Month: June 2010
Cheaper Than Dirt Interviews Molly Smith
Molly is one of the up and coming junior shooters sure to have a bright shooting career ahead of her. I met Molly and her family at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous last year. Molly blogs over at the Molly Minute if you’d like to follow her shooting.
Microstamping in New York
Jacob has been covering it. It’s very close to final passage. Looks like they’re getting this infection from California. Let’s hope it doesn’t keep spreading. This basically will make semi-automatic pistols illegal in the Empire State, because the technology described does not exist. The law takes effect January 1, 2012, or upon certification by the State Police Commissioner. Even if the technology does exist, the legal risk involved in selling or owning guns would be so high I don’t think anyone should bother. Though, that’s the idea with this.
HB2536 Scheduled For Vote 6/15
The bill, HB2536, to close the non-existent “Florida Loophole,” and proposes to weaken reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, has been scheduled for a vote in the Judiciary Committee on June 15th. It’s important we contact the members of the committee and let them know we don’t want this bill. Pretty clearly there are elements in the PA House that are not happy at our success with Castle Doctrine, and are looking for some pay backs. Let us deny that to them.
Scrubbing?
I’ve seen reports around from several blogs about the Brady Center scrubbing their association with Helen Thomas from their web site. The links still appear to work for me, which makes me wonder if they started to, and changed their mind once people were critical.
I’m going to be a contrarian on this one (surprise, I know) and suggest that the Brady Center scrubbing their association with Helen Thomas is the right thing to do. To be fair, they likely didn’t know about Helen Thomas’ insensitive views on the Jewish people when they gave her the “Visionary Award.” All they knew is that she was a fellow traveler who hated guns.
But the Bradys’ continued use of Thomas is, in my view, a tacit acceptance of what she said. Or at the least a strong indication they aren’t bothered enough by it to make a statement or distance themselves from it. If NRA had given a journalist an award, and they had then gone a few weeks later and made disparaging comments that, say, African-Americans should go back to Africa, I would be angry at NRA if they did not make a statement condemning those statements, or scrubbing any association with that person from their web site. I can’t get angry at Brady for doing what I would expect of NRA under similar circumstances. I hope they scrub every reference to Helen Thomas from their site. She deserves it.
What Happened with the McDonald Appeal
Uncle linked to a piece by David Codrea where there’s some dispute as to whether NRA’s case was combined with SAF/Gura’s case, and whether saying they are constitutes a misrepresentation of facts by NRA. The Court granted cert to McDonald, which was SAF’s case and which was brought by Alan Gura. NRA was made a party to the case — Respondants in Support of Petitioners — under rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules. So it would definitely be correct to say NRA was a party to the case, but is it correct to say they were consolidated? I would also note this passage from Alan Gura’s Petitioner’s brief, in the section described as “Parties to the Proceedings”
The three cases were related, but not consolidated, in the District Court. Petitioners and the related case plantiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which consolidated the appeals.
Emphasis is mine. I would say if the language is good enough to be put before the Court, NRA is free and clear in saying that. NRA has in the past, wrongly in my opinion, played up its role in certain cases and controversies at the expense of other involved parties. But this is not an example of that.
UPDATE: I should probably clarify that saying the cases were combined, rather than that the appeals were combined, is probably incorrect technically. More correct would be the appeals were combined, and NRA made a party (Respondent in Support of Petitioner) to the McDonald case. I’m pretty sure that is a correct statement.
If someone wants to flay Chris Cox, or whoever wrote that article for him on his behalf, they are free to nit pick. But it seems to me a nit pick. I don’t know how familiar Chris Cox is with the distinction between those two things, or whether anyone explained it to him in great legal detail.
Gun Control Defeated ….
…. in Massachusetts? This passed in New Jersey, but it took Corzine putting everything he had behind it. It’s getting more costly to pass further gun control even in the states where support for gun control has traditionally been strong. We’re winning.
Misleading Article on Philly Gun Ordinances
The Philadelphia Inquirer is reporting that the Supreme Court has upheld the local Philadelphia gun ordinances. This is false. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on Monday denied the appeal of the National Rifle Association, who was dismissed based on standing, and not on the merits. This is still very much an undecided issue. You can read the opinion here. All this really means is that the Supreme Court is letting stand the lower court ruling on the standing issue. This most certainly did not uphold any of Philadelphia’s ordinances on Lost and Stolen.
When it comes to gun issues, it’s always best to ignore the Philly papers. They don’t know what they are talking about most of the time.
More Preemption Issues in Pennsylvania
I don’t when local officials are going to get it through their thick skulls, but they cannot regulate guns. That’s clearly establish law at this point. But it’s not stopping Lackawanna County:
Commissioners approved rules and regulations prohibiting smoking, skateboarding and other activities in county parks, including new restrictions on guns. The rule says, “No unlicensed firearms or weapons are allowed in a park.” Discharging a firearm is also prohibited.
Discharge is probably something they can regulate under the UFA, but this essentially prohibits open carry, which is legal in PA without a license.
Meanwhile, Sheriff John Szymanski said he also plans to challenge the new rule – arguing the county should make it more strict.
“We don’t allow firearms in the park,” said Mr. Szymanski, whose department oversees law enforcement of county parks. “It’s a public facility, and if you walk around with a gun, you’re going to intimidate a lot of people. Our position is we’re not allowing it and we’re going to ask for clarification on that point.”
The wording of park rules, unchanged or made more strict, could set off a constitutional debate on gun rights in Lackawanna County, experts say. County solicitor John O’Brien said they are reviewing the language and looking to see how it can be updated.
What bothers me is this isn’t a debate. You can’t do it. Period. We had this debate a decade ago, it went to the Supreme Court, and we won. Either they are electing incompetent solicitors in all these towns, or they just don’t give a crap what the law is.
This is Truth
Joe Huffman has an observation about good shooters:
This episode also confirmed my hypothesis that if someone brags about how good a shooter they are it is near certain proof they are crap. All the great shooters I have personally met are extremely modest or at least silent about how great they think they are.
That’s been my observation as well. I shoot with some great shooters at my club, none of which speak about how great a shooter they are on a regular basis. I know some who have a competitive nature, but that’s different from talking about what hot shit you are all the time.