Category: Guns

A Federal District Court in California has denied the State a Motion for Summary Judgement on it’s 10 day waiting period law. This may put the law at risk of being tossed for being unconstitutional:

For example, there is no evidence regarding the nature of the background checks performed, how much time is necessary to perform a background check, or why 10-days are necessary in order to perform a background check. Harris admits that in the past California has had waiting periods that have ranged from 1 to 15 days. However, there is nothing before the Court to suggest that the 10-day period is a “reasonable fit” that is not substantially broader than necessary to determine if an individual is disqualified from owning a firearm. More information is needed. The Court will not grant summary judgment on this issue based on the bare arguments presented.

As for the “cooling down” rationale, Harris has not presented sufficient evidence that the 10-day waiting period is a “reasonable fit.” For example, there is no evidence concerning how the 10-day period was determined for purposes of “cooling off,” any evidence concerning “cooling off” and gun violence in general for those wishing to purchase a firearm, or that the 10-days is not substantially broader than necessary.

I get skeptical the Courts are really going to do anything substantive with the Second Amendment, but every once in a while they surprise me. I’m pleased a court has seemingly seen through the state’s bullshit. Hopefully at trial they’ll recognize this for what it is; a means to discourage people from exercising their rights.

If you’re like me, you’re watching the thermometer and hoping that it’ll rise enough today to solve the snow problem outside. Because I work from home three days a week, I don’t have to bother with shoveling the driveway unless I have to go somewhere, which gives it some time to melt. But despite the disappearing snow, we have no shortage of news links:

Cerberus Capital may have found an investor for The Freedom Group, that would allow some of their unhappy investors (namely pension systems for anti-gun states) to get out.

“If they can do that, of course, they can also plant evidence without a trace. . . .”

Thirdpower finds another instance of “I’m a gun owner, but …” Not to overlook its twin brother, “I support the Second Amendment, but …”

The DeSantis Holster Company Greatly Annoys Me.

Thirdpower checks on some MAIG mayors and starts to believe they are fudging the roles. Given how many mayors complained they didn’t know what they were signing up for, I think if any reporter decided to dig, they’d find a lot of examples like Thirdpower found.

The Daily Beast does a puff piece on Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, and how he’s taking on the big bad NRA.

Trap shooting to come back to Minnesota schools? We need more of this if we’re going to have any prayer of ending the hysterics in public schools.

A reader sent me an article, but I thought I’d go dig up the original source: US v. Miller, how the Second Amendment was subverted.

Moms Demand Guns continues to use falsities to bully retailers into banning guns. I think they won’t have much luck, as long as we can avoid the mistakes our side made with Starbucks.

I too am surprised that Washington State has a gun registry, but it sounds like the kind Pennsylvania has, where they just co-opted the state background check system to compile one, despite assurances that such a thing would never happen. It’s even in the law! I wouldn’t be surprised if Washington State took some advice from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which in the case of ACSL v. Rendell, said even though it’s a list of all the guns you’ve ever bought, it’s not a “registry,” like the kind the law forbids, it’s only records of sale.

I’m always rather surprised that people on the other side of this issue get shocked and indignant that we don’t trust them. If they are assuring you that X will never be used for Y, you can probably take it to the bank that it will. It proved too tempting for our State Police, and the Rendell Administration was willing to push the courts to fudge the definition in its favor. Despite the fact that this case was decided in 2004, few in either the Governor’s mansion or the Legislature have shown much interest in a fix. We at least are still getting a bill introduced, but there hasn’t seemed to be much interest in moving it forward.

Lots of good advice out there on how to comment against ATF 41P, which will change the way NFA trusts work and generally make it impossible for many people to get NFA items like suppressors. I feel bad that I haven’t been harping on this issue, but as loathe as I am to be fatalistic, I don’t think there’s any stopping this. I certainly would never discourage anyone from writing, but I wouldn’t feel too bad if you didn’t get around to it.

They put this out for public comment because the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires them to do so. If an agency wants to change a regulation, Congress has prescribed a certain song and dance has to be gone through, including a public comment period. But they aren’t required to listen to any of it if they are intent on the change. The fix is in, in other words. The Administration intends to use this regulation change to punish us for thwarting his agenda. It’s one of those “elections have consequences” things.

And I’d note this will make it very difficult to ever get suppressors out from under the NFA, because it’ll mean fewer people have access to them, and with fewer people having access to them, there’s less of a constituency to drive political change. This will mean the first thing we probably need to drive for are either eliminating the LEO sign-off requirement through Congressional action, or passing more sign-off laws at the state level, like Tennessee has done.