2013 – Page 12 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Tiring of Piers Morgan

It turns out that people who aren’t fans of guns are even getting tired of Piers Morgan’s gun control tirades. The New Republic does an entire piece on what a fake he is on this issue and how he’s trying to re-write his history when he really didn’t care about such topics. Piling on, the reporter also adds a compilation of the five most obnoxious moments on the Piers Morgan show of the last year.

I think his ratings show that others in the media aren’t the only ones tiring of his antics. I’m amazed that CNN has allowed him to keep dragging their brand down as long as they have.

Posturing for 2014

Democratic Senate leaders are doing their level best at making the people lobbying for Brady feel better about the current state of things, by telling them that the issue isn’t dead. It’s just a matter of getting the House to pass it first.

“I believe if the bill were taken up in the House that it would pass. And when it passes the House, some senators â€¦ would no longer have the excuse, ‘It’s no use my risking my political career because it’s not going anyplace in the House,'” Pelosi said. “Let’s turn that around, pass it in the House and just put the pressure on to take up the bill. Why not?”

This is just posturing for the base ahead of the 2014 election. Holding out the possibility that a fresh tragedy can always alter our position relative to our opponents, I doubt there is going to be much enthusiasm to take up the issue again in the Senate, and the House isn’t likely to bother with it, but it does have an uncomfortable number of co-sponsors.

The Thompson-King bill has 185 co-sponsors, including three Republicans, but Pelosi said there are “at least 30 more” House lawmakers who would support the measure if it came up for a vote.

BTW, the two Republicans who signed onto Thompson-King, the House version of the Manchin-Toomey senate bill, are my Rep, Mike Fitzpatrick, and PA-7’s rep Pat Meehan. Both had NRA endorsements. We’ll see whether or not they keep them.

The More They Say It, The More it’s True

The LA Times is trying to shame Governor Brown for vetoing a bill that would have banned all semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine. Let that sink in real good. The anti-gun media and activists (which is to repeat myself) believe it’s just fine to ban just about all semi-automatic rifles. And are willing to shame politicians who don’t agree. But remember, they are just after common-sense gun laws.

Because of Brown’s veto, these especially lethal firearms are still available for purchase in California. And they’ll continue to be used by wackos in horrific shootings.

Because surely, there has never been a deadly shooting that didn’t involve semi-automatic firearms. And the media will still refuse to accept their role in making these weapons “the weapons of choice for mass killers.” The fact is that the media constantly parroting this nonsense makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. But perhaps that helps, rather than hinders, the cause for which they agitate for.

Connecticut Law Review: Firearms Issue

I’ve had this in my tabs for a while now, meaning to get around to highlighting some of the article int his issue. Unfortunately, I’ve been a bit too busy to get around to it, but there is some excellent stuff in here. I’ve read drafts of Nick Johnson’s “Firearms Policy and the Black Community: An Assessment of the Modern Orthodoxy,” and would highly recommend it. I plan to get around to highlighting these articles eventually, but I wanted to offer an opportunity to anyone who might want to get a head start on me. I probably won’t have a whole lot of time until the holidays.

A War Against Self-Defense by the Left?

I’m not sure that this is really any kind of lefty conspiracy, so much as a lesson that grieving loved ones really should not form the basis of a public policy discussion. The topic of the article is the recent spate of stories involving self-defense shootings, where the families demand the person defending themselves be prosecuted for doing so.

This is a predictable outcome of the Zimmerman case. Grieving families will seldom want to accept that their loved one might have been engaging in predatory criminal activity which has a high likelihood of placing one on the receiving end of a justifiable homicide. The Zimmerman case playbook offers an easy means to avoid having to deal with the truth of the situation. What’s concerning is that the media chooses to cover it in a sympathetic light, which will only lead to more of it.

Tuesday News Dump

Sorry for the lack of posting today, but things are going to be exceptionally busy for me into next year, so there will be days when things just don’t get off the ground blog wise. We’ve been finding it challenging to find a contractor to build our rather odd data center who doesn’t want to charge an arm and a leg. Because I’m cheap, I’m doing the plans instead of hiring out for it. The Township wants electrical plans. I don’t know much about making electrical plans, and after reading quite a bit about it, I still don’t know much about it, but I’m giving it a go anyway. Anyway, here is the news:

Looking for gun safe software for Android? Check out Seven Bit Software’s Gun Safe.

The Coalition to ~~Stop Gun Violence~~ Prevent Gun Ownership is now leaning on Visa to stop doing business with NRA. Visa offers and NRA credit card. Visa might get a whole dozen people really pissed off at them if they just ignore them!

A disarmed populace has nothing at all to fear from its government. No, nothing at all.

What a great time for some rifle OC, don’t you agree? I’m sure many people were educated.

The law on machine guns works the same in Pennsylvania as it does in Tennessee. Machine guns are illegal in Pennsylvania, except that it’s a defense to have complied with the provisions of the National Firearms Act. Affirmative defenses don’t necessarily keep you out of jail.

Rampage killings and the media.

This story talks about how Mom’s Demand Action is being dishonest, but more like MDAÂ played the rifle OC people for suckers. When anti-gun folks ask you to pose all scary with your rifles, don’t be a fool. It greatly worries me when I see “our side” being outsmarted by a group I generally think plays the game pretty poorly most of the time.

Prince Law Offices has more information about the 3D printed gun.

The 11 nations of America. I think that’s oversimplified, but interesting, nonetheless.

Did Dick Metcalfe deserve to be fired? I still maintain it’s not what he said, but that how he said it demonstrated a lot of ignorance, and it just so happened to be it’s the same ignorance perpetrated by our opponents in the gun control movement. Yes, the Second Amendment will have limits, like any other right. But Dick played into the notion that it is somehow quaint or different from other rights. That’s exactly what the Brady Center argues.

Philly Looking to Ban 3D Printing of Guns

Perhaps they heard the news that a 3D printed gun was made out of metal, using Selective Laser Sintering. This isÂ an expensive process, outside the where the technology is as far as the hobbyist is concerned, but technology always gets cheaper. Though, Perhaps Philadelphia City Councilmen just sit around thinking of ways to screw the Second Amendment, when they aren’t busy allowing the city to continue to circle the bowl. Regardless of the motivation, Philadelphia City Council is looking to outlaw the 3D printing of guns.

“The prohibition that city ordinances can’t overcome as it relates to state legislation is primarily ownership, transfer of a firearm. This goes to manufacturing,” he said. “We’ve spoken with the Law Department. We believe that if there is a challenge in the court system, it will be something we’ll be able to defeat.”

This is true, but there’s another element of the UFA they are ignoring:

No political subdivision may bring or maintainÂ an action at law or in equity against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement, injunctive relief or any other relief or remedy resulting from or relating to either the lawful design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition or the lawful marketing or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public.

It could be argued that this only means that subdivisions can’t sue manufacturers, but I would argue this is further evidence the state intended to reserve this body of law for the state legislature. Another question is whether a prosecution would be considered an “action at law.”

Regardless, I would not expect this ordinance to necessarily to go down. As we’ve seen, Pennsylvania courts will do what they can to screw gun owners. We’ve seen it with the law against firearms registries that the courts have ruled does not actually prevent the state from running a registry, as long as they call it a record of sale. We’ve seen the courts ignore plain meaning when it comes to reciprocal licenses. So I don’t exactly have great faith the courts will do the right thing here.

New Anti-Gun Veterans Group

Started by Mark Kelly:

“We’re for gun rights,” said James Barnett, a retired rear admiral.

Instead, Veterans for Responsible Solutions wants commonsense actions like universal background checks, Kelly said.

These are background checks an overwhelming majority of Americans have said they support, polls show.

And what happens when we pass these background checks, and the needle on crime rates doesn’t move any? We have “universal background checks” in Pennsylvania for handguns, and that doesn’t exactly stop them from pushing gun control here. Their next big push is going to be to extend that to long guns, despite the fact they are positively rare in crimes. Beyond that, they want to ration how often you can exercise you right, and make it possible for local towns and cities to infringe on it at will.

Exercise Your 2A Rights, Lose Your 4A Rights

So demands a town in Massachusetts. In recent years, it seems like in places where the left runs things, it’s being treated less and less like a right than it was before the Heller and McDonald rulings.

The selectman said state law requires Massachusetts gun owners toÂ keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable.

The problem, he said, is that police do not have the authority, granted byÂ a local ordinance, to enforce the law and inspect the safeguarding of gunsÂ at the homes of the 600 registered gun owners in town.

To channel Glenn Reynolds: tar and feathers. This is police state level stuff. If I lived in this town, I’d already be planning the lawsuit.

UPDATE: More from Days of our Trailers on this topic.

My Response to Dick Metcalfe’s Questions

Bitter has had her say about Dick Metcalfe’s response, and now I’m going to address the questioned he asked for those who disagreed with many aspects of his article.

Difficult as it may be for some to believe, To those who have expressed their vigorous opposition to the content of the December column (and to my continued existence on this planet), I would pose these questions:

1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?

Do I believe the courts will hold them as constitutional? Or do I personally think they are unconstitutional? There are a lot of things I think the courts should do that they won’t, because our courts are often more concerned with not upsetting legislative and precedential apple carts than they are about fealty to the Constitution. My personal belief is that the law as currently structured is unconstitutional, but because it violates 5th or 14th Amendment due process rights rather than violating the Second Amendment directly. Congress and States could pass a prohibition on firearms as part of sentencing for certain crimes. I even think some misdemeanors could come with temporary prohibitions as part of a sentence for a crime. But criminal defendants should know what’s on the line when they accept a plea or go to trial. Retroactively going back and suggesting that anyone convicted of X has now been stripped of their right to bear arms ought to be a violation of their due process rights.

2. Do you also believeÂ allÂ laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?

I believe that fundamental rights should not be subject to licensing by the government. If the courts had real courage they’d toss every single state licensing requirement for ownership or carrying of firearms out the window. But they won’t, because we already lost that battle when the Court discovered marrying was a fundamental right, but nonetheless subject to licensing by the state. I actually think licensing carry is more odious to the Constitution than licensing ownership, because people don’t generally change residences all that often, but I might want to carry in 5 different states in a day under normal and regular circumstances. Nonetheless, I fully expect the courts will endorse licensing of gun ownership and carry. If we’re exceedingly lucky, the courts will rule that state officials can’t exercise much discretion over who gets one. It’ll take less, but still a large amount of luck to get the courts to rule that states can’t require applicants to articulate a justifiable need. Most likely, I think, is the courts will bend over backwards to maintain the status quo in regards to carry laws.

3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?

Yes, because I want to be able to carry, and even if I didn’t, I’d have one anyway because my state makes even unloaded carry of a handgun in a vehicle legally problematic if you don’t. Yes, I’d rather not go to jail.

4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

Who even argues this? I think DUI checkpoints ought to be unconstitutional too, but does that doesn’t mean I’m violating the Constitution every time I decide to pull over one rather than run down the cops, or getting in a high speed chase with them?Â The Constitution is meant to restrain government, not private behavior. If they want to put up hoops between me and my rights, it’s up to me to decide whether or not I want to jump through them. Like Bitter mentioned, I think this hits to the root of what people are upset about. It’s not that he tried to open a discussion, it’s more than he doesn’t even understand the framework through which rights theoretically function. Readers and advertisers of Guns & Ammo have simply decided that this is unacceptable in today’s climate.