The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
It’s pretty clear what he’d like it to be:
Chicagoans will hear from Mayor Richard Daley Monday for the first time since the election of his successor.
Daley and Congressman Mike Quigley were expected at a joint news conference about gun laws on the city’s West Side Monday morning.
Worried Rahm won’t be anti-gun enough? Doesn’t strike me as much of a worry, but pretty clearly Daley, even in retirement, still wants to make this an issue.
By my reading of this bill, if this passes, Kahr and Smith & Wesson are going to have to leave the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Massachusetts has generally been careful to avoid passing anything so onerous it would cause problems for the flagship gun company. It’s not easy to just pick up a manufacturing operation and move it, but I don’t see that they’d have a choice, since the mandated technology doesn’t effectively exist. California, which as far as I know is the only other state to mandate this, left the decision to implement the law in the hands of state officials. So far, to my knowledge, there’s been no actual implementation of any of these laws. The Massachusetts bill doesn’t seem to have this type of clause, so it would effectively ban sale, manufacturing and distribution of all firearms within the Bay State.
… and they want their gun control article back. You almost have to believe they were short on articles to run, so they resurrected one from the 90s and changed a few names around. The article is textbook, with utter confusion about what a machine gun is and isn’t, careless improper use of the term assault rifle, a police gun layout that doesn’t contain any of the weapons mentioned in the article, cops being outgunned, and, the icing on the cake?
“[A] 2009 bid by President Obama to reinstate a national ban has stalled.”
What 2009 bid? In order for this analogy to work, it would require you to place the keys in the ignition, start the engine, and try to take it somewhere. Barry’s been afraid to even look in the garage, let alone look for the keys to the car.
One would place restrictions on questions that physicians could ask patients about guns and gun ownership, including children. Violators could be fined $10,000 to $100,000, and a companion measure in the House would make it a felony.
The Florida Medical Association is rightly against it, saying it violates free-speech rights and the doctor-patient relationship that necessitates physicians have information about all factors affecting a patient’s safety.
The FMA is correct about the bill violating free speech and free association. I agree it’s untenable from a First Amendment viewpoint, and am very disappointed NRA is pushing this. But doctors have no right to pry into non-medically relevant facets of someone’s life, and gun ownership is not medically relevant. The only excuse I could see for prying into that area is if a psychiatrist was treating a minor patient for depression, and told the parents to keep the guns locked up, along with just about anything else that might be dangerous to a potentially suicidal individual. That fits in the realm of just being good advice. As a general matter, gun ownership is not a disease (no matter how much some wish it to be), and is therefore outside the field of medicine. Doctors should stop asking about it as a matter of routine.
This is really a case of both sides in this debate being wrong.
This one is the Mayor of Monticello, NY, and the charge would seem to be tax fraud, trademark counterfeiting, and misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
It seems to me that if our opponents made fun of us for suggesting arms in civilian hands might have been handy in Egypt, Libya is a better example of the notion. Peaceful protest only works against a regime that is reluctant to murder its own people wholesale.
The Wyoming House, on a preliminary vote of 48-8, passed Constitutional Carry. It seems it still has to go through two more reading, and I’m guessing a final vote, before going on to the Governor. From what it sounds like, the Governor might be a bit weak kneed. But if he signs, this will be the fourth state.
UPDATE: Just waiting for a signature.
Apparently it means you can have single shot weapons. That’s what all intelligent people would agree on, after all. Personally, I’d be happy to compromise on it being completely proper and constitutional to have restrictions on carrying pistols for the purpose of dueling. That’s a compromise I can live with.
Between Dave Kopel and Professor Adam Winkler here.