Paul Helmke on Evil Colored Guns

Paul Helmke & The Brady Campaign weighed in on the colored guns debate. I have to agree with Sebastian on two of the main points in his post. I don’t like people telling me what I can and cannot do with my property, and may well have to find an excuse to paint a gun in neon colors, just because the nanny state doesn’t want us to. Also, Steve Lauer is laughing all the way to the bank on this. You can find an interview with Steve on Cam & Company in the NRANews archives (look under 2007 annual meeting, Steve Lauer), in which he says that Mayor Bloomberg’s ban “put them on the map”. 

As to the DuraCoat line, while there are a number of “electric” colors, there are many other colors, including camo, colors that match many “traditional” colors that could be used for many customizations and historic replicas, none of which have anything to do with making a gun look like a toy. If you wanted to make a gun look like a toy, there are many options available to a criminal that are much easier and cheaper. At a minimum, to do a proper job DuraCoating a gun in one of the electric line, you need about $25 of the DuraCoat product, and an air brush and the accompanying equipment. A better job requires bead blasting and parkerizing (Second Snowflakes in Hell reference, DuraCoat Process). A can of Krylon costs about $5. Orange electrical tape to wrap around the muzzle costs about $.95. Furthermore, what about the people that use a magic marker to make a toy gun look real? Time to ban Sharpies!

Is there a legitimate use for electric colors other than offending the easily offended? I have seen rifles make for adults with purple furniture. In training scenarios that include real firearms, there are times that the added visibility is a benefit. People, including law enforcement, working in an environment where they could become separated from their weapon, could also benefit from the visibility. Many competitive shooters (men and women), including the US Shooting Team that competes internationally including the Olympics, like to paint their guns all sorts of colors.

As to police, as I have said in the past, a suspect that is appears to be threatening an officer with a weapon should be engaged accordingly. A person who gets shot because they point an AirSoft gun, squirt gun, or painted real gun at an officer is completely at fault for whatever happens to them at that point.

In the end, this is about attacking the gun industry. We have seen attacks on guns that are too black, now that are too colorful. All this is aimed at an end-state of eliminating guns. Throwing this very useful product under the bus is counterproductive to the firearms community as a whole.

A former Brady Lawyer on D.C. v. Heller

Here is an interesting article by a former Brady Campaign lawyer. My main thought reading it is that a court should not “[approach] the Heller case in a spirit conciliation and compromise rather than extremism”, but should instead attempt to interpret and apply the law as it was written. What a concept! The duty of the court is not to reach a compromise, but to apply the laws that the other branches of government institute. If a compromise is to be reached, it is the place of the Executive and Legislative branches to reach it, and the Judicial branch is charged with enforcing it. What is being called for here is judicial activism. A court looking to compromise in this way is legislating from the bench. Either the amendment guarantees an individual right that is subject to the scrutiny applied to our other rights, or it doesn’t. The Court is to see that the Constitution is applied as it was ratified, not to apply it as they, the media, or even the general public would like it to be applied. If the Constitution is seen to be deficient, there is an amendment process that can be used to change it, but the anti-gun crowd knows that there is not the public support required to do this.

I will say it is good to see them “manning the lifeboats,” as Dave Hardy said. 

It’s time for Pizza Hut to get a clue

Via Dave Hardy: Another Pizza Hut employee has been suspended after defending himself with a legally owned, legally carried, firearm. There have been numerous stories of delivery drivers being robbed, and some killed. Pizza Hut puts it’s employees in danger by nature of the job, but to put them in even more danger by publicly denying them the most effective means of protection available is inexcusable. While one can see that someone might think it is a liability issue to have armed drivers, one has to wonder what liability they open themselves up to by creating an employee base of sitting ducks. Furthermore, how can they in good conscience expose their employees to this level of risk? The whole world now knows that Pizza Hut drivers are not allowed to carry guns. A criminal looking for someone to rob now know that Pizza Hut employees are an easier target for them than other drivers might be. We have seen that victim disarmament zones do not work; there is no excuse for creating a traveling one around your employees. 

It looks like murder isn’t illegal ENOUGH in LA

In one of the ultimate instances of gesture politics, the L.A. City Council considered a 40 hour ban on murder.

Why not call a permanent ban? Oh wait, WE ALREADY HAVE ONE!And these people are drawing a salary with tax dollars? We can only hope it was a none-to-funny April Fools joke.   

Thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy for the link

Well, He DOES have the lone vote between the democrats

American Hunters and Shooters Association appears to be supporting Obama, apparently on the strength of HIS ONE PRO GUN VOTE (the federal Katrina bill), which apparently nullifies a lifetime of infringing on our rights. If the laundry list of gun ban proposals they support (50BMG bans, FBI access to NICS, and closing the Sale of private property loophole, and opening ATF trace data to anyone who wants it, including criminals) doesn’t show you where they really stand, this shouldn’t leave any doubt.

Lost or stolen firearms: a backdoor to registration.

The lost or stolen firearms bills and “gun show loophole” laws are not only an unnecessary imposition on gun owners, making it harder for people to be a law abiding gun owner. They are also a backdoor, and/or a steppingstone to gun registration. When you have such laws in place, along with the trace data for sales, the system is there to trace a legally owned firearm in a manner similar to a registration scheme. As history has shown us, confiscations are directly preceded by registration, which allows the government to find weapons that are not turned over. If that day ever comes in the U.S., some gun owners I know have said that they could claim that their weapons were stolen, and currently a claim to have sold or otherwise transfered the guns would be impossible to disprove. With a lost or stolen law, a gun owner that claims their guns were stolen could be sent to prison for not reporting that, and by closing the sale of private property “loophole,” all (or at least most) guns can then be traced to their owners, and the confiscations become possible. Another item to note is that many criminals cannot be forced to report a gun lost or stolen, as if they are a convicted felon, and not allowed to own guns, reporting it is would incriminate them of felon in possession, and forcing them to thus incriminate themselves would violate their 5th amendment rights. The law therefore only applies to law abiding gun owners. These laws need to be defeated whenever and wherever they come up.

Dave Hardy on gun politics trends

Dave Hardy has an interesting story regarding the gun control/gun rights trends over the last few decades. I think he minimizes a few of the recent bad things, but also doesn’t directly touch on the good over the last few years: Katrina legislation, Castle doctrine, CCW, etc. I do find it funny that the two main democrat candidates are at least minimizing their anti-gun stands, and in some cases posturing as pro-gun, despite having all of one pro-gun vote between them.

I hope you feel better…

Well, If you turned off your lights for “Earth Hour,” you can rest easy knowing you did your part by reducing your electricity consumption by 1/8760th for the year. Unless you left your refrigerator running, at which point it isn’t quite that much… but you turned off your computer, right? You know, your cell phone and iPod are using energy which will have to be replaced, too… 

McCain gets it right.

As Michelle Malkin says, this quote from John McCain is something we can cheer:


Let’s start with some straight talk:I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now.

I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.

In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren’t. I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.

When we commit taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and accountability.


He seems to leave himself a little wiggle room on the issue, particularly regarding a possible bailout for a person’s main residence, but even saying what he did is real progress. I completely agree that “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly.” By rewarding the people who did not act in a responible manner, it punishes those of us who did. I could have bought a house, and had the government bail me out, but I did not take the foolish risks that led some people to this situation. So now I don’t have the house, and someone who took a foolish risk does. ON MY DIME! Let’s just hope McCain can stick with this sort of thing.