search
top
Currently Browsing: Gun Rights

What Happens When Non Gun People Design Gun Accessories

Does this winning smart holster really put a bar through the trigger guard? Seriously? That’s not how retention should work. Leave this stuff to gun people!

I give them credit for understanding that the smarts should be outside the gun rather than in it. I’ve been saying that for a while. But that holster is dangerous. Because the person who designed it likely knows nothing about guns or gun safety. Ironic, don’t you think?

The problem is, no gun person would waste their time on this because it’s not a product the market wants.

Suppressors Should Be No More Regulated than Pencils

Apparently the anti-gun groups are having a right fit now that the SHARE Act is moving in Congress. The silencer part of the bill seems to be what they are particularly hysterical about. What the hell is the big deal? Without a gun, what are you going to do with it? To me it makes about as much sense regulating optics. It is an accessory, and not in itself a potentially dangerous tool.

Look, I get the antis are going to argue up and down that firearms aren’t regulated enough in this country, but there’s just nothing particularly dangerous about silencers. That’s a fact. But suppressors would make a huge difference to the community in terms of saving hearing and cutting down on noise emitted from gun ranges. They should be no more regulated than pencils, because a pencil can be sharpened and used as an improvised weapon. A suppressor? Maybe you could throw it at someone and put a big knot on their head.

New Jersey, Where Everything is Illegal

Despite SilencerCo’s marketing, the new suppressed .50 cal muzzleloader is not legal in New Jersey. Let’s face it, what is? New Jersey defines firearms in such a way that even BB guns are firearms under New Jersey law, and if you put a silencer on one, that’ll land you in prison my friends. I’m pretty sure this is also illegal in Massachusetts as well.

The Law: Tis For The Little People

Despite being illegal under federal law, the US Virgin Islands have declared a gun confiscation. That’s not even speaking about the constitutionality of the whole endeavor. Granted, they are handled by the 1st Circuit, which is pretty gun unfriendly, but the judges would really have to reach to justify upholding this.

For those in the path of the Irma, and I myself have a lot of family, I just want to wish you all good luck. We’re all counting on you.

New California Regulations

From Bearing Arms:

The question is whether these new regulations would stand up to judicial scrutiny. I have no doubt that California courts will find these rules constitutional, but would it survive higher courts? I have to believe they don’t, if for no other reason that this is a clear attempt to restrict an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. That said, I’m not a legal expert. This is something for the legal experts to hammer out.

I give approximately no chance that state or federal courts will strike down these regulations. Remember, the 9th Circuit has, so far, successfully overturned Heller’s direct ruling striking DC’s safe-storage law. SCOTUS let them get away with it.

The only way this regulation is going down is if there is a chance on the Court. Otherwise it’s going to go the same way every other case has gone: there might be a temporary victory at one level of the court if we get the right judge or judges, but it’ll be undone. California prevails en banc, and SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.

California can do whatever it wants to gun owners. Pretty soon, New Jersey will be in the same position, once Christie is gone.

Standing

Standing has always been a useful concept for courts who don’t want to hear or decide on the specifics of a case, to have a convenient way to dispose of the case without having to reach there. So the FBI has been taking NICS check data and cross referencing it to the Terrorist Screening Database for a number of years now.

Here you have two theories of standing. One is that because the cross reference didn’t in any material way affect your ability to buy a gun, you have no standing to sue. Only someone who is singled out for different treatment because of the cross reference has standing. The other theory is that because your purchasing information has been used in a way not authorized by law, that the mere act of having your data cross referenced to another database creates standing in and of itself.

Guess which theory of standing was adopted by the federal courts so far? If that theory holds, no one would have standing since the FBI doesn’t use the screen to influence the person’s NICS status. It presumably just creates an alert. The cross reference might be illegal on the part of the FBI, but no one can challenge it.

Washington State is Probably Lost

Gun owners there are on borrowed time, at this point. Washington State has a fairly iron-clad preemption law, but that didn’t prevent the Washington Supreme Court from upholding Seattle’s gun and ammunition tax. You can find the full opinion here.

One wonders how much Seattle could get away with taxing guns. $50 per gun? $100 per gun? A dollar per round of ammo? It wasn’t even close. Only a single justice argued that Washington’s preemption statute forbids any ordinance touching on firearms at all, which it clearly says.

Another Article on African American Gun Ownership

Patrik Jonsson, whose reporting on the gun issue has always been pretty fair, writes: “There’s evidence that black gun ownership has spiked since the 2016 campaign began. While white Americans have led the liberalization of gun laws in the past decade, black gun carry is becoming a test of constitutional agency.” Gun control historically targeted minority communities for disarming. It’s just now we’re nice enough proceed with a fiction that because the fees, the requirements that you have a squeaky clean record, and the high level of education required to comply with the patch work of laws and regulations apply to everyone, that means we don’t worry about disparate impacts on minority communities, even though we worry to death about that in every other context.

NRA should be very concerned that this movement is happening outside their umbrella, and adjust its rhetoric accordingly. At the very least, outreach and coordination with Black gun rights groups is in order.

You Don’t Say: Gun Control Disarms Poor

I’m glad people are really starting to notice:

When it comes to voting rights, any obstacles outrage liberals; even free government-issued IDs are viewed as disenfranchising poor and disproportionately black people. But when it comes to the right to own a gun for self-defense, liberals don’t hesitate to pile on fees, ID requirements, expensive training and onerous background checks.

That’s too bad, because many law-abiding citizens in crime-ridden neighborhoods really do need a gun for self-defense. Since poor, urban blacks are the most likely victims of violent crime, there is little doubt that they stand to benefit the most from owning guns. Research, including my own, has demonstrated this.

Your position on gun control I think is a good proxy for how committed you are to democratic popular sovereignty. The instinct for elites throughout history is to disarm the lower, non-ruling classes. You don’t have to pay much attention to a disarmed population. You can look down on them with scorn and indignation, and there’s not much they can do about it. Certainly if you want to oppress minority populations, it’s a lot easier to do that to a disarmed population rather than one that can shoot back.

Gun control has always been a weapon of the elite ruling classes to keep the masses in a state of subjugation. When all you have is the vote, you don’t really have much. Elites can manipulate the masses into voting the way elites want them to vote, or can outright manipulate the system (see Venezuela). An armed population will always have an actual say in how things are run.

Leftist Guide to Gun Ownership

Ladd Everett is going to hate this:

But doesn’t “common sense” gun control help to protect marginalized communities? Well plain and simply, no it doesn’t. In fact most gun control actually has the opposite effect leaving marginalized communities unarmed and defenseless in the face of violence. Gun control actually has quite the racist history. Many of the first gun laws enacted by the united states government were in order to keep slaves and free black people from owning or carrying firearms except under supervision of their master for fear of slave rebellions. The uprisings led by John Brown and others and the slave armies formed during the Civil War proved their fears to be true. For those enslaved, guns meant freedom. Decades later during the height of the black civil rights and liberation movements Martin Luther King, Jr. was denied a gun permit after his house was firebombed in 1956, Malcolm X urged African Americans to defend themselves using any means necessary, the Black Panthers held open carry marches, and the National Rifle Association delved into gun politics for the first time.

No wonder Ladd has been upset lately that the left is abandoning him. All that research on the history of gun control, and its use for disarming marginalized communities, was done by our academics, and people are listening.

« Previous Entries

top