This is interesting.
PHOENIX (Reuters) - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Monday signed legislation forcing municipalities to resell firearms from gun buy-back programs rather than destroy them, closing a loophole in the conservative state’s laws.
Brewer, a Republican and staunch gun rights advocate, signed the bill preventing local governments from melting down the weapons obtained from these popular civic events. Before the new law, the state had allowed such firearms to be destroyed.
Supporters of the measure said municipalities were wasting taxpayers’ money by not realizing the revenue from reselling turned-in weapons.
On the one hand, it is a waste for taxpayers to buy a bunch of guns just to melt them down. Some of those guns still have value. On the other hand, the whole motivation behind these programs is to allow people who want to get rid of a gun a good way to do it with no questions asked. The presumption is that if the people don’t want any questions asked, then they must not be allowed to have a gun. But many times, it’s just more convenient to get rid of ol’ great uncle’s crappy shotgun with one of these programs than it is to go through the hassle of selling it.
Should these guns be melted down? Not? Should it really be a state mandate or left up to whoever is running the buy-back programs? If the people running those programs see them as a revenue source by reselling the guns, is that really the role of government at all?Posted by Owen at 0608 hrs
SO WHEN DEMOCRATS ARE PUSHING TO BAN PEOPLE ON THE “TERROR WATCH LIST” FROM BUYING GUNS, they’re really pushing to have a constitutional right blocked by your placement on a secret list put together by unaccountable bureaucrats with no due process. Just to be clear what they’re really talking about.
Again… summing up our federal government lately.
Sen. Joe Manchin on Sunday said he would re-introduce a measure that would require criminal and mental health background checks for gun buyers at shows and online. The West Virginia Democrat says that if lawmakers read the bill, they will support it.
So is he so arrogant as to think that people didn’t understand his bill and have legitimate opposition to it or is the U.S. Senate really so inept that nobody even bothers to read the bills?
The Senate has rejected a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks on gun sales, handing President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders a major defeat on one of the key pieces of the president’s second-term agenda.
The vote was 54-46, with only four Republicans crossing the aisle and voting with the Democrats in favor of the bipartisan proposal by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Sixty votes were needed.
Yet in interviews, those lawmakers said they have had no discussions with the House GOP leadership and don’t know what the prospects for the legislation would be in a chamber dominated by conservatives.
While party leaders have made a concerted effort to prepare their rank-and-file for a major immigration push this year, they have not done so on the gun issue.
It looks like when it is all said and done that the Senate vote will be all about senators positioning for the election next year.Posted by Owen at 1527 hrs
If the gun control debate has proven anything, it’s that Biden is a lying idiot.
Vice President Joe Biden exaggerates when he waxes nostalgic about the “good old days” — a time when “everybody, including the NRA, thought background checks made sense.” Biden’s office says he was referring to the NRA’s support for background checks in the early 1990s and its stated support for expanding background checks to include gun shows in 1999.
But vice president’s sentimental journey rides roughshod over the facts
Early next year the Navy will place a laser weapon aboard a ship in the Persian Gulf where it could be used to fend off approaching unmanned aerial vehicles or speedboats.
The Navy calls its futuristic weapon LAWS, which stands for the Laser Weapon System. What looks like a small telescope is actually a weapon that can track a moving target and fire a steady laser beam strong enough to burn a hole through steel.
It’s nice to see at least one of Wisconsin’s senators vowing to defend our rights.
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson is one of 13 GOP senators signing a letter threatening to filibuster any gun control legislation.
The letter states the lawmakers’ plan to oppose “any legislation that would infringe on the American people’s constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance.”
And yet her husband wants to restrict gun rights for all.
In remarks at the Denver Police Academy in Denver, Colo., he said that, after campaigning in rural Iowa, Michelle Obama told him, “You know, if I was living out on a farm in Iowa, I’d probably want a gun, too. When somebody just drives up into your driveway and you’re not home, you don’t know who these people are, you don’t know how long it’s going to take for the sheriffs to respond, I can see what you’d want some guns for protection.”
Honestly, though, I doubt that Michelle ever said that to him. Based on his books, he’s been known to make up crap to make a point.Posted by Owen at 1154 hrs
Again... Governor Walker? Wisconsin could become the center of the firearms industry. Are calls being made?
Posted by Owen at 0845 hrs
Beretta Leaves Maryland Because Of Stricter Gun Laws
By Dabney Bailey, Thu, April 04, 2013
New legislation is forcing gun manufacturing company Beretta to uproot and take their business elsewhere.
Established in 1526, Beretta holds the distinction of being the oldest active firearms manufacturer in the world. The U.S. factory is located in Accokeek, Maryland, and has been a staple of the local economy for years.
Beretta warned that stricter gun control laws would push the company outside of state lines, but that didn’t stop Maryland legislators. Jeffrey Reh, a spokesman for Beretta who also serves as the President of Stoeger Industries under Beretta, announced that the company would begrudgingly uproot and take its business elsewhere. He said, “We don’t want to do this, we’re not willing to do this, but obviously this legislation has caused us a serious level of concern within our company.”
You know, this is hard to pick up from most media accounts of this issue, but it’s good to see it moving in the right direction.
Posted by Owen at 1159 hrs
Despite a major push from the White House, more states have cut back on gun regulations rather than pass gun-control reforms in the wake of the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
Five states—New York, Colorado, Mississippi, Utah and Wyoming—have enacted seven new laws tightening restrictions on guns since Dec. 14, when a gunman shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School before turning the weapon on himself. A sixth state, Connecticut, passed the toughest gun laws in the nation this week, banning some types of semi-automatic weapons and requiring all gun buyers to undergo background checks before purchases. (Gov. Dan Malloy is expected to sign the bill into law on Thursday.)
Meanwhile, legislators in 10 states pushed through 17 new laws that broaden gun rights. One such law, in Arkansas, allows staff and faculty to carry concealed weapons on university campuses. Utah lawmakers, meanwhile, passed a law to allow people prohibited from buying weapons for mental health reasons to petition the state to be able to purchase a gun.
RACINE - Right now, only law enforcement and some military members are allowed to carry guns in city-owned buildings. But an alderman in Racine wants to add elected officials to that list, citing security concerns.
But gun rights advocates say that’s not fair to everyone else. Wednesday night, the Common Council disagreed.
State law says that if you see a no guns sign, you can’t carry a weapon inside. Racine Alderman Greg Helding wants to change that for elected officials in city buildings. He says it is just like DAs and judges being allowed to carry guns in courtrooms.
The measure passed Wednesday night with only a handful of aldermen voting against it. As for Alderman Helding, he said he doesn’t know if he’ll ever bring a gun in the building. He’s just glad to know he can.
So in Racine, the Aldermen think that they should be able to carry a gun to protect themselves, but the citizens 30 feet away are perfectly safe. Talk about a group of elected officials thinking they are masters and not servants.Posted by Owen at 0634 hrs
It’s worth noting the amount of damage this animal did in five minutes. When seconds count…
Adam Lanza killed 26 people inside Sandy Hook Elementary School and took his own life within five minutes of shooting his way into the building, State’s Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III said in a statement accompanying the release of the warrants in the Dec. 14 massacre.
An Arizona gun store owner says he will not sell Mark Kelly the AR-15 rifle that the vocal advocate for tighter gun control bought earlier this month.
The manager of the Tucson, Ariz., store where Kelly, husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, bought the firearm has said that he will not complete the March 5 transaction, according to a statement posted on Facebook.
“In light of this fact, I determined that it was in my company’s best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store to complete the Federal Form 4473 and NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] background check required of Mr. Kelly before he could take possession of this firearm,” MacKinlay said in the statement.
I don’t have a problem with it at all. The business owner is free to refuse service to people. And in this case, he doesn’t want his store being used as a prop in an anti-gun PR campaign. Works for me.Posted by Owen at 1914 hrs
Via Wizbang. Hey, Governor Walker… a phone call to Mr. Veilleux may be in order.
Posted by Owen at 1847 hrs
Continuing the trend of firearms related companies that have been contemplating moving their businesses out of states instituting strict gun control laws, Colt Manufacturing is now considering a move out of Connecticut after 175 years in business. This is due to the new gun bans being mulled by the state legislature and Democrat Governor Dannel Malloy.
Colt President and CEO Dennis Veilleux published an op ed in the Hartford Currant asking why it makes any sense that Colt Manufacturing stay in Connecticut.
Veilleux says that the “economic advantage” his company has brought to Hartford for the last 175 years “is in grave danger.”
“What’s most astounding.” Veilleux wrote, “is our advantage is not being taken away–it’s being given away.”
Veilleux notes that much of his business today is centered on the AR-15 rifle platform, in both military-only and civilian models, and that this rifle model has widespread use all across the firearms community from target shooting to hunting. But Governor Malloy is putting Colt’s business at risk.
“Now Gov. Dannel P. Malloy says that with or without bipartisan consensus, he intends to ban this rifle. But a ban of the most popular semiautomatic rifle in the United States for what are essentially cosmetic reasons would make no one safer and punish a vital Connecticut industry.”