Whacko Birds At it Again

Twelve GOP Senators are joining the threat to filibuster any motion to proceed on gun control legislation. Meanwhile, it would seem John McCain doesn’t understand why they would do such a thing. Where McCain will ultimately stand on any legislation is up in the air, but previously he’s supported bills that would impose onerous regulations on gun shows. If you live in Arizona, be sure to call McCain’s office.

Compensating for Something

Joe Huffman has a regular Monday feature where he links to stories or quotes where gun control advocates make comments about gun owners having something to compensate for in the manhood department. I thought today’s was a real doozy if you click through.

So Many Lies…

The district he represents will never be competitive, but I would still like to think that the constituents of Rep. Chakah Fattah’s district deserve better than being lied to about what the laws are surrounding gun sales in Pennsylvania.

It’s just such flagrant disrespect, especially to a crowd of seemingly older folks who he probably views as too passive to actually challenge his fact-challenged anti-gun rant.

Why Shouldn’t Columnists Be Required to Carry Insurance?

David Frum, the media’s token conservative who’s not really a conservative, thinks that it’s just fine to require gun owners be insured. As someone in the media, I’m sure Frum is aware that there’s a possibility that columnists could be sued for libel or slander. Why not require that columnists carry insurance policies? After all, if someone wins a successful suit, it would be a shame for that person to not be able to recover the money because the columnists is uninsured. I support the First Amendment, but there are reasonable, common sense measures we can take to ensure that it is not abuse, and those engaging in speech are responsible.

Probably the Ideal State for Gun Manufacturers

With big names like Beretta leaving Maryland, and the Outdoor Channel leaving Colorado, Glenn Reynolds thinks Tennessee is a great destination. I agree. I can’t think of a better state, honestly. We’ve had some Pennsylvania politicians making gestures to gun manufacturers to come to the Keystone State, but it’s worth noting that our state’s economy is still built on the “blue model”  and remains a business unfriendly state.

More importantly, gun rights in Pennsylvania has been sustained on the backs of many pro-gun, rural Democrats, which are becoming more and more an endangered species here. Short term, this has helped the GOP take control of our House, retain control of our Senate, and Governor’s mansion, even in a time of Democratic ascendency at the national level. But we are still a state in flux. The GOPs hold is tenuous, and the Democrats are increasingly abandoning gun rights here. With more and more people relocating here from New Jersey and New York in the eastern part of the state, and with the rapid depopulation in the western part of the state, it’s not a great place for gunnies to move to if you don’t plan on fighting. In the next 20 years, Pennsylvania could go either way. It depends greatly on how much gun owners here plan on fighting.

Keep Pouring Guys

Schumer and Manchin are watering down the background check bill, presumably in an attempt to pick up the needed Republican votes to overcome an expected filibuster.

At issue is whether to exempt private gun sales between friends and acquaintances from record-keeping requirements that now only cover licensed gun dealers.

Shortly before the Easter recess, Schumer and Manchin proposed that such transactions be subject to background checks but exempt from the record-keeping rules.

How do you define “friends and acquaintances” legally? I think Tam was hitting on this issue in an earlier comment with respect to the proposed bill in Delaware.

Boy, that “known personally” provision in Sec (A) is just bad law writing.

Why the difference between (A) and (B)? When I walk ups and tell you my name and we shake hands, am I not now “known personally” to you, thus making Sec (A) rather than Sec (B) the pertinent section?

Who writes this stuff?

Indeed. The fact that they are getting the water buckets out is good, because it means they are desperate for votes. But keep pouring guys. There’s no NICS expansion that’s going to be OK with us now. You blew it. Keep pouring. We’ll be done when we get to the point I can legally carry in Manhattan.

We Can No Longer Tolerate Two Americas

Two Americas on GunsWith a lot of people talking about Obama’s gun control agenda being on the ropes, I think it’s worth looking at where we are, and where we’re going. Obviously, we are not out of the woods yet, and we’ve taken a gut punch in three states, one of which no one really thought was vulnerable (Colorado). Maryland had been teetering on the brink for a while, and Sandy Hook was enough of an excuse to break the stalemate. Connecticutians fought hard, but the writing was on the wall there as well. We will likely lose ground in other states as well.

We have essentially no means of saving the blue states through the political process. Colorado is salvageable if the Democrats face a sufficient backlash in 2014, but it’s hard to imagine Second Amendment supporting majorities taking control of states like Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, or even Delaware at this point. But yet we can’t continue to have two Americas, one with Second Amendment rights and one without. We can’t continue to write off support from large segments of the American population, who’s legislatures have been successful at eradicating the gun and shooting cultures in those states. We cannot tolerate these gardens of ignorance the media, and demagogues like Obama and Bloomberg are only too happy to sow. Over the long term, if we don’t restore liberty to these states, we’re in a losing battle of attrition, with each new pretext chipping away our rights state by state.

The first recourse for restoring the Second Amendment to all Americans is the Courts, but the Courts move slowly, and I hold considerable skepticism that the Courts are going to make sweeping changes to state laws. I’d like to be wrong about this, but I hold considerable skepticism we can fix this easily through the Courts. I think we’ll likely see a case going to the Supreme Court on the “bear” or carry portion of “keep and bear” sometime in the next year or so, and I think we’ll likely prevail. But I still believe the Court will dodge on standards of review, because for whatever reason, it’s been two cases now with the Court being unwilling to address that standard. Perhaps this will change in a third case, but I’m skeptical, since I suspect the reason we have no standard of review is that there’s no agreement on the matter between the majority in both cases.

In nearly all other civil rights struggles in this country, it’s been a combination of Congress and the Courts acting to preserve liberties. The early Civil Rights Acts, authorized by Congress’ powers under the 14th Amendment, were intended to protect the rights of newly freed Blacks during Reconstruction. There have even been government agencies created for the protection of civil rights. Even today, under Congress’s enforcement powers found in the 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act provides for extensive federal oversight over state election matters and over state redistricting in states with a history of discriminatory behavior. There is ample precedent for Congressional involvement in the protection of civil liberties. I would propose that when the political environment improves for us, our focus ought to be on a comprehensive bill that restores Second Amendment rights to all Americans. What would such a bill look like?

  • Establish a finding that semi-automatic firearms are commonly used for lawful purposes, and therefore citizens have a right under the Second Amendment to possess semi-automatic firearms of all types. This at least puts the courts on notice as to what Congress thinks the right is.
  • States are not permitted to prohibit the sale, transfer, possession, or transportation of rifles, shotguns, handguns, ammunition, magazines, or firearm accessories in a manner that is inconsistent with federal law. This would federally preempt state AWBs.
  • The right to possess or carry a loaded rifle, shotgun or pistol, ammunition, magazines, or accessories in your home state is a right to possess or carry a firearm in all states, federal territories, and federal districts. This is essentially the reciprocity bill that’s been up before.
  • States may not interfere with the transportation of unloaded and cased rifles, shotguns, pistols, ammunition, magazines, or firearms accessories for lawful purposes. Basically a stronger FOPA peaceable journey provision. This would essentially render New Jersey’s byzantine transportation laws null and void, and also provide a federal standard for transportation states would have to be consistent with in the above section.

In order to make this politically viable, you’d have to leave state licensing alone. It would also allow states to prohibit classes of people from firearms, provided they maintained consistently with federal law. So a state law barring felons would be left alone, but if a state barred someone for a traffic offense, that provision would fall due to inconsistency. The courts would have to continue to make those calls, but at least they’d have a framework. National reciprocity was a top issue before, but the stakes have been raised by opponents of Second Amendment rights, and I see no reason we should not agree to upping the ante. Congress has the 14th Amendment power to enforce constitutional rights, and I think it ought to exercise it.

Why Obama is Losing Gun Control

Jennifer Rubin lists ten reasons Obama is losing the gun control debate. I agree with Uncle on the most serious factor he’s overlooking. Personally, I think this is an ego thing for the President. Having just wrapped up a close election win, and having spun off his campaign into a new non-profit to push his agenda, I think he wanted to show the political class that his new political machine could take on the NRA and win. Clinton had taken on the NRA, and still brags about it from time to time in speeches. If Obama was going to show OFA had what it took to control the Democratic Party moving forward, he would also have to take on the NRA, as Clinton did.

Of course, this is not over. You can bet there will be a combination of OFA organizing and Bloomberg’s money pushing the gun control issue in the 2014 elections. It would be a great thing not just for gun rights, but for the country as a whole, if the narrative becomes that the Obama machine, even backed up by Bloomberg’s money, couldn’t beat us on the gun issue. That will weaken Obama’s political reputation, and put a damper on his agenda. It will also help, with our newly energized base, to turn this issue around and begin to counter attack. Our goal should be nothing less than teaching them that by messing with us, all they do is make the situation worse for themselves.

Mark Kelly’s Rough Patch Continues

Apparently he tried to buy his SIG 1911 with a Texas ID in Arizona, which is, as we all know, is illegal. He did this to show that background checks are easy, yet he had to go get himself an Arizona ID to be able to go through with his purchase in Arizona, and then was ultimately denied for the AR, because the dealer had concern he was buying the gun to transfer it to a third party. But hey, this stuff is easy peasy, right?

ACLU Finally Coming Around on Guns?

They are wary of the record keeping requirements contained in their bill to expand the background check provisions. Actually, the ACLU is a rather diverse organization. Some state chapters have long recognized the Second Amendment as an individual civil liberty, even if the national ACLU long held to the now discredited state/collective right view.