Category: Gun Rights

Eugene Volokh posts a bit about Heller over at the HuffPo, taking some left-wing commentary to task for suggesting conservatives are engaging in judicial activism in finding a second amendment right.

Michael Bane suggests we make it a priority.  I think it’s politically achievable, and a good idea.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission wants to shut down a gun club:

Baxter, a Pacifica resident, is one of about 300 members worried about losing access to their favorite pastime as the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission develops a plan aimed at improving the health of the Lake Merced watershed and increasing recreational opportunities at the long-neglected lake. The gun club is the only recreational activity at risk of being closed as part of the possible changes.

It looks like a club for shotgunners, mostly.  But that isn’t stopping residents of the smuggiest city in America from getting their panties in a bunch:

But the prospect of shutting the gun club has some people steaming mad and others celebrating. In a city that voted three years ago to ban handguns entirely, many residents may be surprised that a gun club exists – and some of its critics are hoping to seize on the anti-firearm sentiment.

Felicia Zeiger, who lives in Merced Heights, has made the club a crusade for years. She says she can’t garden on weekends because of the noise, and is often forced to drive to the other side of the city to walk her dog, who is terrified by the cacophony. 

Club’s been there longer than you lady, deal with it.  This is what happens when burdensome gun regulations drive the number of gun owners below critical mass.  The don’t have to make guns illegal if we have no where to shoot them.

George Nation, Professor of Law and Business doesn’t like the firearms industry:

“Traditionally, gun manufacturers have escaped responsibility when it comes to the criminal use of their products,” says Nation. “The legal system essentially presumes that criminal activity is not to be expected and that manufacturers have no control over the use of their products.”

“But with more than two million handgun-related crimes each year, and some gun advertising clearly aimed at criminal users, this traditional presumption is at odds with reality,” he adds.

Anyone able to grab a copy of this law review?  I’ve seen a lot of advertising for guns in gun magazeines, but not anywhere else.  I’d like to know what evidence Professor Nation has to make this claim.  My guess is he has none.

UPDATE: Trigger Finger provides some examples of what Professor Nation may be talking about.

Not content to stick it to gun owners with just Microstamping, now they want you to have to get permission from the police before purchasing ammunition.  In addition to that, you have to be licensed to sell ammo to transfer more than 50 rounds in a month.  So you couldn’t give or sell your friend 100 rounds of some old ammo you’ve had sitting around without breaking the law.  Each sale of ammunition will also be subject to a three dollar surcharge, to be sent to your masters in Sacramento.

The message to gun owners is loud and clear in California: “We don’t want you here, and if you stay here, and continue doing this disgusting thing, we’re going to do a lot of things so that it’ll be easy to throw you in jail.”

As all gun owners know, .50 BMG rounds with micronucular warheads have been strictly regulated under federal law since 1994.  They are unavailable to civilians.  The VPC greatly exaggerates the danger of this threat.

Eric has a post up about this topic:

Why single out guns unless the intent is to stigmatize them? I think that a law criminalizing non-reporting requires more than merely reporting a loss or a theft; by its nature it imposes an affirmative duty to monitor and count your guns on a regular basis or be a criminal (in much the same way that a law criminalizing the non-reporting of silverware would require counting the silver). But because it does not spell that out, I think it’s unconstitutionally void for vagueness.

Read the whole thing.  I think it creates that obligation as well, because most of these bills use the standard “X period of time after the actor knew or should have known the firearms were missing.”

I think I actually missed the most important part:

Joe Grace, CeaseFirePA executive director, said the group had lobbied all 203 House members and would hold a rally and news conference today. Hundreds of supporters are expected to turn out, among them 10 busloads of Philadelphians.

Last week, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh City Councils passed resolutions urging the legislature to pass a lost-and-stolen bill.

Law enforcement agencies across the state, including the Pennsylvania State Police, say such a mandatory requirement would help prevent straw purchasers of guns from using the excuse that their guns, later used in crimes, were lost or stolen.

This vote was moved up.  You don’t just pull a rally that size out of thin air.  I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the vote was moved up to coincide with a rally that was already planned, in order to help pre-ordain the outcome.  Calling your representatives is now more important than ever.  They must hear from gun owners.

Here’s what the Inquirer says:

Handgun-control proponents in the State House are attempting to force a floor vote today on a controversial bill that would require handgun owners to tell authorities when their weapons are lost or stolen.

To avoid a counter-lobbying campaign by the National Rifle Association, lawmakers late Wednesday filed the language as an amendment to a crime-code bill that had already cleared a House committee. The move sends the bill directly to the floor.

“This is a historic moment for the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the House in particular,” said Rep. Cherelle Parker (D., Phila.). “For many years, legislators across Pennsylvania have been trying to answer calls law enforcement has been making to us to give them the tools to get handguns off the streets.”

The amendment will face opposition from Republicans and many rural Democrats. But, proponents say, polls showing that a majority of voters support mandatory reporting of lost and stolen handguns will compel lawmakers at least to go on record with their position.

It’s unclear whether opposition has softened in Harrisburg since 2006, when the House overwhelmingly defeated the measure. Votes were not recorded then.

Let’s hope not.  Contacting legislators makes all the difference.  Lawmakers assume one phone call represents probably 100 other people out there that think the same way.  If they are getting 5 to 1 calls in favor of gun owners, that’ll put some fear into them.  Someone who calls is someone who will come out to vote against you if you go against them on this issue.  Make sure your reps know how you feel.