Category: Gun Rights

From Ian Argent, in the comments, speaking about The Administration’s filing on DC’s side in DC v. Heller:

They slapped gun owners in the face with a fish. Sushi-grade fish, with some tasty sauce, but still, a slap in the face with a fish…

Best metaphor of this whole sorry affair that I think we’re going to see.

Here’s the kind of reasonable restrictions the Bush justice department apparently think is just fine.  Do you think gang members in Chicago are paying these fees?

I hold out the possibility that someone in the Administration put forward this brief without the President’s knowledge.  If that is the case, I want to see people in the Solicitor General’s office, who have their name on this brief, getting sacked.  Chief Council for ATF was the person who wrote the brief.  Did Michael Sullivan know about it or not?  He’s ultimately responsible for what happens at ATF, regardless.  Will President Bush withdraw his nomination?

The next few days will show whether Bush has indeed decided to abandon the second amendment, and throw America’s gun owners off his ship of state.  If this was done without his knowledge, and if he wishes to repudiate this action, heads must roll now.

what George W. Bush’s administration has done for gun owners? His administration has filed a brief supporting the DC gun ban. This is nothing more than total an utter betrayal by Bush of gun owners. John Ashcroft was a friend of the second amendment, no doubt on that, but I don’t think Bush ever was.

NRA needs to set a VERY high standard for the next Republican candidate for getting an endorsement, and if he doesn’t meet that standard, he doesn’t get it. John McCain, I’m talking to you. Start kissing ass now buddy, because you have some amends to make. If you’re our friend in the same way Bush said he was, you can go get bent.

George W. Bush is no friend of gun owners. He did not ever deserve NRA’s endorsement. This is a betrayal that cannot be forgiven.

UPDATE: Guess who wrote the brief? Chief Council for ATF. Guess who his boss is?

UPDATE: Joe Huffman has an excerpt of the brief and had this to say:

This is from a brief filed in favor of D.C. in the Heller case. If I read it correctly they are concerned that the ATF could be put out of a job because they might no longer be able to regulated the manufacture and sale of firearms and maintain their registry of machineguns. Hence, they want to be left with some power to regulate firearms. I’m not a friend of the ATF (individuals at the ATF is something different) but D.C. surely cannot consider them much of a friend either.

The basic crux of the brief is that the Administration is arguing for a standard less than strict scrutiny on right to bear arms cases.   They aren’t arguing that the second amendment isn’t an individual right.  Nonetheless, this opens the door to the possibility of what I would call a “worst case” individual rights ruling, which would basically make the second amendment the only fundamental right protected by the bill of rights which is subject only to intermediate scrutiny at best, and a rational basis test at worst.

This outcome would not be a complete disaster, but if it leaves the door open for cities to ban the possession of functional firearms, there’s not much that the second amendment could be considered an obstacle to.  The second amendment needs to be subject to strict scrutiny, otherwise the lower courts will rule that the Heller precedent doesn’t mean a damned thing, just like they did with Miller.

I think we can ask for more than this out of a supposedly pro-gun president that gun owners helped put in office.

Tom King points out that some people are trying to make distinctions between antique and antique replicas, and modern, in-line muzzle loaders.

I am not surprised they are using these tactics, since it’s worked for them before. See, the modern inline muzzle loader looks, well, modern. It looks like a modern rifle, so it must, by default, be a modern rifle, which is more deadly and powerful. The antique and antique replicas look like old guns, and, of course, must be less powerful and deadly. A hunter that presumes that he doesn’t have a dog in the “assault weapons” fight is sadly mistaken. What’s going on in New York right now is a prime example of that.

They are basically taking a page from the Josh Sugarman playbook.

I could swear I remember reading a case very similar to this where the ATF was smacked down on this theory on what constitutes a machinegun under the NFA and GCA.  Anyone remember what it was?

I guess the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act actually works when it’s not considered before Judge Weinstein’s court.

Joe reminds us that there will always be a loophole for the gun control crowd.  He’s right.  The United Kingdom is the petri dish, and I’m frightened of what’s growing.  We don’t want to run this experiment here too.   We can’t let it run here.

SayUncle is asking what we think about GOA’s criticisms of HR 4900.  My response to that is if GOA can push better legislation thorough Pelosi’s Congress, I’ll applaud them.

The criticism that ATF will abuse their power to levy these civil penalties is a legitimate one, but would we rather have ATF abusing fines, or abusing their authority to shut down gun shops?  If I were a gun shop owner, I’d rather have to fork over a few thousand bucks in a civil penalty than have to fork over tens or possibly hundreds of thousands in legal fees fighting a license revocation.  GOA also makes this claim:

The problem is that — in virtually all of the most aggressive regulatory agencies in the federal government — “civil penalties” are the central engine whereby the agency has expanded its jurisdiction.

I’m not sure what they are talking about here to be honest.  Expanded its jurisdiction how?  How does HR 4900 enable this?  The law actually does a pretty good job of spelling out what types of violation constitute serious ones.  It’ll make fighting an unjust fine a lot easier in court than it currently is fighting a revocation in court.

By no means do I think that HR4900 will fix everything that’s wrong with the ATF, but it’s a reasonable step forward.  If GOA can do better, they are welcome to try.

I guess if I’m going to criticize Reason Magazine, I should probably link to them when they say thinks that make sense and I can agree with.  This article by Chris Sprow talks about how the NFL has been strongly discouraging players from keeping or bearing arms.

No doubt we’ve had problems with NBA players doing this illegally, or engaging in illegal activity while armed, which the NFL would be right to discourage, but I agree that it’s wrongheaded to impose a blanket policy on players, especially when they are attractive targets of violent crime.