Year: 2008

New York Govenror David Paterson is negotiating with Democrats in the New York House of Representatives to get his gun control package passed.  His package includes requiring the taking of a training course before gun licenses are issued, no matter how long you’ve been shooting, and no matter how familiar you are with guns.  Apparently this has some Democrats in New York upset, because it allows for training to be done by the National Rifle Assocation.

I actually agree with the anti-gunners that training is important, and that people need to be educated on the safe use of firearms.  Where I depart from them, is that I don’t believe it should be a condition on exercising a constitutional right.  Every person who graduates from high school should have had a course in safely using a firearm.  There was a time when most high schools had shooting teams, and back then, we didn’t seem to have a problem with kids shooting up their schools.  We teach kids safe sex because that knowledge could end up saving their lives.  Safe handling of firearms is in the same ballpark, not to mention useful for our military readiness.

Think Paterson and the anti-gun folks would get on board with that?  Hell no.  Because their goal is to make it harder to buy a gun, not in looking for ways to deal with the problem of uneducated people with firearms.

Looks like there have been some changes in the New South Wales government, which have allowed them to pass some easements to the insanity they passed after the Port Arthur massacre.  As Dave Hardy said:

Looks as if, as is common in parliamentary systems, the largest party is still slightly less than a majority. And pro-gun Members formed their own party, the Shooters’ Party, which is just enough to give the dominant party a majority if it votes with them.

When I was in Louisville, I talked to a gentleman from Australia, who was forced to turn over a lifetime of collecting, worth approximately 100,000 dollars, including guns his father had given him, to the Australian authorities.  They banned every semi-automatic and pump action firearm in the country after Port Arthur.  If Australian shooters can start taking back what’s theirs, there’s hope for us all.  This is a very welcome development.

GOA is getting behind national concealed carry:

The Vitter bill treats concealed carry permits much the same as drivers’ licenses, where one state’s license is recognized in all other states.

In addressing the matter of reciprocity, the first concern of GOA and Sen. Vitter is that it be done constitutionally and that it respects states’ rights.

Unlike another senate reciprocity measure, S. 388, Vitter’s bill does not establish “national standards” for concealed carry. It simply says that states that allow concealed carry must recognize the CCW permits of other states.

State driver’s licenses are recognized by other states through reciprocity, in a similar manner to concealed carry licenses, and through a series of compacts between the states meant to govern drivers licensing.  The federal government has nothing to do with it.

I’ve said before, the only constitutional way I believe the federal government can force national concealed carry is to use its powers under the 14th amendment.  Most bills I’ve seen so far rely on the herpes theory of the commerce clause, meaning since the gun once moved in interstate commerce, the federal government can forever regulate anything having to do with that product, even if the activity in question is wholly intrastate.  While I’d love to see national concealed carry reciprocity, I don’t want to see it at the expense of furthering this deranged view of the commerce power.

UPDATE: Is it wrong of me to point out the irony of a “no compromise” gun group getting behind a bill that’s absolutely a compromise?   I mean, if we have a second amendment right to carry a gun in any manner we please without asking for government permission, then supporting a bill that would allow the licensing system to stand, and allow Illinois and Wisconsin to continue to violate our rights would be a compromise, wouldn’t it?

I eagerly await an explanation from Larry Pratt about how this incrementalist approach is anything other than a sell out.

Jacob looks at the New York Sun’s post which suggests that New York’s gun laws could come under fire as a result of Heller.  Any bets as to whether any case filed in New York ends up before Weinstein?  Think he’ll care about Heller?  Fortunately, the second circuit will, no doubt.