Category: Gun Rights

Looks like a Section 1983 civil rights suit, involving the Second Amendment, will be able to proceed in California. The case involves people open carrying in compliance with California law, while handing out leaflets. They were detained by police.

Now that we’re no longer going to be there, I guess they want to be able to impose whatever government they can get away with on the Iraqi people. That’s a lot easier if you don’t have to worry about them shooting back. Under US occupation and provisional government, Iraqis were permitted to have one AK-47 and a reasonable amount of ammunition for personal defense.

I don’t think this will end well.

I really only ever hear about “states rights” from history books, and when the media drags out the specter in an attempt to convince the American public there’s hypocrisy afoot. The term I often hear used by actual conservatives and libertarians is federalism, which is distinct from “states rights.”

For the most part, the media hasn’t been engaging in a whole lot of hysterics about the passage of HR822 in the house. The exceptions are in the anti-gun states like California and New Jersey. It shouldn’t be a surprise that we have two articles from those very places yammering on about states rights. First from New Jersey:

There is nothing in the Second Amendment prohibiting states from regulating who can carry a concealed weapon. That isn’t being debated. The issue is whether the gun regulations of one state must be recognized by another.

Funny, I thought the whole keep and bear part was pretty clear. It’s amazing such a simple phrase has been so twisted around by people who just don’t want to accept the plain language. Now the LA Times in California:

It’s no surprise that highly urban states susceptible to gang, drug and gun crimes tend to put more restrictions on firearms than more rural states. When the streets of cities such as Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland are flooded with guns and the blood of gun-violence victims, there is a strong public interest in regulating firearms, an interest that is far weaker in states such as Utah and Montana, where guns are used mainly for hunting and self-defense.

And guns aren’t used for self-defense in big cities? Just doesn’t happen, eh? States rights simply are not a concern here. The concern is the right of individuals to enjoy their fundamental right to have arms to protect themselves, both in and outside the home. States have no more a power to restrict that than they do to suggest out of state individuals obtain a publishing license before printing books, or have the power to demand whites and blacks drink from separate fountains, or use separate bathrooms.

NRA-ILA’s hunting policy division is busy trying to educate hunters on something that might surprise you: the usefulness of suppressors. As many of you are well aware, suppressors, or silencers, have been regulated heavily by the federal government since the 1930s, and are subject to the National Firearms Act. The popularity of suppressors is soaring, to the point where ATF has been complaining in legal seminars I’ve attended that they are having a hard time keeping up with all the NFA paperwork, especially as Trusts are quickly becoming the preferred mechanism for papering Title II firearms and accessories.

I was surprised when NRA did a Facebook post after a victory legalizing suppressors that there were a number of people expressing discontent, and blathering ignorance that’s been drilled into people’s heads by decades of Hollywood movies and unfamiliarity. It’s looking like NRA is trying to address that. Does this mean we’re close to being able to push some legislation to deregulate them? I don’t know. It’s difficult to get Congress to act, and our Republican friends tend to act on the gun issue more out of political benefit than true love. But I think we’re moving in that direction.

… getting all hysterical about HR822, and starting a dog and pony show in the Senate, It looks like another victory is afoot in Congress:

Cox pointed to three provisions in particular that would be made law under the minibus: language that would prohibit the Justice Department from consolidating firearms sales records, from electronically retrieving the records of former firearms dealers and from disclosing information on people who have passed firearms background checks.

The bill includes a host of one-year gun protections and new language barring the Justice Department from requiring imported shotguns to meet a “sporting purposes” test. The legislation also bars the use of funds to transfer the functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to other agencies and to promulgate or implement any rule requiring a physical inventory of any licensed firearms business.

I’m particularly happy about the part I bolded there. I’m guessing this is a funding rider that prevents ATF from spending money to enforce this provision. That effectively renders the sporting purposes test meaningless for shotguns. This prevents ATF from implementing its plans, which we discussed with John Frazer of NRA-ILA here.

Tam takes a look at what thinks looked back in the 90s and early 2000s. She includes a link to a forum post from circa 2000, asking people what they thought things would be like in 2010. Needless to say most people are not optimistic, and the people who everything thought were wild dreamers were actually closer to reality.

Ten years ago, a major party Presidential candidate was running on a platform of universal licensing and registration for all gun owners. The guy NRA was backing only went so far as calling for the assault weapons ban to be renewed (though, no one really thought he meant it, and it turned out he didn’t).

Now we’re getting pretty close to having national reciprocity, and our opponents are happy if they can get members of Congress to even mention them by name. Things have definitely changed in ten years, but we still have a ways to go.

UPDATE: More from Joe Huffman, who says it was worse.

A number of other issue have cropped up while we’ve been distracted by HR822. They’ve learned that often the best defense is a good offense. One is that it seems Obama is taking some actions against shooting on federal land. The other is that, rather than fighting HR822 in the House, Bloomberg and his anti-gun cadre have gone on the offensive in the Senate. Dave Kopel appeared on Cam & Company a few nights ago to discuss this. Here is the video:

UPDATE: Interior has backed off.

During the floor speeches, a few legislators so mentioned that something like 15 states participated in a “Joint Concealed Carry Database.” This is the first I had ever heard of this. I know Pennsylvania is one of the states that has a system whereby a permit can be validated, through calling a phone number. But I’m fairly certain this is something run by the Pennsylvania State Police. Does anyone know of an interstate compact that allows this kind of data to be centrally shared?

Here’s the list of Republicans who voted “no” on HR822:

• Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
• Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL)
• Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY)
• Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
• Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA)
• Rep. Robert Turner (R-NY)
• Rep. Robert Woodall (R-GA)

You can somewhat understand why someone from New York, Illinois, or California might feel they need to vote no on this. But the most shame worthy in this whole vote are Rep. Woodall and Rep. Amash. I’ll have more to say on Amash later. Don’t let any of them off the hook, but Amash and Woodall should be particular targets.

UPDATE: If you want to counter a Brady Twitter meme, you can click here to chide some of the key Republican transgressors.

HR822 is on Third Reading. Voting should proceed shortly. Only one amendment passed, commissioning a study on permit verifiability. There will be some debate before the vote. I’ll fill you in on if any of the bullcrap is different than what we’ve already heard today.

05:17PM: Cicilline (D-RI) is griping on the whole “Terrorists, Child Molesters, and Drug Dealers, oh my!” garbage again.

05:20PM: He’s going on and on, proposing an amendment to prohibit more people based on his overblown hysteria. He makes a motion to recommit.

05:21PM: Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is opposing Cicilline’s motion to recommit. Apparently it’s chaos in the House. The speaker has to keep demanding order in the House.

05:25PM: No’s took the voice vote. Going to a recorded vote. This is a 15 minute vote. If the motion is approved, the bill would re-open for amendment.

The Motion to Recommit has Failed, Yea: 161, Nay: 263

05:42PM: And now we move on to final passage.

HR822 Has Passed the House!!
Yea: 272, Nay: 154

44 Democrats Voted in Favor
7 Republicans Voted Against