Shall Not Be Questioned

I do not agree with NRA on the parking lot issue.  I will just state that categorically.  But this is a welcome victory.  Why?

The challenge to Oklahoma’s bill presented some serious risks to gun owners, in that it was argued that the Occupational Safety and Health Act, through the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, really mandated a federal ban on firearms in the workplace, which state law could not contravene.  If this outlook had prevailed, it employers would presumably be obligated under federal law to ban firearms in the workplace.

So I am very glad this line of reasoning was shot down by the courts.  But there’s still a problem:

“We disagree,” the appellate judges wrote in a 23-page decision. “OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not to adopt a standard” banning firearms from the workplace.

What if OSHA did adopt a standard because a certain President directed them to?  In addition to disagreeing with the NRA on principle on this issue, I also just don’t like the politics of this issue, and this is one of the reasons why.

Eugene Volokh talks about a case out of the 7th Circuit that denies Second Amendment rights for drug dealers conducting drug sales.  I’m particularly interested to read the final publication of the  draft law review he’s working on, which is quoted in the post.  I think he gets the balance right in terms of gun possession in the facilitation of crime.

We’ve discussed pretty thoroughly the letter from Congressman Engel here, here, and here.  It turns out it’s not just so called “assault weapons” that we need to worry about, it’s also pistols.  I was talking to SayUncle the other night, and he brought up this old post of his which outlines the ATF point system for pistols.  The interesting thing about this, is if this is the system ATF uses, it’s just an ATF policy.  The regulation actually says on the importation Form 6, the importer must include:

(F) If a firearm barrel for a handgun, an explanation why the handgun is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

This, folks, means the Glock you’re carrying on your hip could be banned just by a mere policy change, which could be done by executive order with no rulemaking process at all.  ATF can just change it’s policy to exclude Glocks, because they aren’t suitable for sporting purposes.

This poll is rather shocking.  It shows Kirsten Gillibrand losing in a Democratic primary to Carolyn McCarty, with 34 percent of Democratic voters supporting McCarthy, with only 24 percent supporting Gillibrand.  I’m a bit like a kid with an ant farm over this whole topic.  A pro-gun politician elevated to represent a staunchly anti-gun state as a member of the staunchly anti-gun party is not something I’ve seen in my lifetime, and it’s been fascinating to watch.

I still don’t believe there’s any real passion for gun control, even among New York City Democrats.  If there were, we’d run into them more often, and we don’t.  Even the Huffington Post is a rather lonely place for Paul Helmke.  But the fact remains that Carolyn McCarthy, a Congresswoman from Long Island, who’s sole issue is gun control, and who had no success getting anything relating to guns passed until NRA rewrote one of her bills and backed it, is ahead in polling for the Dem primary.

My theory is that it’s not so much gun control itself that is the issue, but that it represents a cultural signaling mechanism to the downstate establishment.  Gillibrand’s support of gun rights signals that she is not one of them.  That she comes from an area that hunts, fishes, and shoots.  That’s something upstate cousin-humpers do.  Those aren’t the values of the Upper East Side.  The message hammered home by the media downstate is that Kirsten Gillibrand is not one of you.  She’s not New York.  Carrie McCarthy?  Well, she’s from Long Island at least.  I do think the cultural condescention is actually that bad among upper middle class urban dwellers from the Northeast, which are going to be heavily represented in any Democratic primary in New York State.

I actually think framing the debate in terms of hunting hurts her.  Self-defense is another matter, and if I were advising Gillibrand on how to handle the gun issue, I would advise her to steer clear of hunting.  Hunting is something completely alien to someone who has lived in New York City all their lives.  Most everyone, even liberal Democrats, can relate to wanting to protect their family and their homes.  Gillibrand will no doubt want the media to drop the gun issue completely, but they won’t.  Given that, if she is going to keep her position on the issue, she needs to speak about it in a context New Yorkers can understand.