Bump on the Road

The Second Circuit seems to have ignored some important dicta in regards to the Second Amendment and ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states, citing Cruikshank.  In Heller, The Court said:

With respect to Cruikshank‘s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

I would seem to be that would require some more serious analysis on the part of the circuit court.  Looks like it was a nunchaku possession case that is less than an ideal case to take forward, but not much is going to stop defense lawyers from hopping in the Hellermobile for a little joyride with their clients.  Hopefully we can have better luck in other federal circuits before someone wraps it around a telephone pole.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. AP Says He Used a Bump Stock
  2. Incorporation of 2A Rejected in 7th Circuit
  3. The Bump Stock Issue Never Went Away

Tax Dollars at Work

Looks like SEPTA designed a pass for Philadelphia’s Beer Week that featured a nice skyline.  The only problem?  The skyline was New York City.  I’ll remember that as I’m driving to work on the turnpike every day with my tolls paying for this crap.  I guess if you get drunk enough at beer week, the skyline might start to look like Philly’s.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. EZ-Pass Unintended Consequences
  2. My Beer Fridge Doesn’t Do This!
  3. Trucking Industry Against I-80 Tolls

NRA Board Composition

The NRA Board of Directors is comprised of 76 members.  Why so many?  Largely because it tends to promote stability.  This is both good, and bad, but in my opinion mostly good.  The upside to a large board is that no single board member or faction within NRA’s membership wields a tremendous amount of influence.  In order to make macroscopic changes at NRA, it really does require a broad and sustaining consensus among the membership.  The downside to a large board is what I just mentioned.  Rapid, macroscopic changes are very difficult to affect.

Board elections happen every year.  Board members are elected to a three year term, and at no time is more than 1/3rd of the board up for election in any one year.  Board members don’t run against one another directly.  The top 25 vote getters are the ones who get a seat on the board.  If you are a life member, or have been a continuous NRA member for five years, when you get your ballot in the mail, you can vote for up to 25 people.  I typically don’t use all 25 of my votes, as I try to only vote for the candidates I have good information about.

But 25 seats over three years is only 75, and there are 76 board members.  Well, the 76th board seat is elected only to a period of one year, and the 76th board member is voted on at Annual Meeting (in Phoenix this year).  If you go to Annual Meeting, you will notice people campaigning for 76th board member.  It’s common for someone who almost made it in the mail-in ballot election to try for this seat, and then run again the following year for a three year board seat.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. In Annual Meeting
  2. What Does it Take to Win an NRA Board Seat?
  3. NRA Board Nominations

Gillibrand Softening on Gun Issue

Kirsten Gillibrand’s ascendancy to the Senate has been a good lesson on how gun control thrives.  This New York Times piece indicates she’s softening her support of gun rights a bit.

Understand that these articles have a purpose, a political purpose.  They are intended to cajole Gillibrand out of her previous gun rights positions by limiting her range of action.  If the New York Times comes out and says Gillibrand is softening her position on guns, with a new state-wide view, well, then she better do it.  The paper of record now has her on record.

And this, my friends, is how gun control thrives.  A media willing to guilt politicians out of positions they find unsavory, and a population who doesn’t have enough experience with the issue to know differently.  Will Kirsten Gillibrand hold strong?  I hope she does.  But I would be reluctant to count her as a reliable vote in our favor should something come up.   A lot of that will depend on what gun owners are willing to do for her if she angers the New York Times.

UPDATE: Bitter suggests in the comments that the NYT is trying to characterize her as sofening, but doesn’t believe she’s given any indication that she’s changing her position.  I should be clear that I think this is the case, but I still think it’s difficult to say whether she’d be a reliable vote at this point.  I’m honestly just not sure how much gun owners in New York State have to offer her if she votes on a bill in a way that will piss off the New York City political elite.  Right now she’s under a lot of pressure to cave on this issue, and remember, she has to win a Democratic primary in one of the bluest states in the country.  What incentive are gun owners going to offer her to stay a favorable vote?

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Clarification on Gillibrand
  2. Good News for Gun Owners
  3. Gillibrand on HR4900

Blue Trail Range In the New York Times

This article is fairly balanced for the Times reporting on a firearms issue, but I notice they fail to mention that DiNatale is a developer looking to develop property around the range.  My own ballistic analysis of Blue Trail a while ago revaled that DiNatale’s property was in the ballistic shadow of the mountain.  The only way bullets are hitting his house from that range is by rounds firing up into the air at a steep angle, which I find unlikely.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Blue Trail Back in the News
  2. Blue Trail Range Reopening on Hold
  3. Blue Trail Range Update

Wolf Control

John Lott asks why Ashley Judd wants wolves to starve to death.  Too many of us have lost touch with our evolutionary role as an apex predator.  In regards to the Bathroom Baboon, TD of the Unforgiving Minute passed this interesting bit to me in regards to predatory behavior of Baboons in Africa, and one outfitter’s war against a tribe that attacked a woman and killed her baby.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. CZ-85 Range Report
  2. WWACLUD?
  3. Multiple Victim Shootings in Europe

3 Plinkers Charged in New Jersey

I am not going to defend these three gentlemen’s judgment, because if you look at the satellite photo, you will notice they were not exactly shooting in a deserted area.  In Pennsylvania, this would justifiably get you a few misdemeanor charges, from violating a municipal discharge ordinance, disorderly conduct, and maybe if the prosecutor has a real beef with the circumstances, reckless endangerment.

But they are being charged with weapons offenses in New Jersey, particularly unlawful possession of a handgun.  This can be as simple as the kid taking his father’s pistol out to the woods in New Jersey.  It can even be as simple as the owner handing it off to a friend to shoot.  These are felonies, and they will be treated no different than gang members, rapists, or murderers by New Jersey’s criminal justice system, and from this point forward, their young lives will be completely ruined.  With felony records, they will be ineligible for many jobs, will be unable to serve in the military, and have almost no chance of getting their records cleared.  Most definitely they will never legally own a firearm.

I do think shooting a firearm off in a populated area like Cinnaminson shows a severe lack of judgement, and it is rightful for society to criminalize such errors of judgement, but the punishment does not fit the crime here.  This is, at best, a misdemeanor.  This is “reasonable” gun control the Philadelphia media says we should adopt on this side of the river.  No thanks.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. New Jersey Bills Passed out of Committee
  2. Attention New Jersey Readers
  3. Gun Theft Ring Busted in New Jersey

Back Challengers Early

This site argues that the time to start backing challengers in the 2010 election is now:

Early funding also has a snowball effect — since people usually don’t want to throw their money away, they’ll generally only support a candidate who seems to have a chance to win. Before insurgent candidates can get much outside attention, they have to hit a threshold of support that indicates that they’re a serious contender. They have to have enough of SOMETHING — money, polling numbers or on-the-ground organization — to convince outsiders to get involved. And without resources and expertise available early, many candidates who might actually have a shot if given a chance never quite hit the mark. A handful of paid staff, or even just ONE paid staffer, can create the relationships and the organization that a campaign needs to prove viability, while also getting the structure in place to actually take real advantage of any money that floods in at the last minute.

I agree with this completely.  Read the whole thing.  Unfortunately, I don’t get the impression the GOP in my district is floating a challenger to Murphy yet.  Hopefully they won’t wait until it’s too late.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Challengers Lining up for Murphy
  2. The Influence Hierarchy
  3. Schmoozing With the Triangle of Death

Discharge of Firearm Ordinance Being Challenged

Many Pennsylvania municipalities regulate the discharge of firearms.  The language of our state’s preemption law would seem to allow this, but it’s never been abundantly clear.  Now someone is challenging the City of Lancaster’s ordinance regarding discharge of firearms:

Swinton said his cousin was being attacked and beaten by a group of assailants and that he fired a warning shot to disperse them. He had a concealed-carry permit for the gun.

Police charged Swinton with reckless endangerment and illegal discharge of a firearm. The latter is a crime under an ordinance that City Council strengthened in 2007 at the urging of Mayor Rick Gray. Each shot — even a blank — is a separate offense and can result in a $500 fine and 90 days in jail. Swinton is the first person to be charged under the amended ordinance.

State law gives a person the right to fire a gun if he or she believes another person is in imminent threat of serious harm, Crystle said. The city ordinance, in contrast, says shooting is justified only in defense of one’s home, business or “human life.” The city can’t deny a right to Swinton that he has under state law, Crystle said.

My feeling is there has to be a self-defense exception to these ordinances, otherwise it would appear to fly in the face of state law and the state constitution.  If the ordinances aren’t written in that manner, than I have no problems with the court creating an exception.

This does, however, speak to relative legal hazard created when warning shots are used.  I’m not a fan of them.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Court Upholds Lancaster Discharge Ordinance
  2. Important Battles Proceeding in Seattle
  3. Depends on What One Means by Possession