This candidate is pretty up front in his campaign ads with who he stands with on gun control, even though this ad has nothing to do with gun control. Wait until the end.
Category: Guns
Who’s Packing in Philly?
Philadelphia Weekly has a pretty good article on who’s packing in Philly, featuring Dan, who went down with us to Charlotte:
Dan Pehrson rolls up to 1 Shot Coffee, a cafe in Northern Liberties, on two wheels, much like many of his environmentally conscious urban peers. He’s just the type of patron this establishment is accustomed to serving. The 28-year-old computer programmer is cool, calm and collected. And his look—blazer, jeans, sneakers, black-rimmed eyeglasses, hair tussled and neat at the same time—say hipster all the way. Pehrson, who lives in the Art Museum area, appears and acts much like everyone else at the coffeehouse. The fact that there’s a deadly weapon under his shirt seems to have no bearing on the way he carries himself. Truth be told, he wears his gun about as well as he rocks his navy blue blazer.
It’s a very good, fair and balanced article, though I’m amused by the hipster description. I’ll have to buy Dan a PBR next time I see him. I would note that they use stock footage. None of those people I think are the people in the pictures.
Public Accommodation Laws in California
David Bernstein has an interesting post on how far California has taken its public accommodation laws, and offers this example:
There is a German restaurant called the Alpine Village Inn, in Torrance California. A group of four neo-Nazis went there to eat, each wearing a lapel pin with a swastika on it. The management asked them to take off the lapel pins. They refused. The management asked them to leave. They refused. The management called the police, who arrested them.
Then, remarkably, the Southern California ACLU gets involved, and sues the restaurant for calling the police on the Nazis! This much I’ve confirmed from media accounts. According to the commenter who first alerted me to this story, “the defendants’ insurer eventually settled following unsuccessful pretrial challenges to the complaint, believing they could not prevail under California law!â€
The lawsuit was brought under California’s Unruh Act, which provides that “all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.†The California courts have held that the protected classes delineated by the Act are not exclusive; the Act also protects arbitrary discrimination by a business establishment based on similar characteristics to the above. Apparently, the insurer thought that “political views†was sufficiently similar to “religion†that the courts would likely rule against the insured.
The big question I would have is, could you use the Unruh Act in California to sue California Pizza Kitchen and Peet’s Coffee for their discrimination against people open carrying? It’s hard for me to see how that’s distinguished from neo-Nazis wearing swastikas, except perhaps for open carry being far less disgusting and vile.
I don’t agree with taking public accommodations this far at all, but the left has made this system. I see no reason why we shouldn’t use it against them so long as it prevails.
Implications of Castle Doctrine Vote in November
Over at PA Gun Rights. We did very well, even among politicians who often don’t take our side. In addition, some who went against us are easy targets in this coming election year.
18-20 Year Old Handgun Possession
Eugene Volokh asks and interesting question about how hard it would be for 18-20 year olds to get a handgun. Federal law prevents anyone under the age of 21 from buying a handgun from a federally licensed dealer, but in most states 18-20 years olds are permitted to purchase and possess firearms under state law.
It would indeed be a straw purchase for someone to purchase a gun from a federally license firearms dealer on behalf of someone 18-20 years old, because you are not the actual buyer. It would, however, be legal for a parent to buy one for their 18-20 year old as a gift, I believe. In a gift situation, you are the actual buyer, even if you’re not the person to possess it in the end. In Pennsylvania, private transactions of handguns are unlawful, but the County Sheriff is one of the authorities that can process a transaction. Since he is not a federally licensed dealer, and PA law allows for possession of a handgun by someone 18 years or older, I would presume a Pennsylvania Sheriff would be able to process this transaction. It would still, presumably, require a PICS check, but since the transaction is not federally regulated, no 4473 should be required. So I believe an 18-20 year old could still get a handgun in a private transfer, even under Pennsylvania restrictive transfer regime.
Word from the Committee
Word is Castle Doctrine was voted out of committee 22-4, with the three gun control bills being voted down. Looks like we get a floor vote on Castle Doctrine! More details later.
UPDATE: Roll call vote here. PASSED 22-4 Looks like it was amended, but the amendment did not destroy the purpose of the bill. The result of the amendment is that you still have a duty to retreat against an unarmed assailant.
On the other bills, on creating a new task force in the AG’s office. FAILED 9-17.
To create an assault weapons ban. FAILED 6-20.
On gutting preemption. FAILED 6-20
We did it! On to the House Floor.
Daley Not Really Serious About Gun Control?
So says Rod Blagojevich on his radio show.
And so the mayor has a political tactic where he comes out there, starts screaming, gets red in the face, proposes gun control legislation to send to Springfield, and  doesn’t lift a finger to get that legislation passed.  He doesn’t used his political strength and muscle to pass the legislation. Just a bunch of baloney.
I don’t think he is either. That’s probably why we’ve never really had a gun control movement of any size in this country. Gun control is a political tool for big city politicians. Guns are a fantastic scapegoat for the crime and societal breakdown that happens in many of our inner cities. They give politicians an easy, convenient way of talking about the problem without having to level with people about nasty subjects like taking responsibility for yourself, your family and your communities, working with police to weed out bad apples, and rebuilding the good life. Those are difficult subjects, and politicians never want to tell people they can’t look for a solution to the problem of social breakdown in Government. There has to be a solution. There has to be an easy solution.
The great thing about gun control is you can never have too much of it. Chicago goes about as far as a city can go, but you can always blame it, in Daley’s case, on those intransigent downstaters and their insistence on not going farther. But the last thing Daley would want is for the state to actually pass something. At some point you run out of people to blame, just like in fiscal matters you eventually run out of other people’s money.
At some point the gig is going to be up. Pretty soon for Daley, Bloomberg, Nutter, Menino, and all the other big city mayors. Maybe they can switch to blaming the Supreme Court or the Constitution, but it doesn’t seem to me that’s quite the same tool they’ve been using. That’s probably why Daley is losing it. Heavens forbid he level with voters about having to make hard decisions to bring the city’s crime down.
Don’t Forget
We get put to a vote today. On Castle Doctrine and on a few other anti-gun bills, including an assault weapons ban.
Correction on Georgia Airport Issue
I’ve been asking knowledgeable people (who unlike me have studied law) about GCO’s claim that the airport language is preserved even with the airport language being removed from SB308. GCO’s legislative counsel says it will be preserved. The knowledgeable person I asked, after research, believes that will indeed be the case, but can’t speak with 100% certainty on the issue. This is due to the fact that the people who codify laws assume that the legislature passes everything for a reason, and that laws which are not in direct conflict with each other should preserve every bit of language that was passed in the codified law.
I feel a little good that it at least was a difficult question, because I’d hate to flub on something easy… but at this point I’m willing to accept GCO’s claim that if Purdue signs both bills, Georgia gets airport carry. A good thing. Though, that presumes that Purdue doesn’t veto SB291. It seems to be that GCO did not want to risk SB308 with the airport language, and NRA didn’t want to give the Governor that choice.
That seems to me to be a strategic disagreement rather than something that warrants a very public repudiation of NRA. There is history between the groups, as has been explained to me. I would encourage both organizations to bury past hatchets and try to work together. Working together, I think, has to mean not imparting poor motives to disagreements about legislative priorities and strategies. It also means, I think, treating other groups with respect and dignity, and treating their ideas and viewpoints with the seriousness they deserve. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Anti-Gun Shenanigans
Good news: We’re finally getting a committee vote on Castle Doctrine here in Pennsylvania tomorrow.
Bad news: The gun un-friendly leader of the House Judiciary Committee realizes how much legislative support it has and is releasing three anti-gun bills at the same time.
Good news: PAFOA has put together an alert that will let you (if you live in Pennsylvania) email and tweet targeted lawmakers on the committee who haven’t expressed their support of Castle Doctrine and/or distanced themselves from the anti-gun bills.
If you haven’t contacted your lawmakers yet, today is the day to do it. Tomorrow is the vote, so make sure they hear your voice today.