Despite numerous public claims in the past that he would leave gun owners alone, reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban and enacting other restrictions are very much on Barack Obama's "Urban Policy" agenda.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

Obama and Biden 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. 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.

The Tiahrt Amendment does not unduly restrict law enforcement investigations; to the contrary, it keeps law enforcement agencies honest, making sure they cannot abuse gun trace data. Both the BATFE and FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) oppose the release of the information protected by the Tiahrt Amendment citing a threat to on-going investigations and to the lives of undercover officers and informants.

So if law enforcement agencies get all the trace data they need to solve specific crimes and law enforcement itself is against repealing Tiahrt, why would Obama be for it? Some would speculate that Obama's fellow gun-banning proponents such as Chicago Mayor Daley and New York Mayor Bloomberg might find a way to use this data to fire off another round of lawsuits hoping to cripple or bankrupt the gun industry.

As for "commonsense measures," the man who tried to corrupt constitutional scholarship and doled out funds to some of the most rabid anti-gun groups in the United States simply has no credibility for having common sense on the matter, as he's supported outright bans and has been openly hostile to firearm owners in the past.

As for the infamous "gun show loophole," it is completely false, a myth. It simply doesn't exist.

The same gun store dealers that perform background checks at their retail locations are required by law to perform those same background checks at gun shows. Private sellers have never been required to perform a background check anywhere, whether selling it in a person-to-person sale at a gun show or in their home. The only reason to push for such legislation is to further erode the rights of Americans and expand government control in your lives.

As for "childproofing guns," there is no proven or near-term solution that can both render a firearm inoperable for some users and still leave it reliable enough for use as a self defense weapon for law enforcement or civilian use. Various gimmicks have been trotted out in the past; all have been commercial failures because the inherent unreliability of such systems compromises the confidence of the shooter, and their faith in the tool.

Further, "childproofing guns" is not something that can be done retroactively, meaning tens of millions of existing guns would either need to be grandfathered—rendering the law immediately useless—or the guns themselves would have to be modified to comply with the law at taxpayer expense. How many billions of our tax dollars does President Obama intend to spend assuring compliance of a law that makes a potentially deadly tool unreliable in the hands of those most prone to needing it in a time of life-threatening danger? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Expansive gun laws aren't about saving lives, but asserting control.

As for reinstating the laughably ineffective Assault Weapons Ban—which Joe Biden still inexplicably like to take credit for authoring despite its utter failure—this too, is an attempt to control the lives and rights of law-abiding Americans, and an attempt that has a well-documented history of accomplishing next to nothing.

During the life of the ban (1994-2004) semi-automatic rifles and pistols increased in sales and became more widespread. So-called "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines sold in higher numbers than ever before during the ban. It did so because then Senator Biden and his fellow gun-banners are idiots, outlawing cosmetic features, knowing that a law affecting how the guns actually work would never stand a constitutional challenge. As a result, firearms that were "assault weapons" the day before the ban drops several scary-looking features that did not slow their rate of fire or affect their accuracy, and were legal again the very next day.

Below on the left is the infamous TEC-9 that Congressmen and Senators made such a big deal of being a preferred weapon of gangs and drug dealers. Beside it is the cynically-named AB-10, the "After-ban" version of the exact same gun that was legally on store shelves the day the ban took effect.

The law did not save lives, though it did have one interesting, unforeseen consequence: the creation of an entire new market of small, powerful handguns designed for concealed carry.

While the high capacity magazine ban portion of the ban raised the cost of magazines for existing models, it also had the unintended consequence of convincing gun designers that if they were restricted to guns that only carried ten-round magazines, then these guns needed to be small, light, concealable, and powerful. As concealed carry laws were becoming more widespread across the country during this same ten years, this new market exploded, creating a market niche and even created entire companies to cater to that market where none had before existed.

Barack Obama continues to lie to the public about his intentions towards our Second Amendment rights, but may end up doing nothing more than making the American people more heavily armed, and the shooting industry among the most recession-proof.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:15 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 956 words, total size 7 kb.

When I wrote Six Months Under The Gun for Pajamas Media, one aspect of carrying a concealed weapon that I decided not to cover was what you should do with your firearm if you have to use a public toilet. While it can constitute a legitimate dilemma when you gotta go gotta go gotta go right now, I figured people would be able to figure it out on their own.

I was wrong.

The man escaped with a few cuts to his arm, but the toilet made out much worse. Police say a man's gun fell out of its holster while he pulled up his pants after using the bathroom at a Carl's Jr. restaurant Tuesday. The gun fired when it hit the floor and shattered the commode.

I'll simply say this: if you are going to carry, you need to carry your firearm in a holster that holds it securely at all times.

I don't know what the specifics of the Utah criminal justice system would say about this particular incident, but as the permit holder is responsible for all negligent discharges no matter how amusing or bizarre it may be, I would not be surprised if his carry permit is revoked as a result of this incident.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:23 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.