Brillianter wants to know what you’re carrying on you. Well, that depends, but I went and gave my typical equipment. Kel-Tec P3AT, Glock 19, Leatherman, and a SOG Aegis. Sometimes a SureFire 6P.
Month: July 2009
Obama Gun Protester Cleared on Disorderly Charge
Remember back during the campaign of 2008, a guy got picked up for disorderly conduct and causing a disturbance for openly carrying a gun outside an Obama rally? He was acquitted of all charges. Might not have been the smartest thing in the world to do, but it’s not illegal.
Man Who Sold McNair’s Girlfriend Gun Arrested
Apparently he was a prohibited person:
Adrian J. Gilliam Jr., 33, of LaVergne, Tenn., was arrested Friday morning by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and faces a “felon in possession” charge, a source familiar with the case told ESPN.com’s Paul Kuharsky.
A criminal complaint unsealed Friday in Nashville says that Gilliam — who was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted armed robbery in 1993 in Florida — admitted he sold the gun to the woman who later shot McNair.
So she basically bought it from a criminal. Where Gilliam got it from, it doesn’t say, but the last legal sale of the gun was in 2002. Could have been stolen and ended up on the black market. Either way, the guy wasn’t allowed to own a gun at all, so it can be considered a black market transaction.
So does Bryan Miller and the Brady Campaign want to apologize for maligning honest gun owners over this yet?
You Couldn’t Ask for a Better Spokesman
Jesus, maybe we need to sign on more used car salesmen to promote the Second Amendment. This guy does a great job against questions that would throw most people off balance:
It makes sense if you think about it. Car salesman make their living putting people a little off balance in an attempt to get more money for the car. Anyone who’s ever negotiated a price with a sharp salesman will attest to that. I wouldn’t presume to debate anyone who makes a living haggling.
UPDATE: On the other hand, see if you can spot the errors in this AP article on the same topic.
Testimony Before the Committee
Here’s some short video clips of the pro-gun testimony from yesterday.  First we have the statements from Sandy Froman and Dave Kopel. If you had told me a few years ago Dave Kopel would be testifying on behalf of Nunchaku rights before a Senate Committee, I wouldn’t have believed you. But there it is. Bruce Lee would be proud.
Next is Sandy Froman responding to some questioning by Jeff Sessions. And then questions from Jon Kyl.
On another panel, we have the statement of Steve Halbrook, then some questions from Jeff Sessions.
I was very glad to see all three of them up there giving testimony on our behalf.
National Reciprocity Up Early Next Week
The Defense Appropriations Bill for 2010 is coming up next week in the Senate. This might be the opportunity to attach S.845, which provides for universal reciprocity for concealed carry licenses. It’ll be a floor amendment, which is good, because the Senate Appropriations Committee makeup doesn’t look like it favors us too well.
Passing the Buck
It’s amazing that the debate is still thick in Tennessee over a provision that essentially just makes it more like most other states in terms of being able to carry a firearms into a restaurant. But why the hysterics from businesses about people being able to carry guns into their establishments when all they have to do is post in order to stop it? Why the hysterics about needing an “opt-in” type system rather than an “opt-out” type system.
Because the restaurants are quite happy to pass that buck to the state. What restaurants are worried about is signaling. By putting up a sign saying guns are prohibited, you’re sending a signal to potential customers that this is the kind of establishment that has to prohibit people from carrying firearms. It can imply that perhaps there have been incidents in the past which could have prompted the sign. Restaurants have a fairly powerful signaling incentive not to post a sign prohibiting firearms. That’s why they are moaning so loudly for an opt-in system, since it puts the signaling burden on the parties that wish to allow firearms.
Ironically, I think the best course forward for the restaurants once they lose the legislative issue, would probably be to do nothing, since the more press attention this gets, the more you’re signaling to customers that restaurants are the types of places people might want to carry a gun. You’re also signaling to those afraid of guns that restaurants are now places people can have guns. Even though that might be true just about anywhere else you go, most people don’t understand the law, or understand the issue.
But the restaurant associations are actually pretty powerful, since most every representative will have a number of restaurateurs in his or her district, and they are interacting with their constituents on a regular basis. The power of the restaurant associations are the reason many of these restrictions exist at all.
RNC Ad on Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
“Tough to Say”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw77TC1cCI0[/youtube]
NRA Opposition to Sotomayor
NRA has come out against her confirmation. I doubt this will be enough to stop her from getting on the Court, but it gives NRA something to use in 2010 and 2012 against this Administration. If you want to know why I worked so hard for McCain back in the fall, Sonya Sotomayor is why.
UPDATE: Big question is whether NRA will grade the vote, meaning that Senators will have their vote on Sotomayor factored into their NRA grade when they are up for reelection. I can agree with it going either way, but I tend to either not grading, or grading this one less strongly.
One the one hand, Sotomayor is replacing a liberal dissenter in Heller. There’s no net change in the makeup of the court ideology wise. She’s not likely to be an intellectual leader on the Court, even if she doesn’t believe in the same things we do. Given that we are entirely dependent on support from Democrats to stop anti-gun bills and pass pro-gun bills. Burning political capital grading Sotomayor’s confirmation vote might not be the best idea, and might rub some Dems the wrong way, who have been voting all the right ways on every other issue important to us.
On the other hand, Sotomayor seems to have views that are far outside the mainstream, even refusing to answer a question as simple as whether there’s a right to self-defense. We can be almost certain she’ll vote against incorporation when it comes up, and will be hostile to any application of anything stronger than rational basis when it comes to the Second Amendment. In the Senate we have many Democrats and Republicans who claim to be friends of the Second Amendment. Why not hold their feet to the fire and tell them if they care about the Second Amendment, they’ll won’t show it by putting someone like Sotomayor on the Court?
But in these kinds of matters, you have to be careful not to let your ego write checks your grassroots electoral game can’t cash. Ultimately what you’re threatning politicians with when you grade is losing their seats, and if you do that, you better be able to deliver. If the decision were up to me, I don’t think I’d grade on Sotomayor. These confirmation hearings should show one thing; that we can make the Second Amemndment a major issue, and get a lot of media attention on it. Given that more than 70% of Americans support the Second Amendment, it’s not an issue that Democrats want to be seen as being on the wrong side of.
If we let this fish go, Democrats should now understand that we have a very hot frying pan, ready go cook up the next nominee with a little sauteed Senator and olive oil, if they don’t believe in the Second Amendment as a fundamental right. We’ll give you this one.  But you’re on notice for the next time, especially if it’s one of the Heller five we’re replacing. Oh, and yeah, we’ll hold all Sotomayor’s votes on our issue against Obama in 2012.
Unexpected Bedfellows
Trucking interests are climbing aboard with National Concealed Carry. In the past I’ve been against the feds stepping in, because previous bills rely on abusing the Commerce Clause. The proposed amendment does not, which leaves the door open for arguing that it’s a reasonable exercise of Congress’ powers under the 14th Amendment. In other words, it goes from being an abuse of Congress’ power, to a civil rights law. That’s a welcome development.