Category: Guns

Commenter Chas makes an interesting comment I wanted to elaborate on a bit more, because this is a fairly common thing I’ve heard in pro-gun country:

I like the idea of criminalizing subversion of the Second Amendment.  I used to think that merely allowing lawsuits against those who would infringe my right to keep and bear arms would suffice.  Not any more.  If they cannot be civil and respect our rights, then off to the slammer with them.  If they still do not learn to respect the rights of others, then lock them up for a long time.

I’m not sure how this would pass constitutional muster, depending on what you mean about criminalizing subversion of the Second Amendment. Subversion of Second Amendment rights is arguably already criminalized by the various Civil Rights Acts, the most applicable here being 42 USC 1985 for civil prosecution, and 18 USC 241 for criminal. But it’s worth noting that these two parts of the United States Code only cover overt acts or conspiracies, but don’t go so far as to govern advocacy.

Advocacy is strictly protected by the First Amendment. That applies to the Bradys advocating against the 2nd Amendment just as much as it applies to racial hate groups arguing against the 13th Amendment, or Fred Phelps’ hateful anti-gay advocacy. Just because you don’t like what they advocate doesn’t mean it’s not protected speech. I oppose what the Brady’s advocate too, but as fellow Americans they are free to advocate to change the laws, even the Constitution, if they so desire.

In order for federal civil rights laws to come into play, you need a conspiracy of two or more people. A conspiracy isn’t advocacy, nor is it, say, Paul Helmke and Peter Hamm saying “I’d love to go over to Sebastian’s house and take his guns. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?” You generally have to take some action in furtherance of your conspiracy to be guilty. For instance, if Paul Helmke bought a crowbar, and Peter bought a cutting torch to get into my safe, that could be evidence they acted in furtherance of the conspiracy. The conspiracy element would also reach Paul even if it was Peter who actually came up to my house and committed the act.

These are the kinds of overt acts that the Civil Rights Acts would cover. By the same token, if Peter Hamm, on his own, hatched this plot and executed it, it would be entirely a matter of state criminal law for the breaking, entering, and thievery part of the crime, and only federal law because I hold a Federal Firearms License. The Civil Rights Acts requirements are not triggered for lone actors, except those acting under color of law.

Another proper use of federal civil rights law would be prosecuting New Orleans authorities for the gun seizures after Hurricane Katrina. That could either be under the conspiracy sections, or the criminal or civil sections that criminalize depriving people of civil rights under color of law. Mere advocacy is not and should not be criminal, because it is political speech explicitly protected by the First Amendment. Let us not toss out the First to try to save the Second.

… one more Republican endorsed limits on magazine capacity. For those of you who don’t subscribe, she said “The Republican Party will not go to the wall to defend extended clips,” and given support for this concept from people like Lugar and Cheney, I can’t say I feel particularly good she’s mistaken.

This makes me wonder if the folks who called NRA’s Grassroots line to complain about NRA’s support for pro-gun Democrats will now call and apologize? The GOP has always taken us for granted. Where are all the GOP leaders rallying and showing their support for gun rights and opposition to any new gun controls? Boehner, to his credit, has said he’s not going to move gun control bills, but where are all the rest of the GOP stalwarts? Where are all the voices who were quick to jump all over NRA for the DISCLOSE deal spreading the word about exactly what McCarthy’s magazine ban will do?

I don’t think the GOP has ever been ideologically committed to this fight. To be fair, I don’t think the Democrats are either, but the Democrats had better incentives, and that’s what matters.

Is a good offense. I tend to agree. This incident has definitely re-energized our opponents, which, in itself,  troubling. We need to make sure they go home empty handed. Our opponents seem to think we’re heartless bastards for not bending to their will, but I think it’s fair to question people who use tragedy to their political advantage.

Because of our volunteer role with NRA, we’re sometimes contacted by members who don’t quite understand our role, and are looking for someone vaguely associated with NRA to talk to about something. One member, fairly shortly after the tragedy called very distraught over what had happened, and just kept saying how he was a father, and how the images of that nine year old girl just tore him up. He was looking for someone to talk to about ways we could prevent such tragedies, but he was also very worried about the implications in regards to his gun rights. He wanted NRA to focus on congressional security and mental health treatment.

The single issue nature of NRA would probably preclude their venturing into those areas, but members are not heartless creatures; we just have very different ideas about how to prevent these kinds of tragedies, which starts with not having dangerously mentally ill individuals roaming the streets in the first place.

Much is being read into this, but I’m not sure it means there’s going to be talk of gun control in the State of the Union.

Looks like AAC has created a web site to educate the public about suppressors. Heavily regulating suppressors has to be one of the sillier and more useless parts of the NFA, so I’m happy to see them helping to lay the groundwork for changing the law in that regard.

UPDATE: Looking it over a bit more, it seems you have to register to get any information, which means this is more of a marketing site designed to collect names of potential customers. This is fine, since AAC has a product they want to market, but pretty clearly this isn’t entirely altruistic.

Chris has a good post on the subject. I’m not prepared to offer any compromises over the current bills, because at this point it’s not clear whether they have legs or not. One important rule in this kind of struggle is never to let your opponent know what you’d be willing to trade. Compromise is something you do when you’re going to get something rammed down your throat, and you offer to make it a sour apple rather than a cow patty.

Right now we need to be resolved to ensure that no new gun control laws come out of this tragedy, and that our opponents walk away with nothing. Otherwise we spend the next decade trying to undo the damage, if we can ever undo the damage.

As John Richardson notes, there’s a very strong push to get President Obama to say something about gun control during the State of the Union. If I had to put money on it, I’m betting he doesn’t want to ride this tiger. The best they’ll get is a casual, quick mention, that doesn’t really commit to anything. Obama has two years before he has to go before voters, and he can’t afford to lose that many states, like Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio, before he becomes a one termer. He also has to know it’ll make it next to impossible for rural Democrats like Tester to shill for him in 2012. Tester was particularly involved in helping Obama get cover from accusations that he was anti-gun. If Obama mentions gun control, it will destroy Senator Tester’s credibility on that issue. Tester is just an example too. There are many others.

But President Obama doesn’t strike me as having a keen political sense. He may say something yet. But either way it goes, I don’t think Obama is the key in this struggle. Obama is an unpopular polarizing President. If he gets behind new gun control laws it will, to be honest, probably help our side more than his. The real key to this whole issue is what Congresswoman Giffords is going to do once she comes back to political life. If Giffords gets behind new gun control efforts, this whole thing might develop a momentum that will be difficult to stop.

Regardless of what Obama does during the State of the Union, we’re not out of the woods yet by far.

John Richardson points to some video that shows we are our own worst enemies. Do I think I’ll ever need ten rounds to defend myself? Probably not. Do I think I’ll ever need one round to defend myself? Probably not. But f**k you if you try to throw me in prison for carrying the number of rounds my pistol was designed to carry.

As for the people who think it takes one shot to stop an attacker, I would encourage them to stop watching movies, and immediately sell all the guns they own. They do not have a realistic viewpoint, and pretty clearly have never had any training. We’re better off without you folks as gun owners, since you aren’t part of this fight anyway.