Chris from Arma Borealis notes some disagreement between himself and a certain Brady Board member about the status of victims in the public debate. I think victims deserve a say just like anyone else, but I’m not sure it’s at all true that victims have unique insight. In fact, I think victims are more likely than not to have their judgement clouded by their unresolved grief. Chris wonders what you do when victims disagree. Does Joan Peterson’s experience give her the same moral authority to speak as Suzanna Gratia Hupp? I doubt Joan Peterson would agree, but to accept victims have special insights presents you with Chris’s question. What do you do when they disagree?
Month: February 2011
Staff Changes
NRA has announced some staff changes, of which the big news would appear to be James Baker coming back to head up federal affairs. Baker is largely responsible for turning ILA into the well-oiled lobbying engine it is today, so members should take this as a positive development.
On the other hand, as Joe Huffman has been tracking, and Thirdpower has also taken note of, our opponents seem to have either undergone some kind of restructuring, or some of their staff have decided their energies are best devoted elsewhere. Peter Hamm seems to no longer be with the Bradys and has struck out on his own. Whatever is in Peter’s future, we wish him well. He was a worthy adversary, and in a world marked by divisive and nasty politics, understood political struggle didn’t have to be personal. I’ve long maintained that in the current climate, civility suits us better than nastiness. I wish any former Brady staffers well. We would, indeed, like them all to move on to more worthy causes.
But whatever has happened at Brady, it is hard to say. They will be tight lipped about anything. Staff reductions in DC are taken for what they are, which is a sign your cause is on its way out. No group wants to announce a restructuring, especially if finances are the chief driver. A spate of resignations wouldn’t look good either. So I don’t expect Brady to announce what’s actually happened, but it would seem we’re going to have some new public faces for our adversaries.
Gun Control Not Catching On
Girandoni Air Rifle
From the NRA’s National Firearms Museum curator:
Pretty remarkable for late 18th century technology.
Why We Need “Gucci Loafered Lobbyists”
Because without them, you can’t exploit opportunities like this. If we can preserve this through the Senate, which we stand a good chance to, it will become a crime for ATF to even continue prattling about long gun reporting requirements.
This is a big reason Dudley Brown has no clue what he’s talking about when it comes to politics.
A Very Good Point on Defensive Sprays
David Rittgers makes an important observation about defensive sprays: be sure to check state and local laws before you decide whether it’s right for you. Virginia, shockingly makes misusing pepper spray a felony. This is a monumentally bad law, and one that, fortunately, I don’t think many states have. For most states, unlawful use of pepper spray would be misdemeanor assault.
Lawsuit Against Michigan Open Carry
Interesting to read the actual lawsuit here. The problem is that MOC isn’t really a traditional membership organization, but more like a means to facilitate communication between like minded individuals. What if I, someone who’s never posted on MOC at all, go into the library with a gun? What if even someone who is active on MOC does it, but does not have any official ties to the organization? Is MOC liable for contempt of court for violating the injunction, even though they really don’t have any control over their members?
Could a lawsuit be opened against PAFOA? Calguns.net? The High Road? Or even this blog? These fools in Michigan have opened up a giant can of worms. That’s really an understatement. A method like this could be used to stifle and shut down activism and communication that our community has come to rely on.
Interesting Question
Even Nappen ponders whether it’s unlawful for legislators to vote for a “Firearms Freedom Act,” such as the one in New Hampshire with threatens federal officials with jail time and crimes for attempting to enforce federal gun laws.
Generally speaking legislators enjoy some form of legislative immunity, which means they can’t be sued for their actions as legislators. But legislative immunity for criminal matters is typically something defined by the Constitution, and in no case that I know of is such immunity unlimited. There’s certainly nothing in the federal constitution that immunizes state legislators from being subject to federal laws.
There is no doubt that a law criminalizing the interference of federal officials in the execution of their lawful duties is among Congress’ enumerated powers, because it is a “necessary and proper” exercise of their power to make and enforce laws under the authority of the Constitution.
This is an interesting question, and I can’t find anything that says the answer is definitely no, that it is not technically illegal. States do have sovereign immunity, and I would imagine state lawmakers could seek protection under that idea. But I can’t find any case that suggests state lawmakers can’t be criminally liable for passing a law which violates a federal criminal statute. Anyone else know?
Quote of the Day
If you’re going to insist on the “OC’ers are the new Rosa Parks”, then you have to break an unjust law to complete the analogy. Open carrying where it’s legal but rare is raising awareness – to fight the unjust law, it needs to be done somewhere OC is illegal, like Chicago or Texas. Start open carrying there to protest the law if you’re going to be using the Civil Rights analogy.
What’s going on in Michigan isn’t civil disobedience, it’s uncivil obedience. It’s perfectly legal and within my rights to fart in a crowded elevator, but that doesn’t mean I insist everyone else like the smell.
Transformative Technologies
I was quite interested to see this article that British engineers want to try to print an entire aircraft wing, rather than fabricating it through traditional methods. This is a technology that should revolutionize industries where the products being made don’t need to be produced in huge quantities. Aircraft manufacturing could be among those industries. But another is firearms manufacturing. I’m particularly fascinated by selective laser sintering technology, which has the ability to lay down metal, ceramic and glass, in addition to plastics.
A friend of mine just got one of these 3D printers that lays down ABS plastic:
The cost of these printers is under $1000 bucks. If you’re looking for objects to print for your personal 3D printer you can go to the Thingiverse. Obviously home 3D printing is in its very infancy, but these products are bound to get cheaper and more sophisticated. Commercial printers can already lay down different types of material at the same time.
So why do I bring this up? Because to the extent that CNC technology has made gun control an unworkable pipe dream, 3D printing technology makes it laughable. When anyone with four to five figures worth of machinery can download plans for a gun and mill/print it, there is no controls you will create that’s going to stop determined people from getting their hands on firearms in a world where you can print them in your basement, unless the Brady Campaign wants to campaign for control of CNC milling machines and 3D printer. And yes, once you can print and mill guns, you can print and mill ammunition and magazines too. We already know we can have polymer ammo cases.
If Airbus can produce an aircraft wing using this technology, the Brady Campaign’s only “faster and cheaper” away from having their positions about banning this or banning that being a laughable mockery.