Reader Andy A. writes:
In a move that affirms what is often said in the comments section and proves that states like California and Connecticut are the canaries in the gun control coal mine, a pair of lawmakers in Kansas and Missouri plan to propose laws similar to California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law. That allows police to confiscate the weapons of someone deemed “dangerous” by their family or others without due process. They appear to have looked to the Golden State as a template. Note that one of the legislators has a D following of her name the other an R after hers, thus proving that . . .
“Did y’all cover this yet?” Mr emails TTAG central command re: Suge Knight’s arrest for a hit-and-run fatality involving his Ford Raptor. “Three things spring to mind:
1) Is this a gun control success story? I mean, it’s not a ‘gun crime’ so I can feel safe, right?
2) Why does anyone ‘need’ anything more than a base F150? You know, the kind of truck ol’ Grandpa took hunting?
3) Do TTAGs’ readers have a modest proposal of ‘bad features’ that CA lawmakers can use to define (and ban) an ‘assault truck’?”
Despite seminal Supreme Court decisions such as Heller in 2008 and McDonald in 2010, gun banners never cease in their efforts to limit liberty. State law, federal law, nothing stops them. No matter how old, unlawful, illogical, or discredited the argument, they revive it, time and again. A recent article in The New Yorker titled “The Newtown Lawsuit And The Moral Work Of Gun Control” speaks of a lawsuit filed on the behalf of survivors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack against Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the AR-15 pattern rifle used in the killings. Their claims are as unlawful as they are based in emotion . . .
“WHILE MASSACHUSETTS already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, and took steps last year to tighten access to firearms, the data show there are simple measures that could be taken to further curb gun violence,” bostonglobe.com‘s editorial writers opine. “One glaring place to start is to recognize that gun violence against the most vulnerable members of society — children and youth — is largely preventable. Massachusetts health care providers could lead the nation in helping lower the rate of firearm suicides among teenagers by adopting a requirement to advise parents about the risks of guns in the home.” Really? Where’s the evidence that a doctor talking to the parent of a teen would reduce the risk of firearms-related suicides (of the teens)? Oh, I forgot. Facts are either optional or malleable for civilian disarmament crusaders. Like this . . .
Sheriff: New Hope gunman bought ammo on day of shooting, had gun illegally the headline at startribune.com proclaims. Because guns. In fact, Raymond K. Kmetz [above], the 68-year-old man who shot and wounded two policemen in New Hope, Minnesota City Chambers, had a long history of mental illness. Despite focusing on the gun used in the attack – “Authorities do not know how Kmetz got the gun, which the sheriff described as a ‘pistol-grip shotgun with the serial numbers ‘obliterated'” – the paper’s coverage clearly indicates that Kmetz was a known nutcase and violent threat to pubic safety. To wit . . .
Actor Kevin Costner’s wife number whatever bought the actor a shotgun for his most recent birthday. Good for her! Good for him! Only Kevin is very clear that the long rifle’s for shooting Bambi, not bad guys. Which makes his new shotgun, and the rest his “heirloom” firearms OK. As for other guns and gun ownership in general . . .
The Brief: Open Carry Activists Don’t Bring Their Guns to Capitol the texastribune.org headline announces. “A group that advocates for allowing the open carry of handguns without a permit, also known as constitutional carry, rallied outside the Capitol . . . They were joined by state Reps. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, and Molly White, R-Belton, as well as a survivor of the 2009 Fort Hood shootings. The protesters made their position known by brandishing empty gun holsters, with some of them filled by bananas, copies of the Constitution or cans of hairspray, per a report from The Associated Press’ Jim Vertuno.” So why did the Trib show a pic of . . .
TTAG reader VE writes:
I live in Chicago’s Hyde Park. It’s pretty much owned by the university of Chicago. Thanks to our concealed carry laws, any property owned by a university is a gun-free zone (GFZ). Since the U of C owns almost ALL of the commercial property in a six block radius – dry cleaners, ACE Hardware, Staples, the grocery story, Starbucks, the noodle shop and more – they are all posted. This is how the criminals view the campus area [via dnainfo.com] . . .
Returning from the Sin City SHOT Show, looking to re-stock my radicchio supply, I was waylaid by this pair of signs at my local Whole Foods. I immediately realized the letters aren’t big enough for a Texas-legal 30.06 sign (1″ tall by law). And what was all that other text? 30.06 signs are supposed to have the required wording – and nothing else. Unfortunately, the signs are posted on automatic doors that slide open at the mere thought of a customer. I had to step back, wait for the foot traffic to disappear, snap the photo, enlarge it and read the text. Here’s what it says . . .
I laugh when the elitists and busybody extremists who comprise much of the opposition to the right to keep and bear arms whinge that owning and carrying a firearm involves less bureaucracy than purchasing an automobile. Laws related to firearms in the United States are so labyrinthine that they require a team of attorneys to keep things straight. Heck, some of the regulations are occasionally dreamed up by the people tasked with enforcing them. The stakes are high . . .