Last fall, Washington Free Beacon writer Steve Gutowski applied for a concealed carry pistol license in the District of Columbia. He was skeptical about his chances of being approved, and it turned out that this skepticism was justified; despite spending a bit of time, effort, and $110 on the application, he received a form letter advising that his application has been denied. The reason: “The applicant did not demonstrate a good reason to fear injury to person or property, or other proper reason for a concealed carry license.” Mr. Gutowski apparently had received a rather strange and threatening communication in 2011 in response to an article he wrote on Occupy DC . . .
A TTAG reader writes, “I received an email blast from the NRA-ILA regarding Wisconsin state senate and assembly bills to remove the 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases. If these bills get passed and signed into law it would be a HUGE step in the right direction in preserving our civil liberties. It would also give presidential candidate Scott Walker a chance to prove his worth to the rest of the country’s second amendment supporters. Though this bill does not confront the inherent infringement and unconstitutionality of background checks . . .
Let’s say you want to stop someone from shooting you. You could A) lobby for more gun control, B) report the potential killer to the police, or C) arm yourself. Choose any two. Common sense suggests that B and C are the correct answer. Even if you think “stricter” gun laws could keep a gun out of the hands of your potential killer, you’d have to be crazy to consider it a short-term solution. When it’s your life on the line, short-term solutions are what you need. And any law that makes it harder for you, the innocent party, to get a gun to defend your life is a bad thing, not a good thing. So, did I miss something? If so, here’s a story from Houston that makes the point in a more emotionally engaging way . . .
Arguing with an anti-gunner is like herding amphetamine-crazed cats. Despite all their talk about “common sense gun safety,” antis rely on unreliable studies and surveys. First you have to debunk their bad science – exposing bogus survey samples and skewed questions – then you have to counter with good science and robust data (click on the main site’s Facts About Guns tab for ammunition). At some point, you have to “explain” the meaning of the Second Amendment to them (as if it could be any clearer) and illuminate the point of the U.S. Constitution (protecting rights). Supreme Court decisions come into it. It’s exhausting. Luckily there’s a simple pro-gun argument which forces antis to acknowledge Americans’ gun rights . . .
The Washington Post makes me laugh. Not because they made me look like a nut case in a front page profile that elicited thousands of flaming comments. The WaPo tickles my funny bone with their ongoing battle between the paper’s dedication to old-fashioned news reporting and their virulent anti-gun bias. As the headline indicates, Getting a gun legally in Europe may be hard, but terrorists have little trouble is a perfect example. The story’s push-me pull-you prevarication starts right from the word go . . .
Reader dwb writes:
I recently found myself shopping for some new homeowners insurance. As I have quite a few personal firearms, I asked the agent about the limitations of the policy she wanted to sell me. The agent checked the dec sheet and she asked me if I had a collectors license. I said no. The ensuing conversation got interesting in a hurry . . .
The idea that passing new or “stricter” gun control laws will reduce “gun violence” is silly. Setting aside the statistically nominal death and injury toll caused by negligent firearms discharges and domestic violence, America’s “gun violence” problem takes two basic forms: suicide and criminal activity. As Japan’s suicide rate proves, even a total gun ban does sweet FA to stop people from offing themselves. Firearms-involved criminal activity is mostly gang bangers banging. Hard. So if you really want to reduce “gun violence” you have to . . .
Recently, Dan asked an interesting and important question: Is self-defense a human invention or is it God-given? If there is no right to self-defense, there is surely no right to the implements necessary to exercise that right, no right to keep and bear arms. If that’s the case, we live, essentially, in a state of nature, where, as Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan (1651), life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Anything large and vicious enough to take life may do so and . . .
Vermont is to anti-gunners what Nebraska is to beach goers. That said, Nebraska has beaches and Vermont has gun control advocates. In fact, you can see four (all?) of them in the video above, brought to you by Gun Sense Vermont. The civilian disarmament org is lobbying for universal background checks (UBC); they want all private gun sales and transfers to go through a federal firearm licensee (a.k.a., gun store). As we’ve pointed out here before . . .
An interesting decision was handed down yesterday in the Middle District of Pennsylvania yesterday concerning the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Court held that the Second Amendment actually protects the rights of individuals who have been convicted of old, nonviolent crimes. Julio Suarez was convicted in Montgomery County, Maryland of carrying a handgun without a license in 1990. The offense was classed as a misdemeanor in Maryland, but had a potential term of imprisonment of “not less than thirty days, nor more than three years.” Suarez was sentenced to . . .
As you’d imagine, New York Times columnist Gail Collins supports national concealed carry reciprocity like ISIS supports clothing optional beaches. Collins’ editorial A Gun on Every Corner is cookie-cutter anti-gun alarmism, based on bog-standard East Coast liberal elitism. How can we allow gun owners from Mississippi – Mississippi! – to carry in cultured, urbane New York? Why, “a permit to carry a concealed weapon from Mississippi is [merely] concrete proof of the owner’s ability to fill out an application.” (Props for conceding basic literacy skills.) Untrained, bible-clinging, gun-toting southern racist rednecks on the Upper East Side? The latte-fueled mind boggles! Here’s the most interesting bit of Collins’ dietribe [sic] . . .