Yep, It's Halloween

Talk about serendipity. I blame Manservant Hecubus.

I Hope They Do Parties

Meet the seasoned operators of Tactial Bodygaurd & Security SVC.  According to their website, TB&S is based out of Montgromery, Alabama. I can't seem to find Montgromery on a map, which leads me to believe that these folks are some serious covert operators. There does appear to be a ninja in some of their pictures.

What exactly do these guys do?

 We specialize in security for clubs, bars, convenient store, private parties. weather it be a small job or big nothing we cant handle.

These folks certainly look professional, which leads me to believe that the rampant typographical errors are some kind of code. Try as I might, I can't seem to crack it.  Good work, guys.

This We Don't Need

Just when the media starts to accept that the gun culture is the mainstream, a knuckle-dragging troglodyte like Crockett Keller decides to crash the party. Keller runs a gun shop in Mason, Texas and teaches the state CHL course. In a recent radio advertisement, he set some fairly prejudicial ground rules in his student selection process.

If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner in chief, please do not take this class. You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision as required under the law.  Also, if you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class. Once again, with no shame, I am Crockett Keller.

Guess which story is getting more attention?  Give yourself a cupcake if you guessed it was Keller.

Friday Quickies

You too can be Irony King (or other monarch) of the week by going here and giving your address.  They send you one of these bumper stickers free.  The site says it'll take 4-6 weeks to ship, but that's still plenty of time before the primaries.

In other news, there's a promising verdict from the North Carolina Superior Court (opinion linked at Volokh) upholding a felon's right to keep and bear arms.

Before you flinch at that, bear in mind that one can be punished as a felon for crimes that do little or no real harm to anyone.  Rehabilitation or decades of clean living don't matter:  a felony conviction of any sort is a lifetime ban from owning firearms.  However, if the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty (as the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald), can felons be denied its exercise forever?  After all, they still have rights to freedom of speech and legal counsel, right?

When All Else Fails, Lie

H.R. 822 now has 245 cosponsors.  I have my reasons for thinking it's the wrong approach, and even if it does get through the Senate, it won't be signed.  That's alright.  I like this one for one very salient reason: it's got folks in certain corners going all kinds of asplodey.

Today's exhibit is from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV).  They were originally formed in 1975 as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.  One of the founders was Edward Welles, who also started the Violence Policy Center.  At some point, they decided that the phrase "ban handguns" might be a little extreme, and they changed it.  If that story sounds familiar, the Violence Policy Center used to be Handgun Control International.  Evidently, "control" is also a scary word to the moderates these guys hope to attract.

Under the even less threatening name of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, the CSGV collects $125,000 from the Joyce Foundation every year, which is about $120,000 more than the Brady Campaign makes.

Anyhow, this bill is bringing out the worst in the gun control crowd.  First we had Pulitzer Prize winner John Crewdson committing perjury on a Florida carry license application to prove some elusive point, and now we have this piece of claptrap, which is a cheap, manipulative lie.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), also known as the Lautenberg Amendment, it is illegal for anyone convicted of any crime of domestic violence to own a gun.  Period.  No state will issue a carry permit to anyone thus convicted.  Why?  Because the applicant can't legally own a gun in the first place.  H.R. 822 won't do anything to make domestic violence worse.

The folks at CSGV know that, but this is how low they have to sink to get attention.

Zombies Are Passé

The whole "zombie" meme in the gun culture is just tired.  The only thing more likely to induce a contemptuous yawn of disinterest might be Punisher grips.  Zombies are totally 2009.  So are those posters of Obama looking like the Joker, or yelling "this is Sparta!" when you're not in Sparta (or gay).  Times change, and none of that foolishness is novel or witty any more.  It's just embarrassing.

Nonetheless, there still appears to be a profit in it.

We need a new bogeyman, and lately that seems to be flash mobs.  I'm telling you, suburban white folks are terrified of them, and I can see why.  I could use some additional cash flow, and since nobody's offered to load my new cartridge, I figure I'll kill two birds with one stone.

Newsflash: California Possibly Not Sinking

Things might not be what they seem. I have very little to substantiate this at the moment, but some folks with their ears closer to the ground than mine are wondering what Governor Brown might be playing at with the gun-control bills he signed into law this week.

We've got an interesting snippet from a statement he made today:

The governor tried to explain to an audience in Belmont why a bill that bans the open carrying of unloaded handguns and another that makes it easier to carry a concealed weapon were both signed.

“There is a phrase called the coincidence of opposites. I can even say it in Latin—coincidentia oppositorum. It means that apparently antagonistic measures can be melded together in a higher unity.”

This got me thinking.

Mulford Act: Full Circle

Today, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 144 into law, making open carry of any sort a misdemeanor.

Since 1967, there's been a loophole in § 12031 that allows an unlicensed citizen to carry a handgun, as long as it's visible and unloaded. It's a questionable mode of carry, but at least it's an option when others are not available. Now, Californians don't even have that. Who's to blame? Portantino? Brown? Nope. We are.

For over 40 years, the whole technicality was something of an open secret, but it was never front-page news. That is, until a bunch of pro-gun folks decided it was their mission to make it an issue. They wanted controversy, and they succeeded. Now, California citizens are worse off, and the Brady Campaign can chalk up a win.

Losing is still losing, no matter how righteous some thought they might have been. This didn't have to happen.

(Adam Winkler has a new book out called Gunfight, which traces the history of gun control in America.  The Mulford Act wasn't passed in a vacuum, and the book has a good history on the circumstances and events surrounding it.)

Now They Do Make a .46

Plenty of obnoxious clichés get thrown around in the gun culture, but the most annoying is, "I carry a .45 because they don't make a .46!" I'm mildly surprised when the simpletons chanting that one manage not to drool on themselves in public.

In fact, I am so weary of it that I'm going to rectify the situation. I'm going to make a .46 caliber handgun cartridge.

Now, you might say that's a bad idea. Let me tell you something. When George Washington wanted to cross the Potomac and drive the British out of New Jersey, I'm pretty sure some folks told him that was a bad idea. But he proved them wrong, didn't he? He sent them packing all the way back to California. Smelly hippies. Without him, we'd be spelling words like "color" and "flavor" with a "u." I'm telling you, that man was a great American.

What was I saying? Oh, yeah. I plan on calling the cartridge the .46 Ginormous Action Tactical. A serious load demands a serious name, and that means using the word "tactical" to the point that it loses all meaning. It also prevents confusion, since ".46 GAT" couldn't possibly be confused with any current commercial loading.

Dave's Not Here, Man

The ATF recently distributed a letter to firearms dealers to remind them that they cannot sell guns to users of marijuana. People are suddenly up in arms about the situation, which I find odd, since this isn't anything new.

Good old Kentucky Blue has been Schedule I since 1970, and the accompanying prohibitions date back to 1968. Having or consuming the stuff is illegal, and those who do so are prohibited under U.S.C. § 922(g) from receiving or possessing a firearm. Thanks to an unpleasant trend in jurisprudence, federal law overrides any state laws that might make it legal, even by prescription.

The current situation presents real a hardship to those who need the Maui Ouchie for legitimate medicinal purposes, and the punishments for those who use it recreationally are excessive and unjust. It might be nice to see things change, but the majority of pot smokers aren't the most...shall we say, motivated bunch. Peeling oneself off the beabag chair long enough to go shuffle around at a NORML rally doesn't get much done.

A legislative push would be nice, but the problem lies in the fact that I've never met an advocate for its legalization who wasn't an active user, and therefore engaged in criminal activity.  That hurts credibility a bit.  Mainstreaming the idea means getting folks who don't break the law to work on changing it.

A Right Deferred

The Supreme Court has chosen not to hear Williams v. Maryland this term.  Are we screwed, then?

The implications aren't encouraging. The first is that we couldn't get four Justices to take an interest.  The second is that there might have been four, but they didn't think they could convince a fifth to their side.  A loss at the Supreme Court level would essentially end the reach of the 2nd Amendment at the doorstep of one's home.

While Williams was our best overall case, we've still got Masciandaro and Woollard awaiting review.  However, their chances aren't looking too bright at the moment, either.

That leaves constitutional protection of the right to carry in a precarious position, with three 4th Circuit decisions implying that there isn't such a right.  I worry that those might be taken as precedents in future litigation.