Category: Gun Rights

From Jacob, up in New York, talks about how a former President of the Brady Campaign seems to have learned a thing or two about how the “gun lobby” does things:

Far too many gunnies spend their time trying to be right, whether it’s compiling facts about private gun ownership and crime or digging up quotes from the Founding Fathers, and not nearly enough time on how to actually implement their ideas.  Anyone who has ever seen the floor debates on gun bills in Albany knows that a rational discussion on the facts never comes up from the other side.  Why worry about it then?  There is nothing wrong with simply telling a legislator to vote your way or else you will work against them next election cycle.

This is to a large degree true, but more  now that the philosophical ground work on the issue has largely been validated by the Supreme Court. I don’t think, however, you can completely ignore the philosophical roots of the issue, because that is the primary means you can use to persuade some people to your side and motivate them. That doesn’t work with everyone, however, and most politicians don’t really give a crap about your issue (whatever your issue is). They have a lot of competing interests to balance. If you want them to pay attention to you, the dynamic duo of votes and money works every time.

That’s not to say there aren’t true believers. But those are rare birds. Most politicians are true believers in areas where they have a specific self-interest. A shooter Congress Critter might have a heartfelt interest in protecting gun rights, a doctor critter might have strong feelings on health care, etc. But for the most part you’re going to be using the carrot and the stick when dealing with elected official more than facts, figures and persuasion.

Nordyke v. King is shaping up to be the next big case, I think, and the ducks are getting lined up in a row. Nordyke is the case where Alameda County banned gun shows from its fairgrounds. The Court is considering whether or not this is a violation of the Second Amendment. I’m rather pleased that this may be the next big case, because the win or lose isn’t nearly as important as what the Court is going to say. We could lose on the merits, and still win.

Both many groups have filed briefs in this case (NRA’s can be found here), arguing that the standard for reviewing Second Amendment claims is strict scrutiny. This would seem (to me at least) to be a good context for arguing that. You don’t have criminal prohibitions complicating the matter, like we did in the Skoien case in the 7th Circuit. It’s pretty clear that Alameda County banned gun shows because they don’t like them, rather than because of any legitimate government interest. That’s why this is important.

This case, win or lose, could end up defining the boundaries of the Second Amendment, most certainly for the Ninth Circuit, which includes a number of states, but also for the entire country, as other circuits adopt their reasoning.

An open carry ban and long gun registration are up now. Phone calls need to be made. Even Canada is giving up on long gun registration. It won’t be long before California has worse gun laws than Canada.

South Korea wants to surplus a bunch of M1 Garands and M1 Carbines that have been gathering dust in warehouses around the R.O.K.  The Obama Administration obviously thinks we’ll shoot ourselves, or sell them to terrorists if we are allowed to get our hands on them:

“The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions,” the official told The Korea Times.

“We’re still looking into the reason why the U.S. administration is objecting to the sale of the rifles and seeking ways to resolve the problems raised,” he said.

The Obama Administration has no legal authority to prevent the importation of these rifles. Under a provision of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, rifles and shotguns that are Curios and Relics are permitted to be imported, the “sporting purposes” language in the 1968 Gun Control Act be damned. That’s probably why they are resorting to back channel pressure to prevent the South Korean government from selling them as surplus.

This goes to show that the Obama Administration may be unwilling to take us on head on, but they are willing to screw us through the back channel.

After reading more than a few media sources in Australia use the term, I would like to congratulate our shooting friends down under for officially becoming a “gun lobby.” Welcome to the club. This means you’re getting somewhere. When they use terms like “powerful gun lobby” it means you’re really getting somewhere.

Looks like they are relenting on the policy of banning firearms in public housing, but it’s not clear yet whether their new policy is going to be acceptable.

Among the things Pileggi said were objectionable in the draft regulations is a proposed ban on carrying weapons in “common areas” of WHA buildings. He said the rule appears aimed at preventing “someone from just hanging out” with a firearm and is an improper restriction of Second Amendment rights.

He also objected to a proposed requirement that anyone who has a gun in a WHA building be prepared to produce a permit showing he is allowed to carry it.

The solution would be to defer to state law on common areas. If you have a CDWL from the State of Delaware, or are otherwise carrying the firearm in compliance with state law (e.g. openly), you should be fine.

Bloomberg is a classy dude:

The suspensions were ordered, sources say, because the ex-cops had applied for or had received Social Security benefits involving a mental illness — a circumstance that would contradict what they told the NYPD to get their gun permits.

It looks like the cops are suffering from such things as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, an issue that in no other state that I can think of is reason to bar someone their right to keep and bear arms, and certainly not federally. The issue of whether the claims are fraudulent aside, NYC should not be able to revoke someone’s rights at a whim.

And these are the kinds of reasonable gun laws that Mayor Mike and his merry band of Illegal Mayors want to bring to the rest of America.