Category: Uncategorized

Now I Have TWO Shotguns

KevinLeave a comment

Got my taxes done over the weekend.  No repeat of last year’s bloodbath, this year the non-interestbearing payroll savings plan paid off, so I dropped a little of it on a new gun – a Mossberg 930 JM Pro Series.  Looks a lot like this:

The specs are:

Gauge 12
Chamber Size 3″
Capacity 10
Barrel 24″ Vent Rib
Sights Fiber Optic Front
Chokes Accu-Set
Overall Length 44.5″
Length Of Pull 14″
Barrel Finish Matte Blue

So what accessories should I get for it?

EDITED TO ADD:

Comments have been left noting the rather long 14″ length of pull.  In looking at pistol-grip stocks, I see that Choate notes: “The 930/935 shotguns can not be shortened shorter than 13 3/4 inches because of the recoil spring tube that protrudes form the back of the receiver.”

I don’t think I’d use this as a home-defense shotgun.  The barrel is too long.  For that, I’d stick with my 590.  Its barrel is 4″ shorter.  Doesn’t sound like much, but it is.

In Praise of Prejudice

KevinLeave a comment

The Arizona legislature has passed a bill and put it on Gov. Brewer’s desk that protects persons, businesses or legal entities from prosecution for exercise of their conscientious objection to government mandates due to sincerely held religious belief.  To wit:  Christians can, without legal threat, deny services to openly gay people.

Hell, I think it’s a terrific idea!  And it shouldn’t be limited to just religious beliefs!


I think persons,  businesses and legal entities should be able to deny services to anyone for any reason without fear of legal entanglement.  The less .gov butts into people’s business, the better, as far as I’m concerned.  Want to deny services to people because they’re black?  Fine!  Jewish?  Go right ahead!  Physically disabled?  Knock yourself out. Cismale gendernormatives?  If you can spell it, sure!

The function of government should not be to punish people for acting on their fervently held beliefs.  It’s function should be to ensure that potential customers are made aware up front who a person, business or legal entity will refuse service to.

They already do that in a tiny way under Arizona Revised Statute §4-229, which states:

A. A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 may carry a concealed handgun on the premises of a licensee who is an on-sale retailer unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession of weapons on the licensed premises. The sign shall conform to the following requirements:

1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public and immediately adjacent to the liquor license posted on the licensed premises.

2. Contain a pictogram that shows a firearm within a red circle and a diagonal red line across the firearm.

3. Contain the words, “no firearms allowed pursuant to A.R.S. section 4-229”.

A sign like this:

So, the legislature should simply extend this logic to whatever other prejudices there are out there and require signage to advise potential customers where they’re not wanted.  Something like this, for instance:

Or this:


That way everyone will know right up front what kind of bigots they will be dealing with, and can decide for themselves whether or not they want to spend their money there. No hurt feelings, no lawsuits.

Just Like a Skipping Record

KevinLeave a comment

(For those who remember records.)

Ten years ago I wrote The ACLU Hasn’t Changed Its Tune, quoting then-President Nadine Strossen from a Reason interview:

Reason: So why doesn’t the ACLU challenge gun-control laws on Second Amendment grounds?

Strossen: We reexamine our positions when people come forward with new arguments. On the gun issue, I instituted a reexamination a few years ago in response to a number of things, but the most important one was an article by Sanford Levinson at University of Texas Law School that summarized a wave of new historical scholarship. Levinson’s argument was that in the 18th century context, a well-regulated militia meant nothing other than people in the privacy of their homes.

So we looked into the historical scholarship there and ended up not being persuaded. The plain language of the Second Amendment in no way, shape, or form, can be construed, I think, as giving an absolute right to unregulated gun ownership. It says, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Certainly, when you have the notion of “well-regulated” right in the constitutional language itself, it seems to defy any argument that regulation is inconsistent with the amendment.

Putting all that aside, I don’t want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.

Mentioned. MENTIONED in, not just the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights.

Nah. Doesn’t mean anything.

Then we had D.C. v Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. And the ACLU?

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

So much for “reexamin(ing) our positions when people come forward with new arguments.”

My original piece still stands. And the ACLU is cordially invited to kiss my ass.