American Defense Enterprises

I saw this come across on a firearms related mailing list I am on:

USA Buys Enough Guns in 3 Months to Outfit the Entire Chinese and Indian Army

“In just 3 months Americans bought enough guns to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian army’s combined.

You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December 2008. Yeah that is right, that is Billion with a “B”.

This is an evaluation of overall firearms and ammunition purchases based on low end numbers per Federal NIC instacheck data base Statistics. The numbers presented are only PART of the overall numbers of arms and ammunition that have been sold. The actual numbers are much higher.”

The followup on the post I read was equally interesting:

“And, most of those 4.5 million new purchases were of Evil Black Rifles.  They are now certainly out there is such great numbers as to meet Heller’s “common use” standard (if that’s really a Constitutional criteria). [snip]“   I guess they ALL would have been “Evil Black Rifles” if CA wasnt in the purchasing pool .

We were just talking about how we all could use a bigger gun safe for all of our firearm acquisition aspirations.

Well here is the solution …

Bed Bunker

For those of you that haven’t been in a store recently, here is a sign that should frighten you.  At least this place had ammo..  Click the pic, the .38 special ammo is only $26/box of 50!!!

Over the weekend, one of the students said “there isn’t a problem, just go online…“. Try it yourself:

midwayusa.com, cheaperthandirt.com, ammunitiontogo.com

It seems the catchphase of the day is “out of stock, no backorder“.  If you find a supply, please pass the info along…

Nordyke. Remember this name.  This name may come to mean a lot to Californians who hold their rights dear.  The Nordyke’s (Mr. and Mrs.) are the main plaintiffs in the court case of Nordyke vs. King which was a case about the ban of gun shows on Alameda City land.  Today the appeals decision was released and the Nordykes lost.  Yep, they lost the appeals case.  Fortunately the win/loss of this case was not the most relevant part of the decision being made.  Certainly it would be nice for Alameda to have to allow gun shows on city land such as the fairgrounds, but there was a bigger question answered in the decision since California does not have the right to bear arms in the state constitution. It is summed up by the sweet sound of the word “incorporation” in this part of the decision:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic
all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed
fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”

In light of the Heller vs. D.C. decision that stated right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2A was an individual right and that bans of firearms in common use were unconstitutional the Nordyke decision which states the 2A applies to California and local governments therein may lead to the California Assault Weapon Ban, Roster of Safe Handguns, and other 50 cal rifle ban laws being ruled unconstitutional. I would not make a shopping list anything soon, but if the decision is held in any further court contests California may lead the way back to freedom.

Read the whole decision here.

A good summary of the decision on SCOTUS blog.

G-d bless America. CW sent me the following link:

California: High-Capacity Magazines in the Crosshairs!

The topic under question is the mandatory registration in California of magazines with capacities larger than 10 rounds. This is senate bill SB 776, introduced by Hancock-D.

What makes our legal system great? Why it would be the interesting way in which bills get introduced and then modified to legislate entirely different things….. to wit, look at SB 776 as introduced, basically a remarkably dull bill that affects where certain funding comes from for certain community based punishment programs.

Now look at SB 776 as amended. It is summarized pretty well in the first paragraph:

   SB 776, as amended, Hancock.  Punishment: community-based
punishment programs.   Firearms: large-capacity
magazines.  
   Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain
certain information related to firearms transactions.  
   This bill would extend those provisions to information concerning
the registration of large-capacity magazines, as specified. 

Oh! I see… SB 776, with the title “An act to amend Section 8090 of the Penal Code, relating to punishment” and listed on the CA website as “Punishment: community-based punishment progra“, thanks to amendment is now:

“An act to amend Section 8090 of Sections 11106, 12020, and 12079 of, and to add Section 12044to, the Penal Code, relating to punishment firearms“

Of course… It tends to be listed as introduced, rather than as amended…. Even though, as amended, it is an entirely different bill!

G-d bless California…..

Highlights of SB 776:

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2011, and subject to
specified exceptions, prohibit the possession of large-capacity magazines.
Violation of these provisions would be punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. 

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2011, and subject to
exceptions, require registration of large-capacity magazines with the
Department of Justice.

The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to charge a fee,
not to exceed $20, for registration of large-capacity magazines, and
would authorize increases in that fee,as specified.

I guess the whole “community-based punishment” bill was a sham.

Please act quickly and tell your representatives about your disapproval of this bill.. High-capacity magazines are already a crime. Registration of these is just a prelude to confiscation (of course, you can’t tell your representative that that bothers you).

I recommend comments that address the fact that this will target only law abiding citizens, for which it will create additional unnecessary hassle and paperwork. At a time when the CA government should be looking at limiting and reducing growth, this bill will cause an additional burden on an already overburdened system — specifically, the cost for administering the program is not shared by the largest user of the program — it requires police to register their large-capacity magazines and they are exempt from the $20 fee for registration. Additionally, there is no evidence that large-capacity magazines (already illegal) lead to increase crime.

Rep. Ron Paul has a solution to the piracy problem in the waters off the coast of Somalia.  Hire private citizens to patrol the international waters and seize or destroy the pirates, their ships and loot for a bounty.

Story on Politico

Ron Paul talks about it around 4:10 min. in the video.

Today, the Heller v. D.C. gun ban case attorney Alan Gura filed motion for summary judgment in the latest case against D.C. and its continuing defiance of the people and the constitution. Read the whole thing, it is good.

This case presents what is arguably the easiest Second Amendment question that might come before a federal court today, seeing as the question has just been answered by the Supreme Court less than a year ago: may the District of Columbia ban handguns of the kind in common useby Americans for ordinary lawful purposes? The answer: no. Heller v. District of Columbia, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s express language dismantling the District’s handgunban, the city enacted another far-reaching handgun ban, excluding from private ownership any handgun that does not appear on the State of California’s “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.” This attempt to enumerate every single handgun that might be legally sold is, predictably, too ambitious a task not to yield arbitrary and irrational results. But California’s pre-Heller rostering program cannot possibly be considered constitutional, founded, as it is, on the theory specifically rejected in Heller as inconsistent with the Second Amendment – that common firearms might be banned based merely on the government’s assessment that their possession is not in the public interest.

As the legislative record demonstrates, the California law consciously sought to alter the choices made in the mass market for common guns – precisely the sort of conduct proscribed by the Second Amendment. And as Defendants now admit in their answer, some of the California law’s most restrictive aspects do not advance, and might even reduce, public safety.

Heller did not eliminate the government’s ability to ban weapons that are outside the scope of Second Amendment protection. But as the three handguns at issue in this case demonstrate, Defendants’ new scheme is intentionally designed to and does ban guns that easily pass the Heller test for protected Second Amendment arms. Indeed, the exact same model handgun at issue in Heller, which the Supreme Court ordered Defendants to permit not one year ago, has been re-banned by the city and denied to plaintiff Paul St. Lawrence because it has not been (and cannot be) placed on the “Roster of Handgun Certified for Sale.” Mr. St. Lawrence’s wife, Gillian, was denied permission to own a handgun that had once been “rostered” and approved for sale, but which is now no longer legal to own in Washington, DC because the gun’s manufacturer will not pay an annual fee in perpetuity to keep it on the list. And plaintiff Tracey Hanson was denied permission to own a handgun because, effectively, it is the wrong color.

It is impossible to reconcile the roster of arms approved for sale in the Bill of Rights with that conjured by the operation of California law. The latter must yield.

Oops! Yes, you read that right. Alan Gura is saying that California’s Roster of Safe Handguns is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! If the new D.C. law go down in flames the California roster might soon meet the same fate. California has used insignificant cosmetic and functional differences to firearms as a basis for legislating firearms unsafe for years. When this “common sense” motion passes hopefully that slim frame ambidextrous safety Glock 21 you have had your eye on for the last year could finally be yours allowing you to lefties to do swift emergency or tactical reloads.

Yet another far under reported incident of a CCW license holders defending himself and others from an armed assailant.  Apparently an 18-year old New Jersey man was attempting to rob members at an alcoholics anonymous at gunpoint in South Carolina.  He was shot three times in the neck, chest and abdomen by a CCW holder and died at the hospital.  No charges have been filed against the CCW holder.

The only thing the robber seems to have learned from New Jersey’s strict gun laws is that victims are unarmed and don’t fight back.  Apparently that is not the case in South Carolina.

Article

The local news section of The Seattle Times has an article about the Parks and Recreation department of Spokane Washington has been having a bit of a squirrel problem in Finch Arboretum.  To solve the problem they are calling in the Rodenator Pro.  This machine pumps propane gas and oxygen into the holes and ignites the mixture with a spark blowing the squirrels and their living space up.

This is my favorite part of the article”

“The parks department says the Rodenator is a humane way to kill the squirrels. But it warns area residents that the explosions sound like gun shots, and to not be alarmed by them all week.”

Now for the video of humane squirrel killin’

From Gallup.Com:

Support for a ban on private hangun ownership is about 30%.  Support for harsher gun laws is only at 49%.

They also do some demographic breakdowns on which groups support/oppose additional gun laws.  Of interest:

• Age is not a factor.
• Women somewhat support gun bans more than men (34% v 25%)
• Political party creates a big divide:
  Republicans(21%)
  Independents(22%)
  Democrats(41%)
• Having a gun in the home also creates a big divide (16% v 41%)

From previous Gallup polls, we know that 55% of Republicans have a gun in the home while only 32% of Democrats have a gun in the home.  Interestingly, only 36% of Independents have a gun in their home.  I guess this is just further proof that Democrats really need to control other peoples’ lives.

Ironically, the main reason Democrats own guns is self-defense.  The main reason Republicans and Independents own guns is for either hunting or target shooting.