2014 – Page 69 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Ghost Guns

Does anyone really believe that someone intent on doing harm with a 3D printed polymer firearm is going to bother to register it with the state? This is like trying to cut down on pot smoking by demanding people register their weed. This technology means the game is up. Just like potheads can grow a few plants in their walk-in-closet with the right equipment, building guns now requires even less. Gun control is obsolete, but these ridiculously clueless people haven’t realized it yet.

h/t to Jacob.

Shooting People a Joking Matter?

Tam takes a look at the Armed Mommy Facebook page, and the controversy it generated in an article at The Wire. Tam notes:

In the end, I’m torn. I’m always glad to see more people taking their Second Amendment rights seriously and getting hip to the idea of taking responsibility for their own safety, but at the same time, I’m vaguely squicked, and I can’t put my finger on exactly why…

RTWT. The first is, I think the issue is that there’s a certain un-seriousness about it, and guns are serious business. Most people who have thought about this stuff tend not to joke about shooting people. The second, I would say, is there’s a certain “way to be the stereotype!” about it. But than again, maybe we ought to be happy that there are women out there falling into the left’s stereotypes about gun owners!

Isn’t all Legislation Morality?

There’s a lot of discussion in the comments from the post the other day on a Virginia lawmaker’s attempt to outlaw oral sex for minors (but not regular sex). I used to be in the “Don’t legislate your morality on me!” camp as well, but the more I’ve thought about it, the less I think there’s any such thing as law that isn’t imposed morality in some way or another, so I no longer find that line of argument all that persuasive.

I also tend to agree with originalist thinking which suggests the Constitution and Bill of Rights was never understood to be any barrier to laws that today are generally regarded as being unconstitutional. This is evidence by theÂ numberÂ ofÂ statesÂ who had laws barring such practices, and evenÂ going so far as to establish religion. But that’s not to say I think in the modern era I think such laws are just fine and peachy.

I believe criminal law should generally reflect widely held societal values. We nearly universally agree that crimes like armed robbery, burglary, theft, fraud, murder, etc, are moral wrongs and deserving of legal punishment. Regardless of what the social consensus in 1782 Massachusetts was in regards to church attendance, or what the consensus was in regards to sodomy in 1779 Pennsylvania, the consensus today is not even close to universal. When laws fail to reflect a broad consensus, it undermines respect for the law as a whole. Prohibition is a great example of a moralizing law that failed to achieve any broad social consensus, and is widely regarded as a failure.

Randy Barnett, in his book Restoring the Lost Constitution, has interesting ideas about how incorporation of the 9th Amendment through the 14th Amendment brings about constitutional limits on the state police power, offering a more originalist theory for how anti-sodomy laws could be held unconstitutional. While I find this personally appealing, there’s a lot that I think could be criticized on originalist grounds. But regardless of whether a law is constitutional or not, I do think we wade into dangerous waters when we criminalize behavior there’s no broad social consensus for criminalizing. That is the root of “Don’t impose your morals on me!” I’ve often though that perhaps we should require a supermajority to create criminal laws, and leave bare majorities for matters like budgets, civil procedure, and other internal governmental matters. If government wants to create a crime with penalties, it should be on something most everyone agrees ought to be a crime.

A Return to Normalcy

Dave Hardy notes:

I think gun ownership and use was quite acceptable in American society from the settlement of Jamestown up to the 1960s. Then, largely under the influence of the mass media, it became less favored. After half a century of that, it is returning to the norm. Of course, that half century comprises most of our lives (or all of the life to those younger than I) so it seems as if it were a sea change.

I think he’s largely correct in this observation, though there’s long been a streak in American culture of attempting to disarm disfavored minorities. I sometimes wonder if the reason things went sour in the 1960s culturally wasn’t because we decided that kind of inequality under the law was wrong, and the progressive shibboleth became that gun ownership was just broadly wrong, rather than only wrong for disfavored groups. Once there was more even application of gun control laws, it created enough backlash that things like concealed carry reform became possible.

MAS Mle. 1873

Looks like Tam found something good at the fun show. I previously had no familiarity with this particular pistol or caliber. Looking up the specs of the 11mm French Ordinance, I’m surprised that anyone thought an 11mm 181gr bullet traveling at 430ft/sec was a good idea. I’d think a thick leather jacket might be enough to foil that round. What it is with Europeans liking pistol calibers that don’t actually shoot people?

Weekend News Links

Bitter will hopefully be getting over her bout with the 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu that’s going around again this year. I had it over New Years, but I feel bad for her because it was pretty mild for me and has been pretty nasty for her. Today is day 4, so it should be over for her soon. But as always, there’s news:

A victory in District Court in Idaho, where a federal court struck down the ban on firearms by the Army Corps of Engineers on their property.

Attention Robb Allen, it is not too late to start driving for this event in Philly.

You and I aren’t responsible enough to carry in places where they serve the Demon Rum, but the police are!Â What could possibly go wrong?

Pike County has nearly doubled gun permits issued in 2013, helped by out-of-state New Yorkers getting permits. I’m not sure what they think that will help them with up in New York.

Retirement scorecard for 2014. Two of those districts are in my local area. We have a good chance of keeping Gerlach’s seat pro-gun, but Schwarz’s district is reliably Democratic, and the chance of turning that seat in favor of gun owners is very small. To be honest, I’d be happy enough just to avoid her becoming Governor.

Another victory brought to us by the people who like to carry guns at people.

Jeff Soyer notes that the number of homes with guns is increasing.

Thirdpower expect the City of Chicago will rewrite its law to create a de facto ban on selling guns rather than a de jure ban. I’d say the odds are very good he’s right.

A look at AR-15 muzzle breaks/flash suppressors/compensators.

What media bias?

Campus Weapons Policy. A discussion on Pennsylvania’s proposed rule changes, which I think are a step in the right direction. I’d note that there’s no law banning guns on college campuses in Pennsylvania, so it’s really only students that are affected. Though there could be trespass issues if you’re asked to leave and don’t.

An interesting graphic on crime and guns.

They really are against self-defense.

Free Surplus Machine Guns!

Sorry fellow gun owners, but that kind of “hanging out on the limb” positioning is only offered to the neo-puritans in the religious fundamentalist movement. Surplussing machine guns to civilians? Well, that’s just crazy talk! I agree with Ace of Spades on this count:

He wants to make oral sex with a minor a felony in all cases — including in the case of minors having sex with minors. 15-17 year olds are allowed to have sex with each other (no crime), but if they haveÂ oralÂ sex with each other,Â that would be a crime.

There is a certain contingent in the Republican Party that insists on defending this nonsense. Not everyone who defends it actually supports it; I think the idea is rather that just as the left observes the rule No Enemies to the Left, so should we refrain from knocking allies on the right.

I don’t support this rule. I used to see in the value in it but I no longer do. Things like this are embarrassing and counterproductive. I am tired of being associated with the Party That Really Wants To Patrol Your Private Sexual Choices Because We Know Better Because It’s In the Bible.

Read the whole thing. I think there can be arguments made on originalist grounds that Lawrence was wrongly decided, but this kind of behavior strikes me as no better than what the powers that be in New York and Chicago engage in with regard to the Second Amendment. They’ll restrict it any way they can, just because they think they can get away with it, regardless of whether it really makes sense or not, or lands people who are otherwise no threat to society in prison.

Dick Metcalfe in the New York Times

This article has been in my tabs for days, because I wanted to add something more than just a link to it, but the words either just weren’t coming, or it was stuff I’ve already said about it. It’s my opinion that after this article, I don’t think Dick Metcalfe can be forgiven. I was actually more willing to forgive and forget with Jim Zumbo, who said something far worse and more damaging, than I am willing to forgive Dick Metcalfe after reading this article in the NY Times. Zumbo at least made an attempt at attrition and making amends, but Metcalfe has gone and offered the Times a narrative about how crazy and extreme those gun nuts are.

I will maintain until I’m blue in the face that Metcalfe didn’t step in it because he spoke of moderation. He stepped in it because what he said was ignorant. His use of “well-regulated” was right out of the anti-gun playbook, despite it having long been explained in proper context by respected scholars. He called for a specifically enumerated constitutional right to be conditioned on a requirement which is not been deemed acceptable for any other right. He stood by a ridiculously lengthy training requirement, when there is absolutely no evidence that training requirements, regardless of length, lead to better outcomes. Yet he supported them as a prior restraint on the exercise of an enumerated fundamental right.

I’ve always been of the opinion that if you take an idiot, and train him for 16 hours, what you end up with is an idiot who can certifiably manage to sit still for 16 hours. The idiot part tends to rule over whatever training you think you’re giving them, and for those people, 16, 20, or 50 hours won’t make a difference. But since we can’t legally say “Well, this right is only for non-idiots,” you err on the side of freedom and have faith that most people will do the right thing.

Skimming the MAIG E-Mails

You can see the full list of e-mails obtained by Judicial Watch between MAIG leadership.Â Bitter linked to earlier today. It’s rather long, but 90% of it is uninteresting. But it does offer a view into the world of our opponents in the first few weeks after Sandy Hook. Some takeaways, some of which are different than the Blaze article:

They still don’t really know who their enemy is. Reading their e-mails, they are a very much top-down movement. They coordinate to a much much greater degree than we do. While they were coordinating our opposition from the top, we were all watching a grassroots movement self-mobilize, and just trying to help spread the word and contribute any way we could.
They really do believe their own BS about the NRA representing the gun industry. A lot of them wisely realized that assault weapons were a bridge too far, but assumed it was because it threatened industry profits rather than the fact that gun and magazine bans really really piss off our grassroots. Colorado’s recalls I think helped drive that message home.
Mark Glaze was smart for being skeptical of former Senator “Monkeybusiness” Gary Hart wanting to start a new false flag group. That would have been laughable.
Someone formerly in the gun control movement approached MAIG looking for a job back in the gun control movement around page 420. Feinblatt asked Glaze if they should hire him. Glaze responded with “I don’t think so – but part of me wants to. XXXXXX really screwed him.” They did a good job of blacking out that person’s info, but I’d really love to see under who XXXXXX was, because I have some speculations.
From the balance sheets included, MAIG is bankrolling a lot of the movement. They’ve given money to CSGV, among others. My guess is this is to keep them in line and compliant with MAIG’s leadership. Brady, as the Blaze article mentioned, stepped on their toes and got knocked for it by MAIG.
PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s office takes recommendations from MAIG on page 429. That’s about 3/4 of the way down. Someone should file a PA equivalent of a FOIA request for documents relating to that. I’d do it myself, but I lack tim and familiarity with the process. If someone is more familiar with the process, it would be worth knowing exactly in what manner MAIG is/was coordinating with AG Kane’s office.
See page 442 and note some of those recommendations. Know what their end goals are. It’s right there.
The NFL and most of the sports teams are our enemies.
The media coordinates with the anti-gunners. For instance, on page 518, it’s mentioned that certain cartoonists are onboard with gun control.
This is a movement of political elites and celebrities, and not of ordinary people. We knew that, of course, but it’s always good to see that confirmed behind the scenes. From the looks of it, MAIG only really writes checks to consultants, media groups, lobbyists, PR flacks and polling firms.

I would encourage other people to take a look at the documents. I can read very fast, but at that speed I miss an awful lot, and I don’t really have time to read through everything carefully. The e-mails stop at January 22, 2013. I think the best stuff would be after that date, when the real political fight heats up.

Upping the Ante in Colorado for 2014

The anti-gun folks are trying to get a measure on the 2014 ballot to ban firearms on college campuses in Colorado. They need to collect 86,105 signatures in the next six months in order for the measure to go forward. I think that’s a tall order, but certainly not impossible if they have enough money behind them or enough volunteers. I think we stand a good chance of defeating this measure if it makes it onto the ballot, but I look at this as a mechanism for spreading us as thin as they can get away with. Ballot fights are hella expensive for both sides, and if Bloomberg throws his wallet into the fight, we really can’t compete. If we have to spend money fending off a ballot measure, it’ll take some of the heat off the politicians who voted for the magazine ban, and also some of the Colorado federal representatives who also voted for gun control.

If this goes through, the most important focus will need to be getting our voters to the polls, and to make sure they vote “no” on the campus carry ban. It’ll all come down to mobilizing our people.