Sebastian – Page 183 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Ruling in US v. Castleman

Dave Hardy is reporting that the Supreme Court has handed down a decision in US v. Castleman. I’d note that this isn’t a Second Amendment case, but rather one of statutory interpretation, regarding the extent of force necessary to trigger the Lautenberg Amendment prohibition. The case was unanimous in outcome, in so far as the conviction was upheld. But the court split on how broad “physical force” was, with the majority agreeing it matched the common law definition of force. So a wife poking at a husband in a heated argument would be sufficient for Lautenberg to Apply. Scalia concurred, but only on narrower grounds, suggesting it had to at least be enough force to at least have the potential of causing injury. Alito and Thomas concurred, and but noted disagreement with the holding in the previous Johnson case, which would seem to be at odds with this holding.

As I said, the Second Amendment wasn’t raised by Castleman, this was a straight up case of statutory interpretation, so I wouldn’t read the tea leaves too much over this one in regards to the future of Second Amendment law.

Antis Clinging to Hope on Chris Christie

This is pretty thin gruel, if you ask me.Â Gun control folks are really clinging to hope for a Christie signature on the magazine bill.

â€œIt is a very emotional issue on both sides,â€ said Christie, who is almost certain to have a bill on his desk this spring to sign or veto. â€œGun control and the Second Amendment are enormously emotional, combustible issues. My job as governor is to be the adult in the room.â€

Come on folks. He might as well haveÂ danced a little sidestepÂ with that statement. I hold out the possibility he might sign it, but that statement doesn’t say anything. If he does sign it, he’s finished on the national stage.

Wednesday News Links

Things today may be a bit slow, because I have crossed the threshold and hit the big four oh. Bitter is planning a small celebration which includes cake, and cake is all that matters. So let’s see what’s going on out there:

The Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is protesting the idea that a shooting range will be opening. Remember, it’s raging right-wing paranoia that they want to take our guns. Since they complain civilians aren’t trained enough, then oppose facilities to help us get training, what does that say? Note these folks aren’t some rogue group, they are part of States United.

I do have to say, I would not want to be on Marion Hammer’s shit list. She’s trying to push a limited Constitutional Carry bill, that would allow people to carry without a permit during a Hurricane evacuation. I know of someone who was the victim of an attempted robbery during a Hurricane evac, but thwarted it when he quickly produced a 1911. He kept his gas.

Does Andrew Cuomo have a problem even among Democrats?

What losing looks like.

Anti-gun groups launch a #StandWith Vivek campaign to rescue the AG nomination. NRA will get more than 5000 likes on its Facebook page on a bad day.

I’d need more details about this bill’s exact, but if the reporters are accurate (a stretch) I wouldn’t have rolled over on this bill, which seems to go beyond federal law: “Additionally, abusers against whom an active protective order has been granted would be prohibited from possessing a firearm for 10 years.”

A lot of tea party types get upset that NRA has an incumbent friendly endorsement policy. They’d be foolish not to.

Confusion and delays in SAFE act implementation.

ATF gone wild?

Quite a fight on our hands in Washington State this coming election.

A wholly owned subsidiary.

Our criminal justice system has become a crime.

Filming police should not be a crime.

I’ll say it again: guns do not increase suicide risk. It’s an absurd notion. I am not nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be suicidal. So what’s the risk for me? And if it did come to that, I’d have a damned good reason for it that’s none of anyone else’s damned business.

Additionally, guns in the home are a “none of your damned business” issue, not a health issue. Why, as a society, have we become so tolerant of petulant busybodies?

The devil, you say.

Marko celebrates ten years as an American.

9th Circuit Upholds Storage Requirement & Hollow Point Ban

The 9th circuit upholds a requirement that guns be locked up. There’s more here over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Once again, I’m disappointed to see Prof. Volokh promoting balancing tests:

The court also upheld a ban on sale of hollow-point bullets, though it stressed that the ban didnâ€™t prohibit possessing or using hollow-points, or bringing them in from neighboring cities. Here, the burden does seem likely to be less than substantial …

Would we argue that a ban on newspapers or books being sold in the city is a less substantial burden, because they could still be bought outside the city and brought in? No, that would be properly ruled unconstitutional. I will repeat that endorsing this kind of burden analysis, even if it is used in other rights, is a green light for the courts to gut any substantive protection, because the courts will always balance in favor of the government. The courts, who have zero expertise in self-defense (very few would have ever taken a course), are in no position to make these calls, and shouldn’t be encouraged to make them.Â Limiting my magazine size, restricting my access to effective ammunition, and adding precious time between me and my firearm are not light burdens, and shouldn’t be treated as such.

We have to advocate a different approach if we want this right taken seriously. I’m a great fan of Professor Nelson Lund’s approach, on examining police use and practices.

The Other Side Makes Mistakes Too

Remember the Sandy Hook riders from a few weeks ago? They had to change their venue to a church because of complaints to the school that they were using it for a political rally. The school agreed. Looks like someone showed up at the church trying to hand out literature. The smart thing for our opponents to do would be to get the church to ask the person to leave. A refusal would be a trespass, and the activist would have known this. Instead, one of their people went into full-on rage mode and started going around acting like everyone’s psychotic den mother:

It all could have been over in a second if he had just been asked to leave by someone who had the authority to do so. Instead, she chose to make a spectacle of it, and came off looking like the crazy person in the situation. They make mistakes too. The key, I think, is for us to make fewer of them than they do.

Politicians are Unanimous When it Comes to Pandering

Joe Huffman notes that the Idaho bill to nullify any future federal gun laws passed unanimously, while the bill to institute campus carry was far from so:

The reality is the law has no practical meaning. It has political meaning. It means that legislators that are, for all practical purposes, anti-gun can use it as defense against opponents who confront them on their anti-gun votes. â€œLook what I voted FOR! You canâ€™t get any more pro-gun that this!â€

RTWT. I think he’s exactly right. It’s all for show. Gun owners have to start understanding the difference between an easy, pandering vote and a difficult vote. Passing campus carry is difficult, because competing interests line up on both sides, and given two arguing factions on opposite sides, many politicians will favor the status quo. Passing something like that requires some politicians to go out on a limb with you and make a hard vote. Politicians will always be willing to pander to a powerful constituency with platitudes and symbolism, it’s up to us if we let them get away with it.

Back on the Offensive

It feels good to be back on the offensive in Pennsylvania, with HB2011 moving forward to a vote in the Pennsylvania House. Why does it feel good? Because we get to hear the lamentations of the media, who are absolutely opposed to putting any kind of teeth in the state’s preemption law.

Say goodbye to prospects for enactment of any new lost-and-stolen reporting rules, and say hello to court fights for the 30 towns that already have them on the books.

Awesome. Those towns had no legal authority under state law to pass those ordinances in the first place. We told them that, and they didn’t listen. Those towns can easily avoid expensive suits by repealing the illegal ordinance they never had any business passing in the first place. When cities and towns violate state law, we shouldn’t have to wait to be charged under it in order to challenge it. Its mere existence should give us standing.

Zero Sum Games

Off topic, because gun news is thin on the ground today.Â Obama’s statements on the Ukraine situation boggle the mind. I’d like to think there’s some kind of dastardly brilliant plan behind all this, but the only plan it looks like to me is this one.

The United States does not view Europe as a battleground between East and West, nor do we see the situation in Ukraine as a zero-sum game. Thatâ€™s the kind of thinking that should have ended with the Cold War.

You sure Putin views things the same way, Barry? Because it looks to me like he’s not agreeing this type of thinking ended with the Cold War. Look, we all know that we’re not going to war over Ukraine, and I’m not suggesting we should. But you at least need to make a show of it so he knows there’s lines, real lines, that he can’t cross. Like Poland and Estonia. And not that I really want him drawing any lines, since that hasn’t worked out to well for this Administration. This kind of obliviousness is how big wars start.

UPDATE: Not the only person who noticed this one.

Otis McDonald in Poor Health

Otis McDonald is the McDonald behind McDonald v. City of Chicago.Â His family is reporting on his Facebook page that he’s battling metastatic cancer, and could use thoughts and prayers:

Mr. Otis McDonald, a man who stood tall for full citizenship rights of all Americans. He stood victoriously at the Supreme Court for the right of every American to protect and defend their family. He stood for us to be safe in our homes. A courageous man who made us proud.

Mr. McDonald is currently in a fight for his life as he battles metastatic cancer. Today, he needs us to unite and stand for him. We are requesting your prayers for Mr. McDonald and his family during this time of his serious illness.

I take their statement as a request to help maintain the family’s privacy, so I did not include contact information, but it’s on the Facebook page.

Found in Dad’s Attic

Clayton tells of a guy walking around a gun show with an M3 “Grease Gun” sticking out of his backpack that he was trying to sell. Sounds like it wasn’t in perfect working condition, but was still a real deal submachine gun. I agree with Clayton something like that had a reasonable probability of being a sting, but I think the “found in dad’s attic” types are going to get more numerous as the Vietnam generation starts to die out.Â I think it’s reasonable to suggest that many of their next of kin will have no idea they are dealing with an unregistered machine gun that could land them ten years in prison, so it seems completely reasonable to believe some of them will try to sell their heirlooms completely ignorant that they are risking getting caught in a serious federal felony. The stings can go both ways.

That’s why I’m very interested in getting the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act made into law before the Vietnam generation starts dying off in large numbers, and while the last of the World War II veterans are still with us. There would be no legal remedy for someone finding a historic war bring back in their dad’s attic. The only legal course of action is to turn it in to be destroyed. The impetus for the VHFA was the discovery of a German machine gun captured by Alvin York, which was unregistered, and which was only saved from destruction by the actions of the local police department. It’s actually illegal for even the cops to have an unregistered machine gun, but I suppose ATF wasn’t willing to do anything about it.

A lot of folks might believe that they are better off not registering these heirlooms, lest they be one day confiscated by a future gun-hating government, and I think those people have a point. But in that case I think it’s important that next of kin are made aware of what they are dealing with. Also, for pieces that are truly historic, or for folks who want to actually be able to shoot their heirlooms, I think it’s important that they have the opportunity.