Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 870 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

Gun Ownership by Pardoned Felons

Dave Hardy points to a story coming out of Tennessee on the topic here. Dave mentions it’s a separation of powers question, as to whether the legislature can interfere with the Governor’s powers to pardon. I notice in the article there’s out-of-state issues too:

The attorney general opinion said that Tennessee does not recognize the pardons from anywhere in the country, including with the state, as grounds for restoring gun rights.

I would imagine that could also implicate the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Federal Constitution as well. There have been a few circuit court decisions on this, one of them in the fifth circuit, which is next door to the 6th, which Tennessee is in. There they ruled that full faith and credit is implicated in pardons, and that the state in which the pardon is issued is controlling:

Next we reach the question whether Louisiana may constitutionally refuse to give the same effect to a pardon granted by another jurisdiction that it would give to its own pardon under the Habitual Criminal Act. We are of the opinion that this would violate no constitutional principles. There is clearly no question here of a violation of the full faith and credit clause, since Louisiana has given the same effect to a Missouri pardon that a Missouri court would give it.

That implies there could be a FFAC issue, I think, but it would depend in the state in which he was pardoned, and whether they had a similar provision to Tennessee. The Circuit Court of Appeals implies in this case that no more credit need be given than is given in the pardoning state. In another neighboring Circuit, the 7th, they ruled differently. This case actually involves firearms law, but it’s a bit different, because it involves the federal consequences of a conviction versus a state pardon. Not state consequences of a conviction versus a pardon from another state:

In his complaint, plaintiff characterizes the refusal to license him as a failure to give full faith and credit to the Montana pardon. Article IV, 1 of the Constitution, concerning ‘public acts, records, and judicial proceedings,’ speaks only to the states. By statute federal courts must also accord full faith and credit to state legislative acts and judicial records and proceedings. 28 U.S.C. 1738. However, it is open to question whether the full faith and credit clause extends to requiring a state court to treat a sister state’s pardons as eradicating guilt for the purpose here involved, even if the issuing state gives them that effect.

This seems to me to be very much an open issue, and it would be interesting to see a case like this go forward. In the case of someone who was convicted and pardoned in Tennessee courts, that would be solely a state issue, but in the case of someone moving to Tennessee who was pardoned by the Governor of another state, you bring federal issues into play under FFAC.

UPDATE: Dave Hardy has more thoughts here.

Open Carry in the Wall Street Journal

By Nancy DeWolf Smith. In my opinion, really condescending, especially toward women, even though it’s written by a woman.

Surveys suggest that serious shooters are not particularly drawn to girlie colors. But what about the rest of the female population? The same forces that compel women to change pocketbooks and fingernail colors may add a vexing new list of daily dressing decisions, like “What color pistol grip goes with this outfit?” Next thing you know, women could be trading tips on the Web about the best way to attract men in a world where every girl can have a gun. Should she try to stand out from the crowd with a piece of rustic exotica that reminds him of the safari dolls in 1953’s “Mogambo,” like a .416 Rigby? Or go with something more crudely flashy, like one of the pretend AK-47s?

Even though she correctly points out this is a contentious issue even within our own community, and an issue where I generally favor concealment, Ms. Smith hopefully does not assume that means any of us advocate making open carry unlawful. This is an argument between gun owners, not between gun owners and the government.

Gun Control Working, As Murder And Shootings Rise

I think the claims in this article contradict themselves all over:

“City is winning the war on street guns”

“Cops recovered 5,129 firearms from suspects last year, compared to 5,537 in 2008 — an 8 percent decline”

“An ATF spokesman said the weapons recovered were not recently manufactured, which meant the flow of newly minted weapons was also continuing to decline.”

“[M]urders are up 20 percent, from 119 last year at this time to 143 through last Sunday. And shootings are up 14.8 percent so far this year, to 373 from 325 for the same period last year”

And naturally, it’s everyone else’s fault other than Bloomberg’s. He’s winning the war against guns! Unfortunately for him, he’s losing the war against criminals. Has it everÂ occurredÂ to him that he’s fighting the wrong enemy? Nah.

ACLU Sells out Free Speech

Looks like they are caving on campaign finance reform, something they’ve long opposed:

The organization will now accept “reasonable” government limitations on contributions to candidates. The ACLU doesn’t say what “reasonable” means, so the government will doubtless supply the definition. This will inevitably benefit those who are already elected and disadvantage challengers. Indeed, for 35 years “reasonable” limits on contributions have demonstrably helped incumbents and suppressed insurgent candidates.

So ACLU gets on board with helping further entrench the Democratic Party. What a sad things they’ve become. I used to respect the ACLU even when I didn’t agree with them, but that’s passing.

Bryan Miller Now Using Open Carry Fundraising

Found by Cemetery at New Jersey Hunter forum. Some gems from Bryan:

“These single-minded and fearful people care so little about public safety that they seek to make our state and country an armed camp. And, it is no coincidence that many follow the harsh anti-democratic rhetoric that attracted such as Tim McVeigh.”

“We have all heard of the volatile blend of racism and anti-government hostility emanating from so-called â€˜tea parties.â€™ Mixed in is a rebellious strain of pro-gun extremism that led to yesterdayâ€™s events. In many state, â€˜open carryâ€™ activists eagerly wear their guns to Starbucks and other retail establishments, caring not a whit about the intimidation of and danger to others. Itâ€™s all about them and their petty fears and anti-social ideas.”

We’re the ones that use fears and anti-social ideas? Pot — meet kettle. This is classic fundraising throughÂ fear mongering. Both sides do it, but they like to pretend they don’t. And it doesn’t hurt, I guess in Bryan’s world, to throw in a side of arsehole with your big plate of hysteria.

Georgia Carry Fixes

Looks like we’re getting a lot closer to passage. It looks like it’ll be a done deal to me. I’m glad to see the 1000 foot from a school nonsense eliminated. How is one supposed to know when one is within 1000 feet of a school? I live that close to one too, but you’d never know it. If PA had such a law, I couldn’t carry or transport guns. In fact, without an LTC, you’re technically in violation carrying a gun on the street outside my house, due to the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act. You can’t see the school, but it’s there.

I also understand this allows restaurant carry, and fixes the airport issue that cropped up after the last ease on restrictions.

Good Stories

Lots of gun owners have good stories, but not many tell them, and definitely not to reporters. This guy did, and got his story in front of the City of Denver. It’s a story how a man came to own a gun after the justice system repeatedly failed his family, and he needed to protect them. The other side wants to inflate the risk, and they have no shortages ofÂ anecdotes to make people who carry firearms for self-protection look like idiots, criminals or worse. But they never have an answer for Sam Myrants of the world, other than call 911 and hope for the best.

Is Reapportionment Good for Gun Owners?

I put up a quick hits post this morning on PAGunRights with various federal election stories that will impact Pennsylvania gun owners, including this piece that notes the Keystone State has lost more Congressional seats than any other state in history. An astute reader took note, and made a compelling argument that even though we might lose a seat, it may not be bad for gun rights.

States like Texas, Arizona, Utah, Florida, Georgia, etc. are usually (not always) sending pro 2nd Amendment representatives to the House and states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. are quite the contrary. …

Some of the other states that are losing a Rep are mixed bag of ratings but in general, it seems as this reapportionment would be a good thing for pro 2nd Amendment issues.

He noted that this is a theory, and it is correct as a theory. But damn it, real life may get in the way, or it could make his observation 100% spot on. The unknown factors will be state elections.

The Pennsylvania Concern
We’re most likely to lose a pro-gun seat. Regardless of which party controls the state House & Governor’s Mansion, the logical elimination in Pennsylvania is Murtha’s old seat. It doesn’t matter which party wins the special election to replace Murtha, they won’t be an entrenched incumbent. It’s also probably easier to absorb that corner of the state into the various district around it – it touches 4 other districts & is close to 2 more. That would allow the suburban districts around Philadelphia to simply “grow” west since we are likely the source of any growth in population.

Murtha’s seat is pro-gun, regardless of party, so that’s a loss right there. The expansion of seats in suburban Philadelphia will make it harder to hold on in close races, especially for two pro-gun votes in Reps. Charlie Dent & Jim Gerlach. But since it’s all politics, the logical thing to do might be ignored, and my assessment could be 100% opposite of what they actually do during reapportionment.

Those Other States
While culturally, many of the states slated to gain seats are pro-gun, most have portions that are most decidedly not friendly to our rights. Texas will likely see the most growth around Houston because of all of the Katrina evacuees, and those votes will not be in our favor. Arizona could be good for us, but even it has some anti-gunners in office. I am venturing to guess that their growth is mostly around Phoenix which has also been the source of many state lawmakers who get in the way of a pro-gun agenda.

Georgia’s growth, I assume, is probably centered around Atlanta which may be hit or miss depending on where the seats go. Nevada and Utah should, generally, be pretty safe. Though it really depends on where the transplants to Nevada are coming from – if it’s a bunch of Californians, that may not be good for us. Florida also produces as many anti-gun votes as pro-gun votes. Again, it depends on where their growth has been during the last 10 years.

The Solution
Voters in all of the states slated to gain a seat have to put pro-gun majorities in their state legislatures this year. Whoever has control of state houses after the November elections will decide who has power for the next decade. Gerrymandering is never a pretty sight to see, but it will happen. The question is whether we’ll have any kind of say in the process.

Here in Pennsylvania, we’ll benefit more by putting Republicans in power. The voters in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Utah, and other states will need to examine their own states to see which seats need to flip to seal majorities in their legislatures for pro-gun lawmakers.

My other tip is to not get lost in the federal battles alone this year. While it is important to flip Congress, because of reapportionment, you cannot afford to ignore your state representative and senate seats, either. This is not a year to sit on your ass. Write checks or start walking precincts.

More Dead Coyotes in Urban Areas

This time in Pittsburgh, and definitely not Ed Rendell as the triggerman. But what makes this interesting is the City’s insistence on local hunting laws. Hunting laws are preempted by state law, so if it’s legal for you to hunt Coyotes, and you follow the state hunting laws, you’re clear to shoot. I suspect as long as this guy has a valid hunting license, and all the game regulations were followed, he’s not going to suffer anyÂ repercussions because he violated a local ordinance banning hunting.

It’s a Done Deal for Iowa

Culver has signed the bill. It includes universal reciprocity for all permits. It takes effect the first day of 2011. Very good of NRA to recognize the contribution made by Iowa Carry on this bill as well.