In most towns, you cannot discharge a firearm. You can’t just do some target practice, hunt, or shoot an animal. The reason for this is obvious — there are other people living in close proximity who either may be disturbed by the noise or even hit by stray projectiles. So, to prevent this type of behavior, most municipalities have instituted a code which states that you cannot discharge a firearm within the city limits.

In my town it reads:

No person shall discharge any firearm in the city unless that person is a police officer or citizen acting under necessity.

Of course, the police officers should also only be acting under necessity, so that exception to the rule does not need to be there.

A woman in Kansas City, Kansas has found out that the exceptions to the rule don’t apply to her. Of course, I assume the Kansas City police don’t get tickets for firing their guns in town and that there is some provision to allow for personal protection.

It was early Saturday when Beck says she saw a stranger climbing over her backyard fence. Beck says when he lunged at her, she shot at him with the .22 pistol she happened to be carrying.

Of course, this is just her testimony, but I would think that a stranger climbing your fence and lunging at you would be a good enough reason to think that your safety may be in jeopardy.

The article goes on:

“I’m relieved I had my gun, because if not I don’t know what would’ve happened to me,” said Beck.

So Beck wasn’t at all happy when FOX 4 told her police records indicate she’d been given a summons for criminal use of a weapon.  A KCK Police Department public information officer told FOX 4 that according to their report, Beck told police she fired the weapon into the ground after the man turned to run away – something Beck denies saying.

“If I shot it in the ground, they would’ve found the casing,” said Beck.

Of course, they probably would not bother to look for the casing to prove her story one way or the other. It turns out that the police had been to her house the night before during an attempted break in. At that time, they did not give the impression that they were taking the case seriously. They didn’t even dust for fingerprints. Then, when someone is climbing her fence the next day, it’s no wonder she felt like she had to take matters into her own hands.

This article heavily references this one.

Last week, I wrote all about the stupidity of city gun buyback programs. They are a waste of taxpayer money. When governments give out money, people will take advantage of it. Just about everything I wrote last week has proven to be true in a story that I came across this morning. Evidently, a NRA-based shooting camp for kids used the gun buyback money for upgrading their weapons! Let me explain further:

The first point I made in the original post was that these buyback programs are not “no questions asked” as they are advertised.

Despite the no-questions-asked policy of the buyback, police officials asked Guns Save Life members where they got their guns, Boch said. Still, the police officials allowed them to turn in their guns, he said.

What if they hadn’t given an sufficient answer to the officers about where they got their multitude of guns? Doesn’t this automatically violate a “no questions asked” policy? Yes, it does. Since criminals know that cops are often setting up sting operations and thereby engaging in false advertising, it is not hard to conclude that they should not be trusted and that no thugs emptied their gun stashes during the buy back, which was my second point.

My third, fourth, and fifth points in the original post all relate to the fact that the rewards for the forfeiture of the guns is often worth more than the guns themselves. Therefore, the events will seem to be successful, but it is really just a way for people to update their weaponry.

This was rusty, non-firing junk that we turned in, Boch said.

Vandermyde said he was told one suburban gun dealer imported junk rifles for less than $50 each and received $100 gift cards for each of them.

I point out all of these things to remind you of how ineffective the government is…not to toot my own horn. It wasn’t very hard to see this coming. But, Chicago officials didn’t see it coming, I guess:

We host the gun turn-in event on an annual basis to encourage residents to turn in their guns so we can take guns off the street and it’s unfortunate that this group is abusing a program intended to increase the safety of our communities, said Melissa Stratton, a police spokeswoman.

Boo hoo! They act like this is the first time anyone has ever taken advantage of a government program. Right!

In addition to being a place where you find out about stupid laws that people get in trouble for breaking, this blog is also the place to go for stupid government programs. I’m not sure about this because I haven’t seen any official research (and I don’t know how it would be conducted, anyway), but I have my doubts about all of these gun buy back programs that I’ve been hearing about.

Over the weekend, Chicago officials collected more than 5,500 guns in exchange for pre-paid MasterCards of $100. Here are some things that don’t add up to me:

1. They say they are doing this with “no questions asked.” But, I am positive that if a certain firearm was implicated in a crime (a missing murder weapon or something), there would be questions asked after the fact. The might not ask them right then, but they’re not going to just kill a lead like that. No way. Even if it were a truly no questions asked event, this would just mean that murderers would be turning in their murder weapons with no chance of ever getting caught for their crimes. How is this a good idea? $100 does not change a murder’s mind about being a violent person. They will have access to other weapons in the future if they desire to enact violence once again.
2. Because I don’t believe it is truly “no questions asked,” I highly doubt that any of the 5,500 firearms that were collected were contributing in any way to violence in Chicago. A quick google search of “Chicago shooting” with a filter for the last 24 hours reveals that there were at least 2 people killed and 30 wounded in shootings this weekend. Evidently, these people were not motivated to turn in their firearms for a quick little gift card.
3. Sometimes the rewards for these programs are worth more than the guns themselves, so obviously it is going to look like a successful program, but it is not necessarily the best use of the taxpayer’s money. You’ve probably heard of the controversial laws surrounding “Saturday Night Specials,” or inexpensive handguns. Well, these guns are quite common and $100 might cover their cost. Therefore, if the gun has any type of damage or if it’s old, the $100 might be more than the gun is worth. The fact that something is well-attended doesn’t make it successful. Whether it achieved its purpose or not (reducing crime) should be the thing that informs us of its efficacy.
4. In previous programs in other cities, it is well known that gun dealers and people unloading junk guns that don’t even fire is quite a common thing.
5. Common sense tells us that if people can unload their old junk guns for more than they are worth, they are probably going to go buy a new gun with the money! After all, these are people who wanted to own a gun for some reason or another. I’d be interested to hear statistics of gun dealers’ sales up to one month after one of these buy backs. This is where the post title comes in. “Cash for Clunkers” was another stupid government program that gave people exorbitant amounts of money for their old cars IF they purchased a new car with the trade in money. Obviously, these gun buy back programs could be seen as gun upgrade programs, instead.
6. It’s not entirely clear where the guns that were turned in end up. Some buy back programs have destroyed the weapons on the spot. Unfortunately, this is not usually reported — the ultimate destination of these weapons. Some claim that the police get their pick of the loot and destroy the rest. Some claim that they re-sell them! Of course, I can’t really be sure, but unless they’re destroying each and every one on the spot, I can’t say I feel safer with the police having them than the little old lady down the street. Besides that, if they are just going to re-sell them, what was the point?
7. If you agree with the gun buy back programs because you are a gun control person, you have to admit that this is still a minor drop in the bucket. These 5,500 guns cannot actually amount to much in the city of Chicago…even if it was criminals turning them in…
8. I am always talking about revenue-generating laws. At times, cities crack down on certain benign behaviors in order to raise money for itself. Well, now they’re taking all of that money they raised and giving it back to you! Great, right?  No, because they’re going to need to raise it again…

I don’t know how this escaped my radar until now.  But, it did and one of my readers sent it to me.  Evidently, Michigan (one of the states I write about on a regular basis because I grew up there) is debating the idea of banning toy guns.  Well, that’s what this column would lead you to believe.  However, the actual bill, if it passes wouldn’t ban toy guns outright, it would increase the penalty for “removing, doctoring or concealing” the colored markings that distinguish a toy gun from a real one.  This would become a felony with a maximum sentence of 18 months behind bars.  According to what I’m reading, this penalty is independent of whether the altered toy was used in a crime or not.

This proposed law is a reaction to the fact that law enforcement has noticed an increase in crime using fake guns that are disguised to look like real ones.  So, let me get this straight.  The legislature in Michigan is assuming that, if we make it a felony to alter fake guns, people with criminal intent will no longer have criminal intent.  Interesting.  I think what will happen is that these people, bend on committing crime, will do it with a real gun, instead.  Meanwhile, kids who happen to have fake guns that have been altered will face potential legal troubles.

My husband and I own a replica peacemaker.  It looks quite real.  It wasn’t sold with any markings on it.  My husband ordered it from a catalog when he was a kid.  Sometimes, when we’re watching baseball, we pretend to shoot at the screen.  We theorize that it might distract the opposing team and cause them to make mistakes, which will allow our team to win.  No, it’s not very mature.  But, we’re not criminals…and certainly not felons.  Anyway, I don’t envision a lot of gangsters using Western-style cowboy guns.  But, I digress.

So, once again, we have a so-called “well-intentioned” possible law that will most-likely end up with serious repercussions for victimless crimes.  This is all done in the name of safety with no consideration for liberty.

I’ve moved around a lot.  When I lived in Illinois, I had to have a FOID card if I wanted to own a gun.  Then, I moved to Missouri and walked into a store and bought a handful of guns at once (several handguns and a rifle) and just walked down the street with them on the way to my car.  After being used to the Illinois gun laws, it felt strange to be able to leave the store with the guns on the same day that I picked them out and without having a special card to identify me as a firearm owner.

Part of the trouble with moving around, though, is that it’s hard to keep track of the different regulations in each area.  In fact, this is part of what motivated me to write my book.  (If you’re a fan of this blog, you should check out my book by the same name).  I found that well-intentioned citizens like myself could possibly find themselves facing serious charges simply by being unaware of the laws and regulations from one state to another or one municipality to another.

Laws change constantly and are different everywhere you go.  This is true for simple guidelines regarding trash collection as well as more serious laws like gun regulation.  At times, it is difficult to find the specific laws in each state regarding gun regulations, and that’s what today’s story is all about.

A man recently traveled from Indiana to New York.  He carried his gun with him as he was accustomed to doing since he had a permit from the state of Indiana to do so.  He consulted the internet for the laws in New York and found that the information wasn’t correct.  He learned the hard way about this.  (By the way, I’ve found that the best and most easily-accessed information on gun laws usually comes from gun dealers.  If you have a question, you should call a store that sells guns in the state or municipality that is in question.  They will have better information than the internet, and probably even better information than lawyers…and cheaper).

Anyway, when this man entered the Empire State Building, he asked them where he could check his gun.  After that, he spent two nights in jail.  This was in September.  He still faces a possible jail term of 15 years if convicted.  Obviously, this man is not a criminal.  A criminal intent on breaking the law would not have asked where he could check his weapon.  But, that’s where gun laws nearly always go awry.  They claim to try to keep people safe by eliminating weapons, but they end up putting law-abiding citizens through the wringer.

I’m a little late to the party with this story, but I just had to get my comments going on this one.  It’s almost unbelievable.  There really aren’t words to describe how asinine this is.  A few weeks ago, a boy ate his school lunch pizza into the shape of a gun.  Then, all heck broke loose in the cafeteria.  He began to “threaten” students with his pizza and started shooting it into the air.

As punishment, he has to eat lunch at the “silent table” for the rest of the semester (which I presume is over by now).  He’s been told that he will be suspended if he eats his pizza into the shape of a gun again.

If you doubt that we’ve gone overboard in our paranoia about guns in school, please keep the following things in mind:

• nobody was ever in any danger of being harmed by the pizza
• there was no gun present, only pizza with no possible high speed projectiles
• this boy is 10 years old, and that behavior sounds pretty normal to me
• the boy disputes that he was ever threatening

Next time he wants to be creative with his pizza, he should eat it into the shape of a brain and give it to the administrators (I stole this idea from one of the brilliant comments on this article).