Category: Gun Rights

Joe summarizes a debate that’s happened within the community that I’ve been following but haven’t joined in. Joanna I think makes some good points too. Partly because I don’t fall cleanly on one side or another. It can’t be denied that a very significant motivation for gun control is a form of cultural condescension, and a any bit of discussion on the Internets quickly reveals that many people have a prejudiced view of the kind of people gun owners are, and associate gun ownership with certain cultural stereotypes. It might not be racism, or anti-semitism, but it’s a similar form of intolerance nonetheless, and that should be pointed out. But in doing that, I do think we need to be careful about what we compare ourselves to. Not everyone who believes in gun control has a bigoted view of gun ownership, and not every discussion of gun owners is necessarily driven by cultural prejudice.

But Joe is fundamentally correct that the cultural condescension can’t go unchecked, or it’ll grow, and it is often useful to point out how it’s not that different from other forms of intolerance. But more often that not, I think the prescription for that is for people to learn that reality doesn’t match the stereotypes they have in their head, which means they have to learn they have gun owners and shooters in their social circles. One of the reasons I think cities like New York and Chicago have become such wonderful breeding grounds for these attitudes is it’s highly unlikely political and cultural elites will have gun owners within their circles of friends. This is a product of the legal environment in these places, which hopefully we can change soon.

Joe reminds us of a poor way in which the law was drafted, that exempts having a gun within 1000 feet of a school if you have a license from the state the school is in, but doesn’t in other circumstances. It is therefore possible to be charged with violating the federal gun free schools act if you carry on a reciprocal out of state permit.

The Gun Free School Zones Act was held unconstitutional once, but Congress rewrote it. It’s likely it wouldn’t stand up again if challenged. But it is worth noting.

God help us all.

SayUncle points to an amusing mishap over at Field and Stream, in what’s an otherwise decent article on rifles in the past decade:

The Supreme Court’s Keller decision. Article II lives!

Yes, he’s going to find out just how alive Article II is if the Obama Administration starts implementing Mayor Bloomberg’s Blueprint to Prevent Gun Ownership.

According to this article in the Christian Science Monitor:

Hamblen says he’s not surprised that he lost at the appeals court. But he says he is surprised that he’s received no help from gun-rights advocates. “They are treating me like I’m a skunk at the picnic,” he said.

As for his case, he plans to fight on. He says his lawyer is preparing a final appeal, a petition to the US Supreme Court. “Why stop now? I’ve already done the hard part. I’ve already done my time,” Hamblen says. “All they can do is say no.”

My prediction is that the Court will refuse to take the case, leaving the Sixth Circuit decision on his conviction in place. Hamblen will remain a convicted felon. He shouldn’t be surprised being treated like a skunk in a picnic, because that’s generally what I would call someone who puts everyone else’s legal rights at risk because he’s right dammit.

I’m not outraged because I believe it’s correct to exclude fully automatic firearms from the Second Amendment, but because I think it’s wrong. If someday public and judicial opinion on the topic changes, we’ll need circuit courts where that issue is undecided in order to move a case forward. Wayne Fincher has already sealed up the Eighth Circuit with a bad ruling, and now the Sixth Circuit is closed off as well thanks to Mr. Hamblen. Others may venerate these men as heros, but I don’t believe they are. We all know what the law is, and if you’re going to force your case in front of federal judges, you owe it to everyone else who’s passionate about the issue to prepare a careful, thorough, and well put together case. Dick Heller is a hero. Otis McDonald is a hero. These men did it correctly. Skunks at a picnic? I can’t think of any analogy more apt.

SayUncle is reporting that the sixth circuit affirmed Richard Hamblen’s conviction for NFA violations. Pray that Hamblen lets this one rest, and doesn’t appeal to the Supreme Court. Also pray that if he does, they won’t take the case. Hamblen was a case premised on the collective rights theory of the Second Amendment, which by this point is well and truly dead. In short, the case can’t really do any favors for us at this point, and actually has significant potential to inflict damage. That’s aside from the fact that Hamblen is a kook of the first order.

If you are looking for evidence of that, you can follow a thread about his case over at Calguns.net, where Hamblen appears himself, and where he answers many forum members’ perfectly good questions with an ever increasing amount of lunacy. I’m afraid I agree with this poster here, and also here. This is the kind of guy Alan Gura warned us was a bigger threat to the future of the Second Amendment than any of the gun control groups.

Hamblen is one of those guys who’s right, and needs to have his rightness validated, and will pursue that validation no matter how many other people’s rights it hurts. It’s an addiction that afflicts many in our community, but it just as destructive as other addictions.

UPDATE: The court opinion can be found here, and it’s brief. The court addressed his membership in the State Guard thusly:

We note, as a preliminary matter, that Hamblen’s possession of nine unregistered machine guns was not only outside the scope of his duties as a member of the State Guard, but also directly violated State Guard policy. Therefore, this case does not present a novel issue of law regarding the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause.

So much for that argument. It goes further to rule there’s no constitutional right to a machine gun:

Hamblen’s challenge to his conviction for unlawful possession of unregistered machine guns has been directly foreclosed by the Supreme Court, which specifically instructed in Heller that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Id. at 2815-16. Moreover, the Heller Court expressly rejected Hamblen’s reading of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), when it opined that it would be a “startling” interpretation of precedent to suggest that restrictions on machine guns, set forth in the National Firearms Act, might be unconstitutional. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2815. Thus, whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use.

It would be interesting though, to know what would happen if the State of Tennessee authorized their state guard members to obtain and possess machine guns.

Tiahrt points out how the poll was misleading.

The Sacramento Bee covers the story, with a great quote from Larry Keane:

“California will become like Cuba with cars,” said Lawrence Keane, senior counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the gun industry. “You will only be able to get very old models of guns.”

According to the story the number of pistols approved in California is already falling, and is expected to fall even further. The gun hating politicians of the Golden State should pat themselves on the back. It would appear they’ve successfully achieved the “handgun freeze” that was rejected 2-1 by California voters back in 1982. A losing issue can be turned into a winning one if you do it over time, slowly enough that no one notices until it’s too late.

I’m particularly incensed by MAIG’s suggestion that we rescind many of the changes made after the Richmond Gun Show Incident. For those who didn’t follow the link in the MAIG Blueprint post, let me summarize for you what happened at Richmond. ATF agents basically conducted a dragnet, invading people’s privacy with no regards for whether they were innocent or guilty, and accusing them, in more than a few cases, of federal crimes.

• Went to people’s addresses and asked questions of neighbors, family members, about gun purchases, and asking them what they were doing at the gun show.
• Stopped several people with no probable cause, in some cases seized their weapons, and handed them a form indicating they were suspected of committing federal crimes. BATF claimed the letter was meaningless, but only a fool wouldn’t hire a lawyer after getting a letter like that.
• Unlawfully pulled 4473s from dealers without a connection to a specific criminal investigation.
• Detained several people for questioning who were legitimately selling firearms privately.

I don’t think too many of us would object if ATF conducted professional, undercover investigations looking for criminal activity at gun shows. It is possible to build a case against someone for dealing without a license, without ensnaring the innocent as well as the guilty.

To the extent that the Congressional backlash from Richmond has spooked the ATF from investigating gun shows, the proper remedy is to encourage professionalism in their investigative techniques. The remedy is not to huff and puff about the big-bad gun lobby, and tell ATF the solution is to go back out and act like thugs again. Gun owners aren’t going to tolerate thuggish behavior that targets the guilty and the innocent equally. We will tolerate professional, legal and courteous law enforcement presence. Maybe if MAIG were more interested in promoting the latter rather than the former, we’d be more willing to listen.

Days of our Trailers notes that Cheaper Than Dirt has already made an announcement about California purchasers.