Category: Gun Rights

The news cycle is all shutdown, shutdown, shutdown. Have you noticed the shutdown? I haven’t. I have you visited the new Obamacare exchanges at healthcare.gov? I don’t think the site works at all. I could have created a site that doesn’t work like that in a few hours. Anyways, the news:

If you give them the toys, don’t be surprised when they start looking for excuses to play with them.

Fast an Furious was so successful, they decided to try the same thing with cigarettes. Of course, guns kill people. Everyone knows that cigarettes don’t.

“You can’t handle the dumb” Yep. The ignorance burns. And they vote.

Apparently a recent court filing “connected the NRA to spaceships, X-ray beams, and anti-gravity technology.” I’m kind of pissed they haven’t shared the anti-gravity technology with the rest of us.

CNN to drop Piers Morgan. They note “One group that will likely be happy that CNN is pulling the plug on Morgan in prime time… the NRA.” I don’t see why. He’s almost as good a recruiting tool as Obama. Clearly they’ve never read this book.

For people who used to complain that no gun control group favors a total gun ban, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence isn’t being very convincing.

This is not a Second Amendment case, but rather a case to determine the scope of the Lautenberg Amendment, codified in 18 USC 922(g)(9). This is not a challenge to Lautenberg facially, on Second Amendment grounds. The 6th Circuit opinion can be found here.

The government’s argument is unpersuasive. It overlooks the nearly identical language of § 921(a)(33)(A) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 16(a) and 924(e)(2)(B)(i). Section 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) defines a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as a crime that “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force,” against a victim with whom the defendant shares a domestic relationship.^[1] Like § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii), §§ 16(a) and 924(e)(2)(B)(i) use the phrase “physical force” to define “crime of violence” and “violent felony,” respectively. Section 16(a) defines a “crime of violence” in part as “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” For its part, § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) defines a “violent felony” in part as a crime “that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” By defining a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to require “the use or attempted use of physical force,” § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) drops the reference to “threatened use” from §§ 16(a) and 924(e)(2)(B)(i) but otherwise tracks the language of §§ 16(a) and 924(e)(2)(B)(i). The provisions’ similarity supports the inference that Congress intended them to capture offenses criminalizing identical degrees of force.

Tennessee statute, under which Castleman was convicted, includes the mere threat of force, and other force that would not necessarily be violent. Noting:

In so holding, the Court interpreted the “physical force” requirement in that statute as “violent force … capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person” and “strong physical force.” Id. at 1271.

It’ll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with this, but it would reserve the circuit split on this matter either way. I tend to agree with the 6th Circuit opinion here:

The government resists this conclusion by emphasizing § 922(g)(9)’s reference to “misdemeanor” offenses, but the government asks us to put more weight on the term “misdemeanor” than Congress meant the term to bear. Had Congress intended the word “misdemeanor” to have the effect suggested by the government, then Congress would have had no need to modify “misdemeanor” with the phrase “crime of violence.” Congress could simply have prohibited any person convicted of a “misdemeanor domestic assault or battery offense” from possessing a firearm. It chose not to do so.

Yet the government’s position is that any misdemeanor assault conviction against a domestic partner is a disabling offense. If the Supreme Court upholds the sixth circuit opinion here, it would essentially mean there would have to be a finding that there was actual violence, or attempted violence involved. There mere conviction would not be sufficient unless the statute itself involved those things.

Apparently Daniel Squadron, who ran very heavily on his record on gun control, got trounced in the Democratic Primary for New York Public Advocate. This is probably a case where gun control wasn’t likely the reason he lost, but campaigning on it sure as hell didn’t help him. If it can’t motivate New York Democrats, how does Bloomberg expect to turn this into a winning issue nationally?

Is it Wednesday already? Where did half the week go? Perhaps time flies in a government shutdown. Now for the news:

Some complications in Montana when it comes to reporting mental health records. Many states have medical privacy laws that technically make reporting to NICS a state crime.

Marylanders are stocking up!

An outdoor writer in Delaware takes aim at gun control: “Next I purchased a Remington .22 caliber bolt-action single-shot rifle with money made delivering the Journal Every Evening. I was 11 or 12, and all I had to do was hand the man at the hardware store the money, and he gave me the rifle.” And you remember how many mass shootings they were having back then, right?

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s popularity continues to decline.

Gaining ground even on mom blogs. We need more women in the fight, for two reasons. One, we need this to disappear. We’ve made good progress, but I’d like to see no gender gap on the issue. Two, women are a lot more civically engaged than men.

What can one man with a pistol do? Kenya has strict gun control, but it would seem there are ways around it.

Florida introduces a bill to allow warning shots. To me the problem with the Alexander case was mandatory minimums, not the fact that warning shots are illegal. They aren’t if you’re justified in using deadly force. But a warning shot kind of suggests you weren’t, right?

How import marks destroy a gun’s value.

Back in the 1990s, the gun control folks were more open about their intentions. Now they “support the second amendment,” even if they still believe the same things.

Nuts, Racists and assholes.

There was a mass shooting in China where guns are banned. China also has a mass stabbing problem.

Sometimes I think tar and feathers are too good for them.

Paul Barrett has been offering advice to anti-gunners. Most of it has been good, like stop hating on gun owners.

A new survey shows everyone hates environmentalists and feminists, despite people having broad sympathies for the goals of both movements.

“Unfortunately,” they write, “the very nature of activism leads to negative stereotyping. By aggressively promoting change and advocating unconventional practices, activists become associated with hostile militancy and unconventionality or eccentricity.”

Hmm. What does that sound like?

So the message to advocates is clear: Avoid rhetoric or actions that reinforce the stereotype of the angry activist.

We really don’t want gun rights to fall victim to the same problem. That’s the primary reason I’m wary of activism methods that set us apart from normal, everyday Americans. That’s a big reason why I think this October 19th event promoted by GRAA is one of the worst ideas I’ve seen from our side in a long time. It’s very important to stick with activism that doesn’t seem odd, eccentric, or unusual to large parts of the population. More importantly, we’d like more people to get involved with pro-Second Amendment activism, not fewer, and fewer people is what you’ll get if your activism methods are socially awkward.

Gun Rights Save Lives looks at the Reagan legacy when it comes to guns. Things aren’t as rosey a lot of folks like to wax nostalgic about. But I disagree with the main source of angst here:

When he was president, he banned all new fully-automatic weapons from being sold to the public in 1986. Now they are nearly impossible for the average person to possess because they cost about $20,000.

The one thing I will disagree with is dinging Reagan over the 1986 machine gun ban. Remember that was attached at the last minute to the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act of 1986. I was 12 at the time this passed, and I had little political awareness when all of this went down. Everything I know from the time I’ve gotten from talking to the people involved with the fight at that time, and nearly everyone I’ve spoken with on the subject believes it was necessary to continue supporting FOPA despite what Bill Hughes did to it. The Gun Control Act, unmodified by FOPA, would have succeeded in destroying the shooting culture. I’d encourage everyone to read Dave Hardy’s account of the matter, who was intimately involved with getting FOPA passed into law. That Reagan signed FOPA I do not believe ought to be a ding against him.

Now it’s true that later in life, long after he was out of office, he ended up supporting the Brady Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Members of his family today claim that was a result of his handlers signing him onto positions he himself never would have supported had he not been suffering Alzheimer’s. Whether this is true, or whether it’s just family trying to preserve his legacy, I don’t think is clear. I don’t think Reagan was the pro-gun saint everyone likes to remember him as, but I also think a lot of Reagan needs to be put into the context of the time.

Licensing has at least one upside, in that it offers a peek as to what gun ownership levels are really doing. The gun control groups have been consistently asserting that the Great Panic was entirely the result of a small handful of extremists stockpiling more guns. Well, the numbers coming out of Illinois would beg to differ:

Whereas a few years ago, 1.2 million Illinoisans held Firearm Owners Identification cards, the number has jumped to 1.6 million, state police spokeswoman Monique Bond said. Soon after the court decreed in December that Illinois couldn’t ban public carry anymore, demand for FOID cards jumped precipitously.

That throws a lot of cold water on their theory. I also suspect that the spike in numbers is a result of Chicago residents now being able to exercise their constitutional rights.  I’m not sure the article’s author gave much consideration to the fact that Chicago’s licensing regime was laid to waste by the new concealed carry law, making the FOID card the only barrier to entry for getting a handgun in the Windy City.

This isn’t as big as it should have been, but I lost all my tabs for the week, so I’ll have to do the best I can. The news cycle is still pretty dry, unfortunately, but hopefully that’ll change as the pace of fall picks up a bit.

Tarring and feathering might be a bit strong, but I agree with where the Vuurwapen Blog is coming from.

Anthony Bourdain, of Food Network fame, on guns.

IDPA shooters spotted in Kenya. The bravery of the police in Kenya has been impressive. It’s pretty obvious many of them were off duty, grabbed their guns, and ran toward the sound of gun fire, in plain clothes without body armor. That takes a lot of guts and my hat is off to them.

A majority of dealers support expanded background checks. Well, they stand to benefit financially if they were to be put in place. I’m sure car dealers would support a law that said car dealers were the only people permitted to buy and sell cars too.

Funny: Weird Math of the SAFE Act.

This gun saved a life in a rather unexpected way.

Man OCing pistol to a school soccer game cuts game short. I think this was an overreaction, but when you’re asked to leave, you leave. It was a private school, so they are within their right. But it does beg the question, who was “educated” here?

NPR takes a jab at Russia on the gun issue, noting fewer guns and more gun violence. Instapundit notes: “What does it take to get them to depart from the narrative? A jab at President Obama from a foreign leader.“

How much of this will go on before there is a bill, you think?

“I’m gonna go inside the state Capitol and see if I can educate a few people,” the man says in the video, only identified by his YouTube account name of “martinrps13.”

He walked into the east entrance lobby of the Capitol with an AR 15 rifle strapped across his chest, a handgun and a camera. The man walked right up to the security desk and told guards what he was doing.

I guess they got an education all right, but what was really accomplished here? This is also New Mexico, where open carry of pistols is culturally normal and accepted. In fact, they note:

A handgun in a holster, not a problem, but the gun guy’s visit had lawmakers in both parties thinking about changing the rules.

But now we’re looking at bipartisan consensus:

“I’m a strong supporter of the second amendment. And I’m also a member of the NRA, but I tell you there’s many buildings that you should not be able to carry a firearm into and one of them is the state Capitol,” Republican Sen. Carroll Leavell said.

“Unquestionably, I think we need to ban guns from the state Capitol, and anywhere there’s large numbers of individuals that gather for a very specific purpose,” Democratic Sen. Carlos Cisneros said.

Yes, bringing both parties together to support gun control. That was quite an education! We have enough trouble to deal with on a regular basis without having to worry we’ll need to turn people out to fight a gun ban that didn’t need to happen.

UPDATE: Here’s the video.

 

Those of you who live in my home county may want to take a look at your sheriff’s race. It’s not unusual to see platitudes like this parroted by politicians on both sides of the aisle:

I pledge to enforce all of the laws to guarantee that no one with a questionable background receives or renews a gun permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Keep in mind that Philadelphia routinely denies permits for the most unreasonable pretenses, such as having had a gun stolen, having unpaid parking tickets, or for having arrests for petty offenses years ago in people’s past, even if there was never any prosecution or conviction. Pennsylvania law allows sheriffs considerable discretion when it comes to denying a License to Carry. He needs to be asked to clarify this position. I’d also question what his position would be on signing off on NFA forms. It would be very helpful to know whether this is a platitude, or whether he wishes to make real changes to current policy in regards to LTCs and NFA sign-off.

UPDATE: There is no question, this Democratic candidate for sheriff is anti-gun.

If I am elected as your sheriff on Nov. 5, I will not issue any permits to any Pennsylvania resident who live outside Delaware County. In our society of gun violence, it is clear that a large majority of Americans want to see mandatory background checks at all sales of firearms. I believe the same majority want their county sheriff to be more responsible in issuing permits to those citizens who want to carry a concealed weapon.

That’s a dog whistle for implementing Philadelphia style abuse of the discretion to render Delaware County effectively may-issue. He also wants to see Philadelphia’s abuses continue. So will he continue to not issue if that becomes the law? Also, Bloomberg is sure to throw money into this race. Watch for that. He wants to own Pennsylvania, and his presumption that it might be ripe for the buying might not be wrong. I see a lot of evidence around that Pennsylvanians don’t really care enough about their gun rights to meet Bloomberg in ever backyard he’s digging in.

UPDATE: See Joe Sestak’s endorsement of him here.