This was to be expected, but in this Senate he might have a hard time getting through. What we have to be concerned about is Obama cutting a deal with the GOP on some other issue, in exchange for them moving on his nominees.
Category: Guns
More on the Williams vs. Maryland Case
The Court’s conclusion here appears to ignore a lot of places in Heller where the right to carry outside the home is taken as a given:
We shall hold that Section 4-203(a)(1)(i) of the Criminal Law Article, which prohibits wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun, without a permit and outside of one’s home, is outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. We also shall hold that, because Williams failed to apply for a permit to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, he lacks standing to challenge Section 5-301 et seq. of the Public Safety Article, Maryland Code (2003),4 as well as COMAR 29.03.02.04.5 As a result, Williams’s conviction will stand.
It’s outside the scope because the right is only at force in the home, per the Supreme Court rulings. This supposedly a constitutional right that has no force outside the home. The standing issue might make sense, since he never applied for a permit. We all know that’s a fruitless endeavor in Maryland, since they routinely deny permit applications for nearly anyone who applies, but I think they might have a point that because he never was denied a permit, he can’t challenge the law this way. In other words, he would have been better off applying, then suing over the denial, than just breaking the law anyway.
It seems clear, however, that Maryland Courts are joining the other anti-gun state courts who continue to pretend the right to bear arms is meaningless, and without substantive effect, except for places where the Supreme Court has made it abundantly crystal clear. In fact, they even go so far as to say, “If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly,” as if the Supreme Court didn’t mention in multiple places carry outside the home in Heller.
There was at least one opinion that concurred in upholding the conviction, but added:
While I agree with the majority that the Petitioner’s conviction should be affirmed, I would not hold that the Petitioner’s conduct is “outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.†I would affirm on the ground that, although the Second Amendment is applicable to an “on the street†possession of a handgun, that Amendment is satisfied by a statute that places reasonable restrictions on the constitutional right to bear arms.
A reasonable restriction such as you need a permit that no one can really get. Slightly different way to fry the same fish, but probably on more sound footing than the main opinion. It may be reasonable to require a license, and perhaps Maryland is wronging their citizens by their subjective non-issuance policy, but the proper way to challenge it is the way SAF is approaching the problem. This case can be appealed to the Supreme Court, but for various reasons I don’t think it’s the ideal case to take forward, and suspect the Court would deny cert. I would not like to head back to the Supreme Court with a poorly thought out criminal case.
Maryland Court of Appeals Ruling on Carry
This is bad news for Maryland gun owners, but not unexpected:
Williams said Maryland’s laws that prohibit wearing and carrying a handgun without a permit and outside the home infringed on his Second Amendment right as articulated by the Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010. Maryland argued the Supreme Court rulings meant states could not prevent citizens from having a gun in their homes for self-defense but could otherwise regulate and oversee firearm possession.
The ruling was unanimous in the state’s favor. The Court of Appeals is Maryland’s Supreme Court. The case is Williams v. State of Maryland. Guess what the next step would be from here? The Supreme Court of the United States. Did this case just jump way ahead of everyone else? I hope we have strong Second Amendment lawyers appealing this. We have to get this right. It’s not good that this is a criminal case, to begin with.
Traver Must Face Confirmation Process
The time for Obama to recess appoint Traver is at an end. This means he has to be confirmed, which I don’t give much of a chance of happening easily given Democratic losses in the Senate.
History of Gun Demonization
Found this in my queue to blog from the weekend, but forgot about it:
While there is a long history of regulation of guns, and there are some examples of demonization of other categories of arms in the 19th century (such as Bowie knives), the earliest example that I can find of demonization of guns is a 1960 court decision from New York that compares a handgun to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, tempting the owner to misuse it.
He’s looking for further examples. If you know of any, head on over there and comment. This should be an interesting scholarly work. I’m not convinced that demonization of weapons has ever had so much to do with the weapons themselves, so much as hatred and fear of the types of people that elites believe carry them. In the past, it was hatred and fear of racial or ethnic minorities. We’ve advanced much as a civilization since then, however, and reserve that hate and fear now for cousin humping rednecks.
Sodding Efforts in Illinois
Thirdpower is skeptical of one Illinois gun control advocates attempt to get some real grassroots. Eventually this will switch from sodding to astroturfing. They’ve always been better at that anyway.
New Gun Show on The Discovery Channel
Our opponents can’t like this. It would seem Discovery Networks has discovered there’s money to be made with shows about guns, and is definitely taking them to a mainstream audience. This will continue to help demystify guns in the eyes of the general public, which is the worst thing in the world for gun control advocates. You can’t mislead people who know better.
Bitter and I just cut the cord from Comcast, however, so we’re not going to be able to see the show until Netflix picks it up.
Animal Rights Whack Jobs on Parade
Protesters are getting more bold about protesting pigeon shoots at clubs that still do them, even in rural areas. While I have no interest personally in pigeon shooting, I am not at all sympathetic to the crackpots that are pushing for the ban. My main reason for opposing a ban is that it would also ban hunting dog training (which can involve releasing birds from cages, and shooting at them, as part of flushing and retriever training). Here’s what I’m talking about from the comments to this article:
Pigeons are gentle creatures who deserve far better than this. The real “pests” are the hunters; too bad they don’t shoot each other and wipe themselves from the face of the earth.
Pigeons are disease carrying vermin, and are pests in most places they infest. Let’s not get crazy here. Standard control practices in cities is to gather them all up and gas them. If you gave me the choice, I think I’d probably rather be shot at, where I at least had a chance to get away. Here’s another:
Hunting is a despicable “sport†but at least the animals in the wild have a chance of survival. The only chance a bird in a box has is if the “hunter†is a ridiculously poor shot! Animals that are not domesticated all face the possibility of starving, freezing, or to be eaten by a predator. However, a bird that is used as a live target for a thrill-seeking human does not die a humane death.
That pretty much shows where enabling these people with a political victory is going to lead, and also how little they understand about this. The pigeons have a pretty good chance of survival. Most people I’ve talked to who have done pigeon shooting say it’s much harder than hitting a clay bird, and you’re going to miss far more often.
The Canadian geese in NJ who poop on golf courses are gassed in 18 wheeler trucks paid for by the state, the deer of Valley Forge National Park that will be using sharp shooters to kill deer that come right up to you, and countless other wasteful kills, These are not solutions to control populations, sterilization or birth control for the deer is an easy solution. I love animals too much to see them starving in the wild, even though I am an animal rights advocate I will not let my beliefs or opinions be more important then animals suffering.
As someone else, with more common sense pointed out:
So building a trap (or more accurately many of them), setting bait, regularly checking them, transporting the animal to a clinic, sedating a wild animal, cutting the animal open, removing the necessary reproductive organs, sewing the animal back up, caging the animal so it can recover, providing after care to ensure the animal is healthy and then driving the animal back to where it was caught is an “easy solution.” Wow. I suppose if you want to financially pay for a such a stupid system as this, I am all for but please don’t force reasonable minded tax payers to fund something because you are opposed to nature because that is completely ridiculous.
It’ll probably be cheaper than that. They’ll do it in the field, inject the thing with antibiotics, and send it on its way and hope for the best. Sure, some percentage of them will die of a painful infection, but it’ll make these people feel better than no one is shooting them. And besides, it’s a well known fact that all the deer sterilized in Valley Forge National Park will respect the park’s boundaries, and not wander out into the surrounding countryside to get knocked up.
Pigeon shooting is going to be a very tricky issue for us in this state, because it’s going to be used to hold up other parts of our agenda. The votes, I’d say, are probably there to pass a ban if it ever came to the floor. Their hope of our opponents is going to be that we violate the “no one goes under the bus” rule and trade a pigeon shooting ban for something else we want. The temptation will be to do that. I’m not sure we’ll be able to avoid it. But if you give them the victory, you’ll be enabling the people appearing in the first comments, and giving up the ground to allow them to proceed to the next step.
Family Values
I’ve been a fan of defending the Duggars ever since Mark Morford attacked them for believing in family and, very bizarrely, tried to claim they had dysfunctional views on sex. I’m still not sure how having north of a dozen and a half happy and fairly healthy children reflects any sort of bedroom problems.
Now, they make me proud again. Apparently, they took an exchange student out target shooting over the holidays.
I’m not sure what Jim Bob Duggar’s NRA grade was when he was in office (their online archives don’t go back that far), but I can definitely applaud him for teaching his kids about keeping their fingers off the triggers.
He adds, “All of the older boys, including John David, are well-trained in gun safety and always supervised when handling guns.”
The only complaint I have is that Jim Bob is a man with 9 daughters. While I’m sure the boys are all quite protective of their sisters, it could never hurt to include the girls in the family firearms training.
They are a family who claim to live debt-free, don’t look to the government to support their large family, have a large family by choice rather than irresponsibility, and seem to have fairly normal children who certainly come off as quite happy in life. And they have guns. I’d say that’s much better tv than half the crap on today.
Unintended Consequences
Ian points out a good reason there’s a problems with people dealing without a license:
And, for further pain; a lot of the gun show table dealers who would get FFLs can’t since the purge of the ‘table dealers from the FFL rolls in the 90′s; because of the “fixed place of business†requirement.
It’s a catch-22, the gun-show dealers can’t get FFLs without a place of business, but they don’t have (and in most cases wouldn’t want) a fixed place of business. Government “regulation†forces otherwise legitimate dealers “undergroundâ€.
That’s a good point. I would actually hold a type 01 FFL (dealer) rather than a type 03 FFL (C&R) if they were easier to get, because I don’t like having to deal with markups from middle men. We’ve have, to some degree deliberately, kept the entire firearms business in the 1950s as far as technology and business models are concerned. The reason is that both sides are scared to death to modernize things, but for different reasons.