Category: Gun Rights

… that running on gun control is not a wise career move in politics.

The Lautenberg Amendment, the provision of federal law that strips Second Amendment rights from people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, is one of those areas that’s poor ground to have a serious public debate on, since no one wants to appear to condone domestic violence. When one says as much, there’s typically the image of a man beating his wife. Lost in the detail is misdemeanor versus felonious assault, and how things work in the real world. The late happening with Tiger Wood is a good example of how domestic violence in the real world is never as cut and dry as people imagine it to be. That goes for Senator Frank Lautenberg as much as it does for Rep. Daryl Metcalfe.

I don’t think too many of us would argue that someone who beats their spouse to the point of serious injury ought not have their constitutional rights, including their constitutional right not to be in jail, jeopardized. In these cases, it’s much easier to identify victim and defender. But whether a lifetime ban on certain fundamental constitutional rights should hinge on unclear and often murky situations, is something we shouldn’t be afraid to have a serious debate over. Tiger Woods’ situation, where it’s not completely clear who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, is probably a lot more a typical than a lot of people would care to recognize.

Good to see people in the hunting and fishing community getting it. My big fear is that people won’t take this threat seriously until it’s really a threat. Things have a habit of turning quickly.

Looks like there’s a bit of a concealed carry permit crisis brewing in Indiana, with an Indiana newspaper threatening to publish all the gun permit records in the state. Caleb is getting a little bit of revenge on them too. As I recently told an anti-gun commenter, I don’t have a problem with the state keeping aggregate statistics on permitting, and to be honest, until newspapers started publishing names, and sometimes even addresses, in the paper, no one really thought too much about whether the records were published or not.

Suppose I were to propose that the public has a right to know your magazine subscriptions? You might be a sexual deviant, and molest children, you know. Shouldn’t we have a right to check your mail? See what you’re downloading? Do you have high speed internet service? Are you frequenting services known to aid in the facilitation of child pornography? It’s a serious crime, and we need to keep children safe, no? OK, OK, we’ll just make you get a license to access porn on the internet. Keep the children and child molesters away. But then why not allow that list to be published? I mean, your neighbors have a right to know, right?

SayUncle notes that Goldman Sachs execs seem to be getting pistol permits in New York City. Good thing they are rich bank execs, because a New York City pistol permit costs 170 bucks every three years. Now, if they want a license to carry a gun, they have to be connected, but no doubt a wealthy bank exec will have no trouble. Ordinary Joes might have a lot more.

The Brady Campaign is celebrating 16 years of the Brady Act. I think it would indeed be a good time to reflect on the Brady Act. The fight for the Brady Act was longer than most people today realize. The first Brady Bill was introduced in Congress in February of 1987, by Ohio Representative Ed Feighan and Senator Howard Metzenbaum. Feighan did not stand for re-election in 1994, probably due to his involvement in the House banking scandal. Metzenbaum left the Senate in 1995, and was replaced by a Republican, who defeated Metzenbaum’s son-in-law.

The Brady Act didn’t pass the House of Representatives until 1991. That version required a seven day waiting period on handguns. The excuse for the waiting period was so that local law enforcement would have time to conduct a background check. NRA became very fearful the votes were there in the Senate to pass the Brady Bill there too, so that’s when they hatched the “instant check” language, and tried to get it attached to the Senate bill, but failed. Compromise language was worked out where the waiting period would be reduced, and would no longer apply once an instant background check was feasible. At this point, the Brady Bill started to take the form of what was eventually passed. This “remodeled” Brady Bill passed the Senate in 1991, but the conference version died when there wasn’t enough votes to end debate on the measure. It wasn’t until November 14, 1993 that Congress passed the final Brady Act, with it being signed into law on November 30th, 1993. The law did not go into effect until February 28th of 1994.

It’s not widely known, but a significant aspect of the Brady Act was actually found to be unconstitutional, though not on Second Amendment grounds, but rather federalism grounds (1oth Amendment). The Brady requirement here was at issue:

A chief law enforcement officer to whom a transferor has provided notice pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i)(III) shall make a reasonable effort to ascertain within 5 business days whether receipt or possession would be in violation of the law, including research in whatever State and local recordkeeping systems are available and in a national system designated by the Attorney General.

The Sheriff of Ravalli County, Montana, Jay Printz (now an NRA Board member, BTW), and the Sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, Richard Mack, filed suit in federal court over this provision of the Brady Act, arguing that the federal government did not have the authority under the Constitution to commandeer state and local officials to administer a federal program. The case was Printz v. United States once it reached the Supreme Court, and was argued by Steven Halbrook. BTW, the Attorney for Richard Mack was someone I’m sure we all know well.

The practical effect of Printz on the Brady Act was negligible, since it left in place the waiting period. The ruling just meant the local law enforcement was simply not required to conduct any background check despite the language in federal law, and is considered to be a major victory for federalism and the Tenth Amendment.

The original Brady waiting period expired on November 30th, 1998, when the National Instant Background Check System went online. A lot of hard liners are still bitter about NRA pushing NICS, but had NRA not done that, you’d still have a five day waiting period for purchasing guns, in addition to local law enforcement knowing about every gun you buy, and doing Lord knows what with that information other than running a background check. NICS is far from the ideal system, but the alternative was worse. There was no alternate universe where we were going to defeat the Brady Act outright, and I think, for the most part, the NICS is a reasonable compromise.

I received an alert from NSSF on a bill before Congress that could potentially impact ammunition manufacturers in an adverse way. The Bill is a transportation safety bill known as H.R. 4016. The way the bill is currently written, it could potentially introduce serious delays into the supply chain for ammunition manufacturers, since several ammunition components are obviously hazardous materials.

NSSF is advocating for an amendment to the bill, offered by Representative Sam Graves from Missouri, that would, according to NSSF, “help protect the shipment of materials necessary for the manufacturing of ammunition. Without the Graves Amendment, the rate of production will slip, perhaps precipitously.”

The essential weakness with this bill is that it does not outline clear standards for DOT to measure the suitability of manufacturers to ship hazardous materials. Representative Graves’ amendment will force DOT to establish clear standards through the rule making process, which allows for public comment and input from affected parties, including ammunition manufacturers, and should help prevent arbitrary decision making on the part of the Department of Transportation that could essentially cause ammunition manufacturing to grind to a halt.

NSSF is asking folks to contact Congressman James Oberstar, who is the Chairman of the Transportation Committee, and urge him to support the Graves Amendment. Time is of the essence, since Oberstar has indicated that he’s going to bring this bill up for consideration in the Transportation Committee soon. The number for his DC office is (202) 225-6211.

March 2nd, 2010. I will be there, outside the Supreme Court building. I won’t miss this one like I did Heller.