Dave Hardy notes that after today’s opinion release that Alito and Ginsburg are the only two remaining justices that have not issued an opinion from this sitting. This worries me because while many have always felt that Kennedy was the weakest link in the Heller Five, I’ve speculated that it’s actually Sam Alito. Let us hope this doesn’t say anything about the outcome of the case.
Today is Nosy Neighbor Day
If you have kids, you might find you have a couple of nosy neighbors today. It’s National ASK Day. They like to say that it’s not about gun control, yet their “activists” say that this is about preaching to others about the dangers of owning guns. So, it’s not about taking your guns with force, just trying to be nannies who bother you into giving them up. Because that’s so much better – death by harassment and annoyance.
At least if we had kids, no one would have to ask. We’re pretty outspoken about our gun ownership in a very polite and “normal” way – whether it’s the NRA stickers, the political volunteer time, or the fact that we’d probably be shooting parents instead of soccer parents, I think we’d send the message pretty loud and clear while sending the right messages about gun ownership being a normal thing.
Semi-Autos Safe in Finland
Based on the comments in this article, I think they were trying to ban any gun that held more than one round at all.
Finland will not impose a full ban on semi-automatic weapons, the interior minister said Monday, rejecting an inquiry commission proposal following two deadly school shootings.
“I will not take this proposal forward as it is,” Interior Minister Anne Holmlund told national broadcaster YLE in a televised interview.
“I don’t really believe that the banning of one approach in weapons would be the way to ensure massacres are prevented,” she said, adding several different actions were needed, including giving police wider access to information about gun licence applicants. …
Finland’s parliament is currently debating a new gun law, and the so-called Kauhajoki inquiry commission had asked Holmlund to back its proposal for a total ban on semi-automatic handguns in the new legislation.
“Both the school shootings of recent years and the Sello massacre were carried out using semi-automatic weapons.
“It is clear that single shot weapons would not have created similar victim figures,” Pekka Sauri, chairman of the Kauhajoki commission told YLE.
Pro-Tip for Dan Onorato: Research
Sebastian noted that our Democratic nominee for governor is blaming the Republican candidate for a non-loophole that he declares to independently be a loophole – reciprocity. Unfortunately, he kind of got some big freakin’ facts wrong – but as any internet commentator knows, that won’t stop a blowhard from beating his chest indignantly.
First, there’s the fact that Onorato is specifically blaming Corbett for the Florida reciprocity agreement. Which is funny because the Florida reciprocity agreement was signed in 2001 – before Corbett took office in 2005.
Second, there’s the fact that under the law, the Attorney General actually has an affirmative duty to sign the agreements. So it doesn’t matter who is in the Attorney General’s office, they are supposed to seek out reciprocity opportunities with other states. The laws for issuance of the other states are all at least as strict as ours – and Florida actually has more requirements to obtain a license than Pennsylvania. So if they can do away with the Florida agreement, the anti-gun folks will just pick another state to target. And it won’t be long before all of our concealed carry agreements are gone.
Onorato Blaming Corbett for Non-Loophole
Onorato is blaming Tom Corbett for the so-called “Florida Loophole,” showing that the candidate for Governor in 2010 is not shy about sending his gun control views up the flag pole. This is in contrast to Governor Ed, who conveniently dropped the issue like a hot potato during his 2002 and 2006 runs.
I’m convinced that Governor Ed has convinced fellow Dems that the NRA can’t touch them. His evidence? His two terms, and Barack Obama’s ten point win in this state. Except Ed ran against two lackluster candidates, and so did Barry. Corbett isn’t a weak candidate. He’s a hard campaigner and a good fundraiser.
It’s absolutely important we send Dan Onorato packing this fall, or it’s going to be over for us in Pennsylvania. Democrats will say the NRA can’t hurt them, only then they will be right.
Last Word on DISCLOSE Before the Weekend
Cam Edwards on his show tonight reads a response from Brad Smith from the Center for Competitive Politics, the group Cam mentioned on Tuesday as being the premier group for fighting this kind of campaign finance nonsense. They are the one that coined the term “Shotgun Sellout.” Well, Jim Geraghty of National Review picked up on this story too, which got Brad’s attention, so Cam reads his response here, which is considerably more conciliatory:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmc1kY9dcHo[/youtube]
I have also lent some monetary support to the Center for Competitive Politics, because I really appreciate Brad’s response and honesty here. My comment to them?
I am disgusted by DISCLOSE. I do support NRA’s position on this bill as an NRA member, concerned about the Second Amendment, but I am hoping you folks will do some good work bringing in the First Amendment support. Campaign Finance reform is an abomination for First Amendment rights. I look to the NRA to defend the Second. I will look toward you to defend the First. Thank You.
I will be honest. I did not know about CCP except through Cam’s show. Now that I know about them, I will support them. Fighting Campaign Finance laws is difficult work. The people pushing incumbent protectionism in the name of clean politics have the rhetoric on their side. It is an uphill battle. I wish CCP all the luck in the world in this fight. It’s a difficult one, but it is of supreme importance.
Changing Technology Challenges the Law
Under Pennsylvania law, if these “stun gun bandits” robbed a Starbucks with a gun, you’d be legally justified in shooting them. But they are robbing with a stun gun, which is not deadly force. In many states, you can use deadly force to stop a forcible felony, and robbery counts. Pennsylvania is not one of those states, however.
Could you claim self-defense for the use of deadly force if you had a pacemaker or bad heart, and were threatened with a taser? More importantly, if you’re carrying a firearm, and are threatened with a taser, can you claim self-defense because they could use the taser to disarm you?
If it were me, I’d probably spray them. But I’m not sure that’s the smart move. I tend to think the use of deadly force to stop a forcible felony is the correct standard. That standard does have its roots in common law. If you’re committing a robbery, you’re taking your life into your hands. No matter what the instrument. That seems, to me, to be the right balance.
If DISCLOSE is Defeated, Does NRA Deserve Credit?
Joe Huffman, in the context of this whole DISCLOSE fiasco, an interesting philosophical question:
This may end up being a Philosophy 101 question. Should someone (or an organization) be criticized for their intentions or on the results of their actions? If they were being very clever and defeated the bill we should praise them. If they were just looking out for the short term and got lucky with the same result should we be critical of them?
Let me start off by saying I don’t think any of this was some devious plot by NRA. There’s too many unknowns at work they couldn’t have predicted ahead of time. But in conflict, any kind of conflict, engaging with your opponent yields important information. It forces him to react. In most conflict, the victor is often not the smartest player in the game, but the player who makes the fewest mistakes. Philosophically, I think you have to look at intent. But what was NRA’s intent?
Boiled down to one sentence it was “If we’re subject to this bill, we’re going to oppose it.” That forced the enemy, in this case, Pelosi and Van Hollen, to react. They reacted poorly, first by rejecting Shuler’s proposal to exempt all 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, which would include NRA and nearly everyone else. Second in floating a blatantly transparent deal that exempted pretty much only NRA, that had the effect of pissing everyone else off enough to actually do something in opposition to the bill. NRA engaged the enemy, and they made mistakes. The entire chain of events was set in motion by NRA’s initial opposition to DISCLOSE. If the bill goes down to defeat, which is looking increasingly likely, I think it would be unfair not to give NRA credit for its defeat. It was the NRA’s opposition to the bill that forced the Democrats to make mistakes.
Perhaps it could be argued that NRA making public pronouncements about not opposing DISCLOSE with Van Hollen’s amendment was a mistake. There’s an argument to be made. I don’t think many historians would argue that our carrier tactics in the Battle of the Coral Sea were all that up to stuff, but it’s still widely considered an American win because we were the side that made fewer mistakes. Strategically, the implications of that conflict played out in our favor. So I don’t think it’s any less correct to credit NRA with defeating DISCLOSE than it would be to say the U.S. Navy won the Battle of the Coral Sea.
He’s Got a Point
The Knoxville Gun Rights Examiner takes notice of a product being sold by NRA which is an extraordinarily bad idea. I hope NRA will reconsider this. I don’t think they really want to sell anything that puts their members in danger.
Home Depot Supplying NYC Criminals With Illegal Weapons?
The knives generally fall into one of two categories: switchblades and gravity knives. On a switchblade, the blade pops out at the simple flip of a switch; with gravity knives, the blades come out by a simple flick of the wrist. Carrying either of those kinds of knives is a crime under New York State law, prosecutors said. A spokesman for Home Depot, Stephen Holmes, said the company did not know that the knives were illegal in New York. As soon as prosecutors contacted the company, it immediately removed the knives from its two Manhattan stores and is removing them from all locations in the state, the spokesman said.
“These are common knives,†Mr. Holmes said, adding that contractors and homeowners often used them “for various home-improvement projects.â€
“We simply didn’t know that they were being used for any other purpose,†he said.
They weren’t being used for any other purpose, and Home Depot isn’t selling switchblades. This is a case of New York City’s District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. being a hysterical ninny. These people have completely lost their minds. You’re trying to regulate sharp pointy things! Think about it man!
UPDATE: Holy crap. Watch the video. To demonstrate the knives are dangerous, they show one salesman saying “I’ve almost taken my fingers off with those!” Knives can be dangerous. Who knew?!? I’d hate to think how a New York Times investigative reporter would deal with being sent to culinary school. Just think of how dangerous that must be?