The New York Times doesn’t seem to get that we just recently made it legal in four states, but there’s a lot more states than that where it’s legal to carry a firearm into a restaurant. Actually, very few state prohibit it. The only reason the times makes this an issue is because they are mis-characterizing it. In most states, there is no legal definition of a bar. The New York Times mis-characterizing, and probably editorial selection, is probably why the vast majority of their letters attack restaurant carry. It’s not about enabling people to carry drunk. Carrying drunk is legal in many fewer states, and even in states where it technically is, like PA, you’ll probably still get your LTC revoked if you do it.
More Feigned Easement of Draconian Laws
In Puerto Rico. Their easement looks more like Chicago’s:
Torres said the measures will include a requirement that shooting ranges keep logs of how much ammunition their members use and cap the number of bullets each client can fire in target practice at 500 per year.
I’d say that’s still pretty unambiguously unconstitutional to place limits such as that.
The House legislation under analysis would require gun clubs to maintain logs that include information relative to the quantity and caliber of the ammunition that shooters use onsite. It would revoke licenses from any such business that does not comply with the legislation.
Puerto Rico might end up being a pretty good place to get some lawsuits going, considering it’s restrictions are even more onerous than Massachusetts’, and it resides in the same federal Circuit as a Massachusetts. Defeat licensing there, you defeat it in Massachusetts and Rhode Island as well.
Remember …
Burden of Proof in Mental Health Cases
Eugene Volokh covers a case in the California Court of Appeals. This case is a good example of the importance of picking your plaintiffs carefully. In this case, the courts are going to be looking for reasons why this guy shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun given the circumstances. I disagree with the courts ultimate conclusion:
First, with respect to the private interest element of the due process test, an individual’s right to possess firearms is of fundamental constitutional stature. However, this constitutional right is subject to the state’s traditional authority to regulate firearm use by individuals who have a mental illness. Moreover, the length of the threatened loss is a relevant factor in analyzing the nature of the private interest. Under section 8103, the deprivation of the right is lengthy, but temporary, lasting for five years. Further, the infringement concerns the loss of property, and does not involve deprivation of physical liberty or severance of familial ties.
You’re removing the most effective tool we have for self-defense. I think that’s up there with those other circumstances. The problem is, I think this guy’s temporary prohibition would pass a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard. I’m not sure why the Court felt the need to say preponderance of evidence is fine.
I appreciate the Courts willingness to take the right seriously, by at least doing a serious analysis, but far too many courts have been all too willing to treat the Second Amendment as a second class right.
Insurrectionist Second Amendment
Dave Hardy, who has done a good bit of academic work discrediting the Heller dissent, notes that it was the dissent that took the insurrectionist view of the Second Amendment, arguing that it had nothing to do with self-defense.
How You Know They are Losing
Democratic Governors running for Senate seats are running ads bragging about their NRA endorsements, and shooting bad bills:
In addition to being bad news for the Brady folks, this is also bad news for Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress. One wonders whether they will want to condemn this eliminationist rhetoric, which is surely only to be found on the right side of the aisle.
Want to Ban My Guns?
Japete is a bit incredulous we think so. I know I said it was time for me to disengage from Common Gunsense, but it’s too much to resist. She’s trying to rewrite history. We’re all well aware of the Brady Campaigns past, and their support of an effective ban on handguns. She points out that even the assault weapons ban didn’t actually ban anything. True, but the only reason that wasn’t the case is because they didn’t have the votes to pass confiscation, which is also the only reason it had a sunset clause. Let’s not also forget the last proposed incarnation of the AWB, which was far more draconian. Japete also needs an explanation for what followed up on the heels of the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Act, which was only stopped because we flipped Congress in 1994. Brady II, as it was dubbed, would never see the light of day.
Let’s make one other things clear. Whether or not you want to ban guns, or make them so difficult to own that for all practical purposes no one bothers, is an academic argument. I really could care less at this point. Recently a state lawmaker proposed a universal registration scheme which would have amounted to a tax on gun ownership. For serious collectors or competitors it would mean hundreds of dollars a year. You expect me not to oppose that because it’s not a ban? You think the fact that it costs 500 dollars to legally own a gun in DC, before even buying the gun, should be acceptable to us? Is it acceptable to you? Constitutional rights, but only for the rich? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot the position was constitutional rights for no one.
She then goes on to lament that the slippery slope can go the other way. Yes it can. It works in both directions. That why we’re all working to make sure it keeps heading in her direction. Is there anywhere it’s going to stop? Who knows. But it’s not like gun control works anyway, so don’t expect me to stand atop my soapbox and yell “stop.” Gun control advocates seem to think if somehow we believe you aren’t going to ban guns, we’re not going to oppose you. At this point we’re not afraid of your end game anymore. We just resent the interference with our rights. Where will the slippery slope stop? When you’re about as relevant as these people.
.22LR Zip Gun
But we’ll be able to ban them, no problem, right? They tell us criminals are too stupid to manufacture their own firearms, given what complex and advanced technology goes into one. This is clearly an example, since I’ve heard the trigger pull on this particular model is seriously sub par.
H/T to Sharp as a Marble.
Someone to Vouch for McCarthy’s Opponent
Looks like John Richardson knows the guy running against Carolyn McCarthy. She’s looking more an more vulnerable, and I’m really salivating over the possibility of getting her out. Brady has raised very little federal PAC money in the 2010 cycle. I think their only donations have been incidental. Of the approximately 4700 dollars they have spent, McCarthy has been the only person in Congress Brady has donated to at the 1000 dollar level, and only one of two candidates getting that much this cycle. They are busy raising money for their Illinois PAC, however, and this indicates that this election they are just trying not to lose more ground. There’s a very good chance that Illinois is going to flip from anti to pro in the next election.
UPDATE: Jacob, in the comments, points out that he voted along with Bloomberg on colored guns. That certainly doesn’t speak well for him, but all I need from him at this point is just to be better than Carolyn McCarthy. I’ll worry about rolling the dice again with him later.
Magical Falling Grades
Days of Our Trailers notices another case of questionable grading on the part of GOA. A common theme seems to be that they are Democrats.