Author: Sebastian

So says the Washington Post, but the article speaks of how Democrats may accomplish gun control:

Senate Democrats have yet to decide the order: whether to start with background checks — their most likely victory — and try to build momentum, or to save that for the final piece so the effort ends on a positive note.

I’ve talked about the dangers of momentum before, and one reason to oppose the entire agenda is so they don’t get any. It’s also interesting that they admit the other measures are not “positive.” That is correct, because the are punitive; they punish all of us for the actions of a madman. The fight against the background check bill will undoubtedly be the toughest, but the anti-gun people should have to give something up, and by that I don’t mean we only take half your delicious cake instead of the whole thing. It means you insist on having some of my cake, I get some of yours too, which was really mine that you took from me in the first place.

I sincerely hope any bill that starts moving gets amended with some of their cake. Then they can decide what they are willing to give up. Often times that’s enough to kill the bill, because when it comes down to it, they aren’t willing to engage in real compromise.

The Vice President will apparently take part in a Google+ Hangout on Thursday (tomorrow) on gun violence. It’ll begin 1:45 p.m. at WhiteHouse.gov. Of course, we should all attend. Don’t let them own the field. The public relations campaign for gun control is about to begin.

Uncle asks, since Heller mentions “dangerous and unusual” weapons. I like to go back to Dave Hardy’s example from his lecture on the subject at the 2010 NRA legal seminar. I tend to think when it comes to this topic, that classes of arms should be interpreted rather broadly, and one also has to look to police use.

If you narrow a category enough, anything is unusual, and all guns are dangerous. The courts ought to look at prohibitions on subsets of weapon classes with skepticism. For instance, if a state decided to ban all derringers made by Bond Arms, one could argue such a small subset is unusual and not in common use. But the superset of handguns are. What about the Undetectable Firearms Act that was a result of a public scare ginned up by the anti-gunners? That is also a subset of protected arms. There might be instances where banning a subset of a larger protected class may be upheld, but I would generally believe strict scrutiny should be applied. If we reject that preventing criminal misuse is not a reason to ban handguns, how can it be a reason to ban a subset of handguns?

I’ve also advocated that the courts should consider police use when making a determination about “common use.” If a type of weapon is part of ordinary police equipment, it can’t be dangerous and unusual, and ought to be defined as in common use, even if it’s only in common police use. That would get us protections for things like body armor and “patrol rifles.” It may also get us machine guns, since machine guns are increasingly becoming more common in police armories.

But this is just thinking out loud. It’s a far cry from the courts ever adopting such a standard. As it is, I’d be nervous going to court with even New York’s draconian gun and magazine ban.

I suppose we all knew this was coming. I do believe these people mean to destroy shooting in their Northeastern enclaves. They don’t want to associated with icky gun owners and their icky guns. As I mentioned, this is cultural, and doesn’t have anything to do about reducing violence.

BTW, Part II of that link above will come soon. It’s still kind of stewing, and with having to go to the dentist this morning, it’s not going to be today. But soon. Good news is I don’t have to see the dentist for another six months. I just saw him a month or so ago, as I have nearly every month since my last six month checkup. But all caught up now.