Politics – Page 78 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Third Circuit Shoots Down Challenge to One-Gun-a-Month Law

Decision here. It’s important to know this was not a Second Amendment challenge to one-gun-a-month, but rather a challenge based on an obscure provision in federal law that preempts the states from prohibiting air guns, and New Jersey law treats air guns identically to firearms. The court held that the rationing does not amount to complete prohibition, and thus is not preempted:

Because the One Gun Law regulates but does not prohibit the sale of B-B and air guns, it is not preempted by Â§ 5001(g)(ii).

ANJRPC also challenged the exemption process, as a violation of due process, since the exemption is impossible to obtain.

We also reject the Appellantsâ€˜ claim that the implementation of the exemptions violates due process. The District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims after it dismissed the federal claims. Because we affirm its dismissal of the federal claims, we hold that the Court properly declined jurisdiction over the state law claims.

This will likely be spun by our opponents, but it was a novel theory to attempt to defeat the gun rationing scheme, and it is wholly inapplicable to other states, which do not regulate air guns as New Jersey does. It also means nothing in regards as to whether such a rationing scheme is constitutional per the Second Amendment.

Joe Biden Preaches Gun Control in Philly

While joking about how he’s not running to become Pope, Joe Biden decided to lecture tv viewers and newspaper readers about how banning commonly owned firearms isn’t a violation of the Second Amendment. I say he’s lecturing at media consumers rather than speaking to the public because Joe Biden wouldn’t release details of the event location or time to the public, nor were mere citizens allowed to attend the so-called roundtable on gun control.

One tactic the Vice President is using is to redefine the understanding of the Second Amendment. See, there’s his “legitimate right to bear arms” which doesn’t include semi-automatic rifles or common handguns with 15 or 17 round magazines. Then there’s the “illegitimate right to bear arms” that isn’t worth mentioning because, well, those people who oppose the White House are simply illegitimate.

But Biden isn’t the only one speaking out. Likely gubernatorial candidate Rep. Allyson Schwartz is in attendance and joining the push for a gun ban. Rep. Bob Brady, head of the Philadelphia Democratic Party, highlighted how proud he is of his F rating from NRA. Rep. Chaka Fattah says we can’t allow people to own semi-automatic rifles at all.

I find it telling that while Joe Biden banned citizens from attending or asking questions, the White House reached out to an anti-gun advocate to attend so she could play social hour with political reporters.

Bring Out Your Dead

Early voting is beginning for the primary to determine the candidates for the seat previously held by Jesse Jackson Jr. Since this is a D+32 district, the Democratic primary is basically the election. For those in Illinois, Debbie Halvorson is a pro-gun Democrat, and is enough of a threat that Bloomberg is dumping a million dollars into the primary against her. The Chicago establishment is backing Robin Kelly. Bloomberg is dumping this kind of money both to help ensure a favorable outcome, but also to send a message. It is only a lot of hard work on our part that is going to successfully counter-balance Bloomberg’s heaps of money. If you want to keep your gun rights, the time for passivity is over.

Hey Rick, You Know How These People Vote, Right?

Hey, just what Texas needs: more California voters. This has worked out real well for Oregon, Nevada, and other western states who’ve seen huge influxes. You know, they don’t start voting red just because they move, Rick.

Ending Reciprocity

Just as promised on the campaign trail, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General is now “modifying” reciprocity agreements to restrict carry in the Keystone State.

Pennsylvania residents who have Florida permits can keep them, but they will no longer be valid in Pennsylvania. More importantly, non-Florida non-residents with Florida licenses can no longer carry in Pennsylvania. If you are a Delaware resident who carries in Pennsylvania on the Florida permit, you’re no longer legal to carry here.

In fact, if I’m reading the press release and agreement correctly, there’s a good chance that Florida non-residents who may have been carrying on a Florida license in the last week have actually been carrying illegally. The new agreement went into effect last Friday, but the Attorney General did not post it or announce it until today.

It would be great if a lawmaker would float Constitutional carry while another at least floats a bill to get reciprocity out of the hands of the Attorney General. If she plans to abuse her authority, then take the authority away from her.

UPDATE: Interestingly, Philadelphia politicians from the AG’s party are trying to claim that reciprocity agreements are being completely dissolved:

Her decision to dissolve Pennsylvaniaâ€™s reciprocal conceal carry license agreement gives law enforcement and prosecutors a powerful tool that will keep Pennsylvanians safe.

Does this mean that the modification is just a first step and that other agreements will actually be dissolved?

Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gun Control Package

Fortunately, even the sponsors are basically conceding that their modern semi-auto ban and repeal of Castle Doctrine aren’t likely to go anywhere. However, even western Pennsylvania lawmakers are touting that they are supposedly hearing from other legislators that they are open to talk of more gun control.

Quote of the Day

From a Cato article discussing how to promote libertarianism:

Another pithy explanation I like came from a highschool libertarian newsletter some 20 years ago: Smokey the Bearâ€™s rules for fire safety also apply to government â€” keep it small, keep it in a confined area, and keep an eye on it.

We’re not too good at that these days.

Don’t Assume You’re Safe

Plenty of gun owners haven’t contacted their lawmakers because they believe they are nice, safe red states. Well, my mom called yesterday and wanted to read me the letter she got from her red state lawmaker – Senator Bob Corker – that just, well, didn’t seem very convincing to her. It seemed weak to her, and I tended to agree. We laughed at the fact that whoever put the letter together – assuming it was an intern – didn’t actually put all of the promised material in the letter. The problem is that the promised material was supposedly a list of ways that Bob Corker has defended the Second Amendment. As my mom put it, “Does that mean he doesn’t actually have any record to defend?”

Interestingly, a commenter was also left with the same empty feeling from this otherwise A rated Senator:

Bob Corkerâ€™s letter was very disappointing. It was an overt form letter that could have easily been sent as a response to either a pro-gun or anti-gun letter. And it referenced an enclosure regarding the Second Amendment that it did not include. Its only saving grace was that it states support for the ownership of firearms for self-protection, without offering specifics.

Personally, I would suggest calling either the local district office or the DC office and letting Senator Corker’s staff know that you’re unhappy with the response because it does nothing to indicate he actually plans to stand up for gun owners, and they don’t even care about the issue enough to read their own letter or include the materials promised. Basically, let him know that you’re really not thrilled with this unprofessional and rather unsettling response.

This post isn’t just about Bob Corker’s fairly loathsome response to his constituents. It’s a reminder that you can’t assume you’re safe just because you’re in a red state. Keep up the pressure if you haven’t written, and make sure that any unsatisfactory responses from the lawmakers are returned with another polite contact letting them know how disappointed you are.

Here in Pennsylvania, we’re dealing with a bit of the opposite. People are saying they don’t feel like they need to contact Sen. Bob Casey because he already came out in favor of a gun ban. They don’t see any reason to bother anymore. I say they need to contact him precisely because of his sudden change in position on gun rights. If lawmakers in a position like Casey’s are bombarded with pro-gun letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls, then we could easily kill his enthusiasm for his new position. There’s a big difference between a position that a Senator will carry water for the gun ban issue in a state like Pennsylvania and having him go to the leadership and say they have his vote, but he’s not willing to make this a priority issue or do any heavy lifting for them. I don’t know for sure that he’s willing to back off from his support, but I do know that silence sends the message to him that he can campaign on hating guns all day and night for the next six years and gun owners won’t lift a finger to stop him. (For what it’s worth, Bob Casey’s staff is even more incompetent on constituent service than Bob Corker’s office appears to be.)

Increasing Unhappiness

You’d think the Republicans could capitalize on this sentiment:

Americans are out of sorts, and increasingly they’re unhappy with the government. According to aÂ Pew pollÂ released last week, more than half of Americans view government as a threat to their freedom.

And it’s not just Republicans unhappy with Obama, or gun owners afraid that the government will take their guns: 38% of Democrats, and 45% of non-gun owners, see the government as a threat.

Read the whole thing.

Raisin Farmers Have Rights

This looks like a crock, and I hope these people win their case:

In this case, the USDA imposed on the Hornes a â€œmarketing orderâ€ demanding that they turn over 47% of their crop without compensation. Â The orderâ€”a much-criticized New Deal relicâ€”forces raisin â€œhandlersâ€ to reserve a certain percentage of their crop â€œfor the accountâ€ of the government-backed Raisin Administrative Committee, enabling the government to control the supply and price of raisins on the market. Â The RAC then either sells the raisins or simply gives them away to noncompetitive marketsâ€”such as federal agencies, charities, and foreign governmentsâ€”with the proceeds going toward the RACâ€™s administration costs.

Their case is currently before the US Supreme Court on the grounds that this constitutes a taking, and therefore is in violation of the 5th Amendment. I can’t see how it isn’t so. Then again, I thought “public use” was pretty clear too.

I don’t understand why more people don’t get worked up over this stuff. To me this is an outrage. Everyone ought to think it’s an outrage. Is it that there are just too many outrages these days? Too many people think you can’t fight city hall? Do people on the left really agree with this kind of nonsense?