Category: Gun Rights

We’ve had debates in the past on the topic of Commonwealth v. Hawkins, the Pennsylvania case that held an unsubstantiated call to police of “Man with a Gun” did not amount to RAS to do a Terry stop. In Hawkins, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated:

The Commonwealth takes the radical position that police have a duty to stop and frisk when they receive information from any source that a suspect has a gun. Since it is not illegal to carry a licensed gun in Pennsylvania, it is difficult to see where this shocking idea originates, notwithstanding the Commonwealth’s fanciful and histrionic references to maniacs who may spray schoolyards with gunfire and assassins of public figures who may otherwise go undetected. Even if the Constitution of Pennsylvania would permit such invasive police activity as the Commonwealth proposes — which it does not – such activity seems more likely to endanger than to protect the public. Unnecessary police intervention, by definition, produces the possibility of conflict where none need exist.

I believe there was some discussion over at PAFOA that Hawkins could be read so far as to suggest that an officer can’t make a stop to ascertain whether someone carrying concealed has a license. I think Hawkins provides a good case to be made, but it’s not an open and shut thing. A new case in Georgia essentially rules on a very similar subject, where a judge ruled:

After seeing Raissi’s firearms license and driver’s license, the officers ran background checks on Raissi and held him, according to Raissi, for half an hour.  The officers transported Raissi to a locked area out of the public eye before finally releasing him and returning his firearm and other property.

In the ruling today, Judge Thrash held that merely carrying a concealed firearm justifies such detention and disarmament.  He wrote in his opinion that “possession of a firearms license is an affirmative defense to, not an element of, the crimes of boarding [MARTA] with a concealed weapon and carrying a concealed weapon.”

I’m not saying it would necessarily go this way in Pennsylvania, in regards to Hawkins, but now we have a federal court essentially saying that a police officer spotting a man concealing a firearm is RAS to detain him until they can confirm his legal status. Georgia’s law is similar to Pennsylvania’s in that it is generally unlawful to carry a concealed firearm. You can carry one under exceptions, one of which is having a License to Carry. Hawkins is an interesting ruling, and certainly a useful tool, but I think gun owners in this state shouldn’t believe they can take it to the bank in every situation.

And they are following right along with the narrative.

The Washington Times seems to be a bit nervous about the idea of McDonald, not for gun reasons but because of how it might be incorporated:

Many have heard about the historic gun rights case going to the Supreme Court. Fewer have heard that this is also a major case for businesses and family values. It could lead to anything from court-ordered Obamacare to same-sex marriage. This is the biggest case of the year, and everyone has a stake in it.

I think that’s more than a bit hysterical. Dave Hardy points out why. The Supreme Court, if they choose to overturn Cruikshank, or even go so far as to overturn SlaughterHouse, can offer any structure like they for incorporation under “Privileges or Immunities“. In other words, they can limit it, just as they have limited incorporation under the Due Process Clause.

I am hoping the Court goes with overturning SlaughterHouse, quoting the Petitioner’s Brief in McDonald:

SlaughterHouse’s illegitimacy has long been all- but-universally understood. It deserves to be acknowledged by this Court. Because SlaughterHouse rests on language not actually in the Constitution, contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s original textual meaning, defies the Framers’ intent, and supplies a nonsensical definition for Section One’s key protection of civil rights, overruling this error and its progeny remains imperative. No valid reliance interests flow from the wrongful deprivation of constitutional liberties. The reliance interest to be fulfilled remains Americans’ expectation that the constitutional amendment their ancestors ratified to protect their rights from state infringement be given its full effect.

Remarkably well said I think. I don’t think conservatives should be frightened of this ruling, as it is correcting a wrong that should never have been perpetrated in the first place.

I was holding onto a bit of information on the company that did MAIG’s poll that I planned to release next week, but it looks like NRA-ILA beat me to it:

This week, anti-gun New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, released the findings of a poll conducted by a political consulting firm called “The Word Doctors,” whose slogan is “It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.” Word Doctors’ president is a pollster who has been reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research and censured by the National Council on Public Polls, and who says that the key to polling is “to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer.”

Not only that, but if you look at Word Doctor’s expertise page, they say:

If you need to create the language to build support for legislation, we’ll find the right words.  If you need to kill a bad bill, we’ll show you how.  Either take control of the debate, or the debate will take control of you.  It really is that simple.

This doesn’t sound like a polling firm to me, it sounds like a political consulting agency. In other words, they are spin masters. I think it’s safe to say that this poll isn’t worth much factually, but you can bet they will be peddling this in front of decision makers.

Evan Nappen, considered the foremost legal expert on New Jersey gun laws,  has more worthwhile things to say about this ill-conceived lawsuit over the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

Here’s some of the fallout from MAIG’s polling data:

• Lautenberg is touting it.
• Mumbles Menino is touting it.
• The Hill is covering it.

Politicians should understand that most of these people polled are probably not NRA members, and are probably not really familiar with the issues they are being presented. If we had polled on “assault weapons” bans back in the early 90s, you’d probably see similar support to some of the measures MAIG is supporting now. But gun owners got a rude education when they found out it was their M1 Carbine, M1As, and AR-15s that the politicians were actually talking about. They got an even ruder education when they paid attention to the issue and found out about plans to enhance the ban to cover even more semi-automatics like the M1 Garand. The gig is up on that, and that issue is poison today politically, everywhere except the few states where the antis have been successful at destroying the shooting culture.

Once these folks realize that “closing the terror gap” means their buddy can’t buy a gun because someone suspected of being a terrorist used a name that matches his once, they are going to be very angry, and they will tell every other gun owner they know, who will also get angry. Once they realize “closing the gun show loophole” means they have to pay $50 dollars to transfer a gun to their shooting buddy to avoid becoming a felon, they are going to get angry and do the same.

This is a bad issue to be on the wrong side of, and for what? What does gun control bring to the table? There’s no votes there. You can’t even win on that issue in New York City, and look at how much good it did to help pull Jon Corzine’s ass from the fire?

Apparently Amtrak is trying to argue it’ll be Madrid all over again if we let guns onto trains. Never mind the fact that Madrid was a bombing, though maybe they think the guns will spontaneously explode, because they do that sometimes, you know. The heart of the issue is that Amtrak allows guns in checked baggage on trains prior to 9/11 without incident, and security concerns on trains are not nearly as high, due to the fact that trains are confined to their tracks, can’t just go anywhere, and certainly can’t be used as improvised cruise missiles. Historically, explosives have been the primary means by which to attack trains, regardless.

Looks like they are polling NRA members and gun owners to show support for gun control in an attempt to weaken NRA’s political clout. You can see the actual poll here. We all know you an get anyone to agree with nearly anything in a poll depending on how you ask the question. Also, these are self-selected NRA members, which our side’s polling has showed is around 33 million people, so many of these people are, in fact, not NRA members while claiming to be. But let’s look at the questions here:

Now we are going to discuss a few policies and proposals under consideration, as well as some existing laws that are being discussed. Do you … the following?

A proposal prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns.

82% of NRA members supported, and 86% of non-NRA member gun owners supported. But how would it change the poll if you said “no fly list” instead? Or explained some background on exactly what the “terrorist watch list” is. What if you had framed it “Do you support a proposal denying Second Amendment rights to American citizens who the government has interest in possibly being terrorists?”  Frame it that way I bet you lost your majority. The way the question is asked, who wants to appear to favor guns for terrorists?

A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.

69% of NRA members supported, 85% of non-NRA member gun owners supported. Explain that all transfers will have to go through an FFL at a cost of $30 dollars up toward $50 dollars and then see what happens to the support.

A proposal requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen.

78% of NRA member supported, 88% of non-NRA member gun owners supported. What about if you asked “A proposal to fine or jail gun owners who fail to report their guns that are lost or stolen to the police?”

A federal law allowing guns to be carried in bags on Amtrak trains.

That’s just a dishonest way to ask the question. Carried in checked bags. But 61% of NRA members would presumably be fine with that, wholly on 33% of non-NRA gun owners would.

What’s interesting is that they go on to show these really are gun owners by asking them questions about other topics. For instance, people identifying as NRA members overwhelmingly support carry in national parks, and a majority of non-NRA member gun owners do as well. Support for semi-auto bans among gun owners never breaks majority, and support among NRA members is only 30%. There’s overwhelming generic support for Heller in both groups, and for McDonald. Large majorities also think Obama will try to ban the sale of guns as President. Interestingly enough, NRA members are far more likely to feel safer than now as opposed to five years ago than non-NRA gun owners. So much for the claim we’re all paranoid to death of crime.

There’s a few conclusions that can be drawn from this.

1. MAIG is very serious about what they doing, and they are taking a very smart strategy to get what they want.
2. As gun owners, we’ve done a fantastic job in the past decade of educating other gun owners on last decade’s battles. You see high support for concealed carry, high support for gun ownership generically, and low support for semi-auto bans.
3. The debate is shifting onto grounds where we have not yet had the opportunity to educate gun owners. MAIG knows this and is ready to exploit it. More importantly, I think MAIG wanted to find out where we are strong, and where we are weak. This poll is basically reinforcement of their current strategy because it shows we’re weakest along their current line of attack.

When we speak of going after the fence sitters, these are the fence sitters. If 33 million Americans strongly oppose something, the politicians will be scared to death to cross them. We have to reach this crowd, but we’re not going to reach them with extremism. We have to reach them with real information. If we do that, we can sway their opinion. What do you think the support among self-identified NRA members for a semi-auto ban would have been in 1993? Sadly on that issue, they had to get their education through having to live with a ban. It’s our jobs to prevent the need for them to be educated through bad legislation yet again.

There’s a few ways you can look at Richard Feldman’s middle ground. SayUncle thinks Richard Feldman needs to take a closer look at the media, and that’s certainly true, but I also think Feldman, perhaps as a public relations tactic, or perhaps out of a desire to appear reasonable, often makes the assertion that both sides are extreme, and can’t we all just come to a middle ground and this issue? I can understand the sentiment, and agree that Feldman’s position can be useful in persuading people who are perhaps a bit tired of the issue. But as Feldman, who has a background in lobbying ought to know, there’s nothing about the political process that involves people, in good faith and with honest, sincere intentions, coming together to fix a problem.

I’ve read Feldman’s book Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist, which I enjoyed, even though I have disagreements with him on a number of things. One of the areas I disagree with him, and that he hints at in his LA Times article, is that both sides in this issue want to keep things going for the sake of fundraising, and that is preventing us from bringing this issue to a reasonable conclusion. Both sides use some shameful methods of fundraising. I’ve criticized NRA for it in the past, and have done so privately with staff in Fairfax as well. But fundraising is a necessary and vital function of every interest group out there, and I wouldn’t say our issue is alone in that. We do it, the Bradys do it, ACU does it, ACLU does it, NRLF does it, NOW does it, and all of them, at one point or another, will use scare tactics to get you to open up your wallet, because scare tactics work. But as much as Feldman might want to believe that’s what’s keeping the issue from resolving, he’s kidding himself. Let’s take a look at his article:

The bottom line is this: We must stop debating the polemics of guns and instead show wisdom and maturity to begin to resolve the problems of the negligent misuse of guns. Though a cliche, the following is nevertheless true: Guns aren’t ever the problem; guns in the wrong hands are always the problem. How we address this problem will determine the future of gun safety in America.

The LA Times aside, I think that’s the direction the debate is actually moving in, largely because the Supreme Court has settled the debate over guns in our society by taking prohibition off the table. But is that going to resolve the issue? Are both sides going to suddenly come to an agreement and find Congress completely willing to broker the deal for us, no tricks or subterfuge? Hardly. I don’t think you’d find any fundamental disagreement between Richard Feldman, most of us, and many gun control groups, over the statement above. It’s the details where you’ll find the devil, not in the intransigence of either side. As much as I think Mr. Feldman will seem the reasonable one for looking for a middle ground, I think it cheapens the legitimate disagreements and concerns of both sides in the debate, which I will talk about in the next post.