The Judge in the D.C. District Court has smacked down at least one aspect of DC’s attempt at evading the Second Amendment in Wrenn v. D.C. The Court in this case did not buy D.C.’s assertion that the good cause requirement was related to the city’s interest in preventing crime:
While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.
The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous.
The Court also rejected D.C.’s assertion that they had a legitimate interest in reducing the number of handguns in public places:
Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime. Simply put, the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement will neither make it less likely that those who meet this requirement will present a risk to other members of the public or commit violent crimes than those who cannot meet this requirement. Therefore, after reviewing the record in this case, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there is any relationship, let alone a tight fit, between reducing the risk to other members of the public and/or violent crime and the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement.
This is very good news. SAF only chose to file for a preliminary injunction on the “good cause” requirement, and they got it. D.C. is now not permitted to enforce this requirement. Good show!
This would be an indicator that NRA is doing the necessary ground work to push for having suppressors removed from the National Firearms Act at some point in the future. If we have a favorable outcome in 2016, something like that might make a good second term project for a Second Amendment friendly Administration. Though, maybe I’m being wildly optimistic. I’m probably being wildly optimistic.
The unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan can be found here. In this case, Tony Henderson was convicted of drug offenses and became a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He petitioned the FBI to turn his firearms over to a third party of his choosing. The FBI refused, arguing that he would remain in constructive possession. The FBI took the position that the guns could only be transferred to a Federal Firearms Licensee that would then sell them on the open market. Fortunately for Henderson, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by the government’s arguments. The Court holds:
Accordingly, a court may approve the transfer of a felon’s guns con- sistently with §922(g) if, but only if, the recipient will not grant the felon control over those weapons. One way to ensure that result is to order that the guns be turned over to a firearms dealer, himself inde- pendent of the felon’s control, for subsequent sale on the open mar- ket. But that is not the only option; a court, with proper assurances from the recipient, may also grant a felon’s request to transfer his guns to a person who expects to maintain custody of them. Either way, once a court is satisfied that the transferee will not allow the felon to exert any influence over the firearms, the court has equitable power to accommodate the felon’s transfer request. Pp. 3–8.
So provided the third party assures the court that he will not allow the prohibited person to exercise possession or control over the firearms, a prohibited person may delegate a third party.
I’m not sure what NSA’s program has to do with gun rights, to warrant NRA’s involvement, but it did occur to me that if such a program could be weaponized by a hostile Administration. They could use it to target NRA’s grassroots network and lobbying efforts. This would make the opposition’s efforts MUCH more effective if they were coordinated with the White House. But weaponizing a program for political purposes? That’s crazy talk. This is the most transparent administration ever!
Yesterday was the 10th Annual 2A Rally at the PA Capitol. Pictures can be found here. I have not gone for several years. Mainly because we’re not facing any major threats. The situation in Pennsylvania is this: With the GOP firmly in control of the legislature, we’re not likely to see any bad bills. With Governor Wolf in the Governor’s mansion, we’re not likely to get anything done. So for the next four years, it’s a stalemate unless the Democrats manage to gain seats in the legislature. The other issue is numbers. Illinois does their IGOLD rally day which was turning up thousands. That’s many people makes an impression on legislators, especially when you can get repeatability every year. We’ve always struggled with that in Pennsylvania. Illinoisans had issues that galvanized their grassroots. We don’t have anything like that here in Pennsylvania.
I’m not saying don’t go, but if you do, I’d head in after the speeches to your lawmaker’s office and try to speak with them one-on-one about your concerns as a gun owner. If you can bring someone else from the district too, that would be even better. I’m big on the impact of direct contact with lawmakers. Not so much on rallies and protests, unless you can turn out numbers that wow lawmakers. That’s a hard thing to do without an issue or threat that galvanizes people.
But really, I wouldn’t consider any response worth my time if the person isn’t a trainer. Those are the people who see a lot of examples and have experience with the limitations of the people they train. The only experience I’ve had with drawing my Glock under stress has been under the stress of competition, and even that’s been a while. I do regularly practice drawing with my finger indexed properly, but not under extreme stress, so I really don’t know if I have enough experience to comment.
All I can say is I’ve stopped fingering triggers on the draw after I conditioned myself not to do it. What would I do under the stress of a deadly force scenario? I don’t know, and I don’t think most other people know either until it happens. That’s why we train. I’ve seen studies about how fine motor control goes to hell when you have a bunch of adrenaline running through you, but if you look at things strictly through that lens, then we should all be carrying broadswords and battle axes, rather than handguns. Yet people do manage to successfully and safely defend themselves with pistols on a regular basis, including striker-fired pistols without manual safeties.
So you won’t see me write up a lengthy post on why Bob is wrong, because to be honest, I don’t have the expertise. I’m not a trainer. But I still plan on carrying a the same Glock I’ve carried since 2002. What do you think?
Clayton Cramer is reporting that the Rhode Island Supreme Court has struck down the state’s may-issue permitting regime. This is a short opinion, and not one based on the Second Amendment, but rather the right to keep and bear arms provision of the Rhode Island Constitution, and previous case law in that state. It does not squash the “good cause” requirement under Rhode Island law entirely, but the court would seem to take a very liberal reading of it. The Court quashes the Chief of Police’s denial, and orders him to reconsider the case, offering the plaintiff the right to come back into court if he is unsatisfied with the final decision. The Court doesn’t come out and say it directly, but it would appear he’ll get his permit.
Apparently the media’s zero to sensationalist time is pretty damned low, as they are already couching their headlines to make it seem like Zimmerman has claimed yet another victim. USA Today headline, “George Zimmerman Involved in Shooting.” If you follow through to the article, you’ll note that he was apparently shot by someone else, and was taken to the hospital. Also note that in the background section of the story, they fail to mention that Zimmerman only fired at Martin because Martin was pounding Zimmerman’s head into the pavement. CNN is pimping the same headline. This guy is going to spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder. Given the trouble he’s had with women since, I’ve said he should look into the monk’s life. That might be all that’s really left for him. At the very least, moving to a different part of the country would probably be wise. I’m kind of tired of seeing this guy in the news.
A few weeks ago, Yahoo News published a hit piece on NRA. I figured this was likely ginned up by some of our opponents in the gun control movement. Most of the mainstream outfits would love a story like that, but the fact that it only appeared on Yahoo, to not much fanfare from the rest of the media, hinted to me that whoever wrote it probably did not follow the barest of journalistic standards, and quite possibly was an operative from the other side, especially given that the author is associated with a left-leaning group Center for Public Integrity, which is supported by supported by George Soros’s Open Society Foundation and has a board stocked with people who are not friendly to Second Amendment freedoms.
At the end of that article, you’ll notice a quite lengthy update, where NRA has addressed many of the allegations against it. When I first saw this article, I thought that it was probably a coding error on their web site, because to be honest, the firm they hire to do that kind of work has been sloppy in the past. Because we’re often using the PVF web site to look up grades, I can’t tell you how many times it’s just been broken. Though, it’s been pretty good recently, so maybe they’ve hired some better people.
A key thing people get confused about when it comes to campaign finance laws is what constitutes political activity. To use an example, here’s an add NRA ran in Colorado ahead of the 2014 elections:
Some folks might say this is clearly political activity, but it does not call for people to support for, or oppose any bill or measure. It does not mention any candidate for federal office. This is educational outreach, rather than political activity. This ad could even be funded under the auspices of a 501(c)(3). In fact, a good bit what NRA does that many people might think is “political” is done under a 501(c)(3), NRA’s Freedom Action Foundation.
This article was pretty obviously a targeted hit piece. That’s even more apparent when you consider none of the other MSM outlets, who’d love to be all over a story like this, really touched it. The only other outlets I saw talking about it are Townhall and Brietbart.