Boston firearms licensing now requires appointment

The Boston Police Department is now requiring that LTC applicants call ahead and make an appointment for their application.  Before that, you could walk in from the street, pay your $100 and get the criminal treatment (background check, fingerprinting, etc.).

The reason given for the change is that there is a surge in license applications and the licensing department needs to balance their workload, but this doesn't make given that licensing is a self-financing operation.  Of every $100 application fee, $25 goes to the feds for the background check, $50 goes to the Boston Police, and $25 goes to the Commonwealth to spend as they please (yes, you read that right).  

If every application process takes about a half hour, the $50 of revenue per application should be able to support staffing the licensing office at an appropriate level to allow walk-ins.  Sadly there's no political will in Boston to do this.  

No advanced notice was given of the change, and I'd like to know how many applicants the office is turning away - people who took the morning off from work to make the trip to headquarters to get a gun license.  Imagine the uproar if the government used this practice for voter registration.  

How much bullshit can you squeeze into one Guardian UK article?

Chris McGreal wrote a real hack piece for the Guardian UK last week.  

Early into it he quotes Kristen Rand, the foremost authority on why US gun laws cause Mexican gangs to kill people.  

Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Centre, which campaigns for greater gun control, said drug traffickers faced little more than a few logistical difficulties in buying weapons in the US. "If you wanted to design a set of laws to encourage gun trafficking, that is what the US has done. The traffickers can access a high volume of assault weapons, sniper rifles, armour-piercing handguns. All the weapons they need to wage war are readily available on the civilian market."

Last I checked, Kristen, federal law makes it a crime to buy a firearm if you are not the actual buyer.  I know this, because every time I buy a gun from an FFL, I have to check a box and sign my name on a form that says I am the actual buyer.  Trafficking is already illegal.  One more law won't help.

Here's a flat out lie:

It is even easier to buy ammunition. Although many states demand a driver's licence to buy common types of cold medicine that can also be used to manufacture methamphetamine, not a single state requires identification to purchase ammunition, even in large quantities.

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where I live, a seller of ammunition is required by law to check the buyer's firearms license (FID or LTC).  A drivers license or library card won't suffice - it must be a gun license.   I know this because I have to present my LTC every time I buy ammo.  If I don't show it, the clerk won't sell me ammo.  Why did this make it past the many layers of editorial oversight at the Guardian? 

Another flat out lie:

According to the US Government Accountability Office, 87% of firearms seized by Mexico over the past five years were traced to the US.

Why is this a lie?  It's a lie because the percentage uses the wrong denominator.   Here's the correct statement for the 87% figure:  Of firearms seized in Mexico AND submitted for tracing to the BATFE, 87% were traced to the US.  

Suppose 10,000 guns are seized by authorities in Mexico, of which 9,000 appear to be military weapons from, say, Costa Rica; and 1,000 of which are semiauto pistols and rifles which could very well have been trafficked into the US.  The federales will only submit the 1,000 plausibly-American guns to BATFE for testing, and 870/1,000 will be traced to the US.

It is wrong and deceitful to say that 87% (870/1000) of guns seized in Mexico are traced to the US, because it ignores the 9,000 guns bought from Central America that Mexican authorities don't bother tracing.  The correct percentage, for the way Chris McGreal phrased it, would be 870/10000, or 8.7%.  Whatever the exact percentage is, it's a small fraction of the 87% figure.  Why are journalist so dense about this?

This excerpt is just flat out confusing:

A report by the US Senate's narcotics control caucus in June said: "Congress has been virtually moribund while powerful Mexican drug-trafficking organisations continue to gain unfettered access to military-style firearms coming from the US. The reason [better gun control] doesn't happen is because the National Rifle Association owns Congress," said Rand.

So, is the US Senate saying this, or is Kristen Rand saying it?  Is the US Senate actually complaining that it can't enact gun control because the NRA owns the Senate?  Or is McGreal quoting Rand reading from a report?  I'm so confused.

Then comes the concealed carry bogeyman:

"Congress is right now ­working to pass legislation to loosen the restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons. There's no will, no leadership from the White House."

What the ongoing wonderful liberalization of CCW laws in the US has to do with Mexican drug dealers, I have no idea.  Neither does McGreal or Rand.

J Dewey Webb, the ATF agent who's doing a bang-up job in chasing gun traffickers, pulls a bizarre statement out of his ass:

"Every person that pays for that marijuana, that meth, that cocaine is paying for the tools of the trade, which are guns. Those people buying the drugs are just as responsible as the people buying those guns and just as responsible as the people pulling the triggers in Mexico."

I'm pretty sure that smoking pot or doing a little blow is not the moral equivalent of murdering people to protect or expand your drug turf.  Way to be a blowhard though. 


We finally finish this abortion of an article with a whiny, dishonest quote from Mexican president Felip Calderon:

Mexico's president sees it differently: "Why does this arms business continue?" Calderon said in June. "I say it openly: it's because of the profit which the US arms industry makes."

Yes, Phil, like most business they try to turn a profit.  Nice insight. 

I POSE SERIOUS YO

Two ground rules for debating gun control

1. When the gun banner notes how many people guns kill, you can't point out the fact that cars kill more people. 

2. When the gun banner claims that countries with strict gun laws have lower "gun death" rates, you can't point out counterexamples of countries where individual gun ownership is banned and the "gun death" rates far exceeds that of the US, such as Mexico or Jamaica. 

The gun banners get really really butthurt when you say these things. 

Guns and borders

Weer'd wrote about the silliness of arbitrary borders making criminals of us.

I walk my dog at a public park next to a middle school in Boston.  To get to the park I have to walk an extra block so I don't cross the school parking lot and become a criminal.  The route has me walk adjacent to the school zone, my heater mere inches from crossing that imaginary line that determines my criminality.

I wonder, if I touch the school property with my toe, but every other part of me is on city property, am I committing a crime?  What if my whole foot is in the school zone?

What about the poor bastard who doesn't even realize it's a school parking lot?

Dog gone's "Puke 'n Piss" rape resistance plan

Years ago the New Jersey state police published on their website advice for rape victims to vomit on their attacker.  Faced with predictable outrage against such stupid and harmful advice, they took it down and it's been a source of embarrassment for them ever since.

Stupid repeats itself.  Today Mikeb302000's self-described brilliant, politically influential, intellectually superior dog gone advised rape victims to put up:
...non-violent resistance - throwing up on your assailant, peeing on him, telling him you have a disease. Crying and becoming hysterical, etc.

There you have it folks.  To stop a rape, piss and puke on him.  Because shooting a rapist is never ok.

For the record, dog gone, the mere act of displaying a handgun - then shooting him in the face with a .45 230 grain hollowpoint - is enough to deter most attackers.

Laci the dog encourages commenter to commit suicide

Laci the dog, a blogger on Mikeb302000, claims to be an American criminal defense attorney.  Today he tried to incite a commenter on his blog to kill himself.  Nice guy, huh?  If anyone can comment on his legal liability, should the commenter follow through with the bullying suggestion, please let us know. 

Occupy Boston: It's ok to steal, but only what you need

This kind of sums up the viewpoint of the filthy hipster encampment.  The spokesman is referring the the problem of homeless people there, but he's really talking about themselves.  They see theft as as a crime only when motivated by greed.  Just as it's ok for crackheads to steal for a fix, it's ok for them to steal from me to pay off their student loans.

Jackson Bush, manning the Occupy information tent yesterday, said some homeless people have been hoarding free items, including donated coats.
“We do have homeless people and people addicted to drugs who need to steal things,” Bush said. “They’re getting more than they need and trading it off. What we noticed is all the new jackets are disappearing quickly.”

PS I have so much more I want to blog about lately, but between taking care of my three-week old daughter, and taking on consulting gigs in addition to my day job, it's been tough.  MAgunowner is still around! 

Penny makes Joan look like a freakin' genius

From Baldr Odinson's blog today:

 Penny said...

The point of the post was that America is providing the world, Al Qaeda included, with high-capacity ammunition and that this is all done for the sake of money over the lives of innocent people.

The question of armed police officers is a subject for another day.

The Second Amendment has become a marketing tool for the gun lobby. Americans pay the price in a body count every day and now Norway has added bodies to the altar of the nra.

  

Breivik and Loughner armed themselves with ammunition from the U.S. We should ban the sale and transfer of all high-capacity ammunition as well as the possession of high-capacity ammunition.

Ms. Penny, I would like to point out a few things.  Take a look at my blog banner and you'll see what is called, collectively, ammunition.  The unit of ammunition is the cartridge, or round.  It consists of four parts: bullet, case, powder and primer. The gun's firing pin hits the shock-sensitive primer, which contains a tiny amount of high explosive and sends a stream a sparks through the flash hole of the case, igniting the powder to create high pressure gas which propels the bullet through the bore of the barrel.

To call ammunition "high-capacity" is therefore meaningless.  It's sort of like saying "high horsepower gasoline."  You could forgive a three year old for doing it, but it's an embarassing mistake for a gun ban activist to make three times in one comment.

It is my understanding that the Norwegian killer bought his ammunition locally, not from the US.  In your original blog post that I kindly corrected, you said that the US exported the American made Glock to Norway, then you deleted that and said the US exported "magazine-clips" (whatever those are) to Norway, and now you're claiming the US exported 9mm ammunition to Norway.  Which is it?  Do you understand the differences between a gun, magazine and ammunition?  I'm not sure you do.

In your comment above, I'm guessing - and maybe I'm wrong - that you mean to write "high-capacity magazine," which would begin to make sense, though there's no meaningful distinction between high-capacity and low-capacity mags.  My 8-round .45 caliber 1911 magazines are no more or less deadly than my 18-round Glock magazines.  It takes two seconds for a shooter to load a new mag. 

By the way, a magazine is a tube with a spring that feeds the ammunition in an autoloading pistol.  I shouldn't have assumed you knew that.  You should take the time to learn about the things you want to ban.

My question to you, Penny, is what could you possibly mean by "high-capacity ammunition?"  I would really love for you to describe what you think it is.  Comments here, unlike on Baldr's blog, are unmoderated - anyone can speak up without censorship - so please take a second to respond.

 -------------------
ETA:
This is just too great.  Anti-gun troll Laci the Dog responded to Penny's comment...

Penny, I don't disagree with you, but I would warn you to be very careful what you say as a more experienced activist in the gun control movement.... Baldur knows where to find me if you need help.

This is basically Laci's way of telling Penny she went full retard with her comment. 

Things not to say at the range

When you're showing off your brand new 6" S&W 686, and I show you my old, well worn Ruger SP101, it's not ideal for you to nod your head and say "Yeah, that's all you need."  :)

Baldr Odinson is a lying, cowardly weasel

Joyce Foundation dimwit Baldr Odinson posted this afternoon about how America needs to prohibit export of Glocks to Norway to prevent future mass shootings.  Yup, you read that right.

I sent a comment Baldr's way, and curiously it went unpublished.  A few hours later I check to see that he's changed this paragraph...

Seventy-four people dead on two continents, killed with guns bought legally from one country:  the United States.

to this...

Seventy-four people dead on two continents, killed with high capacity magazine clips bought legally from one country:  the United States.

He changed the rest of the article from the original assertion - that American-made Glocks killed 68 Norwegians - to his new story that American-made Glock "magazine clips" killed them.   Failure on many levels here, folks.

No retraction, no thanks to MAgunowner for pointing out his blatant misunderstanding of the most fundamental issues at hand.  He just pretended he knew the difference between a pistol and a "magazine clip" all along

Baldr, you have no spine.  Man up and take responsibility for your mistakes.  

Trying to suppress stone-age technology in Boston

Having solved most of the City of Boston's major problems, City Councilors are now seeking to license the sale of knives.

When we mock gun control, we often say that they are trying to suppress a Victorian era technology (steel tubing, simple lockwork, chemical blends of saltpeter/charcoal/sulphur, etc.).  This knife control effort takes that idea up a notch on the silliness ladder.  They're actually trying to suppress the stone age technology of grinding an edge onto a stone.  

If a caveman can fabricate a cutting blade out of items found in nature, I'm sure our public school educated youth can do the same, without having to go through a licensed knife dealer.  Or perhaps, in a stoke of criminal genius, a teenager intent on stabbing a foe will simply borrow one of mom's cooking knives, thereby circumventing the expertly crafted policy of Boston's City Council.

Shady characters on the anti-gun blogs

Why are these guys so keen on content theft? 

It's not too hard to figure out which of the anti-gun blogs I'm talking about here, since there are about three of them in total.  Joan puts out original material in the odd, repetitive style of a ten year-old.  This Baldr fellow writes his own stuff but is too busy fabricating sweet peace trains out of 1/4" ply.  That only leaves one more. 

So, doggies, if you're going to copy and paste lengthy descriptions of historical events to support your anti-liberty agenda, at least cite the websites you're stealing from.  Don't just put others' text inline with yours as if it is your own. 

The stealing says a lot about who these people are.  Be more original. 

Pretty funny WaPo article

First the inevitable confusion between ammunition and magazines: 

Anders Behring Breivik... explained how he acquired the ammunition that he used in the attack: “10 x 30 round magazines – .223 cal at 34 USD per mag.

Big surprise there, as if they're the first people to want to ban something without knowing what that something is. 

But here's the part I like best:

Several other assertions made by Mr. Breivik give credence to his claim that he obtained the high-capacity magazines from a U.S. seller: Mr. Breivik appears to have carried out the attack with a Ruger Mini 14 semiautomatic rifle — the purchase of which he chronicled in the manifesto. The Ruger uses .223-caliber ammunition – the same type meant for the magazines purchased by Mr. Breivik.

I have no idea what the intended meaning of that sentence is, and I doubt the authors do either.  It's just funny to me because it reminds me of a classic Simpsons line:

Homer: It appears the cat burglar has been caught by the very person who was trying to catch him.
Flanders: How ironic. 

Donate to Stan Sokolowski defense fund

In January 2011, determined criminals broke into the highly secure gun vault of Lowell, MA gun collector Stan Sokolowski. 

The Lowell PD has filed charges against the victim for possessing ordinary reloading equipment and components - the very same items I have right now in my own basement.

We have to make sure that Sokolowski beats this charge, which could set a dangerous precedent for the thousands of shooters in Massachusetts who reload their ammo. 

Make a donation to the Reloaders Defense Fund at the Comm2A site today.  It's on us to make sure this doesn't become another bullshit malum prohibitum charge to harass gun owners.

I almost caused an active shooter alert

I was walking to work this morning, through the VA parking lot, when I realized I was carelessly holding a banana in my hand.  A banana's long tubular shape and bright yellow coloring make it an easy for the nervous, progressive citizen to mistake it for a handgun. 

These days, anything can be mistaken for a gun, whether it's an umbrella, facecloth, or a socket wrench.  It's up to you, the responsible gun owner, to not scare the sheep.  Be careful out there.

The behavior of concealed carry folks

I'm sitting on the couch the other night relaxing, and my very pregnant wife suggests that I walk around the corner and get myself a six pack, since I'm such a great, supportive husband.  Of course I knew it was just a ploy to get me to pick her up a candy bar, but I played along.

I tucked my SP101 into the IWB, bloused my shirt and went on my way.  As I was walking down the sidewalk I came upon a little chihuahua puppy with no collar or tags.  Cars were buzzing by and this poor little dog came a few inches away from being flattened.

I got close enough to pat him after a few attempts to bite me.  He was so frazzled by the car horns and screeching breaks, but after a few more minutes he let me pick him up, and showed his gratitude by peeing on my shirt.  Nobody seemed to be looking for him, so I carried him a couple blocks to the local MSPCA, then completed my liquor store/candy bar mission.  I'll probably post a few fliers on the telephone poles tomorrow just in case the owners don't think to call the animal hospital. 

If you have a stereotype of individuals who choose to carry guns, reexamine it.  Maybe you mistakenly think we're meatheads looking for a fight, or paranoids who want to overthrow the government.  Me?  I'm just a non-confrontational guy who's taking responsibility for his family's safety, and for the safety of any random dog who needs my help.

Reexamine your stereotypes.

Anti-gun bias by State House News Service reporter Kyle Cheney

From a recent article by Kyle Cheney on the hearings for new gun control in the MA Statehouse.

First there's the common misreporting of ammunition terminology.  I haven't read about any technology, nor can I imagine any, that imprints a serial number on a bullet upon firing.

Specifically, opponents of microstamping legislation – which would require gun manufacturers to etch serial numbers into firearms and introduce technology in which fired bullets would be “microstamped” with a matching serial number

That can be forgiven.  Misidentifying ammo components is now an inside joke, like a bus-plunge story, among journalists. 

Here's the bad part.

At a State House hearing held by the Committee on Public Safety, freshman Rep. Paul Adams (R-Andover) weaved in verbatim NRA talking points as he testified against the microstamping legislation, although he didn’t acknowledge that his testimony was based, in part, on the national pro-gun organization’s research.

Yet Kyle Cheney fails to weave into to his article any evidence that this is true.  What did he say verbatim from any NRA talking points?!  Is "verbatim" the new "literally" or "fascist," just a meaningless word?  The reader is left with an image of Rep. Adams reading from an NRA-ILA pamphlet. I doubt this happened. 

Cheney gives one quote from Adams, but it's not clear it's one that resulted from NRA brainwashing.

Adams said “household tools” could be used to file down serial numbers on guns, and in many cases, gun crimes wouldn’t be solved by microstamping.

Adams' first claim, that anyone can file off microstamping imprints from an autoloader's breechface or firing pin is absolutely, demonstrably true.  A hardened, serrated steel file will remove material from a softer steel part, every time you try, without exception.

His second claim, that many gun crimes wouldn't be solved by microstamping, cannot be refuted either.  Smart criminals use revolvers because they don't leave cases.  In addition, criminals could contaminate any crime scene by scattering other microstamped cases they picked up from the local range.  Or, the case stamp could be illegible because the technology is so unreliable.

Cheney fails to apply the same scrutiny to self-professed constrainer of liberty Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz.  The links between any of her appeal-to-emotion statements and Brady or VPC talking points go unquestioned.

Did reporter Kyle Cheney's biased comment about Rep. Adams' statements serve any purpose, other than to invoke the NRA bogeyman in an otherwise stale article?


ETA Here is the State House News Service's description of their journalism (emphasis mine):

Objective News

Our coverage stands out in the modern climate of journalism because we strive to keep it so straight. We're proud to have become a vital part of State House life, almost like a public utility. We earned that status by being as objective and impeccable as we possibly can.

How to get a free bike in Boston

A friend of mine went outside one morning last week and found her bicycle missing from the sidewalk where she had locked it up.  She called Boston Police to report it stolen, and they advised her to also check to see whether it was impounded for being locked to a public street sign.  She called to check and they confirmed it was in fact confiscated, and that she just had to go to a warehouse to pick it up. 

She went to the warehouse, which is run by the Department of Public works, and located near South Station.  She presented no ID, nor proof of ownership, nor even was asked for a description of the bicycle.  The DPW employee just told her to go into the storage room and get her bike.  My friend told me there were hundreds of bicycles stacked on top of each other in a tangled mess.  Instead of searching through the mess for her old, crappy bike she quickly gave up and left. 

So, fellow Bostonians, if you're in the market for a used bike you'd be a sucker to buy one at your local bike shop.  Just go to the DPW warehouse near South Station, tell the inept government employee that your bike was impounded, and leave with any bike you want.  All for free!

Be sure to thank Mayor Menino's office for their generosity. 

I made my parents commit a felony

After I finished cleaning up my brass at the range on Saturday, I noticed an extra spent .45 case and put it in my pocket.  Since it was about 110 degrees in Boston, my wife and I went straight to my parents' pool for the afternoon.  I sat outside on the deck for a while, went swimming and left without realizing that the spent case had fallen out of my pocket onto their deck. 

The next day I stopped by there again for a barbecue and they told me what I accidentally left them.  Here's why this matters.  Their possession of that spent case, that inert tube of brass, was a felony in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  If caught with it, they faced jail time and tens of thousands of dollars in fines.  It doesn't matter that it wasn't live ammunition, as MGL makes no distinction between live rounds and components. 

The same danger applies if you let someone without an LTC or FID borrow your car and there's a spent case in the trunk.  If a cop finds it and wants to be a jerk, your friend is in trouble. 

I'm not aware of any other states that criminalize innocent people for accidental possession of inert ammo components.  

Terrible sales pitch from American Gunsmithing Institute

I bought one of their videos on how to build a 1911 a couple weeks ago.  Although the production value isn't the best, it's a good value for $80 and I learned a lot from it.

Today I got an email from them using some really dubious scare tactics that - yes - invoke Hitler.  Here are some snippets:

Urgent Time Sensitive Information:

Who else is going to be able to Laugh in the face of an Economic Collapse when the U.S. Government Goes Broke?!

How are YOU going to survive and even thrive by protecting your income during the next few turbulent years?! This letter reveals a secret that could be your answer. 

Dear Friend:
I am writing to you because frankly I am extremely concerned. So, I am going to cut right to the chase. The current crop of politicians has me really worried! If this continues, the USA will have more than one foot in the economic grave. It will be falling face forward into the same type of hyper inflation that pre-Nazi Germany experience that brought Germany to the point of internal civil war and the rise of Hitler to power.

Here is the big secret to keeping more money and paying lower taxes (legally), while being able to earn income and barter for whatever you need. It is simply this: Own a small business doing something you love.

Here's why:
Small businesses for the most part fly under the Big Government radar and regulation machine.

As for what Gunsmithing course to take, I can only recommend one: The American Gunsmithing Institute's Master Gunsmithing Course.

I don't know what business is right for you, but the one I am suggesting in this letter is Gunsmithing...

Best wishes,

Gene Kelly
President

Gene - If you want me to buy products from AGI in the future, convince me of the value of what you're selling.  I want to know what gunsmithing skills I will learn from watching your videos, and how these skills will help me build better, more reliable guns, whether for business or hobby.  Don't try to scare me with predictions of impending economic doom.  I will believe whatever you tell me about gunsmithing, but not economics.  This sales tactic insults me. 

This is just too funny (from japete's blog of course)

From her post today:

There is obviously a serious difference of opinion about how to deal with the major problem of the huge appetite for drugs in the U.S. leading to the Mexican drug cartel abusing their power by killing those who would get in their way. (emphasis mine)

 It's because of gems like this that I can't stop reading her. 

What is a "civilized country not at war?"

Despite her belief that her own country is civilized and our brown neighbors to the south are uncivilized, I don't think Japete is a racist.  Perhaps in the "soft bigotry of low expectations" liberal sense of bigotry, but not a traditional racist.  Her outlook might better be described as patronizing, as she implies certain people can't help themselves from murdering, so they're not really comparable to us. 

Her civilized/uncivilized societal distinctions are practical.  If she includes the "uncivilized" countries in the comparison, the US ranks favorably in terms of "gun violence" rates.  But if she excludes the uncivilized brown people, the US ranks worse. 

It's a transparent move that doesn't fool anyone.  An honest person would question why countries like Mexico, whose corrupt government bans civilian gun ownership, realize rates of violence much higher than the US. 


Here are snippets of this Brady Campaign board member's disturbing views:

Jul 11, 2011 – This is the country that has the highest gun deaths per 100000 of any civilized country not at war. This is America where the second ...

May 30, 2011 – Why are there so many shootings every day in America (more than any civilized country not at war)? Why do the gun rights activists push back ...

Apr 24, 2011 – We already have enough victims and more than any other civilized country not at war. We don't need more. Ask your legislators what they are ...

May 1, 2011 – Statistics point to the very American problem of gun violence not seen in any other civilized country not at war. We have a serious problem ...

Feb 19, 2011 – We love our guns and as a result, we have more victims than any other civilized country in the world. These are victims- people who were one ...   

Jun 26, 2011 – Otherwise we wouldn't have the most gun deaths per 100000 of any other civilized country. I read a lot of articles about gun incidents that ... 

Apr 2, 2011 – ... that the U.S gun deaths per 100000 are hugely higher than any other civilized country in the world not at war. That is common knowledge. ... 

Aug 2, 2010 – ... every civilized country not at war except the U.S.). He needed a little help from Dailey to answer his question: "" He shook his head. ... 

The real reason drug dealers open fired into a crowded playground

In today's Boston Globe, City Councilor Charles Yancey explains the motivation of gang members firing into a crowded playground, hitting a 4 year-old in the back.  

“We have so many people who are leading very desperate lives in our society, and some are resorting to taking out their frustrations by opening fire on a local playground,’’ Councilor Charles C. Yancey.

Yes, that's what they're doing when they fire guns into a crowded playground.  Taking out frustration.  You can't make this shit up, folks.  These are the people running my city.

Getting to the root cause of "gun violence"

Animals fired into a Roxbury playground last night, hitting a four-year old boy.  From today's Boston Globe:

Mayor Tom Menino said "Any gun violence in our city is unacceptable, but when it involves a young child, you can only feel sadness and anger. With the public’s help, we will stop those who seek to bring violence to our neighborhoods.’’

What he means by "those who seek to bring violence" is Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Four Seasons and Collector's Gallery, not the project rats who attempted the murder. 

City councilor Chuck Yancey at least had the courage to blame the inanimate objects that are the root cause of violence: dirtbikes. 

Yancey, who represents parts of Dorchester, called on Boston police to enforce traffic laws aggressively and be more aggressive with young people speeding and driving recklessly on dirt bikes and scooters.  An hour before the shooting, police investigated reports of motorbikes speeding through the area. Generally, police say, they hesitate to chase or pull over youths on motorized bikes because of the danger of the pursuit.

“If they are breaking the law, they should be pulled over,’’ said Yancey. “If it is not tolerated in Back Bay or Beacon Hill, it shouldn’t be tolerated here.’’

Well said, Councilor Yancey.  Well said.

Japete's uplifting thought of the day

Gun ban advocate and Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson begins her most recent post with:

Today is the summer solstice. We should be celebrating the longest day of the year. Some people, unfortunately, will not be able to celebrate because of a bullet. Such is a typical day in America.

Could you imagine getting stuck talking to this woman at a cocktail party?  

Boston gun licensing discriminates against disabled

A Boston resident applying for a Class A License to Carry Firearms (LTC-A) faces a big commitment of time and money.  But there's one obstacle that at worst discourages some law-abiding, qualified people like my wife from even trying, and at best makes them beg the state for special favors. 

Boston is the only licensing authority in the Commonwealth that requires every new applicant to pass a qualification course, which they hold at the Moon Island police range in the middle of Boston Harbor.  Worse yet, anyone wanting to renew the LTC every six years must pass the test again before it expires. 

The course of fire is twelve rounds one-handed, double action from seven yards onto a 12x16" target with 10/9/8 scoring rings. This is followed by eighteen rounds freestyle, single or double action from fifteen yards.  A passing score is 210 out of 300. 

Passing the test isn't especially difficult - that is, if you're already proficient with the old, heavy, double action Ruger Service Six .357 Magnum revolver you're prohibited from owning.  To have a decent chance of passing, a new shooter needs at least five lessons, each lesson costing $20 for instruction and $32 for ammo. That's $260 to practice to qualify for your $100 license.  Did I mention you need to have also taken the $175 basic pistol course already?  And that they only offer the test at 7AM, so you should plan on taking the morning off from work?  

Beside the New York City-style financial burden placed on the new licensee, the range qualification is a particularly insidious barrier to the elderly and disabled.  These Ruger revolvers have a fifteen pound double action trigger, making it all but impossible for people with arthritis to use.  Most applicants delay taking the test until late spring, since the wind whipping off the Harbor waters can numb your hands quickly.  It's an outside range with no protection from the elements.

My wife was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis two years ago when she was twenty-eight years old.  After we got the initial flare up under control with drugs and three months of bed rest, her quality of life is just as great as it was before, but the joints of her hands are weak and frail.  She has zero chance of practicing for, and passing, the Moon Island test without excruciating pain.  No pass, no license. 

At some point after she has the baby this fall, I'm going to encourage her to try for it.  Maybe if we show up at the licensing counter with our attorney, it'll persuade them to waive the test for her.  I'm not optimistic.  More wealthy and powerful people than us have sued over this and lost in court. 

The Boston Police Department licensing division, under Mayor Menino's orders, actively discriminates against the elderly and disabled with this range test.  Their policy makes no exemption for anyone.  It is the reason my wife is unable to exercise her Second Amendment rights, and there are thousands of more people out there in the city, just like her. 

Massachusetts' licensing scheme is sometimes shall-issue, usually may-issue, occasionally no-issue. There is a list of dozens of dubious reasons that make you a prohibited person in the eyes of the politician who decides local gun rights. 

In Boston, you can add arthritis to that list. 

Anti-concealed carry arguments ignore history

Leon D. Young writes a pretty typical opinion piece about the Wisconsin legislation. 

But, in my view, it creates a “potential minefield” where tragic gun scenarios are just waiting to happen....It is beyond belief (and logic) that increasing the number of hand guns in our midst makes us safer ... Not to mention, the potential carnage that will ensue as a result of individuals carrying handguns without any formal training.

It's fair enough to make an argument like this.  Whether liberal concealed carry laws correlate with more or less crime is an empirical matter (one that time-series econometrics shows is settled, in my view). 

But if Young fails to acknowledge that 48 other states have removed prohibitions on concealed carry in the past 25 years, during which violent crime has trended downwards, and that no state has reverted back to prohibition, he is omitting a pretty important part of the story. 

Lawful concealed carry isn't a scary hypothetical experiment, it's the norm in most of the country, even - gasp - in my home town of Boston. And it hasn't made any place a "battlefield" that wasn't already. 

I challenge Leon D. Young to give an example where concealed carry has caused a place to be a battlefield.  Though I think that if he coulda, he woulda. 

Invisible forcefields of protection

When I got my NRA instructor credentials, I understood what it meant.  My certificate and $3 would get me a cup of coffee, but also authorize me to teach and sign off on Massachusetts residents applying for a license to carry. 

There is no forcefield of protection for NRA instructors that protects against bad judgement or accidental discharges.  We're just as imperfect as everyone else.  We are 70,000 strong, and any group of 70,000 will have a few dumbasses.

If an anti-gun troll is searching for certain anecdotes among a population of 300 million, he'd find them daily.  There are plenty of morons out there.  Among a population of 70k, he'd find them occasionally.  And if the best the troll can do is re-post anecdotes, all we need to do is nod our head, smile and ignore it.

Ohio bartenders oppose new concealed carry law

Bartenders in Ohio just strike me as a little hypocritical with these outrageous arguments.

Highlights from today's Columbus Dispatch article:

Bartenders likely won't have time to determine whether a customer who is ordering alcohol is packing a gun.  That's the sentiment of some central Ohio bartenders after the Senate and House recently approved versions of a bill allowing concealed-carry permit holders to take guns into bars...

"How do you find out if a person is carrying?" said Berlin Slonner, a bartender at Crank's Bier Garten, as he served customers ethanol, a toxic byproduct of the fermentation process blamed for over 80,000 deaths per year.  The powerful psychoactive drug is a volatile, highly flammable, colorless solvent, that is banned for use by anyone under 21. 

Tami Wadkins, longtime owner of Slop 401 in Whitewall, said, "What are we supposed to do, frisk them?"  Wadkins serves her ethanol watered down or mixed with sugary juices in order to mask the objectionable taste of the liquid and cause patrons to drink more, increasing the drug's effects.  "Listen," she continued, "my customers face enough risks from alcoholic lung disease, kidney stones, sexual dysfunction, hormonal imbalance, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and dementia.  Things will get dangerous if we introduce guns into the equation."  


...that's what worries Don Cromper, a bartender at Sisters.  He said bartenders don't have enough time to detect whether their patrons are carrying a gun before serving them ethanol.  "Once my customers take even a small amount of ethanol, they have increased aggression, dehydration, insomnia, euphoria, stupor, coma, dehydration, hangovers, unconsciousness, asphyxiation on vomit, blurred vision, respiratory depression, analgesia, decreased heart rate, dizziness, profound confusion, shortened attention span, loss of motor function.  I care about my customers' well-being and can't fathom how risky guns will be in here."  

"No concealed bars in carries," opined frequent patron Jack Swallow, as he settled the day's tab and grabbed his keys.  Cromper added, "That man drank ten beers this afternoon.  And because of the current gun laws, no one's gotten hurt, and no innocent kids will get shot during the drive home."  

Two different kinds of gunshot victims

"Is that a .357?" asked the thin, quiet twenty-something guy from Lawrence during the break, pointing at the Ruger Service Six classroom gun.  I told him it was.  "I got shot with one of those.  The hollow point bullet is still inside.  Here's where it hit and went into my kidney."  The kid had the scar to prove it. 

I didn't ask who shot him, or if he had it coming.  He seemed like a nice guy, and you don't take a firearms safety course if you have a criminal record.  We chatted for a few minutes about what kind of semi-auto he should buy for home protection, and he was disappointed to find out the Lawrence Police would probably restrict his license against concealed carry.  

I never saw him at the club after that.  He most likely got his License to Carry and is a peaceful gun owner like the vast majority of us.  Though I don't know his relationship or feelings toward the shooter, I do know that he's thoughtful enough to not blame the gun, the inanimate object.  Instead, he saw the gun as the most useful tool for his protection. 

Politicians and activists love to trot out gunshot victims as an emotional appeal for new legislation.  The high-profile ones tour the country and make movies that try to persuade us of the need to ban guns.  But they're the extreme outliers. 

In judging the honesty and character of gunshot survivors, would you favor the one who quietly becomes a legal gun owner himself and takes responsibility for his safety, or the one who makes a living trying to ban the one thing that could have saved the lives of the people in the room with him? 

The real reason Joan Peterson obsesses over gun deaths

Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson is frustrated that the average person doesn't obsess over "gun deaths" like her:

"These things fly under the radar of the average person."

Has she considered that there may be a good reason for that?  That is, accidental shootings are so incredibly rare in this country that they affect hardly anyone? 

I know from my training that accidental shootings always result from violating all three of the rules of gun safety.  It takes a great amount of disregard for human life to do so. 

Therefore what's on my radar is not the rare actions of the most negligent and criminalistic in our society, but the legislative agenda of gun ban advocates who want to use those rare events to restrict my rights. 

It is comforting that as gun sales and CCW permits continue to increase, with coincident decreases in "gun violence," that even fewer people will have guns on their radar.  The only real hope Joan Peterson has for new restrictive legislation would be new episodes of highly publicized mass shootings.  I hope she doesn't get what she wants. 

A textbook example of the "gun death" fallacy

From the "Lying with Statistics" chapter of a stats textbook (emphasis mine). 

Some other strange numerical comparisons appear in the articles shown in

Fig. 10.4. For example, it is sad that 13 children were being killed per day, but

it is not at all clear why this should be compared to the rate at which police

officers are shot. The comparison later in the article to Northern Ireland is more

reasonable (although it might be even more relevant to compare all violent deaths

rather than restrict to gunshots).

It would be more relevant to a rational person, not to the "gun death" fetishists.

Joanna Malloy's baffling anti-gun column in the NY Daily News

Here are a few highlights (emphasis all mine) of the article, reflecting her poor understanding of what she wants to ban, and just as offensive, her butchery of the English language:

Anything less then [sic] a ban on these bulk bullet clips, like the ban proposed in bills before Congress, "is reckless ... and wrong," Bratton says.

What is a bulk bullet clip? 

Bratton has teamed up with former Manhattan prosecutor Richard Aborn, who must feel like trying to pass the ban is like déjà vu all over again.

That sentence is just awful. 

As head of the Brady Campaign, he helped write the assault-weapons ban that got passed under President Bill Clinton. Congress and President George W. Bush let it end in 2004.

When the Brady Campaign writes legislation, it's to save the lives of police officers.  NRA-sponsored legislation seeks to increase the blood-profits of their gun industry patrons. 

Like Jared Loughner, who killed six people and wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 12 others with 30 bullets in 15 seconds in January.

I can fire 30 rounds in 15 seconds from my Ruger SP101.  You don't need a big bullet blasting box to fire two rounds per second for thirty seconds.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly would "definitely support a legislative ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines," said NYPD spokesman Paul Browne. "We in the Police Department don't even use them."

Is Kelly actually saying the NYPD limits their officers to 10-round magazines in their Sig, Glock, and S&W autoloading pistols?  I've sent an inquiry to Kelly to see if he was misquoted.  I would be amazed if Malloy is accurately representing what Kelly actually said. 

No other civilized country allows this. Every country has crazy people; America is the only one that arms them.

America doesn't arm civilians.  Is there some gun welfare program I don't know about.  

Let's get sane, and click our support for the large-capacity ammunition magazine ban at nycrimecommission.org.

A political appeal for meaningless action following an appeal-to-emotion, fact-free argument.  Though it would be generous to call it an argument, especially toward the end of the column where it just broke down into non-sequitur Brady Campaign talking points.  Joan Peterson writes more coherently than this. 

You're better than this, NY Daily News.  Or, maybe not. 

The menace of .223 caliber three-rounds

We all know the typical journalist loses 50 IQ points when writing about guns, so you expect them to use made-up terms like "semi assualt rifle" and "high volume bullet clips."  But what could the South Bend Tribune's Jeff Parrott have possibly meant by:

In particular, the store has proposed selling .223-caliber three-rounds, which is used in high-powered rifles such as the A.R.-15, Dieter said.

Anyone?  Jeff? 

And how could the reporter omit the very relevant fact that the controversial .223 cartridge is far less powerful than the politically correct 30-06, which, presumably, the zoning board is not concerned about?

"Obama to speed up US oil production"

This was a headline in today's Boston Globe. 

Isn't it messed up that an American politician determines the rate of production of a commodity?  It's just as scary as reading "Stalin to speed up USSR steel production."

Why it's pointless and wrong to use the "terrorist" watch list to deny gun sales

Because I guaran-effing-tee you there's some Real IRA douchebag on the list whose name I share. 

To the Brady Campaign, he was an innocent victim

The article in yesterday's Globe starts out:

It was just under a year ago that Marilyn Thomas-YisraEl’s son was shot to death as he sat in his wheelchair on their front porch. A bullet had hit Jihad Watters, 24, two years before, leaving him paralyzed. Last spring, he was enjoying a sunny afternoon and planning to barbecue before he was gunned down.

Yesterday, on a day meant to honor mothers and bring families together, Thomas-YisraEl could only think of the day her family was ripped apart.

“This is my first year without my son,’’ she said. “It’s really hard.’’

Tragic, isn't it.  Just a nice young man enjoying a sunny day and getting ready to throw some ribs on the BBQ.  He's one of the innocent victims of gun violence that the Brady Campaign loves to talk about - in fact, the 24 year old would qualify as a child in their demographic breakdown. 

What the article doesn't mention is that Jihad Watters was a career drug dealer and illegal gun owner.  Yes, I am as shocked as you.

I write about this in response to our favorite Brady board member, who today wrote "Such is the way of gun deaths. They are sudden, unexpected and violent. They can happen to anyone. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it won't."  


No, they are not, Joan.  Violent crime, whether or not the gun is the chosen tool, is not really distributed equally throughout the population.  A lot of the "victims" people like her trot out aren't really victims at all.  Many of them have made the concious decision to be a career criminal.  If you make the decision to compete with other drug dealers in Dorchester, and they kill you, you're not really a victim. 


The Brady types think we should ban guns to save the lives of people like Jihad Watters, when the truth is that good people need guns precisely to protect ourselves from the Jihad Watters of the world. 

How to make a gun buyback really work

L.A. had another gun buyback recently.  Residents turned in a few hundred guns in exchange for a $100 or $200 gift certificate, depending on how scary their gun looked. 

The police interviewed in the story made the bizarre claim that the program will save lives because they can never be used in a crime and they're getting guns "off the streets."  But the fact that people willingly turned the guns in shows that they didn't intend to use them in crime anyways, and I see no evidence that these guns were on the streets as opposed to people's closets.  These were not the community guns stored under a brick in the courtyard of the projects. 

A gun buyback will never reduce crime - gun related or otherwise - because the people who turn in guns are self-selected.  The people who sell back guns are not the people we're worried about.  No rational criminal would surrender his gun any more than a carpenter would surrender his tool belt.  The only way a gun buyback could possibly work would be to send the police to known gang members, and make them an offer they couldn't refuse. 

The gun buybacks satisfy two goals of the shrinking gun movement: to give the appearance of doing something, and reducing the supply of guns. 

Hypocrisy in the gun ban crowd

I was at a local gun shop last week to pick up a case of primers, shortly before closing time.  As I was checking out the used guns, I noticed the owner looking at some papers with a 4x loupe.  It seemed odd, so I took a closer look and saw that he was trying to know for sure the serial number on the federal paperwork. 

This legitimate, bricks and mortar gun dealer was basically terrified - for good reason - that a simple paperwork error would bring about a 70-agent raid on his home and store.  Two things occured to me here.  First, I would never want to be an FFL.  Second, why is it that this businessman is under constant, close scrutiny of the ATF, while the Violence Policy Center's Josh Sugarmann can run an FFL in clear violation of ATF regulations and be untouchable? 

Sugarmann, one of the only FFLs in D.C., just renewed his FFL until March 2014.  Back in the day, he wrote hysterical articles about the threat of "kitchen table" FFLs, leading to the current ATF policy that applicants must have a commercially-zoned place of business, and be engaged in the business of selling guns for profit.  Josh Sugarmann has neither. 

He admits that he doesn't sell guns in D.C.  No one's seen his bound book, if he even has one, so we can't know whether he's lying or not.  So how is it that he's able to keep an FFL for "research purposes?"  It's safe to say he has some high-up ATF bosses protecting him.  If I, or John Lott, or Alan Gura, applied for an FFL, declaring our intention to never sell guns, a quick denial would be certain.  In fact, on the "Do you intend to run this business for profit?" question on the application, it says not to bother submitting it if you check "no."  Somebody in the ATF made a very special exception for Josh. 

We've known for years that Sugarmann is a federally licensed gun dealer.  When we first found out in 2008, we called and wrote the ATF, complaining that this man, who pushed so hard to revoke home-based FFLs, is one himself.  The feds made it clear that Sugarmann is special, that the rules that apply to my local dealer don't apply to Josh.  He is a definite hypocrite, and a possible perjurer. 


It's not surprising, coming from the gun ban crowd.  Former Mayor Daley, the man who banned guns in his city while he surrounded himself with armed guards, must be proud of Sugarmann's impressive circumvention of the law. 

Bad arguments for banning normal capacity magazines

Frank Lautenberg writes:

The fact is, guns are used to murder more than 9,500 people in our country in a single year. By comparison, about 5,900 American troops have died in Afghanistan and Iraq during the past 10 years.

So you're saying that people who walk around with assault weapons all day are safer than the rest of us?   

Father Pfleger PFAIL

Gun dealer/banner Josh Sugarmann's tactic of confusing the public by conflating 'assault weapons' with semiautomatic guns has really taken hold.  We see it all the time by gun prohibitionists who do it on purpose, but also by those (Joan, I'm looking your way) who really don't know the difference between auto and semiauto.  The funny part is that Josh has fooled his own people just as much as the general public.  Which group does this Father Pfleger, who conflates concealed pistols with 'assault weapons,' fall into? 

The group is asking the Illinois legislature to block a bill that would allow people to carry concealed handguns in public.
Father Pfleger says if it's passed more children would be killed by gun violence.
"Assault weapons were created for the Army and they're for murder," said Pfleger.

That's a really nice sentiment about our soldiers, Padre. If assault weapons were created for murder, and every US soldier uses them, then what are you saying about soldiers?  

When he asserts that 'assault weapons' were created for murder, he ignores that they are almost never used for this purpose.  It's like saying that the pencil was invented to stir martinis. 

Lastly, what plausible causation could there be with lawful concealed carry and the increased murder of children?  Does this priest, who presumably has some kind of formal education, honestly think that the people who go through the trouble of fingerprinting, background checks and application fees are going to murder children once they get their CCW? 

I'm thinking Father Pfleger is in the 'special' group of gun banners.

Gail Collins' misperceptions

Here are two of the more idiotic comments by Gail Collins in today's NYT:

The core of the great national gun divide comes down to this: On one side, people’s sense of public safety goes up as the number of guns goes down; the other side responds to every gun tragedy by reflecting that this might have been averted if only more legally armed citizens had been on the scene. 

I don't particularly want to avert any mass shooting or any other crime that does not present imminent, grave harm to me or my family.  When I hear those shots, I will be the fastest runner on the planet for the next thirty seconds.  I carry a gun to protect myself and my family.  Period. 

Concealed Carry on Campus envisions a female student being saved from an armed assailant by a freshman with a concealed weapon permit. I see a well-intentioned kid with a pistol trying to intervene in a scary situation and accidentally shooting the victim.

No, we envision the woman saving herself, with her gun that she legally carries on campus.  Collins' comment reminds me of that old eye-opening feminist joke with the punchline "the surgeon is her mother."  Gail Collins is so blinded by her hatred of redneck, gun toting hick vigilantes looking for any excuse to use their guns, that she doesn't even consider that a woman would want to be armed in order to nullify the disparity of force against a male rapist. 

This is a real hack opinion piece. 

At least you're consistent, Joan

 Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign board member, March 1: 
"...law abiding citizens are purchasing hundreds of guns ( from legal and licensed firearms dealers) to traffic to the Mexican drug cartel where they are used to murder people in high numbers daily. I remind you again that these are law abiding citizens aiding and abetting the Mexican drug cartel."


The same Joan Peterson, March 3
"As long as anyone accuses me or people on my side of calling law abiding citizens felons, remarks will not be taken seriously."

GPS - yet another reasonable gun control law the NRA will oppose...

The Massachusetts legislature has established a commission that will study the feasibility of putting GPS locators in firearms, and that shall (not may) draft such legislation. 


Where to start?  Suppose we have 5 million guns (just throwing a low number out there) in Massachusetts that are GPS-equipped.  Now, in order to be useful for after the fact crime investigation, we would need to store the geographic location of each firearm say, once a minute.  So each minute, every gun's GPS transmits to a government mainframe its ID and location.  That's five million observations per minute, or 300 million observations of data per hour, 7.2 billion observations per day, 216 billion observations per month.  I think I got my orders of magnitude right. 

Now, I'm speaking as a guy who makes a living as a SAS programmer analyzing massive medical datasets (100 million rows) for researchers, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about.  The computing infrastructure that would be needed to read in, pre-process, write, sort, interpolate and retrieve this data would be tremendously expensive.  We're talking tens of millions, at least, in IBM mainframes and staff.  I can't wait to see what this committee's findings will be in terms of cost/benefit. 

How could this possibly happen Massachusetts?

From today's Herald:

A 29-year-old rising Roxbury rap artist was killed, and another man wounded early yesterday in a Theater District shooting that sent shock waves through the Boston hip-hop community.
Jamie Lee, a.k.a. Roc Dukati, and a 24-year-old man whose name was not released were gunned down after a fight broke at about 2 a.m. yesterday on Tremont Street among several men who had been attending a record release party, family members and authorities said.
...
Officers cordoned off the garage, arresting two men in separate cars on gun charges, prosecutors said.
Andrew Flonory, 26, of Brockton and Joshua Hollis, 22, were each charged with carrying a firearm without a license, prosecutors said.

Can someone explain to me just how the hell these guys got guns without a license to carry and possibly not being able to pass a background check?  It's almost as if the the NRA wackos have a point that gun control only affects law-abiding people.

But I'm sure these two young men were just a rare exception to the effectiveness of Massachusetts' strict licensing requirements.  

Straw buyers are law abiding?

Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign board member:

Never mind that there is clear evidence, from the linked article, that law abiding citizens are purchasing hundreds of guns ( from legal and licensed firearms dealers) to traffic to the Mexican drug cartel where they are used to murder people in high numbers daily. I remind you again that these are law abiding citizens aiding and abetting the Mexican drug cartel.

Straw buyers are law abiding citizens?  Joan Peterson is either a liar, or is too lazy to understand the most basic concepts at hand. 

CVS pharmacy clerk suggests I'm a murderer

I went to pick up my wife's prescription at the CVS in West Roxbury tonight. As I'm paying the pharmacy clerk, I also hand her the new Combat Handguns magazine to ring up for me. She holds it up, looks at me and deadpans "Gee, I hope you're not mad at anyone today." I shot her a dirty look and shook my head in disgust. "Well at least I hope it's not me you're mad at," she continued. At that point I was so pissed I didn't even bother say anything. I just grabbed my receipt and walked away.

The encounter was very awkward for me in two ways. First, a pharmacy worker should never make a comment about what the customer is buying, no matter if it's shampoo, condoms, or anything else the store sells. Second, she was expressing her view that people with an interest in guns have violent, angry tendencies - and implying that her view is so unquestionable that she can unabashedly say it to my face. I felt like a black guy being told a racist joke.

I think attitudes like this are a predictable result of policies that have destroyed gun culture in my state.

Microstamping in Massachusetts - it was only a matter of time

Just got word from the NRA, Representative Linsky of Natick is introducing a microstamping bill, as follows:

(B) All semiautomatic firearms as defined in Chapter 140 Section 21 manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer within the commonwealth shall be capable of microstamping ammunition.

(C) For purposes of subparagraph (B), a firearm is capable of microstamping ammunition if –

(i) a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the of the firearm is etched into the breech face and firing pin of the firearm; and

(ii) when ammunition is fired from the firearm, the characters are copied from the breech face and firing pin onto the cartridge case of the ammunition.

It's not surprising.  It's just the latest attempt to reduce supply.  They know many manufacturers won't bother with such a stupid requirement, so they won't ship to MA anymore.  That's what the politicians want. 


It looks like the law is impossible to comply with as written, since the firing pin would have to imprint markings on the case.  I would like to invite Rep. Linsky to my basic pistol class where he will learn that this is not physically possible in a centerfire gun. 

Looks like we may be up for a big political fight.  Stay alert, guys. 

NY Times reporter taking liberties with an anecdote?

 Here's a colorful anecdote that I find highly implausible.  Jo Craven McGinty last week in the NYT...

Most gun owners interviewed said they had never drawn their weapons in self-defense. But John A. Catsimatidis, the owner of the Red Apple Group and Gristedes supermarket chain, recalled a chilling episode from the mid-1980s, when he intercepted a robber fleeing one of his stores in the Bronx.

“The first guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, goes right by me and says, ‘Be cool, man,’ ” said Mr. Catsimatidis, who has owned a gun for at least 35 years. “The second guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, goes by me and says, ‘Be cool, man.’ The third guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, and I intertwine my arm into his arm, and I put my gun to his head, and I say, ‘Drop your gun, or I’ll blow your head off.’ ”

When the police arrived, they arrested the man, and examined Mr. Catsimatidis’s weapon — a Walther PPK/S 9-millimeter pistol.

“The sergeant says to me, ‘You couldn’t have shot the guy anyway: your safety is still on,’ ” Mr. Catsimatidis recalled. “The sweat started dripping off my head.
“I’m not going to do anything stupid like that again."

She's using the story to demonstrate that defensive gun use by civilians is, well, stupid.  It's the Times and we expect that bias.  But does the story make sense as told?

The setup sounds like a movie.  He lets the first shotgun-wielding robber flee, then lets the second one (carrying the same gun and uttering the same line... hmmmm) flee, then he finally summons the courage to pull out his little PPK, does some ninja arm interlock, and holds the shotgun-wielding third robber at bay until the police come?  Where were the other two robbers at this point?  Why didn't they help their buddy?  Did the third robber really just give up and stand there, waiting to be arrested?  I don't buy it. 

That's the least of it.  The cops finally show up, and examine the pistol.  How did the cop know if he had the thumb safety engaged or disengaged during the encounter?  Did Catsimatidis just hand the cop the gun, action closed, safety disengaged?  Had he reholstered it and re-engaged the safety?  How did he know the owner didn't engage the safety when when the police arrived?

We don't get those answers in the article.  Instead we get Sean Connery as the grizzled old British Special Forces agent New York cop, and Nicholas Cage as the naive, bumbling science nerd grocery store owner.  "You won't shoot me.  Besides, your safety's on."  It sounds made up.

Let's dig deeper.  Who is this John Catsimatidis? Some humble small business owner?  Nope, turns out he's a big-shot billionaire in NYC.  Not only that, but also a buddy of... wait for it... Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  From his Wikipedia page: He has made donations to Democratic Party and Republican Party campaigns,^[16] and helped run a fund-raiser in 2006 with New York City Mayor Bloomberg for Joseph Lieberman.

To sum it up, we have a virulently anti-gun newspaper using an old, hard to substantiate anectode told by a billionaire friend of the most rabid anti-gun mayor in the country, to make the point that "Yeah, only the elite in NYC get gun permits, but it's for their own good."

This whole thing stinks.

What if they got everything they wanted, and nothing changed?

Bob S. posted a question to the gun control crowd, asking if the background check and registration laws on their agenda were enacted, would they be in favor of lifting restrictions on CCW in the currently prohibited places? 

I'd take that one step further:
If all these laws were enacted, and firearms-related violence steadily increased or remained the same, what new laws, if any, would you then push in an attempt to drastically reduce gun violence? 
 
I don't think any of them would say they'd drop their advocacy in the face of its failure - their only option would be to escalate.  That's why the slippery slope argument from the gun guys is valid.  We don't see a plausible mechanism by which gun control can affect the actions of those in the tail of the lawfulness curve (or the carefulness curve either).  So while one gun a month might seem superficially reasonable, when it fails to decrease crime, it'll turn into one gun a year, then one gun a decade, one gun per person, then England. 


A Brady Campaign board member said it herself - they won't stop until there are zero gun deaths in the US.  When they fail to reach their impossible goals, and they will fail, they'll just keep pushing more restrictions until there's nowhere left to push - until civilian gun ownership is completely prohibited.

Why we need normal capacity magazines

Is this video a good enough reason?  If a group of men violently attacks me, should I really be restricted to 11 rounds of ammo in a gun that fits 16? 

I live a quarter of a mile from a housing project in Boston.  There are gangs around, they have guns, and they do stuff like this.  What happened in this video is what I fear when I'm out walking my dog at 11PM.  This is why I carry. 

How gun control disarms domestic violence victims in Boston

Our favorite Brady board member Joan Peterson wrote in her usual smug tone today:

Has any victim of domestic abuse been disarmed by my group? No. If they want guns, they can have them.

I argue that in my home state of Massachusetts, and especially in Boston, the gun control laws pushed by her group do indeed make it extremely time consuming and expensive for a woman at risk of domestic violence to have a handgun for self defense.

Here's how the process would work for a woman in fear of her life... 

She goes to the local gun shop and is turned away because she doesn't have a valid Class A License to Carry.

She takes time off from work to apply for her license to carry at Boston Police headquarters in Roxbury.  After driving around the block for an hour, she finally finds a parking space.  She's immediately turned away, not knowing she must take an 8-hour state police approved gun safety course.

She signs up for the safety course, which will be held in two weeks.  She pays between $100 and $175 for the course, then waits another week for her certificate. She has to pay for extra day care, because it's Saturday 8AM to 4PM. 

During the course, she finds out she must pass a 30-round qualification test with a double-action Ruger revolver firing .38 Special ammunition at the Boston Police range at Moon Island.  Massachusetts General Laws prohibit her from currently owning the gun she is expected to be proficient with, so she goes to the local range twice a week for a month to take a lesson with the instructor.  Each lesson is $20 to the instructor, and $35 for two boxes of ammo.  Oh, and her arthritis - she just has to deal with the excruciating pain in her hands from the 14 lb. double-action trigger (yes, 18 rounds of the test are mandatory DA one-handed).  There are no exceptions for disabilities.

After she's practiced enough to be able to pass the test, it occurs to her that it's January, and that she'll be firing a gun one handed, no gloves allowed, in 15 degree weather with a 30 MPH wind spraying salty water in her eyes, literally in the middle of Boston freakin' Harbor.  These conditions being insurmountable for her, she postpones the test until April, when the weather becomes reasonable.

A few months roll around, and she takes another day off to go to police headquarters to apply for the LTC and schedule the range test.  She pays her $100 (cash only), presents proof of safety course completion, citizenship and residency, is photographed and fingerprinted, and submits to a background check.  She is forced to sign extra statements containing legalese about acknowledgment of the use of deadly force. 

Two days later, she makes special arrangements for her kids' day care and takes another day off to show up at the range at 7AM.  The police officers are professional and polite, she handles the gun safely, and most of her bullets hit the target.  The range officer looks at the target for two seconds and mutters, "Eh, 275, you passed.  You'll get your license in 6 weeks."

Ten weeks later, her license shows up in the mail.  She heads out to the nearest gun shop, which is 20 miles away (HA! No, Mayor Menino doesn't allow gun shops in Boston!).

"Hello, my good man.  My ex-husband's been threatening to kill me quite a lot, so I'd like to get a new Glock 22, .40 caliber.  It makes sense to me to buy the same durable, safe, simple gun that my city's police use."

"Sorry, ma'am, we can't sell you a new Glock 22."

"Why not?"

"Because they're not on the list."

"What list?"

"The state's list of guns we're allowed to sell."

"This is the same gun that most of our state's police carry every day!  I saw that it's on the Approved Handgun Roster from the state's Executive Office of Public Safety."

"Well, yeah, it's on that list, but not the Attorney General's list."

"There are two lists?"

"Well, the EOPS list is the only actual list.  The AG's list is secret..."

"Fuck it, I can't understand this nonsense. How can I get my Glock 22?"

"You can either buy it from a private buyer who already has one in-state, or you can buy a scarce pre-1998 Glock from us for 50% over retail.  They were grandfathered in."

"Just ring me up for that Ruger over there, I don't care anymore.  I've spent $800 and five months of my time just just to get the government's permission to buy a gun."

[END SCENARIO]


And that, Joan Petersons of the world, is the typical time and expense women in Boston have to put up with to get their best means of self defense - you have been educated.

Victims of domestic violence most certainly have been discouraged and disarmed by your groups.

If Joan were honest, she would have said something like:

Has any victim of domestic abuse been disarmed by my group? No. If they want guns, they can have them.  All they have to do is wait a few months, pay several hundred dollars, endure pain if they're disabled or elderly, and take several days off from work.  It's common sense!

Why modify the phrase "gun control?"

The gun control crowd doesn't often advocate for "gun control" anymore.  Instead they attach adjectives like "reasonable" or "common sense" before it.  Why is that? 

My guess is that when people hear "gun control" by itself, they imagine a Massachusetts-like scheme that makes it as costly and inconvenient as possible to be a gun owner, and gives local cops the ability to seize your guns on a whim.  An authoritarian system. 

But reasonable gun control, or common sense gun control - what is it exactly?  It sounds to me like "gun control, but don't worry we're not taking away your deer rifle."  It's a slightly less insidious marketing term for the layperson.

So my question to the anti-gun bloggers is: at what point does reasonable gun control become unreasonable gun control, and when does common sense gun control become retarded gun control? 

I'd like to hear from you. 

-Bill

Defensive gun use in Mattapan

A store owner successfully stopped an armed robber in Mattapan today.  Well done, sir. 

An interesting point here is that business owners are one of the privileged few in Boston who are granted an unrestricted license to carry (in other words, a license to carry).  Any regular citizen who isn't politically connected, doesn't own a business, or is not a doctor or lawyer gets a restricted LTC, which prohibits concealed carry. 

Therefore most of us here are prevented from having the means to defend ourselves against armed attackers.  Why do Mayor Menino and Commissioner Davis think businessmens' lives are more valuable than everyone else's? 

Legal exposure for children in gun owning households

From today's Globe:

A 10-year-old boy is facing gun-related charges after he allegedly fired his father’s rifle into a neighbor’s Halifax home Tuesday night, police said.... Halifax police Sergeant Ted Broderick said the son will face charges of discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building, possession of a firearm without proper license, possession of ammunition without a proper license, and destruction of property.

Enough has been said about how ridiculous it is to charge the child with a crime here.  Most licensed firearms instructors in Massachusetts don't understand the basics of the state's convoluted ammunition and gun laws, let alone a ten year old, so it's pretty far-fetched that the boy intended to commit a crime.

Could the boy have really possessed ammunition that was bought by the father and stored in the father's home?  This is worrisome - children cannot hold a license to carry, and if they live in a household where an adult legally possesses gun and ammo, the children may have legal exposure.  What if a dad leaves his 17-year old at home with properly stored ammo?  Can the minor be charged with possession without a license?  What about when my unlicensed wife is at home without me, and my guns are stored in the closet with trigger locks in accordance with MGL?  Is she in possession? 

I believe she would be committing a felony by the letter of the law.  In practice it doesn't keep me up at night, because we're not exactly on the police radar.  But it does show how Massachusetts' bizarre gun laws can trap honest people who have done nothing wrong. 

In the Halifax case, I suspect the DA is trumping up a charge for the sole purpose of making this boy a prohibited person, "getting something on his record," to prevent him from owning a gun when he becomes an adult.  I don't know the local politics in that town, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was pressure from some liberal mayor or city council wanting to appear "tough on guns."

The purpose of a gun is to kill?

If so, can I sue Smith & Wesson?  In the past two years I've fired 20,000 rounds from my SW1911 .45.  Amazingly, not a single one of those rounds has killed someone.  If the only purpose of a gun is to kill, and my gun has not killed after such extensive use, then my gun must be defective. 

Joan Peterson, rhetorical genius

From her blog post today:

So let's listen to what folks who have some reason and common sense have to say, like Vincent D'Onofrio of T.V's Law and Order in the You Tube video linked above. Wow- a guy who uses a gun on T.V. thinks that maybe some restrictions should happen in real life where real people get shot to death every day.

She's gone.  Totally bat-shit crazy.

Although we should give her credit for inventing the argumentum ad potentiam donofrii.