Category Archives: gun control

Dallas Morning News Does Humor

Not intentionally, mind you; but still.

The editorial board of the Dallas Morning News published an opinion piece on why those nasty pistol braces need to be banned. Their… reasoning stops short of informed rationality. For instance:

There’s no difference between the business end of a rifle and a handgun of the same caliber.

Perhaps they’d consider changing that to “cartridge” instead of “caliber.” Otherwise — and ignoring the effect of barrel length on ballistics — they’re saying that a little .22LR revolver is the same as a AR-pattern rifle chambered for 5.56 NATO. They’re both .22 caliber, after all.

But this one…

But shorter barrels make guns less accurate and easier to conceal. They also make them easier to maneuver in crowded places, which may be why shooters in at least two mass murders — at a grocery store in Boulder in 2021, and a busy street in Dayton in 2019 — used handgun braces.

This first part is a gross over-simplification. Assuming either pistol or rifle has enough barrel length for the bullet to spin stabilize, and not so much length as to sap energy through friction, inherent accuracy isn’t that different. If one is using iron sights, the difference in sight radius can make longer barrel eaiser to fire accurately; but that’s an issue with the shooter, not the firearm.

The second part, regarding concealability and maneuverability is hilarious.

Take a pistol, say an AR-pattern pistol with a ten inch barrel. Now add a stabilizing brace to it — making it longer — and now it’s more concealable?

Since the board is concerned with accuracy, you might even think they’s approve of a braced pistol, said brace making it easier for the shooter to fire accurately.

But do you know what is even more concealable, and “maneuverable in crowded spaces,” than a short-barrel rifle or a braced pistol? Basically any conventional unbraced handgun in the world. Could that be why those are used in the vast majority of shootings, mass or otherwise?

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Giggling In Georgia

Georgia state Rep. Sandra Scott reportedly wants to ban Glock automatic weapon conversion devices.

State Rep. Sandra Scott, Dim-Rex, previously told The Center Square she plans to file several pieces of legislation, including a measure to prevent Glock owners from turning the guns into automatic weapons.

As of this writing, I do not see a Scott bill to ban the manufacture of automatic weapons. I have emailed Scott to see if she can provide advance text, or at least a bill number when filed.

Because — as the clued-in probably guessed — it sounds a bit redundant. After all, the National Firearms Act of 1934, as mended by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, already makes the manufacture of machine guns, by anyone other than an FFL who has paid the SOT, unlawful. And those machine guns aren’t generally transferable to us common, little people.

Georgia law, specifically § 16-11-122, makes possession of machine guns illegal. There are lawful exceptions in § 16-11-124; most notably if the firearm is properly registered under the aforementioned NFA.

True, Georgia law doesn’t seem to specifically ban the manufacture, but once to add the conversion device to the handgun, you’re in possession (see above paragraph).

For that matter, a conversion device is itself a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S. Code § 5845.

The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun

Possession of the device is possession of a machinegun under federal and state law. Just ask the folks the ATF has charged with felony possession of unregistered machinguns for giggle switches, lightning links, flat pieces of metal, and wall-hooks.

I strongly suspect that urban gangbangers putting giggle switches on their Glocks are not FFL/SOTs, nor did they register their giggle switches by the 1986 deadline for lawful possession (I don’t know how many Glocks were even in US non-government hands in ’86).

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Pistol Brace Rule

It’s probably worth noting that the ATF’s pistol brace rule was formally published in the Federal Register today, making it official.

The countdown has started. If you have a braced pistol, you have 120 days to decide how to proceed.

You may have heard that those attempting to register braced firearms as short-barrel rifles, may have an issue. Some claimed that if the form isn’t processed in 88 days, then it’s automatically denied. A more cogent explanation clarifies that.

When you apply for your tax stamp, the ATF goes to the FBI’s NICS for a background check. Unlike a firearm sale, which can proceed if the NICS check doesn’t come back in three days, at 88 days without a NICS response, the application is denied. It’s then up to you to go to the FBI and ask “What the heck’s going on with my background check?” and resubmit your stamp application.

Meanwhile, the Firearms Policy Coalition has already filed its lawsuit challenging the rule. I’m not sure if they were the first, because it looks like it was a dead heat with the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty’s lawsuit.

Good luck, folks.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

New Mexican “Assault Pistol”

New Mexico state Senator William P. Soules [Dim] has filed a new bill, SB 171 RELATING TO FIREARMS; PROHIBITING THE SALE OF AUTOMATIC FIREARMS.

It begins by defining a new class of evil firearms; the assault pistol.

“assault pistol” means a semiautomatic pistol that accepts a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following characteristics:

(a) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside the pistol grip;

(b) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip or silencer;

(c) a shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned;

(d) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded;

(e) a centerfire pistol with an overall length of twelve inches or more; or

(f) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

Fairly standard Dimwit definition of “assault weapon,” except that it only applies to handguns, not long guns. An oversight? Is Soules just focused on the California “assault pistol” allegedly used in the recent Chinese new year shooting, due to the notoriously short Dim attention span?

It’s a wonder he didn’t include cowboy six-shooters.

But now things get interesting. After defining “automatic firearm” and “semiautomatic,” he adds this language.

B. The manufacture, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited: assault pistols; automatic firearms; rifles with barrel lengths less than sixteen inches; shotguns with barrel lengths less than eighteen inches; mufflers, silencers or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms; any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof coated with teflon or any other similar coating designed primarily to enhance its capabilities to penetrate metal or pierce protective armor; and any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof designed or intended to explode or segment upon impact with its target.

That looks to me like someone is very worried about the federal National Firearms Act being overturned, and wants to ensure they still have a state law on the books when it happens.

Manufacture, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer or acquisition.” Nothing about possession of anything you currently have. nothing about registration. That’s something; but I expect Soules merely left that out knowing that an outright ban won’t fly. If he can get this bill passed, I’m sure he’ll address that little matter later.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Here We Go Again

Dementia victim Dianne Feinstein has filed her annual “assault weapon” ban; the Assault Weapons Ban of 2023.

It’s the usual mess, defining “assault weapons” as semi-autos that use detachable magazines and have one of the same ol’ same ol other characteristics: pistol grip, adjustable or detachable stock, grenade launcher, barrel shroud, threaded barrel.

Presumably grenade launchers on pump action shotguns are still cool.

It also includes:

A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

Weirdly, despite that “semiautomatic, detachable magazine” definition, the idiot saw fit to include page after page of exempted weapons: lever actions, side by side and over and under shotguns, bolt actions, and assorted semi-autos with fixed magazines.

She’s never been noted for her cognitive acuity, even before her brain turned to jello.

As usual, Feinstein’s “ban” doesn’t actually ban any firearm. All those millions of existing AR- and AK-pattern firearms are grandfathered. Apparently at least one of the senile senator’s keepers still recalls this warning.

“The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every law enforcement officer out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.”

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

There’s One Group Of Gov Types Without Sovereign Immunity

This is a day for good news.

Florida has a state preemption statute: firearms regulation is the provenance of the state, not lower level local jurisdictions. Even better, Florida law includes significant civil penalties for hopped up local politicians that try passing their own little gun control laws in their little ponds.

Naturally, they don’t like that. What? Hold us responsible for breaking the law? We have sovereign immunity!

Today, the Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the wanna-be lawbreakers.

The imposition of these civil statutory actions for violations of the Preemption Statute does not violate governmental function immunity. It is not a core municipal function to occupy an area that the Legislature has preempted, and local governments have no lawful discretion or authority to enact ordinances that violate state preemption. See Fla. Power Corp., 579 So. 2d at 107 (“While the authority given to cities and counties in Florida is broad, both the constitution and statutes recognize that cities and counties have no authority to act in areas that the legislature has preempted.”).

Accordingly, we conclude that the First District did not err in concluding that governmental function immunity does not prohibit the statutory actions in section 790.33(3)(f).

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, we conclude that neither legislative immunity nor governmental function immunity prohibit the statutory actions and penalties in section 790.33(3)(c), (d), and (f). Accordingly, we approve the First District’s decision in City of Weston.

Anyone stupid enough to try passing local gun control laws in Florida now definitively faces fines up to $5,000, and damages up to $100,000.

Best of all:

public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.

Violators are out of personal pocket for those bucks. Not the taxpayers, not the city’s insurance company.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

SCOTUS Needs To Get Its Priorities In Order

No doubt regular TZP readers heard about the recent Supreme Court lack of a decision in ANTONYUK v. STEVEN NIGRELLI. For those who haven’t: Plaintiffs filed suit challenging New York’s recent, post-Bruen, weapons carry law, notably declaring a wide assortment of sensitive places where the state claims it can ban firearms.

The district court issed an injunction against enforcement of the ban pending full trial on the matter. The state appealed to the Second Circuit, which — for no particular reason — stayed the injunction.

Plaintiffs appealed to SCOTUS asking the Court to lift the stay. SCOTUS declined to do so.

When I heard about the SCOTUS lack of action, it was reported merely as an unexplained denial; that’s fairly normal, so I didn’t think too much about it.

Until Monday, when I finally saw an article that mentioned that Justice Alito, with Thomas concurring, had actually issued a statement in conjunction with the denial. The meat of the matter is this:

The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed on a number of their claims, and it issued a preliminary injunction as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. With one exception, the Second Circuit issued a stay of the in- junction in full, and in doing so did not provide any explanation for its ruling.
[…]
I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.

If those few lines are TL;DR you, it amounts to, Rather than prioritizing the protection of constitutionally-protected First and Second Amendment rights of the people, SCOTUS thinks the Second Circuit’s procedures are far more important.

Even when the Second doesn’t seem to be following its own usual procedure.

Bureaucratic process — or the lack thereof — over human/civil rights.

I’ve have some confidence in some Justices, but even post-Bruen, this illustrates why I have near-zero confidence in the overall Supreme Court.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Illinois Assault Weapon Ban Oddities

I had occasion to look over the definitions section of Illinois’ new assault weapon ban bill, and I noticed some odd stuff.

First, Illinois achieved a first-in-the-world prize: semiautomatic “assault rifles.”

Knowledgeable types understand that “assault rifle” has long had a specific meaning: a shoulder-fired, selective-fire weapon chambered for an intermediate power cartridge.

Not in Illinois now.

“Assault shotgun or rifle” means any of the following or a copy, regardless of the producer or manufacturer:

The “following is a long list of specific manufacturers’ firearms. It does include “AR15,” but…

“AR-15” (note the dash) is a registered trademark held by Colt. The patents expired, but the trademark lives on. That’s why other companies tend to call their AR variants “XXX-15” or the like. So any AR-pattern firearm made by a company not on that list would appear to have dodged a bullet, and would seem to be still legal in the state (not really, but I’ll get to that).

Some notable AR-pattern manufacturers didn’t make the list. Daniel Defense, for instance.

Farther down in the bill, “assault weapon” gets defined. That’s an “assault pistol” (similarly defined as assault rifle), assault shotgun, assault rifle, and…

(C) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:

The list of characteristics includes the usual: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, and grenade launcher(?). It also lists certain types of grips. Read this very carefully.

Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing.

That’s any stock — pistol grip or no pistol grip — that lets you grip the rifle and still reach the trigger. Should any sheriff other than Cook County try enforcing this monstrosity, I think some hunters will be very surprised to learn their hunting rifles are now assault weapons, which must be registered.

Y’all have fun with that.

Here’s a puzzler. The law has an overly inclusive definition of “assault weapon” which includes “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following.”

But it also has that separate and — overly — specific definition of “assault rifle”: “”Assault shotgun or rifle” means any of the following or a copy, regardless of the producer or manufacturer.” Every firearm listed in that section would already qualify as an “assault weapon” under the broader definition.

Why the two definitions? Did the idiot legislators (or whoever drafted the bill for them) think they were banning actual automatic assault rifles, in addition to darned near every other semiauto rifle, despite the fact that 720 ILCS 5/24-1 already banned automatic weapons?

I’ve asked Rep. Bob Morgan about this. We’ll see if I get a coherent response.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Pistol Brace Final Rule: 293 Pages Of Arbitrary Capriciousness

The ATF’s final rule on whether pistol braces magically turn pistols into short-barreled rifles was signed on January 13, 2023.

Most of the document is rationalization of why they believe they can get away with this, and explaining away NPRM commenters’ objections. They did agree that the proposed form 4999 — which used an arbitrary point system to differentiate between pistols and short-barrel rifles — was flawed. They decided that was sufficiently flawed that they abandoned it.

The rule gives a slight nod to BRUEN:

Nothing in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), changes this analysis. See id at 2162 (Kavanaugh, J. concurring) (reiterating Heller’s finding that “dangerous and
unusual weapons” are outside of the Second Amendment’s protections).

That presupposes that braces inherently make a perfectly acceptable firearm into a “dangerous” device without actually changing the firearm’s function. It assumes that “1.4 million” braced pistols (the ATF’s own estimate of the number extant) are “unusual.” It also completely ignores the “general historical tradition” test laid out in the main decision.

If you scroll down to page 268, you’ll find the actual final rule, and see that they opted for a evaluation system even more “arbitrary, capricious, and incoherent” than the 4999.

The short form now is that a firearm with a pistol brace is a short-barrel rifled if it is:

“a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder”

How much surface area does it take to create a rifle? The rule doesn’t say, leaving it up to “”arbitrary, capricious, and incoherent” FTB evaluators. Just think: the more firearms they can declare short-barrel rifles, the more tax money they can collect. No perverse incentive there, eh?

And has arbitrary “other factors,” which are:

“a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles”

In a saner world, I could almost let that one slide.

“s a length of pull […] consistent with similarly designed rifles”

Length of pull, as The Zelman Partisans has noted, “presupposes that all braced pistols are SBRs until proven otherwise.” Guilty and taxable until proven innocent. It is the ATF after all.

“equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed”

That one is also almost reasonable, if it weren’t for the rest of the BS.

“Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operation”

Since “surface area” is purely arbitrary and undefined, I don’t see how this clarifies anything. But just wait…

“manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials”

Now company advertising flacks can inadvertently turn pistols into rifles, and it has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the firearm or brace. It gets worse, though…

“the likely use of the weapon in the general community.”

If the brace has some undefined amount of surface area, the ATF can still declare anything a short-barrel rifle simply by deciding that it’s likely some idiot somewhere will use his firearm incorrectly.

We would have been better off with the 4999, which at least didn’t test advertising fliers and ATF agents’ purported precognitive powers.

The rule gives those currently in possession of braced firearms a few options.

Send it to the ATF for evaluation, so see if it can make ot past the magic test and remain a pistol.

Destroy the firearm.

Remove the brace and destroy that.

Replace the firearm barrel with a 16 inch (or more) barrel.

Turn the firearm in to law enforcement or the ATF.

Go to prison on an NFA violation even if you have a letter from the ATF saying your braced pistol isn’t a rifle.

Or you can apply to register it. If you do so through the E-Form system within 120 days of the rules Federal Register publication, the ATF will generously waive the usual tax stamp fee.

ATF delenda est.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Illinois Assault Weapon Ban

Illinois now has an “assault weapon” ban, complete with registration for “grandfathered” firearms.

Wiser sheriffs says they will not enforce the blatantly unconstitutional law. I would guess they are the ones aware of the SCOTUS decision in BRUEN. Or possibly they recall an observation I made in the 1990s, when California was prepping its own outright ban.

“The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every law enforcement officer out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.”

— Moi

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker doesn’t seem to be cognizant of either the decision or the quote.

“As are all law enforcement all across our state and they will in fact do their job or they won’t be in their job,” Pritzker said.

Well, he’s a Dim; it’s not like he really wants cops anyway.

But since I mentioned California’s ’90s ban and registration, they saw a remarkable 2.33% compliance rate with registration (by their own estimates). The NY SAFE Act did a little betterworse 4.45%. Connecticut rather optimistically claimed to have achieved 13.44% complaince rate. But CT’s numbers are somewhat questionable, seeing as how one single individual “registered” 544,000 high capacity magazines.

Perhaps Illinois will see a similar outburst of malicious compliance and the overly compliant stuffing their database with BS. Could some enterprising freedom-lover register a few dozen evil black rifles at 410 E Jackson Street, Springfield, IL 62701?

Databases: Garbage in, garbage out.

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail