Let’s review

November 17, 2008 by
Filed under: Idiots 

Via Tam, I got to read a real humdinger of a letter to the editor from the Indy Star:

Thousands of weapons are for sale. Glock 23 fully automatic pistols, Uzi nine millimeters, Colt 44 magnum Anacondas. Some cost less than $100.

Where to begin?  The Glock 23 is a semi-auto pistol in .40 SW.  Semi-automatic.  One trigger pull, one bang.  And if you can find an Uzi or Colt Anaconda for $100…buy it!  That’s a great price.

The author goes a little further into PSH.

He points to a Springfield XD 9 millimeter semi-automatic pistol. “Not legal in California,” the box reads. “The only things these are used to hunt for is people,” Zelenka says.

What you probably saw was not an XD but an XDm. All pistols sold in California have to be submitted to the state for a drop test. I don’t think the XDm has gone through yet.

Oh, and if you are going people hunting, I’d suggest using a rifle over a pistol…and the XD wouldn’t be a very good choice of pistol. Maybe something with a longer barrel. I also don’t think the pistol season is any longer then the rifle season for people. Stick with a rifle for people.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1983 requires that licensed gun dealers conduct background checks of purchasers before selling firearms. But there is no such federal or state requirement for private sellers. They are free to sell weapons, including at gun shows, to anyone, including convicted felons and spouse abusers, who plunks down the cash.

Ummm….not really. In fact there are THOUSANDS of federal and state regulations on transferring guns. For example, my home state of North Carolina requires that any handgun transfer be accompanied by “purchase permit” issued by the Sheriff. The Sheriff conducts a background check. And it is illegal to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. Convicted felons and spouse abusers are prohibited persons.

And (Governor) Daniels, like Govs. Evan Bayh and Frank O’Bannon before him, doesn’t plan to stop the State Fairgrounds gun shows. “We are not in a position to discriminate among potential users (of the fairgrounds) that comply with applicable laws and the lease requirement,” says Daniels spokeswoman Jane Jankowski.

So…let me make sure I understand. You are suggesting that the state should …wait for it… discriminate…among which organizations can use the fairgrounds and which can’t?  So…what happens when Indiana prohibits, say…a gay rights organization from using the fairgrounds?  Is that a good plan?  Or are you only in favor of banning organizations that you don’t like?

Finally, the funniest quote in the article by far:

Quigley is an attorney…

Wow.  So, did you just not do the research, or do you know that you are lying?  I hope that you do a better job of researching the law for your clients!

Here is how I know that we are winning:  the anti-rights folks just have to lie when they present their positions.

Tags:

Comments

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!