Resistance

The UN Arms Treaty gets signed, but won’t be ratified; Canada can’t be asked to sign on; and the resistance to gun laws (and government overreach in general) continues to expand across the nation. It’s not quite as active as in past weeks, but there is still a decent amount of news to check on. So let’s get started.

1.) UN Arms Treaty. The UN has, of course, always been a source of concern among pro-gunners. The catch here is to not let ire get in the way of facts. Filing through the reaction to the UN Arms Treaty this week I’m reminded of the bogus “official” document that claimed the United Nations was confiscating private firearms. That document, despite being impossible to verify, was fired around social media as absolute truth.

What I’m clumsily getting at is this; if pro-gunners are going to strengthen their argument, it’d be awesome if we didn’t use false documents to do it. That in mind, let’s get to the real thing.

Guns Save Lives has a copy of the document and the threats it actually poses (vs. the “threats” that sell subscriptions and product on far-right conspiracy sites). Short version: The UN’s Amendment Process should this thing actually get ratified, increasing the cost and availability of foreign-made guns and ammo (Glocks, PMC ammo, etc.), and that the treaty “strongly encourages all member nations to track the value, source, and destination of all imported and exported guns”, what GSL refers to as a “De Facto gun registry.”

Nonetheless, US Secretary of State John Kerry says the treaty won’t harm US gun rights. Many Senators aren’t convinced, and have vowed to block it in the Senate. Interestingly, our northern neighbors didn’t sign the treaty.

2.) National News. Sunday saw a memorial service for the 12 victims of the DC Naval Yard shooting. President Obama was there as well, and for whatever reason couldn’t go one speech without pressing for “common sense” gun laws:

Sometimes I fear there is a creeping resignation that these tragedies are just somehow the way it is. That this is somehow the new normal. We cannot accept this. As Americans bound in grief and love, we must insist here today there’s nothing normal about innocent men and women being gunned down where they work.

I do not accept that we cannot find a common sense way to preserve our traditions, including our basic Second Amendment freedoms and the rights of law abiding gun owners, while at the same time reducing the gun violence that unleashes so much mayhem on a regular basis. It will happen because it’s the change that we need.”

An op-ed in Australia echoed the same sentiment, suggesting that “No scene of carnage makes any difference”

Meanwhile, some people who used to be anti-gun are slowly coming around on it. CNN’s Don Lemon suggested in a recent radio interview that being armed with a cell phone and not much else essentially makes a person a “sitting duck” when facing someone who is armed.

And then there was news out of the Obama administration on Friday. CNN is reporting that the DOJ plans to spend about $45 million on putting armed police officers in about 365 schools. What was once an insane NRA idea, derided by anti-gunners, is suddenly an idea that the Obama administration is open to. The irony of that says more than anti-gunners would probably like it to.

3.) Local battles. There are four major notes I would like to bring up on the micro level. The first is a lawsuit over recent gun laws in Maryland. The laws included a ban on assault weapons (naturally) and limited magazines to 10 rounds. The lawsuit alleges that both are a violation of the Second Amendment.

The second hits close to home for me. Although the Georgia legislature does not open until January of 2014 (short-term legislature, before you ask. REALLY short-term), the echoes of last sessions debate on allowing guns on campus is still resonating with people. The previous attempt came up for a vote in the last 3 minutes of the session, so it never got through. But, since the Legislature operates on a two-year cycle, the bill was sent back to committee. While, as the AJC notes, some have suggested that the CCW on Campus portion will be dropped, a few people in local Students for Concealed Carry groups and Georgia Carry have told me that they may run House Bill 512, which included campus carry, in the next session.

Thirdly, some late-breaking news out of North Carolina. The Libertarian Republic reports that it will soon be legal to have guns on public school campuses provided those guns are locked in the owner’s vehicle. It’s not much, but it’s a small story worth noting.

Finally, an attorney in Indiana is suggesting expanding the State’s Castle Doctrine to include schools. His argument is that schools should be treated with “the same protection and the same sanctity as our homes, in terms of protecting our kids.”

4.) Looking ahead. To be blunt, the UN Arms Treaty has almost no chance of being finalized by the Senate. Senate Democrats will probably latch on to it, but very few if any Republicans want to stake their political careers on giving the UN any ground whatsoever on guns.

And then there is the general “fear” over the shutdown of the Federal government. The Armed Novelist sent me a note from FOX23 in Tulsa about a government shutdown impacting already long NFA approval wait times. The sale of handguns and other weapons tied to the instant background check system will not be affected, however.

The idea of a government shutdown doesn’t seem as apocalyptic as those with an interest in spreading fear make it sound. While, yes, NFA stuff will be delayed, in general it is pretty insignificant. (Though it is a solid reason as to why suppressors and other items SHOULDN’T be under NFA’s umbrella.)

The major story to me out of all of this week’s news is that the Obama administration has quietly taken a page from the NRA’s playbook. They essentially admit that, to use Wayne LaPierre’s terminology, “good guys with guns” is a viable solution. It is a small program, to be sure, but one based largely on a lot of the points pro-gunners have made. (Besides which, going full-throttle into the program would have been both difficult financially AND politically.)

Yes, it was small. I’m under no illusions that it was a massive program. But there is no better energizer in a debate than when your opponent admits that you are right.

Defeatism

Starbucks issued a “request” that gun owners not bring their guns into Starbucks stores. While groups that have been waiting for this are celebrating a victory (depending on how you look at it) for this battle….it’s the war they are clearly losing. This week, a look at Starbucks, some of the last echoes of the gun control movement’s attempts to exploit the Navy Yard shooting, and a look at the next attempt at changing the language.

1.) Starbucks. The major news in the gun world this week is, of course, Starbucks’ open letter to gun owners. The letter from the company’s CEO basically “requested” that guns not be brought into the stores. This has generated at-best mixed reaction from gun owners. I have seen more than a few posts blaming people who open carry around the Internet. NRANews’ anchor Cam Edwards, in a piece for Rare.com, seems to believe that a ban may be in the works if the company feels the “request” is not being honored. Colion Noir believes Starbucks has “come out of the anti-gun closet”, but that blaming those who Open Carry is essentially dividing the pro-gun movement “over a couple of java beans.” Personally, I tend to align more with Mr. Noir’s views, but that’s just me. I don’t Open Carry, I find it to be ASKING for trouble (especially in a major city) but I don’t hold anything against those who decide to openly carry their firearms.

For whatever reason, McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts have felt the need to release statements on their own policies for firearms.

2.) Navy Yard Shooting. At this point, even those who support it know that gun control has almost no chance of returning to the forefront after the DC shooting. Aside from the irony of a shooting in a gun-free-zone in gun-free DC, and with the budget theater reloading, there simply isn’t enough time or enough momentum to bring up the topic. And it’s not just in Congress where the idea has been barely recieved. As reported by MarketWatch, the two major publicly-traded gun manufacturers, Smith and Wesson and Ruger, barely moved in the days following the Yard shooting. The two companies’ stock basically crashed following the Newtown shooting, but their performance recently has led many to believe that the market isn’t too concerned about the post-Navy Yard performance of these two companies and perhaps the gun market at large. As far as the public is concerned, a Rasmussen poll suggests that opposition to gun control is at its highest point in over a year. 58% of respondents told pollsters that the shooting was unlikely to lead to new gun legislation, and 59% of respondents think tougher gun laws wouldn’t have stopped the shooting anyway.

3.) Looking ahead. My friend The Armed Novelist found what is likely the next move by gun control proponents. Since “high-capacity assault rifle” “weapons of war” and so forth aren’t being anywhere near as effective as they used to be, a new term has come up in gun control vernacular: the “Law Enforcement-Style Shotgun” (which may or may not have Biden’s approval anyway). This is largely similar to how “global warming” alarmists then changed to talking about “climate change”, then when that failed it became “global climate disruption.”

Outside of that is the media’s odd lack of interest in the mass shootings in Chicago. The irony that we had two rather large shootings in two gun control havens is not lost on most people. (The narrative, by the way, seems to be that it’s about guns coming in from other States, not because Chicago and Illinois gun laws are so tight.)

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, it’s almost as if even the gun control movement sees its own momentum slipping. “Weapons of war” has become robotic, “military-style” has become easily and frequently debunked, and the movement’s steadfast unwillingness to discuss crime in Chicago and DC (among others) is starting to grow tiresome even to those outside of the gun rights movement.

Just before this brief “went to print” if you will, Armed Novelist sent me what may be another potential angle for the gun control movement that is both a little unnerving and a show of desperation. There is an op-ed in The Guardian in the UK asking “shouldn’t the world intervene” to “lower” gun violence in our country. A movement predicated on increasing government power and trampling on people’s rights would have nothing against bringing in the U.N. It is a small note, and I only have that op-ed, but it is certainly something to consider as the domestic gun control movement becomes increasingly desperate and irrelevant.

Force

I am starting to become exhausted of the almost regular notifications of active shooters in areas where guns are prohibited and the ignorance that floods social media thereafter.

Put bluntly: Shit’s getting old.

The idea that military bases are gun-free-zones is apparently insane even to gun control advocates. We saw this madness at Fort Hood too. Worst part is that this is DC. It’s a shooting at a gun-free-zone WITHIN a gun-free-zone.

Over on Twitter, the requisite screeches of “what will it take” and “we must do something” flood my Twitter feed as if a sewage pipe burst. Key parts of the story are left out and replaced with emotion. It doesn’t matter that he stole the weapon, nor that he carried a gun into a place where he REALLY wasn’t allowed to. What matters is we need to do “something.”

And what stopped the shooter? What horrible force brought it to an end?
Another gun. Proportionate force.

The response, apparently, is that there weren’t ENOUGH laws for this lunatic to break. What laws, for example, would have prevented him from stealing the AR from the base? (In addition, note that this guy passed all military background checks and even had a Secret security clearance.)

It wouldn’t hurt everyone to start noticing patterns like this. And how the “next” mass shooting is flat-out impossible to predict, and therefore impossible to stop. The “only option” right now (as many college handbooks note) is essentially to keep a low profile and pray he doesn’t off you. I would suggest another option; having even the CHANCE to fight back.

Anti-gun vs. pro-gun comes down to submission vs. empowerment. Do you want to pray police get there in time, or have a defense while the police are on the way? Would you place bets on an LEO who is on the other side of the campus when the Wolf is LITERALLY at the door, or would you prefer to be prepared for him?

In short, do you want to hope you don’t get killed or have a 165 decibel say in whether you get killed?

The idea that there are people who would force you to rely on others who simply cannot get to you in time (no matter how much they want to) is repulsive at best, and flat-out evil at worst.