Category: Gun Rights

Anyone who lives in Pennsylvania knows we’ve had a serious problem with local cities and towns bucking preemption. Florida passed a preemption law with real teeth, which provided for fines, recovery of attorneys fees, and even holding officials personally liable. Since then towns have been scrambling to get their illegal laws off the books. I’ve seen dozens of articles like this over the past few weeks, so I’m now inclined to suggest the Florida law is working quite well. Hopefully this will be a template for Pennsylvania in the future.

This started with a brief Twitter exchange between myself and AntiTango, about whether or not we want Congress involved in enforcing the 14th Amendment through creating a national reciprocity requirement, or whether we should get it through the courts.

I’ll start off by saying that we’re not getting carry in any of the remaining hostile states or localities, save maybe Illinois, without some kind of federal intervention, either through the Courts or through Congress. California, nor Maryland, nor New Jersey are going to pass right-to-carry legislation on their own; it will have to be forced on them through federal action, one way or another. I think it needs to be a combination of the courts and Congress. I don’t think one or the other will suffice.

It would be relatively easy for the courts to impose on, say, California, for instance, that they have to issue licenses in a manner that is not arbitrary or capricious, effectively rendering them shall-issue. I think it’s a tougher sell to suggest the courts impose a national scheme for license recognition. The former only requires striking down a portion of California’s licensing law, while the latter actually requires the courts to enact policy, which I think they would be reluctant to do. I think imposing universal licensing recognition is actually a pretty good use of Congress’ powers under the 14th Amendment.

There is some precedent that makes that use questionable, and shouldn’t be overlooked, but overall, I’d prefer to put the courts in a position where they’d have to thwart the will of Congress, rather than putting them in a position where we are asking them to formulate a national scheme through which licenses would be recognized. It would be far easier, I think, for the courts to uphold licensing, but require the states to issue to non-residents, as a means of satisfying the constitutional requirement. For a lot of reasons, I don’t think this is as ideal as just having forced recognition. The Courts could also prevent states from enforcing those requirements for non-residents, but that seems inconsistent, and I doubt they’d be willing to do that as well.

The argument can be made that Congressional Acts are easier to overturn than precedent, but I would note that our opponents have had zero luck, in the 42 states that have passed RTC so far, of reversing or limiting that policy, and it’s been two decades now. While it’s true that over the long term, it’s hard to predict, but precedent could also be overturned over the long term as well. I don’t think either route is a sure thing, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. I’m not very fussy about the tool, as long as the job gets done.

From Chris Cox, in the Daily Caller. Because this uses Congress’ 14th Amendment powers, I’m in favor of this legislation, as I believe it’s within the federal government’s powers. It does also use the commerce power, but in cases like this, when people could be facing arrest, with states choosing to challenge rather than obey, you want to have all your bases covered.

It sets up an interesting conundrum for left-leaning judges too. Currently the “herpes theory” of the commerce clause is the power that enables federal felon-in-possession laws. It’s never been used the other way, that is to enable gun rights rather than remove them. While I’d like to see the herpes theory relegated to the dustbin of history, part of me doesn’t mind extending this legal middle finger to the people who created this power, using it in a way they are probably horrified over.

CRPA is urging people to call the Governor’s office to veto SB 819, which would allow the DOJ to raid the background check fund to pay for enforcement of firearms laws and violence reduction programs. The concern is that this will run the system out of money and lead to fee increases.

This is not a futile effort, as Jerry Brown is friendlier on this issue that you might think. Friendlier than Schwarzenegger was. But this is a good test to put him to, so call. Your constitutional rights shouldn’t be used to help government raise money generally. That amounts to a tax on gun ownership, which ought to be unconstitutional.

The left is busy trying to debunk Chuck Norris’s assertion about the UN Arms Trade Treaty. It’s also being covered by a blog UN Dispatch. You can find a source of documents here.

All I know is this: we do not yet have any formal treaty, but the parties involved with this are people I did not vote for, nor had a chance to vote for and  I do not trust them or their intentions. So as far as I’m concerned, they can take their treaty and shove it where the sun don’t shine, whether Chuck Norris is right or wrong. But everything I’ve seen suggests there’s much to worry about. From the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (the name of which should raise eyebrows immediately):

In considering problems relating to the unregulated circulation of small arms, it remains essential to focus on integrated policy approaches. The changing nature of armed violence, including where the United Nations has been active in peace operations, post-conflict reconstruction or development assistance, has blurred the line between armed conflict and crime, and between politically motivated and economically motivated violence. Peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities and development assistance require planning for small arms control and armed violence reduction as a priority. In such contexts, it is vital that traditional arms control measures be integrated into interventions that target the demand for weapons and enhance the ability of security providers and governance authorities to strengthen community security, manage conflict and mitigate violence.

Also from this document here:

The draft Bill establishes a principle that has developed globally in the last decade, and is a core objective of many government’s efforts to strengthen their national legislation: “the possession and use of weapons is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.”

[…]

Policies targeting specific SALW typically do so because of certain features – such as lethality or easily concealable firearms – that make them particularly dangerous for civilian use. Specific SALW may also be prohibited because they are not only extremely deadly, but appear to serve no legitimate civilian function.

[..]

Licence applicants may be required to provide a good reason, justifying why they need to possess a firearm. Legislation may prescribe the circumstances under which possession of a firearm may be justified.

If‘personal protection’is permitted as a good reason, applicants should prove to the police that they are in genuine danger that could be avoided by being armed. Research from UNDP in El Salvador indicated that when firearms were used in self-defence, the person was four times more likely to be killed than when firearms were not used in self-defence.

Sorry, given the supporting documents for this Treaty, it’s hard for me to say that Chuck is wrong. In fact, given that the United States accounts for about 1/4 of the UN budget, I would suggest pissing off the most powerful lobbying group in the country is a bad idea if you want to continue to occupy significant space on some of the most valuable real-estate in our country.

Don’t let the left fool you. There’s plenty to worry about from the UN. While we have the votes to prevent ratification of this treaty, it could wreak havoc with arms and ammunition from countries that do sign on. Take a look at some of your favorite cheap ammo, and see where it comes from. Them do the same for your guns. This is a big deal no matter what they tell you.

I normally make an effort to follow along with the comment threads, and try to read and respond to every e-mail. But while our blog hosting site (also known as my basement) is up and running fine, our off-site-backup and e-mail provider (also known as my friend Jason’s basement) is still without power since the storm. Since the town he’s in is along the Delaware River, they are still experiencing flooding, as the river is still above flood stage. While his house is well above the river, flooding could conceivably complicate power restoration.

From Jeff Knox of the Firearms Coalition:

For a good overview 1966 – 2000, may I suggest you pick up a copy of “Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War” (www.NealKnox.com). Dad was very involved in the fight both as a reporter and a lobbyist and his articles from the time are enlightening. There was not nearly as much emphasis on fundamental philosophy back in ’68 as there is today and there was a whole lot more of the same sort of mentality that you see from clubs that ban the shooting of “humanoid” targets, the wearing of camouflage clothing, or the shooting of anything “rapid-fire” (heaven forbid full-auto), or the Oklahoma Rifle Association board that came out in opposition to an open carry bill last session because open carry might make people uncomfortable. Over the years there have been many leaders of NRA and the industry who have exhibited such attitudes.

As to NRA, they have made mistakes. They have on several occasions caved or cooperated long before political pragmatism would have suggested, and they don’t play well with others who they should consider compatriots rather than competitors. But, NRA is the Big Dog in the fight and love them or hate them, they are who the politicians listen to. No amount of bitching on the internet is going to change that. Everyone who cares about gun rights should be a member of NRA – preferably a Life Member. Once you’re a member, kick them in the shins to take stronger positions and withhold any additional contributions until they do so. Vote in Director Elections and lobby those Directors to push the organization toward a harder line – and replace them if they don’t do what you want them to do. At this point most of those efforts will be futile, but another Cincinnati Revolt is not completely impossible – though not quite like Cincinnati since they’ve changed the bylaws to take such power away from the members – and eventually a large, noisy contingent of the membership demanding better of the NRA will result in a better organization.

I have a copy of the book he mentioned (to which I have added a link). While I only got about half way through it before all this job uncertainty hit, from what I read so far, I would recommend it. Their father Neal was one of the architects, really one of the prime movers, of the 1977 Cincinnati revolt. Jeff and Chris, following in the footsteps of their father Neal, follow a more hard core and less-compromising path than I often think is prudent, but the fundamental emphasis they place on working from within is a worthwhile; if you don’t like what NRA is doing, work to change it. I’d certainly like to see less legislative priority placed, for instance, of infringing on the free speech of doctors, or interfering with employment laws and property rights. But there’s not much the organization is going to do to stop me from participating in it. I’ve tried to become a voice, and advocate for the things I believe in. Jeff and Chris, like their father, also do the same.

Never heard of the plaintiffs before, so I hope they know what they are doing. Our expert Second Amendment litigators often remind us the biggest threats are from ill considered suits brought forward by amateurs at best, and kooks at worst. Not saying that’s the case here, but always something to watch out for when you see new suits being filed. Looking at the actual suit, it doesn’t look bad. Given that, I wish them luck.

UPDATE: I apologize for the Scribd link. I hate Scribd with a white hot passion, and really wish people wouldn’t use it. Most browsers can handle a direct link to a PDF just fine.

SayUncle reports the company seems to believe its job is to impose California law on everyone. Apparently now they are enforcing California law that’s not even law anymore, when it comes to firearms accessories. I never use eBay because of their anti-gun policies.