July 2013 – Page 7 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Again with the Same, Tired Narratives

And now the Marissa Alexander case rears up again in the media. I covered her case more than a year ago at this point, when the narrative first hit the media. Alexander is a poster child against mandatory minimum sentences, not against stand your ground laws. A big problem we’re having is that journalists, when they don’t outright have an agenda, which is often, don’t really understand our laws or legal system. Stand Your Ground laws honestly don’t change a whole lot when it comes to self-defense cases. It still comes down to credibility, and that was the difference between Alexander and Zimmerman.

UPDATE: More here, at WTBGU.

UPDATE: Also at Ace of Spades.

Update on Illinois Ordinance Fights

We’re winning more than we’re losing, which is good. When we show up, we win. And even where we lost, we didn’t lose as badly as one might fear. Perhaps we’ll get to see how the convictions of the town councils that defied us stand up under a federal lawsuit.

Prius-Driving, Pink Shirt-Wearing Candidate for Colorado Governor

It looks like the freshest candidate in Colorado’s gubernatorial race is a big cycling enthusiast who hops in his Prius when he has to drive somewhere and is comfortable showing off in a somewhat slim-fitting pink polo.

Oh, and he’s a pro-gun guy.

As Jim Geraghty notes, another big plus to Brophy is that he’s not Tom Tancredo. I also appreciate his pitch for issues beyond the gun issue:

â€œInstead of limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines, we will work to increase the capacity of our highways,â€ Brophy said. â€œWe will increase the number of charter schools and magnet schools.â€

Even if the gun control law is a big reason why he’s running for governor, it’s good that he has a message of positive changes he wants to make, too.

CT State Police Aren’t Engineers

This is the reason that State Police Det. Ken Damato gives for the Connecticut State Police refusing to give manufacturers any guidance on what features of a firearm would be within the bounds of the state’s new gun control laws. He says, “Weâ€™re not arbiters of weapons construction.”

Such excuses are interesting considering that he then admits the same non-engineers who know so little about firearms are telling retailers what they can and cannot sell, and I have little doubt that these non-engineer/non-firearms experts will gladly arrest a citizen with a gun they claim they don’t really understand.

Of course, don’t expect any consistency out of the State Police on this issue. They will defend their absolute knowledge when it comes to arresting people, but not when it comes to assisting the firearms business in attempting to follow the law.

This reeks of Massachusetts-style attitudes. There are two sets of requirements that have to be met before handguns can be sold in Massachusetts, and Attorney General requirements are essentially handled the same way that the Connecticut State Police are behaving now. They tell manufacturers that they will not assist in judging compliance–unless, that is, you break the law. Then they will gladly go after you for the crime.

I remember a period of a few weeks when Glock decided to try legally selling in Massachusetts back in 2004 or so. The AG’s office, which would not provide guidance up until that point, just suddenly decided that they didn’t actually meet requirements and made them illegal to sell. If you want an idea of the kind of mess that Connecticut may be on the path toward by adopting Massachusetts-style attitudes on gun regulations, then check out this crazy page by a Massachusetts gun dealer that tries to explain what he can and cannot sell.

Even the Connecticut press seems to think this attitude that the State Police are refusing to help people abide by the law is too much. Granted, their solution is to make government bigger to answer more questions, but at least they acknowledge that there’s a problem when bureaucrats try to keep things vague for people trying to follow the law.

Could Impact Gun Rights

Reid is considering the “nuclear option” to ending the filibuster.Â At this point, it may only end up applying to nominees, but that’s not clear. It’s worth noting that the filibuster is the only thing keeping gun control from passing the Senate. Of course, it’s also the only thing keeping national reciprocity from passing as well. We could end up with a Manchin-Toomey like deal with national reciprocity tacked on to it. How bad do the likes of Bloomberg want Manchin-Toomey? Probably not at the cost of letting us tote firearms in Manhattan.

Who Will Try to Ban Your Rifle this Week?

Communities have until Friday to get in under Illinois’ grandfathering, because all firearms ordinances get preempted. Several are going to try for bans this week. This is like the lottery, you have to play to win, except the odds of winning are much much higher when we play.

Zimmerman Roundup

One thing I have to say is that I’m glad the Zimmerman case is over, because I’ve grown tired of this whole case. Of course, it’s over, or is it? The feds are deciding whether they want a stab at him too. Jonathan Adler has an excellent write up of that possibility over at Volokh. He seems to think the feds will take this Very Seriously, and then pass.

Meanwhile, Eugene Volokh suggests if the Zimmerman case suggests there should be anything changed in regards to Florida’s law, perhaps they should look at the six person jury law. In all but one other states, for serious crimes, juries are composed of 12 people.

Massas Ayoob has his say on the case, and will have more to say. He’s been silent because he’s been involved in the case.

Apparently people on the streets have more measured opinions than many in the media. That’s probably why there hasn’t been much in the way of rioting that a lot of people feared. Though, I’ve seen my share of people on Facebook who still think this was about 13 year kid who was hunted down for buying skittles, and who obviously didn’t follow the case or the trial one iota since they heard the initial narrative. But that jury, who actually heard all the evidence, how could they get it so wrong??

Mike Bloomberg thinks we need to stop with these “shoot first” laws, even though this was a pretty run-of-the-mill self-defense case where stand-your-ground never entered into the equation.

Michael Bane thinks it’s a huge victory for self-defense, and offers some useful advice.Â Tam has some similar thoughtsÂ about getting involved. I’m not your sheepdog. If it’s not my ass on the line, I’m not getting involved. The powers that be don’t want to see anymore of this. They’re from the government, and there to help, OR ELSE!

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has a predictable reaction to the Zimmerman verdict. They don’t believe in self-defense. To them, Hitler was a victim of tragic gun violence.

Shooting-Related Craftiness

I recently found a vintage Friends of NRA committee member pin on Etsy for a steal, and I’d like to clean it up and do something cute with it. For this year, I’ll stick to just wearing it as-is. I’d like to do something crafty with it, but I don’t actually know how to make jewelry, nor am I particularly creative.

In the meantime, I went surfing on Etsy again for a little gun jewelry inspiration and found some pretty stuff worth sharing.

Right now, I’m thinking charm bracelet for my new (old) pin. I suspect that’s something I could manage to make on my own without too much effort.

In other antique gun news, the city of Harrisburg is having an auction to rid itself of all the crap that a former MAIG mayor bought on the city’s dime while claiming it was for a museum. (Last year, the Department of Justice opened up an investigation into his questionable spending, so he’s another misbehaving Bloomberg ally.) Part of the collection is a series of antique firearm advertisements, plus several historic guns.

A Sense of Perspective

In yesterday’s news links, I linked to an article that actually linked to my Tiny-Tiny RSS instance. Ooops. I fixed the link, but the article, written by Tam, I think was good enough to link here. Just a bit of perspective.

Shifting Policy by Ignoring Reality

As much as we often mock anti-gun advocates when they are just blatantly and laughably wrong about facts, it would appear that some groups are actually using this as a strategy. The crazy thing is that I’m not sure that it won’t prove effective over time.

Theodore Bromund shares an email received by a Congressional office from eight gun control groups that were opposed to Rep. Mike Kelly’s amendment to the Defense Department budget to ban using funds for implementation of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. What’s interesting about it is that they really approach the entire debate as though the US has already signed on and ratified it. They also get many basic facts wrong, but many of those misstated “facts” add up to creating the perception that the Arms Trade Treaty is the law of the land. How many Congressional staffers will know they are wrong? Very few.

Throughout their email, the NGOs completely fail to distinguish between the ATT and the authority of Congress: as they see it, everything the U.S. does in the realm of arms export control is already regulated by the ATT.

In fact, thatâ€™s the NGO strategy: Set up the ATT as the controlling moral and legal authority for U.S. policy, then slowly reinterpret the ATT to drag U.S. policy into alignment with their preferences.

Just to add some icing to the cake, Bromund also notes that UN is setting up a program to fund these anti-gun groups to provide “legal or legislative assistance” in expanding the Arms Trade Treaty to more countries.