Month: March 2014

The response from the City of Sunnyvale to the Supreme Court can be found here. TL;DR there’s no exigent circumstance here, and there’s no right to have a magazine holding more than ten rounds anyway. They say that at least one applicant is already storing his magazines outside of town, and that this shouldn’t be a problem for other applicants.

Applicants are merely attempting to circumvent the appeals process by asking this Court to prejudge the very issues that are now before the Ninth Circuit in this appeal.

They also note that no lower court has found for a right to keep and bear magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Every court that has considered the constitutionality of a ban on LCMs, including the D.C. Circuit, has applied intermediate scrutiny and held that such a ban does not violate the Second Amendment. See Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1264 (D.C. Cir. 2011); San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, C-13-05351 WHA, 2014 WL 644395, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2014); New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo, C-13-291S, 2013 WL6909955, at *18 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2013); Shew v. Malloy, C-13-739 AVC, 2014 WL346859, at *9 (D. Conn. Jan. 30, 2014); Tardy v. O’Malley, C-13-2861, TRO Hr’g Tr.,at 66-71 (D. Md. Oct. 1, 2013).3

And after all, all courts agree that the Second Amendment is a Second Class Right:

Since this Court recognized the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the Circuits have adopted a careful and measured approach to the various gun control ordinances they have evaluated, deciding each case on its merits and avoiding broad pronouncements that would up-end the development of Second Amendment jurisprudence. In keeping with this careful approach, a consensus has emerged in the Circuits that while severe restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms either fail categorically without regard to their justifications or fail strict scrutiny, more modest burdens that permit armed self-defense but only regulate the exercise of that right are subject to less demanding scrutiny.

The response drips with disdain for the Second Amendment, and for the rights of gun owners. I hope the Court can help us out here with an injunction, but I’d be a liar if I said I was optimistic.

UPDATE: The motion was denied without comment. There’s not too much in the way of tea leaves to read here.

The bill is H.R. 2959, and NRA has a press release out about the bill. Elections are coming up soon, and whether or not we can get this through the Senate (probably not) or through the President (definitely not) it gets lawmakers on record for an important vote. This particular bill doesn’t enumerate specific powers that Congress has to pass such a bill, but that is not strictly required. Certainly Congress has the power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to pass such a bill. As I’ve mentioned in the past, there is a potential issue with the case of City of Boerne v. Flores case, in terms of the Court having been willing, in the past, to smack down Congress for getting out ahead of the Supreme Court in defining a right.

However, in this case, Heller contained lengthy discussion that recognized the right to carry a firearm, though not necessarily in any manner one may want, and not necessarily any place. The bill still leaves room for states to ban the carrying of concealed weapons entirely (though, at this point, no state does so). It is as respectful to the right as described in Heller as Congress could muster, so it is arguably a bill that is not getting out in front of Congress. Additionally, even if the 14th Amendment argument fails, there are at least two others that may also work. Though I’ve written before about why I think resting federal reciprocity on the interstate commerce power could be a dubious proposition, even in light of Gonzalez v. Raich, because there’s no real nexus to interstate commerce with this bill, short of arguments the court has rejected in past cases.

I’d note that I don’t think this should be the end of Congress exercising it’s 14th Amendment powers on behalf the Second Amendment, but only the beginning. Just because the Supreme Court has had a turf battle with Congress in one context doesn’t necessarily mean they will choose to in another. At the least, Congress needs to preempt DC City Council from regulating firearms above what federal law does, which it has the clear, plenary power to do. But I’d also like to see such preemption applied to all states, and finally be rid of the two Americas problem.

I had this topic scheduled for tomorrow, but sometimes when you try to stretch out material, it’s old news before you can blink an eye. So I’ll go tonight, with Dave Hardy, who is reporting that the Supreme Court had just made an interesting move in the case involving the magazine ban in Sunnyvale, California. The motion to stay enforcement until the case had been decided was denied by the District Court, and again by the 9th Circuit. It was appealed to the Supreme Court, and Kennedy just told the city it needed to respond by tomorrow. Interesting! We will eagerly see how this goes.

A reader sent me details about a company called Global Digital Solutions filing a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing their intent to acquire Remington Outdoor Company, previously known as Freedom Group. At first I thought this might be some conspiracy stuff, but as I started looking into it myself, I think we might have something to really be concerned about here. Because what else is GDSI known for? Personalized Gun Control. Their technology essentially provides, according to their release “Encrypted, password-protected, digital, trigger-locking capability.” and “Secure, real-time online tracking,” and if that’s not enough to get your tin foil hat in a bunch, “Encrypted, cloud-enabled databases.” No sir. You make guns with this, I won’t buy them. In fact, that would pretty much ensure I never buy any other product from Remington Outdoor ever again. I am also not the only gun owner who feels this way. You can take that to the bank. They do add:

In the commercial marketplace, the company emphasized that use of the encrypted locking device and other GDSI Gatekeeper safety and security features would be completely voluntary on the part of individual small arms owners and authorized dealers.

“Here in the United States, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected and inviolable,” Sullivan added.  “The Gatekeeper program will provide additional safety and security for law-abiding gun owners in the United States and elsewhere.  We believe Gatekeeper’s secure locking and tracking features could encourage millions of people who might have shied away from keeping firearms in their homes because of safety concerns to reconsider.  And collectors would be able use make use of Gatekeeper’s tracking and database features to exercise greater control over their prized firearms collections.”

It’ll be voluntary until you put this on the market, then it’ll be mandatory. That’s already the case under New Jersey law. All it takes is a declaration from the state Attorney General and this will be the only technology you can buy there. Also, if this naive CEO thinks the “right of the people to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected and inviolable” I have a bridge to sell him.

Now I want to be clear, GSDI’s offer is unsolicited, meaning Remington didn’t approach them. It doesn’t mean Remington Outdoors is having anything to do with these yahoos. But I want to be clear to GDSI that they will have one hell of a poison pill to swallow in what the gun community will do to the Remington companies if a deal like this were to ever go through.

The news cycle is a double edged sword. Gun control isn’t getting much play in the media, which is good for us, but kind of makes things difficult if you’re a blogger. Though, it’s always good to see the PSH in the news because of something we’re doing, and we do have some of that:

Indiana is considering a bill to allow people to keep firearms locked up in their vehicles while on school grounds. Needless to say, Indiana resident Shannon Watts isn’t happy. We’re happy to be doing things to keep her attention focused on Indiana.

We defeated them in Oregon, at least for this year.

Rep. Randy Dunn of Kansas City thinks Missourians should have to run away from an attacker before resorting to deadly force.

More debate on the 1911. I’m with Uncle on the M1911. I can shoot an M1911 more accurately than most other pistols. I even do better with Para’s LDA trigger than with a Glock. But I’d still never carry a 1911.

Only Guns and Money is joining a podcast. I agree with him that blogs aren’t dead, but I think it is becoming increasingly difficult for hobby blogs to compete for limited audiences with commercial players who are doing it for a livelihood. You won’t see an SNBQ podcast. I have a voice meant for writing.

For someone who is a PR professional, I often don’t get Shannon Watts. She decided to make a story out of something that wasn’t a story. CSGV particularly has been going into the realm of lunacy as of late. They’d be in the category of “help I don’t want,” if I was a sensible person on their side of the issue. But I question whether Watts is actually sensible.

Cuomo is prepping an anti-gun ad campaign.

Campus Carry in Idaho is on the Governor’s desk. Now he has to be convinced to sign.

Glenn Reynolds writes about the militia. The closest thing we have to such a thing today, in terms of how they were structured, are volunteer fire departments. I kind of wonder if SWAT teams were volunteers whether they’d feel quite as good about kicking down grandma’s door because she was growing some pot as the people getting paid for it.

Glenn Reynolds responds to Eugene Volokh’s article about magazine capacity: “Personally, I think civilians and police should be able to carry the same kinds of weapons. That’s a useful check on the militarization of the police.” I couldn’t agree more.

Russian ammo rumors are bogus. Though I do hold out the possibility we could lose Russian ammo supplies under economic sanctions. I’m not sure the fear is bogus, even if it’s business as usual for now.

Yeah, I’m kind of with Bob Owens on the idea of using George Zimmerman as a celebrity. The worst he may be guilty of is poor judgement when it comes to women, but it’s just not the kind of celebrity I’d want as a face of the issue. Sometimes gun show promoters are our own worst enemies.

Yes, there are really people who believe this: The crooks only have guns because their victims do.

Caleb has a pretty good article about “Where have all the great gun writers gone.”

Some cops are living up to their oath in Connecticut. We need to encourage this. I actually think we need a foundation in this country that offers to help cops who were fired from their jobs for refusing to obey unconstitutional orders, or kick in doors that don’t really need to be kicked in, and help them move to departments that are more amiable to their principles.

Off topic:

Tam pretty much channels how I feel about the Ukraine/Russian situation. I think the Obama Administration was stupid for considering Russia no threat, but making overtures about putting NATO on Russia’s borders was bound to provoke the bear, and if you’re not prepared to shoot the bear, you shouldn’t provoke him. It just makes you look weak when he charges and you’re not really prepared.

This guy is my kind of Aussie: “I said to myself, if I’m going to cark it I’m going to have a beer, so I got a Goldie out of the fridge and drank that; ’cause you know eastern browns are the second most venomous snake in the world,” Keep calm and have a Goldie.

It’s amazing no one was killed in this plane crash.

 

They aren’t getting any generational shift on the issue:

In the study, Millennials opposed gun control by a margin of 50-48 percent. Although it’s a small margin, WAMC Northeast Public Radio points out it is “roughly at par with the attitudes of older generations.”

Though, if Millennials say they are against gun control but don’t vote against it, it won’t rightly matter. The GOP so far has not shown itself very effective with this generation, so the gun control groups can still hold out hope that this generation keeps voting Democratic, despite the party’s position on guns, because of other issues.