NYT and Polar Bears

When I started this post it was going to be about Moms Demand Action and their continuing nonsensical haranguing about the SHARE Act and silencers*.

*I don’t want to hear how there is “no such thing as a silencer.”  When Hiram Percy Maxim invented the “firearm muffler” he trademarked it as the Maxim Silencer.  The term silencer has become a genericized trademark, like saying Band-Aid for adhesive bandage.

MDA has been making the claim the the SHARE Act would allow suppressors to fall into the wrong hands.

The SHARE Act effectively removes suppressors from the NFA, making them transferable on a 4473.  That’s fine by me.  What MDA seems to be saying in the above post is that the 4473 NICS system doesn’t work.  That is a bold claim and undermines pretty much every argument they’ve ever mad.

MDA: “We need more background checks.”

Also MDA: “Background checks for silencers won’t work.”

They are so reactionary they can’t keep their line of thought strait.

In going through the MDA posts on this issue, I came across one that linked to a New York Times OpEd Congress Goes for Its Guns.

It was filled with the same pointless crap as all the other anti suppressor articles and OpEds.

It then went on to attack other provisions of the SHARE Act.

We’re talking about the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, adorably nicknamed Share. It has a bunch of hair-raising provisions, one of which would make it easier to buy armor-piercing bullets. (We will stop for a moment to contemplate the fact that it is not currently impossible to buy armor-piercing bullets.)

No.  It doesn’t do that.  What it does do is prevent the goverment from declaring some ammo as armor piercing.  Really, it is supposed to prevent the government from banning the sale of surplus M855 ammo, which was part of an executive order kerfuffle under Obama.  (Also surplus Soviet 7.62×25 and 7.62x55R steel core.)  But why be honest?

The part that really stuck out at me what this:

And a section that would allow for the importation of 41 frozen polar bears. The bears — well the bear carcasses — belong to American hunters who killed them legally in Canada but failed to bring them home before an importation ban went into effect. This part of the bill hasn’t gotten much publicity. However, I think we can all agree it’s time the government did something on behalf of rich guys yearning to have the head of an endangered species over the fireplace.

Really.  The New York Times had the fucking temerity to go all anti-rich guy populist.

“Screw those rich guys who spent money on a legal hunt to get fucked over by bureaucrats.  They are hunters, and we don’t like them so who cares about their rights.”

The Government had Polar Bears declared a threatened species which made the importation of trophies impossible.

The Atlantic makes this provision seem reasonable.

The law left a group of 41 hunters, who had killed polar bears in Canada earlier in 2008 but were unable to import their game into the U.S. by the May deadline, stuck in a maze of red tape.

At the time of their hunts, both the kills and the importation of their trophies were legal. But because they didn’t get the bears (or their parts) transported in time, these hunters who paid as much as $50,000 to hunt the animals in the first place are now paying hundreds more per year to keep their prizes in cold storage while they wait for Congress to act.

Young and others have been working to do just that since 2009. His legislation, which would allow just those 41 U.S. hunters to retrieve their carcasses from Canada, is included in the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013, which is slated to pass the House this week.

Especially since Canada doesn’t consider Polar Bears to be endangered, and actually says they are becoming a danger to people.

But, again, why let facts get in the way of your argument.

The SHARE Act seems to tackle at least two arbitrary acts by bureaucracies,  changing the status of widely available ammo from legal to illegal and changing the status of legally hunted game to threatened.

Setting rules that prevents the goverment from imposing arbitrary regulations that affect hunters and shooters seems like a good idea to me.

If you are a person, however, who cheered on Obama and his pen and phone.  Taking away the goverment’s ability to interrupt people’s lives capriciously is bad.

Now I want Trump to just end DACA tomorrow for no other reason than to remind these people why allowing the goverment to make arbitrary changes to the law is a horrible way to govern.

Those who live by bureaucratic fiat die by bureaucratic fiat.  They seem to forget that.

One Reply to “NYT and Polar Bears”

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.