Sebastian – Page 494 – Shall Not Be Questioned

More District Court Opinion Failures

The Hightower case in Massachusetts, involving a former police officer who had her license to carry (also a license to possess in Massachusetts) revoked and her gun confiscated, has been lost in District Court in Massachusetts. The District court in this case argues that the Second Amendment is not implicated:

First, the Massachusetts licensing statutory scheme does not strike at the heart of the Second Amendment: while the difference between a restricted Class A license (which Hightower has not applied for) and an unrestricted Class A license (which Hightower has had revoked) may have some marginal impact on Hightowerâ€™s ability to use a gun to defend herself outside her home, it has no impact on her ability to defend hearth and home or to defend herself at home, which she can do adequately with a restricted Class A license or Class B license. Further, because the statutory scheme at issue here imposes only case-by-case restrictions, it creates a narrower restraint than the categorical prohibitions that, under certain circumstances, survive Second Amendment review.

You can read the whole opinion here. I’m not a lawyer, nor a serious scholar, but I find this opinion to be nearly incoherent. The Court essentially says the case is not ripe, because she could have re-applied for a permit. But that doesn’t address the deprivation of the right in the first place that occurred when the state seized the woman’s firearms. The district judge in this case seems to support the notion, without any analysis or justification, that it does not run afoul of the Constitution to have local authorities declare who is “suitable” and who is “unsuitable” for exercising their constitutional rights.

But the Court would find that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting public safety, especially in light of the prevalence of gun violence in Massachusetts and especially in Boston, would find further that this interest extends to an interest in removing, at least temporarily, guns from the hands of individuals initially deemed unsuitable for gun possession, and would find further still that these interests bear a meaningful relationship to the enforcement mechanism requiring local licensing authorities like the BPD Commissioner to determine whether an individual applicant appears unsuitable based on theÂ content of her application materials, subject to judicial review.

If this is the standard, then there is no right. It’s a privilege can be granted or revoked at the whim of the state. It’s worth noting that the judge in this case was appointed by President Obama. If you want to know why we have to get this guy out in 2012, this it. This judge has essentially ruled that the Second Amendment, as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment is without substantive meaning.

NRA Age Suit Lost in District Court

NRA’s lawsuit to overturn the law barring 18-21 year olds from purchasing handguns has been lost in the a district court, I believe in the same district court that decided Emerson back a half decade ago:

â€œThe Court is of the opinion that the ban does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the Constitution,â€ the ruling states. â€œThe right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.

â€œIt is within the purview of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the relative policy considerations and to make decisions as to the age of the customer to whom those licensed by the federal government may sell handguns and handgun ammunition.â€

So Congress could say no one who has not yet attained the age of 90 is permitted to own a firearm, and that is completely within Congress’ purview? The Courts should have nothing to say about it? What other right do we treat that way?

It continues to amaze me how little regard lower courts have for Heller and McDonald. Maybe there’s sound legal reasoning involved here. I have not seen the opinion. But punting to Congress strikes me as awfully weak.

UPDATE: The opinion is here. To make a relatively short opinion even shorter, he essentially grabbed on to the following passage in Heller:

[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Emphasis added by the District Court. Judge Cummings essentially argued that this was “a condition and qualification on the commercial sale of arms,” and thus was placed outside of the purview of the Court, leaving in the purview of Congress. But surely the Court did not mean that any condition or qualifications on the commercial sale of arms was presumptively constitutional? What if the qualification was never having received so much as a parking ticket? What if the condition was that each state could only have only FFL that was open 9AM to 11AM on the first Sunday after the first Saturday of each month? Does Judge Cummings really believe the Court meant that was entirely within the purview of Congress? That’s an absurd conclusion that renders a right a privilege.

Application for old Floppy Drives

I guess they are still useful for something.

More on the New Professionalism

Just a follow up on Bitter’s post on how far the Brady Campaign’s messaging has fallen even since relatively recently when Helmke left. One thing I’ve noticed lately is that Colin Goddard doesn’t seem to be getting the media exposure he once got. Much of that could be because with summer recesses in a lot of state capitals, there just aren’t as many campus carry bills to attract attention from the media, but it’s also occurred to me that perhaps their PR people are falling down on the job in putting him out there. A quick Google search confirms his media exposure is dropping, at least as far as being held out as a face of the Brady Campaign. The latest story on Colin shows this:

Goddard is working part time the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, lobbying Congress for better gun laws.

I can’t seem to find the press release form when Colin Goddard was hired, but he was Assistant Director of Legislative Affairs, a position that does not sound like it was part time. This makes me wonder if the Brady Campaign had to partially cut Colin loose, which might explain why they aren’t pushing him so hard in the media. The headliner for Living for 32 notes:

And he grew a fire in his heart to do something about keeping dangerous people from having easy access to deadly weapons. He now works full-time at the Brady Campaign, lobbying on the Hill and speaking around the country to college audiences and others about how all Americans can help prevent gun violence. “Living for 32” is his story.

If they chopped Colin, even back to part time, they were either supreme fools, or their financial situation is more precarious than I would have imagined. It’s quite possible for either to be the case. Legislative lobbying would be done under the auspices of the Brady Campaign, and as we’ve noted previously, the Bradys seem to be shifting more of their operations to the Brady Center, which has greater funds. Legislative activity would not be among those functions that would be easily shifted.

But we have more evidence that the Brady Campaign is in total disarray. This makes me wonder if whoever ends up heading up the Campaign won’t have to be a good fundraiser just to be able to cover his own salary. As for Colin Goddard, he got himself into the DC scene after graduation, and has made a favorable impression on a number of Congressional offices. I would imagine a position as a Congressional staffer is not out of reach for him. If he has indeed been partially let go, or let go, we hope he manages to find something along those lines.

Media Matters Struggles to Come up with NRA Smear Material

As a blogger, I can sympathize with the difficulty of coming up with fresh material on a daily basis. It’s has to be especially hard when your masters are paying you to smear gun rights, and you don’t really know much about the subject.

Reaching as far out there as they can to find something bad to smear NRA with, the latest attempt by Media Matters is to suggest NRA is clearly not a single issue organization, because sometimes Cam has Jim Geraghty on Cam and Company and they sometimes talk about topics other than guns. Ooooh. Real scandal brewing there.

Maybe I’m just not as smart as the enlightened lefties, but I don’t really have too much of a problem distinguishing between “Cam’s Opinion” and and “Official Statement of the National Rifle Association.”

White House Petition for HR822

Apparently the White House has a petition site, and one of the petition pages is for HR822, the National Right-to-Carry Recprocity Act of 2011. The goal is to hit 5000 signatures by October 22, 2011. We’re at 1065 so far. Unfortunately, you have to register to sign the petition, which makes me surprised we’re 1/5th the way there, considering those in our cause with thicker, more luxurious varieties of Wookie Suits might not be too keen on getting their names on a White House list of gun owners.

In contrast, the petition created by one of our opponents to re-institute the assault weapons ban isn’t doing so well.

UPDATE: From Bitter, in response to how the e-mails would be used:

Actually, you can’t be solicited for a DNC donation from the White House list. However, what people have speculated the petition function’s end goal is to build a list of sympathetic emails with issues that they have specified they care about. A petition like this won’t see any actual action, nor will they really have anything to do with reaching out to pro-gun people. However, it will make some White House staff nervous and annoyed, so that is worth it. It also can serve as a reminder to those in Congress that we want it done.

No Guns for Medical Marijuana Users

ATF has ruled that people with medical marijuana cards are ineligible to purchase firearms, and have sent a letter to dealers outlining such. As a matter of federal law, their determination in this case is quite correct. Whether the federal law is proper or constitutional, I think is open for debate.

Gun Rights Policy Conference

John Richardson has his impressions of his first GRPC, which is an annual event put on by SAF and CCRKBA. I’ve never been to one, but it’s on my list to get to one of these years. Obviously, considering our employment situation, this was not going to be the year.

New York City Air Defenses

I was interested to see this post over at Extrano’s Alley that the NYPD commish was bragging that they had the ability to take down aircraft. I’m thinking unless they picked up an SA-7, or some cheap and only likely marginally effective Soviet or Chicom AAA armored vehicle, that a Stinger or some other such MANPAD was awfully expensive for even a city as large as New York. Nonetheless, you never know, given enough budget and reckless abandon, what city officials will purchase. So I at least gave them the benefit of doubt that perhaps the NYPD got their hands on the mother of all toys.

Turns out that the NYPD commish bought his own bullshit, and was referred to the Barrett .50 cals in his department’s inventories. If they had a couple of Ma Deuces strapped to an SUV, or even a mini gun, I might concede that perhaps they have the ability to take out a rogue aircraft with the right kind of gunner, if it’s moving slowly enough, and they don’t mind raining lead down on large parts of the city when they miss (which will be most of the rounds). But if the M82A1Â is what the commish thinks is his anti-aircraft kit, he’s a lot dumber than I thought.

Chiappa RFID Tags

This is a nightmare. From the Firearm Blog:

The latest issue of the European gun magazine Gun Trade World quotes Chiappa’s Cinzia Pinzoni saying “The information on the microchip can beÂ rewritten several times” and “the chip is veryÂ difficult to removeÂ …Â accompanies the weapon foreverÂ providing all the information gathered regarding its production … and the registration of the gun and the owners details.”. Scary, very scary!

It would be remarkably easy for gun thieves to steal guns if all they had to do was drive down any given street and get an inventory. That’s not even mentioning that it surely could be abused by hostile authorities. Chiappa has clearly never heard of Joe’s Jews in the Attic test. This is major fail.

All this is doing is giving our opponents ideas. They know we don’t like this. The only thing I sincerely hope prevents them from taking this awful idea and running with it is what a boon it would be to gun thieves.