Closing the "Gun Show Loophole"

The gun show loophole

The anti's have done a very good job of introducing that nonsensical phrase into the American psyche. That phrase is meaningless, a false representation, and basically a lie. There is no such thing as a "Gun show loophole". Firearm transactions at gun shows are regulated by the same local, state and federal laws as any other firearm transaction in that locale. There is no special pass related to gun shows that allows you to purchase a firearm outside of the laws of the state.

The anti's, with the willing help of the media, are effective at spreading propaganda. Just ask a couple of your friends and acquaintances about the "Gun show loophole" and see what they say. There is now this belief that anyone can go to gun shows and purchase any firearm they desire without .gov regulation. This belief is, of course, wrong.

Along with the propaganda assault, comes the legislation.

On the federal level, House Bill H.R. 96 has been introduced by Representative Michael Castle of Delaware. H.R. 96 has three co-sponsors and is titled "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007". This is a horrendous bill which must be stopped. The purpose of this bill is not to close an imaginary loophole, but to put a stop to gun shows, period. Passage of this bill would make operating a gun show a paperwork and criminal liability nightmare. H.R. 96 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

On the local level, here in Texas we have HB 594 submitted by Yvonne Davis. Yvonne Davis is the same anti who submitted HB 595 which I commented upon here. HB 594 is titled "An act Relating to the creation of certain offenses concerning firearm sales at gun shows." HB 594 has no co-sponsors and no real support in Austin. I doubt that this bill will even be debated, this time.

Neither one of these bills are new. Legislation such as this has been introduced before, and has failed. The problem is that each time legislation like this gets introduced, it gets a little bit more support. The Texas bill will fail this time around. I am not so sure about the federal one. I would hope it never makes it out of committee.

If there is no such thing as a gun show loophole, why are the anti's and the politicians pushing so hard to enact anti-gun show legislation?

Well....

If the answer you came up with has anything to do with criminals and illegal guns, then you have been influenced by the anti's propaganda machine. The Bureau of Justice Statistics performed a study in 2001 that determined that less than 1% of firearms owned by criminals were purchased at gun shows. Of the ones that were purchased at the gun shows, the majority were not purchased by the criminal, but by a friend or relative (straw purchases, already against the law). Gun shows are not major sources of firearms for criminals. The politicians know this, even the anti's know this, they have the same reports and facts that we do. So then why are they so determined to close gun shows?

The answer is a simple one, closing down gun shows will have a major negative effect upon the firearm industry and more importantly, the gun culture in the United States. Gun shows are a place to meet and interact with other like minded individuals, to learn about new products, and enjoy a bit of history. Most folks that attend a gun show don't purchase a firearm. I have attempted to get stats from local promoters on what percentage of attendees actually purchase a firearm, I will let you know when I hear back from them.

Gun shows are where most of us get a chance to see and handle the new products that are advertised in the gun magazines and at SHOT Show. I am interested in several of the new products that were introduced at this years SHOT Show and it will not be long before they are all available at one of the local larger gun shows. It would take several days of traveling from one gun shop to the next to check out all of these new products, and I would still probably not be able to see the wide array of historical firearms that are available at a good gun show.

It used to be that just about every department and hardware store had a gun department. Firearms were just a normal part of life. Now finding a gun section in a hardware store is the exception rather than the rule, guns have disappeared from the everyday life of most individuals, and the sale of firearms is no longer considered to be "normal". Taking someone who is not familiar with firearms to a gun show allows them to see the wide variety of individuals who attend. At a gun show you will find people from every background, culture and economic level, drawn together by one interest... firearms.

If the anti's succeed in this attempt to close down gun shows, it will be another major coup. We will lose a lot more than just a place to go and buy firearms, we will lose a bit of our heritage and tradition as gun owners. We will lose access to new products and our ability to make informed decisions concerning new purchases will be restricted. We will lose one avenue of disseminating and discussing information relating to gun laws and other political issues important to gun owners. Grass roots organizations will have a harder time recruiting members and volunteers. Gun shows bring together all aspects of the gun culture, the hunters, target shooters, collectors, police and military. Closing down gun shows will give the anti's better leverage in driving wedges between these different groups of firearm enthusiasts and make further gun control easier to accomplish.

It is very important that we put a stop to legislation such as this. Call, write and fax your congress critter and let them know that legislation meant to curtail the business of operating gun shows will not be tolerated. Inform them of the facts concerning criminals and firearms (that the vast majority of firearms owned by criminals are either stolen or purchased on the black market), and that their time would be better spent focusing on the criminal, not the tool.

A couple of related articles from the NRA/ILA:

Gun Shows: An American Tradition

Fables, Myths & Other Tall Tales; FABLE XV: A gun show "loophole" exists that allows many criminals and terrorists to purchase guns.

Closing the "Gun Show Loophole"

This new ad, put out by the Bloomberg cronies, pretty much highlights the weakness in Senator McCain's supposed support for our right to keep and bear arms:

There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. All firearm transactions at gun shows have to follow the exact same local, state and federal laws as any other firearm transaction in that local. Proposed laws to close a "Gun Show Loophole" have nothing to do with loopholes, and everything to do with prohibiting the private transfer of firearms and doing away with gun shows all together.

For more on this issue, please read Closing the "Gun Show Loophole"

H/T to the Star Telegram PoliTex blog

Guns on the Streets

Mayor Bloomberg is spending a ton of his constituents dollars attempting to entrap and shut down gun dealers from states other than New York.

Representative Castle of Delaware has H.R. 96, a bill to close the supposed "Gun Show Loophole".

Bloomberg blames the violence done by goblins with guns on out of New York State gun dealers and Castle blames it on gun shows. The fact that neither of these politicians is addressing the fact that goblins are violent creatures, pretty much proves that their anti gun initiatives are just so much political pandering and attempts to be mentioned in the news. Action that might actually work, that would reduce violent crime, would be controversial and require some political balls to accomplish. Blaming the gun is much easier.

Quite a few violent criminals do have guns, many of these goblins are repeat offenders who are not able to legally purchase a firearm. So where do these guns come from? Are they, as Bloomberg states, purchased in bulk by a person who is able to pass a background check and then re-sold on the black market? Or do goblins hang out at gun shows, taking advantage of the mythical gun show loophole? I would have to say NO to both of these theories. Less than 2% of felons owned (not used, just owned) firearms that were purchased at gun shows. Many of these were bought by family members. I have no stats on firearms bought in a straw purchase and resold to a goblin for a profit, but I believe that percentage to be small also. Why do I believe this? Because the price of a black market firearm is a small percentage of retail. Most black market firearms have been on the market for quite awhile. They are sold and re-sold, traded for drugs or favors, and then sold once again. New firearms end up on the black market through theft, and that is where this little bit of commentary is headed. Theft. It seems not a week goes by without a news article such as this:

From the Dallas Morning News:

By Tanya Eiserer

Police: Gun belt stolen from car while officer played basketball

Yep, another firearm stolen from a police officer. This one has a twist.

A Dallas police officer told other officers late Sunday that he'd chased a man and lost his gun belt.

But it turns out that Officer Archie Beason hadn't been in a foot chase and that his gun belt was stolen when he left it in his squad car while he played basketball, authorities said. Officer Beason was on duty at the time.

Let us see how this came to be.

The incident began late Sunday in the 5000 block of Colonial Avenue, records show.

According to police, Officer Beason called dispatch and reported that he was in a foot chase and that his gun belt had come off and been taken. When others officers arrived, they could not find Officer Beason's gun belt or the person he had said he was chasing.

Among the items on his gun belt was his 9 mm gun, an expandable baton, handcuffs, 46 bullets, three pistol magazines and mace.

One more gun on the street. Maybe Bloomberg should be on a nation wide campaign to improve firearm security in our police departments.

Witnesses tipped off authorities that Officer Beason had not been in a chase and that he had been playing basketball. He had left the gun belt on the front seat of his squad car, records show.

So, officer Benson was playing basketball on taxpayers time. While playing basketball, his duty firearm was stolen from the front seat of his squad car. Officer Benson then makes a false report to police dispatch (a violation of law if I am not mistaken), resulting in more officers respond to an emergency call on the tax payer dollar.

The police work for the public, right? If one of my employees is playing ball while on company time, and loses company property, then lies to me about how it all happened, the employee would be fired. No questions.

What is Officer Benson doing these days?

"He's been placed on restricted duty pending an investigation."

I wonder what would happen to me if I made a false 911 call?

An Interview With Duncan Hunter

Representative Duncan Hunter sparked my interest when he announced that he was throwing his hat into the ring and run for president on the GOP ticket. The Duncan Hunter '08 website did an excellent job of defining his core values and beliefs in the areas of the war in Iraq, terrorism, taxes, abortion and the like, but had scant information on his views of gun rights and the Second Amendment.

So what's a blogger to do other than get in contact with his campaign staff and request an interview?

After correspondence back and forth, and a bit of time to allow Representative Hunter's staff to vet both myself and my blog, he agreed.

An interview (via email) with presidential candidate Duncan Hunter.

Thank you for taking the time to answer the following firearm related questions. The Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and firearms issues in general are not addressed on your campaign web site so folks are interested in your views on these issues.

“Thank you for the opportunity to address these vital issues of liberty with you. Our website was put together piece by piece and the Second Amendment statement was one of the later things added. That does not reflect the slightest lack of commitment on my part regarding Second Amendment rights. My record over 26 years in Congress is absolutely clear.”

1. Please state, in your own words, what the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States means to you. Do you understand the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual or a collective right?

“The right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of Americans to protect their families and their communities and their nation with firearms. In this age of post-911, Americans, I believe are comforted by the fact that our ability to resist terrorism is not limited to law enforcement or defense agencies but is also within the ability of all gun-owning Americans.”


2. There has been a lot of discussion in the media and in the legislature about “Closing the Gun Show Loophole.” What is your definition of a “Gun Show Loophole”, and how would you address this issue?

“I reject the term ‘loophole’. It is a clever verbal device of the left to restrict the rights of Americans. Constitutional rights are not loopholes in governmental regulations. As President, I would veto legislation that would require a background check on private firearms transactions at gun shows or any other bill that restricts the Second Amendment Rights of American.”


3. Representative Carolyn McCarthy has introduced H.B. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. Do you believe that Americans have the right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern? Do you support restricting a citizen’s access to firearms based upon cosmetics or ease of function?

“As President, I would veto any bill that reauthorizes the semi-auto ban that was sunset in 2004. These types of bills represent “feel good” measures that impede the rights of law-abiding citizens by banning guns based not on facts but based largely upon how scary they look.”

4. In Congress, you represent the great state of California, a state applauded by some and demonized by others for having extremely restrictive gun control laws. Do you understand California’s gun control laws to be a necessary and effective deterrent to violent crime?

“Gun control laws directed at law-abiding citizens are not a crime deterrent. In fact, studies show that private ownership of firearms by Americans reduces crime. You and I both know that the one thing criminals prefer more than any other is unarmed victims.”

5. If you are elected President of the United States, how would your presidency affect firearm owners?

“As President, I will not sign any treaty that impedes, in any way, the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

Only judges who have a demonstrated commitment to interpret the Constitution as our founders intended will be nominated to the federal bench.

I would ask Congress to send me for my signature, legislation to repeal the D.C. gun ban, legislation to allow reciprocity among states with concealed carry rights and other pieces of legislation to restore rights that prior administrations have eroded.

In fact, I authored the Hunter amendment, Rol call 241 in 1999, to allow DC residents to keep and bear arms.”

Representative Hunter; thank you again for taking time out of your busy day to answer these questions and address issues that many Americans see as important. Your voting history on Second Amendment issues is appreciated.

Respectfully,

JR

There it is, Duncan Hunter on the Second Amendment. Since this was an interview, I'll leave my thoughts to myself for the time being.

I am very thankful to Representative Hunter for taking the time to answer these questions. I hope the questions were sufficient to give you information you can use in making a decision in the Republican primaries.

The Federal Assault on Our Weapons

After it was obvious that Nancy Pelosi was to be our new majority leader in the House, I penned the commentary "Consequences of Yesterday's Elections ". My opinion at the time was that with the Democrats back in power, there would be a push for a new Assault Weapon Ban and then they would propose legislation to close the imaginary "Gun Show Loophole". It turns out I was wrong, they went after the Gun Show Loophole first. Michael Castle of Delaware introduced H.R. 96, the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 in January. It took Carolyn McCarthy all the way to mid February to get H.R. 1022 introduced.

H.R. 1022 is the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. This bill is currently in the Judiciary Committee. Others mentioned that an AWB would not be proposed until after 2008. Now that one has been introduced, I have seen it stated that the Dems are just testing the waters, that it is just a trial balloon. H.R. 1022 is in committee, so it is serious.

These past couple of days have seen firearm owners and advocates band together and strike against a Quisling in our own ranks. We need to put forth even more effort in getting these two pieces of anti gun legislation stopped in their tracks. Even if H.R. 1022 is just a "trial balloon", we should do everything we can to deflate that balloon right now, we need to keep it from gaining any altitude at all.

Contact your congress critter and let them know that you are opposed to both H.R. 96 and H.R. 1022. Write the members of the House Judiciary Committee and inform them that an AWB has no effect on violent crime and that H.B. 1022 should not be allowed to reach the House Floor. Write letters to the editor of your local papers speaking out against H.B. 96 and H.B. 1022. Fight for your rights, and the rights of your children (I had to throw in a "do it for the children" quote, seems to work so well for the anti's). There is a cultural war going on in America and on Capitol Hill, it is a war between freedom and servitude. It is a soft war that must be fought with the same fervor and intensity as any battlefield conflict.

To help get you started, here is a list of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. Contact information can be found by clicking on the name:


Hon. Conyers Jr. Chairman (D) Michigan, 14th

Hon. Berman (D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher (D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler (D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott (D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt (D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren (D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee (D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters (D) California, 35th

Hon. Meehan (D) Massachusetts, 5th

Hon. Delahunt (D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler (D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Sánchez (D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen (D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson (D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Gutierrez (D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman (D) California, 27

Hon. Weiner (D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff (D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis (D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz (D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison (D) Minnesota, 5th


Hon. Smith Ranking Member (R) Texas, 21st

Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Coble (R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Gallegly (R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte (R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot (R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren (R) California, 3rd

Hon. Cannon (R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Keller (R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa (R) California, 49th

Hon. Pence (R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes (R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King (R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney (R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks (R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert (R) Texas, 1st

Hon. Jordan (R) Ohio, 4th

Have at it folks, let these "representativs of the people" know what "the people" want.

The Lautenberg Anti Gun Show Bill Text...

...has finally been published.

Head on over and read S 843 for yourself. It is not a very large bill (yet), and reading it will only take a moment or two.

After reading it, ask yourself this: Just how many gun show promoters will be willing to jump through those hoops to put on a gun show? How many folks will be willing to stand in those lines to attend a gun show?

Legislation such as this has nothing to do with closing any mythical "Gun Show Loophole", and everything to do with closing gun shows, period.

Consequences of Yesterday's Elections

Well, it is the day after Election Day, and Nancy Pelosi is our new Majority Leader in the House. The Senate is still up for grabs, but that point is moot. There are plenty enough RINO’s in the Senate to swing the vote to the Democrats every time. There is a lot of talk on the internet about what this means for Republicans and for the country. If you are interested in that discussion, check out some of the “Blogs I Read” on the sidebar. There are some very smart people there that go into great detail on what will be the results of this election.

This, my friends is primarily a gun blog that occasionally delves into First Amendment and other Constitutional issues. But first and foremost, it is a gun blog.

So what does having a Democrat controlled Congress, and an Administration lead by President Bush mean to gun owners?

Here are my thoughts:

1. I expect to see a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban coming down the pike fairly quickly. The Democrats were not happy to see the sunset of the AWB, and they will be quick to try and get it back on the books. During his first campaign, President Bush promised to sign the AWB if it came across his desk. I fully expect him to keep that promise and sign a new AWB.

2. Next on the list will be closing the “Gun Show Loop Hole”. Now we all know that there is no such thing as a “gun show loop hole”, but that phrase has made it into the psyche of the American public. Even though all gun shows follow all state and federal firearm laws, they have been vilified by the press and the anti gunners. They want gun shows closed, period. Expect this to become a big issue, we will see calls for a national waiting period on all firearms sales, and a requirement that all firearms sales go through a licensed FFL dealer.

3. The Brady Bunch are chomping at the bit to get started on more “Common-Sense Gun Laws”. You know, the above mentioned AWB and waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, and most importantly, a National Firearms Registry for all handguns. They are feeling pretty bold at the moment, and have lots of support in the legislature. Just remember which California city Nancy Pelosi represents. From the Brady website:

Candidates supporting a common sense approach to gun violence prevention did very well. In races where the Brady Campaign endorsed candidates went head-to-head with competing candidates endorsed by the NRA, Brady won 5 of 5 Governorships (Patrick in MA, O’Malley in MD, Rendell in PA, Doyle in WI, and Blagojevich in IL) and 4 of 4 U.S. Senate seats (Cardin in MD, Cantwell in WA, Stabenow in MI, and Nelson in FL). Candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign won over 95% of their races.

4. If an Assault Weapons Ban slides through easily, and they close the “gun show” loophole, expect the idea of taxing ammunition out of existence to re-emerge. I really doubt that this will happen while Bush is President, but it will be on the back burner waiting for an opportune moment to raise its ugly head once again.

This is what I fully expect to see coming down the pike from a Democrat led Congress. They might try to add restrictions to what they consider arsenals, but I do not think it will happen in the near future. I do not have much hope in the President using his veto pen on much of this legislation either. We have made some good gains these past few years, but I am afraid that they are just temporary.

Gun Owners of America has a slightly different take on the consequences of this election, you can read it here.

Texas Senate District 10 Election

Texas Senate District 10 is currently represented by Republican Kim Brimer. Opposing Senator Brimer this election season is Democrat Candidate Wendy Davis. Wendy Davis has held a position on the Fort Worth City Council. While on the Fort Worth City Council, Wendy Davis attempted to make private transfer of firearms at Fort Worth gun shows illegal.

This is old news, but worth repeating. I am pleasantly surprised that WFAA is mentioning this important issue.

By Brad Watson

Campaign debate centers on gun show rules

FORT WORTH — Gun shows are practically a Texas tradition. But now the issue of weapons sold at those shows has become a high caliber controversy in a Tarrant County state senate race.

Since the early 1970s, the City of Fort Worth has leased facilities like the Will Rogers Memorial Center for gun shows. While serving on the city council in 2000, Wendy Davis proposed limiting who could sell guns at these shows.

That controversy is now following her into the state Senate race.

"She has a proven record of attempting to pass what we consider to be bad regulations," said James Dark, executive director of the Texas State Rifle Association.

Davis says she wanted only licensed gun dealers at shows on city property since federal law requires they must do background checks on buyers.

Shows that wouldn't agree to that stipulation would have been banned under the proposal...

Goblins do not purchase their firearms at gun shows. They do not purchase them from FFL dealers, and they do not purchase them from private individuals. If a goblin wants a firearm seen at a gun show, they get a friend or relative to purchase it for them. This "straw purchase" is already illegal. The vast majority of goblins either steal guns from law abiding citizens, or purchase them from other goblins.

During the last legislative session, a bill was introduced to "close the gun show loophole" here in Texas. The bill was HB 594 and I commented on it here. HB 594 did not gain any traction at all in the legislature and was allowed to die off in committee.

We do not need to send another anti gun Senator to Austin, the ones that are already there are a few to many as it is.

This is one reason why I am supporting Kim Brimer for Senator. I am not alone. Senator Brimer is also supported by U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Mayors of all 19 cities in Senate District 10, and my State Rep., Dr. Diane Patrick.

Will There be a New Assault Weapons Ban?

There are quite a few folks out there telling us not to worry about an Obama administration taking away our guns. They believe that the economy will be a much higher priority than gun laws and that many Democrats will not support anti gun legislation for fear of reprisal in the voting booth come the next election cycle.

The Dallas Morning News recently published a well written article concerning the increase in firearm sales following the elections. I think reporter Jessica Meyers did a good job on this column, but I disagree with a couple of the Second Amendment scholars she quoted who feel that we have nothing to worry about.

Obama gun-policy fears trigger a run on assault weapons

"There is no Democratic proposal to deal with guns, and there is going to be no Democratic proposal to deal with guns," said Scot Powe, a Second Amendment scholar and law professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

"It's fantasy land to believe the Democrats have any interest in the gun-control issue. It would kill them."

I do not know Professor Powe. What I have found indicates that he is a very strong intellectual when it comes to the First Amendment. I'll not make any assumptions about his support of our right to keep and bear arms, but I will take him to task over his declaration that "...the Democrats have any interest in the gun-control issue." here in a bit.

A scholar that I am somewhat familiar with was also quoted in this article:

Even if Mr. Obama advocates an assault-weapons ban, he's not going to push it any time soon, said Dr. Stephen Halbrook, a Second Amendment lawyer who just wrote a book on the right to bear arms.

"It is not the top agenda in the midst of the economic crisis," he said. "It's unreasonable to argue that people need to rush out and get a gun because their supply is going to get cut off."

So, are those of us who believe that an Obama administration and a heavy Democrat Congress will move quickly on gun control issues living in "fantasy land" or being "unreasonable"? I think not.

President Elect Barack Obama has spent his entire adult life opposing our right to keep and bear arms. From his time as a director of the Joyce Foundation, to his time as an elected official, Obama has advocated for the most draconian of gun laws. What is to stop him from using his authority as president to push anti-gun legislation? Is it the idea that gun control legislation might have an effect on the 2010 elections? I think not. Have California legislators suffered for their support of anti gun legislation? How about those who represent Washington DC, New York, New Jersey or Massachusetts? We had a serious contender for president on the GOP who actually signed an Assault Weapon Ban into law, and our front runner on the ticket wanted to criminalize the private transfer of firearms. Obama has no reason to fear gunnies. The NRA endorsed McCain, McCain lost. The NRA produced some outstanding ads supporting McCain and spent lots of money airing those ads in tight race gunny states. McCain still lost.

Why should Obama fear political retaliation from gunnies?

He does not. From his transition platform:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Joe Biden, our Vice President Elect, sponsored an assault weapons ban as recently as 2007 and has bragged that he wrote the original Assault Weapons Ban.

We have a President and a Vice President who are vehemently anti gun and who see no political repercussions for pushing forward an anti gun agenda. Who is going to stop them? Congress?

Congress belongs to the Democrats. That is just a fact of life. This is the same House that had 67 cosponsors to HR 1022, a supercharged AWB that would ban many common firearms held by citizens today. But you say that we can count on the Republicans to block any AWB that the Dems come up with. All I can say is "maybe", and maybe is just not good enough. Why do I think that? Because the Latest Assault Weapon Ban Legislation was authored by Republicans. Yep, Republicans.

So am I living in fantasy land or being unreasonable for believing that Obama & Co. will move quickly on some very severe gun control legislation? I think not.

Neither does Vin Suprynowicz.

H/T to Peter for the Suprynowicz article.

Recent Texas Headlines and the Next Legislative Session

There have been two firearm related topics making the rounds through the Texas news outlets over the past few days that are meant to influence the upcoming legislative session.

First is push to legalise open carry of firearms in the State of Texas.

That video from The 33 TV.com has lots to talk about in it, starting with the grip that woman has on her pistol, but it gives you the basic gist of what is going on.

OpenCarry.org has commenced it's Operation Lone Star Thunder radio campaign to garner support for open carry legislation that will be introduced during this next legislative session.

I support open carry and will do so if a good bill is introduced. If you would like to show your support for open carry legislation, you can sign a petition here (registered Texas voters only please).

The next topic that has been front page news for every major news outlet in Texas is an AP story that states "Houston called top gun supplier for Mexican drug cartels".

From the Dallas Morning News:

Houston called top gun supplier for Mexican drug cartels

HOUSTON – Houston has become the top source for firearms going into Mexico, supplying drug cartel gangsters with weapons for their deadly battles, according to federal law enforcement officials.

A Mexican federal officer views a Tijuana crime scene where gunmen killed a woman and injured a police investigator at a Sam's Club parking lot on Tuesday. "Our investigations show Houston is the top source for firearms going into Mexico, top source in the country," J. Dewey Webb, special agent in charge of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Houston division, said in the Houston Chronicle.

Three years ago Venezuela purchased 100,000 AK-103's (modern version of the AK-47) and are now opening a Kalashnikov factory of it's very own to produce even more AK's. One has to wonder how the older firearms were disposed of. Dimes for dollars many of those weapons are in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels.

It was not that long ago when we American citizens told our representatives that we wanted our Southern border secured. We demanded a fence, congress approved a fence, where the hell is our fence? A secure border would go a long way towards stemming the flow of contraband in both directions across the border.

I opened this post by stating that both of these news topics were meant to influence upcoming legislation. The open carry story is pretty straight forward. OpenCarry.org is advocating for open carry in the State of Texas. The Texas/Mexico gun link story is not quite so open about it's purpose.

The next Texas legislative session begins in little over a month, January 13th. Hundreds of bills have already been introduced, and hundreds more are in the wings. The anti's have made some progress in the last election cycle and support for gun control measures will increase. Two major pieces of anti gun legislation were killed during the last session:

HB 594 - Closing the Gun Show Loophole. I commented upon this bill here. It died a well deserved death in committee.

HB 595 - Waiting periods for handgun purchases. This bill included 1 gun a month restrictions. Another disastrous bill. My comments are here. Thankfully this bill also died in committee.

These bills will be re-introduced and the recent blanket coverage of the supposed Texas/Mexico gun link is meant to soften up the public and garner acceptance to this legislation.

A few quoted from the article:

From MySanAntonio.com

Gun storeowners are technically right when they say they don't break any laws in selling firearms that become murder weapons south of the border. And box stores also turn a blind eye while selling customers wholesale quantities of ammo, no questions asked, knowing full well the purchases are bound for Mexico.

Legal? Yes, but hardly moral. Who wants to be a party to such gruesome transactions?

From the Houstin Chronicle

Almost always, shops that have sold guns later used in crimes have done nothing illegal.

U.S. citizens and legal residents who are not convicted of a felony, who say the gun is for their own use, and who meet a few other standards can buy all they want in Texas.

"There are no flags to be raised because you're not breaking the law," said Rachel Stohl, an expert on small arms smuggling at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, D.C.

It is up to a gun store owner or sales clerk to decide whether they are being hoodwinked and call authorities.

"For the same person coming in repeatedly and buying these weapons at that amount of money and probably paying cash, somebody has to stand up and be a good American," said Don Clark, a retired FBI agent who headed the Houston office.

Hernandez, who the ATF contends purchased at least one of the guns used in the Acapulco massacre, pleaded guilty to making false statements during the purchase of firearms.

He is scheduled to be sentenced in January.

Among the favorite weapons of the cartels is a .223-caliber Bushmaster, which goes for about $1,000 at some Houston gun shops, and can fire rounds capable of piercing body armor.

Hernandez bought five Bushmasters one day in September 2006 from the Carter's Country on Treaschwig Road in Spring.

Oh my... Texans can purchase as many guns as they want!

Hernandez did a straw purchase, illegal. Assisted in smuggling guns into Mexico, also illegal. If he sold that quantity of guns without an FFL, he broke yet another law.

The hand wringers and bed wetters will be using the fact that Mexican Drug Gangs (you know, those ultra violent individuals who cross our border at will) illegally acquire firearms that are legally sold in the United States to write even more useless gun laws that will have absolutely no effect on the Mexican Drug Gangs.

This quote in the article really set me off:

"All the weapons the drug syndicates are using in Mexico come across the border from the United States," Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to the United States, said during a visit to the Houston Chronicle.

Oh yeah? Where are these goblins getting the full auto weapons, the RPG's and the hand grenades that they are using? Might it be from your very own corrupt military and police?

Ambassador Sarukhan, I would recommend you get your house in order and maybe secure your side of the border before blaming any of this violence on the United States.

For more on the guns in Mexico issue, click here.

If Obama Wins...

If the polls are to be believed, one week from today we will be electing the Senator who has been rated the most liberal Senator in history to the office of President of The United States. If the Democrats can get enough people to the polls to elect Obama, then I fear they will get enough people to the polls to gain a super-majority in Congress. What Republicans that are left may very well be powerless to even slow down the avalanche of leftist legislation that will fly across capitol hill straight to the President's desk. We can stop this, I am not sure that we will, but we can. In the event that we do not, here is a little excerpt from the Democrat National Platform that should give you a heads up as to what to expect shortly after Inauguration Day.

From the Democrat National Platform (.pdf page 48):

"We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements -- like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban ..."

As you most likely know, "closing the gun show loophole" is anti speak for criminalizing the private sale or transfer of firearms. Their version of "improving the background check system" will place millions of Americans on the 'deny' list used by NICS. And finally, "reinstating the assault weapons ban". They are not interested in reinstating the assault weapons ban. Even they know that the AWB was a failure. It failed to control crime, and worse for them, it failed to disarm America. Nope, they are not going to reinstate the AWB, they are going to pass a new and improved AWB, an AWB similar to H.R. 1022.

H.R. 1022 is "To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes", it is sitting in the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and it has 67 Cosponsors.

Go and read H.R. 1022, digest it and then consider that this may be the lite version of what they may push when they have a super-majority. H.R. 1022 has a sunset and a grandfather clause. I will bet you dimes for dollars that at least the sunset clause will be removed before this bill leaves the house floor.

Maybe H.R. 1022 will die in committee. If it does, the bill that replaces it will be much worse. A bill that would replace H.R. 1022 will contain all the elements of H.R. 1022, plus verbiage that would criminalize the private transfer of all firearms and possibly even a national firearm registry.

If Obama is elected, an Assault Weapon Ban will become law.

We can stop this!

2008 Elections and the Assault Weapon Ban

Is H.R. 1022 (Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007) a trial balloon, or is it a serious effort by the Dems to launch a new AWB? A nod to the trial balloon folks would be the fact that this bill currently has no co-sponsors. If it were a serious piece of legislation, the Dems would be crawling all over each other to get their names on it. I wonder why they would need to send up a trial balloon. The Dems have the majority in both the House and the Senate, plus they have a president who stated that he would sign an AWB if it crossed his desk. As I see it, there is no need for trial balloons, unless of course this is not the legislation that they intend to pass.

H.R. 1022 is another time limited law. It would only be in effect for 10 years. It is probable that this bill will not get any traction with the Dems because it is not permanent. H.R. 1022 also includes a grandfather clause which would exempt firearms owned prior to the ban going into effect. The anti's don't want to just ban new "evil black rifles", they want to take them all.

So maybe the "real" AWB will not be introduced until after the 2008 elections. How would our front-runner GOP candidates react to Evil Black Rifle restrictions crossing their desks in the Oval Office? Can we count upon them to stand up for our rights?

How about Giuliani? Where does he stand on gun control, supposed assault weapons in particular?

“We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons..."

“The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”

“Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues.”

“I’m in favor of gun control.”

I don't know, it sure looks like Rudy would be advocating for some very restrictive gun control if he were at the helm.

Okay, let's look at Mitt Romney, where does he stand?

Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Geez, isn't this the same guy who had his picture taken at SHOT Show 2007 with Wayne LaPierre? Maybe Wayne was just trying to convert him, yeah, that's the ticket...

Last, but not least of the front runners is John McCain.

On the plus side, John McCain voted against the original AWB and it's renewal. He also voted against the Brady Bill. On the negative side McCain authored the Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001. I understand that he has come out against inexpensive firearms but is for concealed carry.

The best I can say for McCain is that he is wishy washy at best on gun control issues.

I am not a one issue voter, there are quite a few issues that are very important to me. This is basically a gun blog, so I am looking at these folks from a RKBA view. You can learn a lot about a candidate by looking at his views on the Second Amendment. If a politician can easily dismiss the Second Amendment, what does that say about his or her attitude about the entire Bill of Rights? If a politician feels that the populace can not be entrusted with firearms, what else will they take away "for our own good"?

These are the contenders according to the news media and major pundits, are any of them acceptable to you?

Hat tip to Irons in the Fire for Giuliani quotes,

iBerkshires.com for the Mitt Romney article,

and OnTheIssues for information on John McCain.

The Gun Grabbers Are Still At It

Oscar Poppa reminds us that we need to remain Eternally Vigilant against those who would attempt to take from us our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. He has provided a partial list of federal anti-gun legislation that we need to speak out against. The anti's are getting backed into a corner, and a corner is where a rat fights fiercest.

Quite a few folks are still saying that gun control on the federal level is a dead issue. Someone forgot to mention that to the Anti's.

Here is a quick list of pending federal anti gun legislation:

H.R. 96 - Closes the "Gun Show Loophole" by pretty much shutting down gun shows. 4 Cosponsors.

H.R. 297 - Expands the National Insta Check System. 17 Cosponsors.

H.R. 1022 - Bans Firearms that look like someones idea of an assault weapon. 47 Cosponsors. More on HR 1022 here.

H.R. 1784 - Bans the FN Five-seveN Pistol and 5.7 x 28mm SS190 and SS192 cartridges. This bill would also give the Attorney General Carte Blanch discretion on determining other calibers to be banned due to the potential of penetrating soft body armor. 12 Cosponsors.

S 1237 - The No-Fly List = No Guns List bill. 8 Cosponsors.

S 1331 - Places .50 caliber rifles under Title II regulations of the Gun Control Act of '68. This bill is horrible and has 10 Cosponsors. The Cosponsors are a who's who list of anti's in the Senate. I will mention more on this bill at a later date. Until then, go and read it, then start writing.

There is more anti gun legislation pending in D.C., this list only includes bills that have cosponsors.

Oscar Poppa did a more in depth job of describing a few of these bills, head on over and see what he has to say.

Turn In Your Deer Rifle And Your 12-gauge Shotgun To The Texas Department Of Gun Control

The above is the headline for an editorial written by Barbara Hudson, the Chairman of the Blanco County Democratic Party. This was Barbara's attempt at jest, to mock my concerns about what will happen to our right to keep and bear arms under an Obama presidency and a Democrat super-majority in congress.

In the Blanco County News she writes:

2008 Presidential Election

Turn In Your Deer Rifle And Your 12-gauge Shotgun To The Texas Department Of Gun Control

Now that I have your attention, read the rest of the story:

That is an order that will never be given by a Democratic government. Democrats will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms,

Wheew, that is cool. Here I thought the Dems were all about gun control. It is good to see that they are as interested in protecting our Second Amendment right to own firearms.

Let us see what else she has to say.

...and will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

Holy sheep dip bat man, I do believe that Barbara has a somewhat skewed idea about what it means to "...protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms".

She even goes on to state:

Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.

This is one interesting article. You would almost think it was written tongue in cheek by a conservative to illustrate the disinformation being put out by the Democrats. But it is not, it really was written by a Democrat Party Chair.

Barbara, Ma'am, the Democrats do want to take away our deer and shot guns. The proof is in the pudding. Take a quick look at H.R. 1022, the assault weapon ban supported by the Dems.

This turkey gun will be banned by H.R. 1022:

Remington Model 11-87™ SP-T Thumbhole

Just look at the evil thumb hole stock, specifically banned by the new AWB.

How about this fine FN?

This beautiful semiautomatic shotgun has a fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds. This is way too much firepower for a free citizen to handle according to the Democrats.

So yes, they do want to ban our shotguns, to say otherwise is disingenuous.

How many of you have a Mini-14® Ranch Rifle?

This familiar rifle is banned specifically by name in the assault weapons ban that is supported by the Democrats.

The Democrats are playing down their aspirations on gun control, what else are they whitewashing? Could it be their plans to redistribute the wealth of this nation?

Thanks to 45Superman for the email heads up on this column.

Update: Here is the text of H.R. 1022.

Lunch Time Conference Call

Lunch was spent with a few fellow bloggers and Second Amendment advocates on a conference call with Governor Blunt of Missouri. The call was courtesy of a couple of the folks over at QandO Online Magazine. I left my notes at work, so I will not list the bloggers who participated which will prevent me from leaving anyone out. I was happy to see that Dave Kopel of The Independence Institute was there. Also on the call was Cam Edwards of the NRA show Cam & Company, and a representative of the Cato Institute.

Governor Blunt started the conversation by highlighting a few of the RKBA accomplishments that Missouri has achieved over the past few years. Missouri is a "Shall Issue" state with a Castle Doctrine law. The Governor mentioned passing legislation that protects established ranges from frivolous lawsuits over noise and the like, I will have to look into that, sounds like good law to me.

The Governor then detailed Obama's hard core anti gun history. Folks, Barack Obama has spent a very large portion of his professional and public career attempting to squash our right to keep and bear arms. Barack Obama is anti gun, period. If you are a gun owner, and you vote for Barack Obama, you are asking the .gov to prevent you from purchasing any more firearms. That is it in a nut shell.

The call was then opened up to questions, and here is where my notes would come in handy. A couple of the bloggers questioned how we could trust John McCain with our RKBA. We know that McCain is not a strong advocate of our unfettered RKBA. John stood in front of the NRA members at the Annual Meetings and stated that he still wants to close the "Gun Show Loophole".

John McCain advocates the elimination of the private transfer of firearms.

Barack Obama advocates for the elimination of all firearm sales, the elimination of concealed carry of handguns by private citizens, a new and improved assault weapons ban, a 500% tax increase on all firearms and ammunition, and criminalizing the use of self defence within your own home.

This is just the off the top of my head short list of what Barack Obama has championed in the past.

Barack Obama is anti gun. That is just one of his policies that trouble me.

Others asked questions about ACORN and voter fraud, polling and other election related issues.

The call ended too soon for me to ask anything, but I enjoyed being involved.

I'll post other blogger comments as I find them.

Sebastian posted about a Conference Call with Missouri Governor Matt Blunt.

Chris has the audio of the call in his post, Gunblogger conference call with Missouri Governor. Matt Blunt

Nicki shares her thoughts with A chat with the Governor (UPDATED)

Gunz N Mexico

I am late on getting to this, I know, but I was too pissed to post when I first read this propaganda piece article in the Dallas Morning News.

U.S., Mexico launch unprecedented effort to disrupt cross-border weapons smuggling

By David McLemore and Laurence Iliff

HOUSTON – Tons of heroin and cocaine move north across the Southwestern border. And millions of dollars and truckloads of weapons move south – feeding the escalating levels of violence that have turned parts of Mexico into war zones and spread as far as North Texas.

Haven't "we the people" been demanding secure borders? Have we not forced Congress to approve the building of a fence between Mexico and the United States? You would think the rest of the article should be about the lack of a secure border and the .govs dragging it's feet on building our fence. Nope, "...millions of dollars and truckloads of weapons move south" gives a hint as to the essence of this "report".

At least 80 percent of all of the weapons used by drug traffickers in Mexico to kill one another as well as police and soldiers come from the U.S., Mexican officials say. They've repeatedly asked the U.S. government for more help in stopping the flow of weapons from Texas and other border states into Mexico.

Okay, instead of cussing and banging my keyboard around, I'll try to use logic here. Why would the Mexican Drug Cartels want U.S. firearms when they have easy access to the firearms used by the Mexican police and military? Report after report from south of the border mentions fully automatic firearms in use by the gangs. Select fire weapons are not being sold over the table at gun shows, gun shops or yard sales. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to submit that the majority of black market full auto firearms in the United States came from south of the border.

Now comes the part where I start to see red:

On Monday, U.S. and Mexican customs investigation officials unveiled a cooperative effort called Armas Cruzadas to disrupt cross-border weapons smuggling through the sharing of databases and better monitoring of illicit sales at guns shops and guns shows.

And on Tuesday, the U.S. House authorized spending $1.6 billion over the next three years to help Mexico and other countries counter growing drug violence, including $74 million for the Justice Department to stem the flow of guns south. Funding, however, will have to come separately.

So, we are giving representatives from a corrupt government access to data on U.S. citizens and gun sales. This is the same .gov that depends upon money being sent back to Mexico by illegal aliens here in the United States to boost it's economy? The same .gov that has opposed the building of our fence and outright called us racist for wanting the fence in the first place? That .gov now has access to data on U.S. citizens?

On top of that we are going to give $1,600,000,000 to Mexico and other south of the border countries? NO, no, no, no, no, no.

Spend that $1.6 billion on expediting our fence.

Congress, secure the borders. Do your jobs, do what is mandated by the Constitution and see to the security of these United States.

Dewey Webb, special agent-in-charge of the Houston office of the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said the new operation will help provide firmer data on how many weapons are being bought legally or otherwise and moved across the border.

"Right now, we know Texas is the No. 1 source of weapons smuggled into Mexico, with most of them coming from Houston and Dallas," Mr. Webb said. They're bought "by 'straw purchasers' who act as buyers for the cartels."

Well Dewey, if you "know" all of this, why have you not arrested these straw purchasers? You do know that making a straw purchase is against the law don't you?

Oh wait... you did arrest one guy about 5 years ago. Great job!

One of the ATF's biggest cases in Dallas involved a security guard whom agents documented buying 152 firearms, including 78 Romanian-made assault rifles, at a Mesquite gun store over four months in 2003.

Agents determined that Adan Rodriguez was a paid straw purchaser for members of a Mexican cartel. One of the pistols he bought in Dallas was used in the cartel gunfight near Reynosa, Mexico, in which two federal police officers were shot. Mr. Rodriguez was convicted on federal gun charges in 2004 and is serving a 70-year sentence.

The fact that he is serving a 70 year sentence is a good job.

And then there is more on allowing Mexican law enforcement access to our data:

The new measures will also give Mexican law enforcement officials greater access to the eTrace computer database in the U.S., allowing them to use the serial numbers to trace weapons used in Mexican crimes to U.S. gun dealers.

Does no one in our government question the intelligence of giving agents from another country access to our data?

There is a paragraph in the piece that I am not sure about the data:

Nearly half of the 14,111 firearms recovered and traced in Texas came from Houston and Dallas, according to a 2007 ATF report. Houston was No. 1, with 3,820, and Dallas close behind at 3,358.

I assume this is data on trace data on firearms found in Texas, which has absolutely nothing to do with guns being used in Mexico. The fact that nearly half of anything in Texas comes from Houston and Dallas/Ft Worth makes sense as nearly have the people living in Texas live in these areas. The 14,111 number is just a large number thrown in to make folks go "ohhhh".

This article is nothing but a propaganda piece. It's intent is to further the gun control agenda by getting people to accept these half truths and misinformation. This story hit all the hot buttons. Gun shows, straw purchases, buying multiple firearms in a short period of time, and they even pulled out the evil FNH 5.7 mm pistol and called it "Particularly alarming".

Maybe the DMN does not have an agenda. It is possible that David McLemore is not an anti gun reporter using his soap box to spew his drivel. Yep, it's possible, but I doubt it.

Stories like this will result in calls for legislation that closes the imaginary "Gun Show Loophole", limits firearm purchases to 1 a month or so, and bans firearms based on caliber.

A question for the DMN. How about doing a story on the hundreds of unresolved cases of Americans kidnapped just south of the Texas border? Or maybe a story on the number of illegals who are violent predatory criminals that increase the crime rate in our cities? Those are stories your readers deserve to see published.

Also commenting:

Fits with Um...Did They FORGET About the Drug And PEOPLE Smuggling?

David with Following the Pesos

And others who I will add when I can grab the links.

I have a couple fat pork chops on the grill, gotta get.

It Begins

The first shot has been fired by the Obama/Biden administration in their war against gun owners.

From their transition platform:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

It did not take them long to initiate the battle, the next move is ours.

H/T to Sebastian.

Also commenting are David, SayUncle, and most likely many others off the sidebar who I just have not gotten to yet.

Notes From the Sidebar

Michael Bane reports on a COLORADO EMERGENCY! If you are a Colorado gun owner, you need to read this and take action.

Over at Days of our Trailers, you will find a posting Of Craziness, Conspiracies and Cover-ups. The media sure is leaving a lot of pertinent data out of their coverage of Chris Dorner and other radical Left Wing murders.

The Sipsey Street Irregulars talk about The So-Called Gun Show Loophole: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. 

Sebastian has More on Registration.  He shares my fear that we will end up with legislation outlawing the private sale of firearms. If laws such as this are passed, we are well and truly screwed.  

Bob shares some very good information in Gun Buy Backs and Defensive Gun Use Numbers.  How many times are firearms used each day to defend the owners?  Head on over for the answer.

Traction Control comments on Universal Background Checks and What’s Good for the Goose: LaRue Tactical’s Updated Policy for State and Local Agency Law Enforcement Sales.

Tam has a pretty awesome Quote of the Day in QotD: OH SNAP! Edition...
Peter has both the Feel-good story of the week and the one that will give you chills; More economic warning signs.

Mike asks As Obama Declares Right to Kill American Citizens w/o Due Process, Where is the Civil Liberties Crowd Who Hounded Bush?

Ken has the video where OBAMA LECTURED EXPERTLY ON TAXES AND OBAMACARE.  If you have not yet seen this video, it is well worth your time.   Firehand reports that Senator Coburn is still pursuing mandatory background check legislation.  I just called Sen. Coburn's office, and it looks like he's selling us out

The Gun Blog Black List posts American Tactical FS40 Review. 

Do you know Why we no longer need ridges on the edges of our coins?

Happy Gun Appreciation Day

This is the gun in my safe that I appreciate the most. It is my Grandfathers Winchester Model 94 - 30 WCF.

It is not the best picture, but it is an awesome rifle. My Grand Dad, William Wallace Cook, carried this rifle in a scabbard when he was a ranch hand in Montana and California. It was in the cab of his Combine when he followed the wheat, and it was his go-to gun if ever needed to defend home and family. This is one of our family heirlooms that I will pass down to my kids and grand kids. One day, when I have the extra cash laying around, I will send this rifle off to Turnbull Manufacturing for a full restoration.  A Turnbull full restoration is a good chunk of change, but well worth it for an heirloom firearm.

I want to be the one who determines who I pass my family heirlooms off to.  It does not matter if that heirloom is my Great Grandmothers knot work, my Grandfathers Model 94, my favorite tools, or even an AR15 that I happen to find special.  The .gov has no business interfering in my decisions about who I leave my private property to.  When you hear Obama and the Anti's talking about Universal Background Checks or Closing the Gun Show Loophole, they are talking about inserting the .gov into the transfer of private property between two free citizens.  The Death Tax has all but killed off the successful family farmer, and a universal background check will break the tradition of passing down family heirlooms for many families.

Firearm Related Bills That Should be Opposed This Legislative Session

There are only a few firearms related bills in this Texas legislative session that I am actively opposing. Conspicuous by their absence are bills to limit handgun purchases and close the misrepresented "Gun Show Loophole". I have to wonder if Rep. Yvonne Davis has decided that exercises in futility are indeed futile? Or has she decided that this type of legislation will get more traction on the federal level?

Here are the bills that I am actively opposing:

HB760 / SB2345 An act relating to county regulation of sound levels; providing a criminal penalty. These bills are similar to HB 736 which is a bill "Relating to authorizing county regulation of nuisances and disorderly conduct". I spoke about HB 736 here. These bills will make it easier for antis to shut down shooting ranges and criminalize shooting on ones own property, no matter how much acreage is owned. All that would be needed is one person to file a complaint. These three bills need to be opposed. HB760 and SB2345 are not as onerous as HB736. As written, they regulate noise levels between the hours of 10:00PM and 6:00AM. If these bills become law, the regulated time can be easily expanded. If you decide to contact your representatives about these bills, it may be a good idea to let them know that you are against any statewide legislation concerning noise levels in unincorporated areas of any county. Other bills that seek to regulate noise levels in unincorporated areas are HB1119, HB1507, and SB1893.

HB1164 / SB651: An act relating to restrictions on the use of a stun gun; providing certain criminal penalties and defenses to prosecution. These bills would require an individual to obtain a license similar to a CHL in order to carry or use a stun gun. Other than being stupid, this kind of law would significantly increase the workload on DPS and further delay the processing of Concealed Handgun Licenses. SB94 is a similar bill that would criminalize having a stun gun in your own home with out a license. These bills are nanny state stupidity that, if passed, will end up costing the tax payer many thousands of dollars to support the expanded bureaucracy necessary to issue and keep track of these licenses.

That is pretty much it for this legislative session. Not much to get under my craw. HB1395 is a PETA sponsored bill that is not getting much traction, but should be opposed on general principal. This bill could significantly affect hunters.