NRA had already lost on the challenge of the Federal ban on 19-20 year olds purchasing handguns, now they’ve also lost on the challenge to the Texas law that denies permits to 19-20 year olds. Looks like it went before the same judge, so not too surprising it’s the same result. I think the challenge to the purchase restriction is in principle a good idea. I don’t agree with running a carry-based case at the same time. Let the Supreme Court and circuit courts decide on carry independently, and let them decide on the purchase prohibition for 18-20 year olds. Then take the two concepts and tie them together for a challenge to carry. Once Judge Cummings had ruled on the 18-20 year olds for purchase, carry was fore drawn conclusion. I don’t see what strategic sense it made for NRA to fund these in parallel.
Author: Sebastian
Chicago Pulling a Philly?
Looks like Chicago is taking after Philadelphia, in terms of what you do, if you’re a politician trying to cultivate an image of a crime fighter, but crime keeps going up. You fudge the numbers.
Winning!
Guns, Cars and Tech notes an article in Elle magazine about getting a gun. Elle? Really? Much more of this and we’re going to be seeing reports from DC of the police having to talk Dennis Hennigan down from a ledge.
Another Beating Victim in Philadelphia
This time a 64 year old man a gang just decided to beat for sport. Remember, this is the same city that decided to prosecute Gerald Ung for putting six bullets into the alpha male of an attacking gang. City officials are harder on defenders than on attacking criminals. This is getting so bad, it’s irresponsible of city officials for not encouraging people to get permits and arm themselves. Hell, if I were Nutter, I’d tell the Philadelphia police to set up a firearms training course to help citizens into LTCs. But I’ll eat my hat if I ever see that day.
SOPA and Gun Control
Q: What does the proposed SOPA (“Stop Online Piracy Actâ€) legislation have in common with gun control?
A: Both would punish the innocent for the bad acts of a guilty few.
The article proceeds to tear apart the logic of gun control as being virtually identical to that of SOPA. I had never realized until I started interacting with gun control fanatics more how they really are incapable of drawing a distinction between responsible individuals and misusers. Their position is quite simple that because we have no good way of predetermining whether someone is responsible, or will misuse, we have to assume everyone will misuse. This is a poor basis for a free society.
Civil Rights Victory & Setbacks
SayUncle notes a victory in the First Circuit which thew out a gun charge for someone who had been involuntary committed under state procedures that did not offer proper due process. This looks like a circuit court ruling, which is a bigger deal. This is now law in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island. Interestingly, it looks like the attorneys for the defendant (it’s a criminal case) were from the Federal Defender Office.
At the same time, there’s been a setback in the Ninth Circuit, where the Supreme Court has denied cert on an appeal of a ruling upholding a California Law which banned domestic violence misdemeanants from having firearms for ten years. For the record, I hate it when reporters, who ought to know better, characterize this as some kind of approval by the Supreme Court as to the law being challenged in the cert petition. Denial of cert means very little. For all anyone knows, the Court is looking for a better case through which to take up that issue. Certainly, if I were looking at it, I wouldn’t like the added complication of the prohibition being only temporary under California law. There could be a lot of reasons for cert being denied.
Also, ANJRPC/SAF recently lost a motion in district court challenging New Jersey’s carry statute. The judge ruled there was no right outside the home, but ANJRPC/SAF are appealing.
Antis Having it Both Ways
We’re told by our opponents that the candle light vigils that occurred on the anniversary of the mass shooting in Tucson that claimed the lives of a number of people, and severely injured Congresswoman Giffords, were merely an expression of honoring victims, and is thus beyond reproach. But from a Minnesota Public Radio article, we can see even the people who supposedly organized against “gun violence” say it was a political stunt:
The nationwide “Too Many Victims” vigils demanded that public officials commit to stopping these needless deaths. We must start with the source of the guns.
So here we have two organizers fully admitting the goal of these vigils was political, while at the same time groups like CSGV and Brady shield themselves behind a veil of victimhood while they conspire to destroy our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I’m calling shenanigans on that. The goal of this vigil was, all along, political in nature, as was painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain. That essentially means the event is not above criticism, no matter what kind of nonsense our opponents want to try to convince people.
In a sense, they really are victims. Politically, they are beaten, and by people they’ve always considered unenlightened and less civilized than are they. We are increasingly finding ourselves more mainstream, while they are more marginalized. They know this as well as anyone, which is why they having nothing left to do but lash out in anger. We have them on the ropes folks, and now is not the time to let up.
Even Forbes Recognizes Denial
Forbes has a rather excellent article on the firearms boom as we head into the SHOT show, noting that everyone at SHOT seems to be having a good time.
Indeed, this prolonged surge in gun sales has driven Sarah Brady’s group to some very creative spin; for example, Caroline Brewer, of the Brady Campaign, said, “The research we’ve seen indicates fewer and fewer people are owning more and more guns.â€
Sanetti doesn’t think the Brady Campaign’s spin has a syllable of truth in it; after all, he pointed out that the NSSF’s First Shots Program (a program that holds shooting lessons for the public) has been growing fast. “Fun, new action-shooting sports, such as 3-gun and sporting clays, are also bringing in a lot of new shooters, especially women,†he says.
And popular shows, such as The History Channel’s Top Shots, have helped to showcase how much fun shooting can be[.]
So even Forbes thinks it’s ridiculous at this point, to deny that shooting is becoming popular, and is driving the sale of more guns. Somewhere in the past decade, they’ve lost control of the message and lost the initiative. While the media can still be counted on to get it wrong, or to deliver biased stories that parrot anti-gun group talking points, the number of outlets willing to run these is becoming increasingly small, and limited to jurisdictions that have already largely succeeded in destroying the shooting sports and lawful gun ownership.
TN Legislature Passes Resolution for Meredith Graves
Titled “A Resolution urging the State of New York to use common sense and sound judgement in the disposition of the case against Meredith Graves.” This would have about as much impact as New York asking 1950s Tennessee to go easy on the poor black fellow who happened to not understand that sitting at the wrong lunch counter was a problem. As it is, if they go easy on Meredith Graves, it’ll be because they fear spurring the passage of pending civil rights legislation and the filing of civil rights lawsuits. They certainly won’t be doing it out of a sense of justice, or because they’ve finally seen the light about the Second Amendment. The only way jurisdictions like New York join the rest of America when it comes to respecting all of the Bill of Rights is if it’s forced on them.
Inconsistency in Some SOPA Opposition
Eugene Volokh notes the hefty amount of corporate free speech going on today, and points out that many of the SOPA opponents were derisive of the idea that corporations can have protective speech. I generally think it’s poor business practice for corporations to get involved with controversial political issues, but in the case of something like SOPA, which has little if any real grassroots support, it’s probably safe. But while I think it’s a poor idea for companies to insert themselves into politics, I believe they have a right to speak.