Category: Gun Rights

Bill Schneider, who backed Obama in the election, is now coming out with “I told you so” articles, saying how great Obama has been for gun rights. While I will give Mr. Schneider the benefit of agreeing that Obama has kept his word to moderate Dems like Tester, Baucus, and Webb, to lay off the gun issue, I think he’s blind to the bigger picture.

Obviously he’s not following the Brady machinations, who are quickly realizing they flushed their endorsement of Obama down the toilet. They weren’t fools. They looked at his record just like we did and drew the appropriate conclusions. He’s also incorrect that the Ensign Amendment repealed anything (it was amended on the DC voting rights bill, which is being held up by Democratic leadership because they hate the gun amendment). He’s overlooking that Obama only signed pro-gun legislation because it was amended onto must-pass legislation, that Obama wouldn’t have had much room for exercising a veto. These amendments were a partnership between Republicans and pro-gun Democrats, and not anything pushed or desired by the White House or Pelosi.

I have to admit that to the extent that Obama made deals with pro-gun Dems to lay off the issue, he’s kept his word. The assertion that Obama is pro-gun, or good for gun rights, is as ridiculous now as it was before the election. His history on this issue is not one of respecting the Second Amendment. While he’s not done anything to us, he’s also not done anything for us. If Bill Schneider wants us to praise a Democrat for helping us get pro-gun legislation through the House and past the Oval Office, he should be telling us to praise Harry Reid, not President Obama.

Dave Hardy found a copy of an old law review he wrote the year I was born on the topic of gun rights. Back then it looks like no law review would take it, so it was published by a magazine publisher known as Neal Knox. The rest, shall we say, is history.

UPDATE: More from Dave here.

Looks like Washingtonians showed up in large numbers to oppose the proposed “assault weapons” ban in their state. This is over a bill that didn’t have much of a chance of getting out of committee. When are the anti-gun people going to face the fact that this issue is not a winning one for them? Back in 2004, the Bradys promised we’d see a half dozen or so states pass their own ban if the federal ban were allowed to expire. They’ve passed exactly zero. In a decade, there has been absolutely no traction on this issue anywhere — even if their safe states. It’s time to admit defeat and move on.

At least someone out there understand what’s wrong with Frank Luntz’s poll. This editorial debunks the article I linked to yesterday by Luntz himself.

This opinion in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, by Frank Luntz and Tom Barrett, tout their poll which shows, quite stunningly, that manipulating, err, sorry, word doctoring polling questions can be used to get any result you want:

In politics, myths are hard to slay. In this case, that is true not only because conflict makes for good copy but also because the appearance of conflict is real, since the NRA has not (yet) supported the common-sense policies backed by gun owners and non-gun owners alike. And many legislators, fearful of the gun lobby’s wrath, have toed the line.

But the new poll should be a wake-up call for legislators and the NRA leadership alike.

For legislators, the poll shows that gun owners will overwhelmingly back them on common-sense gun policies to prevent and punish illegality as long as the Second Amendment is protected. And for the NRA leadership, it shows that efforts to defeat these policies will be highly unpopular – even among the organization’s own members.

After a bruising partisan battle on health care, it might seem strange to suggest that gun laws – long-considered a third-rail political issue – could bring all sides to the negotiation table. But centrists in both parties have an opportunity to join the American people in recognizing the culture war over guns is more myth than reality.

This is the same crap I heard back in the early 90s when the assault weapons ban was on the table. The politicians bought it, and were sent packing in the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. To the extent that this poll doesn’t help the cause, it’s because politicians have learned better. This is one issue you don’t want to count on polling.

The Seattle Times is reporting the proposed assault weapons ban in that state is likely to fail. I think we’ve successfully managed to turn this issue into a loser for the gun control movement. Education was the key.

Howard Nemerov provides us with some more information on the topic. Based on the information Howard has provided it would seem like they did indeed begin a nuisance abatement process against the landlord that was subleasing the property to a gun show. This could probably raise some preemption issues under Texas law, but the problem is this is far from a clear cut case, as it appears the promoter originally agreed to bar private sales at his shows as a condition of the lease, and the show was cancelled at the request of the landlord.

But also interesting is ATF is possibly looking at prosecuting a private seller in this case. Back to Howard:

The unlicensed seller allegedly set up a table at the gun show with a sign notifying buyers that all sales were cash, and that there would be a surcharge for buyers to go through a background check, apparently through a nearby licensed dealer. The background check never occurred, and the sale was detected. The seller was interviewed and released by BATFE, though Agent Reyes said they may file charges against him, because he had already been notified that all sales must go through a licensed dealer and should have become suspicious over the buyer’s desire to avoid a background check.

This is very clever, because I think this charge is going to stick if they pursue it. The law says it is unlawful to sell a firearm to someone a seller has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited. In this case the “reasonable cause to believe” is the buyer’s wish to evade the background check requirement, a requirement that was technically put in place by a private agreement between the landlord and the promoter. While a private sale isn’t unlawful, the buyer’s desire to skirt the show’s policy could be used to raise the argument that the seller should have known.

The real question in all this, and it this is a detail of law I can’t readily answer, is whether the promoter would have a cause of action against APD for bringing the nuisance abatement process against the landlord over the gun show. The lease agreements complicate this. I suspect the answer is probably no, and finding a new venue is the show’s only path forward at this point. I suspect if the APD had just gone through nuisance abatement with a reluctant landlord, and without a prior agreement about private sales, the landlord or the show could raise a preemption argument in court to fight the abatement process, as that would be a case under Texas preemption law that would amount to enforcement of a law that interfered with the sale and transfer of firearms. The private agreement was in place before law enforcement stepped in, and the show promoter wasn’t living up to it. It’s hard to raise a preemption argument when it’s an agreement between private parties, even if the APD and ATF coaxed the landlord into enforcing the provisions of the lease, and ultimately canceling the show.