The NICS system is up for reauthorization this year. It's still under debate in the Senate, but here's what's going on.

Under Section 103:

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.–The NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is
amended–
(1) by striking "as a mental defective" each place that
term appears and inserting "mentally incompetent";
(2) by striking "mental institution" each place that term
appears and inserting "psychiatric hospital"; and
(3) in section 102(c)(3)–
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking "as a mental
defective or committed to a mental institution" and
inserting "mentally incompetent or committed to a
psychiatric hospital"; and
(B) by striking "mental institutions" and inserting
"psychiatric hospitals".

Section 106 contains the "Nationwide Project Exile Expansion," which contains provisions to actually, you know, prosecute people who violate existing laws.

Section 108 has a post Fast & Furious tidbit:

The Department of Justice, and any of its law enforcement coordinate agencies, shall not conduct any operation where a Federal firearms licensee is directed, instructed, enticed, or otherwise encouraged by the Department of Justice to sell a firearm to an individual if the Department of Justice, or a coordinate agency, knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such an individual is purchasing on behalf of another for an illegal purpose

Sections 109 and 110 tighten up the rules a bit on straw purchasing.

Section 114 prohibits the Attorney General from requiring dealers to submit reports for multiple sales of long guns.

Section 116 requires federal agencies to report the amount of ammunition they're buying as a result of the stupid DHS ammunition buy conspiracy theory.

Section 118 changes 922(b)(3) to allow dealers to sell handguns to buyers outside their home state.

Section 119 allows dealers to use the NICS system to do background checks on employees.

Of particular note are amendments SA 730-733, which are each titled, "an amendment to the bill S. 649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale." Though the title seems ominous, the actual verbiage is silent on the notion of universal checks and seems only to apply to mental-health reporting.

That still won't stop Klobuchar, McCain, and others from sneaking it through in the future, so it's worth watching.

By now, you've probably heard about the Liberator pistol being produced by Defense Distributed. It was designed and executed on a 3D printer, it's made of plastic, and it works to some extent. The best part is that the company made the schematics and instructions public.

Yep. An open-source gun.

The Department of State took notice, and in a fit of bureaucratic clue deficit, they've attempted to remove it from the internet. The blurb they've put up on the site reads, "until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information."

Yeah. Um…no. Nobody tell them that's not possible, okay? As I write this, the file has been mirrored all over the place. By trying to clamp down on it, the government has ensured that it is being more widely disseminated than it ever would have been if they'd just left it alone. Let's just savor the irony for a moment.

The request comes from the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance. The letter they sent Defense Distributed is up here, here, and here. This is the second paragraph:

DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.

Things like encryption schemes and certain trade techniques can be classified as falling under ITAR regs, and that's what they're trying to invoke here. The problem is, information doesn't respect borders and it doesn't need to be attached to a physical artifact. They're exacerbating the very redistribution they're trying to stymie.

They're also raising some interesting free speech issues that could turn into a very interesting civil liberties debate.

Adam Kokesh is not our friend. He's an attention-seeker of the first order, and he's not above doing whatever it takes to see his face in the media. His latest dumb idea is to stage an open-carry march on Washington, DC this July 4th.

Since it's illegal to carry firearms in the District, Kokesh's march constitutes conspiracy to commit a felony. There's a very good potential for a clash with law enforcement, and it only takes one of these cranks to fire off a round before things turn truly awful for them.

Which means they'll turn awful for all of us. This event will in no way change any politician's mind about the 2nd Amendment. It will in no way help our image or our cause in the eyes of the general public.

There's been a constant campaign afoot to portray supporters of gun rights as mentally-incompetent, dangerous yahoos, and this is only going to feed right into that.

It's back. This is the House version of Schumer's background-check bill. It has 109 co-sponsors.

The Brady Campaign is already urging their members to text representatives on the matter, and we need to make our voices heard.

This is less likely to get passed in the House than it ever was in the Senate, but it's not a good idea to leave anything to chance at this point. The form below will send correspondence on the matter directly to your congresscritters.

Continued »

Birdemic wasn't the worst movie ever made. The technical execution was slightly better than Manos: the Hands of Fate, but not by much. It wasn't as misanthropic as Coleman Francis' work, nor was it as utterly incomprehensible as Monster a Go-Go. It was simply a bad movie that didn't take itself too seriously.

To recap: two hopelessly inept and wooden actors enter into an awkward romance. Halfway through the movie, badly-animated birds start attacking. The birds divebomb gas stations and explode. Some urinate acid on people. We're treated to long, expository dialogue about global warming. People die. The birds fly off. End of movie.

The movie became a cult classic. Director James Nguyen seems to be a good guy who just doesn't mind the criticism, and he felt his movie needed a sequel. Was he right? I'll let you decide.

Continued »

Iain Banks is dying. That's not supposed to happen, and I'm quite dissatisfied with this turn of events. I would register a grievance to the appropriate authorities, but Special Circumstances won't answer.

Banks produced a body of work that was deeply engaging and often darkly satirical. Perhaps his greatest achievement was the Culture series, a science-fiction universe of massive scope, grim wit, and oddly self-defeating optimism. The last novel in the series centers around the last days of an advanced civilization that has decided to simply walk away from this universe. I wonder now if that's not a coincidence.

…and here I am, already talking about the man in the past tense.

He recently completed a book called The Quarry, and his publisher is moving the release date forward so Banks can live to see it on the shelves. At a recent talk, he claimed to have a new Culture novel "ready to go," though its status is now uncertain. He's also keeping in touch via his blog.

When he Sublimes, he can do so knowing we're all rooting for him.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is like a Coen Brothers movie sometimes. Just when I'm tempted to laugh at some inane utterance of his, I realize how utterly unfunny and disturbing it really is. Regarding security in the wake of the Boston bombing, he had this to say:

The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry, but we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.

Oh, hell no.

I don't care how much he tries to look like the reluctant but resigned guardian. No amount of imagined protection is going to compensate for the rights quashed in its service, and no politician who suggests such a thing deserves to hold office.

RT @bradytwitt: We now know who doesn't have any courage, nor a heart, nor a brain. #myvoice

— Brady Campaign (@bradybuzz) April 18, 2013

The U.S. senate just voted against expanding background checks for gun sales. What a pathetic, gutless bunch of cowards. #NewtownBetrayed

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) April 17, 2013

Following the defeat of the post-Newtown gun-control push, the invective is flying fast and loose. "Guilt," "shame," and "cowardice" are the words of the day. How this sort of rhetoric is supposed to win sympathy on the Hill is beyond me.

S. 649 is still up for consideration, but without the Toomey/Manchin amendment, it's going to be even less appealing to lawmakers. Harry Reid changed his vote at the last minute so he can bring the bill back to the floor for reconsideration, but at this point, the momentum is gone. They blew it.

Why? There are several reasons. The first is that we've been down this road. A renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban was the last thing they should have proposed. Many Americans remember the first one, and they're not in any hurry to see it repeated.

The second is their utter misreading of public opinion. We kept hearing (and still do) that 90% of Americans supposedly support universal background checks. That makes no sense. You will never find that sort of consensus on any issue. I suppose if I limited the sample size in a single survey to a sympathetic group, I might be able to get that number, but it's not reflective of the nation as a whole.

The reality of the situation is that only 4% of the nation considers gun control to be a pressing issue. Gun control advocates bought into their own 90% myth, and they overestimated their prospects. The support turned out not to be there. Now they're left holding their hats and wondering how it happened.

This brings us to the third reason: hubris. They really thought they were unstoppable. People in offices as high as the Vice President mocked us. The media lampooned us as knuckle-dragging hillbillies. What they failed to realize is that they weren't stigmatizing a small, homogeneous group. They were insulting a diverse cross-section of the American public as a whole. The gun culture is a mix of people from all walks of life, all cultures, and all political beliefs. That includes many Democrats, some of whom put their necks on the line for us on Wednesday.

(For the record, how many times did anyone see us mocking them on television? None? Yep.)

Now mud gets slung, and they blame anyone and everything but themselves. They describe the NRA as an unstoppable juggernaut with unlimited coffers, but in fact, Michael Bloomberg alone outspent them on this. What they failed to understand was that it was never about money. This was a bad bill, built on failed social science and advanced in haste. That's not how we make good laws, and for once, our elected officials listened.

First, the good news. The Manchin/Toomey amendment to S. 649 was defeated in the Senate by a 54-46 vote. The only way the bill was ever going to have a chance at passage was with that amendment, so it's safe to say it's dead.

John McCain voted "yea." Harry Reid waited until the very end to cast a "nay" vote. Some lady shouted "shame on you" from the rafters, and the President is calling the NRA liars (epic meltdown here). So, business as usual.

A look at the votes for various amendments is interesting. Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban 2.0 failed, but only by a 60-40 margin. That means the issue isn't quite dead yet. On the other hand, the Cornyn amendment to enact nationwide CCW reciprocity won by a 57-43 margin.

The margin on the Manchin amendment is better than I expected, but still short of what I'd have liked to see. Pay close attention to how your Senator voted, because we really need to be hitting the polls in 2014. This was probably the One Big Chance for gun-control advocates to get something through, but I'm not turning my back just yet.

I honestly just didn't believe GOP Senators would turn their back on 90% of Americans. I was naive.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) April 16, 2013

Senate Democrats spent much of the last two days scrambling to rally the votes for their gun-control bill, but without much success. While there are still amendments to be debated, Majority Leader Harry Reid has called an end to the stalling, and it looks like a vote will be taken tomorrow at 4:00 PM.

Of course, Feinstein's still trying to shoehorn her Assault Weapons Ban into the bill, and Lautenberg's pushing his magazine ban. Neither of those help its chances.

On the Republican side, Senator Toomey seemed to be avoiding contact with the press, and the mood seemed dour. Dean Heller was expected to cross the aisle, but he issued a statement today saying he won't be voting for the bill. Mike Johanns of Nebraska has also refused to support it, and despite (or perhaps because of) some pretty manipulative comments by Mark Kelly, Jeff Flake appears disinclined as well.

My best prediction? 53-55 votes for the bill, which is still less than the 60 they need.

Is this the end of it? Not by a long shot. Even if another bill isn't introduced this session, we've got another before the 2014 midterms. If the Republican party can't get its act together and the Democrats whittle (or eliminate) their majority in the House, it may just be a waiting game.

Today, the Supreme Court declined to hear Kachalsky v. Cacase, a challenge to New York's arbitrary restrictions on issuing carry permits. I had high hopes for this one, but there are other potential candidates.

First is the Woollard case. We had a favorable ruling in the District Court, but it was overruled by the 4th Circuit last month. A rehearing is still a possibility.

The 7th Circuit's decision in our favor in Moore v. Madigan still stands. That creates a split among the Circuits, which begs hearing by the Supreme Court, but they may be biding their time. Illinois still has to hash out a workable law, and while Attorney General Madigan seems reluctant to appeal, Governor Emmanuel most likely will. Still, we may not get a case heard this session.

On the legislative front, S. 649 appears to be gaining traction and support in the Senate, thanks to the odious Manchin/Toomey "compromise." Had it not been for that measure, this bill would have been a cut-and-dry party-line vote, and it wouldn't have a chance at passage. Let's take a moment to remember that Republicans are fairweather friends at best on gun issues, and we need to keep the pressure on them.

For those who think the bill isn't that bad, Dave Kopel has an article over at Volokh pointing out a few troublesome aspects. While it may prevent the Attorney General from establishing a registry, it doesn't stop anyone else from doing so. There's also a little provision that could gut the "peaceable journey" provision from the FOPA.

Make sure your legislators know this. The other side is doing a shameless full-court press to guilt them into submission, and we have only the facts on our side.

The Senate agreed Thursday to move forward on debate over S. 649, also called the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. Contrary to what you may have heard, nothing has been passed. At the moment, they're hammering out the details. Amendments will be suggested, there will be debates, and it might go back to committee. After all of that, it heads to an uncertain fate in the House. It's going to be awhile.

At the moment, we really only have the broad outlines of the bill. Yes, the proposed text is available, but that's going to change quite a bit.

Of particular note is a "compromise" amendment proposed by Senators Toomey (R-PA) and Manchin (D-WV). Its title is the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.

Sounds harmless, right? Well, so did the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, and look where that got us.

Continued »