Who says that more traditional shooting sports like trap have to be boring?
Video via Charles C W Cooke who adds: “This is the greatest thing I’ve ever seen and I will not be happy until I’ve done it.”
Ignorance of History
I’ve seen the “civic duty” meme floating around gun control circles lately, with the conclusion that you should have to join the National Guard if you want a firearm. That’s what the founders intended, according to them. It ignores the reality that the National Guard was created by the Dick Act of 1903Â and was nothing at all like a militia system the founders would have understood. From Miguel’s quoting at Daily Kos:
If you truly believe in the founders intent, then the answer is yes, the intent of the Second Amendment was to codify a civic duty. Those duties aren’t found in local gun clubs or so-called militia organizations, in their 20th century flavor. One place that civic duty can be found is in the National Guard.
Actually, the militia system our founders understood was closer to the local gun club than to the National Guard. To make matters worse for the historically challenged Kos contributor, the modern private militia groups they so deride were something the founder had intimate familiarity with. Actually, the closest modern civic body that offers the best analogy the founder’s militia, at least in structure and operation, is your local volunteer fire company.
I appreciate why the gun control folks want to reframe the discussion, but I think a bare requirement to accomplish that is for them to familiarize themselves with the literature on this topic. I am no expert, by any means, but it wouldn’t take but a few days of reading to develop a good enough understanding to have a reasonable discussion. Should we revive the militia system of the founding generation? It’s an interesting question, and something fine to debate, but first you have to know what you’re talking about when you say that.
More Consequences of Gun Control
Under Nevada law, it is illegal to allow anyone under 18 to handle a gun without supervision. The offense rises to a felony if there was substantial risk the child would use the firearm to commit a violent act. However, the law doesn’t apply if the gun was stored securely or if the child obtained the weapon unlawfully.
Years ago, back when kids routinely took guns to school so they could go hunting afterwards, or because they were on the school rifle or trap team, these things didn’t seem to happen. Maybe this has more to do with how we raise kids in protective bubbles today, and have low expectations for them when it comes to maturity and self-reliance, than it has to do with easy access to guns. Kids have never had tougher access to guns in our country’s history, and what is it accomplishing? Will jailing the parents who just lost a kid really benefit society?
Now With “More Me”
In the mailbox this morning:
Discover the IMPROVED INQUIRER! If you haven’t seen The Inquirer in a while, it’s time to look again. Because there’s a better Inquirer, and improved Inquirer, now with MORE YOU.
There’s already enough of me, I think. In fact, there could stand to be about 50 pounds less of me. I don’t want more me in my newspaper, but I’d really like one that presents local news in a balanced fashion, and isn’t just a mouthpiece for the establishment left. So until they apologize for that, instead of saying “MORE YOU,” I’ll continue monitoring other sources.
Seriously, that has to be the dumbest marketing campaign I’ve ever seen. I hope they didn’t pay too much for someone to come up with the MORE YOU campaign. If so, I’d want my money back.
Second Amendment Foundation Filing for Writ of Mandamus
I’ve always thought Writ of Mandamus sounded vaguely like the title of a Wagnerian Opera, but it’s essentially an order from a superior court to an inferior court to do something. The case is Palmer v. DC, and it’s a carry case.
[A] case challenging the carry licensing in the District of Columbia. Though DC may license the manner of carry, DC must allow law abiding residents to carry a handgun in public for self defense.
According to the SAF press release:
“We realize this is a difficult step to take,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “but this case has been languishing for 1,475 days, and counting since it was ready for decision. In our case in Moore v. Madigan, challenging the carry ban in Illinois, the trial court took 172 days to rule, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals took 202 days to issue its ruling on the appeal. We have been waiting well over four years for a decision in the Palmer case, which was filed in August 2009, and waiting four more is not an option.”
This would work toward getting us back to a situation where there is a prohibition on carry before the Court, similar to the situation in the 7th circuit, which resulted in a victory. It’s possible that the court doesn’t want to deal with may-issue v. shall-issue, but would rather have a case that involves prohibition. There was an opportunity for that with Illinois’ total prohibition, but the win in Shepherd/Moore at the Circuit Court of Appeals, and Illinois subsequent capitulation, took that off the table for reaching the Supreme Court.
Is This What Gun Control Advocates Want?
This is what gun control means, at the end of the day, and all over a single empty shell casing:
Police based their search on a charge made by Mr. Witaschek’s estranged wife, who had earlier convinced a court clerk to issue a temporary restraining order against her husband for threatening her with a gun, although a judge later found the charge to be without merit.
After entering the house, the police immediately went upstairs, pointed guns at the heads of Mr. Witaschek and his girlfriend, Bonnie Harris, and demanded they surrender, facedown and be handcuffed.
In recalling what followed, Mr. Witaschek became visibly emotional in describing how the police treated him, Ms. Harris and the four children in the house.
His 16-year-old son was in the shower when the police arrived. “They used a battering ram to bash down the bathroom door and pull him out of the shower, naked,†said his father. “The police put all the children together in a room, while we were handcuffed upstairs. I could hear them crying, not knowing what was happening.â€
This is what gun control means. It means guns being pointed at you and your family. It means sixteen year olds being dragged out of the shower naked because their father is in unlawful possession of a hunk of inert brass.
And for the gun control folks out there, and I know you guys lurk, I actually want to see you justify this. Tell me, is how we should treat citizens in a free society? Do we need to call out the gestapo over brass and a forgotten dud shotgun round? Because this is what you advocate, and you should face the ugliness of the reality you advocate, rather than to only revel in the idealistic fantasies you invent to justify it all.
New Ruling in Pennsylvania on Reciprocity and Second Amendment
In Pennsylvania Superior Court, the case is Commonwealth v. McKown. The court rules that Pennsylvania residents are required to have a license to carry issued by Pennsylvania, and that residents cannot lawfully carry on licenses issued by foreign jurisdictions, even if reciprocity exists. What’s the court’s reasoning? Because the law says anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm must apply to his or her sheriff (or Chief of Police for Philadelphia) for a license, which implies that the legislature intended Pennsylvania residents to have Pennsylvania license. This means if you’re a Pennsylvania resident, and are carrying on the license of another state, you are breaking the law. This is a very odd reading of the statute in question, and took quite a stretch, I think, for the court to reach. And if that’s not enough, the “constitutional and criminal law frontiersman” raised Second Amendment claims too.
We point out that neither the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor the Pennsylvania Constitution, bestows on any person the right to carry a concealed firearm or transport a loaded firearm in a vehicle. As noted above, the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute, and governmental restrictions on possession of firearms are permitted. Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-627. Here, the statute in question, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106, while falling within the scope of the Second Amendment, merely restricts hidden guns and the transport of loaded guns by those persons who do not have a license. We discern no error in the trial court’s conclusion that, under intermediate scrutiny, section 6106 does not violate the Second Amendment or the Pennsylvania Constitution …
… Pursuant to these police powers, we conclude that 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106 serves to protect the public from persons who would carry concealed firearms for unlawful purposes. This is an important governmental interest, and section 6106 is substantially related to the achievement of that objective. Thus, we discern no error in the trial court’s conclusion that section 6106 does not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Well, glad to see that went over so well. But wait, we’re not done yet. He also raised the claim that the Sheriff abused his discretion under the character and reputation law:
Sheriff Nau explained Appellant’s license had been revoked after he struck a person while highly intoxicated. N.T., Sentencing, 9/1/11, at 40. Sheriff Nau also testified that, had Appellant applied to have his license reinstated, he (Sheriff Nau) would have denied the request. Id. at 41. Despite Appellant’s letters in support of his good reputation, we discern no error in the trial court’s conclusion that, based on Appellant’s prior behavior and the testimony of Sheriff Nau, Appellant was not otherwise eligible for a license. Thus, there was no error in the grading of the charge.
So basically the eligibility protection to avoid sentencing enhancement is meaningless if the Sheriff can provide testimony he would have denied your application had you applied. Thanks to this “constitutional and criminal law frontiersman,” the rest of us get to enjoy the train wreck he just created. This train wreck is also brought to you by the Allegheny County Republican Party, who floated the judge who wrote this opinion. She’s not up for recall until 2017 too. The concurring judge is filling in a vacancy, but is a Philadelphia Republican as well. Also, I’d note that you know things are going to go pear shaped when a Court feels the need to say something like this in a footnote:
1 We note with displeasure that Appellant’s brief contains single-spaced text in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 124(a)(3). The trial court cautioned Appellant on this failure as well, and it admonished counsel to double space the text in his filings. Commonwealth v. McKown, 9 Pa. D. & C. 5th 183 (C.P. Centre 2009).
But he’s a frontiersman! Folks, if you’re going to challenge laws, hire a competent attorney. The rest of us have to live with the decisions of judges when you challenge the law without a workable plan and without the necessary skills, so please, don’t do it.
It’s Working in Illinois
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to impose mandatory minimum sentences for illegal gun possession was pulled from a House panel’s agenda Tuesday for further negotiations after it faced almost certain rejection from state lawmakers.
The Chicago Police chief makes an appeal to prosecutorial discretion, “contending that prosecutors would have discretion on the charges they level,” when faced with pushback about otherwise law abiding people getting ensnared by Rahm and Bloomberg’s trap. Don’t ever believe that. If there’s one thing we know it’s that prosecutors only discretion is whether they think they have a chance at a conviction, and when it comes to guns in Chicago, it’ll be the law abiding who end up with the book thrown at them, because they don’t have anything else to bargain away.
Increase Cost of Carry Permits
Luzerne County Councilman Rick Morelli wants to raise the concealed carry permit to $150 dollars in order to close a budget gap. This is why the law does not give counties the power to set the fee. If they actually go through with this, they need to be sued. You’ll also love this gem:
“Please note I very much support the second amendment where people have the right to keep and bear arms from impingement,” he wrote. “I also believe that we need tougher gun control laws. Since owning a fire arm (sic) is a privilege, I believe the people who want a permit will pay for it even at a higher rate.”
You support the Second Amendment, but owning a firearm os a privilege? It’s like they are parrots who just mimic the words and have no idea what they are saying. The really sad part is that, as best as I’ve been able to tell, Councilman Morelli’s views on the Second Amendment have the full support of our nation’s court system.
Big Anti-Gun Money in Virginia
I already saw comments and photos from friends in Northern Virginia that the Gabby Giffords PAC has spent lots of money on a constant stream of campaign mailers that practically accuse gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli of wanting to give away free guns to babies, terrorists, and domestic abusers.
Then word broke yesterday that Michael Bloomberg is dropping another $1.1 million in advertising into the state in just the final two weeks of the race. Politico notes that if Terry McAuliffe wins, he is a guarantee to be a very big Bloomberg ally on gun control.
They will always try to outspend us, and with someone like Bloomberg behind them, it will sometimes work. Fortunately, Colorado showed that sometimes we can also counter their big money by motivating voters in a big way. In fact, I would argue that the Colorado losses and the continued threat of more recalls there is why the gun control groups are going so big into the Virginia governor’s race. They can’t afford to lose something so high profile in another purple state, and they know it. Unfortunately, the polls look like they just might get that win they so desperately need to remain relevant unless Virginia voters really step up and turn out.