Month: July 2010

Paul Helmke thinks everything is going to stand post McDonald. I think that’s a tad optimistic, and I suspect he thinks so too, if he’s honest with himself. But I guess they have to look in the bright side at Brady these days:

A Virginia Tech student files suit against the university’s policy prohibiting concealed weapons on campus. Will the McDonald decision have an impact? We believe the answer is “no,” because as a school, a college campus is one of those “sensitive places” that Justice Scalia cited as being allowed to enact gun prohibitions.

Is it? Why is a college or university more sensitive than say, a boardwalk, or other place where young people congregate. These are adults, not children. This isn’t to say private colleges and universities can’t ban guns on their campuses, but can public institutions do so? Maybe that’s the case, but you can’t just declare any place where someone having a gun gives you the willies as “sensitive.” That’s not a legal standard.

A farmer in Kern County, California files suit against California for prohibiting him from purchasing an AR-15 rifle with a folding stock and scope, which he wants to have for coyote control on his land. How does McDonald relate to this case?

Semi-automatic rifles are in common use, as there are tens of millions of them owned by civilians, and the AR-15 is one of the most popular firearms. California’s ban is an outlier, and far broader than other prohibitions. Perhaps the Kern County farmer has arthritic hands, and has difficulty handling a firearm with a traditional stock. Perhaps he wants a folding stock for compact storage in his vehicle. Outlier case? Well, maybe so, but there are implications for it being an individual right.

Justice Scalia also noted that laws protecting Americans from “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “presumptively lawful.” An AR-15 is a military-style assault weapon, which elected officials in California have decided is so “dangerous” that they have banned it.

Except that it’s not dangerous or unusual, at least not any more than other semi-automatic rifles. See, you Brady folks could rely on deception and obfuscation before — tricking people into thinking semi-automatics were machine guns. It might be harder tricking the Courts, where truthfulness is generally required.

John Hinckley, Jr., who was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the shootings of President Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady, has been approved for extended visits to family away from a D.C. institution for the mentally ill. If he files suit against the federal government for rescinding his gun rights, does McDonald give him a legitimate case?

No. I don’t think anyone is even arguing that. But we’ll burn this straw man regardless.

Brian Borgelt, the former owner of Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington, which “lost” the gun used by the snipers who murdered 10 and shot three others in the Washington, D.C. area in 2002, files suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for rescinding his federal firearm dealer license. Does the McDonald decision provide support for Borgelt’s case?

I don’t think anyone seriously expects the Courts to substantially interfere with the commercial regulation of the firearms business. Heller pretty much accepted broad authority for commercial regulation.

None of this is to say I’m all that optimistic about the Courts tossing California’s assault weapons ban, or removing the ability of colleges and universities to ban firearms. The Brady folks are bound to have victories, and we’re bound to have setbacks. But these issues are not as cut and dry as they would like people to imagine. Clearly they won’t save their whole agenda.

But where I think this will end up long term is it will be accepted that the Second Amendment right does not extend to certain kinds of criminals, and that Government has a legitimate interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of this prohibited class of people, and to that end, the Government may regulate firearms to that extent, provided it does not substantially interfere with the right protected. That’s going to mean we get a few things ruled constitutional that we would really prefer tossed, but it’s also going to mean whatever barriers are put in place can’t, in any meaningful way, interfere with the right. At that point, why bother? The Bradys might want to bother, but will anyone else? Can you raise money and build grassroots support around regulating private sales at gun shows? Not when that’s one step along the way, but when that’s all the Courts will let you push?

I can’t believe this crap passes as reporting. Form the New York Times:

Fresh off a string of victories in the courts and Congress, the National Rifle Association is flexing political muscle outside its normal domain, with both Democrats and Republicans courting its favor and avoiding its wrath on issues that sometimes seem to have little to do with guns.

Issues that have little to do with guns? Supreme Court nominees, the Credit Card Bill (which had National Park Carry attached) and the DISCLOSE issues. They continue:

The N.R.A.’s expanding portfolio is an outgrowth of its success in the courts, Congressional officials and political analysts said. With the Supreme Court ruling last month for the second time since 2008 that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to have a gun, the N.R.A. now finds that its defining battle is a matter of settled law, and it has the resources to expand into other areas.

Yeah, because the courts just settled everything. Time to move on! Read the whole thing. There’s actually an undercurrent of truth in what’s being reported here, it’s just that the reporter obviously does not really understand the politics of it completely. NRA is not broadening its agenda, in terms of expanding from being a single issue group. It’s broadening its strategy. That was necessary in order to work in this Congress, and now the Courts.

UPDATE: Looks like Chris Cox used an uncleism too. Well, an unclecommenterism that is.

Now described on their web site. I would note that there is 5 pages of forms to fill out in order to legally register a firearm, and also with that five hours of training. They’ll also fingerprint you at the time of the application. I would also note they only appear to be open from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30pm each day. Good luck getting your permit if you have a job. Better luck if you’re poor and can’t afford to take a day off. Daley is a snake.

UPDATE From the comments:

Also note that currently the permit requires the license number of the State certified instructor.  That particular ‘license’ from the IL Dept of Professional Regulation (DPR) has no number, so the form cannot be completed even if one has the requisite training from a certified instructor.

I’m sure Daley will get that worked out after a few more expensive and time consuming lawsuits.

UPDATE: Also from the comments, apparently Daley thinks people with 20/50 corrected vision, which could still see an attacker and aim safely at typical self-defense distances, don’t have a Second Amendment right.

It’s been remanded back to the original three judge panel by the 9th Circuit sitting en banc. Eugene Volokh doesn’t think it looks good for the gun show, as it originally upheld the individual right, but concluded that the County Fairgrounds the gun show was hosted at could constitute a “sensitive place” under Heller. I think the reasoning is poor, since not all government property can rightly be considered a sensitive place. I hope the panel does a more thorough analysis this time around of sensitive places.