No Powder In This Cannon

Truth be told, THAT gun has probably never been fired.

poachingMichigan is indeed a sportsman’s paradise.

Naturally, the coveted NRA scoring and endorsement will be flaunted by would-be Michigan politicos who want an edge up on their opponents.  In the strange circumstance however, the NRA has been rewarding legislative support for ammo registration in Michigan yet is fighting it in California.

Go figure.

Yes, in Michigan, several legislators are being punished by the NRA scoring process for voting against a package of bills designed to ‘Keep ammo out of the hands of felons.’ Certainly the NRA is acting responsibly, right? Until you carefully think through what it takes to enforce such an act.

Lets consider what the NRA uses as legislative candidate scoring criteria first.

A+: A legislator with not only an excellent voting record on all critical NRA issues, but who has also made a vigorous effort to promote and defend the Second Amendment.

A: Solidly pro-gun candidate. A candidate who has supported NRA positions on key votes in elective office or a candidate with a demonstrated record of support on Second Amendment issues.

AQ: A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the candidate’s responses to the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record on Second Amendment issues.

B: A generally pro-gun candidate. However, a “B” candidate may have opposed some pro-gun reform or supported some restrictive legislation in the past.

D: An anti-gun candidate who usually supports restrictive gun control legislation and opposes pro-gun reforms. Regardless of public statements, can usually be counted on to vote wrong on key issues.

Emphasis in bold.

Certainly, by using Greg MacMaster and Wayne Schmidt’s records on firearms legislation as a comparison, the voting record of MacMaster, earning an NRA “B+” rating would indicate he was for some restrictive gun legislation, and Schmidt with an “A” rating as a shoot-em-if-ya-got-em rock solid gun rights advocate, right?

Well ..

Strangely, the ONLY difference in their voting records on firearms issues is a particular package of bills designed to “keep that ammo out of felons’ hands.” The following are areas of difference to be noted.

  • HB 4715 of 2013 (PA 04 of 2014)
    Weapons; ammunition; possession of ammunition by certain individuals; prohibit. Amends sec. 224f of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224f).
    Last Action: 2/12/2014 assigned PA 04’14 with immediate effect
  • HB 4716 of 2013 (PA 05 of 2014)
    Weapons; ammunition; reference in sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 16m, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.16m). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4715’13
    Last Action: 2/12/2014 assigned PA 05’14 with immediate effect
  • HB 4717 of 2013 (PA 06 of 2014)
    Weapons; ammunition; reference in 1927 PA 372; update. Amends sec. 4 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.424). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4715’13
    Last Action: 2/12/2014 assigned PA 06’14 with immediate effect

These bills the only place where these legislators are opposites in firearms related legislative activity.

The restrictions on felons obtaining ammo comes at a cost to 2A supporters however. And as explained above the fold, the NRA is fighting in California what the ultimate cost is. 248 shooter gave a GREAT explanation of what the problem is. Using an appropriate ‘slippery slope’ breakdown, they explain:

“Good I Don’t Want Felons to Have Bullets.

Woah not so fast there spanky. I am with you as are many others. We carry in many cases to protect ourselves from criminals who would do us or our family harm. As such I would like it if violent felons didn’t have access to weapons or bullets. However if there is anything we have learned in life it is criminals don’t follow laws. Hell if they did they wouldn’t be criminals right.

So what we have here is really feel good legislation that does nothing for the people of Michigan.

  1. It does not stop criminals from buying ammunition as we have no background checks on ammunition.
  2. It wasted tax $ and tied up political time that could have been used to pass real and useful legislation
  3. It opens the door to much more dangerous legislation that will be required to support this bill
  4. It didn’t do anything to make anyone safer

indeed. (please read the rest)

Ammo registration.  Huh.  Good for Michigan, yet NOT for California.  At least according to an organization which pretends a knowledge of who might better represent the firearms owner.

And some folks might wonder how Barack Obama won a Nobel prize.

Enjoy the photo. (note the green tall grass, and time of year taken – click on it to enlargen the big fella)

You Betcha! (19)Nuh Uh.(0)

  1 comment for “No Powder In This Cannon

  1. Diana
    July 10, 2014 at 5:51 pm

    The only people who vote for W Schmidt are either 1) uninformed; or 2) are part of the good-old-boys GOP club.

    You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(1)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *