State Can't Let Gun Scofflaws Off Hook

The Courant op-ed - link and observations provided by ssgmarkcr

   I came upon an editorial from a Connecticut newspaper that was discussing the what seems to be widespread refusal to register rifles that the law has now determined to be an assault weapon.  We went into the scope of this problem in a previous posting.

    One thing that struck me though was this little bit in the paper's recommendations for a course of action.

"But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law."

"A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit."

"If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences."

    So, depending on how the state government handles this, there is the potential for Connecticut to become the state which shows that gun rights advocates have a credible concern in regards to using registration to confiscate now illegal firearms and arrest gun owners.  I don't envy the state government. 

‘Redneck’ Democrat Packs it in Over Open Carry

Proof that not all Texans are dickheads found here as Rancher, bookstore owner, and 79-year-old iconoclast, Bill Bond gets upset at Wendy Davis' real agenda.

“I’m a 79-year old rancher and I’ve got guns. I’m not afraid of guns,” he says. “But I think Texas as a culture is not with history, and I think Texas as a gun culture is in the wrong place. I’m not for shooting people. I’m not afraid of anything. I don’t carry guns. I’m tired of killing game, even.” When he thinks about the rest of the country seeing pictures of Gov. Perry shooting and posing with guns, he says, “that image of Texas is abhorrent to me. And I’m a redneck!”

A day or so late

Given that women are more likely to be killed by a spouse or lover if there is a firearm in the house. We can't forget this study either which showed that having a gun in house means a woman is eight times more likely to be killed.

First, show her how much you love her with your gun.

Then, you give her a really nice burial.

Well, you like to keep reminding us that firearms are "just tools": well, it seems it is a tool which might predict mortality in an abusive relationship.

The Gift of Safety for Your Valentine

Misplaced Priorities

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision about Justifiable Cause for Concealed Carry

WSJ

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment endows the right to carry a gun outside the home. The opinion comes days before the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to review two other cases that ask the question of whether the right to “bear arms” extends beyond the home.

The California-based appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling authored by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, delved into American history, from the Founding Era forward, and found support for the notion that “bearing arms” means carrying a gun in public:

So concludes our analysis of text and history: the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes “bear[ing] Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The case comes from San Diego County, which, according to state law, requires residents to show “good cause” for carrying a concealed handgun. Personal safety alone does not qualify as good cause. The question for the court was whether the requirement infringes on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

From the Ninth Circuit:

The question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”

…

To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.

The court’s ruling aligns with one by the Chicago-based Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but conflicts with the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits.

That last part has been completely omitted in the reports of this story by the gun-rights fanatics. They're all pretending this is a monumental victory which foretells their complete success over all gun control laws. 

It's hardly that.

Teabaggers/gunloons need a reality check. Here it is.

I keep trying to make this point, but some of these people are too thick to get it.

We didn't call the thing the "Grid Square Removal Service" for nothing!