Shall Not Be Questioned

A court used this reasoning in upholding Lautenberg:

A useful approach is to ask whether a statutory prohibition against the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill is similar enough to the statutory prohibition against the possession of firearms by persons convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to justify its inclusion in the list of “longstanding prohibitions” that survive Second Amendment scrutiny.

The Court concludes it does. To reach this conclusion, the Court starts by comparing the constitutionally-sanctioned prohibition against firearm possession by felons with the prohibition against persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. A person can, of course, be convicted of a felony which had nothing to do with physical violence and which would not necessarily predict future misuse of a firearm. Nevertheless, the law forbids any convicted felon, regardless of the nature of the felony, from possessing firearms and Heller constitutionally sanctioned this broad prohibition.

Whether you like the result or not, it’s a powerful argument.  But where does it end?  May Congress bar any misdemeanant from their second amendment rights?   Must their be some finding that the misdemeanor in question was violent in nature?  If that test is required for misdemeanors, why is it not for felonies?

I think these are useful questions, but I would argue that we’re probably going to be stuck arguing these things out in the legislatures rather than the courts.  I believe the courts will tend to defer to the legislature when it comes to stripping second amendment rights of people convicted of crimes.

I’ve avoided the debate up until now, but I figure it’s probably time to say something.  I haven’t had too much liking for the pejorative, but I obviously have sympathies to the argument that lies behind it, which is that it’s not accomplishing much if you don’t develop a serious, well thought out strategy for promoting you particular view of what the Second Amendment means.  Kevin Baker says, in the comments over at Uncle’s:

Well, from what I’ve read voting is useless, the courts are useless, and anything other than “SNBI!!!!” is for pussies in public discussion, so trying to convince the (reachable) General Public with anything other than “SNBI!!” is useless. Final arbiters abound.

The only useful thing seems to be Physical Training, militia drills, and collecting ammunition, MREs and barter goods for “the Time.”

I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is the way it appears.

I don’t think it’s harsh.  Either politics is still a worthwhile endeavor, or we’re hopelessly off the rails and it’s time to start a revolution.  You don’t get to sit on the sidelines and claim “Oh, but we’re preparing for revolution, and the rest of you guys are just a bunch of cheese dicks.”

I won’t claim to know for certain that the political process will end up exactly where we want it, but it’s a far better path forward than preparing for revolution, and writing off the process that could avoid it having to come to that.  The outcome of the political struggle is most decidedly uncertain, but it is far less uncertain than revolution.

And for those who claim they aren’t writing off the political process, then what are you doing to influence it?  What anti-gun legislators have you identified, and are working toward defeating?  Are you supporting pro-gun candidates for public office?  From a lot of the hard core folks, I have to admit, I see a lot of bitching and moaning, but precious little action.

I took up the role as a volunteer in my district because my Congressman signed on to McCarthy’s assault weapons ban.  That was enough for me to put aside whatever differences I had with the Republican Party and sign up to help defeat him, or at least make him pay attention to gun owners concerns, and treat them seriously. I don’t care if the guy running against my congress critter isn’t a perfect picture of shall not be infringed, as long as he’s an improvement.  The message to politicians is, “Poke the bear, and he’ll bite you.”  Sometimes that’s all it takes.

I understand the desire not to compromise one’s beliefs. I wasn’t involved through much of my 20s because of the mind sickness that the absolute righteousness of the Libertarian movement infects people with.  No compromise, no way.  Except that compromise is what politics is about.  Almost every interest is a minority interest.  Take any issue, and you will have a hard time finding a majority, but you can often find a majority in coalition with other issues.

My challenge to the hard liners isn’t necessarily to stop being hard liners.  I think that can provide a useful vehicle for getting people who are currently disaffected back into the being active in the movement.  But what is the next step after getting them interested?  After making them realize that there are others out there who think as they do?  Is it to make them more angry?  To convince them that it really is just all hopeless, and they better start digging out the machine gun nests now?

Or is it to get involved?  Some of the more hard liners are legitimately trying to go this route, and that’s positive.  We may not always agree on candidates, we may not always agree on methods of participation, but we can agree on some things, and that’s often enough.  I can work with someone who can’t vote for McCain, but who might be willing to point out to other gun owners that Obama would essentially ban guns in the United States.  I wouldn’t suggest to both sides “Can’t we all just get along?”  Because the answer, if we’re really honest, is no.  But there’s no reason we can’t work together on common goals when our political interests align, which probably happens more often than it doesn’t.  The real question is, what are we all willing to work toward?  More anger, or more political progress?  November is fast approaching.

… the uncommon, and unusually dangerous joys of the National Firearms Act.

While Sacramento is gloating about their ammo sale tracking program:

Of the 74 people who purchased ammunition and were prohibited from having guns, 62 had felony convictions, 11 were second strikers and five were gang members, police said.

Some questions the media should be asking, but won’t:

• What is the nature of the offenses the 74 prohibited people were accused of, and how long ago were the convictions?  There are a lot of people out there who plead to crap years ago, having no idea what they plead to were felonies.  Many of these are not violent crimes.   Like swapping dash boards on a car without swapping VINs.
• What was the nature of the five gang members convictions, how were they determined to be gang members, and how long ago were the convictions?
• What does this program cost, and would public safety be better protected if the resources required to administer this program were spent on traditional policing, hiring more officers, and stepping up patrols of high crime areas.  I mean, if you nailed a dozen violent felons in this total, what did it cost vs. traditional law enforcement?
• The police found 74 people, how many people in total were entered into the system?  How many people were investigated who committed no crime?

These are obviously the kinds of laws the Brady’s find reasonable, but I go through thousands of rounds of ammunition a year.  I have to buy in bulk, often in quantities that I can only find online.  Take this state wide, it will destroy competitive shooters, many of whom are already giving up under the weight of high ammo prices.  But don’t expect the Brady Campaign or others who push for these laws to give a crap about that.  Ammunition control is even more ridiculous than gun control.  Criminals go through precious little ammo, since they do not generally practice.  Lawful shooters go through thousands, and top competitiors tens of thousands of rounds a year.  It seems foolish to expend a lot of time, money, and police resources to catch a few dozen people who probably, in all honesty, aren’t a serious threat to public safety.