Category: Guns

Miguel jumps on the news that Bloomberg’s outfit has silently been pouring money into the State of Nevada for the past several months, and have now dropped the bombshell of having collected 250,000 signatures to get their “Universal Background Checks” fraud on the ballot for 2016.

It is my opinion that we are going to lose this fight as bad or worse than we lost Washington, if the ballot title is as equally misleading. So that begs the question, what do we do? The way I see it, this is our reality:

• The concept of background checks for gun purchases is overwhelmingly popular with voters. They lack the passion to push for legislative change through a Republican process, but put it on a ballot, and voters think it’s a nice idea that translates into “keep guns away from criminals.” If they see it on a ballot, backed up by enough advertising, they will vote for it.
• Bloomberg and other rich asshole billionaires can afford to outspend us 10 to 1 or even 20 to 1 in every state that has the ballot and it won’t put a dent in their fortunes. Ballot initiatives mostly come down to who can spend the most money, so they will win just based on sheer spending alone.
• Voters don’t actually read ballot initiatives. The title says it all. If the title talks about universal background checks, we will lose. People have no idea the implications, because they are rationally ignorant. If we could get it called the Universal Registration Initiative of 2016, we’d probably beat it.

The next question is what do we do to counter it. I see a few paths forward:

• Develop a more acceptable compromise bill that implements background checks upon change of title, but without the registration component, which is far more dangerous. You can exempt CCW holders, and allow people to obtain a background check certificate that certifies someone is clear, and then the private sale can happen. In this case all the government would know is that Joe Blow obtained a background check certificate. They wouldn’t know if he bought, or what he bought. Maybe he just got it to go shopping. Remember, as long as there’s a way to transfer a firearm without a 4473, there are legal avenues for you NOT to have that gun when they come knocking for it. In order for this to shut Bloomberg down, it would have to be done at the federal level. It’s too late for Nevada, even if something like this passed next week. Of course, I wouldn’t accept anything like this as the federal level unless we got something in return, so attach to the bill eliminating restrictions on interstate transfers. Why do we need them? Now everyone gets a background check.
• Keep fighting Bloomberg on the ballot measures until we beat him. I don’t believe this will work, because even if this ends up on the ballot in Arizona, I think it will win. See the part about background checks as a concept being popular with voters. I don’t think he’ll get the margin in Arizona, but even in a best case scenario, we beat him in Arizona, he still wins two state for our every one.
• Forget fighting defensively, and shove National Reciprocity and some Federal Preemption under the 14th Amendment so far up Bloomberg’s ass that he chokes on Section 5. Hold open carry protests outside his residences in New York City as a giant FU. Emotionally that might feel good, but at the end of the day he’s still going to continue winning ballot fights, because he has the money for it.
• Fight it in court. I don’t believe the courts will invalidate the applicability of background checks to private transfers in title, but I think there is a better chance to get the courts to rule that applicability of background checks to temporary transfers is overly broad and thus unconstitutional. Even California, for instance, exempts transfers for up to 30 days. I think it would also be possible to argue that as applied to CCW holders, the statute is overly broad. However, the other side is likely to argue that the registration component, processing through the FFL and 4473, is a key government interest. Personally, I’d love to have them in court arguing that, because it makes the case that this isn’t about background checks, but about sneaking universal gun registration in through the back door. Either way, the courts take a while, and without more pro-2nd Amendment ruling from higher courts, I think we’re a long way from being able to fight this effectively with lawyers.

I don’t like any of these options, really, but the purpose of the post is to get people thinking and talking. Sometimes you don’t have a choice between winning and losing. Sometimes the choice is between losing a lot, or losing a little.

According to NRA’s Annual Firearms Law seminar, the 9th Circuit has denied the Brady Center’s and State of California’s motion to intervene! Remember that the Sheriff who was the defendant in this case declined to file for an en banc rehearing, putting Brady and the Kamala Harris into a panic. Needless to say this is good news, because it means the Peruta decision holds, making California, Hawaii and our pacific territories shall-issue. Savor the victory California and Hawaii, you deserve it. Something tells me the folks at the Brady Center are going to be very sad pandas today.

This should be enough to convince anyone that gun control people are technocratic central planners who are more than just a little uncomfortable with the idea of anyone exercising individual control over their own lives and destinies:

In other words, instead of enforcing “safe environment” rules by way of checkpoints where guns are not permitted (on airplanes, in consulates and embassies and so on), “we propose to address these safety areas within the firearm itself”. The gun would negotiate its operations by communicating with the safety area transmitter.

So they get to decide on a central basis when you can and can’t defend yourself? Hell no. This is an answer to a question that nobody asked, except for those types that spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to run everybody else’s lives.

It’s good to see inside their minds.

Nothing beats starting out the week with a scaling and root planing at the Dentist. I’ll be happy when my gums no longer feel like someone cleaned them with a wire brush. But I will say, the bill hurt more than the procedure. But there is gun news to be had:

A handy flow chart on how to follow the new law in Washington State. Surely no innocent person could ever end up trapped in such a simple system! In other Washington State news, it looks like they are going to be in for a mass protest with civil disobedience. A grand idea.

Miguel takes a look on the stats on household gun ownership. Those are done by polling, and so probably more accurately reflect the percentage of households willing to tell a pollster they own guns, rather than actual percentages which are likely higher.

The narrative in the media seems to be that gun control actually won the midterms. I am disappointed in the midterms, not because we lost, but because I wanted to deal a blow to Bloomberg so hard he’d wonder why he was flushing his millions down the toilet. We didn’t get that. Close, but no cigar.

With that in mind, they are falling in love with the ballot. Gun owners in any state with ballot measures have to be concerned. The narrative is that gun control is on the move and popular among voters.

The voters in Philadelphia would elect Hitler if he ran as a Democrat.

This is an interesting idea in regards to 3D printed guns. Usually a firearm without a rifled barrel is an AOW, and I’ve been wondering if people realize these are potential NFA violation. Here’s the thing, the NFA says the barrel has to be rifled. But it doesn’t say the rifling has to work, does it?

The wages of Obamaism: A sea of red.

Apparently there is precedent to block Supreme Court nominees until the next President. The Republicans absolutely need to do this if there’s a vacancy.

You don’t see this kind of concern in the media and elite about the same types of barriers interfering with the rights of minorities to exercise their Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (h/t SayUncle)

Reason’s Brian Doherty takes a look at Bloomberg’s new strategy. Outspend gun rights proponents 10:1 on ballot measures using rich billionaire friends. Remember, they aren’t against money in politics. They are against your money in politics.

Neither of the two Colorado Recall candidates managed to hold their seats. The antis are trying to spin this as a win, but that is nonsense. We punished the guilty. I doubt you’ll see those replacements touching the gun issue, and if they do, we’ll recall them too.

A First Amendment challenge to a law in California that prohibits advertising of handguns. Dave Hardy also notes that oral arguments for the SAFE Act challenge are scheduled for December 8.

I didn’t think it was possible for a state GOP organization to be worse than Pennsylvania’s, but it is definitely possible.

I’d argue Minnesota stayed blue because they were largely settled by Scandinavian immigrants who have socialism in their blood.

Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei!

Real progress in the culture wars.

There is some discussion in a previous post about how a ballot measure, passed by a rationally ignorant electorate, the vast majority which never actually read the measure, could possible be legal. I share their disdain for the ballot. Our founders were rightfully quite skeptical of direct democracy, and one needs to look no farther than California to see how the ballot has essentially caused more trouble than it’s saved. It’s bad enough we have politicians that pass laws they don’t understand without reading them, but at least we can kick them out of office for it. Putting measures up to ballot is just a case of the elite manipulating the ignorant.

I would argue that ballot initiatives are unconstitutional under the Guarantee Clause of the federal constitution. Unfortunately, when the United State Supreme Court decided to look into the issue of whether the ballot was a violation of this clause, it weaseled out, and ruled the Guarantee Clause was purely a political matter, under the jurisdiction of the other two branches.

I do think there might be a court remedy for I-594, but I don’t believe the courts would ever strike down background checks, even for private sales. But we may have a chance in arguing the statute is overly broad, and covers too many constitutionally protected activities, such as a temporary loan of a firearm to a friend or family member, even for protected educational purposes under the Second Amendment. But I also do not believe we have enough firm case law currently to make that argument right now. For now I think Washingtonians are stuck with what the voters have done to them.