Guns – Page 170 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Brown Signals He’s Not Receptive to More Gun Control

The City of Oakland wanted to be able to create its own gun laws, so they went to the California Legislature to receive a special dispensation to have their own gun laws. The legislature OK’d the bill post-Newtown, but Governor Jerry BrownÂ vetoed it. Now he’s hinted in a speech that he’s not going to be down for more gun control laws:

â€œWhat can laws do to solve immediate problems?â€ Brown said. â€œI want to say that laws have their role, but in terms of crime and guns and violence, weâ€™ve been at this thing for more than 50 years on this very topic, and weâ€™ve passed a tremendous number of laws. There is something else, itâ€™s called administering the laws we have and working together in a community. That is where the greatest yield can be found in terms of making Oakland a safer place.â€

Seems like common sense talk on gun laws to me, though I can’t imagine the California Chapter of the Brady Campaign are very happy with him for speaking the truth.

h/t Dave Hardy

Women Defends Her Home With 9mm Hi-Point Carbine

I have one of the firearms this woman used to defend herself. I bought it years back during the federal assault weapons ban before I knew any better. I figured it was a few hundred bucks so what the hell. It’s surprisingly reliable, and was reliable enough for this woman to use to defend her home, even though she pretty clearly didn’t take good care of it. It is among the types of firearms made illegal by New York under the SAFE Act, because clearly we can’t have moms in bad neighborhoods having inexpensive firearms to protect themselves. I’d also note that there were three home invaders in this case, one of them had a gun, and she only has ten rounds in the magazine in that hi-point. She had already used what sounds like three of those rounds on warning shots. I’m sure the gun control advocates, none of whom have any experience with firearms, will opine just how easy it is to take down all three with the 7 remaining rounds, if they hadn’t decided that discretion is the better part of valor and run off.

Liberal Gun Club in the News Again

A 1200 person gun club probably wouldn’t be a big news item if it weren’t for the fact that the club were made up of gun-loving progressives who had a few bad things to say about the NRA. In that case, the press is all over it. I wrote about this group a few weeks ago, when The Blaze first did an article about them. I do think this group is serious and not a false-flag front for interests that are pushing for more gun control.

It’s a difficult issue, because I can understand how they might be turned off by the gun rights being branded politically as a right-of-center belief, and a lot of gun rights groups don’t really do a whole lot to try to dissuade people from that viewpoint, and a few actively use gun rights as a lever for other right-wing causes.

But it is a fact that NRA endorses far more Republicans than Democrats because far more Republicans are better on the gun issue. I still challenge the Liberal Gun Club to outline a viable political strategy for starting a pro-Second Amendment insurgency from within the Democratic Party, which is where they could be the most useful. If being part of the Liberal Gun Club means loving your guns, but continuing to vote for the very people that vote for gun control because they are a-okay on other issues, you’re just window dressing. More importantly, your window dressing for those very people who defile the Second Amendment, because you’re advertising that you love guns and are fine with their policies. Do you love your guns enough to vote your gun rights? That’s the question they should answer.

Harrisburg Sportsmen’s Show Success by the Numbers

The local tourism authorities were quick to promote the success of NRA’s Great American Outdoor Show by the numbers that could be tallied.

Unfortunately, a hard attendance number is apparently impossible to say with accuracy because the barcode scanners used to track ticket holders actually entering the show had technical problems early in the show.

However, using other measures they regularly track for events at the venue, they were able to get an idea of how well it did.

42,784 cars were parked on site and in off site parking lots designated for the show.
Using the same formula for approximate number of people in a car that they used with previous attendance, this means 23% increase in attendance in 2014 vs 2012 under Reed.
Nearly 4,800 NRA memberships sold on site.
10,033 more room-nights were sold in 2014 vs 2012 under Reed’s management, and this is with fewer junky vendors coming into town to sell their wares & stay in the region.
$35 million in direct spending by attendees & vendors using conservative calculations that only 10% of attendees were staying the night in the area.

Also in their report include facts like many more hotels were willing to participate in the room block programs than under the old show and that the new mayor was actually a gracious host to NRA and met with them several times during the final planning stages.

Reaction Roundup to Peruta

The tears of journalists and editors with an axe to grind against the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are sweet indeed, so let us savor.

Delaware Online is concerned for what this could mean for Delaware gun laws, stating that we just can’t have “common sense.” Such hand wringing is unwarranted. In the lower counties CDWLs are effectively will-issue already, and Delaware is also an unlicensed open carry state. That makes the situation different from must other restrictive may-issue states. I’m not sure I’d feel good about challenging Delaware’s law, even if Peruta prevails in the end.

The LA Times is naturally wringing their hands over the ruling, and in the process gets nearly everything wrong.

There are two problems with this conclusion. In 2008, the Supreme Court did rule that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right to “keep and bear arms” â€” a decision that upended a long-standing consensus that the amendment was intended only to provide for a “well-regulated militia.”

There was never any such consensus. Research on this topic began in the 1970s, you know, right after the federal government gave people a reason to inquire about the Second Amendment. The consensus of that research was what informed the Heller decision. That consensus only exists in the ignorant minds of the LA Times editorial board, who are not experts on this subject, and don’t even have the barest of educations on it.

JusticeÂ Antonin Scalia‘s majority opinion made clear that the case involved only prohibitions on handguns “in the home.”

I don’t think these people even read the Heller decision. I wouldn’t even involve myself in a forum debate with someone this ignorant, to be honest. “Go read the Heller decision in its entirety, and then you might relieve enough ignorance to even have this debate,” is what I would say.

Equally important, Scalia acknowledged that the right to bear arms is “not unlimited.” He specifically noted that “the majority of the 19th century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the 2nd Amendment or state analogues.

Read the Peruta decision too, while you’re at it. Because the prohibition on concealed weapons still allowed for open carry of firearms, which California law also prohibits. Heller mentioned that as well. Peruta flows from the Heller decision. The editorial board of the LA Times does know how to read, right?

The Brady Campaign seems to be the only gun control group out there to do a formal press release about the Peruta decision, and they essentially say it’s an “aberrant” decision, out of touch with history, and will just allow more people to defend themselves from people beating their heads into the pavement, and isn’t that an awful thing?

Moms Demand Working in Virginia

They are trying to get a bill passed that would bar anyone convicted of misdemeanor stalking, sexual battery or domestic violence from owning a firearm for five years.

The group moms demand action for gun sense in America flood the general assembly building holding what’s called a stroller jam.

With their kids in tow, these women lobby for legislation protecting domestic violence victims like Lisette Johnson, a Midlothian mother herself, who was shot several times by her husband in 2009, before he took his own life.

In order to cause a jam, doesn’t that imply you have reasonable numbers? They must not have, because that bill was tabled in the HouseÂ [Originally this mentioned it was defeated in the Senate. This was in error.] Looking at the bill, I’m actually rather surprised sexual battery is a misdemeanor. It’s worth noting that Virginia’s definition of “family or household member” for the purposes of “domestic violence” is far broader than under the federal Lautenberg definition, and it’s relatively easy under Virginia law to convict a severe abuser or serial abuser of felony domestic violence, which would be federally prohibiting.

But it’s interesting that Moms Demand are taking the “tough on crime” approach. What’s the end game? Probably to make gun ownership a legal tightrope. There are no minor mistakes in this issue already, and my guess is their aim is to make it worse. Walk the tightrope. It’s a felony if you make any mistakes.

Here’s a summary of other bills in Virginia.

Remington Heads to Alabama

It’s kind of old news now about the Remington shift to Alabama. It is great that it’s causing Andrew Cuomo all sorts of political headaches in New York with the head of the union piling on that it’s the fault of anti-gunners that those jobs aren’t coming to New York.

However, I just had to link to this photo of the press conference attendance. Look at how many cameras are eager to be there so they can get coverage for their stations. Look at how many people are standing around waiting to take seats blocked by cameras so eager to cover the news. I can’t think of too many “we’re opening a new factory” announcements that get this much attention.

It must really frustrate the anti-gunners to see just how many people are excited by this news and that it’s really just causing headaches for their allies who pushed the extreme gun control bills.

Monday News Links

Greetings and Happy Monday. I wish I could say we were going to have a week without any more snow, but there’s some strong possibilities in the forecast. We have to change our expectations to hope we will have a week with just an inch or so, and wouldn’t that be nice? I’m pleased March is coming, but we’ve been known to have major March snowstorms around these parts, and it just seems like such a thing would be the icing on the cake for this winter.

But now for the news:

Weaponization of government: all the non-profits audited by the IRS were conservative. Maybe getting rid of the IRS isn’t looking like such a crazy libertarian pipe dream these days?

Who are the enemy? We are. (h/t Instapundit)

How the DEA launders classified information.

Mass shootings, it turns out, aren’t very good pretexts for gun control.

A disabled man is suing over Connecticut’s new gun control laws. His disability means that only pistol grips are comfortable for him.

Home made bump fire stock.

Uncle has more thoughts on the 9mm takeover we talked about a few weeks ago.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Going postal.

When MAIG membership becomes a liability. It has to be toxic for political ambitions for higher office. It must be why they had lost 15% of members before they decided to stop keeping track.

The case challenging the new Connecticut gun laws, which lost in district court, will be appealed.

We must close the gun theft loophole! I agree. It should be illegal to steal guns!

The latest hand wringing out of Chicago: Anti-gun folks don’t like the “no guns” signs, so they want businesses to have to post that guns are allowed. They want this because they are having no luck getting them to post “no guns” signs.

Former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin goes down. Unfortunately, neither stealing guns nor violating the civil rights of residents by stealing their guns was not among the charges he was convicted on. Nagin was a case where prosecutors couldÂ have usedÂ 18 U.S.C. 242. Anyone surprised they didn’t?

Tam on opening pocket knives.

A Massachusetts panel recommends more gun control, because they don’t have enough or something. They are proud of their low gun ownership rate, whereas to me it’s something they should have to explain in court to a judge deciding whether or not to strike their laws from the books. h/t Jeff Soyer

Danger to the grid. It would take a large coordinated attack to cause real widespread and long-lasting disruption, but it’s scary how vulnerable it is. How much damage could even a small team do? What if they just keep moving on from substation to substation? How long before authorities catch them?

They’re Just After “Common Sense” Gun Laws

The Hartford Courant is just fine with the idea of sending hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens to the gulags. In fact, they embrace the idea:

But the bottom line is that the state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law.

A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit.

If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.

If you’re a gun owner in the Courant’s market, and you still subscribe, you’re part of the problem. They want you in prison.

A Look at What’s Next for Peruta

Dave Hardy talks about the next steps. There’s an interesting dynamic at work here. Our opponents have started to wise up a bit, in the sense that they realize taking cases forward when the Heller majority is still in place is probably not the wisest of moves. Dave Hardy notes that there are twice as many Democratic appointees on the 9th Circuit as Republican appointees, so this would, in my view, make the panel much more likely to reverse than uphold the three-judge ruling in Peruta. But that would put the decision to appeal to SCOTUS back in the NRA’s hands. Will San Diego County want to risk rolling the dice? Â Will Bloomberg and other gun control groups pressure San Diego not to appeal?