Cowboy Mounted Shooting

In New Jersey? Apparently. There are small but still vibrant shooting communities in most of the states which could be accurately described as “behind enemy lines.”  I’ve wanted to try more than a few matches over in New Jersey, because there are clubs that run some good ones, but that’s a legal risk.

Campus Carry Debate Not Yet Over in Colorado

Looks like Republican lawmakers aren’t all that happy with Colorado State University banning guns on campus altogether.

While CSU does not allow weapons of any kind in its residence halls, individuals are allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus as long as they have a properly issued concealed weapons permit.  Last week, however, the CSU Board of Governors voted 9-0 to implement a policy that would leave the specifics of the school’s weapon control policy up to campus presidents.  The policy shift is predicted to result in a campus wide ban, with most board members supporting that course of action.

The resolution alludes to the potential danger of allowing concealed weapons on campus.  “The idea that concealed carry poses a danger to the campus is absolutely backwards,” said Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Loveland.  “Allowing concealed carry actually makes the CSU campus a safer place.  Imagine how the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech could have turned out differently if those students had been armed and able to protect themselves.”

I think it’s reasonable for colleges to be concerned about residence halls, particularly about being able to properly secure and store a gun in that kind of environment. You’d really need a clearing barrel or equivalent, which would be a dead giveaway to thieves. But I agree with the Republican Senators that banning people who do not live on campus, but who have state licenses to carry concealed, goes too far. Hopefully we can get a fix there.

Enforcing the Laws

Despite some confusion because of the misleading term “assault weapon,” I think this newspaper is starting to get it:

There are too many weapons in the hands of criminals and others who have no business with them. That is a problem not easily solved and gun control laws don’t work to do that. Even regulating a type of gun won’t solve that.

Strict enforcement of existing gun laws and citizen activism to report and crack down on illegal guns and gun-related crimes are needed. Punishment for crimes using guns needs to be more severe.

In this case, these people need to be found and be prosecuted criminally and civilly. Such acts rise above negligence.

I noticed the typical immune response to the word “assault weapon” being used in the comments, but I thought the paper deserved from praise for being willing to make a more serious look at the issue then just a reflexive call for more guns laws.

Caleb and Henigan

Follow the link here to see Caleb’s performance, which I thought was pretty good. We know the talking points now for the Brady Campaign, which is that these databases being public is important to be able to weed out people who were erroneously granted permits despite criminals records. Let me say that if this is the Brady Campaign’s primary concern, they should have been the first group to call the Times Herald to convince them not to publish the database.

No one would have objected to the newspaper, or anyone else for that matter, picking through the database and finding people who were erroneously issued carry permits who legitimately were not qualified to have them. It’s going to be a very small number of people who fit that mold, because applicants are already pre-screened for criminal records. The idea that you need to publish the entire database, 99.9% of which are people who are legitimately qualified to have them, is utter hogwash.

Indiana, along with many other states, has had gun permits as public records for a long time. In Indiana’s case, for decades. No one ever complained about it being that way until the Herald Times chose to publish those names. Gun owners are powerful enough to demand that law now be changed. The Bradys, newspapers, and other anti-violence groups have had access to that data for a long time, and could have been going through it looking for people who legitimately had criminal records that disqualified them. But they didn’t, which I think says something about their true motives.

Caleb on Fox News

Apparently he’s going to be going head to head with Dennis Henigan. I would concentrate on gun owners desire for privacy in how they protect themselves and their families. The courts in Indiana have protected the right-to-carry constitutionally, so one can’t argue with gun owner’s legitimate privacy concerns. Most people understand that it is a sensitive thing, if the concerns, like theft, retaliation by anti-gun coworkers, or strained relationships with anti-gun neighbors, are well articulated. I actually think the only folks the Brady folks win over with this argument are people who are hysterical about guns, which I think is a small minority.

So I’ll leave Caleb with that advice, but also the advice that the first rule of debating Dennis Henigan is spelling his name right :)

Brady Gambit Working

You will notice now that the Brady Campaign no longer gives states grades, and have rather decided just to rank order them. This is likely because they’ve only had real success in a small handful of states. By rank ordering, it can make it seem like the gun control movement has actually been more effective. That must be why the Associated Press says stuff like this:

The availability of guns compounds the problem, criminologists say. But Pennsylvania, the state with the most gun-related officer deaths so far this year, has among the strictest gun laws in the country, according to a ranking by the pro-gun-control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Other states, like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kentucky, have very little oversight and had few, if any, officer gun deaths this year.

I guess the AP didn’t notice that Pennsylvania, which is ranked at number ten, has a score of 26 on a 100 point scale. Only the top six score above 50, with even top listed California only earning a 79. Pennsylvania ranks higher than a lot of other states because we restrict private transfers of handguns, and allow the state police to keep a illegal registry records of sale for handguns as well. You can rest assured, however, we are doing our level best to ensure the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania drops precipitously on the Brady List.

Washington Times Op-Ed on McDonald

The Washington Times seems to be a bit nervous about the idea of McDonald, not for gun reasons but because of how it might be incorporated:

Many have heard about the historic gun rights case going to the Supreme Court. Fewer have heard that this is also a major case for businesses and family values. It could lead to anything from court-ordered Obamacare to same-sex marriage. This is the biggest case of the year, and everyone has a stake in it.

I think that’s more than a bit hysterical. Dave Hardy points out why. The Supreme Court, if they choose to overturn Cruikshank, or even go so far as to overturn SlaughterHouse, can offer any structure like they for incorporation under “Privileges or Immunities“. In other words, they can limit it, just as they have limited incorporation under the Due Process Clause.

I am hoping the Court goes with overturning SlaughterHouse, quoting the Petitioner’s Brief in McDonald:

SlaughterHouse’s illegitimacy has long been all- but-universally understood. It deserves to be acknowledged by this Court. Because SlaughterHouse rests on language not actually in the Constitution, contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s original textual meaning, defies the Framers’ intent, and supplies a nonsensical definition for Section One’s key protection of civil rights, overruling this error and its progeny remains imperative. No valid reliance interests flow from the wrongful deprivation of constitutional liberties. The reliance interest to be fulfilled remains Americans’ expectation that the constitutional amendment their ancestors ratified to protect their rights from state infringement be given its full effect.

Remarkably well said I think. I don’t think conservatives should be frightened of this ruling, as it is correcting a wrong that should never have been perpetrated in the first place.