Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 1688 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

National Reciprocity

Pro-Gun Progressive seeks some feedback on the issue of of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity:

Lots of folks on our side of the issue are wary of the Feds deciding who carries and who doesnâ€™t, which doesnâ€™t strike me as unreasonable. I think much of this stems from the fact that shall issue CCW laws have thankfully found their way on to the books in all but a handful of states. If you live in one of those states, youâ€™ve already got what you want and would understandably not be all that eager to have the Feds step in. If you live in NJ, IL, MD, or NY, you might be a bit more willing to look to the Feds for some help.

I live in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, about 10 miles from Trenton. Needless to say, I conduct quite a lot of business in New Jersey, such as buying liquor and beer, but also other things, and I would dearly love not to have to think “I left the pistol at home right?”, every time I cross the border. It’s 7 years in prison over there for forgetting if you get pinched. It would also have been nice if, on my travel to Virginia last month, I didn’t have to stop at the Delaware/Maryland border, put my pistol and ammunition in separate locked hard sided containers to be FOPA compliant, only to reverse the process after crossing into Virginia 40 minutes later. People in The South and West (minus California), don’t have to worry about this, because you can drive for days without having to worry about the law changing remarkably. Criminals don’t have to worry about this either, because they don’t give a crap about the law.

So the law would benefit me, but I’m still opposed to it as it stands, because the federal government simply has no power under the commerce clause of the constitution to force one state to accept another state’s law, and the proposed bill that I saw relied on the fact that the gun once moved in interstate commerce as the hook to give Congress regulatory power. I’ve heard this called “The Herpes Theory” of the commerce clause, and I think Congress and the Courts should renounce it, because it obliterates the distinction between what is local and what is national, that the constitution was meant to preserve in the first place. It seemed that The Supreme Court in United States vs. Lopez had rejected this argument, but quite a lot of federal gun laws still rely on it. Given the Raich decision, perhaps The Court is retreating from Lopez, but I’d like to hope Raich was only a bump in the road toward a more limited reading of Congress’ commerce power.

So what national reciprocity would I support? I think Congress could use two powers to allow it. It could use it’s militia powers to allow any licensed person to carry anywhere in the US as a national defense measure. In a world filled with asymmetrical warfare, this isn’t really such a far fetched notion. Alternately, the Fourteenth Amendment says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. … The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. … The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So Congress can just declare the remaining state’s restrictive statutes null and void under the Fourteenth and Second Amendments, and be done with it.

But we all know that’s never going to happen. Considering how much federal gun laws are based on herpes commerce clause theory, I’m afraid I have to come out against this one even if it benefits us. Unless, of course, passing it makes The Court rediscover the wisdom they originally displayed in Lopez, and clearly retreat from the herpes theory once and for all.

Dinner Suggestions

Pop on over to see Bitter’s squirrel skinning video. Yum! I’ve been trying to convince my friend from Texas to come on to guest blog some fine squirrel recipes.

Having been born an raised in the Philadelphia suburbs, I can’t say I’ve ever looked at squirrel as a food source, but my friend from Texas assures me it’s very good, which prompted me to reply, “Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I’d never know ’cause I wouldn’t eat the filthy motherf****r.”

But maybe I’ll give it a chance next time I go down to visit her.

Just Get Rid of It Already!

Our governor sets off the stench detector with his latest appointment of a CEO to the PA Liquor Control Board:

State Liquor Control Board Chairman Jonathan Newman is quitting to protest the “heavy-handed, political” method that Gov. Ed Rendell used to select the board’s new $150,000-a-year chief executive officer.

Rendell chose a retired politician. This reeks of returning a political favor:

Some critics claim the hiring looks like a political deal because he supported some major Rendell initiatives, such as raising the personal income tax and legalizing casinos, but Ms. Philips denied politics was involved. Mr. Conti couldn’t be reached for comment.

Ms. Philips said Mr. Conti chaired the Senate committee that oversaw liquor issues and was active in pushing for Sunday sales of liquor and beer. She said he knows the liquor business because his family owned two restaurant/bars in Bucks County.

No politics involved my ass. The real question is why we still have the LCB at all? Seriously, I get sick of having to drive to New Jersey to be able to get decent wine and real top shelf booze. Try getting decent scotch in a PA state store, and you’ll quickly see what I mean. Under Newman’s leadership, the LCB has done a good job of reforming itself, with Sunday hours, premium stores with better wine selections, and locating state stores inside of supermarkets. All positive moves. But the LCB still sucks, and it’s time the state legislature dissolved it and sold off its assets. I don’t see what benefit we get from the state being in the business of selling wine and booze, and I’m tired of the LCB continuing to pop up as a political issue. I think the state can find better things to worry about.

On Order

I just ordered a copy of Dave Hardy’s documentary In Search of the Second Amendment. I’m sure most of you gun bloggers already have ordered a copy (you have haven’t you?), but some of my LiveJournal folks might not have heard of it.

The title makes me think of Leonard Nimoy’s old PBS series “In Search Of…”, but I don’t think the documentary features a gun toting Mr. Spock. So head over and buy a copy if you’re interested. I know Dave has spent a lot of time and effort on it, so I expect it will be good.

Coolest Job in the World

Head over to Unc’s site and watch the video of people who’s job I would love to have.Â Blowing up a dwelling-like structure with everything from an M9 pistol to a 30mm chain gun.Â Great stuff!

Butt Out

I am not nor ever have I been a smoker, nor do I particularly enjoy coming home reeking of cigarette smoke after a night on the town, but I’ve never presumed that I should force my preferences on bar and restaurant owners because I don’t like it.Â I avoid heavily smoky establishments, as a general rule, and that worked for me just fine.Â That’s why I’m dissapointed that Philadelphia’s smoking ban went into effect yesterday.Â There is one saving grace for bar owners in the city:

Private clubs and restaurants whose food sales are less than 20 percent may apply for an exemption.

But I’ve never bought the studies that second hand smoke is really that dangerous, or that public health is anything other than a cover for enforcing the majority’s preference onto business owners.Â Smoking bans are passing because most people find cigarette smoke objectionable, and for me, that’s never been a good enough reason to allow the government to interfere with a proprietor’s right to control what goes on in his or her establishment.

I know many will argue that there’s a serious public health concern here, but I just don’t trust statistical epidemiological studies that have reason to be politically motivated.Â I think showing a little tolerance, and accepting a little risk, is worth it for us to continue living in a society where people can still exercise property rights, and enjoy habits that the majority finds objectionable.

An Open Letter to Congressman Fattah

Congressman Fattah,

I read today in the Philadelphia Daily News about your crime plan for Philadelphia which is summarized as:

More cops investigating illegal guns, better rewards for tips about dirty firearms, and extra surveillance cameras to catch gun-toting bad guys.

Those are the basics of mayoral candidate Chaka Fattah’s plan to fight illegal guns, which he will announce today at Mercy Hospital of Philadelphia.

Philadelphia does not have a gun problem, it has a criminal problem. Until you shift the focus away from the guns and toward violent individuals that are committing crimes, you’re going to keep having this problem. I am happy to see that you at least admit this:

The majority of guns used to kill people in Philadelphia and around the nation are illegal,” said Fattah, a Democratic congressman.

Which is true. So why does your Congressional record and public statements contain so much support for restricting lawful gun ownership? Also, how does “targeted gun officers” that “clear firearms off the streets.” help anything? I am in favor of adding more officers to the city streets, but they need to go after the criminals, not the guns. The guns are a symptom, not the cause of your city’s social ills. Even if all the guns could be cleared off the street, if you left the criminals, they will just get more guns and commit more crimes, leaving the city right back where it started.

I’d also like you to explain how “a network of 1,000 police video surveillance cameras throughout the city” would help catch “gun-toting bad guys”. I’m fairly certain that gun toting bad guys aren’t openly carrying firearms around the city, such that they would be caught on camera. I also hope you are aware that there are approximately 32,000 citizens in your city who are lawfully licensed to carry firearms for self-protection, and approximately similar numbers in all the suburban counties. I hope your “gun officers” will treat these people with the respect and courtesy that they deserve.

We all want to see Philadelphia become a safer place, but I’m disappointed you’re perpetuating the myth that guns cause crime. We all know that’s not true. I would encourage you to focus on the criminals, and on finding productive ways to bring jobs and people back into the city. Focusing your energy on inanimate objects is only distracting people from the real problem, and doing a disservice to the city you want to be mayor of.

Sincerely,

Sebastian

When “Shall Issue” Really Isn’t

Jeff Soyer bring us this bit on Colorado, where some Democratic legislators want to make it more difficult to obtain licenses for concealed carry. I don’t have much to add to what Jeff said except to make a point about something he mentioned in his post:

Colorado is NOT a “shall issue” state. As the FAQ says:

Regardless of whether the applicant meets the criteria specified, if the sheriff has reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to self or others, the sheriff may deny the permit…

Meaning that if the Sheriff doesn’t like you, you’re fucked. Unspoken is the fact that if you voted the wrong way or are black or gay, you might not get your permit. I’m not saying they actually discriminate, simply that your permit approval is at the mercy of someone else’s subjective opinion.

Pennsylvania is also a shall issue state that isn’t really shall issue, since we have the same clause in our law that gives local sheriffs some discrescion over license issue. This was intended for people who might have a string of offenses, that would indicate they may not be entirely responsible individuals, but was not any of the enumerated offenses that would cause you to be denied by the statute. Most Sheriff’s within the Commonwealth do not abuse this discrescion, but the City of Philadelphia routinely does, and the appeals process in the City is stacked against the appelant, and my understanding is they routinely uphold denials by the Philadelphia Police for LTCs.

Fortunatly, for many Philadelphians who have a difficult time getting licenses, Florida is a true shall-issue state, and their license is recognized by Pennsylvania. There were more than a few people in my training class for the Florida CWL who had been denied by the city for minor infarctions. I suspsect what this politician wants to do is close that “loophole”, so that Denver’s abuse of the same clause will hold, and those denied won’t have recourse to seek licenses in true shall-issue states.

Pro-Gun Activists Need Women on Their Side

Today The View from North Central Idaho points us to a story in the media that’s decidedly not flattering to gun owners, but I put this in the category of “they gave us enough rope, and we didn’t disappoint”:

Wives were threats. Girlfriends were threats. They are the new scourges of secular life, hunting down unsuspecting men to get bucks and tear out their hearts. Women who talked too much were threats. And women who held public office and wouldn’t shut up were the scourge of the land. I also have picked up bumper stickers at gun shows that said: “I just got a gun for my wife. It’s the best trade I ever made.” Or handouts detailing the “Top 10 Reasons Handguns Are Better than Women,” ending with the No. 1 reason, “You can buy a silencer for a handgun.” I also had seen some pretty vicious materials on Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno. A new fear floated above some of the gun exhibits: judges, lawyers and voters were giving women too much power, and the women were using that power to take guns away from their husbands, their boyfriends and their constituents. A gun-grabber lurked in the heart of the liberated woman.

Women are the fastest growing segment of the shooting community.Â Saying and doing things that alienate them, and make them feel unwelcome, is a great way to put our right to bear arms in jeaopardy over the long run. This is bad press, I agree with Joe on that, but it’s bad press that we deserved. Maybe the reporter came to that gun show with a pre-existing bias, but maybe she didn’t and we created an enemy where none had previously existed.

I don’t agree with many of the things this reporter says, and the article is definitely overtly hostile, but it should serve as a lesson to gun folks out there that you have to treat noobs with kid gloves, and not to just assume that anyone you talk to is a fellow gun enthusiast, and has already drank the kool-aid. Getting into the our community can be an intimidating experience for nephytes, and that might mean setting aside a lot of the politics and rhetoric we use with each other, and just try to get the person excited about the sport. We can work on all the other prejudices, stereotypes, and preconceived notions later.