Anti-Gun Wacko of The Week: Professor Jerry Peterson

Those of us who spend our time defending gun rights are used to dealing with the emotionally charged and twisted logic of those on the other side of the issue. But every once in a while, someone takes a position so ridiculous, so asinine, that they deserve special attention.

Such a person is Professor Jerry Peterson of the University of Colorado.  Professor Peterson, who is a scholar of some renown in nuclear physics circles, was elevated to the exalted position of Anti-Gun Wacko of The Week because of his reaction to the University of Colorado’s announcement that permit holders cannot be barred from bringing their firearms onto campus.

The University’s announcement is part of their larger response to the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.  And while the University has acted fairly silly itself by presenting plans to require permit holders to live in segregated housing, Professor Peterson easily maintained his lead in the Wacko of The Week category by publicly declaring that if any student dares to exercise their rights in his classroom, he will stop the class.

“My own personal policy in my classes is if I am aware that there is a firearm in the class — registered or unregistered, concealed or unconcealed — the class session is immediately canceled.”

If I thought it would do any good, I would remind Professor Peterson that Colorado, like almost all other states, does not have registration.  But alas, I fear it would be for naught. But I am still disappointed in the good professor.  By making such a statement, he demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of gun laws that I find shocking in a scholar of his stature.

As for why he would short-change the education of his students, he stated that “I want my students to feel unconstrained in their discussions.”

Wait … what?  This is a professor of ‘physics’ we are talking about, right?  Perhaps he teaches physics in a much more confrontational way than I remember from my undergrad years.  I can only imagine what a day in his class might be like.

Student 1:  “I think the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation clearly demonstrates that all particles behave fundamentally as wave form projections.”

Student 2:  “Listen you bastard … We can ascertain electron positions with unlimited precision which would not be possible if you accept a complete wave form hypothesis.”

Student 1:  “That’s it. I demand satisfaction.  Slap leather!”

And while this imaginary exchange gets funnier and funnier in my head every time I think about it, in reality the University needs to remind the good professor that he is there to serve the educational needs of the students, not to rule his own little fiefdom.

UPDATE:  It appears that the University has done just that.

University of Colorado Chancellor Phil DiStefano is reported to have told faculty that:

“I have the utmost respect for Professor Peterson, who is an old friend and valued colleague, but I want to make clear that if the student carrying the weapon has a concealed-carry permit, the position implied by Professor Peterson’s comments directly violates Colorado law and the operating principles of the campus”

He went on to add that “any faculty members who do so will be in violation of their contracts and face disciplinary action.

Posted in Abuse of Power, Campus Carry, Colorado | 17 Comments

There are no ‘assault weapons’

Shortly following the Aurora tragedy, a non-gun-owner friend of mine, obviously upset, began to question me about why I supported ownership of ‘deadly assault weapons.’ Even as he continued his extended, impassioned diatribe, I could tell that he was yet another victim of the media’s ‘assault weapon’ disinformation campaign.

When he paused, I asked him what he thought an ‘assault weapon’ actually was.  Looking at me as if I were mentally challenged, he said that everyone knows “assault weapons are military-style, fully-automatic guns capable of emptying a 100 round magazine in 3 seconds.”  When I told him that fully-automatic firearms had been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 he simply stared at me blankly as if unsure what to say.  When I went on to point out that, despite public misconceptions, President Clinton’s now-expired ‘Assault Weapons Ban‘ had nothing to do with fully-automatic firearms at all, he sarcastically replied “What kind of idiot would fall for such a thing?

I felt really bad about my response but the only thing I could think of to say was “Apparently … you.”  It took several minutes with Google to convince him that I was telling the truth but he still wasn’t ready to give up the debate.  Grudgingly admitting that I might be right, he thought about it a few seconds and said “Then I think we should call everything except single-shot guns assault weapons.

Amazing enough, he had stumbled upon the truth without even realizing it, or at least ‘a’ truth.  As Wikipedia so aptly states, the term ‘assault weapon’ is not a technical term describing an actual type of firearm but rather a political term denoting whatever firearm the anti-gun crowd wishes to demonize, regulate, and ban at a given point in time.

During the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban, the definition included any semi-auto firearm with cosmetic features emulating that of fully automatic firearms.  Let that settle into the logic center of your brain for a few minutes … it was literally a ban on ‘looks’ and accessories.  The same firearm, with the same caliber, ammunition capacity, and rate of fire, would be legal or not depending upon whether it had a bayonet lug or a folding stock.  When pressed on the ludicrousness of the definition, many anti-gun activists resorted to simply defining ‘assault weapons’ as “those scary black guns.”

And the ridiculousness of the law was also not lost on its sponsors or supporters.  In 1996, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a piece titled “Disarm the Citizenry, But Not Yet” in which he stated that:

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Even the Department of Justice acknowledged the fact that the so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ ban was ineffective as a tool to fight crime.  In a study titled “Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003,” the DOJ found that:

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

But facts have little to do with politics at the best of times and those who oppose gun rights for citizens have used the Aurora attack as a springboard to launch new attacks on ‘assault weapons’, whatever they might be at the moment.

So as these new ‘debates’ rage on … the next time you hear someone talking about ‘assault weapons’, tell them they simply don’t exist and challenge them to prove otherwise.  They might just learn something even if they won’t admit it.

Posted in 'Assault Weapons', California, Gun Control, Illinois, Media Views on The Second Amendment, Myths & Misconceptions, National Politics, New York | 25 Comments

Joe vs. Paul: A gun owners guide to vice presidents

Last Saturday morning, in the great Commonwealth of Virginia, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney announced Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his pick for vice president.

Therefore, as part of my ongoing series about the presidential race, I decided to do an evaluation of where the two vice-presidential candidates stand on gun rights issues.  I have a pretty good idea what the answer is going to be but it is vitally important that we base our views upon facts and not anecdotes.  So let us see what a little research tells us about which of the two candidates would be better suited to protect our rights if they were called upon to assume the presidency or to cast a deciding vote in the Senate.

As sitting Vice President, we will give Joe Biden the first turn …

Vice President Biden is perhaps most famously known in gun rights circles for stating that “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” in a November 18, 1993 interview with the Associated Press.  At the time, gun rights were under severe attack by the Clinton Administration and many Democrats in Congress.  Vice President Biden, who was then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was only too happy to join the call for a complete end to Second Amendment rights.

Note that he didn’t say ‘reasonable restriction‘ or ‘background checks‘ or any of the other first-step approaches to gun control that are so popular amongst gun control advocates today.  No … he said ‘ban!’  It has become popular among gun control advocates debating the issue to say “No one wants to take away your guns.”  But when they say that, just remember that Vice President Biden has advocated that very thing.

But people change with time and perhaps his position on gun rights has mellowed.  Are there more recent comments we can look to?  Why yes there are.  During a presidential debate in 2007, CNN hosted a YouTube debate in which citizens posed questions in videos.  One of the videos selected was a man who asked the candidates’ position on gun control while jokingly referring to his firearm as his ‘baby.’

As seen in the video below, then presidential candidate Biden (whose comments begin at 1:10) mocked the man for calling the gun his ‘baby’, stating “I tell you what.  If that’s his baby he needs help … I don’t know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun.”

During his answer, he appeared visibly disgusted and went on to proudly remind the audience that “I’m the guy who originally wrote the assault weapons ban.

I think we can safely assume that Vice President Biden is as much an enemy of gun rights today as he was in 1993.  The rhetoric may have changed but the genuine disdain is clear on his face.

Now that Vice President Biden’s position is well established, let’s turn to the newcomer. Congressman Ryan has served seven terms in Congress from Wisconsin where he was born and raised.  Most well known for his economic and budget proposals, Ryan has been generally felt to be pro-gun.  The New York Times went so far as to say that he “championed the rights of gun owners.” But why?  What has he done for gun owners?

This picture of Ryan as a champion of gun rights seems based upon his voting record and a C-SPAN interview he did when first elected in 1998.  In the video below, Congressman Ryan expresses doubt about the need for further gun control but seems far from what I would consider a ‘champion of gun rights.’  There must be more to the story.

His voting record is where Congressman Ryan really shines. It shows a solid dedication to the issue which is reflected in his ‘A’ rating from the National Rifle Association.  Perhaps more impressively, he also holds an ‘A’ rating from Gun Owners of America who are widely felt to be more stringent in their grading.

Some of the votes that we are talking about are:

  • He voted to protect gun manufacturers from being sued out of existence for the criminal misuse of their products.
  • He voted to get rid of gun registration and mandatory trigger locks for residents of the District of Columbia.
  • He was a co-sponsor of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.
  • He voted to allow civilians continued access to used military brass

It is clear that, from a gun rights perspective, there is no contest between the two candidates.  Vice President Biden seems to have genuine antipathy toward gun ownership whereas Congressman Ryan has stood up for gun owners at every turn.  There may be other issues on which Congressman Ryan may be criticized, but on gun rights, he is an absolute winner!

Posted in Presidential Politics, Vice Presidents | 2 Comments

I just got LAID (Legally Armed in Detroit)

The place to be in Detroit Monday night was The Upper Room Christian Entertainment Complex on Grand River Avenue where the Legally Armed in Detroit (LAID) 2nd Annual Open Carry Dinner was in full swing.

The dinner was organized by Detroit’s own Rick Ector who, in addition to being the owner of Rick’s Firearm Academy of Detroit, is one of the most tireless advocates for gun rights it has ever been my privilege to know.

In addition to hosting the LAID Dinner Monday night, he spent the weekend advocating personal protection awareness for the citizens of Detroit.  On Saturday, he conducted a day of free seminars for the local community on a variety of self-defense subjects and on Sunday, Rick, in conjunction with Target Sports II Gun Range, The Black Hills Ammunition Company, Gun Owners of America, and numerous personal donors, conducted a free women-only firearms training course.

But despite what must have been an exhausting weekend, Rick was the life of the party Monday night as he welcomed everyone at the LAID Open Carry Dinner.  The dinner featured speeches by three nationwide gun rights figures.  I was honored to have been asked to speak about open carry and was absolutely thrilled to get to meet in person the many members of OpenCarry.org who I have known online for so long.

Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America also spoke about the current status of the Second Amendment and their much-appreciated efforts on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

Kenn Blanchard, pastor, author of Black Man With a Gun, and voice of the wildly popular Urban Shooter Podcast closed out the evening and wow … what a truly inspirational speaker he is!

He even worked a little song into his speech which dovetailed nicely with the very talented band that provided the night’s musical entertainment.

Phillip Hofmeister, president of Michigan Open Carry (MOC) was also in attendance as were many of the officers and members.  He spoke about MOC’s goal to get rid of many of Michigan’s pistol free zones.  This idea was warmly received by those in attendance and I have no doubt that we will see this goal accomplished in the near future.

Ed Levine from Virginia Open Carry also made the long trek from Northern Virginia to Detroit to join the festivities.  He deserves special thanks for being the one who handed out the VCDL Guns Save Lives stickers to the attendees.

I want to thank everyone who came out.  It was such an honor and a privilege to meet so many of Michigan’s most dedicated gun rights advocates.

 

Posted in Michigan, Open Carry, Slideshow | Leave a comment

The Dark Knight casts a long shadow over civil rights after Aurora

‘‘I think that the Second Amendment is crucially important to protect. When baseless breach of peace and interfering charges are brought against people that have a right to carry, it really threatens our constitutional right to bear arms.’’ 

– Sung Ho Hwang

As an entire grieving nation knows, on July 20, 2012, a madman entered a Cinemark movie theater in Aurora Colorado and took the lives of innocent men, women, and children.  That theater, like all Cinemark theaters, was posted against lawful carry of a firearm.

Perhaps emboldened by the attention being given to the Aurora shooter, other equally-disturbed individuals have taken to the internet to threaten attacks of their own.  In the wake of these events, it only seems logical that law-abiding citizens would take their business to theaters that do not deny them the right to defend themselves; and do so while legally armed.

But jumpy theater management and law enforcement are treating all movie-goers as potential terrorists, violating their 4th Amendment rights, and forcing many to choose between going into the night defenseless or staying home.  In the worst cases, legally-armed, law-abiding citizens are being harassed and arrested for no other crime than seeking to defend themselves and their families.

The latest travesty occurred Tuesday when 46 year old Connecticut attorney Sung Ho Hwang was arrested for ‘breach of peace’ and ‘interfering with police’ after carrying his firearm into a late showing of The Dark Knight Rises in New Haven Connecticut.  Hwang is the model of an upstanding citizen.  He is the president-elect of the New Haven Bar Association and a permit holder.  But none of that mattered when a fellow theater patron noticed his firearm Tuesday night and alerted authorities.

But as the video above illustrates, Hwang was not the only one whose civil rights were violated Tuesday night.  Every patron in the theater was held at gunpoint and searched before being marched out of the theater.

When officers were made aware that Hwang had a permit to carry and was violating no laws, they arrested him for ‘breach of peace’ and ‘interfering with police.’  I have written repeatedly about the abuse of these ‘irritating the police’ crimes.  And once again, we see the civil rights of American citizens being chilled by the threat of being charged with a vague crime for otherwise legal and constitutionally protected behavior.

But the arrest of Hwang is just the latest in a disturbing post-Aurora trend.  A Colorado man, legally open carrying a firearm, was arrested and charged with ‘possession of a dangerous weapon in a liquor and beer establishment’ when no other charges could be made.

Perhaps the message that theater owners want us to take away from this experience is that we must either accept the risk of copycat killers who know exactly where to find dozens of unarmed victims packed into a hard-to-escape box, or we stop attending movies.

Thankfully, I live in one of the increasingly rare parts of America that still has a drive-in.

Posted in Abuse of Power, Fourth Amendment, General Civil Rights, Law Enforcement Misconduct, Local Ordinances, Media Views on The Second Amendment, Movies, Open Carry, Popular Culture | 4 Comments

Virginia vs the Austin Magic Pistol

Recently, a friend sent me a link to a Cracked.com article about vintage toys that would be considered wildly irresponsible by today’s consumer safety standards.

The article itself was a hilarious read but what really caught my attention was the #2 toy on the list; the Austin Magic Pistol.  This marvel of 1950’s engineering fired a ping-pong sized plastic ball by igniting the combustible gases generated when you added water to the provided ‘magic crystals.’

Those ‘magic crystals’ were in fact calcium carbide and the resulting combustion was impressive indeed as the video below demonstrates.

This ingenius little device is apparently much sought after by toy collectors and I did a little searching on eBay myself but never found one.  As it turns out, I was lucky to have not found one.

While I was doing the research for my article on Virginia’s air gun laws, I discovered that, back in 1950 when the Austin Magic Pistol and its progenitors were all the rage, Virginia passed a law prohibiting the selling or gifting of such toys.  Originally passed as § 18.1-347, the law is still on the books at § 18.2-284.

No person shall sell, barter, exchange, furnish, or dispose of by purchase, gift or in any other manner any toy gun, pistol, rifle or other toy firearm, if the same shall, by action of an explosion of a combustible material, discharge blank or ball charges. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. Each sale of any of the articles hereinbefore specified to any person shall constitute a separate offense.

Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing the sale of what are commonly known as cap pistols.

So if you have one of these unique pieces of toy history, don’t sell it to a Virginia resident. You don’t want to have to explain to the other inmates that you were arrested for selling a ‘Magic Pistol.’

Posted in Fun, History, Toy Guns, Virginia | 5 Comments

3D printing may spell the beginning of the end for gun control

The lower receiver of the gun pictured at the top of this article was not purchased from a licensed dealer, nor was it purchased from an individual.

This lower was ‘printed’ using a 3D printer and it may spell the beginning of the end for the gun control movement.

3D ‘printing’ is an emerging technology that has been commercially available for some time but is only now achieving inroads into the consumer market.  3D ‘printers’ are in fact computer controlled material handling systems that lay down successive layers of polymer or other material based upon a computer model to make a 3D object; in this case, a lower for an AR.

Once costing tens of thousands of dollars, advanced 3D printers such as the MakerBot Replicator are available today for under $2,000 and the price is expected to keep dropping as consumer demand increases.

And thanks to engineer Michael Guslick, who ‘printed’ the lower pictured above from a design of his own creation, 3D printing of functional firearms has moved beyond the realm of the possible into the actual; and things will never be the same again.

Michael first posted details of his creation on AR15.com but the story quickly spread across the internet where numerous commentators, myself included, have discussed the legal and public policy ramifications of this inevitable step forward.

One of the comments on the AR15.com thread summed up my feelings quite nicely; ‘‘If we can spread this core technology to every kitchen tabletop, there will no longer be a meaningful way to restrict and infringe on the private civilian ownership of modern firearms.’’

Even Mark Gibbs of Forbes magazine couldn’t help himself from noting that, from this day forward ‘‘if guns are outlawed, outlaws will have 3D printers.’’

Posted in 3D Printing, Gun Control, Manufacturing Firearms, Media Views on The Second Amendment | 25 Comments

Lautenberg’s ammo ban bill would strip away long-standing privacy protections

‘‘You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.’’

– Rahm Emanuel

Over the course of my last several articles, I have written about the rush by Democratic senators to use the Aurora tragedy as a means of advancing their gun-control agenda.

The first bill to emerge was an amendment to the Cybersecurity bill drafted by Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, Bob Menendez, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Dianne Feinstein, which would have banned the sale, transfer or possession of normal capacity magazines.  Thankfully, the Cybersecurity bill failed to pass the Senate.

Following close on the heels of the Cybersecurity amendment, Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg and Dianne Feinstein announced their intention to introduce the ‘‘Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2012’’ which President Obama promised to ‘evaluate.’

The full text of that bill has finally been released and now it is time for all of us to join President Obama in ‘evaluating’ this latest attack on American’s civil rights.

GDE Error: Unable to load requested profile.

 

Well that was easy.  My evaluation is this … the bill would be an absolute nightmare for gun owers.  It would require that all ammunition sales occur ‘in person’, effectively ending online sales of ammo by such industry stalwarts as Sinclair and Cabela’s.   But that is not all.  Under the bill, private sales of ammunition would be completely banned while ammunition sellers would be subject to the same licensure and regulation that is currently required only of manufacturers and importers.

That’s right.  Every mom and pop store across America that currently sells ammunition would suddenly find the heavy hand of regulation upon their neck.  The result of this would almost certainly be that small stores across America would simply stop selling ammunition rather than endure the administrative burden of complying with increasingly onerous regulations under threat of possible criminal sanctions for even inadvertent mistakes.

But am I making too big a deal over the administrative burden that this bill would impose on small business?  Let’s see … It requires the seller to report any cumulative purchases by the same individual over a 5 day period that totals more than 1,000 rounds. Well how would they do this?  What possible method could they use to insure that they knew when a given customer’s cumulative purchases over the course of  5 days total more than 1,000 rounds?

The only possible answer is to collect identifying information about every single purchaser and aggregate that information in a database.  “But wait!”  I hear you cry.  “Federal law prohibits ammunition sellers from being forced to collect such information doesn’t it?

It does.  But Lautenberg’s bill does away with the long-standing protections in 26 USC 4182(d) which provides that:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 922 (b)(5) and 923 (g) of title 18, United States Code, no person holding a Federal license under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be required to record the name, address, or other information about the purchaser of shotgun ammunition, ammunition suitable for use only in rifles generally available in commerce, or component parts for the aforesaid types of ammunition.

If you look carefully at the end of the bill above, you will see a section disarmingly titled “CONFORMING AMENDMENT.”  In this section, the protections in 26 USC 4182(d) are stripped away leaving sellers of ammunition with no way of complying with the requirements of the bill other than to institute a de-facto registration scheme.

This bill may have little chance of passage today but it is a grim portent of what gun owners could face in a second Obama Administration where the ideological beliefs of his party are unfettered by the political realities of re-election concerns.

Vote accordingly.

Posted in Ammo Sales, Gun Control, Lautenberg, Media Views on The Second Amendment, National Politics, President Obama, Presidential Politics, United States Senate | 5 Comments

Obama ‘evaluates’ multiple gun control bills advanced by Senate Democrats

“So why hasn’t your party, the Democratic party done more to legislate guns?”

CNN’s Brooke Baldwin

 In the wake of the tragic ‘Dark Knight’ attack in Aurora Colorado, the media and gun control advocates (but I repeat myself) seem determined to push the Democratic Party into renewing its push for more gun control.  And there is no shortage of Democratic candidates willing to oblige regardless of the damage it might do to their party this fall.

While President Obama and his advisors see the political dangers of such legislation in a tough election cycle, the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems unable to contain themselves.  Following on the heels of an amendment to the Cybersecurity bill to ban the sale, transfer or possession of normal capacity magazines, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg is introducing a separate bill that would completely ban the online sale of ammo; the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act.

But his bill would do far more than that.  It would require that sellers of ammunition be licensed by the government making it difficult or impractical for many small rural stores to sell ammunition at all.  The surviving ‘licensed’ ammo dealers would be required to maintain records of all sales with buyers being forced to produce photo ID and any failure in record-keeping on the part of sellers would give rise to criminal liability.  In addition, any sales of more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition would have to be reported to law enforcement for follow-up investigation.

Think about that.  Because of the acts of a single madman, in the Democratic Party’s vision  of the future, buying a couple boxes of .22 long rifle ammo would justify your inclusion in a government database and a possible visit from the ATF.  You know … many of my fellow ACLU members are hard-core about privacy rights but seem oblivious to the precedential implications of these kinds of attacks on gun rights.  Hasn’t the war on drugs shown us anything?

In any case, President Obama is taking a very cautious approach with gun control legislation (at least until after the election).  When White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the President’s stance on the issue during Monday’s press briefing, he would only say that the President would “evaluate them as they make their way through the process.”

Moderate Democrats should be very concerned about this development.  Libertarians and independents have to vote for someone and we usually decide by applying the “lesser of two evils” approach.  In determining which party represents the lesser evil, Americans are concerned about a variety of issues including the economy, health care, the civil rights of immigrants, and marriage equality to name just a few.  But gun control isn’t even on the radar for most of the Democratic base or independent voters.  By allowing New York and California elites to dominate the party platform, they run a real risk of losing both the presidency and the Senate in the fall.

Posted in Ammo Sales, Gun Control, Lautenberg, Media Views on The Second Amendment, National Politics, President Obama, Presidential Politics, United States Senate | 6 Comments

Obama partially backpedals on gun control speech while Senate Dems surge ahead

Obama still wants Congress to reinstitute a federal ban on military-style assault weapons … but the president is not and has not been pushing for that ban … There are things that we can do short of legislation and short of gun laws.

– White House Press Secretary Jay Carney

In yesterday’s column, I noted that President Obama seems to be responding to pressure from gun control advocates in a way that he has previously avoided.

I must not have been the only one to sense the change in the political winds flowing from the White House because today, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney went into full damage control mode.

While reassuring supporters of gun control that the President “still wants Congress to reinstitute a federal ban on military-style assault weapons,” Carney told reporters that the President “will not push for stricter gun laws this election year.”  Note that he didn’t promise that President Obama would not make gun control a centerpiece of any second term, only that he would not push for it “this election year.

But Senate Democrats apparently didn’t get the memo that gun control is failed public policy.  Despite admonishments from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that “the Senate’s schedule is too packed to even have a debate on gun control,” the usual suspects were quick to pounce.

In an amendment to the Cybersecurity bill currently before the Senate, Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, Bob Menendez, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Dianne Feinstein, are attempting to ban the sale, transfer or possession of normal capacity magazines.

GDE Error: Unable to load requested profile.

Senator Schumer was quick to note that he was willing to “debate where to draw the line of reasonableness” with gun owners.  I would remind Senator Schumer of a quote from well known liberal Rachel Maddow …

“But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights.”

So what should gun owners take away from the furious spinning of the White House press machine today and the seemingly rogue senators who are pushing forward with gun control?

The answer is that we haven’t seen the last of it.  I believe that the amendment to the Cybersecurity bill is a trial balloon, sent up to determine how strong the reaction of the electorate will be.  After all, Carney couldn’t help adding yet another vague promise of unilateral executive action, stating that “There are things that we can do short of legislation and short of gun laws.”

What should you do?  Get on the phone to your senators!  Let them know that we are not interested in once again penalizing law-abiding citizens for the actions of a madman and that they should get back to work on fixing the economy.

Posted in 'Assault Weapons', Gun Control, National Politics, President Obama, Presidential Politics | 5 Comments