The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
I’m basing this post in a thread that started a few days ago, about which state had the worst gun laws. So I thought I’d do a poll, and spark some discussion. I think it really depends on what you want to do. If you live in the right place, you can get a carry license in Massachusetts and California, but you can still buy an AR-15 in New Jersey and New York (though it has to be neutered of ‘evil’ features).  So what do you think?
[poll 12]
Via Cemetery, we find this video by the Star-Ledger staff on rising gun sales. You could find a lot to like and dislike about this particular New Jersey gun shop (did the owner really have to post a comic showing a woman about to shoot herself or say that women find shooting more gratifying than sex while laughing?), perhaps the most newsworthy bit is that he clearly has ammunition in stock based on the b-roll footage.
| Ledger Live: Guns and religion |
Is anyone willing to risk a trip into Jersey to liberate that ammo?
This little teaser from Jim Shepherd indicates there will be new guns and gear debuted at the NRA Convention. It would be interesting to see if the industry started rolling out more products at the biggest consumer show rather than SHOT Show.
And then it’s down to Phoenix for the NRA’s 2009Annual meeting. This year, there will be plenty of mid-year product rollouts, and we’ll keep you up-to-date as they’re announced. We know at least one established company will be introducing another entry into the “modern rifle” category, and there are a host of new optics and accessories to keep the thirty thousand or so NRA members in attendance amused.
In between anti-gun editorials, the Philadelphia Inquirer finally got around to noticing that there has been a major spike in the sale of guns and ammo. Given how late they were to the story, it makes us wonder how long we have to wait before the Inky finally goes under.
Looking through some of the forum comments, like the one here. I don’t honestly think preemption can be negotiated. Anyone who’s read me for any length of time knows that I understand an incremental approach to progress on the political front, and I’m glad the folks in IL aren’t taking the path some other states did, and opposed a reasonable RTC bill because it wasn’t the perfect bill. But there’s a difference between a less than perfect bill, and a bad bill, and I think any RTC bill without preemption is a bad bill. Let me address some of the points brought up in this forum comment:
The idea that supporting a non-preemption law would give room to the gun grabbers in other states is idiotic. That would only be true if the NRA used the language of Barak Obama – you know, what works in Texas wouldn’t work in New York City, blah blah blah
No, it’s not. When NRA fights for preemption in other states, and argues it’s a bedrock principle, it doesn’t exactly help if they can point to their abandonment of the principle in the State of Illinois. Considering NRA is currently fighting preemption issues here in Pennsylvania, I prefer them taking a hard line position on it.
The idea that they want to protect their members from a “patchwork” of laws is idiotic. By that logic, they should only support a national carry law and oppose all state LTC laws.
NRA does support National Carry, much to my dismay (I think it’s only possible under the 14th amendment, not the commerce clause). But that aside, state lines are well delineated and marked, and in our federal system, people are generally aware that the law changes at state borders. Most people don’t know or think when they cross from one town to another, they could have gone from legally carrying a gun, to committing a crime. You’re going to be giving people piece of paper called “Illinois License to Carry Firearms.” Presumably they will also learn that it doesn’t mean it’s valid everywhere. But there will be gun owners who get stopped by the police, who find themselves saying “Get out of the car officer? But wait, officer, I thought it was Peoria that banned guns, not Springfield.” or “I’m sorry? I didn’t realize I had crossed into Urbana.”
The idea that they want to protect their members from a “patchwork” of laws is idiotic for another reason: as it stands now Illinoisans are both deprived of a civil right and prohibited from defending themselves. Is the NRA seriously suggesting that having to figure out a “patchwork” of laws is somehow worse than being defenseless and oppressed?
It’s a tradeoff. The place in IL people most need to defend themselves is Chicago, and this bill won’t help anyone there. It comes down to how many people will use their legally aquired guns to defend themselves, versus how many people will get in trouble if they get stopped in the wrong town, or have to use their gun in the wrong town. Will it be possible at all to carry and remain in compliance with the law if you’re traveling?
Even if everything the NRA was saying made sense, how is it acceptable that they lobbied BEHIND OUR BACKS against an LTC bill supported by this and other organizations????? Todd is on this forum. He knew about the position taken by IllinoisCarry and the ISRA. He has engaged in discussions about the pros and cons of the various bills. So someone (quite possibly Todd) owed us the courtesy of a clear statement on the NRA’s position.
I’m not going to bash NRA for wrestling the gun away from someone who was about to shoot themselves in the foot (from NRA’s point of view). I would prefer NRA remain neutral on the bill, but I understand why they wanted to kill it initially. How do you think members are going to feel when people start getting in trouble for getting stopped in the wrong town? Will an NRA member who loses his job because he has to go to jail for a few months feel good about the law? Will his family when he has trouble finding a new job because he has a conviction for a gun charge on his criminal record? Will people feel good about NRA when they don’t have the political power to fix the problem?
This is one thing people in the gun issue need to get: your personal voice is not the collective voice of NRA members, and just because you know other people who agree with you doesn’t make that any more so. I would not presume to speak for NRA or NRA members. I have my own point of view on things, and while I’d like to think I have more influence than average over NRA, I don’t expect or demand they adopt all of my opinions as theirs.
I don’t agree with NRA’s support of the parking lot laws, and I think the National Concealed Carry bills proposed by Congress, that they would back, are dangerous. But that’s my opinion. I’ve discussed it with people at NRA and they don’t agree with my view. That’s fine. In a civic organization, I’m one opinion, and one vote. I don’t expect them to agree with me on everything, consult me before making decisions on legislative or political matters. The only thing you can do is make your voice heard, and a lot of people are doing that. That’s positive. Members should feel free to air their feelings to board members and staff.  But NRA is a civic organization, meaning you wouldn’t approach it like you would a merchant selling a product. I get tired of hearing this notion that “NRA isn’t listening to its members.” because it won’t listen to you. One opinion out of four million. We’re not always going to get our way, and shouldn’t expect to. It’s frustrating, but it’s no reason to bash the organization as a whole.
The New York Times wants us to believe that it’s a myth that gun control is a third rail issue in American politics. Of course, they probably overlooked Dave Kopel’s study of the NRA’s influence in electoral politics. They must also not be paying any attention to polling data lately, or the shortages of guns and ammunition we’re experiencing due to through the roof demand.
If they want to pretend that those numbers can’t be translated into votes from angry gun owners on election day 2010, they are welcome to take the New York Times advice. But I suspect Congress sees the writing on the walls. We may end up a European-style social welfare state before this is all said and done, but we’ll be an armed European-style social welfare state.
So today was supposed to be a Freedom Fest 2009 event at Shady Brook Farms here locally. We were going to head there to set up a table for NRA, but when we got there, it looks like any given Saturday at Shady Brook, with people buying plants, perennials, and various other things for the garden.
Took a look around their store, bought some jams and jellies, went and looked around some more. No Freedom Fest to be found. What about the invited speakers? Was it moved? Was it in the back? If it was there and I missed it, there were no signs out or directions.
I’m very intrigued by this post by Wyatt, about turning a criminal over to the feds for prosecution on guns charges (felon-in-possession), something we know that the City of Philadelphia often will not do:
Anyway, the AUSA wanted to take over the case and try him federally. He even asked my permission – which made me laugh a little – because he said a lot of Philly detectives resent it when the feds take over their jobs. I told him that I couldn’t care less about that or the court overtime, because putting a thug like this behind bars for some real time was much more important. In Philly, this guy would have received probation or something equally ludicrous. The feds expect him to serve between 7 and 20 years if convicted. Nice!
Emphasis mine. So petty territorial issues are more important than public safety in the City of Brotherly Love? Wonderful. I’m glad Wyatt’s experience with the AUSA was positive, and if we had more detectives in that city with his attitude, we might be able to get some of these folks behind bars where they belong.
I’ll be honest, as a libertarian, I’m skeptical of federal authority to control possession of guns, even by felons, but I’m also skeptical of a city justice system that just refuses to enforce the state laws that are supposed to take care of this problem. As long as the herpes theory of the commerce clause is law, it seems to be that the primary goal should be getting dangerous people off the streets.
Go here to see something you won’t see very often: folks pissed at NRA for not compromising on a bill, namely, NRA wants a full concealed carry bill, with preemption, and state activists are pushing for a weaker bill subject to home rule. I would encourage each side to understand where the other is coming from. There’s no evil intent here, it’s an honest disagreement about how to move the ball forward. That inevitable in any issue.
From NRA’s point of view, I can see why they don’t want a weaker bill. Not all home rule charters are created equal. See here for instance. Illinois has one of the more liberal home rule provisions in the country. Nebraska’s, by contrast, is considerably more limited. Someone getting caught carrying violating a local carry ordinance in Omaha, for instance, has more legal options under Nebraska law than someone caught in Peoria does under Illinois law. Ohio has a fairly strong home rule provision, but Ohio home rule does not permit home rule entities to restrict something which is explicitly authorized by state law. The preemption law in Ohio was meant to address cities who banned semi-automatic firearms, which because not explicitly allowed under state law, could be restricted by Ohio home rule entities under the law.
Illinois home rule charter essentially allows “exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs.†which is remarkably broad. There are limits though. Home rule entities may not define felonies, and may not incur certain debts. But Illinois home rule entities enjoy considerably more leeway than they do in other states. That’s one thing for activists there to consider. Many people are not tuned in to the activist community, and will not plugged in to which communities have which restrictions. When those people get in trouble, they will look to groups like NRA, SAF, etc to get them out of trouble. And it should be considered that NRA needs to serve all its members, including the ones who could potentially get in trouble by a hazardous concealed carry law.
But I do understand, from the point of view of people living in Illinois, the desire to get something passed. It’s unlikely that concealed carry with full preemption is going to get the 3/5th majority needed to override home rule. It could be possible to get preemption through the courts, but the courts are always a risky venture, and there may be concerns in regards to complicating the court cases that are currently making their way in the 7th Circuit. We’re still a long way from having bearing of arms having any kind of constitutional protection.
I am sympathetic to the argument that passing something is better than nothing, but I’m also concerned with making sure something is the right thing. Pennsylvania originally got concealed carry law in 1988 by initially exempting Philadelphia from the requirement to issue licenses. They still had to recognize licenses from outside the city, but did not have to issue them to residents. In 1996, the state forced the City of Philadelphia to begin issuing licenses on a shall-issue basis. Philadelphia, as it always had, claimed home rule, but Pennsylvania’s home rule provision is weak, and it did not prevail with this argument. A lot of states have passed weaker laws, then strengthened them. It’s not a bad idea, per se. But understand that there’s risks associated with doing so. Just because the legislature makes a mess with a weaker law, doesn’t mean they will have any special interest in cleaning up the mess, especially when it’s gun owners who are the ones who have to live in the filth.
See this video from Seattle of a drug store robbery gone bad… for the robber. The Pharmacist might want to take a training course or two though, as I would not approach an armed robber with the gun held one handed. What if he hadn’t ran off? Not sure chasing after him was a wise move either, but protecting his store with a gun? Good on him.