2011 – Page 106 – Shall Not Be Questioned

A Stretch

RedState is trying to paint Harry Reid as against Second Amendment rights, once again, by offering some pretty flimsy evidence. From what I can see, Reid employed a rule in order to lock out amendments on 9/11 extension bill from being offered. One of those bills was a Rand Paul Amendment that would have fixed access by FISA courts to 4473s.

It is not out of the question that Reid is getting softer on the gun issue, but I’d need more convincing evidence than this. To me this just looks like run of the mill partisan bickering, for which one of the amendments being tied up is Rand Paul’s. As far as I know there’s no Senate rule that allows exemptions to be made for singular amendments if you invoke a procedure that disallows amendments generally.

On the California OC Ban

UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, in the LA Times, expresses some of the same sentiment I did about California’s move to further restrict, really eliminate, the “bear” portion of the Second Amendment:

In two recent lower court lawsuits challenging California’s concealed carry laws, the judges upheld the restrictive policies in part because the state allowed open carry. The judges explained that because the state allows people to openly carry unloaded firearms without a permit, any 2nd Amendment right to have a firearm in public was satisfied. If you find yourself in immediate danger, you can load your gun quickly and protect yourself. Absent an open carry policy, however, future courts could have a much harder time upholding concealed carry restrictions.

Looking only at moving this issue through the courts, I’m somewhat glad California is going down this path. I think it would be problematic to force the courts to consider whether unloaded OC satisfies the constitutional requirement. The reason is that I fear the answer would be yes. We’re probably better off with the courts looking at an outright ban, except for a license which is issued at the arbitrary discretion of authorities.

Easy Availability

The Inquirer, probably reeling from the same slow news cycle even I’m lamenting, decides to bring out one of the media’s favorite deceased equines for a good flogging:

The easy availability of handguns, legal or not, poses a serious challenge to public safety. That’s why mayors, including Nutter, in dozens of communities across the state need to keep pushing for tighter controls on the purchase of handguns that end up being resold to criminals.

No policy prescriptions, no serious analysis of how criminals are getting handguns, it’s just too easy. End of debate. That is as far as their intellectual exploration of the topic will go. Because a couple of gang members shot up a night club, the rest of us have to pay the price in sacrificed freedom.

Foundation for the Defense of Some Democratic Values?

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies says they are “dedicated exclusively to promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that threaten democracy.” It doesn’t say anything about being an organization dedicated to promoting and defending due process before depriving people constitutional rights. That’s good,Â because it they said that, they’d be hypocrites. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide whether that fundamental principle is among the “democratic values” that this organization claims to defend.

Challenges to California “Assault Weapon” Law

SAF is filing a suit in federal court in California challenging the state’s assault weapons ban. The challenge appears to be for vagueness, which are notoriously difficult, but not impossible to win.

â€œCalifornia attempts to make a distinction among firearms where no natural one exists,â€ noted Calguns Executive Director Gene Hoffman. â€œThe generic definition of so-called â€˜assault weaponsâ€™ was simply an attempt to prohibit possession of guns that look scary.â€

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Don Kilmer of San Jose and Jason A. Davis of Mission Viejo. Kilmer said the case is indicative of the way things have become in California.

â€œNow that the right to keep arms has correctly been recognized as fundamental and applicable to California,â€ Kilmer said, â€œgun owners canâ€™t be faced with the practice of â€˜arrest them first and let the courts sort it outâ€™ for exercising constitutional rights. That is just how things are done in our country.â€

Combined with the Second Amendment, this could be a winning argument. I would think the trick is to try to get the Courts to say two things. One that a law governing a fundamental, constitutional right cannot be worded so vaguely, and/or that laws can’t be passed that serve the purpose of frustrating the lawful exercise of that right, or making it too legally risky. That would be a huge win if they would rule along those lines.

New Billboard Along Mass Pike

There are a big lie by omission on John Rosenthal’s latest billboard design near Fenway Park along the Mass Pike, but then again, our opponents have never been able to sway public opinion by being totally honest. They have to make it seem like everyone’s trading guns in an open air arms bazaar despite federal laws mandating background checks, along with a number of state laws.

But hey, when your argument can’t stand up to open debate, what are you going to do?

Bucks County Repeals Guns in Parks Ordinance

A local Bucks County resident by the name of Ken Richmond decided to challenge Bucks County Commissioners that their ordinance banning firearms in county parks ran contrary to state law.Â They agreed and repealed it. While these ordinances have been unlawful for at least twenty years, it good to get the blue laws off the books, regardless. I’m not surprised the Daily News managed to get a jab in by asking picnickers to avoid shooting the ants, as if anyone lawfully carrying a firearm is just a loose cannon waiting for the right excuse.

It’s the case that a lot of counties ban firearms in their parks, contrary to state laws which prohibit local governments and municipalities from regulating on this subject. I never recommended people obey these ordinances, because hey are illegal. In the event that anyone does somehow managed to get found out, and get a fine, it would be a relatively easy matter to challenge it and prevail. Preemption in this field is well established law in the Commonwealth, and the case law is pretty black and white.

Bias Where There is None

The Daily Caller is reporting about fears that Facebook is showing favoritism to liberal & anti-gun organizations by upgrading their Facebook Groups first while rolling out upgrades. But, you know, research is handy here.

Facebookâ€™s managers are deploying a new software upgrade that will dismantle myriad groups of like-minded political activists unless they get a special software-key from the company.

But Facebook manager are providing very limited information about which groups are being favored with the new key, prompting some activists to complain about possible political favoritism among Facebook managers, and many other activists to experiment with techniques and tricks to get the needed upgrade-key. …

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence got the upgrade for its 1,000-member group. â€œWe changed over very smoothly,â€ said David Churchill, the network-manager at the D.C.-based gun-control group. â€œWe just basically clicked the upgrade button, checked it over, and we have a tremendous increase in participation,â€ he said.

You mean they are choosing to upgrade anti-gun groups over gun groups? OMG! Bias!

Except NRA uses Facebook Pages for their public outreach.* Oh, and the first upgrade notice I got as a group member? From the Virginia Shooting Sports Association – the state’s NRA-affiliated association. The second? When I, as a member, put in a request to the NRA EVC group to upgrade. They did the very next day and participation has exploded!

So, yeah, bias, not so much. But that doesn’t make nearly as exciting a headline – Facebook does rolling upgrades for groups & doesn’t clearly communicate the upgrade timeline!
Continue reading “Bias Where There is None”

An Interview with David Keene, NRA President

This is his segment from Washington Journal last week. The first questions may seem a little odd, but they are a bit of a bridge from the host’s previous topic about candidates and their personal lives.

He emphasizes the role of women in the organization and he discusses how NRA members vote on the Second Amendment so they don’t have to spend as much as in elections. He is accused by the second caller of buying Democratic votes instead of actually having the support of Democrats. Keene, even though he is associated with the right, is great at outlining how the Second Amendment spans party. I could outline everything, but I won’t. He flat out tells a gun owner who supports banning magazines that he’s wrong. I love it. Just listen for yourself.

At the 2A Blog Bash in Pittsburgh, participants had a chance to sit down with Keene at our breakfast with Tom King. I don’t just mean that he came by and shook hands with a friendly hello. He actually sat down with the group for quite a while to discuss a whole range of issues at NRA – technology, outreach, you name it. He’s a serious guy with a serious outlook on the issues from the political to the programming.

Making the Inevitable Lawsuit That Much Stronger

The California legislature seems to be intent on solving this non-problem in regards to the fact that . There have already been at least two cases in the courts that have dismissed suits against California’s carry provisions, arguing that the unloaded open carry that current law provides for is sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement for the “bear” part of “keep and bear arms.” When these cases are appealed, it’s quite possible that will no longer be the case. DC v. Heller strongly implied there was a right to bear arms outside of the home, though with a wink and a nod that the states had a fair amount of leeway in regulating the manner in which firearms may be carried. The courts in the California cases have clung to the last legal avenue available, which the California legislature is moving speedily to close. This should be interesting.