January 2011 – Page 13 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Good Judgement is a Reason for Gun Control

But before we embrace Zamudio’s brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let’s hear the whole story. “I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained onÂ Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ ”

But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out…

TheÂ Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio “grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall” before realizing he wasn’t the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn’t pull out his own weapon was that “he didn’t want to be confused as a second gunman.”

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon

In my opinion, Zamudio exercised better judgement than many police officers would have. He should be commended for that. Not turned into a poster child for gun control by people who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Any guy willing to run towards the sound of gunfire, and exercises good judgement, is OK in my book. Radley Balko is also indignant.

Larry Prattling

Had to steal an Uncleism for the title. A few days ago Weer’d noted that he heard Larry on a local radio show blasting Congresswoman Giffords for her position on the Second Amendment. That struck me as a bit tasteless, given the circumstance. I asked him to find a recording, and he has managed to do that.

But listening to the whole thing in context, I don’t think what he said about Giffords was all that tasteless, because the host asked him about her record. I was more appalled by his speculation about what party the dead folks belonged to:

“There was at least one guy who was a Republican that was killed, and that was the federal judge. But the others we might presume could have been Democrats… don’t know.”

The host cut him off at this point, which is probably lucky for Larry. I don’t know where he was going with that, but I’m betting it wasn’t good.Â Other classy moments?

“Your [Carolyn McCarthy’s] solution is to leave us all victims, the way your husband was. He was in a gun free zone when he was mowed down by Colin Furgeson.”

I don’t like the woman’s politics either, but I’m not too keen on using her dead husband to make a point, along with the reminder that he was “mowed down.” It’s one thing to think it. It’s another thing to say it on a public forum, while you’re speculating on what to tell her. This is the kind of stuff I expect on Internet forums, not from a self-professed leader in the pro-gun movement.

Where Else But the Internets

Musings on asparagus pee. For the record, I’m not a fan, though I like fresh asparagus.

Virginia Court Ruling Upholds Public University Ban

I tend to agree with Eugene Volokh on this one. The Court did not need to reach the “sensitive place” analysis, because there are other ways it could have been upheld. I’m starting to end up in the Josh Blackman camp, somewhat. I think Heller and McDonald were important decisions in many ways, but only one that will end up protecting our extreme flanks at best. The rest of this is going to remain a political issue. Ultimately, the greater effect these two rulings may be in the minds of the people, rather than in the minds of federal judges.

Word has it that Justice Kennedy was at the memorial service, along with former Justice O’Conner. I fear this could bring gun rights progress in the federal courts to a screeching halt if it’s making someone like Kennedy reconsider his position, or how far he wants to take the right. It’s my impression the Heller and McDonald majorities were very weak, otherwise we could have gotten stronger language from the Court. Did it just get weaker? Time will tell.

Ultimately the Bradys may be right that this only takes the extremes off the table. What they don’t realize is that’s likely fatal for them, and will merely delay our journey to get the Second Amendment treated as seriously as other rights which are part of the American landscape.

Commitment in Arizona

Dave Hardy takes a look at Arizona law, which makes it quite difficult to get someone committed involuntarily. I don’t think it should be easy; there needs to be due process to deprive someone of life, liberty or property under our system, but Arizona looks to make it nearly impossible.

Two Ways This Affects Us

I think I am probably on safe ground arguing we can likely muster the political power necessary to kill any new gun control laws in Congress as a result of the Arizona tragedy. But I do think this will affect us in two fairly important ways:

You can bet this has put guns front and center in the minds of the federal judiciary, and not in a good way. At best I would classify most federal judges as luke warm to the idea of gun rights, and probably more realistically the average would be mild hostility to the idea. This isn’t going to help us, going forward in the courts, that one of their own was shot by a nut.
It probably just got harder to pass constitutional carry in more states. No politician is going to want a law he voted for under the microscope the next time some whack job goes off the deep end with a gun. It makes absolutely no different that those laws will do nothing to stop someone intent on murder, or that police will have zero ability to detect and stop preemptively. What matters is politicians don’t like feeling embarrassed in public.

Those are the two main effects this will have, as I see it. This hasn’t made the pendulum turn, I don’t think, but it has taken some of the wind out of our sails. Our opponents can probably obtain some sense of satisfaction that this has likely managed to slow our agenda. I guess the real question is, is that worth the lives of five people from their point of view?

I would encourage everyone to be on guard and communicating with lawmakers. If the pendulum doesn’t swing on this incident, it is only because we made it so.

Most Say Stricter Gun Laws Won’t Help

Rasmussen has a poll out, and it turns out that only 29% think stricter gun control would have prevented shootings like the one in Arizona, plus:

Despite Saturdayâ€™s tragedy, opposition to gun control is at a new high. Thirty-six percent (36%) say the United States needs stricter gun control laws, but 56% donâ€™t share that belief and oppose stronger anti-gun laws. Previously, opposition to more gun control has ranged from a high of 51% inÂ July of last year to a low of 37%Â in April 2007 following the killings at Virginia Tech.

We win. They lose.

Not so Fast

North Carolinians Against Gun Violence is trying to convince people that their laws would have stopped the Tucson Shooter. I’d be willing to bet money they would have issued. He could keep himself together long enough to plan, and acquire weapons. While North Carolina law enforcement do have discretion, my understanding is if you’re legally qualified to own a gun they will issue. This guy had nothing in his record that would have disqualified him.

Levy Throws Magazine Rights Under the Bus

Robert Levy, on the board of the Cato Institute, has said he sees no reason a magazine ban shouldn’t be constitutional. I appreciate what he did with funding Heller, but he’s not a gun guy, and should leave this stuff to organizations who have been doing this a while. To me it’s unacceptable from a libertarian standpoint to suggest liberty can be limited in this way, while the state is given an exemption to whatever ban might be proposed. It’s also hard to argue that greater than 10 round magazines, which are a common part of ordinary police equipment, and are equally popular among civilians, do not pass the “common use” test posited in Heller.

Tepid Applause?

Considering this is a Burbank California audience, I’m surprised Maher didn’t get a roar from the crowd, instead of sparse applause he had to encourage to try to not have his statement be pathetic:

It’s hard to imagine that even a few years ago this would have gotten such a tepid response. People tend to naturally want to get behind someone trying to pull them along with the crowd. You’d almost think Maher had made a vaguely inappropriate ethnic joke.

Our opponents have seriously overplayed their hand. We’re winning.