Jay has a game for you. And congrats to Jay for taking up the shooting sports. Got that Glock yet?

Volokh catches some anti-gun bias:

Pro-control forces are “activists,” “advocates,” or “groups.” The anti-control forces are the “gun lobby.”

And:

The story goes on with twelve paragraphs, of which each one paraphrases, quotes, or describes the stance of a pro-gun-control advocate. Only three of them even mention the views of pro-gun-rights advocates.

Bruce notes some more gun hysteria:

The ban, however, will expire. Bush will get his endorsement. And people are going to die.

I guess on the 14th when there is no blood in the street and no increase in the murder rate, you’ll be having the crow with a nice Chianti? Or maybe feet?

Knoxvillians get to decide exactly which way they’ll get screwed:

It’s now a property tax increase vs. the wheel tax.

Knox County commissioners voted Wednesday night to enact an 18-cent property tax boost if a referendum to repeal the wheel tax succeeds.

In an 11-6 vote, the 6 percent property tax increase would only go into effect if voters repeal the current $30 wheel tax.

I don’t live in Knoxville, but I’d say ax the wheel tax. The reason is that your property taxes will go up some day anyway. That is the same reason I oppose the state income tax. I know that if they pass it, the sales tax will go up eventually anyway. Why give the bastards two avenues to raise the rates?

Daley urges Bush to push for the ban:

Mayor Daley urged President Bush on Wednesday to put political muscle behind his campaign rhetoric and pressure Congress to extend the federal ban on “murderous” assault weapons before it expires next week.

With gun manufacturers already marketing military-style firearms and poised to sell them at midnight Monday, Daley wrote a letter to Bush and appealed to Chicagoans to do the same with members of Congress who would rather “run and hide” than confront a powerful gun lobby that fills their campaign coffers.

“Legislative leaders refuse to bring the issue to a vote. That way, assault weapons can become legal again, the gun lobby will be happy and nobody in Congress will ever get blamed. . . . The one person who can force this matter to a vote is President Bush,” Daley told a news conference at police headquarters.

They were never illegal.

NPR says it’s about to expire.

Leaders in congress to allow the ban to expire:

Congress will not vote on an assault weapons ban due to expire Monday, Republican leaders said yesterday, rejecting a last-ditch effort by supporters to renew it.

“I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) told reporters.

The 10-year ban, signed by President Clinton in 1994, outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it.

Some Democrats and several police leaders said President Bush should try to persuade Congress to renew the ban. Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.

“If the president asked me, it’d still be no … because we don’t have the votes to pass an assault weapons ban and it will expire Monday and that’s that,” House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters later.

Thanks to Frist and DeLay.

Jointogether fires up the rhetoric about guns in the streets because, you know, we don’t have any there now:

According to the report, once the ban expires, Beretta plans to offer customers two free 15-round magazines with the purchase of two of its weapons.

In addition, foreign gun manufacturers, including Israel Military Industries Ltd., which makes Uzi-brand submachine guns, are expected to introduce semiautomatic models into the U.S. market.

If the ban is lifted, Illinois-based ArmaLite Inc. will launch a program that would allow buyers to convert their guns to use flash suppressors, bayonets, and other features that are now illegal, the report predicted.

I can’t wait to get some regular capacity magazines for my Sig for less than $100. And the Uzi has been banned from import since 1989.

DiFi attempts to call out the president on the issue stating he’s kowtowing to the NRA. Meanwhile LaPierre says that proponents of the ban mis-characterize the ban as affecting machine guns:

The NRA and other gun-rights groups criticize the assault weapons ban as cosmetic, noting that guns similar to the banned weapons are legal, and fully automatic weapons are banned under a separate law.

“The House is much more educated, members are, about what’s in that ban than they were last time,” LaPierre said. “This thing was marketed by the people who were in favor of it as dealing with machines guns, dealing with guns that were supposedly convertible to machine guns, guns that spray bullets … all of which was a mischaracterization of the firearms on that list and all of which was not true.”

Hysteria from Newsday accuses Bush of flip-flopping (are you sick of political buzzwords yet?). And the reference to machine gun rat-tat-tat-tat rather proves LaPierre’s point.

Walking the Walls reports that nothing happened in moving the ban forward.

Publicola addresses some more media hysteria. So does Jeff.

The Houston Chronicle says the ban is done for. Good.

DeLay:

“If the president asked me, it’d still be no … because we don’t have the votes to pass an assault weapons ban and it will expire Monday and that’s that,” House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told reporters later.

And the hysterical crap of the day. Note the image with the caption:

If the federal ban on assault weapons is allowed to expire next week, expect gun manufacturers to roll out high-powered firearms such as this AR-15 rifle, observers say.

That rifle lacks a bayonet lug, folding stock and bayonet lug. That weapon is legal to manufacture and sell under the current ban.

The Supreme Court will decide whether hear the case of the city of New London taking property from 15 homeowners and giving it to private developers. I don’t have much faith in the Supreme Court given their recent shortcomings in campaign finance reform and Silviera v. Lockyer.

An Illinois town is suing to take land for a new school.

Bruce Bartlett:

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office explains that the deficit is a virtually meaningless measure of the government’s indebtedness. The main reason for this is that the federal government uses cash accounting rather than accrual accounting. What this means is that the government can acquire massive debts far into the future with virtual impunity. The government can also, in effect, cosign for loans and provide insurance that could potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of billion of dollars without it ever showing up in the budget until a check has to be written.

Yeah, another smart guy said almost the same thing a while back.

As the hysteria for the assault weapons ban picks up, check this out:

Feinstein said the White House has failed to aggressively endorse the ban, in hopes of winning support from the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) ahead of November’s presidential election.

The membership of the NRA, which strenuously opposes renewing the law, is largely white, conservative, rural and male — a key component of US President George W. Bush’s base.

Equally vocal in its support of reinstating the anti-assault weapons law, the non-profit Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has called on the public to flood the White House with e-mails and telephone calls urging its renewal.

Adjective used to describe the NRA: powerful.

Adjective used to describe the Brady Campaign: non-profit.

The NRA, steering clear from endorsing Bush (mark my words, when the assault weapons ban expires, they will), is going to run ads on Kerry’s record on guns. I don’t care about that. What I found most interesting from the article is this quote:

Addressing another major issue, LaPierre said the NRA is so confident Congress and President Bush will allow a federal assault-weapons ban to expire on Monday that it doesn’t plan to run any ads pushing for an end to the 10-year-old ban.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Wednesday that the Senate wouldn’t revisit the assault weapons-ban issue this year. Republicans tabled the issue earlier this year at the NRA’s request.

The NRA is confident the ban will expire. And, since no gun control has passed in this country without their approval since 1934, I’d say the fix is in.

Oprah Winfrey and Lifetime (Television that sucks) make a lot of money scaring the shit out of affluent white women. Yours truly was the victim of Oprah induced paranoia last night. A couple of days ago, Oprah had a show on cleanliness and how often one should clean. Me and the Mrs. (mostly the Mrs.) clean fairly regularly so I had no fears about it. Then, Oprah did the segment on dust mites in pillows and bed linens. I remember, as a kid, watching the TV show That’s Incredible who had a similar segment. It was creepy watching the little critters frolic in the threads of the fabric but, the fact is, they are harmless and are everywhere.

In typical Oprah fashion, this scared the Hell out of Mrs. Uncle. Yours truly had a particular goose feather pillow. I’ve had it since I was a kid. Granted, it’s probably too long to have the pillow but I loved it. It was worn in, comfy, and I always slept with it. The Mrs. even loved the pillow. In fact, when I’d come to bed after the Mrs., she often was lying on the pillow (which I would promptly take from her and this caused a few marital spats – don’t mess with my pillow).

The Mrs., knowing that I would not allow her to throw the pillow away or I would very likely divorce her if she did throw it away when I wasn’t looking, decide to wash the pillow. Yes, you can wash pillows so no worries. The Mrs. washes the pillow. She goes to take the pillow from the washer and I hear the words OH MY GOD. These were followed with some mumbling but I thought I heard the words kill me. At the time, I was unaware she was washing my favorite pillow. She says to me You’re going to kill me and explains that she was just trying to wash my pillow along with some other things.

I look in the washer and it looks like someone put a goose through a wood chipper (except without the blood that would be involved if you actually put a goose in a wood chipper). There were feathers everywhere. Apparently, you can wash pillows but you can’t wash fabric that is decades old. The liner of the pillow tore and the feathers spun around in the rinse cycle. I remain calm. I have a good laugh with the Mrs. about it and take a picture of the remains of my pillow (I may post it later) and tell her it’s OK and that I’m not going to kill her.

I curse Oprah’s name. My wife even mumbles something about Oprah. If I could have gotten my hands on Oprah, I’d have choked the bitch.

I reel from the shock of the fact my pillow cannot be salvaged only to realize that I have a washer full of feathers and clothes. SayUncle, who is somewhat familiar with the operation of a dryer, gets the idea that we’ll put the clothes in the dryer and the dryer vent will catch the feathers. Great idea. However, the vent filled up in about 2 seconds and burning feathers smell like burning hair. Bah.

Plan B consists of using my Shop Vac to get the feathers. This plan works but takes a while. After, I start the dryer again. It now wreaks of burning feathers and an overheating motor. If Oprah had cost me a new dryer, I’d be on my way to LA right now. I took the vent out of the dryer, disconnected the vent hose and vacuumed them out. I managed to save the dryer. The Mrs. vacuumed the laundry room. This took two and a half hours.

Oprah, on behalf of men who have had to suffer from Oprah induced paranoia, you can kiss my ass.

Update: Oprah is apparently in Chicago. I thought all TeeVee came from LA LA land. Shows how much I know about her. She can still kiss my ass.

Got an interesting search for weapons of choice for criminals just now. The query came from the United States Senate. Someone’s doing their homework on the ban.

Wonder if they’ll quote me?

Triggerfinger reports DiFi is up and has 19 minutes. She is pushing the assault weapons ban.

Update: DiFi repeats the same old lies. Calls on Bush to support it. Kennedy is up stating that terrorists use assault weapons.

Update: Kennedy calls on Bush too. Now he’s talking about 1,000 dead in Iraq.

First, the AP takes a quote out of context from Dick Cheney, then let Edwards respond by calling Cheney un-American. What do you have? Politics.

Oh, that liberal media.

Note: the Seattle Times piece above said the Kerry campaign called Cheney un-American. However, on the news this morning it was clearly Edwards stating that.

Update: South(of)KnoxBubba‘s comment prompted me to re-read the quotes. I think SKB may be right but without listening to the audio, I can’t be sure. I guess stuff is lost in transcribing. Also, the Cheney people have rescinded the statement. Unlike Drudge, I’ll leave my error here.

This does not excuse calling the Veep un-American. That term and questions about patriotism are really dirty politics, no matter which side uses them.

Matt thinks the shotgun given as a gift to Kerry is a no-no.

This proves Kerry doesn’t read or understand the bills he sponsors:

“Let’s do some straight shooting on the gun issue. John Kerry’s opponents are worried because he’s the first Democratic candidate to support Second Amendment gun rights and to be an avid hunter.

“The facts are clear. John Kerry opposes banning this gun and always will. John Kerry was proud to receive this union-made gun at the United Mine Workers Labor Day picnic in Racine, West Virginia.

Then why sponsor a bill that may have banned it?

First, my opinion. The ban will sunset. Anti-gunners will vote for Kerry, period. Bush can only lose votes from gun owners and NRA members by pushing for the ban. He knows it and his advisers know it. Additionally, if the ban sunsets, I predict an NRA endorsement for Bush. However, after November, a push for it wouldn’t surprise me. Even the bill’s sponsors say it has no chance without Bush:

The fight to renew a favored ban on assault weapons effectively died Tuesday after the lead Senate sponsor of a bill to continue restrictions on the sale and manufacture of some semi-automatic weapons conceded defeat.

“Absent the president twisting arms, it’s nil,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., of the chances to get a bill passed before midnight Monday, when the law expires.

However, they continue their efforts.

Gun makers gear up for demand:

Gun manufacturers are gearing up for next week’s scheduled expiration of a 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons, and are taking orders for semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines that may soon become legal again, according to a report released yesterday.

The report by the Consumer Federation of America, which favors greater regulation of the gun industry, was based on interviews with gun-industry officials and reviews of advertisements and other sales materials.

Excellent!

Here’s one that says the assault weapons ban works but the holes need to be plugged (ed – if it works, there shouldn’t be a need to plug holes):

By any measure, the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons errs on the side of permissiveness. A gun can’t have both a grenade launcher and a bayonet mount, but it can have one of those attachments. It can’t be sold with an ammo clip holding more than 10 rounds unless the clip is one of hundreds of thousands made before the law took effect. It can’t be one of 19 specified weapons — unless it, too, was around before 1994.

Now, as the law marks its 10th anniversary, President Bush and Congress have a novel idea for dealing with these gaping loopholes: Let the law expire entirely. That will happen Monday if they don’t reverse current plans.

In spite of a drop in gun deaths since the ban was enacted and despite new fears of terrorism, Bush and Republican leaders in Congress seem more concerned about courting favor with the powerful gun lobby than allowing weapons of mass mayhem back on the nation’s streets.

The drop in gun deaths can not be credited to the ban, ask the CDC and the NIJ, who both stated the ban has been shown to have no effect on gun crime.

The pending sunset of the ban has caused politicos in Michigan to consider a local ban.

The Suntimes is full of hysteria.

The boys continue live blogging coverage of the Senate floor. Keep checking here for updates.

Here’s a plug for a book that highlights abuses of Eminent Domain, entitled Abuse of Power: How the government misuses eminent domain, by Steven Greenhut:

Few phrases in the American lexicon seem as ominous, regal and potentially frightening as “eminent domain.” And that’s as it should be. The government’s power to condemn and forcibly take a person’s private property, even if compensation is paid, isn’t something to be taken lightly or used in a frivolous or indiscriminate way. The right to one’s property is a bedrock American principle. It should be waived only under narrow and rare circumstances – and when the power of eminent domain is invoked, it should be for clearly recognizable public benefit.

Private property rights are today under siege in many ways. But perhaps no more so than in the misuse of eminent domain by government officials dealing favors to private companies and interests. Evidence of these abuses has been anecdotal and fragmented until now. Thanks to the publication of Steven Greenhut’s “Abuse of Power: How the government misuses eminent domain,” we now have the most comprehensive, up-to-date look yet at this American scandal. Published by Seven Locks Press, it’s available through amazon.com.

Greenhut is a senior editorial writer and columnist at a sister paper, The Orange County (Calif.) Register. He casts a wide net in trying to get a handle on a national problem. “Eminent domain creates an avenue for corruption,” Greenhut points out, “as government officials get to play God with other people’s neighborhoods and businesses, and can therefore punish enemies and reward friends.”

I wonder if he means abuses like this:

Ms. Kelo and the Derys are among seven property owners who refused to budge after city officials approved an economic development plan to upgrade their 90-acre waterfront neighborhood, known as Fort Trumbull, by creating prime office space, a hotel, 80 units of housing and a Coast Guard museum.

Because these people would not sell their property, the New London Development Corporation took title to it through eminent domain, a decision upheld in March on a 4-to-3 vote by the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Fifth Amendment allows governments to take private property through eminent domain in exchange for “just compensation,” but only when it is for “public use.”

Or this one:

The city of Columbiana is attempting to have the Summer Classics property rezoned from light industrial to a retail shopping district. And the city is threatening the use of eminent domain to get the property at what it considers a fair price.

Columbiana Mayor Allan Lowe said the city is in need of public parking for its retail district. He also said the city does not want a manufacturing operation in the heart of downtown.

Publicola has the lowdown on pistol grips.

Jointogether, an anti gun group, issued a press release stating:

A study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) says that the federal assault-weapons ban can’t be credited for a recent decline in gun-related violence, the Washington Times reported Sept. 1.

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence,” said the report written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

The report found that assault weapons were “rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.” Prior to the 1994 ban, the report determined that assault weapons were used in 2 percent of gun crimes reported nationwide. Assault weapons were unpopular with criminals because they are expensive, difficult to conceal, and prohibited from importation, the report noted.

It sounds to me as though they are attempting a last minute grab for credibility before pushing for a more strict gun ban. I covered the NIJ study here.

Countertop has lots of stuff, including pending publicity stunts.

Jeff Blogworthy emails a link to this Drudge story which states:

KERRY COSPONSORED BILL BANNING GUN HE WAVES

Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry was seen this weekend waving a gun which would have been banned if legislation he co-sponsored became law!

Kerry co-sponsored S. 1431 last year (“The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003) which would have banned a “semiautomatic shotgun that has a pistol grip.”

Kerry was presented with the gun during a Labor Day stop in Racine, West Virginia.

It’s a pity that the gun he’s holding in the photos doesn’t actually have a pistol grip. Therefore, Drudge’s claim is false, assuming this isn’t a file photo. However, putting a pistol grip on it (which would not impact the shotgun’s lethality in any way) would have made it illegal under the bill Kerry proposed, which was an attempt to extend the assault weapons ban. Another attempt at banning aesthetic features.

Another Drudge misfire.

Update: However, Drudge gets some stuff right (he has updated the story):

But Kerry’s gun bill would also banned any “gift” transaction!

It is not clear if Kerry submitted to a waiting period and completed the required paperwork (a 4479 form) or Brady background check before he claimed the gun.

It appears that under the proposed law the transfer would have to go through a dealer. The bill reads:

`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through–

`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or

`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

He would, under the proposed law, have to go to a licensed dealer to complete the transfer. The fact it is a gift is irrelevant. Drudge continues:

Also, since the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, it has been illegal for an unlicensed individual (a non-dealer, non-collector, non-manufacturer, etc.) to obtain a firearm in a state in which you are not a legal resident.

It seems Kerry needs to go to Federal Firearms Licensed dealer to lawfully transfer the firearm. Current ATF guidelines state:

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-state source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s state of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.

I don’t know if any leeway is granted because it is a gift.

Update 2: XRLQ informs us that:

It’s not clear that he needs to (go through a dealer, do background check, etc.) , either. Unless the person who gave him the gun was a licensed dealer, the transfer probably fell within the private party transfer exception to the Brady Act. What? You’ve never heard of the private party transfer exception? It’s been living in the papers for a long time now, under an assumed name: “gun show loophole.”

and

As originally passed, the Gun Control Act of 1968 did indeed generally prohibit citizens from obtaining firearms outside their state of domicile. In its present form, however, the flat prohibition applies only to handguns, with 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3) expressly allowing face-to-face transfers of long guns outside the recipient’s state of domicile, provided that “the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States.”

Update3: Gunner says a pistol grip is whatever the government decides is a pistol grip. I hope not.

HL agrees with me.

Update4: The definition of pistol grip under current law reads protrudes conspicuously below the action of the gun. Kerry’s gun has a grip that is behind the action of the gun.

The bill Kerry sponsored defines pistol grips as a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip. So, any grip? Maybe Drudge inadvertently isn’t full of it. Regardless, it was a bad bill.

And thanks to Glenn for the link. He has more. And if you’re just here for my gun stuff, go here.

Last Update: Via John, Kopel says that under the law Kerry pushed for, it would be a pistol grip, as I said in Update 4.

This is a testament to how arbitrary (and stupid) gun laws are. It took the pro-gun portion of the blogosphere (some knowledgeable folks) a bit of time to figure out whether the gun had a pistol grip or not. The answer is that in reality it doesn’t. But per some arbitrary law that was proposed, it would have. For another illustration of stupid gun tricks, go here.

John Kerry is blasting Bush for the huge government deficit. Where did those fiscally responsible conservatives go?

However, it doesn’t help Kerry that he voted for the budget himself (or, rather, he didn’t oppose it as it was passed by unanimous consent – and that’s assuming that he actually showed up that day).

In a follow up to this post on the candy cigars representing Bush and Kerry, I stopped at the same convenience store today. The Bush box was not there (I assume it was sold out). There was a Kerry box there that had about half the cigars left. The Kerry box had not been vandalized, which I assume means the store has now gone through multiple boxes.

Since there was no Bush box, I wonder how long before some local gets upset with the store for apparently endorsing Kerry.

Bastards.

There is one week to go before the sunset of the assault weapons ban. Publicola, The Geek, and Matt have set up a new blog to monitor the death of the ban called Walking The Walls. This blog will have some live blogging of the senate floor.

For info on how you can fight the ban, see the Geek’s post on calling congressmen and the president. Get contact info for your reps here.

Here’s the NRA’s resource page for fighting the Assault Weapons Ban.

Additionally, AWBSunset is a good source of info on the ban. The anti-gunners will not let this die without a fight. The increased hysteria in the media is a good sign of that.

Like this piece by Swanee Hunt, which is so full of lies, picking one doesn’t do it justice:

I don’t know about you, but keeping AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s off our streets seems like a good idea to me.

The same old rhetoric about AKs and Uzis. This is false because both are still available in semi-automatic configuration and the full-auto versions have been regulated since 1934. Additionally, a 1989 executive order bans the import of Uzis and AKs.

More powerful than the guns most cops carry, they fire hundreds of rounds in just a couple minutes and oftentimes pierce body armor.

The ban does not affect machine guns and any rifle round will penetrate body armor. Assault weapons fire medium powered ammunition. A hunting rifle is more powerful.

According to data maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, assault weapons are 20 times more likely to be used in a crime than conventional firearms.

That is a blatant lie. The weapons are used in less than 1% of crimes. Both the CDC and DOJ have said the ban has no impact on crime.

A report from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, using data from the ATF, shows that the number of assault weapons traced to crime has dropped 66 percent since the law passed.

The ATF has also said that gun trace data (which is not always used to trace to crime) is a useless measure for determining the impact on crime.

The infamous TEC-9, a gun favored by murderers and criminals for its light weight and ability to mask fingerprints . . .

Mask fingerprints? That’s a new one to me. Most guns, because of their checkered grips, don’t hold fingerprints very well but no gun I know of masks them.

When the law was passed, 16 percent of gun murders of police officers were with assault weapons. Two years later, it had dropped to zero

Another outright fabrication. The VPC says the number is 41 since 1998, which is also a fabrication.

This is what we’re up against. An opinion piece so full of distortions and outright lies that, if you believed this woman’s supposed facts, you would support the ban. However, she is completely full of shit..

Update: I have found Swanee Hunt’s email address swanee_hunt@harvard.edu. Other contact info is here.

Per The Hill, some police chiefs are trying to meet the president to get him to push for the assault weapons ban:

A week before the controversial assault-weapons ban is set to expire, law-enforcement officials are requesting a meeting with President Bush in hopes that he can exert pressure on Congress to renew the ban. But the White House has been mum on whether such a meeting is going to take place.

In a recent letter to Bush, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and other law-enforcement groups asked to meet with the president “to share our perspective on the importance of preserving the ban.” The IACP is unaware of a White House response to the request, and the administration did not return calls seeking comment.

No comment from the White House. This gives me hope that the president will not push for the ban. Good. Additionally:

Karl Rove, Bush’s top political adviser, late last week declined to answer directly a question from The Hill on whether the president would call to renew the ban in the next couple of weeks. Gun-control activists have pointed out repeatedly this year that Bush backed the reauthorization of the ban in 2000 but has not called on Congress to act.

The talking points of the police politicians consists of:

There is a “critical need” to extend the ban, the law-enforcement groups said in the letter. “If the law is not renewed, the firearms of choice for terrorists, drug dealers and gang members will be back on our streets. … With homeland security becoming an increasingly vital part of the daily law enforcement mission, we need to know that these assault weapons and their capacity magazines will not be back in circulation.”

Got that? Terror, drugs and the kitchen sink. I guess by critical, they mean the less than 1% of times these guns are used in crime. Or by critical they mean how the CDC and DOJ have found the ban to have no effect on crime. Meanwhile, a letter to the editor in The Hill points out how the support for the ban is completely misrepresented in the media:

Re your July 29 article discussing the impact of anti-gun stances by political candidates (“Guns divide campaign”): I was amazed that the article stated that polls showed an absurdly high percentage of Americans want the assault-weapons ban extended. Granted, in a carefully framed poll question, uninformed respondents might give answers that could inflate this percentage this way.

Certain anti-gun organizations have engaged in public-relation campaigns to confuse persons not close to the issue by redefining (“recasting”) the term “assault weapon” to include firearms that are not assault weapons. By allowing a less-informed respondent to think that non-assault weapons are actually assault weapons, an inaccurate, higher negative poll total will result.

What was even more astonishing was the assertion that “even half of the members of the National Rifle Association” were in favor of the extension of this law.

This statement is absolutely, unequivocally false. There is no factual basis to this statement.

An accurate assessment of the NRA’s membership would indicate that in excess of 90 percent definitely oppose the extension of the ban. This is primarily due to the fact that these people as a group, being vastly more familiar with firearms, and especially the firearms in question, than the persons making such assertions know very well that the ban is both ineffective and bad law, so bad as to be even constitutionally dubious.

Instapundit thinks supporting the ban is a loser for Bush.

Well, time’s running out on one of our favorite leftovers from the Clinton Years, aka the Assault Weapon’s Ban. I’ve just faxed some letters out to my Senators and my Congressman. Typically, our Senators’ votes cancel each other out on this issue (assuming Mr. Edwards isn’t too busy doing other stuff to show up), but my Congressman is…well, let’s just put it this way: he used to be a Poli-Sci prof.

Anyway, I was re-checking his contact info on his House.gov page, and I decided to glance at his bio. Turns out his wife is a director of something called North Carolinians Against Gun Violence. Their web page has the usual stuff: fear-mongering about the AWB sunset, lying about the “gun show loophole,” and so on.

One thing that caught my eye was this press release saying that Thirty-three Police Chiefs in North Carolina Call on Congress and President to Renew and Strengthen the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. These things just about write themselves: there’s the VPC “1 in 5” lie. Here’s the “lethal spray of bullets” canard. And let’s not forget our old friend, “‘copycat’ assault weapons [that] are functionally identical to those banned by the 1994 law, which is why the ban must also be strengthened.”

So, for all our NC readers, here’s the List of scurrilous traitors concerned law-enforcement professionals who are willing to sell out your rights.

James has a good post at the Carnival on feeding those guns.

Blake alerts us to the phone-a-thon to keep the ban from being reauthorized:

To help ensure a steady flow throughout the day, I suggest that we stagger our calls.

If your last name begins with:

A – F: call between 9:30am – 11:00am eastern time.
G – L: call between 11:00am – 12:30pm eastern time.
M – S: call between 12:30pm – 2:00pm eastern time.
T – Z: call between 2:00pm – 3:30 eastern time.

Of course, this is merely a suggestion… don’t fret if you can’t call at your “designated” time. Just call at whatever time you can! Make these phone calls Tuesday, and Wednesday too if you can.

You can easily obtain your elected officials’ contact info here:

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

In addition, call the White House and state your opposition to renewing the ban. 202-456-1111. Though President Bush has expressed support for the ban in the past, he has not pushed Congress to pass a renewal, largely due to US. Take this opportunity to politely remind him of how important this issue is to us.

Jeff has his weekly check on the bias up. He makes a prediction that the ban will sunset. I hope he’s right. He’s counting on it since he’s shopping for a post-post-ban purchase.

Speaking of shopping, Hearltess Libertarian has his post-post-ban wish list.

And, since you’re all wondering, Uncle will build one of these, buy one of these, and either build or buy one of these. And I’ll stock up on regular capacity magazines.

Speaking of mags, if you need them refinished (after all, even gun owners have to accessorize!), go read this.

Tennessee won last night, 42-17. The new, two freshmen quarterback combo was pretty impressive. Man, Brent Schaeffer can fly. He’s got legs, baby, he’s everywhere. Ainge is more methodical and quite impressive. No word from Jim Bob Cooter, though.

Update: Newest fan