Gun Rights – Page 183 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Even the LA Times Couldn’t Ignore the Hypocrisy

The LA Times is hardly a hotbed of pro-gun radicalism, but even they couldn’t help but notice:

The bill,Â SB 610, says the good-cause determination would be deemed to be met for any California member of Congress, statewide elected official or member of the Legislature.

The surprising thing about this bill isn’t just that it has appeared in California, which tends to favor restrictive gun laws, but that its coauthors are all Democrats who in the past have voted to limit gun rights for ordinary citizens.

They go on to worry about the implications of panicked politicians spraying bullets into crowds. At least the LA Times is consistent — they think it’s dangerous for everyone to carry a gun, except for the police who have magical gun powers.

Open Carry in Florida on the Move

Passed out of committee. Robb notes that the level of disinformation being presented by opponents was disturbing. Politicians are usually only concerned with what’s going to help get them elected, and they’ve learned over the years that passing bills like this is a way to please one of the larger single-issue constituencies out there, with very little in the way of downside. NRA has been pushing this bill using the justification “to prevent license holders from being charged with the crime of violating the ‘Open Carry’ law because a concealed firearm accidentally or inadvertently became visible.” Given that OC gives some gun owners the willies, I think this is the right tactic in trying to push this through.

Rebuffed?

The New York Times is reporting:

â€œWhy should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?â€ saidÂ Wayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive of theÂ National Rifle Association.

There really isn’t any reason to sit down with the Administration unless the conversation is “What are you going to do for us?” Maybe then gun owners can talk turkey with Obama. But until then, what is there to talk about? Any legislation coming forward can be blocked by Congress.

The only card Obama really has is that he could come out in favor of gun control and push it in a big way. This is actually more of a threat than I would like it to be, but it I wouldn’t view it as much of one. Congress is not likely to be in the mood, and with promises that Obama made to some Democrats, like John Tester, Bob Casey, or any number of Democrats in red states that are up in 2012, this could easily play against Obama.

Like You and Me, Only Better

California lawmakers want to be able to carry concealed weapons. But many who do, don’t want you to be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges they do. I wonder how the Second Amendment is worded in their world.

Obama Speaks on Gun Control

He mostly says we need to do a better job of getting states to report mental health records to NICS. That’s the meat of it. The rest of platitudes. In speaking of “porous background checks,” he did not call for closing the gun show loophole. I would imagine the Bradys are going to be less than thrilled with this, but they’ll try their best to extract what little marrow was left in the bone the President just threw them. Obama has basically just called for the bill that passed after Virginia Tech, only with vigor this time. Since I didn’t have any serious objection to that bill, I don’t really have any serious objections to more incentives, provided they are respectful of federalist principles, and respect the sovereignty of the states.

UPDATE: I’ll leave it to readers to decide what it means that Obama released this to the Arizona Star, and not to the New York Times or Washington Post, at a time when the news cycle is focused pretty exclusively on what’s happening in Japan. Also, think about what that says about how highly Barry thinks of the Bradys.

UPDATE: More from Dave Hardy here. He also doesn’t think this is going to live up to the expectations of the gun control groups that endorsed Obama.

DA’s Association on Castle Doctrine

Looks like the DA’s association has softened their opposition, but the reason is worrisome:

Now, Marsico says the DAâ€™s Association is working with, and not against, Republican lawmakers, in an effort to change the billâ€™s language. New language the group helped craft would only eliminate the duty to retreat before firing if the other person is armed. â€œIt also provides that the individual who wants to avail themselves of the expanded doctrine cannot be engaged in any criminal activity,â€ he said. â€œAnd prior versions of the legislation put the onus on the prosecution to prove there was no criminal activity. Weâ€™ve removed that with the current amendment.â€Â He outlined one more change: â€œThe other thing in the current amendment does is that it provides that if someoneâ€™s going to claim the expanded stand your ground doctrine, and they use a firearm in defending themselves, then they have to be legally in possession of that firearm. So weâ€™ve tightened the law a lot.â€

I will do my best to look into this, but this could be cause for concern. I need to look at this year’s and last year’s bills side by side, but I’m pretty sure most of what they are speaking of here is already a feature of last year’s bill, IIRC.

IGOLD 2011

Follow Thirdpower for live coverage of IGOLD 2011. Illinois gun owners have a lot to be optimistic about, since Concealed Carry passed its first hurdle. This is far from passing a bill, and getting it signed by the Governor, but it’s progress.

Anti-Gun Amendments Readying in PA House

A floor vote for HB40, the Castle Doctrine vote, is proceeding, but our opponents in the legislature are planning on trying to add anti-gun amendments, including the “Florida Loophole” nonsense and Lost and Stolen. NRA is alerting that you need to contact legislators now. Our goal is to get a clean bill out of the House so this can proceed quickly.

TSA In Hot Water

Apparently Amtrak is none too pleased with a TSA stunt at a Savannah Train Station:

In late February, the Transportation Security Administration took over the Amtrak station in Savannah, Ga., and thoroughly searched every person who entered. None of the passengers got into trouble, but the TSA certainly did â€” big time.

Amtrak Police Chief John Oâ€™Connor said he first thought a blog posting about the incident was a joke. When he discovered that the TSAâ€™s VIPR team did at least some of what the blog said, he was livid. He ordered the VIPR teams off Amtrak property, at least until a firm agreement can be drawn up to prevent the TSA from taking actions that the chief said were illegal and clearly contrary to Amtrak policy.

I would imagine there would be Fourth Amendment implications as well. Imagine if they had done this at, say, Amtrak’s 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. How many armed passengers are proceeding through that station on a daily basis? The status of Amtrak is actually a matter of dispute. In a First Amendment context, they are considered a government actor. But for the purposes of prohibiting firearms, they claim to be a private corporation and are thus can exclude people with firearms from their property, including their stations, as a matter of private property.

It’s probably a good idea if you’re carrying in an Amtrak station to leave if they ask you to. But I really wonder with what statutory authority TSA thought it was operating under. And could you be arrested for carrying a gun through their checkpoint, as you would be at an airport?

UPDATE: Hat tip to Ian Argent for the story.

40 Dems Could Care Less About Rule of Law

Reports the Hill:

More than 40 House Democrats are calling on President Obama to approve new rules granting federal regulators more authority to crack down on gun trafficking to Mexico.

The request comes at an unfortunate time for the lawmakers, however, as the Department of Justice (DOJ) has just launched a probe into reports that hundreds of guns were lost amid a federal sting designed to track firearms by letting known smugglers buy them with impunity.

Apparently 40 Democratic lawmakers don’t mind the fact that federal law prohibits what the ATF wants to do. They are perfectly fine with the Obama Administration assuming the powers of Congress, and changing the law as he sees fit.