Advertisements
Home

Seattle Nears Decision on “Gun Violence” Tax for Firearms, Ammo

1 Comment

This is from OutDoor Hub.

  Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess is not real bright this tax scheme will cause gun shops to leave Seattle and cost the loss of more tax money.

Even if the shops stay in town gun owners will go outside of the city to buy guns and ammo.

The Seattle City Council will soon vote on a city ordinance that could add an additional tax on guns and ammunition, a move that is heavily opposed by both firearm retailers and gun owners. Some, like Sergey Solyanik, say the new tax will drive him out of town.

“I feel outraged, actually, and not really as gun owner or gun dealer, but as a citizen of Seattle,” Solyanik, the owner of Precise Shooter, told KIRO 7.

The proposal came from Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess, who ostensibly introduced the ordinance as the latest in the city’s efforts to combat crime. The city ordinance calls for an additional $25 tax on each firearm sold in the city as well as a five cent tax on each individual round of ammunition. For .22 ammunition, which is generally less expensive, the tax will be two cents per round.

“We’ve been working on this for several years. Sure, I wish we would have done this 20 years ago, but we know what the problem is,” Burgess told KING 5. “We tax cigarettes and alcohol and even wood-burning stoves for public health purposes. Why not guns and ammunition?”

Supporting Burgess in the proposal is Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole.

“I want to thank Councilmember Burgess for his leadership. We know the people of Seattle demand action on this issue, not more talk,” said Mayor Ed Murray in a press release. “Last year at the ballot box, voters approved greater accountability in background checks for gun sales. This proposal builds on that momentum by funding more tools to reduce the devastating impacts that guns have on our community.”

Burgess estimated that the ordinance will raise anywhere from $300,000 to half a million dollars each year. However, unlike the Pittman-Robertson Excise Tax, which retains funds for conservation and habitat protection efforts, the funds collected by the ordinance will go entirely back into the city for “gun violence research and prevention programs.” City leaders have yet to specify details in how the funds will be spent.

Gun rights groups say that if the city passes the ordinance, it will be in violation of state law. Washington’s firearms preemption statute prohibits cities from regulating guns and the ordinance is expected to face legal challenges, although Burgess is confident that it will hold up in court.

“Taxpayers in Seattle pay for millions of dollars in emergency medical care every year for people who have been shot,” he said in a press release. “It’s time for the gun industry to chip in to help defray these costs.”

Organizations like the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) doubt the ordinance will have any positive effect on the city. Instead, advocates say that the bill will only serve to increase the price of firearms and ammunition, driving business away from the city.

“It will have no effect on decreasing gun violence,” NSSF stated. “It is designed to place a huge burden on legitimate firearms retailers and law-abiding gun owners. Additionally, the proposed ordinance is a gross violation of Washington’s firearms preemption statute.”

Some critics say that if firearm retailers move out of the city, Seattle could stand to lose more tax revenue than it will gain through the ordinance.

A companion bill would also require all Seattle residents to report a lost or stolen firearm with 24 hours or face a $500 fine.

   

Advertisements

UPS moves to stop carrying shipments of firearms suppressors

2 Comments

This is from Guns.com.

I can understand UPS concerns about regulations, but this smells like a political decision.

Industry groups are working with United Parcel Service to reverse its recent decision to no longer ship registered Title II suppressors, even in cases where the items are going from dealer to dealer.

UPS, commonly also referred to as Brown, is the world’s largest package delivery service and has its headquarters in Georgia. However, among its more than 15 million packages delivered each day will no longer be suppressors, apparently over concerns of compliance issues.

Gun rights organizations, firearms industry trade groups and National Firearms Act advocacy groups are working hard get to the bottom of the problem and bring Brown back on board.

“Earlier this week, ASA was made aware of the decision by UPS to cease all shipments of firearm suppressors,” Knox Williams, president of the American Suppressor Association told Guns.com Sunday. “We have been working alongside NRA and NSSF to get to the bottom of the issue.

With nearly 600,000 suppressors currently in circulation and the items growing in both acceptance and popularity, the sudden move, with no associated reports of thefts or losses to explain the rationale behind the shipper’s decision, comes as a surprise to the industry.

“NSSF, in coordination with NRA and the American Suppressor Association, are in discussions with UPS to address their compliance concerns,” Lawrence Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation senior vice president and general counsel told Guns.com. “Vermont and Minnesota will likely soon join 39 other states that allow the possession of suppressors. In light of this, we hope to be able to have UPS reconsider its policy.”

Keane advised caution in allowing the industry to do its work, saying, “We strongly urge all Second Amendment advocates not to jump to conclusions about UPS.”

This is not the first time this year that the shipper has balked at accepting shipments of some firearms related items over apparent concerns of regulatory issues. In February, both UPS and FedEx refused to ship CNC mills preloaded with software to create AR-15 lowers from 80 percent complete blanks.

As for shopping around for other carriers to take up Brown’s slack, Williams advised that option is on the table.

“At this point, it is still our hope that we can convince UPS to reconsider their policy. However, if we cannot, we will do everything that we can to bring as much business to alternate carriers as possible,” Williams said.

Guns.com reached out to UPS for comment but did not receive a reply in time for posting.

‘We need the iPhone of guns’: Will smart guns transform the gun industry?

1 Comment

This is from the Washington Post.

Let me think I can buy a .22 cal pistol for  $1,798 dollars plus tax for a gun and watch or I can buy a Glock.40 cal. for $600.00.

The decision is a no brainer I would buy the Glock .40 cal.

Do not get me wrong I am not putting the .22 down but if I had a choice I want the fire power of the .40 cal.

They call this gun the iPhone of guns just look at how quickly the iPhone has been comprised.

I could what “IF” you to boredom with the list of things that could cause this gun to malfunction.

 

One of California’s largest firearm stores recently added a peculiar new gun to its shelves. It requires an accessory: a black waterproof watch.

The watch’s primary purpose is not to provide accurate time, though it does. The watch makes the gun think. Electronic chips inside the gun and the watch communicate with each other. If the watch is within close reach of the gun, a light on the grip turns green. Fire away. No watch means no green light. The gun becomes a paperweight.

A dream of gun-control advocates for decades, the Armatix iP1 is the country’s first smart gun. Its introduction is seen as a landmark in efforts to reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings. Proponents compare smart guns to automobile air bags — a transformative add-on that gun owners will demand. But gun rights advocates are already balking, wondering what happens if the technology fails just as an intruder breaks in.

James Mitchell, the “extremely pro-gun” owner of the Oak Tree Gun Club, north of Los Angeles, isn’t one of the skeptics. His club’s firearms shop is the only outlet in the country selling the iP1. “It could revolutionize the gun industry,” Mitchell declared.

The implications of the iP1’s introduction are potentially enormous, both politically and economically. (And culturally — the gun that reads James Bond’s palm print in “Skyfall ” is no longer a futuristic plot twist.)

Lawmakers around the country have been intrigued by the possibilities. New Jersey passed a hotly contested law in 2002 requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. A similar measure made it through the California Senate last year, and at the federal level, Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.) also has introduced a mandate.

Although National Rifle Association officials did not respond to requests for comment about smart-gun technology, the group fiercely opposes “government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire,” according to the Web site of its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. “And NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”

Even so, smart guns are potentially more palatable than other technological mandates, such as placing GPS tracking chips in guns, a controversial concept floated this session in the Maryland General Assembly.

The arrival of smart-gun technology comes amid a flurry of interest in the concept from investors who think the country — after the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and the brutal legislative battles that followed — is ready for new, innovative gun-control ideas. Last month, Ron Conway , a Silicon Valley titan and early investor in Google and Facebook, launched a $1 million X Prize-like contest for smart-gun technology.

“We need the iPhone of guns,” Conway said, noting how the new iPhone 5s can be unlocked quickly with a fingerprint. “The entrepreneur who does this right could be the Mark Zuckerberg of guns. Then the venture capitalists like me will dive in, give them capital, and we will build a multibillion-dollar gun company that makes safe, smart guns.”

A variety of approaches are in development. Armatix, the German company behind the iP1, uses RFID chips, which can be found on anti-theft tags attached to expensive clothing. Trigger­Smart, an Irish company, also uses RFID chips, though with a ring instead of a watch. The company also has technology that would render guns inoperable if they approached electronic markers — for instance, near a school.

The New Jersey Institute of Technology is using sensors to recognize users’ grips and grasping behaviors. Kodiak Arms, a Utah company, is taking ­pre-orders for its Intelligun, which is unlocked with fingerprints. Other companies are using voice recognition. Yardarm, a California start-up, uses a smartphone app to notify gun owners of a weapon’s movement. Users can even remotely disable their weapons.

Smart guns, advocates say, will have huge appeal to buyers. “If you have two cars, and one has an air bag and one doesn’t, are you going to buy the one without the air bag?” said Belinda Padilla, president of Armatix’s U.S. operation. “It’s your choice, but why would you do that?”

Return of a historical relic

Personalizing or modifying handguns for safety is actually an old idea. In 1886, after D.B. Wesson, a co-founder of Smith & Wesson, heard about a child injured with a gun, the company introduced a revolver with a special lever that made the gun operational. The product became nothing more than a historical relic.

Over the years, the idea of making guns smart waxed and waned, until a serious effort began in the early 1990s. Stephen Teret, a public health expert at Johns Hopkins University, commissioned undergraduate engineering students to build what turned out to be a crude smart gun activated by a ring. Later in the decade, the federal government researched smart guns to protect police officers whose weapons were taken in struggles.

In 2000, after Colt quietly worked on smart-gun technology, Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D) tried and failed to pass legislation mandating smart guns in the state. His effort was lauded by President Bill Clinton, whose administration struck a deal with Smith & Wesson to research the technology. But the backlash by gun owners and the NRA against the company was brutal, and Smith & Wesson’s business tanked.

The debate then over whether the technology was ready and reliable, and whether it would actually make a difference, has turned into the current burst of interest. But some of the sharpest criticism comes from an unlikely corner — the Violence Policy Center, a staunch advocate of reducing gun violence.

Policy Center officials argue that the new technology is unlikely to stem gun homicides, which often occur between people who know each other, and that personalization will have no effect on the more than 300 million guns in circulation. The organization also questions whether the technology would deter the nearly 350,000 incidents of firearm theft per year, though some of the proposed technologies are add-ons that can be installed on existing guns.

And perhaps most important, the Violence Policy Center worries that smart guns will increase the number of firearm owners, because marketing that touts safety could sway those previously opposed to guns to make their first purchase.

“We are very skeptical of what this technology can accomplish,” said Josh Sugarmann, the organization’s executive director. “You’re really affecting a very small portion of the gun-buying public.”

Proponents of smart guns dispute the criticism. They point to studies that hint at potentially significant reductions in gun deaths, particularly high-profile ones among children. In 2010, children under 18 accounted for 98 of the 606 unintentional or accidental firearm deaths in the United States. A smart gun, proponents say, could prevent those deaths.

As for school shootings, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study in 2003 analyzing firearms used by students in 323 school-related shootings found that 37 percent of the guns came from the shooter’s home and 23 percent from a friend or relative. A smart gun could prevent those deaths, too, advocates say.

“These guns are not going to rescue us from the 32,000 gun deaths a year,” Teret said, “but they are going to materially reduce gun deaths in the United States.”

Will they sell?

The question is: How many people will buy smart guns?

There are dueling statistics on the issue. Teret and other smart-gun proponents point to a 1997 survey showing that 71 percent of Americans — and 59 percent of gun owners — favored personalization of all new handguns. Gun rights advocates, including the National Shooting Sports Foundation, cite a survey the group commissioned last year showing that only 14 percent of Americans would consider buying a smart gun.

Statistics, of course, can be interpreted many ways, and at least one smart-gun entrepreneur saw the 14 percent as a positive sign. “I thought that was actually a huge number,” said Robert McNamara, co-founder of Trigger­Smart, the Irish company using RFID chips. “There is no doubt that a lot of people would buy these guns if they are available.”

The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is priced at $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600.

The chief concern for potential buyers is reliability, with 44 percent of those polled by the National Shooting Sports Foundation saying the technology would not be reliable at all. A commenter in an online Glock forum explained the concern this way: “They can’t even make a cellphone that works reliably when you need it, and some dumbass thinks he can make a reliable techno-gadget gun that is supposed to safeguard you in dire circumstances?”

Twenty minutes later someone responded: “You bet your life.”

Teret and others point to now-commonplace safety enhancements that Americans were skeptical about at first: air bags and smoke detectors. “They thought the air bag would kill them,” said Teret, who did early work on air-bag technology. “They thought it would shove them out the back window, that it would explode. It takes awhile to dispel these mythologies.”

Some gun rights champions are in surprising agreement with gun-control advocates on the technology’s future.

“We think the market should decide,” said Lawrence G. Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Conway, out in Silicon Valley, said: “You let the free enterprise system take over. Just like everyone opted into the iPhone and abandoned the flip phone and BlackBerry, consumers will vote with their feet. We want gun owners to feel like they are dinosaurs if they aren’t using smart guns.”

DON’T LIE FOR THE OTHER GUY: Chicago and Detroit Target Illegal Gun Purchases

Leave a comment

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

No body in their right mind will make a straw purchase for a criminal.

I am afraid to buy a gun for my wife, and she can legally purchase a firearm and has a concealed carry permit.

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

NEWTOWN, Conn. — As part of its multi-year, ongoing national effort to help prevent illegal “straw” purchases of firearms, the National Shooting Sports Foundation is reminding the public in and around the cities of Chicago, as well as Detroit and Flint, Mich., that stiff penalties are in place for individuals convicted of such purchases.

Billboard advertisements for the Don’t Lie for the Other Guy program are being purchased by NSSF in key locations in the Chicago, Detroit and Flint markets with the message: “Buy a gun for someone who can’t and buy 10 years in jail. Whatever you do … Don’t Lie for the Other Guy…” In addition, two radio ads will run in rotation more than 4,500 times in these markets.

More than 32 million total media impressions will be delivered in February and March through the public-education program, which is being funded by the firearms industry. The billboards for this campaign will feature a new and more striking design.

“Don’t Lie” was formed as a cooperative program between the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and NSSF, the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. The effort was developed over a decade ago to raise public awareness about the seriousness of the crime of purchasing a firearm for someone who cannot legally do so. The program also helps educate firearms dealers so they can be better prepared to deter potential straw purchases.

 

The public campaign drives home the message that anyone attempting an illegal firearm purchase faces a stiff federal felony penalty of up to 10 years in jail or up to $250,000 in fines.

To legally purchase a firearm, a person must be able to pass an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check and fully comply with state and local laws. When a criminal knows he cannot pass this check, he may try to induce a friend or other person to make the purchase on his behalf, which is known as a straw purchase and is a felony.

“Our goal is to raise awareness among residents of Chicago, Detroit, Flint and the surrounding areas through billboards and radio ads that there are serious consequences for illegally straw purchasing a firearm,” said Stephen L. Sanetti, NSSF president and CEO. “Federally licensed firearms retailers are on the front line every day working to prevent illegal purchases. This warning can help deter an illegal purchase long before a person steps into a store.”

This public awareness campaign constitutes only part of the Don’t Lie for the Other Guy outreach effort. The full Don’t Lie for the Other Guy program, which also involves educating firearms retailers to better detect and prevent straw purchases, has been rolled out in major cities throughout the country and has run before along the U.S.-Mexican border and in several other metropolitan areas from Boston to San Diego.

This is a campaign that ATF has called “vital” and “an important tool for ATF as it pursues its mission of preventing terrorism, reducing violent crime, and protecting the nation.” In the retailer segment, federal firearms licensees are provided a Don’t Lie for the Other Guy retailer kit. Each kit contains a training video and informational brochure for storeowners and staff, as well as point-of-purchase displays aimed to deter illegal straw purchases.

“The firearms industry is proud of its longstanding cooperative relationship with the ATF and the entire law enforcement community by assisting them in their efforts to combat the criminal acquisition and misuse of firearms,” said NSSF Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel.

Learn more about Don’t Lie for the Other Guy at www.dontlie.org.

-30-

About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 10,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

Read more at http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2014/02/dont-lie-guy-chicago-detroit-target-illegal-gun-purchases/#jHggLxPRo2EEpuDv.99

BREAKING: Ruger CEO sets record straight on California, microstamping (VIDEO)

Leave a comment

This is from Guns.com.

Kalifornia is becoming more and more totalitarian as time passes.

How many more firearms related businesses will Kalifornia end up driving out?

Kalifornia’s loss is neighboring states gain.

 

Is Ruger Firearms pulling its guns from the California marketplace due to the state’s mircrostamping requirement?

Despite what you may have read on the Internet, it’s a question that only one man can answer. That man: Mike Fifer, CEO of Ruger Firearms.

At SHOT Show 2014, Guns.com had a chance to ask Fifer about the troubling situation in California. Here’s what he had to say:

“We’re being forced out of the state by the California Department of Justice,” explained Fifer. “This insistence on microstamping, which doesn’t work, is denying you your rights to have access to these guns.”

“We’re not abandoning the [California] market at all, we are trying our hardest to stay in the market,” he continued. “We’re committed to California and we’re fighting this every inch of the way.”

In other words, they’re not abandoning their fans, enthusiasts and customers in California. They’re going to do whatever they can to see that this inane law gets struck down.

And they’re not alone in the fight. As Guns.com noted in an article on Monday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute recently filed a lawsuit in the State’s Superior Court challenging the mircrostamping requirement, claiming that it’s unfeasible due to limitations and problems with microstamping technology.

Under the law, which was signed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger back in 2007 and is just now taking effect because the private patents that precluded the law from taking effect have expired, requires new guns sold in the state to have mircrostamping capabilities.

For clarification, gun microstamping is a technical process that uses laser technology to engrave microscopic gun information such as make, model and serial number on the tip of the gun’s firing pin. Desired information can also be engraved on the breech face or other parts of a firearm.

When a microstamped gun is fired, the stamped etchings are transferred onto both the cartridge casing and the round. In theory, law enforcement can then trace spent casings and fired cartridges to the “smoking gun.”

Yet, in reality, as pointed out in previous Guns.com articles, microstamping is a seriously flawed technology that is easily circumvented. This is not conjecture or biased pro-gun rhetoric; several independent, peer-reviewed studies have confirmed this fact.

One such study published in a scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners showed that criminals could use common household tools to switch firing pins with unmarked spare parts rendering themicrostamping useless.

Americans Don’t Think ‘Universal Background Checks’ Extension for Gun Shows Are Needed, National Poll Finds

1 Comment

This is from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

It seems the crap sandwich touted Sen. Joe Manchin (D.W.V.).

and Sen. Pat Toomey (RINO, Pa) is not popular.

It seems only 40% of Americans approve of it.

Yet Sen. Joe Manchin (D.W.V.).  wants us to think it is a 

popular crap sandwich.

Only four out of ten Americans support so-called “universal background checks” at gun shows after being informed that the vast majority of firearms sales at these shows are transacted by licensed retailers that already conduct such checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as required by federal law. The poll results stand in contrast to the vague claim often reported in the media and attributed to gun control proponents without important contextual detail that 90 percent of Americans surveyed support “universal background checks.”

 links to hi-res JPG 

These findings were the among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in November by McKeon & Associates and released today by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. The McKeon poll found that only 40 percent of respondents said that extension of “universal background checks” to private transactions at gun shows are necessary, while 53 percent said they are not necessary and 7% said they did not know.

links to hi-res JPGThe Americans polled also said by a combined 74 percent margin that conducting background checks against an incomplete database was not effective at all or not very effective while 54 percent said that requiring background checks for transferring guns between friends and family members was not at effective at all or not very effective in reducing violent crime.

The poll also discovered that 92 percent of Americans agree that the states should submit all records of persons federally prohibited from owning a firearm to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems (NICS), passing legislation if needed.

“We commissioned this poll to help determine where Americans stood on the various aspects of how the NICS system actually works today,” said Larry G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “When properly informed of relevant details, it turns out that only four out of ten, not nine out of ten Americans support so-called ‘universal background checks’ at gun shows or for firearms transfers. The poll also found that Americans want a National Instant Criminal Background Check System with a dependable and accurate database, which supports the goal of the FixNICS initiative we launched in 2013 and will continue in 2014.”

links to hi-res JPGThe poll conducted Nov. 6-7 has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent. Respondents self-identified as 33 percent Democrat, 26 percent Republican and 41 percent independent. As to ethnicity, 62 percent of respondents said they were Caucasian, 18 percent African-American, 11 percent Hispanic; and 9 percent, other. As to age, 20 percent of respondents said they were 18-30; 36 percent, 31-45; 23 percent 46-60; and 21 percent, 60 or older.

Americans Doubt Reliability of ‘Smart Guns’; Won’t Buy Them and Oppose Their Mandate, NSSF Poll Finds

Leave a comment

This is from Buckeye Firearms Association.

Smart guns like Smart cars are a stupid idea.

I will not buy a smart gun.

I will oppose the attempt to mandate them.

 

 

NEWTOWN, Conn. — By a wide majority, Americans are skeptical of the reliability of technology intended to prevent all but authorized users of a firearm from being able to fire it. They also say overwhelmingly that they would not be likely to buy such a so-called “smart gun” and overwhelmingly oppose any government mandate requiring the use of this technology should it become available.

These findings were the among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in October by McKeon & Associates and released today by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. Although attempts to develop and market firearms equipped with authorized user recognition technology have been discussed for many years, the topic has been revived in recent months by some gun control advocates, remarks by President Obama and by the depiction of a smart gun in the latest James Bond movie.

Asked “How familiar are you with efforts to develop a firearm that will only fire for a specific authorized person(s)?,” only 20 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat familiar with the concept of “smart gun” technology. When told that such firearms would incorporate biometric or radio frequency identification (RFID) with an activation system that would rely on battery power, 74 percent of respondents said that these firearms would not be reliable at all or very reliable. Only 16 percent thought “smart guns” would be very or somewhat reliable. Some 10 percent responded “don’t know.” Gun owners overwhelmingly (84%) believed a smart gun would not be reliable, while a clear majority (60%) of non-gun owners also believed they would not be reliable.

To the question, “How likely would you be to purchase a gun with smart gun technology that prevented it from firing except for specific authorized users?” an overwhelming 74 percent of respondents overall said that they would not buy or would not very likely buy such a firearm. Only 14 percent of those polled said that they were very or somewhat likely to purchase a “smart gun.”

Some 70 percent of the survey sample also said that did not believe that government should mandate that all firearms produced incorporate “smart gun” technology should it become commercially available. Only 17 percent approved of a mandate, while 13 percent didn’t know.

The poll conducted Oct. 7-8 has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent. Respondents self-identified as 25 percent Democrat, 23 percent Republican and 52 percent independent. As to ethnicity, 70 percent of respondents said they were Caucasian, 14 percent African-American, 9 percent Hispanic; and 7 percent, other. As to age, 17 percent of respondents said they were 18-30; 28 percent, 31-45; 33 percent 46-60; and 21 percent, 60 or older.

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation does not oppose the development of owner authorized technology for firearms and, should such products come to market, individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to purchase them. However, we do oppose legislative mandates that would require manufacturers to produce only such firearms,” said Larry G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. “We commissioned this poll to help determine where Americans stood on this issue. We are not surprised, frankly, to find that the majority of those polled were skeptical of this technology, although the margins were perhaps higher than even those of us familiar with the arguments would have expected. We are encouraged by the fact that seven out of ten of those surveyed did not believe the government should mandate the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach of so-called ‘smart gun’ technology.”

 

 

Call them ‘regime change rifles’

Leave a comment

This is from The Examiner.

I like the name Regime Change Rifles.

I despise the term assault rifles.

 

Whatever you call them, their most noble purpose is overthrowing tyranny

                                                      Photo © Oleg Volk. All rights reserved.

That the fabricated term “assault weapon” has become the household expression for describing a semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifle is a triumph for the virulently anti-gun Violence Policy Center, which has for decades contributed to and exploited the public’s lack of knowledge about these guns in order to demonize them, as they’ve openly acknowledged since 1988:

The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons–anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun–can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

The forcible citizen disarmament lobby, in an amusinglytransparent attempt to further cloud the issue, sometimes changes the terminology when the guns are in government hands,referring to these scary “assault weapons” as “patrol rifles,”when in the hands of police officers–the exact same firearms get a brand new name when held by the government’s hired muscle.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, realizing that by allowing the artificial moniker “assault weapon” to become the default term for these firearms, gun rights advocates had allowed the other side to define the public’s perception of them, came up with their own nomenclature. They want us to call them “modern sporting rifles.” While no doubt well intentioned, this approach has problems of its own (and has made few inroads with the public, anyway).

Yes, the AR-15 platform can be a very capable hunting arm, and is superb for several other shooting sports. Still, are we to argue that with the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers devoted 10% of the Bill of Rights to the protection ofsport? Why should we surrender any ground to the Nazi-originated notion that guns can be more legitimately restrictedif they have no “sporting purpose”?

If the forcible citizen disarmament lobby wants to call them “weapons of war,” why not let them? Founding Father Tench Coxe would certainly have been unafraid to do so:

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

To deny these arms’ utility for combat is to distance them from the central scope of the Second Amendment’s function.

So let us instead call them “regime change rifles.” In the terrible (and less “unthinkable” every day) event of the rise of a tyrannical regime in the United States, effective fighting arms in the hands of millions of American citizens will be essential for overthrowing it. Furthermore, the banning of such arms will be one of the surest signs that “regime change” has already become necessary.

 

Are Guns the Problem?

Leave a comment

This is by Dr. Walter E.Williams in Town Hall.

As Dr.Williams points out guns are not the problem.

It is the lack of absolutes of right, wrong and moral and immoral.

Many of today’s youth do not fear legal penalties because they know liberals

have perverted the justice system.

Once upon a time guns were everywhere and our youths knew the responsibility

of handling a firearm and penalties for improper handling of said firearm.

They also knew if they misused a firearms someone could be seriously injured or

than death could and would result.

 

Every time there’s a shooting tragedy, there are more calls for gun control. Let’s examine a few historical facts. By 1910, the National Rifle Association had succeeded in establishing 73 NRA-affiliated high-school rifle clubs. The 1911 second edition of the Boy Scout Handbook made qualification in NRA’s junior marksmanship program a prerequisite for obtaining a BSA merit badge in marksmanship. In 1918, the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. established its own Winchester Junior Rifle Corps. The program grew to 135,000 members by 1925. In New York City, gun clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training and Stuyvesant high schools. With so many guns in the hands of youngsters, did we see today’s level of youth violence?

What about gun availability? Catalogs and magazines from the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s were full of gun advertisements directed to children and parents. For example, “What Every Parent Should Know When a Boy or Girl Wants a Gun” was published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The 1902 Sears mail-order catalog had 35 pages of firearm advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. For most of our history, a person could simply walk into a hardware store, virtually anywhere in our country, and buy a gun. Few states bothered to have even age restrictions on buying guns.

Those and other historical facts should force us to ask ourselves: Why — at a time in our history when guns were readily available, when a person could just walk into a store or order a gun through the mail, when there were no FBI background checks, no waiting periods, no licensing requirements — was there not the frequency and kind of gun violence that we sometimes see today, when access to guns is more restricted? Guns are guns. If they were capable of behavior, as some people seem to suggest, they should have been doing then what they’re doing now.

Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restraints on inanimate objects. These behavioral norms — transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings — represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The benefit of having customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody’s watching. In other words, it’s morality that is society’s first line of defense against uncivilized behavior.

Moral standards of conduct, as well as strict and swift punishment for criminal behaviors, have been under siege in our country for more than a half-century. Moral absolutes have been abandoned as a guiding principle. We’ve been taught not to be judgmental, that one lifestyle or value is just as good as another. More often than not, the attack on moral standards has been orchestrated by the education establishment and progressives. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws are needed to regulate behavior.

What’s worse is that instead of trying to return to what worked, progressives want to replace what worked with what sounds good or what seems plausible, such as more gun locks, longer waiting periods and stricter gun possession laws. Then there’s progressive mindlessness “cures,” such as “zero tolerance” for schoolyard recess games such as cops and robbers and cowboys and Indians, shouting “bang bang,” drawing a picture of a pistol, making a gun out of Lego pieces, and biting the shape of a gun out of a Pop-Tart. This kind of unadulterated lunacy — which focuses on an inanimate object such as a gun instead of on morality, self-discipline and character — will continue to produce disappointing results.

 

 

CA SET TO BECOME STRICTEST GUN CONTROL STATE WITH AMMUNITION REGISTRY

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

How long before the loons in Washington,D.C. try the same?

Will the last sane person leaving the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia

Please bring the flag and turn out the lights?

 

 

A group of bills moving through California’s assembly and senate–including one to create a database for ammunition purchases–could create the strictest gun control laws of any state in the union.

According the San Jose Mercury News, the bills being heard in the state senate on August 12 would create a database of all ammo purchases in the state, “make it crime to have a gun that’s not locked up when it’s not being carried, and extend the time for which someone is banned from owning a firearm after making a violent threat.”

On August 13, another slate of bills will come before the State Assembly. These would ban all semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazines, would “make it a crime to leave a gun unlocked when you’re out of the house, and require those who own high capacity magazines to get rid of them.”

A bill adding a 10 percent tax to all ammunition purchases is still moving through the legislature as well, although it seems to have lost momentum.

Gun control groups like the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C. are hoping that California’s new gun control laws will spur Congress to pass more gun control as well.

But National Shooting Sports Foundation‘s senior vice president and general counsel Larry Keane says that is not going to happen: “While [gun control advocates] may try to reignite their lost momentum, I don’t think anything California does is going to affect what Washington does.”

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: