2014 – Page 38 – Shall Not Be Questioned

CeaseFirePA Digging in My Backyard

I know I have some local folks who are readers, so I just want them to be aware that the Bloomberg funded group,Â CeaseFirePA, is planning a rally outside the local district office of Frank Farry, one of our NRA endorsed State Reps in Bucks County. They in particular are incredulous that he is supporting eliminating PICS and relying on the federal NICS system.

If you are in the area, please see if you can stop by his district office today at 4PM. His office is atÂ 370 E Maple Ave, Langhorne PA. I appreciate anyone who can come and showÂ their support, especially on such short notice.

FOAC/CGOPA are asking people not to OC long guns, which I think is a wise decision. We need to show CeaseFirePA, and more importantly Rep. Farry, that they can’t outmuscle us.

NJ Smart Gun Law of Unintended Consequences

New Jersey lawmakers are offering to repeal their smart gun law if “the NRA agrees to stop standing in the way of smart gun technology.”Â John Richardson notes they misunderstand the nature of this movement, and I think he’s correct, but the fact is that opposition to this technology has only become fierce because lawmakers have chosen to mandate it. Lawmakers in New Jersey should repeal the law because it’s the right thing to do, not because we agree to any “deal.”

Now that we know lawmakers are eager to mandate the technology, they have forever soiled the idea. How do we know as soon as the technology becomes “available,” and the community doesn’t pound them, that New Jersey, California, or any of the other states with legislatures innately hostile to Second Amendment rights, won’t just re-manadate them with new legislation?

Forbes’s cyber-security writer ran a very good article over the weekend describing the inherent problems with Smart Gun technology. I am an electrical engineer by training, and I can confidently say that with current technology, it would be impossible to make a smart gun that would be even close to the reliability of a mechanical firearm. Armatix’s solution, or similar solution, is probably the most reliable, but it requires a watch, ring, or implant or some sort, and would also be very susceptible to jamming. There’s also the political problem, brought up in the Forbes article:

AsÂ I described in another previous article, smartguns may be susceptible to government tracking or jamming. How hard would it be for the government to require manufacturers to surreptitiously include in computer-enhanced weapons some circuitry that would allow law enforcement to track â€“ or even to disable â€“ the weapons? Before dismissing such a fear as silly paranoia, consider that the US government is alleged to have secretly installed malware onto thousands of networks and placed spy chips into computers, it has admitted to spying on its own citizens, is believed to have prohibited technology companies from divulging its spying on US citizens, and is known to have lost track of weapons whose locations it intended to monitor. Should private citizens really be confident that such a government will not want to keep tabs on their guns?

How long before Smart Gun technology is introduced, will it not only be mandated, but the next “common senseÂ gun safety law”Â is to allow a means for government or law enforcement to disable them at a whim? How long before the smart technology mandates that it broadcast its presence so police know when approaching someone whether they are armed? This is all just “common sense.”

Sorry, but the subject has been ruined because we know what the end game is. It would be smart of us to keep fighting smart gun technology, now that they’ve revealed they have a desire to mandate it. Regardless of what kind of deal New Jersey legislators think they can cut now, they’ve forever ruined whatever trustÂ might have existed within the firearm community. Smart guns are now viewed as a bad thing, and nothing will be able to undo the damage done by anti-gun activists and legislators who gave us a reason to kill this technology in its infancy.

Drake Denied

This morning, the Supreme Court denied cert in Drake. This is a little speculation on the case from SCOTUS Blog:

The denial of Drake was without explanation or noted dissents. That does not mean that no one voted for cert; probably that those who wanted to grant, if there were any, were unsure about prevailing on the merits. The list of denial of 2d Amendment outside-the-home cases is lengthening. It is unclear what kind of case on that subject will attract the Court’s attention.

ATF 41P on NFA Trusts Moved Beyond Election

Dave Hardy is reporting a decision is being pushed off until 2015. I tend to think nervous Democrats are, well, nervous about doing this so close to an election year. ATF will also no doubt want to be sure all its Is are dotted and Ts crossed, because they are nearly certain to face lawsuits over whatever is decided. I don’t think this represents a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Administration for getting this rule in place. Getting paybacks against those who oppose him is important, after all. But it does represent the reality that they know they can’t just throw caution to the wind. Any other issue would have been steamrolled already.

Friday Mini-Links

This weekend there are a few posts I want to do about the Annual Meeting, so things won’t be so dead around here. Today is always difficult though, because it’s my office day, and when most of our meetings happen. But here are some mini links. The links are not small, but there’s not as many of them:

Looks like the Armatix Smart Gun almost got another vendor, but backed down after a backlash. It would mean the death of Second Amendment rights for everyone in New Jersey. The only problem I have with Smart Gun technology is that our opponents mean to mandate it, rather than letting the market decide.

The limited Constitutional Carry bill is dead in Florida. It’s hard to pass, especially in big states with politically diverse populations.

Polling shows Vermonters want stricter gun laws. Vermont has practically zero crime. This is a solution in search of a problem, but the default position of many people is that there has to be controls.

The ultimate M-11 conversion!

I thank the other side for this tool, which lets you know whether your 401K investments have made the wise decision to invest in gun companies. I want my investments making decisions based on their return, not based on PC garbage.

Some movement in Peruta.

The Second Amendment in South Africa.

Tom Ridge may have quit Bloomberg’s group, but he’s still no friend.

John Richardson paid a visit to the H-S Precision booth.

New Attempts to Divide & Conquer

It looks like Mother Jones is investing in a strategy of trying to convince hunters that NRA doesn’t represent them because of one bill that appears to have covered many national land access issues. And, since those access issues might possibly be used by energy companies and some guys who own energy companies in Texas happen to like guns and donate to NRA, CLEARLY the evidence is overwhelming that NRA hates hunters…or something. (Heavy sarcasm in that summary if you couldn’t tell.)

This is a pretty hard sell to make considering that 3/4 of NRA members report that they are hunters, according to NRA President Jim Porter’s report at the recent board meeting. In fact, the organization launched a Hunter Leadership Forum event at this year’s annual meeting that raised more than $2 million for hunting programs at NRA.

So, I would say that the evidence shows NRA is quite connected to the hunting community. Will there be times that legislation is more complex and touches on issues that non-hunting access? Yes. But that doesn’t mean that NRA is “turning…against hunters.” It is also just a bit of a stretch to argue that because NRA accepts some donations from Texas families who own guns and hunt that happen to be in the energy sector that they are now energy industry lobbyists because of one or two bills. This looks like an attempt to try and see if they can pull some of those hunting supporters away from the organization since hunters are clearly such a huge part of the NRA “family.”

Preemptive Surrender is Never a Good Strategy

I really wish Alan Gottlieb would stop engaging in preemptive surrender on the background check issue:

From Gottliebâ€™s perspective, the Manchin-Toomey Amendment â€” which contained several pro-gun measures, including an outright ban on a national gun registry and background check exemptions for friends, neighbors, family members â€” was certainly the lesser of two evils, i.e. a compromised bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), both A-rated NRA members, versus one written solely by the Schumer, Feinstein and other staunch pro-gun control supporters.

No it was not. The problem with Manchin-Toomey was several fold. First, it wasn’t very clear when you would or would not be subject to the background check requirements. Second, none of the measures, including the ban on the national registry, were worth spit. Who’s going to enforce it? Is Eric Holder going to prosecute himself for violating the prohibition? Some of the things offered up to us, like the FOPA travel enhancement would have actually stripped the FOPA travel provision entirely. Manchin-Toomey was a farce of a deal, which is why it needed to be killed.

Every time I think it’s time to forgive SAF, because I really do believe they are doing good work for the issue in the Courts, Alan Gottlieb opens his mouth again about Manchin-Toomey and I get pissed off all over again. This kind of thing doesn’t help, and it’s going to give the other side cover to shove something down our throats. Why do we want to bring this issue up again anyway? We won, they lost. If the momentum suddenly shifts, then we can assess the situation at the time. After all, there looked to me like there was a “break glass” provision in all this mess that no one paid attention to. So I think some people, at least, were thinking ahead. By offering to preemptively concede ground, the next time we’re in a tight spot, they are going to want ground we’re not willing to concede. It only puts us in a worse negotiation position.

Andrew Branca’s Presentation to Law Seminar

The audio isn’t all that great, but here’s defense attorney Andrew Branca’s presentation at the 2014 Firearms Law Seminar for anyone interested:

You can read about his appearance over at Legal Insurrection, as well as see his Hitler parody. Also note that he has a book out on self-defense.

Another “Castle Doctrine” Case That Isn’t

If there’s anything that the European media likes to do, it’s make Americans look like violent whack jobs with our crazy gun laws. Such is the case with a German student killed in what the BBC is calling a castle doctrine case:

Mr Kaarma, a 29-year-old firefighter, has told investigators his home had twice been hit by burglars, and he told a hair stylist he had waited up at night to shoot intruders, prosecutors said.

On the night of the shooting, Mr Kaarma and his partner Janelle Pflager left their garage door open, and Ms Pflager left her purse in the garage in order to bait intruders, she told police.

They set up motion sensors and a video monitor, prosecutors said.

When the sensors went off just after midnight and they saw a man on the monitor screen, Mr Kaarma went outside and fired a shotgun into the garage without warning several times.

The law in Montana still requires that you be in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury. “Castle doctrine,” simply means that you have no duty to retreat from your home. In most states, there’s either a statutory or common law presumption that someone unlawfully entering your home amounts to that reasonable fear. But setting up in ambush? That looks an awful lot like this case to me. I think prosecutors in this case probably feel the same way, or they wouldn’t have charged him. So this is another incident that really is not a “castle doctrine” case. This is going to hinge on whether or not the homeowner was in reasonable fear of life and limb, which given the circumstances, it seems pretty obvious he was not, and his planning the ambush establishes a very different frame of mind than the one required to claim self-defense.

This is a pretty run-of-the-mill murder case where the defendant is claiming self-defense. It’s baffling to me the media’s reaction. How do they handle self-defense claims in Europe? Do they just give them a “go straight to jail” card if a homeowner shoots an intruder? No trial? Are people not permitted to defend themselves against murder charges in Europe?

Women & Camaraderie in the NRA

Here are two of my favorite press highlights from the NRA Annual Meeting.

One paper discovers that there are (gasp!) women on the floor of the convention just as into firearms and self-defense as men. This year’s event was definitely one of the most diverse events ever, and one way that was reflected was in gender. I also can’t tell you how many strollers I had to navigate around in Indy. It was a good thing the convention hall had such wide aisles.

In this story, NPR discovers that NRA members are both human and reasonably social creatures who have friends and family who often enjoy similar pastimes.