A Question Of Majority

Here’s some news that had me reaching for a celebratory gin:

The DOJ announced it has concluded that the federal ban on handgun sales to 18- through 20-year-olds is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

I’ve talked about the age issue before.  If kids are assumed to be majors at age 18 and entitled to vote (I’m still somewhat unsure of the wisdom of the 26th Amendment, by the way), get married without parental consent, sign contracts and all that, then gun ownership should definitely be included in those freedoms (along with the responsibilities, a discussion for another time).

What I like most about this latest announcement from the DoJ is that they haven’t waited for lawsuits to pitchfork them into doing the right thing, but rather have done their own homework before prosecuting such cases — as any decent government department should.

The Office of Legal Counsel determined that 18 to 20-year-olds are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. “Eighteen-year-olds may vote, serve on juries, be drafted, and face adult criminal penalties, including capital punishment,” said Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser for the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. “The Constitution protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms. The Department of Justice may not constitutionally seek to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns to law-abiding adults who, in nearly every other relevant respect, are members of the political community.”

Of course, the Nanny States all have age restrictions on gun ownership by “juveniles”, but up until now they’ve been able to take cover behind the federal ban.  But that just means that Our Heroes at the Second Amendment Foundation — y’all are SAF members, right? — can proceed with litigation against those states, using the DoJ’s findings as supporting material.

All in all, good news.

Some Welcome News

Looks like the old Second Amendment is rolling right along, and not towards a cliff (like under Obama and Biden) either.  Here’s a happy event:

A report from CBS News indicated that President Donald Trump ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) not to appeal the ruling against suppressor registration secured in August via the Silencer Shop v. ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) lawsuit.

I think that I might have to look seriously at acquiring a tube or two in the near future.

I just need a little downward price adjustment or two…

Oppression By Bureaucracy

It’s not often I get an email that creates both sadness and almost-ungovernable rage, but Reader Bruce sent me this:

Last week, on one of the saddest days of my life, I went to a local police station and handed over my three rifles for destruction by the “Commissioner of Police”.

They were nothing special: a B/A Savage 320D in .22 Hornet; an Anschutz .22RF 1451 Sporter (with custom fibreglass stock); a Savage Model 12 .223 Varmint heavy barrel (in a custom fibreglass stock). But they were MINE! to me, they represented something: that society had accepted me as a responsible human being. I obsessively hand loaded for the Hornet and .223, seeking the best performance each was capable of.

So why did I do the unthinkable?

Firstly, my wife and I “downsized”. We moved from a suburban 4 x 2 on a huge lot into a 3 x 2 apartment close to the river. And then came the first cruncher. By law, my firearms had to be kept in an approved gun safe, bolted into brick or concrete on two surfaces. And the only place for that in our new abode was in the lock-up roller door garage. Uh-uh … the law says it has to “be under the main roof” … and it isn’t. My safe was “grandfathered” anyway. Had I bought another firearm or had one of mine rebarrelled, I would have been compelled to buy a new “approved” and vastly more expensive safe. So I had nowhere to store my guns (or ammo, for that matter).

Secondly, I have been a competitive target shooter for 51 years, from air pistol to pistol to full-bore to rimfire. I am nationally qualified as a Range Officer. I was, until I let it lapse, a qualified Commonwealth Shooting Coach. I have been able to use my rifles competitively and for hunting, quite legally. Not so now. If I want to use them competitively, I have to get “another” licence category for them, and compete a regulated number of times per year. Once they are so classified, I can no longer use them for hunting or vermin control. The reason? Our the Minister for Police declared that target firearms are likely to have lightened triggers and are not “safe” to use off a range.

My dilemma. Give up plinking or bunny busting or fox shooting, or give up competition. OK, so I’ll just use them for the former and forego competition. Problem. I can only shoot on “approved” properties. My friend has a farm. I can shoot there, provided he registers me every year on an internet portal with the police department. If his neighbour wants me to shoot a few foxes on his property, I am not allowed to unless he also registers me electronically. Oh, and calibres are limited by the size of the property you have permission to shoot on.

And so I handed them in. I have owned a firearm (or more than one) since 1967. I’m pleased to say I’ve never done anything dangerous or even vaguely illegal with any of them. And to now be told that I can’t have them unless I jump through bureaucratic hoops hurts. Deeply.

My point? DON’T GIVE YOURS UP! Fight the bastards until you can fight no longer.

Note that gun ownership can be ended simply by incremental “reasonable” gun control regulation — e.g. guns must be stored in a safe —–> safes must be encased in brick walls (an almost impossible condition to meet for most people, which is the point of such bastardy).

Bruce, my friend:  if you ever make it to Texas, I’ll organize a Schutzenfest for you with some of my fellow Texans, at a place where we can bang away all day without fear or apprehension.  As for guns… let’s just say you’d be overwhelmed by choice.

Levels

Sent to me by Reader Sean F.:


…who thinks that he’s reached Level 4.

So have I, with only a slight difference in gun choice.



…but yeah, conceptually I’m there.  I’m too old to fuck around with all that modern shit.

Dept. Of Righteous Shootings

Don’t know how I missed this one, right here in Texas.  Apparently, some choirboy decided that all he needed to rob a bank was a knife, and indeed, it kinda was.  All was going to plan, except that one of the bank’s customers didn’t think that this little wealth redistribution plan was acceptable, drew his trusty carry piece and shot the fucker dead.

Lesson learned:  Using a knife to rob a bank:  not the best instrument, at least in a state where customers are likely armed with guns and have a proper sense of right and wrong.

(Thanks to Reader Brad, who sent this news to me from his private fortress in deep-blue Illinois — where an action such as the above would have landed Our Hero in deep trouble.) 

Dept. Of Righteous Shootings

Several Readers sent me this happy tale, thankee all:

An alleged intruder is dead after being shot multiple times by a Spartanburg County, South Carolina, homeowner around 2 a.m. Sunday morning.

Wait… multiple times?

I’d like to know a lot more details about this happy episode, e.g. the gun used, cartridge, exactly where the choirboy’s worthless hide was perforated, but I guess we’re not going to be told any of that.  [pout]