Home / assaultweaponsban
Showing posts with label assaultweaponsban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assaultweaponsban. Show all posts
Local CBS news crew goes to gun show to catch gun owners breaking the law, and the only one breaking the law is CBS

Local CBS news crew goes to gun show to catch gun owners breaking the law, and the only one breaking the law is CBS

This is a pretty funny story, though I can only assume that no one is going to prosecute CBS for breaking the law.
CBS 5 went undercover in a California gun show to look for guns that violated the state's strict gun laws, but the only people breaking any rules were the CBS investigators.
The investigation centers on the bullet button, a small button that allows users of semi-automatic rifles to quickly change magazines using a cartridge or similar tool. Under California law, assault rifles that have detachable magazines are illegal in conjunction with other parts. The bullet button allows gun owners to quickly reload and change magazines, but without using an illegal detachable magazine. 
At it's core, it's a simple matter. California made something illegal, so gun owners complied and found a different method to enjoy their rifles with the convenience of a quick reload. Things got a bit ironic, however, when CBS took a camera into a gun show. They didn't find any guns with illegal detachable cartridges, but the news crew was breaking rules left and right.
As it turns out, there are "No Camera" signs all throughout the gun show, and gun show representatives announced "No picture taking during the show" frequently throughout the day. "Hypocrisy" is the word that we're looking for, here . . .
Put this in the possibly irrelevant column: Christopher Christie’s views on guns in 1995

Put this in the possibly irrelevant column: Christopher Christie’s views on guns in 1995

PolitickerNJ has this old article on Christie's views on one gun issue. It may not be relevant today given that he has hardly spoken out much on this issue since then. There are also other issues than guns.

One hint on U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie’s political ideology comes from his 1995 campaign for the State Assembly, when he attacked two other candidates, Anthony Bucco and Michael Patrick Carroll, for supporting a repeal of the ban on assault weapons. A reader sent PolitickerNJ.com a copy of the mailer from that campaign after Matt Friedman’s story on conservatives wanting to know where the federal prosecutor stands on some state issues.

Christie's position won't hurt him as a general election candidate in a state where polls over the last decade have constistently demonstrated support for an assault weapons ban. His exposure is in the GOP primary against former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, a staunch advocate of the Second Amendment. . . .
"Why 33 rounds makes sense in a defensive weapon"

"Why 33 rounds makes sense in a defensive weapon"

A discussion of why longer clips are useful is available from the Washington Post here.

. . . In fact, the extended magazine actually vitiates the pistol's usefulness as a weapon for most needs, legitimate or illegitimate. The magazine destroys the pistol's essence; it is no longer concealable. Loughner allegedly wrapped the clumsy package in a coat for a short distance, but he could not have worn it in a belt or concealed it for an extended period. It had really ceased to be a pistol.

That's why extended magazines are rarely featured in crime - and that awkwardness spells out the magazine's primary legitimate usage. It may have some utility for competitive shooting by cutting down on reloading time, or for tactical police officers on raids, but for those who are not hard-core gun folks it's an ideal solution for home defense, which is probably why hundreds of thousands of Glocks have been sold in this country.

Particularly in rural Arizona, given the upsurge in border violence, it's likely that residents feel the need to defend themselves against drug predators, coyote gunmen or others. Yes, they can use semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, protected by the Second Amendment and unlikely to be banned by local law, but women generally don't care to put in the training needed to master them. Nor can the elderly handle them adeptly.

For them, the Glock with a 33-round magazine is the weapon of maximum utility. You can load it on Sunday and shoot it all month. (Nobody wants to reload a gun while being shot at.) It's light and easy to control. You don't have to carry it or conceal it; it's under the bed or in the drawer until needed. When the question arises of who needs an extended magazine, the answer is: the most defenseless of the defenseless. . . .
The Obama administration goes back to the Assault Weapon Ban

The Obama administration goes back to the Assault Weapon Ban

Reading this report it appears as if the Obama administration wants to have stricter gun control regulations for imported guns than existed under the Federal Assault Weapon ban. The conclusion of this BATF report is ominous. Obviously the Obama administration can't be trusted with determining what a "true" sporting gun is.

The purpose of section 925(d)(3) is to provide a limited exception to the general prohibition on the importation of firearms without placing “any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms....”51 Our determinations will in no way preclude the importation of true sporting shotguns. While it will certainly prevent the importation of certain shotguns, we believe that those shotguns containing the enumerated features cannot be fairly characterized as “sporting” shotguns under the statute. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the working group that shotguns with any of the characteristics or features listed above not be authorized for importation.
Gun control advocates don't compare apples to apples on the assault weapons ban

Gun control advocates don't compare apples to apples on the assault weapons ban

The lack of logic in the gun control debate. Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig have this claim in a piece at CNN. I am not going to go through their whole piece, but here is one part that they claim to use my research to support their position.

Author John Lott, an economist who supports gun carrying, says that in the vast majority of cases in which a private citizen uses a gun in self-defense, the gun is only brandished and not actually fired at the assailant. Banning high-capacity magazines will have a negligible effect on the ability of citizens to use guns to protect home and hearth. For hunters, a ban on high-capacity magazines would be largely irrelevant. . . .


These two guys just can't seem to compare apples to apples.

1) Victims rarely have to actually fire their guns. Criminals rarely have to fire their guns.

2) In some extremely rare cases criminals fire more than a few shots. In some extremely rare cases victims might want to fire more than a few shots.

Whatever the benefits for having a larger magazine, there are also similar benefits for victims
Letter of Correction in the Economist Magazine

Letter of Correction in the Economist Magazine

From The Economist magazine print edition:

Apr 23rd 2009

Ammunition in the debate
SIR – Your article on the drug wars in Mexico claimed that half the guns seized by the Mexican police were “assault weapons” and that “nearly all” of those were bought in the United States (“Taking on the narcos, and their American guns”, April 4th). However, Mexico doesn’t trace all guns, and those traced are not picked at random. When Mexico seizes guns from criminals it sends to the United States those guns that it identifies as having come from the United States. This isn’t a hard task as such guns are marked with a serial number and “Made in the USA”. Only 17% of all guns were actually traced back to the United States.

Mexico is a virtual arms-bazaar, with AK47s from China, shoulder-fired rockets from Soviet-block manufacturers, and fragmentation grenades from South Korea. These weapons aren’t sold in the United States. Americans can buy civilian versions of AK47s only—semi-automatic rifles that operate like deer-hunting rifles, not the guns used by armies around the world. Mexican drug gangs don’t want the American “assault weapons” that “look like” military weapons; they want guns that are military weapons.

John Lott
Senior research scientist
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland
Mexico says US fuels gun crime

Mexico says US fuels gun crime

Understandably, Mexicans like to blame the US for the guns. What they should blame the US for is the demand for drugs. The BBC has this.

Mexico's ambassador to the US has urged America to stop the flow of guns and cash that pass into his country, fuelling the country's drug wars.
Arturo Sarukhan said US money and weapons provided the drug cartels with the means to "corrupt, bribe and kill".
President Barack Obama is due to visit Mexico later this week.
More than 6,000 people died last year in Mexico in drug-related violence and Mexico believes 90% of the weapons used by drug cartels come from the US.
US gun lobby groups dispute the figure.


CBS provided this.

“Ninety percent of all weapons we are seizing in Mexico, Bob, are coming from across the United States,” he said, citing the high number of Federal firearms licenses a few miles north of the border. "Just on the Arizona and Texas borders with Mexico alone there are approximately 7,000 FFLs, federal firearms licensees. And weapons bought by the drug syndicates, directly or proxy purchases, are coming from those gun shops."

Schieffer noted that the NRA has taken issue with the statistic, and asked the ambassador where the data originates – a question Sarukhan did not directly answer, although he used the example of a recent weapons seizure in a border town to explain how much ammunition U.S. sellers are directing to drug cartels. . . . .


Of course, it was a Fox News piece that questioned this number, not the NRA. Fox News came up with the 17 percent number, but Schieffer tries to discredit it by referring to the NRA for this general claim.
"The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S."

"The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S."

My son Maxim has this piece over at Fox News with William La Jeunesse.

You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true. . . . .

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.


The key point is in bold.
Obama administration continues pushing for new Assault Weapons Ban

Obama administration continues pushing for new Assault Weapons Ban

Hillary Clinton making comments on guns while she was in Mexico last week.

We believe that we have announced a plan to use every tool at our current disposal through administrative actions to track illegal guns, to arrest and punish those who are trafficking in illegal guns, to share more information with the Mexican Government so that they can also track and seize these guns. Obviously, I am someone who supported the assault weapons ban which was passed in 1994, but it was passed with an expiration date and it expired ten years later. I, as a senator, supported measures to try to reinstate it. Politically, that is a very big hurdle in our Congress. But there may be some approaches that could be acceptable, and we are exploring those.

Certainly, the export of assault weapons and illegal weapons is something that has grave consequences for Mexico. And we’re going to look at whatever is possible that we can do ourselves within the Administration, and we will explore with Congress other steps to take. . . . . .


I would like to know where anti-tank rockets are available for sale in the US.

Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals.

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiautomatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. . . . .


Thanks to Rich for this last link.
New Fox News Op-ed: What Not To Learn From Europe: More Gun Control

New Fox News Op-ed: What Not To Learn From Europe: More Gun Control

My newest piece starts this way:

Inevitably the massacres in Germany and Alabama over the last two days have produced more calls for gun control. Already the attack in Alabama is being used to call for a new assault weapons ban, even though there are no published academic studies by economists or criminologists showing that the previous ban reduced violent crime. . . . .
New Fox News Op-ed: New Assault Weapons Ban Will Not Reduce Crime In This Country

New Fox News Op-ed: New Assault Weapons Ban Will Not Reduce Crime In This Country

My new piece at Fox News starts this way:

It is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new so-called “assault weapons” ban would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton Administration couldn’t find that the federal assault weapons ban reduced crime.

There are no academic studies by economists or criminologist that find the original federal assault weapons ban reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault weapons bans reduced murder or violent crime rates – even some evidence that they caused murder to rise slightly. Since the federal ban sunset in September 2004, murder and overall violent crime rates have remained virtually unchanged.

In fact, when the assault weapon's ban sunset in September 2004 there was no explosion of murder and bloodshed as gun control advocates feared. Immediately after the law expired murder rates fell and they fell more in the states without state assault weapon bans than the states with them.

But yesterday, Eric Holder, the new U.S. Attorney General, offered a new justification: “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” . . .
Dems in House might not push the assault weapons ban right away

Dems in House might not push the assault weapons ban right away

There are a lot of things Holder can do that would cause troubles for gun owners -- after all, he has control of enforcing many gun control regulations that Pelosi refers to below. The fact that he wants to push an assault weapons bill is probably the least of our concerns. The Hill Newspaper reports:

Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.
Obama to push for new "assault weapons ban"

Obama to push for new "assault weapons ban"

ABC has the story here:

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
The Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration.
By JASON RYAN
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009—
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
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.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.. . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)