Author: Sebastian

There’s an interesting discussion thread over at Calguns.net speaking about whether or not it’s the right thing to do to thank Governor Jerry Brown for his veto. The discussion that continues below is worthwhile. While I don’t have a lot of time for people who think the reason we lose is that other people aren’t fighting hard enough, and who thinks all it takes is a “take no prisoners” approach and we’ll never lose, I do think the poster in question has a point.

I don’t see any reason Californians should be bending over backwards to thank Jerry Brown for signing four gun control bills into law, several of which aren’t exactly trivialities. Yes, Brown vetoed the worst of the bills, but splitting the baby shouldn’t exactly be enough to earn gushing praise from us. Remember that Schwarzenegger was fond of splitting the baby on guns, and Californians did nothing but continue down the slippery slope during his Administration.

I’d especially consider that the bill Brown vetoed would have been something I would have been more comfortable taking to court than any of the other bans that have been passed to date. I wouldn’t have hoped for him to sign it, but it does speak to motivations. Brown has kept his state out of an expensive court fight that could cost California not only its new ban, but the whole Roberti-Roos regime, depending on what the courts decided to say on the issue. Several other states ban would have been put at risk too. If I were an anti-gun strategist on the other side of the issue, I would have been quietly (or perhaps not so quietly if I had access to Governor Brown’s people) urging him to veto it. As an anti-gun crusader, I’d much rather take my chances with the 2nd Circuit over New York’s SAFE act than deal with a blanket semi-auto rifle ban in the 9th circuit. So let’s not pretend he did this because he’s just oh so concerned about our gun rights.

Every grading scale I’ve seen for politicians has A through F. Brown split the baby down the middle. His thanks can be having a C instead of an F.

They want to adopt the 5150 hold as the national standard. Under California law, anyone who ends up with a 5150 is barred from firearms possession for a period of five years. Pennsylvania law is actually nearly identical on this matter, except that we call it a 302 commitment, and the ban is for life instead of 5 years, though in both cases you can petition to have your rights restored. The 302 commitment is routinely abused, as any firearms attorney in this state will tell you, and it sounds like California is no different.

Davis said his case files are filled with people who say “stupid stuff” and then lose their gun rights for nothing more than a brief emotional outburst.

Among them: A man fired by his employer who cried, “I wish I was dead,” during the exit interview; a woman who filed a sexual harassment claim against a supervisor and had not eaten or slept because of workplace stress; and a motorcycle accident victim who had taken too much medication – leading hospital staff to fear he was attempting suicide.

The medical establishment has repeatedly demonstrated hostility to the right to keep and bear arms, therefore I am against giving them power over that. I’ve heard of too many cases like this, where individuals with 302 commitments for bogus reasons end up having to very quickly find a place to store their firearms, to avoid having them turned over to the police and destroyed. Remember, when you get a 5150 or 302, if you already have a collection, if you can’t find anyone to take it within a very short amount of time of your commitment, you lose it. Whether a $500 Glock or a $20,000 collection is no matter. There has to be due process here, and what gun control advocates want to do doesn’t amount to that.

The Pennsylvania Game commission is enjoying an influx of new money thanks to the Great Obama Gun Panic of 2013. I hope they manage to use some of that money for upkeep of public ranges in Pennsylvania, given that the vast majority of guns and ammunition purchased during the panic is more likely to be used for target shooting than for hunting. Pittman-Robertson places an excise tax on all guns and ammunition at the federal level, and grants that money to state game agencies. This has been a generally accepted tax within the shooting community for some time, but could potentially be called into question from a constitutional standpoint, because it’s unconstitutional to tax the exercise of a right.

Even being out for the count most of yesterday, there wasn’t a whole lot of gun news out there anyway. But there has been some.

The laws, they are for the little people.

Apparently if you work to un-elect your elected representative, and that representative happens to be a woman, it’s war on women!

How much energy does your bullet need to bring down big game?

Which long gun for home defense?

When will gun control proponents learn that demonizing gun raffles only make them more successful?

Washington Council of Governments takes up the gun issue, and drops most of it. As best I can tell, the Council of Governments is kind of like a United Nations for Washington Metro Area Counties. I had never heard of it.