want large capacity magazines. I also own a mid-size heater, a Sig P229, that I can conceal in the colder months, but still has a respectable round count. And then there are my compact guns such as my S&W J-Frame that, while lacking in capacity, are much easier to conceal. I choose my gun depending on my situation each day. Sure, there’s always a compromise involved, but such is life.

Lesson Three: Understand the context of the advice

James Yeager, the guy behind the Tactical Response videos, is famous for saying, “Every gun should be a Glock, every Glock should be 9mm, and every 9mm should be a Glock 19.” Again, bullshit. He may say that partly in jest, but in my mind such advice undermines his credibility as an instructor.

The good instructors I’ve known don’t give a damn what you shoot. They’ll talk with you and offer suggestions based on what your situation, but they won’t presume to tell you what you need. Everyone’s different and they know it.

Since I have a fondness for DA/SA guns and since Glock doesn’t make a DA/SA gun, I’m damn glad the industry hasn’t taken Yeager’s advice. Check the display case at your friendly neighborhood gun store. Not everyone wants or needs Gaston’s brainchild. Horses for courses.

Another key to filtering the noise: consider the background of the person giving the advice. Ask a SEAL what the best gun is and he’s going to give you the benefit of his experience using the guns he had access to. The problem is that unless you’re planning to hunt the Taliban in the desert, chances are that his view of the best gun won’t be yours.  On the other hand, if you’re looking to carry concealed, people like your fellow CCW holders or police officers with experience working undercover might provide you with better suggestions since their experience is a lot closer to your situation.

Case in point: I’m a big cigar smoker and I used to blindly follow the advice of cigar reviewers. After smoking my way through more than my share of crappy stogies, I began to understand the individual tastes of the various cigar reviewers figured out who had tastes that are similar to mine. Now, I only pay attention them and rarely end up with any dog rockets.

The same approach has merit where gun advice is concerned. I’ll never listen to a guy who spews the one gun to rule them all ethos (Glock honks, SIG or Beretta fanboys, etc.)  I own handguns from five different companies and like them all. So get your advice from people who understand that the reason there are so many options is that there are just as many different preferences out there, each of which has some merit to the individual shooter. It’s usually the best way to avoid plunking your money down for the firearm equivalent of a dog rocket.

%d bloggers like this: