Thursday, May 22, 2008

Red's "Close to Settlement"

An Idaho gun shop that went to federal court to keep the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from stripping it of its gun license has
reached a tentative settlement agreement.
Keep your fingers crossed and say a prayer for Ryan and his family that this means they'll be able to stay open.

UPDATE: Here's another account. It doesn't really say a lot more, but there is a video (that suddenly cuts off near the end).

Olofson Responds...

...to Sebastian's post and to comments that we discussed yesterday.

Go and read.

UPDATE: Sebastian properly deemed it deserving of its own post.

Let Me See If I've Got This Straight

But I applaud the mayor and Council for the audacious act of civic disobedience.
So the answer to making Philadelphia "thug-free" is to let the top thugs disregard the law and do what they want?

Hey, can I do that too, or does it only apply to...uh..."Only Ones"?

I know it's considered bad form to point and stare at the mentally defective, but Jill Porter's publicly-documented serial descent into barking-at-the-moon lunacy is such a fascinating curiosity to observe first-hand.

I also like the comment by "Barbara Moss":
I wish Jack-Ryan-Would-Please-Die...
Oh now Barbara--sometimes people don't realize they have posted and they resubmit comments. I know multiple posts can be irritating, but really--I wonder if there might be something we could... extrapolate from this...?

My Kind of Promo

Buy a Car, Get a Gun or Free Gas! Your Choice America!
Your choice. Exactly.

Guess what they're choosing?

Take the survey and show your support. And let Max Motors know you appreciate it. And if you live in the area and need a car, why not give them first crack at your business?

[Via SameNoKami]

What's to Lose?

Kent McManigal just shared a thought with me:
If "they" can now punish us for owning a machine gun that isn't a machine gun until they tamper with it, why would "theoretical gun owner" worry about getting caught with a real machine gun? Is there a worse penalty? There seems to be an unintended consequence lurking there somewhere.

We're the Only Ones Critical Enough

A push by the National Rifle Association to loosen a number of state gun laws is drawing heavy criticism from prosecutors and a variety of law-enforcement groups who argue it will make them and the public less safe.

Oh, these were the geniuses...

Figures they'd be "Only Ones." Hey, they've got theirs...

Here's the NRA-ILA contact list.

[Via Jeffersonian]

Dial 911 and Have an Extended Conversation

The way I see, it, you can either do this...

...or you can end things sooner.

Simply put, you can rely on others to be responsible for protecting you and yours, or you can rely on yourself.

What gets me is the idea that the choice isn't mine. What genius thought that one up?

[Via Jeffersonian]

Calling All California Gun Owners

From Tom McClintock:
[M]y opponent has unleashed the ugliest smear campaign I have seen in over 30 years in politics attacking both my integrity and my patriotism. He has backed it with over $2.5 million of his personal fortune and actually bragged that he planned to “bury McClintock in money.”

...[W]e’re stretched to the breaking point to keep our ads on the air. In fact, I’ve had to ask my campaign staff to hold off paying some of our bills for the primary election in order to keep at least a minimal presence on the air.

Are you going to help out? Or do you like it when "moderate" Oseholes betray you and support gun and ammo bans?

We're the Only Ones Legally Entitled Enough

Peterson claimed he legally owned the rifle as an officer, and the law only pertains to civilians.
Drew, Drew, Drew...

Just when I was starting to feel the love, you turn around and pull "Only Ones" rank on us.

[Via Michael Dukes]

A Tribute to Our Troops


Somewhere, there is a line between reasonably prudent and cautious, and stark nutjob paranoid. The Secret Service doesn't even trust the soldiers, sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and obey the orders of the President.
Maybe they're worried about some of the new recruits...

[Via Stephen S]

OMB Issues Rulemaking Restrictions

From Len Savage:

OMB just issued M07-13
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-13.pdf
Which follows on M07-07
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-07.pdf
and EO13422
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/eo12866/fr_notice_eo12866_012307.pdf

All of this is intended to curtail agencies regulating through opinion letters rather than notice-and-comment rulemaking.This is germane in that: ATF opinion letters have been contradicting themselves frequently.
Len adds:

I love this part:

"Experience has shown, however, that guidance documents [ATF determinations] also may be poorly designed or improperly implemented. At the same time, guidance documents may not receive the benefit of careful consideration accorded under the procedures for regulatory development and review.4 These procedures include: (1) internal agency review by a senior agency official; (2) public participation, [Akins Ruling...not] including notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)"
Gee, do think a written set of testing procedures qualifies as a "guidance document"?

This is the Executive Branch documenting the fact there are problems, and stipulating policy that is not being upheld by ATF. This could do some serious damage both in Federal Court and Court of public opinion.

"The phenomenon we see in this case is familiar. Congress passes a broadly worded statute. The agency follows with regulations containing broad language, open-ended phrases, ambiguous standards and the like. Then as years pass, the agency issues circulars or guidance or memoranda, explaining, interpreting, defining and often expanding the commands in regulations. One guidance document may yield another and then another and so on. Several words in a regulation may spawn hundreds of pages of text as the agency offers more and more detail regarding what its regulations demand of regulated entities. Law is made, without notice and comment, without public participation, and without publication in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations."
Yupp, they know it is happening....
David Hardy has more.

Whose Side Are You On?

"You have to decide whether you're on their side – the men and women who wear blue – or whether you're on the side of the gun lobby."
Gee, gRendell, that's a tough one.

But fortunately, I've addressed it before.

[Via AvgJoe]

My Kind of Town

A great example of Chicago Gun Control
It's also my new desktop wallpaper. If it's some kind of hoax, it's a funny one.

[Via Less and SayUncle]

The Big One

"We're going to have to think about out-of-the-box solutions," he said.

Indeed you will.

Any bets we'll hear stories about neighbors wanting to know if they can borrow a gun?

Fool Me Once...

"She left the door open; when she turned around there was a white male standing there."

This Day in History: May 22

On May 22, 1775, the New Hampshire Provincial Congress voted to raise a volunteer force of 2,000 men to join the patriot army at Boston. These “provincials” were organized into three regiments, each regiment having an official establishment of 648 officers and men in ten companies. The troops were enlisted to serve until December 31, 1775.