Guns – Page 473 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Take Us Seriously

I think what Joe Huffman hit on is one of the primary reasons the entire Ezell case has been so satisfying to gun owners:

It was a pleasure to read. There was agreement with so many things we have been saying for decades. That the anti-gun people have dismissed these arguments almost without discussion that to now have a court rule with is an extreme pleasure. Most importantly they explicitly and repeatedly use the First Amendment as an analog to the Second Amendment. I will not restrain from saying, â€œWe andÂ many others told you so!â€

It’s always hard to place exactly what fires people up so much about this issue, but if I had to pick one thing it is not being taken seriously by the media, by politicians, or by any of the powers that be for quite some time, and especially during the 90s, and early part of the last decade.

Imagine you are quite familiar with, and well-educated on a certain pet topic. Imagine the media and all the talking heads on TV love to opine about your pet topic, but continuously mischaracterize things, get things wrong, often times even demonizing you for having an interest in it. Imagine politicians listening to the media and talking heads, and lining up to pass laws that affect you based on their own ignorance of your pet topic. I don’t care what the topic is, that’s a recipe for a high degree of frustration and anger at the people and system that’s doing it.

When I look at our opponents, the ones I have the highest degree of tolerance for are the ones who take the topic seriously. Having an opinion different than my own, I don’t find that remarkably frustrating. While I doubt it will solve the problems they would like, I can at least understand why someone might think universal background checks is a good idea. I can even understand why someone might take the position, as much as I might disagree with it, that the Second Amendment is obsolete and should be repealed.

Take the topic seriously, educate yourself, and come up with good arguments. My chief problem with our opponents is that so many of them are ridiculous figures. Just take a look at CSGV’s Twitter feed, or look at the crazy on their Facebook page. Read japete’s rambling word salad, to see what I mean, or some of the ridiculous arguments Chicago had made and is still making in Ezell. Look at the number of anti-gun bloggers who are creative trolls. Look at figures like Katrina Confiscator in ChiefÂ Ray Nagin, or Mayor “Shove a Gun Up Your Butt” Daley. These two guys are total buffoons. They make a pretense of being serious, but they’re not. They disrespect the topic, even for their own side.

I would be the first to admit we have buffoons on our side too, but what I don’t see from the gun control side of things are people who are serious about their topic, arguing passionately, and rolling their eyes or otherwise engaging, educating and challenging the lesser intellects in the movement in an attempt to build a better one; forming a stronger intellectual basis for moving their issue forward. Where’s the folks asking CSGV what they achieve demonizing and denigrating 40% of the US population? Where’s the folks criticizing Brady for flunking Obama when he’s their best hope of hanging onto anything? Where’s the folks asking Joan who’s she’s really winning over, or what intellectual foundation for her movement she’s building by ringing that bell?

This is not the team you’re going to go to the playoffs with folks, if you believe in more gun control. If this were a sport, I’d be at the point now I’d be sandbag it a bit, just to be sportsmanlike, but this is much more serious than that, so let me be the first to say I’m pleased when they need juice the most, we’re facing tired and unskilled second stringers. But even in this current situation, 34-7, end of the 4th quarter and just outside our opponent’s endzone, it’s telling they still don’t take us seriously.

NRA Doesn’t Do Squat for _____________

I actually haven’t heard people say it about this state, but because I know there are so many NRA program supporters out in Arizona, I’ll highlight what NRA has been doing for them lately.

In 2010, the NRA Civil RIghts Defense Fund provided assistance in three cases. Two of them were in regards to personal situations with firearms and the third involved a shooting range.

The year also saw more than $314,000 in grants flow through the state courtesy of The NRA Foundation and the generous attendees of Friends of NRA banquets. (See how many are left? Go to one and the join your fellow Arizona gun nuts for some NRA sandwiches when you win the NRA toaster.) Back to the money. That cash went to 35 organizations that support shooters around the state.

Campus Carry in Virginia

Looks like the Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, has ruled that University of Virginia can’t bar people with concealed carry permits from carrying on campus. Virginia is similar to Pennsylvania in this regard, in that there’s no law against carrying on campus, but universities have generally been free to set policy. Cuccinelli’s position appears to be that UVa’s prohibition is too board, contrasting with a Virginia Supreme Court case over Mason’s policy, which was upheld, but which the court noted was narrowly tailored.

Laddite

Miguel has coined a new term. Here’s some more example of Laddite activity. Meanwhile they are flushing pro-gun comments down the memory hole. And they wonder why they are inconsequential in the new media space. An echo chamber might be good for keeping followers appropriately frothing at the mouth, but it does no good for the overall health of your movement when dealing with people who are not mouth frothers.

We certainly have our own mouth frothers, but on the whole, we’re a lot better at making reasonable arguments than they are.

A Few More Things About Rahm’s Ordinance

A few things I think I missed in the Rahm BS Gun Range Ordinance:

It seems to require individual employees hold an FFL, or at the least the shooting facility itself to have one, yet a shooting facility, under the set rules, can’t transfer guns to patrons except on a temporary basis for Chicago’s required training. Will ATF issue an FFL for a shooting range that does not sell or rent guns?
ATF requires that you comply with local zoning regulations. Chicago’s regulations make it unlawful to operate a shooting range without a license anywhere in the city, but you can’t get that license without an FFL. Can you get the FFL without the license?
It seems to require that range masters receive firearms training, which begs the question of how you become the first range in Chicago, which means you need to leave the city, which is the whole point of Ezell in the first place.
The language for disqualification for a license to operate a shooting range facility says “has ever been convicted, or found liable in an administrative adjudication, of a felony, a misdemeanor involving a firearm, or any other law concerning the manufacture, possession or sale of firearms…” By the “administrative adjudication” standard, I believe someone could be denied a license to operate for a single violation of this ordinance.
If you’re leasing space, and the landlord is a felon, or has committed some minor infraction with a gun, or commits such afterwards, you will lose your license to operate the range.
The law defines “applicant” as “any person who is required to be disclosed pursuant to section 4-151-030(b), but in 4-151-030(b), the requirements for who has to sign the application are nonsensical, since it has to be signed and verified by oath of affidavit, by the applicant, but the applicant is anyone required to be disclosed. The requirement on who must be disclosed is lengthy. Who is the one who has to sign and verify the application?

NRA Doesn’t Do Squat for _____________

Today’s NRA-hates us state is Massachusetts. Sure, sure, bitch and moan that NRA isn’t spending any of your dues in your backyard. You’d be wrong.

The NRA Foundation spent more than $47,000 on grants for 18 organizations in the state last year. If you want more, well, get thee to a Friends dinner. Because I know quite a few of the gun blogging folks like to shoot at Harvard, you can support an upcoming dinner not far down the road in Leominster. And tell your buddies at the Leominster gun clubs to get their butts into those seats as well.

The Civil Rights Defense Fund gave financial support to two Massachusetts cases in 2010.

Meanwhile, on Gunwalker …

All the excitement about Ezell, I forgot to mention this development in a timely manner. It would seem that Melson has decided to sing like a songbird. He will not be the one falling on his sword, and the hot potato goes upwards to Acting Deputy AG James Cole.

Yet Cole was not confirmed as the deputy attorney general until June 28 â€” and only after Senator Grassley agreed to lift his objection to Cole because Justice agreed to allow oversight into Operation Fast & Furious. But it seems obvious that at the time Grassley made this agreement with the Justice Department, neither Cole nor anyone else at Justice had told Grassley about the vital information it was withholding, particularly the possible involvement of the FBI and the DEA.

So now the question will be whether Cole will fall on his sword to shield Holder, and thus the Administration. Â It would seem Melson’s testimony aims squarely at Cole, so my guess is that he will be the one to fall on his sword is anyone will.

Victory in Ezell

It looks like Mr. Gura has won his injunction. From the opinion linked to in the tweet:

We reverse. The courtâ€™s decision turned on several legal errors. To be fair, the standards for evaluating Second Amendment claims are just emerging, and this type of litigation is quite new. Still, the judgeâ€™s decision reflects misunderstandings about the nature of theplaintiffsâ€™ harm, the structure of this kind of constitutional claim, and the proper decision method for evaluating alleged infringements of Second Amendment rights. On the present record, the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the firingâ€range ban. The harm to their Second Amendment rights cannot be remedied by damages,their challenge has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, and the Cityâ€™s claimed harm to the public interest is based entirely on speculation.

For those that missed it, the judges savaged the City’s attorney pretty badly during oral arguments. I encourage you to go listen. It’s ear candy for gun rights proponents. This is indeed very good news. We thank Alan Gura and Second Amendment Foundation for taking the time and effort to pursue this case, and for future efforts in continuing to pursue it. I would imagine the next issue would be whether Rahm’s BS ordinance satisfies the injunction. I think the answer should be an emphatic “no.”

UPDATE: Reading the opinion in full, it’s a pretty substantial victory. You get passages like this, where the court is speaking of it being improper to consider individual circumstances on a facial challenge rather than an as-applied challenge:

That is, the City Council violated the Second Amendment when it made this law; its very existence stands as a fixed harm to every Chicagoanâ€™s Second Amendment right to maintain proficiency in firearm use by training at a range. This kind of constitutional harm is not measured by whether a particular personâ€™s gasoline or massâ€transit bill is higher because he must travel to a firing range in the suburbs rather than one in the city, as the district court seemed to think.

UPDATE: We’re told by our opponents that you can’t take the Second Amendment in the same context as the first Amendment. This opinion would seem to slap down that notion:

This reasoning assumes that the harm to a constitutionalÂ right is measured by the extent to which it canÂ be exercised in another jurisdiction. Thatâ€™s a profoundlyÂ mistaken assumption. In the First Amendment context,Â the Supreme Court long ago made it clear that â€œ â€˜one isÂ not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression inÂ appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may beÂ exercised in some other place.â€™ â€

Hey, what do you know Brady’s, CSGV, and VPC, it is a right after all. More here:

The City urges us toÂ import the â€œundue burdenâ€ test from the Courtâ€™s abortionÂ cases, see, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S.Â 833, 876â€79 (1992), but we decline the invitation. Both Heller and McDonald suggest that First Amendment analogues areÂ more appropriate, see Heller, 554 U.S. at 582, 595, 635;Â McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3045, and on the strength of thatÂ suggestion, we and other circuits have already begun toÂ adapt First Amendment doctrine to the Second Amendment context […]

Remember this case next time the Brady’s get on their “can’t treat it like the First Amendment” kick.

UPDATE: Here’s another topic: lead contamination:

On appeal the CityÂ raised but did not dwell on its concern about lead contamination.Â For good reason: It cannot be taken seriouslyÂ as a justification for banishing all firing ranges from the city.Â To raise it at all suggests pretext.

Perhaps the City can muster sufficient evidence to justify banning firing ranges everywhere in the city, though that seems quite unlikely. As the record comes to us at this stage of the proceedings, the firingâ€range ban is wholly out of proportion to the public interests the City claims it serves. Accordingly, the plaintiffsâ€™ Second Amendment claim has a strong likelihood of success on the merits.

UPDATE: This is from the female judge who was least sympathetic to Alan Gura’s argument. She joins the majority opinion in judgement:

A complete ban on live ranges in theÂ City, therefore, is unlikely to withstand scrutiny under anyÂ standard of review. The plaintiffs have a strong likelihoodÂ of succeeding on the merits of this claim.

Of course, she later goes on to say:

A right to maintain proficiency in firearms handling isÂ not the same as the right to practice at a live gun range.Â As such, I cannot agree that â€œa more rigorous showingÂ than that applied in Skoien, should be required, if not quiteÂ â€˜strict scrutiny.â€™ â€

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about guns or training :) But we’ll take it. She did the right thing by the law. I disagree with her opinion that lesser scrutiny is called for, but she still agreed in terms of judgement.

Rahm’s Shooting Range Ordinance

I’ve managed to get a hold of the copy of their range ordinance. As expected, it is completely draconian. It’s a joke if Rahm thinks this is going to make lawsuits go away. Let me offer you some of the features:

$4000 license fee paid every two years by the range.
The Police Commissioner may deny a license for a facility if there’s been “a substantial number of arrests” within 500 feet of the facility. He may also deny a license that “would have a deleterious impact on the health, safety or welfare of the community in which the shooting range facility is located.”
One a shooting range is denied a license, it can never be a shooting range again, even under new owners, without “clear and convincing evidence” that it such licensing won’t have a deleterious impact.
A written plan of operation must be submitted to city, speaking of how to minimize deleterious impact, including providing security personnel, restricted hours of operation, outdoor lighting, display of signs, and “other reasonable restrictions.” Failure means you lose your license.
If you’re an operating range, and one of your employees gets into trouble with the law, such as an ordinance violation involving a firearm, the entire range could lose its license.
Range must hold a $1,000,000 insurance policy.
Bans outdoor and mobile shooting ranges (Mobile ranges being at issue in Ezell)
Operating hours can only be between 9AM and 8PM.
Requires that range operators inspect every gun brought into the range for safety, and that the caliber is appropriate for an indoor range. Appropriateness does not seem to be a defined standard, which means you can bet it will be arbitrary. Guns must also be registered in the City of Chicago.
You must have a range master for every three shooting patrons. That range master must be on duty at all times.
No person under the age of 18 is permitted in a shooting range facility.
You could not take an out of state friend shooting, since CFP and FOID is required to be in possession of a firearm in the facility. The only exception is one-time for a training session in compliance with Chicago’s training requirement.
Air guns may not be used at a shooting range.
Shooting ranges may not reload ammunition.
Requirements for qualifications for range employees are completely arbitrary and up to the discretion of the Police Commissioner.
Surveillance cameras are required, on a 30 day loop. Both interior and exterior cameras are required.
Ranges can not operate within 1000 feet of another range, any district zoned for residential use, any school, day-care, park, place of worship, premises licensed for retail sale of liquor, any “children’s activities facility”, library, museum, or hospital.
Any illegal activity not reported is grounds for losing your license. Both inside or outside the range.
All law enforcement, federal, military, or PI/security ranges are exempted from this ordinance.
Ranges my not rent guns, except to people taking training classes for a Chicago CFP.
Ranges may only sell ammo for use onsite, and must ensure no one leaves the range with unauthorized ammo.
You could be fined $500 dollars, and up to $5000 dollars for taking your hearing protection off for a second in a shooting range. You could also be jailed for 180 days. The same could be said if a range master forgets to inspect a pistol, or a patron manages to leave with a single round of range ammo.
There’s a bunch of environmental requirements, some of which are left up to the commissioner’s whim. There are also a number of construction requirements. Not being an expert on range construction, I can’t speak to whether what’s being described is reasonable or insane.

Rahm’s ordinance is basically a joke, and an insult. I can’t imagine anyone would even try to operate a range under these ridiculous standards, and I suspect that’s the whole idea.

Gun Range Ordinance in Chicago Shouldn’t Moot Ezell

John Richardson reports on an ordinance floated by Rahm Emanuel that would allow ranges in the City of Chicago. This is ostensibly aimed at Ezell v. Chicago, but Alan Gura is reporting on Twitter it shouldn’t moot the case. This is good news.

Mayor Rahm’s backpedaling indicates he’s smarter than his predecessor. He’s at least backing up to what he thinks is a more defensible position. Daley basically stuck to his guns and tried to reargue Heller.

You can read more about the ordinance here:

Chicago ranges would be confined to areas zoned for manufacturing, but thatâ€™s only the baseline. Gun ranges would also be prohibited within 1,000 feet of a school, park, place of worship, day care center, liquor store, library, museum, hospital or residential district.

No wonder Alan Gura isn’t worried about Ezell. Is there anywhere in Chicago you could have a range under this ridiculous standard?