The next stop on our dissection of HF241 – Alice Hausman’s gun grab bill focused on so-called “assault weapons” – is, I’ll be honest, mind-bogglingly obtuse.

It would ban…:

 (3) semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(i) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

(ii) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;

(iii) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or

(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;

This is aimed at the various semi-automatic pistols that have been teased into a vaguely military-looking appearance, like the “Uzi Pistol”

…which are, literally, pistols with little collapsible stocks on them.  They are mostly famous for appearing in movies in the hands of gang-bangers, which is no doubt why Heather Martens some DFL staffer added them to the bill.

But it also includes our old friend the Mauser C96…:

…which can add a stock to make it a light carbine (for horse-mounted troops in the 1800s), and is a big collectible.   No, I had a friend who owned one.  It’s not that far-out.

(I didn’t forget the Browning HP35…

…which the DFL staff and/or Heather Martens didn’t think about, apparently because it’s not appeared in any gang-banger movies or TV shows, but also has a 13 round magazine, so the DFL will want to ban it anyway…)

Later today:  Yes, this bill gets dumber still.

The next section of HF 241 – Alice Hausman’s gun grab bill focused on so-called “assault weapons” – is a little bit confusing:

3.4(2) semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than seven rounds of ammunition;

Does this section mean “any semi-automatic pistol with a magazine capacity of over seven rounds” is banned, as well as fixed-magazine rifles?  Or does it only refer to “semi-automatic pistols with fixed magazines of greater than seven rounds”?

I’m not trying to be tendentious here; it could refer to semi-auto pistols with fixed magazines, although I can think of only one…:

…the Mauser C96, and it has an eight-round fixed magazine.

But I suspect it means “semi auto pistols with more than seven round magazines, or any semi-auto rifle with a fixed magazine of greater than seven rounds”.

Which means this pistol…:

…the classic Colt M1911 .45 calibre with its seven round magazine, is legal, while this one…:

…the SIG P220 .45 with its eight-round magazine, is not.

Huh?

Beyond that?  “Semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines” holding more than seven rounds include…:

…Grampa’s M1 Garand from World War 2.

The WW2-era Swedish Ljungmann I used to own?

Ten-round semi-detachable magazine (you could detach them, but only for cleaning or clearing jams).

Or the SKS – a Russian design that’s become one of the most popular deer-hunting rifles in America?

Yep, it’s got the ten-round fixed magazine.  It’s cheap (under $300 up until before the election) and ubiquitous – and, apparently, an “assault weapon” in Alice Hausman’s curious little world.

HF 241 – Alice Hausman’s gun grab bill focused on so-called “assault weapons” – has morphed from a list of ugly-looking army-type guns into a recipe book written by people who don’t understand much about guns, but know they really really don’t like them.

Rather than write one long article about this deeply stupid bill, I’m going to break it down in terms of its pure, specious illogic over the next day or so.

The first part of the bill bans any…:

(1) semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

(iii) a folding or telescoping stock; or

(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

Put briefly, if the rifle has a detachable magazine (the thing that holds the bullets) it can’t have a pistol grip, a forward handgrip, an adjustable stock or – this is confusing – the wrong kind of thingie wrapped around the barrel.

So in other words, this Ruger Mini-14 is legal…:

…while this one is illegal…:

…even though the two are functionally exactly identical.

Exactly. As in, there is no difference, down to and including the magazine size.

Oh, it gets dumber.  Yes, the bill would ban this rifle…:

…which is functionally exactly identical to this rifle here:

Both are Ruger 10/22s, perhaps the most ubuquitous .22 caliber plinking rifle in the country.  They are mechanically identical – but one has furniture that offends Alice Hausman’s sensibilities.

Dumber still?  If you like sniping at varmints, this 10/22 is just as illegal as the “tacti-cool” one above:

It’s the same gun, with the “thumbhole stock”.  And if you want to have an adjustable stock, so your kids can shoot the same rifle you do?

Yep. Banned.

Every last one of them is precisely mechanically the same; same ten-round detachable magazine (it pops out of the stock just ahead of the trigger guard), same low-power .22 round.

In other words, Hausman’s gun grab isn’t aimed at even the most tangential definition of “Deadliness”; it’s entirely focused on cosmetic features that have nothing to do with a weapon’s effect.

They get dumber.   More later today.

I sent the following to Nick Coleman – the “Executive Editor” of Twin Cities’ videoleftyblog The Uptake, which appears to have jettisoned all pretense of being anything but, well, a videoleftyblog – after reading his email to the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance last night:

Mr. Coleman,

I caught your note to Andrew Rothman on Facebook.

As a rigidly law-abiding gun owner, I have a special interest in policing my own.

So if you would please: from whom are you getting this “growing sense” at the Capitol?

Any actual legislators you could name? Did they have complaints about any specific behavior, from any particular attendees?

If they felt intimidated, was there a reason they didn’t notify Capitol Security – who said, Mr. Rothman noted, that the crowd was better-behaved than most?

Finally, Mr. Coleman – as you have publicly acknowledged being a carry permit holder, how do people “find it possible” do do anything around you, knowing that you may be armed? It’s a serious question.

Thanks in advance.

Mitch Berg

Uppity Peasant

I’m not exactly expecting an answer.  The one time Nick answered a question of mine, it was…

…well, memorable.

I used to read a lot of liberal bloggers.  I don’t so much anymore; part of it’s the time; part of it is that there are so few good ones.

A few Minnesota liberal blogs – one in particular, but I’m not naming names – have a particularly annoying habit when they get pressed in an argument with a rare conservative commenter; if it’s not going well for them, one of the blog’s writers will dig hard to wrench context hard enough to find some sort of offense in the comment; he’ll feign the Victorian Vapours at the (contrived) offense…

…which has the side-effect of taking the focus of the debate off of, well, the debate.

I’m not sure I’m surprised to hear this next story – that the Minnesota DFL is using the same precise tactic after having been shredded in the marketplace of public opinion last week.

I am a little surprised at the person asking the questions.

From: Nick Coleman <[redacted]@[The Uptake].org>

Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:15 AM

Subject: guns at capitol query

To: [redacted]@gocra-mn.org

Joe, Andrew, et al:

There is a growing sense at the Capitol that the presence of so many guns during last week’s gun control hearings affected the process, or even intimidated Legislators. Would you please comment today for a story I am writing for The UpTake?

Is it possible to debate guns in a room full of guns?

Thanks,

Nick Coleman

Executive Editor, The UpTake

www.theuptake.org

651-747-[redacted]

Oh, good lord.

The “Growing Sense” is weasel words for “a conclusion that we can’t actually substantiate”.

A little background here: a carry permittee – a person who has passed a background check and taken a training course – can get permission to carry in the Capitol and the State Office Buildings by informing the head of Capitol security they intend to do so.

And those notifications spiked big-time before Gun Week, last week, as carry permittees – out of symbolism or the practical desire not to have to sweat storing their firearms in their cars – filed with the capitol cops.

Are some legislators intimidated by the existence of firearms?  No doubt.

Are they right to be intimidated by a population that is two orders of magnitude less likely to commit any significant crime than the general public?

No more than they would be to feel “intimidated” by exercise of free speech, worship, press (or radio) or assembly – although some of them are.  And they’re wrong then, too.

And the cutesy final question: “Is it possible to debate guns in a room full of guns?”  Given the reality – carry permittees are safer to be around than just about anyone – the answer is “just as possible as it is in a room full of speech, assembly or religion”.

But let’s cut the crap: the only “growing sense” is among the DFL Caucus’ PR flaks (and, let’s be honest, Alida Messinger and Carrie Lucking) that they need to do something good ‘n Alinsky-riffic to try to undercut the groundswell of popular opinion that swarmed the Capitol last week and humiliated the DFL representatives and their copy-and-pasted bills.

Andrew Rothman, VP of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, had a response too.  It’s below the jump.  And it includes a classic story about Heather Martens, from the late Joel Rosenberg, that is perhaps one of the best examples of the hyperbolic hypocrisy of the gun-grabber movement…

…and its’ new stenographer, Nick Coleman.

(more…)

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

One problem with gun control is over-breadth. To keep firearms out of North Minneapolis, we must ban them statewide, even nationwide and perhaps worldwide, or else they’ll just trickle back in as people move around.

Maybe the problem is freedom of travel? That doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution or the amendments, it’s a right invented by the Supreme Court and the early cases dealt with travel Between states. But what about travel Within a single state? Can we limit that?

Perhaps Minneapolis could impose reasonable restrictions on travel into or out of North Minneapolis? Close off all but a few streets, set up a checkpoint and search everyone coming into the North Minneapolis Sterile Zone for ugly guns and high-capacity magazines. That would create a safe and peaceful Gun Free Zone where it’s most needed but still allow people in rural Minnesota to keep firearms for hunting and self-defense. Nizel George would not have died in vain.

Reasonable restrictions on a right that’s not even mentioned in the Constitution. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Joe Doakes

Como Park

Saint Paul could use the same idea – a wall around the city, with a fee to get out – for economic development!

The Constitution doesn’t mention anything about “no walls around cities!”

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

I wonder if shooting a policeman’s family is considered Domestic Terrorism such that President Obama can issue a Secret Kill Order authorizing the drone operators to drop Hellfire missiles on this guy Dorner?

I know he’s accused of serious crimes and I assume this is the same level of enthusiasm and dedication the LAPD puts into every homicide investigation without showing any favoritism at all because of who the victims were or who the accused killer is; but I’ve got to admit, it is a bit comical that the largest and best equipped police force in the world can’t find one guy supposedly camping in the mountains. God help them if LaRaza ever decides to get serious about reclaiming California.

Actually, this situation sounds familiar. A terrorist with a $1 million price on his head hiding in the mountains and nobody can find him to end his reign of terror. They need to call in . . . Barak “The Slayer” Obama!

I see there’s an update – he’s not the first, some cattle rustlers in North Dakota were the first. So I guess that makes it okay, then.

Joe Doakes

Now that Janet Napolitano is finding terrorists (right-wing ones, anyway) under rocks, I imagine we’ll find out sooner than later.

To:Ron Paul, Personality Cultist and Former Presidential Candidate
From: Mitch Berg, Crabby peasant and former big-L Libertarian
Re: Dumb

Mr. Paul,

Y’know, I try. I really do.

But when I see things like this on Twitter…:

Chris Kyle’s death seems to confirm that “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn’t make sense

— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) February 4, 2013

…I’m more than a little tempted to say that the best thing you can do for your libertarian cause, and those of us who subscribe to at least parts of it, it so shut up and find yourself a little piece of pasture to go out to.

And go out to it.

Please.

That is all.

Posting this on Facebook yesterday caused a bit of a kerfuffle.  Some Paul supporters asked me why I was attacking Libertarianism.

I’m not, of course; I am a libertarian-conservative, and have been since long before it was cool.  I was – and am – criticizing Ron Paul.  But it’s a little discouraging how many of his supporters conflate the two.

I spoke too soon yesterday in writing about the DFL Metrocrats’ hearings regarding guns.  They – Hausman, Paymar, Sheldon Johnson and Simonson, to be exact – introduced a bill today aimed at “High Capacity Magazines”.

Their definition of “high-capacity”:  seven rounds.

Money shot:

Sec. 3. PERSONS POSSESSING LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES ON EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.

2.29Any person who, on August 1, 2013, is in possession of a large-capacity magazine has 120 days to do either of the following without being subject to prosecution under

Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:

 

2.32(1) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; or

(2) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for  destruction.

OK, gun owners – all of you, hunters and skeeters and defensive shooters alike; if you’ve never come out and gotten active in politics before, now is the time.  This piece of Stalin-era twaddle isn’t going away on its own, or because the orcs who introduced it will be overcome with long-hidden feelings of libertarian conscience.

It’ll be because law-abiding Real Americans like you and me take it down and kick it to death.

It’s going to the “Public Safety Committee”, which we talked about yesterday.  Call them, especially Ward, Savick and Rosenthal (UPDATE: And Simonson).

We need to crush the switchboards.

BONUS QUESTION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS: Isn’t “give us your legally-purchased and not-by-any-means-inexpensive property or risk going to jail” the very definition of an “Illegal Taking?”

Because 13 round magazines for a SIG P250 were $45 a pop even before the current hysteria set in.  Or so I’m told.

As our liberal plutocrat elites surround themselves with armed guards, and as Janet Napolitano arms her federal apparatchiks to the teeth to send them after your guns (assuming Senator Feinswine and Barack Rex get their way), she tells you – mere peasants that you are – that if you, heaven forfend, are involved in a mass shooting, you can defend your life…

…with scissors.

This is what you, mere peasant, are worth to The Regime.

Make no mistake; some resistance is better than none.  Anything that breaks a mass shooter out of their fantasy helps.  Flight 93 showed us that resistance to madness is better than meek submission.

Unfortunately, the old saw “never bring scissors to a gun fight” exists for a reason.  The passengers of Flight 93 are dead heroes.

Far better to resist a mass shooter with a gun.  Every time.  I’ll take being a live schlub playing with his granddaughter over being a dead hero any day.

Over the years on this blog, I’ve made certain observations about human behavior as manifested through online media, like blogs and Twitter.

I’ve captured and codifed some of these observations as “Berg’s Law“, a series of common observations that I’m pretty sure are universal.

One of the most commonly-invoked Laws is “Berg’s Seventh Law”, which states “When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty or the truth, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds”.

I’ve rung up quite a number of occurrences of Berg’s 7th over the years. And I’ve found another.

Big-time.

(more…)

To:  Eric Black, MinnPost
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  The New JournoList?

Mr. Black,

You built your reputation as a reporter.  And for that, I give you all due respect.

I was a reporter, too.  Not much of one; a couple of radio stations, some free-lance print work.  Nothing big, and certainly nothing to build a career out of – but I did learn one thing, and practice it; a reporter is supposed to ask questions.

And while I apply only the broadest possible definition of “journalist” to myself, I do ask questions.  I’m told I’m not bad at it, at least on the radio; even a reporter on your side of the aisle commented on it (I’ll direct you to paragraph 16).  So it’s not a foreign concept to me.

Now, far be it from me to gainsay one of the deans of Minnesota political writing, but I’ve got a question here.

Last week, you wrote about Dr. Carl Bogus’ assertion from fifteen years ago that the Second Amendment was written to protect slavery.  Now, my friend and frequent commenter Joe Doakes – who actually is a lawyer – pointed out that Bogus’ theory is given no weight by the legal academy, because it’s been pretty soundly debunked and, more signally, ignored by legal scholars; Bogus’ theory is only kept alive by anti-gunners who like, as Doakes put it, to “borrow his degree to lend them legitimacy”.

So here’s what I’m curious about.

Bogus published his theory fifteen years ago.  It was roundly shredded in short order.  It was substantially ignored (beyond a few trivial references to incidental research) in the SCOTUS’ debates that led to the Heller and McDonald decisions, which respectively adopted the “individual right” definition of the 2nd Amendment and incorporated that definition onto the states.

And yet somehow last week Bogus’ theory was pulled from legal history’s scrap heap and restored to glorious prominence by the gun-grabber left.

Hey! It’s Confederate soldiers, defending slavery! The MinnPost ran this image in Eric Black’s story last week about Carl Bogus’ theory. I’m never going to let the MinnPost live this one down!

So I got to checking.  The first I heard about it was a comment on my blog on 1/17, which pointed to your article in MinnPost the same day; around that time, I started seeing a lot of lefties on Twitter chanting more or less the same thing.  Danny Glover and Roger Ebert had spoken or written about it, stating the “slavery” theory as settled fact, around the same time.   And the story was churning around the leftyblog fever swamp, as these things do, once the likes of Kos and  Crooks and Liars repeated the meme (which meant every bobbleheaded leftyblog carried it like it was the revealed truth).

Disarmed people – Jews, in this case – dealing with the SS, which is short for “Schützstaffel”, which loosely translated means “Department of Homeland Security”. Connect the dots, people. The MinnPost can run its inflammatory, searing, emotionally manipulative images, I’ll run mine. Mine happen to be good analogies based on historical fact, but whatever.

Now, a concerted Googling (and a reading of your piece) seems to show that the “writing” about the subject links back to last Tuesday, when lefty talk show host Thom Hartmann – who is sort of the Dennis Prager of the left, only without the intelligence or credentials – wrote a piece on the lefty überblogs TruthOut and Smirking Chimp , lavishly citing Bogus’ theory.

Oops, I did it again! More disarmed people! The sign above their heads says “Arbeit Macht Frei”, which is German for “Work Creates Freedom”, which was sort of the “Hope and Change” of the era. Again – you publish your inflammatory, emotionally manipulative images? I’ll publish mine.

And I thought the dynamics of the story were interesting; in two days, the “story” of Bogus’ “theory”, which had laid mostly dormant since being shredded in the court of academic and public opinion half a generation ago, suddenly was on the lips and minds and blogs of, it seemed, every lefty,  from the fever swamp to Hollywood (pardon the redundancy) to, well, MinnPost and a half a million chuckleheaded leftybots on Twitter.

I’ve been writing online for a long time, Mr. Black.  I’ve seen memes come and go.  The “come” side usually takes a while; someone writes something, it gains traction, it holds sway, it rolls away like the tide.  It usually takes a little while.

The Klan attacking black people! And therein lies the real truth – and the Berg’s Seventh Law reference; Gun Control actually has its roots in American racism. The first serious American gun control laws were aimed at – you guessed it – blacks. In fact, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment was written in part in response to a Texas law aimed at former slaves who’d been shooting up Klansmen.

But the Bogus  theory went, metaphorically, from zero to sixty in four seconds flat.

Didja notice that?

Anyway, those are the facts; Bogus’ theory came, was shredded, went away for fifteen years, and suddenly re-germinated across the broad swathe of lefty opinion over the course of two measly days.  Now, leaving aside the fact that the theory is, well, bogus (as noted last week) – wouldn’t it have been a useful fact for the reader to know that Bogus’ theory has been languishing in academic obscurity for 15 years for a reason? I know, that would have been a statement against your interest and, I suspect, the MinnPost’s, but it’s kinda significant, no?

But here’s my question:  aren’t you the least bit curious as to the, er, pace at which this meme swept the left?  From “forgotten” to “conventional wisdom” in two days?

It almost seems as if there’s some sort of back-channel communication – one might even call it a list of journalists, absurd as that sounds – a, for lack of a better term, “Journo List” that syncs the leftymedia up on the major chanting points.

No, I know – that’s just crazy talk.  I know.

Anyway – did that strike you as odd in any way?  If not, why?

That is all.

PS:  Well, no.  It’s not.  Because while the theory that the Second Amendment was “about protecting slavery” is pretty much a fringe, fever-swamp conceit, it is a matter of settled historical fact and Constitutional Law that the roots of the gun control movement are intensely racist.

More at noon today.

Remember – tomorrow’s the “Guns Across America” rally, on the steps of the capitol of whatever state you’re in.  Including here in Minnesota.

The Strib has the basic details of the Minnesota rally, without much editorializing.  Or you can go to the Facebook page for all the official info.

I’ll be there before the event, but I’ll have to leave before it starts; it’s smack in the middle of my show-prep time.

Speaking of which, tomorrow’s guest on the NARN will be Andrew Rothman to talk about the President’s power grab and the outlook in the legislature.

It’s time for all Real Americans to come to the aid of the Constitution, while we still can.

Saturday at noon is the “Guns Across America” rally at the State Capitol grounds.

It’s smack in the middle of my show prep time – but I’ll be there before the event, at any rate.

It’s go time, Real America.

To:  Governor Messinger Dayton
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  A Time For Choosing

Governor Messinger Dayton,

I have  a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you support President Obama’s declaration that legal gun ownership by the law-abiding citizen is a dangerous condition that needs monitoring?  I’ll ask you not to equivocate; yes, or no?
2. If you support it, please make sure everyone knows.  You’ve never been shy about using the media that serves as your praetorian guard, and the lavishly-funded apparatus that your puppeteer ex-wife owns, to get the message out before; please don’t stop now.
3. If you support the President, could you please prevail upon Minnesota’s DFL legislators to publicly declare their support as well?  Very, very publicly?  Maybe in a big press conference on the Capitol steps?

You ran as a “pro-2nd-Amendment” candidate in the 2010 election.  I’ve always suspected that you did it more out of memory of what happened to Ann Wynia (and the rest of the Democrat majorities) in 1994, or to the DFL’s majority in the House in 2002, than out of any sincere care for civil and human and rights…

…but I’m willing, if not expecting, to be surprised.

I mean, one way or another, it’s time for a big profile in courage, isn’t it?

That is all.

To:  Senator Amy Klobuchar
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  Powers

Sen. Klobuchar,

I have  a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you join President Obama in the belief that the law-abiding, legal gun owner is a public health risk and manifesting a mental illness?  I’ll ask you not to equivocate; yes, or no?
2. Could you please make your reasons for this support as public as you can, if applicable?  You’ve never been shy about using the media that serves as your praetorian guard to get the message out before; please don’t stop now.
3. If you support the President, could you please prevail upon Minnesota’s DFL legislators to publicly declare their support as well?  Very, very publicly?

You’ve spent the past six years in a calculated effort to create a public image of studied innocuity.  But given your massive victory last November, surely you feel secure enough politically to be honest about your stance and motivations.

I mean, you just know you’re bulletproof come election time, don’t you?

That is all.

To:  Senator Al Franken
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  Powers

Sen. Franken,

I have  a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you support President Obama’s executive order saying law-abiding gun ownership is mental illness?  I’ll ask you not to equivocate; yes, or no?
2. If so, please make your support very, very public.
3. Again if so – please do what you can to make MN DFL legislators “come out” publicly on their support, would you please?

I mean, you just know you’re bulletproof come election time, don’t you?

That is all.

To: Rep. Colin Peterson (DFL MN-07)
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  Power, Power, Power!

Rep. Peterson,

If you’d be so kind, I’d love it if you answered the following:

1. Do you support President Obama’s decree, yesterday, saying that law-abiding legal gun ownership is a form of mental illness?  Yes or no, please.
2. As you’ve always claimed to be a pro-Second-Amendment guy, then – if you don’t support Obama, what do you plan to do to fight this usurpation?

Your attention to this matter will be appreciated.

That is all.

To:  Rep. Tim Walz (DFL-MNCD1)
From: Mitch Berg, Peasant
Re:  Powers

Rep. Walz,

I have  a couple of questions for you.

1. Do you support President Obama’s executive orders trying to equate legal, law-abiding gun ownership with mental illness? I’ll ask you not to equivocate; yes, or no?
2. If so, are you urging DFL legislators in the 1st CD to do the same?
3. If not, how do you plan to manifest this dissent politically?  Concrete terms, please.

Please make your stance on this issue as public as you possibly can.  Tell the Strib, if you’d be so kind.  Failing that, at least inform Sally Jo Sorenson; she’s always been a reliable steno.

That is all.

I’m going to call this one a tactical victory for Real America.  It’s a won battle; it’s not the war.

The President saw the result of Slow Joe Biden’s trial balloons last week – the suggestions of magazine limits, assault weapon bans and other draconian nationwide assaults on law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment Rights – which was measured in an explosion of NRA memberships, a mobilization of grass-roots support for the originalist version of the Second Amendment, and the greatest gun-buying frenzy since the US Army signed gave a blank check to John Garand in 1040 – and blinked.

No ineffective gun bans – this time.  No reinstatement of the worthless and abuse-prone Assault Weapons Ban – yet. No useless magazine capacity restrictions – this go-around.

That’s the good news.

In a more mixed vein?  Here, reportedly (according to Business Insider) are the Administraiton’s recommendations, with my responses following in blue:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.  [These first two, at first glance, don’t seem like bad ideas in and of themselves, although I have a hunch what’s in that data is going to be worth a fight.  More below]
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.    [Like what Minnesota could have done, had Gov. Messinger Dayton not vetoed the “Stand Your Ground” bill in a fit of bitchy partisan picque, you mean?]
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.   [Nice and vague and subject to boundless politicization]
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.   [I’m a little amazed this doesn’t already happen.  I’m also leery of giving more “discretion” to law-enforcement, or at least law-enforcement in places like Chicago]
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.   [Superfluous]
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.   [You mean, like the ones the National Boogeyman Rifle Association has been running for decades?]
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).  [Superfluous; gun locks and safes arguably prevent a few accidents; again, it only bears on those responsible enough to use them, rather than criminals]
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.   [Again, amazed this isn’t already the case]
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.  [As above]
11. Nominate an ATF director.   [Superfluous at best, adding to the bureaucratic misdirection at worst.  The BATF has little measurable effect on crime; it serves mainly to badger the law-abiding, at least when it comes to firearms sales]
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.  [Which is great; law-enforcement has advanced a lot in this area since Columbine; given that it took cops 20 minutes to respond to New Town, it’d seem it hasn’t advanced enough.  And you can be sure the federally-mandated training won’t include the conclusion that’s blazingly obvious from the training that is being given to law enforcement (that resisting as immediately as possible with lethal force is vital); that having people in the target area with guns and the abiliity to resist is beyond vital]
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.   [Exactly as the NRA has been asking]
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.   [Now we’re getting Orwellian – and this is the area where Real Americans need to be watchful.  The Administration seems to be moving toward the passive-aggressive long game – towarad calling gun ownership a precursor condition to mental illness.  There is great danger here]
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.   [This is a nod toward “gun safety technology” like bolt-face stamps and biometric safeties that make guns much less safe for the law-abiding user, and much more expensive for the lower-income citizen.  Which is, of course, one of the goals] 
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes  [In other words, turning doctors into Adminstration spies, gathering data for future actions.  Suffice to say I’ve got one ‘condition’ I’ll never tell my doctor about]
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.   [Also amazed this isn’t generally the case]
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.   [Wait – you mean exactly as the NRA recommended?]
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.   [Provided, apparently, that those “model plans” not include “armed citizens killing monsters”]
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.  
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.   [Within the context of a rapidly-socializing healthcare system, this and the previous are how the whole “Mental Health” issue gets dealt with, I suppose.  Sigh]
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.  [Because who better to lead a dialogue on mental health than a couple of bureaucrats?]

LIke most tactical victories, today’s developments leave many potential roads to future battles; the definition of mental health, the potential for using Obamacare’s information systems to add millions of Americans to the federal NICS database as “mentally ill” without any real recourse, and on and on.

And on some issues – “School Resource Officers” and safety training – the Administration is bordering on triangulation to the right.  Which isn’t all bad, since both of those measures are (on their face) sensible.

But the price of liberty is eternal vigilance – and the orcs have left us much to be vigilant about.  Joe Doakes of Como Park emails:

The President assured the nation the federal government isn’t going to take all guns, just impose common sense public safety measures.

I’m thrilled to hear it. I encourage the President to extend that reasoning to other Constitutionally protected rights.

We won’t ban all religions, only those with a tendency toward violence: Catholics. And Jews, because their mere existence provokes peaceful Muslims.

You still can say things that have serious artistic or literary merit, but nothing critical of the government; that’s sedition.

We will only use warrantless searches on the persons, papers, houses and effects of radical extremists: gun owners and church-goers.

See how easy this is? Utopia is within our grasp if we only have the Will to impose it.

Joe Doakes

Como Park

The slope is still slippery.  It’s not as steep as it could have been, but we’re all still sliding.

They’re coming for your guns.

Oh, not all of them, and not today.  But by executive fiat, Barack Rex is about to stick that camel’s nose under the tent all the way to the shoulders.

Make no mistake; this is a diversion to draw the peoples’ attention away from the terrible economy and the ruinous debt.  But the fact is, if we lose our civil and human right to defend our lives, our property and our liberty in a diversion, it’s no less lost than if it were Barack Rex’s main focus.

So it’s time for all Real Americans to come to the aid of the Constitution, while we still can.

Saturday at noon is the “Guns Across America” rally at the State Capitol grounds.

More details as the weak grinds along.

It’s go time, Real America.

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

– Samuel Adams

I’m way ahead of posterity.

Today they’re coming for the Second Amendment.  Tomorrow they’re coming for the rights you care about.

To Republicans?  No more compromise, on guns or taxes or the debt.  No retreat, no surrender.  Stand firm, or your head will go on the pike (rhetorically speaking) too.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The President issued a secret Executive Order directing the United States military to kill American citizens because the President thinks they’re suspicious characters or possibly terrorists.

The President considers a proposed Executive Order directing the United States law enforcement agencies to seize privately owned firearms because the President doesn’t like firearms.

The President considers a proposed Executive Order directing the United States Treasury to issue a worthless coin to “pay” the national debt because the President doesn’t like the constraints of a budget.

Common theme: the law is an obstacle to doing what the President wants to do, so rather than obey the law or work through the democratic process to change it, he flouts it.

This is the attitude and those are the actions of a King, not a President.

We don’t have a King in America.

That attitude and those actions are un-American.

The President’s attitude and actions are un-American.

I oppose the President’s attitude and actions.

The President is Black.

I am a racissssssssssssss.

Never mind, nothing to see here, move along.

Joe Doakes

It’s only “overeach” if consequences are exacted.

So how does America solve the “gun problem”? [1]

Well, to part of America, we treat the law-abiding gun owner like a criminal (in Maryland, a state that has strict gun control and includes the city of Baltimore, which is a crime cesspool not all that much better than Chicago) and even use the media to bully them for their legal, law-abiding activity, while demanding their indulgence for their dithering indolence as you think of more ways to punish the law-abiding for the sins of the insane, the evil and and depraved…

…so that, if we’re lucky, all of our towns can be more dangerous than Afghanistan.

If Chicago keeps up this pace – 22 dead in two weeks – it’ll hit well into the mid-500 murders, topping last year’s grisly 500-and-change total.  Bear in mind, the 22 dead in the first few weeks of the year came in a cold, traditionally low-crime month.

So yeah, let’s get all of Rahm’s ideas down.  Stat.

In case I haven’t mentioned it before – a billion thanks to Professor Joe Olson and the rest of the crew at the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance for ensuring Minnesota’s carry permit law was written so that carry permits are not public records.

While the safety of the individual carry permittee wasn’t the primary reason, the depraved indifference of some – many – journalists to the safety and well-being of people who oppose their editorial agenda, and their families, is reason enough to say “Thanks, Joe and GOCRA”.

We’re a lot luckier than the poor saps in New York, the legal, law-abiding carry permit holders whose names and addresses were published by the in-the-bag-for-the-left News Journal.

It’d seem that the information has been used to target the law-abiding citizens for attack.  A White Plains (NY) homeowner targeted by the News Journal was burglarized; his gun cabinet was singled out:

A White Plains residence pinpointed on a controversial handgun permit database was burglarized Saturday, and the burglars’ target was the homeowner’s gun safe.

At least two burglars broke into a home on Davis Avenue at 9:30 p.m. Saturday but were unsuccessful in an attempt to open the safe, which contained legally owned weapons, according to a law enforcement source. One suspect was taken into custody, the source said.

The News Journal’s interactive online map of…:

• law abiding citizens, who…
• …passed a stringent background check, and were…
• …issued carry permits by the State of New York…

…served no news purpose whatsoever; under any other circumstance, a list of demonstrably law-abiding people who’ve obtained a legal document under normal processes is the very definition of “dog licks dog”, journalistically speaking.

Since there’s no news purpose, the only reason for the “story” was politically-motivated badgering of law-abiding citizens.

Which is an interesting juxtaposition; in producing a “story” about people exercising their Constitutional rights in a thoroughly law-abiding manner, the News Journal, with the blessing (or silent acquiescence, which is the same thing) of much of the American mainstream media, abused their First Amendment rights; isn’t pointing a big red “Burgle Me!” sign at citizens the very definition of “fighting words?”

The gun owner was not home when the burglary occurred, the source said. The victim, who is in his 70s, told Newsday on Sunday that he did not want to comment while the police investigation continues.

Police are investigating what role, if any, the database played in the burglars’ decision to target the home, the law enforcement source said.

Prediction:  under political pressure from Andrew Cuomo, the police will play down any connection they find.

Don’t believe your own lying eyes, peasants!

The News Journal should be sued out of existence.  If the homeowner (and the other citizens whose privacy was frivolously gang-raped by their idiot media) decide to file a suit, I’ll be happy to send a buck or two to their legal attack fund.