2009 – Page 56 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Tragedy, But Could Have Been Worse

Apparently Melelanie Hain, who you might remember from a year or so ago, was found dead in an apparent murder suicide, after a two hour standoff involving police. The kids are apparently fortunately OK, but I feel for young kids losing both parents. Here’s an account as it happened. Looks like the husband was the shooter, and was a parole officer in Wernersville.

No doubt Brady will be exploiting this tragedy to the max by tomorrow.

UPDATE:Â Local news channel coverage. They report there was no standoff, and the police arrived on the scene after the fact.

UPDATE: PAFOA Forum thread has several reports of people who say she was concerned about her husband being violent. That would definitely point to the husband being the likely shooter. It’s difficult for me to understand someone staying in that kind of relationship. If you don’t owe it to yourself to get out, you definitely owe it to your kids.

UPDATE: A good point over at PAFOA:

Many of us knew that there were problems for a long time. Many here knew or suspected that their domestic issues were the driving impetus for her interest in guns. Many of us here advised her to leave him and offered her places to stay, and help. This is not in any way to disparage Meleanie, but rather to point outÂ to any and all women in bad domestic situations; you need to get out, get out now. Before it turns into a tragedy.

Meleanie was a great person, mother, activist, advocate, and spokeswoman, and I am proud to say that I knew her. I guess when I get home tonight I’ll look through all my saved PMs, and e mails, and reminisce.

This looks like a very unfortunate case of domestic violence at its worst, and unfortunately, having a firearm is never absolute protection against someone doing you harm.

Very Cool

Suppressed shotgun.

Bloomberg Video

By now I’m sure everyone has seen the video that Mayor Mike has put out:

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

Apparently this was filmed at shows in Tennessee, Ohio and Nevada, using much the same method that got Bob McDonnell to threaten Bloomberg if he came back to Virginia, and got ATF pissed off too.

What’s really disgusting about Bloomberg’s tactics, is none of these transactions and dealers shown here have anything to do with gun show loophole. It’s illegal to operate as a gun dealer, for livelihood and profit, without a Federal Firearms License. It’s illegal to knowingly sell guns to criminals. In all of these cases shown, they could be prosecuted under current laws. But he’s not going to tell you that, because the goal is to get rid of gun shows.

NRA LTE on MIAG

Looks like NRA is being proactive in clearing up the record on MAIG in the media:

MAIG opposed the Thune Amendment, which would have allowed concealed carry permit holders a chance to defend themselves outside their home states. If MAIG is only going after “illegal guns,” then why is it opposed to a self-defense measure for law-abiding people who have been through background checks and satisfied other law-enforcement prerequisites to get their right-to-carry permits? There is nothing “illegal” about the firearms these people own.

It’s good that NRA’s Public Affairs office is working the media, but it really makes more of an impact if individual members do it.

Bloomberg Obfuscating Gun Debate

Mayor Bloomberg, founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is lambasting gun shows with misleading statistics, and with video footing showing people committing something which is already a federal felony. Yes, when you knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, it’s already illegal, it has nothing to do with gun shows, and is something these individuals could be prosecuted for under current law.

Plus, Bloomberg claims that ATF data shows 30% of illegally trafficked. This is misleading. First off, the study he’s citing is nearly a decade old at this point, and secondly, only looks at a subset of illegal gun trafficking. More recent studies have found that gun shows, or lack thereof, do not have a significant impact on crime. Â But as long as we’re using decades old studies, what about the study in 1997 by the National Institute of Justice that showed only 2% of crime guns originally came from gun shows? Â Or the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2001 report, surveying prison inmates, that found only 0.8% of offenders reported getting their guns from gun shows?Â If we’re going to have a public debate about this, the public needs to know the full context of the debate. Bloomberg is deliberately obfuscating the nature and scale of the problem in hopes of pushing through regulations that will destroy gun shows.

All I have to say to Mike Bloomberg is that we’re already coming after your Mayors, and we’ll get more of them out, either through convincing them to leave, or through booting them out of office, as time wears on. The more you speak about this issue, the more evidence we’ll gather that MAIG is a gun control group. But we’ll also be coming after your gun laws next, through the courts.Â Bloomberg is trying to fight a Battle of the Buldge, a last, desperate offensive against the forces allied against him. He might have some successes here and there, but ultimately, like the German Army, New York’s gun laws finished. I think that’s what he’s really afraid of.

“Animal Cruelty” Law in Trouble

The US v. Stevens case, which challenged a federal law that had the potential to make hunting videos illegal, was heard by the Court yesterday. SCOTUSBlog is offering some analysis, and says the law is in trouble.

Should Commerce Clause Be Top Priority?

Even though I have a great deal of concern over the commerce clause being so vastly expanded under the Supreme Court’s current case law, I wonder if we’re not being strategically short sighted in focusing on it. Rather, I’m wondering whether we ought to be focusing on the non-delegation doctrine, since if you look at how the courts are interpreting it today, it’s really a big chunk of what’s enabling the out-of-control and unaccountable regulatory state; what’s often called the Fourth Branch of Government.

The problem with revoking the New Deal commerce clause ruling is so much popular legislation is dependent on it, and the Supreme Court is typically reluctant to become overly politicized, lest they bring about a confrontation with the political branches. It’s not a minor concern for the Court, as happened before when the Court invalidated the National Industrial Recovery Act (which incidentally was a non-delegation case). Â But the Court eventually capitulated to the New Deal.

By contrast, strengthening the non-delegation doctrine wouldn’t have as much effect on popular legislation. What got me thinking about it was the new FTC blogger regulations. If you look at the enabling legislation that creates the FTC, it’s appalling it’s even constitutional:

The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, …. from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

So FTC gets to decide, all on its own, without Congress having to pass a single law, that your activity is “unfair competition” or a “deceptive act” and you are given no recourse except through the federal courts. The FTC is, essentially, a lawmaking body. Sadly, the Supreme Court has already ruled that similar bodies are constitutional, as it did in the 1989 case ofÂ Mistretta v. United States, where the Court upheld the Federal Sentencing Commission. That case was decided 8-1, with Justice Scalia being the lone dissenter. Scalia says in his dissent:

By reason of today’s decision, I anticipate that Congress will find delegation of its lawmaking powers much more attractive in the future. If rulemaking can be entirely unrelated to the exercise of judicial or executive powers, I foresee all manner of “expert” bodies, insulated from the political process, to which Congress will delegate various portions of its lawmaking responsibility. How tempting to create an expert Medical Commission (mostly M.D.’s, with perhaps a few Ph.D.’s in moral philosophy) to dispose of such thorny, “now-in” political issues as the withholding of life-support systems in federally funded hospitals, or the use of fetal tissue for research. This is an undemocratic precedent that we set — not because of the scope of the delegated power, but because its recipient is not one of the three Branches of Government. The only governmental power the Commission possesses is the power to make law; and it is not the Congress.

Back then, Scalia was really the only principled judicial conservative on the court. Now we have three others. Perhaps it is time for libertarians and conservatives to put aside the Commerce Clause battle for now, and focus on strengthening the non-delegation doctrine. It would have less of a public impact, but would have a significant impact in reigning in a lot of the regulatory excesses that have come about since the New Deal. At the least, it would keep Congress busy for a while, having to create more detailed statutory authority to guide agencies and commissions.

The issue also messages better than Commerce Clause. Â Take this meme, for instance:

“If Congress wants to make something illegal, they should have to pass a law.”

I think you’d find most people in agreement with that. It’s simple, and easy to understand. Compare that to presenting the Commerce Clause to people:

“Should the Endangered Species Act really be considered a legitimate exercise of Congress’ commerce powers?”

I think this issue ought to get more attention that it does from libertarians and conservatives. It might be more achievable. A lot of people would not be comfortable with the FDA or USDA disappearing, but would anyone really miss the FTC?

Quote of the Day

From Reason Magazine on the University of Pennsylvania study we talked about a few days ago:

This is like noting thatÂ possessing a parachute is strongly associated with being injured while jumping from a plane, then concluding that skydiversÂ would be better off unemcumbered by safety equipment designed to slow their descent.

Cam apparently mentioned this on his show last night, but I missed it because I was busy shooting a match.

Backwards Facts

From MikeB:

He’s stated that the “bullying tactics” of the NRA simply did not work on him. One of those tactics is to continually describe the so-called gun-show loophole as something other than what it is.

The whole gun show loophole language is not a creation of the NRA or its members. We much prefer to argue on the topic in terms of private transfers. The gun show loophole language is entirely a creation of the gun control movement, because the purpose of the proposed law, the proposed law endorsed by MAIG, goes beyond just banning private sales. I have outlined what the proposed bill on the table actually does on my blog before.

This is not an irrational move on the part of the gun control movement, because they know what we know, that gun shows are an important and vital organizing tool for our community, because it’s a central place where you can expect to find a lot of gun owners. Wouldn’t it make sense, if you were an avowed opponent of homosexuality, to try to outlaw or demonize gay bars?

Youth Handgun Safety Act Upheld in the 1st Circuit

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, has upheld the ban on possession of handguns by juveniles. You can read the opinion here. I’m happy the Circuit Court in this case took the time to do a careful analysis and lay out its reasoning for upholding the law against the Second Amendment claim.

The Circuit Court basically took a two pronged argument, showing that there are many longstanding state analogues to the federal law that go back to the post-Civil War era, and also hypothesizing that the founders would have intended juvenile possession to be outside the protections of the Second Amendment, using state laws that exempted children from militia service as evidence of their unsuitability to bear arms. Never mind those statutes also exempted women and the elderly. I’m also not pleased to see the Circuit Court adopt Saul Cornell’s “civic right” characterization of the Second Amendment. But it is at least treating the subject seriously, not just pulling some dicta from Heller that seems to support the position and being done with it.

The Circuit Court also points out the claim made by the appellant in this case that the YHSA is identical to the prohibition in DC is incorrect, considering the YHSA contains exceptions for possession for self-defense in the home, and for supervised possession for other lawful purposes, which the DC law did not. An interesting argument would be what if the YHSA had not done this, but simply banned handgun possession by minors in its entirety? Surely juveniles have to retain some right to keep and bear arms, even if that right is more limited than that of an adult.

What’s more disappointing is the failure of the commerce clause arguments. I guess it’s time to admit thatÂ Lopez only means Congress needs to be more careful drafting laws, rather than actually preserving any semblance of federalism. Juvenile possession is not properly regulated the federal level. Many states, including Pennsylvania, allow juvenile possession under limited circumstances, but less limited than the federal standard. For example, the federal statute covers handgun ammunition, but there’s so such provision in Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act, which only restricts possession of handguns to minors, which exceptions. The federal statute also requires written consent, which the UFA also does not require. This potentially opens up the possibility of a juvenile being in legal possession in his state, but still subject to federal prosecution because his parents did not fulfill one of the federal requirements, or fell out of one of the federal exceptions.