The Wandering Minstrel

Once in a while, I see some of the nicest old car restorations when I’m out and about. Trouble is, sometimes I can’t get the camera out in time to catch the classic as it passes by.

Clickable image.

This classic drove within 20 feet of where the Better Half and I were getting out of the truck, but was 100 feet down the drive before I got the camera on it. And it was a beauty - polished chrome, tan leather top and spare tire cover, shiny two-tone black and olive drab paint and an engine that purred like only the early Fords can. If the driver had sounded the horn, I would like to think that it would sound like the sweet ‘beep’ I remember.

In these troubling times, there are yet a few things that make us smile.

Yesterday, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety considered two bills of great concern to California’s law-abiding gun owners. As I predicted, the Democrat majority committee went the polar opposite to the constitution:

Assembly Bill 357, sponsored by Assembly Member Steve Knight (R-36), was defeated. This bill would have created a “shall issue” concealed handgun permit system in California. Under current law, an applicant must show cause as to why they should be issued a permit to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. AB357 would have removed that stipulation and required sheriffs to issue the license if all other mandated criteria were satisfied.

AB357 would have made no impact to California’s fiscal condition, would not have imposed additional risk to the public and might have protected some of us from harm while we waited for a 911 response.

Yet, under the guise of “keeping ammunition out of the hands of criminals,” the committee passed this sham on to the next Democrat infested appropriations committee:

Assembly Bill 962 was passed and now heads to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations where it awaits a hearing. Sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a “handgun ammunition vendor” in the Department of Justice’s database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

If you live in the bluest state or have an interest in speaking out on this you can contact the committee weasels (and conservatives) here.

If you’re disheartened by 21st century politics, like me, you might enjoy this common-sense quotation from the “Gipper:”

“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.”

   — Ronald Reagan

And don’t forget what President Reagan said about the Great Equalizer.

Welcome 2A Roundup readers!

Oh Canada, Glorious and Free? Not so much, it turns out when it comes to invading your personal affairs before issuing gun permits:

From Mark Steyn on National Review’s The Corner

Regulatory Despotism [Mark Steyn]

Pierre Lemieux is a libertarian Quebecer, which makes him a member of what may be North America’s least electorally significant minority. He’s a gun owner, and a couple of years back he was obliged to fill in the relevant government paperwork:

Before renewing his gun permit in 2007, the authorities decided to inquire into Lemieux’s bedroom history. Did he divorce anyone in the last two years? Did he break up with a girlfriend? If yes, use a separate sheet to explain.

Pardon me? Explain?

Well, it was nothing personal. Apparently, Canada’s government feels it ought to know the romantic status of all firearm owners.

The Government of Canada has modified the old Mae West line: If you want a pistol in your pocket, you’d better be pleased to see her.

Read the rest of Mark’s piece here.

With the Obination’s steady stream of lies regarding firearms in America, how long will it be before we begin to see this bureaucratic crap here? Not long, is my guess.

Regardless of the bureaucracies, there are gun rights advocates in Canada: Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada

At the range today, I put up a standard pistol target at seven yards and took my first ten shots with “Little Boy” my Glock 26. I managed to get four rounds in the inner circle and the other six in the shaded zone. The hole above the ‘7′ on the left is a tight pair as is the hole below the ‘10′.

My accuracy deteriorated progressively thereafter from the overconfidence disease.

Sort of watching the NASCAR race over in Phoenix this evening. We visited with family today, then came home and fixed dinner and ate. Now it’s time to relax, play with the computer and watch the tube.

Ahhhh, the big screen HD experience and an adult beverage - life is good tonight.

I spotted this nicely-kept 1964 Chevelle Malibu Convertible on the way home today. Clickable image.

I found a blurb on “How Stuff Works” about the ‘64 Chevelles:

The 1964 Chevrolet Chevelle, boasted clean lines and appetizing proportions. On a 115-inch wheelbase, it sat squarely between the compact Chevy II and the full-size line.

Upright in style and conventional in engineering, the A-bodied 1964 Chevrolet Chevelle was closer in size and shape to the “classic” 1955-1957 Chevys — and a response to Ford’s recently introduced Fairlane. Curved side glass was one of its few special features, but a Chevelle was nearly as roomy as an Impala.

Chevelles came in two series: 300 and fancier Malibu. Sales started off strong, suggesting that Americans might be developing a taste for compromise in car size. Chevelles were billed as “a good foot shorter and a few inches narrower than the big cars.”

Via Jim Geraghty writing in NRO’s Campaign Spot

Preparing You for Today’s Inevitable Gun-Control Calls

Today is the two-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting; you’re likely to hear more focus on gun control than usual.

Because of the high number of pro-gun Democrats in the House of Representatives, you don’t hear much clamor for the resinstatement of the assault-weapons ban from high-ranking congressional Democrats. (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did say she wished it were still in effect while visiting Mexico recently.) However, you do hear various gun-control proposals touted as a necessary step to control Mexican drug-cartel violence on both sides of our southern border — often from the exact same folks who say that building a wall or fence and stepping up border security is xenophobic, hardline, paranoid, hateful, etc.

Perhaps inadvertently, the Washington Post did a nice job of illustrating some of the slippery numbers thrown around when the topic turns to guns used by Mexican drug cartels. In a front-page article today, Post reporter Spencer S. Hsu writes, “The financial sanctions provide an additional tool against the organizations, whose drug and gun trafficking has proved exceedingly difficult to curtail. Mexico, for example, has seized more than 35,000 firearms from narco-traffickers since December 2006, and both governments say 90 percent of the weapons originated in the United States.”

But a chart that illustrates the story notes that of the 35,000 weapons seized by the Mexican government in the past three years, only about 13,000 have been submitted to the U.S. for tracing. Of those, many are indeed made in the U.S., but only about 3,500 are imported through the U.S.; the others may have gone through other countries.

Furthermore, analysts looking at data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the past two years determined that only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced back to the United States.

Nonetheless, you’ll still hear people invoking the so-called “gun-show loophole,” in the context of discussing both the Virginia Tech massacre and Mexican cartel violence. Of course, the Virginia Tech shooter did not get his weapons from a gun show. A federal law on the books actually prohibited his purchase of a firearm because he had been legally declared a danger to himself two years earlier, but a problem in sharing data between state and federal governments meant no restrictions came in when he submitted his information for a background check.

Nor would the so-called “assault-weapons ban” have made any impact on the Virginia Tech shooter, according to the university’s review panel: “The panel also considered whether the previous federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned 15-round magazines would have made a difference in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders could have been about as deadly in this situation.”

You may also hear the “gun-show loophole” blamed for Mexican drug violence, an equally implausible claim, particularly if we use the gun-control advocates’ own numbers. The much-disputed number used by gun-control supporters is that 2,000 guns a day move from the United States to Mexico, which would come out to 730,000 guns per year. Yet in two years of investigating, the ATF seized a grand total of 5,345 weapons from 202 investigative operations at gun shows. In other words, these two arguments from the gun-control crowd are contradictory — if the number of guns being smuggled is as enormous as they claim, unlicensed dealers at gun shows could only provide a tiny fraction of that number.

This doesn’t even get into the issue of the cartels’ use of weapons that are completely illegal in the United States, including light anti-tank weapons, fragmentation grenades, etc. . . .

In review, this article examines the outcome of the VA Tech Massacre if perpetrator Cho not had access to guns: No guns for Cho - What Then?