The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
It looks like the May 18 decision that ended Washington DC’s “good reason” provision to approving concealed carry licenses is now on hold.
The U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday evening stayed a ruling that had overturned a key provision of the District’s concealed carry law, giving city officials a legal reprieve and opportunity to prepare an appeal arguing that the law is constitutional.
That means anyone rushing out to apply will now have to fit the criteria in place as of early May.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is introducing a bill that would ban the carrying of firearms in the unsecured part of airports unless they are “unloaded and contained in clearly marked, locked cases.” This is, of course, a reaction to the doofuses openly carrying rifles into Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. While I don’t think this bill is going anywhere, it’s always refreshing to have to go on the defensive to fight for what’s already legal and no one was worried about until somebody gave them a reason. But I’m sure some “awareness was raised,” and travelers “educated.”
What’s with the clearly marked cases though? You know that just says “steal me” right? Â Theft from airports is already a big problem without having clear external indications as to what’s in the bag. Either way, this is solving a non-problem. What’s interesting is that his bill is being backed by the usual suspects, but not Everytown.
The proposed ITAR rule changes impacting free speech aren’t quite getting the media coverage we need to get the word out to our people, and this has me concerned. This article that appears in Defense Trade Law seems to agree with our interpretation that the proposed rule change is very broad. I’ve seen a few different opinions on this topic in the comment section over at The Firearm Blog’s post on the topic (in addition to a few trolls). The State Department had a press conference last week where the topic of their proposed ITAR regulations came up.
QUESTION: Did you get an answer the question I asked yesterday about these ITAR – revisions to the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations?
MR RATHKE: I did. I’m happy to go through that, if that would be helpful. You asked yesterday, Matt, about a June 3rd publication in the Federal Register by the State Department of proposed changes for public comment to several regulatory definitions under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. These proposed changes in definition are part of our broader effort to streamline and modernize a Cold War-era regulatory system to better safeguard against illicit attempts to procure sensitive U.S. defense technologies.
These proposed definition changes – which, as I pointed out, are out for public comment – they seek to account for technologies that were not envisioned when the regulations were initially developed. Otherwise these definitions are intended to be a clarification of existing law and regulations, technical data, and detailed schematics that are required for the manufacture or production of defense articles already require U.S. Government authorization before they can be disseminated by U.S. manufacturers.
Now in contrast, general descriptions, public discussions, and imagery of defense articles, including firearms, have never been the subject of – to these regulations and they would remain unaffected under these proposed revisions. As I said at the start, they were published in the Federal Register for public comment. That’s a period that runs through August 3rd of this year. So I’d refer people to the text of the Federal Register notice for details about providing —
QUESTION: Okay. So these rules would not apply to private citizens, only to manufacturers – and only to highly sensitive technical details? Is that —
MR RATHKE: They apply to the technical data and detailed schematics for the production of defense articles.
QUESTION: So they don’t apply to private citizens.
MR RATHKE: Well, they apply to anything that relates to those areas of subject matter, whether discussed by —
QUESTION: Okay. Well, the concern that had been raised by the Second Amendment groups is somehow this is going to restrict or stop or ban discussions about gun – about firearms —
MR RATHKE: Well, I go back to the – also the point that general descriptions – that is general, not technical and detailed ones – general descriptions or public discussions and imagery of defense articles would – have never been subject to these regulations and wouldn’t —
QUESTION: So the concern that has been expressed is misplaced, yes?
MR RATHKE: Yes, that would be our view.
Okay, anything further? Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
None of us ever thought just a picture of a gun or “general descriptions or public discussions and imagery of defense articles” was going to get us in hot water. The issue is a lot more complicated than that. It’s become pretty apparent to me on reading and re-reading this proposed rule change, and the existing ITAR rules, that this is targeted squarely at 3D printing, CNC milling, and Cody Wilson more specifically.
Notice when asked whether it would apply to the public at large, he basically concedes the issue. The big problem is that previously, we were all protected by the public domain exception to the rule. I’d encourage everyone to follow that link, and note subsection (b) which is reserved. This public domain exception is obviously dated in the Internet age, but it’s pretty apparent if one publishes the information through “unlimited distribution” that material is the public domain. Now, for the reserved subsection (b) The new proposal spells out what is to be done with it:
(b) Technical data or software, whether or not developed with government funding, is not in the public domain if it has been made available to the public without authorization from:
(1) The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls;
(2) The Department of Defense’s Office of Security Review;
(3) The relevant U.S. government contracting entity with authority to allow the technical data or software to be made available to the public; or
(4) Another U.S. government official with authority to allow the technical data or software to be made available to the public.
By my reading, if you shared a straight-up CAD drawing of an AR-15 or 1911, you’d be fine because those designs are already in the public domain. However, if you developed your own wildcat load for a cartridge, or you came up with a novel design for a rifle, pistol, shotgun, scope or accessory, or you created a modification to an existing design, you’d have to seek clearance from the State Department prior to publishing it. It’s going to be exceedingly difficult for people who aren’t lawyers to understand the difference. My opinion is that this rule is meant to stifle people’s ability to discuss gun making with 3D printers or CNC milling machine’s online, due to the legal complexities and risks involved in doing so. Despite the fact that we shared no CAD drawing or plans in our experimentation with this technology on this blog, I still do not know whether my posts on the subject would fall under ITAR pre-clearance or not, and I’m a good bit more legal savvy than most hobbyists.
Isn’t it widely accepted that Al Gore’s position on licensing gun owners was a big reason we ended up with President George W. Bush rather than President Al Gore? Now Bloomberg and Obama have sold the Democratic Party that gun control is a winning issue again! That must be why Connecticut’s Senators have floated a bill requiring licenses to purchase handguns nationwide.
This probably won’t gore their ox, since I doubt there’s too much risk for either of them to lose their seats over the gun issue in Connecticut. This will only get worse as the hard core owners flee the Nutmeg State for freer pastures. But it certainly isn’t going to help the Democratic Party brand itself to successfully compete in places where gun rights are an issue.
Yahoo News is following up on their hit piece against NRA, reporting on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) calling on the IRS to open an investigation into the NRA. This is a hit piece, because nowhere in the article does Yahoo News mention that CREW was started by political hack David Brock, who’s exploits include illegally carrying a firearm around Washington D.C. Nowhere does the article mention that CREW is funded by noted non-partisan outfits such as SEIU and completely politically neutral billionaire George Soros’ Democracy Alliance. George Soros, who has of course never donated a dime or ounce of his attention to the international gun control movement.
So a bunch of left-wing operatives call on the Obama Administration to turn its scandal ridden and politically weaponized IRS on the National Rifle Association, like we haven’t seen enough of that already. I’m guessing Yahoo, which has been slowly circling the bowl for a while now, thinks it can get more eyeballs by being the Weekly World News for leftist hacks. We’ll see how well that works out for them.
Here’s the text of the bill. You need to have the Gun Control Act portion of the United States Code in front of you to understand what it does. It also makes some changes to the NFA‘s definition of Destructive Devices to offer more protection for shotguns. A lot of striking and replacing sections of code. It would seem that everything is as advertised from what I presented yesterday, but I thought I’d go into a bit more detail as to what the bill does.
Section 1 lays out the title of the act, the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act.”
Section 2 clarifies the language of the armor piercing ammunition law to make it clear that it only applies to rounds designed to be used in a handgun, rather than “may be used in a handgun.” This should stop ATF’s practice of reclassifying rifle ammo as “armor piercing” just because someone makes a handgun for it.
Section 3 deals with importation. It pretty much does what the section heading says, and allows any non-NFA firearm or non-armor piercing handgun ammunition to be imported without regard for whether it’s suitable for sporting purposes. Except there’s a part that deals with an obscure section of the Gun Control Act that allows FFLs to ship firearms (except undetectable firearms) to troops overseas or their affiliated clubs. Currently this is subject to a “sporting purposes” restriction, and this section eliminates that.
Section 4 relates to the National Firearms Act. Shotguns, having a bore diameter greater than 0.5 inch, and many big game rifles chambered in greater than 0.5 caliber, avoid being classified as destructive devices solely through classification by the Attorney General that they are “recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes”. It changes the language from ‘‘recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes’’ to ‘‘recognized as suitable for lawful purposes.’’ Personally, I would have rather solved this by raising the 0.5″ limit to 1.0″ and be done with it, but there’s no arguing that the proposed language is much improved.
Section 5 does pretty much what the section heading says. You have a bunch of language in 18 USC Section 922 that allow for temporary interstate transfers for “lawful sporting purposes.” This goes through and eliminates “sporting” and just makes it “lawful purposes.”
Other than the NFA language still leaving a bit of wiggle room for future Attorneys General to abuse, I’m pretty happy with this bill and think it should be supported. Expect the other side to raise the long dead specter of the infamous “street sweeper” which the gun control movement fear mongered over in the 1990s. This cuminated in Lloyd Bentsen reclassifying the Striker as a destructive device in 1994. This bill would arguably provide grounds for challenging that classification.
The bill just introduced in the House is H.R. 2710, which would gut the sporting purposes language, introduced by Republican Congressman Rob Bishop from Utah. The bill would, according to NRA:
As our Vice President would say, this is a big ‘effin deal! This would be the most substantial reform of the Gun Control Act since FOPA in 1986. Get calling and ask your Congressman to co-sponsor this bill.
UPDATE: Here’s the text of the bill. You need to have the Gun Control Act portion of the United States Code in front of you to understand what it does. It also makes some changes to the NFA‘s definition of Destructive Devices to offer more protection for shotguns. A lot of striking and replacing sections of code.
I wanted to get this out yesterday, but time did not permit. Sorry for the dead air. It was more busy rather than lack of things to talk about. Let me gather up all the news:
Wisconsin is about to be rid of its waiting period to buy a handgun, among other improvements.
Eugene Volokh: “If you openly carry a gun, don’t do it while loudly singing Hakuna Matata.” Probably good advice. As open carry becomes more ordinary, expect people who do it for the wrong reasons to get more and more outrageous in search of attention.
Major management shakeup at Remington.
Ed Peruta is a colorful character, to put it mildly. Mother Jones somehow manages to do a fair article on the man.
Professor Glenn Reynolds notes “The TSA can’t spot ordinary guns. So what’s the response?” Ban the plastic ones, of course (even though undetectable plastic guns are already banned).
The Daily Beast questions the effectiveness of Wear Orange Day.
Newsweek thinks campus carry passing in Texas is a victory for gun control, since we didn’t get everything we wanted. Don’t you worry, Newsweek. We’ll be back for the rest later.
Charles C.W. Cooke writes about the proposed ITAR regulations.
Wired: “I made an untraceable AR-15 ‘Ghost Gun’ in My Office — And It Was Easy.” I hope he used a bullet button, otherwise that AR-15 is illegal in California.
Bloomberg View: “When Tech Kills Gun Control.”
Michael Pfleger: NRA “will pay pay for the murder of our children.” I thought for a minute he was saying NRA was doing a whole murder for hire thing in Chicago. Pfleger is a world class nut job. I could believe anything from him.
You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. If Ted Cruz had gone on a shoot with a prohibited person, the media would have torn him apart and his campaign would be over. Instead, they criticize the campaign for running background checks on prospective shooters.
You know the whole “mass shootings on the rise” meme started by an FBI report? Yeah, the characterization of the report was bullshit. The FBI researchers admit it. This was all ginned up by the Administration to support its gun control agenda.
Hey, I just want to be able to carry if I choose without having to carry a rule list of where I can and can’t go around with me. These are the people who are truly obsessed.
Oregon may be getting some reciprocity, since apparently a lot of Dems are worried about their votes on banning private firearms transfers.
Musical targets! I guess you’d need three or more shooters to do chords.
Colonial Williamsburg to open public musket range.
Off Topic:
Only sort of off topic, since I allow comments too: Reason gets hit with a federal subpoena to uncloak nasty commenters. Popehat takes the feds to task over it in a way that only Popehat can. Apparently this is legal, but it’s clearly abuse, and meant to intimidate.
The Fallen of World War II. I saw this floating around on social media on the D-Day anniversary. Really well done.
Note to Chris Christie: Debate is a healthy thing. I’ve had about enough of people shutting down debate.
Over eight years of observing the gun control movement, and trying to understand what motivates them, I’ve come to the conclusion that at the movement’s core, gun control is an attempt by power elites to keep firearms out of the hands of the lower classes. Of course, if you framed your movement that way, no one would buy in. So it is necessary for the other side to couch their goals in language where they look like heroes of the lower classes rather than people out to disempower them.
Ever expanding the class of prohibited persons to encompass people convicted or accused of ever more minor offenses is a logical strategy for a movement that has had very little luck with any other form of gun control. There’s a significant amount of ignorance among elites about what “domestic violence” can consist of. Most people envisage someone beating their wife, and certainly that does happen, and those people deserve to go to jail. But domestic abuse can, in some states, consist of something as little as grabbing a cell phone out of someone’s hand or pushing someone out of the way as you run out of the house in a huff.
Remember that lower class people don’t have money to hire lawyers in most cases, and can often be one vindictive ex-girlfriend away from losing their gun rights for good. Lower class people tend to have these kinds of problems more than the upper classes do. This is really a perfect issue for the gun control movement, because few people want to be seen standing up for domestic abusers, and fewer people understand how the law in these cases actually works to understand the wool is being pulled over their eyes by very deceptive people.
All eyes have been on the Supreme Court to see what they would do in the case of Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, which challenged San Franscisco’s ordinance mandating that firearms kept in the home be locked and rendered essentially unready for self-defense. The Court had the option of summarily reversing the decision, but it chose not to. Additionally, Justices Scalia and Thomas filed a dissent to the denial of cert:
The decision of the Court of Appeals is in serious tension with Heller. We explained in Heller that the Second Amendment codified a right “‘inherited from our English ancestors,’†a key component of which is the right to keep and bear arms for the lawful purpose of self-defense. 554 U. S., at 599. We therefore rejected as inconsistent with the Second Amendment a ban on possession of handguns in the home because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home†and because a trigger-lock requirement prevented resi- dents from rendering their firearms “operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.†Id., at 629, 635. San Francisco’s law allows residents to use their handguns for the purpose of self-defense, but it prohibits them from keeping those handguns “operable for the purpose of im- mediate self-defense†when not carried on their person. The law thus burdens their right to self-defense at the times they are most vulnerable—when they are sleeping, bathing, changing clothes, or otherwise indisposed. There is consequently no question that San Francisco’s law burdens the core of the Second Amendment right.
It only takes four justices to agree to hear a case, and it seems that Scalia and Thomas certainly wanted to take this one. So which of two of the Heller Five are just fine with letting the lower courts gut the Heller decision, and why? I’m fairly certain that Justice Alito is pretty solid on the Second Amendment, however for whatever reason he may not have wanted to join this dissent. Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy weren’t willing to destroy the Second Amendment, but for whatever reason are not particularly keen to revisit the issue, even in the face of the lower courts thumbing their nose at Heller and McDonald.
This is a lot of tea leaf reading, but I don’t think this says good things about the Second Amendment and SCOTUS. We have to put a Republican in the White House in 2016. If the Courts can’t agree to take a case like Jackson, which would really just be reaffirming Heller, the Second Amendment is effectively dead unless we can get Scalia and Thomas the extra solid votes they need.
