Rasmussen shows that Sestak is ahead of Toomey by 4 points. It also shows that 61% of Pennsylvanians want the health care reform repealed. I have a feeling that Sestak’s numbers are going to drop once people get to know him, but I don’t want to count on that. I like what Xlrq said, “Congratulations, Pennsylvania, you just jumped out of the frying pan. Step two is not to land in the fire.” This is truth.
Brady Oops
Apparently the Brady Campaign made made two big mistakes in the Amicus brief they filed yesterday, including not making sure their attorney was admitted to practice in the court. I guess when you’re getting pro-bono legal work, you don’t look a gift horse in the mouth, but this gift horse is looking a bit lame if you ask me.
GRE Boycott of Marriott is Premature
I’m not going to join in the Gun Rights Examiner boycott of Marriott, because I think Marriott’s interpretation of North Carolina law is plausible, and I think the Examiners are missing the important issues. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on North Carolina law, and hold out the possibility that there might be case law that validates the Examiners’ position. But people need to understand case law before jumping to conclusions, and calling for boycotts, because it’s not individuals or corporation who determine the law, it’s judges. It is not my purpose here to assert that the Examiners are definitely wrong, but to take folks through the process of understanding how law works. I will leave it to the readers to comment as to who’s right or wrong.
The Examiners are taking one interpretation of North Carolina law, Marriott is taking another. I am not a lawyer, but I know something about Firearms Law, and if I were advising a friend on this matter I would say a Hotel with a license to serve alcohol is a prohibited place under North Carolina law. That’s not the only interpretation, but it’s the safe interpretation. Why it’s safe has to do with how law is made. First, let’s begin with the statute:
§ 14‑269.3. Carrying weapons into assemblies and establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any gun, rifle, or pistol into any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto, or into any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(b) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) A person exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269;
(2) The owner or lessee of the premises or business establishment;
(3) A person participating in the event, if he is carrying a gun, rifle, or pistol with the permission of the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event; and
(4) A person registered or hired as a security guard by the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event.Â
What does “sold and consumed” mean? What areas does that encompass? You can say that’s common sense, but common sense won’t save you from a prosecutor and a judge who hate defensive carry looking to make an example and set some anti-gun case law.
I’ve tried to look for what case law there exists on the meaning of this, but I’ve been unable to find any. There have been prosecutions under § 14‑269.3, but none of them involve anything ambiguous. The fact of the matter is that you can purchase alcohol at the hotel bar, and probably from room service, and consume it anywhere in the hotel. If I were advising a friend on this, I’d be very uncomfortable telling him that the only place off limits from carry is the bar area. The law says “sold and consumed” without specifying a scope for that. Mr. Valone relayed a story about asking the hotel desk whether he could buy a drink from them. It’s a novel argument. Maybe it would hold up in court. But would you be comfortable making that argument in court before a judge and jury? Because that’s the only way you can settle things like scope and meaning.
Marriott may not have been entirely correct in how they are framing the issue, because I doubt their PR flack is familiar with firearms law. And the Examiners are quite correct that North Carolina law does not require posting on the premises, but Marriott’s assertion that it is unlawful to carry anywhere in their hotel is not an unreasonable interpretation of North Carolina law. If they don’t wish to have their customers arrested and prosecuted, then posting the legal requirement is not an unreasonable action on their part. If the Examiners can show me some case law that shows that the scope of the prohibition is as narrow as what they say, then I’ll relent. But until then I’m going to suggest that a boycott is premature, and their energies would be best sent in the direction of Raleigh, where pressure could be put on the people who actually have the power to change this bad law.
UPDATE: I should probably also address the issues created by § 14‑415.11. I do not believe anyone who was carrying a firearm in the building, unaware that they had posted signs, is going to be liable for a crime. The statute itself requires “conspicuous notice” and when conventioneers entered the hotel, no notice was present. Their adding notice after folks were already in the building doesn’t amount to notice per this law. Generally speaking, you need to be aware you’re committing a crime in order to be charged under it (with some exceptions). You’re on much much firmer ground here than you would be if charged under § 14‑269.3. If GRNC had wanted to, could it have bought alcohol from the Hotel for their GRNC event and had it delivered to that room? Drank it there? I’ll bet the answer is yes.
UPDATE: Howard Nemerov notes that his local Marriott hotels seem to follow state law. The question is what corporate policy is. If they banned concealed carry, I would jump on board with not doing business with them, but following local law is reasonable, and after doing a bit more research on North Carolina’s ABC statutes, it’s illegal to carry in a hotel in North Carolina that has a liquor license for on-premises consumption, which is most halfway decent hotels. Interestingly, if it was a hotel with an attached restaurant, you’d probably be fine, because you can’t legally take alcohol out of the restaurant and drink it (except at home or in your hotel room). But if the hotel has a bar, you can’t really carry.
UPDATE: They may be required to post, if you look at this section of North Carolina’s liquor laws.
It shall be unlawful for a permittee or his agent or employee to knowingly allow any of the following kinds of conduct to occur on his licensed premises: […]
(3) Any violation of the controlled substances, gambling, or prostitution statutes, or any other unlawful acts.
This is not an explicit demand to post signage about concealed weapons being prohibited, but I could see a lawyer believing that posting was the safe route. If they allow unlawful activity to occur in their hotel, they could jeopardize their liquor license. I’m going to admit this is a stretch, but corporate lawyers are notoriously cautious about exposing their employers or clients to risk.
GOP Going After Carolyn McCarthy?
This is promising news. Jacob talks about the fact that she’s actually in a district that could easily elect a Republican, it’s just that, much like with my district, the GOP is fragmented and disorganized, and has run bad candidates. Maybe this is the year. If they have a stab I hope they take it. It would be nice to get Carolyn “The shoulder thing that goes up” McCarthy out of Congress.
Changing Definitions
Chicago can’t reduce their murder rate. So how do we solve it? Why, change the definition of murder, that’s how. Everyone knows it’s a lot better to get killed indoors than outdoors.
Here it Comes
Castle Doctrine is getting a vote in the Judiciary Committee on May 25th. The bad news is that so are three anti-gun bills. From NRA:
- House Bill 1043 would create a new Bureau of Illegal Firearms Trafficking or a “Firearm Trafficking Czar†in the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General.  Passage of this bill has the potential of establishing yet another anti-gun biased bureaucratic agency within the state government.
- House Bill 1044 would gut Pennsylvania’s firearm preemption statute which currently allows only the State Legislature to enact laws pertaining to firearms. Without a state preemption law, the result would be a complex patchwork of restrictions that change from one local jurisdiction to the next.
- House Bill 1045 would bring California-style gun-control to the Keystone State and ultimately ban many semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by Pennsylvanians.
Contact information for the committee is here. We can’t count on these bills to be defeated. Remember, New Jersey was a pro-gun state until the day it wasn’t. So it will be the same for us if we do nothing.
Demiled Brass Saved for Civilian Sale
NRA backed an Amendment floated by Brad Ellsworth which prevents the military from destroying once-fired brass, allowing it to be sold on the open market. Excellent. Now if we can just get them to stop demiling the ammunition in the first place.
Not surprised to see Ellsworth taking up the mantle. He’s running for the open Senate seat in Indiana that was vacated by Evan Bayh, against a Republican who has a dicey past voting record when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Bucks GOP Can Get Bent
Given that we’re under attack, this is hardly a time for infighting. But as a Republican in Bucks County I’ve been progressively annoyed with the party. A few months ago I finally decided to come back to the party that abandoned me almost a decade ago, and I’m already regretting it. Take this story, for instance, about getting Tea Party groups kicked out of polling places. Now the reason was because they weren’t following state disclosure laws for fliers handed out at polling places. The Tea Party groups should have known about the law, and that they didn’t get their message out is on them. If you’re going to be insurgents, you better know how to play the game. But this is not to say I’m letting the GOP off. Here’s what pisses me off:
Poprik said that although the effort to block the tea party fliers was driven by the election code violation, she finds the idea that the tea party candidates would try to buck the party’s endorsements distasteful.
“In order to be a state committee person you do some work, you get to know people and then you run for state committee,” Poprik said.
Poprik said the tea party candidates are unknowns to most members of the Bucks County Republican Party. She said the party would not support them because they haven’t risen through the ranks and proven themselves.
“This is a party office. This is not a public office. This is our election,” Poprik said. “It is highly unusual for people who have never done a thing for the party to run for state committee.”
Listen Lady, when your party hijack the election apparatus that my tax dollars pay for, it’s no longer a “party office” or a “party election.” At that point, it becomes a public office, and candidates are entitled to a fair shake before voting members of their respective parties. Maybe the Tea Parties are blocking your endorsements because they no longer feel the Republican Party represents them.
I certainly felt that way, and now I come back to rejoin and get involved again, and I find alternate views are being shut out. You have no right to the Bucks County GOP. If members of the party feel you’re doing a lousy job, and make no mistake about it, you’re doing a lousy job, we’re entitled to run other candidates to replace you.
This isn’t the safe, GOP dominated Philadelphia suburbs they used to be. It’s time to come into the 21st Century and get serious about rebuilding the party’s brand. That’s not going to happen with the political dinosaurs that currently rule the GOP.
Veto in Tennessee
Looks like the Governor of Tennessee has really been running from his campaign promises, since he once again has vetoed restaurant carry. Linoge talked to State Senator Doug Jackson to find out what happens from here.
More Hearings on Gun Show Bill
The Brady Campaign are announcing that they are getting hearings for the Gun Show bill in the 111th Congress. This isn’t panic time yet, but this does mean the bill is picking up at least a bit of momentum. Hearings aren’t good.
The hearings have been promised by Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott. Scott is a member of the Judiciary Committee, and chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. What’s surprising is that it took this long to even get a hearing when you consider the makeup of the committee. The Chairman is D rated, and the highest graded Democrat is a C, with the rest being largely Fs. We’re good on the Republican side, with all our members being friendly.
I don’t like that this bill is getting a hearing. We don’t have the votes to stop it in subcommittee. Looking at the larger Judiciary Committee, Conyers is the Chair, and he’s F rated. You need four votes on that committee to defeat a bill, and we can’t flip four Dems on that committee if it comes to a vote. Granted, a vote is a long way from a hearing, and we could probably stop this on the House floor. And even if we can’t, we can get Reid to kill it in the Senate.
But after November we might not have Reid, and who knows if the Republicans can flip the House. Better hope.