Shall Not Be Questioned

This Stanford University student managed to get her name removed from the “no fly” list. She is only the first person to successfully challenge placement on the list, out of 875,000 names on it.

Pipkin and a team of lawyers handled the case pro bono, spending $300,000 in court costs and racking up $3.8 million in legal fees covering some 11,000 hours of work, she said. “Why in the United States of America does it cost that much to clear a woman’s name?” she asked in a telephone interview.

Glenn Reynolds notes, “A watch list is one thing. But a “no fly” list with 875,000 names? Banning someone from flying is a punishment. There should be due process.” Yes, there should be. I think it’s also worth noting that while the right to travel is an unenumerated right, people like Bloomberg and, ahem, Chris Christie, think it’s just fine to deny the fundamental, constitutional right to keep and bear arms by someone presence on this list. Does being guilty until you can spend 4.1 million dollars on attorneys the kind of due process the framers of the 5th and 14th Amendments were thinking of? It’s shameful that this is happening with people’s right to travel. We should not double down on this shame.

The media has been going nuts over the Florida “Popcorn Shooter”. It’s obviously not the perfect narrative for them, because the shooter was a retired cop, and is in the class of “people who should have access to guns,” to pretty much everyone except the looniest anti-gun activists. Here’s a Christian Science Monitor article about the whole thing.

I think it’s hard to argue that a retired cop shouldn’t be carrying a gun everywhere, all the times, especially when they are in or near the area they used to patrol. But if we’re going to start one of those “national conversations” maybe it’s time to start one on police culture, and how we can identify cops who have anger issues, and encourage them to take a different career path. Also, maybe we need to have a conversation about things like this, from the CSM article:

Some have suggested that Reeves, 71, may have felt legitimately threatened and bullied by the younger Mr. Oulson, and that the thrown popcorn could qualify as an assault on an elderly person, a felony worthy of self-defense in Florida. That tack toward a possible “stand your ground” defense has already been dubbed the “popcorn defense.”

If assault on an elderly person is, in fact, a felony, regardless of stand-your-ground, it’s always been law in Florida (and many other states) that you can use deadly force to stop the commission of a forcible felony, and my understanding is that felony assault would qualify. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on Florida law could comment. If there is a “popcorn defense,” that strikes me as an awful mistake in the part of the legislature, and should be corrected. Florida seems to be full of nonsensical criminal law. Legislatures seem to instinctively gravitate towards “getting tough on crime” through passing penalty enhancements that have little overall deterrent value. But did they unthinkingly create a ridiculous justifiable homicide situation by making a ridiculous felony? Wouldn’t surprise me if that is indeed the case.

I’m happy to repot that Bitter is done with her illness and on the mend, just in time for me to get sick again. Based on the fact that I don’t feel like death warmed over, I’m guessing just a cold. It certainly seems to be following the cold progression, and my temp is only slightly elevated. Hopefully I won’t pass this on to Bitter, otherwise it’s going to be like we had children disease wise. I’ve heard of some couples who have lots of kids and almost never have everyone well in winter.

First up, we have the SHOT show going on, and lots of interesting stuff there:

Jim Zimbo won a communication won an award at the State of the Industry Dinner. I think he made all the right reconciliatory gestures after the fact, so I don’t think he needs to be a pariah. Now Dick Metcalf on the other hand ….

The Robinson Arms XCR is a rifle I’ve been irrationally attracted to ever since I saw them change it from 5.56x45mm, to 6.8SPC, to 7.62x39mm all in one shooting session. Apparently it’s popular with Canadians because it’s unrestricted. I believe their law hinges on whether it’s a variant of a military rifle, which the XCR is not.

Hollywood is making another bomb of a movie. I’m not sure how the market for leftist political porn is these days, but I predict a flop.

New precision rifles, soon to be renamed “sniper” rifles and put on the anti-gun banwagon.

First look at the “Appleseed Ruger”

R51 Photos. PDB has some concerns about their marketing. I’m not sure “our product will make you into a ninja,” type advertising has ever been fail if your target audience is men.

The MG-34 Maschinengewehr.

And now for some non SHOT links:

Local opposition stymies SAFE Act. Note that SAFE is not any kind of happy medium, as the anti-gun folks push for even more laws. I wonder how Remington feels now about investing in New York.

Chicago has been given a six month stay to reform its laws about gun sales and transfers. As an Obama appointed judge in Utah showed on gay marriage, when the issue in question is favored, they know how to issue immediate injunctions.

Joe thinks California will be shall-issue eventually, nothing a recent lawsuit victory.

First question I have is how did he know:

Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

“At home in my safe,” John answers.

“Don’t move,” says the officer.

And they say we have nothing to fear from registration? Bullshit. Apparently the guy is thinking about giving up his permit. I’d consider a civil rights lawsuit before I considered anything else. This guy was lucky. When I drive through Maryland, I’m usually transporting the gun in compliance with FOPA. I’d probably have been arrested and charged. I really hope this guy files a lawsuit, because we need to send a message to Maryland authorities that it is not OK to harass law abiding gun owners transiting through their state.

Second, we all need to ensure that permit information is private in our states. Pennsylvania provides a means to verify a license given one in hand, but as far as I know the cops can’t pull up whether your licensed or not on their systems. Though, we do have that PSP registry I do believe the authorities, at least in Pennsylvania, can pull up. I’ve heard of cases of people getting pulled over in Pennsylvania and challenged by officers who had brought a gun with them when they moved from out of state, and thus it was not “registered” to the owner.

Crying victimization in the media yet again, this time to Politico. Jim Zumbo accepted his career’s public hanging with more grace and class, and at least tried to make things right. And what Zumbo said was a lot worse. He’s continuing to feed the narrative of a gun rights movement dominated by extremists and foaming mad dogs to our enemies who are the media.

The existing body of literature and legal precedent on the Second Amendment is much like the Bible: One can find something to support nearly any agenda. Even the Founders themselves wrote many different things at different times (with commas in different places) about what they meant by a Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Or by “well regulated.” Or by “militia.” I wish more people would actually read those writings.

The problem is that a lot of us have read those writings, and there absolutely no support for your take on the meaning of “well-regulated” in late 18th century usage, or support for the idea that the exercise of the right could be preconditioned on something like a training requirement. It could be argued that the American gun culture of the late 18th century was very different from today, and I would even agree with many points in that regard, but the fact is there were no laws around that time that preconditioned the rights exercise on training. There was mandatory militia service, but that was a function of the state’s military powers, not its police powers.

Both sides believe they have the American mainstream on their side. But when Second Amendment supporters argue it is unconstitutional to bar convicted felons from acquiring guns, the American mainstream stops listening. When Second Amendment supporters argue it is unconstitutional to require any training whatsoever before carrying a concealed firearm in public, the American mainstream stops listening.

Except you weren’t writing for the American mainstream. You were writing for subscribers of Guns & Ammo. I might believe the courts are unlikely to strike down training requirements, but you basically said that we ought to like it. I don’t. Much like prior restraints can’t be constitutionally placed on speech, I don’t believe they ought to be constitutionally placed on the right to bear arms either. While I generally share Metcalfe’s concern about not pushing so far that the American mainstream will lash back, I’m willing to argue until I’m blue in the face that the Second Amendment ought to be treated as equals among rights, and that means not creating special conditions that would never fly with other rights, prior restrains being among them.

Things have been busy. I’m normally in the office only two days a week, but because I have a data center construction project going on this week, I’m in every day. That means 2.5 hours a day goes “poof” in the commute to and fro. Today the electrician made a mistake that had me going back and analyzing my plans to see if I could live with it. Unfortunately for him the answer was no, and I had to ask him to change it. I have to be present enough to catch those kinds of things. Bitter is also still getting over her flu. So we’ll see if I have enough build up in the tabs to make a decent news link post:

Concealed carry permit holder stops shooting rampage. They never make the news because the body counts never rack up high enough to attract attention from the media.

Follow Jeff’s advice, not Joe’s.

Testing Markley’s Law.

Federal court says “strict scrutiny” for the Second Amendment in that Corps of Engineers case. I hadn’t noticed this, because to be honest, I didn’t have time to read the full opinion. But this is a welcome development.

Miguel has been digging through the MAIG e-mails in detail. He’s up to Part 4. You can find Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 too.

Also, Miguel notes that Toby Keith’s new restaurant is jumping on board the Demanding Moms bandwagon. They’ve made it blatantly clear they don’t want people like us there.

Metcalfe’s apologists at work. One of the better commentaries on this particular foot-in-mouth incident I’ve read.

Tennessee goes for super duper preemption. A lot of states need this, because if you don’t spell it out clear as day the crooked politicians and crooked judges will do what they can to blow holes in it.

Gun Control, Mass Shootings, and Political Ignorance. One thing that’s always fascinated me about polling is how transient public opinion is on some issues. I kind of wish people that ignorant would do us all a favor and stop voting.

Fast and Furious was a secret program to arm the Sinaloa Cartel. I heard others speculate this before, but this is more evidence.

If you’re looking for good coverage of the 2014 Shot Show, I’d recommend following The Firearm Blog.

Kansas towns find it too costly to maintain their gun free zones, because the State of Kansas decided to follow an idea I had years ago on this matter. I called it the “Three S” test.