Gun Rights – Page 190 – Shall Not Be Questioned

More on ATF Shotgun Study

Michael Bane thinks this might be the start of other shotgun rulings. It’s certainly possible, but the root problem is how to interpret the sporting purposes clause. Congress wrote a bad law, which is bound to lead to poor interpretations of it. ATF’s assertion, at it’s core, is that there would be hardly anything that wouldn’t be importable if IPSC and IDPA were considered to have a sporting purpose, and thus it would render meaningless something Congress clearly intended to have meaning.

There’s two thinks I think we need to advocate here. One is that the sporting purposes clause be eliminated. The second is that destructive devices are increased to any firearm firing fixed ammunition with a bore diameter of greater than one inch. This is hardly radical, since the UK allows shotguns up to two inches, and doesn’t have any overall restriction on bore size. At the very least, we should demand any shotgun be legal outright, not under exception.

Defeat for Gun Control

The House Judiciary Chairman is saying no on hearings on gun control. I guess the GOP is good for something at least.

No Right to Own a Gun in New Jersey

Eugene Volokh relays a case where a man was denied buying a gun because he slammed doors very hard.

Magazine Ban Defeated in Maine

Maine is one of the states the antis have been trying to turn to their side for years. It looks like we barely missed getting a magazine ban discharged to the floor by a 5 to 5 vote. I would suggest that if our opponents don’t have the juice in Maine, the prospects for stopping the federal magazine ban are pretty good. Still, I wouldn’t take anything for granted in this environment.

FYI, Maine’s NRA State Liaison is John Hohenwarter, who we interviewed here a few months ago, in regards to Pennsylvania matters. This is a significant victory for us, but you can bet they aren’t going to give up after this setback.

This is a New Idea?

“Time To Study Gun Violence As Public Health Issue,” followed by whining that NRA is killing publicly funded anti-gun research. You know, you can still raise private money to do this kind of research:

And here is where I say I am not anti-gun, though I have a severe prejudice against willful ignorance. I would not ban guns, but I would favor a healthy examination of our gun culture.

It’s not willful ignorance. We know exactly what we are doing and we would be fools not to try to prevent this woman from getting our tax dollars to do research on this topic. My constitutional rights don’t depend on the outcome of any study, and I intend to keep it that way. Plus, “our gun culture,” is none of your goddamned business to begin with.

Kristof’s Car Analogy is Epic Fail

This is a favorite of our opposition, so it’s not surprising that Nicholas Kristof Â of the New York Times tries to make an analogy that’s so incredibly bereft of any subject matter knowledge of either side of the analogy, it renders the entire point utterly ridiculous. A proper analogy to the assault weapons issue, turned to cars, would be relabeling sports cars as “death vehicles.” Let me write a hypothetical newspaper article, using the correct analogy.

After a series of high profile, mutli-car accidents, which have caused dozens of fatalities, the environmental group American Council to Ban AutomobilesÂ has renamed itself in honor Ashley Brandy, a nine year old girl, killed when the minivan her mother was driving collided at high speed with a so-called “death vehicle.” Now named the Brandy Campaign to Prevent Automobile Fatalities, the group plans an aggressive lobbying campaign to ban these types of death vehicles in Congress. Several years ago, citing environmental concerns, ACBA proposed outlawing all vehicles capable of exceeding 65 miles per hour. That proposal met with cool reception in the halls of Congress. While polling showed lukewarm support among the public for banning automobiles that can exceed 65 miles per hour, it has shown that the public does support laws to limit the availability of death vehicles. Advocates have pointed out these cars have no purpose other than to drive at unsafe speeds, and risk killing other motorists.

Several years ago, California became the first state in the nation to outlaw death vehicles. Similar to the California law, the bill currently being advanced in Congress will ban certain excessively fast automobiles by name. Â Congress has also, much like their California counterparts, examined features common to these cars, and banned certain combinations of features from appearing on vehicles. Under the current bill it will be unlawful to manufacture, sell, or transfer an automobile with any two of the following features:

Spoiler
Air scoops
Low profile tires,
Body panels made of 60% or more composite material by volume
Bright red body color
Rotating headlights
Three or fewer passenger seats.

Congress has also, at the urging of Â The Brandy Campaign, added a section to the bill that limits any automobile with V or higher rated tires from having an internal gasoline tank greater than five gallons. “We believe this is an important aspect of the bill,” said Saul Henke, a spokesman for the Brandy Campaign, “This way even if someone drives his death machine at an unsafe speed, he or she won’t be able travel very far before having to stop to refuel, giving authorities or other motorists a chance to catch up and intervene.”

Mr. Henke also expressed concerns that the proposed law does not go far enough. “Because the bill doesn’t ban certain engine configurations, manufactures may easily skirt these restrictions, and continue to make dangerously fast cars. We’ve been working with our allies in Congress in an attempt to close this dangerous loophole.”

Sports car enthusiasts, along with the National Motorists Association, have been attempting to fight the ban. “Sports cars are driven responsibly by millions of Americans every day, and enthusiasm for these machines is as American as Apple Pie,” said NMA Executive Vice President Duane LaPerrier, “The notion that these vehicles have no purpose than driving at dangerous speeds and killing families in minivans is ludicrous.” When asked why anyone had a need for a car that could drive so fast, LaPerrier pointed out, “You’ll still have fast cars, even with this ban. The only thing this will accomplish is putting good people in jail, for such things as adding a fiberglass panel to their car, or buying a spoiler with low profile tires.”

The Brandy Campaign dismissed the idea, noting “Ordinary motorists have nothing to fear from this bill. By banning these deadly cars, we’ll save the lives of hundreds of children in this country. Over 33,000 people die in automobile accidents each year, many of them children.” The NMA has called for better enforcement of the nation’s traffic laws, and harsh penalties for those who drive automobiles irresponsibly.Â Critics have pointed out that the National Motorist Association has ties to the automobile industry, and represents only a fraction of American Drivers.

Pundits believe the Ashley Brandy Automotive Safety Act will be passed by Congress at the end of the year. The President made banning death vehicles part of his platform, so proponents of automobile safety should be getting a Christmas present from Congress that’s sure to warm their holidays.

That, Mr. Kristof, is how it’s done. And looking at it that way, do you see why people who enjoy sports cars responsibly might be a little insulted, and a little upset? Do you get now why gun owners take advocacy for these laws very personally? This article sounds like it was written in Bizarro world, and in the real world people would laugh any such proposal out of Congress, but that’s exactly what the assault weapons debate is, in the context of cars. What’s the difference? Everyone is familiar with automobiles and driving. Not everyone is familiar with guns, including many people who own them.

WaPo: Bring Back the AWB

The Washington Post has been particularly antsy lately to see our rights removed, and they seem to be closing off the week with a call to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, largely based on this study, which appeared earlier, that they claim shows it’s effective.

I’ve looked into this somewhat, and the Virginia Criminal Firearms Clearinghouse does indeed have magazine capacity as a field on the form. It seems, however, that the Post has made quite a leap to suggest this is effective. It’s interesting data, but it’s one state, and we have no idea whether the firearms in this database are representative of crime guns. It seems very strange that criminals should have a difficult time buying magazines of greater than ten rounds when as a law abiding person, I had no problem.

The disappointing thing about this article it has made us realize we have one more database we have to close off, so that our opponents can’t mine it for data and draw unfounded conclusions support limiting our constitutional rights. I do thank them, however, for pointing this glaring error out to us, and hope NRA takes this up with the Virginia legislature forthwith.

ATF Study Released

Just read through this fairly quickly, but I think the Saigas are safe. Here are the evil features:

Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
bayonet lugs;
flash suppressors;
magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
grenade-launcher mounts;
integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
light enhancing devices;
excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping theÂ shotgun with the shooterâ€™s extended hand.

The Saiga is imported with a 5 round magazine, and has none of these features coming, so I’m pretty sure it’s safe. It only addresses importation. The study looked the meaning of the sporting purposes clause, and determined that IPSC, IDPA, etc are not shooting sports within that definition. For shotgun purposes, they’ve determined that only clay sports and hunting count.

Air Gun Ruling

A New York trial court rules that there’s not Second Amendment protection for air guns because they are not “arms,” within the meaning of the Second Amendment. It seems to me, however, that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily has to include some right to practice with and become proficient in the use of arms. Since air guns are of high utility for practicing and honing skills with arms, their possession and use ought to be protected as readily as powder firearms. Dave Kopel has, I think, successfully argued this point previously.

New Jersey AG on That Whole “Bear Arms” Thing

From an ANJRPC alert, we have the text of the Attorney General’s brief in the lawsuit over New Jersey’s carry laws:

New Jerseyâ€™s carefully conceived and long-standing regulatory scheme is rooted in an appreciation that a permit to carry may not afford any measure of self-protection to a particular applicant and would instead increase the risk of the applicant being involved in “the known and serious dangers of misuse and accidental use.â€ When a handgun is carried in public, the serious risks and dangers of misuse and accidental use are borne by the public.

New Jersey has not merely a significant interest but a compelling interest in combating handgun violence and combating the dangers and risks associated with the accidental and misuse of handguns, which are inherent in carrying a handgun. It also has a compelling interest in reducing the use of handguns in crimes. A governmentâ€™s foremost function is to ensure the safety of all of its citizenry. When handguns are permitted to be carried beyond oneâ€™s home, the dangers and risks necessarily increase and are borne by the public.

Generally speaking, one cannot know whether crime against an individual will occur at all, much less know when, where, or how. Neither then can one know whether a handgun would provide an effective measure of self-defense and be safe to use as to other victims or bystanders. Further, the “needâ€ for a handgun for self-defense outside of the home does not stand alone. The carrying of a handgun inherently comes with the dangers and risks of its misuse or accidental use. These dangers and risks are borne by everyone with whom the person encounters.

That’s kind of funny, considering 40 or so other states seem to manage some kind of shall-issue policy without blood running in the streets. This would also seem to be the kind of policy argument, advocated by Justice Breyer, that the Heller and McDonald majorities rejected. In addition to this statement, she’s’ trying to get ANJRPC and SAF thrown off the lawsuit.