Sebastian – Page 545 – Shall Not Be Questioned

On the California OC Ban

UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, in the LA Times, expresses some of the same sentiment I did about California’s move to further restrict, really eliminate, the “bear” portion of the Second Amendment:

In two recent lower court lawsuits challenging California’s concealed carry laws, the judges upheld the restrictive policies in part because the state allowed open carry. The judges explained that because the state allows people to openly carry unloaded firearms without a permit, any 2nd Amendment right to have a firearm in public was satisfied. If you find yourself in immediate danger, you can load your gun quickly and protect yourself. Absent an open carry policy, however, future courts could have a much harder time upholding concealed carry restrictions.

Looking only at moving this issue through the courts, I’m somewhat glad California is going down this path. I think it would be problematic to force the courts to consider whether unloaded OC satisfies the constitutional requirement. The reason is that I fear the answer would be yes. We’re probably better off with the courts looking at an outright ban, except for a license which is issued at the arbitrary discretion of authorities.

Easy Availability

The Inquirer, probably reeling from the same slow news cycle even I’m lamenting, decides to bring out one of the media’s favorite deceased equines for a good flogging:

The easy availability of handguns, legal or not, poses a serious challenge to public safety. That’s why mayors, including Nutter, in dozens of communities across the state need to keep pushing for tighter controls on the purchase of handguns that end up being resold to criminals.

No policy prescriptions, no serious analysis of how criminals are getting handguns, it’s just too easy. End of debate. That is as far as their intellectual exploration of the topic will go. Because a couple of gang members shot up a night club, the rest of us have to pay the price in sacrificed freedom.

Foundation for the Defense of Some Democratic Values?

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies says they are “dedicated exclusively to promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that threaten democracy.” It doesn’t say anything about being an organization dedicated to promoting and defending due process before depriving people constitutional rights. That’s good,Â because it they said that, they’d be hypocrites. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide whether that fundamental principle is among the “democratic values” that this organization claims to defend.

Challenges to California “Assault Weapon” Law

SAF is filing a suit in federal court in California challenging the state’s assault weapons ban. The challenge appears to be for vagueness, which are notoriously difficult, but not impossible to win.

â€œCalifornia attempts to make a distinction among firearms where no natural one exists,â€ noted Calguns Executive Director Gene Hoffman. â€œThe generic definition of so-called â€˜assault weaponsâ€™ was simply an attempt to prohibit possession of guns that look scary.â€

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Don Kilmer of San Jose and Jason A. Davis of Mission Viejo. Kilmer said the case is indicative of the way things have become in California.

â€œNow that the right to keep arms has correctly been recognized as fundamental and applicable to California,â€ Kilmer said, â€œgun owners canâ€™t be faced with the practice of â€˜arrest them first and let the courts sort it outâ€™ for exercising constitutional rights. That is just how things are done in our country.â€

Combined with the Second Amendment, this could be a winning argument. I would think the trick is to try to get the Courts to say two things. One that a law governing a fundamental, constitutional right cannot be worded so vaguely, and/or that laws can’t be passed that serve the purpose of frustrating the lawful exercise of that right, or making it too legally risky. That would be a huge win if they would rule along those lines.

New Billboard Along Mass Pike

There are a big lie by omission on John Rosenthal’s latest billboard design near Fenway Park along the Mass Pike, but then again, our opponents have never been able to sway public opinion by being totally honest. They have to make it seem like everyone’s trading guns in an open air arms bazaar despite federal laws mandating background checks, along with a number of state laws.

But hey, when your argument can’t stand up to open debate, what are you going to do?

Bucks County Repeals Guns in Parks Ordinance

A local Bucks County resident by the name of Ken Richmond decided to challenge Bucks County Commissioners that their ordinance banning firearms in county parks ran contrary to state law.Â They agreed and repealed it. While these ordinances have been unlawful for at least twenty years, it good to get the blue laws off the books, regardless. I’m not surprised the Daily News managed to get a jab in by asking picnickers to avoid shooting the ants, as if anyone lawfully carrying a firearm is just a loose cannon waiting for the right excuse.

It’s the case that a lot of counties ban firearms in their parks, contrary to state laws which prohibit local governments and municipalities from regulating on this subject. I never recommended people obey these ordinances, because hey are illegal. In the event that anyone does somehow managed to get found out, and get a fine, it would be a relatively easy matter to challenge it and prevail. Preemption in this field is well established law in the Commonwealth, and the case law is pretty black and white.

Making the Inevitable Lawsuit That Much Stronger

The California legislature seems to be intent on solving this non-problem in regards to the fact that . There have already been at least two cases in the courts that have dismissed suits against California’s carry provisions, arguing that the unloaded open carry that current law provides for is sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement for the “bear” part of “keep and bear arms.” When these cases are appealed, it’s quite possible that will no longer be the case. DC v. Heller strongly implied there was a right to bear arms outside of the home, though with a wink and a nod that the states had a fair amount of leeway in regulating the manner in which firearms may be carried. The courts in the California cases have clung to the last legal avenue available, which the California legislature is moving speedily to close. This should be interesting.

A Blast from the Past

Thanks to Dave Hardy for highlighting this article about NRA from the 1990s. I can’t say I recall these years, since at the time this article was written, I was just taking my drivers test to get my license. I was sixteen and had bigger fish to fry. But I’ve heard from others that the days of J. Warren Cassidy were dark ones for NRA. But reading through the article, you get a sense of a much more engaged membership than exists today. Most of NRA Annual Meeting these days is political theater. In a lot of ways it’s a good thing not to have endless strife, and have factions struggling against other factions, but to a large degree I think NRA members have largely forgotten it’s a membership driven organization.

The Libertarian’s Choice

Ilya Somin likes Gary Johnson over Ron Paul. I heartily agree with Professor Somin, for many of the reasons he outlines. Â Gary Johnson got on my radar screen, when after finishing out his second term as Governor of New Mexico, he proceeded to question the wisdom of the War on Drugs, calling it “an expensive bust.” In short, I think Johnson might be all the wookie we’re looking for, but without the suit.

I am concerned about his name recognition problem and his ability to raise money.

Waiting for Rapture

I decided to ring in Armageddon with a pitcher of margaritas. Why? Because bad tequila can be had pretty cheaply, and when you combine it with equally cheap triple sec and lime juice, it makes for a pitcher that costs less than 6 bucks.

Despite my spendthrift ways, I am fairly confident that the world will indeed end, especially since, as Dave Hardy is pointing out, President Obama has pardoned someone for violating the NFA, and the CDC is openly discussing the Zombie Apocalypse.

More disturbing is this guy, who apparently spent his life’s savings buying billboard to announce the rapture. He’s still convinced he’ll be vindicated in the next ten minutes. It’s this kind of thing that makes me think how awfully correct P.T. Barnum really was.

In the mean time, I have to go fire up the grill. We’re having a cookout tonight, since there’s been a break in the constant rain this week. Fortunately, the weather for the next week is really looking up. Particularly, I’m looking forward to the plague of locusts. Those are good eats! And Kosher too.

UPDATE: Still here. The cookout was nice.