Category: Gun Rights

Insty linked to Uncle’s post here, but also to a post by Roger Kimball which I think is well worth reading. Sometimes it helps to have the perspective of someone not in the meat of this political battle we fight:

But behind the panoply of motivations there is, I suspect, this fundamental philosophical divide: On the one side are people who see that we live in a free society, understand that freedom is not free—that it can often be quite an expensive quality—and who understand further that preserve freedom requires that individuals stand up for themselves, physically as well as in other ways.On the other side of the divide are people who see that we live in a free society, who may also understand that freedom is not free—they, too, might admit that it can often be quite an expensive quality—but who wish to cede important parts of that responsibility to the state. The former are likely to be small-government, low-tax supporters of the Second Amendment. The latter are likely to be big government, high-tax critics of the Second Amendment.

That alludes to something I’ve long believed: this fight is about a whole lot more than just guns. Glenn Reynolds has alluded to this before as well, by saying that how you view this issue says a lot about how you view your fellow citizen. I agree with that. The right to bear arms is just one aspect of a free people, but it’s one of the hardest aspect to accept if you have contempt for your fellow citizen.

Looks like the Mayor of Rutledge, who is also an attorney, plans to sue Mike Nutter over his controversial “stop and frisk” policy. He’s going to have his work cut out for him, because Terry v. Ohio is the established precedent that says police officers are allowed a limited search for weapons before questioning someone, to ensure their own safety. The standard in Terry is “reasonable suspicion” rather than “probable cause.”

But I’m quite happy to see he’s also suing the Upper Darby Police Department for their policy of seizing firearms illegally. The UDPD has a reputation in Delaware County, or at least had a reputation when I lived there, that was less than stellar. This would indicate things haven’t changed much:

Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood Sr. said yesterday that his department will not return seized firearms without a court order or his personal approval. Those that aren’t returned to the owners are destroyed.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the state attorney general’s office are investigating aspects of the township’s policy.

Those investigations are focused on activity that apparently predated Chitwood’s arrival in 2005.

Chitwood apparently doesn’t care about Pennsylvania law, which states very clearly:

The Pennsylvania State Police and any local law enforcement agency shall make all reasonable efforts to determine the lawful owner of any firearm confiscated by the Pennsylvania State Police or any local law enforcement agency and return said firearm to its lawful owner if the owner is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm. When a court of law has determined that the Pennsylvania State Police or any local law enforcement agency have failed to exercise the duty under this subsection, reasonable attorney fees shall be awarded to any lawful owner of said firearm who has sought judicial enforcement of this subsection.

There’s no penalty other than having to award attorney’s fees. If I were a taxpayer in Upper Darby Township, I’d be outraged that my Chief of Police was promulgating a policy that wasted taxpayer money fighting their legal obligation to return seized or stolen property to the rightful owner.

Hat tip to War on Guns

I’ll give Ed Rendell credit when he does something good for sportsmen:

In recent years, Pennsylvania has been at the forefront when it comes to creating and expanding hunting and shooting sports opportunities for youth and promoting them as family activities. Last year, that position received national attention when Gov. Ed Rendell demonstrated his support by holding a public signing ceremony that made Pennsylvania the first state to adopt Families Afield legislation.

Created by the United States Sportsmen’s Alliance, Families Afield addresses the concerns of declining participation in hunting. Since then, other states — recognizing the economic impact of the shooting sports and hunting, and its direct benefit to conservation — have followed Pennsylvania’s lead by passing similar legislation.

The bill allows adults to mentor young hunters without having to have a license.  Truth be told, we need this across the board.  The main obstacle to me going out and hunting for the first time is the fact that I have to find time to take hunters education, and buy the license.  Hunting will continue to decline as long as barriers to the sport remain high.  We need hunting for the shooting sports to be healthy, and for our rights to be safe.  This is a great step in the right direction, but I think we need more.

ATF have been sending out the updated book of all state and federal gun laws to FFLs. I got mine a few days ago. Ride Fast got his too, and has some interesting observations about state gun laws.

First Dave Hardy talked about it over here.  Clayton Cramer doesn’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing.  David Codrea thinks it’s madness.  I agree with Clayton that the mentally ill are more likely to be stopped by background checks rather than criminals.   But is NICS constitutional?  Technically speaking, it’s a prior restraint on the exercise of a right.  If it were printing presses we were talking about, it wouldn’t be a constitutionally permissible law.

NICS exists because the vast majority of Americans think people should have to pass a background check to buy a firearm.  Even among gun owners, it’s rare to find people who argue that abolishing the instant check system is a worthwhile endeavor, but I have to admit I find Bruce’s commentary here telling:

If anything can be learned from the events that unfolded in Rochester this afternoon, it’s that more must be done at the federal level to prevent persons of questionable mental status from purchasing duct tape and road flares.

Or to paraphrase what I’ve heard from others: if someone can’t be trusted with a gun, they can’t be trusted with matches and gasoline either.  There are a lot of ways to cause mayhem and destruction for those who wish to do so.

I’ve said before that I consider NICS to be a minor infringement, and I’m not certain it’s worth burning political capital to eliminate it in the current political climate.  I wouldn’t underestimate the value it has in making the public feel good that the current laws are adequate.  But is it constitutional?  Is it a worthwhile restriction, aside from making people feel better about guns being legal?  Should we make getting rid of it a priority?   I’d love to hear people’s opinions in the commentary.

Apparently the Akins Accelerator folks are going to fight the ATF determination in court after all. I wish them luck. I’m rather skeptical about being able to recover damages from ATF for the determination. How would the suit overcome soverign immunity? I would think that ATF, acting in it’s capacity to adminsiter the GCA 68 and the NFA would be able to claim soveirgn immunity against a damages suit. Can any attorney’s comment on that?

Though, filing suit over the determination strikes me as meritorious, and given ATF’s track record in court, probably has a good chance.