Tuesday, July 09, 2013

AR+PA: About My "Illegal Gun" Question

     Bob Gelinas, President of AR+PA has replied to me.  Quoted in full; I asked him to define "illegal gun" and here's what he has to say:

Great question.  And you're right, we need to do a much better job of defining a lot of terms and expressions that people commonly use – so we're all on the same page of understanding.

As we've used that expression - "illegal gun" - we are using it in the most generic sense.  That is, we absolutely believe that no inanimate object in and of itself is either good or evil.  We're using that phrase to refer to illegal human behavior in the context of guns.

Basically, an "illegal gun" is any weapon in the hands of someone who isn't legally allowed to have it.

That can mean stolen guns, smuggled guns, carried guns without legal sanction, etc.  The gun isn't bad.  But the person holding it might be.

I don't think anyone was referring to military-class weapons outlawed from civilian use, e.g. grenade launchers, mortars, and such.  Even fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, silencers, etc. can be legally owned, if the proper procurement laws are followed to obtain them.  But if those laws aren't followed properly then those type of weapons in unlicensed hands represent illegal possession, so then technically making them "illegal weapons."

To be clear:  we especially don't believe any inanimate weapon system should ever be declared "illegal" by the federal or state government simply based upon capricious and arbitrary factors such as purely cosmetic features, ammunition capacity, etc.  As I said.  It's a tool, just like a hammer is a tool.  A hammer can be used to build homes or as a weapon.  A nail gun can be used for the exact same.  Either is an instrument of whomever wields it, nothing more nor less.

I hope that helps.  And please feel free to share this information with anyone you know who might have a similar question.

     Further comment is left to you, the reader.

12 comments:

greg said...

I'm not sure there IS a comment to that.

Old NFO said...

Convoluted is what that is...

The Freeholder said...

Him and the horse he rode in on. We already have laws for this, we don't need his astorturf group.

Roberta X said...

This statement does appear to directly contradict some of what their website says about "states rights" to regulate guns.

Robin said...

So he doesn't know. Big surprise.

Earl said...

You are so brave corresponding with the mentally challenged.

Anonymous said...

107He wants this to go away. He's sorry he's attracted attention. He's just now realized what the deal is, and oh crap these guys have been in this league for a little while longer than he has been.

I'm laughing at this dummy.

Mike James

Roberta X said...

I can conceive of several scenarios in which this effort might be more-or-less innocent of bad intent, but non in which the principals are well-informed. A newer shooter, unfamiliar with the real NRA (as opposed to the media-created demon) with a strong marketing/promoting background and not conservative might actually believe there was an opening for a slicker, hipper group.

The timing and vocabulary are awfully suspicious, though.

Clueless or ASHA II?

Wade said...

Even if we give this person every benefit of the doubt and presume that his intentions are good; he has still argued that he supports whatever arbitrary and capricious infringements may have been put in place already.

Basically, he is saying that he is against all illegal guns, including any gun possessed by a person who is not willing or able to bribe enough government officials to get the necessary licenses in corrupt dumps like DC, Chicago and NYC.

By extension he is saying that if Congress passes a law that says that only the police and military can own guns, then he will support it.

I'm guessing that the group is astroturf, run by a marketing/MBA guy who is looking to get some easy money from Joyce Foundation and/or naive urban/younger gun owners.

Ygolonac said...

So, an illegal gun is one that is for whatever reason illegal, and not one that are not illegal.

And it takes him seven paragraphs to "explain" it.

The Jack said...

It took him an awful long time to get to the identity property.

This seems to be a constant with these folks. R+P seems culturally unable to succinctly express a clear position.

bob r said...

"To be clear: we especially don't believe any inanimate weapon system should ever be declared "illegal" by the federal or state government simply based upon capricious and arbitrary factors such as purely cosmetic features, ammunition capacity, etc."

"Even fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns, silencers, etc. can be legally owned, if the proper procurement laws are followed to obtain them. But if those laws aren't followed properly then those type of weapons in unlicensed hands represent illegal possession, so then technically making them "illegal weapons.""

One of these is not like the other. What a maroon.