The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
This would be the strongest in the nation, I think:
“The right of an individual to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and inviolable. Licensure, registration, special taxation, or any other measure that suppresses or discourages the free exercise of this right is forbidden.â€
Even stronger than the Second Amendment. It’s very important that this passes.
Sorry for the light posting. Today is one of those days where I have back to back meetings. In the mean time, here’s a link to a slideshow of Swiss shooting which I think you’ll enjoy.
Hat tip to Firearms and Freedom for the gallery link.
Joan Peterson wants to talk about bizarro world, where everyone worships guns, versus her world of bunnies, flowers, and kittens. I bring you the opposite extreme, which is the State of New Jersey, where having a nerf gun can bring the full force of the state down on your family. In a better world, this would result in parents being called and detention, maybe suspension, for poor behavior, at most. In Joan Peterson’s world, this is a matter for law enforcement and state prosecutors. Which world do you want to live in?
Looks like Ken is getting a lot of letters these days on Senate letterhead. This one is protesting the long gun reporting requirement the agency wishes to implement, and reminds them that they do not have the authority. The letter is signed by 17 Senators.
Glenn Reynolds has heard a rumor circulating that the Democrats are going to try to attach the magazine ban to an FAA appropriations bill. I heard this earlier today, but the source of this would seem to be Dudley Brown from the National Association for Gun Rights, a group I’ve demonstrated before doesn’t even have a presence on the Hill. I would therefore be highly skeptical of this rumor. They’d need sixty votes to pass such an amendment, which I doubt they’d have. I’ll see if I can find more information, and will update this post if I find any.
UPDATE: Source is indeed NAGR.
UPDATE: Lautenberg, the sponsor of the magazine ban in the Senate, has two proposed amendments on the FAA bill, both of which say in Thomas, “Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text,” where all other proposed amendment have text. But when you look into the congressional record, one is a minor edit to the bill, and the other involves expanding smoking prohibitions to charter aircraft. Possibly the odd listing on Thomas was what triggered the rumor. So far there’s no record of any amendment about magazine restrictions or gun control that has been proposed. I will keep trying to find other information on this as I can.
UPDATE: I should mention that whether the rumor is true or not, it certainly can’t hurt to contact your Senators and tell them you oppose Senator Lautenberg’s magazine ban. The Senate Bill is S.32
UPDATE: Are you superstitious? The last Assault Weapons Ban in Congress was HR.1022. The House magazine ban bill is HR.308, the Senate S.32. The FAA bill is S.223. I feel that the universe may be conspiring against us on this one.
UPDATE: It does not appear there was any attempt at gun control, from the Congressional Record.
There’s nothing the lame kids in junior high school ever wanted more than to have one of the cool kids acknowledge them, or say something nice. Such was the power an acknowledgement or kind word, since it might offer a path out of lameness and into coolness. It is in this context that our opponents behavior seems to be increasingly falling into:
“The president should stand up” on gun issues, Bloomberg said in an appearance Tuesday on “The Rachel Maddow Show.” He added, “It’s one of the issues he can build a legacy on.”
Strategically, I’m pretty indifferent to how this goes. If Obama tries to “build his legacy” on gun control, I can see a path to devastate our opponents. If Obama says nothing, that in itself will devastate our opponents. While we certainly do not have them check mated, I think it’s safe to declare “check.” There is a path forward for them, I think, but it’s one they won’t take, probably because they can’t take it.
You end up with more cops who don’t know how to handle guns properly. When even your tactical guys are flubbing their gun handling, something has gone off the rails. But why wouldn’t it? What cadre of shooting enthusiasts can an officer train with in New York City? What kid who grew up with shooting are you going to find in New York City?
No other city, save maybe Chicago, has been so successful at eradicating the shooting sports and gun culture. As bad as LA and California are, there’s still at least a healthy shooting culture from which competent gun handlers can be drawn.
So says the Arizona Attorney General:
“According to the most recent F.B.I. statistics, violent crime in New York City increased significantly in 2010 compared to data from 2009,†he said. “Robbery went up 3.9 percent, forcible rape rose 13.9 percent, aggravated assault increased 8.8 percent and murder rose 12.3 percent. Clearly, the good men and women of the New York City Police Department have more pressing crimes to investigate than alleged violations at a gun show 2,400 miles away.â€
He criticizes the investigators for not contacting the Arizona State Police, and suggests their failure to do so makes this sting a transparent publicity stunt.
There seems to be some argument over whether the sales were lawful. They were not. Even if the investigators were Arizona residents, and not prohibited from possessing firearms, the sellers were violating 18 USC 922(d), which prohibits transfer to “any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person” is prohibited from possessing a firearm. Whether they actually are, or not, is immaterial to the legality of the sale. It’s what the seller reasonably believed. Judging from some of the videos, there’s also a strong case to be made for a violation of 18 USC 922(a) as well, for engaging in the business of selling firearms without a license.
The way Bloomberg seems to have set up the sting is legal from the point of view of his investigators, but the sellers were committing felonies. If his investigators had been actual prohibited persons, they also would be committing a felony, just under 18 USC 922(g). The prohibition on buying a firearm out of state only applies to the buyer if they transport the firearm back to their home state.
South Dakota is considering making everyone own a gun, and as Prof. Reynolds notes, it’s completely within the state’s power, and would even be within the federal government’s militia powers. I’ve always thought that even in a world where there was a very strong Second Amendment, our opponents would probably still have a lot of room for jerking around gun owners with the the militia powers.
For instance, the federal government could require people who owned firearms to drill regularly, or mandate people with firearms seek annual training and qualification. It would be hard to argue how this would not be within the militia powers. I could see, that if it’s clear the power is being used to frustrate people out of exercising the right, the militia power could come up against the Second Amendment. But it’s pretty clear the militia powers would offer our opponents in Congress, and in the various anti-gun organizations, a lot of leeway in frustrating gun ownership.
One saving grace is that the Constitution leaves the actual authority of executing the training prescribed by Congress with the states.
UPDATE: Outdoor pressroom notes it wasn’t a serious bill, but was designed to make a point about the Health Care mandate. Except that it’s not a very good point since mandating gun ownership is within Congress’ power.
A Reno gun show promoter has agreed to require background checks for all guns sales, under pressure from the Mayor of New York City. I believe promoters need to do a lot more self-policing where pretty clearly there are vendors who are dealing without a license. But some guy showing up to sell his SMLE is not really a concern. Kick out the people who are breaking the law. Leave everyone else alone.
Caving into Bloomberg isn’t the answer. That just guarantees he’ll continue with this.