Guns – Page 118 – Shall Not Be Questioned

NRA Convention vs. CPAC

Charles C. W. Cooke of National Review did this interview with a Philadelphia radio station yesterday, and I loved a comment that he made about the size of CPAC – a general right-of-center, every issue you can imagine convention – versus the NRA annual meeting which is largely single issue.

“And this is going to sound ungrateful, but it’s small because I’m used to the NRA convention which is Madison Square Garden-sized.”

This is the argument I used for years with people in the conservative movement when pointing out that they need to look more to what the NRA has done over the years. It seemed like the gun issue was so often overlooked, yet the NRA consistently turned out more people to participate than anything that was happening in DC circles. So it’s kind of funny to hear Cooke mention the vast difference in size for an event that wants to represent an entire “side” of the political aisle and the many different issues that come along with it.

Besides, the NRA convention is more fun in my experience. I was sick of CPAC by the time I went for the fourth time. Most of my friends felt the same way when I was in DC. But I still look forward to the NRA convention. While I’ve shifted what events I tend to visit at the convention, there’s still something interesting going on each day. I like that it’s a chance to dig deep into the issue – whether it’s connecting with other people passionate about grassroots, the law, or just getting out to shoot.

Anyway, go listen to the interview since I think it’s a really good one beyond the NRA comparison. I’ll have to add Cooke’s new book, The Conservatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right’s Future, to my wish list now.

Federal District Court Upholds California’s Handgun Roster

The case is Pena v. Lindley, a Calguns Foundation case challenging the constitutionality of California’s handgun roster. A roster that was created specifically for the purpose of banning cheap handguns. Not a right for the poor, I guess. Under California law, handguns that don’t appear on the roster are illegal to sell. Manufacturers have to pay recurring fees to stay on the list. The firearms have to be micro-stamped. They have to be drop tested. Otherwise they may not be sold.

There was no intermediate scrutiny two step. The court ruled that the Second Amendment wasn’t even implicated here, and this was among the kinds of regulations that were “presumptively lawful,” per Heller. The statute survived rational basis review, which is all that the court felt was required. The court believed that as long as you could still buy some handguns, the state was perfectly justified in banning large numbers of them. The judge also wasn’t buying the equal protection arguments in the case, so police can be a special class of citizen as far as the judge is concerned.

This is unfortunately not shocking, that a federal judge would so summarily dismiss a restriction on a fundamental right. We’ve seen it time and time again. Needless to say this will be appealed. It’s worth noting the judge in this case was a Clinton appointee.

Sad Panda Alert: Gun Control Fail in Vermont

At least for now, we seem to have pushed Bloomberg back, so there are gun control supporters in Vermont and New York City now who are very sad pandas. Bloomberg doesn’t have the ballot to use in Vermont, so he had to try for a traditional attack through the legislature. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for him, in this kind of fight it’s our grassroots advantage can trump his pocketbook, because all that is required is direct action. When it comes to a fight that involves buying support from low-information voters, Bloomberg’s money is Â more useful. Nonetheless, they say they aren’t going away:

â€œWe have a very long view on this,â€ Braden said. â€œTwo years ago, there wasnâ€™t any way any gun provision would be debated. This is a long-term campaign to really change the conversation, so we can pass legislation to keep guns out of the wrong hands.â€

It looks like they might still get a felon-in-possession law in Vermont though.

He said many of his constituents who oppose expanding background checks support the mental health and felon provisions.Â As for requiring Vermonters who are conducting private gun sales to go to a gun dealer for a background check, Sears said his constituents have been more consistently opposed.

But I thought 92% of gun owners supported Bloomberg proposal?

UPDATE: Think Progress are sad pandas too, but this time because when gun control comes threatening, it strengthens the hand of gun rights groups more than it does gun control groups.

Charges Dropped in New Jersey Antique Gun Case

It would seem that someone gave the Cumberland County, NJ prosecutor a clue that putting an elderly man away for 10 years (likely life in his case) is not really an appropriate move for someone who collects 18th century stuff and managed to pick up a flintlock pistol. Charges have just been dropped without further comment from the DA.

Emily gets to carry her gun

Emily Miller’s application for a carry permit was approved. About time.

My guess is they figured that doing so and hoping she went away was better than the alternative

Brady Campaign Backs Down from Promises to Anti-Gun Pols

It would seem that the Brady Campaign staffers were making funding promises to Pennsylvania officials that they may have had no intention of keeping.

Back when Pennsylvania municipalities were regularly passing gun control ordinances, several cities only went through with the measures that violated state preemption laws because the Brady Campaign/Center promised, via MAIG and CeasefirePA representatives, to pay for the defense of those ordinances if the cities were sued.

Well, now the threat of lawsuits is looming and the Brady Campaign is telling the media that they never made such promises by claiming that the person who made the promises wasn’t really speaking for them.

While the local Fox affiliate dug up city records from Lancaster and Erie that showed they made those promises, we recalled another instance in Radnor. Except, Radnor lawmakers demanded the promise in writing. From Sebastian’s 2010 report on that meeting:

Commissioners seemed skeptical when CeaseFirePA mentioned that the Brady Campaign would pick up the tab for any lawsuits against the ordinance, and indicated theyâ€™d want it in writing. Itâ€™s my opinion the Bradys will be very reluctant to put anything into writing, so I think thatâ€™s a strategy to use going forward. Get your local politicians to demand that. If the Bradys donâ€™t deliver, thatâ€™s another point, and it may start the politicians wondering whether the promise is worth anything.

It seems that now we have the proof that the Brady promises on this issue really were worthless.

In Lancaster, the pledge came from Max Nacheman who represented MAIG and Brady at the time and would later represent CeasefirePA. In Radnor, it appears that Commissioner Elaine Schaefer called the Brady Campaign herself and got the pledge that the group would defend the town. So the Brady Campaign is now trying to claim that the exact same promise made in at least 3 different cities via at least 2 different people, was really just some random miscommunication?

Yeah, that’s totally believable.

It would seem that town officials are now learning what we’ve been trying to tell them for years – you can’t believe the false promises the anti-gunners tell you when they are trying to get their agenda passed. They need something to call a “win,” and if your budgets take a beating due to legal expenses because they told you to do something illegal, they don’t care. It’s still a “win” for their agenda even as taxpayers lose.

FedEx Refusing to Ship Defense Distributed’s CNC Mill

Their argument boils down to uncertain legality, which is a completely bogus argument. There’s absolutely nothing illegal about shipping a CNC machine to anyone, in any state.

But now FedEx tells WIRED itâ€™s too wary of the legal issues around homemade gunsmithing to ship the machine to customers. â€œThis device is capable of manufacturing firearms, and potentially by private individuals,â€ FedEx spokesperson Scott Fiedler wrote in a statement. â€œWe are uncertain at this time whether this device is a regulated commodity by local, state or federal governments. As such, to ensure we comply with the applicable law and regulations, FedEx declined to ship this device until we know more about how it will be regulated.â€

I don’t think it would be crazy tin-foil-hat speculation that it’s quite possible they are getting threats from the Administration in other areas they regulate that could hurt FedEx, if FedEx doesn’t bend to their will on the gun issue. It’s not like we haven’t seen that before.

Of course, if that’s the case, they should blow the whistle. At best, this is cowardice on the part of FedEx, and I won’t do business with them until they grow a pair and start shipping his product like they would any other CNC machine.

News Links for Tuesday 02-24-2015

I meant to get up a news links post yesterday, but tasks conspired against it, which seems to be happening a lot lately. At work, we had a window blow open and freeze all the pipes, which caused quite a disaster. Last week I couldn’t open my back door. Fearing the header might have failed, causing the weight from the house to fall onto the door, I went into the drywall to check. The header was fine. I think the severe dry, cold air just made the wood contract enough to jam the door. I managed to pull hard enough to get the door open, but it took a hammer to close it again. That door has always been tight, and the seal on the double pane failed years ago. It is time to replace it, which is money I wasn’t expecting to spend. Such are distractions of life, like the news:

Joe Huffman collects bigotry from the other side, something for which there is no shortage.

Gun control works!Â No, really, it does.

Shannon Watts is a propagandist, not an activist. She’s honestly not very good, and prone to making gaffes and mistake. If it wasn’t for Bloomberg’s money, I wouldn’t be too worried about her.

Apparently Governor Wolf’s pick to run the Pennsylvania State Police is already generating controversy. It’s worth noting that this office has, in the past with hostile Democratic administrations, been used to screw with gun owners.

What’s that? Associating with Bloomberg is bad for a Democrat’s political aspirations? Who would have guessed.

Bring handguns back to Britain!

Turning out for Constitutional Carry in Idaho.

Shocking: Some lawmakers who are friendly to the Second Amendment are (gasp!) active NRA members.

SCOTUSBlog takes a look at Henderson v. United States. A gun case, but not a Second Amendment case, at least not directly.

John Richardson has more on the M855 ban.

Tam: “It was within my lifetime (albeit barely) that you could order an actual 20mm anti-tank rifle in the mail with less drama than buying a packet of Sudafed today.” Also, “Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.”

Yes! Next question.

Eugene Volokh: Open Carry v. Announced Carry. I’ve also thought there might be stronger First Amendment protection for open carry than Second, given that the courts take the former more seriously than the latter.

Off Topic:

Bombshell Interview: Cop Reveals That â€œPlanting Evidence And Lyingâ€ Are Just â€œPart Of The Gameâ€

What ISIS Really Wants. A very excellent piece of journalism from The Atlantic. If you haven’t read it yet, you should.

More Danger in Washington State

Another gun control bill has passed out of committee in the Washington Legislature. If I were a gun owner in Washington, I’d print out this bill and roll it up. Go find yourself a gun owner who voted for I-594 because it sounded “reasonable,” and hit them on the nose with this bill and firmly say, “No!”

Any victory will embolden and strengthen the other side. Once the dam starts to crack, it’s very difficult to prevent it from breaking. This is especially true in blue states that have managed to keep their gun rights, despite years of Democratic control. Once they figure out they can hurt you, and you can’t boot them from power, they’ll just keep hurting you. Colorado was saved from this fate because they figuratively broke the noses of the people who hurt them with those recall elections

If you’re in a blue state that’s kept its gun rights despite a history of Democratic control, you’re probably lucky, and probably are retaining your gun rights on borrowed time. Once the powers that be learn they can hurt you, and you can’t hurt them back, your cause is doomed.

Two More Favorable Court Rulings

Looks like we’ve had a few more favorable court rulings in the past few days. The first comes from the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in the case of Suarez v. Holder, holding that a past non-violent felony conviction was not sufficient to strip him of his right to keep and bear arms.Â This is an “as applied” challenge, meaning it did not challenge the felon-in-possession statute (18 USC 922(g)) on its face, but challenged it as applied to the plaintiff in this case. He was convicted in 1990 of carrying a firearm without a license in Maryland, a misdemeanor in Maryland, but one that can carry a penalty of up to three years in prison (and thus prohibiting under federal law). The more cases like this we get, the more cause we have to seek further redress through Congress, since these suits cost the federal courts time and money (both of which are in short supply). You can read more about the case here. Hat tip to Joe HuffmanÂ for the tipoff.

The other case is from the Florida Court of Appeal, Norman v. State. This court upheld the Florida restriction on open carry, but it’s a win because they adopted the reasoning that we’ve been pushing the courts toward. The court recognized there was a right to carry a firearm outside the home, but that the state may regulate the manner in which firearms are carried.

The Legislature â€œhas a right to prescribe a particular manner of carry, provided that it does not â€˜cut[] off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, render[] the right itself useless.â€™â€ The Legislature is permitted to regulate the manner in which arms are borne for the purpose of maintaining public peace and safety, so long as any such regulation leaves available a viable carry mode.

The reason our legal advocates have been pushing for this interpretation is because it squares with a long, unfortunateÂ tradition in some parts of the country of making concealed carry unlawful, while allowing open carry, and courts upholding them under the Second Amendment and state Second Amendment analogues. This ruling does beg the question of whether, say, New Jersey, for instance, could get around being forced to comply with federal law by legalizing open carry, but still requiring a relatively non-obtainable license for concealed carry. That doesn’t do anything to destroy the right de jure, but given that open carry is not socially acceptable in the Garden State, does it amount to a de facto destruction of the right? That’s probably why anti-evasion doctrine is going to become very important going forward.