Category: Gun Rights

Reason asks Alan Gura about positive developments that have happened since Heller, and he names three. There are still people in our movement who think Heller was an abject failure, and I continue to be amazed that reasonable people can continue believing this. We saw suburb after suburb near Chicago give up their local bans under threat of lawsuit, and we saw a the San Francisco housing authority cave in on their gun ban in public housing under threat of lawsuit.

First off we have Massachusetts talking about easing their discretionary licensing scheme, a major paper editorializing in favor of it, and a very good chance this will actually pass. In Massachusetts, you need police permission to even own a handgun, and that permission can be impossible to obtain if you have an anti-gun police chief in your town. Police chiefs have full discretion in regards to handgun ownership. Even New Jersey is at least technically shall-issue when it comes to pistol purchase permits. This measure is being pushed, and has a good chance for passage specifically because lawmakers in Massachusetts know that their licensing scheme won’t pass constitutional muster even under the relatively ill-defined standard of review in Heller.

That brings us again to Delaware, which apparently has a public housing ban. This topic is being covered well by the Caesar Rodney Institute blog, which is reporting that NRA is threatening Delaware state authorities with a lawsuit if they don’t relent on the “no guns” policy. You can see the demand letter written by Robert Dowlut, NRA General Counsel here. Note the following:

Article I, § 20 of the Delaware Constitution guarantees that “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.” Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), held that the right to keep an operable firearm in the home for self-defense is a core right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Consequently, the court struck down a ban on the possession of handguns and a ban on the possession of operable firearms in the home.

Would we even be able to raise this if it wasn’t for Heller? Doubtful. I’d like to think we’re at a dawn of a pretty robust right to keep and bear arms, that will put the kibosh on the worst the states are able to do. I believe this will put our opponents in a pretty tough pickle, and while I’m not convinced gun control will ever really go away, we at least have an opportunity before us to deal its current incarnation a serious blow.

The Defensive Handgun blog points out there’s still a Senate companion to the bill that was voted down in committee, in addition to one other house bill that would regulate gun shows. Dave Adams, President of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, is rallying the troops to try to defeat SB595, the Senate companion, as well.

Basic gist of it is, a guy gets a domestic restraining order slapped on him. His guns were consigned to a local FFL who was trying to sell them on his behalf. Local authorities went to the FFL, and seized the guns:

Krajenka said he simply was following Judge Paul H. Lawrence’s order out of Goffstown District Court.

“The court ordered the weapons to be taken. The weapons were taken,” Krajenka said.

And while Hillsborough County Attorney Robert Walsh insists Krajenka acted appropriately — especially in light of a domestic murder/suicide in Manchester last fall, in which guns should have been seized but were not — firing-range owner James L. McLoud has filed in court against the chief demanding the guns be immediately returned to him.

No, they were not taken appropriately. Legally they were in the custody of the FFL, and they were in his possession under federal law. I would file a Lost/Theft report with ATF, and let them sort the problem out.

Krajenka threatened to arrest him at his business, McLoud said, adding that he was tempted to get arrested to prove a point.

“(Krajenka) was very rude and disrespectful,” McLoud said. “I said, ‘You’re in my place of business. You need to shut your mouth.'”

McLoud hired Concord attorney Jason Major to argue in Goffstown District Court, in what is known as a writ of replevin, that the weapons should be returned to McLoud immediately.

“(Murphy) has the right to get (85 percent of) the money if they sell, but from a legal point of view, the guns are not leaving the range until someone passes a federal background check,” Major said.

“From our point of view, the guns were in the inventory of the company and under federal law couldn’t be returned Michael Murphy,” he said.

I’ve shot at Manchester Firing Line, actually, and is a very nice range. Kudos to the proprietor for standing up for himself. He’s in the legal right on this one and will win. I wouldn’t be surprised if a federal civil rights suit isn’t filed thereafter, since the seizure would have been a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Krajenka acted under color of law here.

I would have said the chances are slim, but even the Washington Post is covering the possibility of a gun rights movement in India:

When gunmen attacked 10 sites in Mumbai in November 2008, including two five-star hotels and a train station, Mumbai resident Kumar Verma sat at home glued to the television, feeling outraged and unsafe.

Before the end of December, Verma and his friends had applied for gun licenses. He read up on India’sgun laws and joined the Web forum Indians for Guns. When he got his license seven months later, he bought a black, secondhand, snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver with a walnut grip.

It’ll be interesting if India turns out to be a major front in the international battle to get other governments to recognize their people have the right to effective tools needed to defend their lives and liberty against predation, like we saw in the Mumbai attacks.

I’m not generally one to make calls for unity, probably because I think some degree of debate and disagreement within the community is healthy and understandable. But I have to agree with Dave Hardy on this one:

There are three ways to reach Second Amendment incorporation, at least two of which have present and powerful advocates. I can only say that I’m in correspondence with both, and they really wish there could be an end to to conflict. Bottom line: if the three routes to incorporation each got two votes, it’s still a 6-3 and a win, the other side is left to ponder that “almost” only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades, and the winner who favors one route or another has some votes (for the first time in my lifetime) on which to build. They’re going into the fight of their lives, no OUR lives, and don’t need the distractions. We can all engage in internecine battles after oral argument, or better yet, the decision. For now they need to concentrate.

Hardy is, of course, speaking about the conflict brought about by this, which is one of the reasons I felt it was a poor course of action; that it would promote a conflict at a time when we did not need one. That’s spilled into the blogosphere a bit with statements said here, here, here, and here. However, I agree with Dave, there’s no bad way to win this, the important thing is that we win.

It seems that Hell just dropped a few degrees. I don’t know how else to describe the prospect of Massachusetts getting a single license issuing authority that removes the discretion of local police. I admit that I don’t pay close attention to things in the Bay State anymore, but wow. Just wow.

I realize that most of you read that and wonder what kind of gun rights hell that describes, and why I would consider it a good thing. Consider that when someone I know described the gun laws of Massachusetts to a Pennsylvania gun owner, the guy didn’t even believe that it was in America. He knew the state was part of this country, but he assumed the laws described were from a country that has a near ban on ownership. Baby steps don’t even begin to describe how reform happens in Massachusetts.

Normally they just let bills that aren’t going anywhere languish in committee, but the Virginia House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee held a vote and voted it down 4-1. This kills the bill. They also killed a bill that would have weakened preemption considerably. This means the bills are dead, and sends an effective message that gun control will find no welcome in the Old Dominion. Obviously some folks are upset.