Month: December 2011

In many states that passed shall issue, you’ll always have a handful of legislators that try to repeal it in practice without actually repealing it. Knowing there will never be the votes for outright repeal, making it nearly impossible to carry, or essentially rendering the license useless, is the next best thing.

Some jackass legislator from Milwaukee is looking to ban guns at gas stations, because they get robbed, you know. Presumably the existing law against robbery isn’t enough, but surely if we just ban guns, that’ll convince those armed robbers to just stay home. In addition, his bill make it a felony to make off with a tank of gas, or for some punk kid to scratch his initials on a gas pump. So we get to make more misdemeanor level crimes a felony, while we’re at it. A two for one deal.

This legislation is likely to go nowhere, but it’s worth pointing out that this battle never ends. There are too many people out there happy to stick their noses in your business. While it’s laughable to believe this is an anti-crime measure, it would most decidedly have the benefit of ensuring that no people licensed to carry actually do so, since this would amount to a major inconvenience.

Both Eugene Volokh and Dave Kopel refute some of the poor facts in an NYU law review article titled “The People” of the Second Amendment: Citizenship and the Right to Bear Arms. The paper essentially argues that the Second Amendment is a citizenship right, and not a universal one, that would apply to foreigners. Professor Volokh notes:

Some years ago, I noticed several authors making the assertion that indentured servants, and in one instance even women and the propertyless, were routinely barred from owning guns in the Colonies and in the early Republic. All those assertions turned out to rely on Michael Bellesiles’ pre–Arming America work that made such an assertion, especially Gun Laws in Early America: The Regulation of Firearms Ownership, 1607–1794, 16 Law & Hist. Rev. 567, 574, 576 (1998)

So in this paper we would seem to have a Bellesiles-inspired claim for which no true evidence can be found. It’s amazing to me, though his work has been thoroughly discredited by now, that his assertions still keep showing up in academic literature. People want to believe, so it becomes fact, even though it is fiction.

Dave Kopel concludes with “The author could have made a stronger historical argument for his position if he had accurately described the gun laws of 17th and 18th century America.” But that doesn’t fit the narrative does it?

I should note that I love the Florida preemption law, and reactions like this are exactly the reason why:

Any such ordinances could be challenged in court. If a judge agrees that a violation has occurred, the offending commissioners could be punished as a group and individually by a fine as much as $5,000.

As expected, the media and local politicians who have been flaunting state preemption for years with no repercussions, have been foaming at the mouth ever since this bill was passed in Florida. I’ve probably seen at least an article every couple of days condemning it. That’s a good sign we need to bring this idea to other states, like Pennsylvania, who have plenty of local worms who pretend preemption is a mere suggestion, to be ignored at their whim.

Palm Beach County Commission Chairwoman Shelley Vana told The Palm Beach Post that local governments should be able to enact gun rules without the worry of being fined or ejected from office.

No, I don’t agree. There’s a constitutional right at stake here, and I believe its within the state’s power to enforce that right. If Chairwoman Vana were talking about keeping blacks away from lunch counters, I think most everyone would agree that the state was absolutely within its power. Equal treatment for constitutional rights is our demand.

The Palm Beach county lawsuit, which was filed last week in West Palm Beach Circuit Court, said the new law was flawed on several grounds, including its withdrawal of the long-established immunity of local officials from being sued as individuals for the legislative act of passing an ordinance. The suit also notes that, contrary to the new law, the state constitution only allows the governor to temporarily suspend elected local officials for wrongdoing. Removal can only be done by a vote of the state Senate.

They might be on decent ground with the removal provision, but only the state enjoys sovereign immunity. Counties, towns, and cities have never been considered in our legal system to be sovereigns. Unless that immunity is part of the Florida Constitution, I don’t understand legally why the state couldn’t waive that immunity legislatively.

The Ledger accuses us of attempting to intimidate and bully legislators into not “going into the area of firearm regulation.” That is exactly correct. But this was necessary because these local worms have been doing that to Floridians and their constitutional rights for years. The shoe is now on the other foot and they don’t like it. I will proudly wear the badge of bully when it comes to standing up to foul busybodies who don’t know how to mind their own business. I’ll gladly intimidate legislators who want to erase parts of the Constitution, or pretend they are not bound by law. To me, that is civic duty.