2nd Amendment

84 posts
Civil Rights

It’s Not the Guns

The preliminary Uniform Crime Reports are in for 2009, and the results are promising.  Murder is down 10%, robberies are down 6.5%, and motor vehicle thefts are oddly down 18.7%.  As many in our camp have pointed out, this takes place during an unprecedented year-long surge in firearms ownership.  According to NICS, there are at least 25 million more guns in circulation than there were before the election.

The obvious conclusion is that more guns do not equal more crime.

However, this does not mean there is a direct relationship between increased firearms ownership and this drastic decline in crime.  Without more data, causality would be difficult to prove, so that’s probably a point best avoided in debate for now.

Civil Rights

Three Degrees of Untruth

These are the 2006 mortality statistics, straight from the CDC National Vital Statistics System (NVSS).  The actual report you want is R00.1-Y89.9 [pdf].  The relevant statistics begin on page 4515 (727 in the browser).

And yes, they do a great job of burying this stuff.

Want to know how many children under the age of 15 died of negligent discharges from handguns in 2006?  9.  Homicides?  29.

I’ll start with interpretations and follow with the original data.  The data is broken up into three categories:

  • Handgun discharge
  • Rifle, shotgun, and larger firearm discharge
  • Discharge from other and unspecified firearms

In each case, the first number is an aggregate of all types of firearm, while the second includes only handguns.

We’ll begin with unintentional and accidental shootings (W32-34).

Total: 642/107
All Children under 10: 31/6
All Children under 15: 57/9
Age 15-19: 100/26
Age 19-24: 93/21
Age 15-24: 193/47
Age 30-50: 161/15

All said, there were 642 deaths from negligent discharges. 

Continued...

Civil Rights

NAACP v. Civil Rights

All of the current amicus curiae briefs in McDonald v. Chicago are now posted on Alan Gura’s site.

The NAACP has submitted theirs, and it’s one that really bothers me.

They argue against revisiting the Privileges or Immunities clause at all, claiming,

The Court should turn to the largely unexplored Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only if it first determines that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not incorporated as against the states through the Due Process Clause. p. 2

They repeatedly claim that there’s nothing wrong with selective incorporation, and that it should be kept, as it has not “suddenly proven unworkable.”  Sure, no problem.  Selective incorporation can work, it just takes a hundred years or so sometimes.

Regarding Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank,

While it is undeniable that these cases are part of a dreadful chapter in the history of this nation, they present no bar to incorporation of constitutional rights as against the states under the Due Process Clause.

Continued...
Civil Rights

McDonald v. Chicago: Brady Weighs In

So, they got theirs up just under the wire.  The Brady Campaign brief is pretty much exactly what I expected.

The whole thing is about “reasonable regulation” and “public interest.” Without weighing in on incorporation, they simply beg for a standard of review that’s as close to rational basis as they can get without calling it such.

They dig pretty deep (Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.?) to prove that strict scrutiny doesn’t usually apply across the board for civil liberties, and they seem to encourage such a situation.

If anything, the Left needs to tread very carefully when praising infringements on 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

Their usual arrogance comes through on page 5:

Gun policy is best determined as it always has been in this country: in the political arena, without courts second-guessing reasoned legislative judgments.

I guess they didn’t read this week’s 7th Circuit opinion, because they rest part of their case on this:

Our society’s broad acceptance of firearms regulations is confirmed by the fact that while over forty states have constitutions with right-to-keep-and-bear-arms provisions, not one reviews such restrictions under heightened scrutiny.

Continued...
Civil Rights

McDonald v. Chicago: Last Briefs

As the day winds down and my body starts rejecting the caffeine, we have two final briefs coming across the wires.

The first is filed by a group including 34 California District Attorneys, 8 Nevada District Attorneys, the California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, the San Francisco Veterans Police Officers Association, the Arizona Citizens Defense League, the Texas Concealed Handgun Association, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and the Bloomfield Press.

They argue that incorporation through Due Process is a given, through any reading of the 14th Amendment.  Since the right to keep arms is fundamental, it must be incorporated automatically as a matter of course.  Their brief focuses on principles of individual defense, and they point out prior court precedent reserving citizens that right, including the 1895 decision in Beard v. United States.

The second brief comes from the Calguns Foundation.  Like Kopel’s, it is a specialized brief designed to occupy a specific strategic niche. 

Continued...

Civil Rights

McDonald v. Chicago: Dave Kopel’s Brief

Dave Kopel has posted a brief in conjunction with the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA). The argument is summed up in the first sentence: Guns save lives.

This one isn’t about the 14th Amendment at all.  Rather, it’s an ancillary brief written to underscore the point that firearms in the hands of citizens fulfill a useful purpose, and that bans such as the one in Chicago are not only ineffective but dangerous.

It occupies an important strategic position, since the counterargument will likely involve a plea for “interest balancing.”  Kopel’s research will serve as an effective bulwark against that.

The brief goes into great detail explaining why blood will not run in the streets if the Court incorporates the 2nd Amendment. Lots of charts, graphs and statistics prove the point, and it’s worth noting that the information in this one will be useful to 2nd Amendment advocates long after resolution of the case at hand.

Civil Rights

McDonald v. Chicago: Congressional Brief

I’ll post locations throughout the day as the amicus curiae briefs are posted.  It’s a lot to absorb in a short time, so I’ll just be posting links for now.

The Congressional brief is here.  I’d like to thank Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson for signing onto it.  58 Senators (19 Democrats) and 251 Representatives signed on in total.  There are no great legal insights we haven’t heard in any other briefs, but it does mention an interesting historical point:

At the outset of World War II, Congress authorized the President to seize certain property for the national defense under the Property Requisition Act. The Act explicitly excluded “the requisitioning or. . . registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport” and further denied that the Act could be used “to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms.” 

Continued...
Civil Rights

Nordyke Brief Up

The appellants from Nordyke v. King have filed an amicus curiae brief [pdf] in support of McDonald v. Chicago.

My notes from the original verdict are here.  As expected, the decision at hand created a circuit split.  An order was filed to remand the verdict for a rehearing by the full 9th Circuit, who decided to shelve the matter pending the outcome of McDonald v. Chicago.

Their brief for McDonald not only argues that incorporation is necessary and prudent, but that the Supreme Court must establish a unilateral standard of review so as to give guidance to lower courts in deciding future litigation.

The original Nordyke verdict suggested strict scrutiny, as did the 7th Circuit in this week’s Skoien decision.

The current brief is more specific:

An opinion in the McDonald case that incorporates the Second Amendment against the states, but which also includes a holding that all laws regulating the “right to keep and bear arms” must be uniform within each state serves the following functions: (1) Since firearms are ubiquitous, exercising the right to possess firearms should not conflict with the right of intrastate travel; (2) law-abiding firearm owners need only acquaint themselves with federal and state laws, instead of being held criminally accountable in every town, city, county, and parish they travel through within their state while exercising a fundamental right; and (3) instead of the municipal codes of tens of thousands of cities and counties being subjected to challenges under the Second Amendment, a constitutionally recognized, baseline preemption of “the right to keep and bear arms” that funnels down those challenges to the bodies of law of 50 states plus one federal body of law, strangles the majority of potential lawsuits in their crib. 

Continued...
Civil Rights

U.S. v Skoien and Review Standards

Steven Skoien was indicted under § 922(g)(9) for possessing firearms after being convicted of midsdemeanor domestic violence.  He appealed, arguing that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional under the terms of the Heller decision.

The 7th Circuit has agreed and is vacating his indictment [pdf] until such a time that the government can prove that its interests are in balance with the means involved.  The law in question places a lifetime prohibition on gun ownership for those convicted of domestic violence, even if only a misdemeanor.

The importance? Up until now, it has not been established what standard of review Heller implied for the constitutionality of gun laws. According to the 7th Circuit:

Although Heller did not settle on a standard of review, it plainly ruled out the deferential rational basis test; this leaves either strict scrutiny or some form of “intermediate” review. On the facts of this case, we hold that intermediate scrutiny applies.

Continued...
Civil Rights

Sharks in the Water

1 comment

Lots of people are openly carrying guns to political rallies.  It’s something of a big deal at the moment, what with a Chief Executive blatantly ignoring the will of the people.

Still, overlapping the Open Carry movement with other causes is a bit disingenuous.   These rallies are about health care, taxation and debt rather than the 2nd Amendment.  The signal is lost in the noise, and the media doesn’t hesitate to ask the hysterical question, “what’s that weirdo doing here with a gun?”

Fortunately, the whole thing has gone on without incident or accident.  When the media has gotten snippy, the rebuttals have been heard.

Let’s just be very careful, folks.  We need to be sure that none of this ends up being interpreted as threat rather than demonstration.

And we need to be wary of those among the ranks harboring less-than-noble intentions.

Civil Rights

Form Letter for “OMG GUNZ B4N!”

Frankly, I’m really sick of this whole thing.  There’s a handy website called Google that dispatches these rumors with a simple query, but it seems that people would rather fly into hysterics over innuendo than check facts.

I am responding to the numerous daily emails I get about the matter by simply cutting and pasting the following into the reply box.  I also have a few printed copies to hand out to address personal queries.  Feel free to reprint and use this.

You do not, and will not, have to report your guns on your income tax forms.

This is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst, an outright lie. SB-2099 was introduced in 2000 by Senator Jack Reed. It never went anywhere, and it does not exist in the current legislature.

There is no Federal licensing or registration scheme pending on handguns.

H.R. 45 (also referred to as the “Blair Holt Act”) is dead.

Continued...

Civil Rights

Chicago Responds

Counsel for the City of Chicago have responded [pdf] to the McDonald/NRA petitions to have their case heard before the Supreme Court next term.  If you’re just tuning in, jump in here.

First off, it’s a mess.  Seriously, as I parsed through this and took notes, I felt like I was grading a grammar-school book report rather than a legal argument.

They pounce very quickly on the fact that Nordyke is being reheard and that, in the meantime, it is not precedent. Therefore, there is no split among the Circuit courts. That removes one of our arguments for petitioning for cert.

Of course, that situation may change in the near future.

They seem to be trying their best to preclude incorporation under Privileges or Immunities clause. Their strategy seems to be to force the issue to be decided by the Due Process clause.

Why? Because they’re trying to prove that keeping and bearing arms is not a “natural” right, and therefore not subject to incorporation, I guess.

Continued...

Civil Rights

Thune Amendment: 2 Votes Shy

It’s amazing how quickly this came to a head.  I’d just heard about it a few days ago, and as of yesterday, the Brady Campaign and their ilk were in full panic mode over it with the media.  Last night, Fox News was running a constant ticker about it over their program.

Then came the vote today. 

We lost by two votes.

Two.

In a Democrat-controlled Senate.

We may have lost this one, but look at the circumstances.  This never would have been imaginable ten years ago.  Heck, it never would have seemed feasible at any point in modern times.

The winds are changing.  Harry Reid voted for it.  So did Russ Feingold, as well as Democratic Senators from Alaska, Montana, Arkansas, Colorado, Virginia (both Senators), and Arizona.

Civil Rights

SA 1618: The Thune Amendment

2 comments

SA 1618 is an amendment to S. 1390, a bill authorizing appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 2010 fiscal year.  The amendment seeks,

[t]o amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

There are 21 cosponsors including Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Naturally, the Left is pissed, which means it stands a chance.

Civil Rights

ATF v. the 10th Amendment

The ATF has fired its first shot across the bow (pdf) regarding the Firearms Freedom Act that passed last month in Tennessee.  In a letter recently sent to Tennessee Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders, they stated:

The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act (…) has generated questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect them while engaged in a firearms business activity. (…) However, because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.

The remainder of the brief memorandum simply reiterates the basic responsibilities of FFL’s.

So far, it’s just a “friendly” reminder. What happens this winter, when the Act takes place in several states, remains to be seen.

Ordnance

USC § 922(b)(1)

I got several questions about this today, and I thought I’d clarify.  As of November, you must be 21 years old to receive a frame or receiver for a firearm.  It doesn’t matter if it’s to be used to make a rifle or a handgun; it’s now treated in a similar manner as a handgun.

Congress didn’t pass a law while we weren’t looking, nor did the ATF sneak a regulation in under the radar.  This is simply a clarification and enforcement of a clause buried in Code section 922, which states:

[It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver] any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age

Receivers were never explicitly targeted previously, but as per a letter sent out last week (pdf):

A frame of receiver is a type of firearm “other than a shotgun or a rifle” and the transfer by the dealer to an individual under 21 years of age would be prohibited by Title 18, U.S.C.,

Continued...
Civil Rights

Return of the Four Horsemen

Led by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court struck down the 2nd Circuit’s decision in Ricci v. Destefano (pdf) this morning. He was joined by Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts. The decision shows a conservative-leaning court interpreting Title VII in its original spirit, which was to be completely colorblind:

Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers
cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual’s race. (p. 19)

It’s worth noting that the balance of Justices in this case is exactly the same as it was in Heller. When the question of incorporating the 2nd Amendment under the aegis of the 14th comes before the Court next year, we should be able to expect a 5-4 margin.

Our current situation is strikingly similar to the one existing between 1930 and 1937 in the Hughes Court. Much of Roosevelt’s early New Deal legislation was stalled by a bloc of conservative Justices comprised of McReynolds, Devanter, Sutherland and Butler.

Continued...

Civil Rights

Maloney v. Rice

Today’s the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller v. District of Columbia. James Maloney, appellant in Maloney v. Cuomo, has filed a petition for his case to be heard before the Supreme Court next session. The case is now Maloney v. Rice (pdf). Kathleen Rice is the current District Attorney for Nassau County.

The petition follows and supplements the 14th Amendment claim Mr. Maloney made before the 2nd Circuit in February. It points out that the Circuit Courts are now divided three ways on the question of 14th Amendment incorporation, which would demand that the Supreme Court rectify this discrepancy. It’s worth noting that 7th Circuit Justice Easterbrook also acknowledged this disparity in NRA v. Chicago.

Maloney also recognizes the existence of the pending petitions from Alan Gura and the NRA, and he suggests consolidating all three:

Either or both of the pending petitions for certiorari on the Second Amendment incorporation issues arising out of National Rife Association would be fitting for this Court to grant because those cases present the same Fourteenth Amendment issues concerning applicability of the Second Amendment to the States invoked in this petition.

Continued...
Civil Rights

Irresistible Force, Meet Immovable Object

It appears that the DC Voting Rights act (H.R.157/S.160) has been shelved, much to the chagrin of its supporters. It was approved in the Senate by a 61-37 margin, despite the inclusion of Senator Ensign’s amendment, which imposed enactment of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. It seems the House isn’t having it.

If this situation seems familiar, that’s because Congress was forced to authorize the carry of firearms in national parks last month if they wanted the Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights to pass. This situation ruffled more than a few feathers, but it set up an interesting precedent. Essentially, if Congress wants to get a spendy bill passed in a timely matter, they’re going to have to make concessions to gun rights.

And frankly, the irony is just delicious.

Civil Rights

I love Mondays

This week, 23 state Attorney Generals signed off on a letter (pdf) to Attorney General Eric Holder, in which they advised against any sort of renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Part of the letter reads,

As Attorneys General, we are committed to defending our constituents’ constitutional rights —including their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. This duty is particuarly important in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision, which held that the Second Amendment “elevated above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” The high court’s landmark decision affirmed that individual Americans have a constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. We, the undersigned Attorneys General, are staunch defenders of that right and believe that it should not be encroached upon without sound justification — and a clear law enforcement purpose. (…) we believe that additional gun control laws are unnecessary.

Continued...
Civil Rights

NRA v. Chicago, up the ladder

It took less than a week, but the 7th Circuit has passed down their judgement in National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago [pdf]. They disagree with Nordyke and find that the 14th Amendment does not incorporate the 2nd Amendment against state and local governments.

I fully expected this. What I didn’t expect was for the 7th to so gleefully and eagerly hand the ball off to the Supreme Court, which is what they’re doing here.

Presiding Judge Easterbrook argues,

Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller rejected arguments that depended on the privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), holds that the privileges and immunities clause does not apply the Bill of Rights, en bloc, to the states. [p. 2]

There’s just one little problem with that logic: this isn’t about the privileges and immunities clause, and it never was.

Continued...

Civil Rights

Time for another amnesty?

So, the debate around Coburn’s amendment to the Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights brings up several possibilities.

The one I’ve heard most of is reversing the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA. If you’re unfamiliar with it, I suggest reading up here. It’s a long but enlightening read.

The Hughes Amendment made it “unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment.” In plain terms, civilians cannot procure machineguns made after 1986.

The primary effect was to reduce the supply to a pre-existing pool of weapons, therefore raising prices through the roof. You want a machinegun? Find someone who already owns one and convince them to sell it to you. They can ask pretty much whatever they want.

Like many people, I’d like to see the Hughes Amendment repealed, but I know that the chances of such a thing are pretty much nil.

Continued...

Civil Rights

Who needs a filibuster?

2 comments

Well, we’re past the First 100 Days, and if anything, the Left’s perceived monopoly on power seems to be getting more tenuous by the day. President Obama wants a Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights, so he told Congress to draft one.

This time, however, there’s one little problem:

The Senate bill to tighten regulation of credit cards just became a tougher sell to the House yesterday after senators approved an amendment by Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to allow people to carry firearms on visits to national parks.

No, no, no! That’s not how it’s supposed to work! This administration is supposed to be the Second Coming of FDR, and this is the new legislative process:

  1. President decides on an edict
  2. President demands asks Congress to draft a bill meeting his wishes
  3. Congress does so and submits it
  4. President gleefully signs bill into law, without any messy hurdles.

That’s the change we’re supposed to believe in: an effective blurring of the lines between the Legislative and Executive branches, with more power in the hands of the Chief Executive than George W.

Continued...

Civil Rights

On Strategy

2 comments

I got a call from an NRA rep this morning, asking me for my support on a “critical issue.” OK, which one?

His response? HR 45, a bill that was introduced in January. I wrote about it in February, and it hasn’t gained an inch of traction since. It’s dead, people. Just like last year.

And yet, I’m getting frantic calls about it in May. It was the big story in America’s First Freedom last month. Are they truly this far behind the curve? I don’t think so.

So, why are they bugging me about it?

Civil Rights

Jimmy Carter on Gun Control

The only Chief Executive to ever come from Georgia had this to say in a New York Times editorial last week:

(…) none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

As much as I admire Mr. Carter for his humanitarian work, I really wish people would stop asking for his opinions on politics.

Of course, nobody knows the horrors of violence first-hand like Mr. Carter. Observe:

Jimmy Carter fending off killer swamp hare

If he’d had an AMD-65 with a 50-round drum magazine, perhaps the oar wouldn’t have been necessary. To each his own, I suppose, but what kind of self-respecting Southern Baptist goes fishing without a gun?

Civil Rights

Things we don’t discuss

2 comments

I’ve been subject to some truly absurd lines of conversation over the last few months, some of which are truly troubling.

Yesterday, I was approached by a meek middle-aged sort. He asked me, without preamble, “which handgun calibers will pierce body armor?”

There’s no way I’m answering that, and he seemed a bit miffed when I told him so. Tough. You don’t go asking strangers that kind of thing out of the blue. It’s rude, and it’s dangerous.

Let’s get a couple of things straight. The Revolution is not on our doorstep, and frankly, if you’re asking stupid questions like that, you’re not going to be fighting it anyway.

Civil Rights

Pravda, Brady Style

They’re sticking to their guns, so to speak. Despite watching their agenda slip away, the Brady Campaign continues to put a sunny face on things. Their response to the 9th Circuit Nordyke decision reads,

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld Alameda County’s ordinance banning possession and sales of firearms on county-owned property, that was enacted to end gun shows on county fairgrounds.

“We are pleased that the court recognized that the Second Amendment does not prevent state and local governments from enacting common-sense gun laws,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Actually, that’s not the case at all. The ruling narrowly allowed Almeida County to ban guns from county-owned property. It did not allow anything further. To the contrary, the main story with the Nordyke case was that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against State and local governments through the Due Process clause of the 14th.

Continued...

Civil Rights

First Fallout from Nordyke

The ink’s barely dry, and there’s already a challenge to California’s practice of maintaining a list of “approved handguns.”

Defendant’s handgun roster program violates Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that Defendant allows some people access to handguns barred to plaintiffs, and otherwise make arbitrary, capricious, irrational, and otherwise unjustifiable distinctions among the handguns that Defendant deigns to allow Plaintiffs in their exercise of fundamental Second Amendment rights. Defendant is thereby propagating customs, policies, and practices that violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, facially and as applied against the individual plaintiffs in this action, damaging plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to permanent injunctive relief against such customs, policies, and practices.

Pena v. Cid [pdf], 9th Circuit, p. 10

Civil Rights

Mind the Gap

I’m not worried about another Assault Weapons Ban. In fact, I’m not worried much about any legislation. What scares me is a sort of scheme like this, which could stand up to post-Heller scrutiny:

If we can use a capital infusion to a bank as an opportunity to control executive compensation and to limit use of private planes, why can’t the government use its weight as the largest purchaser of guns from major manufacturers to reward companies that work to keep their products out of criminals’ hands? Put another way, if it is too difficult to outlaw bad conduct through statutes, why not pay for good conduct? Why not require vendors to change their behavior if they want our tax dollars?

–Elliot Spitzer, writing for Slate

I don’t think this’d fly, but it gives me pause. Bear in mind that executive orders, particularly under an administration that sees itself as the second coming of FDR, fall into a gap where there is no real oversight.

Continued...

Civil Rights

S. 843: Cause for Concern

Frank Lautenberg’s at it again. S. 843 is a piece of legislation intended to “establish background check procedures for gun shows.”

Because, as we all know, gun shows represent a huge artery of supply to the criminal community:

Crime Gun Sources

The wording isn’t up yet, but it’s safe to assume that Here is the wording, and it’s a carbon copy of S. 2577, which he tried to get passed last year. In fact, he’s been trying to get something like this passed every year since the twilight of the Clinton administration.

Civil Rights

We’re not arming Mexico

I was going to take today off, but I just caught two things on the news.

First off, reporst indicate that Richard Phillips was freed by a team of Navy Seals around 13:30EDT. Three pirates are reported dead, and one wounded. I’m glad to hear it, and I hope this sparks an initiative to arm our sailors from now on.

It also occurs to me that an American maritime vessel was taken by pirates for the first time in almost 200 years, and the President has remained mute on the issue. Same as with the North Korean missile launch last week. Mark my words, this administration will be known for its foreign policy failures more than any other issue in the balance of history.

The second thing was an interview with Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan, in which he revived the myth that 90% of weapons confiscated in warfare between Mexican law enforcement and drug dealers (who are often one and the same) come from American dealers.

Civil Rights

Mixed Signals on Gun Policy

In the wake of last week’s violence in New York and Pittsburg, it’s not unwise to expect calls for new gun restrictions. Couple that with this administration’s published stance regarding gun rights, and we all have reason to be worried.

However, it looks like the current administration is learning from history, and they’re not salivating over gun control as rabidly as they were fifteen years ago.

In an interview with Katie Couric, Eric Holder quickly backpedaled on his prior support for a new Assault Weapons Ban, stating,

I don’t think it has and in fact, I look forward to working with the NRA to come up with ways in which we can use common-sense approaches to reduce the level of violence that we see in our streets and make the American people as safe as they can possibly be.

When prodded further, all the elaboration he’d give about his support for gun control was,

These are issues that we’ll have to discuss.

Continued...
Civil Rights

Fear of Guns, Part 648

Boortz caught onto this today, and it bears repeating. Illinois Rep. Annazette Collins made the mistake of suggesting that elementary-school aged children ought to be taught about gun safety, and now the harpies are circling.

Mayor Daley, who’s always had a rather sloppy understanding of civil liberties, called the idea, “the silliest position I’ve ever heard taken.”

According to “activist priest” Michael Pfleger:

That’s like saying we might as well sell drugs legally (…) We don’t want access to guns. We have children dying in this city. We’re talking about teaching kids in grammar school how to shoot guns? That’s crazy!

I guess I must have grown up in about the craziest environment imaginable, then. It’s a wonder I turned out sane.

Civil Rights

OMG! AWB!

So, here we go. Yet again. The whole thing is getting tiresome, and I’ve got a sneaking suspicion I haven’t heard the last of it.

It works like this:

  1. Someone in the current administration says, “hey, wouldn’t it be great to bring the Assault Weapons Ban back?”
  2. People on the internet (or Bob over in accounting, who “knows guns”), who have no clue how politics works, go into apoplexy. They start screaming that the Last Days have come, and discuss how they’re going to cope. Usually this involves the phrase, “from my cold dead hands.”
  3. I am regaled, via internet and in person, by these people. I get hoarse and very sick of explaining political reality to them.
  4. It turns out that the comments made by said official turn out to have no real gravity or effect.
  5. Internet people come down off the roof, grumbling that we “dodged a bullet…this time.”

Continued...
Civil Rights

Some days, I’m proud of my government.

Georgia has joined Arizona, California, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Washington in reaffirming her sovereignty. As many as 29 states are expected to pass similar resolutions this year.

Why is this such a big deal? Because the Federal government has trampled all over the Tenth Amendment and forgotten its place. In case you slept through civics class (or if they don’t teach it anymore), the Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The whole purpose of the this amendment was to structure Federalism with a slant towards the States. The Federal government is supposed to be the agent of the States, and therefore subordinate to them.

Of course, it doesn’t seem to work that way anymore, does it?

Civil Rights

Democrats: they’re not all out to get us.

New York Governor David Paterson has selected Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to take Hillary Clinton’s place as New York Senator. The bad news? She’s a Democrat.

The good news? She’s a Democrat.

Gillibrand has earned an “A” rating from the NRA based on a voting record which shows unwavering support for the 2nd Amendment.

That’s right: a pro-gun Senator representing New York. It may very well be that the North American Reagan Democrat isn’t as extinct as we thought.

Civil Rights

Obama’s Gun Policies: Spin vs. Fact

So, the new President has transplanted his proposed policies from his own site directly to the official White House site. Under the “Urban Policies” header, we have a blueprint for his ideas on gun control.

Spin: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

Fact: This is a defacto gun registry. The Federal government will have access to all information a buyer includes on Form 4473, without having to obtain a warrant or prove cause. Remember, Obama voted for the Patriot Act, which included the ability of the government to engage in wiretaps on citizens without warrants.

Spin: Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals.

Continued...
Civil Rights

SB 12 DOA, everything else on hold

My Senator responded quickly to my concerns on SB 12. It’s deader than John Wilkes Booth.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that Lt. Governor Cagle has no interest in hearing any gun-related legislation in the 2009 session. In his words,

Let me be very, very clear. I have no appetite for that (…) we dealt with this issue last year and I think people should be content with where we are.

I worried this might happen. There was a great deal of shouting, acrimony and hand-wringing over HB 89 in last year’s session, and this is the unfortunate result.

Take heed: this is where confrontational “in your face” tactics will get us. Calling our potential allies in the legislature tyrants and dolts doesn’t help in the least. If you feel the need to contact your congressman, please practice a little civility.

As gun people, it’s our place to be tactful, courteous and calm in the face of cheap emotional appeals.

Continued...