Author: Sebastian

A federal district court ruling last month ruled that a Connecticut law which bans all felons from being precious metal dealers is unconstitutional, because the law failed to establish any rational basis for doing so regarding any number of felonies that don’t have elements that would be of concern to someone dealing in precious metals. Eugene Volokh points out that this is very similar to the law which bars all felons, violent or non-violent, from possessing firearms. Though he does note that the ruling is quite out of step with how the courts typically do rational basis analysis, and he expects it to be overturned on appeal.

But I tend to think there has to be some limit on the power to strip people of their right to keep and bear arms due to a criminal conviction. Otherwise what is to prevent a state from arguing that even traffic offenses are disabling? Clearly if you misuse an automobile in an irresponsible manner, we can’t trust you with a gun, can we? It would pass rational basis review. But it has to have its limits. Likewise, even under present law, a woman could be stripped of her right to keep and bear arms for pushing her husband out of the way while storming out of the house during a heated argument if the husband and/or police and prosecutors wanted to make an issue of it.

John Richardson takes a look at the New York Times article, which begs the question: “What Does the NRA Have in Common with Syria, Iran and North Korea?” I don’t know, why don’t you ask Canada. The definition of what is or what isn’t a “civilized country” always seems to change with these people depending on what supports the preferred narrative.

The news cycle is all shutdown, shutdown, shutdown. Have you noticed the shutdown? I haven’t. I have you visited the new Obamacare exchanges at healthcare.gov? I don’t think the site works at all. I could have created a site that doesn’t work like that in a few hours. Anyways, the news:

If you give them the toys, don’t be surprised when they start looking for excuses to play with them.

Fast an Furious was so successful, they decided to try the same thing with cigarettes. Of course, guns kill people. Everyone knows that cigarettes don’t.

“You can’t handle the dumb” Yep. The ignorance burns. And they vote.

Apparently a recent court filing “connected the NRA to spaceships, X-ray beams, and anti-gravity technology.” I’m kind of pissed they haven’t shared the anti-gravity technology with the rest of us.

CNN to drop Piers Morgan. They note “One group that will likely be happy that CNN is pulling the plug on Morgan in prime time… the NRA.” I don’t see why. He’s almost as good a recruiting tool as Obama. Clearly they’ve never read this book.

For people who used to complain that no gun control group favors a total gun ban, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence isn’t being very convincing.

This is not a Second Amendment case, but rather a case to determine the scope of the Lautenberg Amendment, codified in 18 USC 922(g)(9). This is not a challenge to Lautenberg facially, on Second Amendment grounds. The 6th Circuit opinion can be found here.

The government’s argument is unpersuasive. It overlooks the nearly identical language of § 921(a)(33)(A) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 16(a) and 924(e)(2)(B)(i). Section 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) defines a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as a crime that “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force,” against a victim with whom the defendant shares a domestic relationship.^[1] Like § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii), §§ 16(a) and 924(e)(2)(B)(i) use the phrase “physical force” to define “crime of violence” and “violent felony,” respectively. Section 16(a) defines a “crime of violence” in part as “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” For its part, § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) defines a “violent felony” in part as a crime “that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” By defining a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to require “the use or attempted use of physical force,” § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) drops the reference to “threatened use” from §§ 16(a) and 924(e)(2)(B)(i) but otherwise tracks the language of §§ 16(a) and 924(e)(2)(B)(i). The provisions’ similarity supports the inference that Congress intended them to capture offenses criminalizing identical degrees of force.

Tennessee statute, under which Castleman was convicted, includes the mere threat of force, and other force that would not necessarily be violent. Noting:

In so holding, the Court interpreted the “physical force” requirement in that statute as “violent force … capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person” and “strong physical force.” Id. at 1271.

It’ll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with this, but it would reserve the circuit split on this matter either way. I tend to agree with the 6th Circuit opinion here:

The government resists this conclusion by emphasizing § 922(g)(9)’s reference to “misdemeanor” offenses, but the government asks us to put more weight on the term “misdemeanor” than Congress meant the term to bear. Had Congress intended the word “misdemeanor” to have the effect suggested by the government, then Congress would have had no need to modify “misdemeanor” with the phrase “crime of violence.” Congress could simply have prohibited any person convicted of a “misdemeanor domestic assault or battery offense” from possessing a firearm. It chose not to do so.

Yet the government’s position is that any misdemeanor assault conviction against a domestic partner is a disabling offense. If the Supreme Court upholds the sixth circuit opinion here, it would essentially mean there would have to be a finding that there was actual violence, or attempted violence involved. There mere conviction would not be sufficient unless the statute itself involved those things.

Apparently Daniel Squadron, who ran very heavily on his record on gun control, got trounced in the Democratic Primary for New York Public Advocate. This is probably a case where gun control wasn’t likely the reason he lost, but campaigning on it sure as hell didn’t help him. If it can’t motivate New York Democrats, how does Bloomberg expect to turn this into a winning issue nationally?

Is it Wednesday already? Where did half the week go? Perhaps time flies in a government shutdown. Now for the news:

Some complications in Montana when it comes to reporting mental health records. Many states have medical privacy laws that technically make reporting to NICS a state crime.

Marylanders are stocking up!

An outdoor writer in Delaware takes aim at gun control: “Next I purchased a Remington .22 caliber bolt-action single-shot rifle with money made delivering the Journal Every Evening. I was 11 or 12, and all I had to do was hand the man at the hardware store the money, and he gave me the rifle.” And you remember how many mass shootings they were having back then, right?

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s popularity continues to decline.

Gaining ground even on mom blogs. We need more women in the fight, for two reasons. One, we need this to disappear. We’ve made good progress, but I’d like to see no gender gap on the issue. Two, women are a lot more civically engaged than men.

What can one man with a pistol do? Kenya has strict gun control, but it would seem there are ways around it.

Florida introduces a bill to allow warning shots. To me the problem with the Alexander case was mandatory minimums, not the fact that warning shots are illegal. They aren’t if you’re justified in using deadly force. But a warning shot kind of suggests you weren’t, right?

How import marks destroy a gun’s value.

Back in the 1990s, the gun control folks were more open about their intentions. Now they “support the second amendment,” even if they still believe the same things.

Nuts, Racists and assholes.

There was a mass shooting in China where guns are banned. China also has a mass stabbing problem.

Sometimes I think tar and feathers are too good for them.

Paul Barrett has been offering advice to anti-gunners. Most of it has been good, like stop hating on gun owners.

A new survey shows everyone hates environmentalists and feminists, despite people having broad sympathies for the goals of both movements.

“Unfortunately,” they write, “the very nature of activism leads to negative stereotyping. By aggressively promoting change and advocating unconventional practices, activists become associated with hostile militancy and unconventionality or eccentricity.”

Hmm. What does that sound like?

So the message to advocates is clear: Avoid rhetoric or actions that reinforce the stereotype of the angry activist.

We really don’t want gun rights to fall victim to the same problem. That’s the primary reason I’m wary of activism methods that set us apart from normal, everyday Americans. That’s a big reason why I think this October 19th event promoted by GRAA is one of the worst ideas I’ve seen from our side in a long time. It’s very important to stick with activism that doesn’t seem odd, eccentric, or unusual to large parts of the population. More importantly, we’d like more people to get involved with pro-Second Amendment activism, not fewer, and fewer people is what you’ll get if your activism methods are socially awkward.

Gun Rights Save Lives looks at the Reagan legacy when it comes to guns. Things aren’t as rosey a lot of folks like to wax nostalgic about. But I disagree with the main source of angst here:

When he was president, he banned all new fully-automatic weapons from being sold to the public in 1986. Now they are nearly impossible for the average person to possess because they cost about $20,000.

The one thing I will disagree with is dinging Reagan over the 1986 machine gun ban. Remember that was attached at the last minute to the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act of 1986. I was 12 at the time this passed, and I had little political awareness when all of this went down. Everything I know from the time I’ve gotten from talking to the people involved with the fight at that time, and nearly everyone I’ve spoken with on the subject believes it was necessary to continue supporting FOPA despite what Bill Hughes did to it. The Gun Control Act, unmodified by FOPA, would have succeeded in destroying the shooting culture. I’d encourage everyone to read Dave Hardy’s account of the matter, who was intimately involved with getting FOPA passed into law. That Reagan signed FOPA I do not believe ought to be a ding against him.

Now it’s true that later in life, long after he was out of office, he ended up supporting the Brady Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Members of his family today claim that was a result of his handlers signing him onto positions he himself never would have supported had he not been suffering Alzheimer’s. Whether this is true, or whether it’s just family trying to preserve his legacy, I don’t think is clear. I don’t think Reagan was the pro-gun saint everyone likes to remember him as, but I also think a lot of Reagan needs to be put into the context of the time.