Greetings to all the GPRCers

Gun Rights Policy Conference, put on by the Second Amendment Foundation, is in Florida this year, in the Orlando Airport Hyatt. One of these days I’ll make a GRPC, but these days I don’t have as much spare money to fly all over the place for the gun issue. One day I will go.

Miguel is there, and has an excellent illustration to show just how ridiculous Florida’s application of the law in this instance can be. Also at GRPC this year? Sounds like Robb, Joe Huffman, Dave Hardy, and John Richardson are also attending. I offer my regrets, but perhaps next year (which I say every year).

Phony Baloney Fact Checkers

I’m not sure how you can maintain credibility, when you investigate a claim like “NRA attacks Bill Nelson for voting to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court,” which is pretty much a yes or no proposition, and a matter of public record, and then rate it as “Mostly True” instead of absolutely and irrefutably true. So why the “Mostly?”

What’s missing from this attack is the context that Nelson voted to confirm Sotomayor before she signed the opinion in McDonald. That context slightly dulls the connection between Nelson and Sotomayor’s position.

Um, no it doesn’t. Sotomayor had already ruled on a Second Amendment case in her capacity as a Judge sitting on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. That case was Maloney v. Rice, the well-known Ninchaku case. In the opinion she joined, the 2nd Circuit refused to recognize the Second Amendment as applying to the states:

The Fourteenth Amendment similarly provides no relief for Appellant. “Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights or single out suspect classifications carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality and must be upheld if `rationally related to a legitimate state interest.'”

So she ruled the Second Amendment was not protecting any fundamental right, essentially. This is what NRA’s opposition to her confirmation was based on. This is not a mostly true proposition, it is completely true, and there was ample basis for belief that Sotomayor was not friendly to the Second Amendment. This is just a hatchet job on the part of the media, and it’s not surprising.

It’s Time to Play, “Look at the Crazy Americans”

The foreign press often has a field day with our culture, and the Daily Mail in the UK is no different. But they are worse than our media about getting things right:

Daily Mail Gets the AR-15 wrong

That looks like a .22 AR to me, rather than being an M16A2. The real irony is if the authors are thinking Americans are crazy for allowing ownership of guns like this, provided one obtains a Firearms Certificate, that firearm is perfectly legal to own in the UK. The UK did not ban semi-automatic firearms chambered in .22LR, and they have no “Assault Weapons” nonsense in their gun laws.

I won’t even get into the fact that even if that was an M16, it couldn’t have been an A2, since the A2 did not have a removable carry handle, and that the US Army has largely abandoned the M16 in favor of the M4 carbine. If they had said US Marines, that would have been correct, but they use the M16A4, largely.

Blogs & The 2012 Election

No one who reads or contributes to blogs really ponders the impact of blogging on elections anymore. We’ve known it can make an impact for many years at this point. I’ve seen two great examples of blogging that can make an impact in a race so far this year.

One is Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection and his reporting on the Elizabeth Warren law license problem. His top notch reporting on the issue got this comment from an initial Warren defender:

…I wanted to let you know ASAP that I concede that your discovery this morning answers all of my arguments and is a gamechanger. Your diligence in investigating this matter is commendable.

If you haven’t been following the story, Prof. Jacobson has basically uncovered the Elizabeth Warren has likely been practicing law in Massachusetts in violation of Massachusetts law. Rather than clearing the air, the campaign is refusing to answer any questions about the matter which leaves many wondering if she is, in fact, hiding from a possible crime admission. Talk about a huge piece of original reporting that could very well end up leading to an October surprise moment.

Yes, this is the thorough vetting of the Massachusetts Democratic Party – and the White House for that matter, since she served in the administration. If the Dems blow this race twice with terrible female candidates, it will not reflect well upon female candidates in the future of politics there. I admit being embarrassed for Jane Swift when she started crying during her concession speech.

The second bit of good election-related posting I noticed today stood out because it’s a thoroughly local take on a local race targeting a specific demographic. Great Satan, Inc. attended the NRA endorsement event for Jeff Flake who is running for the open Arizona Senate seat. But what I appreciate is that they highlighted not just that Jeff Flake is backed by NRA, but just how far his opponent would go in pushing gun control. They feature a quote from Richard Carmona that notes his support for training mandates to own firearms. Considering we saw the nightmare of training requirements through Emily Miller’s experience in DC, this is a big deal that isn’t just a happy talking point on safety and education. It can be a true roadblock to owning a firearm, and that has nothing to do with the owner’s ability to shoot.

So, in conclusion, reporting by bloggers is still relevant to elections. And you owe to yourself to check out both of these examples.

Thanks to Mother Jones

This is a handy reference to show just how far we’ve come in two short years. I always love it when our opponents build great tools to helps us show how much progress we’re really making. 99 Laws rolling back gun control? Sounds like we could make a song out of that:

99 gun control acts in the law, 99 gun control acts
Take one down, pass it around, 98 gun control acts in the law …

Yeah, and we’re gonna keep going. Thanks Mother Jones.

What Condition Do You Store Your Guns?

When the Balloon Goes Up has an interesting discussion topic. Do you store your guns all loaded, nothing loaded, or a mix? I’m in the mix category. The carry arms (only two, a Ruger LCP and a Glock 19) are loaded and stay loaded unless I’m cleaning. The Glock and LCP also never leave their holsters except for cleaning and shooting as well.

Anything that goes into storage (the safe) is unloaded. The gun gets checked going in, and checked going out.  The only exception I make to unloaded guns in the safe is if we have to leave the house for an extended amount of time (for instance, to go to New Jersey, New York, or DC) and can’t take the guns, in which case they go in the safe, in the holsters, on the free part of the shelf (which doesn’t have a rack). The lower part of the safe is always unloaded. I have to juggle a lot of guns around if I want to get to something in the back of the safe, and I’m just not going to risk bumping a bang switch while jostling stuff around, and some of the guns in there have fine triggers that wouldn’t take much. I’m a big believer that if you’re going to keep loaded guns off-person, they should remain, always, in a holster, so that the trigger is protected.

The Founders Who Didn’t Believe in Self-Defense

You hear now, from the gun control groups (or is that group at this point) who do not accept Heller, and deride it as without historical basis, that our founding fathers did not create the Second Amendment with self-defense in mind, and there is no evidence the Second Amendment was about that at all. The true answer is that there were no founding fathers who disagreed with the idea that a person had a right to a firearm for self-defense. In 18th Century America, it would have been like announcing the sky is blue. So they argued about the things they did disagree on, like the distribution of military power in the new republic. Our opponents enjoy acting like this argument is a cop out, and that our side has never presented evidence. This could not be further from the truth. Do these appear to be men who find the notion of carrying arms in self-defense unusual?

I left at your house, the morning after I lodged there, a pistol in a locked case, which no doubt was found in your bar after my departure. I have written to desire either Mr. Randolph or Mr. Eppes to call on you for it, as they come on to Congress, to either of whom therefore be so good as to deliver it.

A gun in a bar? For shame Mr. Jefferson! Clearly you must have gotten drunk and shot the place up. But it does beg the question of why Jefferson had a pistol on his person. Perhaps he merely was transporting it?

I left at Orange C. H. one of my Turkish pistols, in it’s holster, locked. I shall be glad if either yourself or Mr. Eppes can let a servant take it on to this place. It will either bind up in a portmanteau flap, or sling over the back of the servant conveniently.

Of course, one normally does not transport in a holster unless one is carrying for purposes of self-defense. Of course, this is when Jefferson was President, so maybe they view that he was authorized, or something. I mean, they didn’t have any secret service back then. Also, Jefferson was kind of a nut. Surely the federalists were more level headed, right?

Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would.

John Adams, Boston Gazette, 9/5/1763

But that was before the Constitution, way before. Surely Adams’ views matured as he considered the Second Amendment.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Well, that sounds like Adams endorsing the Heller view of the Second Amendment to me. But OK, so we have Jefferson and Adams. Big deal. Surely Washington didn’t need to compensate for anything by carrying a gun around with him?

As was then the custom, the General had holsters, with pistols in them, to his saddle. On returning to Mount Vernon, as General Washington was about to enter on this private road, a stranger on horseback barred the way, and said to him, “You shall not pass this way.” “You don’t know me,” said the General. “Yes, I do,” said the ruffian; “you are General Washington, who commanded the army in the Revolution, and if you attempt to pass me I shall shoot you.” General Washington called his servant, Billy, to him, and taking out a pistol, examined the priming, and then handed it to Billy, saying, “If this person shoots me, do you shoot him;” and cooly passed on without molestation.

Never a good idea upset George Washington. You never know when he might have his servant shoot you. It’s pretty clear that a broad swath of our founders, either through words or actions, believed in the right of self-defense, and believed in guaranteeing the idea of keeping and bearing arms for that purpose. These are a few things I’ve been able to find. Further evidence can be found in “The Founders Second Amendment” by Steven Halbrook.