Category: Guns

The New York Times doesn’t seem to get that we just recently made it legal in four states, but there’s a lot more states than that where it’s legal to carry a firearm into a restaurant. Actually, very few state prohibit it. The only reason the times makes this an issue is because they are mis-characterizing it. In most states, there is no legal definition of a bar. The New York Times mis-characterizing, and probably editorial selection, is probably why the vast majority of their letters attack restaurant carry. It’s not about enabling people to carry drunk. Carrying drunk is legal in many fewer states, and even in states where it technically is, like PA, you’ll probably still get your LTC revoked if you do it.

In Puerto Rico. Their easement looks more like Chicago’s:

Torres said the measures will include a requirement that shooting ranges keep logs of how much ammunition their members use and cap the number of bullets each client can fire in target practice at 500 per year.

I’d say that’s still pretty unambiguously unconstitutional to place limits such as that.

The House legislation under analysis would require gun clubs to maintain logs that include information relative to the quantity and caliber of the ammunition that shooters use onsite. It would revoke licenses from any such business that does not comply with the legislation.

Puerto Rico might end up being a pretty good place to get some lawsuits going, considering it’s restrictions are even more onerous than Massachusetts’, and it resides in the same federal Circuit as a Massachusetts. Defeat licensing there, you defeat it in Massachusetts and Rhode Island as well.

… our opponents tell us they are less regulated than teddy bears.

Eugene Volokh covers a case in the California Court of Appeals. This case is a good example of the importance of picking your plaintiffs carefully. In this case, the courts are going to be looking for reasons why this guy shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun given the circumstances. I disagree with the courts ultimate conclusion:

First, with respect to the private interest element of the due process test, an individual’s right to possess firearms is of fundamental constitutional stature. However, this constitutional right is subject to the state’s traditional authority to regulate firearm use by individuals who have a mental illness. Moreover, the length of the threatened loss is a relevant factor in analyzing the nature of the private interest. Under section 8103, the deprivation of the right is lengthy, but temporary, lasting for five years. Further, the infringement concerns the loss of property, and does not involve deprivation of physical liberty or severance of familial ties.

You’re removing the most effective tool we have for self-defense. I think that’s up there with those other circumstances. The problem is, I think this guy’s temporary prohibition would pass a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard. I’m not sure why the Court felt the need to say preponderance of evidence is fine.

I appreciate the Courts willingness to take the right seriously, by at least doing a serious analysis, but far too many courts have been all too willing to treat the Second Amendment as a second class right.

Democratic Governors running for Senate seats are running ads bragging about their NRA endorsements, and shooting bad bills:

In addition to being bad news for the Brady folks, this is also bad news for Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress. One wonders whether they will want to condemn this eliminationist rhetoric, which is surely only to be found on the right side of the aisle.