Dave Kopel has a new law review coming out on the subject. This is something we’ve talked about here too in regards to the history of the Pennsylvania constitution, where successive constitutional conventions have preserved the right intact.
Category: Gun Rights
Military Curio Firearms Protected through Rider
NRA is reporting some interested progress in the Defense Appropriations Rider:
Section 8019 of the bill reads: “None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols, or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable or unsafe for further use.”
NRA-ILA would like to thank U.S. Representative John Murtha (D-PA) for his help in getting the rider restored and expanded.
Murtha might be a bastard on other issues, and a King of Pork, but he’s always been good on the Second Amendment. It’s interesting that it preserves M14s too, since those are select-fire rifles, and are not transferrable to civilians, but I’m wondering if NRA is thinking they can get them released to CMP for conversion into semi-automatic M1A rifles. This would violate ATF’s current “once a machine gun always a machine gun” policy, but that can be dealt with via congressional action.
I’m also wondering if this would allow surplus of military ammunition to civilian shooters. But to be honest, even just releasing military surplus to police agencies would be a big benefit to civilian shooters, since it would help satisfy at least some of the overall demand for military calibers.
NJ Paper Questions the Efficacy of Buybacks
The Verona-Cedar Grove Times is questioning whether gun buybacks which offer larger sums of money, like $200, might be encouraging thieves to steal more firearms. I think it’s a reasonable supposition, but I’d be surprised if the effect is that great, considering what other things you can steal that are worth more than 200 dollars, and also require breaking into homes. Plus, a gun on the streets is worth more than the buyback amount.
I don’t think the buybacks do much to control crime, since most of the people giving them up are homeowners who just don’t want them anymore. I’d have little problem if the police only destroyed the junk, and sold the guns that were of curios or otherwise valuable to collectors. They might not be effective at stopping crime, but I don’t see them as particularly problematic constitutionally as long as it’s voluntary. Whether it’s a wise use of money and police resources is another story.
The Judge Seems to Be Confused
According to Fox, a Montgomery County judge seems to be taking a stab at creating his own gun registry for reality stars.
A Montgomery County judge issues a court order after Jon Gosselin is seen shooting a loaded gun at his Berks County house.
Judge Arthur Tilson issued the court order Thursday in Norristown, Pa., after Jon Gosselin was photographed on Wednesday in Wernersville, Pa., shooting a .38 pistol on his property.
The judge also ordered Gosselin to register his pistol at a new address in Pennsylvania within 90 days.
Media sites caught Gosselin, 32, carrying the gun and then shooting it on the vast property at the estate owned by Jon and Kate Gosselin.
The problem for Judge Tilson is that registries of gun owners are illegal in Pennsylvania. (Yes, we have the issue with a registry of sales, but that’s not the topic in this case.) One lowly Montgomery County judge cannot singlehandedly create one by court order.
It does not appear that Jon was doing anything illegal or dangerous, as press accounts indicate their property is quite large. And I can attest that the area is quite rural since we drive through Wernersville when visiting Sebastian’s dad. (Fortunately, we have avoided catching sight of Jon, Kate, and all of their 8.)
Unfortunately for Jon, reports indicate that he’s broke and can’t pay an attorney to challenge this judge. However, I can’t really see what force of law the judge would have to enforce an order that’s unconstitutional.
Stephen Halbrook Christmas Special
Thanks to Dave Kopel for pointing this podcast interview out. Have a very merry Second Amendment Christmas. For those of you who are good, maybe you can find a copy of The Founders’ Second Amendment in your Christmas stocking.  For the bad boys and girls, a copy of Saul Cornell’s book, A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Ho! Ho! Ho!
Transcription Errors
The big buzz happening now, which SayUncle and Dave Hardy are reporting on, is that the version of the Amendment that forces Amtrak to allow guns to be transported in checked baggage that was actually passed by Congress, and what was sent to President Obama for his signature are different.
As to what happens from here, I seemed to recall in arguments with tax protesters from years ago reading about Supreme Court case that addressed this very topic. The case is Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892):
The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and by the President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill is an official attestation by the two Houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress, and when the bill thus attested receives the approval of the President and is deposited in the Department of State according to law, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress is complete and unimpeachable.
So I’m pretty sure that it’s valid law until Congress fixes the problem.
More on the Georgia Case
Dave Hardy has some more details on the case in Georgia:
Here’s the rub: if the offense of CCW were worded as “it is unlawful to carry a weapon concealed without a permit,” then lack of a permit is part of the offense, and until there is reason to suspect that, there is no probable cause. But if it is worded as “It is unlawful to carry a weapon concealed. Exception for people having permits,” then concealed carrying is the offense, and sufficient suspicion of that justifies an arrest or detention. Having the permit is a defense, and the officer doesn’t have to rule that out, any more than he has to rule out insanity, justification, etc..
Looking at Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act:
(a)Â Offense defined.–
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.
(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.
So we’re actually different from Georgia in that regard, meaning there’d have to be some reasonable suspicion that you had a firearm and did not have a license, according to Dave’s criteria.
Harry Reid’s Opponent Once Had Brady Endorsement
Apparently Tarkanian, who is one of the leading candidates for the GOP nod in Nevada, was once endorsed by the Brady Campaign. He’s denying this of course, and saying that it was part of a dirty campaign tactic meant to discredit him, since “a Brady call in Nevada is not a positive call.”
Sounds like a lame excuse to me, but it’s interesting that Tarkanian views a previous Brady endorsement as an albatross. As I’ve said before, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Harry Reid on other issues, but gun rights is going to be a problem for us if Reid is defeated and replaced by Dick Durbin.
West Mifflin Latest Law Breaking Municipality
West Mifflin has passed a “Lost and Stolen” ordinance, in defiance of state wide preemption. They are the fourteenth municipality to pass such an ordinance. None of these fourteen municipalities have yet to charge anyone under them, despite the fact that some of them have been in place for a year or more.
If “Lost and Stolen” is such an effective crime fighting tool, why aren’t these municipalities, including the City of Philadelphia, effectively using it for the purposes they claim? Could it be because it’s not effective, and they are merely looking for an issue, any issue, on which the gun control movement can make legislative progress, no matter how absurd?
Swiss Keeping Guns at Home
The Swiss government rejected a proposal to remove military weapons from Swiss homes. But here’s a hint of what the gun control crowd has in store for folks:
Launched in February by the centre-left Social Democratic Party and a number of pacifist organisations, the initiative calls for army weapons to remain in barracks and for a national gun register to be created. It also wants to ban private individuals from buying or owning particularly dangerous guns such as automatic weapons and pump-action shotguns.
Emphasis mine, and I don’t think I need any explanation for why I emphasized it.