2010 – Page 42 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Philly Area Not Doing so Well

I’m not surprised we’ve lost so many jobs, considering what an awful place Pennsylvania is to do business. We have among the highest corporate tax rates in the country, and our government is increasingly looking for ways to make it even worse. If I were going to start a business, I’d go to an up and coming market. This area has been my home all my life, but it has no future as long as the people keep sending politicians to Harrisburg that make anti-business policy choices, and vote for bloated an expensive government. And this is just the ‘burbs I’m talking about. The City of Philadelphia is a basket case in its own right, and beginning to rival such stellar cities as Detroit and Baltimore in sheer craptitude.

The only thing we have going for us is housing prices haven’t taken as bad a beating as other markets, because we never bubbled very much since even in good times no one wants to live here.

Final Push for Castle Doctrine

It’s stuck in the Senate. Click here to see the NRA alert and who to call. We also need to reiterate to State Senators that we expect a clean bill. Efforts are underway to amend the bill. We have to do this now, or it’s dead for this session, and we have to go through this all again.

Gun Marketing in the Past

This even makes me cringe, so I can’t imagine what a certain someone would think of it. Flies in the face of modern assumptions about safe gun handling, in terms of not relying on mechanical safeties. Also clearly before the days when we sued people over anything. I can’t imagine a teddy bear maker today saying their product was “absolutely safe” let alone a gun maker.

UPDATE: I should probably make clear what made me cringe is a gun being marketed as “absolutely safe,” rather than children being used in the context of marketing guns, or being photographed with guns. Obviously I have no problem with messages like this,Â this, or this.

Just Like “Lost and Stolen”

Upper Moreland Township, in suburban Philadelphia, wants to fine citizens who don’t lock their cars. Funny, I kind of thought the punishment for that was built-in.

Maybe We Need an ROA

Maybe we do need an organization to defend all of the Bill of Rights, and to defend traditional republican (small r) values. If so, I eagerly await Gun Owners of America to change its name to Republicans of America. It would be a more accurate description if this post at Red State is to be taken seriously:

While I donâ€™t know enough about theÂ Gun Owners of America yet, it is interesting to note that (contrary to the more liberal-leaning NRA)Â the GOA has given Tim Walz a â€œDâ€ rating. Â Perhaps the GOA is looking at the other nine Amendments to the Constitution and realizes that a politician who is good on one Amendment, but despises freedom in so many other ways, isnâ€™t all that he portrays himself to be?

That’s great for GOA. But I have to wonder why this doesn’t look like a record of support on our issue. If GOA wants to become a generic freedom organization, I think that’s great, but they should give up all pretense of being a gun rights group if they want to go there.

Self-Defense Opponents Won’t Give Up

I have a headache. I don’t think it was caused by beating my head against the wall over getting a simple bill like Castle Doctrine passed, but I’m pretty sure that’s why it won’t go away.

Good News: Today there should be movement in the Senate. (Link courtesy of reader Adam Z.) This is particularly important because of this is the week it has to pass to make it to the Governor’s desk.

Bad News: Reports that the anti’s just won’t give up on this one. This may mean a problem with amendments. If any amendments are added, the bill is dead. There’s no opportunity for the House to take it up again. It must be a clean bill.

Back to what makes this so infuriating: How on earth does a bill that passed the House by a 4-1 margin end up being so hard to pass through the legislature? This isn’t even a gun bill, it’s an issue of clarifying the self-defense laws!

Legal in a Lot More States than That

The New York Times doesn’t seem to get that we just recently made it legal in four states, but there’s a lot more states than that where it’s legal to carry a firearm into a restaurant. Actually, very few state prohibit it. The only reason the times makes this an issue is because they are mis-characterizingÂ it. In most states, there is no legal definition of a bar. The New York Times mis-characterizing, and probably editorial selection, is probably why the vast majority of their letters attack restaurant carry. It’s not about enabling people to carry drunk. Carrying drunk is legal in many fewer states, and even in states where it technically is, like PA, you’ll probably still get your LTC revoked if you do it.

More Feigned Easement of Draconian Laws

In Puerto Rico. Their easement looks more like Chicago’s:

Torres said the measures will include a requirement that shooting ranges keep logs of how much ammunition their members use and cap the number of bullets each client can fire in target practice at 500 per year.

I’d say that’s still pretty unambiguously unconstitutional to place limits such as that.

The House legislation under analysis would require gun clubs to maintain logs that include information relative to the quantity and caliber of the ammunition that shooters use onsite. It would revoke licenses from any such business that does not comply with the legislation.

Puerto Rico might end up being a pretty good place to get some lawsuits going, considering it’s restrictions are even more onerous than Massachusetts’, and it resides in the same federal Circuit as a Massachusetts. Defeat licensing there, you defeat it in Massachusetts and Rhode Island as well.

Remember …

… our opponents tell us they are less regulated than teddy bears.

Burden of Proof in Mental Health Cases

Eugene Volokh covers a case in the California Court of Appeals. This case is a good example of the importance of picking your plaintiffs carefully. In this case, the courts are going to be looking for reasons why this guy shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun given the circumstances. I disagree with the courts ultimate conclusion:

First, with respect to the private interest element of the due process test, an individualâ€™s right to possess firearms is of fundamental constitutional stature. However, this constitutional right is subject to the stateâ€™s traditional authority to regulate firearm use by individuals who have a mental illness. Moreover, the length of the threatened loss is a relevant factor in analyzing the nature of the private interest. Under section 8103, the deprivation of the right is lengthy, but temporary, lasting for five years. Further, the infringement concerns the loss of property, and does not involve deprivation of physical liberty or severance of familial ties.

You’re removing the most effective tool we have for self-defense. I think that’s up there with those other circumstances. The problem is, I think this guy’s temporary prohibition would pass a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard. I’m not sure why the Court felt the need to say preponderance of evidence is fine.

I appreciate the Courts willingness to take the right seriously, by at least doing a serious analysis, but far too many courts have been all too willing to treat the Second Amendment as a second class right.