This is really good to see, a California gun shop runs a creative an interesting public ad campaign, that seems to be paying off in spades. It has to be driving the right kind of people bonkers to see it actually working, in California of all places. Plus, you have to love a shop that had the gumption to call themselves PRK Arms.
Author: Sebastian
The Mad Descent Continues
The Brady Campaign would seem to have been taken in by satire. Who knew that the Brady death spiral would be so entertaining? At some point, they’ll have to accept just being Dennis Henigan and a couple of other people, just like CSGV and VPC. Maybe they are already close to that, who knows. But things have not been the same since Helmke and Hamm departed, that’s for sure.
To the Terror of the People
SayUncle has the background on the case of Embody v. Ward, in regards to an SAF brief that must be read if you’re into all the detailed legal stuff. Generally speaking, in common law it was an offense to go about armed to the terror of the people. Blackstone was never remarkably clear about exactly what that meant, but in the modern context Embody probably falls into that category.
The District court reached that the Second Amendment right was limited, not applying in public parks. SAF’s brief essentially argues Embody can be disposed of without having to so limit the right. From their argument:
Heller’s recognition of a right to carry a handgun does not force states to allow the carrying of handguns in a manner that may cause needless public alarm, so long as a more socially-conductive option exists to allow people to exercise the right to bear arms. But once a legislature determines that only a particular manner of carrying will be permitted, that choice must be honored.
No doubt they are going to take some heat for that statement from people who fail to grasp the implications of fighting this battle out in the courts, but I think their chosen strategy here is a wise one, that comports with the original common law conceptions of the right, and how it’s been implemented in the American tradition. The state may regulate the manner of carry, but may not outright prohibit it. Under SAF’s standard here, it would be questionable, for instance, about whether New Jersey could, say, ban all but open carry, since it’s pretty obviously not the “more socially-cunductive option” in regards to the exercise of the right. But under this standard, New Jersey could ban open carry.
For folks who don’t like this, you can thank Leonard Embody. Now the game is to try to undo the damage he has already done, and I think if SAF’s brief is influential with the court here, it’s the best way to accomplish that.
Right Wing Anti-Government Paranoia
Apparently it’s catching on, which makes Joe Huffman wonder if it’s really paranoia if a large majority of the population believes it. Well, for all the folks who think big government is a big threat, how about we elect a government on a platform of leaving us the hell alone? Can it be that hard?
More on Virginia Tech
This time courtesy of Roanoke Times reporter Mike Gentry and the Associated Press, which is basically a long-winded insult to gun owners. I’m surprised the AP would put out such low grade material as this. Seriously, I’ve seen blog posts that were of higher quality. Where can I get paid to be a random bonehead venting? Oh wait…
Definition on Insanity
Keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result, right? Someone needs to tell at least one Professor at Virginia Tech. The article goes on, insinuating that ordinary people are actually killers just waiting to snap, despite most psychological, and sociological evidence which says this is not the case.
What I can’t get over is the shock of these people. Did you really believe the myth about lighting and not striking the same place twice? That there’s nutty people out there who don’t give a rat’s behind whether they’re on a college campus, and will just walk up to cops and randomly murder them, is why many of us carry guns.
I myself am a child of the Southern gun culture, and as such I’m inclined to acknowledge the desires of “sportsmen†and the alleged protections of the Second Amendment.
I purchased my first weapon at age 10, with my saved allowance, a .22 caliber Ithaca saddle gun from the local Western Auto store, for $29.95. I’m absolutely positive there was no background check.
I am sure there are many young boys and girls across America who have listened intently to their training and learned to handle weapons maturely. I was not one of them. I distinctly remember one camping trip at age 12 that broke out into frightening gunplay. I still can’t figure how someone didn’t get shot that weekend.
Mostly my experience with guns as a police reporter was intensely negative, with a nonstop run of incidents—domestic tragedies, armed robberies, childhood accidents, and other sorts of disasters.
Well, professor, maybe it’s time you started dealing with your own issues, instead of trying to deal with everyone else’s.
Chicago Statehood?
Apparently there’s a proposal to make Chicago the 51st state. I’m not sure what they think this will get them out of, given that the Constitution would apply just as readily to Chicago the state as it does to the city. But perhaps they see the writing on the wall in regards to which way this is going.
Personally, I am against this proposal, because I see no reason to the leaders of that city two Senate seats they can put up for sale, and fill with cronies.
Stick to the Drums Ringo
“I can’t stand up and dictate to the world: ‘it’s over – no more guns.’ I can just do what I do, and there’s another side to the story which is peace and love.”
The Game Begins in Wisconsin
In many states that passed shall issue, you’ll always have a handful of legislators that try to repeal it in practice without actually repealing it. Knowing there will never be the votes for outright repeal, making it nearly impossible to carry, or essentially rendering the license useless, is the next best thing.
Some jackass legislator from Milwaukee is looking to ban guns at gas stations, because they get robbed, you know. Presumably the existing law against robbery isn’t enough, but surely if we just ban guns, that’ll convince those armed robbers to just stay home. In addition, his bill make it a felony to make off with a tank of gas, or for some punk kid to scratch his initials on a gas pump. So we get to make more misdemeanor level crimes a felony, while we’re at it. A two for one deal.
This legislation is likely to go nowhere, but it’s worth pointing out that this battle never ends. There are too many people out there happy to stick their noses in your business. While it’s laughable to believe this is an anti-crime measure, it would most decidedly have the benefit of ensuring that no people licensed to carry actually do so, since this would amount to a major inconvenience.
The Fraud that Just Won’t Die
Both Eugene Volokh and Dave Kopel refute some of the poor facts in an NYU law review article titled “The People” of the Second Amendment: Citizenship and the Right to Bear Arms. The paper essentially argues that the Second Amendment is a citizenship right, and not a universal one, that would apply to foreigners. Professor Volokh notes:
Some years ago, I noticed several authors making the assertion that indentured servants, and in one instance even women and the propertyless, were routinely barred from owning guns in the Colonies and in the early Republic. All those assertions turned out to rely on Michael Bellesiles’ pre–Arming America work that made such an assertion, especially Gun Laws in Early America: The Regulation of Firearms Ownership, 1607–1794, 16 Law & Hist. Rev. 567, 574, 576 (1998)
So in this paper we would seem to have a Bellesiles-inspired claim for which no true evidence can be found. It’s amazing to me, though his work has been thoroughly discredited by now, that his assertions still keep showing up in academic literature. People want to believe, so it becomes fact, even though it is fiction.
Dave Kopel concludes with “The author could have made a stronger historical argument for his position if he had accurately described the gun laws of 17th and 18th century America.” But that doesn’t fit the narrative does it?