Category: Gun Rights

Another interesting opinion coming out of the 4th circuit, which recognizes a right to carry, while upholding a prohibition on carrying on behalf of a felon who employes you. I think this is great constitutional news, since we have yet another court saying there is a right to carry. But I had never really considered this language in 922(h). If you work for a large corporation, then you’re employed by the corporation rather than a person. But what if you’re employed by a person who was convicted of insider trading? Could you be prosecuted for carrying a firearm to work for self-protection? Or is that possession not considered in the course of employment?

Hungary is loosening some of it’s gun laws, namely making permits last a lifetime, and simplifying the process for purchasing a firearm.

I don’t subscribe to the local county news rag, largely because I resent poorly argued political advocacy being sold to me as news, and because newspapers are about as relevant to me as giant tube televisions. This editorial from the Bucks County Courier Times represents why I do not and will never subscribe. Since everyone is so concerned about taxpayers footing the bill for the intransigence of towns who fly in the face of preemption, I have a suggestion. Why don’t we make the politicians themselves responsible for their votes? If you vote yes on a bill that’s found to violate Pennsylvania’s preemption law, you can be sued personally in court and found liable. That way it’s off the backs of the taxpayers. Sound fair?

The very easy solution to this problem is for towns not to violate state law by passing gun control laws. Firearm ownership is protected by the Pennsylvania constitution, and is a matter of statewide concern. The General Assembly has wisely forbidden towns from regulating the lawful use of firearms. That prohibition is meaningless is there’s no way to enforce it.

BTW, how much do you want to bet this editorial came straight from Bloomberg’s office, and was dutifully reproduced by the stooges on the editorial board of the Times?

The University of Colorado system can’t ban guns, accordion to state law, says the Colorado Supreme Court.

Gun Control Supporters in Washington State are pushing a bill that would make leaving a firearm where a child can find it reckless endangerment. Reading the bill, which shows the context of Washington State’s reckless endangerment law, I’m not sure why something like a kid taking a gun to shoot up a school couldn’t already be covered with the existing language. I also note that the bill also raises the fee to get a permit to carry, I guess just as an extra middle finger extended in the direction of gun owners by the legislator sponsoring this bill. It’s amazing how their utter contempt for gun owners and gun ownership helps to sabotage their best unintended efforts, and unmask what they are really about.

I don’t really have too much of an issue with parents being liable for the actions of their children if they did something negligent to help facilitate their criminal behavior, but I don’t think mere possession should be a high enough standard to trigger a criminal charge. Years ago, Bitter’s mother, as a juvenile in rural Oklahoma, had to gain possession of a shotgun in order to protect herself from a home invader. The threat of a shotgun was enough to dissuade the gentlemen from further intrusion. How would gun control advocates feel about their daughter being home alone as a teenager with a home invader threatening her? Better just to give the guy whatever he wants? Call 911 and hope the cops arrive in time? My friend and sometimes co-blogger Jason, who is only a couple of years older than me, was on his trap team in high school, and used to take a shotgun to school. Farther back, there’s Justice Scalia, who spoke about lugging a slung rifle on the New York City subway system from Queens to Manhattan every day.

We were a far less violent society during the time when kids had relatively easy access to firearms. That’s a fact, and not something our opponents can debate or refute. The fact that CAP laws are even proposed is just another symptom of an ill society where no one wants to take personal  responsibility for anything, and we ask the state to step in and assume the role of responsible parent. Our opponents act like the issue of these CAP laws is just slam-dunk common sense; that you’re crazy for thinking the issue might be a bit more complicated, and it might not be so easy a tradeoff. I don’t think it is an easy tradeoff. I’d not go so far as to suggest that juveniles be issued permits, and be able to tote a Glock 19 around town, but generally speaking, for most other dangerous things, like driving, we ease kids into the responsibility when they are old enough to understand the risks. I would go as far as saying I’d like to return to a world where schools had shooting teams, and it was no big deal for a high school aged kid to lug a rifle to school on the New York subway system because there was a rifle match after school.

SayUncle talks about the AOW regulations being a mess and relatively arbitrary. To some degree, this is a problem that’s been created by Congress, which defines a pistol thusly:

The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.

Originally the NFA was intended to include pistols, under a 5 dollar transfer tax. But language was added to remove pistols from National Firearms Act, leaving a rather ambiguous and sloppily definition of Any Other Weapon. Later, in the Gun Control Act of 1968, this definition was clarified, by defining a pistol like this:

(29) The term “handgun” means –
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be
held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in
subparagraph (A) can be assembled.

So basically the reason that ATF considers anything with a vertical foreword grip as an AOW is because it’s then no longer “designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” It is not unusual for Congress to pass ambiguous and poorly worded laws. But most agencies deal with this kind of ambiguity through the use of Administrative Law, meaning you propose and manage a body regulations that go into more detail than Congress chose to. ATF has traditionally resisted handling anything through administrative law, because it’s a defined process legally, and can’t changed on a whim. Most of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding ATF just restates the United States Code, rather than going into any detail about how things are defined and how to make determinations.

All it would take is an executive order from Obama to change the definition of a pistol, and make millions of gun owners instant felons overnight. For instance, AR-15 pistols with fore grips that are not vertical, are still considered to fall under the definition of pistol. There are a lot of target pistols as well, such as the Ruger Charger, that also have forward grips. But that’s not etched in stone (i.e. Law), or even wood (i.e. regulations). and one could imagine a plausible standard that was based on weight and balance rather than on the presence of absence of a forward grip. Think about that when you head to the voting booth this November.

Eugene Volokh takes a look at a case in District Court in South Dakota, now on appeal, which essentially rules that you can’t have a felon in your home if the felon could possibly know where your gun is and have access to it. Based on the circumstances of the case, the man in question did indeed facilitate a felon having possession of a firearm, but it’s in the jury instructions that the District Court makes this very hazardous:

So if you have house-guests that you have “reasonable cause to believe” have a felony conviction, or have once been in a mental hospital, or are nonresident aliens (even if legal aliens), and they see where your gun is, you might well be guilty of a federal felony on the theory of this case.

And under this standard, how many out there among us are felons? I’ve had non-resident aliens over, I’m pretty sure. I generally don’t leave guns laying around the house when guests are over, but I could easily see an antique 1911 in a shadow box, or a rifle hung over a fireplace triggering this standard. Remember folks, they are less regulated than teddy bears.

Convince the Governor Dayton he needs to sign the castle doctrine legislation. If you won’t do it for me, do it for her.

Eugene Volokh looks at how the issue is being treated in Colorado. Colorado courts can, of course, expand their state RKBA provision to include felons, but practically it doesn’t matter, since federal law prohibits it, leaving someone with a felony conviction open to federal prosecution.

The bill banning guns on campus was defeated, and a bill making permit information private has passed. How about some reciprocity next?