Category: Gun Rights

I’ll be visiting with relatives most of this week, which I’m sure is the case with many of you. But I’ve been gathering some news. This is one of those days when I have a lot of ideas for a post, but not a whole lot of time to actually type it all out. For now, here is the news:

The real reason MAIG and MDA got together!

Why we carry.

Why are anti-gun activists so violent?

Uncle bets that it was easier for Chris Cheng to come out as gay in the gun community than it was to come out as a gun guy in California.

“An I’m a gun owner, but….” guy turns out to work for OFA. I wouldn’t make the mistake of believing those guys aren’t out there. They are. But there have been times when I’ve become convinced it’s a tactic by our opponents.

Hollywood is planning to make a series slamming the National Rifle Association. The only way to hurt them is to stop consuming their crap. Cut the cord! Support unbundling!

Hope for Chicago? If inner city voters stop believing their politicians’ nonsense about the high crime rates being a result of weak gun laws, those politicians will be in a lot of trouble. Then they’ll actually have to do something.

“It’s not that I hate your company.” I totally sympathize. I probably get three of these types of things a day.

Dave Kopel looks at Colorado Sheriff’s duty to enforce statutes.

Seattle has settled a lawsuit with the Second Amendment Foundation.

More disabled people oppose assault weapons restrictions. So do the federal courts want to pretend that the Second Amendment rights of disabled people don’t matter?

“If gymnastics was easy, they’d call it football.“

Connecticut officials are warning of dire consequences for failure to comply. After all, where to gun owners belong if not in jail?

Mr. Lawlor, like most government officials, seems to think he and his buddies have invented policy out of whole cloth, and that the population has no choice but to shuffle along and obey. But weapons registration laws have a history—a consistent history, as I’ve written, of noncompliance and defiance.

They know we won’t comply. And to them, that’s just fine. Because then, in their minds, you’ll end up where you belonged in the first place. Really, if you think about it, if you were an owner and a gun was stolen, are you going to call the cops about it? So how do these laws really help things? They don’t. They just make it more likely gun owners are going to be uncooperative with police when it comes to enforcing laws.

The snow is falling again, and our office is closed. It’s the wet, heavy stuff this time that i the bane of conifers everywhere. But my office is always open, so I don’t get out of doing work. There might actually be enough going on for two link posts in as many days:

The Firearm Industry Consulting Group is filing a comment for 41P, the changes in NFA trusts, that is very detailed. They are preparing to sue over any rule change ATF may implement.

Clayton Cramer summarizes the UConn School of Law Symposium on the Second Amendment.

I think at this point George Zimmerman should seriously consider the monastic life.

New York won’t release SAFE Act compliance numbers. As Uncle says, know what it leads to. Don’t register if you want to keep them.

An affordable 3D metal printer? Looks pretty crude, but does it work? Something like that isn’t going to lay down quality metal, but even pot metal beats plastic.

Someone needs a refresher in how rights work. Seeking medical treatment is a right too. You just don’t have a right to demand someone else provide it to you, any more than you have a right to demand I give you one of my guns.

Remember, if you think people are out for your guns you’re a paranoid wing nut.

 

 

A Federal District Court in California has denied the State a Motion for Summary Judgement on it’s 10 day waiting period law. This may put the law at risk of being tossed for being unconstitutional:

For example, there is no evidence regarding the nature of the background checks performed, how much time is necessary to perform a background check, or why 10-days are necessary in order to perform a background check. Harris admits that in the past California has had waiting periods that have ranged from 1 to 15 days. However, there is nothing before the Court to suggest that the 10-day period is a “reasonable fit” that is not substantially broader than necessary to determine if an individual is disqualified from owning a firearm. More information is needed. The Court will not grant summary judgment on this issue based on the bare arguments presented.

As for the “cooling down” rationale, Harris has not presented sufficient evidence that the 10-day waiting period is a “reasonable fit.” For example, there is no evidence concerning how the 10-day period was determined for purposes of “cooling off,” any evidence concerning “cooling off” and gun violence in general for those wishing to purchase a firearm, or that the 10-days is not substantially broader than necessary.

I get skeptical the Courts are really going to do anything substantive with the Second Amendment, but every once in a while they surprise me. I’m pleased a court has seemingly seen through the state’s bullshit. Hopefully at trial they’ll recognize this for what it is; a means to discourage people from exercising their rights.

If you’re like me, you’re watching the thermometer and hoping that it’ll rise enough today to solve the snow problem outside. Because I work from home three days a week, I don’t have to bother with shoveling the driveway unless I have to go somewhere, which gives it some time to melt. But despite the disappearing snow, we have no shortage of news links:

Cerberus Capital may have found an investor for The Freedom Group, that would allow some of their unhappy investors (namely pension systems for anti-gun states) to get out.

“If they can do that, of course, they can also plant evidence without a trace. . . .”

Thirdpower finds another instance of “I’m a gun owner, but …” Not to overlook its twin brother, “I support the Second Amendment, but …”

The DeSantis Holster Company Greatly Annoys Me.

Thirdpower checks on some MAIG mayors and starts to believe they are fudging the roles. Given how many mayors complained they didn’t know what they were signing up for, I think if any reporter decided to dig, they’d find a lot of examples like Thirdpower found.

The Daily Beast does a puff piece on Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, and how he’s taking on the big bad NRA.

Trap shooting to come back to Minnesota schools? We need more of this if we’re going to have any prayer of ending the hysterics in public schools.

A reader sent me an article, but I thought I’d go dig up the original source: US v. Miller, how the Second Amendment was subverted.

Moms Demand Guns continues to use falsities to bully retailers into banning guns. I think they won’t have much luck, as long as we can avoid the mistakes our side made with Starbucks.

I too am surprised that Washington State has a gun registry, but it sounds like the kind Pennsylvania has, where they just co-opted the state background check system to compile one, despite assurances that such a thing would never happen. It’s even in the law! I wouldn’t be surprised if Washington State took some advice from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which in the case of ACSL v. Rendell, said even though it’s a list of all the guns you’ve ever bought, it’s not a “registry,” like the kind the law forbids, it’s only records of sale.

I’m always rather surprised that people on the other side of this issue get shocked and indignant that we don’t trust them. If they are assuring you that X will never be used for Y, you can probably take it to the bank that it will. It proved too tempting for our State Police, and the Rendell Administration was willing to push the courts to fudge the definition in its favor. Despite the fact that this case was decided in 2004, few in either the Governor’s mansion or the Legislature have shown much interest in a fix. We at least are still getting a bill introduced, but there hasn’t seemed to be much interest in moving it forward.

Lots of good advice out there on how to comment against ATF 41P, which will change the way NFA trusts work and generally make it impossible for many people to get NFA items like suppressors. I feel bad that I haven’t been harping on this issue, but as loathe as I am to be fatalistic, I don’t think there’s any stopping this. I certainly would never discourage anyone from writing, but I wouldn’t feel too bad if you didn’t get around to it.

They put this out for public comment because the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires them to do so. If an agency wants to change a regulation, Congress has prescribed a certain song and dance has to be gone through, including a public comment period. But they aren’t required to listen to any of it if they are intent on the change. The fix is in, in other words. The Administration intends to use this regulation change to punish us for thwarting his agenda. It’s one of those “elections have consequences” things.

And I’d note this will make it very difficult to ever get suppressors out from under the NFA, because it’ll mean fewer people have access to them, and with fewer people having access to them, there’s less of a constituency to drive political change. This will mean the first thing we probably need to drive for are either eliminating the LEO sign-off requirement through Congressional action, or passing more sign-off laws at the state level, like Tennessee has done.

Tabs are filling up toward the end of the week, so time for some news:

NY District Attorney indicts a homeless man because the NYPD can’t shoot straight. When you look at the stats, they really can’t hit anything at all. This is what happens when you destroy your civilian gun culture. You also destroy the ability of your police officers to shoot.

Joe reminds us that they once only cared about handguns. That was true until they realized they weren’t making any progress on that front. A lot of these groups changed their names not because they were trying to hide their agenda, but because they realized there was more traction to be had trying to ban scary looking rifles.

Commonwealth Court has cancelled oral arguments in the Erie case regarding preemption in Pennsylvania. They will decide the case as briefed. Josh Prince says there’s not too much that should be read into it.

An open letter to anti-gun politicians, activists, and citizens. I think we can get all those things without having to give anything up if we play our cards right, and are willing to be patient.

NSSF’s lawsuit against their new gun laws has been dismissed based on standing. Seems they violated procedure to pass the law, but NSSF doesn’t have standing to bring suit. Who does? Does anyone?

Women are the holy grail of the gun rights movement. Women are more likely to get involved in the political fight than men, and more women vote than men.

A random thought on arbitrary enforcement. Everyone commits, on average, at least three federal felonies a day. I think we’re already at the point where we’re all living free only by the good graces of the people who run things. That has to change, but people have to become aware first.

These polling results would seem to go against conventional wisdom that support for gun control in urban areas is a fore drawn conclusion. They’ve been losing ground even there since Newtown:

“Demographically speaking, the drop in support for stricter gun laws is mostly based on where people live, with a 10-point decline in the Midwest and a 15-point drop in urban areas having a lot to do with the overall decline nationally,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.

“Two-thirds of people who live in big cities supported stricter gun control laws in the weeks following Newtown; now that figure is down to a bare majority. And while support for new gun laws is down in all regions of the country, it has fallen further in the Midwest,” Holland added.

The poll indicates that majorities in the Northeast and the West still favor stricter gun control, but majorities in the South and Midwest now oppose it.

That’s very interesting that support has fallen even for urban dwellers, but it’s also not surprising that urban dwellers are fluctuating more than non-urban dwellers, since most of them probably don’t have a dog in the fight from their point of view. It’s also interesting that the places with the most strict gun laws have the largest amount of people who want them to be more strict.

I attribute the majorities in the Northeast and West (let’s not mince words here, that’s California and the few other urban centers Californians have moved to and ruined) who still support gun control to be a result of those areas having largely succeeded in destroying civilian gun ownership, and destroying the gun culture. What makes people go back and forth is knowing people who shoot, talking to people who shoot, and generally having some exposure to the culture. That’s why I keep stressing the idea that we can’t just write off other states because it’s not our state. For approximately 1/3rd of America, population wise, we’ve lost. We can never regain it without the assistance of the federal courts. Once that number hits 1/2, and probably sooner, the game will be over for us.