Telling the truth about Internet gun sales

I hear repeatedly that I can buy guns on the Internet without a background check. Like most things on the subject of guns being proffered by the proponents of further limitations on our second amendment rights, it is a complete fabrication.

If I own a gun and need it to be serviced, I can ship my gun to a licensed gunsmith or gun shop for service. Once the gun has been serviced or repaired, it can be shipped directly back to me. Note that this only applies to guns I already own and have shipped to a licensed gunsmith or gun shop.

The difference arises when I order a gun on-line. I can have them ship a gun I ordered without doing any background check at all. The federal law is that an Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer can only ship a gun being purchased to another FFL dealer. I must provide the shipper with a local FFL dealer to receive my purchase. That dealer will send the shipper a copy of his FFL document and he can then ship my firearm to the address of the local FFL dealer. Once local laws and regulations have been satisfied and a NICS background check is completed, I can take delivery of my purchased firearm. The dealer cannot deliver a gun to me that is illegal in the locality, thus I cannot ‘mail order’ a gun I couldn’t buy from a local dealers stock and I can’t order a gun without still going through the same background check or being constrained by local laws or regulations. If the locality I live in has a waiting period, I still have to comply with that as well.

Internet sales, like many other ways of buying guns that are not available locally is not a sinister act in any way. An internet dealer may have an unusual model I am interested in or that is not stocked locally for any of a number of reasons. I might find an antique or collectible gun in another state where I could not travel there to buy it, so I buy it and have it shipped to a local FFL for transfer. Local dealers don’t mind handling these kind of transfers because they can charge a reasonable fee for the service.

You do not make the predator, criminal or statist, any less dangerous by disarming the prey.

Posted in Guns and Gun Control, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Starting to use a new Blogging and Journalling tool

I’ve started using MacJournal that also allows me to blog directly to WordPress. Hopefully this will allow me to post more often and express my opinions, while it is still legal to do so.

Posted in Opinion | Leave a comment

Rules to Live by as a Developer

  1. Don’t sweat irrelevancies.
  2. Strive to recognize irrelevancies for what they are.
  3. Never let perfect be the enemy of good.
  4. Never accept mediocrity when following rule #3.
  5. Never pass up the opportunity to learn something new and interesting.


Posted in Programming | Leave a comment

Al Gore in Aspen, CO

Just read some of the comments Al Gore made recently in Aspen about the debate on global warming or what is now called climate change to cover more bases. It is a rare thing indeed to see a man who claims to be arguing science reduced to sputtering rage at the thought that anyone could have a contrary view.

Somewhere along the line, we have lost sight of the idea of scientific discourse. The climate change debate is the only scientific debate where advocates demand that we end the debate and act on their claims right now.

Any time I hear someone in “authority” telling me we must start acting and stop thinking or questioning, I think of the boy telling a semi-drunk girl she must have sex with him right now, ostensibly before she sobers up and realizes what a mistake it would be.

Never have I heard a scientist demand that the debate is over. Science is the search for truth. The debate is never over. Piltdown Man was acknowledged as a hoax after much debate and the discussion is over, not because someone demanded it but because the evidence is overwhelming. The same cannot be said of the debate over climate change. There are a lot of questions yet to be answered.

Al Gore claims that anybody who disagrees with him is a pseudo scientist with an undisclosed agenda. This is ironic as Mr Gore is an investor in companies set up to trade in carbon credits and stands to profit enormously from cap and trade legislation. Somehow, I am not inclined to view a person who stands to benefit financially as impartial. Perhaps I am just jaded.

My first concern is that the simulations that we hear about have not been tested to see if they reflect reality. If they were accurate, one could feed in the data for, lets say 1970, and see if the simulation moves forward 40 years to accurately reflect 2010 conditions. To do this, the simulation would have to have all the things that can affect climate in its programming. I suspect there are hundreds, if not thousands, of variables we know nothing about or that we do not understand.

Saying man is the driver of climate change is absurd considering that the climate has changed thousands of times in the four billion year history of the planet. We cannot possibly believe that, all of a sudden, the earth has reached a state of stasis and any changes from now on are caused by man.

Posted in Opinion | Leave a comment

BATFE Enforcing Law Based on Nazi Gun Law?

The ATF, precursor to the BATFE, was originally a tax collecting branch of the treasury charged with taxing firearms, tobacco and alcohol. Their primary work on firearms was, until late 1968, enforcing the taxes on firearms falling under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, which placed licensing requirements on several types of firearms, mainly fully automatic weapons in civilian ownership.

In 1968, Thomas J Dodd (D-CT) introduced the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, signed into law in October, 1968 by Lyndon Johnson. Responsibility for enforcement of the GCA fell to ATF that same year.

The pedigree of the GCA is suspect given certain events in the life of Thomas J Dodd, going all the way back to his work in 1945 and 1946 when he was an associate of Henry Jackson, later to be a supreme court justice.

Jackson was one of many lawyers charged with the duty of prosecuting the Nazi war criminals in the Nuremberg trials. During that time, apparently, Dodd collected some documents from the Reichsgesetzblatt, the Nazi German equivalent of our Federal Register, including the text of the 1938 Law on Weapons, signed by Adolf Hitler. This law introduced gun control on most people who were not members in good standing with the Nazi Party (National Socialist Party) and was also designed to disarm Jews and interrupt their ability to practice their religion by banning any Jews from owning arms and “weapons of cutting or stabbing”, thus rendering them defenseless and parenthetically making the profession of Kosher butcher impossible.

The Law on Weapons should have been a footnote in the history of one of the vilest and most evil regimes. It would have remained so if not for the fact that on July 12, 1968, the Library of Congress supplied to Thomas J Dodd a translation of that law from the original text that he had provided.

I have first person experience with these documents as I was able to get, from the Library of Congress, not only the translation supplied to Thomas Dodd on July 12, 1968 but also the cover letter to Thomas Dodd on Library of Congress letterhead.

The interesting thing is that the Library of Congress had their own copy of the full volumes of the Reichsgesetzblatt but allegedly the volume containing the Law on Weapons is inexplicably missing. The cover letter states that Sen Dodd supplied the original documents for translation, ostensibly from his collection of German documents.

Taking a translation of the Law on Weapons and comparing it to the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a disturbing process indeed as the comparison quickly brings the reader to the conclusion that the GCA was lifted, often in the whole cloth, from the Law on Weapons. One example is the requirement for serial numbers and manufacturers and importers markings on every firearm. The Law on Weapons also makes use of the “Sporting Purposes” notation we so often hear when gun control advocates cluck about how they really aren’t trying to violate the Second Amendment.

There is no argument that foreign laws sometimes are the impetus for some US laws. Given the interlocking interests of our own government and other governments across the globe, some interaction is expected and can be beneficial. There are limits and certainly the laws of an evil regime is not a proper source for any legislation.

Posted in Opinion | Leave a comment

Gov Perry’s Day of Prayer

Governor Perry of Texas is calling for a day of prayer for our country on August 6. The atheists are suing to block his holding a rally at Reliant Stadium.

I would suggest that those people who do not support a day of prayer get over it and, if they don’t want to participate, don’t go. Unless someone is trying to make it mandatory, consider it an opportunity to exercise your free will and allow those of us who differ from your beliefs to exercise ours.

This nation has, in some ways, an almost schizophrenic relationship with religion. The first amendment was crafted to respect certain rights, one of which was the freedom to practice religious beliefs without governmental interference and to prevent the establishment of a government religion.

Governor Perry is asking us to join him in prayer for our nation. He is asking us to join in an expression of faith. If he were not the governor, it would not be an issue. Perhaps the issue is with an elected official admitting that there may be a higher power than government.

I think there is no problem with the prayer rally Governor Perry is holding. I would have some problem if the rally was funded with public money as that could be a conflict. Prohibiting a governmental official from making public his religious faith is, in my view, a violation of his first amendment rights.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged | Leave a comment

Bill Nye and Venus

Bill Nye the science guy said we should look to Venus as a model for global warming on Earth. I have a problem with the comparison.

Venus has often been referred to as our sister planet but there are two factors to take into consideration. One is that Venus is considerably closer to the Sun than we are and Venus does not have a magnetic field like Earth. It is the magnetosphere that protects our planet from cosmic rays and particles and moderates our climate. Without it, earth would be a very different place.

Bill often simplifies science for children but simplifying out the important factors is not making science easier to understand. It is making the science fit the conclusions you want the reader to accept.

Posted in Opinion | Leave a comment