Tag: Derp

If you take an NRA certified firearm class, or any course certified by a reputable organization, you will hear safety rules repeated over and over again. There’s a reason for this. Even those familiar with firearms can have mishaps when they ignore these rules. Like this NRA employee.

An employee at one of the NRA’s museums “accidentally” shot himself while holstering a pistol. I put accidentally in quotes because “accident” implies an unforeseeable and thus unpreventable event. This was neither. Guns don’t “accidentally go off”. A gun will fire when you load it and depress the trigger. That’s kinda the point. If I press down on the “A” key on this keyboard, an “A” appears on the screen. That’s kinda the point. If the keyboard didn’t do that, or if the gun in question didn’t fire, we’d correctly report that said device is defective.

So what are those rules we should be following?

  1. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
  2. Always keep the gun unloaded until you are ready to use it.
  3. Always keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire the gun.

If you apply all three of these rules, a gun simply cannot “go off” and hurt someone; it’s a physical impossibility. This guy got his finger onto the trigger of a loaded gun while it was pointed at his own body. The gun functioned as advertised, as did the ammo, and now he has an extra hole in his body. The rules are there for a reason.

And if you are an NRA member, or a member of any other group that emphasizes gun safety, you are especially responsible for following these rules. A negligent discharge in any other location would have been ignored by USAToday. One at an NRA facility makes headlines. Why do you suppose that is? If you think that USAToday has a sudden interest in firearm safety, then you need to step away from the meth pipe. The media report events like this one because they want to paint gun owners, and NRA members in particular, as violent and dangerous. Follow those rules not only because you should to stay safe, but also to keep from becoming an argument against your own rights. Don’t arm the other side!

News Safety

A few weeks ago, I posted this update about AB 1673 before the amended text was actually published. In it, I implied that the latest, amended version of the bill would require gun parts such as buffer springs to be serialized and treated like fully functional firearms. This is incorrect. The amended bill has finally been posted and, as currently written, AB 1673 reads:

As used in the following provisions, “firearm” includes the finished frame or receiver of the weapon, or the unfinished frame or receiver of a weapon that can be readily converted to the functional condition of a finished frame or receiver: weapon, or a frame or receiver blank, casting, or machined body, that is designed and clearly identifiable as a component of a functional weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

Here is the bill’s text without the potentially confusing formatting:

As used in the following provisions, “firearm” includes the frame or receiver of the weapon, or a frame or receiver blank, casting, or machined body, that is designed and clearly identifiable as a component of a functional weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

As you can clearly see, I erred when I implied that components made using wireform processes were covered by the bill. They are not. But then again, wireforms are just about the only manufacturing process that’s not covered by the bill. Anything “clearly identifiable as a component of a functional weapon” made using casting or machining processes would have to be serialized and treated like a fully functional firearm.

Now you might argue that I’m being obtuse in this interpretation. “Obviously, the intent of this bill is to regulate so-called 80% receivers. See? It says ‘frame or receiver’ in the text.” Then why is the word “component” in the text? If this really is about 80% receivers, then the text should read:

As used in the following provisions, “firearm” includes the frame or receiver of the weapon, or a frame or receiver blank, casting, or machined body, that is designed and clearly identifiable as a component frame or receiver of a functional weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

And since the “80% receiver” concept has its origins in Federal law, why not quote the relevant sections of the US Code? Either Mr. Gipson is truly ignorant when it comes to firearms technology or he really does intend to regulate everything in a firearm that isn’t made using wireform processes. If the former is true, then why on Earth is he being allowed to write gun laws?! If the latter is true, then he clearly holds contemptuous view of the People of California.

But as a general rule, when one can explain another’s actions as being the result of either stupidity or malice, it’s best to assume that stupidity is to blame. So until he says otherwise, we’ll have to assume that Mr. Gipson is acting out of mere intellectual impairment.

AB 1673 Anti-gun Legislation News State

This takes stupid to a whole, new level…

AB 2459 (McCarty),  would require that all firearm and ammunition sales be videotaped by the seller.

Why? Because straw buyers are supposedly camera shy.

This does, however, bring up some interesting questions about existing gun control laws in California. In addition to the Federal requirements, California requires a “Dealer Record of Sale”, or DROS, for every firearm transfer. Additionally, this is not a NICS State, so there is a 10-day waiting period for all gun buyers. Supposedly, the 10-day wait is to allow State investigators time to examine each DROS application before the sale goes through. The State checks the buyer’s name against its database of prohibited persons to keep those people from purchasing guns. In most cases, this check takes only minutes to complete.

But, in its recent oral arguments before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the State seemed to cast doubt on the quality of that database. At issue is the 10-day wait as applied to those already known to the State to possess firearms. The State came perilously close to arguing that their own database is so unreliable that computerized checks are not a sufficient means to detect those on the prohibited persons list who already have weapons. McCarty’s bill, whether he intends it or not, also calls that database into question. Why back up the DROS form (and the Federal 4473 form) with a video record if the State database is at all reliable? Given that the State has spent quite a sum of money on the system, we should all be wondering whether or not we’re getting our money’s worth.

And perhaps I owe Mr. McCarty an apology for implying that he’s an empty headed twit parroting Bloomberg talking points. He may, in fact, know more about the State’s inability to enforce its own gun laws than I do.

AB 2459 News Privacy

This one makes the others look like common sense measures by comparison…

AB 1674, Santiago. This bill would limit purchases of long guns to one per month.

Why? I don’t know! Why do we limit handgun purchases to one per month?! You’ll have to ask Assemblyman Miguel “Me too!” Santiago.

(At this time, no action is being asked of members. Keep watching these pages and calnra.com for more information about when and whom to contact.)

AB 1674 Anti-gun Legislation State