Thinking Outside the Box

A North Carolina sheriff discovered a pair of 1928 Thompson submacine guns in inventory while moving to a new facility. Rather than sitting on or scrapping them, as too many police departments would, Sheriff William Schatzman realized that it could be turned into a win-win by trading them to a dealer interested in the collector value for 88 Bushmaster rifles.

The two guns were valued at about $30,000 each, and were registered during an NFA amnesty period, so they can legally be sold to collectors.

In this case, the police department won, gaining new firearms that they could use, some collector or collectors won, getting two Tommy guns with an interesting provenance, and the taxpayers won, since they didn’t need to pay any extra for the new weapons.

I Am Going To Have to Disagree on This One

I normally agree with Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, but he lost me on this one.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner is calling Sen. Ron Johnson’s lawsuit against the Obama Administration “frivolous” and “an unfortunate political stunt.” Sen. Ron Johnson brought a lawsuit against the administration to stop the Federal government from paying part of the cost of going on to the Obamacare exchanges for members of Congress and their staffers.

Mr Sensenbrenner says that the additional cost of insurance would drive many staffers to look for other jobs, creating a “brain drain” and making Congress members staff their offices with younger and less experienced people.

I actually don’t have that big a problem with the staffers getting the money, it is a benefit most Federal workers receive, and as a benefit to an employee, it is not unreasonable. We have been paying it for a long time anyways.

Where my problem lies it that it’s illegal according to the ACA, but the administration just said “forget it, we’ll do it anyways.” President Obama has been doing way too much of this, and it’s time that someone calls him on it. A president simply does not have the right to rewrite the law any way he sees fit, but that is what this president has done repeatedly.

On a local talk show, Mr Sensenbrenner said that the piece of the law that prevents the contribution was “not well drafted” and not debated on the floor. Who cares? I can’t simply ignore the law because it is “not well drafted.”

The administration’s habit of ignoring the law, and simply giving others “permission” to ignore the law.

What’s more, it should be a fairly safe fight politically. A lot of Americans don’t want to see Congress receive what they see as special privileges, and Sen. Johnson’s suit certainly does not benefit him personally, since he would also be receiving the additional credit, and is actually suing to not receive that money.

So while this may not be the ideal issue to pick the fight over, it is a fight that needs to be fought, and shame on Mr Sensenbrenner for trying to prevent it.

So Let Me Explain This

Francis Wilkinson at Bloomberg is wondering what exactly the gun rights movement is “so freaked out about.” He points out that in the last several years the gun rights movement has made some huge strides, so why are we so worried?

The short answer is that we are not “freaked out” in spite of the strides we have made, but we have made the strides because we have been what he describes as “freaked out.” And just as big, we have seen what happens when we stop “freaking out.”

The enemies of our freedom have not backed down, we have repeatedly beaten them. The fact that we’ve defeated as many restrictions as we have isn’t a reason to go home since we don’t need to work, it is a result of the work that’s been done. We haven’t won this many battles sitting on the sidelines.

Wayne LaPierre wasn’t unhinged when he said a reelected Obama would try to take away our gun rights; Obama started 2013 trying to reinstate the failed ban on modern sporting rifles and trying to ban the most common magazines used in them.

But why am am I explaining this? The author’s real question is “can we shame you into shutting up?”

The answer is a resounding No.

 

Interview With Prof Mark Gius

Fox News has an interview with Mark Gius, the professor who published the recent study that more restrictive concealed carry laws were correlated with higher murder rates, as was the “assault weapons” ban.

It turns out that Mr Gius is a Democrat professor from Connecticut, who did the reasonable thing, and decided to look into which laws were effective, and which were not. While his conclusion it that more research is needed, his study adds to the body of evidence that less restrictive gun laws are positively correlated with lower crime rates.

I tend to disagree with the focus on gun crimes, since a murder is a murder, whether committed with a gun, a knife, or bare hands. In this case, though, the focus on gun crime proves our point even more effectively.

Quote(s) of the Day – Opposite Edition

Detroit’s Police Chief James Craig is supporting concealed carry, saying:

“There’s a number of CPL (concealed pistol license) holders running around the city of Detroit. I think it acts as a deterrent. Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction. I learned that real quick in the state of Maine.”

In the same story, Robyn Thomas, director of the the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco said:
“I think at its core, his position is an emotional one, based on the idea that people feel safer when they have guns. But studies have shown more guns don’t deter crime,” Thomas said. “There’s no research that shows guns make anyone safer, and it does show that, the more guns in any situation, the higher the likelihood of them harming either the owner, or people who have access to them.”
No research at all. Except this. And this, from Congress. Oh, and this.
Seriously, if you want to try to refute the data, knock yourself out, but you look out of touch with your issue when you claim there isn’t research that clearly exists.
It is good to see other law enforcement leaders follow Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke.

IL Launches CCW Permit Application Web Site

IL has launched the website to apply for a concealed carry permit, making it at least theoretically possible to get a permit, or carry without one, in every state in the Union. The requirements are definitely stricter than North of the border here in Wisconsin, and local law enforcement can “object,” which could make it more difficult, at least in areas like Chicago.

IL state police expect 300,000 to 400,000 citizens to pay at least $150 for the license. Out of state licenses are available only to residents of states that have “substantially similar” firearms laws, as of this post only Hawaii qualifies.