October 2013 – Page 3 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Now With “More Me”

In the mailbox this morning:

Discover the IMPROVED INQUIRER!Â If you haven’t seen The Inquirer in a while, it’s time to look again. Because there’s a better Inquirer, and improved Inquirer, now with MORE YOU.

There’s already enough of me, I think. In fact, there could stand to be about 50 pounds less of me. I don’t want more me in my newspaper, but I’d really like one that presents local news in a balanced fashion, and isn’t just a mouthpiece for the establishment left. So until they apologize for that, instead of saying “MORE YOU,” I’ll continue monitoring other sources.

Seriously, that has to be the dumbest marketing campaign I’ve ever seen. I hope they didn’t pay too much for someone to come up with the MORE YOU campaign. If so, I’d want my money back.

Second Amendment Foundation Filing for Writ of Mandamus

I’ve always thought Writ of Mandamus sounded vaguely like the title of a Wagnerian Opera, but it’s essentially an order from a superior court to an inferior court to do something. The case is Palmer v. DC, and it’s a carry case.

[A] case challenging the carry licensing in the District of Columbia. Though DC may license the manner of carry, DCÂ must allowÂ law abiding residents to carry a handgun in public for self defense.

According to the SAF press release:

“We realize this is a difficult step to take,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “but this case has been languishing for 1,475 days, and counting since it was ready for decision. In our case in Moore v. Madigan, challenging the carry ban in Illinois, the trial court took 172 days to rule, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals took 202 days to issue its ruling on the appeal. We have been waiting well over four years for a decision in the Palmer case, which was filed in August 2009, and waiting four more is not an option.”

This would work toward getting us back to a situation where there is a prohibition on carry before the Court, similar to the situation in the 7th circuit, which resulted in a victory. It’s possible that the court doesn’t want to deal with may-issue v. shall-issue, but would rather have a case that involves prohibition. There was an opportunity for that with Illinois’ total prohibition, but the win in Shepherd/Moore at the Circuit Court of Appeals, and Illinois subsequent capitulation, took that off the table for reaching the Supreme Court.

Is This What Gun Control Advocates Want?

This is what gun control means, at the end of the day, and all over a single empty shell casing:

Police based their search on a charge made byÂ Mr. Witaschekâ€™s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.

After entering the house, theÂ policeÂ immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads ofÂ Mr. WitaschekÂ and his girlfriend,Â Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed.

In recalling what followed,Â Mr. WitaschekÂ became visibly emotional in describing how theÂ policeÂ treated him,Â Ms. HarrisÂ and the four children in the house.

His 16-year-old son was in the shower when theÂ policeÂ arrived. â€œThey used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked,â€ said his father. â€œTheÂ policeÂ put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening.â€

This is what gun control means. It means guns being pointed at you and your family. It means sixteen year olds being dragged out of the shower naked because their father is in unlawful possession of a hunk of inert brass.

And for the gun control folks out there, and I know you guys lurk, I actually want to see you justify this. Tell me, is how we should treat citizens in a free society? Do we need to call out the gestapo over brass and a forgotten dud shotgun round? Because this is what you advocate, and you should face the ugliness of the reality you advocate, rather than to only revel in the idealistic fantasies you invent to justify it all.

New Ruling in Pennsylvania on Reciprocity and Second Amendment

In Pennsylvania Superior Court, the case is Commonwealth v. McKown. The court rules that Pennsylvania residents are required to have a license to carry issued by Pennsylvania, and that residents cannot lawfully carry on licenses issued by foreign jurisdictions, even if reciprocity exists.Â What’s the court’s reasoning? Because the law says anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm must apply to his or her sheriff (or Chief of Police for Philadelphia) for a license, which implies that the legislature intended Pennsylvania residents to have Pennsylvania license. This means if you’re a Pennsylvania resident, and are carrying on the license of another state, you are breaking the law.Â This is a very odd reading of the statute in question, and took quite a stretch, I think, for the court to reach. And if that’s not enough, the “constitutional and criminal law frontiersman” raised Second Amendment claims too.

We point out that neither the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor the Pennsylvania Constitution, bestows on any person the right to carry a concealed firearm or transport a loaded firearm in a vehicle. As noted above, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute, and governmental restrictions on possession of firearms are permitted. Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-627. Here, the statute in question, 18 Pa.C.S.A. Â§ 6106, while falling within the scope of the Second Amendment, merely restrictsÂ hidden guns and the transport of loaded guns by those persons who do not have a license. We discern no error in the trial courtâ€™s conclusion that, under intermediate scrutiny, section 6106 does not violate the Second Amendment or the Pennsylvania Constitution …

… Pursuant to these police powers, we conclude that 18 Pa.C.S.A. Â§ 6106 serves to protect the public from persons who would carry concealed firearms for unlawful purposes. This is an important governmental interest, and section 6106 is substantially related to the achievement of that objective. Thus, we discern no error in the trial courtâ€™s conclusion that section 6106 does not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Well, glad to see that went over so well. But wait, we’re not done yet. He also raised the claim that the Sheriff abused his discretion under the character and reputation law:

Sheriff Nau explained Appellantâ€™s license had been revoked after he struck a person while highly intoxicated. N.T., Sentencing, 9/1/11, at 40. Sheriff Nau also testified that, had Appellant applied to have his license reinstated, he (Sheriff Nau) would have denied the request. Id. at 41. Despite Appellantâ€™s letters in support of his good reputation, we discern no error in the trial courtâ€™s conclusion that, based on Appellantâ€™s prior behavior and the testimony of Sheriff Nau, Appellant was not otherwise eligible for a license. Thus, there was no error in the grading of the charge.

So basically the eligibility protection to avoid sentencing enhancement is meaningless if the Sheriff can provide testimony he would have denied your application had you applied. Thanks to this “constitutional and criminal law frontiersman,” the rest of us get to enjoy the train wreck he just created. This train wreck is also brought to you by the Allegheny County Republican Party, who floated the judge who wrote this opinion. She’s not up for recall until 2017 too. The concurring judge is filling in a vacancy, but is a Philadelphia Republican as well. Also, I’d note that you know things are going to go pear shaped when a Court feels the need to say something like this in a footnote:

1 We note with displeasure that Appellantâ€™s brief contains single-spaced text in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 124(a)(3). The trial court cautioned Appellant on this failure as well, and it admonished counsel to double space the text in hisÂ filings. Commonwealth v. McKown, 9 Pa. D. & C. 5th 183 (C.P. CentreÂ 2009).

But he’s a frontiersman! Folks, if you’re going to challenge laws, hire a competent attorney. The rest of us have to live with the decisions of judges when you challenge the law without a workable plan and without the necessary skills, so please, don’t do it.

It’s Working in Illinois

Our voices are being heard.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to impose mandatory minimum sentences for illegal gun possession was pulled from a House panel’s agenda Tuesday for further negotiations after it faced almost certain rejection from state lawmakers.

The Chicago Police chief makes an appeal to prosecutorial discretion, “contending that prosecutors would have discretion on the charges they level,”Â when faced with pushback about otherwise law abiding people getting ensnared by Rahm and Bloomberg’s trap. Don’t ever believe that. If there’s one thing we know it’s that prosecutors only discretion is whether they think they have a chance at a conviction, and when it comes to guns in Chicago, it’ll be the law abiding who end up with the book thrown at them, because they don’t have anything else to bargain away.

Increase Cost of Carry Permits

Luzerne County Councilman Rick Morelli wants to raise the concealed carry permit to $150 dollars in order to close a budget gap. This is why the law does not give counties the power to set the fee. If they actually go through with this, they need to be sued. You’ll also love this gem:

“Please note I very much support the second amendment where people have the right to keep and bear arms from impingement,” he wrote. “I also believe that we need tougher gun control laws. Since owning a fire arm (sic) is a privilege, I believe the people who want a permit will pay for it even at a higher rate.”

You support the Second Amendment, but owning a firearm os a privilege? It’s like they are parrots who just mimic the words and have no idea what they are saying. The really sad part is that, as best as I’ve been able to tell, Councilman Morelli’s views on the Second Amendment have the full support of our nation’s court system.

Big Anti-Gun Money in Virginia

I already saw comments and photos from friends in Northern Virginia that the Gabby Giffords PAC has spent lots of money on a constant stream of campaign mailers that practically accuse gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli of wanting to give away free guns to babies, terrorists, and domestic abusers.

Then word broke yesterday that Michael Bloomberg is dropping another $1.1 million in advertising into the state in just the final two weeks of the race. Politico notes that if Terry McAuliffe wins, he is a guarantee to be a very big Bloomberg ally on gun control.

They will always try to outspend us, and with someone like Bloomberg behind them, it will sometimes work. Fortunately, Colorado showed that sometimes we can also counter their big money by motivating voters in a big way. In fact, I would argue that the Colorado losses and the continued threat of more recalls there is why the gun control groups are going so big into the Virginia governor’s race. They can’t afford to lose something so high profile in another purple state, and they know it. Unfortunately, the polls look like they just might get that win they so desperately need to remain relevant unless Virginia voters really step up and turn out.

California Court of Appeals Rejects Assault Weapon Challenge

The decision is here. It’s important to note that this is a California state court and not federal court, but since the McDonald decision, the Second Amendment is applicable to the states and state courts are bound to consider it. Well, consider it the California Appeals court did, and decided the right was essentially meaningless, and because an AK-47 is at least as dangerous as a short barreled shotgun, it could be banned, since Heller agreed short barreled shotguns could be banned. Dave Hardy notes:

The inclination of the court is obvious. The situation probably indicates how essential it is to “develop a record” at the trial level. What proportion of firearms are “assault weapons”? One of the answers is that over 20% of current rifle production is by manufacturers who make nothing but AR-platform rifles.

Trial courts are finders of fact, so having trial evidence that these are, in fact, weapons in common use and not unusual (I’d note that Heller says dangerous and unusual, not dangerous or unusual), could help on appeal. I also don’t think one can single out a single model of firearm. I could find plenty of handguns by model or description that are unusual, but few would argue ought to be banned because they fit inside a broader type of gun that’s common. I think you have to consider firearms by functional class, in other words, can you ban or restrict semi-automatic rifles? Bolt action rifles? Lever action? Machine guns? Not by singling out a single model by name, or some obscure feature that doesn’t have any real bearing on how people normally classify firearms.

But then again, I don’t really think the courts give a crap, to be honest. I’ve gotten little indication that most state and lower federal courts, and even most federal circuit court show much interest in seriously evaluating the current state of the law, and making an honest attempt to construct a meaningful right.

A Woodpecker Control Bleg

I’ve had a female Downy Woodpecker whose taking a liking to the Type 111 siding on my house, like she has a calendar that says “From 11AM to 2PM: Go Peck on That Dude’s House.” Since it’s not the right season for woodpeckers to be drumming, and since female woodpeckers don’t do that anyway, my first belief was that I had wood boring insects. A quick romp around the attic with a flashlight and a knife showed no sign of insect infestation in the studs or siding. Whew.

I came across research that showed woodpeckers like Type 111 siding painted in earthy colors. There are insects that like to lay eggs in the channels, which the woodpeckers eat, and then peck around at other parts of the hollow sounding siding to see what else they can find. She doesn’t seem to be boring, as if to make a nesting site. She’s chipped away not very deep in a few areas. It could also be that she just like the sound my house makes when she pecks on it.

Now, if I lived in the middle of nowhere, this would be a prime opportunity to practice the three S’s, but I’m not living in an area where that can exactly be done discretely, and I’m concerned that she’s pecking pretty high up on the house, and a miss with an air gun could damage the flashing or overhang on the roof. So I’m stuck with other forms of control. She didn’t seem too impressed with me chasing her off with a super soaker. She’d leave for a while then come back pecking just as before. I thought about an airsoft gun, but I’m concerned that would maim the bird, and I don’t think that would be very humane.

The only solution I could come with is appeasement. If she’s hungry, she can have her fill of suet, rather than peck at my house.

BirdFeeder

What other control techniques have people found effective for dealing with woodpeckers, short of lethal means or trapping? So far she hasn’t done very serious damage to the siding, but it’s bad enough I’m going to do some puttying and repainting up there once I’ve been rid of her.

Interpol Secretary General Says We Need to Talk about Armed Citizens

The current Interpol Secretary General, the first American to hold the post, says that after the Westgate Mall act of terror, it’s time to start having a serious conversation on the value of armed citizens. He basically highlights that to minimize the risk of these kinds of attacks, we can go to a police state where you need exceptional security to go into any building or there’s the option of an armed populace:

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

He notes that these terrorists didn’t go to a place like Texas to find victims. They went to a place where citizens are largely unarmed.

Looking up his story, this is a complete break from so many things you would expect about a man with his background. He was born in New Jersey and went to New England for college. He’s a tenured professor, and he served in the Clinton Administration as Undersecretary for Enforcement at the Department of the Treasury. That means he was also involved in the “review” of ATF’s actions at Waco. He has previously been so well liked by his colleagues in the international law enforcement world that his last two elections as Secretary General have been supported unanimously.