Category: Guns

According to a blog over at the Village Voice, and also an update over at the Huffington Post:

Late in the afternoon, a Komen spokeswoman told reporters that breast cancer advocacy group had nothing to do with this so-called “Hope” pistol, and that the non-profit plans on sending a cease and desist order to Discount Gun Sales.

I would advise folks to not jump the gun (no pun intended) unless we receive word from DGS that they have, in fact, been ceased and desisted. As the article notes, Komen has taken money from gun related promotions in the past without issue, as they should. Organizations like Komen should be not be inserting themselves into political causes by not taking money from those kinds of people.

I am also interested in the content of said letter if and when it arrives. I believe Komen would be within their rights to demand DSG change “is proud to team up with the Susan B. Koman [sic] Foundation” which implies some form of partnership. If Komen merely demands that they change that language, they are merely asking that DSG clarify the lack of an actual partnership. I think it’s fine.

However, if Komen demands they remove any reference to their name, they are essentially saying they don’t want money from gun owners. If that’s the case, I will do my level best to make sure everyone within the reach of my voice gets the message. We’ll be more than happy to oblige.

I just had a thought, in thinking about safe storage laws. It’s pretty clear that safe storage laws that impede the right to self-defense would not be constitutional. But could Congress use its militia powers to demand everyone have a safe, and store their firearms in the safe when, say, you aren’t home?

One could argue that it’s necessary and proper to protect the nation’s arsenal of militia-ready weapons. If Congress can use the militia power to demand people keep arms, and show up to muster, why couldn’t it demand people buy a safe and keep their guns in them when they are not home?

I should note that I’m not advocating Congress do this, but it’s hard for me to see a way to defeat such a proposal on constitutional grounds. The only thing that would make such a requirement impractical for the purposes our opponents may want is the actual enforcement is left to the states, who don’t have any mechanisms to enforce this. I think you also may be able to argue that such an exercise of militia powers is a sham, and this either necessary or proper.

Does anyone who knows the case law around the militia power have an comment on this topic?

Clayton Cramer details how the Canadian authorities are currently charging an Ontario man who used a licensed pistol in self-defense. The way this works in most countries where self-defense with a firearm is still technically legal, is to charge the defender with violating the safe storage laws.

Fortunately for us here in the Untied States, Heller should put the kibosh on the worst excesses of our opponents, who have, in other countries, successfully outlawed self-defense with a firearm through strategic use of safe storage initiatives. If you used the gun for self-defense, then you couldn’t have been storing it safely, now could you?