Guns – Page 163 – Shall Not Be Questioned

MDA: Declaring Victory From the Jaws of Defeat

There isn’t any failure Moms Demean Action isn’t willing to turn around and spin as a huge win. From Emily Miller:

Mothers Demand Action forÂ Gun Sense in America, an organizationÂ funded byÂ billionaire Michael R.Â Bloomberg,Â is falsely claiming a victory for forcing a billboard company to take down aÂ Slide FireÂ advertisement in Chicago.

The truth is that the manufacturer contracted for the billboard to stay up for only two months.

And now that the two months is over, and the billboard rotates to another customer, as billboards are wont to do. Moms Demand Action declares victory! I know why they do this: because they recognize most of their followers don’t know the difference between a real victory and a shit sandwich, and hope they’ll keep donating and contributing enough to keep the organization relevant.

I can’t blame them for trying, because it’s not like our side doesn’t peddle in a lot of BS. But at least we’ll have open discussion about it, as grassroots. The fact that they can get away with such organizational discipline in the first place, shows this to be the hollow hull it really is.

Fundamental Right: I do not Think it Means What They Think it Means

Newtown has changed the conversation on guns in this country so much, authorities in Massachusetts are aghast at the number of people who are trying to exercise their rights.

The local increase in licenses is a trend reflected statewide. The number of people in Massachusetts with Class A licenses rose by nearly 5 percent, from about 271,000 in 2012 to 284,000 last year. The latest number represents an increase of more than 20 percent since 2009.

Of course, to many lawmakers, this is a problem about which something must be done, and they are looking to also issue FIDs, which is what you need for grandpa’s deer rifle and shotgun, on a may-issue basis.

A panel to consider changes was appointed by House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo following the Newtown, Conn., school massacre in December 2012. It developed a list of 44 recommendations, which included giving police chiefs the power to block potentially dangerous people from buying rifles and shotguns, broadening background checks, and strengthening gun safety courses. A bill is now being drafted, according to the speakerâ€™s office.

How long before the federal courts start recognizing that the vast majority of gun laws out there are motivated almost exclusively by an animus toward the idea of the common people being armed?

Reid Blaming Gun Control Groups for Murthy Trouble

The New York Daily News is running an article on the troubled nomination Dr. Vivek Murthy for the post of Surgeon General, which has a Reid staffer suggesting that “MAIG and other gun control organizations failed to meet his request to provide political cover Democrats needed to take tough votes on Murthy.” Well, you know, that’s because they don’t have any cover to offer. Mark Glaze is quoted in the article noting that his group has “emailed its more than 1.5 million members to tie the Murthy attacks to what it says are other instances of the NRA trying to ‘get between us and our doctors.'” The problem is, their members haven’t really done anything except get themselves on a mailing list. They don’t have a dog, or a gun in the fight. All of NRA’s members either pay annual dues or have paid hundreds and sometimes thousands for life memberships. It’s not too surprising, in that instance, that MAIG doesn’t have the juice to cover skeptical Democrats on a controversial nominee.

Harry Reid has certainly abandoned any semblance of supporting gun rights, but that jab at MAIG and MDA from one of his staffers made my day.

Facebook Begins to Send Letters

Breitbart notes a letter that went to Shooter Swap in Austin Texas. Their site can be found here, and the Facebook page here. I thought it was important to see what they are e-mailing out. I don’t think their new “Educational and Enforcement Measures” were much of a problem, but I’m not too keen on telling people exactly what and where they must include disclaimers. If Facebook is going to require a disclaimer they ought to at least provide mechanism for it rather than hijacking a site’s “About” section.

Wednesday News Links

Struggling to find much to say about any of the tabs that have built up over the past few days, so that means it’s just time to do a link dump.

There are pro-gun bills up in both Tennessee and Georgia. Also, in Florida, the threat of force bill is getting a floor vote. This is the bill that was mistakenly called the “warning shot” bill. Floridians also continue to approve of the Stand Your Ground law. Remember, Newtown totally changed the national conversation about guns.

The fight is back in Rhode Island, as they are talking about banning scary looking guns again.

Prince Law takes a look at the sanctions against Russia, and notes that the consequences are still up in the air. Also, the Hill is reporting on this as well. I think this is more “something to keep and eye on” rather than “you may now panic.”

Drake v. Jerijian is a case to watch, which challenges New Jersey’s de facto no-issue.

The City of Durango, CO is blackmailing a 100% NRA club to drop the requirement or lose its lease with the city. I think there might be some First Amendment issues going on there if the city can’t articulate a neutral reason why the club can’t require NRA membership. Bitter has written about this club previously.

Bob Owens has more on 80% lowers.

A 911 dispatchers view on weapons and self-defense.

Questioning whether Open Carry is the right tactic in every situation is beginning to feel like questioning whether Ron Paul was really the right candidate to carry libertarian ideas forward. For some the answer is always OC, or Ron Paul. For new readers, the official position of this blog on OC is best summed up in this post.

Russian troops using AR-10 rifles? They are not Spetsnaz, comrades. They are just armed enthusiasts for ethnic Russian speaking peoples!

Off topic:

Tam: Top. Men.Â “You don’t put the junior varsity in against the Strategic Rocket Forces.” I think the worst part of all this is when Putin is mocking Obama, I snicker and have to concede the point. Putin has Obama’s number. He knows what kind of chump he’s dealing with in the White House.

An article on food and energy inflation, courtesy of Instapundit. I can definitely attest that food and energy is a much much larger component of my budget than it was five years ago.

Mixed Messages from Obama Administration on Background Checks

In the context of screening to determine eligibility to exercise a fundamental right, background checks are vital, and we don’t concern ourselves with whether it might be a racist policy that disproportionately prevents minorities from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. But in the context of employment, the Obama Administration is very concerned about background checks preventing minorities from being hired:

The Obama administration continues to warn employers about doing criminal and other background checks that could disparately impact minorities and other groups protected by discrimination laws.

Oh, so now that it’s in a context the left disfavors, background checks are bad. I see.

Civil right advocates also worry about employers ruling out minority candidates because of arrest records and not necessarily convictions.

And how many Blacks in Philadelphia have been denied their right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because of just an arrest record? We’ve been bitching about this stuff for years, but because it’s a concern the left does not view as legitimate, nothing changes. If you want to be a “civil rights advocate,” you should care about all civil rights, not just the ones you like.

I can actually agree that employers are getting a little nuts when they are counting arrest records against applicants, but you don’t then get to turn around and dismiss concerns when they are presented in a context you don’t favor.

Civil Rights Victory in Delaware

In response to a question from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, The Delaware Supreme Court has ruled in Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority that Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution, passed in 1987, is more extensive than 3rd Circuit precedent recognizes for the 2nd Amendment, which does not extend outside the home. Delaware’s Section 20 explicitly recognizes a right to carry outside the home for self-defense.

At issue is Wilmington Housing Authority’s revised regulations on guns, which prohibits carrying firearms in common areas. The Delaware Supreme Court argues they violate Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution. The Court uses intermediate scrutiny here, but they do a much more honest analysis at that level than most courts, which have really just instituted rational basis review under the guise of intermediate scrutiny. Here’s the Court:

To satisfy its burden, WHA argues that it has an important governmental interest in protecting the health, welfare, and safety of all WHA residents, staff, and guests who enter onto WHA property. WHA argues that an accidental discharge of a firearm may have serious fatal consequences and that dangers inhere in the increased presence of firearms. But these same concerns would also apply to the area within any apartmentâ€”interior locations where the WHA concedes it cannot restrict the possession of firearms for self-defense. The Revised Policy does more than proscribe the unsafe use of a firearm. It also prohibits possession in the public housing common areas except where the firearm is being transported to or from an apartment. In this context, WHA must show more than a general safety concern and it has not done so.

In Griffin v. State we explained that an individualâ€™s interest in the right to keep and bear arms is strongest when â€œthe weapon is in oneâ€™s home or business and is being used for security.â€61 Residents have a possessory interest in both their apartments and the common areas. And although Residents cannot exclude other residents or the public from the common areas, their need for security in those areas is just as high for purposes of Section 20 as it would be inside their apartment or business. The common areas are effectively part of the residences. The laundry rooms and TV rooms are similar to those typically found in private residences; and the Residents, their families, and their guests will occupy them as part of their living space.

The Court court had before it two questions: was the ban on firearms in common areas of public housing constitutional under the Delaware Constitution. They answered that no, it was unconstitutional. The second question is whether they could require copies of permits and licensing other documentation in support of enforcing their regulation, and the Delaware Supreme Court answered that that provision was overbroad, and was likewise unconstitutional under Section 20:

The Reasonable Cause Provision was enacted, together with the Common Area Provision, by the WHA in response to McDonald. Because the unconstitutional Common Area Provision is not severable as a matter of Delaware law, the Reasonable Cause Provision which enforces it is unconstitutional and overbroad as well. For that reason, we answer the second certified question in the negative.

If only ever court did intermediate scrutiny analysis like the Delaware Supreme Court just did it, we might be in much better shape. Congratulations Delaware, you have a Supreme Court that takes your rights seriously.

Analogy Fail

I know many people think I should ignore the Brady Board member from Minnesota, but as a leader in their movement, I think it’s worth pointing out how they think. Earlier this week she managed to put together a coherent argument, even though the analogy fails on every level:

The truth is that only some gun sales require background checks and others not. They are all selling the same products. Guns are all potentially dangerous. They should all be treated the same as say cigarettes where store clerks ask for IDs for anyone who looks too young to legally buy them. In addition, cigarettes are now behind counters where someone has to ask for them. Why? Because we have decided that they are bad for your health and not good especially for kids and teens. Alcohol sales are regulated as well. IDs are required for purchases if the buyer looks too young to be legal. Why? Alcohol can be bad for people as well. But all alcohol sales are treated the same. All cigarette sales are treated the same.

All gun sales are treated the same by this analogy. At retail, I have to present ID, fill out federal and state forms, and submit to a background check to determine my eligibility to make the purchase. That’s the same everywhere a gun is purchased at retail. Similarly, I may have to flash ID to buy cigs or liquor if there’s a question about my eligibility (being 21 or older, which is pretty obvious). Now, in most states, it’s illegal for me to transfer liquor or cigarettes to someone who isn’t eligible (under 21 or 18). But there’s nothing to prevent me from transferring or selling either to someone over those ages, and the only thing preventing me from doing so is the law itself.

We do not make it a felony for me to take a bottle of wine to a friends house for him to try out. When I bring a friend over, I can let him have a bottle of beer. I can even pay a friend who helps come over for some home improvement with a case of beer. For smokers, it’s not illegal to bum a cigarette off someone. If I decided to quit drinking, I could still sell my wine collection to someone in most states. Now, you can’t sell your homemade wine, but you also can’t sell your homemade gun. You can’t make moonshine legally without a license, but nor can you make a machine gun without the same. You can’t be in the business of selling alcohol in most states without a license, but you can’t be in the business of selling guns without a license either. So aren’t alcohol, tobacco, and firearms already regulated quite similarly? Actually, firearms are regulated more severely. I don’t have to fill out forms to buy booze or cigarettes, and I don’t get carded much these days.

What Joan proposes is that the only people who can transfer a firearm are federally licensed dealers. If we treated tobacco and cigarettes the same way, you wouldn’t be able to transfer any alcoholic product to another except through a liquor store, where the store would charge you a significant price of a bottle of wine. Only the liquor store could legally determine eligibility. Someone bumming smokes off you would have to go to a licensed cigarette outlet, and they’d have to authorize the transfer of the cigarette, which of course they’d charge for since you’re ~~wasting~~Â using up their valuable time.

I point this out not because I expect to change Joan’s mind on this, but to show how shoddy their thinking is on these things. They act like it’s just common sense, when we treat no other consumer product, even dangerous consumer products, that are restricted from certain persons, the same way Joan proposes we treat firearms. It could be argued that you can’t see a criminal record as apparent as someone age, and they might have a point. But that doesn’t necessarily translate into prohibiting all transfers that don’t go through a retail dealer.

Surge in Carry Permits

The Washington Times is reporting California Sheriffs are getting deluges with applications for concealed carry permits since the ruling in Peruta. Right now Peruta is stayed, though both San Diego and Orange County have decided to start issuing on a shall-issue basis anyway. Sheriffs in other counties can still take very narrow reading on “good cause,” at least until the court issues a final mandate. Still, it’s good to see there’s pent up demand in the Golden State. It is through this that perhaps a foundation can be built that would start turning the state’s gun laws around.

More Irish Democracy in New York

Bob Owens has a nice snap of a group of New Yorkers burning their registration forms. Rates of compliance for registration schemes have historically been very low. I seem to recall reading that even California’s Roberti-Ross ban in the late 80s had a compliance rate only a fraction of the estimated number of “assault weapons” in civilian inventory. It’s worth noting that post-Newtown, a proposal to confiscate all the registered firearms was floated in California, and it’s happened in New York and is about to happen in CT for those who foolishly filed late.

I also wonder how many of the registered firearms were considered “throw down guns”, kind of like a “throw down wallet” you’d use on a mugger. In other words, you register one, leave the unregistered ones as safe queens, bury them, or do whatever, and if they ever come for the registered one, you can sacrifice it because they don’t know about the 10 other rifles. Meanwhile you can shoot the registered one without worry you’ll get picked up by the authorities and charged. It wouldn’t be my plan, but I could see a lot of people who are “complying” are only making a show of it.