Just got word that it passed the Senate 18-10-2.  NRA informs us that Senator Jack Harper voted against his own bill in order to save it from being killed, which allowed it to be brought back up for consideration today. Sorry I didn’t mention that before, but I don’t follow Arizona politics that closely.
Category: Gun Rights
Arizona Restaurant Carry Bill Defeated
Apparently one of the bill’s sponsors switched at the last minue and voted no. The bill tied 14-14 in the Senate. This passed before, and was vetoed by Napolitano, so it will probably pass at some point. Hopefully before NRA goes back to Phoenix.
It’s All the NRA’s Fault
Looks like the D.C. Voting Rights activists are blaming the NRA because they don’t want to follow the constitution. I also love the overblown rhetoric:
The D.C. Voting Rights Act was poisoned by a gun amendment that would strip the District of its gun laws and remove the city’s authority to enact gun legislation in the future, effectively placing this historic bill in limbo. It will take political courage by Republican members of Congress and Blue Dog Democrats to unclog the NRA’s stoppage of our legislative system.
The implication is that Washington D.C. will have no gun laws, which is not true, and is misleading. This amendment would make D.C.’s gun laws roughly identical to those of Virginia, which I would point out has a fraction of the crime that Washington D.C. does.
More Threats to Preemption
The Inquirer is running a puff piece on the various cities and towns violating the state preemption statute:
David Kairys, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University, said cases challenging local gun ordinances could have far-reaching implications for home rule in Philadelphia and elsewhere.
He said the state Supreme Court had “gutted home rule” in Philadelphia with decisions such as the 1996 overturning of a ban on assault weapons. But Kairys said communities recognized that crime and safety were local issues and they wanted to make their own decisions about how to protect residents.
“They’re doing their duty, saying in order to have law and order we have to get guns off the street and restore local authority,” Kairys said.
A constitutional law professor at Temple ought to know the cases that support preemption, and understand it’s not about home rule, but the Pennsylvania Constitution. Here’s what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said in the matter of preemption:
Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth, except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.
I’m sure Professor Kairys would like to pretend the Pennsylvania Constitution does not protect the right to bear arms, but it does. What about the court’s decision here is “gutting home rule.” Is Philadelphia not to be part of Pennsylvania?
Guns in Parks Signed in TN
Looks like Governor Phil didn’t want another veto fight on the parks issue. But he also said something rather bizarre about the Firearms Freedom bill as well, while letting it become law without his signature:
This bill is not about firearms. It is about a fringe constitutional theory that I believe will be quickly dispensed with by the federal courts.
I think I agree with RAH. He has to be hoping for a spot in the Obama cabinet. I guess he figures in order to qualify, he’ll have to demonstrate that he has not “gone native” while living among the southerners. (Governor Phil was born in New Jersey, and grew up in New York. Shocking eh?)
23 State Attorneys General Say “No” …
… to a renewed federal assault weapons ban.
New Jersey Mailer from the 1990s
I’ve seen this mailer making the rounds for a while now. I can’t speak for Chris Christie, but I’ve spoken to Rick Merkt at a few ANJRPC events, and don’t believe he supports this position any longer. He’s one of those folks who was duped by the fully automatic/semi-automatic confusion, and no longer supports the ban, and in the mean time has become a gun collector himself. Having said that, it’s a moot issue, because the ban isn’t going away any time soon. Commenter NJSoldier hit the nail on the head when he said this:
It would be great to replace Corzine with any Republican. Further erosion of our rights, and further wasteful spending would be halted. But to make real reforms and roll back the damage done will require some serious gains in the legislature.
Emphasis mine. That’s one of the problems I had with Steve Lonegan’s candidacy, is that he was telling people he’ll get right-to-carry through the legislature. It’s a nice thought, and I appreciate Lonegan being willing to talk favorably on the issue in New Jersey, but anyone who knows Trenton knows that bill is going nowhere, and Corzine will be happy to scare voters in November about Lonegan favoring all manner of gun wielding lunatics running around their kids soccer games, around churches, shopping malls, and restaurants waving guns around. In New Jersey, that rhetoric works.
New Jersey’s percentage of gun ownship is 12.3%. Compare that to Delaware’s 25.5%, Pennsylvania’s 34.7%, even New York’s 18%, and Maryland’s 21.3%.  Even Guam has a higher percentage of gun owners! The goal in the New Jersey’s governor’s race is to get someone in who will veto bad legislation, and give Second Amendemnt activists time to work on the legislature. The overall goal now is to stop losing ground, and see if perhaps we can gain in some minor areas that would allow that number to creep back up. Garden State gun enthusiasts need to mint more of yourselves. That’s going to be the only real way to turn things around. As much as I would like to be able to carry in New Jersey, or take my ARs over there to shoot high-power, your laws that make it tough for people to be introduced to the sport do far more harm than either of those things. I’d start there.
This is Your Chance Republicans
The Sotomayor confirmation hearing is going to be a good chance for the Republicans to show us how much better they are than the Democrats when it comes to the Second Amendment, and kudos to DeMint for getting the ball rolling on this. Here’s another story on her position on the Second Amendment:
Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.
But the statement gave little comfort to gun rights activists. Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said that earlier in the week, Sotomayor told him in a similar closed-door session that she stood by an appellate court decision she signed this year that said the Second Amendment protection from curbs on the right to bear arms applied only to federal laws – not state or local ones.
This position is essentially no different than that of the Brady Campaign. Democrats may be reluctant to bring this issue up, because of not wanting to jeopardize their President’s nominee, and cross the leadership. The pro-gun Democrats will be at a disadvantage, and this is an opportunity for Republicans to show us they are better.
I still will not go so far as to say we should scuttle this nomiee. Let’s see what comes out in the hearings. It’s not that I don’t think Sotomayor is bad — I think she is. It’s a real worry that what comes behind her will be worse.
Chris Christie, NRA Shill?
If only it were actually true. New Jersey is a tough state. Christie is not going to be able to be overtly pro-gun in his rhetoric, and still come out in the race. It’s one of the few states I know of where politicians smear their opponents as being pro-gun, and it actually works. Christie will be an improvement over Corzine, and will at least block New Jersey’s laws from getting any worse. Don’t expect him to lead the charge on concealed carry, or repealing New Jersey’s assault weapons ban, but being able to stop bad legislation is an advantage, and is step one in turning things around.
New Jersey has been on this path in 1966, when it passed most of its onerous gun laws. It’s going to be tough to get things turned around, and it’s going to take a long time. But I admire the folks who stay there, and don’t give up. It prevents the anti-gun folks from moving on to other states.
On National Concealed Carry
I’m not of the opinion that National Concealed Carry is constitutional under the guise of the commerce clause (possibly something could be done under the 14th Amendment), but I have to agree with Joe’s reasoning:
Although IÂ agree with Linoge on a philosophical basis I also am of the opinion that once our enemies violated that principle (Hughes Amendment, Lautenberg Amendment, etc.) it would be unethical for us to defend our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms on an unequal playing field. We are only playing by their rules. So when they start whining just tell them something like, “Karma is a bitch ain’t it?”
I’ve heard others express similar sentiment. I also consider that if such language would kill the hate crime bill, it might be worth a try. Once the government starts creating hate crimes, they aren’t too far away from creating thought crimes. In fact, hate crimes are thought crimes, so strike that.