Category: Gun Rights

67% say cities have no power to ban handguns, and support for gun control just keeps falling.

The condescending assholes over at the New England Journal of medicine seem to be trying to convince their profession that the sky won’t fall, and they throw in some condescension toward Mr. McDonald as well:

In all likelihood, [Mr. McDonald] will get his gun. Ironically, that handgun may not be the panacea he seeks. It will not address the root causes of the drug- and gang-related crime plaguing his neighborhood. Its promise of safety may be illusory, and it may just increase the risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental injury and death of those who live in or, like his grandchildren, visit his home. It may also create legal problems. If he kills a neighborhood thug in self-defense, the odds that he will be held blameless are slim: in every year from 2004 through 2008, less than 2.5% of handgun-related killings by private citizens were deemed justifiable homicides.4 McDonald has, how- ever, secured a measure of immortality; he will forever be as- sociated with the case that bears his name.

Can you feel the scornful stare down from the ivory tower?  So New England Journal of medicine apparently believe one of our nation’s veterans, who was quite competent enough to bear arms in defense of their freedom to look down on him, is apparently incapable or unable to properly secure firearms when children come over. He is also surely going to murder someone and end up in jail! Seriously. That’s what you are saying, Julie D. Canter, MD, JD, who wrote this article. I’m glad she’s not my doctor. I think maybe it’s high time Dr. Canter came down from the ivory tower and started looking at her fellow citizens as equals rather an inferiors. I think that would help her become a better person than she apparently is now.

NRA hasn’t yet endorsed Harry Reid, but I would be shocked if they didn’t. Truth be told, they’d be insane if they didn’t. Why? Well, this is probably the best reason, but I also really want to address some of the distortions of Reid’s record mentioned over at Red State, which looks like they could have come directly from Larry Pratt. Pratt is a shameful hack, and it would appear he’s turned Red State into one too, at least on the gun issue. Red State has a long list of transgressions committed by Reid. I don’t have the time or energy to address them all, but I will address the main points.

Harry Reid did, in fact, vote for the Brady Act. This vote was in 1993. Also voting for the Brady Act was Kay Bailey Hutchison, who GOA gives an A grade to. Funny how Republicans get forgiven, isn’t it?

Oh, but he voted for the evil assault weapons ban, Sebastian! Well, he did, but he didn’t. The assault weapons ban was attached to the Crime Bill, which was a must-pass part of a highly popular President’s agenda. See my post on the history of the Assault Weapons Ban. The actual AWB was called the Feinstein Amendment, and Reid voted against that. There were only four Senators who voted against the final Crime Bill. One of the other votes for the final bill? GOA A-Rated Alabama Republican Senator Richard Shelby. Shelby also joined Reid in voting to eliminate CMP funding. And here too, along with Hutchison again.

But I’m not going to sit here and do this all day for decades old votes. I mean, yeah, he did vote against the Lott Amendment back in 2000, but so did Fred Thompson. He did vote for trigger locks back in 2004, but so did Hutchison. But he also voted against renewing the Assault Weapons Ban on that same bill. Reid also voted against the final version of the bill that was amended with the trigger lock provision, gun show provision, and assault weapons ban.

Also worthwhile to note Harry Reid voted for the PLCAA, which was NRA’s major legislative initiative for the last decade. But I think what stands out the most is Harry Reid’s leadership on the issue in this Senate. Shall we name what we’ve gotten?

• An amendment to allow National Park carry inserted into the Credit Card bill.
• An amendment to fix DC’s gun laws inserted into the Voting Rights Act.
• An amendment to create national reciprocity recognition that even included recognition for states that did not issue licenses, like Vermont. We lost his one, but the vote never would have happened without Harry Reid.
• Funding rider to force Amtrak to allow guns in checked baggage.
• Let’s also not forget all the other funding riders which are important for us, which Reid helped us get.

You can be upset all you want with him on other issues, but Harry Reid is solid on the Second Amendment. We’ve gotten more out of the Senate under Reid than we got out of Republicans in the roughly 14 years they ran things. Reid is not perfect, but there’s no politician that has a voting perfect record, and many that have records on guns comparable to Reid which GOA rates highly. I will leave it to my readers to determine whether Red State and GOA have any credibility at all when it comes to these issues, or whether they are using gun rights as a club to try to beat Democrats they find unsavory on other issues, and beating up on NRA because they know they are going to be supporting a lot of Democrats this fall. I think the answer is clear.

They backed off on a few provisions, but it’s now law. Instead of one gun only, they did one-gun-a-month. No ban on gun shops, but a ban on gun ranges. This is still unacceptable, however.

UPDATE: More information here. Not sure whether all these made it into the final version or not.

UPDATE: Via SayUncle, commentary from Alan Gura here.

Daley’s strategy is going to be to give as little ground as possible, in hopes that he can go as far as the courts will let him. This strategy probably won’t end well for gun rights. Personally, I think Congress should exercise its enforcement powers under 14th Amendment powers to force the issue. Truth is, Congress could have problems with the ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores in this case, but I don’t believe the Supreme Court should have a monopoly on interpreting the constitution, even if I do believe the Court would be correct in ruling it is the ultimate authority in that matter. Would Congress passing a law preventing gun bans, rationing, and zoning that restricts gun shops pass the “congruence and proportionality” test of Boerne? I say pass it, then we’ll see if the Courts want to disagree with Congress on the matter.

UPDATE: For specific language, how about something like this added to the Gun Control Act:

No state or municipality may prohibit the possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, or transportation of firearms in common use for lawful self-defense or sporting purposes. Firearms in common use for lawful self-defense or sporting purposes shall be defined as any handgun, rifle, or shotgun as defined in section 921 of this chapter, but shall not include any firearm as defined under section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code.

In my opinion this language would minimize the risk of invalidation under Boerne, because it’s using the Court’s own “common use” language, and the preemption here is limited only to non NFA items. In essence, Congress is deciding to define what firearms are in “common use” and my not be prohibited. This does not address carrying firearms, but you could put that in there. This doesn’t prevent regulation, but it does prevent bans. This leaves to the Court to decide on the matter of regulations, including licensing, point-of-sale qualifications, etc. The Supreme Court strongly hinted bans are off the table. All Congress is doing here is defining what “common use” means, which should be in Congress’ prerogative.

I know some will complain that we don’t get machine guns or NFA items here, but this does not prevent in any way the Court ruling that such restrictions run afoul of the constitution. Nor does it prevent Congress from changing the NFA later to remove them from the definition of firearm. The goal is to get gun bans off the table completely. Let’s settle that law.

Somehow I’m not sure this is the first thing that comes to Daley’s mind when he hears that phrase. But hey, if Daley wants to make his political swan song about making civil rights attorneys rich, that’s fine my me. I would think that’s fine by Alan Gura too.

Sarah Palin speaks.

First, by Alan Gura, guest blogging over at SCOTUSBlog, and two by Robert Dowlut, General Counsel for NRA, writing in Tulsa World.

You can find the letter to Leahy here, but here’s the meat:

Any individual who does not believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less receive a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Justice Sotomayor’s blatant reversal on this critical issue requires that we look beyond statements made during confirmation hearings and examine a nominee’s entire body of work. Unfortunately, Ms. Kagan’s record on the Second Amendment gives us no confidence that if confirmed to the Court, she will faithfully defend the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans.

For these reasons, the National Rifle Association has no choice but to oppose the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the importance of this issue, this vote will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

So they are opposed, and it’s going to be graded. No doubt the haters are going to take credit for forcing NRA’s hand — to do what they did not want to do. Their valiant efforts have clearly gotten NRA to fold on their plan to merely let Kagan slip on through. Because they hate the Second Amendment, you know.

From Glenn Reynolds’s article on gun rights becoming normal:

For gun rights activists, that has both upsides and downsides. On the one hand, it means that some gun-control laws, at least, will now be found unconstitutional. Most of the work of doing this will be done by lower courts, which have traditionally been pretty dismissive of Second Amendment rights, but there’s some sign that lower courts are taking things more seriously since Heller, and this case is likely to reinforce things considerably. Chicago’s existing anti-gun ordinance is very likely to be struck down now, as it is virtually the same as the D.C. gun ban struck down in Heller. Other highly restrictive laws are also likely to fall.

On the other hand, if gun-rights activists sit back and expect the courts to do their work for them now, they will be sadly disappointed. If pressed with further cases (which Gura says he plans to bring), the courts will do some good. But the primary protection for gun rights up to now, and for all constitutional rights, really, is political. Judicial review was intended by the Framers to be a backup system, not the main source of protection. That was intended to come from the people — and realistically, because if people don’t stand up for their own rights, courts are unlikely to take up the slack for long. (Especially when, as here, the protection comes in a 5-4 decision).

Absolutely. This is not the time for us to just let the courts handle things. SAF is a fine organization, and is doing great work with their litigation strategy. But they are a 501(c)(3), which means they cannot participate in the political process to the degree NRA can. Both groups are important. Professor Reynolds concludes:

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions have made a major difference. In particular, they have offset the gun-control community’s longstanding effort to “denormalize” firearms ownership — to portray it as something threatening, deviant, and vaguely perverse, and hence demanding strict regulation, if not outright prohibition. That effort went on for decades, and received much media support. Two decades ago, it seemed to be working.

But with the Supreme Court saying that it’s clear the Framers regarded individual gun ownership as “necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” that effort must be seen as a failure now. Gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is the new normal, and the Second Amendment is now normal constitutional law. It will stay so, as long as enough Americans care to keep it that way.

Read the whole article. Well worth your time. It’s almost hard to believe this is true, and when I first got into this issue I wouldn’t have believed it. But I’m increasingly believing it is true –they’ve lost this aspect of the culture wars. Now we just need to win broad protection for our rights.