Hi, Kids! Say hello to the Look-Alike Weapons Safety Act of 2013.

What does it do?

- Current commerce code says that imitation guns sold in the U.S. have to be either completely made of bright-colored material or have a bright orange plug in the muzzle. This Act changes the law to only allow imitation guns with their entire body brightly colored.

Um, Why?

Ostensibly the law is a reaction to the deaths of Tamir Rice and John Crawford. Both were holding realistic airsoft imitation guns when they were shot and killed by police in 2014. The idea being that easily removed or covered orange tips are no longer a viable safety measure in helping police identify a fake from a real gun.

Will it work?

Without getting into a pages-long lecture about the factors that play in a shoot/don't shoot scenario, the short answer is "pretty unlikely."

What are the side effects?

The airsoft sport will suffer, as realistic weapons are a big part of the sport's appeal. Certain reenactors (WWII in particular) will find their supply of weapons drying up overnight, as will the entertainment industry.

What if I just buy some of these bright orange ones and paint them black?

Depends on whose lawyar interperets the commerce code. On the one hand, if they're yours, then you're not buying, selling, or transporting over state lines, you might be good. On the other hand, they might be "entered into commerce." Nobody's so far been charged with the current law, so there's no real case studies to follow.

So, worst case scenario, it's a Federal Offense with no precedent. If you want to risk some prosecutor wanting to make an example of someone...

Wait, isn't there a waiver or something for the entertainment industry?

Technically, yes, but it's a one-at-a-time waiver from the Secretary of Commerce. From what I hear, similar waivers are available today for doing without the orange tips. I'm told the office processes only a handful of waivers a year.

So, get a waiver and make my John Woo tribute series! Let the Hollow-eyed hippies have their bullshit!

Not so fast, cupcake. YOU might be willing to do the paperwork for however many fake guns you want to own. How many manufacturers do you think are willing to? How many wholesalers? How many retailers? This law intentionally shrinks that market to custom fabricators willing to do the paperwork (and cheerfully pass the expense, time and effort on to you).

That Sucks! Who's responsible for this bullshit?

That would be Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Yes, I know we're all shocked that this comes from a California Democrat.

Fuck That! I'm moving to her district and voting her out!

Good initiative, but a little extreme. Besides, she's already retiring. And then you're stuck in California, which has an identical state law that went into effect in January.

Wait, you mean this bullshit can become law?

Maybe. California's law was signed by Gov. Brown back in September, and Ohio (where both Rice and Crawdord lived and died) has a similar bill going around at the state level.

Federally? Unlikely with the Republicans controlling both chambers, but unlikely doesn't mean impossible. I give it one chance in five, and that's being generous.

That's all for today, folks.

~J

So, what popped up on my feed today was this: The 5 most dangerous guns in America.

One only has to take a glance at the comments to see that the author of the piece is taking quite a pasting.

I'm neither apologizing for this article's existence nor the more tasteless comments it's spawning.
(Fwiw, I've only seen a few dozen comments, and have yet to see threats or things of that nature. If such happen, I hope to see investigation and, if warranted, prosecution.)

That said, I do want to see the record set straight.

So I'm going to grade it. Out of 100 points.   

Bear in mind: this is Rolling Stone. It published Generation Kill, for fuck's sake. I am holding it accountable as far as accuracy, grammar, structure, flow, and pacing go.

Slide 1 - Deadly weapons

(Availability, portability and criminal usage are your markers? These are never used or mentioned again in the piece)

- Accurate percentages per 2012 UCR, tables 8 and 20. Good job.

Full credit.

Slide 2 - Pistols

-1 grammar: Unnecessarily hyphenated "handgun-owners."

-5 Factual error: Neither a built-in barrel (whatever that means) nor a short stock define a pistol.

-5 Factual error: a stock is not organic to the pistol, regardless of length. That said, a rare one (the Hk VP-70, the Broomhandled Mauser) have one as an attachable accessory.

-5 Factual error: Glock is a manufacturer. "Glocks" are a model line and not an individual pistol in and of itself.

-1 Incongruity: Your source for police market share (which I'm assuming is Wikipedia, as you damn near quoted it word for word) dated to 2008. Springfield XD is growing rapidly, though not at a level to replace Glocks as yet. Only taking a point for this one.

Slide 3 - revolvers

-5 Poor sentence structure:  A revolver has multiple chambers contained within a cylinder that rotates.
(What the fuck is a "rotating chambered cylinder?")

- 5 Factual error: the cylinder rotates, not the barrels, with the exception of multibarreled machine guns such as the M134 Minigun.

- 5 Glaring omission: You're using action as a way to delineate firearm types? Insufficient explanation of the difference.

Slide 4 - rifles

- 5 Factual error: How many projectiles a rifle fires per trigger pull is determined by the action (automatic as opposed to semi-auto, bolt, lever, ect.), not by the fact that it's a rifle.

- 5 Historical error: Musket balls were most often loosely fit for ease of loading. Manufacturing difficulty had nothing to do with it. Muskets and rifles were used side-by-side for well over a century before the Minie ball's invention in the 1840's.

Slide 5 - Shotguns

- 1 Clarity: What is a "fixed shell?" What significant difference does it have from a rifle cartridge?

Slide 6 - Derringers

- 2.5 factual error: Jurisdictions make legal definitions. Some define a derringer, some do not.

- 5 Spelling error: "assault weapons have bee linked to..." You mean "have been?"
(You're Rolling Stone, for Fuck's sake! Proofread, dammit! )

- 5 Factual error, poor word choice: "High-capacity-magazine-assault weapons?" If you mean assault weapons that use high capacity magazines (I've given up hoping that you know what high capacity actually means in this case), then say so.

- 5 Factual error, off topic: Who links Assault weapons to mass shootings? I don't care if information is difficult to access. If you don't have it, don't claim it. If it's conjecture or speculation, say so.

- 5 Poor structure: If you're going to go and make your own definition, then say so. Also, shoehorning in an assault rifle paragraph in a slide on derringers is lazy. 


-65.5

Grade: 34.5/100

- Appalling lack of research, poorly structured, and heavily damages the credibility of the stated position. The Introduction set up three statistical variables as what would determine "most dangerous," and followed only one of them. Absolutely no effort was made at determining the various capabilities of these weapons, only in forming a weak narrative that supported a weaker premise.

I expect better from Rolling Stone.

~J.

Today in my home state of GA, Gov. Deal signed into law what's officially known as HB 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act, and what the Brady crew have been referring to as the "Guns Everywhere Act."

Since no news outlet I've seen has actually detailed what the provisions are, I just went through the entire bill, translated the changes into simpler language, and added my own commentary.

If you'd like to check my work, here's the Bill Itself.

And for cross-referencing, you'll find the GA title code here and here.

My comments will be in Italics.


Section 1-2
- An exception in housing law. It prohibits landlords from banning or restricting lawful gun ownership from their tenants, unless federal law says otherwise.

No, you don't get to discriminate against the law-abiding because you don't like guns.


Section 1-2A
- Makes using suppressors while hunting illegal, unless on private property with the owner's permission.

I'm not a hunter, but at first glance, this looks like an enforcement on hunting season restrictions (by keeping people from hunting out of season in a way that won't be easily noticed).


Section 1-3
- revises a code on justified use of force.

More or less just clarifies which article of GA code to get your definitions from.


Section 1-4

- Private property owners can decree who carries and who can't. If they don't want you to do so, they're within their rights to not let you enter or kick you out.

Essentially, this clarifies that being armed on private property where the owner doesn't want you armed is trespassing, and treated as such.


Section 1-5

- Allows carrying in Bars, unless the owner specifically prohibits doing so.
- Allows carrying in churches if the church authorities allow it.

Bars=can opt out. Churches=have to opt in.

Carrying is still prohibited in jails, courthouses, mental health facilities, and nuclear power facilities.

Carry is allowed in government buildings that are open for business and do not have security screening. Although if there is screening, a CCW holder just has to leave the area upon being discovered to be armed. (for non-CCW holders, it's a misdemeanor)

Yes, kids, drinking and carrying is still illegal. That said, why disarm your Designated Driver?

Section 1-6 (Guns on campus section)

- Allows "A duly authorized official of a school... local boards of education" to allow someone to possess a weapon on school property they would otherwise not be permitted to. "Such authorization shall specify the weapon or weapons which have been authorized and the time period during which the authorization is valid."

I'm not sure what exactly was the impetus behind this one, but as a fight choreographer who occasionally works on campus, having a framework in state law to provision the need for me to legally have weapons  and weapon-style props on campus will make my job a lot easier in the future. 

- Allows a CCW holder to have a weapon in their vehicle parked on campus.
(Elementary, middle, and High school students with hunting liscences are specifically an exception. No going straight from class to hunting)

I hated having to park off-campus when I carried as a college student and left my pistol locked in the glovebox. Picking up a kid from school shouldn't mean that you have to be disarmed the entire day when you're out of the house.

I think this was the section that was watered down the most from the original proposal. Senator Carter (Jimmy's grandson) was bragging in one article that he'd kept it from being "worse," by which I assume he meant that he got campus carry out of it. Ass.

Section 1-7

- Focuses on eligibility requirements for CCW
- requires a guilty verdict for conviction (previous version included nolo contendere and such)
- Allows an 18 y/o servicemember who has finished basic to apply for a CCW (for all others, the age is 21)
- Institutes a time limit on applying after a license has been revoked (3 years, in this case)
- Prohibits applications by those found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Allows petitions of relief of various prohibitions. (looks like a "jump through enough hoops to damn well prove you've paid your debt to society" kind of thing)
- Allows private GBI approved fingerprinters to fingerprint applicants for the background check. Does not require fingerprinting for renewals.
- No multijurisdictional database of CCW holders may be created or maintained.
- A judge has to confirm whether or not a CCW was issued, but cannot give out further information on the license holders.

A lot of this is administrative cleanup, but allowing for 18 y/o servicemembers to carry is a very positive step in my eyes. If they can carry to defend us, they can carry amongst us.

Section 1-8

- Expands eligibility of CCW for various types of judges and retired judges.

Section 1-9 (The "arming teachers" section and the airport part)

- Gives local school boards and administrators the option to form a policy that allows certain school employees to possess and/or carry weapons.
The policy must include:
- mandated training (which can include prior military or LE service training)
- lists of Approved weapon types, ammunition types, and authorized quantities
- exclusion of personnel with a history of mental or emotional instability.
- mandated method of securing the weapons used.
- such personnel are required to be licensed, and the local board of education is responsible for background checking them
- Being an armed school employee is strictly voluntary.
- The local board of education is responsible for the costs. That said, the approved-to-be-armed school employees can pay themselves if they so choose, or apply for sponsorships, grants and suchlike to do so instead.
- Records of which school employees are armed are considered exempt-from-disclosure.

Another part that caused a flood of bitching from the left. Oh me, oh my, without the blue island of Atlanta in the midst of this backwater red state, who knows what these crazy local school boards will do with such terrible POWER?

I dunno, maybe be the adults entrusted with our children that we've empowered them to be?


Airports
- Can carry outside restricted areas.
- If they do carry inside a restricted area and are discovered, they have to leave immediately, otherwise it's a misdemeanor charge.
- Doing this sort of thing while intending to commit another felony, makes it a felony in and of itself.
- renders null and void any county, city, or local law that contradicts this one.

I don't think this is an expansion of weapons carry more than a way to get Hartsfield running smoother. As it stood before this law, if Jimbo from the gun show packed the wrong carry-on that still had a pistol inside from a range trip, there was a hue and cry, fines, jail time, TSA applauding themselves on actually finding something, DHS filling out forms,  and more important: delays out the ass.
With this law, he just has to grab his stuff and walk away. Yeah, he'll lose his flight for his lapse in judgement, but everyone else will get to go about their business as usual. I don't see much to not like here.


Section 1-10
- If you're a CCW holder, have it on you at all times when carrying a weapon.
- A weapon carrier will not be detained for the sole purpose of finding out whether or not they're licensed.
- Not having your license on your is a $10 fine.

Some police officials have spoken out against this one. I can see their point, but at the same time, I'm all for seeing weapons carry not being a crime, while misuse of weapons still being crimes. And if it's denial of a profile tool, so much the better. I have no idea if something along the lines of "Carrying while Black," is a thing, but if it is, good on this provision for acting against it.

- Self defense is an absolute defense to any Chapter 11 offense.

Self defense even with a weapon you're not supposed to have is still self defense.
Even felons have the right to defend themselves.


Section 1-11

- The GA General assembly is the only one who regulates firearm commerce in GA.
- Allows Sheriffs and D.A.'s to regulate issue firearms to deputies in their jurisdictions.

Not sure about this one. Eliminating the firearms equivalent of "dry counties," maybe?


Section 1-12

- Self defense is an absolute defense to a violation of a public transport safety law.

This one, like section 1-10 above, has been lambasted as an extension of GA's Stand Your Ground laws. Without going into a whole 'nother post about how SYG is mislabeled, I will say that these provisions look more like a prevention on selective sentencing.

No, a felon isn't legally supposed to possess a handgun. But if one is attacked and defends themselves with one, there's something a tad fucked up about dropping charges of murder/manslaughter on self-defense grounds, then turning around and charging the same person with possession of the weapon that saved their lives.

I can also see this provision aiding in some of our lousier sentencing habits (AKA putting women who kill their abusive S.O.'s in self-defense behind bars, which happens way too damn often).


Section 1-13

- Amending and adding what mental health records will be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background check system.

Admin cleanup. Moving on.


Section 1-14

Repeals chapter 16 of title 43 of the Georgia code, relating to firearm dealers.

Wait, what?

If I'm reading this right, and I think I am, GA's book of law on firearms dealers has been struck down in its entirety. Either that Chapter is being rewritten for whole cloth, or ordinary GA business and Federal Firearms Dealer laws are currently what regulate GA dealers.

I THINK it's the former, but I can't find evidence of that.


Section 2-2

- Prohibits confiscation, registration, or prohibition of possession or carry of privately owned weapons during a state of emergency.

Apparently this sort of confiscation happened all over the place during Hurricane Katrina. Don't see a downside to this one being in place.


Section 2-3

- Denies the Governor the emergency power to prohibit firearm or ammunition sales.

See my commentary on section 2-2

The rest of the sections are just minor corrections, updating where reference points are now in the current edition versus where they are now.


*********************************

So, Guns Everywhere?

Not really.

Yeah, it's opened up somewhat. For the most part, it's still respecting private property owners while loosening some of the dumber location-based carry restrictions. The biggest potential change is the wiping the slate clean of dealer laws, which was pretty much ignored by the press.

As for the school parts, it offers reasonable guidelines for a local school board to decide on their own if they want to take those steps. It's not a mandate by any means, but it keeps the option on the table, which beats the no-way-no-how alternative that hasn't worked.

The self-defense expansions may seem wide-reaching, but they highlight something that has plagued self-defense for generations: costly and often vicious court battles that often do more damage than the initial conflict the defender survived in the first place. They honestly look like perhaps overly broad but honest attempts to alleviate some of that.

So, what do you think?

~J.

So, last Thursday, Madonna performed a concert at Denver’s Pepsi center. What makes it newsworthy in this instance was performing her song “Gang Bang.” The performance involved blood-splatter effects on the screen and much use of prop guns, at which point she chose to MUZZLE-FUCK THE AUDIENCE ON NO LESS THAN 3 OCCASIONS!

Definition time.

Muzzle-fuck, n. 1). To aim a weapon in the direction of another person the gun wielder (presumably) does not intend to shoot, violating the first law of handgun safety.
see also: “flagging”

The few bloggers who have picked this up are going more towards the possible insensitivity of performing this particular work in Denver, which is a stone’s throw from aurora, where a nutcase who I will not dignify by naming shot indiscriminately into a room full of theatergoers at a midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises this past summer.

What disturbs me more is the incoherent babble of a statement she released once news started hitting over how many locals she pissed off with her antics. I literally can’t make heads or tails of it one way or another. What strikes me is this:

“It’s true there is a lot of violence in the beginning of the show and sometimes the use of fake guns – but they are used as metaphors.

I do not condone violence or the use of guns.

Rather they are symbols of wanting to appear strong and wanting to find

a way to stop feelings that I find hurtful or damaging.”

A metaphor can’t kill from a distance, ma’am. Neither do symbols. And it’s a damn shame you don’t condone the use of guns, because then you might have associated with someone who would have filled you in on the fact that you DON’T AIM A GUN OR ANYTHING THAT LOOKS LIKE ONE INTO THE AUDIENCE!

It honestly wouldn’t have changed the number all that much. 3 tweaks to the choreography, only pointing the muzzle at other performers, I would’ve been cool with that. That’s all it would’ve needed. But either nobody on team Madonna brought it up, or (more likely) nobody wanted to press the point with her and risk their job.

Which leads me to the other thing that chaps me about this: the casual use of firearms as art pieces while having no respect for them as tools.

A lot of Americans who don’t interact with firearms regularly have what I call a Lust-Fear relationship with them. The idea (or the symbol or the metaphor, to quote Madonna’s ramblings) is scary and cool and exciting, but the reality is unfamiliar and terrifying. The whole “ooh, a gun.. OHSHITITSAGUN!” reaction.

Unfamiliarity breeds ignorance which breeds fear. The end result is performers who wonder why there’s a slew of paperwork involved in bringing a firearm into their production while simultaneously advocating the Brady Campaign.

Madonna’s not the first anti-gun performer to use them when it’s convenient for her, (I’d go over the laundry list, but it’s a bit depressing) but she is the first to be so in a way that both illustrates her lack of safety knowledge (or willful disregard of it, hard to tell which) and garnered the attentions of the press for a short while about it.

So I’m doing utility stunts on this little indie movie, and it’s a fairly standard scene: our hero takes on a half-dozen walking pieces of sword fodder and proceeds to kick six kinds of ass. Your truly is goon #5. And on one particular take, the young lady playing goon #4 is either repositioned or didn’t clear the space quickly enough or any of a dozen other things, but the end result of which is the back of my noggin impacting directly with her tailbone. The first words out of my mouth when the director yelled “cut” is the title of today’s episode.

One of the most significant bits of news coming in lately was The Rolling Stone article featuring General Stanley McChrystal and his staff and the subsequent media and political shitstorm that ensued, resulting in General McChrystal resigning his command over U.S. forces in Afghanistan. General David Patreus is stepping down as commander of U.S. Central command to replace McChrystal.

I’ll admit I’ve steered somewhat away from this topic, as it relates to real-world combat and not to stage or screen, but an event like this that lit up the international media is definitely worth noting on here. So I’ll leave my commentary at this: However much of an incredible warrior and commander General McChrystal is, and how much his strategies have aided U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, he still serves at the pleasure of the President. And the President wasn’t pleased. For me to go into further detail would devolve this blog into the ramblings of yet another disgruntled veteran who needs to get more comfortable on his barstool.

The U.S. Supreme court has now ruled that the second amendment is a fundamental right by a 5-4 majority. This comes on the heels of a ruling 2 years ago that stuck down Washington D.C.’s handgun ban. The gun law that kicked off this decision was a similar ban on handguns held by Chicago and one of its suburbs. This is pretty much guaranteed to fire off a typhoon of litigation across the U.S. as different states, cities and counties determine how much regulation individual firearm use can be made, and for what reason.

Why is this a big deal? Because for those of us who make action art, restrictions on the ability to own and use weapons has major repercussions on what we can create. Look at the website of any weapons vendor online, and you’ll see a list of “cannot ship to” areas. And on each and every one of these sites, the same names crop up over and over: California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts. All states with restrictive weapons laws, whether on firearms, blades, or even imitation weapons like Airsoft. And all too often I find that the biggest hurdle between independent action artists and the tools they use to do the job isn’t their status as mental patients, convicted felons, or any of the “common sense” restrictions involved in some of the more sane gun control laws.

Instead, it’s money. Pure and simple. Liscences and fees and permits that will let someone cut through the red tape to have a blank-fire pistol on their stage or on their set. Doesn’t leave a whole lotta room for the would-be Robert Rodriguezes of the world with barely enough change in their pocket for film and blanks. Going over the pros and cons of heading out to L.A. or NY with my fellow actors, I pointed out that in my niche, I benefit from living in the south, with their more relaxed weapons laws.

I’m hoping that the recent SCOTUS decision will result in more thoughtful and reasonable weapons laws as opposed to simple blanket bans. Wishful thinking, I’ll admit, but it’s nice to imagine.

I’ll leave you with some more fun from the rockbox. A crossdressing Taliban commanderwas killed by ISAF forces in Afghanistan when he attacked troops.

Popping smoke,

~J~