June 2013 – Page 2 – Shall Not Be Questioned

People Who Shouldn’t Own Guns

I tend to agree with much of the sentiment expressed over at the Vuurwapen Blog, in regards to people who are stupidly irresponsible with guns. The problem is, as he points out, that we don’t have a good test for stupid that wouldn’t also discriminate against the rights of others.

I’m not convinced that mandatory training and safety courses will be of much help; even if they’re forced to attend, these people won’t retain much or any of the information that’s passed to them. Someone with the right attitude – of affording firearms the respect they deserve as tools capable of causing harm when misused – will seek out this information without being forced to do so. Novice or expert, it’s the willingness to constantly use firearms in a safe and responsible manner that is important. Yes, perhaps some people just need a little nudge in the right direction. But others will never come around.

I agree. Read the whole thing.

Blogger Peter from Firearms & Freedom and his wife are currently going through approval to become a foster home, and he discovered an interesting requirement by the licensing agency for potential foster families in Wisconsin. They mandate that potential foster families sign a form that they will not actually carry their firearms, even if they are lawfully licensed to do so, while they have a foster child in their presence.

He has written to his state lawmakers about this issue since it seems a bit irrational that this agency considers the best place for a firearm to be out of the direct control of the owner.

Since my mom was a social worker for her entire career, I asked if she knew of any cases similar to this or related policies from Oklahoma or Virginia. She could not recall any kind of policy on this subject, especially since those who have undergone the multiple background checks are likely to be good homes for kids in need of one.

I find it interesting because this is a case where potential overreach by a social services agency in making this demand of gun owners could end up creating a more restrictive legislative policy that may not handle the sensitive nature of foster placement well. (And I have no issue with Peter seeking assistance from his lawmakers since the licensing agency is, in my opinion, overreaching on this issue with a blanket ban.) I wouldn’t be opposed if potential foster families were asked about their status as a gun owner because I do recognize that there are a handful of kids who workers probably wouldn’t want to place in that home. I also wouldn’t be opposed if social services agencies developed a general safety concerns manual/pamphlet and made potential families sign off that they have reviewed it, and it could include issues/concerns on firearms storage and possession in the home in the same manner that it might cover pool safety or any other safety issue. But telling gun owners that they shouldn’t ever possess their firearm for self- and (foster)family-defense while in the presence of a foster child isn’t the way the handle the situation.

Distracted by the DOMA Ruling

Sorry for getting a late start today, but I wanted to take a few minutes to at least skim the DOMA decision released by the Supreme Court today. While I agree with the result, I also agree with Scalia’s dissent that if the Plaintiff and Government agreed with the result of the lower court, thus ended the controversy, and the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court would then have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal.

I’m also fine with invalidating DOMA on the grounds that the federal government has no power to define marriage; something that has long been the realm of the states. Though, I wonder how this would work if a state chose to recognize polygamous marriages, and federal law simply wasn’t equipped to deal with marriages involving multiple parties. But this was not a federalism ruling, it was an equal-protection ruling, which seems to be a setup for a future case that challenges states that refuse to recognize or sanctify same-sex marriages on equal protection grounds. Again, while I would agree with the result, I’m not sure how one could distinguish why same-sex couples would have equal-protection to enjoy the benefits of marriage, but first cousins or even siblings would not. The states must have some power to define marriage (though agreeably within the confines of the constitutional guarantees barring discrimination on the basis of race which are already placed on the states through the 14th Amendment).

I support all 50 states recognizing same-sex marriage, but I’m concerned about process. I think the proper realm for that issue to be decided is by state legislatures and state courts, and not through the federal court system. I say that even though I believe conservative opposition to same-sex marriage is handing a whole generation of younger voters to the left. Process is important, and I’m generally very concerned about the left’s, and much of the general population’s disregard for it.

ATF Releases Trace Data for 2012

You can find the story here. ATF site here. They are including two pieces of data I don’t recall from previous years, namely the age of the offender, and the a breakdown of the reason for the trace request. Looking quickly at Pennsylvania’s data, there’s a few surprising things. One is that the age data for Pennsylvania skews much older than I would expect. Generally speaking, you can repeat the old cliche that guns don’t kill people, people do, but really, young men kill people. It’s very interesting that the people Pennsylvania authorities are pulling guns off of skew older. I’m also wondering why so many traces from Pennsylvania don’t list a reason, which is not the case in New Jersey or New York. Interestingly, traced guns in New Jersey have “Found Firearm” as the second reason for traces. New York also trends far older than I would expect as well. When most of the possessors are outside the general age range for criminality, in makes me seriously question how representative traced guns are of crime guns in general.

Lots of interesting data to go through if anyone wants to have a stab at it.

Charging Reporters with the Crime of Journalism

Man who broke DC gun law but got off scott free: “Why should @ggreenwald get off scott free?” http://t.co/tzvSWMIoiB

â€” Political Math (@politicalmath) June 24, 2013

A government-approved contract staffer decided to release just enough information to give people the heads up that there is a surveillance program happening that many people may not find to be constitutional. Yet, the media who so obviously support Obama decide that the reporter who broke the story must be punished for the crime of reporting something unfavorable to the government.

In West Virginia, we see something similar happening when it comes to reporting the story of a prosecutor going after a minor for wearing a pro-Second Amendment t-shirt. When the tide turns against the government agent, the judge orders the reporter barred from the courthouse to keep her from filing a petition on behalf of the press in a gag order hearing and the bailiff enforcing the ban threatened the reporter with arrest after reaching to take her camera and microphone. The prosecutor apparently claimed that the state was trying to silence the teen’s legal team and family for their own good.

Dear West Virginia freedom supporters: The judge who ordered the media banned from the courthouse is elected. You can fix this and send him a message about limits on his power. The prosecutor overseeing the two staff attorneys who insist that court orders silencing defendants are the best things for society and individuals is also elected, and his name is John W. Bennett. There you go; you have tools to make positive changes in your local community. (h/t to Miguel for the link on the WV case)

Supreme Court Strikes Down Pre-Clearance Requirement

This is a victory for federalism, but also kind of unfortunate from a gun right point of view, because it dashes my dreams of subjecting New Jersey, New York, California, et al to pre-clearance for gun laws and regulations. Though, it looks like there may still be room for hope. From the opinion:

That is why, in 1966, this Court described the Act as â€œstringentâ€ and â€œpotent,â€ Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 308, 315, 337. The Court nonetheless upheld the Act, concluding that such an â€œuncommon exercise ofcongressional powerâ€ could be justified by â€œexceptional conditions.â€ …

… The Act was limited to areas where Congress found â€œevidence of actual voting discrimination,â€ and the covered jurisdictions shared two characteristics: â€œthe use of tests and devices for voter registration, and a voting rate in the 1964 presidential election at least 12 points below the national average.â€ Id., at 330. The Court explained that â€œ[t]ests and devices are relevant to voting discrimination because of their long history as a tool for perpetratingthe evil; a low voting rate is pertinent for the obvious reason that widespread disenfranchisement must inevitably affect the number of actual voters.â€ Ibid. The Court therefore concluded that â€œthe coverage formula [was] rational in both practice and theory.â€

In other words, when state and local governments are unable to behave themselves, and respect the rights of their citizens, it may justify such far-reaching congressional intervention such as a pre-clearance requirement. Meanwhile, the anti-gun people like Mike Bloomberg, Mayor Rahm, and other members of the merry band of illegal mayors are doing their level best to create those very “exceptional circumstances” that may justify this sort of intervention. So I think I will declare my dream is not dead.

Good News out of Illinois

The anti-gun political machine in Illinois has been doing their damnedest to buy time for local communities to slip gun bans in so that they can be grandfathered in. The good news is we’ve been meeting them town for town. Here is a report compiled by Todd Vandermyde, the NRA lobbyist on the ground in Illinois. Brackets are my additions, or summarizations.

Park Ridge:Â Meeting was postponed until JULY 8th 7:00pm. Power outage due to storms. Report of good turn out.

Highland Park (Lake County): Ban Passed 6-1, [despite overflow turnout.]

Evanston:Â Good turn out reports say 2-1 for us. No action likely tonight.

St Charles:Â Standing room only and Chief Lamkin’s presentation was moved to the first order of business. The forum gravitated to discussion of an AWB, but bottom line…not in St. Charles

River Forest: No report

Marengo:Â “After what I heard this evening, I doubt the City Council would vote for a ban,” Mayor Donald Lockhart say. “There doesn’t seem to be support for a ban.”

Melrose Park: No report

West Chicago (Dupage County):Â 30 or so showed up for us and every committee member was totally opposed to any legislation and recommended that nothing should be pursued.

Park ForestÂ (Cook County): No gun ban on the agenda.Â The Mayor of Park Forest has responded to inquiries, and there is nothing on the agenda at this time.

When we show up, we win. Highland Park is a shame, but let’s see how they deal with spending a fortune defending a lawsuit in federal court. Hopefully we can beat them back everywhere else. I’m really pleased with as ragged as the powers-that-be in Illinois have been running everyone, that we’re still showing up in large numbers in places they probably never expected. Let’s keep the pressure up.

More Discoveries of NYC Taxpayer Money Propping up MAIG

Over at Jammie Wearing Fools. Apparently Bloomberg sent a lobbyist who is on the city payroll to Nevada to push for gun control there. A city lobbyist noted:

â€œWith Bloomberg, one of his strengths is that, because money is no object, he could just go rent office space,â€ a city lobbyist said.â€œIt seems like theyâ€™re being sloppy.â€

It almost makes you question how much faith Bloomberg has in his own BS, that he feels the need to spend taxpayer dollars on this pet project rather than his own dollars, which as noted are substantial.

h/t Instapundit for the article

The Demonization of Gun Owners Continues

We’re all going to h-e-double-hockey-sticks, at least according to the NEA’s Vice President:

“I’m not an ordained minister, I’m not a theologian, but [the NRA] are going to hell,” the National Education Association’s vice president said during a panel discussion at the Netroots Nation convention of liberal online activists.

And here I thought we were the religious zealots. I think she probably should have stopped with “I’m not an ordained minister, I’m not a theologian,” and followed this sage, old advice. What’s funny is I’ve gotten flack for referring to the other side as “the enemy,” and often using war metaphors when discussing political struggle. But the other side engages in the same politics of dehumanization. Perhaps there’s some other, old, sage advice that applies here.

Another Colorado Recall Certified

This one is against Senator Angela Giron:

Senator Giron comes from a heavily Democratic district, but one in which gun rights are taken very seriously. Boulder or Aspen, itâ€™s not. During the legislative session, Giron held a townhall meeting in a space for 250 andÂ 750 people showed upÂ to express their anger with her anti-gun votes.

Very good. Hopefully these will be successful recalls. This would definitely send a message.

Month: June 2013