Category: Gun Rights

They are doing a lot of following the letter of the law, rather than its spirit in California.  This is the kind of resistance that I approve of, and I think over the long run it will be effective.

UPDATE: More in SayUncle’s comments here.

Says Barack Obama, so you cousin humpers can stop buying up so many guns.  Jim Geraghty points out:

Of course, a lot of these new Democrats in the House and Senate are A-rated by the NRA, and plenty more are B-rated. But there is now at least some chance of gun control legislation getting through Congress, a reason for gun owners to be wary of the new Congress. A few who insisted that Democrats would never make a move on this issue are beginning to sweat a little bit.

They ought to sweat.  A lot of prominent Democrats are going to have egg on their faces if Obama follows through on his platform in regards to guns.  We know he only supports common-sense gun safety laws, and that’s exactly what we’re afraid of.

The Brady Center is offering legal aid to the Lebanon County sheriff, in a one million dollar lawsuit that Ms. Hain plans to file against him.  I have not seen the case, but given that it’s being filed in federal court, I’m guessing it’s a section 1983 suit.

One could easily dismiss this as a desperate ploy for attention by the Brady Center, but I don’t think so.  Based on commentary I’ve seen in local news articles surrounding this suit, the communities are rather outraged about the suit.  This was an opportunity for them to be seen in a positive light by folks in what normally is a part of the state not entirely warm to their cause.  Their involvement is strategic, and I think this was smart for them.  They see an opportunity to benefit themselves, and damage us, and I think that opportunity is there.

Taking a 1983 suit into federal court, based on the Second Amendment, and relating to concealed carry, is an incredibly unwise move at this point in time.  This could possibly set precedent for the entire Third Circuit, and possibly the entire country if it’s willing to go far enough.  If we’re going to challenge arbitrary licensing, I think there are better examples of that than Pennsylvania’s concealed carry law.  A mom openly carrying to a kids soccer game would also not be my first choice of plaintiff for the case.  We also don’t even have definitive incorporation of the Second Amendment at this point in time.

If this case goes forward, it’s likely to end badly for us, and will stick us with bad precedent that could be very difficult to overcome.  Keep in mind that New Jersey is also in the Third Circuit, and has a number of very bad and arbirary licensing guidelines, even relating to guns in the home.  I’d hate to screw future cases over a lawsuit where I don’t think the issue is ripe.

Because I doubt very many other governors will be issuing press releases praising the Department of the Interior for changing their policy regarding guns.

Robb takes the arguments apart.  One thing to consider is that by driving up the price of ammunition, it will have the effect of making people who do have firearms for self-defense, including police officers, practice a lot less.  The model legislation bans possession of non-encoded ammo, so no reloading or surplus to keep people shooting.

Even if you exempt police and military from bullet serialization, without the civilian market, economies of scale disappear, the prices goes up, and pretty soon it costs more to train, so there will be less of it.  Shooting competition, which a lot of us participate in, right along side many police officers and military personnel, will also disappear.

This is a bad idea, that will actually do more harm to society than good, and I hope more mainstream gun control groups like the Brady Campaign will realize this and not pursue this nonsense (*chuckle* I can’t even write that with a straight face).  If we’re going to be a society that has firearms in it, we have every interest to make sure the people who wield them are as practiced and proficient as they can be.  Making ammunition more expensive will have the opposite effect.  No group can support this type of legislation that and call itself in favor of firearms safety.

The NRA is announcing that the final rule for National Park Carry has been approved, and will be published in the federal register.  This is a nice win for us, but it might be the last piece of good news we see on this front for a while.  The Obama Administration can undo this with an executive order, or [turns out you can’t undo a rule with an EO] through further rule making.

But even if this gets reversed, it feels good to take a poop in the punch bowl of the incoming administration.  The Bradys will want to get rid of this rule, and we will want to keep it.  Obama risks pissing off the approximately 2-3 million people who have a concealed carry permits in this country if he reverses this.  A lot of CCP holders are not hard core political junkies.  I work with two other people who have them, neither of whom are that involved.  I even know a few liberal Obama voting Dems who have LTCs!  This is a tough issue for the new administration.

UPDATE: Final rule is here.

UPDATE: Reading over the rule, it looks like open carry is still out of the question.  The rule doesn’t appear to make a distinction between rifles, shotguns and pistols, but it mandates concealed.  So my guess is that a rifle in a vehicle would be fine, if it’s legal under state law.  In Pennsylvania, and most states, it’s unlawful to have a loaded long gun in a vehicle, license or no.  Of course, under PA law, an SBR or SBS is not a long gun, and is legal to keep loaded in a vehicle.

UPDATE: Someone points out that buildings are still of limits for concealed carry.  The reason for this is that regulation of firearms in federal buildings is outside the rulemaking authority of The Department of Interior.  Those are found in 18 U.S.C. 930, and it would take an Act of Congress to change the law in that matter.  The National Park Serivce has done what it can under its authority.  If you want to carry in federal buildings on National Park property, you’ll have to take that up with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (and soon, Obama).

Gun control doesn’t work:

Virginia ranked sixth last year as a supplier of out-of-state crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants. West Virginia topped the list, according to the study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition headed by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino (D). Maryland ranked 28th.

You know what law Virginia has?   Yep.  One-gun-a-month.  Glad to see it working oh so well.

There’s an awful lot of lines being drawn in an awful lot of sand in various places on the Internet.  Linoge states:

Furthermore, I intentionally have not defined specifically where my personal “line in the sand” is, nor will I ever do so on this weblog or in a public format – that choice is mine, no one is in any position to question or belittle it, and attempts to do so will be responded to accordingly. Finally, I remain a proud (and, dare I say it, vocal) firearm owner and carrier, and an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment as well as the entirety of the United States Constitution.

To which one commenter of his replies:

Coward. Lying coward. You are obviously so unable to face reality and so angry at yourself because of that fact. Therefore, this is what you post. I feel sorry for you. You won’t define it because a permanent line doesn’t exist. And I think you’re ashamed of yourself because of it.

The demand to know what we’d do if the line is drawn behind us is rather like someone asking a chess player what he’d do to avoid being check mated if his opponent checks his king.  They will be the first, no doubt, to say it’s a cowardly cop out.  But it’s how I feel about it.  There are circumstances where I would agree violent resistance is the only choice.  But we are not now, in this country, anywhere close to those circumstances.  I find the rather delighted glee with which with some boast of forcing circumstances on others to be utterly repulsive.  If believing that makes me a coward, so be it, but I won’t stand with a group that preaches and prepares for civil war while numerous non-violent options lay unused on the table.  If they pass a new assault weapons ban?  We’ll fight it in the courts.  If they ban private sales?  There’s legislative, judicial action, and civil disobedience at our disposal.  Confiscation?  Heller should take that off the table, and even if not, there’s fifth amendment challenges that can be made.  Registration?  We already have it with every 4473 you fill out.

If 3% of gun owners were as involved in political activism as they supposedly are at preparing for civil war, we’d be an unstoppable political force.  There would be no need to argue about where the line is, because it would be political suicide for any politician to get anywhere near it.  But political activism is thankless work, and sometimes you lose.  It doesn’t have nearly the emotional appeal of being told that you’re holding the line while all the other rubes retreat.  It’s not as satisfying as believing you’re brave while others are cowardly.  But I am not in this for satisfaction, I am in this to win, and I can’t think of any faster way of losing than drawing a line, and daring people to cross it.