The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
The case is Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Looks like a bit of a judicial trainwreck, much like McConnell v. FEC was, but the good news is we’re rid of many of the restrictions, including restrictions on independent corporate expenditures, which would apply to groups like the National Rifle Association. So this is a positive development for us in the Second Amendment community.
For some expert opinion on the matter, see SCOTUSBlog, Volokh, and the Election Law Blog.
Not a bad article on the rise of the AR platform. They talk about the rise, fall, and rise again of Jim Zumbo in that context, and the NSSF’s push to educate more traditional hunters and shooters about some of the myths and mischaracterizations that have followed these firearms as they’ve made their way into the shooting culture.
Two states now are in the mix with this issue, the first is Virginia, where the push began after the Roanoke Times published a list of all the permit holders in the state. Now that the legislature and Governor’s office are more friendly, we can finally get this done. Indiana has been in the mix for the past two months, and also is now floating a bill that would close public access to carry permits. This has to be one of the lamest defenses I’ve seen of the databases.
And what about the employer who recently fired a disgruntled employee? Shouldn’t that employer be able to discover the former worker now has a permit to carry a gun?
Public access supporters point out that gun rights advocates might be working against their own interests by shutting down access to these records.
How, for example, will they be able to prove that law-abiding citizens are wrongly being denied these permits if they cut off access to the information?
Because we know the law? Look, this isn’t a discretionary process. If you meet the qualifications, you get the permit. It’s abundantly clear if people are being denied permits unjustly. Plus, if they are denied, they aren’t going to appear in the database now are they? And why does an employer need to know whether someone has a permit to carry? Do people routinely get permits before coming in and shooting up the workplace? I mean, we can’t be carrying illegally on the way to murder people, can we?
Looks like the state is looking to make some improvements in the License to Carry application process, so make it more standardized and quicker. This looks overall positive to me. Â We need more standardization. As it stands, our Sheriffs often like to use processes for application that are out of line with general practice in the state. For instance, Montgomery County gives you a “police card” to take to your local PD and get them to sign off on the application. They will do same day issue, but the process isn’t nearly well defined enough under state law, and more standardization I think can only be a positive thing.
SayUncle is reporting Todd Jarrett would seem to be leaving Para to start his own 1911 company. ParaUSA and Todd were gracious enough to host gun bloggers a few summers ago, and I think I can safely say we all wish Todd the best of luck in his new endeavor. That 360 degree shoot house was the most fun I’ve ever had with a gun.
Possible threeper flag spotted at a Brown victory rally? Did a bit of searching, and it would seem it’s an unrelated flag.
UPDATE: Whoops. It would seem Traction Control found it too. I didn’t notice the second flag was a link.
There’s been some coverage of the Brady Campaign turning on the Obama Administration. Namely from The Hill, Politico, and NPR, just to name some. The biggest MSM coverage that I’ve seen is this blurb in USA Today, where it’s mentioned among many other left-leaning groups that graded Obama. but my favorite one is probably this, from a small town Washington State news outlet:
Also clearly, the folks [at the Brady Center] aren’t showing much political savvy of the kind that allows a president to govern.
Case in point — the Massachusetts election Tuesday for the vacant U.S. Senate seat once held by Sen. Ted Kennedy.
The Brady Center’s Paul Helmke, in endorsing Democrat Martha Coakley, said: “This race is a clear choice between a tough, law-and-order leader who wants to fight gun violence in Massachusetts and a state legislator who has, either wittingly or unwittingly, become a poster child for the ‘guns everywhere’ gun lobby.â€
The National Rifle Association was upfront about what it thought of her opponent, Republican Scott Brown.
“Scott Brown is ‘A’ rated by the NRA Political Victory Fund,†the NRA’s Political Victory Fund website says.
Massachusetts voters resoundingly chose Brown, a state senator.
I don’t know if I’d be that harsh. Progressive are abandoning Obama like rats from a sinking ship at this point, and the Bradys are no doubt wanting to join, in the hopes that Obama might decide he needs to win back a few friends, and they might be one of them. Plus, getting cozy with other disillusioned progressives might bring some money in, and that wouldn’t be unwelcome by the Bradys, who have to be getting desperate for money at this point.
It wouldn’t be an unreasonable strategy if Brady had something to offer Obama and the Democrats in return for support, but what do they have? Money? No. Their PAC spent nary a cent in the last election, only 55 thousand dollars, or thereabouts. For contrast, Brady spending in 2004 was three times as much. Spending in the 2000 election was more than thirty times. Votes? The lack of ability for anti-gun groups to deliver votes is fairly undisputed in political circles at this point. So what do they have to offer Obama? Of the holy trinity, only favorable or unfavorable media can really be truly delivered, which is what they decided to try here. But I have to admit, they will need more than a brief blurb in USA Today, and some of the online sources to return to the former glory days of Handgun Control Incorporated. So far I would say this gambit is falling flat.
I’ve never been one to jump onto the victimization bandwagon or erect villains that gun rights folks can portray themselves as fighting against. I tend to think think this kind of activity can remove the focus from real action, and instead get people’s energies and attention fixated on the villains. ATF is one of our favorite villains, and much of the time they do things to deserve people’s derision and scorn. But ATF, while unique in some respects, doesn’t really act much differently than other federal regulatory bureaucracies, as anyone who’s ever worked in a regulated industry can attest to. As long as we have federal gun laws, there will be an agency charged with regulation and enforcement under the authority of those laws. That put us back to square one, no matter which three letter acronym the agency carries. That’s largely why in the case of the Austin Gun Show controversy, I’m a lot more interested talking about courses of action rather than railing against ATF for the sake of vilifying the agency. Action has to be related to goals, and the goal in this case is to preserve the integrity of the show, and prevent the City of Austin and ATF from attempting to meddle with any more shows. In the last post we saw that raising a preemption claim against the Austin Police Department was likely going to be problematic, because the landlord of the property is really the ones doing the coercion. But that doesn’t mean you can’t get the attention of these regulators. I would propose the following courses of action:
I guess what I’m trying to suggest is: don’t get mad, get even. The way you get even with bureaucrats is to get the people who essentially pay them mad. There are other avenues other than ones I mentioned here. I offer these a way to think about how politics works, and how a motivated and pissed off group of gun owners can effectively direct their energies.
A reader sent me a link to a dust up between a gun show promoter, the Austin, TX police, and ATF. I was hoping today to getting around to looking at this story more closely, but in a fantastic bit of citizen journalism, Howard Nemerov already has the scoop on this issue. His conclusion:
There are no clear-cut villains and victims here. In the final analysis, you the reader need to decide the best course of action. Facts, not rhetoric, help make educated decisions.
Having this kind of thing happen to a gun show is not all that unusual. We lost a big one here in Pennsylvania because the Fort Washington Expo Center’s new management decided they no longer wanted to host gun shows on their property. Not much you can do in that situation except find a new venue. I would point out that the Fort Washington Expo Center is now defunct, however, so maybe kicking the gun show to the curb was not their only poor business decision.
But I still want to write about what I think would be a novel legal issue in regards to gun shows, particularly if nuisance ordinances are used against them. Texas, like most other states, preempts local governments from enforcing anti-gun ordinances:
No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law governing the conduct proscribed by this code is legally enforceable.
Texas preemption statute is very strong, and I suspect whatever Austin might want to construe its nuisance ordinances to mean, it can’t construe them as meaning they can use them to force out a gun show. But does it prevent them from asking the landlord to put restrictions on the show? One could argue if there’s no legal threat, it’s not enforcement, and so preemption does not apply. But one could also argue that any lawful authority, such as a nuisance unit of a police department, that even talking to a landlord, who might have good reasons to want to stay on good terms with a police agency of that nature, amounts to a form of coercion. This would, of course, be a long shot argument, but such arguments have been made successfully in other contexts.
It’s interesting what could happen if other cities suddenly started taking generally applicable laws, and even hinting to property owners that they could be applied if they don’t kick out gun shows. Preemption laws, in spirit, are supposed to deal with that problem, but that gets more dicey laws get applied sneakily or stealthily, in a way that makes it hard for us to prove a preemption violation. For this, we will need show promoters to fight, and work with relevant organizations, like NRA, NSSF, etc, to uncover exactly what local authorities are up to if they suspect pressure is being applied to get gun shows out of their jurisdictions. Preemption is merely a tool, it’s not an absolute protection against all malfeasance on the part of local governments. Making is work is up to us.
I would call it gun porn, except said hottie is all dressed up. And here’s a close up.
UPDATE: I would like everyone to note the author on the above post. I have not become a switch hitter, or started to bat for the other team :) -Sebastian
UPDATE: I would like everyone to note that Sebastian just took the fun out of this post. :( -Bitter