March 2010 – Page 14 – Shall Not Be Questioned

OSU Campus Shooting

Dave Hardy points out the response from their director of public safety. These are the bureaucrats they believe you should rely on for your protection. I went to school in West Philly. The area we were in wasn’t too bad, but outside of University City, things could get dicy. I remember similar advice being doled out by campus security.

I never had any illusions about whether our campus security would protect me — I knew they wouldn’t.Â During a heated Teamsters strike, I once witnessed a group of Teamsters threatening a driver who tried to run their picket line. He started an altercation with one of the picketers, who then swarmed and surrounded him, and were obviously looking to teach him a lesson. Campus security bravely stayed on their radios until the Philadelphia Police arrived several minutes later to deal with the malfeasance, and haul off several of the union thugs.

I did not carry during my time in college, since I didn’t get an LTC until I was 28. But I do think students who meet the requirements for a state license to carry ought to be able to carry on their campus. I can understand a university’s concern about firearms in dorms, but there are ways we can deal with that problem that don’t have to leave qualified students defenseless, especially on urban campuses surrounded by bad neighborhoods, like the university I attended.

Oregon is a POC State

SayUncle covers a pretty disturbing story about a guy in Oregon who was fired from his government job because he was supposedly disgruntled, and bought some guns, which the police noticed. Uncle asks, “Seems they knew he bought guns from the background checks. He did not purchase multiple handguns in a week which makes me wonder how the police got this info.”

The answer is easy. Oregon is a Point-Of-Contact state for the NICS system, which means Oregon, like Pennsylvania and many other states, has its own system. While funding restrictions prevent the feds from storing information related to background checks, there is no such restriction on the state point-of-contact. The POC provision was put in place by the Brady Act, which allows states to run systems that is an alternate to the National Instant Check System. It’s possible the police have access to the Oregon Instant Check System records, which is how they found out about his purchase.

The Pennsylvania State Police have been abusing PICS for years to operate what we still claim is an illegal registry of firearms sales in Pennsylvania. We’ve had cases where gun owners, being pulled over in traffic stops, have had guns seized from them because when they were run, they were not “registered” to them. Most often this happens because the gun was brought in when they moved here, or any number of other reasons. We’ve also had cases where gun owners have been involved in self-defense incidents, where no charges end up being filed, but during the investigation to police come for the rest of their guns that are in the registry.

This is not uncommon among POC states, and one of the reason some state groups are pushing to have PICS eliminated, and to use the federal system. Our Uniforms Firearms Act was supposed to forbid making a registry out of the PICS data, but the State Supreme Court, in a great example of mincing words, said because the database is incomplete, it’s not a “registry” by law, and therefore the State Police were permitted to keep it. Sounds like a registry to me. Gun owners should start to consider whether, perhaps, they might be better off using the federal system, rather than allowing state level abuses of POC systems. It hasn’t worked out for Pennsylvania gun owners very well, and it looks like it’s not working out very well for Oregonian gun owners either.

Ask an NRA Board Candidate

Same as last year, we will be conducting interviews with selected candidates for NRA Board. Also the same as last year, I’ve set up a form so that people can submit topics they’d like to see covered or submit questions.

[contact-form 1 “Board Questions”]

In the interest of respecting the candidates’ time, I won’t be able to ask every question, but I will try to cover the best ones submitted. Questions will be kept entirely anonymous to the interviewee, and will not be revealed, so don’t be shy about asking anything. The interviewee will have no idea whether it’s a reader question or one of mine.

I’ve included every candidate we’ve endorsed in the question list, but I won’t be interviewing all of them. Though, I will make a special effort to get an interview with a candidate if there are a lot of questions for them.

NRA Board of Directors Endorsements

Carol Bambery
As everyone who reads Dave Hardy knows, Carol Bambery is one of the hardest working Board members at NRA. For us, her skills and background with the National Firearms Law Seminar stand out because she works hard on this program to help keep other attorneys up-to-date on the latest issues in the gun legal world. Carol also serves as Vice Chair of the Women’s Policies Committee and also worked to make sure that women’s voices were heard in both McDonald and Heller with special briefs. Carol is the kind of hard worker who can often be overlooked by those who don’t pay close attention, but that should indicate she’s not doing this for any glory. She’s in it because she’s clearly passionate about our rights.

Graham Hill
Graham would make a great addition to the Board based on his background working the Hill for sportsmen and gun owners. His addition to the Board would be a great infusion of fresh energy and perspective. He knows how to make things happen, and I believe he’ll serve gun owners of all stripes particularly well. You can read his bio in the magazine that shows he’s got experience with the favorite EBRs while being selected as Hunter of the Year for SCI and promoting access to the shooting sports for the disabled. This guy is truly well rounded – a shooter and hunter who also knows how to work with Washington.

Ken Hanson
Ken Hanson is an accomplished Second Amendment attorney with a long record of pro bono work on gun rights. He hold the legal chair of the Buckeye Firearms Association, and the author of “Ohio Guide to Firearms Law” now in its Third Edition. Ken was also Counsel of Record for briefs filed in both D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago for both the Buckeye Firearms Association and the US Concealed Carry Association. In addition to that he fought a number of cases in Ohio State Courts, including the Ohio Supreme Court, fighting to preserve Ohioans right to carry and upholding state preemption. Ken’s record of accomplishment on the legal front is highly impressive, and I think he’d make a great addition to the NRA Board.

Bob Sanders
Bob brings a very useful background and specialty to the Board – two decades with the Department of Treasury. As an attorney who represents gun owners and folks in the industry, his specialized knowledge is worthwhile for many of the issues that NRA deals with in its various divisions from ILA to reviewing court cases. We consider this an asset worthy of your vote, as do other Board members who cite him as a great candidate.

Pete Brownell
Pretty much anyone who knows guns knows the Brownell name. Â In addition to being a great company, Brownell’s is also an unwavering supporter of the Second Amendment, and does quite a lot with the community. We’re very pleased with Brownell’s efforts with new media outreach, and believe Pete can bring some of that knowledge and expertise to the NRA Board. Pete already serves on a number of related board, including Knife Rights, POMA, USA Shooting, and Pheasants Forever.

Tom King
Tom has been an early supporter of NRA’s outreach efforts to leaders in New Media. In addition to that, he’s a successful blogger in his own right, being one of the few members of the NRA Board to have a blog hosted with a mainstream media outlet. Tom is President of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, and is a seasoned fighter for gun rights in New York State, which as you can imagine, is not an easy state for gun owners. Regardless, his record speaks for itself. New York State has not passed any anti-gun or anti-hunting legislation for a decade, and gun owners have managed to make some progress in the other direction. New York is an important state for gun owners, and it’s important to keep Tom on the NRA Board.

Sandra Froman
Bitter did a very long post about Sandy’s endorsement-worthy background during her last campaign. Much of that still holds true today. Froman is one of the most feisty advocates you’ll meet at NRA. She is out raising money to endow the programs side of the organization and testifying before the Senate against Sotomayor. She is a wildebeest hunter who got into the issue due to self-defense after a man tried to break down her door. As a Harvard Law & Stanford graduate female from the Bay Area, her activism is the kind that makes the folks at PETA, HSUS, and the Brady Campaign cry at night. Keep them shedding tears and vote for Sandy.

Governor Matt Blunt
We decided to endorse Gov. Blunt as a fresh political voice on the board. There are a handful of lawmakers on the Board of Directors with varying levels of involvement and sway in the world of politics. We believe that Gov. Blunt would bring a youthful new energy as a politician, provided he participates on the Board. Learn more about Gov. Blunt’s biography here.

Jilted Again

Looks like we were a bit premature in celebrating Matt Carmel’s success in his quest to sponsor a sports team:

Matt Carmelâ€™s quest to get the name of his business, “Constitution Arms,” on a team uniform has come up short again, with a rugby league that initially accepted his sponsorship doing an about-face under pressure from other sponsors.

He says this will mark the end of his quest. This is how bad the culture has gotten in New Jersey.

Firearms Law Seminar

Looks like I’ll be attending the Firearms Law Seminar this year at the NRA convention in Charlotte. This is something I’ve always meant to attend, but things have been so busy previous years this is the first year I really have a chance.

If I were a lawyer, this would count toward Continuing Legal Education, but they do have a reduced fee for lay persons who want to attend. I think this should be very interesting and educational. Some of my favorite names in Firearms Law will be presenting.

Quote of the Day: Privileges or Immunities Edition

Orin Kerr I think sums it up nicely over at Volokh, as to why it’s going to be very difficult to get justices to revive key constitutional principles because they are more academically correct:

My point is only that itâ€™s the system the Constitution gave us. The Framers bestowed responsibility upon politicians for nominating and confirming Justices, and that choice means that the Justices weâ€™re likely to get are likely to be more practical people than constitutional theorists. So if youâ€™re disappointed that the Justices are not committed enough to constitutional first principles, it is of course fair to criticize the individual Justices, and the broader legal culture. But I think at least part of your criticism should be directed to the Framers for giving responsibility to politicians for who ends up a Justice.

It’s often heard that the founders intended to put certain rights beyond the political process when they enacted the Bill of Rights. But really, all rights are subject to politics over the long haul. The genius in our system is that it takes a sustained shift in constitutional thinking, over a long period of time, in order for new ideas and interpretations to work their way into our courts. Perhaps someday, if the population is committed to electing politicians that demand justices right what was wrong, we’ll get Privileges or Immunities restored to its rightful place, but not now.

Ultimately our rights are subject to the political process. That might not be ideal in abstract theory, when in practical implementation of a government, I’m not sure how you make a system that works better than what we have now. Ultimately the Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment are fading ink on pieces of parchment. At the end of the day, what those word mean as a matter of law is entirely up to we the people.

Brady Thinking, Late 19th Century Style

Cemetery:

[…] one of the complaints, of smokeless cartridges, by police, was that during gun fights, they could not see where the bad guys where.Â Because there was no smoke to place their locations.

So Brady thinking would dictate, because itâ€™s about LEOâ€™s safety much like bullet encoding and microstamping, that smokeless technology be outlawed.

Sounds about right to me.

Matt Carmel Gets His Team

Morris Rugby has accepted Constitution Arms as a sponsor for their rugby team, since they were rejected by the little league.Â Rugby is probably responsible for more bloodshed than guns anyway.

Indiana Gets its Own Hawkins Ruling

In PA the ruling was called Commonwealth v. Hawkins, and ruled that an anonymous, unsubstantiated report of a “man with a gun” was not sufficient evidence to justify a Terry stop. Now it looks like Indiana has a version of the same.