The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
More dead people in Mexico thanks to the Obama Administration’s gun walking scandal… err… sorry… grenade walking scandal. This scandal would have brought down a Republican administration, had something like this happened on their watch. But as it is, it was too easily dismissed as the work of lower-level incompetence.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, the title is sarcastic.
Studies show that a gun owner with one misdemeanor conviction — such as a DUI — is five times more likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than a gunner with no prior arrest record, according to Garen Wintemute, director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program.
I’m sure it would show a correlation between other lesser traffic offenses and violent crime as well. Does it translate that we should consider lesser traffic offenses as prohibiting? At what point do you just admit you’re trying to deny Second Amendment rights to as many people as humanly possible?
“I was just stunned,” Wintemute says. “He was just wrong on the facts. There is persuasive evidence out there. There are dozens of studies associating acute alcohol intoxication and a history of DUIs with the risk of committing future gun violence. That’s established beyond doubt.”
Instead of restricting their gun rights, why not just ban alcohol? It also raises the question as to why we only suspend their drivers license for 30-10 months for a first offense, and only 3 years for a third offense. And driving, according to the courts, is a privilege rather than a right. I would think the correlation between earning a DUI and eventually killing someone in an alcohol related traffic accident is much much higher than the correlation to future gun violence, and yet we don’t even deny them the “privilege” to drive for 5 years, let alone a lifetime prohibition.
If Garen Wintemute is unhappy with Jerry Brown, maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh on the guy. There’s points to be earned for disappointing the right people, and Wintemute is the kind of busybody who needs to learn to keep his nose out of other people’s lives and choices. It’s also pretty clear, by focusing on the gun issue, Wintemute’s motivation is hating on guns and gun owners, rather than concern for life. In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-related traffic accidents in the United States. In that same year, 8,874 people were killed in gun-related homicides. I am not suggesting this means California needs to “get tough on crime” in terms or DUI, but it’s worth considering where some people’s priorities lie, and it’s not in saving lives.
Emily Miller talks to Alan Gura about the rejection of Wollard v. Gallagher, who notes there are still a number of cases in the hopper. I’d note that any speculation about why the Court keeps rejecting certiorari for carry cases is just that: speculation. There are a list of reasons a mile long why the Court may not want to grant cert. We’ve speculated on the whys, but reality is we don’t really know. Maybe the Court doesn’t want a carry case. Maybe they want to see how all the circuit courts play out. Maybe the giant spinning wheel of fortune they use to pick cases for the term just hasn’t landed on a carry case yet.* Maybe they don’t have 5 votes to win carry because someone got soft in the mean time. We don’t really know.
* OK, they probably don’t select cases that way.
Looks like the government shutdown may be ending soon, leaving the press free to move on to other things which are the Republican’s fault. Hopefully this means some more gun news, which I’ve noticed is picking up a bit:
Revocation rates for Florida concealed handgun license holders remains very low. Our opponents strategy has been to play up the high profile stories, in hopes people don’t understand how rare is really is.
Pennsylvania is becoming a landing place for businesses and gun owners fleeing the horrible gun control laws in bordering states. I just hope everyone who comes realizes we have a fight on our hands here too. First up is keeping Tom Corbett in office.
Paul Ryan is getting a challenger who is appears will focus on the gun issue.
The stakes grow in the new recall effort in Colorado. Jim Geraghty notes: “Hudak seems like a natural target, as she won just 51 percent of the vote in 2008 and won last year, 46.9 percent to 46.4 percent.”
Protesting NRA headquarters. This reminded me it had been a while since I made a donation.
NY State police release a SAFE act guide for enforcement. The police won’t be able to inspect magazines for 7 round compliance without probable cause a crime has been committed. Do traffic crimes count? What if the gun is taken during a terry stop?
New Jersey’s smart gun law may end up triggered. You’d have to wear their crappy watch. The fact that LEOs are exempt is the clue it’s all a fraud. But with this development, the guns in New Jersey will at least be smarter than the politicians.
The raid was a success you see… the found some pot in the guy’s kid’s room.
A win in court for part time residents of NY. The whole opinion can be found here.
California proof of the slippery slope.
Guns Save Lives day moved to December 15, rather than on the anniversary of the Newtown massacre.
Mayor Rahm grasping at straws trying to appear to get tough on guns. Some say opposition to crap like this means we don’t want to put criminals in with guns in jail. More like we don’t want to make ordinarily law-abiding people into criminals because they violated some arcane, bureaucratic law.
The nonprofit, nonpartisan Judicial Watch reported that it filed a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) lawsuit with the New York State Supreme Court requesting that the office of New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg be ordered by a judge “to produce all records of communications between the Office of the Mayor, the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.
“We have good reason to suspect that New York taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun group,†said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
All communication from the Mayor’s office should be public record. If Bloomberg spends his own money to advocate for gun control, well, that’s his First Amendment right as an American, but if he’s using his office to do so at taxpayer expense, we have a right to know.
There’s an interesting discussion thread over at Calguns.net speaking about whether or not it’s the right thing to do to thank Governor Jerry Brown for his veto. The discussion that continues below is worthwhile. While I don’t have a lot of time for people who think the reason we lose is that other people aren’t fighting hard enough, and who thinks all it takes is a “take no prisoners” approach and we’ll never lose, I do think the poster in question has a point.
I don’t see any reason Californians should be bending over backwards to thank Jerry Brown for signing four gun control bills into law, several of which aren’t exactly trivialities. Yes, Brown vetoed the worst of the bills, but splitting the baby shouldn’t exactly be enough to earn gushing praise from us. Remember that Schwarzenegger was fond of splitting the baby on guns, and Californians did nothing but continue down the slippery slope during his Administration.
I’d especially consider that the bill Brown vetoed would have been something I would have been more comfortable taking to court than any of the other bans that have been passed to date. I wouldn’t have hoped for him to sign it, but it does speak to motivations. Brown has kept his state out of an expensive court fight that could cost California not only its new ban, but the whole Roberti-Roos regime, depending on what the courts decided to say on the issue. Several other states ban would have been put at risk too. If I were an anti-gun strategist on the other side of the issue, I would have been quietly (or perhaps not so quietly if I had access to Governor Brown’s people) urging him to veto it. As an anti-gun crusader, I’d much rather take my chances with the 2nd Circuit over New York’s SAFE act than deal with a blanket semi-auto rifle ban in the 9th circuit. So let’s not pretend he did this because he’s just oh so concerned about our gun rights.
Every grading scale I’ve seen for politicians has A through F. Brown split the baby down the middle. His thanks can be having a C instead of an F.
The Supreme Court has, once again, opted not to weigh in on the issue of carry in regards to the Second Amendment. It would seem like they really don’t want to go there at this point, or perhaps they don’t have the votes in our favor. From SCOTUSBlog:
The Court also granted review of a second case: on the legality under federal law of the owner of a gun selling it to someone else, if the new owner can have a gun legally. That case is Abramski v. United States (12-1493). However, the Court followed its recent pattern of refusing to hear constitutional challenges to gun control laws under the Second Amendment, turning aside a Maryland case seeking to expand the personal right to have a gun beyond the home (Woollard v. Gallagher, 13-42).
The fact that the Supreme Court is completely unwilling to protect your right to actually bear the arms instead of just keeping them should motivate gun owners to get involved in the political fights. It is absolutely clear that you cannot count on the courts, and elections have consequences.
I have to say that I rather enjoyed this video that takes on the issue of anti-gunners justifying their infringement upon your rights because doing so makes them feel good.
“What do you mean we lost? I’m sorry for those two people. But we won in Colorado. On to the next state.â€
No wonder Hick is treating him like he’s got cooties. I think the only gun control leader who thinks Colorado was a win is Mike Bloomberg. If you can’t protect people who take hard votes, your ideas aren’t going to find much traction.
Still not much gun news out there folks, so this one will venture off topic a bit:
Burlington, Vermont want themselves some more gun control. Vermont does have preemption, meaning the state legislature would have to approve, which apparently they aren’t in the habit of doing.
Another Bloomberg mayor bites the dust. This time it’s 28 years in prison for corruption.
It’s really DC versus the rest of America. I think in 1992, if Ross Perot hadn’t turned out to have one too many bats in his belfry, he could have had a chance. The climate is much much more primed for a populist revolt today. So I think the answer to this question is increasingly becoming yes, but it would take the right person, and the right party with the right ideas.
No evidence the Democrats can take back the House.
An act of Civil Disobedience. Excellent work.