MD Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Bill on Mag Limits Today

I just sent off this letter to the members of the Maryland Senate Judiciary Committee that will be debating and hearing testimony on a magazine capacity limit (limiting to 10 rounds down from the current State's law of 20 rounds).  

Honorable Members of the Judiciary Committee:

I am writing this letter in very strong opposition to Senate Bill 162, Firearms - Detachable Magazines - Maximum Capacity for Ammunition.

While I understand that this bill is primarily a reaction to the abhorrent tragedy that occurred last month in Arizona, it is my firm believe that this bill erroneously and incorrectly limits freedoms enjoyed by law abiding citizen. I wish to make it clear that the efforts of this state to protect its citizens and legislators should be focused on the actual acts of violence and the perpetrators thereof, instead of focusing on the tools used to commit such acts. Considering that the tool in question here (guns and their detachable magazines) are used for lawful purposes by those whom follow the law, I must question whether this bill will have any impact in effecting a decrease in criminal activity, specifically mass public homicides.

As you convene your committee hearing this day, please consider the following views of this constituent.

Arms in common use: Currently, Maryland law restricts the capacity of any ammunition feeding device to an arbitrary 20 round limit. While this law does not currently limit most arms that honest citizens can acquire and use for sporting and, more importantly, Constitutionally protected self defense, a decrease to ten rounds would almost assuredly cause a decrease in the supply of firearms within the state of Maryland. While some members of the committee might think limiting access to arms is a noble goal, it does nothing to address the potential for criminal homicides, regardless of the weapon used.

Further, with many law enforcement agencies in the state choosing to use handguns that often carry in excess of 10 rounds of ammunition, please note that even our government agencies agree that more rounds equals more opportunities to win in a self defense battle. Please recall that last year this committee enacted legislation to exempt homeowners from liability suits brought by the criminally negligent. Why do we want to regress in terms of defense of family and self by arbitrarily limiting the amount of ammunition one can use in any firearm at any time?

Economics: While we do not economic means test enumerated civil rights, it is hard to ignore the impact to small and local business that sell detachable magazines and the arms that operate with them. Considering the current economic climate, we should foster every opportunity to promote and encourage sales growth, cost savings, and business opportunities, as well as tax receipts to the state. At present, limited capacity magazines are both expense, produced in small numbers, and not widely available on the shelves of Maryland gun dealers. When cash flow for a small business can mean the difference between keeping the doors open or going out of business, we can ill-afford to upset this delicate balance as we force dealers to liquidate their products on hand, and replace them with something that may not even sell.

Looking to other "model" states as a product of such bans (California and Massachusetts), one sees that such magazine capacity restrictions impact the consumer as well. Manufactures of magazines are forced to produce a product they would not otherwise produce, thus limiting supplies and increasing the cost of both the magazine and the arms that use them. I would hope that you note that this will disproportionately affect the classes of people whom need them most to level the playing field against stronger criminals. Elderly, poor and economically stressed persons, as well as those living in under-privileged, crime ridden neighborhoods would effectively be priced out of the market place here in our state. Even if you don't agree with the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the Second Amendment and its Incorporation, shouldn't we all strive to increase exercise of freedom afforded by all civil rights?

Impact Upon Crime: In the days after the Arizona tragedy, critics of firearms were quick to point out that these types of magazines were banned under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Unfortunately, what the firearms critics failed to point out was that even the FBI was never able to correlate a reduction in crime statistics for those ten years to the reduction in "assault arms" and their accessories. If it is the attempt of this committee to decrease mass public shootings, I suggest we focus on mental health and criminal intent by better data-basing of crime reports and mentally deficient adjudication records before enacting legislation which only a law abiding citizen will follow.

As this legislation is discussed, the four surrounding neighbor states of Maryland should serve as an example to the ineffectiveness of this legislation. All four states currently do not impose arbitrary capacity restrictions limiting detachable magazines to 20 round, and all four states have lower crime rates than that of Maryland. Let us be realistic in this assessment however and not fail to realize that the culture and demographics of our neighbors is different from that of Maryland's, but from a straight forward correlation of more magazine capacity related to criminal shootings, it is nearly impossible to make such a connection.

In summary, I strongly urge the committee to discard this bill and withhold it from the full Senate. As outlined above, it is easy to see an increase to the arbitrary magazine capacity limit will do nothing to prevent crime, nothing to deter crime, and will only act to put further restrictions upon a civil right that is enjoyed by many Marylanders.

Thank you for considering the input from this concerned citizen as you hear today's testimony.


Sincerely,


FightinBluHen51

Justification for High Cap Mags

As the attack upon our ammunition feeding devices comes into sever question upon Capital Hill, and the marginally legal Executive Branch pushes shotgun import restrictions (all the while controversy swirls the agency itself), it becomes imperative to seek out the truth with regards to lawful firearms ownership. 

In a story that is more than a decade old, we can point out the benefits one can achieve with multiple standard capacity magazines and common use arms.  The Beckwith Incident shows how a 65 year old gun store owner was able to confront seven armed thugs, aged 16-21, by himself, AND (as a bonus) use restraint to limit the defense of his shop to one justifiable homicide.  Had Mr. Beckwith been restricted to just 10 rounds of ammunition in any magazine, chances are, he would have been run over while reloading by the car he stared down while using his AR-15.  This would have allowed the criminals to flee the scene before the police arrived, and chances are thousands of dollars worth of arms and ammunition would have ended up in the hands of countless criminals.  This article shows how lawful use of Class III weapons in the hands sensible and responsible gun owners can level the playing field against multiple threats, and that using such weapons is not directly related to mass murder (but quite the contrary).

Read the article (and if anyone has the original, please send a PDF scan of it my way and I'll see if I can't get in contact with the author and publisher to host it), take note, and use it in your letters to your representatives. 

Hat tip to AK Fan. 

Toning Down the Rhetoric, Hang 'em High Edition

Seems that now that we are moving away from the whole "target" and "gun" references in political language, "rope" and "noose" references are perfectly fair game, at least according to Dem Tom Harkin.  So much for "civility" huh?





H/T to Hot Air.

Arguing with Idiots: Outdoor Girl's Take On High-Caps

The only reason to engage the idiots is to well, make them look like idiots.  Hence the reason, we can tag this blogger with the appropriate idiot tag.

 So, taking the advice of Joe Huffman, I'm hitting them back hard!  I penned a nice response that I thought was sure to not get published, and to my shock, actually did get published.  The contents can be viewed on the blogger's page, or here if you chose not to read through outdoors Girls' mindless rhetoric.

In your story, you do a wonderful job of contradicting yourself entirely on a multitude of fronts.

First, you say you are not an "absolutist" yet you talk about the one Amendment that is an absolute. "Shall not be infringed," is written in plain English, and is comprehensible for even a freshman journalism major.

You talk about being a hunter, yet as two recent Supreme Court cases have stated, the 2A is not about hunting. Most mainstream Americans will take that a step further and say that the amendment enumerates a right to defense not only from the lawless, but also lawless government. Lawless government also includes ones that would propose such regulations of magazine capacities and then exempt themselves from it for "compelling interest." If our overlords' compelling interest is so great, let them be the first to set the example and lead by turning in all expanded capacity magazines that are greater than those in "common & standard use," or as those in the media and pro-control movement have said, those in excess of 10 rounds. We can start by disarming our men in combat theater in Afghanistan first, followed by Iraq and then the BATFE and the FBI (both who have committed their own Mass-murders in the 90s).

Unfortunately, compelling interest here will serve absolutely zero purpose to achieving what you seek; crime reduction and lower mass murders. You admitted that the VT gunmen came prepared with TWO (emphasis added) handguns and 200 rounds of ammunition. I suppose that if someone is as motivated as that, he could merely purchase a chest rig, 20 magazines that each hold 10 rounds, or he could go all Neo on the Matrix and just drop empty guns, switching to those which are loaded (which, to a certain extent, is what that mass murder did).

Further, you commit the atrocity that the entire media has continued these past weeks by using poor terminology and understanding of arms. Calling a detachable magazine a "clip" shows ignorance of firearms knowledge, and calls to question your authority as a "gun owner." I would hope that you understand that most handgun rounds suck when it comes to stopping power of 2 legged predators hopped up on meth and other drugs. When sufficiently trained, a gun owner or a police officer understands to shoot until the threat is stopped (meaning to the point the threat can cause you no harm). If you choose to defend your home with your pump shotgun, I hope you use no less than No. 2 buckshot, and practice the same method of shoot until threat is neutralized (notice that until dead is not used). (For real world demonstrations of potential defense situations check out http://www.theboxotruth.com/ ).

Last, I must pose a question to you: Does the Constitution still mean anything, or would you prefer to exercise regulation of it to the point that it has no teeth, which as you say, is not an absolute? Unfortunately, unless we become a police type state replete with a KGB, no amount of firearms regulation will stop mass murders (not mass shootings, mass murders because that is the actual act of violence). Regulation of the free man will not compensate for the lawless, and the mere fact that people wish to push an agenda while the victims are still warm and then dare call their opponents to task is reprehensible. I didn't know freedom first was so out of vogue.

Final thought. Would a Molotov Cocktail or a suicide bomb style attack like that occurring in Russia this past weekend have been more horrific than the shooting? Would they have been easier to stop? Would Laughner simply have switched to $50 of gas, a polystyrene rag, a mason's jar and a match? To show that the anti-gun / anti-freedom crowd are one in the same, both of the suggested tools are neither legal to assemble or use (Petrol-bomb or actual bomb) yet motivated people still find materials to make and implement destruction.

Edit to Update:  Seems that the blogger was a bit put off by my "uncivil" comments.  Only when it doesn't suit the leftists does the discourse turn an "attack" on the message.  So, here is the response to her response (which I doubt will get published because a "two bit blogger like me" who doesn't get paid by a big media house like the Baltimore Sun, can actually go toe to toe with someone who supposedly has more creds. 

Heated rhetoric is the cop-out plea that is used to force others into conforming to one's way of thinking. Debate me on the facts and if you can't, yes, that is an atrocity, even if grammatically that usage is a bit over the top for effect.

Over the top for effect is no different than the satire and sarcasm you use yourself. So my apologies if I truly think that the portrayal of guns in the media is an atrocity because so much is either agenda driven or fake Hollywood that doesn't show a true representation as to the dangers and power (both good and bad) that firearms can be produce. If ignorance of proper training and terminology weren't so prevalent, perhaps then mainstream Americans wouldn't take issue with the attack upon their civil right.

The mere fact that you preface your whole article on absolutes is what doomed your article to failure. The whole Constitution is an absolute. It is an absolute enumeration of the things that the government CAN do in an explicit manner. So, yes, as you pointedly said, the TSA and Transit Authority police agencies that subject baggage to random searches does violate those civil rights.

Further, as we have seen with cases like the UMD beating of a student, we can't always trust police to know the law, so how can we expect them to know the specific terminology. It appears that you understand the difference between clip and mag, so why not take the time to add a paragraph and educate the pubic, rather than continue the heated, agenda driven rhetoric which ultimately puts more restrictions upon those who are free men.

If Giffords and company had been hit by a drunk driver, would we be talk about a new call for prohibition? Highly unlikely, and drinking is not even a Constitutionally Enumerated Civil Right.

John Lott on Magazine Bans

Finally, a real pundit gets to talk on a socialist radio station!  John Lott tackles the magazine ban controversy with smart and real facts on SoCal Public Radio.  Going opposite of Ladd Everitt, Lott even gets equal (or perhaps even more) air time with the pusher.

Grab a beer (or a sandwich for lunch) and catch the whole 30 minute segment, as you'll hear everything from waiting laws, licensing laws, magazine capacities, and murder rates from around the world debated, discussed, and debunked with some intelegent (and nitwit) callers thrown in.  Holly run on sentence gun nut! 

Who Needs Enemies with Friends Like These

No. 1 rule of blogging...when you have the lead on something, post it while it's hot (and new), or someone might steal it from ya. 

Dick Chaney went on the record to sell us out say that magazine capacity restrictions might be a good idea.  Um, no thanks Richard Cranium!  With friends like this, who needs enemies?  I mean, do we really want to look like this in the next five or ten years after the gains we've made in the past four?  As the saying goes, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.

Emotions aside, the facts remain the same in that this is not a gun issue.  It is even marginally a crime and social issue.  Removing freedom from those whom use it properly is never a solution, and the lot of us are tired of that being the answer to a nonexistent problem.  Let us consider the mere fact that it was freedom that stopped this man from killing more than he did.  Bravery in a free world is reward and commended, yet bravery in a country filled with control is often called stupidity at best, and treason at worst.  I assume that Mr. Chaney would prefer us to be more like the latter in his statements today. 

When the former VP says that we "want to do something to prevent this from happening again," we need to ask him what if done differently, would have prevented this attack.  What would have happened if Laughner had simply used a Molotov Cocktail instead of a G19?  Would the same victims have been hurt?  Would more people have been killed or severely burned?  Would the tragedy been any less tragic had another tool of "destruction" been the culprit?  Would Laughner been any less crazy or motivated had he wielded a Mason's jar full of petrol instead of 9mm FMJ? 

The solution that Chaney, Megan McCain, HuffPo, Brady Bunch, et al offer is the same solution that the true citizen class of this country has seen since King George; ie, simply more control, less freedom, and being more subject to the whims of the state.  I don't know about you, but the average citizens will keep our enemies and leave our friends to their own affairs, especially when they can't even realize they lack the necessary safety skills to be deemed, safe. 

High Cap Mag Legislation & News

No doubt, the whole gun blogosphere is going crazy over Rep McCarthy's draft bill (of course, it's completely asinine, but that's beside the point).

As Sebastian noted, seems that even the Mayor Against Illegal Guns leader, Bloomberg, agrees with us.  Though, that means only police should be allowed to have high cap mags.  Of course, from the unpossible realm of thinking, the police will NEVER over react and over shoot.  Nope, that never happens!  All told, the police fired 41 shots at a fellow officer, some of which were fired after the man was on the ground.  Maybe that means that we should turn this around, and exempt law abiding citizens who use rational and controlled shoot/no shoot analysis and ban the police from having high cap mags.  After all, we don't have liability insurance, a badge, a union, and the law to hide behind.  Funny how the individual is always more responsible than the collective. 

Capital Hill Switchboard = 202-224-3121

Z0MG! St0P teh VIL0ENCE! ZB0BBL3H3ADS MIGHT DIE!

I hereby make it known that I am placing a contract upon all Lane & Monte Kiffin Bobble Heads!  Though, this is not your normal contract killing, since it's a you pay me (or well, someone should pay Frontier Firearms) for the rights to take aim and blow apart any and all Lane and Monte Kiffin Bobble Head Dolls (only).  (Actual shooting of Lane and Monte Kiffin is 404FORBIDDEN, void where prohibited, some exclusions may apply)!

College football is big business in the South, especially when it's the SEC.  Factor in a guy who followed a legend, only to run out of town after a year to coach at his "dream job," along with said bobble heads, and you have the makings for a great fundraiser.  Of course, the recipient of said fundraiser was all for the money, before they were against it after Saturday's AZ Shooting.

Is society really this touchy, that a charity event that is meant to be humorous and supportive of a good cause can't be associated with anything that is "boyishly destructive" in nature?  I mean, come on now!  Are we really this reactionary that a foundation doesn't have the stones to say "Yeah, we'll still support you, even after last weekend."  How many videos are on YouTube of people shooting iPads or iPhones or other crazy stuff?  Hell, we have a whole TV show that is predicated on blowing or shooting shit up in the name of science!

It's simply dumb guy humor, and a good way to support a good cause!  I'm happy to report that Frontier Firearms still plans on holding the event, even if the charity doesn't want to take their money.  Hopefully, someone here who has a charity w/ needs will take the money, but if not, perhaps our good friends in the state of Tennessee can make a charitable contribution to either the Second Amendment Foundation or the NRA.  At least, we know they'd appreciate the manliness and charity of the event!

Is a Modern Day V Emerging?

On Saturday, the disgusting media attack hounds unleashed hell's fury before the bodies were even cold (El Douche extraordinaire Krugman not even 3 hours after the attack).  The blame game flood gates opened up and a relentless torrent of rhetoric and vitriol spewed from noted leftists (named and not named here).  As the saying goes, never let a good crisis go to waste, huh?

However, while the disgusting acts have been covered ad nauseum from a political fall out perspective, little coverage has been given by both pundit and factual media from both sides here in the US.   I've had to resort to the actual reporting that we get across the pound to find out that Loughner may not be able to plead insanity, or that he was urged to seek help numerous times.  Instead, the standard of double standard has reared it's ugly head.  Vitriol spewed from the left before any amount of shock could even be determined.  Those actions in and of themselves are inhuman in nature, showing that batnuts of control will stop at nothing to progress on their way towards completely power.

I linked this article yesterday in the QOTD but did not discuss it.  Hopefully some of you clicked through and read it, but if not, please take the time to do so.  The movie V for Vendetta is quite a righteous movie.  As Jim Quinn of the Burning Platform penned, the movie is appropriate because of the plot line.  A tyrannical government was created at the behest of the populace because a time of fear and uncertainty had surrounded the citizenry of England, and one person promised order, but an order without liberty.  Censure of discourse is a repeating theme throughout the movie.  So too is abuse of power by public officials.  Obviously, what occurs is one heroic, or lunatic depending upon your viewpoint, decides to stand up to the corrupt tyrants and blow up buildings in hopes of inciting a revolution.  Of course, management doesn't appreciate such defiance and brutally attempts to maintain "civil order."

While the debate over "blood liable" continues, what does it mean for us average citizens?  Giordano Bruno of Neithercorp Press says, "nothing changes."  Like myself, and many other average Joe bloggers, Giordano thinks that the liberty movement sees the corruption in the system much like the Character V from the movie.  While the scare tactics of the left may have well worked a decade ago, people are more attuned to their government, the news, and the interaction with their daily lives.  Are we to the point where the leftist hate will disappear or diminish?  Not in the slightest.  A cornered dog will bite back twice as hard, and their organization is always far better than those of us in the grassroots' arena (after all, that is their collectivist, bureaucratic nature). 

While I, and the above authors, do not advocate for violence in anyway, there seems to be a breaking point dynamic developing in the United States.  Many people realize there is something wrong, that they have been lied to, repeatedly, and feel as though something needs to be done.  Many of us rightly believe the political process does work, but unfortunately isolated and singular instances of violence will never, ever be completely stopped, and in fact worse if under a totalitarian system.  Myself and others know that we will never give in, and hence why quite the lot of us have been hitting back (and hard) against the disgusting thuggish actions that commenced Saturday.

So where does this leave us and where are we going?  Opinion polling shows the good guys hold the lead, for now.  While we need to maintain the lead, we can't rest on our laurels.  Our ideas ALWAYS win, when a person looks at them with an open mind and heart.  After all, our founders believed in natural rights and the individual.  They lost friends and family to make those beliefs a reality.  In short, we shall  keep fighting the establishment of big media and perverted politics in an effort to secure as much personal freedom and responsibility as possible.  After all, that is truly the American "Shining Beacon Upon the Hill."

QOTD: Equality of the Charges (or Law)

Back in the saddle here, and sorry I've had an extended layoff of meaningful posts. 

While the MSM, Dino-Media is focusing on the blame game, I've been busy looking at things from the average citizens' perspective.  You know, just your friendly neighborhood blogger (and gun owner) here.  So, it should come as no surprise that ZeroHedge has some interesting coverage of this story (here and here).

From the latter link, it is interesting see that the charges against the shooter lack at least one charge of domestic terrorism.

It's also worth pointing out that there has yet to be a domestic terrorist who has a motive that has surpassed his fame. Or a terrorist for that matter: the idea is almost moot. When one becomes a puppet of the news, they necessarily give up their ideals: they're reduced to their actions. That, again, is something people in an actionist community should think about.

While it is clear that the actions of this madman were indeed, simply mad, at what point does a US District Attorney invoke the use of a "domestic" (or even just regular) terrorism charge.  As those of us in the mainstream (note usage) should come to realize, anyone of us could theoretically be charged with some form of "terrorism" when the law is loosely defined and broadly enforced.  (Let me specifically give credit to Sacrilege for that prior sentence).  It is so appalling at how far removed from limited government we have come that within this tragedy there is a prime example of our country's downward trajectory.  Here is an almost pure, terrorist act, yet the DA's don't even bother to file the charge.  Why then is the law even in existence?  What would invoke its usage? 

There are several things that the lack of this charge should tell us about our country.  First, domestic terrorism is nothing more than an everyday crime when it is reflected upon.  Loonies committing mass murders involving elected officials and appointed judges (or even 9 year old children)  should have been a prime area for a DT charge yet it wasn't reflected in the indictment.  Second, a bad and broad law can be used to level charges against those whom don't qualify to "know" the true charges against them.  Simply put, when there are not enough political enemies of the state, obscure and bad laws that people are guaranteed to violate will create more criminals, thus inducing a perpetual state of fear and control.  Hey, you have to have some way around those pesky fourth and fifth amendment rights now don't you?  Finally, if a charge of terrorism had been levied against the shooter, the politicization of the even would have to stop immediately.  After all, the WOT is the only true bi-partisan issue left in this country.  Of course, bringing that charge would not be very conducive to the future political career (either elected or appointed) of the US District Attorney who will be handling the prosecution of this case. 

So, yes, as the author Sacrilege from ZH stated rather well, the media is nothing more than the puppets of our ruling class and the overall agenda.  Jared Loughner is just one willing pawn who was mentally incapacitated to the point that he did not know any better, and played along perfectly with the game that is now manifesting itself.