Research Funding

The Philadelphia Stinkquirer is joining the New York Times in demanding funding for anti-gun research. This is one case where my opinions on this issue are driven entirely by the motivations of our opponents. Ideally I think better information is a positive thing, and transparency in government is certainly a worthy goal. In a different world, a world where the Courts took Second Amendment rights seriously, and made a habit of striking down stupid gun laws, I’d have little issue with trace data being public, or public money going to fund neutral research into what policies were effective and which ones weren’t.

But the people who want this the most are looking to undermine Second Amendment rights to the greatest extent they can. Since we have the political power to deny them the data and funding they need, we’d be foolish not to do it. So the answer is no, we can’t allow “health experts cannot study ways to reduce the risk of deadly gun violence,” because too many people have a fore drawn conclusion as to what the answer is.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. All Your Joyce Funded Research Needs Now Online
  2. This is a New Idea?
  3. Anti-Gun Group Funding

Castle Doctrine: Senate This Time?

Senator Alloway has introduced the Castle Doctrine once again. Since the Senate is where it ran into trouble last session, it makes sense to start out there, though I’d be surprised it there won’t be a concurrent effort in the House. Hopefully with Corbett behind the effort, we won’t run into as many snags, and this can get passed quickly.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Castle Doctrine Signed by Corbett
  2. Castle Doctrine Introduced
  3. Corbett Noncommittal on Castle Doctrine

WaPo: Bring Back the AWB

The Washington Post has been particularly antsy lately to see our rights removed, and they seem to be closing off the week with a call to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, largely based on this study, which appeared earlier, that they claim shows it’s effective.

I’ve looked into this somewhat, and the Virginia Criminal Firearms Clearinghouse does indeed have magazine capacity as a field on the form. It seems, however, that the Post has made quite a leap to suggest this is effective. It’s interesting data, but it’s one state, and we have no idea whether the firearms in this database are representative of crime guns. It seems very strange that criminals should have a difficult time buying magazines of greater than ten rounds when as a law abiding person, I had no problem.

The disappointing thing about this article it has made us realize we have one more database we have to close off, so that our opponents can’t mine it for data and draw unfounded conclusions support limiting our constitutional rights. I do thank them, however, for pointing this glaring error out to us, and hope NRA takes this up with the Virginia legislature forthwith.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Wither the NFRTR
  2. Open Carry Dinner Gone South
  3. Paul’s Common Sense

ATF Study Released

Just read through this fairly quickly, but I think the Saigas are safe. Here are the evil features:

  1. Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
  2. bayonet lugs;
  3. flash suppressors;
  4. magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
  5. grenade-launcher mounts;
  6. integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
  7. light enhancing devices;
  8. excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
  9. excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
  10. forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

The Saiga is imported with a 5 round magazine, and has none of these features coming, so I’m pretty sure it’s safe. It only addresses importation. The study looked the meaning of the sporting purposes clause, and determined that IPSC, IDPA, etc are not shooting sports within that definition. For shotgun purposes, they’ve determined that only clay sports and hunting count.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. More on ATF Shotgun Study
  2. More on the New Funding Riders
  3. McCarthy’s Shopping List

Air Gun Ruling

A New York trial court rules that there’s not Second Amendment protection for air guns because they are not “arms,” within the meaning of the Second Amendment. It seems to me, however, that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily has to include some right to practice with and become proficient in the use of arms. Since air guns are of high utility for practicing and honing skills with arms, their possession and use ought to be protected as readily as powder firearms. Dave Kopel has, I think, successfully argued this point previously.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Right to Bear Arms by Minors
  2. Third Circuit Ruling on Housemates of Felons
  3. Youth Handgun Safety Act Upheld in the 1st Circuit

New Jersey AG on That Whole “Bear Arms” Thing

From an ANJRPC alert, we have the text of the Attorney General’s brief in the lawsuit over New Jersey’s carry laws:

New Jersey’s carefully conceived and long-standing regulatory scheme is rooted in an appreciation that a permit to carry may not afford any measure of self-protection to a particular applicant and would instead increase the risk of the applicant being involved in “the known and serious dangers of misuse and accidental use.” When a handgun is carried in public, the serious risks and dangers of misuse and accidental use are borne by the public.

New Jersey has not merely a significant interest but a compelling interest in combating handgun violence and combating the dangers and risks associated with the accidental and misuse of handguns, which are inherent in carrying a handgun. It also has a compelling interest in reducing the use of handguns in crimes. A government’s foremost function is to ensure the safety of all of its citizenry. When handguns are permitted to be carried beyond one’s home, the dangers and risks necessarily increase and are borne by the public.

Generally speaking, one cannot know whether crime against an individual will occur at all, much less know when, where, or how. Neither then can one know whether a handgun would provide an effective measure of self-defense and be safe to use as to other victims or bystanders. Further, the “need” for a handgun for self-defense outside of the home does not stand alone. The carrying of a handgun inherently comes with the dangers and risks of its misuse or accidental use. These dangers and risks are borne by everyone with whom the person encounters.

That’s kind of funny, considering 40 or so other states seem to manage some kind of shall-issue policy without blood running in the streets. This would also seem to be the kind of policy argument, advocated by Justice Breyer, that the Heller and McDonald majorities rejected. In addition to this statement, she’s’ trying to get ANJRPC and SAF thrown off the lawsuit.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. McDonald Freaking Out the Medical Establishment
  2. Bryan Miller Jumps In
  3. Pics of Pilot AD

More on the White House and Gun Control

From Newsweek:

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

What’s shaping up, it would seem, is that we’re going to get some kind of NICS bill out of this, like we did after Virginia Tech. The risk is, what else are we going to get with it?

Thanks to read Mike and Red Five X for the pointer.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Background Check Issues
  2. NICS Improvements
  3. Protecting Veteran Gun Rights