Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 113 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

Looks Like the French Shoot Back Too

I don’t know if this guy is a cop or not, but it looks like he bought some space for innocents to escape. He’s far more restrained with that gun than I would be. I wouldn’t bet I’m quick enough on the draw to pop that dude with the bat if he were to come at me, and I’d have drawnÂ andÂ aimed at batman once he got that close. But if he’s not a cop, he’s probably carrying that piece illegally, and that might be the reason for restraint. I also don’t speak French, so likewise that makes it hard to understand.

Police officer or no, confronting a band that size wielding deadly weapons, badly outnumbered, armed with just a pistol takes some gonads.

One Mention of Guns in State of the Union

After an enthusiastic day of promoting this #EmptyChair hash tag, President Obama makes one mention of “gun violence” in the State of the Union, and never even bothers to mention or explain the empty chair symbolism. If anyone was playing along with the drinking game, you could have gone all the way to double shots of Everclear for your “drink” and still only gotten a minor buzz. I was surprised.

I was surprised by how much of the SOTU was about him. He needed a third arm for all the time he spent patting himself on the back. I don’t know if the gun control folks ever feel like chumps, but if you don’t, you should, because you are. He doesn’t care about your cause. He doesn’t care about your loss. This is all about him, and you’ve been played.

State of the Union Drinking Game

By the time we get to a President’s last SOTU before Congress, it pretty much doesn’t matter the party, I’m generally sick of seeing their faces and listening to their crap. Both Obama and Bush were tiresome. If we have President Trump at least I’ll tune in to see what crazy shit he has to say. I don’t know whether Trump would make a good president, but he is at least entertaining. But I figure we could do a little drinking game. I’ll be playing along on Twitter if anyone wants to follow along, and since I don’t have anywhere to go, and have a heroic liver.

Take one drink if he says:

Common sense in a gun context
Gun violence
Gun safety
Gun lobby

Take two drinks if:

Points out a victim of gun violence in the audience. Yes, if he says any of the other one drink items, this is additive.
Mentions anything about believing in or respecting the Second Amendment.
Mentions how this doesn’t happen in other countries.
Mentions how much gun owners support his measures.

Take three drinks if:

Scolds Congress for a lack of action on gun violence.
Starts crying.
Makes any reference to the NRA by name.

Chug the bottle if he:

Pulls out his own roscoe and starts waving it around at Congress threatening them if they don’t do something about gun violence.

Good luck! And remember kids, drink responsibility and don’t drink and drive. Which probably means you shouldn’t play this game. I’m not sure there is any responsible way to play this, and if he does pull a rod, I certainly won’t be held responsible!

What Would Gun Law Reform Look Like?

There’s a lot of talk about common-sense gun laws out there, and it’s been a long time since I sat down and thought out ways we could rethink our current laws to make them better for us, but that also reflect the strong political reality that we’re going to end up living with some controls on firearms. Here I’m not speaking of compromising with the gun control crowd, but to try to get to more “common sense” as in real common sense that would be acceptable to the American people and also the subset of us that are into firearms. First we would have to start with where public opinion currently is:

Strong majorities favor background checks as a concept. I don’t think they get all the ins and outs of the issue, but the idea polls well.
Strong majorities favor banning crazy people, violent felons and probably even some violent misdemeanants from possessing firearms.
Strong majorities favor giving law enforcement tools to enforce the above.

This is the wall we are up against. This is whatÂ decides how far this issue can go. Public opinion has moved a lot in the past few decades, and we’re definitelyÂ in a better position than we were in 1968. So we know the public’s primary creeds. What do ours look like? I’d argue it boils down to this:

Banning rifles, pistols and shotguns, semi-automatic or not, or a subset thereof, is non-negotiable. I think that’s branded into DNA at this point.
Registration, or any scheme that represents de-facto registration is non-negotiable. This is the primary reason we oppose laws that only allow FFLs to conduct firearms transfers. A lot of folks don’t understand that we already have partial de-facto registration, and how this would make it complete. It’s a tough issue to make people understand.
The right to keep arms is also the right to carry arms. This is essentially the concealed carry movement, and now the constitutional carry movement.
We strive for uniformity in gun laws across jurisdictions so they are easy to follow and understand. This started with the movement in the 1980s to pass state-level preemption. National Concealed Carry is also part of this uniformity movement.

Given that, what are could our gun laws look like if we renegotiated them today? If there were to be a FOPA II, what would it look like? What would be the key features? Are by base premises about right, or way off?

What We Really Need Are Improvements in Safes

There’s an article in the San Francisco Chronicle today asking “Can tech really disrupt gun violence?” speaking about several potential products, including a biometric lock. Basically a high-tech trigger guard.

Most of these entrepreneurs are taking the wrong approach. First, I have never recommended trigger locks to anyone, because a) they suck, and b) some of them are actually dangerous. Generally speaking, I don’t like the idea of futzing around and definitely not in the trigger guard of a loaded firearm.

The correct approach is to design a better quick open safe. You might recall a few years ago there was a guy putting out YouTube videos showing how awful some designs were, including one where he showed a three year old successfully opening one with a screwdriver. If Sentinl could have made a decent quick-open safe for under $400 bucks, I think it would sell.

AÂ big problem a lot of these tech entrepreneurs have is that they often aren’t shooters themselves, so they don’t really understand what’s important. The guy behind Identilock saysÂ â€œFortunately, my VCs include gun owners and appreciate the value I bring.â€ Are they gun owners, or do they actually know something about this stuff? I’m a car owner, but I’m not anybody who has qualifications to advise someone on producing an automotive product.

There is room in the market for legitimate product improvements for securing firearms, but none of the approaches taken by non-gun-expert entrepreneurs are correct. I think part of the issue is that designing a better safe doesn’t sound as sexy as designing a “smart gun” or even a fancy trigger lock.

Tech entrepreneurs may have something to contribute here, but they are going to have to seek the advice of people who actually understand firearms and know a thing or two about armed self-defense. Otherwise they will continue to keep producing products and technologies the market doesn’t want.

Americans Shoot Back

By now you’ve probably heard the story of the Philadelphia Police officer who was shot and wounded by a dude who claimed to be acting “in the name of islam.”Â and pledged his allegiance to ISIS. The injured officer didn’t give up the fight:

Despite being seriously wounded, Hartnett got out of his car, chased the suspect and returned fire, wounding his attacker in the buttocks, police said. Other officers chased Archer and apprehended him.

Hopefully the officer will make a speedy recovery. Now, this guy looks like a lone wolf,Â but I’m hoping incidents like this send a clear message to ISIS leadership: “Americans shoot back.” The best response to this kind of diffused threat is a diffused defense, and that includes police officers. But that defense also has to include the ability and willingness to prevail, as happened here.

A lot of Americans deride aggressive policing techniques, and while I acknowledge from there are legitimate problems, I don’t want to see our cops neutered like they are in Europe. I’d like to see the cops stop sending SWAT teams toÂ because they can’t tell the difference between hippies growing tomato plants and growing weed. I’d like to see police departments give some more heed to public safety and not just officer safety. But when somedood pulls a deadly weapon, or gets his jihad on, I don’t want the police hesitating, wondering whether their superiors and the public will support their use of deadly force. “He pulls a knife, you pull a gun.” I’m fine with that credo.

The death toll in San Bernardino was a lot lower than it had the potential to be, based on their plans, but it was not to be because the police response was swift and aggressive, and they quickly gave sent our jihadists off to take a dirt nap.Â The death toll in at the Texas Art Gallery was exactly two, both of them the shooters. Again, an aggressive response by police.

I’m happy to drive the meme with ISIS that Americans shoot back. I don’t think that will be lost on them, and it might dampen their enthusiasm for Mumbai or Paris style attacks here.

Greg Abbott’s Constitutional Proposals Would Have Sabotaged Heller & McDonald

Texas Governor Greg Abbott is going to ask the Texas State Legislature to call for a Constitutional Convention, growing the number of states who have already called for one. In addition, he’s laid out a number of proposed new amendments in excruciating detail. Key features are:

Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
Prohibit administrative agenciesâ€”and the unelected bureaucrats that staff themâ€”from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agenciesâ€”and the unelected bureaucrats that staff themâ€”from preempting state law.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

Most of these would represent improvements, but I think number six is a bad idea. It’s a bad enough idea I’d reject the whole proposal just to get rid of this bad idea. If this had been in place, Heller and McDonald would have both lost. You could go through and find numerous other cases that have expanded civil liberties that would have lost.

I’ve never agreed with conservative arguments about judicial activism and judicial restraint. Much of what conservatives call judicial activism are judges doing their jobs. If you ask me, the Court is far too respectful of democratic prerogatives of legislatures.

Perhaps the answer is to subject the federal courts to more democratic accountability. I’ve become convinced more recently that perhaps the founders were wrong to make federal judges appointed for life, with no recourse for the people. I’m open to action on this front, but not the kind of populist, judicial minimalist garbage Abbott is proposing here.

Harrisburg & The Great American Outdoor Show’s Showdown

Merriam-Webster defines extortion as “the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially: the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice.”

The mayor of Harrisburg who has made clear that he hates NRA and its members went to the press whining that NRA isn’t engaging in pay-for-play for hosting the Great American Outdoor Show in his town.

As part of the deal with the county to host the show, NRA did agree to support regional grants in accordance with the typical rules of the NRA Foundation’s policies and by-laws. Just like your local Friends of NRA banquet gives at least 50% of the money to regional grant requests, the Great American Outdoor Show program is following the same model.

Harrisburg’s mayor is fuming that NRA is holding true to the agreement and his city isn’t the automatic, pre-determined grant winner every year. Apparently, NRA did make the offer to fund a smaller grant this year, but the Mayor threw a hissy fit when he learned they wouldn’t agree to make that a set fund for him annually in direct violation of the NRA Foundation’s by-laws. So, he seems to have rejected their grant offer.

The city officials are fuming since they thought the cash would pad their budgets each year, and now they learn that other worthy area entities in need will benefit. This will not stand for Mayor Eric Papenfuse and Police Chief Thomas Carter who believed they would be the exclusive beneficiaries of the grant request process. As it is, NRA already pays somewhere around $200,000 in amusement taxes to the city and school district. Plus, the city gets the tax revenue from the millions brought in by vendors, hotels, eateries, and other sales associated with the event. But that’s not good enough.

So, when the Mayor and Police Chief were angered to learn that the rules and by-laws wouldn’t be bent to hand the cash to them, they demanded a bigger payoff in other forms. They wanted to increase the rate that NRA would have to pay for off-duty police officers to assist with the event. Since the rate was apparently agreed to be on the low side, NRA offered to pay more, working up to a 33% increase over the next three years. This was not acceptable to the City, and the mayor demanded an immediate 67% increase. Since the rate the Mayor wanted apparently wasn’t remotely market rate compared to even larger cities, NRA has now turned to the county and departments from other cities who will likely gladly take the money. Harrisburg now loses $10,000 in fees associated with that deal.

However, that wouldn’t stop officers from taking vacation time to work the NRA show, something that has apparently been done with the support of the department for nearly 30 years. Since Harrisburg has now declared war on the Great American Outdoor Show, the Police Chief is banning his officers from taking vacation during that period so they can’t earn extra money from the huge event. He’s also going to mandate overtime to more patrolling to try and keep them away.

While the behavior may not meet a legal criminal definition of extortion, it sure does seem to me like the quotes in the article by the mayor and police chief fit the spirit of the dictionary definition of the term.

Obama’s “Town Hall”

Because I don’t have cable, I had to watch President Obama’s “Town Hall” forum 10 minutes at a time on “CNN Go” free trial, so I missed a lot of it. Based on what I did see, I think the forum was a lot less stacked toward the gun control side than I expected it to be. Obama was asked some hard questions, which he not so delicately danced around. Overall, I don’t think things went all that well for him.

He did an awful lot of describing serious federal crimes as “loopholes,” perhaps channeling Joan Peterson’s “if it happens, it’s legal” philosophy. But unlike her, he knows better. This was his normal schtick of throwing out half-truths and outright lies to low-information types, while absolutely enraging people who actually understand this stuff.

Why Have the Dems Become so Gun-Ho for Gun Control?

Bob Owens did a tweet string that explains the motivations behind the Dems embracing gun control. I agree that philosophical progressives are terrified of an armed citizenry, because such an idea runs counter to technocratic central planning, but I view most politicians as opportunists, rather than die hard ideologies. There’s two reasons the Dems are so crazy for gun control today.

One is the Democrats mounted a comeback strategy that culminated in retaking Congress in 2006 largely by running “blue dog” candidates that were good on guns and could win in their local districts. The theory was that the gun vote could deliver a lot of single issue voters, and would therefore help Democrats hold their seats. NRA issued a lot of endorsements to blue dogs in the 2010 election, despite taking a lot of crap from their members. They bent to the will of their members and pulled Harry Reid’s endorsement largely because he voted in favor of Sotomayor and Kagan. The blue dogs were laid to waste in the 2010 election. Democrats took the lesson, rightly or wrongly (I would argue wrongly), that there was no use chasing gun votes, since they weren’t reliable for Democrats.

The second reason the Dems are so gung-ho for gun control in 2016 is because of the vast sums of money that Mike Bloomberg’s bringing to the table. He’s not necessarily bringing all that money in for guns, but you can bet when a big donor is willing to dump a million bucks worth of ad buys into a state-level race, even of those ads aren’t on guns, politicians will start dancing that donor’s tune on gun control if they know that’s a big issue for him.

The older I get the less I think politics has really anything to do with political philosophy and reason. Sure, there has to be enough of that for the chattering classes, but for the most part it’s really just a bunch of hucksters, grifters, and opportunists vyingÂ for media timeÂ in order to manipulate poorly informed people they are worth coming out for and checking their name in the box at the next election. The people who are good at that win elections, and the people who suck at it lose.

What keeps me from becoming completely jaded is that I do believe it’s possible for motivated groups of people to play this game, manipulate the manipulators, and come out ahead. What will make the Democrats listen on the gun issue? A motivated group of people (it would probably only take a million nationwide) willing to be visible in the Democratic coalition and willing to withhold their votes and money solely on the issue of gun rights. If we had that, they’d start to listen.