Guns – Page 637 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Walking Through the Gun Show Loophole

The Brady Campaign is busy using the anniversary of the Virginia Tech tragedy, which has precisely nothing to do with gun shows, to promote their campaign to close the “loophole.” Personally, I plan to do something very different. Shortly I will walk through the “loophole,” not once, but twice.

One of the guys I shoot with at the club has been selling off bits of his collection. Last year I bought an M1903-A3 from him using this dreaded loophole. How he’s selling his M1 Garand. As it is, I already have an M1 Garand, but mine was made in 1955, so it’s a late production run. The one he’s selling was made in 1941, and is in pretty good condition. So I might want to make an upgrade. The 1941 model has more historical value, and would still be a decent shooter.

But I don’t have a need for two M1 Garands, so a friend of mine who’s blogged here once before when his Calico M950 blew up on him, is in the market for a new piece, so I figured selling my M1 to him might work out well. So sometime in the next week or two I’m going to buying an M1 Garand made in 1941 through the dreaded “Gun Show Loophole,” then using the same dreaded “Gun Show Loophole,” to sell my current M1 to a friend.

The Brady folks would like you to believe the vast majority of private gun transfers are from one stranger to another stranger, who clearly runs a good chance of being a violent criminal, or some kind of NRA XXXL t-shirt wearing tea party domestic terrorist. But most of them take on the character of what I’m trying to do. Close the gun show “loophole” and force me through an FFL, at the going rates in the Philadelphia area, it would add anywhere from 70 to 100 dollars to the cost of doing this transaction. All so we could make sure people I know for a fact aren’t criminals get the background check. Maybe that’s worth 100 dollars of my money to the Brady folks, but it’s not to me.

NRA is Full of Terrorists

According to Josh Sugarmann’s latest “study,” NRA is full of the next up and coming terrorists. What is their evidence?

Someone who volunteers for NRA once posted photos of a tea party protest she did not attend.
NRA sells shirts that come in XXXL!
We can’t ignore that NRA is hosting a speaker who has spoken at tea party events.
NRA allows outside groups using such inflammatory rhetoric as “pro-family and pro-American” to pay for the ability to add inserts to their catalog shipments.

I’m going back and forth between what the saddest part of this report is and how it speaks of the Violence Policy Center’s fall.

First, there’s the fact that I’ve been charged with doing the type of research he’s supposed to be doing for VPC for other organizations. If I had ever turned in something like this, I would have been laughed out of the building. I would fire an unpaid intern for this kind of work. Yet Josh is being paid more than $145,000 a year for it.

Second, there’s the concern that Josh has over whether or not NRA will meet its political goals. In noting that some NRA volunteers have political opinions on topics other than gun rights, Josh seems upset by this may interfere with NRA’s political success.

These links raise questions not only regarding the grassroots role of the NRAâ€™s activists on issues beyond gun control, but also whether the independence of Tea Party activists will conflict with their expected support of the NRAâ€™s preferred candidates.

I’m so happy that Josh wants us to have all of our activists dedicated to winning elections for pro-gun candidates all of the time! We’re really happy to have your support, VPC!

Third, there’s also the issue that Google seems to be failing for poor Josh. See, both of us are volunteers for NRA. And we attended a candidate forum – hosted by self-proclaimed tea party activists. We even attended a tea party event in a park that celebrates the actions of a traitor honored by the so-called pro-America movement. They embraced vulgar language. The participants were clearly future terrorists who are already prepared for war. As a fellow activist suggested, it looks like Josh needs to switch to Bing.

Colorado Preemption Applies to State Universities

An Appeals Court in Colorado ruled that the University Board of Regents is subject to preemption, and has to honor State permits to carry. If you want to read the opinion, you can find it here. As the Appeals Court says, “Had the legislature intended to exempt universities [from preemption], it knew how to do so.” The Regents, in this case, seem to have taken up two main arguments, arguing that they were not a “local government” under the preemption law, and that the Colorado Concealed Carry Act didn’t divest them of any power to regulate the campus environment. The Appeals Court rejected both of these arguments:

As with their “local government” argument, the Regents’ “express divestiture” argument is undermined by section 18-12-214, which reflects the legislature’s intent to subject “all areas of the state,” except those specifically enumerated, to uniform regulation of concealed handgun carry.

Congratulations also to Dave Kopel, who was cited in this Appeals Court ruling as an example of the scholarly and public debate on this subject, alongside the Brady Campaign folks who were examples from the other side of the issue.

Another bit of good news in this ruling is that the Appeals Court rejected rational basis review for claims under Colorado’s right to keep and bear arms provision. While not forcing strict scrutiny, it did adopt a “reasonable exercise test” that was applied in a previous case, and is a form of intermediate scrutiny. The case is remanded the case back to lower court for consideration along that standard. It doesn’t seem anyone wants to come out and say strictÂ scrutinyÂ for the RKBA, which is a shame, but maybe we’ll get there.

This would appear, to me, to be a great victory for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, who were theÂ plaintiffsÂ in this case. Lets hope this goes as well at the Colorado Supreme Court should the Regents decide to appeal.

Hat tip to Dave Hardy for the pointer.

CWI Bill Killed in New York Assembly

Jacob is reporting that Bloomberg’s Carrying While Intoxicated bill has been killed in the New York State Assembly. As I mentioned before, while I don’t support carrying while intoxicated, the New York Bill had some serious constitutional problems, in that refusing to surrender your Fourth Amendment rights meant you lost your Second Amendment rights.

This is a victory for the Bill of Rights, all around. Now Bloomberg can go back to the important issues, such as regulating people’s salt and trans-fat intake.

NRA’s T-Shirt Terrorism

Josh Sugarmann is going way over the top again, trying to argue that NRA’s Gadsden Flag T-shirt is fomenting terrorism, along with standing up for the Constitution. I kid you not. One has to wonder whether Josh Sugarmann thinks that the United States Navy is also fomenting terrorism.

VPC is increasingly becoming anÂ irreverentÂ joke. A sadÂ caricatureÂ of a dying movement.

Takings Clause and the Second Amendment

Eugene Volokh takes a look at the case of US v. Edward L. Brown. The question seems to be whether the Court can order a collection destroyed after the collector is convicted of a felony, or whether the collector is permitted to transfer the collection:

For example, the ordered destruction would seem to raise serious Takings Clause issues. Firearms subject to neither lawful forfeiture nor confiscation as contraband (as in this case) remain valuable tangible personal property belonging to the convicted felon. I doubt the governmentâ€™s right to simply confiscate and destroy such valuable property without first affording due process and payment of just compensation, even if it is accepted that the felon-owner cannot unilaterally transfer his ownership rights following a felony conviction. In Cooper v. City of Greenwood, 904 F.2d 302 (5th Cir.1990), for example, the Fifth Circuit recognized that even one convicted of illegally possessing firearms does not lose his or her property interest in the firearms by virtue of the conviction alone. That property interest cannot be simply taken by the government without affording the property owner due process ofÂ law….

The Court seems to have argued that the government can direct the liquidation of the collection for the convicted person’s benefit. Meaning the government directs the collection to be sold, with the proceeds going to the convict. This would seem to me to be the fair way of going about it.

This is all assuming it’s a case where the firearm isn’t subject to forfeiture, or is contraband. Obviously if a collection of guns is pulled off a drug dealer, those guns are subject to forfeiture, along with other property used in furtherance of the crime. Another case would be an unregistered machine gun, being contraband, could just be taken.

California Considering Open Carry Ban

In response to the open carry controversy generated in California, it looks like anti-gun activists there are going to run a bill to ban the practice. Obviously there’s going to be opposition to this, but gun owners in California are at a political disadvantage. Whether you agree with open carry or not, this has to be opposed. Now isn’t the time to point fingers at each other.

Board Interviews

I have to apologize to my readers for this, but because of continued work commitments, I never managed to compile the questions to send off to candidates for the NRA elections which end soon (be sure to get your ballots in). I suppose I should also apologize to our endorsed NRA board candidates this round, because my lack of attention has hurt them as well.

I’ve been working seventy hour weeks since the end of last year in a heroic effort to get the company I work for into profitability so we can survive these tough economic times. The fortunate thing is, it looks like it has a good chance of working. But if I’m not blogging, I’m working, literally from the time I get up until I go to bed. If I have any time to do something like, go to the range, it’s a treat. So bear with me. There were some good questions that I will try to get answered for everyone, one way or another.

In the mean time I urge everyone to get their ballots in. We have a lot of candidates this election who deserve your support.

NFA Victory

I’m not sure how this happened, because word on the street is that NRA doesn’t give a crap about NFA owners.

Virginia More Pro Gun

Governor McDonnell just signed a bunch of laws into effect, including allowing restaurant carry, renewing carry permits by mail, and some addition rights for people seeking licenses to carry.

The restaurant carry thing is long overdue. Expect much in the way of bleating from the other side, but this means far fewer guns being left in vehicles, and that’s a good thing.