Some more folks are reporting that they can’t leave comments because my spam filter is a nazi. Remember, you can register and bypass the spam filter by clicking here. Requires a valid email address.

On a new bill aimed (and misfiring) at gun trafficking:

“This legislation will actually create a new federal crime of gun trafficking, make it a federal crime and give federal authorities the power, which they need, to go after gun traffickers,” King explained. “It would also make it a new crime for criminals to use stolen firearms [or those] which have [obliterated] serial numbers.”

Err, it’s already illegal to use stolen firearms and illegal to obliterate serial numbers. More stupidity:

Chief Mary Ann Viverette of the Gaithersburg, Md., Police Department also spoke at the event, representing the International Association of Chiefs of Police, of which she is also president. Viverette briefly praised the anti-trafficking bill, but then attacked another piece of legislation — the Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act (H.R. 5005).

“H.R. 5005 would make our job more difficult by severely limiting the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to share tracing information with state and local law enforcement agencies,” Viverette claimed. “This legislation clearly has the potential to severely impede the investigation of criminal activities.”

The problem, of course, is that HR 5005 does no such thing:

But, as Cybercast News Service previously reported, H.R. 5005 contains no prohibition against the ATF sharing gun trace data with state and local law enforcement agencies for use in criminal investigations or prosecutions. The bill does prohibit the agency from sharing the data with state or local governments’ civil attorneys for use in lawsuits or other administrative procedures against gun dealers

They have to lie to win.

Alphie on Jersey’s smart gun law:

A prototype of a “smart gun”, a gun that can only be fired by its owner, has been developed by a group in New Jersey. Although a commercial version is at least five years away, as soon as one is available New Jersey citizens will be unable to purchase a gun that doesn’t contain personalization technology.

Note that I saw citizens, because cops will be exempt from the law because, after all, they are better than the rest of us.

Rusmeister says:

If this comes to pass, it will set the stage for the biggest gun confiscation (in the form of “retrofit”) in recorded history.

Xrlq has a new twist on everyon’e favorite game. But a couple of quibbles. Xrlq says one is subject to total prohibition in California, not to mention the entire country from 1994 to 2004. Not quite.

The federal ban only affected semi-automatics with 2 or more evil features. So, for it to have been prohibited, he would have to add a pistol grip (since ARs don’t function without them) and one other evil feature, such as a telescopic stock.

Regarding the California ban, whether that one is banned or not depends on (and I am not making this up) who the manufacturer of that lower receiver is. Here’s a list. If, for example, that is a Rock River lower, it is banned. If it is Stag lower, it probably isn’t but that’s only because the California AG hasn’t put Stag on its list of evil weapons. Mind you, the same machining company makes both Stag and RRA lowers, they just put a different logo on them.

And, by the way, California is one generation away from making all such weapons illegal:

Pursuant to California Penal Code section 12285(b), any person who obtains title to a registered assault weapon by bequest or intestate succession shall, within 90 days, render the weapon permanently inoperable, sell the weapon to a licensed gun dealer who has a permit from the Department of Justice to purchase assault weapons, obtain a permit from the Department of Justice to possess assault weapons, or remove the weapon from this state.

When someone with such a weapon dies, their heirs must destroy the weapon or sell it.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is now being scraped off soldiers’ boots.

Heh.

A reader notes some progress at Kos, of all places:

It’s no secret that I look to the Mountain West for the future of the Democratic Party, people like Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester. But I also look to candidates like Jim Webb in Virginia and Paul Hackett in Ohio.

And what is the common thread amongst these candidates?

They are all Libertarian Democrats.

…

So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government “Big Brother” efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights — from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

If you read the comments, quite a few of the Kossacks are pro-gun. I found this surprising and interesting. But, and let me be clear, if Kos is getting it, its impact must be growing to the point that it can’t be ignored. Regardless, I salute these types.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. In light of recent posts here at SayUncle that are sympathetic to the lefties, you’re probably wondering where the real SayUncle is and who is it taking over his blog being all sympathetic with the lefites. But I assure you, it’s still me and, no, I’m not off my meds.

But bear with me while I divulge another dark secret. See, I’ve been looking to the 2008 Presidential Elections and the possible candidates. And guess who I like? Well, Russ Feingold of all people. I figure any candidate that opposes the assault weapons ban, opposes the PATRIOT Act and said:

The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.

The modern Supreme Court has only heard one case interpreting the Second Amendment. That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right.

In a second case, in U.S. v. Emerson, the court denied cert and let stand the lower court opinion that upheld the statute banning gun possession by individuals subject to a restraining order against a second amendment challenge.

The appeals court viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right. The Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court decision.

is at least worth consideration. He (1) accepts that the second amendment enumerates an individual right and (2) is familiar with the case law. I think that’s a good thing. Also, his website says:

-Senator Feingold believes that the United States Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to keep and bear arms. As a Wisconsin State Senator, Senator Feingold co-sponsored and helped to write a constitutional amendment to ensure this right.

-Senator Feingold has consistently opposed proposals to ban handguns.

-In 1993, Senator Feingold voted to stop a licensing fee increase for people who sell guns.

-In 1998, Senator Feingold voted to prevent back door gun licensing and to prevent the creation of a government master list of gun owners.

-In Summer of 2002, Senator Feingold voted to allow airline pilots to carry firearms in the cockpits of airplanes.

-In Fall of 2002, Senator Feingold voted to let off-duty and retired police officers carry a gun outside their jurisdiction.

-In the April 2003 election, Senator Feingold was pleased to vote for a statewide referendum, which guaranteed Wisconsinites the right to hunt, fish and trap.

No mention of his opposition to the Assault Weapons Ban.

It’s a pity he has that abysmal incumbent protection act err Campaign Finance Reform as part of his checkered past. And he did support the assault weapons ban the first time around. So, it could be risky.

What will be more interesting is if he gets the nomination, watching the NRA squirm. Based on the current trends, I’d say Feingold is more pro-gun than anyone the Republicans would field. And who do you think the NRA would endorse?

Update: Meanwhile, real libertarians are not impressed.

According to this piece at ABC News by LESLIE YERANSIAN, Bloomberg is targeting colored gun kits as made by Lauer Weaponry. Bloomberg is targeting one of the more popular brands of quality products and these paint jobs are expensive. The paint is cheap, if you do it yourself but it requires knowing what you’re doing. Some stuff:

Mayor Bloomberg held up a toy gun and a real gun that had been colored using a paint kit to demonstrate how indistinguishable the guns would be to a police officer who might be confronting a person with one of the disguised weapons.

But Hugh Lauer said Bloomberg’s demonstration was a foolish one because, said Lauer, the real gun was obvious: “Maybe the real gun is the one with a hole and a barrel?”

Heh. More:

Lauer is the owner of Lauer Custom Weaponry in Chippewa Falls, Wis., and the inventor of Duracoat, a popular gun coloration chemical that has taken heat from Bloomberg. Lauer invented Duracoat more than a decade ago. He said he can’t keep up with the abundance of phone and Internet orders for the product.

“Our customers are all avid hunters, law enforcement, not gang bangers,” said Lauer. “We’re not getting orders from New York City. Our sales records only show two orders placed from there, and same thing with Los Angeles. We’re only getting order from movie makers.”

Two orders? Bloomberg is rather fanatical, it seems. And here’s a brilliant piece of journalistic integrity:

Regardless of how many gun-coloration kits Lauer is selling in New York, 80 percent of the guns used in committing crimes there have come from out of state.

And that is related how precisely?

The NY Post:

A second Big Apple gun store swept up in the city’s crackdown on rogue gun dealers had hundreds of firearms returned by police, the store’s lawyer said yesterday.

Cops handed back 234 firearms to the Woodhaven Rifle and Pistol Range in Woodhaven, Queens, after seizing the guns in an undercover sting on May 25. The turnaround came a day after cops returned 247 weapons taken from DF Brothers Sports Center in Brooklyn in the same sting.

…

Store owner Michael Spallone, 43, was busted for selling guns to an undercover investigator accompanied by a retired female cop who showed a Suffolk County pistol permit. The same investigators were used in the sting against the Brooklyn gun shop.

But Chambers argued the sting operation amounted to nothing more than entrapment.

He said his client followed procedures – initially refusing to sell the gun and insisting the investigators procure required paperwork from Suffolk County police.

The lawyer said that when they returned the next day, the serial number had been transposed on the paperwork, so his client refused to let them leave with the gun.

But Chambers said city lawyers ultimately realized no crime had been committed and decided to return the weapons.

Now, the elipse is interesting and I saved it for the end. Check it:

“This is a law-abiding gun shop. This is not some squirrelly Southern gun dealer trying to make money and is NRA-happy. They only deal with licensees,” said John Chambers, the lawyer for the Woodhaven range.

Err, they’re not trying to make money? And, so far, it seems that not a single one of the Southern gun dealers entrapped by this scheme has broken the law. And there are no licensees in most other states, you twit.

Xrlq in comments made me horse laugh:

With that, I hereby induct you into the Non Sequitur Society, where “we may not make sense, but we do like pizza.”

R. Neal, addressing my corruption post at No Silence Here, says:

And who knew politicians could be bought so cheaply? Some amounts mentioned in the Tennessee Waltz sting are laughably small – $1000 here and $6000 there. Why would someone risk their career and reputation for amounts that small?

Well, like any other low-margin business model, they make their cash on volume. It’s not a single $1K transaction, I would guess. It’s many, many $1K transactions.

As a former resident of Hell err New Jersey, I both concur and find this funny.

Radley has more instances of police putting on their ninja gear, grabbing their guns and breaking down doors at the wrong house. The overzealousness of the police in drug raids is getting a bit ridiculous. These make the case to allow civil action to be brought against individual officers personally, if you ask me. That approach would be problematic, of course, because everyone who ever got arrested would sue the officers involved. But surely there’s some way to hold these guys accountable and cause the police to be absolutely certain prior to ninjaing up and busting doors down.

I said yesterday that:

All the references to assault weapons involving the Indiana slayings seem to have stopped. No mention in this story, for example. I wonder why? Oh yeah. But I’ve seen no corrections.

Here’s another account of the details of the Indiana murders that doesn’t mention assault weapons. Still seen no correction.