Over the years, I’ve noticed that many media outlets (newspapers, TV/radio stations, etc.) have made several factual errors when reporting on firearms.
While some of these errors are fairly minor and hardly worth mentioning, several have been incorrect in critical ways.
For example, many news outlets reported that the sunset of the 1994-2004 federal “assault weapons ban” (“AWB”) would result in new machine guns being legal for private citizens to purchase. This is not true; the AWB did not apply to machine guns (which are regulated under a separate law created in 1934 and which remains in effect), but many of the guns that were restricted under the AWB have a similar appearance to machine guns, hence the confusion.
Incorrect reporting of such facts can result in uninformed and/or misinformed decisions by the citizenry and legislatures, which can seriously affect millions of American citizens and businesses.
Thus, in the interest of providing accurate, non-biased information to the public, I make the following offer to any and all media organizations, large or small, wherever they exist in the world*:
At no financial cost, I will…
- Provide verifiable facts relating to the technical aspects of firearms, ammunition, and related topics.
- Provide verifiable facts relating to existing or certain pending acts of legislation relating to firearms in the United States.
- Provide referrals to experts and/or other verifiable sources on firearm-related topics that I am unable to accurately comment about.
- Review pre- and post-published articles, scripts, reports, and other similar things for accuracy as it relates to firearm-related topics.
- Provide on-air commentary or interviews (via telephone) on firearm-related topics, so long as I am given a list of questions/topics ahead of time so I can prepare a suitable response. (This specific point may be limited by my availability, so please contact me ahead to schedule such a time.)
To take advantage of this offer, simply contact me within a reasonable period (I recommend at least a day or two at the bare minimum) before your deadline with any questions you might have. If, during the course of discussion, more questions or issues arise, I will be glad to assist you with those as well.
* While I welcome inquiries from around the world, I regret that I can only communicate in the English language.
From the AZCDL:
HB 2630, an AzCDL requested bill that reduces the penalty for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit to a petty offense, was vetoed by the Governor on April 29, 2008. You can read her veto letter here: http://www.azleg.gov/govlettr/48leg/2R/HB2630.pdf .
HB 2630 would have reclassified carrying a concealed weapon without a permit as a petty offense, unless the violation occurred in the commission of, or attempted commission of, a “serious offense or violent crime”, in which case the CCW offense would have been a class 6 felony, or any other felony offense, in which case it would have remained a class 1 misdemeanor. In a nutshell, if you’re a bad guy carrying a concealed weapon, penalties would have been stiffened. If you’re a law-abiding citizen, it would have become a petty offense.
For those who don’t know, Arizona is an “open carry” state and no permit is required for openly carrying. However, if one’s shirt accidentally covers the gun, one is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. Similarly, if the openly-carried gun is concealed from view in a car (I’m left-handed — if I’m stopped by a police officer, the gun is not readily visible from either side of the vehicle as it’s blocked by the door on the left and my body on the right), that’s a crime.
Heaven forbid that good guys who make an honest mistake be differentiated from criminals committing violent crime.
Oh well. Maybe it’ll pass the next time around.
Frankly, I don’t even see why permits should be necessary to carry. Vermont and Alaska don’t have permits (AK issues them for reciprocity with other states) and they don’t have any trouble. If people can open carry in AZ without any issues, why should carrying concealed be any different? The mere carriage of a firearm harms nobody.
The National Park Service has proposed a new rule to allow for concealed carry in National Parks. Nifty. I suggest that my Gentle Readers follow the link to the federal register to post comments. Please be civil, as comments will reflect upon the entire shooting community.
My apologies for the intermittent posting this week — it’s rapidly approaching the end of the semester, and final exams are looming. Not the most amount of fun.
One of the issues with maintaining a presence online, such as a public email address or blog, is spam. Comment spams are particularly obnoxious, and I’m doing what I can to reduce or eliminate them entirely on this site.
I use several methods to help prevent spam on this blog:
Continue reading “Meta: Blog Spam”
PistolGear.com is now selling Springfield XD spare parts. While not everything (like the extractor) is available, a considerable amount of stuff is.
If Springfield allows for all non-regulated OEM parts to be sold online like how GLOCK has parts available from Lone Wolf, this will clear up my last roadblock to fully supporting the platform as a full-fledged competitor to GLOCK.
Yes, Springfield has a lifetime warranty which is fantastic, but if a tiny part breaks on the day of a match, you don’t want to have to wait a month for them to fix it when you could have replaced it with a $2 part on the spot. The availability of spare parts is one advantage that GLOCK has over the XD, and one that keeps me from recommending it as a SHTF gun. If OEM parts become widely available, I will not hesitate to recommend the XD to anyone.
Today’s Arizona Daily Wildcat contained this gem:
Guns on campus ‘ridiculous!’
This is ridiculous! Why would anyone want guns legalized on campus? Say a concealed-carry law did get passed, and people started carrying guns. Realistically, what do you think is going to happen? That your safety will increase and you will be able to feel less defenseless!? What about the safety of everyone else? Are you going to protect everyone around you if something happens? Are you so full of yourself that you believe you can? What training will you undertake? What kind of training is possible for college kids to handle a classroom shootout? How will you know what’s sufficient? A couple seminars where you sit at a desk and listen to some dude tell you about how responsible you are for having a gun? A few months at the range? Police or military training? If you want gun safety, wear kevlar!
senior majoring in molecular and cellular biology
Normally, I’d attempt to write a response to this, but one of my Gentle Readers and fellow blogger Ben Kalafut response more eloquently and concisely than I thusly:
If Norstog wants to know “realistically” what will happen if CCW is allowed on campus, he should look to the State of Arizona’s 14 years of shall-issue CCW, or perhaps Colorado State University’s several years of experience with campus CCW.
These problems he brings up are the product of a hyperactive imagination, someone who gets his ideas of firearms more from television and fancy than from real life. The hypothesis that the CCW permit holder is a danger to others is not borne out by the facts.
The Chicago Tribune editorial staff wonders why the anti-rights side keeps losing:
Gun-control advocates are weak. Whether they’re badly outnumbered by gun-rights advocates, lazier than gun-rights advocates or simply don’t have the statistical or philosophical ammunition to keep up with gun-rights advocates I’m not totally sure.
Is there a choice for “all of the above”?
Somehow, I suspect they keep losing because:
- We have over hundreds of years of precedent (both in terms of the Second Amendment, but also simply the fact that We, The People have owned arms continuiously for that period).
- We, The People genuinely believe that we have a right to arms.
- We have repeated court rulings in our favor.
- We have common sense on our side. (How can people be expected to defend their rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if they don’t have the means to defend their lives?)
- We have The United States Constitution on our side. That is, or should be, the “nuclear option” that trumps any argument short of a Constitutional Amendment.
I’m not really sure what sort of person can reasonably think that individuals don’t have the right to arms when there are nearly 100 million gun owners in the US, with hundreds of millions of guns in private possession.
How can one argue that individuals can’t own guns when there are gun stores in essentially every village, town, and city in the country?
Hat tip to Jeff, both for letting me know about the editorial, but also for linking to this blog. Thanks Jeff!
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, 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.