The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
I assume the worst when I see a headline like this: Too much gun-related crime in Tennessee
So imagine my surprise when I see the editorial ends with this:
We want all of our law-abiding people to feel safe. But it is highly inadvisable to pursue that goal by abridging the gun rights of responsible citizens.
That makes it vitally important to impose firm, meaningful sentences on those who use guns while committing crimes.
Professor Adam Winkler takes a look at the topic, in an article over at the Daily Beast:
Actually, the gun-rights websites are on to something. As I discovered in researching my new book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, for much of our history, gun regulation has been tainted by the stains of racism and discrimination. Today, the story is more complex than the simplistic slogans of gun-rights advocates. But there is no denying that racial politics have profoundly shaped America’s gun laws.
Professor Winkler is not someone I’d classify as being on our side, but he’s intellectually honest, which puts him in contrast with some of our opponents in the various gun control groups. I may not agree with him on everything, but I can respect his point of view, and his willingness to honestly engage people on both sides of the issue.
It’s disappointing, but if Jerry Brown was going to veto one for us, I wouldn’t have expected it to be this one. It will also help deal with the issue of federal judges arguing “Well, you know, if some form of carry is allowed, then the constitutional requirement is satisfied, even if it’s unloaded open carry.” While I’ve been impressed to the degree that federal Judges have twisted intermediate scrutiny to uphold every restrictive gun law in creation, this is now, unambiguously, a complete ban on carrying a firearm, except with a permit that’s issued in California in an arbitrary and capricious manner in most juridictions.
No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money has a stunning visual of the progress of shall-issue reform over the year. Still, a lot of people live in may-issue states. To be more accurate, you’d have to break this out by jurisdiction, however. There are jurisdictions in California now that are shall-issue. More than ever before. That’s going to cover a lot of people. Delaware is also a permissive may-issue state, especially in Kent and Sussex counties. Many jurisdictions in New York will issue carry permits on a shall-issue basis. Same with Massachusetts.
Of the states that are may-issue as a matter of law, only New Jersey, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Maryland are broadly restrictive on a state-wide basis. So as a practical matter, the picture looks even better than it would appear here. Still, it’s pretty apparent that carry is the next major battle we’ll be fighting in the Courts, and it’ll be interesting to see what direction the Court decides to go in. I think most likely, it’ll be a recognition that carry is protected, but with the states retaining a fair degree of leeway in regulating how arms are permitted to be worn. It would be interesting, in that case, to see how many restrictive jurisdictions legalize open carry, but keep their concealed weapons licensing regimes highly restrictive. I’m also interested in seeing how the courts deal with carry in a vehicle.
SayUncle has the photos, and a link to a story from a Washington Times reporter who set out to test the system. What other constitutional right do we allow to be regulated in such a manner?
A major paper publishes a story about how homicide rates are not linked to gun control. Did I mention the major paper is Canadian? Once you turn the issue from one where the media and other powers that be say “Well, gun control, of course,” to turning into a legitimate issue of contention, you’ve automatically started to win. Canadian gunnies are obviously a long way off from recovering serious lost ground, but they are moving in the right direction.
Our opponents only survive in “Well, gun control, of course,” political climates. Once you can shine light on the futility, ineffectiveness, and often outright intellectual and factual dishonesty of their positions, you will start pulling in more and more allies.
You may have heard that the Court of Appeals in Oregon threw out the campus carry bans because the were preempted by state law. They thew the rule out on preemption grounds and did not reach whether the Second Amendment was implicated. You have to wonder if not wanting to dive into Second Amendment analysis might have been a small motivation for ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
Either way, I’m pleased to report that the ruling is having a positive effect already. If you could take hysterics, and harness it as an energy source, our opponents could have us energy independent inside a couple of weeks.
Katie Pavlich reports on a rumor that the DOJ is considering elimination of ATF. As I’ve stated previously on here, I think it would be a bad idea. The country’s gun laws are not going away, and someone is going to be charged with enforcing them. That agency is likely to be the FBI. While the FBI would certainly do the enforcement part far more competently, you’d be giving the FBI an incentive to lobby Congress for more gun laws.
The problem with that is that people in Washington have a high degree of respect for the FBI, and they are listened to. ATF is the bastard step-child of federal law enforcement, and Congress and the other D.C. powers that be don’t really take them too seriously. It’s also worth noting, because of the FBI’s other missions, you’re not really going to have much luck threatening the FBI’s funding in order to keep it under control.
Given all that, I’m in favor of keeping ATF in place, and replacing its leadership, including the guys at the very top in 2012. Getting rid of ATF is a feel-good measure. Strategically, I think it would be a disaster to give FBI and incentive to lobby Congress for more gun laws, and be able to raise the specter of terrorism every time we try to threaten their funding in Congress for misbehavior.
Apparently the White House has a petition site, and one of the petition pages is for HR822, the National Right-to-Carry Recprocity Act of 2011. The goal is to hit 5000 signatures by October 22, 2011. We’re at 1065 so far. Unfortunately, you have to register to sign the petition, which makes me surprised we’re 1/5th the way there, considering those in our cause with thicker, more luxurious varieties of Wookie Suits might not be too keen on getting their names on a White House list of gun owners.
In contrast, the petition created by one of our opponents to re-institute the assault weapons ban isn’t doing so well.
UPDATE: From Bitter, in response to how the e-mails would be used:
Actually, you can’t be solicited for a DNC donation from the White House list. However, what people have speculated the petition function’s end goal is to build a list of sympathetic emails with issues that they have specified they care about. A petition like this won’t see any actual action, nor will they really have anything to do with reaching out to pro-gun people. However, it will make some White House staff nervous and annoyed, so that is worth it. It also can serve as a reminder to those in Congress that we want it done.
ATF has ruled that people with medical marijuana cards are ineligible to purchase firearms, and have sent a letter to dealers outlining such. As a matter of federal law, their determination in this case is quite correct. Whether the federal law is proper or constitutional, I think is open for debate.