Ban

It seems that the Associated Press are ... disappointed ... that Brazilians today "soundly rejected" (64% against) a national referendum calling for a ban on all firearms.  I think it's refreshing.  And there's something buried in the story that is worth emphasizing:

"The whole campaign (against the ban) was imported from the United States. They just translated a lot of material from the NRA," said Jessica Galeria, a Californian who researches gun violence with the Viva Rio think tank, referring to the National Rifle Association. "Now, a lot of Brazilians are insisting on their right to bear arms, they don't even have a pseudo right to bear arms. It's not in their Constitution."

Rights are not granted by a Constitution, they are recognized and protected.  The Brazilians seem to have discovered this.  Just because there's no piece of paper that says you have a right doesn't mean you don't have it.  It just means you might need to write up that piece of paper in a hurry when the government tries to violate it.

Hat tip to the Bitch Girls.

UPDATE: The BBC has a surprising moment of honesty:

For the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that any government will feel able to revisit the guns issue - such was the deafening volume of the "No" vote.   Brazil is proud of its recently-restored democracy. And rightly or wrongly, the Brazilian people have spoken.

Once more, the Fifty Caliber Institute brings us word of two bills in the state legislature that are heading to the floor for a vote.  The NRA reports that gun owners' telephone calls to legislatures have already slowed these bills down -- but slowing them down is not good enough.  They need to be stopped.  

Contact with your elected officials is again needed, if this pointless legislation is to be stopped.  Illinois residents should contact their representatives within the next 48 hours.  A phone call would help greatly, a letter or fax sent by you TODAY would be even better.  Regardless of the means, you MUST contact them once again if you wish to retain your 2nd Amendment rights!                                                                                                                                                                             Even if you've already spoken to them, contact them again.  Tell your elected representatives that you OPPOSE HB1098 and HB2414.

While both bills ban the .50 caliber, HB2414 bans numerous semi-automatic rifles and shotguns as well.  Since most fifty-shooters also own shotguns and rifles of other calibers, HB2414 is doubly offensive to your rights.  Semi-auto bans failed to make a difference in crime at  the federal level.  They won't reduce crime at the state level.  And the fifty-caliber is historically even LESS of a threat, despite what Hollywood says.

Write and call your representatives today!  Since HB2414 also bans numerous other firearms, pass the word to your fellow shooters.  Ask them to contact their legislators as well.  Even if they don't own a fifty rifle, they have a stake in this too.

Contact your Illinois representative by telephone, or use the NRA's contact tool. 

When you do, tell them that you oppose both bills.  Tell them that voting for the bill that only bans the .50 is not an acceptable compromise.  Too many legislators are eager to claim political cover by catering to both sides.  Too many will be tempted to vote against the so-called "assault weapons ban" while voting to ban .50 rifles, and then claim they supported the lesser of two evils to prevent the greater from passing. 

That's the logic that got us where we are today, and it's time to change it.  No compromise.  No surrender.  Shall not be infringed.  That's the message your legislators need to hear from you.

San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.

The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

It looks like San Francisco is planning to follow in the footsteps of Washington DC, such a crime-free paradise of gun control as the left has been able to create. Luckily, their efforts are probably illegal:

The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal, however, by Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group. Sam Paredes, the group's executive director, said the state has for years had a "pre-emption law" on the books that bars local governments from usurping the state's authority to regulate firearms.

Thank god I don't live there. And thanks to Freedomsight for spotting the article.

UPDATE: Publicola has more. This appears to be a proposal by the local politicians to put their gun control measure on the ballot. I'm not sure why they would choose to do that, rather than simply passing the measure outright, unless they are afraid of the electoral consequences and seek to blame "the people" at election time.

I'm not sure what effect the Governator might have on this effort. He's certainly a political figure who might be able to bring some pressure to bear on the issue during the run-up to the public ballot. Not that such opposition could be counted on; the girly-man governor has failed us before, despite waving around all those fashion accessories. But he's also shown some political courage on the issue.

This touches on an issue that I've mentioned before, along with other gunbloggers. The gun control effort knows that, in order to succeed, they have to get on the offensive and stay there. If they set the agenda, they win, because they can keep coming back until they find a way to sell their policies that people will believe, however briefly. We have to put them on the defensive, and that means repealing bad laws and passing desirable ones.

UPDATE: Volokh has more.

It is one of the benefits of being a politician. While handguns are banned for citizens in Washington, D.C., congressmen are allowed to have a gun for self-protection on the Capitol grounds. Well-known liberal politicians such as Senators Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy have armed bodyguards. The wives of politicians, such as Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's wife, Linda, also have bodyguards. Undoubtedly, these politicians and their families have extremely good reasons for this protection, but many other Americans, especially those living with the high crime rates in D.C., also feel the same way.

Later today, the U.S. House of Representatives will finally vote on whether to overturn D.C.'s handgun ban.

I've commented before about the elitist mindset that is revealed by laws such as these. If police officers are an armed knighthood with special privileges to carry weapons, and politicians represent the nobility with even greater privileges and immunities, then the average citizen is left to play the roles of peasant and serf. Americans once rejected this idea. But gun control has brought it back in style.

In the United States, no one deserves special legal rights. Police should be permitted to carry firearms under the same laws that permit anyone else to carry firearms. Carrying a firearm for self defense should be legal, whether concealed or not, without any requirement to obtain a permit in order to do so. That's equal justice under the law. Everyone has the right to self-defense.

Even though this bill won't actually repeal the onerous gun control laws in the District of Columbia without a Senate companion bill, it's good that it passed. It tells us which representatives need to be replaced in November.

A bill that would repeal most local gun laws in the nation's capital passed the House Wednesday, over the objections of city officials including the mayor and police chief.

Don't start celebrating yet. It likely won't pass the Senate. But please do check how your representative voted.

"I've seen various members of Congress try to do some low down, dirty, mean things to the people of the District of Columbia, all to promote their own political agendas against the will of the people who live here," said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (search), D-D.C. "This bill to repeal the city's gun safety laws ... scrapes the bottom of the lowest level yet," said Norton, who can vote on the House floor but not in committee.

Actually, the District of Columbia doesn't have "gun safety laws". It has an absolute prohibition on handguns, registration of rifles and shotguns, and requires that the latter be kept unloaded and disassembled.

In other words, if you want to use a firearm to defend yourself, you need to be at home, and you need to find your gun, put it together, find your ammunition in a separate room, load the firearm, and then -- if you aren't dead -- you can try to shoot the criminal. How fast do you think you could do that in the dark?

The only bad thing about this bill is that the Senate version has already been withdrawn to avoid giving the antis a vehicle for renewing the Assault Weapons Ban. That means that we need to make sure to get some more pro-gun folks in the Senate this November so we can force the bill through both Houses.

UPDATE: Here are the votes. We want an "Aye" vote on this bill. I can already tell that I need to have some words with my representative... what kind of idiot votes for gun control while representing Texans?

Pointing to a chart showing a semiautomatic 50-caliber sniper weapon, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., warned, "It is capable of taking out an armored limousine from a mile away.

"Can you imagine that in the District of Columbia someone can have this assault weapon and stick it out of a window on Pennsylvania Avenue?" Waxman asked. He said the bill would "invite terrorists to bring assault weapons into the heart of the nation's capital."

So, Mr. Waxman, what exactly do you think is stopping them from doing that right now? Terrorists and criminals do not obey laws. In fact...

Several supporters made reference to the city's murder rate, with Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., going so far as to claim Washington is more dangerous than the African cities of Johannesburg and Dar es Salaam. But Metropolitan Police Department Chief Charles H. Ramsey said they were looking back to bygone days.

"Our murder rate is just half of what it was" 12 years ago, said Ramsey. His department seizes about 2,000 illegal handguns and other weapons each year. But MPD officers are coming across more crime scenes where upwards of 40 shell casings are found near shooting victims.

"Obviously that's a sign that some sort of assault weapon was used," said Ramsey.

Gee, the gun ban is working really really well, isn't it?

It's a familiar refrain: The gun-grabbers clearly want to take away your "big, ugly" semiautomatics. But, they claim, they don't support an outright firearms ban.

Well, next week, the gun-grabbers will have an opportunity to show their true colors.

Next week, the House is scheduled to vote on repealing Washington, D.C.'s gun ban.

That ban -- surely the most draconian anti-gun abomination in the country -- registers (and effectively bans) rifles and shotguns, bans handguns, bans semiautomatics, and bans ammunition.

And, for all of its contempt for individual liberties, the District of Columbia has moved from a relatively safe place prior to the ban to the murder capital of the nation.

H.R. 3193 -- a bill introduced by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) -- will bring an end to this travesty by repealing Washington's myriad gun bans. It will allow D.C. residents -- once again -- to purchase firearms to defend themselves and their families.

Yep, it's time to push this bill through the House. The Senate is unlikely to be able to pass it, but it's still worth contacting your representative about. Why? Simple: the vote on the issue will tell you where your Representative stands on the issue. Does he claim to be a supporter of the 2nd Amendment? Make him prove it. Does he oppose gun rights? This is your chance to get him on record as supporting a complete ban on firearms.

This opportunity comes by way of the Gun Owners of America, and you can use their email tool to send along a message to your Representative.

FreedomSight links to a blog entry about the Mark Lancaster case. Mark was convicted and sentenced for manufacturing machine guns; not to give to criminals, but simply as a hobby. I personally believe that laws banning this activity are unConstitutional, but that's not what this is about. This is one guy who is rotting in jail, not because he was a threat to anyone, but only because he was an easy prosecution.

They are requesting donations, since Mark was supporting his family and is now unable to do so while imprisoned. But even if you can't send money, send a nice letter of moral support to someone who just wanted to build machine guns.

The Delegate for the District of Columbia says the U.S. House of Representatives will soon schedule a vote to repeal all D.C. gun laws and that the bill has enough cosponsors to pass.

D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes NortonHowever, Norton said she believes the bill has a decent chance of failing in the Senate.

This is a good place to start rolling back gun laws, especially if lawmakers think they have a chance at getting it through both House and Senate fairly soon. The House should be easy. The Senate is harder. Most likely it will have to wait until after the November elections in any case.

Even so, we should not concentrate on this to the exclusion of other efforts. Let the House pass it first, and contact your Senators about it if it passes the House. Meanwhile, tbink about which of the other gun control laws makes a good target for repeal.

Personally, I think the 1986 ban on new machine guns in the civilian market is a good start. Other arguments can be made, like the 1968 law, or the NICS background check. But we should focus on exploiting the tactical problem the news media has created for themselves: their attempts to force a renewal of the assault weapons ban focused on the misconception that the bill banned machine guns. We all know that isn't so, but the average man on the street probably doesn't.

So if we push to make machine guns legal for manufacture again, NOW, while the arguments are fresh in the minds of the populace... then the news media will be forced to respond with "If this bill passes we'll see machine guns on the streets!"

Except that they said that about the AWB, too. Not only has the AWB so far not resulted in mass slaughter (nor is it likely to), the public will be face to face with the fact that the news media lied loudly, repeatedly, and knowingly about the AWB and what firearms were covered by it. That's the tactical reason to push for a repeal of that law: it damages the credibility of one of our major opponents even if we fail.

So let is be known: as far as I am concerned, the 1986 new-machinegun ban is next on the list. Who's with me?

Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) along with DC-area public officials and law enforcement officials will hold a press conference on Monday, May 3, 2004, at 10:30 AM outside, next to the Aerospace Building, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Washington, DC, to announce federal legislation to ban 50 caliber sniper rifles recognizing the clear terrorist threat such weapons represent to homeland security.

Accurate up to 2,000 yards, 50 caliber sniper rifles can penetrate armor plating, penetrate rail freight cars, and destroy aircraft, yet under federal law are as easy to buy as sporting rifles, and are sold with fewer restrictions than standard handguns. The 50 caliber sniper rifle can utilize legally available armor-piercing, incendiary, and explosive ammunition. An Armalite 50 caliber sniper rifle and ammunition will be displayed at the press conference, which overlooks freight train tracks and is within sight of the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument.

This is little more than a silly excuse to hold a news conference. .50 rifles don't pose any serious threat -- certainly not on the scale of the hysteria being put forth about them. They are, basically, a very large rifle that shoots a very accurate round for a very long distance. The same sort of job a hunting rifle does. That's the real key here; if you can ban a .50 rifle, then you can ban a gun similar to a .50 -- that is, a bolt-action hunting rifle. For now, the American public are not buying it.

Luckily, it seems the conference was all wet.

Contra Costa County's move to ban the sale of .50-caliber rifles is the opening salvo of what could be a fierce battle pitting terrorism fighters against firearms owners.

As legislation for a statewide ban awaits a state Senate committee hearing, gun owner groups have vowed to file a lawsuit over the county Board of Supervisors' 4-0 vote Tuesday to ban the sale of the powerful weapons in the county's unincorporated areas.

The ban would become law 30 days after a second reading on April 6.

This is one of those "They banned WHAT?" moments. The two gun dealers within Contra Costa don't even sell .50 caliber rifles. The elected nincompoops are trying to create a "precedent".