April 2014 – Page 8 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Malloy to NRA: Support Obamacare!

Governor Malloy of Connecticut is such a tool:

“There are those who will say this is not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem, and today I want to challenge that,” he said. “If it’s a mental-health problem, NRA, why aren’t you advocating for the ACA? Why aren’t you criticizing governors who will not allow Medicaid to be delivered to their citizens, with its mental-health component? NRA, if you’re serious about making America safer, you would join Connecticut, as we have had one of the most successful rollouts of the ACA, bringing mental-health treatment to tens of thousands of people who might not otherwise haveÂ it.”

NRA’s single issue only intersects mental health when it comes to prohibition for gun ownership. There are other groups out there that advocate for mental health generally, and that is not, nor should it be the National Rifle Association. Also, and Malloy knows this, the issue is adjudication which is almost always a state, rather than a federal matter, and this problem is not really one that can be solved at the federal level.

I’d love to be able to serve Malloy’s political career up on a platter at the next election, but I’m concerned that Connecticut has become one of those states where Democrats could hold rallies at the Capitol where they’d strangle live puppies and still would get re-elected.

ATF 51P, Definition of Adjudicated, Deadline Tonight

I meant to get this out last week, but things were entirely too busy, so I’ll have to get it out now, with less analysis than I’d like, so people have a chance to make it in before the midnight deadline. ATF is proposing to alter the definition of what counts for the purposes of being adjudicated “mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.” This has special concern for Pennsylvania gun owners, given ATF has begun counting 302 commitments for the purposes of such adjudication. The 302 commitment has absolutely no due process requirements at all. All it takes is basically a cop and the attending physician at the loony bin and you’ve got yourself a 302 prohibition both at the state and federal level.

I’d encourage folks to read Attorney Josh Prince’s submission regarding ATF 51P:

While the comment period closes on Monday, April 7, 2014, at midnight, we are requesting that our readers review our Comment, which can be downloadedhere, and submit Comments in support, especially in relation to 1) excluding those individuals, who where committed under the age of 18 from the purview of Section 922(g)(4); 2). excluding those individuals, who, post-commitment, served the state or federal government in a capacity where they were provided a firearm; 3). excluding those individuals, who, post-commitment, obtained Federal Explosives Relief; and 4). excluding any commitment that lack all of the due process guarantees. You can find our arguments relating to these issues and others in Section V (pg 34) of our Comment.

I’d also remind folks that this isn’t about whether or not mental health prohibitions should apply at all, that’s an argument that has to be made to Congress and not ATF, but we want ATF to interpret Section 922(g)(4) in a manner that’s respectful of due process and doesn’t strip the rights of Americans who present no danger to themselves or others.

Another Philadelphia-Area Anti-Gun Legal Seminar

This one was a few weeks ago at my alma mater, featuring John Culhane, Professor of Law and Director of the Health and Law Institute at Widener University School of Law. I had worried about Drexel starting a law school and buying a medical school. Such things inevitably brings politics on campus. When I went back in the early-to-mid 90s, it was mostly an engineering school. Most of us didn’t have the time to join the PC brigade, or engage in other perpetual outrages. That was for Penn students.

I thought I had remembered Professor Culhane from somewhere, and I managed to dig up exactly where I heard of him. He’s been peddling the idea that we can just tax those evil gun manufactures and make them pay:

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

I’d say he gets an A for creativity, but this isn’t a new idea. It’s also likely unconstitutional. The courts have generally looked down upon taxing schemes designed to create a burden on the exercise of a right. (See Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, pg.1542-1544). Â It was unfortunate I was not able to attend, because it would have been fun to throw some abortion rights cases at him, which used substantial burden analysis, and argue that his proposal is akin to what right-to-life groups have tried to impose on abortion, in terms of raising its costs.

Virginia’s Democratic Candidate Attacks on Gun Owners

In case Virginia gun owners didn’t get the loud and clear message from their governor using his first veto to target gun law clarifications, the Democratic candidate for the 7th District would like to speak his mind a little more bluntly:

Members of the @NRA have very low IQs. They have a trigger finger mentality.

— DickinsonForCongress (@VoteMike2014) April 5, 2014

The Virginia Shooting Sports Association has more from this guy – much more – that’s worth a read. Since he states clearly in other tweets that he doesn’t want any support from gun owners, I hope that the district’s gun owners will honor his wishes.

“50 Lady Sharpshooters at Your Disposal”

This is kind of awesome. It’s a letter from Annie Oakley to President William McKinley in 1898 offering the services of American women sharpshooters who could provide their own arms and ammunition to assist the US should war break out.

Letter from Annie Oakley to President McKinley, 1898

I saw this on the National Archives Tumbler which does a pretty good job of not only digitizing these holdings, but trying to share some of the interesting finds that Americans might enjoy seeing.

Otis McDonald Passes

He was a civil rights pioneer by being willing to be a face for the individual right to bear arms in a major Supreme Court case, so it is with a sad heart that I see Otis McDonald passed away at the age of 79.

Sebastian & I were fortunate to meet him and enjoy dinner with him, his wife, and many others involved in the landmark case the night before it was heard in the Supreme Court. I know that many who were close to him could use our thoughts and prayers.

CT Gun Control Groups Jump into Elections

It looks like Connecticut gun control groups are worried that enough gun owners may have been pissed off by their legislative package that they fear blowback at the polls. To try and keep that from happening, they are launching a new political action committee with the blessing of the Governor to back anti-gun lawmakers. They claim they spend most of their money on billboards and social media advertising.

To counter this, I would strongly suggest that CT gun owners, and any others who want to help them in their fight, open their wallets to the good opponents to make sure those candidates have the resources to buy up their own targeted messaging. Locally, gun owners also need to get involved in the campaigns in a big way. If you’re not the most social of folks, volunteer to put some signs together and deliver them to areas where they need them. If you’ve got a property along a very busy street, offer to put up the really big signs for candidates. If you’re the outgoing type, make some phone calls or do literature drops. These things will go farther than a social media ad.

More Stalling in the Pennsylvania Legislature

Dear Pennsylvania GOP,

You know what you need to do this year? Motivate some voters. One way to motivate some pro-gun voters is to get moving on preemption legislation that you guys have been ignoring in various forms through the last four year instead of recessing to enjoy spring weather.

Of course, you’ll need more than just pro-gun voters to help save your party’s most visible candidates this year. The completely lack of ability to move any real reforms on ridiculously popular issues like liquor privatization have turned quite a few voters off since it’s clear that a vote for some of your candidates isn’t a vote for any kind of change at all. Regardless, you need all the friends you can get this year.

Sincerely,

Bitter

******

Dear Pennsylvania Democrats,

You know what some of your moderates may need this year in tough districts? Votes to show they aren’t totally associated with the complete disaster the national party seems to want to bring down on candidates who aren’t running in solid blue districts full of rabidly liberal voters. You know an issue that can help with that? Gun rights. One thing you might want to encourage from some of your more moderate Democrats is to publicly push for the House leadership get moving on preemption legislation, but without the 124 amendments filed.

Now, because the national party has done a really good job at pissing off lots of people across the country, I can’t promise this vote will save you if you’re being challenged by a credible opponent. But, it certainly will help cement your NRA grade while the other guy has to run on a questionnaire only rating.

Sincerely,

Bitter

******

Dear Pennsylvania Gun Owners,

Have you called your state representatives yet to ask them why they aren’t moving this bill?

Sincerely,

Bitter

No Federal Gun Control Push in the Senate

Not surprisingly, Harry Reid is reassuring red state Democrats that he is unwilling to continue sacrificing the future of his political power – and their Senate seats – by bringing gun control to the front page and the Senate floor in 2014.

I’m pretty sure the only people who are surprised by this are the Moms who believed him when he promised a big gun control vote right before the mid-terms last year. Anyone who seriously follows politics would have known that was a lie.

Are Protests Getting out of Hand?

That’s the question Jeff SoyerÂ asks, in regards to NYSRPA bailing out of the repeated protests at the State Capitol. I’ve been thinking about how to approach this topic, because I don’t really have any fundamental beef where NYSRPA thinks their focus ought to be, and I tend to agree with the notion that protests are among the less effective methods of activism out there unless it’s used very judiciously. It certainly has its place, but endless protesting and rallying just squanders grassroots energy and conditions both lawmakers and the public to ignore it. At some point, we have to be heard at the polls.

Let me quote from Tom’s comments:

There have been many studies and surveys done regarding the population demographics of the people of this country and state our research tells us New York State is divided in this manner (Numbers rounded): Rabidly Anti-Gun 22% Somewhere in between 46% Avidly Pro Gun 32%

Fellow gun owners I submit this to you for your consideration. We will never convert the 22% rabid anti-gunners, we donâ€™t have to convert the 32% avid pro gunners but we must convert a sizable portion of the 46% of those somewhere in between if we want to retain our 2nd Amendment Rights long term. These are the soccer moms, the guys who say Iâ€™ve never shot a gun but would like to try it and the people worried about their safety. How do we do that? Not by standing on stage screaming obscenities at Cuomo and certainly at large rallies where people stand on stage, pound their chest and tell the attendees to prepare for war. That frightens the very people we want to attract to our side, the people who will insure 2nd Amendment Rights for our grandchildren.

I’ve said before that what we need to buy acquiescence from that 46% more than anything, but that’s conditioned on there being a generally favorable environment for our issue. There can present circumstances where acquiescence is not enough. Where the political elites and politicians are actively hostile, you can buy all the acquiescence in the world and it won’t amount to a hill of beans. If the great middle are not willing vote gun rights, it doesn’t matter if you convince them that the SAFE act was unconstitutional, unfair, and useless. If they then go ahead and vote for Cuomo again, you haven’t gained anything. You have to not only win that 46% over, but win them over enough to convince them to vote against the people who did this to you.

Or, you can depend on the Courts to save you. While I wish the Federal Court case against the SAFE Act all the luck in the world, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has demonstrated nothing but unusual hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms. Beyond the Second Circuit, I’m not convinced the Supreme Court is in a position to help us out any further on gun rights. I’ve love to be wrong, but I’m not optimistic.

I believe bringing the rogue states back to America will necessarily involve federal preemption, but I can’t promise that will work. Even if it does work, it involves a years long wait for the Obama Administration to end, and then some time to push a hopefully Republican President and Congress to act. You could easily be looking at “Second Amendment Restoration Act of 2018” or maybe even 2022, to be more realistic. And that’s making a lot of optimistic assumptions.

In the mean time, I can understand why Tom might believe his organization is better off playing good cop to other groups’ bad cop, and he’s probably right about that, given areas they have chosen to lobby and litigate. But until the calvary actually appears from over the hill, New York gun owners are surrounded. Their backs are against the wall, and many of them have been rendered felons for refusing to take part in Cuomo’s utopian daydreams. While in ordinary times, I’d quickly agree that overheated rhetoric helps nothing, but what of difficult times? During difficult times I think it’s necessary, as Thomas Jefferson said, to remind officials that the people still possess “the spirit of resistance to government.” We are a people who threw off our previous form of government because its previous officials conspired to disarm us. Today’s officials would do well to remember that, so I’m not going to suggest anyone is in the wrong for reminding them.