A watered down gun bill is headed to the North Carolina Governor, but the Jim Crow era pistol permitting scheme will remain in place. The opposition in this case were the Sheriffs themselves, who are responsible for issuing the purchase permits. It’s always hard to overcome law-enforcement opposition to something when dealing with “law and order” Republicans. I don’t know the politics of North Carolina all that well, but I suspect if North Carolinians really want to be rid of this remaining vestige of Jim Crow, it may be necessary to buy off the Sheriffs. Remember that Clinton got his Assault Weapons Ban by buying FOP support in the form of federal money to hire 100,000 new police officers. Perhaps it’s possible to buy the support of the Sheriffs by throwing them a bone on another issue that’s important to them, or buying their support with cash to their departments from the state coffers. Without the sheriffs railing against the bill, a lot of those “law and order” Republicans will likely drop their opposition as well.
The 11th Circuit has lifted the injunction on enforcement starting Tuesday. When this idea was originally proposed, I was against it, believing it would be a slam dunk First Amendment case. But as the medical establishment becomes more and more in cahoots with the ruling elite, to push gun control on the peasantry, screw ’em. This is how the peasants punch back twice as hard. There’s one way doctors can prevent the proliferation of these laws, and that’s by getting the medical establishment out of political issues that have nothing to do with the practice of medicine, and have everything to do with using the stature and prestige of their profession to shame their patients into the adopting the progressive-left orthodoxy on how to live the good life. To the extent that these bills threaten the autonomy and speech rights of doctors, they have invited this on themselves.
So say Americans. We are winning this culture war, slowly but surely. My primary worry is increasingly becoming that we’re going to lose the White House in 2016, and thus lose the Supreme Court, in which case Heller and McDonald, if not outright overturned, will go the way of the Lopez and Morrison federalism cases. But other than that, I think things look pretty good for for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Unfortunately, I think everything else in this country is going to hell in a hand basket, so perhaps we are indeed to become a European style social democracy with guns. Well, at least until we run out of other people’s money. Then it will get…. interesting.
Well, well, it looks to me like gun control is a losing issue for the Democrats after all, just like I’ve been saying. This is the GOP’s biggest issue, meaning the one they are most trusted on by voters. When are the Democrats going to tell Barack Obama to get bent on the issue and have the courage to admit publicly gun control is a failure, and bad politics for Democrats. This strikes me as a bad time for Bernie Sanders to capitulate to the lunatic wing of his party on this issue.
A new poll shows that Colorado voters oppose tougher gun laws. Opposition pushes to 70% for men, with women barely getting a majority of 51%. That’s still a pretty significant gender gap, but support is still dropping among women, it’s just dropping much faster among men. This is good news. The article does note that Hickenlooper enjoys a 51-40% approval rating, which is pretty good. But there is significant hope that is Colorado activists can get ahead of Dudley Brown, there’s a pretty good chance they can get the 15 round limit raised to 30 rounds, and then get rid of it if the legislature can become more favorable.
Sometimes you just have to wonder if the Obama Administration is trolling us at this point. The White House floated a proposal to strip Second Amendment rights from about four million of our nation’s senior citizens who receive Social Security benefits through a “representative payee.” This is personal for Bitter and I because her grandfather, at 90 years old, falls into this category, and he owns firearms that have been in the family for a long time. He’s plenty safe to handle firearms, however he has had someone else managing his affairs for him for some time. One can imagine someone elderly who might forget to pay bills if they managed their own affairs, but can still handle a firearm safely.
NRA has more to say about it here. And what is the purpose of this? Do we have an epidemic of octogenarians committing mass murder? Holding up banks? Hitting the streets and robbing people so they can get the money for their next hit of Geritol? There’s no public safety issue at work here. This is just meant to screw people for embarrassing the Administration on guns.
The thing I really hate about the Obama Administration is that it has no issue with being unjust or unfair; if you oppose its policies, you can expect it to try to stick it to you. Not stick it to Congress, or stick it to political rivals in DC, you will be made to pay. The Obama Administration has no issue taking out their anger on ordinary Americans. Bill Clinton’s Administration dealt us a number of defeats in the 1990s, and you did have the HUD deals, and other executive shenanigans, but even then I don’t remember Clinton sticking it directly to the rank and file like Obama does.
So what’s going to happen here? My guess is NRA can probably get another of the many budget riders it’s gotten out of Congress to defund any attempt by the Administration to implement this plan. I can’t imagine preventing 4 million SSA recipients from suddenly, overnight, becoming prohibited persons is going to be much of an ask to Congress.
I have four different devices I use for trolling for news and keeping track of what I want to post about. I hate it when I find a tab with something I meant to post about, but overlooked until the news was stale. Ordinarily, I usually just write that story up as a loss, but I’d feel bad if I did that in this case.
Several weeks ago I was on an episode of the Gunblog Variety Podcast, talking about this post. I had the episode open but didn’t find it until yesterday when I did my gun news post and went through all my tabs on every device. Checking my history, sure enough, I never did the post. You can listen to their latest podcast here.
I tend to feel that there’s an obligation to engage in cross promotion, so I didn’t just want to let this go. It takes a lot of work to do vlogging and podcasting, and I dropped the ball here. If you ever looked at my desk, yeah, the computer side of things isn’t much more organized.
Newsmax has published it’s list of 100 most influential people in the pro-gun movement. Newsmax is normally on the list of sites I won’t link, because they are the National Enquirer of the conservative news sites. But this was a stupid enough list I had to comment. It strikes me more as “Let’s list out 100 people we can think of or Google who are in the pro-gun movement and list them, and we can do it in the order we find them.” It would hardly be wrong to say that, Dudley Brown, for instance, is not influential, but when he actively sabotages progress on our issue, I don’t think it’s wrong to question his priorities. It also seems that all you have to do to get on their list is be a minor celebrity, well-known and own guns, or have once said a kind word.
The list is insulting to the real people who have dedicated their lives to this fight, often out of the limelight and not in the expectation of getting any thanks for what they were doing. So here’s who ought to have made this list, in no particular order:
- Don Kates
- Dave Hardy
- Dave Kopel
- Robert Dowlut
- Clayton Cramer
- Nelson Lund
- Robert Cottrol
- Glenn Reynolds
- Stephen Halbrook
- Nicholas Johnson
And that’s just ten legal scholars I can think of off the top of my head, who have all done tremendous things for the issue. I could probably list ten more, all of whom belong on that list more than twenty others who have no place on it.
What about Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb? I mean, I know Alan Gura argued only argued two landmark Second Amendment cases and all, but hey, Bruce Willis once said something pro-gun! Alan Gottlieb, whatever his faults, has still done a hell of a lot more on the issue than Whoopi Goldberg.
Or what about Chris Cox and his whole lobbying team? Everyone thought we were going to get it good and hard in Congress during the 2013 fights, and our opponents walked away empty handed. Not even worth an honorable mention?
This list was written by people with no understanding or appreciation of the issue. It’s one reason I will continue to not link to Newsmax, or take them seriously.
I got sidetracked in yesterday’s post, since one of the Bangor papers headlines their articles with today’s date, making me think I was reading something current. In truth, Maine’s legislature addressed the Governor’s concerns, and Governor LePage is signing the revised bill today. Maine will become the 6th state to adopt Constitutional Carry. Congratulations Maine!
And the ball keeps rolling.
Seattle is proposing taxing guns and ammunition. The tax would be $25 dollars on firearms, and 5 cents on each round of ammunition. This would probably put every dealer within city limits out of business, which is probably the idea. By all rights, this should be unconstitutional, because in the context of other rights, these kinds of taxes have been held as such, but the courts have shown almost no willingness to protect the Second Amendment as anything other than a second class right, subordinate to all the others.
I think Scalia and Thomas’s dissent in denial of cert for Jackson will act as signal to the lower courts that Heller and McDonald are going to be more like Lopez and Morrison; odd, outlying cases rather than landmark rulings which change everything. I hate to be pessimistic, but without change, it’s pretty apparent the Court will not be revisiting the Second Amendment.
That said, I think a pretty good argument could be made in Washington State courts that such a tax violates Washington State’s preemption statute, which has pretty strong language. Surely if a local municipality can’t regulate the sale of firearms and ammunition, it can’t accomplish the same by trying to tax sales out of existence. Washington State also has a RKBA provision, and there’s nothing that prevents Second Amendment claims to be considered by Washington State courts.