2009 – Page 48 – Shall Not Be Questioned

What Passes for Legal Reasoning

Laci the Dog, I’m pretty sure, should be called Laci the Troll, because I find it difficult to believe that a lawyer could be so obtuse on matters of law. As Mike W mentioned, her blog is relatively devoid of intellectual argument. This here is the latest justifying bans on semi-autos because they can be readily restored to fully automatic fire. She should stick to whatever law she practices, because firearms law is not her forte. The closest Supreme Court case we have on this topic is Staples v. US:

We concur in the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion on this point: “It is unthinkable to us that Congress intended to subject such law abiding, well intentioned citizens to a possible ten year term of imprisonment if . . . what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semiautomatic [weapon] turns out to have worn down into or been secretly modified to be a fully automatic weapon.”

The fundamental issue in Staples is whether or not Congress intended to eliminate the mens rea requirement that’s required in most crimes. The Court ruled that the government had to prove guilty intent when it came to possessing a semiautomatic firearm that was capable of firing automatically. In none of the Courts reasoning in Staples did they indicate that possession of any semi-automatic firearm was in violation of National Firearms Act. In fact, the majority rejected the argument that possession of a semi-automatic could meet the mens rea requirement. In fact, the Court in Staples makes the assumption that Congress did not intend to make semi-automatic firearms legally risky, let alone illegal.

So no, Laci, semi-autos aren’t covered by this law, no matter how much you wish it were so.

HSUS’s Radical Agenda

HSUS is once again trying to play the general public in exchange for donations withÂ commercials featuring abused animals and shelters even though they give only a pittance to the local shelters. Â Most of the money raised actually goes to support theirÂ legislative agenda. And if you are a hunter or gun owner, you should be concerned.

In their Obama-themed â€œChange Agenda for Animals,â€ HSUS spells out their goals for the first term of the current administration. The changes reflect an all-out assault on agriculture, meat production, hunting, and even gun rights. The 100-item list doesnâ€™t even include the summary outline of new agency divisions, liaisons, and yes, even a new czar.

In the opening notes, HSUS calls for a new White House specialist, a so-called czar, for animal rights issues. The specialist would work with liaisons on animal rights in at least 20 agencies and departments, including:

Department of Agriculture
Department of Interior
Department of Commerce
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Health & Human Services
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Defense
Federal Trade Commission
Department of Education
Department of Justice
US Agency for International Development
US Trade Representative
National Institutes of Health
Food & Drug Administration
Centers for Disease Control
Department of Treasury
US Postal Service
Consumer Product Safety Commission

All of this is in addition to a new proposed division of the Department of Justice to prosecute all of these new animal rights crimes, including the taking & sharing of hunting photos, provided the Supreme Court doesn’t step in to stop that particular infringement on the First Amendment.

I guess this agenda fits right in with the administration’s attempt to consolidate decision-making in the White House. Â The specifics, which I’ll break down tomorrow, are pretty horrifying.

Hunting Groups Climb On Board with Cap and Trade

A favorite pastime of hunters and groups that represent hunting is to slit their own wrists. We don’t need Wayne Pacelle when hunters are completely willing to off themselves. Study after study has shown that the primary impediment to people going hunting is the lack of places to hunt. With increasing sprawl, hunters and anglers find themselves having to go farther than farther out to find land to hunt and fish on. And what is the primary thing that lets hunters and anglers get to far away and remote places to hunt? Energy. Namely gasoline and diesel. So how is gasoline and diesel being a lot more expensive going to help hunters? That’s why I’m displeased more than a few hunting groups have signed on to the National Wildlife Federations mission to get crap and trade passed the Senate. For of you who are curious, the complete list of groups signing on can be found here (large PDF, warning):

American Fisheries Society
American Fly Fishing Trade Association
American Sportfishing Association
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Berkley Conservation Institute
Campfire Club
Dallas Safari Club
Ducks Unlimited
Houston Safari Club
Izaak Walton League of America
Mule Deer Foundation
National Trappers Association
National Wildlife Federation
Pheasants Forever
Quality Deer Management Association
The Wildlife Society
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Trout Unlimited
Wildlife Forever
Wildlife Management Institute

Only a few of these groups are actually hunting and fishing groups, but if you belong to any of them, I’d quit, and call them up and make sure you know why. They do not look after the interests of hunters. I can tell you in at least one of the cases, the Mule Deer Foundation, they are actively supporting HSUS’s attempts to restrict hunting. They are bad news for hunters.

Bad Politics

It’s never a wise idea in politics to attack the media, especially when 43% of Democrats have a favorable view of Fox News. I’d also be wary of their ratings surge. I am not a watcher of Fox News, but I would not advise Obama to attack them like this. No good will come of it politically. Even though Rahm is a pit bull when it comes to stuff like this, I thought he was smart enough to know better.

How the FTC Process Works

Overlawyered has a good summary of exactly how the new FTC regulations are going to affect bloggers, but in his comments, we get an idea of what an FTC action looks like. I have done a bit of research, which seems to confirm this:

Letâ€™s also understand the process by which the FTC will enforce its rules. FTC regional offices will be spending their days combing the Internet looking for â€œviolatorsâ€. Blog operators will then get a â€œdemand letterâ€ from the regional office demanding they either post certain disclaimers or remove offending posts. These letters will include a â€œconsent orderâ€ admitting guilt without any sort of due process, as well as a lengthy financial disclosure form that provides the FTC with a complete picture of your personal and business finances.

The FTC doesnâ€™t negotiate. You canâ€™t call them up to straighten things out. Once the demand letter is issued, you have already been judged guilty. If you want to contest the charges, youâ€™ll be hauled before an FTC administrative law judge, not a regular federal court. Even if you convince the ALJ to side with you, the FTC commissioners hear any appeals â€” and the FTC has a 100% reversal rate when the ALJs rule against FTC staff.

You can appeal from the FTC commission to the US Court of Appeals, then to the Supreme Court, but that much lawyering isn’t exactly cheap. This is chilling. I’d like to blame Obama for this, but the rule change was started under Bush. Congress should eliminate the Federal Trade Commission and replace it with an agency it retains more control over. The FTC, under our system of Government, is a pseudo-legislative, pseudo-judicial body that should not be constitutional. It is a relic of the New Deal, and needs to go.

Congratulations to Cemetery

He took first place in Frontier Cartridge Duelist at the New Jersey State match for the Single Action Shooting Society. For those not into Cowboy Action, Frontier Cartridge Duelist is a single action pistol, being shot one handed, with a black powder load. Looks something like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUGIQKCtv2Y[/youtube]

At first, I thought the gun the dude was shooting was a semi-auto, because the shots were so damned fast. I could barely see him working the lever.

More Concealed Carry News from Wisconsin

The media has picked up on the story generated by the Milwaukee DA and Police Chief saying they might be willing to accept concealed carry reform in exchange for some more restrictions on gun sales. While it’s true that this hardly indicates they’ve been converted, they are at least signaling a willingness to deal. That doesn’t mean gun owners have to accept a deal, but when you have your opponent over the ropes in politics, this is typically the kind of signal sent that would be the equivalent of crying “Uncle!”

I think it’s a good example of targeted open carry activism having a positive effect.

New Virginia Poll Asks Loaded Questions

Protest Easy Guns is already touting a new poll that shows Virginians want to close the so called gun show loophole, and don’t want licensees carrying firearms into places that serve alcohol. But like many polls, the answers are reached by how the question is asked. Let’s take a look:

Under Virginia law, in order for an individual to be able to purchase a firearm at a gun show from a licensed firearm dealer, that individual must first pass a criminal background check. However that same individual could purchase a firearm at the same gun show from an unlicensed seller without first having to pass a criminal background check. This is known as the gun show loophole. Do you support changing the law to close the loophole?

This is loaded with charged language. Loophole implies that it’s something wrong, rather than something legal. Saying “unlicensed seller” implies that the seller is somehow unscrupulous, or doing something wrong. Nothing in this question is, per se, inaccurate, but it leaves the listener with the impression that the activity is shady and borderline illegal. I’m surprised 16.7% of Virginians knew the issue well enough to say no. To an ordinary person who does not understand, of course shady activity should be stopped, right? Just like guns that are used to assault people should be banned. Let’s look at the next one:

Do you think people with concealed weapons permits should be able to bring their weapons into restaurants that sell alcohol?

Note that there’s no mention of what the actual law says, which is that they may not consume alcohol? The implication is that you’ll have people with guns drinking, which most people are understandably opposed to. I think if you asked this question right, they might have difficulty getting a bare majority.

No doubt the anti-gunners will continue beating on this poll, but it’s a great example of how to ask loaded questions in a poll to get the answer you want.

Calling Dr. Strangelove

This looks like… well, it’s interesting.

Point Shooting

Caleb says he finally understands point shooting. It has to do with the sights on old guns being horrid. I only really carry two guns anymore, and that’s the Glock and the Kel-Tec. The Kel-Tec sights are pretty rudimentary, but I don’t have too much difficulty acquiring them. The Makarov, which I’ve carried on the rare occasion, has front sights that are damned near impossible to acquire quickly. I’ve pained the front sight on mine with white out just to make it visible, but it’s still tough to acquire. I don’t really have any old pistols, but if they are anything like the Mak, I can understand.