Category: Gun Rights

According to the Washington Times, the DC police have a policy to arrest individuals with empty shell casings:

Under the law, live or empty brass and plastic casings must be carried in a special container and unavailable to drivers. Having one, for example, in a cup holder or ash tray is illegal.

She told Secrets that the police are “under orders to arrest tourists or other legal gun owners from out of state who wouldn’t think to empty brass and plastic from their cars or pockets.”

I haven’t been doing much shooting these days, but at one of my past jobs our usually hapless facilities guy found an empty 9mm casing in the parking lot and proceeded to overreact to impress our management about how on top of things he really was. They proceeded to overreact and call police, who told them it was no big deal and not to worry about it. Convinced someone was shooting at the geese outside, or plotting to shoot the place up (because whack jobs always put an empty shell casing in the parking lot as a warning) they got the landlord to agree to e-mailing other tenants to look for suspicious activity.

I just kept my mouth shut and let them comically overreact to this, despite the fact I was fairly certain it came from me, because I had been shooting the day before. My guess is the brass ended up in my pocket, and came out when I took out my keys to open the car. Had it been the later management team, I would have just told them as much and it all would have ended there. People who aren’t shooters don’t realize the weird places shell casings end up when you’re shooting. Most of them knew I was a shooter, and there were at least four other people in the company who were too, but it never occurred to anyone involved in that sad affair that maybe it was just a loose shell casing that fell out of someone’s car or pocket.

It shows how politicians and anti-gunners can use the ignorance of others to slip something like this by without a lot of people realizing how deep into police state territory policy like this really goes.

Reuters is reporting that NRA is joining an ACLU suit against the Obama Administration over NSA surveillance, and being welcomed by the ACLU. You can find NRA’s amicus brief here. From the brief:

The mass surveillance program could allow identification of NRA members, supporters, potential members, and other persons with whom the NRA communicates, potentially chilling their willingness to communicate with the NRA.

Perhaps they know our people a bit too well.

The Supreme Court made clear in NAACP that it had long “recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” NAACP, 357 U.S. at 462. Because of that relationship, the “compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association” as the regulation of lobbying activities or the discriminatory taxation of certain newspapers. Id. Compulsory disclosure is unconstitutional where groups show that disclosure subjects their members to “manifestations of public hostility,” which would “affect adversely the ability of [groups and their] members to pursue their collective effort to foster beliefs which they admittedly have the right to advocate,” because the intrusion on privacy “may induce members to withdraw … and dissuade.

We’ve worked enough gun shows to know there’s a lot of guys who don’t do anything public as a gun owner for fear of identifying themselves as such and ending up on “a list.” That attitude tends to annoy me, but it’s out there, and is not as rare as I wish it were.

Admittedly, some post-NAACP cases have been more deferential to government, focusing on the language in NAACP noting members’ exposure “to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility” and requiring evidence of such harm to strike down disclosure regimes. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334, 379 (1995); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 69 (1976).

But the NRA and its members have certainly been subjected to “public hostility,” from the highest levels of government as well as from the media and other prominent elements of society. Individuals who are concerned about government monitoring of their communications might well avoid seeking information from a group that has been accused by the President of the United States of “spreading untruths,” and by the President’s press secretary of “repugnant and cowardly” advertising. See Obama’s Remarks After Senate Gun Votes, The New York Times, April 17, 2013; Michael D. Shear, White House Denounces Web Video by N.R.A., The New York Times, January 16, 2013. They might also be concerned about associating with a group of which the Vice-President of the National Education Association has said, “[t]hese guys are going to hell,” or which a journalism professor has accused of committing “treason … worthy of the firing squad.”

At root, I’m wondering if NRA’s concern is the Obama Administration using what they find to punish political enemies (namely NRA, it’s members and its employees). Before, I would have said that was crazy talk, but these days, quite sadly, it is not.

Each of these programs standing on its own could provide the government with an extraordinary amount of information about those who communicate with the NRA for any reason. Under the programs revealed so far, the government may already possess information about everyone who has called the NRA by phone, e-mailed the NRA, or visited the NRA’s website. Conversely, the same programs would also gather information on potential members or donors contacted by phone or e-mail for NRA membership recruitment or fundraising programs, or for legislative or political reasons such as the transmission of legislative alerts or get-out-the-vote messages. The programs could also reveal at least the outlines of research and advocacy activities undertaken by NRA staff members, such as the websites visited in the course of legislative analysis or the identities of legislative staff members contacted by e-mail. At the outer extreme, a location tracking program could reveal the identity of every mobile phone user who visits the NRA’s headquarters—whether for a political or legislative event, or simply to use the NRA’s shooting range or visit its National Firearms Museum. Similarly, location-tracking surveillance could reveal the travels of NRA staff members to engage in legislative meetings, political events, or other activities protected by the First Amendment. Any of these forms of tracking could easily reduce individuals’ desire to interact with the NRA.

Personally, my reaction would be the opposite. If I knew Barry was watching, I’d be pleased to head down to NRA HQ and walk out a nice “F you” pattern. But this is by far not the only concern. The whole brief is worth reading, if you’re interested. The brief also notes, “The government’s interpretation of Section 215 would nullify statutory protections against centralization of gun ownership records.” Read the whole thing.

 

At the risk of chugging down my last bottle of water in the desert, here’s the news:

Press checking your gun affects the overall length. Not a practice I’ve ever engaged in. In a Glock, you can see brass in the chamber from the side. Same with the Ruger LCP. Also, you can fix that problem by not constantly unloading and reloading. I just remove the gun in the holster when I’m done with it.

Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate in Virginia Terry McAuliffe meets with Mike Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s track record in Virginia politics is pretty abysmal. Kiss of death?

The streak had to end sometime. Some evidence that gun sales are slowing.

Bob Barr on Obama’s second term war on the Second Amendment.

Is it just me, or are douchenozzles on the Internet getting more assertive in their douchenozzlry as of late? I’d ignore any threat I got electronically. Beyond that, Popehat has done great work in coordinating attorneys who enjoy putting the smack down on threats like this.

Joshua Prince says the time to think about an NFA trust is now. I’m thinking about getting something, but presumably any further acquisitions will follow the new rules, and all the suburban counties save Delaware [Apparently they do sign] sign off (and I’m not going back there).

Labour Day Canadian Gun Rights Post. Strange Canadian, putting a ‘u’ in labor!

SAFE effect on Sheriff’s primaries.

And last, but certainly not least… if you’re in the Des Moines area, from David Young:

I will be giving a one hour presentation on the Second Amendment at the Des Moines Area Community College campus in Ankeny, Iowa, at 11:30AM on Sept. 17, 2013 as part of DMACC Constitution Day activites.

And now, we wait for more news to roll in, and hopefully have something further to write about today.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons  has come out against the AMA position on gun control. The problem is that this group pretty clearly has a political agenda to support conservative causes, so I don’t think they’ll carry much weight. AMA has an agenda too, but gets to wear the mantle of being the group that represents the medical profession, even though they only represent about 15% of practicing physicians. I think what would be better is a medical association that stayed out of politics not directly related to the practice of medicine. Pretty clearly AMA has been thoroughly co-opted. Why does a medical association need a position on climate change?

They join 22 other states. One of those is not Pennsylvania. These are the wages of electing an anti-gun extremist, Kathleen Kane, as Attorney General. You can expect Pennsylvania to be out of any Supreme Court fights over the Second Amendment as long as she’s in office. Corbett was willing to sign on to these briefs when he was Attorney General.

Kathy Kane is the best money Bloomberg ever spent, and reinforces my view that Pennsylvania could easily have New York’s gun laws in a decade or so if people don’t start paying attention.

Emily Miller reveals:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid never seemed to believe the legislation could pass, but he was pressured by the White House to bring it up for a vote. Sources familiar with the machinations behind the failed anti-gun bills in April 2013 believe Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg were in a rush to push the issue before the memory of Sandy Hook faded.

Read the whole thing. A big message is this isn’t over by far. I think the biggest risk is that our people demobilize and fall back asleep before 2014. National Democrats are already pouring money into Colorado. Does our side have the juice to send a message? The recall elections are coming up on September 10th.

Glenn Reynolds on the Chicago Police Chief saying his cops will kill licensed gun carriers:

Well, that should make the “improper training” Section 1983 suits easy. . . .

For those who don’t know, Section 1983 is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871’s provision for “civil action for deprivation of rights,” which is what you would generally sue under if such an incident were to occur. Additionally, the Civil Rights Acts allow you to sue all the way up the chain of command, and in their personal capacities as well as their official capacities (though you have to overcome qualified immunity to sue in their personal capacity).

He notes:

It results from a petition by the NFA Trade and Collectors Association … why they petitioned, I cannot explain. Perhaps they counted upon the agency to be reasonable, which is never a good idea. Even if the agency is reasonable, the regs must clear the Office of Management and Budget, which is the President’s right arm in regulatory matters.

I’d really like to see the original petition. Trying to reason with bureaucrats is never a good idea. At best, they were hoodwinked by people who know how to play this game better than they do. There’s a lot of accusations floating around that they were complicit in a set up.