2010 – Page 53 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Genetic Factors in Homosexuality

This article in Scientific American would seem to lend support to the theory that homosexuality is not entirely a choice, at least not always. The interesting thing about the genetic theory of homosexuality is, that if it’s correct, is going to imply quite a bit about the number of homosexuals within the population.

Much like the laws of thermodynamics, natural selection is a bitch. Genetic traits that interfere with reproduction don’t get passed on to future generations, and eventually work their way out of the gene pool. This would mean the number of homosexuals should be a good bit smaller than is often claimed (I’ve heard 10% bandied about). If they are high, there needs to be an explanation as to how the trait is continuing to propagate within the population. It’s quite possible it propagates because many homosexuals, because of social pressure, live heterosexual lives. If this is the case, increasing public acceptance of homosexuality should actually reduce their numbers (let’s see the Moral Majority types try to wrap their heads around that one). It’s also possible it propagates through the general population, but gets activated by other factors. I don’t think we really understand enough to make a certain conclusion, but a genetic root for homosexuality should mean the number of genetic homosexuals should be quite small.

Hat Tip to Instapundit for the link.

Preemption Threats in Maine

Looks like the City of Portland is trying to bring the issue to head. Maine has a strong pro-gun culture traditionally, but it’s also accepted quite a lot of people fleeing from Massachusetts.

Problems with “Sport Utility” v. “Paramilitary”

Tam questions something that’s always puzzled me too. Personally, I don’t have a problem with the police having anything, as long as I’m allowed to own one too. My problem is more with how they are using their toys, than the fact that they have them.

Tossups

Clayton Cramer has a look at the races for November, and notes that he doesn’t have much faith in the GOP. In that case, the beatings need to continue until things improve. I don’t recall people being this upset in 1994, and that gives me some faith that the GOP might actually have to do something this time. I also don’t see Barry transforming himself, and remaking the Democratic Party in a centrist image the way Bill Clinton did.

Celebrity Shooter

This may well qualify as weirdest headline of the day:

Bob Barker Collapses at Gun Range

His rep says he was just dehydrated and collapsed. People at the range say he had been shooting.

For a guy who is putting boatloads of money into the hands of groups trying to end hunting, shooting seems like a weird hobby for him to have on the side. But, here’s to hoping he goes shooting a lot and owns a lot of guns. If he does, maybe he’s contributed a fraction to our side compared to what he’s given to them.

Unbelievable Article from the Anti-Gun Crowd

The crux of this argument, which tries to discredit the basis of McDonald, particularly Thomas’ concurrence, is that gun control isn’t racist, because blacks would have been better off disarmed, since armed resistance against white oppressors just made them angrier and caused more blacks to be killed. I kid you not. Apparently this author would also have us believe the jews of Warsaw would have been better of not fighting back against the Nazis. The Kurds obviously would have been better off submitting to Saddam, since he nerved gassed a few of their towns in retaliation.

The other side has a real difficult time understanding there are things out there worse than death, and submitting to evil is one of them. This persons moral compass isn’t just off, it’s not functioning at all. The article then goes on to conclude that we’re the real racists in this argument, including Charlton Heston, which makes this photo and this photo all the more puzzling.

NRA’s Preference for Broad Suits

I was in Hawaii when I heard that NRA filed suit against the federal law that bars 18-20 year olds from purchasing firearms. I was pleased even more to learn that the case was brought in Texas, which is in the more gun friendly Fifth Circuit, and seemed to have a carefully selected plaintiff that got around the Texas state law that generally prohibits handguns to 18-20 year olds (there’s an exception for military and honorably discharged veterans, and the plaintiff is a veteran). But John Richardson points out over at No Lawyers that the case is also challenging Texas’ prohibition on carry licenses to 18-20 year olds. What?

Why complicate the case with that question? Truth is, there’s not much that can justify removing a constitutional right for 18-20 year old individuals, and the courts will probably say a lot of useful things in deciding such a case. I think NRA is on really solid ground with that part of the case. Since it’s federal law, it didn’t even really need incorporation. But Texas is hardly an outlier in restricting licenses to carry a firearm to those 21 or older. Indiana is actually the only state I know of that will issue to 18-20 year olds (though I think there are a few more). I don’t think this is the circumstance where I want to get the courts to recognize a right to carry a firearm. While the Fifth Circuit (same circuit that ruled the Second Amendment was an individual right in Emerson) is certainly more gun friendly than, say, the Second, I would note that they still upheld Lautenberg under their standard of review.

Benson is also a very broad case, that basically throws everything and the kitchen sink at Chicago. This would indicate NRA is preferring to back broad cases. I don’t think this is a wise strategy, as I think we’re better off moving cases forward that ask the courts to decide on narrowly tailored questions, with plaintiffs carefully chosen, and optimized for those circumstances. This is SAF’s strategy, so far. That’s not to say I think NRA’s strategy is doomed, by any means, but it seems to me that SAF has the better strategy here. I’d be interested to hear more legally trained observers opinion on this.

UPDATE: OK, it seems I read hastily, and they are actually two separate cases.

Interesting Views on Hunting

The Lebanon Daily News says they support hunting, but not pigeon shooting, but call hunting a “blood sport,” in the same category as pigeon shooting. Actually, no. Blood sports are things like dog fighting, cock fighting, bear baiting, and bullfighting, though I’m sure HSUS appreciates the subtle smear against hunting. I’m sure they also appreciate the Daily News repeating their lie that Pennsylvania is the only state that permits pigeon shoots. No doubt they greatly appreciate the entire article, which promotes HSUS’s agenda in Pennsylvania.

Sorry, Daily News, you’re not pro-hunting just because you post a few hunting pictures. You’re actively supporting an organization that attempted to make that very act a crime. You’re no friend of hunters.

Veterans Gun Rights Bill Clears Committee

Jerry Moran (R-KS) reports that his bill, which basically strips the Department of Veterans Affairs of their power to strip Second Amendment rights from veterans that have a fiduciary appointed to them. This was a despicable Clinton era practice. Moran’s legislation requires a judicial act in order for someone to be adjudicated. This is part of a larger veterans benefits bill, so it should have no issue getting a floor vote, getting past the Senate, and getting President Obama’s signature.

Strangely enough the Bradys are opposing this bill. Really? You still have a process for adjudicating someone, it just requires taking it to court rather than a unilateral decision by a government bureaucrats. The Brady position seems pretty radical to me, for a group that says they just want reasonable gun laws.

The Battle over the Canadian Registry is Getting Started

And apparently it’s all a vast, NRA fueled Yankee conspiracy, at least that’s what the Canadian media is implying. Word now is that the bill to repeal the long gun registry is doomed, because there are some Liberal Party politicians in rural ridings who are going to vote against it. Here’s my advice to Canadian Gun owners, just to fuel the conspiracy: You need to single out these rural, Liberal Party MPs and make examples out of them by voting them out of office, and make sure it’s apparent that the gun vote was significant. You will likely have to coalition with other malcontents, but it can be done. Crap like this is what you’re up against, but politicians will ignore that if they start to think the gun vote can remove them from office. That’s how we did it here. There’s no reason it can’t work in Canada too. Step one is to put the fear of the gun vote into the politicians. The rest will follow.