Month: May 2010

This year for the Blog Bash, we tried to organize an event called “Drinkin’ with the Daves,” where we got together for drinks with fellow bloggers Dave Hardy and Dave Kopel, who in addition to being bloggers, also happen to be some of the great minds of the movement, and excellent conversationalists:

Dave Hardy couldn’t make it the same day as Dave Kopel, so we had to do a separate brunch event I dubbed “Ham and Eggs with Hardy,” but it turns out Dave Adams, Legislative Chairman and Blogger for the Virginia Association, was able to make it, so we appreciate his help in saving the title of our event, in addition to Dave Kopel and Dave Hardy for making time for us in the first place.

I’ve never gotten the impression that National Review was all that enthusiastic about the Second Amendment. Not that they were against it, by any means, just that it wasn’t their thing. But gun owners generally fall right of center on the spectrum, and are an important part of the conservative coalition. I really, truly believe the right-of-center movement would be far better off today if they followed NRA’s model for change, took it seriously, and studied how NRA does things.

If there was anything about the Blog Bash this year that was I particularly proud of, it was to have Jim Geraghty as an attendee, representing his blog Campaign Spot . I was hoping he’d cover the convention on his blog, which he did, but we were delighted to see an article posted to National Review Online covering the speakers at the Annual Meeting.

As much as I’d love to take credit for getting Jim down there, that credit really has to go to Cam Edwards from NRA News, who frequently features Jim on his show as a guest. His sessions with Jim are among my favorite NRA News shows. It’s great to see a well-respected mainstream conservative publication, such as National Review, taking a look at what goes on an NRA’s Annual Meeting.

We’re in the board meeting to find out what the numbers are for the convention. We’ll be reporting on that later, and I have some post-convention posts to share with you on the ten hour drive back.

It’s been a good meeting, but I’m tired as hell, but not nearly as tired as most of the staff, who get absolutely run ragged during this meeting. For us this is becoming more catching up with folks we only get to see once or twice a year. Last night we shared some drinks with Chris Cox’s assistant. If you want to talk about unsung heros of NRA it’s NRA’s executive assistants. They do so much critical behind the scenes work to keep NRA running smoothly that no one ever sees.

We did have some protesters yesterday, but they weren’t punctual, so I missed them. The Charlotte Observer covered it, and you can see more pics over at Joe’s. Four people to do a “lie in?” Here’s what one small section of our show floor looks like, as viewed from the press booth at the Annual Meeting:

This is why we win, and Protest Easy Guns loses. The other reason we win is a story told to me by someone who works for NRA about an NRA member who donated 450 dollars. The guy had been out of work for a few years, had two disabled children, but he wanted to do something to help preserve the Second Amendment. So he and his wife collected cans from roadsides and public places, until they had saved up enough money. And they were apologizing for not being able to give more. Really makes you realize why we all keep doing this, and need to keep doing this.

The other side was lucky to have rich donors. We have a lot of people like this, who are our side’s lifeblood. This is why we win.

Dave Hardy‘s part of the seminar was probably my favorite. For those that don’t know Dave, he’s full of great lawyer stories, and is a very good story teller. His presentation was on “Presumptively Lawful” restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms after Heller. As part of the presentation he covered the “Dangerous and Unusual” language present in that case as well. What kind of weapons might be “Dangerous and Unusual?” Certainly any weapon is potentially dangerous, and many weapons are unusual? Dave suggested that this is rooted in the common law prohibition against “going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, and terrifying the good people of the land.” But as Dave noted, this was a prohibition on “going armed,” not against possession in the home. So, in the examples he pointed out as what might constitute dangerous or unusual weapons under this standard?

One could imagine a Carthaginian War Elephant would be among the kinds of weapons that would terrorize the King’s good subjects, Or perhaps this:

Or if the war elephant isn’t dangerous and unusual enough, perhaps driving a War Chariot up and down the streets of a major city would produce sufficient terror that it might be prohibited. And of course, this would only be a prohibition against public use, you can keep all the Carthaginian war elephants at your home that you want.

Dave is a character, and I appreciate his insertion of humor into his presentation. Hardy also gave the presentation for Lunch, talking about how the movement started from nothing in the 70s, and built its way to the present day. The exciting thing about that, was that virtually all the major players were present in the room. The success we’ve had over the past several years isn’t any accident. It rests on the shoulders of giants, many of whom are unsung heroes, Dave being among them, in addition to Halbrook, Don Kates who were also in the room, and many others who were not. I am honored to have attended a seminar with such high caliber people.

I wanted to provide a summary for everyone yesterday of the Law Seminar, but I was tired and tipsy by the time we got done with the day’s events. The first thing that surprised me was how easy most of the speakers were to follow. Being geared toward lawyers, I was worried there would be much that would be over my head. But a lot it would be familiar to most people who follow this blog.

The first panel was Steven Halbrook and Nelson Lund. Most of their presentation was an update on the happenings since Heller, most of which was familiar. The most interesting thing Lund noted was that during the McDonald oral arguments, Scalia seemed to somewhat repudiate some of the dicta on gun control in Heller, which was the whole “presumptively constitutional” spiel . Quoting here from the materials:

As noted earlier, however, Heller also contains some broad dicta endorsing various forms of gun control that were not at issue in that case. Interestingly, Justice Scalia, who wrote the Heller opinion, specifically notes during the McDonald oral argument that “those are matters that we didn’t decide in Heller.” This raises the possibility that the Court might point out in McDonald that such dicta are not binding under the doctrine of stare decisis. Because the most onerous forms of gun control are almost invariably adopted by state and local governments, and narrowly written opinion in McDonald could open the way to more new constitutional challenges than Heller seemed to invite.

Halbrook went over various aspects of oral arguments, concentrating to the largest degree on Chicago’s disastrous arguments before the Court, Halbrook notes that the policy arguments made by Chicago are “irrelevant to the incorporation issue.”

Chicago argues that firearms prohibitions limit crime, and thus that firearms owners have no rights that the State is bound to respect. Yet the issue here is purely legal — whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms…

.. Chicago objects that Heller’s “common use” test may include “a weapon generally in common use for lawful purposes in one locale (such as a high-powered hunting rifle with precision sighting equipment popular in rural Illinois),” this “precluding a ban on use by Chicago gangs seeking to assassinate rivals.”

Halbrook notes, “This illustrates Chicago’s assumption that it can demonize and ban any firearm.” I’ve often said on this blog, the other side feeds our worst “paranoid delusions” by arguing for them in reality. They aren’t in favor of gun bans, sure, until we want to take that ability away, then they argue they ought to be able to ban any gun. And they wonder why we don’t take them in good faith?