2016 – Page 23 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Peruta v. San Diego Loses En Banc

This is probably it for the Second Amendment in the 9th Circuit, at least as far as bearing arms goes. From the decision:

We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public. This holding resolves the Second Amendment question presented in this case. It alsoÂ necessarily resolves, adversely to Plaintiffs, their derivative claims of prior restraint, equal protection, privileges and immunities, and due process. In light of our holding, we need not, and do not, answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public.

I’m hoping they do not appeal this. Without Scalia, this would, if we are very lucky, split 4-4, which would uphold the lower court ruling.

If Hillary wins this election, there will be no judicially enforceable Second Amendment of any meaning. That’s not hyperbole, it’s what’s going to happen. I also am very skeptical that losing three national elections in a row is going to make a lot of GOP and Dem politicians start whispering among themselves that NRA and the gun vote isn’t such the big deal they think they are.

This was really no time to nominate a clown car campaign to go against Hillary.

“Under the Gun” Director Stephanie Soechtig Admit to Federal Crime

I mentioned a few days agoÂ that Katie Couric and Stephanie Soechtig may not have necessarilyÂ violated the law by sending a resident of Colorado to Arizona to purchase firearms in a private sale, since an element of the crime under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(3) is transporting back to your home state.Â I did not mention 922(a)(5), because I was hoping they’d feel the pressure and open their mouths about what happened to it, possibly admitting to a federal crime in the process. Â I’m happy to report I am not disappointed!Â Soechtig informs us that the firearms in question were turned over to the police in Arizona.

That does not violate 922(a)(3), but it does violate 922(a)(5), which is just as serious as an offense. Section 922(a)(5) makes it unlawful for a non-licensee “to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person …Â who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in …Â the State in which the transferor resides” Now there’s an exception if you’re transferring it to a licensee, so Couric and Soechtig had the legal option to have it transferred back to an FFL holder outside of Colorado. But there is no exception for police, who under the state in question are non-licensees. So their Coloradan agent here, and Couric and Soechtig by way of conspiracy, did commit a serious federal felony if the circumstances they have described are correct.

Now, will they be prosecuted for it, or will they get the David Gregory treatment? Almost certainly the latter. But there is a technical violation of the law, and otherwise good people have been sent to federal prison for these kinds of violations. There is no “good intentions” exception to these laws, and people with good intentions are routinely prosecuted. But I doubt those involved with “Under the Gun” will be, and that’s because elites take care of their own. One thing it’s not is justice.

Big Money Going to Maine Ballot Fight

Bloomberg is dumping 3 million into the ballot fight we have going in Maine. I appreciate that the Associated Press was kind enough to note:

“Two gun safety groups in Maine are getting more than $3 million from a nonprofit backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in preparation for a big gun control measure on the November ballot.”

The were jerks to call them “gun safety groups” instead of “gun control groups,” but they did note that this is Bloomberg’s effort, and that this is a gun control measure. Everytown has gone to great lengths to try to push money man behind the scenes, and shake off the image that this is meddling by a New York City billionaire. Don’t let them get away with it. Make sure everyone knows what this is, and that this fight is not actually about background checks.

Clayton Cramer Publishes Paper Refuting “The Gunning of America”

Clayton Cramer has a new paper out which examines “The Gunning of America,”Â which we talked aboutÂ here. He doesn’t go into great detail to look at the research footnotes, but perhaps that is not strictly necessary, as he mentions “The Gunning of America Builds on Sand,” noting that the author started the book with the assumption that Michael Bellesiles “Arming America” was correct! Clayton was instrumental in bringing Bellesiles academic fraud to light, and notes the book was “An Almost Unprecedented Historical Fraud,” in this new paper.

The rest of this article could be spent examining Haagâ€™s footnotes in the methodical (some might say, obsessive way) that I deconstructed Michael Bellesilesâ€™ ARMED AMERICA and eventually helped others to do the same to his career. But this article focuses on Haagâ€™s presupposition that renders the validity of the rest of her research worthy of careful study, instead of simple acceptance: was American gun culture an antebellum creation in response to clever marketing by early industrial gun makers such as Colt, Remington, and Winchester? Haag never directly addresses Bellesilesâ€™ claim, simply using nearly every source as evidence in support of this theory.

Proving the existence or absence of a pre-existing gun culture presents an interesting problem. How do you define gun culture? Haag at point distinguishes â€œthe â€˜ordinary shooterâ€™â€ from â€œthe â€˜gun crankâ€™â€. â€œThe latter… was a customer with a deep psychological bond with his gun. This was a transition from imagining a customer who needed guns but didnâ€™t especially want them to a customer who wanted guns but didnâ€™t especially need them.â€44

Fortunately, Michael Bellesiles arrayed a list of sources that demonstrated a strong gun culture well before the industrial gun makers started their marketing. But (as usual) he falsely claimed the opposite. His claim was that most Americans, even on the frontier, according to this astonishing claim, did not hunt until the mid-1830s, when a small number of wealthy Americans chose to ape their upper class British counterparts. An even more amazing claim is that until 1848, when Samuel Colt mass marketed the revolver, violence between whites was somewhat unusual, and murder was rare.

As always, read the whole thing. Someone might want to consider taking the time to look up a few footnotes and see if her research pans out. You’ll notice on the book page, a lot of academics and journalists have spoken favorably of the work, but we know theyÂ won’t bother to do any peer review because they like the conclusion.

Bloomberg Piles on the Hillary Train to Save Her

Hillary is starting to feel the Bern ahead of the California primary, with some polls showing Sanders pulling ahead. I’m cheering for Bernie. I worry he might actually be harder to beat in the general election than Hillary, but I think we have to worry less about the Joe Biden switcheroo if Bernie can take the race outright. That’s probably why Obama is endorsing Hillary.

I’m also cheering Bernie because Bloomberg’sÂ gun control groups have endorsed Hillary Clinton, like that comes with more than a few thousand votes nationwide.Â You can read their article in the Sacramento Bee:

Our litmus test for candidates is that simple. Do they side with the public, or with the gun lobby, whose vision is at odds with creating a safer country?

Oh, that is rich. NRA has five million members, and generally speaking is supported in increments of 25 dollars from its mostly-not-rich members.

Everytown and Mom’s Demand Action is funded almost entirely by a single megalomaniacal billionare, and suddenly they are the public? The gun control movement was dying before Bloomberg came along and flushed it with fresh cash, and it was dying because the publicÂ wasn’t engaged enough in the issue to keep these organizations alive.

I’ll be cheering for Bernie tomorrow. A Bernie win would show their endorsement isn’t worth much, even in a Dem primary.

Did “Under the Gun” Also Violate Federal Law?

According to Ammoland, Stephanie Soechtig admitted in an interview with Lip TV that she sent a resident of Colorado to Arizona to buy firearms from a private seller. We had this issue come up before when Colin Goddard was working for Brady and was accused of the same thing. The crime is actually transporting the firearm back to your home state, not the purchase itself. The seller only commits a crime when the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in his home state. For instance, if the guy pulls up and has Colorado tags, that could amount to such reasonable cause.

Colin Goddard claimed the firearm he purchased out-of-state was disposed of in that state, in which case there was no crime committed. Remember that a lot of the crimes that revolve around deception in a sale only apply if you deceive a licensee. If you tell a non-licensee that you’re from Arizona when you’re really from Colorado, that’s is not a crime. Until the person involved in the sale transports the firearms back to his home state, there is no crime.

That said, if the producers of this show did haveÂ the firearm transported back to Colorado, absolutely a federal crime was committed, and they should be forced to answer what happened to the firearms in question. Ammoland is correct that in that instance, the producers can be reached on conspiracy charges if they were involved in the plot, even if they did not bring the firearms back to Colorado themselves. So did they?

How To Use Your Billions to Win

I keep saying that our opponents are not against money in politics, they are just against your money in politics. To that end, Bloomberg has bought up all the free add space in the Las Vegas market from September up to October and through the election:

Nevadans for Background Checks made a huge ad buy today in Vegas, buying all of Sept. and Oct. and through election. pic.twitter.com/r8Qzz0SStE

— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) May 27, 2016

This effectively prevents our side from being heard on Nevada’s Question 1. Bloomberg is using his billions to silence your voices. Our voices. We’re only going to win this with grassroots, folks. We simply do not have the money to play this game at Bloomberg’s level. We have to beat him with people on the ground. If we don’t, he’s going to come back again, and again, and again, and keep playing this game until we lose half a dozen more states like California, New York, and New Jersey are lost.

So what can you do if you’re a Nevada, or even I dare say a California gun owner?

Talk to people and make sure they understand this has nothing to do with background checks. They want the registry they can get out of all that 4473 data.
Make sure they know Bloomberg’s proposal means even temporary transfers are unlawful. It’s literally illegal to hand a friend a gun except under limited exception.
The proposed law is entirely unenforceable and will only result in widespread lawlessness.
Criminals have no trouble getting around background checks. California has all the laws these people want and more, and their violent crime rate is still higher than Nevada’s.

Also, make sure people know this is Mike Bloomberg meddling in their affairs. This is no grassroots movement of people. It’s a carefully crafted illusion that you can buy if you have enough money like he does. The entire gun control movement is funded by one megalomaniacal rich billionaire who can’t mind his own damned business. If they don’t believe that, then why won’t Everytown reveal what percentage of their funding comes from Mike Bloomberg.

Local Good Guy with a Gun

An armed robber who had a shotgun and zip ties targeted a local pharmacy this morning. Fortunately, the owner takes security seriously and has a video surveillance system that allowed him to see the shotgun before the robber got into the store. The owner also had a gun that he pulled, and he fired at the surprised bad guy.

I think the best part of this encounter is that the owner quickly called the police who could catch the getaway driver who was still waiting outside since he figured his buddy would be a while – trying to clear out the entire pharmacy after at least taking the owner hostage, if not killing him. Easy arrest, and hopefully easy clean-up inside.

UPDATE: And our really, really local outlet reports that the van was stolen out of New Jersey.

UPDATE II: And now we have the folks coming out that says the shotgun-toting robber with zip ties was engaged in a non-violent offense and didn’t deserve to be shot despite his willingness to shoot his victim. When I looked at the rest of the page, it didn’t appear to be a parody account. He seems to really believe that the pharmacist defending his own life committed murder.

And for the record, my right to bare arms is my right to wear sleeveless shirts and dresses. My right to bear arms, however, protects my right to defend myself from armed robbers ready to kill over access to drugs.

UPDATE III: And this is why I voted for our DA:

District Attorney David Heckler wholeheartedly agreed.

“There is no thought that we would prosecute the shooter in this case. He was entirely justified in his conduct, and frankly should be commended,” Heckler said.

“From what I can see, he performed a public service in taking out this fella,” Heckler continued. “The fella asked for what he got and he got it.”

UPDATE IV: And, it gets even better. The getaway driver admits he’s a criminal on probation – driving a stolen car to an armed robbery. It will be curious to see how long his record is back in New Jersey, as well as that of the dead thief who has yet to be identified.

All That Matters is the Narrative

Charles C.W. Cooke asks the relevant question about the UCLA murder-suicide:Â â€œWhat law â€” specifically â€” would have prevented yesterdayâ€™s shooting?â€

Typically, those who favor more gun control argue that Americaâ€™s â€œpatchwork quiltâ€ of rules and regulations help those who would do harm to slip through the net. Furthermore, they contend that adding further barriers would prevent young men with evil intent from getting hold of lethal weaponry in the first instance. But it is hard to see how such criticisms can apply here, in response to a crime that could have been carried out with a double-barreled shotgun from 1872.

Good thing California recently decided to ban guns on college campuses, or someone might have gotten hurt. Like many mass shooters, the gun was legally purchased by someone who had a clear background. Notice how the media dropped the mass shooting in Houston like a hot potato and then gravitated to the ULCA shooting? Probably because the Houston story quickly defied the preferred narrative, and the narrative is what’s most important to the gun control operatives with bylines.

The Wronged Are Coming Out of the Woodwork

Yellow Journalism Ahead Following up on the Katie Couric and HBO fiasco, yet another Second Amendment activist is accusing the media of warping their words. In this case, words were twisted by the New York Times to make it seem like said activist was pro-registration. Of course the Times piece in question is a great example of PropagandaÂ masquerading as journalism in and of itself. It’s worth noting that to whatever extent the National Firearms Act is “gun control that actually works,” it still lead to a ban 52 years later, so the New York Times can go to hell when it comes to their proposal to expand the NFA. If anything, we’re going to drive in the opposite direction.

Remember, the press has a narrative it’s trying to drive. If you don’t talk to them at all, which is what I recommend, you don’t risk becoming part of that narrative. If you do, against all better sense, decide to talk to Propagandists for the other side, record everything, and call them out when they twist your words. There’s plenty of friendly news outlets these days that will eat that stuff up.