Jul 30, 2014
Tam links to the case of a guy who carried a long gun, an AR-15 specifically, into Sky Harbor airport to get a cup of coffee. Apparently he muzzled a woman when he unslung the firearm, and is now facing charges for it, namely two counts of disorderly conduct with a weapon. The Arizona Revised Statutes defines Disorderly Conduct in this manner:
13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification
A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:
- Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or
- Makes unreasonable noise; or
- Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or
- Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or
- Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or
- Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor.
I’d say muzzling people at an airport qualifies as reckless handling, and I’d even go a step further and suggest carrying an AR-15 in an airport could also amount to reckless display, if it was carried in a manner that could be interpreted by a reasonable observer as being ready for use (e.g. at the low ready).
It’s interesting that a state with a strong cultural heritage of open carry has mechanisms in place to deal with the worst attention whoring aspects of rifle OC. I honestly don’t have a problem with these charges. Muzzling people is reckless behavior.
Jul 30, 2014
By now you’ve probably all seen the giant ball of fail that is the latest Everytown ad:
At first I thought it was a Glock ad. Probably because it goes pretty much the same way as the well known Glock ad, only without the humorous twist at the end. Well, it turns out that even the women over at the highly lefty show “The View” thought the ad was a good argument for having a gun.
Jul 30, 2014
National Review’s Yuval Levin hits on what I really don’t like about the Obama Administration:
In one sense, the approach the president is said to be contemplating does fit into a pattern of his use of executive power. That pattern involves taking provocative executive actions on sensitive, divisive issues to isolate people he detests, knowing it will invite a sharp response, and then using the response to scare his own base voters into thinking they are under assault when in fact they are on the offensive. That’s how moving to compel nuns to buy contraception and abortive drugs for their employees became “they’re trying to take away your birth control.” This strategy needlessly divides the country and brings out the worst instincts of people on all sides, but it has obvious benefits for the administration and its allies. Liberals get both the substantive action and the political benefit of calling their opponents radicals and getting their supporters worked up. Obama’s legalization of millions would surely draw a response that could then be depicted as evidence of Republican hostility to immigrants, rather than of Republican hostility to illegal executive overreach that tries to make highly significant policy changes outside the bounds of our constitutional order.
It’s not that he’s liberal. I’ve been through liberal presidents in my lifetime. Despite Clinton being far more damaging on guns than Barack Obama could ever dream of, I never developed the visceral dislike of Clinton Administration that I have for the Obama Administration. Maybe that’s partly psychological. The Clinton years were good. I look back fondly on that time in life. In contrast, the Obama years have been hellish both financially and in always feeling like we’re living on the razors edge just a hair’s breath away from losing everything we thought we believed about this country.
Philosophically, I think Barack Obama is a fairly conventional progressive in the mold of Woodrow Wilson; another ends-justify-the-means president who isn’t above flaming the worst instincts in the populace if it benefits the promotion of his political agenda. But I also can’t help but to take a swipe at Republicans here.
You know what makes Republican cries of overreach ring hollow? Maybe because your guy did it over the howls of the left during the last Administration? I would be the first to agree that Bush’s crimes with executive overreach pale in comparison to Obama’s, but Bush set the stage. You reap what you sow. I’m deeply angry at the Obama surveillance state, but it was Bush who laid the foundation for it. Let’s not kid ourselves.
Many people on the right call on President Obama to be impeached for a his overreach. Like the author of this piece, I am more sympathetic to handing out green cards more liberally than the majority of conservatives. But if he unilaterally, and without legal authority, implements amnesty without action by Congress, I believe he ought to be impeached. That would be a bridge too far for me when it comes to illegal executive actions. I know the consequence of that is President Joe Biden. I’d take it.
However, you know what makes impeachment politically impossible for the Republicans? You know what makes Obama invite the very idea? Progressives well remember what happened the last time Republicans decided it was a good idea to impeach the last Democratic president over the very important topic to the future of the country: lying about whether he did or did not get a blow job from another consenting adult.
Impeachment is serious business. It should only be for very serious things. But when the GOP made President Clinton only the second President in the US to be impeached by the House, over being dishonest about blow jobs, they cheapened the very idea. Along comes a president who has actually done some things I think may deserve impeachment, and sorry guys, you surrendered the moral high ground.
So Obama won’t be impeached. And you can thank Newt Gringrich for that.
Jul 30, 2014
The other side is prepping the ground to try to expand the category of prohibited person. This is why I don’t lightly dismiss Gun Control 2.0 — prohibited persons is a topic I’ve wondered why they didn’t push for years, especially after having success even in a GOP Congress in the late 1990s on the topic of domestic abusers.
Who wants to stand up for the rights of wife beaters, stalkers, brawlers, drunks, or other low lifes? Defending against this kind of attack requires persuading people think about big picture things. Unintended consequences are not typically a concern for people who don’t think much past “something must be done!” It takes a deeper understanding that most people simply aren’t willing to take the time to develop. In this sound bite world, dominated by low information voters, this is a topic our opponents have a natural advantage.
In the early 2000s, I thought the Internet was going to make more people enlightened. As anyone who has ever spent any time on Facebook, or read comment sections on YouTube videos can tell you, that’s just not going to be the case. The left is now far better at reaching LIVs via the Internet than we are by far. The right dominated the early blogosphere, but the left does social media much better than we do. Conservatives put all their faith in money changers who preach to the choir, rather than investing energy in activism that was highly effective at reaching and persuading people who had barely any education on conservative ideas.
The reason we gun folks are better off relatively from the conservative movement is that we never quite drank the same kool aid. Granted, the fact that our hobby is fun and doesn’t take a deep understanding of any particular philosophy is a great asset. I think we should play to our strengths. Our best bet is to continue to be evangelists for the shooting sports and armed self-defense to anyone who shows even a hint of an open mind.
Jul 29, 2014
It’s hard to argue it has been a good week for the antis. First, that which they claim can never and has never happened, happened again. Someone stopped a mass shooting before it qualified for their definition of mass shooting. Then, DC went kinda-sorta-but-not-really constitutional carry for 72 hours after a surprise Saturday ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. It’s not surprising, then, that they’ve been awfully quiet. But rest assured, they know it’s been a bad week. Here’s the news:
Colorado predicted a huge number of background checks would be performed once they banned private transfers, because they based their estimates on the bogus 40% number. So it’s not surprise by anyone except those that buy into anti-gun propaganda that their numbers are way way off.
CSGV trying to wrap its collective head around the defensive shooting at Mercy Fitzgerald.
Guns have no place in the workplace. Yeah, tell that to Dr. Silverman. This guy didn’t seem to care enough to actually obey something written on a piece of paper by HR.
I’m betting no one except Eleanor Holmes Norton thought the 72 hours DC had nothing to say about carry was “madness.”
Joe has a look at what the anti gun folks think of us in cartoons: here and here.
I have to agree with Tam on Facebook today: I didn’t see this coming either.
“Turns out, gun control is bad for the local economy.” The people voting for gun control don’t care about jobs for those kinds of people, who do that kind of work. They aren’t reliable enough Democratic voters.
I appreciate the quote, and the characterization of our blog as “influential,” but it was Bitter that wrote that and not me.
Self-defense for me, but not for thee.
This nonviolent stuff’ll get you killed.
The next media fad issue over stand your ground.
It’s time for conservatives to stop defending police. They say one bad apple can spoil a bunch. The problem is, we don’t do anything about the bad apples, so the consequences are inevitable.
I’m pretty sure if the Boston Police Commissioner had his way, having a rifle or shotgun in the city would be as difficult as having a pistol. But this is how the 1st Circuit Court of appeals has decided to treat a fundamental right.
Is the speed limit too low? Yes. Next question.
Your “Craft” Rye Whiskey is probably from a factory in Indiana.
No Labels? No results, No problem! My local GOP rep is a member of this group, and regularly touts it. As far as I’m concerned, the less Washington accomplishes, the better off we all are. This group is only a way to appear to LIVs that you’re an advocate for “doing something,” and “getting along.” Personally, I’m sick to death of LIVs.
Apparently something has a really compelling case for putting “Happy Birthday,” in the public domain. If this ends all the endless stupid birthday chants at chain restaurants, I’m all for it.
Very cool collection of colorized old timey photos. Since we’ve gotten into genealogy, I’ve spent a lot of time with old family photos.
Jul 29, 2014
We knew the District of Columbia would likely file for a stay to the ruling allowing carry, and they did yesterday near the close of business. This morning, the federal judge granted it, but only for 90 days instead of the requested 180 days. This is one reason most people were urging folks not to carry in DC while this case in process.
It will be interesting to see what happens come October 22 – the deadline. It’s clear that the DC police proved they could come up with a somewhat workable policy on the fly with multiple memos that covered most situations for lawful carry. I see no reason why the DC City Council can’t come up with a clearer policy similar to the Police Chief’s in 90 days – assuming they don’t just appeal this and hope for more favorable decisions.
Jul 28, 2014
Alan Gura posted the memo that went out the DC police officers about how to handle carry situations. He specifically posts this important detail with the memo:
The District has indicated that they will seek a stay of the decision. If a stay were to be granted, this policy would doubtless change, and I can’t guarantee that I’ll be able to update this blog post in real time. So be careful out there.
Looking at the memo and the scenarios they outline, it does appear that anyone caught carrying will have all of their information taken down and the police will pursue “potential further investigation” even if they are perfectly lawful to carry at the time they stop you.
Jul 28, 2014
I have mixed feelings about the NRA-backed bill that prevents doctors from asking about gun ownership, because I believe that the government should never have the power to control speech in that kind of manner.
I realized that many professions are regulated in these kinds of terms, but I’m not sure that all bad advice ought to be illegal advice, and I’m not sure why we can’t protect our privacy with a polite “Mind your own business, doc.” But apparently the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with me, and delivered NRA a win in the case.
In the ruling, the three judge panel ruled: “In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct—which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy—the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters. As such, we find that the Act is a legitimate regulation of professional conduct. The Act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care.”
On the other side of the coin, the medical profession has politicized itself far and beyond what I think is appropriate, and this is a greatly needed shot across the bow at the AMA and the AAP. They would be wise to issue new guidelines to doctors telling them to learn to mind their own business when it comes to topics that have nothing to do with the practice of medicine, like gun ownership.
I am loathe to punish pediatricians who want to talk to parents about guns in the context of other dangerous household articles, or to punish a doctor who talks to a patient about guns because the doctor and patient are both gun enthusiasts. The latter is in my opinion pretty unambiguously free speech.
But doctors have abused their position to promote a political agenda, and this is what they have reaped by doing so. NRA has more weight to throw around Congress and State Capitols than the medical establishment does, and they would do well to remain cognizant of that fact.
Jul 28, 2014
Go forth and be horrified (NSFA – Not Safe for Anywhere). Yes, Moms Demand members went to protest the long-gun OCing fools in Texas by being even bigger fools. I have to hand it to John Richardson, who I just noticed wins the Internets for selecting a much much better headline than I did for this story.
Now, I’m pretty sure that this was not an officially sanctioned MDA/Everytown event. The article notes that the topless protesters only mentioned MDA. But it shows the problem the gun control movement is going to run into in trying to build a grassroots movement: most of us are involved in this because we have our rights and/or a hobby to protect. That means there are people involved who aren’t lunatics. There are people that certainly fit that bill on our side, but this movement succeeds because it’s made up of many more people who aren’t. Gun control groups have always had difficulty building the same kind of enthusiastic grassroots, and what grassroots they did have tended to be enthusiastic whack jobs. I’m seeing evidence that’s the case for MDA too, and that’s a good sign.
Jul 28, 2014
Well, we’re to Monday morning and it appears there’s no change in the situation from Saturday evening when it comes to the Washington, DC gun situation. In fact, last night Emily Miller was reporting on Twitter that the DC police have apparently conceded on the carry issue for the time being.
Dave Kopel notes that before you strap a gun on your hip and head into DC, you should probably try to find out more about this very fluid situation.
As of 1:30 a.m. ET on Monday morning, I was not able to find a copy of Chief Lanier’s order on the websites of the D.C. Police, D.C. Attorney General, or city government. It would be helpful for non-residents who seek to comply with the D.C. government’s interpretation of the current situation if the order were speedily made available to the public.
And he also reminds people that there are many laws on the books that were not invalidated by the court.
Nothing in the District Court’s opinion invalidates the D.C. ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Nothing in the opinion addresses the numerous federal and D.C. laws which prohibit carry in a huge number of locations within the District–such as most federal buildings, lots of federal property, as well as schools and colleges. (The D.C. “school” ban even encompasses a school of cosmetology whose students are all adults.)