Sebastian – Page 798 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Four Rules?

Caleb is speaking about rule violations, andÂ SayUncle notes that they aren’t as cut and dried as people would imagine:

And itâ€™s not even for photos. If youâ€™ve ever dry fired, youâ€™ve broken a rule. If you holster your weapon in an IWB holster, youâ€™ve broken a rule. If you draw from a shoulder holster, youâ€™ve broken a rule. When you pull the trigger on your Glock before you disassemble it, youâ€™ve broken a rule. Boresighted your rifle on your kitchen table, youâ€™ve broken a rule. It goes on and on.

Exercise caution and use your head.

I don’t think anyone’s ever argued that the four rules are to be taken absolutely literally, but they are meant to create a culture of safety, so that you have to break two rather than one in order for someone to get shot accidentally. There are plenty of situations one can think of which represent legitimate gun use, such as drawing from the holster, dry firing, or disassembly where you’re going to technically violate a rule. But I would hope for the case of dry firing, disassembly, or holstering, they will take care to make sure the gun is at least pointed in a safe direction for the former two, and rule three is being meticulously followed for the latter.

I agree with Uncle that people need to use their heads. There are times when you’ll have to drop one of the rules in importance and be really really sure you’re raising another. Draw practice, dry fire, and cleaning are all good and necessary reasons to violate rule, because we know we’re violating it, and know to be meticulous with the others. We are still part of the culture of safety. The examples Caleb gives…

Recent controversies across the gunblog world have sparked this train of thought on how quick we are as a community to point and holler â€œthey have their finger on the triggerâ€ or â€œsheâ€™s muzzling people with that gunâ€œ.Â In both of those linked instances, those people would be correct: the SniperBabes have several pictures that are in clear violation of Rule 3, and even Breda is clearly violating Rule 2 in that video.Â So technically, the people that called them out for those violations of The 4 Rules are quite correct if youâ€™re holding to the letter of the law.

… are not good reasons for violating the rules. The point of the rules is to make people think very seriously about their gun handling. Obviously poster babes on a calendar are not of that mindset. They are not part of the safety culture we’re trying to promote among responsible gun owners. That’s why I have a problem with it. I can sympathize with frustration at people who swear up and down you can always at all times take the four rules as literal gospel, but the point really is, if you are in a situation where you have to violate one, you should think, think, think! “I am dry firing, better do it into a solid backstop and not into the wall that goes to the next room where my kids are,” think about “I am holstering my gun, so I should make sure no one is directly behind me, and my finger is off the trigger.” (at least until you do that without thinking), and thinking about the direction your gun is pointed when you drop the hammer for disassembly. As long as all those things are being followed, the most you risk is some property damage and embarrassment, rather than quarts of blood and a lot of questions from the police.

The issue with the SniperBabes poor gun handling is not that they violated a technical rule, it’s that they violated it for no good reason, this indicating they have no regard for the safety culture we’re trying to promote. I would like to think that should bother everyone.

Nerf Guns on Campus

When Nerf guns are outlawed, only zombies will have Nerf guns.

The Hysteria Begins

Apparently Amtrak is trying to argue it’ll be Madrid all over again if we let guns onto trains. Never mind the fact that Madrid was a bombing, though maybe they think the guns will spontaneously explode, because they do that sometimes, you know. The heart of the issue is that Amtrak allows guns in checked baggage on trains prior to 9/11 without incident, and security concerns on trains are not nearly as high, due to the fact that trains are confined to their tracks, can’t just go anywhere, and certainly can’t be used as improvised cruise missiles. Historically, explosives have been the primary means by which to attack trains, regardless.

MAIG is Smart

Looks like they are polling NRA members and gun owners to show support for gun control in an attempt to weaken NRA’s political clout. You can see the actual poll here. We all know you an get anyone to agree with nearly anything in a poll depending on how you ask the question. Also, these are self-selected NRA members, which our side’s polling has showed is around 33 million people, so many of these people are, in fact, not NRA members while claiming to be. But let’s look at the questions here:

Now we are going to discuss a few policies and proposals under consideration, as well as some existing laws that are being discussed. Do you … the following?

A proposal prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns.

82% of NRA members supported, and 86% of non-NRA member gun owners supported. But how would it change the poll if you said “no fly list” instead? Or explained some background on exactly what the “terrorist watch list” is. What if you had framed it “Do you support a proposal denying Second Amendment rights to American citizens who the government has interest in possibly being terrorists?” Â Frame it that way I bet you lost your majority. The way the question is asked, who wants to appear to favor guns for terrorists?

A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.

69% of NRA members supported, 85% of non-NRA member gun owners supported. Explain that all transfers will have to go through an FFL at a cost of $30 dollars up toward $50 dollars and then see what happens to the support.

A proposal requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen.

78% of NRA member supported, 88% of non-NRA member gun owners supported. What about if you asked “A proposal to fine or jail gun owners who fail to report their guns that are lost or stolen to the police?”

A federal law allowing guns to be carried in bags on Amtrak trains.

That’s just a dishonest way to ask the question. Carried in checked bags. But 61% of NRA members would presumably be fine with that, wholly on 33% of non-NRA gun owners would.

What’s interesting is that they go on to show these really are gun owners by asking them questions about other topics. For instance, people identifying as NRA members overwhelmingly support carry in national parks, and a majority of non-NRA member gun owners do as well. Support for semi-auto bans among gun owners never breaks majority, and support among NRA members is only 30%. There’s overwhelming generic support for Heller in both groups, and for McDonald. Large majorities also think Obama will try to ban the sale of guns as President. Interestingly enough, NRA members are far more likely to feel safer than now as opposed to five years ago than non-NRA gun owners. So much for the claim we’re all paranoid to death of crime.

There’s a few conclusions that can be drawn from this.

MAIG is very serious about what they doing, and they are taking a very smart strategy to get what they want.
As gun owners, we’ve done a fantastic job in the past decade of educating other gun owners on last decade’s battles. You see high support for concealed carry, high support for gun ownership generically, and low support for semi-auto bans.
The debate is shifting onto grounds where we have not yet had the opportunity to educate gun owners. MAIG knows this and is ready to exploit it. More importantly, I think MAIG wanted to find out where we are strong, and where we are weak. This poll is basically reinforcement of their current strategy because it shows we’re weakest along their current line of attack.

When we speak of going after the fence sitters, these are the fence sitters. If 33 million Americans strongly oppose something, the politicians will be scared to death to cross them. We have to reach this crowd, but we’re not going to reach them with extremism. We have to reach them with real information. If we do that, we can sway their opinion. What do you think the support among self-identified NRA members for a semi-auto ban would have been in 1993? Sadly on that issue, they had to get their education through having to live with a ban. It’s our jobs to prevent the need for them to be educated through bad legislation yet again.

More on Richard Feldman’s Middle Ground

Yesterday I talked a bit about Richard Feldman’s LA Times editorial where he tries to bring he issue forward in terms we supposedly can all agree on. As I mentioned, we can all agree that we need to go after “the negligent misuse of guns”, but that the devil is in the details. Feldman’s essential thesis is correct, but not very useful in terms of moving the debate forward. While I don’t believe Richard Feldman is quite the turncoat on this issue as some of the other folks he’s associated with over the years, I still question how dedicated he is to the proposition of the Second Amendment protecting a fundamental right. Once you begin thinking in those terms, it’s difficult to believe there’s some magical middle ground out there that we can all work towards. Let’s take a look at even a relatively uncontroversial issue — that of background checks.

Both sides in this issue grudgingly accepted them back in the early 90s. The NRA grudgingly threw out the idea of instant background checks to avoid the HCI preferred method of a waiting period. Handgun Control Inc. obviously grudgingly accepted the instant background checks because they wanted a waiting period. We ended up with a compromise, but no side was really happy with the result. But if you’re really committed to the idea of the Second Amendment as a fundamental liberty, is our current background check system constitutional?

The Brady response would be an unequivocal yes. They will draw on the language in Heller that says, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding […] laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Of course, the Brady will assert that this means any condition and qualification on the commercial sale of arms is constitutional, no matter how onerous. Brady would no doubt point out that it has a trivial effect on the right to bear arms, and is just a means for the government to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, and that, even under strict scrutiny, is a compelling government interest. I think the Bradys will have quite a good argument on this, and I suspect the vast majority of Americans, most of whom will not understand the fine detail, will reflexively support the position, since background checks are instant, right?

Well, for most people, they are instant. But for some people, they go into a manual review process, where the Brady Act’s waiting period kicks in. There’s also the issue of the system being down, which has been known to happen, which also causes the Brady waiting period to kick in. After three days, dealers are permitted to transfer the gun with a default-proceed, but in practice most dealers won’t do this. For most of us, this is an inconvenience, but let me lay out a scenario for you.

A woman finally decides she’s had enough, and leaves her abusive boyfriend. The boyfriend, unable to let go, starts issuing threats against the the woman. He shows up at her house a few times, makes harassing calls, and generally doesn’t seem to get the message. Frustrated, she goes to the police and gets a restraining order. Knowing this doesn’t provide any real protection, she decides to go out and buy a gun, just in case the boyfriend shows up at her house again. She goes to the gun store, picks out a reasonable handgun, goes through the 4473 process, but the Instant Check system is down. The Brady waiting period kicks in. The dealer tells her to come back in a few hours, but it’s getting toward the end of the day, and the store closes in a few hours. The woman decides to come back the next day. But that night her boyfriend shows up at the house with a gun and murders her.

For all intents and purposes, that woman’s Second Amendment right never existed, because she was forced to wait on her purchase by a government regulation. Whether the government infringed on it through a waiting period or an outright ban, she was just as denied her right. Brady will no doubt argue that kind of thing often doesn’t happen, which I’m sure will be very comforting to this woman’s family. They will also no doubt argue that a gun wouldn’t have protected her anyway.

But for a real Second Amendment supporter, which Richard Feldman claims to be, one should realize this isn’t an easy answer. If there’s a middle ground somewhere in here that we can all live with, I’d certainly like him to point it out.

Richard Feldman’s Middle Ground

There’s a few ways you can look at Richard Feldman’s middle ground. SayUncle thinks Richard Feldman needs to take a closer look at the media, and that’s certainly true, but I also think Feldman, perhaps as a public relations tactic, or perhaps out of a desire to appear reasonable, often makes the assertion that both sides are extreme, and can’t we all just come to a middle ground and this issue? I can understand the sentiment, and agree that Feldman’s position can be useful in persuading people who are perhaps a bit tired of the issue. But as Feldman, who has a background in lobbying ought to know, there’s nothing about the political process that involves people, in good faith and with honest, sincere intentions, coming together to fix a problem.

I’ve read Feldman’s book Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist, which I enjoyed, even though I have disagreements with him on a number of things. One of the areas I disagree with him, and that he hints at in his LA Times article, is that both sides in this issue want to keep things going for the sake of fundraising, and that is preventing us from bringing this issue to a reasonable conclusion. Both sides use some shameful methods of fundraising. I’ve criticized NRA for it in the past, and have done so privately with staff in Fairfax as well. But fundraising is a necessary and vital function of every interest group out there, and I wouldn’t say our issue is alone in that. We do it, the Bradys do it, ACU does it, ACLU does it, NRLF does it, NOW does it, and all of them, at one point or another, will use scare tactics to get you to open up your wallet, because scare tactics work. But as much as Feldman might want to believe that’s what’s keeping the issue from resolving, he’s kidding himself. Let’s take a look at his article:

The bottom line is this: We must stop debating the polemics of guns and instead show wisdom and maturity to begin to resolve the problems of the negligentÂ misuse of guns. Though a cliche, the following is nevertheless true: Guns aren’t ever the problem; guns in the wrong hands are alwaysÂ the problem. How we address this problem will determine the future of gun safety in America.

The LA Times aside, I think that’s the direction the debate is actually moving in, largely because the Supreme Court has settled the debate over guns in our society by taking prohibition off the table. But is that going to resolve the issue? Are both sides going to suddenly come to an agreement and find Congress completely willing to broker the deal for us, no tricks or subterfuge? Hardly. I don’t think you’d find any fundamental disagreement between Richard Feldman, most of us, and many gun control groups, over the statement above. It’s the details where you’ll find the devil, not in the intransigence of either side. As much as I think Mr. Feldman will seem the reasonable one for looking for a middle ground, I think it cheapens the legitimate disagreements and concerns of both sides in the debate, which I will talk about in the next post.

Wicker Amendment

Looks like the amendment forcing Amtrak to allow transportation of firearms going to become a reality. Amtrak will be sure to give us their best Chicken Little impression soon.

Career Limiting Move

I’m going to guess the Director of Industry Operations at the Houston ATF field office won’t be advancing much in his career. This would be ATF compliance division rather than enforcement, I guess depending on which side of the plywood you’re on.

NJ Assembly Passes Not Quite Pro-Gun Bills

Cemetery has the news. One is a the NICS act which brings New Jersey into compliance with federal law. This actually changes New Jersey’s law in this matter very little. The other is the exceptions for their gun rationing law. I should note this bill differs from the Senate bill, which makes more exceptions. The Assembly bill only covers transfers between dealers, distributors and manufacturers. This is likely why it passed unanimously.

Obviously this isn’t a bad development, but if the politicians in New Jersey think this will make up for screwing over gun owners, yet again, with gun rationing, they are kidding themselves. This just keeps their original bill from being a de-facto ban, which it was.

Guns in Schools Save a Life in Harrisburg

A criminal justice instructor in Harrisburg managed to stop a stabbing in progress, but you know, guns in schools by LTC holders is just crazy!

Criminal justice instructor Michael Minto was leaving the Kaplan Career Institute in Swatara Twp. on Monday night when he spotted a man being stabbed, police said.

Minto pulled his gun and ordered the attacker to drop his knife, police said. The attacker fled, and authorities said Minto’s actions likely saved the life of Dillon Mitchell, 30, of Harrisburg.

If Minto had not intervened, “We might be talking about someone who died,” said Deputy Swatara Twp. Police Chief Jason D. Umberger. “There are not many citizens out there that would have the courage to take that action.”

How is this possible? I thought only trained police officers were capable of this kind of thing? And at a school? The devil you say! Granted, this is a private post-secondary vocational institution, so carrying is legal there. In Pennsylvania, schools are a grey area. They aren’t explicitly forbidden by the Uniform Firearms Act, but weapons in primary and secondary schools are forbidden with an exception for “other lawful purposes,” which would presumably cover self-defense, but I don’t think anyone wants to be the test case there. It’s legal to carry on college campuses in Pennsylvania, but most universities forbid the practice by policy, much like employers do.

UPDATE: I should point out that licensed carry is a grey area. While it is legal to open carry in Pennsylvania, it is not legal to open carry within 1000 feet of a school without an LTC because of the federal Gun Free School Zones Act, which makes an exception for state permits, but does not make a general exception. It’s my opinion that the Gun Free School Zones Act is unconstitutional on both Tenth Amendment grounds and Second Amendment grounds, and was thrown out on the former previously, but Congress rewrote it. Want to be the test case?