New Meme: Gun Rights Not for Blacks?

I’m a strong believer that Black Americans often unjustly draw the short straw from our legal system, and the police are often guilty of systemic bias in their enforcement of the law, but I have to agree with Bob Owens in this particular story which highlights a black v. white open carry encounter. I’ve seen some white guys get treated equally poorly, and sometimes worse, depending on jurisdiction, and how familiar the officers are with handling open carriers. I’m open to the hypothesis that Black Americans will, on average, have more negative experiences, but these two encounters are do necessarily represent an example of such bias.

My purpose in bringing this incident up is to note there seems to be a meme going around. I go over a LOT of news in this issue. You only ever see a fraction of it here, because I don’t often decide to write about a topic until I notice new patterns. This has become a new pattern. There seems to be a concerted effort to convince African-Americans that gun rights are for white people, and white people are only interested in preserving this right for themselves, and blacks can never hope to exercise it on an equal basis with whites.

While I have no doubt in a country of 300 million, you could find people who believe that gun rights are only for white people, it is not even remotely mainstream opinion even among the most gun nutty of gun nuts. Even at my working-class, aging suburban gun club, we have African-American members, and the guy who ran my qualification test for my membership was an African-American. I won’t say there ain’t a racist among us, it’s a 1200 person club, and you can find plenty of assholes among any 1200 people, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find many people who would agree Second Amendment rights are for whites only.

So why would someone try to float this meme? I think this all started with the recent Pew Poll, showing support for gun rights swinging in our favor among Black Americans. Nick Johnson, who’s written a whole book on the topic, has noted that support of African-Americans in favor of gun control seemed to come more from a desire to coalition with progressive-minded whites than out of any deep cultural or historical inclination from within the black community.

It’s not that I believe there’s any overarching or coordinated conspiracy to put meme out there, but if you can plant the idea with a few sympathetic and influential opinion leaders, and then let other influential people chew on it a bit, you can get a meme to spread. Progressive Democrats are completely dependent on owning the black vote. They can’t let any issue drive a wedge, and this one is now threatening to do that, so they need to bring their base back in line. The real solution for Democrats would be to abandon gun control, return to more traditional liberalism, and leave the progressive mouth foamers hung out to dry. But how many traditional liberals are left these days?

An Old Idea Catches on with the Left

It used to be gun rights advocates were the ones calling for the abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Now progressives are catching on to what a dandy idea it really would be to roll the ATF into the FBI. Why? Because this would be a disaster for gun rights, and they are starting to figure that out.

The FBI has a long, sorry history of unspeakable abuses against the civil liberties of Americans, and along with that is a history of getting away with it. Not only do they get away with it, but they get away with it while making the public and politicians adore them. The FBI is much more competent at manipulating lawmakers, policymakers, judges, and juries to get what they want, and if they take on ATF’s functions, what they will want are more gun control laws.

I think it was a mistake to put even part of ATF under DoJ dominion, and you can thank Republicans for that one. ATF’s role should be that of a regulatory and tax collecting agency. It should have the culture of a regulator rather than an enforcer. Sure, in the days when even the Department of Education has SWAT teams, there will always be “the enforcers” in any regulatory agency, but the FBI have no regulatory role, they are only enforcers and domestic spies. The FBI is very good at railroading people if they decide to target you. Remember, this is an agency started by one of the most dangerous men in the history of this country.

There is Posturing and There’s Outlaw Biker Gangs

It’s not surprising that the gun control community postures over current events, because those events can sometimes help drive their narratives. When a kid steals a gun from a parent and does something untoward with it, it makes their case that all guns should be disassembled into pieces and stored in underground vaults in the backyard. When one of “mom’s little angel” teenagers gets ahold of a gun and shoots a few rivals and some bystanders, it’s not necessarily crazy on the part of our opponents to presume that maybe some kind of vague, “stricter background checks,” might find a sympathetic ear among voters.

But I have no idea what universe you think your average voter lives in to believe that if we only pass a few more background check laws, we can ensure that outlaw biker gangs are unable to get guns. That seems to be the narrative being floated by both Shannon Watts and her lapdogs in the media. Just look at what the LA Times has to say about one of the outlaw gangs involved in the Waco shootout:

Sunday’s confrontation in Waco also appears to have started as a result of a dispute involving the Bandidos, one of the world’s largest motorcycle clubs, with as many as 2,500 members in 14 countries, and one that’s engaged in distribution of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, according to the Justice Department. One of their mottoes: “We’re the people your parents warned you about.”

Yes, I’m sure if we just stop people from privately transferring guns, outlaw biker gangs will be reduced to settling their differences through pillow fights and rock/paper/scissors. It’s certainly not possible that a criminal enterprise, who already traffic in contraband, would have no problem obtaining guns or anything else they need to pursue their black market trade. But I think they really believe this.

Just recently, Everytown released a study showing that most people who shoot police officers are, you’re never going to believe this, prohibited persons. This was in response to a police officer in New York being shot to death. It’s almost like gun control doesn’t stop criminals from obtaining firearms, isn’t it? In the same vein, our favorite Brady Board member, over at her new blog, manages to account all the ways that Norway’s strict gun laws failed against a highly motivated lunatic with criminal intent, and then concludes that gun control laws work!

They don’t live in reality. Outlaw Biker Gangs aren’t going to be disarmed. Motivated lunatics will find ways to get guns. The only people their policies succeed in disarming are the people you didn’t have to worry about in the first place.

New York Times Forgets the Lesson of Smith & Wesson

The New York Times doesn’t think left-wing activists should divest themselves of Remington. Why? Because Remington would be better if it were bullied by SJW shareholders.

It’s easy to see why they would want to be done with the whole episode. Selling removes the reputational stain of owning the top American manufacturer of the deadliest consumer product known to man.

I’m pretty sure automobiles are the deadliest consumer product known to man, but lets not let facts get in the way.

Remington’s earnings volatility is not the only factor behind its low valuation. There’s also the stigma associated with owning a gunsmith after Sandy Hook. Cerberus actually tried to sell the business but found no acceptable offers. The situation is somewhat similar to the way tobacco stocks became an investment industry pariah two decades ago.

I’m pretty sure the reason investors don’t want to touch Remington have more to do with the amount of debt it’s carrying versus its earnings, more than what the New York Times thinks.

They could, for instance, insist that Remington ensure all its guns are sold through distributors who conduct more rigorous background checks, or that the company ramps up investments in developing weapons that won’t go off when a child finds them in a negligent parent’s night stand. They might even demand Remington stop supporting the National Rifle Association.

And if they do that, as a community, we will kill Remington. If they don’t believe we can do it, ask the former British owners of Smith & Wesson, F. H. Tomkins P.L.C., after they cut a similar deal with the Clinton Administration. They acquired the brand for 112.5 million dollars. In 2001, Smith & Wesson was sold to Saf-T-Hammer Corporation for $15 million dollars after gun owners boycotted the company.

It’s easy for Social Justice Warriors to delude themselves into thinking people can’t fight back against their bullshit. We can and will, and we’ll bankrupt your investment in the process. They would be wise to divest Remington. Personally, I’m not sure the issue has been done any favors by putting so many gun companies and brands in the hands of New York bankers.

Civil Rights Victory in DC Circuit

The Judge in the D.C. District Court has smacked down at least one aspect of DC’s attempt at evading the Second Amendment in Wrenn v. D.C. The Court in this case did not buy D.C.’s assertion that the good cause requirement was related to the city’s interest in preventing crime:

While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous.

The Court also rejected D.C.’s assertion that they had a legitimate interest in reducing the number of handguns in public places:

Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime. Simply put, the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement will neither make  it less likely that those who meet this requirement will present a risk to other members of the public or commit violent crimes than those who cannot meet this requirement. Therefore, after reviewing the record in this case, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there is any relationship, let alone a tight fit, between reducing the risk to other members of the public and/or violent crime and the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement.

This is very good news. SAF only chose to file for a preliminary injunction on the “good cause” requirement, and they got it. D.C. is now not permitted to enforce this requirement. Good show!

A Harbinger of Federal Action on Suppressors?

It’s a good omen when Chris Cox is bringing the Josh Waldron, President of SilencerCo, out to the annual Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation Congressional Shoot-Out:

This would be an indicator that NRA is doing the necessary ground work to push for having suppressors removed from the National Firearms Act at some point in the future. If we have a favorable outcome in 2016, something like that might make a good second term project for a Second Amendment friendly Administration. Though, maybe I’m being wildly optimistic. I’m probably being wildly optimistic.

Victory for Henderson in Henderson v. United States

The unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan can be found here. In this case, Tony Henderson was convicted of drug offenses and became a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He petitioned the FBI to turn his firearms over to a third party of his choosing. The FBI refused, arguing that he would remain in constructive possession. The FBI took the position that the guns could only be transferred to a Federal Firearms Licensee that would then sell them on the open market. Fortunately for Henderson, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by the government’s arguments. The Court holds:

Accordingly, a court may approve the transfer of a felon’s guns con- sistently with §922(g) if, but only if, the recipient will not grant the felon control over those weapons. One way to ensure that result is to order that the guns be turned over to a firearms dealer, himself inde- pendent of the felon’s control, for subsequent sale on the open mar- ket. But that is not the only option; a court, with proper assurances from the recipient, may also grant a felon’s request to transfer his guns to a person who expects to maintain custody of them. Either way, once a court is satisfied that the transferee will not allow the felon to exert any influence over the firearms, the court has equitable power to accommodate the felon’s transfer request. Pp. 3–8.

So provided the third party assures the court that he will not allow the prohibited person to exercise possession or control over the firearms, a prohibited person may delegate a third party.

Obama Administration Restricts Military Equipment to Police

Bob Owens is reporting the Obama Administration has announced restrictions on the federal program to deliver surplus military equipment to police departments. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I do tend to think making the department go to their civilian overseers for approval is not unreasonable. On the other hand, I think it’s not a bad thing, generally speaking, for this equipment to end up widely distributed to local communities, rather than just setting in federal government warehouses. Even if you’re a real wookie suiter “insurrectionist,” it’d be a hell of a lot easier to liberate equipment from your local PD than it would be from the feds if the S were to ever HTF.

Even in NJ, we can win some

Evan Nappen gets a judge to rule that the law means what it says.

In a published decision binding upon all New Jersey municipalities, the New Jersey Appellate Division has confirmed that New Jersey municipalities may NOT require added forms for firearm permit applications beyond the state forms.

It’s a little thing, but little things add up. Also note, “funded in part by the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.”

Weekly Gun News – Edition 2

It’s a pretty slow news week on the gun issue, but I think I have enough for the weekly gun news.

Lower Merion Township was denied a stay in its lawsuit over it’s illegal ordinances.

In Oregon: punching back twice as hard.

A New York judge has ordered the state police to quit trying to cover up how dismal the compliance rates are for the SAFE act.

North Carolina is working on a bill to get doctors out of the business of badgering their patents about guns, unless, you know, you come in with a gun shot wound, or you say something that indicates you may be suicidal. I don’t like these bills, but the SJWs that run the medical societies have made it necessary.

North Carolina is also working to get rid of its racially motivated gun control law, and is ironically being fought by gun control advocates who want it to stay in place. Of course, they don’t have much game in North Carolina.

Oregon’s new background check bill won’t make anyone any safer, says the Albany Democrat Herald. Also, buying legislation isn’t cheap.

Campus Carry will be back on the agenda next year, says Marion Hammer, NRA’s Lobbyist in Florida.

The 2015 Boomershoot Fireball

Blood dancing isn’t just for gun control activists anymore. Never let a crisis go to waste.

The proper response to DEA agents coming onto to a train and asking where you’re going: “Apparently Russia, officer. Because I didn’t think in America is was any of the government’s damned business.”

Jews and Guns in Northern Virginia.

A mother is suing her son’s school because they wouldn’t let him wear an NRA t-shirt. Good.

Oklahoma’s governor vetoes more pro-gun bills.

Dems pushing to ban online ammo sales. I doubt this is going anywhere.

Don’t forget we have an election coming up in Pennsylvania, and it includes Supreme Court justices.

The Republicans talk a good small government game, but when the chips are down, pleasing social conservatives is more important.

I’ll be wearing black on June 2.

Peirs Morgan is still a jerk, but at least a jerk over there, where maybe we’ll get lucky and Jeremy Clarkson will punch him again.

The Gun Blogger Rendezvous X is being run by Lucky Gunner. I’d love to go again, because it was always a good time. But it’s difficult and expensive to get out to Reno from the east coast. LG is giving away a 150 dollar ammo voucher to attendees, which is tempting, but it’s a $500 plane ticket.

Chuck Schumer isn’t an idiot, but he does grandstand on behalf of idiots.

Why are gun control activists so violent?

Instapundit: Operation Choke Point Strikes Again.

Are New Jersey’s lawmakers wising up on smart guns? The Bergen Daily Record can’t resist flinging childish insults at Second Amendment advocates, but perhaps they are angry things aren’t working out the way they had hoped.

I’m not sure what NSA’s program has to do with gun rights, to warrant NRA’s involvement, but it did occur to me that if such a program could be weaponized by a hostile Administration. They could use it to target NRA’s grassroots network and lobbying efforts. This would make the opposition’s efforts MUCH more effective if they were coordinated with the White House. But weaponizing a program for political purposes? That’s crazy talk. This is the most transparent administration ever!