Gun Rights – Page 49 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Are Protests Getting out of Hand?

That’s the question Jeff SoyerÂ asks, in regards to NYSRPA bailing out of the repeated protests at the State Capitol. I’ve been thinking about how to approach this topic, because I don’t really have any fundamental beef where NYSRPA thinks their focus ought to be, and I tend to agree with the notion that protests are among the less effective methods of activism out there unless it’s used very judiciously. It certainly has its place, but endless protesting and rallying just squanders grassroots energy and conditions both lawmakers and the public to ignore it. At some point, we have to be heard at the polls.

Let me quote from Tom’s comments:

There have been many studies and surveys done regarding the population demographics of the people of this country and state our research tells us New York State is divided in this manner (Numbers rounded): Rabidly Anti-Gun 22% Somewhere in between 46% Avidly Pro Gun 32%

Fellow gun owners I submit this to you for your consideration. We will never convert the 22% rabid anti-gunners, we donâ€™t have to convert the 32% avid pro gunners but we must convert a sizable portion of the 46% of those somewhere in between if we want to retain our 2nd Amendment Rights long term. These are the soccer moms, the guys who say Iâ€™ve never shot a gun but would like to try it and the people worried about their safety. How do we do that? Not by standing on stage screaming obscenities at Cuomo and certainly at large rallies where people stand on stage, pound their chest and tell the attendees to prepare for war. That frightens the very people we want to attract to our side, the people who will insure 2nd Amendment Rights for our grandchildren.

I’ve said before that what we need to buy acquiescence from that 46% more than anything, but that’s conditioned on there being a generally favorable environment for our issue. There can present circumstances where acquiescence is not enough. Where the political elites and politicians are actively hostile, you can buy all the acquiescence in the world and it won’t amount to a hill of beans. If the great middle are not willing vote gun rights, it doesn’t matter if you convince them that the SAFE act was unconstitutional, unfair, and useless. If they then go ahead and vote for Cuomo again, you haven’t gained anything. You have to not only win that 46% over, but win them over enough to convince them to vote against the people who did this to you.

Or, you can depend on the Courts to save you. While I wish the Federal Court case against the SAFE Act all the luck in the world, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has demonstrated nothing but unusual hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms. Beyond the Second Circuit, I’m not convinced the Supreme Court is in a position to help us out any further on gun rights. I’ve love to be wrong, but I’m not optimistic.

I believe bringing the rogue states back to America will necessarily involve federal preemption, but I can’t promise that will work. Even if it does work, it involves a years long wait for the Obama Administration to end, and then some time to push a hopefully Republican President and Congress to act. You could easily be looking at “Second Amendment Restoration Act of 2018” or maybe even 2022, to be more realistic. And that’s making a lot of optimistic assumptions.

In the mean time, I can understand why Tom might believe his organization is better off playing good cop to other groups’ bad cop, and he’s probably right about that, given areas they have chosen to lobby and litigate. But until the calvary actually appears from over the hill, New York gun owners are surrounded. Their backs are against the wall, and many of them have been rendered felons for refusing to take part in Cuomo’s utopian daydreams. While in ordinary times, I’d quickly agree that overheated rhetoric helps nothing, but what of difficult times? During difficult times I think it’s necessary, as Thomas Jefferson said, to remind officials that the people still possess “the spirit of resistance to government.” We are a people who threw off our previous form of government because its previous officials conspired to disarm us. Today’s officials would do well to remember that, so I’m not going to suggest anyone is in the wrong for reminding them.

Thursday News Links

With the latest mass shooting at Fort Hood, there’s obviously going to be a lot of reaction. As I mentioned yesterday, our opponents have a poor track record of exploiting this kind of situation, but surely they will try:

MAIG/MDA’s statement on the Fort Hood shooting. I notice that it appears that John Feinblatt is now the Chairman of MAIG, which I’m guessing means that Bloomberg is now employing him instead of New York City taxpayers. Should have always been that way.

Piers Morgan: still a jackass.

Bearing Arms has the facts of the shooting as they stand now.

Shocker: mental illness seems to have played a role in this latest mass shooting.

Shocker, Part II: The CEO of GDSI, the smart gun company, isn’t a gun guy. No, I suspect his passion is using government to force his product down people’s throats whether they want it or not.

Comparing murder rates across countries. If you don’t cherry pick your data, there’s no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

Linking Senator Yee’s voting record to campaign donations. More about Yee from Business Insider. From Reason: Why isn’t Leland Yee a household name? Because he’s a Democrat, and the media hates Republicans.

Hot guns fueling gun violence. But I thought that criminals got their guns from gun shows and the internet?

The Drake case, challenging New Jersey’s no-issue concealed carry policy, has been getting some attention from the press.

New Mexico’s requirement that concealed carry permit applicants be US citizens has been struck down. I’m not even sure you need to reach the Second Amendment on that, since I think it’s well-established that kind of discrimination violates equal protection.

NSSF and SAAMI are suing California over microstamping.

Dave Hardy: “Excuse me while I upchuck.” The Arizona Republic thinks we should celebrate the architect of Fast and Furious. Dave also has an update on the Jones testimony about F&F before Congress.

Claire McCaskill would do well to remember she won her last election by extraordinary luck in drawing a hapless opponent. She’s still a leftist serving in a red state that’s just getting redder. Blasting the NRA and singing Vivek Murthy’s praises won’t endear her. This article is bad advice.

Moms Demand Action speak out against preemption in Florida. Know what their end game is. Preemption is a bedrock principle. Gun ownership basically becomes impossible without great legal jeopardy if local communities can infringe on your rights at will.

College student suspended for questioning the gun control orthodoxy.

How traffic stops should unfold.

Bob Costas: still anti gun. Most of us are far more law-abiding, generally, than your average professional athlete. This isn’t about athletes.

Before the Sturmgewehr. A walk through the pre-history of the assault rifle.

Off Topic:

Charles Koch, the devil himself, defends himself in The Wall Street Journal.

EPA experimenting on children and unsuspecting. If they were a company, and FDA found out about this, the company would be raided and charged with unapproved human trials, which is a crime.

NYS Trooper PBA: We Didn’t Pass SAFE

No, they didn’t pass SAFE. That we all agree on. I don’t blame New York State troopers for the law. But police front line when it comes to prosecutorial discretion. They don’t have to look, they don’t have to find, and even if they do find, they don’t have to arrest. If a trooper pulls someone over for a traffic stop, and that person comes back clean when your run their driver’s license, there’s no reason why “have a nice day, and drive carefully,” can’t be the end of that conversation. If they choose to enforce this law on otherwise good and law-abiding people they are as bad as the politicians who passed it.

Constitutional Carry on the Move

Iowa is looking at a Constitutional Carry bill. This has been tried before in Iowa and failed, but it’s good to see it being tried again. Constitutional Carry is also coming up in Maine, where a lot of Democrats seem to be unhappy about it. NRA has more details about the bill, LD222. Maine was one of the states I was worried about post-Sandy Hook, so it’s encouraging to see this. Upper New England would seem to still be pro-gun culturally.

Monday News Links

I’m going to try to avoid banging out novel-length posts this week. My cubital tunnel issue is flaring up again, because I’m stupid and like to rest my head on my elbow when I’m sitting at the desk, and also like to sleep with my arm under the pillow up over my head. It mostly goes away if I baby it and wear a splint at night, but it can take a while. Fortunately it’s not painful or debilitating, but I don’t want it to get to that point either.Â I have a lot of stuff building up in the tabs, and before Safari chokes, I better do some tab clearing:

Do people feel more or less safe with a gun?Â Most people feel more safe, except Democrats.

Massad Ayoob: Why we use expanding bullets, Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV

I’ve always kind of believed that if there’s a right to travel, there’s a right interest in being able to drive a car. I’ve never really bought the notion that it’s a privilege doled out by the state. Is it time to treat cars like guns?

The Boston Globe doesn’t get what the big deal is about Vivek Murthy. His views are mainstream, after all, they say. He agrees with the AMA, they say, without noting the AMA is rabidly anti-gun.

The NRA wins again. He notes that the other side overreaches. I think because at the end of the day banning private transfers really doesn’t do it for them. It’s only a small win that they hope to build on.

Trouble with polymer cased ammo? Seems to be an issue with fluted chambers.

John Richardson finds a Leland Yee business card. He’s a super villain! Meanwhile, the media is all “Hey, did you hear that a fatty-fat-fat Republican maybe did and maybe didn’t close a bridge lane a couple months ago?” Another fallout of the Yee arrest is Moms are demanding the memory hole.

Piers Morgan’s farewell statement. Personally, I think he was a great benefit to the gun rights movement.

Why are anti-gunners so violent?

Kevin Williamson makes the case for lesser-of-two-evils voting.

Whining media looking for Georgia Governor to save them from all these improvements in Georgia’s gun laws.

Another ordinary mom demands action.

Thirdpower notes some CSGV approved militias operating in Venezuela.

Feds raise USA Brass. Seems the issue is improperly handling lead residue on used casings.

Possessing hunks of lead if they are in the wrong shape can get you in trouble in DC.

ARMagLock looks like a way to get around the recent AWBs in MD, NY, and CT. It’s no bullet button, but it shows how utterly stupid these laws are.

Bob Owens notes that it’s not yet time to panic about 5.45×39 steel core ammo.

HB1243 and Implementing the Relief Provisions of NIAA

We’re currently engaged in a struggle in Pennsylvania to get a preemption enhancement bill through our generally sluggish legislature. Despite whatÂ at least one FOAC board memberÂ andÂ some mouth foamers have accused me of, I have not yet made up my mind on this bill. The reason is because HB1243 is not so cut and dry, and there’s a lot of context in which the bill needs to be placed in order to understand it.

I’ve seen dozens of NIAA implementations pass in other states without too much controversy. I know FOAC has come out against HB1243, and I’m open to the idea that Pennsylvania is different, or there’s something irregular about the law, but if there are specific concerns, they have not been articulated as far as I can tell. As soon as I started questioning, I was immediately lumped in with CeaseFirePA, who areÂ supporting the bill on the stipulation that the Santarsiero Amendment be added, which would end private transfers of long guns. I do not support this amendment, nor would I support HR1243 with such an amendment attached under any circumstance.

To put the unamended HB1243 in context, we first we need to back up seven years to the Virginia Tech aftermath in Congress when HR2640, which would later become the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, came onto the scene. This was originally a bad bill by Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy that was gutted and replaced by a bill that was nominally a fair compromise, given that in exchange for states being encouraged to report records to NICS, we got a mechanism to relief from firearms disabilities due to mental health. Previously, such a firearm disability was lifelong with no recourse. There were groups opposing it at the time, and my disagreement then earned me quite a bit of enmity from folks who opposed the bill at the time. Now it seems old arguments are cropping up again with HB1243.

Now, back to today’s fight in Pennsylvania: at a first glance, HB1243 looks like run-of-the-mill NIAA implementation, complete with a defined process for relief from both federal and state disability. These have passed in dozens of states with little controversy, but for Pennsylvania, things can get a bit more complicated. The reason is our Mental Health Procedures Act, which is can be severe when it comes to imposing state firearm disabilities.

We have several kinds of involuntary commitment procedures in Pennsylvania — an involuntary observational commitment under Section 302 and an extended involuntary commitment under Sections 303, 304, and 305. ATF has traditionally not considered Section 302 commitments to have sufficient due process to count for federal firearm disability. There is almost zero due process protections for a 302 commitment. Section 302 commitments will get you a firearms disability for Pennsylvania, but if someone with a 302 on their record moved out of state, absent state law to the contrary in the new state, they’d be able to possess firearms again. That looked like it might change when the Pennsylvania State Police decided up bulk upload a bunch of records unilaterally after the Sandy Hook massacre, which caused ATF to waver on the position over whether 302 commitments counted or not for a federal disability. I have not heard whether this has been resolved one way or another, but with or without HB1243, this is potential trouble. Actually if the feds decide to count 302s, we really need a mechanism that’s clear, defined, and predictable, that can offer relief from that disability that the feds will recognize.Â Currently, we have a process for state relief under 18 Pa.C.S. 6105(f), but it’s entirely discretionary on the part of the judge, and there’s no clearly defined process.

My understanding is that Pennsylvania has yet to implement the NIAA requirements in order for relief from disability under 18 Pa. C.S. 6105(f) to apply federally. HB1243 would implement those requirements, so people petitioning under 18 Pa. C.S. 6105(f) would also get federal relief.

The big question I have over HB1243 is whether the prescribed procedure for rights restoration is consistent with current practices. That’s not something someone who isn’t a practicing attorney in this field of law could tell you, and that person isn’t me. I’m open to the idea that the procedures could use some improvement, but I’m not against the principle of implementing NIAA requirements so there can be federal relief for mental health firearms disability. That’s going to be especially true if the feds change their longstanding policy on 302 commitments.

I don’t blame folks for thinking much of this is tremendously overcomplicated and fundamentally unfair. I don’t think a 302 commitment in and of itself should be sufficient to remove someone’s gun rights, but that’s an issue we’ll need to address separately, and is not all that related HB1243. I’m willing to listen to arguments that there are some material defects in the bill that make it unworkable from our point of view, but I think it would be nice if those arguments could be made on the merits, rather than trying to impugn those who dare to question.

Why Range Protection Laws Matter

A Chattanooga-area club that has been around since 1905 is facing complaints from new residents who are angry about the noise now that they have moved in, so they filed a $1.25 million lawsuit since they can’t get the shooting range shut down through other legal channels.

I learned about this case via a source involved with the Law Seminar I mentioned the other day, and she added that they have seen an increase in these kinds of cases over the years. It’s one reason they offer a range protection section of the seminar every year. These are the kinds of cases that make up the vast majority of firearms-related litigation, not the big constitutional questions that make it to the SCOTUS or other appeals courts.

(The range is not in the photo, but it is a photo of a Tennessee gun range that Sebastian took a few years ago.)

Ruling in US v. Castleman

Dave Hardy is reporting that the Supreme Court has handed down a decision in US v. Castleman. I’d note that this isn’t a Second Amendment case, but rather one of statutory interpretation, regarding the extent of force necessary to trigger the Lautenberg Amendment prohibition. The case was unanimous in outcome, in so far as the conviction was upheld. But the court split on how broad “physical force” was, with the majority agreeing it matched the common law definition of force. So a wife poking at a husband in a heated argument would be sufficient for Lautenberg to Apply. Scalia concurred, but only on narrower grounds, suggesting it had to at least be enough force to at least have the potential of causing injury. Alito and Thomas concurred, and but noted disagreement with the holding in the previous Johnson case, which would seem to be at odds with this holding.

As I said, the Second Amendment wasn’t raised by Castleman, this was a straight up case of statutory interpretation, so I wouldn’t read the tea leaves too much over this one in regards to the future of Second Amendment law.

Wednesday News Links

Things today may be a bit slow, because I have crossed the threshold and hit the big four oh. Bitter is planning a small celebration which includes cake, and cake is all that matters. So let’s see what’s going on out there:

The Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is protesting the idea that a shooting range will be opening. Remember, it’s raging right-wing paranoia that they want to take our guns. Since they complain civilians aren’t trained enough, then oppose facilities to help us get training, what does that say? Note these folks aren’t some rogue group, they are part of States United.

I do have to say, I would not want to be on Marion Hammer’s shit list. She’s trying to push a limited Constitutional Carry bill, that would allow people to carry without a permit during a Hurricane evacuation. I know of someone who was the victim of an attempted robbery during a Hurricane evac, but thwarted it when he quickly produced a 1911. He kept his gas.

Does Andrew Cuomo have a problem even among Democrats?

What losing looks like.

Anti-gun groups launch a #StandWith Vivek campaign to rescue the AG nomination. NRA will get more than 5000 likes on its Facebook page on a bad day.

I’d need more details about this bill’s exact, but if the reporters are accurate (a stretch) I wouldn’t have rolled over on this bill, which seems to go beyond federal law: “Additionally, abusers against whom an active protective order has been granted would be prohibited from possessing a firearm for 10 years.”

A lot of tea party types get upset that NRA has an incumbent friendly endorsement policy. They’d be foolish not to.

Confusion and delays in SAFE act implementation.

ATF gone wild?

Quite a fight on our hands in Washington State this coming election.

A wholly owned subsidiary.

Our criminal justice system has become a crime.

Filming police should not be a crime.

I’ll say it again: guns do not increase suicide risk. It’s an absurd notion. I am not nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be suicidal. So what’s the risk for me? And if it did come to that, I’d have a damned good reason for it that’s none of anyone else’s damned business.

Additionally, guns in the home are a “none of your damned business” issue, not a health issue. Why, as a society, have we become so tolerant of petulant busybodies?

The devil, you say.

Marko celebrates ten years as an American.

Politicians are Unanimous When it Comes to Pandering

Joe Huffman notes that the Idaho bill to nullify any future federal gun laws passed unanimously, while the bill to institute campus carry was far from so:

The reality is the law has no practical meaning. It has political meaning. It means that legislators that are, for all practical purposes, anti-gun can use it as defense against opponents who confront them on their anti-gun votes. â€œLook what I voted FOR! You canâ€™t get any more pro-gun that this!â€

RTWT. I think he’s exactly right. It’s all for show. Gun owners have to start understanding the difference between an easy, pandering vote and a difficult vote. Passing campus carry is difficult, because competing interests line up on both sides, and given two arguing factions on opposite sides, many politicians will favor the status quo. Passing something like that requires some politicians to go out on a limb with you and make a hard vote. Politicians will always be willing to pander to a powerful constituency with platitudes and symbolism, it’s up to us if we let them get away with it.