Len Savage, of Historic Arms LLC, made a belt-fed upper receiver in 7.62X39 for use on an M-11 called the BM 3000. Initially, the ATF ruled that said item was not a firearm and not a machine gun. The ATF changed its mind and decided that the upper receiver was actually a machine gun because, well, I’m not sure why as it seems highly technical. Now, the ATF has said he needs to register the BM 3000s he made and they cannot be sold to the public. Operating under the assumption that the BM 3000 was neither a firearm nor a machine gun, he could have sold them to anyone. He did not. But he could have. Then, with the ATF’s changed ruling, some folks could be in trouble. The letters are here. Interesting case and good luck to Mr. Savage, who you may recall is the expert in the video that exposes ATF agents trying to assert that a malfunctioning and otherwise legal semi-automatic weapon was a machine gun.

Regardless, ATF’s reconsideration of some issues has the potential to make people criminals through no wrong-doing of their own. Good thing Len hasn’t sold any.

Similar to the Wrenn case, where Wrenn made and sold semi-automatic versions of the Maxim machine gun. Wrenn plead guilty.

Update: post on message board was deleted.

Heh:

convince him a)that Glocks are useless pieces of tupperware and make the baby JMB cry. b) that Glocks are simply what St. Gaston says, “perfection.” c) of any other strongly held belief.

Well, c) would be they’re damn fine guns.

In New Hampshire comes something hella lame:

The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the government can keep and destroy more than 500 CDs taken from Michael Cohen, owner of Pitchfork Records in Concord, in 2003 even though the state failed to prove that a single disk was illegal.

Cohen was arrested for attempting to sell bootleg recordings. But the police case collapsed when it turned out that most of the recordings were made legally. Police dropped six of the seven charges, and Cohen went to trial on one charge. He beat it after the judge concluded that the recording was legal.

However, the police refused to return Cohen’s CDs. In the state Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling, Chief Justice John Broderick, writing for the majority, reasoned so poorly that it appeared as if he’d made up his mind ahead of time.

Update: In comments, Tom notes there’s more to the story:

After beating the criminal charges, Cohen asked for all of his music back, saying he wanted it for his personal collection, not for his store’s sale bins. In doing so, he acknowledged that there were bootlegs among them and that selling those would be illegal, according to court records.

Well, there wasn’t enough to prove that in a court of law so I’d say give him his stuff back. Your thoughts?

I wrote about. Gun Law News sets me straight:

The starting point for these debates is an assumption that proposed legislation is all about a federally issued permit. It is not.

There’s more.

Seen in comments here (and written by this guy), I present without comment:

SYNOPSIS:

I am a U.S. merchant seaman with a Second Amendment cause of action that has been languishing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia since 2002. Because I am an unrepresented civil plaintiff with a Second Amendment case I have been jerked around the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Appellate Procedure, and the U.S. Supreme Court these past 4 years until I discovered the biggest act of corruption to date. Because I am a resident of Arkansas, using my Arkansas address on every complaint and pleading these past 4 years, no judge or court clerk ever though to look at the law on jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. 1402(a)(1)) to tell me that the U.S. District Court for DC DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ME! That means that my case for these last 4 years is VOID FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. I am now fighting to get my case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock), Northern Division (Batesville).

REBUTTAL:

Instead of the federal licensing scheme how about using the Federal Premption Doctrine from the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause preempting local and State gun control laws that restrict, prohibit, or otherwise infringe upon the Second Amendment right (along with the Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments) to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate and interestate as a form and function of the Common Defence clause (“Defence” is the original spelling as used) in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution?

The power of the States and of the Federal Government to legislate and regulate the Second Amendment has almost always been done in a prohibitive manner through the Commerce Clause since Roosevelt’s threatened Court Packing Plan of the 1930’s. Nothing is every said or written about legislating and regulating the Second Amendment in a positive manner through the Common Defence clause of the Preamble.

If the FCC can employ the Federal Premption Doctrine for the Amateur Radio Service with PRB-1 (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/local/prb-1_program.html) as a matter of protecting the First Amendment for amateur radio operators then the BATF/E can employ the Federal Premption Doctrine to protect Second Amendment rights of American gun owners restoring the right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate and interstate travel by preempting local/State (and federal?) gun control laws that prohibit or otherwise interfere with that right.

Such a case is in the process of moving from the corrupt U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case Nos. 02-1434, 02-1434, and 03-2160) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock), Northern Division (Batesville). As you may know the original 1939 U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller began in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Fort Smith).

The present case that is on the move to Little Rock/Batesville, Arkansas is HAMRICK v. PRESIDENT BUSH, et al. It is a Second Amendment case for National Open Carry Handgun from a U.S. merchant seaman’s point of view taking the Second Amendment through the Common Defence clause of the Preamble and through the Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment. The case employs the RICO Act to allege the United States is racketeering an unlawful and an unconstitutional protection scheme over the Second Amendment in addition to the central cause of action of government wrongdoing, retaliation, and harassment of me for being a protaganist for Second Amendment rights of American civilian seafarers when the U.S. Government requires small arms training as a prerequisite for seafarers seeking employment aboard U.S. Government vessels when the U.S. Coast Guard refuses to provide occupational documentations of such compulsory training in the form of an endorsement on the “Merchant Mariner’s Document” (ID card). I want the endorsement to right “National Open Carry Handgun” as a matter of right not as a matter of licensing.

If “National Open Carry Handgun” was the social and legal norm for the first 100 years of our nation’s history then it ought to be part of today’s social and legal norms for the simple reason that it is THE “constitutional norm.”

All gun control laws are nothing more than GOVERNMENT placating to the phobic of society on the false premise that government can protect society from the criminal element. This is tantamount to government supporting a delusion for the sake of government.

Good news. We can now get stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryos. While I see the “embryos = human life” argument as a bunch of semantic nonsense, this gets that issue off the table. We can get all the benefits of stem cell research without all the messy political fighting.

We’ll soon know whether the scientific community exagerrated the benefits of stem cells to win the political battle over federal funding.

That’s the question of the day. Michael posts a comment he recieved:

Just one opinion, so take it for what it’s worth, but I hate a bunch of people having access to posting on your blog. I read it for you…not for them. They can have their own blogs. Or set up a guest blogger blog on KnoxNews.com. But I don’t like them on yours and find myself reading it less because I have to sort through posts.

I feel his pain. I’ve taken some flak for a couple of the co-bloggers I have here. Thibodeaux annoysed (not sure where that guy went) the lefty readers and Brutal Hugger annoys the righty readers. Les Jones says:

Even though I’m on one of those folks with posting privileges at No Silence Here, in all honesty I generally don’t much care for group blogs. I prefer a blog with a single voice. For instance, I think Volokh.com would be a better blog if Eugene Volokh was the only person posting there. As it is, there are too many voices and too many topics represented.

I do, however, like community blogs such as KnoxViews.com where anyone can set up an account and start posting. That’s more of a hybrid of blogs and message boards, and at KnoxViews it’s working.

I do think guestblogging is a good practice when the blog’s author is out of town or unavailable.

I like some aspects of group blogs. I like The Gun Blogs, you see good stuff there (I’m biased since it is my site) but the readership isn’t huge. So, let’s do a poll:

So, today I got a Google news alert for assault weapons ban and it pointed me here. I was all like Whoa, that sounds familiar. Yeah, because I wrote that. I guest blog over at No Silence Here on occasion, which is a blog hosted at the local newspaper’s site. Google picks it up as a news source.

Cool, I’m now the media. I’m part of the problem.

Note to Michael: I’d post there more often. But, let’s face it, I have a bit of a potty-mouth.

Aunt B.:

Lord knows I’m not ready to sit around drinking moonshine and laughing at the less fortunate (which I believe to be the main pastimes of libertarians, though I have no real evidence to back that up)

Heh. It’s also good to see self-professed liberals voicing concern about simultaneous trends to disarm regular folks and make battle-ready the police.

I was thinking about this case and a quote really stuck out:

But, prosecutors say he also has six weapons, bought within seven months, and all unaccounted for, except for the one they say Cletus Rivera used to kill Officer Scott Wertz on August 6th.

We know that Federal law prohibits the federal government from establishing any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions and dispositions. So, how then do prosecutors know that this man bought these firearms? Recall that:

… ATF relies upon federal firearms licensee (FFL) records to trace firearms recovered in crimes through its National Tracing Center. Inaccurate or incomplete record keeping makes the tracing of firearms involved in violent crimes virtually impossible.

So, they likely traced the gun to this man. Then, without the use of a registry, somehow figured out he’d bought other guns? Rather curious if you ask me. And, by curious, I mean total bullshit. Is there a state database in PA?

Alphie doesn’t like the idea and says the NRA is compromising rights again:

Yet in order to bear arms I must take a class, stand in line for hours in order to talk to deal with frustrated civil servants, pay an outrageous fee, undergo an invasive background check and (the final indignity) get fingerprinted like a criminal so my prints can be stored in files in both Nashville and Washington.

He also notes Andy Barniskis says:

I expect that what will be dictated by congress in the future–if not immediately–will include fingerprinting, mug shots, mandatory training, and high administrative costs. And, once the principle of federally dictated standards is established, increasingly restrictive standards could become a backdoor way for carry permits to be de facto prohibited by federal regulation, without congressional action. …

We will be better off continuing to fight reciprocity issues at home, on a state-by-state basis, never forgetting that licensing a right converts that right to a privilege. Ultimately, we should not lose sight of our ideal, that armed self defense is a genuine constitutional right, and genuine rights should not be subject to the prior constraint of licensing.

I am as gun nut as they get. But here’s where I often disagree with other gunnies. The notion that one can merely carry arms (those that disagree with me say the Second Amendment does say bear) willy-nilly is not generally supported by, well, anything other than the word bear in the second amendment, which has other connotations. I think the states can regulate the wearing of arms. The Tennessee constitution, for example, says:

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

At the founding, concealed weapons were commonly viewed as the tools of assassins and cowards. And they were scorned. Nowadays, it’s just good fasion sense to go concealed. So, folks were understandably not keen on concealed weapons.

But I do agree that federal carry permit regulation is bad joo-joo.

I don’t need one but some of them come with free guns:

A creative marketing campaign conjured up by Prestige Nissan General Sales Manager Dan Crumpler offers buyers of used or new Nissan SUVs or trucks in August a choice of a Remington 1187 shotgun or a Remington 700 rifle.

Meanwhile, a board member of a fake pro-gun group is saying gun makers shouldn’t advertise. More here.

Note to the gentleman in the blue Ford pickup:

Sir,

I respect and appreciate your love for our lord and saviour and the fact you’ve chosen to let me and others know of said love with the use of a bumper sticker that says: I Love Jesus.However, I would also ask that you consider loving your gas pedal too.

People ponder often What would Jesus do? I contend that he would get out of the way and allow others to pass instead of holding up traffic on Alcoa Highway.

Sincerely,

SayUncle

Kopel:

During the recent war against Israel, Hezbollah used night vision equipment which had been supplied by Iran, as detailed in a new article by the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs. Iran had obtained the equipment from the United Kingdom to “bolster Iranian efforts to combat heroin smuggling across the Afghan border as part of the UN Drug Control Program.” The U.K. was extremely foolish to expect the Iranian tyrants to keep their promises not to divert the equipment to military use.

So, raccoons are killing cats in Washington somewhere:

the town meeting becoming a place to mourn and cry, the tearful cat owners who’ve seen their pets die, the frustrated wildlife officer whose life traps prove useless, the wildlife coordinator who promises to evaluate the situation and perhaps bring in trappers from the dept of agriculture, the group racoon attack on a small dog, and on and on and on.

Seriously? A 22LR would solve the problem.

Bill Hobbs says Harold Ford Jr. Is a Liar. Yes, he is. But so is Bob Corker. B-Ho knows that. If cannot tell a lie was a requirement for office, we’d have no one in office.

Well, I did pay for it. Terry takes on a tour of what your money paid for. $21,279 for carpet? Does it come with a dead hooker or something?

Marc links to the skinny on their legality.

Over at The Gun Blogs:

It was reported that the Commander of US Army Alaska has issued an order precluding his soldiers from taking advantage of Alaska’s liberal self-defense policies by forbidding the carrying of self-defensive firearms…both on and off duty.

He wants your help.

Although they likely will not protect you much. Being paper and all.

Xavier reports that:

Twenty-one soldiers in the Louisiana Army National Guard have been court martialed for looting some of the very stores they were assigned to protect during the aftermath of the hurricane Katrina.

Not sure if it’s ATF shenanigans or if there is a legitimate charge but:

A Northampton County man faces a federal firearms charge after he was identified as the original buyer of the gun used in the fatal shooting of a Reading police officer earlier this month.

Jared Tomline has been in federal custody since his arrest last week by agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He is scheduled for a detention hearing today at U.S. District Court in Allentown.

John Hageman, a bureau spokesman in Philadelphia, declined to specify the charge against Tomline or comment on how the .40-caliber handgun went from Tomline into the hands of Cletus Rivera, 24, the Reading man charged with killing officer Scott Wertz on Aug. 6.

Hageman said agents traced the original purchase to Tomline, and that Tomline was not involved in Wertz’s murder.

So, no charges publicly revealed. At first glance, it seems Tomline sold the gun or gave it away. It was later used in a murder. Selling the gun, of course, is not a crime. I am curious what the charges will be. This article says Tomline supplied the gun to the killer, which implies intent.

There should be something to this as the judge has stated Tomline should remain behind bars. Further:

But, prosecutors say he also has six weapons, bought within seven months, and all unaccounted for, except for the one they say Cletus Rivera used to kill Officer Scott Wertz on August 6th.

My guess is they’re going for dealer without a license. If the above statement is true, it’s a charge that will likely stick. More:

He’s charged with giving a false address last month when he bought the 40-caliber semiautomatic pistol believed to have been the one used in Officer Wertz’s murder.

That also happens to be a felony, like when Bloomberg’s investigators did it. But:

Tomline’s lawyer argues the form isn’t specific, and that Tomline did nothing wrong by giving his mailing address.

This should be an interesting one.

I’m the world’s worst about giving credit to folks when they email me stories. Sorry about that. A few reasons are:

It’s easier for me to give credit if there’s a blog link too. So, if you send me stuff, tell me if you do or do not want credit.

Sorry about that, Nimrod.

Heh:

My position is that anybody who’s in favor gun control is a fucking moron.

You’ll never guess who said it.

A piece in the ChicTrib says breed bans don’t work:

There’s an adage that says, “When a dog bites a man, it’s not news, but when a man bites a dog, it is news.” These days, dog bites don’t just lead to news, they lead to fights between neighbors, lawsuits and controversial legislation. Unfortunately, laws that ban certain breeds of dog from a community provide nothing more than the illusion of safety.

Many communities struggle with issues related to dangerous dogs. Some have responded with breed bans, yet time and again such laws have failed to solve dangerous-dog problems. Lawmakers who educate themselves and understand this issue quickly recognize that a truly effective law must address all dangerous dogs, regardless of breed.

There are many factors that contribute to a dog’s temperament, but breed bans only address one of those factors. If elected officials are comfortable with regulation of such a limited scope, then the one factor to be targeted should be the most common.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 70 percent of dogs involved in biting incidents are intact (not neutered) males. No other single factor is so highly represented in dog attacks. Mandatory pet sterilization is certainly a viable option, but this can also be easily addressed without legislation, through government-subsidized spay/neuter programs and community education about proper pet care.

Yeah, we know. Meanwhile(via Tom), this week’s evil dog is the pit bull. Next week’s will be the Presa Canario:

Authorities said she was giving Xeno a bath Friday in the back yard of the upscale Coral Springs home she shared with Rivero, when the 120-pound dog attacked the 120-pound woman.

It ripped open Willey’s jugular, punctured her trachea and tore into her arms, back and side. One law enforcement official called it a “surreal scene.”

Sadly, this woman had not been a model dog owner:

In 2000, she was charged with having a dog-at-large, court records show. In 2002, she was charged with having a vicious animal without current rabies vaccination and an animal registration, records show. The next year, she was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.

And I called this a while back. Expect more.

Those things are teeny.

Jeff:

John McCain’s views on the 2nd Amendment are poison to me. I will not vote for him. Same goes for Rudy Giuliani. Same goes for Hillary Clinton. I hold no allegience (sic) to any political party. I will vote for whomever has worked the hardest — proven by their history of voting — to preserve the 2nd Amendment, as well as all the others.

I don’t know that we gunnies will even have a good choice in 2008. Of those that are serious contenders, only Feingold seems sufficiently pro-gun (though he has favored some restrictions). It’s a shame he has his name on the Incumbent Protection Act.

What is a gun nut to do?

Meanwhile, it looks like bitter is telling us that McCain may have some pro-gun strategery up his sleeve:

I can’t say too much right now, but I thought you guys might be interested in this story about McCain hiring the former head of NRA-ILA for his presidential run.

McCain’s record on guns is a bit, err, mixed and by mixed I mean politcally expedient:

* Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
* Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)
* Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)
* Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
* Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights. (May 1999)
* Youth Violence Prevention Act restricts guns for kids. (May 1999)
* Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

He banked on the non-existent gun show loophole once and lost. Sales at gun shows are subject to the same regulations as shop sales. Short of requiring checks on all private party transfers, I don’t see how it can be done. Maybe he learned his lesson.

It’s the plague.

Two weekends ago, Junior got sick. She had a stomach bug. And the Mrs. caught whatever she had. The Second remained happy and mostly unfazed as was I.

Last weekend, Junior got sick, the Mrs. got sick, and The Second was sick. They all had, to use the Doctor’s highly technical medical term, the sniffles. I, again, was untouched.

Yesterday, the Mrs. calls to say she’s picked up Junior from school because she has a fever and green boogies (which is parent code for contagious, if you didn’t know). While on the phone, the Mrs. sounded a bit, err, snotty. I don’t mean like snotty as in mean, I mean snotty as in she’s probably got a fever and green boogies too. And, given how things work, this probably means The Second will get it too. And Politically Incorrect Dog has an ear infection.

In all of this, I haven’t come down with anything. I think the germs realize they can’t get to me so they’re going after my family.

Nothing is more sad than a physically ill toddler. Or baby. Or dog. And The Mrs. seems more troubled by the fact she’s tired all the time from helping deal with sick kids while being sick herself. Ah, parenting. You can’t just take a break from it.

Kinda funny that a cop who had a negligent discharge may lose his job as a private security guard but may keep his job as a cop:

It “may” cost him his off duty job, but he “expects” to keep his police position. That somehow seems backwards. Shouldn’t the police have higher standards then a mall-cop?

You’d think.

And gun makers are no different.