Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Later Can Be Better | Main | Duty To Report »

January 15, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e2017c35ce8e40970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Maybe If They Put This In The NY Times Magazine...:

Comments

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Apparently.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

We have to pass a ban so we can find out what is in it.

Danube of Thought iPad

The fixation on magazine capacity is truly bizarre.

Jack is Back

"...we can do a much better job in terms of keeping these magazine clips with high capacity out of the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them..."

You can start in DC and with David Gregory, you petulant little jerk.

Melinda Romanoff

DoT-

It's a back door take on a minimum handgun ban.

Fred Beloit

Bide/Obama/Pelosi/Feinstein: "There is obviously too much driving going on. We are dependent on too much foreign oil. We hereby proclaim that automobile gas tanks be limited to six gallons. This won't fix any problems but WE MUST DOOO SOMETHING."

Rob Crawford
It's a back door take on a minimum handgun ban.

Yep -- since most modern pistols have magazines over 10 rounds. The NY 7-round limit is a joke; even a dirt-common .22 rifle comes with a 10-round magazine.

Cecil Turner

They're fixated on magazine capacity because they don't understand weapons (and reloading), and outlaw things that look scary to 'em. Hence the silly cosmetic crap in their bills (much of which they can't even identify), and the rather dim level of political discourse from lefties (and general moron spokespersons like Piers Morgan).

Melinda Romanoff

Cecil-

I disagree. It's an attempt to engineer an "unexpected consequence" and ban handguns.

squaredance

No, they a "fixated" on Magazine capacity because it is a good place to start, both from the angle of agit-prop and from the angle of incremental steps to a complete ban.

If this NY law is a magazine ban across all categories then it make most modern semi-automatic pistols illegal. Shows ignorance? Seem targeted with particular insight into handguns to me.

The Left is not ignorant about guns--far from it.

Danube of Thought

I suppose those who have, say, a Glock 17 or 19 and want to obey the law can get their magazines partially blocked. But I doubt many will.

Melinda Romanoff

Bronco's Mike McCoy going to the San Diego slot.-Denver Post

Cecil Turner

Banning handguns actually makes some sense, directly impacting the primary source of criminals' firepower (and is far less of an infringement on either the militia rights of the people or sport use of firearms).

The fixation on "assault rifles" borders on the clinical. It makes very little sense as a back door to handgun legislation, which is far easier to justify on the merits. My gut sense is that lefties are far more outraged by a military-style weapon in the hands of civilians than actual bloodshed, and that the Newtown incident is just a crisis too good to waste.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--focusing on the heightened background checks--

Presumably this refers to the so called gunshow loophole, which is really a private transaction loophole.
California has already closed said loophole by requiring every sale to go through a dealer.
It has not really led to any curtailment of legitimate firearms transactions but neither has it led to any reduction in crime.

As I said in the other thread, how about they try prosecuting guys who lie on their Form 4473 when trying to buy a gun? Won't do much either but it might toss a few violent ex cons back in pokey for a while.

Melinda Romanoff

Good, then only safety-minded, scofflaws will have handguns.

Danube of Thought

White House Dossier:

As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home.

Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.

The vote is a sign of how committed Obama may be to strict gun control measures.

The Illinois vote is hardly ancient history, having occurred in 2004 as Obama was running for election to the U.S. Senate.

Clarice

Enact in haste, repeal in leisure. What a POS legislation.

Ralph Gizzip

If you want to ban semi-automatic / automatic assault style weapons and high capacity magazines, that's fine. Just make sure to start with the police departments and SWAT teams.

Have Blue

A thirty round clip for an AR-15 type rifle is not "high capacity" it is actually standard issue capacity.

Of the modern era military type rifles I own (which leaves out the M-1 Garand and Lee-Enfield) only my Springfield Armory M-1A (a civilian version of the M-14 rifle)is not equipped with a thirty round magazine. And it uses twenty round mags.

bgates

Imagine if Democrats responded to attacks from foreigners the same way. We could have heard, "December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by submarines and fighter planes....Yesterday rifles and tanks also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night rifles and tanks attacked Hong Kong. Last night rifles and tanks attacked Guam. Last night rifles and tanks attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night guns and bombs attacked Wake Island. This morning guns and bombs attacked Midway Island....As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken to eliminate these objects, which have no legitimate hunting purpose."

narciso

So, who will be the first judge to challenge these obvious ignorant executive orders.

Rob Crawford
Banning handguns actually makes some sense, directly impacting the primary source of criminals' firepower

No ban anywhere will remove firearms from the possession of criminals.

Australia went for a sweeping ban -- and during the Cronulla riots, the Muslim community was waving around weapons that are illegal in the US.

Great Britain went for a sweeping ban -- and saw a 10-fold increase in gun crime.

American baseball bats were one of the hottest selling items in Great Britain during last summer's riots. It wasn't because of a sudden passion for the game, but a sudden realization that they had left themselves defenseless.

Rick Ballard

Narciso,

I'm more interested in which state legislature will be the first to pass 'BOzo, your writ don't run here." legislation. Will Oklahoma beat Kansas? Will Missouri use its super majority to give Nixon the finger while doing the same to BOzo? Will Perry get the jump by issuing a non-compliance directive without waiting for the legislature to act?

Judges are part of the problem and reliance upon Tribe's pet Chief Justice is the road to sure disappointment.

narciso

True, Rick, but as California, Arizona, and even Florida have discovered, the replacement refs still play a part.

maryrose

RB:
States asserting their power granted to them by the Constitution and their own state's constitution will 86 any goofy legislation Obama has in mind.

Rick Ballard

Maryrose,

BOzo is seeking to rule through direct discharge of effluence from the Oval Office. He doesn't care about legislation any more than he does about the lawful discharge of his duties by submission of a budget.

Danube of Thought iPad

It will certainly be interestingto see who, besides the FBI, enforces any federal law banning this, that or the other weapon or magazine.

jimmyk

"I disagree. It's an attempt to engineer an "unexpected consequence" and ban handguns"

Yep, just as they are doing with Obamacare.

Cecil Turner

No ban anywhere will remove firearms from the possession of criminals.

It would remove that portion stolen from law-abiding persons. A small proportion at present, but likely to rise in the event of a ban.

But this misses the point. I'm not arguing a handgun ban is feasible, or makes sense. It just makes more sense than a longarm ban (of any sort, including "assault weapons"). Hence the argument that an assault weapons ban is a back door to a handgun ban is unpersuasive.

ISTM the biggest effect of a ban of military-style weapons is to attenuate the link between the type of weapons in circulation amongst the citizenry and the constitutionally-protected right to maintain militia-appropriate weapons. And I suspect that is exactly what some of the deep thinkers on the left intend.

Kathy Kattenburg

It's odd, though, Tom. You don't seem to feel as strongly about getting facts right when it comes to supporting "pregnancy crisis clinics" that give women medically and scientifically false or misleading information to stop them having abortions. I might have more respect for your "convictions" if you were consistent in that regard.

Melinda Romanoff

Cecil-

This has all the signs of a classic Chicago overreach. The semi-auto handgun ban will accidentally be wrapped into the definition of a "High Capacity Magazine", Chicago Politicians, and Rahm was in DC recently for just this purpose, mind you, grab as far and wide as they can after a court snub. Besides, he desperately wants this club at home to keep his donors placated.

Cecil Turner

I'm unconvinced this is much of anything but misdirection. There's exactly zero chance of any significant gun ban making it through Congress (even if it could later pass SCOTUS scrutiny), and EOs are extremely limited.

Nice distraction from the budget woes, though.

anonamom

I have a hunting question re: how many rounds someone may need.
(And I don't think the second amendment addresses the right to deer hunt. But a whole lot of the talking heads seem to!)

Say you have a bear, or a moose, or a wild boar coming at you---
is seven bullets enough? Ten? Thirty?
Just wondering.

Melinda Romanoff

The enforcement part would be immediate here, and then the court battle can take place. This is how these mopes work.

And of course what they grab will be stored perfectly while the court battle rages. Seen this game before.

Bill in AZ sez it's time for Obama/Holder murder trial in Mexico

anonamom, most states restrict the number of rounds you can have loaded while hunting, generally around 3 to 5 rounds total. It better be enough 'cause you likely won't want to be thinking about reloading or changing magazines if one of those critters is really after you.

henry

anonamom, I haven't faced any of those critters, but your list should add wolves and mountain lions. Angry critters moving fast in your direction may not be easy to hit, and large angry critters may need lots of big bullets to stop or even to slow down long enough to reload. The left always phrases the hunting requirement in terms of "one shot" to kill the game, not in terms of self defense.

jimmyk

The left always phrases the hunting requirement in terms of "one shot" to kill the game, not in terms of self defense.

Because they've never hunted for anything more dangerous than their lost cat. (Full disclosure: I haven't either, but I don't presume to tell hunters what's right for them.)

henry

jimmyk, you don't have to hunt for dangerous critters to need protection from them -- my friends bow hunt in the north woods and see bear and wolves frequently.

daddy

Anonamom,

I'm not a hunter nor a big gun guy, but up here a pretty big seller for quick and hopefully effective protection while hiking around in bear territory (basically everywhere) is the Ruger 44 Alaskan with the 2.5 inch barrel: .

Relatively small, but holds 6 rounds, and very powerful with a powerful kick, but not good for long distance shooting. Just something to be able to quickly pull out when you are in trouble.

Here is a video of a guy using a 3 inch barrel 44 Magnum, (Smith and Wesson) and I think he does a decent job explaining the weapon. If nothing else, just watching a bit of this video is educational. 44 Magnum Close Up with 3 Inch barrel.

I would defer to DoT and Iggy for particulars of handguns because they obviously know better than I do.

jimmyk

True, Henry, like that guy in the town near Jane who got attacked by a rabid bobcat in his garage.

Danube of Thought iPad

I asked my Alaska hunting guide about a .44 Magnum as protection against grizzlies, and he said it would be fine but to make sure I filed down the front sight. Why? "So it won't do as much damage when the bear takes it away from you and shoves it up your ass." ( Apparently a common Alaska witticism delivered to greenhorns.)

The .44 Mag is extraordinarily powerful as handguns go, but no handgun is adequate for grizzly. If you had one with you and were confronted by a grizzly you would have to be very lucky to stop him. Most of his body is covered with thick fat which serves as armor, and they're so massive that the impact has little effect.

Porchlight

Idiot Kathy,

1) Is there legislation or executive orders pending regarding pregnancy crisis centers?

2) Would you agree that when legislation or executive orders are being advocated that their advocates and authors be held to higher standards of accuracy than authors of blogs writing opinion pieces?

Danube of Thought iPad

Wahoo!

"A Texas lawmaker says he plans to file the Firearms Protection Act, which would make any federal laws that may be passed by Congress or imposed by Presidential order which would ban or restrict ownership of semi-automatic firearms or limit the size of gun magazines illegal in the state, 1200 WOAI news reports.
 
 "Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.
 
  "'If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution,' Toth told 1200 WOAI's Joe Pags Tuesday.  He says his bill would make attempting to enforce a federal gun ban in Texas punishable by a $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison."

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

The Smith and Wesson 500. Dwarfs the 44 Magnum. Still less than ideal but the bear would definitly have a harder time shoving it up your arse.

Danube of Thought iPad

I am delighted by the fact that Rahm Emanuel, mayor of the gun-free murder capital of the country, is in Washington sharing his insights on gun control.

Thomas Collins

The progs in Massachusetts must be envious of the tax structures in California and Illinois and other prog heavens. There is a push in the Bay State to increase the Mass. personal income tax from 5.25 percent to 5.95 percent, with the capital gains and investment income tax rate increasing from 5.25 percent to 8.95. Under the plan, seniors with income no greater than whatever the progs decide doesn't make them rich will retain the 5.25 percent rate for investment income. There would also be deductions for taxpayers with not greater than some prog approved income amount to keep them at the 5.25% rate.

maryrose

daddy:
I think you need to be armed while taking your dogs for a walk. Too many bear close calls.
Also watch out for black ice. It can be a small patch but really send you flying. I slipped at our library and bruised my hip.

Soylent Red

The left always phrases the hunting requirement in terms of "one shot" to kill the game, not in terms of self defense.

The left only stoops to include a hunting requirement at all as cover for their real aim, which is that you actually retain ownership of any firearm. Getting into the weeds of magazine capacity or caliber or any of the real world applications for various firearms is unnecessary when you don't really believe the premise anyway.

Whatever the case, there are lots of hunters in purple states who will balk at stupid regulations put in place by people who have no idea what they are talking about. Whether that will engender a change in the balance of Congress, and whether any change in the balance in Congress will lead to a showdown with Obama on this issue if he goes the executive order route remains to be seen.

Wahoo!

Wahoo indeed, if they can pass it. I predict Texas or Oklahoma will be at the vanguard of revisiting the question of nullification and eventually a Tenth Amendment crisis. Some red state governor, maybe Perry, is eventually going to tell Obama to shove it, and not back down. The next two years will be the most dangerous years for the Union since 1865.

I don't think this will end well.

maryrose

Soylent Red:
Over=reach activities never do end well. What I see is a misunderstanding of the mindset of most Americans.
Obama doe not have the right to tell us how to live. That is not his job. He will lecture us tomorrow and many will turn a deaf ear.
His job is to keep our country strong militarily and financially. He is failing misreably at both. Moochelle is not going to tell me what to eat. Can you imagine if she started telling people what to wear? Ann would have a fit!

Soylent Red

maryrose:

No argument from me on any point. But we're talking about a guy who has been enabled by our so-called Republican leadership, and now thinks that he has a right to go as far as far as he can without being forced to stop.

I can't count on any Republicans in leadership positions in Congress forcing him to stop, and I believe this is becoming more clear to the rational majority of conservatives every day, which is why I predict a Tenth Amendment crisis coming from a governor in a red state.

My real fear is that we have a petulant thug for a President whose response to every roadblock is to double down, and who to a large degree has been rewarded for that strategy by Republicans. So at the point where some governor pushes back, how do you think HRH Obama is going to respond? What happens with that pushing match goes on for a couple of rounds?

maryrose

Well the Arizona governor has gone toe to toe with him with some victories and some defeats.
What Republicans keep missing is that he is basically a bully and a coward. Stand up to him and he folds. I remember how mad he was in 2011 when the tax cuts were extended. Give him some my way or the highway right back and he will fold like a cheap suit. I love the Congressman from Texas telling him to shove it! Just like Healthcare we can fight back and make him look like an idiot. Manchin puts it all on the table at his own risk in 2014. He could become a dead man walking if he doesn't play this right.

daddy

Dot and Iggy and Maryrose,

Thank you all for the input. Generally I carry bear spray and try to make a lot of noise to advertise my presence. And I also try to go where I know I am not the only guy deep in the back woods, and that there are other folks on the trail not too far away. But it is still their territory, so oh well.

Every few years they stick censors on bears and track them, and then publish an interactive map like this one, where you move your cursor over the number of the bear to see where he generally hangs out. I usually hike Coastal areas near the airport which is quite safe bear-wise, or along the Coast where they haven't done much good bear monitoring. Inland I usually go where bear 204, 207 and 208 show up on the map.

And good news. My finger from yesterdays fall is not broken. Just had it X-Rayed and I'm good to go, except s'posed to hang off playing the guitar for a bit:)

Danube of Thought iPad

I think any such state laws will evaporate quickly in the courts the first time a federal agent is arrested. But states' declining to enforce a federal law or executive order is another matter entirely.

Mark Folkestad

I hope the bear spray works for you, Daddy. For me it would be more dangerous than the bears, with my severe allergy to peppers. If I used it, the bear would have a seasoned corpse to eat, and it might make him happy. Unless I got damned lucky on which way the wind was blowing, of course.

maryrose

Most federal agents are not going to go to Texas and risk a 50,000 fine and imprisonment. However if Obama feels a need to enforce it...

maryrose

Do federal laws trump state laws? We can still reject Obamacare.

Cecil Turner

( Apparently a common Alaska witticism delivered to greenhorns.)

I first saw that in G. Gordon Liddy's Will (which he attributed to FBI agent Wayne Brantner), though I'm sure it was around before then.

The .44 Mag is extraordinarily powerful as handguns go, but no handgun is adequate for grizzly.

Spot on. A .44 Mag is essentially the equivalent of a 30-30, which is generally considered the bottom end rifle for hunting. Conventional wisdom for hunting bear is nothing less than a 30-06. To answer the initial question ("is seven bullets enough? Ten? Thirty?"), the number isn't really the issue, especially when talking about something like a charging grizzly. Three to four rounds of .416 Rigby or .375 H&H magnum would almost certainly do the trick, whilst thirty .223 rounds might well not.

Moreover, magazines typically vary by the size of the round. A standard military rifle in 5.56mm (.223) carries a maximum of thirty rounds, a 7.62mm NATO carries twenty, and a .50 cal BMG sniper rifle has about five. As a design feature, matching the round to weight/form of the weapon appears to be the ticket. The Democrats' fixation on magazine capacity number is rather silly, like most of the other things found in their proposals.

Rick Ballard

SR,

I predict a lot of 10th Amendment posturing but I'll start paying serious attention when a state rejects Fed program money and all guidelines associated with it. Substitution of a State Militia for the National Guard would also get my attention.

Free States should use Dope Nullification and Sanctuary City models to start with. Harassing Fed security apparatchiks might be fun but levying a supplemental state income tax on Fed employees would be even more fun. Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma should impose refinery compliance taxes on every drop of the 60% of oil refined in the US that occurs in their states.

Then there's Federal jury nullification....

Danube of Thought iPad

Under the supremacy clause of the constitution federal laws trump state laws when they conflict.

I assume any new federal gun laws will be under the rubric of the interstate commerce clause, and where that is so the 10th Amendment is a dead letter, as we have just seen.

States are allowed to opt out of certain provisions of Obamacare only because the statute expressly allows them to.

narciso

Well it will likely be executive orders, since it's dubious it can pass the House, although 'Carolyn 'that thing that sticks up' McCarthy, will give it a try.

Danube of Thought iPad

I'll be interested to see the Exec Orders, narc. There's not a hell of a lot he can do with them that bothers me.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Bullet placement is what counts.
Karamojo Bell killed 800 elephants with a 7X57 Mauser and several with a 6.5X54 Mannlicher.
Bullet placement with a .44 or 500 revolver is problematical at best.

Danube of Thought iPad

Bullet placement is indeed everything. I hunted wild boar with a guy who had taken a grizzly with a .243 Winchester--definitely not recommended, and I believe unlawful where he was (Alaska). Got him right in the brisket.

narciso

Well they seem to coming from CAP, and that was Neera Tanden, and it's not good news, the Constitution is but an oversight for these people, and it seems for John Roberts as well.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Best shot I ever made was with my .243 Model 70, offhand at about 100 yards, on the biggest buck I ever shot.
Severed the aorta at its exact base like I used a scalpel without even touching the heart.
Poor guy dropped like a sack of sand without even moving an inch.

Janet

Under the supremacy clause of the constitution federal laws trump state laws when they conflict.

Is that the same Constitution that says - 'THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'? Does America care what the Constitution says anymore? If Obama's gonna wing it & doesn't care what the Constitution says, why should Governors? Why should any of us? Why recognize a POTUS?

Porchlight

WaPo says the recommendations to Congress will include a toughened up ban like the one in 1994. That one didn't criminalize possession. Does anyone really think he will try to do that? It's a nonstarter. Well, it should be, anyway. It can't get through Congress. I don't think he'll try it with an EO.

Danube of Thought iPad

"Is that the same Constitution that says - 'THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'?"

Yes it is, Janet. At this point we know that the right is a personal one, but we don't know what the limits of "reasonable regulation" are. I think the current Supreme Court would say that weapons (and maybe magazines) currently in common use could not be banned. But where the boundaries are will be determined by court cases over several generations.

Soylent Red

Best shot I ever made was with my .243 Model 70, offhand at about 100 yards, on the biggest buck I ever shot.

When I was 19, I did a guy in Laos from a thousand yards out. It was a rifle shot in high wind. Maybe eight or even ten guys in the world could have made that shot.

Wait...that wasn't me.

Mr. Ballard, DoT:

Well, I'm probably just hyperventilating. I like Ballard's suggestions on sticking it right back to 'em, and I always fall back on "Good luck enforcing that."

Whatever the particular legality, I'm still predicting pushback if there are Executive Orders. It's the circumvention of Congress that has me more worked up than anything. That issue alone requires a response.

narciso

No that was Martin Riggs, from Lethal Weapon, I thought it was Hathcock, but he would have been too young.

Melinda Romanoff

Soylent-

If we survive this amuse-bouche from BamaClause, the snips on the Executive might be an issue for others.

Just a thought.

(G'night all!)

Ignatz

--When I was 19, I did a guy in Laos from a thousand yards out. It was a rifle shot in high wind. Maybe eight or even ten guys in the world could have made that shot.

Wait...that wasn't me.--

That wasn't supposed to sound like boasting.
I aimed where the heart is. That it severed the aorta at its base was pure luck, but pretty amazing to see when I opened him up.

Ralph L

Every few years they stick censors on bears
Bears need better 1st Amendment lawyers.

States are allowed to opt out of certain provisions of Obamacare only because the statute expressly allows them to.
Now I've forgotten the details, but I believe SCOTUS did save them from its coerced(?) Medicaid expansion.

daddy

I can't bear sensorship.

Watch Phone

Most declares limit the variety of units you can have packed while tracking, usually around 3 to 5 units complete. It better be enough 'cause you likely won't want to be considering reloading or modifying publications if one of those creatures is really after you.

Danube of Thought iPad

Ralph, they can also choose not to establish exchanges, and many have done so.

Dave (in MA)

Axelrod's Mini Me is pushing for higher taxes for his pet projects. Tax crusader Barbara Anderson on Facebook:


OK, after playing with us all by listing various ridiculous tax increases, the governor seems to settled on the only one that raises real money, the income tax rate. It's presently 5.25%. He wants 5.66%. I want to return to the traditional rate of 5%, as the voters demanded in 2000. Time to call our state reps, find yours on the Citizens for Limited Taxation website. Just say No, to any tax hike, don't get into a debate about which one is better or worse. Tell them you want an independent audit of the state Department of Transportation to see where the gas tax and 20% of sales tax revenues earmarked for public transportation are going now. Keep it simple.
Barbara is the key figure behind the 1980 Prop. 2½ that limits the bastards from bumping up our taxes by more than 2½% per year unless permitted by referendum on a town by town basis.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame