If you are a lawyer headed to NRA Annual Meeting and are looking for CLE credits, or really anyone interested in Second Amendment Law, I highly recommend taking a look at the Annual Firearms Law Seminar. Last year’s panel speakers were quite good. This year’s speakers include “Stephen Halbrook, Ernest Myers, David Kopel, Joseph Greenlee, Teresa Ficaretta, Jonathan Goldstein, Derek DeBrosse, Brent Weil, NRA-ILA attorney Chris Zealand, and NRA Office of the General Counsel attorney Sarah Gervase.”
They haven’t even been in place for four months, and already the rest of the camel is coming under the tent. Via the Firearms Policy Coalition:
Authored by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), the bill massively expands a controversial law that has only been in place for 4 months. At present, current law permits family members and peace officers to petition a court, in secret, in order to restrain an individual from possessing firearms. AB 2607 compounds this measure by adding, to the list of qualified petitioners, employers, coworkers, mental health workers, and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school.
There’s way too much potential for abuse with this, and as FPC has pointed out, it would put gun owners in fear of seeking any kind of health treatment for fear an anti-gun doctor will report them to the authorities, causing them to get raided.
They are showing their cards. They want to be able to deny you a fundamental, constitutional right on the flimsiest of evidence with no due process, and if Hillary wins in November, they will almost certainly get away with it.
I have to join Steve from the Firearms Blog in suggesting that this isn’t the best way to help the public image of gun shows. We’ve spent a lot of effort over the years to bring this issue out of the shadows and into the mainstream. When I first started going to gun shows back in the late 80s, early 90s, it was pretty much your stereotypical middle aged white males, and some fathers would bring their boys. Today I see mom and families going, sons along with daughters. This didn’t happen by magic. It was a deliberate cultural struggle to make gun shows seem mainstream to your average person, despite a huge effort by anti-gunners to make them seem shadowy. Guys who do crap like this don’t help things. In fact, they help Bloomberg.
Hillary laid the gun control rhetoric on strong in Connecticut, and it also happens that of all the states Hillary took in the “Acela Primary” she won Connecticut by the thinnest margin. While the fairly parse polling in Connecticut showed the race close, she didn’t effectively beat the margin of error in the polling averages. Additionally, while she took Newtown, she lost 5 out of the 8 surrounding towns to Bernie. She had been building on her lead earlier in the month. I’ve noticed that Hillary tends to do better the less she opens her yap.
I’m not saying guns was the prime motivating factor here, it’s just that often Democratic candidates retreat to the gun control rhetoric believing it will help them, when it’s pretty apparent it doesn’t. Donald Trump is running on a pro-Second Amendment platform, and comfortably blew Hillary out of the water on primary vote count in both Newtown and in every community surrounding it.
Ultimately, I think people get that you don’t sue Seagrams from Drunk Driving accidents, and don’t sue McDonalds over the obesity epidemic. Culturally, I think we’re very well off with the right to keep and bear arms, despite an overwhelming cultural campaign over the past few years to try to consign us to the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, I think over the past several, gun rights politically is being swept along by winds from a brewing political storm of historic proportions, and our destiny is now well beyond our control.
Remember when President Obama ordered the military and federal agencies to come up with a plan on how to promote smart-gun technology through the procurement process? Well, that report might be due out this week:
Sources in and out of government say the administration is about to put forward a report from the agencies on the way forward on smart guns. The document could be released as early as this week, these sources say.
Its exact recommendations are being closely guarded by the White House, but it’s likely to reopen a years-long debate on whether smart guns ultimately can cut down the number of accidental shooting deaths — 500 in 2013 alone, 30 of those under age 5.
Bicycles kill more people in accidents every year. Accidental poisoning kills 38,851 people every year, and 76 of those were children under the age of 5 (via Poison Control Center). Unlike accidental shootings, which thanks to community education efforts have been on the decline, accidental poisonings among both adults and those under 5 have been increasing substantially. So why all the attention on this issue? To me, the answer is clear. This isn’t about saving the lives of children, it’s about gaining political advantage over those rubes in flyover country.
We have to be ready for this. Any manufacturer who cooperates with this shit gets the Smith & Wesson treatment. For those readers who are young, gun owners nearly drove the iconic gunmaker out of business because they cooperated with the Clinton Administration to enact back door bans for civilians. Military and police contracts represent a small percentage of the industries overall business. If a company wishes to lose all their civilian business entirely, by all means, bow to pressure from this administration or the next.
I’ve been keeping up with the news this week, it’s just that there isn’t much of it. Note that I am not complaining about this. No sir. I know what happens when I complain about slow news. I am totally fine with slow news. So I will make an attempt to clean out my tabs of items I do have:
I guess the epic smackdown Michael Bellesiles received at the hands of Clayton Cramer and other in the gun community wasn’t enough. The left is back again with this fraudulent argument, arguing that Americans had no real interest in guns until after the Civil War. In this case, the argument is that Big Corporations made us love guns. I can’t imagine why anyone heading out west on the wagon train might, for perfectly rational reasons, desire themselves a repeating rifle. Yep. Must be slick marketing.
What it boils down to is that this is an election year, and Clinton is determined to get elected on a platform with gun control at the center. Notice Haag, the author, says:
Haag says she began this project determined not to become “entrapped” in gun-control politics. “I came to this material as an historian,” she writes. But she concludes with calls to put the bottom-line gunmaker, rather than the emotionally invested gun owner, at the forefront of the battle over gun violence. She calls for “smart gun” technology, by which a weapon can be used only by its rightful owner. She wants to remove the barriers to research and data collection on gun violence. She calls for additional consumer regulations and protections involving firearms. (“A toy gun is subjected to more consumer safeguards as a product than a real gun,” Haag writes.) Most important, she urges the repeal of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields manufacturers, distributors and dealers from civil liability for damages caused by their products.
Yes, I do not wish to become “entrapped” in gun control politics. She’s just a poor little innocent historian, after all. So now allow me to regurgitate every talking point from Hillary’s campaign.
Like most people who support gun control, I figured this article was written by an old white woman, but she seems to be of my generation. The silver lining in this article is that if she’s having to deal with female students exciting about shooting, we’re winning. Winning even though in this case, she questions giving a student a recommendation because the student enjoys shooting:
She seems to be a good kid, Sarah. And I don’t know what she really thinks of gun advocacy and political failures that have cost us all these lives and our sense of safety as educators. I don’t know what she does on the weekends. I also don’t know if she understands emotions, or what real rage feels like. It seems to me no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a gun.
Sounds like you’re projecting some of your own personal failings onto others there, Professor. I agree, if you’re so emotionally unstable that you worry you’ll hurt others in a fit of rage, don’t own guns. It’s really not for you. She speaks of her mother who got rid of all the guns in the house because her father was manic depressive and had wild mood swings. No one on our side would argue with that. But not everyone is the same way. I’ve never in my life been so angry that I felt like I did not have control, and I’ve been plenty angry. There are millions of other Americans who are the same way.
Sorry, but tricking people into watching a snuff film is pretty ghoulish. If I were interviewed afterwards, I’d argue the people who arranged this were sick. It’s not that I am not aware that violence happens, or refuse to face the “consequences” of my beliefs, it’s that I don’t particularly want to watch murderers ply their trade. It’s not the guns that killed those people… it’s the murdering sack of shit behind the trigger. I get that argument has become tired and cliched, but it’s still true.