Category: Gun Rights

Happening in Florida:

One would place restrictions on questions that physicians could ask patients about guns and gun ownership, including children. Violators could be fined $10,000 to $100,000, and a companion measure in the House would make it a felony.

The Florida Medical Association is rightly against it, saying it violates free-speech rights and the doctor-patient relationship that necessitates physicians have information about all factors affecting a patient’s safety.

The FMA is correct about the bill violating free speech and free association. I agree it’s untenable from a First Amendment viewpoint, and am very disappointed NRA is pushing this. But doctors have no right to pry into non-medically relevant facets of someone’s life, and gun ownership is not medically relevant. The only excuse I could see for prying into that area is if a psychiatrist was treating a minor patient for depression, and told the parents to keep the guns locked up, along with just about anything else that might be dangerous to a potentially suicidal individual. That fits in the realm of just being good advice. As a general matter, gun ownership is not a disease (no matter how much some wish it to be), and is therefore outside the field of medicine. Doctors should stop asking about it as a matter of routine.

This is really a case of both sides in this debate being wrong.

Apparently it means you can have single shot weapons. That’s what all intelligent people would agree on, after all. Personally, I’d be happy to compromise on it being completely proper and constitutional to have restrictions on carrying pistols for the purpose of dueling. That’s a compromise I can live with.

Between Dave Kopel and Professor Adam Winkler here.

Not that Joe Huffman provided a thoughtful answer, but that MikeB actually asked a thoughtful question. Has MikeB decided to give up on life under the bridge?

The Republican lawmaker who beat David Levdansky has an op-ed in the Patriot News supporting Castle Doctrine. For those interested in Levdansky’s history in Pennsylvania, you can go here.

In New York City, of all places. I seem to recall hearing that half of all gun possession cases in DC ended up nullified. What do you think a London jury would have found? There is a Second Amendment in the minds of the people, whether our opponents want to recognize it or not.

Three bills headed to McDonnell. All of them pretty moderate. So when does the Old Dominion get rid of one gun a month?

There’s a principle in statutory construction that statutes should be read in a way that gives effect to the will of the legislature. Pretty clearly the language that preempts “the law of any State or political subdivision thereof,” would be key here. But it’s not just that. It’s also what legislators are arguing. The following is from the Congressional Record:

[A]nybody who has a concealed carry permit from the State of South Dakota goes to New York and is in Central Park, Central Park would be a much safer place.

– John Thune, Senator sponsor of the amendment, 7/22/2009

Known gun runners would go to Vermont, get a gun license, get a concealed carry permit, and they could get 20, 30, 50 guns concealed in a backpack, in a suitcase, and bring them and sell them on the streets of the south Bronx or central Brooklyn, bring them to Central Park or Queens, and our local police would have their hands tied.

– Charles Schumer, in the Congressional Record, 7/21/2009

In addition to this, schumer is also on record in the same day’s record saying the bill “would affect every city in the country.” We also have to consider statements by NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly:

New York City’s strict requirements as to who can carry a concealed weapon have contributed to the city’s unparalleled public safety. Our effort, indeed our entire mission, would be severely undercut by this bill. In a city where 90 percent of all guns used in crimes come from out of State, it is easy to see how S. 845 would pose a danger to New Yorkers by greatly increasing the availability of illegal handguns for purchase.

So clearly on both sides we have ample evidence that legislators on both sides of the issue understand that New York City is subject to this law. I just wanted everyone to be aware there’s two sides to every issue. There may be a plausible reading that suggests NYC is exempted as an off limits place under New York State Law, but there’s an equally plausible, and possibly stronger reading that it is covered.

It would be nice if the language could be made more clear, but great precision is difficult to get out of the sausage grinder of Congress. It’s a given that there will be handful of states, cities, and local municipalities that will challenge whatever language comes out. My concern is people are aware of the risks, and how the language could be twisted and interpreted. Ultimately it is the courts who decide these things, and it’s worthwhile pointing out there are plausible arguments each way.

Thanks to John Richardson for updating with the language. I like the bill overall, as it bases its authority on the 14th Amendment, but does not bet the farm on it, as it also bases it on the commerce power as well. My only concern is I worry the language isn’t clear enough, and leaves some weasel room for states like New Jersey and cities like New York:

(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

The concern here is that New Jersey’s condition and limitation is chiefly whether or not you have a need. Fortunately, that is clarified a bit in the next subsection:

(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

What if New Jersey simply declares that it does not issue unrestricted licenses, and that the restrictions are subject to a needs based test? Clearly that goes against the spirit of the law, but it’s weasel room. Also, my understanding is that a resident of the State of New York that has an unrestricted permit may still not carry within the City of New York, without having a separate permit from the City of New York. I don’t know enough about how New York Law is structured, but I’m not sure this bill will allow you to carry in New York City.

This bill also does not have the same provisions for those in Vermont who do not have the option to get a license to carry, but Vermonters can get covered by obtaining a non-resident license from another state. That provision was likely left out to increase the chance of passage.

UPDATE: From New York Penal Code:

License:  validity. Any license issued pursuant to this section shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any local law or ordinance. No license shall be transferable to any other person or premises. A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the police commissioner of that city.

So in New York State Law, the City of New York is off limits as a matter of state law, without a license from the City of New York. While this reciprocity bill preempts local law, it does not preempt state law in the matter of where one can and can’t carry. There is a very plausible argument that under this bill, New York City is off limits without a license form that city. Also consider this section:

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.

If people are going to have faith in this bill, the language needs to be rock solid and clear. Otherwise someone is going to end up in prison.