“The cartels hire people without criminal records to buy a handful of weapons at a time, from licensed dealers – there are 6,600 along the border alone – or private individuals at gun shows, and then drive them across the border. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives estimates that 90 percent of the traced firearmss [sic] recovered in Mexico originated in the US.”

First, what exactly is meant by along the border? It isn’t as if there are gun shops with signs that say, “last gun shop before you leave the U.S.A.” No, these just happen to be privately owned shops located in towns 100 or so miles within the border. When you factor in that there many reasonably sized cities near the border with Mexico, it is easy to understand that there are going to be gun shops. Should these businesses close because they happen to be too close to Mexico?

But worse, how can the CSM cite a number that even BATFE doesn’t support anymore. There has never been proof of this number, and on the contrary it has been essentially disproved, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping the mainstream media from quoting this figure.

As much of the mainstream media has gone out of its way to note that President Obama hasn’t instituted new anti-gun legislation, it is nice to see someone report that the administration is no friend of the gun lobby. In fact, this is the latest proof that the Obama administration is actually hostile to gun owners.

In her piece Ms. Bargeman offers:

“M-1 Garands and M-1 Carbine rifles are more than fifty years old, and considered to be antiquated military firearms. History buffs, and those who want the rifles for target practice and for safety training are now denied owning not just working, safe, American rifles, but important pieces of history.”

This is a fact that is clearly missed on Obama, but we’ve noted previously – and will likely do so again – that he has quite a revisionist take on history already, so it is doubtful that he’d see the importance of these weapons. But it isn’t like his father, or his father’s father ever carried a gun in defense of the United States.

And could it go back to what  Bargeman noted, that the Brady Campaign, among others, are in fact quite pleased by this move by President Obama. This makes for an interesting turn of events, as only a month ago the Brady Campaign expressed utter disappointment in Obama’s policy on gun control.

By banning these guns he wins points with the anti-gun crowd, and yet the liberal media can claim he really isn’t all that anti-gun. Thus this can be seen as the “best of both worlds” for Obama, and the worst of all worlds for gun owners. Because with this move, the State Department could later block the importation of other semi-automatic weapons, noting that there is a clear precedence from the prior ban of American-made M1 guns.

This is an event we’ll continue to watch closely.

Darrell Dawsey, writing for Time, questions the efforts further, saying, “I still can’t shake the feeling that this program will end up as little more than a giant symbolic placebo. Feels good to note, sure. But will it do any real good in the city’s streets. I have my doubts.”

Dawsey sees the same problems we see. Criminals don’t hand in guns, and there should be better efforts by policing than just paying a pittance to get people to clean out their closets.

The political outlet got down right political in reporting on two key bills. First up AB 1934:

“It’s been awhile since the Capitol has seen a real knock-down, drag-out gun battle. But it got one this year in the form of AB 1934, a bill which would ban the open carrying of firearms. Open carry protestors have gotten folks in a tizzy some places recently by, for instance, walking into Starbucks and other retail establishments with guns in their holsters.  In the end, AB 1934 was a victim of GOP ‘run out the clock’ efforts. And Saldana is termed out. But, like anything to do with gun law, the story won’t end there. Beyond the usual lawsuits, this one is may result in law enforcement agencies being sued to provide more concealed weapons permits—on the grounds that urban sheriffs are notoriously (unconstitutionally?) stingy with these licenses. There also may be some sort of First Amendment challenge coming as well.”

Is it fair to note that the bill was a “victim?” That seems in poor taste as the issue was over gun rights. And are the editors being hopeful that there will be future challenges to the bill? We certainly read bias in this reporting.

Next up, the paper noted on AB 2062:

“Meanwhile, a bill by Assemblywoman Kathleen Galgiani, D-Tracy, to ‘micro-stamp’ ammunition went nowhere. AB 2062 would have required a registration and manufacturing system by which each gun stamped a tiny serial number into a shell casing each time a gun was fired. The idea was that a shooter would essentially leave a bunch of ID tags at any crime scene. The gun lobby has said the idea is onerous and flawed. Assemblyman Kevin De Leon, D-Los Angeles, carried a similar unsuccessful bill last session.”

Talk about a one-sided take on the story, and again where are the facts? This reporting is actually what went nowhere. The authors give all the reasons why micro-stamping is a good idea, but then simply say “the gun has said the idea is onerous and flawed.”

Instead of explaining those flaws, such as the fact that shell casings can be picked up, or that it doesn’t address what would happen to the millions of bullets currently in the market that aren’t micro-stamped, the authors make it sound like the argument from the gun lobby is just flawed. What is really flawed however, is this reporting.

KBZK TV quoted Helmke:

“The gun lobby’s so-called ‘Freedom Acts’ would threaten public safety by circumventing lifesaving federal laws.”

Clearly, this shows Helmke’s and his group’s true colors. These people don’t want “reasonable” gun laws, they want a total ban on all guns, and it is clear as they rejoice over this ruling, and the ban on the importation of M1 rifles from Korea.

As Mary Bargeman of World News Heard Now wrote: “The Brady Campaign is aglow with praise for the Obama Administration, because these people would love nothing more than to take away the one Constitutional right which guarantees all others- the right to keep and bear arms.”

During the election, Obama promised that he didn’t want to take away people’s hunting guns. Both the M1 Garand and M1 carbine are perfect for hunting. Neither is fully automatic and both are sturdy and easy to operate. So why ban an American ally from returning these firearms home?

The State Department has made at least three arguments against their import. It is claimed that they are old and dangerous to operate, that they might be used by criminals or terrorists and that they have a high capacity magazine. Earlier FirearmsTruth posts have addressed the first two illogical arguments made by the government, I’ll address the third.

The M1 Garand doesn’t have a magazine and I don’t think can be easily modified to have one. Up to eight rounds can be loaded into the breach from the top of the firearm. This allows the shooter to lay prone without worrying about a box-type magazine interfering with cover. If a state restricts the number of rounds that can be in a firearm while hunting, that number can be easily restricted. If anyone knows of an M1 Garand that has a top-loading clip that allows more than eight rounds, please contact FirearmsTruth. I’d like to see a picture of that.

The M1 carbine does have two types of box magazines. One holds fifteen rounds and the other variant thirty. These clips can be easily modified so as to meet any restrictions on the number of rounds allowed for hunting.

It seems strange that communist and former communist countries can import the SKS and AK-47, both of which have high capacity magazines, while banning good old American rifles from import. But it is President Obama. If you were to check his desk you would probably find framed pictures of Stalin and Mao.

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” Joseph Stalin

“War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” Mao Zedong

Election Day is just around the corner and we’ll be seeing all sorts of grass roots efforts that encourage to get people out to vote, and whilst many of these efforts have been from more left leaning groups, this year we’re seeing other efforts to get in on the political action.

Move over “Rock the Vote,” the National Rifle Association’s Freedom Action Foundation has launched this week the 2010 Trigger the Vote campaign. These efforts will feature Honorary Chairman Chuck Norris in a new series of advertisements.

“With each election, Americans go to the polls and make choices that affect – for better or worse – the future of our rights and freedoms at the state and national level,” said NRA-FAF Chairman Chris Cox. “We are honored to once again be working with our friend and stalwart Second Amendment supporter, Chuck Norris, to educate voters on the importance of registering to vote to protect our Second Amendment rights.”

“The only way to protect our rights is to vote for the candidates who support them, and we need every Second Amendment supporter to register to vote and cast an informed ballot,” said Honorary Trigger the Vote Chairman Chuck Norris. “That’s why I’m working with the NRA Freedom Action Foundation to make sure voters get ‘Tough Like Chuck’ — by registering to vote.”

Trigger the Vote

This week the grassroots Gun Owners of American endorsed State Rep. Nikki Haley as a Republican candidate for the governor’s seat in South Carolina. The group, which has more than 300,000 members, continues to support candidates in the upcoming election who are committed to protecting Second Amendment rights.

 “Gun Owners of America is proud to make this endorsement,: said GOA Vice-Chairman Tim Macy. “Nikki Haley stands 100 percent behind the rights of South Carolina’s gun owners and sportsmen. In particular, Rep. Haley strongly supports concealed carry of firearms by law-abiding citizens and will work to ease unreasonable restrictions on CWP holders.”

Rep. Haley responded by thanking the group for its endorsement. “Few things are as clearly defined as the right of individual Americans to own and use firearms,” said Rep. Haley. “The right to bear arms was deemed so critical by our Founders that they spelled it out in absolute terms, and it is my belief that any governmental action that undermines that right is in turn undermining the very freedoms that built our great nation. I hold a Concealed Weapons Permit myself, and as governor, I will continue to fight against any government infringement on the 2nd Amendment.”

Rep. Nikki Haley Official Website

Gun Owners of America

AP noted:

“The Senate narrowly approved the measure… but it failed in the Assembly.”

Additionally, AP noted that lawmakers did not act on a second bill that would have made it a law requiring all long guns, including rifles and shotguns to be registered. AP also stated, “the bill fell short during an initial vote Monday.”

Is this a case of sour grapes from the AP? If so, too bad.

But Gardner doesn’t stop with a biased headline; he offers this biased intro as well:

“Time ran out for legislation to ban the public display of unloaded handguns, a stunning development it he Assembly as the midnight deadline for passing most bills arrived before a vote could be taken Tuesday.”

That is wording we’d expect to read in an editorial, not a news feature.