Weekly Gun News – Edition 53

Welcome to the 53rd edition of Weekly Gun News, also known as “My browser is drowning under the weight of dozens and dozens of open tabs.” Maybe some of them will make it here, but I usually end up only posting maybe a third of what I have open. Some news seems interesting at first, but then it gets more “meh” as you take a second look. But here goes:

Headline Fail: “With 2016 over, a toddler has now shot a person every week in the US for two straight years.” Someone should probably apprehend the Diapered Killer before he kills again!

Lori Haas of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is a sad panda. Though, the massive increase in the federal government under Obama has blued Virginia, perhaps irrevocably.

Lower Merion Township, PA will appeal ruling, which nixed their ordinance banning guns in municipal parks, to the PA Supreme Court. The township argued it had a right to control its own property, Superior Court ruled that preemption still applied. Under the existing preemption statutes, local governments have typically lost, but it’s hard to get to court because of standing requirements.

Czech President Milos Zeman encourages Czech citizens to arm themselves.

The feds are appealing the Binderup ruling to the Supreme Court. The Third Circuit ruling in Binderup essentially said that gun rights could only be stripped away for serious crimes, and a misdemeanor with no element about unlawful use of force does not rise to that level. I had lost track of the case since District Court, but it won all the way up to Third Circuit en-banc. UPDATE: Oops, no they aren’t appealing. This is what happens when I let posts sit in the queue for days.

Makes you wonder how often this kind of thing is going to happen.

Debunking the arguments against Constitutional Carry. With patrol cars now being networked, cops can tell if someone is prohibited or not. Even at a practical level, permits are antiquated.

Shannon Watts lands an article in Teen Vogue. Do teens even still read magazines?

A War Without Rifles.

Are Gunsmiths Screwed?

Massad Ayoob: The Coolest Shooting Match Ever is Back!

Off Topic:

Reason: “If You’re Freaking Out Over Donald Trump’s Presidential Powers, Thank a Liberal!” Both Bush and Obama greatly expanded executive power. Do you see Trump trying to undo that? I don’t. Thanks guys.

I’m starting to think this might be a good idea: “The failed F-35 fighter-jet program can’t be fixed — it’s time to turn the page.

Tam: “A God-bothering SoCon drug warrior career politician for GOP AG? Wow. That’s so maverick. I can feel the swamp draining.” I know NRA has been pulling for him, and certainly Sessions will help us there, but the drug war is yet another issue that alienates the GOP from younger generations.

26 Responses to “Weekly Gun News – Edition 53”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    Regarding the Princelaw update to the Binderup case – fallout from the election? The Acting SG is going to be out of a job in a week or so; after all.

  2. Whetherman says:

    “NRA has been pulling for him, and certainly Sessions will help us there…”

    Why “certainly?”

    Sure, Sessions is a good SoCon who knows the rap it takes to get gun-owning softheads to vote for him and thereby, his agenda. But all of the Trumpniks are first and last authoritarians, and before long, authoritarians get upset if people can say “no” to them, and have some teeth behind that “no.”

    Now that the SoCons and authoritarians have largely come into their kingdom, they may decide they don’t need us so much, anymore.

    • Whetherman says:

      Trump Attorney General Nominee: “I Believe in Background Check Laws”

      “I believe in background check laws and many of them are appropriate, but in every instance? There are some instances when it’s not practical,” Sessions said, like when a family member inherits a firearm.

      Now we just need to devine what prior restraints on constitutional rights a Trumpnik AG believes are “appropriate.”

  3. Joseph says:

    I quite frankly see the issue of the “drug war” to be a lost cause on both sides of the spectrum. As a millenial who now has his career going forward, whom has a new home, and, is setting himself up for the future, I can honestly say that I feel like an anomaly as a millenial when it comes to the culture, especially regarding drugs, their use, sociopolitical aura, and ingrained status in my generation.

    One polarized part of me hates the war on drugs, the loss of civil liberties it has all led to, and for it being the biggest factor in all aspects of violent crime in the U.S. The political right is so ignorant to see that the overwhelming majority of violent crime in the U.S. stems from the War on Drugs, especially the gun crime from street gangs that are economically dependant on the Drug Isle of the Black Market. Those on the political right, specifically the SoCons, have the perfect edge to marginalize the left and end the debate on “gun violence” by attaching it to the War on Drugs. The SoCons would still have a political moral high ground on the issue by being able to condem drugs, but, be able to remove the 2nd Amendment from the Democrats’ cross hairs. By begrudgingly ending the War on Drugs, millenials will become a bit more curious of the right, and, may even come over to that side in good portions while keeping the SoCon base.

    The othe polarized side of me wants to see the drug culture die off. The United States is just over 5% of the global population, but consumes almost 90% of the drugs (of all kinds) on Earth. Other nation states may have lax-a-daisical drug laws, but, the DRUG CULTURE that exists in the U.S., simply doesn’t exist in other Nation-States. It truly, not only disgusts me, but enrages me that so much of my generation idolizes drugs and drug use, and it’s as if that’s all they care about, and Marijuana especially, is viewed in an almost divine manner.

    Those on the right utilize facts and reason and posses the ability (one that I’ve already used) to support ending the drug war for the sake of Constitutional/Civil Liberties, all the while, condeming the drug culture and having some basis to politically and socially detoxify the society at large of an infection of out of control drug use. Its a good way to unify the Country on a hot button isse, and deliver a political right hook (pun intended) to the left.Those on the left are politically primitive, tribal, and are immersed in the toxic arena of collectivism and group think whom see the drug culture as a ways and means of identity and a tool for collective political action to foster the imposition of all facets of their agenda.

    A soft drug like Marijuana should be treated, legally, the same as alcohol, and put under the same banner of laws and regulations as alcohol is, and I mean, EVERY one. Hard drugs, like PCP, LSD, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Heroine, etc. etc., should remain illegal, BUT,…..instead of jailing people in manners of heinous punishments meant for heinous crimes, people whom suffer addictions from these hard drugs should be treated with rehabilitation and NEVER stripped of any of their rights listed in the Bill Of Rights, but also, those cases should be tagged into someone’s backround for the purpose of discrimination in the job market, just as a DUI is listed. I wouldn’t want someone immediately removed from heroin rehad utilizing construction equipment in the environmental remediation company that I work for; just that simple. This can also serve as a ways and means of letting people know that they have the freedom to chose drug use as a path for their lives, but their will still be consequences for those actions as anything else. Of course, welfare should also be changed so people can’t just sit around all day and get high off the taxpayer’s dime. The issue of drugs is a tight-rope to be walked, but walked, it must be for the betterment of American society.

    • Whetherman says:

      “Those on the political right, specifically the SoCons, have the perfect edge to marginalize the left and end the debate on “gun violence” by attaching it to the War on Drugs.”

      I find that hard to judge, because the Drug War debate (including those dimensions) has been going on for so long that someone like me can no longer judge what arguments younger generations (like yours) find compelling. There’s not much we haven’t heard before, most of it to little long-term effect. (For the record, I experienced actual death threats for arguing for drug legalization in the media thirty years ago; and today I take some pride in having been so far ahead of the cultural curve on that issue.)

      I feel the linkage you are suggesting has already shot its wad and won’t be readily reinvigorated; but I have been hearing variations of it for over forty years, and it has waxed and waned. The counter-argument to it, of course, is that alcohol Prohibition is what created organized crime as we know it; and that effectively outlawing the poster-child Tommy Gun eighty years ago had no particular effect on organized crime.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      A large part of the drug culture is due to is illegalness. Make it legal and much will disappear. They all should be legal. Let people intake what they want- its their choice.

      • Publius says:

        Hey, I actually agree with you! How cool is that?!

      • You mean like in California?

      • I suspect that few Americans will be pleased with the results. Intoxicants are the major cause of a large part of violent crimes and even property crimes like burglary. Reduced inhibitions are a problem.

        • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

          They are only a major cause because they are illegal. We tried banning alcohol, and that made things worse.

          Americans will be pleased with the results because there will be less crime and less liberty lost.

  4. dwb says:

    RE: “UPDATE: Oops, no they aren’t appealing. This is what happens when I let posts sit in the queue for days.”

    The letter is confusing. I am not sure that letter applies to the Binderup challenge. Seems to apply to different plaintiffs (Yox).

  5. Thirdpower says:

    On the F-35, I said this was a bad idea back when I was in the Navy 20 yrs ago and they started the program. They touted it as one plane for all services that would save billions of dollars. Now they have a plane that barely works that costs tens of billions more than anything contemporary.

    Instead of having next generation, mission specific aircraft, they’re going to have to spend even more to extend the service lives of the ones we have to make up for what the F-35 can’t do.

    Same w/ the Army when they went to the garbage ACU pattern uniform w/ lightweight material only. A uniform for all environments that stuck out like a sore thumb in all of them and wore out in 6 months or less.

    • rjbrash says:

      We learned nothing from the F-111 debacle.

    • Alpheus says:

      I’m convinced that we should, at a minimum, go back to making the older planes — the F-22, the A-10, perhaps even the F-16 or F-18, among others — that have been cancelled because of this debacle of a jobs program. The F-35 is just too clunky to be useful.

      Also, for all the discussion of the now-obsolete “high tech” of the F-35, I can’t help but wonder how difficult it would be to continuously update our current planes to make use of the tech originally designed for the F-35. Are these systems really so advanced that they need a new frame to use them?

      Perhaps the most annoying thing about this, though, is that because the F-35 is a jobs program, as soon as the Government announces the end of the program, I’m going to hear in the local media “Oh noze, Utah will lose 1,000 jobses because of this program cut! Call our Senator Hatch to protect their jobs!!!” and Senator Orin Hatch will try to protect these jobs because Utah. And EVERY State will have similar drama.

      Never mind that 1,000 jobs is a drop in a bucket of 3,000,000 people (we’ve absorbed bigger loss of work before) and never mind that the private sector has to do such cuts all the time. Jobs are sacred, no matter how unnecessary they are, never mind the fact that while these 1,000 people are working on a failed program, their talents will be unavailable for more worthy projects.

  6. Regarding Binderup, you have misread the letter which clearly differentiates that case with the case referenced in the subject line of the letter. The Feds are not dropping the Binderup case, at least not yet. We’ll have to wait and see what the Trump administration does with the case.\16-847.htm

  7. Jim says:

    Shannon Twatts

  8. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    With patrol cars now being networked, cops can tell if someone is prohibited or not. Even at a practical level, permits are antiquated.

    Really good point. I think its amazing we have double digit constitutional carry states now. I hope we get more and more.

  9. dittybopper says:

    Much as I respect Massad Ayoob, he’s wrong: The coolest shooting match never went away:

    The Southern Vermont Primitive Biathlon

  10. PerchedinNoVA says:

    The new blue of Virginia is not – by my observations here in NoVA – due only (or primarily) to the growth of Dem-dominated government jobs.

    My observation is that is primarily driven by the massive influx of immigrants (both from other states and even more from foreign shores) that have little familiarity with Virginia’s traditions, or traditional American values (including 2nd amendment rights). And many, many of the immigrants are illegal (but vote anyway).

    • Robert says:

      Who’s to say that the new administration can’t move those jobs somewhere else? “Sure, we can’t fire you, but we hope you enjoy your new job location in the Mohave desert.”

  11. Whetherman says:

    “…immigrants (both from other states and even more from foreign shores) that have little familiarity with Virginia’s traditions…”

    What traditions would those be? How do they differ from those of the other founding colonies?

  12. PerchedinNoVA says:

    ‘What traditions would those be? How do they differ from those of the other founding colonies?’

    I’ll assume this is some kind of rhetorical question, but if not, please reference the writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and – in the end – Patrick Henry. I don’t think these traditions varied too much from those of other founding fathers and colonies, and of course, many of these became part of the founding concepts of the US. However the out-of-state immigrants we get today rarely seem appreciative of these.

    Among those traditions existing in Virginia long before the US : limited government, self-determination, individual freedom, recognized right to bear arms to defend individual right to life and liberty, freedom of speech and thought (now regularly denied in college campuses and other transformed institutions), and more. There has been a reason for the existence of the Virginia state motto, rooted in our history and traditions.

    Expanding on how transplants from other climes have eaten away at these principles and our sad Commonwealth could become a very long response but I think this sufficiently illustrates my meaning. It’s not much different from what westerners see as Californication, where residents of the failing state of California move to nearby states fleeing that failure, and yet take the attitudes, expectations, and voting patterns with them to reproduce that failure in their new victim state. Since the transformers here come from many origins, I guess I’d dub what is happening here as ‘Otherization’. Or more clumsily ‘Anti-Virginiazation.’

    No disrespect to those who *legally* took up residence here and recognize these same fundamental traditions.

  13. RAH says:

    Refrring to the increase of Liberals, progressives moving to Virgina because of federal government jobs and contracting jobs. That may be on the downswing with trump.

  14. Alpheus says:

    Bad headlines aside, I fail to see how a certain class of shooting that affects less than 100 people a year in a country of 310,000,000 is a major problem.

    And this, even before wondering if, for the purpose of this statistic, “toddler” is defined as “anyone 26 or younger, because they can be put on their parents’ health insurance” or some other artificial limit…

  15. Alpheus says:

    I’m looking at the “TeenVogue” article, but I *immediately* noticed something funny: The top of the article has a sign that says “The NRA Sells Fear”…and the article then starts with the listing of several mass shootings and some statistics about gun deaths in America.

    It seems to me that the NRA isn’t the only organization that sells fear…if anything, the NRA is more than just fear, because they offer training and safety courses, organize competitions, and have a historical museum, among other things. Indeed, fear is the *only* thing anti-gun types have!