EckerNet.Com

The past two weeks I\’ve been going through all the firearms related bills currently pending in Congress….I had thought I was done with the series, but today comes news that perhaps I will have another bill to look over soon.

Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that one of those \”common sense\”  measures on gun-control is that they\’d like to bring back the Assault Weapons Ban and goes on to explain why.  If the issue weren\’t so serious, the statement would be hilarious.  His rationale for such a move is a bold combination of self-defeating rhetoric, outright falsehoods and just plain paranoia.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

So because of the ineptitude of the Mexican \”government\” and our inability to build something as complex as a fence, American citizens are being asked to give up some of their rights?  At what point was our national sovereignty officially handed over to Mexico?  I didn\’t realize their needs superceded my rights.  Was that part of Hope™ and Change™?

Fact of the matter is that if we truly want to cut down on the flow of guns, a border fence would act as a force multiplier in the effort.  By making crossing the border more difficult, especially with bulky shipments such as drugs and/or firearms, it becomes easier for Border Control agents to intercept those shipments.  And it has the added benefit of not infringing upon the rights of Americans and having the dual-use of helping prevent illegal immigration.

\”Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,\” the warning said.

If that is part of your reason, then an assault weapons ban is NOT the answer.  Automatic weapons and grenades are already banned by federal law.  Which means a ban on lessor weapons would probably not make much of an effect.  It\’s almost as if criminals don\’t care what the law says….that\’s an odd behavior probably worth some study.

\”I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller,\” Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual\’s right to own a weapon.

Yeah, let\’s break that down a bit…

First of all \”cop-killer bullets\” presumably refer to armor piercing (AP) rounds…you\’d think our Attorney General would be familiar with the law.  But he\’s new (although the law is not), so I\’ll give him some help….specifically Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 27, Part 478.37:

No person shall manufacture or import, and no manufacturer or importer shall sell or deliver, armor piercing ammunition, except:

The exceptions are basically it\’s allowed to be used by the US government, or for exportation, or research&development.  So using AP ammunition as justification for passing a law is self-defeating as there are already laws against it….making it even more illegal doesn\’t change that it\’s already illegal.  Once again it\’s almost as if criminals don\’t care about laws.

And I\’d like to point out that if cartels are really getting those AP rounds from the US, then they are getting it from the US government itself.  So Eric Holder might want to clean the windows on that glass house of his.

Secondly, the gun show loophole is a myth.  Essentially what they are bitching about is private property.  At gun shows, Federally Licensed Firearms dealers (FFLs) have to do the same paperwork they would have to in their own shop.  What people are referring to by the \”gun show loophole\” is things like one private party selling one of his firearms to another private party.  And banning something as simple as a father selling a firearm to his son is a pretty slippery slope as it opens all sorts of doors to infringe upon other private property rights.

And let me finally get to this \”assault weapon\” thing….they don\’t exist.  I challenge you to find me a definition that stands up to any degree of scrutiny.   Basically the best you can come up with is \”scary looking black rifle\” and that\’s hardly an acceptable standard for a legal term.

Fortunately, I think this bill is probably dead on arrival anyway.  There are infinitely more important things that demand Congress\’ attention at the moment.  And this would be an incredibly divisive way to start the session.  If you thougth there was bad blood now, just wait until something like this was brought forth.  Not only between Republicans and Democrats, but also between the Democratic leadership and the \”Blue Dog\” Democrats, many of whom come from firearm-friendly districts.  Apparently Pelosi is thinking along the same lines.

Plus even aside from stupid self-defeating rhetorical strawmen arguments, the data itself does not support an assault weapons ban.  The Assault Weapons Ban had no effect on crime rates, either when it went into effect nor when it expired.  All it did is infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.  Criminals by definition weren\’t affected by the law because….well hard as this is to believe, they don\’t follow laws….hence the whole criminal thing.

[Crossposted at True North]

This is the seventh of the series, you can see the rest here.

HR 623 – Greater Judicial Discretion In Sentencing For Certain Firearms Offenses
To provide for greater judicial discretion in sentencing for certain firearms offenses committed in exceptional circumstances.
Sponsor : Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D – TX16)
Co-Sponsor : None

Current Status : Referred to the House Committee on the the Judiciary(1/21/2009)
Full Text

Summary:

Ok this one is pretty simple.  I\’m sure there was an incident that inspired this, but I\’m not aware of it.  It also seems completely bass ackwards from what it should be.  Basically if you carry a firearm as part of your job, and in the process of doing that job you commit certain acts of violence, the minimum sentencing guidelines are tossed out.  Yeah, that was the minimum, not the maximum, that is tossed out.  This seems geared towards police officers abusing their power and allowing judges to impose lesser penalties than would otherwise be required.

The specific acts of violence cited by the bill include any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, and/or the weapons involved were basically Title II weapons (\”assault\” weapons, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, machine guns, grenades, atomic bombs, etc).

The author of this bill is a former Border Control agent, so one might think that this is in response to the imprisonment of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. And hence would like to give judges the discretion to toss out sentences that don\’t fill the public interest.  Except that Rep. Reyes has a long track record of OPPOSING any sort of immigration enforcement activities, so that\’s unlikely to be the reason.

To be quite honest, I don\’t see a real compelling reason or rationale for this bill.  And I really don\’t see the need to hold law enforcement officers (LEOs) to a different standard than anyone else.  LEOs are NOT Super-Citizens, nor should they be.  That on top of my universal fall-back position, that unless new legislation has an overwhelmingly compelling reason, it should die a quick death.

Toss this one on the scrape pile and move on.

This is the sixth of the series, you can see the rest here.

HR 495 – Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009
To authorize additional resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes.
Sponsor : Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D – TX23)
Co-Sponsor : Rep. Henry Cuellar (D – TX28), Rep. Eliot Engel (D – NY17), Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D – TX16), Rep. Harry Teague (D – NM2)

Current Status : Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs (1/14/09) and the Judiciary Subcommittee on House Foreign Affairs (1/14/2009)
Full Text

NOTE : There is a closely associated Senate version (S 371) of this bill:

S 205 – Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009
A bill to authorize additional resources to identify and eliminate illicit sources of firearms smuggled into Mexico for use by violent drug trafficking organizations, and for other purposes.
Full Text

I\’ll discuss both in the summary below

Summary :

This bill is pretty simple, it\’s an attempt to beef up the Project Gunrunner Initiative by the ATF.  Focus of that program is basically to track firearms trafficking across the southern border.  This bill sends more resources to the program, including at least one Gunrunner team for each state.  It also seeks to give Mexico assistance and access to technology to assist their law enforcement in cracking down on the criminal enterprises (drugs) that are responsible for most of the firearms trafficking.

As far as Second Amendment rights, this bill is rather innocuous.  It\’s more of a border enforcement bill than anything else.  Towards that end, it seems like it would make more sense if we\’d finish the border fence.  Granted it won\’t stop firearms trafficking on it\’s own but it at least make the crossing more difficult and hence acts as a force multiplier.  As a result fewer resources are needed to accomplish the same results, and it has the added benefit of also assisting in diminishing illegal immigration and impeding drug trafficking as well.

This bill falls more under \”less than efficient\” government spending rather than any real attempt to infringe upon Second Amendment rights.  It\’s still worth opposing but not anything super critical.  In fact the \”waste\” represented here almost looks silly when compared to the trillions just wasted in the stimulus bill.

This is the fifth of the series, you can see the rest here.

HR 442 – Veterans\’ Heritage Firearms Act 0f 2009
To provide an amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register certain firearms in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and for other purposes.
Sponsor : Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R – MT0)
Co-Sponsor : Rep. Rodney Alexander (R – LA5), Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R – MD6), Rep. Robert Brady (D – PA1), Rep. Trent Franks (R – AZ2), Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC3), Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R – MI11), Rep. Michael Rogers (R – AL3), Rep. Michael Simpson (R – ID2), Rep. Mark Souder (R – IN3)

Current Status : Referred to the House Ways and Means Committee (1/9/09) and the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (2/9/2009)
Full Text

Summary:

Essentially this bill seems to be a solution in search of a problem.  Basically, if you\’re a veteran and if before October 31, 1968, you \”acquired\” a firearms, while in the service overseas, that is otherwise illegal, this will grant you temporary immunity.

While it doesn\’t specifically cite them, it appears the focus of this bill are weapons known as Title II weapons.  Basically this includes machine guns, short-barreled shotguns/rifles, suppressors.  Additional text in the bill cites IRS code that would include bombs, grenades, explosives, etc.  So basically all the stuff you\’d love to have but aren\’t allowed to.

If you\’ve acquired one of those weapons, you get temporary immunity to register them.  Technically you have to have acquired before October 31, 1968 but from the text of the bill they\’ll basically take your word for it unless they can prove you didn\’t…like if you weren\’t even in the service in 1968.

If you forfeit the weapon to the government, the Attorney General has to turn it over to the first museum that asks for it.  And they can\’t destroy it for at least five years.

Basically the government is pretty sure that some souvenir firearms came back from various wars but were never declared, and they\’d like to know what, how many and by whom.  This allows veterans to let them know without fear of getting in trouble.

This one isn\’t worth getting your panties in too much of a twist but certainly it\’s not needed.  If Uncle Jimbo snuck home an AK he stole off of Charlie in the war, what business is it of the government??  He\’s certainly earned the right to keep it and the same government that sent him there shouldn\’t be sticking it\’s nose into it.

I\’m of the opinion that more laws is a bad thing.  So unless there is a critical need, the government should back off and let us live our lives.  These certainly doesn\’t qualify as a critical need.  So I put it in the \”bad\” category.  Call your legislator and let them know there is no reason for this bill.

Ever wondered what it was like to have four beautiful women gossip about you?? Well I found out….

As expected I come across sounding like a major weirdo….which the more I think about it, is actually pretty accurate.

Looking forward to the promised Part Two!

This is the fourth of the series, you can see the rest here.

HR 257 – Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009
To prevent children\’s access to firearms.
Sponsor : Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D – TX18)
Co-Sponsor : NONE

Current Status : Referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (2/9/2009)
Full Text

Summary:

The title itself should sum this one up, and give a pretty good indication of the liklihood this is going to do a damn bit of good.  We all know how well simply telling a child they can\’t have something works.  Just look at how well that works with alcohol and drugs!  Mostly this bill is a load of crap, but there are a few minor redeeming qualities.

To start out with this bill raises the age limit for buying a handgun from 18 to 21, and prevents anyone under 21 from possessing an semiautomatic assault weapon and/or a large capacity ammunition feeding device.  The amusing part here is that, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as an \”assault weapon\”.  It simply does not exist, it\’s a term made up by liberals by which they mean \”a gun that looks extra scary\”.  It\’s also a bullshit term, because when liberals do attempt to define it they end up with a list that is self-contradictory and lacking in any consistent criteria.

Plus please define \”large capacity\”.  Personally when I\’m on the range I LIKE a large capacity magazine…saves me the hassle of having to reload all the time.  I came here to shoot, not to reload.  And if I\’m in a situation where I need to use a firearm in self defense, there is no such thing as large capacity.  I treasure every single bullet in that firearm.

Moreover simply banning them isn\’t going to be effective.  What are you attempting to accomplish??  Keeping them out of the hands of gang-bangers?  There are already laws against that but they don\’t work.  It\’s almost as if criminals don\’t care what the law says….weird I know.  Not to mention the sheer stupidity of this concept.  An 18 year old can be drafted, join the military, vote, gamble, buy porn, etc but he can\’t be trusted with a firearm???

This bill also prohibits keeping a firearm in even an unloaded state, if there is ANY chance of a child getting access to it.  So basically you can keep a firearm for self-defense until you have kids.  But once you bring your pride&joy home, you are not allowed to protect them.  It\’s absolutely stupid and darn near impossible to enforce, unless someone actually does use one to defend their kids….then you\’re gonna lock up the victim.  Brilliant move there.

Like I said, there are a couple redeeming qualities, although they are a duplication of effort at the expense of the taxpayer.

First, it allows the AG to provide grants to local law enforcement to provide gun safety programs for kids.  And it also asks school districts to participate in said gun safety programs.

Ok first of all gun safety programs already exist, and are funded by private industry.  Probably the best is the Eddie Eagle program run by the NRA.  An excellent program from young children that teachs kids about firearms without attempting to give them nightmares.  No reason to force the taxpayers to pay for what is a redundant program.

I do like the idea of asking school districts to participate in gun safety programs though.  In my opinion, it is irresponsible to not teach your children about firearms, whether you own one or not.  There is the possibility that they may come in contact with one….whether it be at a friends house or finding one somewhere.  They need to know how to handle the situation intelligently and safely.  In my opinion it ranks right up there with swimming lessons as a necessary skill to teach your kids when they are very young.

Overall this bill is absolutely worthless and needlessly hampers the use of firearms by otherwise responsible adults for no net benefit.  The few redeeming features of this bill already exist without asking the taxpayer to foot the bill.  Ask your legislator to do whatever they can to kill this bill.

This is the third of the series, you can see the rest here.

HR 197 – National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.
Sponsor : Rep. Clifford Stearns (R – FL6)
Co-Sponsor : Rep. Michele Bachmann (R – MN6), Rep. Roy Blunt (R – MO7), Rep. John Boozman (R – AR3), Rep. Frederick Boucher (D – VA9), Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC3), Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R – MI11), Rep. John Murtha (D – PA12), Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R – TX19), Rep. Nick Rahall (D – WV3), Rep. Thomas Rooney (R – FL16), Rep. Mark Souder (R – IN3), Rep. Edward Whitfield (R – KY1)

Current Status : Referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (2/9/2009)
Full Text

NOTE : There is a closely associated Senate version (S 371) of this bill:

S 371 – Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009
A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

Full Text

I\’ll discuss both in the summary below.

Summary:

First of all, I bet you never thought you\’d see Michelle Bachmann and John Murtha co-sponsoring the same piece of legislation huh??

Basically both of these deals try to fix the mess that is reciprocity of firearm carry permits.  Imagine you have a driver\’s license in the state of Minnesota.  But you want to drive to Wisconsin.  However, Wisconsin\’s rules for granting driver\’s licenses and traffic laws are slightly different than Minnesota\’s (and they are), so Wisconsin doesn\’t recognize Minnesota driver\’s licenses, and vice-versa.  Instead you\’d have to spend the time/money to get a Wisconsin driver\’s license if you want to drive in Wisconsin.  Now imagine that problem nationwide.  Your license may be good in a dozen states but the rest for trivial or even political reasons have decided not to recognize it.

That\’s currently the situation that carry permit holders face.  Even worse, what you end up with is a few states whose permits are honored by a vast majority of the states such as is the case with New Hampshire, Utah and Florida.  So that most of the nation\’s carry permit holders end up applying at only a few of those, sometimes even at the exclusion of their own state.

These bills attempt to fix that problem.  Basically if you have a carry permit with one state, you can carry in any other state that also issues carry permits.  You are still restricted by the laws of the state in which you are carrying, such as locations where carrying is prohibited.

The Senate version of this bill has the advantage over the House version of the bill in that it also protects residents of the states of Vermont and Alaska, which do not issue paper permits (government issued permission slips to exercise a constitutional right).  The House version of the bill uses text which makes it specifically apply to people whose state has issued them a permit.  Since Vermont and Alaska don\’t issue permits to their residents, they don\’t fall under that category.

One downside of both bills is a rather unfortunate inclusion of the word \”concealed\” when referring to carry permits.  A major misconception of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act is that nowhere in the bill does it make reference to \”concealed carry\”, simply carry.  So in Minnesota you are not required to conceal your firearm.  I\’ve heard convincing arguments both for and against concealment, but it remains a personal preference.  However, the ability to \”open carry\” is a feature, not a bug….even for those, like myself, who choose to carry concealed.

I can give you a perfect example from something that just happened yesterday.  When I carry, I sometimes carry using an Inside-The-Waist-Band (IWB) holster, which leaves only the grip visible.  I typically tuck my shirt or sweater in between my handgun and my side to avoid the abrasive texture of the grip rubbing against me with every step.  Then I use my jacket which hangs over it and provides my concealment.  When I get to where I\’m going I just pull my sweater/shirt back out over the firearm and then take off my jacket.  Last night I showed up at a meeting I had to attend, and was immediatly engaged in conversation with someone as I walked in.  I took off my jacket, forgetting to untuck my sweater first, revealing my sidearm to anyone that cared to notice.  If Minnesota required concealment I just broke the law.  They don\’t.  That\’s a good thing.  That way something as simple as a sudden summer breeze isn\’t causing people to violate the law.

The fact that both the House and Senate versions of the bill use concealed as part of their text is a little unfortunate, they should just use the phrase \”carry permit\” and leave it up to each state to decide if concealment is required or not.

But overall these are both very good bills, that solve a problem that mostly resulted from bureaucratic bullshit.  Carry permits end up getting treated just like driver\’s licenses.  That\’s a vast improvement over the current situation. Contact your legislator and encourage the passage of either one of these pieces of legislation.

I keep seeing news reports about meetings between Pelosi and His Holiness.  Seems to be all over the news.  I don\’t get it, what\’s the big deal?

Presumably, Pelosi and Obama meet fairly regularely right?? I guess I would have thought so, although I hear they don\’t like each other but still.  You wouldn\’t think a meeting between the two of them is particularely noteworthy.

Someone want to clear up whatever I missed???

UPDATE : Ohhhhh, by \”His Holiness\” the media was not actually referring to Obama this time, but the actual Pope.  Gotcha.  Sorry, my bad.  I thought everyone was still referring to Obama.

I thought it was a little odd that Obama would have lectured Pelosi to stop embracing abortion.

This is the second of the series, you can see the rest here.

HR 45 – Blair Holt\’s Firearms Licensing & Record Of Sale Act of 2009
To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.
Sponsor : Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL1)
Co-Sponsor : NONE

Current Status : Referred to the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security (2/9/2009)
Full Text

Summary:

Ever heard it said that a driver\’s license is not a right, it\’s a privilege?  Well this bill basically takes one of your actual constitutional rights and turns into a very difficult to obtain privilege.  This bill makes it more difficult to execute your Second Amendment RIGHT, than it does to get a license to transport hazardous materials such as nuclear waste.

The findings portion of this bill attempt to frame firearms sales, purchases and possession as just another commerical activity.  Which ends up being truly hilarious in the mind-numbingly obsession to ignore the less than subtle difference between firearms and say….well anything else.  One is specifically prescribed in the Second Amendment, the rest….not so much.

Anyone wishing to purchase, sell, or even possess a firearms needs a license, for which the process is more restrictive than any other commodity.  Information required includes, name, address, photo, thumbprint, proof that you can own a firearm (so much for innocent until guilty), certificates testifying to all sorts of crap,  release of your mental health records and a $25 fee.  All that just to apply for permission to use one of your constitutional rights.  Just imagine if all that was required in order to attend your church, or express your views in a letter to the editor in the newspaper.

I find it incredibly ironic due to the hypocrisy of the liberals pushing this bill.  Many Minnesotans have pointed out that in order to vote you should at least have to show a photo ID, after all you need to show a photo ID to do most anything in today\’s society.  Liberals will immediatly respond that no you shouldn\’t have to.  That would disenfranchise voters from executing what is their right.  Yet they are perfectly fine with a very restrictive process like this to execute a different right.  Double standard?? Yeah.

Most of the rest of this bill is the establishment of a nationwide database of all firearms, and who owns then and how that person came to own them.  That fact that there is absolutely no legitimate reason to do so, and the very dangerous precedent (freedom-wise) is not really addressed in this bill.  Instead, you have to comply and failure to do so gets some stiff penalties.  Another fact conveniently ignored is that criminals already ignore any regulations on the sale of firearms, so this is unlikely to have ANY impact on criminals gaining access to firearms.

Also buried in amongst that are provisions supposedly meant to keep children from gaining access to firearms.  These provisions essentially require one to keep the firearm in such a state as to be completely useless for home or self defense.  Not mentioned are provisions preventing children from getting access to swimming pools even though statistically these are FAR more likely to be a fatal threat to children than a firearm is and without the self-defense benefits.

Essentially if one laid out a 10 step plan on repealing the Second Amendment, this bill perfectly outlines what Step One would have to be.  It\’s a horrible bill, that greatly restricts constitutional rights, provides no benefits and provides lots of opportunity for abuse of power on the part of government.  Call your legislators and let them know that this bill is not the change you were waiting for.  In fact you\’d like this bill squashing as quickly as possible.

The real irony here is that the bill is named after a kid who gave his life shielding a girl on a bus in Chicago.  Illinois already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.  That didn\’t stop a 16-year-old gang banger from getting a semi-auto pistol from a 15-year old gang punk, telling everyone what he was going to do and then boarding a bus and going on a shooting spree.  In the view of former Black Panther, Rep Bobby Rush, this is proof positive that gun control works.

There is a wootoff, if you need me I\’ll be over there.