Author: Sebastian

The Arizona Rifleman is getting some first hand experience with on-the-ground activism with the campus carry movement. You can see his first hand account here, and here. Get involved enough, and eventually you’ll get this feeling too:

At several points, I wanted to say to the pro-gun people, “Stop it. You’re not helping.” — we’re not talking about the Second Amendment, nor guns in parking lots, nor anything else. We’re talking about whether the ASUA, the University of Arizona student government, should support or oppose a state senate bill that would allow faculty with valid CCW permits to carry concealed firearms on campus. Your efforts basically confirm every negative stereotype, though most of the pro-gun females who spoke were clear, articulate, and made some good points. This is a matter of giving responsible adults — professors, specifically — the choice to carry a firearm on campus if they wish.

Of course, the other side of the coin, like we experienced in Radnor earlier this week, is when a lot of highly involved and motivated people show up, and nail point after point that needed to be made. Our grassroots are both our greatest asset, and a huge liability, but I’d rather have our grassroots than the other side’s astroturf. The one thing I wish I could have said to the Radnor Township Board of Commissioners is,

“These residents you see here represent thousands of other people in this township who feel just as passionately as they do, but maybe couldn’t make it, or just aren’t as young or energetic. But I will tell you, they will show up at the polling stations and vote this issue if angered, and the activists here will make sure they know about it. I can promise you that nearly everyone in your Township who’s willing to vote for you because of this issue is in this room tonight. You have nothing to gain by voting yes, and everything by voting no.”

That’s why they lose, and we win, when you boil it down.

The further playing up of this rift between the petitioners and NRA in the McDonald case, both at Cato again, and also in the Washington Post, seems to be a distraction from the necessary task of winning the case. I didn’t think the motion was a smart thing either, but what’s done is done, and  I hope the parties can manage to bury the hatchet at least until the case is won.

The Brady Campaign pointed out:

From that flows the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with the effects of their gun advocacy — such as forcing families and children to accept semi-automatic pistols or assault weapons in the local Starbucks or other restaurant — is the same as those who refused service to African-Americans at a Woolworth’s lunch counter.

Funny they should point that out, because as Dave Kopel has the rest of the story about civil rights sit-ins that they’d probably prefer not to acknowledge.

Tom King notes Mayor Bloomberg’s latest crusade, carrying while intoxicated, and much like the Florida Loophole in Pennsylvania, it seems to be much ado about nothing. But it’s my opinion that the state making carrying while intoxicated is constitutional, and within the state’s police powers. But looking at the New York bill, I notice a major problem:

Field Testing. Every person who possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun which has been brandished, displayed, outside a holster, discharged, or otherwise used (other than in the person’s home, at an indoor or outdoor shooting range, or in an area where hunting is permitted with with weapon), or which is possessed, displayed or discharged in violation of any provision of this chapter shall, at the request of a police officer, submit to a breath test to be administered by the police officer.

This can be done with driving because operating a motor vehicle on the public roads is a privilege. Having a drivers’ license is your agreement to consent to being tested for alcohol. You can still refuse, but you lose your license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Police can’t force you to give a breath or blood sample. That’s a violation of the fourth amendment.

In this case, Bloomberg is conditioning the exercise of one constitutional right on surrendering another. This is not acceptable.