Joe Huffman has the most thorough coverage of it, close enough to what I would have written to save me the time. I generally think it’s constitutional to deprive people convicted of certain crimes of their right t0 bear arms, but I think retroactively applying what is essentially a sentencing enhancement is ex post facto. As Clayton Cramer is fond of saying, in the time of the founding, we deprived felons of their right to breathe oxygen, so it wasn’t a problem ever considered in the time. Plus, I don’t think the founders ever considered felonies for putting lobesters in the wrong bag.
But despite the fact that I think some violent criminals can be constitutionally deprived, that’s not to say I agree with the current federal and many state regimes on this matter. If the courts are willing to agree that blanket bans on gun possession by felons, violent or no, is unconstitutional, I have no issue.
Thanks to Greg for pointing out that Google has newspaper archives, and you can search through and look at old newspaper archives. For instance, this article from the Eugene Register, dated October 29th, 1981, certainly would make the folks down at the Brady Campaign pine for the good old days:
What is the fastest growing outfit in the country? A likely candidate for that honor is Handgun Control, Inc., which recently announced a current membership of 451,000.
Just six months ago it was only one-quarter that size, and thus has quadrupled its membership in the half-year that saw the killing of singer John Lennon and the wounding of President Reagan, both with handguns.
They had a goal of reaching a million members by March 30th 1982. Looking at articles from around that time, it would seem they never reached their goal. In this March 29th article, they speak of having a bit north of 565,000 members, only 165,000 of which had contributed any money.
Interestingly enough, you can do a search and see when the media was speaking most about the issue. The one thing you can definitely see is how assassination of prominent figures does drive the issue. But it seems to be that we, as a nation, most talk about the gun control debate, when gun control is a major political issue. Look at the spikes in the 90s, to see what I mean.
Shame shit, different decade. But man, do I hope the Secret Service is on the ball with Obama. There’s a common thread that runs through all these articles, if you read them. And Ted Kennedy was at forefront of all these bills. No wonder the Brady folks really miss him.
Pittsburgh is claiming that it will revive its assault weapons ban, which was never taken off the books officially, for the G20 summit next month. Whether this law is still on the books or not (Philadelphia’s still is too) is irrelevant. The law was thrown out in court, and is therefore no law. If the City of Pittsburgh tries to enforce it, they are acting under color of law.
The only way that we’re going to get cities to stop shit like this is to hurt them. This would be a great opportunity for a group of activists, in consultation with an attorney, to get themselves arrested. You can then proceed to file a civil rights lawsuit under Section 1983 against the people who demanded this non-law be enforced. Civil rights lawsuits let you sue public officials, in their personal or official capacity, who act under color of law.
This would be how to do useful open carry activism. Think someone will step up?
Apparently the gun registry fiasco was the first major Canadian scandal to play out on the Internet, and Canadian gunnies were more adept at using it to get their message out:
The Internet allowed average Canadians to express their outrage about the cost and complexity of the gun registry, she said.
But it also allowed a minority to hijack the issue, sometimes using mistruths, said Flumian.
“Particularly, the anti-fire arms registry lobby was very adept at getting their message out,†she said Monday. “It went viral.â€
I see more evidence around these days of Canadian shooters online, so maybe this can be a good vehicle for making some progress. Of course, the only Canadian gun blogger I know of is this guy, and he lives in Maryland.
The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. Permanent methods of attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100°F) silver soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over. Barrels are measured by inserting a dowel rod into the barrel until the rod stops against the bolt or breech-face. The rod is then marked at the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device, withdrawn from the barrel, and measured.
So those of you with ARs that have 14.5 inch barrels with a 1.5 inch brake or flash suppressor pinned and welded on no longer have to worry they might be felons. Thanks to NRA for clearing this issue up.
“If a gun is made in Montana and stays in Montana, it isn’t engaging in interstate commerce,†said Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation. “The federal government really should butt out.â€
At issue is the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which passed the 2009 Legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Brian Schweitzer. That law states that guns, ammunition and certain gun parts manufactured and used in Montana are not subject to federal gun laws.
No doubt they will try to distinguish their case from Raich, but I doubt the courts will bite. There was a successful case involving a home made machine gun, US v. Stewart, that had prevailed in the 9th circuit, which Montana resides in. The Supreme Court vacated the ruling and remanded it for reconsideration in light of Raich. That to me speaks strongly that the Supreme Court views Raich as applying to unregistered machine guns just as readily as state-approved medical marijuana.
As much as I wish this really had legs, it looks to me more like SAF and MSSA boosting their pro-gun bonafides, than a serious legal challenge.
Statement here from the publisher of Frommer’s guides, on the blog post we spoke about before. Summary seems to be “He has a right to his opinion, it’s not necessary ours, now go away you crazy gun nuts. And oh, by the way, Love ya Arizona!”  I agree the guy has a right to his own opinion. I just thought it was a very ignorant opinion, that revealed a great naivety about life in the rest of the country, which is pretty incredible from a guy who is known for travel guides.
This is essentially what I was attempting to hit on with my post about effectively changing minds. Mike V. raises a good argument in the comments, “Explain to me what civil rights movement does not proceed by ‘seeking attention’. Please.” It’s a serious question and it deserves a serious answer, so I will try to clarify what I mean by attention seeking.
Mike is correct that all civil rights movements have to draw attention to the plight, as a first step. I don’t deny that. But we intuitively know there are effective and ineffective ways of doing that. I don’t think anyone would seriously suggest that had Rosa Parks instead pulled a roscoe out of her purse, pointed it at the head of the bus driver, and said “If you make me move to the back of the bus, I’m moving your brains to the front of the bus,” that would have been as effective as what she actually did. Both would have raised awareness of the issue, but by refusing to move and suffering arrest, the people who carefully orchestrated Parks’ civil disobedience put it in context other people could relate to, and begin to understand. It also conveyed how seriously the black community was, by showing they were willing to be subject to arrest. So intuitively there’s a difference between positive attention, which raises awareness, and negative or neutral attention, which could be considered attention for attention’s sake.
I can’t really figure out what purpose the rifle served other than bringing in the cameras. Sure, they talked a bit about the guns, because the press was asking about it, but they were also bringing up the laundry list of paleolibertarian complaints about the government. If the idea was to raise awareness of the issue, I think it got lost in the fact they were carrying a rifle. It might have brought the cameras, but it confused the message.
Had they arranged something like, carrying a pistol openly in DC, and suffered arrest, that would have been a different thing. I don’t think anyone would argue the dedication to the cause would have been admirable, and at the very least would have been directly related to the suppression of Second Amendment rights.
Michael Bane talks about a new ad campaign from Advanced Armament Corp. As much as this will probably make some gun control advocates wet themselves, I think it’s something we ought to start pushing. This is one of those areas where the anti-gun community is will have to rely on lies and deception, since the truth is that any round that moves faster than sound, which is most of them, will still make noise. That’s why it’s a suppressor. Silencers are what you see in movies. I think we probably ought to ditch the term. How about slogans that show the reality of it:
“Muffle your car or get a fine. Muffle your pistol and get a felony.”
“The most effective hearing protection is stopping the noise to begin with.”
You can see why I’m not in marketing. Anyone else think up anything?
