A Failure to Discuss?

This is the pot calling the kettle black.  Bryan Miller says we fail to discuss issues.  This is the pot calling the kettle black.  I will prove him wrong by attempting to engage in reasoned discourse.  I’m sure it will be quickly followed by Reasoned DiscourseTM:

All can agree it is the responsibility of the legislature and administration to mediate between individual privilege and the common good. In this case, the common good is public safety and mediation has resulted in a moderate limit on handgun purchases, to diminish handgun trafficking.

Yes, but we’re not talking about individual privilege.  We’re speaking of a constitutional right.  A right Bryan.  Get used to saying it, because it’s law now.  A right.  Now that we are speaking about the right terms, can you explain to me what other constitutional rights we ration?  If I want to pick up three pistols, one for home, and one for me to carry and for my wife to carry, can you explain why I have to wait three months to do this?   Or have one gun for my primary residence, and one for my beach house, why I have to wait two months to make the purchase?  Remember, it’s a right.  You don’t get to argue I don’t need a gun to defend myself.  The Supreme Court already ruled that out.

The law regulates purchases of handguns only. It in no way affects purchases of long guns, such as hunting rifles and shotguns. Since it is illegal to hunt with handguns in NJ, the law does not affect hunting at all.

It’s illegal to hunt with a handgun in New Jersey, but it is not illegal to hunt with handguns in many other states, and New Jersey hunters may want to avail themselves of hunting opportunities in other states.  But that aside, this isn’t, and never has been about hunting.

While it is true a majority of crime guns recovered in NJ are traced back to states with weaker gun laws, ATF data shows that more than a quarter of recovered crime guns were originally purchased from in-state gun dealers. This is a substantial portion of guns used in crime, which this law is intended to reduce.

Originally purchased how long ago on average?  How many were stolen, rather than purchased?  How many were purchased through multiple purchases?  You don’t know this.

ATF data has also shown that several NJ gun dealers have had both “frequent multiple sales to individuals” and “multiple crime guns traced” to them, indicators of likely trafficking originating at gun stores, according to ATF.

Considering how few dealers are left in New Jersey, I wouldn’t be surprised of many New Jersey gun dealers have frequent multiple gun sales, and frequent trace requests.  That doesn’t mean that the multiple sales are ending on the black market, and I doubt you have any proof of this.

This law contravenes no one’s Constitutional rights. The US Supreme Court stated, in last year’s Heller ruling, that individuals have a Second Amendment right to possess handguns in homes for self-protection, but that said ruling “should not be taken to cast doubt on…laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” a clear endorsement of NJ’s ability to regulate handgun purchases.

It’s simplistic to argue that any condition or qualification on a commercial sale is constitutional.  If that is the case, what’s to prevent a state from creating a qualification that only people who have incomes above 80,000 a year and good credit ratings may purchase a firearm?  If you want to argue it’s constitutional, that’s one thing, but you’ll find nothing in Heller that states that rationing this right is among the types of “conditions and qualifications” the court is speaking to.  Someone that has two residences, and suddenly find themselves under a credible threat might feel different about not being able to buy more than one firearm a month.  Did Heller not speak for them?

Sorry Bryan, but we’re willing to have a coversation.  You’re just not willing to listen to what we have to say.  There was a time when you didn’t have to.  Very soon that’s going to change, when your buddy Corzine is sent packing.  You better get used to addressing us as fellow citizens with a reasonable point of view.  The times are a changin’.

Picking a Fight the Other Side Can’t Afford

We know from various sources around the Internet that it’s not the best of times to be a gun control group from a fundraising standpoint.  If you look at the issue strategically, the National Reciprocity bill is really quite the master stroke, considering how much in the way of resources the other side is going to have to try to marshal to defeat it.  Now we have evidence that Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is fronting ads on behalf of Tom Mauser (ironic having a gun control fanatic named Mauser) to target Bennet and Udall for their vote on the Thune Amendment.  Keep spending, gun control people. Keep spending.  Having them on defense is a good thing.

Another Corrupt Mayor?

Bloomberg’s little Mayors against guns group has quite a track record.  A big story hitting the local news is that the FBI have been busy beavers over in New Jersey, raiding the houses of New Jersey politicians.  One of Bloomy’s mayors was among those who had a warrant served.

UPDATE: Thirdpower updates his list.

Right on Cue

Paul Helmke touts his impressive victory over the National Rifle Association, and display it as evidence that NRA is powerless:

What good did the NRA’s money and endorsements do for former Senator Norm Coleman, former Senator John Sununu and former Senator Gordon Smith? Not enough to return them to the Senate. Voters in those states rejected the gun lobby’s attacks last November and voted for their opponents.

Hey, nobody claimed NRA endorsements were a magic key to victory every time.  There were a lot of broader political trends in 2008.  Those still happen, you know. But either way, I have to admit, I’m kind of liking this Senate under Harry Reid.  If we can just get Pelosi and Obama out of power, we might be able to run some serious bills.

Statements from Antis

Another Gun Guy has a statement fromt the VPC, and the Brady Campaign are already promoting this great victory on their front page, and in this press release here.  It’s a strange, strange world where fifty-eight Senators voting for a stunningly pro-gun measure is touted as a great victory by anti-gun groups.  The Bradys even state their hope that perhaps now the Senate will address banning private sales of firearms.

UPDATE: Bryan Miller now too: “Today’s narrow victory for public safety over the profits of the gun industry should be celebrated by all New Jerseyans with any desire to make our homes, schools and communities safer from the scourge of gun violence.”  Yeah, go ask people in Camden or Trenton how safe they think New Jersey’s gun laws make them from the “scourge of gun violence.”

Joe Sestak, Gun Hater Extraordinaire, Pokes Specter

Sestak, who is challenging Specter in the Dem primary, is calling on him to vote against National Concealed Carry Reciprocity:

“Pennsylvania has a right to determine who can carry a concealed weapon in the Commonwealth,” said Congressman Sestak. “We’ve dealt with tragedy after tragedy from gun violence, and while I support the right to bear arms, I also support sensible concealment regulations to protect our communities and law enforcement officers — and I support the right of Pennsylvania to make those decisions. I call on Arlen Specter to vote against the Thune Amendment and to take the lead in opposing the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.”

The 600,000+ Pennsylvanians who have a License to Carry will benefit from this law far more than other states will.  Pennsylvania’s requirements for getting a concealed carry permit are among the least burdensome in the nation.  We don’t require training, and the fee is 26 dollars.  If Joe Sestak is thinking he’s going to hurt Specter on guns, in Pennsylvania, he’s probably doing the opposite.  We tend to like our Dems pro-gun, thank you very much.

I Think the Man is Itching to See a Zumboing

Josh Sugarmann would probably love it if we called for a Zumboing of Jan Libourel.  It would confirm everything he believes about us.  But it’s not likely.  See, I don’t have a problem with Libourel expressing his opinion:

However, being an old-fashioned, low-tech sort of guy, I always felt that a plain old short-barreled 12 gauge pump gun or autoloader was all the urban defense gun I’d ever need. In most urban jurisdictions, it would be pretty hard for a civilian to plead necessary self-defense if he engaged in a shootout at ranges greater than the 35 yards or so at which buckshot is effective.”

There’s a big difference between that, and:

I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles.[…] We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern.[…] To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.

One is an opinion.  The other is advocating imposing an opinion on others who don’t share it through force of law, with more than a bit of condescension for people who don’t follow his ‘true way’ mixed in.  I would expect Josh to have a lot of sympathy for such a position.

I have not read Libourel’s entire article to say for sure I have no quarrel with anything written, but I certainly don’t take serious offense to any of the parts that Josh quoted.  I might not completely share his poorly hidden condescension toward survivalists, and disciplines like “urban rifle,” but it’s not on the order of what Zumbo wrote.  Not even close.

Based on what was quoted by Sugarmann, Libourel isn’t specifically calling for bans on politically incorrect firearms.  Is he expressing skepticism of their utility in certain situations?  Yes.  Is expressing disagreement with survivalist notions, and those who wax nostalgic about revolution?  Sure.  But anyone who’s read this blog for long enough knows that I have not been shy about directly challenging some of these philosophies myself, and while I’ve caught a lot of fire from some quarters for it, I don’t think I’m an isolated outpost in a vast sea of radicalism.

I think Sugarmann makes the mistake of believing that, as a community, we’re ultimately conformist and single minded; mindless sheep bleating whatever the NRA tells us to bleat.  I would expect someone as academic in his opposition research as Josh to know that’s not true.  There’s room to argue whether a shotgun loaded with buckshot (far more deadly at close range than an AR-15) might be better in urban settings.  There’s room to argue over philosophy.  We do it all the time.  But as a community, we know the dangers of driving division, which is what Zumbo was promoting. Libourel hasn’t, claiming membership in a common community of gun owners, advocated for the firearms of some members of that community to be banned or restricted.  He has not called on people to condem survivalists as terrorists, or said that the real shooting community ought to distance itself from these scary practical shooters. That was Zumbo’s sin.  Libourel might be and old fashioned kind of guy when it comes to guns and shooting, but if Josh is expecting a Zumboing to soon follow, he’s going to be sorely disappointed.

AHSA Making a Bad Bet

Over at the AHSA Facebook site, Ray Schoenke says:

The truth is the lower courts of appeals are supposed to follow precedent. That is what Sotomayor did. When she’s a supreme court justice, she will follow the precedent set by heller, and hopefully incorporate the right as fundamental to ALL STATES.

Except you’re ignoring evidence that she doesn’t believe in incorporation at all.  Understand Ray, that means something.  Are you really willing to stake the reputation of your organization (not that is has much of one) on Sotomayor ruling in favor of incorporation when the issue comes before the Court?  That seems like a lousy bet to me.

But on the issue at hand, he’s correct.  Sotomayor was bound by precedent to rule the way she did in Maloney.  In Nordyke, the 9th Circuit case, the Court of Appeals had the option of proceeding forward with analysis of the Second Amendment under the due process clause because that path had not been closed by prior circuit precedent.  Now, a circuit court can overturn its own precedent, but only in an En Banc hearing.

If it hadn’t been for Bach vs. Pataki, it might have been possible for the panel in Maloney to take a more detailed look at incorporation, and whether Presser vs. Illinois is still binding, but Bach vs. Pataki shuts the door on how much a panel can do.  Because in Bach, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did not address the issue of the Second Amendment being an individual right or not, and only focused on application to the states through the 14th amendment, Heller can’t really be seen as overuling Bach.

None of this means that Sotomayor believes the Second Amendment should be incorporated.  We have some evidence that she does not believe this.  It’s a question she will have to answer in her confirmation hearings.  The fact that Ray Schoenke is already jumping on board the Sotomayor train, before we’ve had an adequate opportunity to flesh out her views in a hearing, tells me that AHSA is not a serious gun rights group, but is rather a shill for the Democratic party.  Any real gun rights group would be supremely cautious about Sonya Sotomayor.

More on That Joyce Study

Here’s a quick analysis of something mentioned in that Joyce study that SayUncle linked to.

According to the study, cities with the lowest levels of in-state gun trafficking were Santa Ana, CA; Camden and Newark, NJ; New York, NY; and Boston, MA. Each of these cities was in a state that regulates private sales of handguns, four had strong gun dealer oversight and four had discretionary handgun purchase licensing systems. Cities with the highest levels of in-state gun trafficking were Gary, IN; Tucson, AZ; Phoenix, AZ; Albuquerque, NM; and Indianapolis, IN. None of these cities had any of the gun sales accountability measures examined in the study.

Funny, because if you look at the average violent crime rate for the cities mentioned that have the least gun trafficking, it’s 1083 per 100,000.   If you look at the cities mentioned that have the most gun trafficking, it’s 884 per 100,000.  So it would seem if your city has more gun trafficking, it’s actually safer.

What good are passing these dumb laws if they don’t actually reduce crime?