Author: Sebastian

A judge has denied a preliminary injunction on the border rifle reporting requirement, saying that the NRA failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm. There’s still hope for the NSSF case. I’d say being forced to comply with a provision which has no basis in law should qualify as irreparable harm under any standard.

So he’s saying now:

“I am a staunch advocate of the second amendment — don’t get me wrong I have a perfect record from the NRA — but we need to do what we can to make sure that someone can’t come to a gun show or some place and exploit a loophole.”

Perfect record? Going into the 2004 elections, I seem to recall the guy had a C for supporting this kind of crap in the past. The reason he won the endorsement was because no matter what you might say about McCain otherwise, he wasn’t a former director of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, and hadn’t called for handgun bans.

So let’s dispense with this perfect record crap. This guy has made a career out of not being as bad as the other guy, and that’s about the best you can say about him. If he had been running against, say, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson in 2008, it would have been a completely different story.

The big problem with McCain, is you never know when he’s going to go all “Maverick” on you. Sometimes I really think he’s his daughter’s father.

So if the evil “gun lobby” is all about securing the “profits of the gun industry,” who, of course, donate money back to groups like NRA (the whole Triangle of Death thing), then why wouldn’t the self-interested response to Fast and Furious be to look the other way? If the goal is to help make money for the evil gunmakers, an operation like Fast and Furious, with the full blessing of ATF to sell as many guns to straw buyers for the Mexican cartels as they can, should form a great symbiotic relationship. So why the outrage on our side? Why was it gun bloggers who first did the digging to discover this scandal? What interest would NRA have, who is part of the Triangle, have in pushing Congress and raising the profile of this issue?

If this was about gun industry profits, we should love Fast and Furious, but we don’t. If that isn’t enough to make our opponents question the veracity of their own rhetoric, they are absolutely blind to the truth.

Anyone who lives in Pennsylvania knows we’ve had a serious problem with local cities and towns bucking preemption. Florida passed a preemption law with real teeth, which provided for fines, recovery of attorneys fees, and even holding officials personally liable. Since then towns have been scrambling to get their illegal laws off the books. I’ve seen dozens of articles like this over the past few weeks, so I’m now inclined to suggest the Florida law is working quite well. Hopefully this will be a template for Pennsylvania in the future.

This started with a brief Twitter exchange between myself and AntiTango, about whether or not we want Congress involved in enforcing the 14th Amendment through creating a national reciprocity requirement, or whether we should get it through the courts.

I’ll start off by saying that we’re not getting carry in any of the remaining hostile states or localities, save maybe Illinois, without some kind of federal intervention, either through the Courts or through Congress. California, nor Maryland, nor New Jersey are going to pass right-to-carry legislation on their own; it will have to be forced on them through federal action, one way or another. I think it needs to be a combination of the courts and Congress. I don’t think one or the other will suffice.

It would be relatively easy for the courts to impose on, say, California, for instance, that they have to issue licenses in a manner that is not arbitrary or capricious, effectively rendering them shall-issue. I think it’s a tougher sell to suggest the courts impose a national scheme for license recognition. The former only requires striking down a portion of California’s licensing law, while the latter actually requires the courts to enact policy, which I think they would be reluctant to do. I think imposing universal licensing recognition is actually a pretty good use of Congress’ powers under the 14th Amendment.

There is some precedent that makes that use questionable, and shouldn’t be overlooked, but overall, I’d prefer to put the courts in a position where they’d have to thwart the will of Congress, rather than putting them in a position where we are asking them to formulate a national scheme through which licenses would be recognized. It would be far easier, I think, for the courts to uphold licensing, but require the states to issue to non-residents, as a means of satisfying the constitutional requirement. For a lot of reasons, I don’t think this is as ideal as just having forced recognition. The Courts could also prevent states from enforcing those requirements for non-residents, but that seems inconsistent, and I doubt they’d be willing to do that as well.

The argument can be made that Congressional Acts are easier to overturn than precedent, but I would note that our opponents have had zero luck, in the 42 states that have passed RTC so far, of reversing or limiting that policy, and it’s been two decades now. While it’s true that over the long term, it’s hard to predict, but precedent could also be overturned over the long term as well. I don’t think either route is a sure thing, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. I’m not very fussy about the tool, as long as the job gets done.

From Chris Cox, in the Daily Caller. Because this uses Congress’ 14th Amendment powers, I’m in favor of this legislation, as I believe it’s within the federal government’s powers. It does also use the commerce power, but in cases like this, when people could be facing arrest, with states choosing to challenge rather than obey, you want to have all your bases covered.

It sets up an interesting conundrum for left-leaning judges too. Currently the “herpes theory” of the commerce clause is the power that enables federal felon-in-possession laws. It’s never been used the other way, that is to enable gun rights rather than remove them. While I’d like to see the herpes theory relegated to the dustbin of history, part of me doesn’t mind extending this legal middle finger to the people who created this power, using it in a way they are probably horrified over.