Guns – Page 193 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Weekly White House Gun Control Meetings

The White House Office of Public Engagement, which is under Obama’s favorite aide, Valerie Jarrett, is still somewhat on top of gun control as a primary goal of this Administration.

They are hosting weekly meetings with Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, the Center for American Progress, Organizing for Action and Americans for Responsible Solutions in order to plan out the future of more gun control in the next 3 years.

Interestingly, it would seem that Vice President Joe Biden has either been sidelined for not getting “the job” done before, or he’s just lost interest in it since there is no path to federal legislation. The gun control groups have now made it very clear that they are steering clear of federal gun control and focusing on the states.

Obamacare & Gun Registries

The same company that built the nightmare that is Healthcare.gov is also responsible for the boondoggle that was the Canadian long gun registry. Mark Steyn does a great job at highlighting what their previous “success” means the American people can expect from just the website fiasco in Obamacare:

The registry was estimated to cost in total $119 million, which would be offset by $117 million in fees. Thatâ€™s a net cost of $2 million. Instead, by 2004 the CBC (Canadaâ€™s PBS) was reporting costs of some $2 billion â€” or a thousand times more expensive. …

That works out to almost $300 per gun â€” or somewhat higher than the original estimate for processing a firearm registration of $4.60. Of those $300 gun registrations, Canadaâ€™s auditor general reported to parliament that much of the information was either duplicated or wrong in respect to basic information such as names and addresses.

He continues to explain that there was supposed to be a helpful toll-free number to support the database, but it was never used or really useful. Then, the company said that they just needed to start over, so they were given an additional $81 million, on top of the $2 billion already lining their pockets, to build a second registry. About 4 years beyond their deadline for the new registry, they still didn’t have a functioning product.

Interestingly, the gun registry isn’t the only other high profile failure of this company. Apparently, the Ontario government gave up a diabetes registry that the company was contracted to do after not meeting deadlines and being over budget, but the taxpayers were still out $46 million for a database that was never used.

Steyn also points out that despite these very spectacular and very public failures, the company’s executive brags, â€œ[w]e continue to view U.S. federal government as a significant growth opportunity.â€ Your money, and now every detail of your healthcare decisions, are in the very best of hands…

Anyone want to bet that another “growth opportunity” they see for the federal government is another gun registry? It would be interesting to know if they have ever hired any lobbyists to push that type of legislation. If they could make more than $2 billion on the last attempt to simply register 7 million long guns in Canada, think about how much they would stand to make trying to register all of the guns in the U.S.

We’re Number 7

A lot of bloggers are talking about Guns and Ammo’s ranking of states according to concealed carry. Pennsylvania ranks in at number 7. John Richardson is surprised North Carolina is only 27, and Kevin is proud Arizona is ranked number one. I have some issues with their ranking criteria. There are many shades of may-issue, and some states which are may issue routinely do issue either depending on jurisdiction. For instance, I would never rank California below Hawaii, or Delaware ahead of Connecticut. There’s also states, like California, for instance, which do have preemption but get no points for it.

Happy Monday and the News

Lots of stuff in the tabs this week:

Talking to your kids about gun safety. I can find little to argue with here, unlike this event which looks like a political agenda disguised as common sense, despite their assurances.

Slate is disappointed more people who have gun accidents don’t go to jail. Well, the one guy was a felon, so he wasn’t legally allowed to have a gun to begin with. The problem with a lot of these “common sense” laws is that they are difficult to enforce.

Is the Obama Administration the cause of the gun and ammunition shortages?

For squirting a water gun at her boyfriend, this woman is now stripped of her Second Amendment rights. That is the law. Don’t you feel safer? (h/t Instapundit)

Obamacare visualized. If you can’t get on the exchanges, try ehealthinsurance.com. Though I notice individual plans have more than doubled in price for crappier coverage.

Price Law Offices takes a look at Commonwealth v. McKown, and also talks about dispatching injuries deer.

“These people appear to genuinely believe that some law or set of laws will actually prevent school shootings from ever happening.” And at least one anti-gun blogger we all know and love seems to think that if something happens, that means it’s legal.

Californians are getting into the recall game.

He’s the only one responsible enough.

Sarah Palin got invited to appear on Piers Morgan, but she’s a little busy.

Another SAFE act failure.

Our most disastrous war.

Remember, be careful when leaving America.

Changing the Tone of the Argument

VSSA looks at a comment that Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe made during a debate where he basically said he doesn’t care about what NRA or its members think about his positions. He’s running on an openly hostile platform for guns, a switch from what most Virginia Democrats have had to do in the past in order to be competitive.

Now, I realize at this point that the Virginia race was largely polling in one direction before the gun control groups really started pouring money in so they can claim the result is a verdict on gun control. However, it’s important to understand this shift in rhetoric from the candidate himself.

I think you’ll see more Democrats really run on outright hostility to gun owners and the most popular firearms in America because they’ll look at facts like Barak Obama winning two elections, Terry McAuliffe possibly winning purple Virginia, and the fact that gun owners couldn’t stop legislation in purple Colorado. Even with some high-profile consequences in Colorado, the Democrats are still in charge. It sent a message, but a limited one.

So, while some people may embrace the honesty of anti-gun people speaking out about their disdain for gun owning voters, is it really a “good” thing if we end up losing those elections?

Traditional Shooting Sports

Who says that more traditional shooting sports like trap have to be boring?

Video via Charles C W Cooke who adds: “This is the greatest thing Iâ€™ve ever seen and I will not be happy until Iâ€™ve done it.”

Ignorance of History

I’ve seen the “civic duty” meme floating around gun control circles lately, with the conclusion that you should have to join the National Guard if you want a firearm. That’s what the founders intended, according to them. It ignores the reality that the National Guard was created by the Dick Act of 1903Â and was nothing at all like a militia system the founders would have understood. From Miguel’s quoting at Daily Kos:

If you truly believe in the founders intent, then the answer is yes, the intent of the Second Amendment was to codify a civic duty. Those duties arenâ€™t found in local gun clubs or so-called militia organizations, in their 20th century flavor. One place that civic duty can be found is in the National Guard.

Actually, the militia system our founders understood was closer to the local gun club than to the National Guard. To make matters worse for the historically challenged Kos contributor, the modern private militia groups they so derideÂ were something the founder had intimate familiarity with.Â Actually, the closest modern civic body that offers the best analogy the founder’s militia, at least in structure and operation, is your local volunteer fire company.

I appreciate why the gun control folks want to reframe the discussion, but I think a bare requirement to accomplish that is for them to familiarize themselves with the literature on this topic. I am no expert, by any means, but it wouldn’t take but a few days of reading to develop a good enough understanding to have a reasonable discussion. Should we revive the militia system of the founding generation? It’s an interesting question, and something fine to debate, but first you have to know what you’re talking about when you say that.

Second Amendment Foundation Filing for Writ of Mandamus

I’ve always thought Writ of Mandamus sounded vaguely like the title of a Wagnerian Opera, but it’s essentially an order from a superior court to an inferior court to do something. The case is Palmer v. DC, and it’s a carry case.

[A] case challenging the carry licensing in the District of Columbia. Though DC may license the manner of carry, DCÂ must allowÂ law abiding residents to carry a handgun in public for self defense.

According to the SAF press release:

“We realize this is a difficult step to take,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “but this case has been languishing for 1,475 days, and counting since it was ready for decision. In our case in Moore v. Madigan, challenging the carry ban in Illinois, the trial court took 172 days to rule, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals took 202 days to issue its ruling on the appeal. We have been waiting well over four years for a decision in the Palmer case, which was filed in August 2009, and waiting four more is not an option.”

This would work toward getting us back to a situation where there is a prohibition on carry before the Court, similar to the situation in the 7th circuit, which resulted in a victory. It’s possible that the court doesn’t want to deal with may-issue v. shall-issue, but would rather have a case that involves prohibition. There was an opportunity for that with Illinois’ total prohibition, but the win in Shepherd/Moore at the Circuit Court of Appeals, and Illinois subsequent capitulation, took that off the table for reaching the Supreme Court.

Is This What Gun Control Advocates Want?

This is what gun control means, at the end of the day, and all over a single empty shell casing:

Police based their search on a charge made byÂ Mr. Witaschekâ€™s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.

After entering the house, theÂ policeÂ immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads ofÂ Mr. WitaschekÂ and his girlfriend,Â Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed.

In recalling what followed,Â Mr. WitaschekÂ became visibly emotional in describing how theÂ policeÂ treated him,Â Ms. HarrisÂ and the four children in the house.

His 16-year-old son was in the shower when theÂ policeÂ arrived. â€œThey used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked,â€ said his father. â€œTheÂ policeÂ put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening.â€

This is what gun control means. It means guns being pointed at you and your family. It means sixteen year olds being dragged out of the shower naked because their father is in unlawful possession of a hunk of inert brass.

And for the gun control folks out there, and I know you guys lurk, I actually want to see you justify this. Tell me, is how we should treat citizens in a free society? Do we need to call out the gestapo over brass and a forgotten dud shotgun round? Because this is what you advocate, and you should face the ugliness of the reality you advocate, rather than to only revel in the idealistic fantasies you invent to justify it all.

New Ruling in Pennsylvania on Reciprocity and Second Amendment

In Pennsylvania Superior Court, the case is Commonwealth v. McKown. The court rules that Pennsylvania residents are required to have a license to carry issued by Pennsylvania, and that residents cannot lawfully carry on licenses issued by foreign jurisdictions, even if reciprocity exists.Â What’s the court’s reasoning? Because the law says anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm must apply to his or her sheriff (or Chief of Police for Philadelphia) for a license, which implies that the legislature intended Pennsylvania residents to have Pennsylvania license. This means if you’re a Pennsylvania resident, and are carrying on the license of another state, you are breaking the law.Â This is a very odd reading of the statute in question, and took quite a stretch, I think, for the court to reach. And if that’s not enough, the “constitutional and criminal law frontiersman” raised Second Amendment claims too.

We point out that neither the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor the Pennsylvania Constitution, bestows on any person the right to carry a concealed firearm or transport a loaded firearm in a vehicle. As noted above, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute, and governmental restrictions on possession of firearms are permitted. Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-627. Here, the statute in question, 18 Pa.C.S.A. Â§ 6106, while falling within the scope of the Second Amendment, merely restrictsÂ hidden guns and the transport of loaded guns by those persons who do not have a license. We discern no error in the trial courtâ€™s conclusion that, under intermediate scrutiny, section 6106 does not violate the Second Amendment or the Pennsylvania Constitution …

… Pursuant to these police powers, we conclude that 18 Pa.C.S.A. Â§ 6106 serves to protect the public from persons who would carry concealed firearms for unlawful purposes. This is an important governmental interest, and section 6106 is substantially related to the achievement of that objective. Thus, we discern no error in the trial courtâ€™s conclusion that section 6106 does not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Well, glad to see that went over so well. But wait, we’re not done yet. He also raised the claim that the Sheriff abused his discretion under the character and reputation law:

Sheriff Nau explained Appellantâ€™s license had been revoked after he struck a person while highly intoxicated. N.T., Sentencing, 9/1/11, at 40. Sheriff Nau also testified that, had Appellant applied to have his license reinstated, he (Sheriff Nau) would have denied the request. Id. at 41. Despite Appellantâ€™s letters in support of his good reputation, we discern no error in the trial courtâ€™s conclusion that, based on Appellantâ€™s prior behavior and the testimony of Sheriff Nau, Appellant was not otherwise eligible for a license. Thus, there was no error in the grading of the charge.

So basically the eligibility protection to avoid sentencing enhancement is meaningless if the Sheriff can provide testimony he would have denied your application had you applied. Thanks to this “constitutional and criminal law frontiersman,” the rest of us get to enjoy the train wreck he just created. This train wreck is also brought to you by the Allegheny County Republican Party, who floated the judge who wrote this opinion. She’s not up for recall until 2017 too. The concurring judge is filling in a vacancy, but is a Philadelphia Republican as well. Also, I’d note that you know things are going to go pear shaped when a Court feels the need to say something like this in a footnote:

1 We note with displeasure that Appellantâ€™s brief contains single-spaced text in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 124(a)(3). The trial court cautioned Appellant on this failure as well, and it admonished counsel to double space the text in hisÂ filings. Commonwealth v. McKown, 9 Pa. D. & C. 5th 183 (C.P. CentreÂ 2009).

But he’s a frontiersman! Folks, if you’re going to challenge laws, hire a competent attorney. The rest of us have to live with the decisions of judges when you challenge the law without a workable plan and without the necessary skills, so please, don’t do it.