Eugene Volokh blogs about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that mentions something very key: that the second amendment is an individual right.  Read the whole thing.
Month: November 2007
A Quick Response
I know some people pooh pooh e-mail as being a poor means of communication with representatives, but I’m impressed that I got such a quick response from Representative Daylin Leach on the issue I e-mailed him about, basically outlining the same points I did in the post below. Here’s his response:
I understand your rhetorical point but I think comparing speech to guns (or any right to any other) is apples and oranges. We don’t restrict the number of E-mails because there would be no state interest (“compelling” or otherwise) in doing so. But where there is a compelling interest in restricting speech to preserve public safety, we do so.
In states where it has passed, one-gun-per-month has, at least on a temporal basis (comparing crime rates shortly before and shortly after the law went into effect) shown an average reduction in gun violence of about 30%.
It does seem to be common sense that if I want to go into a store and buy 20 cheap hand-guns to sell on the street, but find I can only buy one, that will mean 19 illegal gun-seekers will be disappointed and have to look elsewhere. Some will find a gun elsewhere right away, some won’t. If all straw-purchasers are similarly affected, it will be increasingly difficult (although certainly not impossible) to buy illegal guns on the street. This will save some (but not all) lives. But if it’s your 6 year old daughter who doesn’t get shot by a stray bullet as she plays on the porch; that will be very important to you.
I think we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this. Actually, I included e-mail spam as the compelling state reason for limiting people to say, 50 e-mails a month. Who sends 50 e-mails a month? That’s 600 a year. It won’t affect anyone but spammers. Spam costs the economy billions of dollars a year. No compelling state interest in trying to stop that? We don’t accept those kinds of prior restraints on speech, why should we on firearms?
As for the assertion that it has lowered crime, I’m pretty sure he’s confusing that with a study done on ATF tracing data, using a subset of traced firearms in 1996 that appeared in the JAMA. The problem is, ATF has said again and again that its tracing data can’t be used to draw conclusions about crime guns. Therefore, these studies lack a real scientific rigor, because they don’t use a representative example of crime guns. It’s possible, though, that maybe legislators have some data that I don’t have.
Either way, if you look at cities who are in one-gun-a-month jurisdictions, like Baltimore, the crime rate is still atrocious — nearly double that of Philadelphia. Maryland and Virginia are still the largest source of crime guns for Washington DC, which bans all guns, despite the one-gun-a-month law present in both surrounding states. Even if one-gun-a-month has a temporary effect on crime, it would seem that the criminals have no trouble figuring out how to get around it.
So I still question why a law, even if it only affects gun owners at the margins, passes a strict scrutiny test when a) the criminal activity it’s meant to stop is already unlawful, and b) there are is a profound lack of good evidence it actually works.
The Bastard Child of the Bill of Rights
I was mentioning the other day that we need to get ready for the meaningless individual rights arguments to start popping up. Here they come in Philly.
As a member of the House Judiciary Committee I received a lot of e-mails urging me to vote against the gun-control bills we considered last week. Many of these e-mails argued, in some form, that the governor’s proposals violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The writers seemed to feel that the Second Amendment prohibits any restrictions on gun ownership. However, that is simply not how the amendment works.
First off: good job Pennsylvania Gun Owners! He knows we’re watching. But while I agree the second amendment isn’t absolute, I worry when a politician starts down this road.
Last week we voted down two bills dealing with guns. The first would have required people to report the loss or theft of a gun they owned. The second would have limited to one a month the number of guns a person could purchase.
People can argue about the merits of these bills from a policy perspective, but there is clearly no constitutional impediment to either bill. The two rights spelled out in the Second Amendment do not bestow a constitutional “right” not to report a lost or stolen gun. Nothing in the wording of the amendment even arguably says that.
Really? So if I passed a law limiting the amount of ink people could buy with an aim to combat libel, that would be constitutionally permissible under the first amendment? Would limiting someone to a certain number of e-mails a month, with an aim to combat spam, be respectful of our right to free speech and free association?
All we insist on is that the second amendment be treated as seriously as other rights protected by the constitution. Daylin Leach is arguing for something less than “strict scrutiny”, because applied to your right to free speech, the laws I described above would be tossed.
Hat tip to Melody Zullinger, of PFSC for the heads up.
UPDATE: I just e-mailed Representative Leach. We’ll see if he responds. I would encourage everyone to do so as well, because it’s important that he hear from gun owners. Be nice, be factual, and stick to the issues.
Shotgun Hunting
This study suggests that hunting with a shotgun isn’t really any safer than hunting with a rifle. I’m not really surprised. Fast moving rounds will tend to fragment more if they hit something, which would mean the pieces have less momentum, and won’t travel as far.
We’re Still Swingin’
This article suggests Pennsylvania will yet again be a battleground state in 2008, because neither party can afford to ignore it. The big problem Republicans are going to have with Pennsylvania in 2008 is that suburban Republican voters do not like George W. Bush’s brand of conservatism, and I have a feeling a lot of rural Republicans in our state aren’t too happy with him either. Absent some big issue that will mobilize Republican voters, I don’t see Pennsylvania going red in 2008, but it could happen, and I agree that the possibility will keep the candidates fighting over our state.
Hunting With Black Rifles
Good article from an outdoor writer for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on the use of AR-15s in hunting. With a proper hunting legal magazine, there’s no reason I couldn’t hunt deer with my 6.8 SPC AR-15. It’s a comfortable rifle to carry, and a comfortable rifle to shoot. Hunting with a semi-auto isn’t legal in Pennsylvania, but in most other states, it’s fine.
Automotive Engineers
I got tied up in this mess for more than two hours yesterday morning. I saw the accident scene. I have to say, the fact that there were only a few injuries from such a horrific looking scene is a testament to what automotive engineers have accomplished in terms of vehicle safety.  The cars on the road today are far safer than they’ve ever been, and a lot of people owe their lives to that.
How to Get Your LTCF Revoked
A guy gets pulled over for doing 85 in a 55, charged with reckless driving. A few weeks later, his License to Carry is revoked by the Delaware County Sheriff. Reasoning is the old “character and reputation” escape clause.  Is this an abuse of discretion? Or a proper exercise of it?
My opinion is, if everything was as claimed, it’s not an appropriate use of that clause. But I think this guy might not get his license back. The Sheriff will no doubt argue that Reckless Driving is a serious summary offense, and is accompanied by a six months suspension of your license to drive a motor vehicle, and that being convicted of it exhibits a certain poor judgment that makes one a person who’s character makes him unsuitable to carry a firearm.
I think once we’re rid of Fast Eddie, revoking the “character and reputation” clause needs to be a priority. Pennsylvania is supposed to be a shall issue state, but we’re not technically. Sheriffs retain, and still use, considerable discretion on when to revoke or not issue licenses in Pennsylvania. If the guy had a string of non-disqualfiying misdemeanors, I might not complain, but doing 85 in a 55 might technically be reckless driving, but I won’t tell you I’ve never done it. It may be an indicator of bad judgment, but if it’s so bad that it should be disqualifying, why did the legislature choose to not include it in the list of disqualifying offenses?
Either way, I end up arguing in that thread about carrying Pennsylvania on a foreign reciprocal license if you’re a PA resident who’s had their LTC revoked. Keep reading if you’re interested in that topic. Keep in mind I’m no lawyer though, and the only lawyer who responded said he wouldn’t advise it.
Forgive the vulgarity ….
…. but John Timoney can seriously go fuck himself. He apparently doesn’t take his oath to uphold the constitution of either his country or his state seriously at all, and he’s been peddling this stuff since he was busy screwing up Philadelphia’s police department and trying to crap on the constitutional rights of Pennsylvanians by arguing that the Pennsylvania constitution was no obstacle to the city of Philadelphia banning guns.
I’m sick of seeing that turd’s name attached to stories like this. Does anyone out there have a MythTV box? If so, do like Uncle said and get the best parts recorded. Preferably in high def. MythTV will encode in a format that can be more easily manipulated on a PC than a TiVO.
Last time Timoney and his buddies were pushing this nonsense we caught their lies red handed. Let’s do it again for ABC this time.
More On What They Think Of You
I can’t believe I missed this bit linked off the letters to the editor linked here:
What kind of nonsense is this that a person in Philadelphia can purchase even one gun a month? Police officers and innocent people are being murdered and wounded every day in Philadelphia. Why would civilians need to purchase more than one gun?
Damaris Martinez, Philadelphia
Of course, we’re told, when we suggest that “If they can ration to one a month, what’s to stop them from rationing to one a year? Or just one per person per lifetime?”, “That’s crazy gun nut talk! No one wants to do that.” Bullshit!