Weekly Gun News – Edition 55

Tabs are filling up, so it’s time to clear them.

Governor Malloy’s proposal to try to balance the state budget on the backs of Connecticut gun owners, and the poor trying to exercise their Constitutional rights, is getting some backlash. We may be able to beat him on this. Malloy is one of the most unpopular Governors in the country.

Bloomberg’s money is back in Colorado working against us.

How to talk to people on the other side: “From one such night in Dover, Del., two images stick: Tea Partiers arriving early for the forum, clutching pocket Constitutions in their hands – and those same folks lingering afterward in the parking lot, chatting away with the NPR types, fervent but friendly.” The Tea Party was mostly a bourgeois movement that the GOP elites either ignored or actively undermined. That’s a big part of what brought about the Trumpening.

Why liberals should back Neil Gorsuch.

Neil Gorsuch is OK by Dave Kopel.

Maryland is looking to end campus carry, for the small handful of people who can actually draw a Maryland carry permit. It’s still worth fighting, because eventually we may be able to fix the carry issue through the courts.

Bans guns on planes, period, because common sense. If there’s one thing I wish I could get across to gun owners: people only value the rights they themselves enjoy. Few people have an ideological commitment to liberty. So you have to bring people into the issue.

Analysis true: “The Long-Abused Commerce Clause Will Now Bullet-Proof Concealed Carry Reciprocity.” I don’t have an issue with this, because I don’t see why we shouldn’t use the tools the left gave us. The power is properly found in the 14th Amendment, but its easier for the courts to weasel around that if they want to. The current commerce clause is harder without risking other laws built upon that edifice.

Vox: Why disabilities rights activists like me sided with the NRA on an Obama gun control rule.

Remember, they say they want “common sense” gun laws, but then do this when someone tries to open a shooting range. “‘I never would have moved to Ramsey if I knew this gun club would be there,’ she said. ‘It’s a matter of public safety. It might also jeopardize my property value as well.'” They either hate you, fear you, or some combination of both. That’s what drives them. How do you negotiate with this? You can’t. You just have to destroy them politically.

I’ve been wondering for a while whether Wayne LaPierre was planning to retire from NRA in the next Administration. It would probably be best if he retired during a period of relative stability. He is 67. Same age as my dad who’s been retired for several years now. I have no knowledge of any plans in this regard, but I’m betting Wayne retires in the next four years.

Joan Peterson, Board Member of the Brady Campaign, laments fake news among pro-gun people. When it comes to fake news and alternative facts, you can trust her. She’s an expert.

I’ve actually suspected ATF has wanted relief from the backlog of silencer paperwork for a while, but the previous Administration wouldn’t let them go there. I’m actually thinking repealing part of the NFA is within reach. I never would have believed that a decade ago. Hughes Amendment in 10 years? Who knows!


11 Responses to “Weekly Gun News – Edition 55”

  1. stephana says:

    Some idiots tried to stop a brand new gun range and store in my town. They even got enough signatures to put it on the ballot. The range won something like 1200-200. You can’t even get in the parking lot on date night anymore, and they are expected to buy the empty lot next door for more parking, and maybe expand the range with more lanes. The Gun culture is alive and well in our town.

  2. Ian Argent says:

    NJ2AS had already threatened to sue Ramsey under the precedent established when Chicago tried to ban gun ranges.

  3. Fred says:

    Surrendering your right to self defense to the congress is almost the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. Respectfully, we aren’t losing, why do this. Our ground game is killing them. We have legislatures in at least 35 states backing down to our demands, judges are finally forced to recognize the individual right (Heller), we are winning 1000’s of new shooters a week, and state after state is going permit-less. Why risk it?

    You are asking the congress “to make regular” the carrying of a concealed weapons for self defense among the 50 states. TO MAKE REGULAR = REGULATE. You are asking the congress to regulate guns by force of law. This is insane.

    We don’t need their “help”. I agree that it would be funny to poke the California and Massachusetts legislatures and attorney generals in the eye but for what? This can’t end well, it just can’t.

    Every single session of the congress, every year, we will have to spend time, money and effort to prevent amendments to this section of the federal code, FOR-EVER. No wonder the ‘Pro Gun’ lobbyists want this, what a racket for them, money in perpetuity to prevent amendments. Don’t we have enough to do at the state and local level already? This will be a resource suck away from what matters, our hometowns.

    Everything government touches becomes corrupted. Why won’t anybody think 5 or 6 chess moves and 10 years into the future on this? Why? Withholding state highway, medicaid, and medicare funds unless smart guns are required is just one example. Or how about mandatory 10 dollar per round special ammo as another. Everything the fedgov does to us is through this path. What about simple amendments such as; localities can determine what is best for them. Now you have to challenge your local government all the way to the supreme court on every little tiny issue

    And as for the Commerce Clause; it has already been flipped by the courts from it’s original meaning. It was intended to ensure the states didn’t impose tariffs and preferential treatment between themselves in commerce. It has now been flipped to mean that the fedgov can regulate EVERYTHING. This article is using a flawed (more properly, former) interpretation of this clause. The article even states as much. Why use your gun rights to try and reverse decades of flawed law on interstate transactions. This has nothing to do with guns, why risk it. Say the law passes congress but the courts uphold the modern interpretation of the commerce clause – YOU LOSE SUCKERS – congress now owns your gun rights, nationwide.

    Why can nobody see these things? What is wrong with you people?

    Why oh why would anybody want to even suggest congress do anything except go die. Trillions of dollars in debt with no end in sight by known psychopathic liars and control freaks. The congress is a den liars and thieves, nobody disputes this, and yet we are asking it to regulate the only thing on the planet that shall not be infringed.

    I hope it fails, never to be revived. This path is fraught with danger and WILL BE DESTRUCTIVE TO YOUR LIBERTY. You have been warned

    • Sebastian says:

      You’ve said as much before. I appreciate your viewpoint, but I think you’re wrong. The federal government has a role to play in protecting the civil rights of American Citizens. The proper power for this is the 14th Amendment, but it rests on others as well.

      • Richard says:

        Yeah, universal reciprocity will do more to normalize carrying than anything else I can think of. We can expect the usual “blood in the streets” crap from the left and then it won’t happen. People notice this if their minds are not completely closed.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      We are all well aware of the risks of this path, but I think you have them far overblown. Congress already can regulate firearms under the current doctrine. Even if we think that’s unconstitutional, that won’t change for a long time. All this does is require states to recognize other states’s permits. It does not actual regulate the permits.

      I agree with Sebastian, under the 14th Amendment Congress has the power to protect rights in the states, and this is a valid exercise of that power. But that doctrine is not well exercised, so the Commerce Clause it is, even if I think that is wrong.

      This will be a win because it will expand carrying to states that prohibit it. Those people in those states will see that nothing bad happens when people carry. And it allows those who do carry to be able to protect ourselves. Image being able to carry in NYC! NJ! Cali! It will be glorious.

  4. Whetherman says:

    “Few people have an ideological commitment to liberty. So you have to bring people into the issue.”

    My observation over several decades has been that is like shoveling that certain material against the tide, as the tide of authoritarianism is much stronger and easier to flow along with.

    The personalities and organizations that are routinely referred to as “libertarian” today, would have been forcefully driven out of any gathering of self-identified libertarians 25 – 30 years ago.

    Wait, I take that back; the problem is we did not forcefully drive out the first encroachments,

  5. Alpheus says:

    On the “Guns on Airplanes” opinion piece, I felt compelled to make the following comment. It remains to be seen whether it will be approved (although, if Sebastian’s comment was approved, I would almost certainly expect that this one will be, too):

    I would humbly propose that there’s a simple way for an armed citizen to tell the difference between a mass murderer actively killing, or stabbing, or otherwise harming innocents, and a fellow armed citizen interested in saving lives: the mass murderer is the one going around randomly shooting, stabbing, or otherwise harming innocents, while those with guns refraining from shooting others might just be the good guys.

    Granted, there are flaws with this method of assessment — a mass murderer hiding under cover, watching for any armed citizens pulling out guns to stop the main mass murderer comes to mind — and it may even be impossible to defend against all such scenarios — but in general, I think this is a reasonable, even intuitive, rule for an armed citizen to do what they can to stop an active mass murder event, without shooting innocent people themselves.

    In any case, before we worry about such a scenario, I’d appreciate seeing specific examples of when this happens. (I think that, when this happens, this generally does so when police officers show up on the scene, and accidentally shoot a plainclothes cop.) We can use such events as lessons on how we can prevent honest people who are only acting to preserve innocent life from getting shot themselves.

  6. Alpheus says:

    After looking at Joan Peterson’s blog post, I couldn’t help but notice that there’s absolutely no comments, let alone comments that ought to be there to refute a lot of what she said in her post. A lot of her statistics caused me to roll my eyes, particularly the stuff that’s been refuted again and again.

    I almost have the impression that, at this point, Joan nukes any comment as a matter of course, just in case the poster might someday support gun rights — Reasoned Discourse, indeed.

    The other option that I couldn’t fully rule out is that the only people who read Joan’s blog at this point are gun rights folk, who check in every so often to see the insanity, but don’t bother to say anything because they know that their comments will be nuked.

    • Sebastian says:

      She doesn’t allow dissenting opinion. If she approves a comment, it’s to refute it in her own special way. Follow up won’t be tolerated. She has to look like she won.

      • Alpheus says:

        That’s actually why I won’t even try to comment there. I’m just surprised there aren’t any comments from her “fellow travelers” praising her for her astute analysis…