Sebastian – Page 962 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Self-Destruction From the Other Side

It’s a great relief that when the anti-gun folks actually do show a little grass roots, they are just as self-destructive as we can be.Â State Representative Eddie Washington, in Illinois, took a walk on an important gun control measure, because he thought it gave too much to the gun rights community.Â Their reaction?

With a small group of protesters standing outside his downtown office, Washington told the News-Sun he didn’t vote in favor of House Bill 48 last Wednesday because he didn’t agree with all parts of the bill.

Washington voted “present” on the bill, which failed by a 60 to 55 margin. The bill called for background checks for private firearm sales, though it also featured a number of exemptions, which Washington said he didn’t fully support.

Washington has a history of supporting anti-violence legislation, including helping to secure funding to restore the Cease Fire group.

This guy is one of your best friends, and you’re going to target him because he took a walk on one bill and is holding out for more?Â It gets even nuttier:

She believes he, along with two other black legislators — Rep. Chuck Jackson, Rockford, and Rep. Eddie Lee Jackson, East St. Louis — didn’t vote for the bill because of influence and contributions from the National Rifle Association.

Bishop’s group contends that a $3,000 donation last summer from International Union of Operating Engineer’s Local 150 led to Washington’s indecision, citing the group’s has conservative members and its leaders ties to NRA.

If Vandermyde got them to walk, bravo my good man.Â But I think it’s a safe bet that these legislators aren’t much in the way of influenced by NRA.Â Jennifer Bishop should be reluctant to turn on friends over one vote, after a history of supporting their cause.Â What grass roots army are you going to use to defeat him?Â What happens when he keeps his seat?Â Do you think he won’t be a little pissed you turned on him so quickly?

I’ve seen activists on our side sour good relationships over less, so I’m happy to see these kinds of self-destructive tendencies aren’t just limited to gun rights supporters.

Interesting Second Amendment Case

This case Eugene Volokh highlights challenges part of California’s Welfare and Instutions Code, which bars people who have been involuntarily admitted for mental treatment from possessing firearms for a period of 5 years.Â I believe this section would also apply a federal ban as well.Â The plaintiff in the case went through the normal channels for relief from this type of firearms disability, and was denied.

The question is whether or not a “preponderance of evidence” standard is sufficient to deny Second Amendment rights, or whether a stronger standard, such as “clear and convincing evidence” need to be required for a civil commitment.Â The court reasons:

When evaluating whether the private interest affected by the civil proceeding requires a standard of proof higher than the preponderance of the evidence standard, the courts consider “the nature of the private interest threatened and the permanency of the threatened loss.” (Assuming arguendo the Second Amendment applies to the states, under Heller an individual’s right to possess certain firearms in the home for defensive purposes is of constitutional stature. However, under section 8103, the deprivation of this interest is temporary, lasting for five years. Further, the loss concerns the loss of property, and does not involve deprivation of physical liberty or severance of familial ties. The deprivation is not akin to the types of cases -â€” such as termination of parental rights, civil commitment, or deportation â€”- where a clear and convincing evidence standard is typically imposed. Moreover, although the loss of the right to possess firearms can impact an individual’s ability to defend him- or herself, the deprivation does not leave the individual exposed to danger without recourse to other defensive measures, such as installing home security devices and summoning the police.

The court goes on to argue that balancing the consequences of a mentally unstable person having a gun, versus the temporary loss of liberty favor using preponderance of the evidence standard.

What I don’t quite understand is why, in a case like this, the “clear and convincing” standard isn’t sufficient?Â I would imagine even under that standard this guy is pretty clearly and convincingly mentally disturbed.Â I think the court also errs in assuming that substitutes are as readily effective.Â As someone in the comments point out, “Those alternatives were just as available to the residents of Washington DC, but the supreme court rejected such reasoning when presented by the DC government.”

I can understand why the judge felt the need to reach this conclusion, because this person is a poor plaintiff to be making Second Amendment claims.Â Who wants to be responsible for allowing a mentally disturbed individual access to firearms?Â But I think the standard is too low, and relegates the Second Amendment to second class status among our panoply of rights.

I’d say I hope the case is appealed, but this plaintiff is awful.Â It would be ideal to appeal a better case, but we might not get ideal.

John Rosenthal Finds New Demon

Looks like he’s gone from wanting to ban guns to wanting to ban bottled water:

Opposition to the bottled water industry is just beginning to gain momentum. In December 2008 the City of Toronto became the largest city in the world to pass a comprehensive policy banning bottled water in City buildings and aggressively reinvesting in the City’s public water supply delivery system. Other major urban centers, like Seattle and New York are promoting their own tap water over bottled water. According to the Container Recycling Institute, just supplying Americans with plastic water bottles for one year consumes more than 47 million gallons of oil, enough to take 100,000 cars off the road and 1 billion pounds of carbon out of the atmosphere. Ninety percent of used water bottles are not recycled. In California alone, more than 1 billion plastic bottles end up in California’s landfills each year, leaking toxic additives, such as phthalates, into the groundwater and taking 1,000 years to biodegrade.

Why can’t these people just leave well enough alone and stop telling people how to live their lives?Â Bitter is going to head to the store today to get some more Coke Zero.Â I’ll make sure she picks up a nice palette of bottled water, and we’ll drink a few in honor of AHSA co-founder John Rosenthal.

There’s one reason I sometimes drink bottled water.Â My tap water tastes bad, and Britta doesn’t help much.Â But hey, I welcome the change.Â I anxiously await the creation of the American Water Drinkers Association, to defend the rights of water drinking Americans everywhere.

Rampaging Killers

Dr. Helen offers some insight into the minds of a lot of these rampage killers, and suggests ways that these people can be detected and helped before they kill.Â PDB, who is a native of North Carolina, offers some other commentary on the situation.Â I would add that I think the media has a lot to do with these rampage shooters as well, as Uncle points out, they always seem to come in threes.

Those Lairds of Fairfax

This AP article talks about the influence NRA wields in Washington:

The result showed the strong sway the NRA has even over a Congress dominated by liberal Democrats who mostly disagree with the organization’s positions. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to add the gun-rights proposal. House Democratic leaders, fearing a tough vote on the issue, swiftly scrapped plans to consider the D.C. voting legislation.

The bill hasn’t resurfaced because Democrats cannot figure out how to keep it from splitting their ranks. Moderates and conservatives don’t want to buck the NRA. Liberals are reluctant to be blackmailed into loosening gun laws.

This statement from Paul Helmke is the icing on the cake though.Â When he uttered this, it no doubt subtly altered the earth’s rotational axis from the amount of spin:

Gun control activists say they are baffled by the sway the gun lobby has over Congress. They argue the NRA no longer dictates election outcomes and that the group inflates its own importance.

“They operate on the principle of fear. They’re trying to hold some mythical power from the early ’90s over the heads of leadership that I think is totally irrelevant to what’s going on today, but still has some long legs,” said Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Helmke said NRA’s recent efforts to demonstrate its clout are partly “a sign of desperation. They realize this is probably their last gasp in terms of trying to be the force that they used to be.”

Yes Paul, this is the same line you guys sold Congress on in 1994, and look what happened.Â Who do you think is buying all these guns and ammo?Â My biggest fear for NRA is that success will breed complacence.Â But I’d much rather be in NRA’s shoes than Bradys shoes.Â Without any real grass roots passion for gun control, it’s very difficult to have a voice in new media.Â When the old media can no longer control information, the old deceptions will be quickly exposed.

The Bradys wonder why anyone pays attention to NRA, but I would ask what Brady has to offer politicians for support?Â Where are all the pro-gun control blogs?Â Where are all the gun control forums?Â Tapping those resources we can flood the House and Senate switchboards with phone calls.Â What’s your GOTV strategy?Â Where’s your grassroots political machine?Â Brady has none of those things.Â All they have is the media, and it’s dying.Â The Brady Campaign is rapidly losing its ability to control information and frame the debate, and that’s the death of an issue that’s traditionally relied on ignorance, deception, and yes, fear, to get its way.

TSRA Mid-Range Championship

Blackfork has some photos of the event, as well as the winners of the NRA regional match, who are sporting rifles we’re repeatedly told have no sporting purpose.

UK Home Secretary on Airguns

It looks like, for now at least, air gun shooters in the UK are safe:

â€œThe home secretary is not persuaded by any further change in firearm legislation at the moment and that is something we disagree with,â€ he added.

â€œWe have to tackle the scourge of air weapons and, frankly, existing legislation is out of date and too confusing. Our position is: We do not care who does it, whether it is done in London or Scotland, but done it must be.â€

As part of the campaign launched yesterday, adverts, posters and leaflets highlighting the consequences of using the weapons will be used across the country.

It is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, Crimestoppers, Gun Control Network, Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Scottish Target Shooting Federation.

I wouldn’t count on this position of the Home Secretary to last if the groups mentioned can exert any significant political pressure for more restrictions.Â This is a useful lesson for American shooters, about letting the camel’s nose under the tent.Â There is one US state that requires licensing to purchase and possess air guns, and that is New Jersey.Â Some airsoft pistols and rifles could be considered assault firearms under New Jersey’s law as well.Â So much for Action Airgun, a version of IPSC competition that uses air guns instead of powder guns.Â In New Jersey you’re just as regulated as the powder gun shooters.

There’s no gun that will be safe once you let them start restricting any gun.

Rebuked Again

This time the White House is beating down Hillary’s suggestion that we need to renew the ban.

After meeting with Mexican President Felipe CalderÃ³n, Clinton said that reinstating the U.S. ban on assault weaponsâ€”which was passed in 1994 and expired in 2004â€”is one step this country could take to curb the flow of guns to Mexico’s drug cartels. “These military-style weapons don’t belong on anybody’s street,” Clinton told NBC. Within hours, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that he was unaware of “any plans” to push for such a banâ€”even though Obama had backed one during last year’s campaign.

I think the problem the Democrats are facing is that they’ve been used to being able to sing platitudes about banning assault weapons with little or no consequence.Â Now every time someone well placed in the Administration opens their yap about assault weapons, Bushmaster gets another couple of months of backorder, and NRA no doubt signs up a lot of new members.Â That has to scare the hell out of the White House.

Because of efforts in Congress, it’s unlikely a ban is going to end up passed this Congress, but we still have a lot of work.Â We need to work on two fronts.Â One on the political front, to ensure that in 2010, we cut the Democrats numbers, and two, on the shooting front, that all these people buying AR-15s, and many of them will be new buyers, get it out to the range to shoot it.Â It would be great if we could turn the surge in sales into hundreds of new high-power shooters.

California Looking to Ban TVs

New energy regulations in California could end up banning 25% of the TVs on the market because they aren’t energy efficient enough.Â I think it won’t be long before California is not habitable by any form of homo sapien that doesn’t include granola as a major part of its diet.

Cat and Dogs Living Together

The local, normally rabidly anti-gun news station, did a story on a local gun dealer and gun sales, and didn’t smear him, or the shooting community.Â It’s always a risk when dealers talk to the media, but he seems to have hit on all the right points.Â I’ve transferred a few guns through this guy.Â He’s a retired Philly cop.