Category: Guns

Followup: Why Premption Exists

Previously I wrote about how Lower Chichester Township in Pennsylvania was considering an ordinance that would require new residents to submit a listing of all the firearms, ammunition, and powder that would be stored in their new homes. Of course, this is a violation of Pennsylvania’s preemption laws.
Well, that ordinance has been tabled and will not be taking effect. Many thanks to the NRA and NRA members for voicing their opposition to the measure.

TGSCOM Offering Guns At Cost

TGSCOM, who runs sites like TopGlock.com, is offering guns at cost for the next two weeks. See the press release here.
While TGSCOM has long provided excellent service, a wide selection, and good prices, the company has been more widely known amongst the non-gunny public as being the vendor who sold the Walther P22 used by the VT shooter and magazines to the NIU shooter. Of course, magazines are perfectly legal to order through the mail, and the gun was shipped to a Virginia FFL who did the required background check, so TGSCOM is not in the least bit responsible for the tragedies that followed. It’s just their bad luck.
Eric Thompson, the owner, hopes that by selling guns at cost (he doesn’t make any profit at all from this sale) he’ll be able to equip more private citizens so they’ll be able to defend themselves against criminal attack.
A worthy goal indeed, and something that my Gentle Readers should seriously consider taking Mr. Thompson up on.

UA-SCCC Empty Holster Protest Mentioned In Newspaper

The University of Arizona chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has been participating in nationwide empty holster protest.
Today, we got mentioned in the Arizona Daily Wildcat, the university newspaper. They interviewed the campus leader for SCCC:
UA-SCCC chapter head
Photo credit: Andrew Russell, UA Daily Wildcat

This week, the organization is holding an “empty holster” protest nationwide, where students wear empty holsters to campus to raise awareness of gun laws, and for students and faculty to be able to protest the defenselessness they may feel by not being able to carry on campus, [the UA campus leader for SCCC] said.
“The empty holster is symbolic for current policies tying our hands behind our backs,” [the UA campus leader for SCCC] said. “With students that carry everywhere else, why should the campus be any different?”
About 20 students are participating in the empty holster protest, which hasn’t garnered much attention from students, [the UA campus leader for SCCC] said.
“Surprisingly, no students have asked me about it,” he said. “Most people look at it and don’t even do a double take.”

I’ve noticed that very thing — when wearing my holster on campus, nobody seems to notice.
When open carrying a firearm off-campus, nobody seems not notice either. No double takes, no panic, no nothing. I’ve had one or two people glance at the gun and go about their business, but most people simply don’t even notice it…and I’m not even trying to conceal it.
Somehow, I think that if SB 1214 were to have passed and people could carry concealed on campus, nobody would notice.
Other good news:

Even though [University President] Shelton may disagree with [the UA campus leader for SCCC], [he] said Shelton was the only campus administrator that took the time to thoroughly listen to his concerns.

President Shelton has publicly spoken against allowing permit holders to carry on campus, so it’s good that he’s listened thoroughly and has the potential to change his mind.

And students don’t want to carry weapons on campus just to protect themselves from school shootings, but other crimes like a mugging or a personal assault, [the UA campus leader for SCCC] said.
“There are many situations where you can’t just submit to the criminal and just be OK,” he said. “You have to fight and to fight effectively in self-defense.”

Ah, that’s a key issue that I keep bringing up in conversations with friends. Virginia Tech-like school shootings are exceedingly rare (but extremely hyped up by the media), and very few people I know carry (or want to carry) to protect against this rare event (though they’d be prepared to do so, if needed).
Rather, they want to protect themselves against more common crime like assault, rape, and so on — just like they’re able to do off-campus. “Ordinary” crime is not uncommon on campus (or off campus, for that matter).

[T]he empty holster protest, which will go through the end of this week, is a powerful image to convey to the campus community, [NRA Board Member and Tucson resident Todd] Rathner said.
“It’s a really good way to convey the student sense of defenselessness.”

And that’s the point we’re trying to make: the law and university policy doesn’t protect anyone; how could it, when it disarms law-abiding “good guys” who simply want to protect themselves?
Permit holders have been carrying for years in just about every public place in Arizona (and most other states) without incident. Why would a college campus be any different?
Kudos to Dustin for reporting this before I did, even though I knew about the upcoming publication before he did. That’s what I get for sleeping in. 🙂
Update (9/7/2010): The UA campus leader for SCCC contacted me today to ask that I redact his name from this post. I’m happy to do so.

the UA campus leader for SCCCl

ABC reports on Students for Concealed Carry on Campus


Kudos to Dustin for mentioning the video.
I’ve been participating in the empty holster protest this week at the University of Arizona, as have several other UA-SCCC members. The head of the UA chapter of SCCC was interviewed by the Arizona Daily Wildcat, and the interview should be in the paper and online tomorrow.
Several of my friends have reported seeing a few people (including myself) with empty holsters on campus this week. That’s all I know right now, but I’ll update here when I know more solid information — probably tomorrow.

Springfield XD: Now With Thumb Safety

I’ve been a big fan of the Springfield XD pistol, particularly their XD-45, for some time.
It’s a fine service pistol, quite comparable to offerings from GLOCK in many respects. It is to this competitor that XDs are most often compared, and for good reason: they’re both high-quality polymer-based pistols, are reliable, accurate, durable, and modestly priced.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy pistols of all sorts, including GLOCKs, 1911s, and a whole host of other handguns. But the XD-45 is one of the better .45 ACP service pistols that I’ve used.
One of the things I like most about the XD series is the grip safety; having a secondary safety not related to the trigger makes me feel a bit more comfortable.
There are also many people who want something more than “passive” safeties (like a grip safety or the various mechanisms modeled after GLOCK’s “Safe Action”) — they want an “active” safety that they need to consciously actuate to bring the gun into a ready-to-fire condition.
If such a person has been interested in an XD but has been holding off because of the lack of such a safety, wait no more.
As a lefty, I’d like to point out that the thumb safety, like most features on the XD, is ambidextrous.
It’s nice to see a company making a good pistol, at a good price, and considering the concerns of those who like thumb safeties. It’s particularly nice to see them making guns lefty-friendly without charging more money.
Update: Well, I seem to be a bit behind the times. This pistol seems to have been out for at least a month or two, but I only became aware of it recently. Whoops!

Where are the anti-gun folks?

Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune asks that very question:

[E]ach timeit has struck me how tiny, uninspired and vague the response has been from those who favor new laws to try to keep guns out of the hand of evildoers.
While the gun-rights folks weigh in quickly and forcefully with links to studies and detailed arguments, the gun-ban folks are mostly quiet.

Zorn’s comments illustrate the amazing effects of the internet on such issues.
In the past, it took some time for responses to be published; waiting for the next edition of a magazine or newspaper often took weeks, and then only a limited number (if any) of replies were published. There was no way to direct feedback to the author, only to the editor’s desk, who may or may not forward the comments to the author. Many people received news from local newspapers, a few national/international papers, and the radio/TV news programs by major networks (CNN, ABC, CBS, etc.).
It was difficult and expensive for large networks of people to organize and communicate, so there wasn’t much large-scale organization for pro-gun viewpoints other than the NRA, which was only moderately responsive. Organizations with impressive-sounding names could posture and appear to be more influential than they actually were.
These days, the internet makes it incredibly easy to publish information, link to other sources, and spread news around (for example, Zorn’s column was made known to me by means of Rustmeister’s Alehouse, who published his posting about 8 hours ago — hat tip to Sebastian who made me aware of Rustmeister’s posting). Message boards like The High Road make it easy to communicate with other like-minded individuals around the world instantly.
These days, it’s quite clear that the “pro-gun” viewpoint is really a grassroots one…there are hundreds (thousands?) of independent bloggers, large message boards, communities, and online vendors dedicated entirely to talking about guns, selling gun parts and accessories, and so on. Word gets around the gun community incredibly fast (see the Zumbo Affair, where a deluge of phone calls, emails, and other communications resulted in Zumbo losing his column and sponsors before the NRA knew about it, let alone published a press release), with often influential results.
Let’s keep up the good work and use this influential communications medium to better effect.

ATF issues new FAQ for silencers

PDF file is here.
The part that bugs me is this:

If a silencer part bearing the serial number, other than the outer tube, must be replaced, the new part must be marked with the same serial number as the replacement part.
The term “repair” does not include replacement of the outer tube of the silencer. The outer tube is the largest single part of the silencer, the main structural component of the silencer, and is the part to which all other component parts are attached. The replacement of the outer tube is so significant an event that it amounts to the “making” of a new silencer. As such, the new silencer must be marked, registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA.

Argh. That’s annoying.
One would think it’d be OK to send the silencer back to the manufacturer, have them replace any damaged parts with identical replacements, re-stamp and serialed parts with replacement parts bearing the identical serial number, and then destroy the damaged components. Yes, one would be “making” a new silencer, but the net effect would be zero: you’re also destroying a silencer bearing the same serial.
Alas, this is not the case. If one needs to replace the outer tube, it counts as a new silencer, and one must go through the transfer process all over again.
Very annoying indeed.

Breaking News: Gun Owners Are Normal People

Arthur Brooks at the Wall Street Journal writes:

According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco ? as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
Nor are they ?bitter.? In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were ?very happy,? while 9% were ?not too happy.? Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling ?outraged at something somebody had done.? It?s easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn?t true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don?t have guns.
The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.
Why are gun owners so happy? One plausible reason is a sense of self-reliance, in terms of self-defense or even in terms of the ability to hunt their own dinner.
Many studies over the years have shown that a belief in one?s control over the environment dramatically adds to happiness. Example: a famous study of elderly nursing home patients in the 1970s. It showed dramatic improvements in life satisfaction from elements of control as seemingly insignificant as being able to care for one?s plants.
A bit of evidence that self-reliance is at work among gun owners comes from the General Social Survey. It asked whether one agrees with the statement, ?Those in need have to take care of themselves.? In 2004, gun owners were 10 percentage points more likely than nonowners to agree (60% to 50%).

Hat tip to Say Uncle.
In short: “Gun owners are normal people.” (And to think, Mr. Brooks gets paid to write such stuff.)
We’re not crazed nutjobs, we’re not criminals, we’re not inbred rednecks like from Deliverance. We’re just ordinary people, leading ordinary lives.
Many of the folks in my apartment complex are gun owners, and are perfectly ordinary people. They wake up, go to work or school, come home, care for their families, etc. Heck, a few people I know at the university are “stamp collectors” and have a whole bunch of NFA items like machine guns, while I myself own a suppressor.
The only thing that surprised me was the relatively low number of households they listed: only 34%? I know that in many areas of Montana the number exceeds 90%. In Arizona, it’s also considerably higher. Either people aren’t accurately reporting that they own guns (who can blame them? I generally consider the number of guns I own as “none of your damn business”), or the survey is asking people in very gun-unfriendly areas (San Francisco, New York City, Washington DC, etc.) and averaging them with high-ownership areas like…oh, the rest of the country. I’m curious to see their methodology.