Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 795 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

NRA’s Preference for Broad Suits

I was in Hawaii when I heard that NRA filed suit against the federal law that bars 18-20 year olds from purchasing firearms. I was pleased even more to learn that the case was brought in Texas, which is in the more gun friendly Fifth Circuit, and seemed to have a carefully selected plaintiff that got around the Texas state law that generally prohibits handguns to 18-20 year olds (there’s an exception for military and honorably discharged veterans, and the plaintiff is a veteran). But John Richardson points out over at No Lawyers that the case is also challenging Texas’ prohibition on carry licenses to 18-20 year olds. What?

Why complicate the case with that question? Truth is, there’s not much that can justify removing a constitutional right for 18-20 year old individuals, and the courts will probably say a lot of useful things in deciding such a case. I think NRA is on really solid ground with that part of the case. Since it’s federal law, it didn’t even really need incorporation. But Texas is hardly an outlier in restricting licenses to carry a firearm to those 21 or older. Indiana is actually the only state I know of that will issue to 18-20 year olds (though I think there are a few more). I don’t think this is the circumstance where I want to get the courts to recognize a right to carry a firearm. While the Fifth Circuit (same circuit that ruled the Second Amendment was an individual right in Emerson) is certainly more gun friendly than, say, the Second, I would note that they still upheld Lautenberg under their standard of review.

Benson is also a very broad case, that basically throws everything and the kitchen sink at Chicago. This would indicate NRA is preferring to back broad cases. I don’t think this is a wise strategy, as I think we’re better off moving cases forward that ask the courts to decide on narrowly tailored questions, with plaintiffs carefully chosen, and optimized for those circumstances. This is SAF’s strategy, so far. That’s not to say I think NRA’s strategy is doomed, by any means, but it seems to me that SAF has the better strategy here. I’d be interested to hear more legally trained observers opinion on this.

UPDATE: OK, it seems I read hastily, and they are actually two separate cases.

Interesting Views on Hunting

The Lebanon Daily News says they support hunting, but not pigeon shooting, but call hunting a “blood sport,” in the same category as pigeon shooting. Actually, no. Blood sports are things like dog fighting, cock fighting, bear baiting, and bullfighting, though I’m sure HSUS appreciates the subtle smear against hunting. I’m sure they also appreciate the Daily News repeating their lie that Pennsylvania is the only state that permits pigeon shoots. No doubt they greatly appreciate the entire article, which promotes HSUS’s agenda in Pennsylvania.

Sorry, Daily News, you’re not pro-hunting just because you post a few hunting pictures. You’re actively supporting an organization that attempted to make that very act a crime. You’re no friend of hunters.

Veterans Gun Rights Bill Clears Committee

Jerry Moran (R-KS) reports that his bill, which basically strips the Department of Veterans Affairs of their power to strip Second Amendment rights from veterans that have a fiduciary appointed to them. This was a despicable Clinton era practice. Moran’s legislation requires a judicial act in order for someone to be adjudicated. This is part of a larger veterans benefits bill, so it should have no issue getting a floor vote, getting past the Senate, and getting President Obama’s signature.

Strangely enough the Bradys are opposing this bill. Really? You still have a process for adjudicating someone, it just requires taking it to court rather than a unilateral decision by a government bureaucrats. The Brady position seems pretty radical to me, for a group that says they just want reasonable gun laws.

The Battle over the Canadian Registry is Getting Started

And apparently it’s all a vast, NRA fueled Yankee conspiracy, at least that’s what the Canadian media is implying. Word now is that the bill to repeal the long gun registry is doomed, because there are some Liberal Party politicians in rural ridings who are going to vote against it. Here’s my advice to Canadian Gun owners, just to fuel the conspiracy: You need to single out these rural, Liberal Party MPs and make examples out of them by voting them out of office, and make sure it’s apparent that the gun vote was significant. You will likely have to coalition with other malcontents, but it can be done. Crap like this is what you’re up against, but politicians will ignore that if they start to think the gun vote can remove them from office. That’s how we did it here. There’s no reason it can’t work in Canada too. Step one is to put the fear of the gun vote into the politicians. The rest will follow.

A Party Leader to Be Ousted

Political parties, contrary to some tea party rhetoric, are not monolithic entities that are impossible to infiltrate or persuade. They are made up of real people, often your neighbors. Yes, you might be shocked to find out that political parties often have offices that represent even specific neighborhoods.

As with any group of real people, especially those trying to influence policy, some will make mistakes. All will try to use their role to give their favorite candidates and causes a higher profile with other party members and voters. That’s not a bad thing, even if sometimes a few act pretty stupidly while doing it.

But there are a few who have an absolutely toxic view of their role and how they are there to tell people how to vote and what is best. They aren’t willing to argue the merits of a specific candidate or policy. That is what you have in New York.

Vinny Reda, the partyâ€™s vice chairman and the Rockland County committee chair, explained Tuesday that he believed Paladinoâ€™s campaign was a distraction.

â€œWe very, very rarely have primaries, and I for one am very much against primaries. I find them very divisive,â€ he said.

â€œItâ€™s true, itâ€™s been difficult, which is why I think we had a light turnout all over the state,â€ Reda continued. â€œThe Republicans just arenâ€™t used to primaries. â€¦ People are confused, theyâ€™re getting mail from different directions, and thatâ€™s why they need the party organizations to set them straight and point them toward the endorsed candidates.â€

He believes it is his job to tell voters how to vote and “set them straight” rather than merely doing the work of arguing on behalf of their endorsed candidates. More importantly, he doesn’t even want to have a system where others can express their disagreement. That is truly a toxic view. The New York Republicans should chase that guy out of the party. Even if his endorsed slate did have better candidates, the fact that he’ll tell reporters he’d rather do away with primaries than be forced to defend or promote a candidate to voters based on merits means he needs to go. The position has gone to his head, so it’s time to cut it off. The power, I mean. Not his head.

Gunsmith of Williamsburg, and Other Junior High Films

Many thanks to Clayton for pointing this series of videos out:

You can see some other parts on YouTube here and here. I probably watched some of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation videos myself when I was in Junior High too. It’s occurred to me that I was probably among the last of the 16mm film reel generation. When I entered high school, the schools were just starting to get the newfangled Laser Discs, which could be controlled with a nifty Apple IIGS computer. Kids today will never know the disappointment of being subject to regular lessons because the projector wouldn’t track correctly, the film reel broke, or the bulb in the projector blew out (some teachers knew how to fix these things, others didn’t). I’m sure with a new generation of media came a new generation of films, which means kids today will miss out on the delight of what I saw in Volcano National Park in Hawaii, reliving some interests from childhood:

Parts two,Â three and four if you’re interested. Documentary filmmaking today doesn’t have the same dry, cheesy appeal. No dramatic score, or inappropriately deadpan, unenthusiastic narrator. In part four, at the end, I was particularly struck by the fact that they used, as evidence of mother nature recovering, that they tilled over the soil, and planted some papayas, and they grew, dammit! Today it would be some kumbayaÂ crap about fragile native plants that man as clearly destroying growing in the lava, and starting the cycle anew, rather than man punching mother nature right back in her face and getting some farming action back on.

As it is, I hiked through the area mentioned here, and it’s still pretty desolate.

I guess we didn’t punch mother nature quite hard enough. Not often you get to hike on naturally made, volcanic gravel — a remnant of the lava fountain that spewed here for a while.

Clearly Not Happy

The Brady Campaign’s press release suggests they are bummed about last night’s primary results. Losing Castle is a pretty big loss for them. They call him a moderate, but he was willing to lead on the issues that were important to them. From a Second Amendment perspective, I couldn’t be more thrilled about last night. From the perspective of someone who doesn’t like Republicans who rail against the evils of pornography, masturbation and evolution, I’m less thrilled. But I dislikeÂ bearded marxists more, so here’s looking toward November.

Bloomberg Mayor Get Three Years

Dave Hardy has the story. He was convicted back in June for accepting bribes from contractors, in the form of home improvements, so that they could keep lucrative city contracts.

Man with a Gun

The Portland police set up a perimeter of officers with rifles drawn for reports of a man with a gun. At a gun store. (Link stolen from Radley.)

Thoughts from Others on O’Donnell Victory

Fred Bauer talks about how O’Donnell actually pulled it off, after a career of being somewhat of a joke in Delaware politics. Overall, I think her victory ends up being a good thing, even if I think she’s a lousy candidate. Not so much for the practical impact, but for the message it sends. Castle is obviously dumbfounded, and is, so far, not endorsing O’Donnell. Jonah Goldberg thinks it was a tactical mistake to nominate her, but correctly notes:

When you have an organic grassroots uprising, itâ€™s sort of silly to expect that it will make every decision with surgical skill and perfect foresight. Indeed, the attempt to play mincing games of compromise threatens to cool the very passions that have gotten us this far. In this Rush, I think, isÂ basically right.

Jim Geraghty also relays a letter from a Delaware native that seems to grasp the First State’s political climate quite well:

Both parties in Delaware have been led by blue-blood patrician types for eons. That probably isnâ€™t unusual in most states, but in a small state it plays out in a very interesting way. The big donors and loyalists of both parties are members of the same bar association, members of the same country clubs, do business together and send their kids to the same private schools. They live in the same neighborhoods, too. This co-mingling created a genteel centrist quality in Delaware politics that has not been challenged in any significant way, until now.

Last, but certainly not least is from the Belmont Club:

Itâ€™s news that nobody from the establishment wants to hear. The Democrats may win Delaware, but at the price of watching a new political fault line define itself without being able to take much advantage of it. To the traditional horizontal divide between Republican and Democrat is added a vertical one: Washington insider vs outsider. It has divided politics into quadrants.

I think, in the end, O’Donnell’s victory may be a tactical loss, but strategically, it probably needed to happen. What surprising is that Mike Castle was able to avoid a significant primary challenge for as long as he did. It was his time to go.