Currently Browsing: Guns
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
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
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.)
Jul 26, 2014
Via Alan Gura, who is the attorney for the case. This was the case challenging the District of Colombia’s ban on carrying firearms in public, that the court had been sitting on for quite some time. The court left the door open for some regulation of carry, including licensing, but “consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
Needless to say, this is a significant win. Probably the most significant win since Illinois was forced to become shall-issue in the case of Moore v. Madigan. Hopefully this will strengthen the hand of Congress when it comes to setting the Districts gun laws for it, and then preempting City Council from regulating firearms.
A quick way to fix this problem would be to recognize licenses to carry from all states that issue them. I believe D.C. residents can obtain licenses from Virginia, which would probably do until D.C. sets up its own shall-issue regime.
A bigger question is whether this case will go to the Supreme Court or not. The Court hasn’t seemed eager to hear a carry case, but maybe this will be the one. If this does go to SCOTUS and wins, that would apply to the whole country.
UPDATE: It’s been so long since Palmer was heard, I forgot it was still at the District Court level, and not the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. So the next step is the Circuit Court, not the Supreme Court.
Jul 24, 2014
From NRA today:
Earlier this year, the National Rifle Association (NRA) sponsored litigation against the state of Illinois for its unconstitutional system of denying concealed carry licenses without any notice or opportunity to be heard. Before the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed suit with NRA backing, many residents were denied the right to carry a firearm without any indication as to why the state had concluded they were a danger to themselves or others. Furthermore, the state of Illinois also denied these individuals any opportunity to rebut this unsubstantiated conclusion.
The ISRA, with the backing of the NRA, challenged this scheme as a violation of due process, and the State effectively conceded as much by ending this unfair treatment of law-abiding Illinois citizens. In light of this act of submission by Illinois, the current suit has been voluntarily dismissed.