December 2015 – Page 3 – Shall Not Be Questioned

You Know it Has to Kill Him

Dave Kopel congratulates President Obama on signing some common sense gun reforms:

Although the gun control debate is often polarized, Congress and President Obama have demonstrated that common-sense reforms are still possible. Kudos to them.

I take that as very tongue and cheek. The reality is that we all know the President is pretty anti-gun, but that differs from his actual record, thanks to Congress having been pretty successful at cajoling him into signing some meaningful pro-gun measures into law. Obama is not willing to make gun control the centerpiece of his administration, even as Hillary is preparing to make it a centerpiece of her campaign. Never interrupt the enemy when they are in the process of making a mistake.

The Paper of Making Up the Record, Indeed

SayUncle noticed that the New York Times linked to a satire site about California banning all .45ACPÂ in reference to ammunition restrictions. To be honest, I’m not sure how much I can really blame the Times, given that California’s gun laws are pretty much self-satirizing at this point.

In fact, the whole political class in this country now is satirizing itself on a daily basis.

Malloy Unlawfully Implements Gun Control

Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy is preparing an executive order that will prohibit anyone on any of the terror watch list, including the no-fly list, from purchasing a firearm. I’m not sure how the Governor thinks he has the power to do this, considering Connecticut’s law on the matter is pretty clear:

(b) The Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection shall issue an eligibility certificate unless said commissioner finds that the applicant: (1) Has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association; (2) has been convicted of a felony or of a violation of subsection (c) of section 21a-279 or section 53a-58, 53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a-96, 53a-175, 53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d; (3) has been convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense, as defined in section 46b-120; (4) has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13; (5) (A) has been confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding sixty months by order of a probate court; or (B) has been voluntarily admitted on or after October 1, 2013, to a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding six months for care and treatment of a psychiatric disability and not solely for being an alcohol-dependent person or a drug-dependent person as those terms are defined in section 17a-680, (6) is subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person; (7) is subject to a firearms seizure order issued pursuant to subsection (d) of section 29-38c after notice and hearing; (8) is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing or receiving a firearm pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4); or (9) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.

Emphasis is mine. What isn’t in there? A presence on any “terror watch lists.” If anyone in CT is denied an Eligibility Certificate for reason of presence on any of these lists, they should immediately get in contact with the NRA.

Weekly Gun News – Edition 21

It’s tough after something like the San Bernardino attacks to keep writing about guns. Glenn Reynolds keeps floating the idea that Obama wants us to argue about gunsÂ as a distraction from his real failures. This seems plausible to me, and there is a certain amount of feeling like I play into his hands. But the blog must go on.

The Civilian Self-Defense Blog is back, documenting what we are told regularly can’t possibly ever happen. You’ll recall this effort by Clayton Cramer was shut down because of copyright trolls.

The Maryland Minute Men of 1942.

Never let anyone tell you that no one is after your guns.

Thirdpower points so some other loony thing the gun control folks are proposing.

People in San Bernardino are voting on gun control with their wallets. Lines out the door at local gun shops.

Marco Rubio is right on guns, says Washington Post’s fact checkers. Rubio claimed that “no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws.” They go case by case and show that none of the proposed gun laws would have made a difference. It’s pleasing when they get it right.

Answering the important questions: How much will the CMP 1911s likely cost?

Dave Hardy paid a visit to the Clinton library, to get some insight into what was going on in the White House during gun control fights. Good idea!

The eight most over-the-top smears of NRA Gun Owners in 2015. And this was put together before San Bernardino!

So the straw buyer for the terrorist couple doesn’t look like the kind of guy who will do well in prison.

Simple Justice: “While this assertion is facile, blame Scaliaâ€™s errant paragraph in Heller for opening the door. His unprincipled caveat means that Times and gun control advocates get to call for whatever regulation they deem reasonable.”

Tam: “You can’t make this stuff up.”

Jim Geraghty: “The Surge in New Gun Sales is Entirely Rational.”

Obama threatening to use executive power to close gun loophole.

Dave Hardy has further thoughts on the cert denial in Friedman v. Highland Park.

Eugene Volokh: “Can Americans be denied Second Amendment rights because the Attorney General suspects theyâ€™re terrorists?” also “Why bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unlikely to reduce mass shooting deaths.” It’s been good for us to have the Volokh Conspiracy in the WaPo.

Guns and Vultures

Law Review Paper: Gay Rights Strengthen Gun Rights

These ISIS inspired militants had a plan.

SayUncle offers someÂ Gear Advice. I don’t really have much to add. I agree when it comes to optics and holsters, you get what you pay for.

Popehat: Talking productively about guns.

Why you can’t find .22LR ammunition.

Why yes, I always form my political opinions based on the opinions of vapid celebrities. I might be worried when the other side tries something genuinely new for a change.

I agree this kind of thing is not helping. It’s worth noting that the Kurds, who are doing most of the killing and dying fighting ISIS, are muslims.

There is now a right to possess a switchblade in Wisconsin.

Depression is no barrier to a gun carry permit. Nor should it be.

Chris Cox: “No, Mr. President, the NRA is not to blame.”

Personally, I’d call it a step in the right direction.

Reason: How California’s Gun Control Laws Failed

Mike Bloomberg isn’t buying much democracy for his money.

Ecumenical Clock Scares

This one evidently caused by an Israeli student. And ending with yet another Police Praise PSH. (Hey, maybe we need another tag, Sebastian?) This should be interesting to watch unfold. That had to have annoyed a lot of commuters, too; US 9 is a major artery for the area, as is NJ 18.

No pictures yet – if I come across one I’ll update. Wonder if he’ll be invited to the White House?

Millennials Support Gun Rights

So says a Pew Poll. It’s funny how the media regards this as mysterious. But that’s probably because Millennials aren’t voting the way most people do in that regard. Like I’ve said time and time again, if they don’t vote the issue, whether they support the Second Amendment or not won’t amount to spit.

Glenn Reynolds notes “Also, anti-gun hysteria was a specific boomer phenomenon, and the people affected by it are as old as Hillary and Bernie now. Later generations are reverting to the American norm.” Most of the gun control we’re dealing with today was enacted by members of the “Greatest Generation,” and the Silents. I actually think Baby Boomers, as a whole, are less into gun control than their parents were.

Obama’s No-Fly No Buy Proposal for Guns Falling Flat

It’s always amazed me how often the gun control folks fail because they simply can’t help themselves from going a bridge too far. I can speak anecdotally that not many left-leaning folks have been willing to stand up and enthusiastically get behind the Terror Watch List proposal. But in this case, we can stop just speaking anecdotally, and note that the LA Times thinks the proposal is a bad one. That was followed up by Slate.

I’ve been of the opinion that the entire Bush-era “no fly” list as applied to flying is and ought to be ruled completely unconstitutional. Neither the 9th Amendment to the Bill of Rights, nor the “Privileges or Immunities” clause of the 14th AmendmentÂ does much for us these days, but it has been recognized to protect the rights of citizens to travel the country unimpeded. It’s good to see there are still some traditional liberals out there who find the use of secret government lists to restrict the liberties of citizens distasteful.

Via Glenn Reynolds, who notes: “To be fair, the whole thing was just intended as a distraction from Obamaâ€™s many national security failures, not as a serious proposal.”

When Democrats would rather talk about gun control, an issue that they not long ago regarded as poison, how bad have things really gotten for them?

Sad But True

As much as I hate to mark Pearl Harbor day with such irreverence, sadly, this is what we’ve come to as a country:

Obama7th

Gun Stocks Rally After Obama Gun Control Speech

President Obama went on the air last night to reassure the nation he totally had this ISIS thing under control, and also to lecture us once again on gun control.

Lo and behold, gun stocks rally. Just when you wonder whether Obama’s talent for selling guns and NRA memberships can’t possibly hit new highs, it does hit new highs.

Court Denies Cert in Highland Park Gun Ban Case

We’ve been waiting with bated breath as the Supreme Court kept holding over the case of Friedman v. Highland Park. Will they take cert? Are they still arguing? Are they waiting for a dissent to denial to be finished?

We now have our answer. Cert is denied: the Supreme Court will not hear the case. That leaves the ban to stand. However, Justice Thomas penned a powerful dissent, which was joined by Justice Scalia. Scroll down to the very end to read the dissent:

â€œ[O]ur central holding inâ€ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), was â€œthat the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.â€ McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Sec- ond Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appealsâ€” including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision belowâ€”have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410â€“412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Courtâ€™s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case.

Noncompliance is an understatement at this point. I appreciate Justice Thomas’ and Justice Scalia’s spirited defense of a meaningful Second Amendment, but this dissent doesn’t have any legal meaning. The lower courts are still free to interpret the Second Amendment into irrelevance, which they have largely done.

The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate â€œto the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.â€ 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quo- tation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since â€œstates, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade fire- arms.â€ Ibid. But that ignores Hellerâ€™s fundamental prem- ise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess.

Our only hope here is that there are changes in the Court, which means the Democrats cannot win in 2016 if we’re to have a robust Second Amendment. I get that not everyone likes the Republican candidates this year, and I’m not demanding people vote for whatever yahoo wins the nomination. It is simple a fact that if a Democrat wins in 2016, there will no longer be any Second Amendment right the courts are willing to protect.

Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia have at least left us a legacy, however. The author of the Heller opinion, and a concurring author of the McDonald opinion view the Second Amendment right broadly, believe that the people have a broad right to semi-automatic weapons, and reject categorical bans on common firearms.

Perhaps then in the future, a brave panel of justices will buck circuit precedent and kick a new Second Amendment case to the Supreme Court. But it’s going to take a willingness to do that, and that kind of bravery is unusual in federal judges (at least conservative judges. Leftist judges will just do whatever they want). It may be a long long time before we see another Second Amendment case before the Court again.

For now, we have to defeat Bloomberg and his ilk the old fashioned way. I’d also note that since the Supreme Court has abrogated its duty to us, will do still have the option of Congress taking action using its Section 5 powers under the 14th Amendment, and I do believe it is incumbent upon Congress to avail themselves of this power with the courts so unwilling to act.