Don’t say nobody wants to take your guns.

The group “Occupy Democrats”, a “progressive” group with ~750k “Likes” on Facebook and which seems to communicate entirely by image-based posts, recently posted this image:

occupy-democrats-australia

At the time I published this post, it had more than 61,000 “shares” and 40,000+ “Likes”.

Don’t let anyone convince you that nobody wants to take your guns. They do.

My response: “You want take my guns. I won’t give them up. Your move.”

Well, that was fun.

My web host, who is otherwise outstanding, had some critical failure of their networking gear in the facility where this server is hosted.

As such, the site was offline for ~9 hours. Considering how infrequently I tend to post, I’d be surprised if anyone noticed. Still, sorry about that.

NPR finally notices New Yorkers are ignoring the SAFE act

After New York implemented the SAFE act there’s been incredibly low levels of compliance: people aren’t registering firearms the law says they must — only 45,000 have been registered. Although this has been fairly widely known in the gun community, NPR finally noticed.

Interestingly, they didn’t just interview the anti-gun groups, but actually interviewed regular people:

“I just don’t see there’s any need to [register my guns -AZR],” says Joseph Fuller of Cohoes, N.Y. Fuller says he owns several guns, including at least one that he’s required to register under the SAFE Act. But he hasn’t.

“I don’t pay attention, to be honest,” says Fuller. “I have friends out in the boondocks. They won’t register their guns either. And they told me … don’t even bother. Don’t worry about it.”

They also interviewed the NYSRPA:

“[The SAFE Act] still may be law, but the people of New York state have repealed it on their own,” says Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. “They’re just ignoring the law.”

Upstate sheriffs don’t seem to care:

“When I prioritize what I need to do as a sheriff, the SAFE Act comes in at the bottom of that list,” says Christopher Moss, the sheriff in Chemung County, a rural area near the Pennsylvania border. “I do look at it personally as an infringement on Second Amendment rights.”

Leah Barrett with New Yorkers Against Gun Violence is a sad panda, but tries to spin things positively:

“I think 45,000 is a lot of assault weapons. I think it’s evidence of how long overdue this law is,” says Leah Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. Barrett points out that multiple public opinion polls — including one commissioned by her group — show that 60 percent of New Yorkers support the SAFE Act.

“They support the background check requirement. They support the state’s ban on military-style assault weapons. They even support the background checks on ammunition sales,” says Barrett, “because they know that these are entirely reasonable.”

No surprise: her definition of “reasonable” differs completely from my own.

The comments are filled with people saying “Hurr, durr. I thought [pro-gun rights people] always said ‘enforce existing laws’, but now they’re opposing the enforcement of this law.” and “So much for ‘law-abiding gun owner’.” Funny how it’s “civil disobedience” when people break the law to support something they like, but how it’s “let’s track down and arrest those felonious, cousin-humping rednecks” when people are breaking the law to support something they don’t like.

Obama says failure on gun laws makes him “most frustrated”

The President recently had an interview with the BBC. During the interview, the journalist asked what “unfinished business” he would likely have before leaving the White House, specifically inquiring about “race” and “guns”.

Mr. Obama replied with,

You mentioned the issue of guns, that is an area where if you ask me where has been the one area where I feel that I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws. Even in the face of repeated mass killings.

And you know, if you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it’s less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it’s in the tens of thousands. And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing. But it is not something that I intend to stop working on in the remaining 18 months.

Sorry to disappoint, but our rights are not up for a vote.

Perhaps his efforts would be better served working on ideas that might actually reduce crime and violence, rather than do-nothing, “common sense” proposals that miss the point entirely and infringe on the rights of ordinary, honest people.

One year of being a dad

One year ago to the hour my wife gave birth to our beautiful daughter.

During that year my little one’s taught me to smile more, enjoy the little things, smile at people on the train, snuggle with the people you love, and to not be afraid to get down on the floor, roll around, and clap for no reason.

This last year’s been a lot of fun and I’m looking forward to each of the next steps in our lives.

How many more?

Yesterday, 9 people died in South Carolina at the hands of a killer.

His victims were disarmed by the state and left with no effective means of self-defense.

Although I can’t say if anyone there would have carried at the church, they were denied even the freedom to choose by the South Carolina legislature who, in their <sarcasm>superior wisdom</sarcasm>, thought there was no need for anyone to carry in a church, and so made it illegal.

How many more need to die before the concept of a “gun-free zone” is universally realized as the dangerous and illogical absurdity that it is?

Thoughts on Jackson vs. City & County of San Francisco

So, the Supreme Court declined cert on Jackson vs. City & County of San Francisco.

Not surprising, really, as there’s not much case law in the lower courts, nor is there disagreement between the circuits. Sure, this should have been a slam-dunk Heller 2 for the gun-rights side, but not everything works out that way.

Personally, I don’t think it’s a big deal: on a practical level, the cops aren’t going to search people’s homes to see if they’re leaving their gun on the bathroom sink while they take a shower or if they put a gun the kitchen table while they unload stuff from a vehicle. This law would only come into play if something bad happens (e.g. someone leaves a gun out and a kid or irresponsible adult fires it), and even then it’d probably a minor worry compared to the other legal issues one would face in such a situation.

Of course, I strongly support the notion of securing one’s guns when they’re not in one’s immediate control (especially when kids or irresponsible adults are around), but I dislike legal mandates that are effectively unenforceable and don’t make exceptions for practical, everyday situations.

In a way, I’m glad it worked out this way: the judges clearly are not of one mind in this regard, and it is better to have cert denied here and revisit the issue in the future when the composition of the Supreme Court may have changed — hopefully with an increase in the number of justices inclined toward individual liberty — and there’s more of a consensus.

Until then, residents of San Francisco (and other cities that may try implementing such laws) will have to deal with a minor infringement of their liberties. Fortunately, such laws practically have no effect on a day-to-day basis (unlike, say, the CA AWB).

In short: bummer, but probably better in the long run to wait and try again.

NPR: As Women Try Out For Armor Units, ‘If You Can Hack It, You Can Hack It’

From NPR comes this headline: “As Women Try Out For Armor Units, ‘If You Can Hack It, You Can Hack It'”

As a former army tank crewman (19K), I’m all for it.

If anyone, male or female, wants to be in a combat unit and can meet the objective standards that all other members of that unit must meet (e.g. physical fitness, not being too tall for the tank, etc.), I don’t really give a damn what they have between their legs.

Good luck, Marines.

BBC: “Drone owners register called for by House of Lords”

Sorry for the long absence: it turns out that PhD research and having an 8-month-old daughter end up sucking up any free time I might otherwise have.

From the BBC comes this article about how the House of Lords feels that regulating private unmanned drones (which are essentially glorified RC helicopters) is necessary. Part of those regulations include a database that would register “businesses and other professional users, and then later expand to encompass consumers”.

The committee chairwoman said, “[W]e need to find ways to manage and keep track of drone traffic. That is why a key recommendation is that drone flights must be traceable, effectively through an online database, which the general public could access via an app.”

Who is “we” and why should drone flights be traceable via an online database or app? Would people flying a drone at the park need to file flight plans?

They also want to impose rules mandating “geofencing”, where the drones are programmed with “no-fly zones”, as if technically-inclined hobbyists (who are the main operators of non-governmental drones) aren’t going to tinker around and remove those restrictions.

One of the talking heads on the BBC TV program discussing this subject said something along the lines of “In America when one buys a firearm, they need to register it. It should be the same here in Britain with drones.” Of course, that’s not true: very few states require gun registration, and there’s no observed benefit when states do require it.

It appears that the House of Lords thinks bad guys intending to use a drone for malicious purposes care about violating some aviation-related rule or would have second thoughts about stripping out “no-fly” restrictions from the drone’s software. Mandating that users register is silly as a means of preventing bad guys from getting drones, as bad guys would simply provide false information, buy them in other countries, etc. Same thing with guns.

The current rules regarding unmanned aircraft are pretty reasonable, and I see no reason why one should need or want to change them:

[The Civil Aviation Authority] prohibits unmanned aircraft from flying closer than 150m (492ft) to any congested area, or within 50m (164ft) of any vessel, vehicle or structure that is not in the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.

The CAA typically bans the use of drones weighing over 20kg (44lb), but lower than that weight they can be used if they remain in the operator’s line of sight.