It’s about that time again, when the tabs and RSS reader fill up with articles I think are interesting, but I just don’t have much to add. Glenn Reynolds has a post that really speaks the truth, “For me, the real strain isn’t the blogging, but having to pay close attention to the news all the time. The news is usually depressing, when it’s not angering, and that’s doubly true for the Obama years.” Same for me too, but giving up and tuning out is what they want you to do. Here’s some of the news that’s fit to link (and some that isn’t!):
Oooh, they raised a whole 7K from a couple of politicians. I’m shaking in my boots. Though, I do give them credit for putting their own money where their mouths are, rather than leaving taxpayers on the hook for all of it. BTW, where is the Brady Center? They were promising all these towns legal defense. Empty promise?
Chris Hernandez also has analysis of the Charlie Hedbo simulation here and here. There’s an old saying that a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its pants on. TTAG didn’t get their analysis out until after the media and anti-gun folks (but I repeat myself) had already successfully spread their preferred narrative. This was entirely a self-inflicted wound.
Winning the culture wars. Really, carrying through a checkpoint should be a misdemeanor at worst, but generally ought to be only a civil penalty. There should be the option of just fining someone who made an honest mistake. Pay your ticket and be more careful next time.
It’s never been smart politics to stab the people who helped you get elected in the back. That’s especially true when your potential upside isn’t there at all. No one votes on gun control, except a handful of anti-gun activists who care about the issue. On the flip side, there are a lot of us, and we vote the issue. He never should have let Joe Manchin and Schumer talk him into it. I may still end up voting for him, depending on what he does for us between now and 2016, but he’s lost me as a volunteer for good. He’s has, so far, represented everything that’s wrong with the Pennsylvania GOP, in my view, and I’m hardly a dogged tea party type.
I don’t ordinarily do anti-endorsements for NRA Board members, but I have been known to make exceptions. This is one of those exceptions: It’s time for Ted Nugent to be off the NRA Board of Directors, now that he’s doubled down on his previous statement of calling President Obama a “subhuman mongrel.” I get that the term “racist” is being thrown around so casually these days for things that aren’t racist, that its meaning has been debased as a word used to describe actual racism. But I believe this is actual racism.
Usually we use the word “mongrel,” to describe a dog which is mixed breed. We currently have a President who is half-white and half-black. So how exactly, Ted Nugent, is calling Obama a “subhuman mongrel,” essentially comparing him to a mixed bred dog, not racist? According to the dictionary, this term has a history enough of racist use to be noted as such. If a Nazi said the same thing about a half-jew, would you give them a pass on the racist thing? I think most of us wouldn’t. There are plenty of ways to insult this president without having to drag his race and ethnicity into it.
What Ted Nugent said here is absolutely racist, and he should have apologized for it rather than doubling down. Get off my side Ted Nugent! The only way this is going to happen is if NRA members stop voting for him.
But U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook cut him off abruptly: “What if somebody decides to possess a bazooka?”
“It’d fall into a longstanding prohibition,” Vogts replied.
“No, there’s no such prohibition; they were only invented recently. It was once perfectly legal to own automatic weapons like Tommy guns.”
“But that dates back 80 years ago.”
Easterbrook was not convinced. “Yes,” he said, “but the Second Amendment dates back to the 18th century. Why does that matter? I don’t see how you can say fully automatic weapons are okay to ban because some states banned them in the 1950s. How is it rational to distinguish a ban laid down 150 years after the Second Amendment from one laid down 200 years after?”
I think it’s important to consider what the court was trying to accomplish with that presumption, which is that commonly used firearms are deserving of protection. I don’t think too much more needs to be read into than that, which is what I think the attorney for the plaintiff was trying to stick to. The argument Easterbrook is asking, I think, can be left for another case.
But I agree with Easterbrook that the common use test, and “longstanding prohibition” doctrine is imperfect, and was largely an effect of trying to exclude machine guns from protection. I think the test should be whether the arm in question is in common use by police as well. One should not just look at commonness in the civilian population. Any gun control law that has a police exception to it should automatically be treated with strong suspicion by the courts, and any arm that is part of ordinary police equipment should be unequivocally protected for civilians as well. That would include pistols, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, and the standard capacity magazines that go with them. It would also include body armor, chemical sprays, tasers, and batons. It might even include true assault rifles, as they become ever more common in police inventories. I think such an evaluation would create a far more equitable balance between the people and the state than a narrow understanding of the common use test.
Bob Owens over at Bearing Arms has what is probably the big story of the week. I would seem that some of the ads that Bloomberg’s outfit was trying to pass off as private sellers in their latest report prepping the ground for gun control in Vermont, were actually Federally Licensed Dealers. The FFLs are apparently quite unhappy with having their copyrights violated and their names smeared. It would be nice to see an FFL get a judgement against Everytown, and relieve them of some of Bloomberg’s money. I noticed Bob Ownes hailing the Fact Check organizations on Twitter this morning, so hopefully this report will give Everytown yet another black eye for being fast and loose with the facts.
Everytown for Gun Safety: This PAC spent $665,000 on state races this past cycle, according to the center. Most of the group’s money came from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and went to the Nevada State Democratic Party, with smaller donations to state Sen. Justin Jones, who sponsored a gun control measure last session, and state Sen. Debbie Smith.
The article goes on to say that most of the spending was paying signature collectors for the ballot measure. Ballot measures are a game where all that really matters is enough money. Very strong and organized grassroots energy is about the only thing that can defeat a ballot measure if you can’t outspend your opponent. With enough money, it was a fore-drawn conclusion he’d get enough signatures. You want to understand why?
And these same people vote too. How do you think they’d respond to a multi-million dollar ad campaign telling them Bloomberg’s ballot measure was good and wholesome?
Years ago, when I had more time and money to spend a lot of time in DC, I was involved in a range day at Quantico Shooting Club for a major “conservative” (i.e. really libertarian) charitable foundation, and all but a few who attended were completely new to firearms. There were a lot of smiling faces by the end of the day. I am convinced of the value of this kind of thing, even when we would ordinarily think we’re preaching to the choir.
But I do have to say, I’m amused that NRA has who appears to be Lars Dalseide of NRA Blog fame wear a suit even on the range.
Come into he 21st century guys! Kakis and a button up or polo has been the business fashion since at least the 90s. Click on the photo to see the rest of the photos.
See this local news story about a robbery that happened in North Philadelphia today:
There’s some speculation in the comments that it’s a replica, because the carry handle looks off. I agree it looks larger and differently shaped than any real AR-15 carry handle I’ve seen, so I’m open to the idea that it’s a replica. But that could also be a lensing effect on the camera making it look bigger than it really is. Other than that, it looks like the real deal to me, but I agree that carry handle and sight is off. What do you think?
Though, I do have to say, with that one handed grip, I don’t know how he thinks he could fight off a grab. That’s practically begging for a bolder store clerk to rip that AR right out of his hands. I don’t know if I’d have the guts to do it, but it’s certainly doable.
Suddenly there aren’t the votes for it in the Texas Legislature, according to the Lt. Governor. Remember, before their little stunt, this was supposedly a done deal. Are Second Amendment supporters going to get anything out of Austin this session? Remember, the Texas Legislature only meets on odd numbered years for a 140 day session, so anything we don’t get this session will have to wait until 2017. I do hope there are at least the votes to remove the prohibition on carry on college campuses this session.
So far all all the OC Tarrant County folks have accomplished this session is getting the legislature to install panic buttons, and scuttling a bill that looked like it had the legs to pass. What else will they manage to accomplish in this legislative session?