Before the Democrats took control of Congress again, NRA was pushing a bill in Congress to prevent exactly this kind of thing from happening. That bill was known as the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act, which would grant power to the Attorney General to offer a very limited amnesty to allow new registration for machine guns so that historic pieces like this Lewis Gun, and the German machine gun captured by Sergeant Alvin York, could find their way into museums and firearms collections where they belong, rather than having to be destroyed, or held by police departments indefinitely. I would think this is the kind of reasonable gun law we can all get behind. There’s effectively zero chance these firearms are going to end up in the wrong hands. They will only end up in museums and private collections, which you’d expect of valuable historical relics.
Month: March 2010
Time Highlights the Brady Act, and Gets History Wrong
In the wake of ObamaCare passing Congress, Time is highlighting the top ten knockdown congressional battles. One of them they highlighted is the Brady Act, but in typical old media fashion, they get the details wrong:
Once the Brady Bill was signed into law in 1993 — instituting a five-working-day waiting period and background check for any gun purchase — the NRA funded lawsuits that challenged its constitutionality. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forced federal background checks were unconstitutional; these days, background checks are carried out by state and local officials.
What they are referring to is Printz vs. United States, and in Printz, The Court did rule that forced federal background checks were unconstitutional, but the detail Time gets wrong is that it was state and local government who were being forced by the feds. They assume it to be individual gun shops, and get the remedy completely wrong.
The Printz case said that what was unconstitutional was the federal government forcing the state and local authorities to do the federal background check. The Printz Court ruled that, as separate sovereigns, states were not political subdivisions of the United States, and could not be forced to administer federal programs.
The Printz issue did not rule that the background checks were unconstitutional in and of themselves, just that the local police couldn’t be forced by federal law to carry them out. This only applied to the period of the Brady Act before the National Instant Check System (NICS) went into effect. During that period, and after the Printz ruling, whether or not there was a background check was completely voluntary on the part of the local police, and many did not perform them. Sales were permitted to proceed, even if the police did nothing, provided the Brady waiting period was complied with.
This issue all went away once the National Instant Check System (NICS) was in place. Once NICS went active, background checks then had to proceed through the federal system, which is administered by the FBI. Under the Brady Act regulations, states can voluntarily act as Points-of-Contacts for NICS, and route background checks through their own systems, but a majority of states have no system, forcing firearms dealers in those states to use the federal system.
It would only have taken a few minutes of googling to get the correct history, but hey, this is probably why Time is in the toilet right now with a dwindling subscriber base.
UPDATE: IIRC, Printz was consolidated on appeal with a similar case, also in the 9th Circuit, called Mack v. United States. Jay Printz is a Sheriff in Montana (an NRA Board member now, BTW), and Mack was a Sheriff in Arizona. The Attorney of Record for Sheriff Mack was none other than Dave Hardy.
What Chili is So Hot It’s a Weapon?
Apparently the Indian Army is looking at using a grenade made out of a chili known as bhut jolokia. Clearly not we must institute reasonable regulations on spicy foods.
Brady Surveying New “Members”
Looks like the Brady Campaign is surveying its list, I’m going to guess because of the signatures they got on the Starbucks Petition. This is something NRA has been doing for a while now, actually, though not in this level of detail. I’ve said that even though, so far, the Brady Campaign has lost the Battle of the Coffee and Scones, as I will now dub it, they won just by fighting. Now they have 33,000 new people they will want more information about so they can target with mailings and alerts, and more importantly fundraising letters.
I’m going to ask pro-gun people not to fill out the form to mess with them. If you do, you will be counted among the Brady Supporters the next time they march into a politician or corporate leader’s office and demand they do something. Brady is not a membership organization like NRA is, they use the standard DC model, which is if you’re on their mailing list, you’re a supporter.
UPDATE: Well, OK, if you’re going to make it that obvious :)
Obama is at The End of This History
The Belmont Club has an excellent post up about this health care bill, and points out:
The obvious difference between Roosevelt’s position in 1940 and Obama’s in 2010 was World War 2. That global conflict destroyed practically the entire productive capacity of the industrialized world with the exception of the US. It allowed for an unparalleled economic expansion and was followed by a burgeoning demographic explosion we know as the Baby Boom. Those two factors together made Roosevelt’s entitlements appear to be sustainable. Even Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society 20 years later could still count on riding those two trends. Today’s crisis is largely the result of the final exhaustion of those twin booms. Where FDR found himself at the beginning, Obama finds himself at the end.
Read the whole thing. Tomorrow we return to our regularly scheduled gun blogging, but I thought this health care vote was historic enough to warrant a day’s coverage.
Why the NRA Model Works
If there’s one thing that we’ve got going for the gun issue over all of the other general “right of center” issues, it’s a reasonable sense of discipline from both parties. On the fiscal/limited government front, no group comes close – nor, in my experience, do they have any desire to gain such discipline in both parties or even in the one party they claim to support. Because of this lack of general consistency, it’s going to be very tough for these groups to accomplish their real goals instead of just racking up a symbolic win periodically.
The NRA model focuses on the issue first. While senior Democrats may be more openly hostile to gun rights than their GOP counterparts, by taking the view that you reward individual politicians, there’s a huge incentive to make gun rights a moderating issue for Democrats who want to represent more conservative districts. More importantly, by being willing to work just as hard for Democrats as Republicans who support the issue, the NRA has built a general trust with their members and politicians. As you can see, the results of this mean we’ve been fairly safe even as Congress has been lead by anti-gun extremists. Yes, we still have battles, but not nearly the battles we would have if more centrist Democrats didn’t have a huge perceived incentive to stick with us.
The only problem is that among right-of-center pundits and organizations, NRA really isn’t treated with the respect it deserves for taking an issue they all claim to care about – the Second Amendment – and helping foist it above the standard political fray. For other liberty-minded organizations, they should froth at the chance to see that kind of success. That doesn’t mean their battles go away, it just means they have much more say in transforming the political agenda. Perhaps they could open a serious discussion on entitlement reform if they had that kind of influence and respect.
As someone who has had experience working with some of the economic liberty-oriented organizations on the right, it’s disheartening as a believer in smaller government to see them hitching their wagons to the GOP even as the party rolls all over them. When an organization that focuses on earmark reform looks the other way when a GOP leader pushes for a mind-boggling large earmark that benefits his wealthy buddies, well, it means there’s never going to be a serious discussion about earmark reform. Because as long as the group only targets the Democratic earmarks, who cares? No need to reform, and the group will do the legwork for opposition research for future GOP candidates.
There’s a bit of challenge here for groups that promote economic liberty, in that economic liberty fits with the supposed GOP platform more than it does even a moderate Democratic platform. However, by not being consistent on the issues because the only friends they’ve got in Congress are steamrolling them, they aren’t likely to facilitate much in the way of tangible improvements.
NRA has benefitted by mostly raising itself up above partisan politics. Yes, they are known to support more Republicans than Democrats, but it’s most important that the Democrats know they can get a fair shake out of NRA if they stand with us on the issues. A Republican can’t call for a gun ban and still slip by with an A rating while a Democrat who says they might be swayed on a pigeon shoot restriction gets an F. That’s not to say their system is perfect or there haven’t been legitimate disputes. But those disputes are usually based on individual candidate circumstances rather than over party affiliation.
Sadly, until the economic liberty organizations can figure out how to hold both parties accountable, they won’t see much in the way of real reform.
Quote of the Day
From Eric at Classical Values:
I was born in 1954, and ever since my brain began laying down memories of what was going on, I have watched the relentless, steady, constant growth of Big Government –Â regardless of which party was in power.
Yet in all that time, this country has never had an honest debate over socialism. The word has been avoided for decades, but now that it is upon us, there is no avoiding it.
We need to have this debate. Badly. It’s so long overdue that I could scream.
My sincere hope is that the passage of Obamacare will bring it on.
This is not doom and gloom. Far from it. I welcome the debate, and I think it will be clarifying. Perhaps there will be a genuine fight over whether America wants want to go the socialist route, instead of phony and pointless haggling over diversionary peripheral issues (like whether abortion should be socialized right now or temporarily privatized).
I couldn’t agree more. Sadly the main stream media is still living in the world of bread and circuses. To the extent we have this debate in society it won’t be in the traditional media.
What Next?
Jacob suggests with the passage of Health Care ReDeform, that we in the pro-2A community need to be ready to be next. For various reasons, I think it’s unlikely, but I also thought Scott Brown’s victory woud have killed ObamaCare. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that Obama and Pelosi want to tangle with us, so we should be ready.
Because It’s a Gun Blog, After All
The Czechs seem to be adopting a slick looking new set of rifles, subguns and pistols.
It’s Not That I Have Much Faith in the GOP
Some folks seem to be skeptical of the notion that the GOP will roll back ObamaCare. I’m skeptical too, because they’ve shown little inclination to dismantle federal leviathan when they were in power. But why does it have to be that way? I don’t think this is like the seasons, the tides, and the waxing and waning of the moon. Big government is not a force of nature. If the people really decide they are sick of it, it can be changed. It won’t be quick, and it definitely won’t be pretty, but it’s not impossible.
And to be honest, change will come at one point or another. Right now we’re faced with a choice — big government gets rolled back because the people are sick of it and demand it be rolled back or big government gets rolled back because the government finds itself unable to borrow any more money, unable to squeeze any more money out of taxpayers, and unable to meet its obligations. I fear that the latter is the type of change we’ll get, but the former is not out of the realm of possibility. I will work to try to make the former a reality, since the latter will be a disaster for this country. The latter is essentially the United States becoming bankrupt.
I don’t think we can really win this by putting all our eggs in the GOP basket. We have to hold both parties accountable to liberty. But there are positive developments out there that I think could make a big difference. The first is this National Precinct Activist Movement. It’s pretty simple idea:
MOST PEOPLE ASSUME that they get to choose their party candidate who runs for office by voting in the primaries. Have you ever wondered who chooses the candidates that run in the primaries? And who decides the requirements of those candidates!
THE CANDIDATES ARE CHOSEN by the special interest groups who in return will do their will for campaign money and then the party bosses dictate to the precinct committeemen who the party is going to support in return for political favors. So, you see before you even get to vote in the primaries the fix is already in and since both parties are corrupt the special interests groups don’t care which party wins.
EACH OF THE 3141 US COUNTIES have an average of 160 committeemen seats, of those seats one third to one half are vacant, of the occupied seats many are appointed. The appointed committeemen have no vote and most of the remaining voting committeemen are influenced by favors from the party bosses.
TO BECOME A COMMITTEEMAN you need only to get about 5 to 10 signatures on your petition from the people in your voting district. Because of the many vacancies and appointments most seats will be won unopposed. If you are challenged then your name will appear on the ballot in the primaries and the candidate with the most votes will win. Because we are more highly motivated we should win majority of the challenged seats.
IF WE SEEK OUT PEOPLE in the tea parties and all the liberty meetup groups we can easily find 160 people to become committeemen in each of the 3141 US counties. And then “We the People†get to decide who the candidates will be and not the corrupt party bosses and special interest groups.
This could have a huge impact if people who love liberty get involved with this. I’m already watching this play out in my district, as the GOP establishment gets behind their favorite squishy son, Mike Fitzpatrick, who’s exactly he kind of maverick you love to hate. The Tea Party groups here, who are organized and understand this game well, are getting behind a fiery new candidate known as Gloria Carlineo. I will back Fitz in the general election if he comes out ahead in the primary, but I’m backing Carlineo for now.
The reason the Republicans have never taken to dismantling the federal leviathan is because the people have not demanded it. There’s a lot of anger out there now, and not just in my district. Anger that wasn’t present when the New Deal and Great Society were passed. In my lifetime I’ve never seen anything like this. Maybe it goes nowhere, and the United States ends up flooring the accelerator off the cliff of bankruptcy, but maybe this anger is more permanent and enduring, and maybe it can be used to avoid a national disaster. It seems to me liberty loving people might finally be to the point where we’ve had enough. Given that, I’m certainly willing to ride this train and see where it takes us.
UPDATE: More along similar lines here, via Instapundit