Oops. Joe concurs.

In Cali, they want to put in thermostats that can be controlled remotely by the government. You can’t make this stuff up.

Via commenter Largenfirm here, Citi responds:

Thank you for your message. The posting at www.nssf.org regarding Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp. is inaccurate. Further, while we generally do not comment on individual merchant customers, we would like to briefly address the 12/26 letter posted on the web site. Regretfully, that letter did a less than satisfactory job of expressing applicable policies. Those policies are more properly detailed below.

Citi Merchant Services and First Data do process firearms transactions. Our policy restrictions address only the sale of firearms in a non face-to-face environment. Non face-to-face transactions occur when a cardholder is not present in front of a merchant and includes mail order and online purchases. It is our policy not to service merchants that make non face-to-face sales in a number of industries, including firearms.

It is not the policy of Citi Merchant Services or First Data to refuse to process transactions from duly licensed merchants that sell firearms in face-to-face transactions at the point of sale.

Please direct any questions to Questions@firstdata.com.

The posting also incorrectly states that Robert Tenenbaum is the supervisor when, in fact, he is not.

I’m still not particularly satisfied with that.

Suppressed shotguns.

Toy Gun Ban Proposed:

Not England, California, or any other foreign country.

Try Memphis.

Bernd Debusmann writing at Reuters notes that gun culture in the US is fading. And by notes I mean re-prints Violence Policy Center propaganda. In fact, here’s a link to their study. And by study, I mean a reprint of data from other sources. But it beats their usual method of calling Google searches studies.

Anyhoo, on the article:

Is America, land of shooting massacres in schools and public places, slowly falling out of love with guns?

The answer is yes, and it runs counter to popular perceptions of the United States as a country where most citizens are armed to the teeth and believe it is every American’s inalienable right to buy an AK 47-style assault rifle with the minimum of bureaucratic paperwork.

Yes, let’s open the piece up with some good ol’ misleading PSH. A guaranteed winner when peddling propaganda.

But in fact, gun ownership in the United States has been declining steadily over more than three decades, relegating gun owners to minority status.

And what are these facts? We’ll get to those in a bit.

At the same time, support for stricter gun controls has been growing steadily and those in favor make up a majority.

More facts? Zogby disagrees. Their poll is from August, not 2006 like the Violence Policy Center’s. And even in 2006, Gallup disagreed. And the trend is going in exactly the opposite direction that you say it’s going.

Here’s some of the aforementioned facts:

The number of households with guns dropped from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006, according to NORC, and the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun has shrunk to just under 22 percent.

Well, people who own guns tend to not be the kind that answer surveys. At least, those that I know. As TP noted:

On firearms, the GSS states that the numbers of owners are decreasing when training courses are filled to capacity across the nation, are constantly being expanded, and sales are booming,. while the Gallup poll has a difference of nearly 20 million more owners in comparison and a similar number of respondents.

The trend seems to be that after a couple of decades of decline (the 1980s and 1990s) that gun sales are now going up. Notably, there were spikes in gun sales subsequent to 9-11 and Katrina. And there were reports by gun dealers of increases after the VT massacre. And just after the expiration of the assault weapon ban, gun sales surged. And, of course, there are regular reports about how gun sales are increasing:

Gun sales up 36%
Guns sales up 14%
Handgun sales up
And S&W is always reporting record sales of handguns.

So, if gun ownership is on the decline, who the hell is buying all these guns? And why are gun sales increasing? Recently, some of the increase in reported sales dollars can be tied to the increase in material costs for guns and ammunition. As I’ve said before:

What we (and by we, remember that to the VPC I am the gun lobby too) have been saying is that there was a decline for decades in gun ownership but recently (specifically after 9/11, Katrina and liberal CCW laws) gun ownership has increased quite a bit. Specifically, handgun sales have increased. And this increase was the first increase in probably decades. And there’s also the fact that gun makers are still making guns. Where do those go? See past posts on gun sales here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The trend, IMO, is a simple one: people are buying handguns and EBRs for defense. Hunting is on the decline but people are valuing self-defense. Industry reports seem to support that conclusion.

Sebastian notes:

Quite often when you read op-eds in the main stream media, they were actually placed by groups that advocate on behalf of that organization. It’s a dirty little secret in the world of issue advocacy. I would not be shocked to discover that this op-ed was written by Violence Policy Center themselves, or some other issue oriented group.

Chris and Melody Byrne are in a bit of a pickle and need to raise money for legal fees. Long and short, is that there is a custody battle over children and the legal fees are associated with that. I was told the story at GBR2. And, essentially, this case is setting case law for international custody disputes. The opposing team being Canadian argued that because they had guns, the home was unsafe. The judge, who apparently was into guns, laughed that off.

Anyway, go help if you feel so inclined. There’s a Donate button on the right.

AC got a FAL reciever. I’m curious how this goes as I’ve wanted to build a FAL for a while. That is, unless, the FN folks get their civilian FN SCAR-H on the market soon.

Greg got a Mossberg 802.

Ryan notes some criticism of the act by GOA (which given their record on 2640, I might ordinarily be dismissive of – but not this time):

The bill contains a number of relatively minor pro-gun provisions which we have championed for many years.

However, the bill also contains, for the first time, “civil penalties” for federal firearms licensees (FFL’s).

The bill’s supporters tout the introduction of “civil penalties” as a good thing –- arguing that this allows regulators to take action against errant FFL‘s short of license revocation.

The problem is that -– in virtually all of the most aggressive regulatory agencies in the federal government -– “civil penalties” are the central engine whereby the agency has expanded its jurisdiction.

I tend to concur. Seems this may open up the gates, unless reasonable limits are set, for the cost to continue business being greater than shutting it down. What say you?

A lesson in how to win: Dustin takes a woman and her kids shooting!

A lesson in how the other side loses: Feminists.

What he said.

Go free speech!

Quick, 3,745 of you stop clicking here or I might be a lobbyist someday:

“Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.

“The bill would require reporting of ‘paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,’ but defines ‘paid’ merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.”

That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

If you buy an FN FiveSeveN, they’ll give you 200 rounds of free ammo. Ahab has the skinny.

What, like they didn’t expect that?

So, the Tennessee Democrat Party has a blog called the Donkey’s Mouth, no doubt to counter the Republican Bill Hobbs, who works for the Tennessee GOP.

You know what that means? Shill fight!

Legally Armed is advertising here. They have a TN handgun permit travel guide.

Regarding all this talk of packing in bars, I stand corrected:

39-17-1321. Possession of handgun while under influence — Penalty. —

(a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance.

(b) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Acts 1994, ch. 943, § 10; 1997, ch. 476, § 4.]

Meanwhile, a rifle is OK?

Via Ned.

Appeals court rules San Francisco gun ban null and void.

No details yet. Will let you know.

Update: story hits the news:

A state appeals court refused today to revive a ban on handgun possession in San Francisco, saying the measure that city voters approved in November 2005 conflicts with state law.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said local governments in California have no authority to prohibit handguns. Warren said a California law that authorizes police agencies to issue concealed-weapon permits implicitly forbids a city or county to ban handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

The San Francisco measure, Proposition H, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of any type of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco.

Good.

Update 2: NRA presser here:

The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

Ya know, before these sorts of stories would make me shake my head in disgust. Now that I have kids, they make me physically ill for about 15 seconds.

Via R. Neal who says: It’s bastards like this who make it hard to keep opposing the death penatly (sic).

In an update to this, VolunteerTV has a poll on the subject on the left hand side. Currently, the good guys are winning.

The also have a video segment on the issue featuring my favorite Merchant of Death giving some free ad space to Vltor.

In comments here. He refers to Bellisiles. Heh.

I dunno, this Taser sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Apparently, you can take my predictions and throw out anything I say about Thompson, Hillary and Obama and they’re fairly accurate. You know, except for the biggest winners and biggest losers. A few things:

Romney didn’t win, which is good.

Rudy 9iu11ani lost pretty badly, which is also good.

McCain won, not so good.

Thompson, barring some sort of major miracle err victory in SC and on Super Tuesday, is finished. Again, not so good.

Hillary won? I was pretty shocked by that given the press play about her supposed breakdown. But maybe it showed people she actually isn’t a robot. Her victory speech was about change. Where have I heard that before. Oh yeah:

Obama’s Iowa victory may have just been a flash in the pan.

Edwards who?

It’s that time again. Once again, some one proposes a bill to allow: anyone who “has a permit to carry a handgun to carry (it) in places where alcohol is served for consumption on premises,” as long as the person is not consuming alcohol and as long as the owners of the premises have not banned weapons from the premises and posted proper notification of the ban.

I’m not a huge fan of the bill but it is a bit of progress. I personally think the simple solution is to make packing while intoxicated illegal regardless of whether you’re in a bar or not. As it stands, I can get smashed and go wandering through my subdivision with a weapon and that’s just public intoxication.

And this bill, like the incarnations proposed for the last three or four years, will not pass.

The guy who shot the red light camera in Knoxville has a web page.

Via MKS.

David Kopel highlights some.

Hmmm, I’m pretty sure we did meet once. Briefly at Calhoun’s out west.

In North Carolina, another judge questions ATF’s definition of willful.

And Senator Crapo on his hold of the Sullivan confirmation:

I recently had the opportunity to meet with Acting Director Sullivan to inform him of multiple concerns that I have had in recent years with BATFE treatment of small firearms dealers. Mr. Sullivan conveyed his belief that BATFE is fair and impartial in its treatment of these businesses, and only revokes federal firearms licenses when it has no other options. I am not satisfied with Mr. Sullivan’s response.

Read it all.

But still a blackpowder AR-15 is pretty cool.

I guess we can’t go letting facts get in the way of our opinions.

Well, I guess that puts to rest one of the theories behind why Robinson Arms CEO is supporting Romney.