A federal court has permanently enjoined the law in Florida which attempted to prevent doctors from asking about gun in the home, on First Amendment grounds. This was entirely predictable, and I hope we can stop pushing this misguided law and focus our energies on more important things.
Month: July 2012
An Amazingly Balanced Article
Buzzfeed is usually one of the more foaming at the mouth lefty outlets, so it’s surprising they did a pretty balanced interview and profile of David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh.
They Have Criminals, We Have…
In light of the Brady Campaign highlighting the tragic plight of wealthy gun criminals, I figured I would point out that we have Alton Brown who deserves much more credit for contributions to helping the world better understand the food they eat than athletes who promote excess and misbehavior without consequences.
Anti-Gun or Anti-Fun? Something to Ponder This Independence Day
Sometimes I wonder. I think it’s the right of every American to celebrate our nation’s independence by blowing up a small chunk of it. I tend to favor freedom, and letting people suffer the consequences of their own stupidity. When I was a kid, maybe about 5th grade, a friend of mine got a hold of a bunch of fireworks, stuff you can’t buy today, like M-80s. I seem to recall tossing them lit into the lake and watching them explode underwater. I can also remember larger pyrotechnics like quarter sticks that my Uncle would bring back from South Carolina, where fun wasn’t illegal. But that was before that other Uncle’s CPSC decided he knew what was best for everyone, and banned all the really fun stuff. Why am I not surprised that the same folks who advocate restricting or banning guns for our own good also support banning or restricting fun for our own good? It’s a certain philosophy, and a certain type of person who has difficulty minding their own damned business and leaving other people to pursue happiness in their own way.
The Generation Gap on the Gun Issue
A generation gap can be the last great refuge for a dying philosophy. Sorry to say, for our opponents, it appears to go in the wrong direction:
While some results seemed predictable, the gun answer did not. Fifty-five percent of the youngest respondents favor legal concealed weapons, which became law in Wisconsin last year. Support for guns declines as age increases, falling to 36 percent among those 60 and older.
“Whether you think it’s a generational change, or growing up with shoot-em-up games, or maybe they just haven’t decided ‘these things are really dangerous, I don’t want them around,’ †Franklin says, the gun result illustrates a key point.
However, as the rather progressive article notes, if you’re a proponent of gay marriage and gay rights, all that’s left is to wait. It is interesting to note, that as the Greatest Generation died off, and Baby Boomers have replaced them as “the old people,” gun rights have been on the upswing. I wonder if anyone has studied whether there were generational changes responsible for this, and if so, why were Greatest Generation more apt to support gun control, and Baby Boomers less so, on down.
On the Roberts Opinion in NFIB
Tam laments that Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t seem to understand the role of the courts in being a check against excesses of democracy. I believe the NFIB opinion was unequivocally a loss for freedom, and created an unnecessary expansion of federal power through the power to tax. But I do not believe it was a disastrous loss, because the opinion places greater restraint on federal power in other areas, and does not specifically overturn many of the limitations placed on Congress’ power to tax, which is not unlimited.
A lot of folks on blogs have been suggesting that whether the power is reached through taxing power or commerce power is six one way half-dozen the other. I don’t agree that’s the case. The taxing power is more limited than if Congress could exercise one of its enumerated powers to enact a mandate. First, The Roberts Opinion did not directly overturn Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. which held the Child Labor Tax unconstitutional because it was a penalty masquerading as a tax. Robert went on at some length to distinguish the ACA’s mandate as from the one in Drexel Furniture. Some of his reasoning was painfully weak, but by making the distinction, it keeps in place a limit on how far Congress could go before a tax is considered a penalty in disguise. The ACA exempts people who pay no income taxes, and then taxes at a base rate of 700 dollars, continuing at 2.5 percent of income up to a maximum of the cost of a plan purchased from one of the health exchanges. This was enough for Roberts to distinguish it from Drexel Furniture, where the penalty was 10% of net profits. Roberts considered the ACA “tax” was not punitive in nature. Because Roberts maintained limits to this new power, it leaves open the path for future challenges should Congress decide to exercise its taxing power similarly in the future. If this act was ruled a valid exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, or Necessary and Proper Clause, there would be no limit; Congress could impose burdensome, punitive fines, and/or impose jail sentences.
Because of the way the case was decided, I think it’s a a stretch to put Roberts in the same category as the left-wing of the court, or to suggest he’s turned liberal, or is as liberal as anyone Obama would nominate. Obama’s and Clinton’s court nominees, if they had gotten their way, would have abolished the entire idea that Congress’ powers are limited. Roberts has been willing to strike down legislative enactments where it’s been in clear violation of Constitutional standards, and has indicated a willingness to go along with restricting federal power in several areas that aren’t trivial, including restraining federal and state power to regulate guns. While I am greatly disappointed in his expansion of the federal taxing power, I am quite pleased he agreed to expand coercion doctrine, meaning the federal government does not have plenary power to blackmail the states into doing its bidding by threatening withdrawal of funding. This isn’t a small deal.
While I don’t think the NFIB decision was a complete disaster for liberty, we still need to be watchful. There’s a strong current in conservative legal thought that supports the concept of judicial restraint. Conservative justices always seem torn between judicial minimalism, originalism, and other competing ideas in conservative legal thought which leads them to sometimes wander off the reservation. I would argue we need nominees who are committed to the destruction of the New Deal, and to the restoration of our federal government as one of limited and enumerated powers — justices who won’t hesitate to strike down enactments of Congress in order to limit its power. I do expect the Court to save us from ourselves. That’s the body’s purpose. Our founders were not the proponents of democratic rule that many on both the left and right of legal thought are today, and I think they were correct in their skepticism of it. It’s a shame our political class has seemingly lost that healthy skepticism.
The Latest Nuttiness from the Brady Campaign
We have to do something in America about gun violence. Won’t someone think of those poor, downtrodden people in this world unfortunate enough to drive fancy cars, live in big houses, and have multi-million dollar salaries. “For the children” was less laughable than this. I also love how Plaxico Burris is listed as a victim of gun violence, rather than a victim if his own stupidity by illegally and unsafely carrying a firearm, then drinking. But he’s a victim, say the Brady folk. Which naturally means he has absolute moral authority.
Get a Gun Stolen, Get Victimized Twice
That’s what’s going to happen if a New Hampshire woman has her way:
Authorities said he stole the .22-caliber handgun from his grandfather’s hunting camp in Wentworth Location, N.H., a family camp he had visited while growing up.
Jones claims in her lawsuit that Secord should have taken steps to secure his gun when he learned his grandson had returned to the area after being released from prison. She also says he failed to report the theft of the gun promptly.
The door to the camp was locked, and the window broken to gain entry. The gun was hidden, but since the burglar was family, he likely knew where it was hidden. Fortunately, the federal courts don’t seem to be falling for this line of reasoning, despite the fact that, as we well know from our opponents, as a victim she has absolute moral authority.
Gaming the System on Gun Buybacks
We still have some buybacks in the Philadelphia area, but they mostly stopped giving away hard cash. Apparently Chicago hasn’t figured it out, since a pro-gun group managed to fund a summer shooting camp for kids with money they made turning in rusty pieces of junk. It’s already pissing off the right people:
“We host the gun turn-in event on an annual basis to encourage residents to turn in their guns so we can take guns off the street and it’s unfortunate that this group is abusing a program intended to increase the safety of our communities,†said Melissa Stratton, a police spokeswoman.
Just imagine if they took the money they saved off these stupid, feel good programs and actually put the money into traditional policing?
Why is NRA So Powerful?
Slate takes a look. I’m pleased they acknowledge something our opponents have long failed to acknowledge, “For the most part, the NRA’s lobbying arm didn’t gin up the emotional fervor of firearms advocates—it resulted from it.” The gun control crowd has long persisted, in the face of all evidence and reason, that NRA has whipped gun owners into a fury rather than the other way around.