I had this topic scheduled for tomorrow, but sometimes when you try to stretch out material, it’s old news before you can blink an eye. So I’ll go tonight, with Dave Hardy, who is reporting that the Supreme Court had just made an interesting move in the case involving the magazine ban in Sunnyvale, California. The motion to stay enforcement until the case had been decided was denied by the District Court, and again by the 9th Circuit. It was appealed to the Supreme Court, and Kennedy just told the city it needed to respond by tomorrow. Interesting! We will eagerly see how this goes.
A reader sent me details about a company called Global Digital Solutions filing a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing their intent to acquire Remington Outdoor Company, previously known as Freedom Group. At first I thought this might be some conspiracy stuff, but as I started looking into it myself, I think we might have something to really be concerned about here. Because what else is GDSI known for? Personalized Gun Control. Their technology essentially provides, according to their release “Encrypted, password-protected, digital, trigger-locking capability.” and “Secure, real-time online tracking,” and if that’s not enough to get your tin foil hat in a bunch, “Encrypted, cloud-enabled databases.” No sir. You make guns with this, I won’t buy them. In fact, that would pretty much ensure I never buy any other product from Remington Outdoor ever again. I am also not the only gun owner who feels this way. You can take that to the bank. They do add:
In the commercial marketplace, the company emphasized that use of the encrypted locking device and other GDSI Gatekeeper safety and security features would be completely voluntary on the part of individual small arms owners and authorized dealers.
“Here in the United States, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected and inviolable,” Sullivan added. “The Gatekeeper program will provide additional safety and security for law-abiding gun owners in the United States and elsewhere. We believe Gatekeeper’s secure locking and tracking features could encourage millions of people who might have shied away from keeping firearms in their homes because of safety concerns to reconsider. And collectors would be able use make use of Gatekeeper’s tracking and database features to exercise greater control over their prized firearms collections.”
It’ll be voluntary until you put this on the market, then it’ll be mandatory. That’s already the case under New Jersey law. All it takes is a declaration from the state Attorney General and this will be the only technology you can buy there. Also, if this naive CEO thinks the “right of the people to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected and inviolable” I have a bridge to sell him.
Now I want to be clear, GSDI’s offer is unsolicited, meaning Remington didn’t approach them. It doesn’t mean Remington Outdoors is having anything to do with these yahoos. But I want to be clear to GDSI that they will have one hell of a poison pill to swallow in what the gun community will do to the Remington companies if a deal like this were to ever go through.
The news cycle is a double edged sword. Gun control isn’t getting much play in the media, which is good for us, but kind of makes things difficult if you’re a blogger. Though, it’s always good to see the PSH in the news because of something we’re doing, and we do have some of that:
Indiana is considering a bill to allow people to keep firearms locked up in their vehicles while on school grounds. Needless to say, Indiana resident Shannon Watts isn’t happy. We’re happy to be doing things to keep her attention focused on Indiana.
More debate on the 1911. I’m with Uncle on the M1911. I can shoot an M1911 more accurately than most other pistols. I even do better with Para’s LDA trigger than with a Glock. But I’d still never carry a 1911.
Only Guns and Money is joining a podcast. I agree with him that blogs aren’t dead, but I think it is becoming increasingly difficult for hobby blogs to compete for limited audiences with commercial players who are doing it for a livelihood. You won’t see an SNBQ podcast. I have a voice meant for writing.
For someone who is a PR professional, I often don’t get Shannon Watts. She decided to make a story out of something that wasn’t a story. CSGV particularly has been going into the realm of lunacy as of late. They’d be in the category of “help I don’t want,” if I was a sensible person on their side of the issue. But I question whether Watts is actually sensible.
Campus Carry in Idaho is on the Governor’s desk. Now he has to be convinced to sign.
Glenn Reynolds writes about the militia. The closest thing we have to such a thing today, in terms of how they were structured, are volunteer fire departments. I kind of wonder if SWAT teams were volunteers whether they’d feel quite as good about kicking down grandma’s door because she was growing some pot as the people getting paid for it.
Glenn Reynolds responds to Eugene Volokh’s article about magazine capacity: “Personally, I think civilians and police should be able to carry the same kinds of weapons. That’s a useful check on the militarization of the police.” I couldn’t agree more.
Russian ammo rumors are bogus. Though I do hold out the possibility we could lose Russian ammo supplies under economic sanctions. I’m not sure the fear is bogus, even if it’s business as usual for now.
Yeah, I’m kind of with Bob Owens on the idea of using George Zimmerman as a celebrity. The worst he may be guilty of is poor judgement when it comes to women, but it’s just not the kind of celebrity I’d want as a face of the issue. Sometimes gun show promoters are our own worst enemies.
Yes, there are really people who believe this: The crooks only have guns because their victims do.
Some cops are living up to their oath in Connecticut. We need to encourage this. I actually think we need a foundation in this country that offers to help cops who were fired from their jobs for refusing to obey unconstitutional orders, or kick in doors that don’t really need to be kicked in, and help them move to departments that are more amiable to their principles.
Tam pretty much channels how I feel about the Ukraine/Russian situation. I think the Obama Administration was stupid for considering Russia no threat, but making overtures about putting NATO on Russia’s borders was bound to provoke the bear, and if you’re not prepared to shoot the bear, you shouldn’t provoke him. It just makes you look weak when he charges and you’re not really prepared.
This guy is my kind of Aussie: “I said to myself, if I’m going to cark it I’m going to have a beer, so I got a Goldie out of the fridge and drank that; ’cause you know eastern browns are the second most venomous snake in the world,” Keep calm and have a Goldie.
In the study, Millennials opposed gun control by a margin of 50-48 percent. Although it’s a small margin, WAMC Northeast Public Radio points out it is “roughly at par with the attitudes of older generations.”
Though, if Millennials say they are against gun control but don’t vote against it, it won’t rightly matter. The GOP so far has not shown itself very effective with this generation, so the gun control groups can still hold out hope that this generation keeps voting Democratic, despite the party’s position on guns, because of other issues.
He’s transformed the traumatic experience into a drive to action. He is now a senior policy advocate for Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), a national, bipartisan coalition of mayors, founded in 2006. The organization’s central mission is to keep illegal guns out of dangerous hands.
Previously, Colin Goddard was Assistant Director of Legislative Affairs for the Brady Campaign. This is further evidence that there’s a great deal of shake-up continuing to happen within the Brady organization. Before Sandy Hook, finances at the Brady Campaign weren’t exactly peachy. which you can even see on this summary from Foundation Center:
They had lost, or let go, some of their long time employees, including Dennis Henigan, and appeared to be starting to use the Brady Center for a lifeboat for those that remained. Colin Goddard, given that he was in the legislative arm of the Brady Campaign, really wouldn’t have any place in a 501(c)(3), which are much more limited in their ability to fund political activity.
Now we are able to access the Form 990s where the impact of the Sandy Hook massacre can be seen. See their 2012 Form 990 to understand what I’m speaking of. The 2012 990 shows a massive uptick in fundraising. I’d be willing to bet that Brady raised most of that amount in the period between December 14th and the end of the year, because they didn’t really have time to spend any of it. The Brady Campaign income increased by 2MM in 2012, but their spending had actually decreased. It looks, in fact, like Sandy Hook saved the Brady Campaign from ruin. We’ll have to wait for the 2013 990 to find out whether the Brady Campaign spent any of that windfall, or whether they pocked it to keep the outfit going a few more years.
The Brady Center, their 501(c)(3) entity, also did better in 2012, but not nearly as dramatically as the Brady Campaign. The Center only did about 1MM more in revenue for 2012, and again, I suspect most of that came between December 14th and the end of 2012. Again, they were positioning themselves to reduce spending in the center that year as well.
If the Brady folks are smart, they would have spent most of 2013 sitting on that money, trying to keep spending down, to keep the organization afloat for a few more years. It will be interesting to see 2013 and 2014 numbers, when they are filed, to see if contributions and other revenues from both the Brady Campaign and Brady Center returned to their normal levels, or even continued declining. It’s been pretty clear to me that to whatever extent there is a future for gun control, it rests with the Bloomberg funded efforts, and not the Brady organization. Brady is now, at best, a second string player in the gun control movement. The ultimate question is whether they’ll find a few foundational patrons to keep them alive as a shell of their former selves, much like what has happened with the Violence Policy Center, who did not get nearly the windfall from Sandy Hook in 2012 as other groups. To some degree, I have to wonder if some of the bigger financiers of the gun control movement are trying to stave off long time stalwarts of the movement from dying out, for fear the media stories will ruin the movement as a whole. The next three years will give us a much clearer picture of what the post-Sandy-Hook gun control movement looks like financially.
It’s not often that you come across a Civil War-era photo of your 3rd great grand uncle. Of course, if your reaction to seeing the photo is to shout “Finger!” at it, then you also know you’re a gun nut.
GUN BAN / MAG BAN
& TRANSPORTATION BILL
AT ASSEMBLY HEARING THURSDAY
Hearing Time Changed to 1:00 p.m.
Gun Owners and Sportsmen Need to Pour it On
Between Now and Thursday!
The rescheduled hearing of the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee that was cancelled due to winter storm Titan will take place on Thursday, March 13. The hearing time has been changed to 1:00 p.m. Please plan to attend and testify in person if you are able.
The hearing is scheduled to take place in the State House Annex, 125 West State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608, in
committee room 12 on the 4th floor. The committee room is subject to change without notice (please inquire when you arrive).
Between now and Thursday, it is extremely important that gun owners sustain their efforts to urge members of the committee to oppose A2006 (gun ban / magazine ban), and to amend A2777 (transportation of firearms) to make a one-word amendment to restore judicial discretion on reasonable deviations in transport. Contact information for committee members is at the bottom of this alert.
Committee members have already been overwhelmed with calls and correspondence from gun owners over the past two weeks, and that needs to continue throughout this and every upcoming phase in the life of this legislation. Legislators who won’t see the light need to feel the heat. (Note: one legislator, Assemblyman David Rible (R-30), has responded to each of the thousands of gun owners who have contacted him, indicating his opposition to the A2006 gun ban/mag ban. We will have a further update on those who support the Second Amendment after the hearing).
A2006 IS A GUN BAN
He was quoted in the ABA law seminar just one post ago, and now I find Prof. Chemerinsky in the OC Register. Now keep in mind this was a law professor that was being sold as a legal expert on this topic:
California law generally prohibits individuals from carrying concealed weapons. Such laws are common throughout the United States.
Excuse me? This isn’t true in California, and it’s not true at all in the rest of the country. A total prohibition was not the issue in Peruta, it was the interpretation of what constituted “good cause” to apply for a carry license. Illinois remained the last hold-out on the issue for several years, and they recently started allowing licensed concealed carry when the 7th circuit court of appeals struck down the prohibition. How can an “expert” on the Second Amendment not know this?
From 1791 until 2008, the Supreme Court always had held that the Second Amendment means what it says and that it protects only a right to have firearms for purposes of “militia” service.
Name the case where the Supreme Court said this? There isn’t one. Even the Miller Court did not go this far. I’m not going to rehash all this, because all the relevant scholarship on the matter was presented to the Heller court, and we prevailed. This is now settled law, and Chermerinsky is on the other side of it.
Moreover, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court clearly indicated that laws prohibiting concealed weapons are constitutional. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, used laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons as an example of the type of regulations that are permissible under the Second Amendment.
Read Heller. Please dear God would you people read the f**king opinion honestly? In Heller, the issue of concealed weapons was discussed several times, and every time in the context of the state having the power to regulate the manner of carry. In every one of those cases, concealed carry was allowed to be prohibited because open carry was the more socially acceptable method of carry, and was readily available to people “carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation.” In Heller, a right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home was assumed. The other side continually cherry picks a few sentences out of the decision without any willingness to consider the decision as a whole. Unfortunately for us, there have been plenty of federal courts that have all too willingly embraced this cherry picking approach.
In the ABA Journal: How to tackle gun violence without violating 2nd Amendment rights? Legal leaders share strategies. Let me fix that for you: “How to tackle gun violence by nibbling at the Second Amendment around the edges. Anti-gun leaders share strategies.” It shows how delusional the other side is:
The challenge of crafting a legal response to gun violence without violating Second Amendment rights was tackled by the next panel. Juliet Leftwich, legal director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said that public revulsion over the 2012 Newtown, Conn., tragedy, in which a gun-wielding assailant killed 20 children and seven other adults, may have reversed a 30-year trend of weakening gun regulation.
Really? You passed new laws in a few states where you always had the power to burn us any time you generally wanted. The only real pickup was Colorado, and that started a backlash that would effectively kill the gun control movement post-Newtown. And even if the states friendly to gun control, they failed in New Jersey, and they failed in California. There’s such a thing as making lemonade from lemons, but there’s a fine line between that and outright delusions.
Chermerinsky noted that in general, courts tend to uphold laws regulating guns. “I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of decisions that have struck down gun regulations,” he said.
It’s not a numbers game. We can lose all decade long in the lower courts, but if we win key appellate cases, that has real impact. Illinois now issues concealed carry licenses, and the first are being mailed out as we speak. That was a direct result of the 7th Circuit ruling. California and Hawaii are inching ever closer to shall-issue due to a major win at in the 9th Circuit. Sure, we haven’t one in every circuit, but Illinois, California and Hawaii going shall-issue is what Joe Biden would call a “big f**king deal” and there’s honestly no other way you can spin that. The gun control people might win more cases, but we’re winning some very important ones.
UPDATE: I’d note that they held their conference at the National Constitution Center. I’ve reported on this organization before and their questionable stances on the Second Amendment. I won’t necessarily ding them for hosting an event, but since NRA has been known to do legal seminars in Philadelphia, I look forward to the National Constitution Center hosting one of those as well, just as a demonstration they are open to the view of the Second Amendment accepted by the Supreme Court.
About 800 people turn out in Montpelier to tell the Vermont Legislature “no” on the Burlington gun control ordinance. In Vermont, there is preemption, but there’s a provision for the state legislature to approve local ordinances.
Looks like good turnout. There’s always a worry I have that all the lefties that have been relocating to Vermont will start making the idea of passing restrictive gun laws plausible.