The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Because without them, you can’t exploit opportunities like this. If we can preserve this through the Senate, which we stand a good chance to, it will become a crime for ATF to even continue prattling about long gun reporting requirements.
This is a big reason Dudley Brown has no clue what he’s talking about when it comes to politics.
David Rittgers makes an important observation about defensive sprays: be sure to check state and local laws before you decide whether it’s right for you. Virginia, shockingly makes misusing pepper spray a felony. This is a monumentally bad law, and one that, fortunately, I don’t think many states have. For most states, unlawful use of pepper spray would be misdemeanor assault.
Interesting to read the actual lawsuit here. The problem is that MOC isn’t really a traditional membership organization, but more like a means to facilitate communication between like minded individuals. What if I, someone who’s never posted on MOC at all, go into the library with a gun? What if even someone who is active on MOC does it, but does not have any official ties to the organization? Is MOC liable for contempt of court for violating the injunction, even though they really don’t have any control over their members?
Could a lawsuit be opened against PAFOA? Calguns.net? The High Road? Or even this blog? These fools in Michigan have opened up a giant can of worms. That’s really an understatement. A method like this could be used to stifle and shut down activism and communication that our community has come to rely on.
Even Nappen ponders whether it’s unlawful for legislators to vote for a “Firearms Freedom Act,” such as the one in New Hampshire with threatens federal officials with jail time and crimes for attempting to enforce federal gun laws.
Generally speaking legislators enjoy some form of legislative immunity, which means they can’t be sued for their actions as legislators. But legislative immunity for criminal matters is typically something defined by the Constitution, and in no case that I know of is such immunity unlimited. There’s certainly nothing in the federal constitution that immunizes state legislators from being subject to federal laws.
There is no doubt that a law criminalizing the interference of federal officials in the execution of their lawful duties is among Congress’ enumerated powers, because it is a “necessary and proper” exercise of their power to make and enforce laws under the authority of the Constitution.
This is an interesting question, and I can’t find anything that says the answer is definitely no, that it is not technically illegal. States do have sovereign immunity, and I would imagine state lawmakers could seek protection under that idea. But I can’t find any case that suggests state lawmakers can’t be criminally liable for passing a law which violates a federal criminal statute. Anyone else know?
If you’re going to insist on the “OC’ers are the new Rosa Parks”, then you have to break an unjust law to complete the analogy. Open carrying where it’s legal but rare is raising awareness – to fight the unjust law, it needs to be done somewhere OC is illegal, like Chicago or Texas. Start open carrying there to protest the law if you’re going to be using the Civil Rights analogy.
What’s going on in Michigan isn’t civil disobedience, it’s uncivil obedience. It’s perfectly legal and within my rights to fart in a crowded elevator, but that doesn’t mean I insist everyone else like the smell.
I was quite interested to see this article that British engineers want to try to print an entire aircraft wing, rather than fabricating it through traditional methods. This is a technology that should revolutionize industries where the products being made don’t need to be produced in huge quantities. Aircraft manufacturing could be among those industries. But another is firearms manufacturing. I’m particularly fascinated by selective laser sintering technology, which has the ability to lay down metal, ceramic and glass, in addition to plastics.
A friend of mine just got one of these 3D printers that lays down ABS plastic:
The cost of these printers is under $1000 bucks. If you’re looking for objects to print for your personal 3D printer you can go to the Thingiverse. Obviously home 3D printing is in its very infancy, but these products are bound to get cheaper and more sophisticated. Commercial printers can already lay down different types of material at the same time.
So why do I bring this up? Because to the extent that CNC technology has made gun control an unworkable pipe dream, 3D printing technology makes it laughable. When anyone with four to five figures worth of machinery can download plans for a gun and mill/print it, there is no controls you will create that’s going to stop determined people from getting their hands on firearms in a world where you can print them in your basement, unless the Brady Campaign wants to campaign for control of CNC milling machines and 3D printer. And yes, once you can print and mill guns, you can print and mill ammunition and magazines too. We already know we can have polymer ammo cases.
If Airbus can produce an aircraft wing using this technology, the Brady Campaign’s only “faster and cheaper” away from having their positions about banning this or banning that being a laughable mockery.
I have not listened to it myself, because it’s like when you were a kid, and talked into the tape recorder, played it back, and thought “That doesn’t sound like me, that sounds awful.” I wonder what kids today talk into. Though it looks like the old style machines are still around.
I think sometimes it bears reminding, that this is a core tenet of protecting the Second Amendment. What does that mean? It means even though I do not shoot bullseye pistol, I respect people who participate in that sport and their right to do it. I believe their firearms are just as protected as mine. It means even though I do not hunt, I will support hunting and the right for individuals to own firearms for that purpose. And yes, even if I am personally wary of Open Carry as a method of activism, it means I support everyone’s right to do it legally, and will fight tooth and nail any bill to restrict it, and will support bills that repeal those restrictions. This means I will expend energy even fighting restrictions on shotguns in libraries. My appeal to those folks who are pushing that is, please don’t make me expend energy fighting restrictions on shotguns in libraries. We have better things to do than fight battles we don’t have to as a movement.
It’s fine for us to disagree about what is and what isn’t effective, but remember that nobody gets thrown off the lifeboat. As soon as we start advocating for laws that restrain each other, we’ve already lost.
Robb has some worthwhile thoughts on the latest OC dustup:
There is a big difference though in carrying a firearm and going about your business and carrying a firearm because Dagnabbit! I want people to SEE ME! Riding on back of the Drama Llama does not help. Really. In my line of activism, the two results I want are people to see the pistol, but not become alarmed, or to miss it completely. What doesn’t help is having too many people getting upset. Our actions are cumulative. Upset enough people enough times, and eventually you can turn someone who was at best ambivalent toward us hostile.
The real concern should be that there are OC bills currently in Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma, all of which are jeopardized when our opponents are able to point out that passage is going to mean people showing up to the local library with a 12 gauge. It’s one thing for them to throw that out there hysterically, it’s quite another when they can point out examples to legislators.
We need these bills. If I ever go visit Everglades National Park, or Big Bend National Park, I don’t really want to have to conceal if I’m walking the trails. I doubt I’m the only one who feels the same way.