WRAL tries, mostly succeeds (*Video*)

In a breath of fresh air, WRAL “Multimedia Reporter” Mark Binker tries to explain the complex web of laws that you and I deal with every day.

 

 (RSS Readers click HERE for video)

It’s a breath of fresh air because almost all gun discussion on the mass media avoids using facts. They media spends most of the time trying to ignore the fact that most of what they ask to be illegal is already illegal. There can be no other reason that gun grabbers spend so much time trying to tell us that machine guns should be illegal. Umm, guys… National Firearms Act? Ever heard of it?

Poor Mark ran into the wall of information and honestly did his best to explain the laws. Unfortunately, whenever an outsider tries to explain something, insiders quickly see all the flaws. I want to tease him about it, but then I try to imagine myself (not a car racing fan) trying to explain the rules of NASCAR to anyone and I realize what he’s up against. Luckily, I have Mark’s email address. You might remember Mark as the person primarily responsible for posting the (mostly) redacted NC Concealed Handgun Permit database online.

If you read the WRAL piece before, read it again. You’ll see that many of the errors are corrected. Originally he fell afoul of the whole “clip” vs. “magazine” issue. He was also under the misapprehension that you couldn’t carry a gun where alcohol is sold. It’s actually where it is sold AND consumed. As I told him, it’s perfectly legal to carry a gun to the convenience store to buy the beer you’re going to take home to drink. He was also told by the Attorney General’s office that short barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns are against the law in North Carolina.

I used the email address I had and to my surprise I got a fairly quick response. He changed out the “clip” for “magazine,” corrected the sold and consumed, and after some back and forth added a bit that explained that federally registered SBRs, SBSs, and silencers were legal in NC.

There’s one part that I’m still not happy about.

Practically speaking, the federal government tried to outlaw “assault weapons,” those that serve no purpose other than killing people, in 1994.

Mark, are you kidding me? Are you really trying to tell me that

  1. My AR-15 serves no purpose other than killing someone, and
  2. That killing someone with my AR is not a valid purpose?

This kind of editorializing has no place in what should be a straight news story. First off, it’s just plain wrong. An AR is the single most popular rifle sold in America. It’s used in competitions of all sorts, from local “Zombie shoots” all the way up to the rarefied competitive level of the President’s Rifle Match. The AR is a perfectly acceptable hunting rifle, though why people think that only hunting rifles are acceptable escapes me.

But most of all, saying that a rifle is primarily a tool to kill someone doesn’t make it a bad thing. My rifle is set up so that I can use it for home and short range defense. My suspicion is that if I put two or three rounds from my AR in the high center chest area of a home invader, he is unlikely to survive. This does not impugn the rifle, or me, in any way.

Overall grade for Mark’s effort is B. Mark got a lot of information correct, and he was willing to correct his info when he was told it was wrong. That counts for a lot. Unfortunately, that piece of really egregious editorializing knocks him out of the A range.

Mark, when you’re ready to learn about gun owners, let me know. You have my email. We’ll take my AR to the range. Have you seen the fantastic range that Wake County built for us?

5 Responses to WRAL tries, mostly succeeds (*Video*)

  1. Not a bad start…

  2. Now when do you repeal most of that nonsense?

    Also is it really on the law books where you can’t own “Teflon coated bullets”?

    Is there a permit for owning a Unicorn?

  3. We’re working on it. Remind me to tell you about the difficulties of getting anything even slightly controversial out of a Republican General Assembly with a Democrat Governor in a swing state right before Obama’s election.

    We don’t have these problems any more.

  4. I checked out a copy of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban:

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf

    and a federally financed study following up on it’s effectiveness:

    http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

    and I can’t find a word stating that the law was passed because “Assault Weapons” only purpose is for killing people. Unless Mark can prove his point, he needs to back off…

    Besides, the federal study indicated that the ban didn’t do a thing to help stop killing people anyway. If that really was the purpose, it was totally ineffective.

    What the ban did was effectively raise the price of large capacity magazines (over 10 rounds).

    As if criminals actually bought their tools instead of stealing them…

    Marc