Category: Gun Rights

A lot of people have probably already seen the new polling data showing the other side is losing public opinion on the “assault weapons” issue. For the first time ever, majority opinion no longer favors banning so-called “assault weapons.” No matter what else I have to say about this, this is an incredible milestone for the movement. I believe we have achieved this through unprecedented educational and cultural outreach by our movement. Back in the 1988, Josh Sugarmann set out to deceive the public with his now infamous quote:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

You’ll recall that the gun control movement started as a movement to ban handguns in the early 1970s. Fortunately for us, they never found much success. Why? Because what people tell pollsters has always been a lot different than how they actually vote on gun control once they get into voting booths. The handgun ban movement were handed two huge defeats in ballot measures in Massachusetts and California, in 1976 and 1982 respectively. A third defeat came in 1986 with the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. The handgun ban movement was at death’s door, and they needed a new issue. Assault weapons were that issue. The handgun ban movement had spent years trying to reassure hunters and sportsmen they weren’t ever going to go after long guns, well, until they decided to go after long guns. The high-water mark for that issue was the mid-1990s.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed into law September 13, 1994. I was 20 years old and in college. I never realized that such a thing could happen in America. The more I started to understand the issue, the angrier I got. I bought my first firearm, a Romanian SAR-1 Kalashnikov right after Y2K when gun shops were clearing out unsold inventory at good prices. The next day I joined the NRA. I don’t think my story is unique.

The gun control movement is a story of failure: failure that can be directly traced to miscalculating public opinion, and reaching too far. They’ve always been quick to believe polling on the issue. Both handgun ban ballot initiatives in Massachusetts and California were polling to handily win, but they didn’t. They claimed 92% public support for “Universal Background Checks” and only managed 60% in a very blue state. Polling on this issue doesn’t matter, and our opponents have never understood that. The politicians, however, do.

The reason they have overreached consistently is because they have to. As much as gun control folks might want universal background checks, that issue isn’t going to keep money rolling into the coffers of gun control groups. Their goal has never been public safety or crime control. Their goal has always been to destroy this country’s shooting culture and the culture of individual rights and self-reliance that underpin it.

The gun control movement has seen a minor resurgence of late. Obama has been successful at making gun control a shibboleth of the progressive left. Bloomberg has succeeded at bringing money to the table the gun control movement historically could only dream of. He is happy to nibble around the edges of our rights, without the need to explain to donors why they have to accept only half-measures for now. We now have three goals ahead of us:

• Destroy Bloomberg’s incarnation of the gun control movement. This is going to be hard, because unlike other donors, he’s willing to spend big to get inches, and he can afford to keep doing it.
• Improve the Supreme Court so we can enjoy robust protections from the courts that will be hard to undo. If any of the Dem candidates win in 2016, this will be hopeless.
• Restore gun rights in states that have been largely successful in eradicating the Second Amendment rights of their citizens. We have to do this one way or another. It’s not an option to have two Americas.

This new polling data shows we can change public opinion, even if it takes hundreds of conversations across hundreds of dinner tables, or millions of conversations on social media. We can take their winning issue today, and make it their albatross tomorrow. With luck, there will be one Second Amendment, for the whole country, with no more “good” or “bad” states.

SayUncle noticed that the New York Times linked to a satire site about California banning all .45ACP in reference to ammunition restrictions. To be honest, I’m not sure how much I can really blame the Times, given that California’s gun laws are pretty much self-satirizing at this point.

In fact, the whole political class in this country now is satirizing itself on a daily basis.

Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy is preparing an executive order that will prohibit anyone on any of the terror watch list, including the no-fly list, from purchasing a firearm. I’m not sure how the Governor thinks he has the power to do this, considering Connecticut’s law on the matter is pretty clear:

(b) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection shall issue an eligibility certificate unless said commissioner finds that the applicant: (1) Has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association; (2) has been convicted of a felony or of a violation of subsection (c) of section 21a-279 or section 53a-58, 53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a-96, 53a-175, 53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d; (3) has been convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense, as defined in section 46b-120; (4) has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13; (5) (A) has been confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding sixty months by order of a probate court; or (B) has been voluntarily admitted on or after October 1, 2013, to a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding six months for care and treatment of a psychiatric disability and not solely for being an alcohol-dependent person or a drug-dependent person as those terms are defined in section 17a-680, (6) is subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person; (7) is subject to a firearms seizure order issued pursuant to subsection (d) of section 29-38c after notice and hearing; (8) is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing or receiving a firearm pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4); or (9) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.

Emphasis is mine. What isn’t in there? A presence on any “terror watch lists.” If anyone in CT is denied an Eligibility Certificate for reason of presence on any of these lists, they should immediately get in contact with the NRA.

John Richardson did the hard work so I don’t have to. Good news? Neither gun control amendment even got a bare majority. I’m not sure a supermajority was required here because it was a reconciliation bill, but I could be wrong.

Manchin-Toomey got 6 fewer votes than it did last time in 2013 after Sandy Hook. To Toomey’s credit, he did vote against Feinstein’s amendment, which is the terror watch list prohibition.

The only Democrat to vote against both bills was Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Four Republicans voted in favor of Manchin-Toomey, the same four that voted for it last time: Toomey, McCain, Collins, and Kirk. This prompted the following tweet:

Hey, @SenatorHeitkamp, would you ever consider moving to #PA and running against @SenToomey?

— Sebastian (@SebastianSNBQ) December 4, 2015

This is probably old news by now, but since I wasn’t following along, it’s new news to me. The short of it is that Obama signing the National Defense Authorization Act means:

• Concealed carry options for our soldiers.
• CMP Sales of surplus 1911s.
• Prohibits EPA from regulating lead ammunition.

I’m pleased with this development, but to me the big prize would be to require the military and all other federal agencies to sell surplus ammunition to the public. The Clinton Administration ended surplus ammunition sales years ago, and we’ve never gotten it back.

Writing in USA Today, and echoing the words of George Washington Law Professor Robert J. Cottrol:

Cottrol discussed a number of such cases, including that of Melroy Cort, a double-amputee Iraq veteran who in 2006 was traveling to Walter Reed Army Hospital for treatment from Ohio. He was charged with possession of a pistol not registered in the District of Columbia (though he said he had a permit in Ohio), a felony that would not only have sent him to prison, but would have cost him his veterans’ benefits. Although, as Cottrol notes, prosecutors in the DC Attorney General’s office had discretion to drop the charges; they instead threw the book at him.

Fortunately for Mr. Cort, he was saved by jury nullification, but not everyone is so lucky.

[Prof. Cottrol’s] point: Strict gun laws with stiff penalties are just another example of the overcriminalization that has led to mass incarceration in America, particularly among minorities.

Read the whole thing. I’m glad this point is being made, because this has always been the unintended consequence of “enforce the laws on the books,” which I’m noticing NRA is retreating to again. Prof. Reynolds goes on to reiterate his proposal for federal civil rights legislation that would set the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone not prohibited under federal law to $500. I think it’s a great proposal. The only downside I’d worry about is that the anti-gun states would start passing (more) strange and unusual gun regulations, seeing gun owners as a cash cow to be milked. But I’d prefer that situation to the current status quo that exists in those states.

Beyond that, I would like to pursue under the 14th Amendment a complete federal preemption on state and local regulation for the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms anyone not prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms. Basically, if you’re not a prohibited person federally, you can buy and possess anything that’s legal under federal law. But we’re a long way from something that radical.