I just finished reading the ATF Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns. Say Uncle and Sebastian already have posts up so check those out too.

My take away is that the ATF have a tough job in trying to enforce the import restrictions on firearm not suitable for sporting purposes. They struggle with how to define “sporting purpose”. They concluded IPSC and USPSA don’t qualify because those sports didn’t exist when the 1968 Congress passed the law and hence they must have meant the types of sports common at the time. In this case originalism works against us. If you recall the 1998 report (I probably have it around someplace I remember reading it and getting upset at the time) they pointed out that if the “sporting purpose” restriction is to mean anything at all then it must be a rather static definition. If it were not then some sport could be invented such that the restricted gun was particularly well suited for that particular sport and the restriction would have to be lifted. Hence the law would become meaningless.

I understand where they are coming from and once you accept they are tasked with enforcing this stupid law they are probably taking the most rational approach. For this reason I mostly give them a pass on this issue. Our real beef should be with Congress and possibly the courts.

Yes, it seems like the “sporting purpose” requirement should be easy to get thrown out by the courts because the Heller decision said the Second Amendment wasn’t about duck hunting—it was about self-defense and the militia. Hence any firearm that was useful for self-defense and military service (as per the Miller decision as well) would be explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. In the recent study they explicitly call out military purpose shotguns and accessories as being grounds to forbid the importation of them. Just exactly backwards from Miller and Heller. There might also be an “unconstitutionally vague” approach that could be used here too.

But to a large extent taking things to court is like rolling the dice unless you have lots of case law backing you up. In our situation there is probably a lot of case law against us and it will have to be evaluated at a higher level before things go our way. Hence I think the first thing that should be done is to get to Congress to remove the “sporting purpose” language from firearms law. The worst case downside of failure with this approach is things don’t change. In the case of taking things to court the worst case downside is that we get some terrible precedent established that is difficult or impossible to get out from under and it affects far more firearms than those being blocked from importation.

One of the most interesting sections of the study is actually a little off topic.

The following is from page 2 when discussing the background of the sporting purpose language:

This section addresses Congress’ concern that the United States had become a “dumping ground of the castoff surplus military weapons of other nations,” in that it exempted only firearms with a generally recognized sporting purpose.

I read this to mean that congress was trying to protect domestic manufactures from competition by foreign nations. Although I suppose it could also be interpreted as a concern that foreign nations would be able to more easily upgrade their equipment by getting cash for their old gear.

If this pundit is to be believed President Obama’s state of the Union speech will be one of unity not divisiveness. This is great news for gun owners and a slap in the face to the Brady Campaign who has been begging him for some attention.

Of course it could be the pundit considers restrictions on firearms to be non controversial but I’m certain President Obama knows better.

If the pundit is correct about the tone then I believe we are in good shape and Robb is going to be needing to send out few special Sad Panda bears later this week.

The following was written entirely by Leon Harris for publication on this blog.

You may have heard the recent news story about Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords.  She was shot (along with several other bystanders) while making a public appearance in Tucson just a few short weeks ago.  The gun in question: a Glock.  While many are quick to say that such a powerful handgun should be blacklisted on the American market, they are probably not aware of just how prevalent this gun is in our culture.  In fact, the Glock 9mm is one of the most popular handguns in circulation today, owned not only by private citizens, but considered the preferred firearm of police officers across the country.  There’s no denying that this gun has mass appeal, and when you look at the particulars, it’s easy to see why.

The company that makes this gun is located in Austria, but even gun enthusiasts that support locally-made products will likely find this firearm attractive.  Not only is the weapon semi-automatic (making it legal to own and a lot of fun to fire), it is also lightweight and extremely reliable.  Made from composite plastic, Glocks are much lighter and easier to handle than their competitors (although other features are similar to any number of comparable firearms).  However, this one outstanding innovation has helped to catapult them to the top of the heap.

It is for this reason that they are extremely popular with law enforcement.  For a long time, it seemed that being on the right side of the blue line meant playing a constant game of catch-up as the criminal element always seemed to possess bigger and better weapons.  When the Glock hit the U.S. market in the ‘80s, it was like a godsend for police officers.  They seized upon the weapon as an equalizing force to confront gangs and other criminals that had been one step ahead before.  And it performed admirably, so much so that nearly two-thirds of any given police force carries them as a personal sidearm to this day.

Of course, the law wasn’t the only element to recognize the allure of the Glock.  Gun-toting law-breakers also claim this firearm as a weapon of choice (although most criminals won’t hesitate to supplement their arsenal with fully automatic guns and other illegal weapons).  And of course, the average man about town might also house such a weapon in his home for both protection and recreational purposes.  After being shot, Gabrielle Giffords herself admitted to owning a Glock, claiming to be “a pretty good shot”.

Although Glocks have garnered some media attention for their lethal force and rapid action, making them only one of many controversial firearms, they remain one of the most popular guns in the world today.  And the fact that they are endorsed by law enforcement officials bodes well for their continued circulation, despite the fact that a few criminals and nut-jobs are trying to ruin it for everyone.  As handguns go, you can’t get much better than the Glock.  They have, in many ways, revolutionized how we look at firearms, and to suggest that they be sent to legal detention because of a few heavily publicized incidents is not only unacceptable, but likely an impossible scenario.

Leon Harris writes for Silencer Co where you can find a variety of the highest quality suppressors tailored to your needs.

Nice!

In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

Update: Of course what they will attempt to do is to require all ammunition sales to be registered. But that will be a tougher battle than the one they fought to get just handgun ammunition registration through the legislature. And if it passes it will be vigorously fought in the courts too.

I wonder why there is such a disconnect with people’s thought processes.

The shooter in Tucson had mental problems which may have been made worse by heavy marijuana use. Some people wanting to “do something” started talking about banning the magazines of greater than 10 rounds. How many of those same people never even thought that such a ban would be no more effective than the ban on marijuana that same guy was using? How could they possibly think that such a ban would be effective when the ban on marijuana is not effective?

People apparently don’t realize that “bans” don’t eliminate something. They only provide a legal means of punishment for those that get caught with the banned item. The banned object or substance does not cease to exist. As near as I can tell people imagine they will be transported into some sort of fantasy land where the banned item dematerializes or something.

Once you realize that bans only provide for punishment of those that get caught you can see that bans to “prevent” some greater society harm are unlikely to be successful. The “ban” of murder precludes the proposed ban of more than 10 round magazines of being of any significant use. The only consequence is that it makes murder “double ungood” or some such thing.

This leads me to conclude that in proposing 10 round magazine limits the Brady Campaign leaders must think possession of normal magazine capacities are on the same order of magnitude of evil as murder. If the possession is insignificant on the “evil scale” the additional law is of no benefit because the “ban” on murder has the issue covered. But they don’t think the ban on murder is sufficient, hence the evil inherent in possession normal magazines must be some significant proportion of the evil inherent in murder.

Either that or they just don’t have the thought processes to think clearly.

Watch the video then decide.

Which is it? Ignorance or opposition to legitimate self-defense?

Now go ask those attempting to restrict our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms the same question.

Nice:

The Supreme Court of Ohio Wednesday rejected Cleveland’s attempt to retain its own gun control laws.

In a 5-2 majority opinion, the Justices upheld a 2006 state law that says only federal or state regulations can limit an Ohioan’s individual right to bear arms.

The Jim Crow like anti-gun owner laws continue to fall.