Legislation before the California Assembly (AB 352) that would have required microstamping of firearms and bullet serialization of all ammunition was defeated last night.
It'll be back.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Firearms Industry Scores Major Victory in California Assembly; Microstamping & Bullet Serialization Bill Defeated
It'll be back.
Escaping the Village II: False Alternatives
I know I promised "Profiles in Apathy" as the next installment to my ongoing series on steps needed to restore gun rights, but the timeliness of the linked article needs to take precedence. I was going to cover this topic later.
Still, missing from the debate is a system proposed years ago that would allow for checks without identifying individual gun owners. Did you know such a proposal existed?
I thought not.
It been ignored by the major gun groups.
The Blind Identification Database System, or BIDS, was developed by my friends Russ Howard and Brian Puckett. Note that they are the first ones to admit that no prior restraint is constitutional, and that background checks are ineffective at keeping guns out of the hands of "prohibited persons" (as if there is government authority to prohibit or put prior restraints on anyone who is not incarcerated).
But what BIDS would do is reduce the amount of infringement the government is currently forcing on us, and preclude them having a registration list of identified gun owners as NICS provides.
Anyone who has read my work knows I prefer no system--my long-stated position is anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. But I have also long admitted I am a minority, and stipulate that those who tout the benefits of incrementalism view people like me as unrealistic "absolutists" (hell, an NRA rep once warned people that Brian and I were "wild-eyed extremists"!)
So here's my challenge to the majority: Why not BIDS? So far, the only objection I've heard is "it's not politically feasible."
Yeah, I guess if all the major gun groups are going to suppress it from the debate, that's probably correct. Let's just all give up before we even engage. That'll win back our gun rights.
Click on the BIDS link above and save your own copy of this proposal.
My guess is only a few gun owners will even take the time to read the whole thing. Which brings me back to the start of this post--I still need to work on "Profiles in Apathy."
A Second Amendment group is warning gun owners that a "massive gun control bill" is now working its way through Congress -- and is surprisingly close to becoming law.Why doesn't that surprise me?
Gun Owners of America also admits that it is the only national pro-gun group to oppose the "NICS Improvement Act of 2005" (H.R. 1415)....
Okay with NRA
The National Rifle Association takes a less ominous view of the bill.
"This bill...would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers," says an analysis on the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action website.
Still, missing from the debate is a system proposed years ago that would allow for checks without identifying individual gun owners. Did you know such a proposal existed?
I thought not.
It been ignored by the major gun groups.
The Blind Identification Database System, or BIDS, was developed by my friends Russ Howard and Brian Puckett. Note that they are the first ones to admit that no prior restraint is constitutional, and that background checks are ineffective at keeping guns out of the hands of "prohibited persons" (as if there is government authority to prohibit or put prior restraints on anyone who is not incarcerated).
But what BIDS would do is reduce the amount of infringement the government is currently forcing on us, and preclude them having a registration list of identified gun owners as NICS provides.
Anyone who has read my work knows I prefer no system--my long-stated position is anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. But I have also long admitted I am a minority, and stipulate that those who tout the benefits of incrementalism view people like me as unrealistic "absolutists" (hell, an NRA rep once warned people that Brian and I were "wild-eyed extremists"!)
So here's my challenge to the majority: Why not BIDS? So far, the only objection I've heard is "it's not politically feasible."
Yeah, I guess if all the major gun groups are going to suppress it from the debate, that's probably correct. Let's just all give up before we even engage. That'll win back our gun rights.
Click on the BIDS link above and save your own copy of this proposal.
My guess is only a few gun owners will even take the time to read the whole thing. Which brings me back to the start of this post--I still need to work on "Profiles in Apathy."
"Once I Started Reading, I Didn't Want to Stop"
I thought WoG visitors would be interested in the reviews starting to come in at Amazon.com for "Domestic Enemies: The Reconquista."I just got my copy and will begin reading it over the long weekend. I hope it's as good as "Enemies Foreign and Domestic," and as good as these early reviews indicate.
Don't forget, the Matthew Bracken Interview is 4 days away...
We're the Only Ones Da Bomb Enough II: Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda
Called "a menace to society," by a judge Monday, Jon Bartlett was sentenced to 4 ½ years in prison, which officials said should finally get him off the Milwaukee Police Department payroll."Should?"
The creep was already convicted.
And it's still just "should"?
Just what does it take to get an "Only One" off the backs of Milwaukee taxpayers?
Because of a state law that applies only to Milwaukee police and advocated by the politically powerful police union, city taxpayers were forced to pay Bartlett his full salary and benefits since he was fired along with eight other officers in May 2005 for their roles in the Jude incident. Since then, he has received more than $100,000 in pay and benefits...
Legislation to change the law and stop paying fired Milwaukee police officers died last fall when all Republicans on the committee voted against it.
Ah yes--the party of limited government and law and order. Anybody from WI have a handle on what's up with that?
[Thanks to AB5SY]
This Day in History: September 1
Richard Penn and Arthur Lee, representing the Continental Congress, present the so-called Olive Branch Petition to the Earl of Dartmouth on this day in 1775. Britain’s King George III, however, refused to receive the petition, which, written by John Dickinson, appealed directly to the king and expressed hope for reconciliation between the colonies and Great Britain.Our modern day rulers ignore our petitions, too.