Category: Gun Rights

At least that’s what the Third Circuit Court of Appeals says in the case of a Utah man who was arrested in New Jersey after getting stranded in Newark overnight when he missed his connecting flight to Allentown, where the pistol was legal. So says the Third Circuit:

The complaint reveals that Revell’s luggage containing the firearm was, in fact, available to him while he was at the hotel. He alleged that, “[a]fter retrieving his bag, because there were no more connections to Allentown until 9:45 a.m. the following morning … , [he] went directly to, and stayed the night at, the Airport Sheraton Hotel.” (App. at 23.) He further alleged that he returned with his luggage directly to the airport the next day and that a TSA agent, after x-raying the luggage, opened it with a key that Revell gave him. Taking those facts as true, it is clear that the gun and ammunition were readily accessible to Revell during his stay in New Jersey and, thus, by the allegations of his own complaint, he was not within the scope of § 926A. Dismissal of the § 926A claim was therefore proper.

The end result of this is that if you’re flying with guns, make sure your connecting city is a city where your guns are legal to possess. I’ve generally been careful about this when I fly with guns. So far this only applies to the Third Circuit, which is Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, but other circuits are likely to notice this ruling and use it.

Sorry folks, but it would seem FOPA only applies to vehicles on the highway.

I have another article over at Opposing Views answering this accusation about NRA misbehavior in Iowa. I say contrived controversy, because to me it shouldn’t be a controversy. It would seem to me the accusation of NRA threatening a pro-gun state rep is overwrought, but what would folks expect if a politician votes with the anti-gunners on their right-to-carry bill? To me it doesn’t much matter if he was holding out for Vermont carry (which has no chance of passing.) You vote with the anti-gunners, you get graded with the anti-gunners. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Dave Kopel takes a look at the statistics being used to promote the UN small arms agenda and finds it severely lacking:

Currently, the United Nations is drafting an Arms Trade Treaty to impose strict controls on firearms and other weapons. In support of hasty adoption of the Treaty, a UN-related organization of Treaty supporters is has produced a report claiming that armed violence is responsible for 740,000 deaths annually. This Article carefully examines the claim. We find that the claim is based on dubious assumptions, cherry-picking data, and mathematical legerdemain which is inexplicably being withheld from the public. The refusal to disclose the mathematical calculations used to create the 740,000 factoid is itself cause for serious suspicion; our own calculations indicate that the 740,000 figure is far too high.

You can find the whole article here. It shouldn’t be any surprise that the gun control community is taking their national deceptions and distortions international. This will be the next big front in the battle for the right to keep and bear arms.

Apparently this paltry collection is going to bring chaos and mayhem to the good people of the City of New York.

Passed the Senate 44-4 over the weekend. Today it passed the Iowa House 80-15. Because of an amendment in the House, it had to go back to the Senate for a final vote, which it appears passed 38-4 just a few moments ago. You can see the Iowa legislature’s home page here. This means it’s on to Governor Culver for his signature. This is a good bill, with universal reciprocity of out of state licenses, and is really nothing but an improvement over Iowa’s current law. It also prevents sheriffs from asking for information about your firearms and requesting serial numbers from guns as a condition of getting a permit.

You can find contact information for Governor Culver’s office here, and I would suggest folks contact him. As I mentioned before, GOA’s state group, Iowa Gun Owners are doing everything they can to kill this bill, in the naive belief that they can pass Vermont carry through the Iowa legislature. If they don’t hear from gun owners who support this bill, it’s going to be very difficult for Culver to sign this. Iowa has been long overdue for this reform, and it’s time to get it done.

The Iowa Senate overwhelmingly passed a right-to-carry bill, and now the debate is moving on to the house. The biggest opposition is actually coming from our own side, who is pushing a Vermont carry bill. Vermont carry is a non-starter. It’s not going to pass. GOA and its state affiliates have consistently been willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in state after state by opposing bills that stand a good chance of passing, and will make life measurably better for gun owners, and pushing bill that have zero change of passage. The best thing for Iowa is to pass this now, and we’ll work on Vermont carry in states where it’s feasible to push that agenda, such as Arizona currently.

So what’s the big deal about Sarah Palin saying “reload” when someone has clearly educated Obama in the Chicago Way.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0RLyxP13o[/youtube]

Say what you will, but I consider this progress in terms of bringing Obama around to the idea of gun rights.

Hat Tip to Instapundit.

A very good discussion going on at Volokh on the DC ruling. It gets into the comments a bit about whether guns painted a certain color could be ban. It’s argued that could be a first amendment issue. Someone in the comments brings in the funny with:

What we need is for someone to come up with a “Bong hits 4 Jesus” durocoat.

I’m sure that the folks at Lauer will get right on that. Oh, if you don’t get that reference, just click here. Unfortunately that argument lost :)

In US District Court in the D.C. Circuit, DC’s restrictions on guns as they currently are have been upheld. You can find the opinion here. I think this is wrong, but it’s worth noting that the original Heller case, then known as Parker v. DC failed at the District Court level too, but won on appeal. No guarantee this happens here, however.

For a lot of reasons, I’m not too enthusiastic about proceeding forward at this point with challenges to assault weapons bans. Let’s get the court to say a bit more about the right first, before opening that whole can of worms. I agree the common use test here should easily protect them, but just because it’s correct doesn’t mean that’s what the courts will do.

UPDATE: Just skimming, this is an awful ruling. No attempt was made to determine whether DC’s state public safety goals with their ridiculous gun control scheme could be achieved with a lesser level of infringement. It’s hard to see what gun control law would fail this level of scrutiny applied by the District Court.

Apparently now all’s left is a formal roll call vote and approval by Governor Brewer. Here’s hoping to see this as law soon.