Gun Rights – Page 207 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Burden of Proof in Mental Health Cases

Eugene Volokh covers a case in the California Court of Appeals. This case is a good example of the importance of picking your plaintiffs carefully. In this case, the courts are going to be looking for reasons why this guy shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun given the circumstances. I disagree with the courts ultimate conclusion:

First, with respect to the private interest element of the due process test, an individualâ€™s right to possess firearms is of fundamental constitutional stature. However, this constitutional right is subject to the stateâ€™s traditional authority to regulate firearm use by individuals who have a mental illness. Moreover, the length of the threatened loss is a relevant factor in analyzing the nature of the private interest. Under section 8103, the deprivation of the right is lengthy, but temporary, lasting for five years. Further, the infringement concerns the loss of property, and does not involve deprivation of physical liberty or severance of familial ties.

You’re removing the most effective tool we have for self-defense. I think that’s up there with those other circumstances. The problem is, I think this guy’s temporary prohibition would pass a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard. I’m not sure why the Court felt the need to say preponderance of evidence is fine.

I appreciate the Courts willingness to take the right seriously, by at least doing a serious analysis, but far too many courts have been all too willing to treat the Second Amendment as a second class right.

How You Know They are Losing

Democratic Governors running for Senate seats are running ads bragging about their NRA endorsements, and shooting bad bills:

In addition to being bad news for the Brady folks, this is also bad news for Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress. One wonders whether they will want to condemn this eliminationistÂ rhetoric, which is surely only to be found on the right side of the aisle.

Someone to Vouch for McCarthy’s Opponent

Looks like John Richardson knows the guy running against Carolyn McCarthy. She’s looking more an more vulnerable, and I’m really salivating over the possibility of getting her out. Brady has raised very little federal PAC money in the 2010 cycle. I think their only donations have been incidental. Of the approximately 4700 dollars they have spent, McCarthy has been the only person in Congress Brady has donated to at the 1000 dollar level, and only one of two candidates getting that much this cycle. They are busy raising money for their Illinois PAC, however, and this indicates that this election they are just trying not to lose more ground. There’s a very good chance that Illinois is going to flip from anti to pro in the next election.

UPDATE: Jacob, in the comments, points out that he voted along with Bloomberg on colored guns. That certainly doesn’t speak well for him, but all I need from him at this point is just to be better than Carolyn McCarthy. I’ll worry about rolling the dice again with him later.

Good News for Gun Owners

Carolyn McCarthy is on the verge of being tea partied out of office. Needless to say, despite her ineffectiveness, it would be wonderful to get her out of Congress. If you want to donate to her challenger’s campaign, you can here. He is pro-Second Amendment.

More on Citibank

In some back and forth between myself and the folks at Forces of Darkness HQ, I asked about the situation from Citibank’s past, highlighted by SayUncle here. They had this to say about that matter:

NRA-ILA investigated a previous problem with Citibank in 2008, which involved Citi Merchant Services denying its processing services to a major firearms distributor. Â ILA staff contacted Citibank, who put us in touch with Citi’s contractor for these services, First Data. First Data investigated internally and discovered that it had one employee who was denying services to firearms industry members.

The employee’s motives remain unclear, but First Data appears to have solved the problem. ILA has had no complaints about Citi between that time and the current situation. Â The current case appears to be of a completely different nature.

So my suggestion that we back off on Citibank wasn’t based on my forgiving them for their previous transgressions, but based on the fact that they seem to have fixed the problem that existed previously, and walked into this current situation through a mistake rather than maliciousness.

Update on the Citibank Situation

From someone at NRA:

NRA-ILA has been made aware of an issue over business credit disapproval for scope mount and accessories manufacturer Warne Scope Mounts Company and Citibank SD.Â At this time, we understand the specifics of the problem revolve around an industry code that was applied to Warne, a designation that seems to be incorrect.

Contact has been made to Citibank SD media relations and they have shared some general information.Â That information has been relayed to Warne so that they may follow up directly with Citibank SD to resolve their specific problem.Â ILA staff will follow-up with contact with Citibank SD to inquire regarding a review of their policies to help prevent these problems in the future.

At this time, it is not the opinion of NRA-ILA that Citibank is actively denying banking services or credit in an attempt to discriminate against firearm related businesses.Â Rather, we believe that this is a problem created by a mistaken understanding as to the nature of business conducted by Warne. It is our hope that that particular problem will be resolved in the coming days.

As more information is learned, NRA-ILA will inform our members if it is found that this is not the case or if Citibank SD is uncooperative in dealing with these issues.

We might want to put out the torches and put down the pitchforks for now. It looks like this was likely a simple mistake.

Quote of the Day

From Dave Kopel over a Volokh:

Civil liberties organizations which tie themselves exclusively to one partyÂ put liberty at risk. In a two-party system, it is inevitable that each party will dominate some of the time. Civil liberties are safer in the long run when they have friends in both parties, and when those friends know that civil liberty organizations will reciprocrate their support,especially during tough elections.

Yes. The only reason we’ve been safe in this Congress is because we’ve accomplished making the Second Amendment a bipartisan issue.

WaPo Covers NRA Endorsements

Friendly coverage from the Washington Post. Â Maybe the way to get the MSM on our side is to be seen as helping their Democratic friends in Washington. No doubt the Bradys aren’t going to be pleased to see this article this morning.

Castle Doctrine Finally Overcomes Opposition

We’re not done yet, but Castle Doctrine has finally come through the House. The vote was earlier this evening, and involved lots of yelling, many threats, and even some cane waving. There was some of the most entertaining sausage making I’ve ever seen. I wished I had recorded it for future laughs.

The bill faced several hurdles, including an attempt to adjourn instead of actually holding a vote. The Philadelphia Democrats tried out-of-order motions to table the bill, even when the Speaker repeatedly announced the call for a vote on the actual bill.

At least one AP reporter “gets it” with this summary of what’s going on:

The vote to widen the “castle doctrine” so that it applies beyond homes and vehicles was 159-38, with dozens of Democrats voting with Republicans, the latest demonstration of how gun issues do not follow partisan political lines in the Pennsylvania Legislature.

It’s so refreshing knowing to see a reporter acknowledge that the important issues doesn’t break along party lines. The article also reports that a Senate Republican source says the Senate will, in fact, take up the bill next week. Gov. Rendell still won’t say whether he will veto or sign.

Mini-Update on Castle Doctrine

I think the levels of ups and downs of the last two weeks was best described from Rep. Seth Grove, at least from his perspective as a legislator:

I was already to do battle against the Gun Control amendments on HB 40 – Castle Doctrine too. Maybe next time.

We were supposed to face down anywhere from six to eight anti-gun amendments ranging from one gun a month to restricting reciprocity of carry licenses. While it’s a good thing to never have to worry about anti-gun legislation, it’s also a bit of a frustration that we warn people about all of these threats that never end up happening. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing we had the support of 156 lawmakers to vote this thing through to another step in the process. But, it’s frustrating that I know some gun owners will believe we were blowing smoke up their asses for the anti-gun amendments that never came. We weren’t. The legislators themselves can attest to that.

So tomorrow, should the Speaker of the House indulge us, we should have the final floor vote in the House on Castle Doctrine. Hopefully the Senate will take it up. I haven’t really been paying attention to anything in the Senate lately, other than some political commentary on tax hikes that they won’t likely take up this year. So we’ll see.

I did read a few notes on Facebook by someone who said they caught part of a presser hosted by Gov. Rendell who was none too pleased about the self-defense bill actually getting traction. But, if he gives us grief, he’s gone and irrelevant in January. And, to boot, we’ll punish the rest of his party who stand with him on the issue and just flip the House so the Democrats are out to pasture in Pennsylvania politics.