Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 88 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

Terror Watch List is a Horrible Issue for Us

I’m not entirely certain what kind of games the Republicans are playing here, but it’s looking like there’s going to be a vote on a House equivalent of the Cornyn bill, which would put a hold on people who are on the watch list for up to 72 hours (the current period allowed by the Brady Act). There’s virtually no chance this is going to end up passing since the Dems are pretty much universal in rejecting this proposal, so it’s dead in the Senate even if the House passes it. I think both sides are playing games trying to make a campaign issue.

As I’ve said before, the problem we have is that this does not fall along traditional party lines. The Republican Party has a healthy co-hort of “law and order” types who fall along the authoritarian side of the political spectrum. This part of the GOP coalition has never had much respect for civil liberties.

I don’t believe the NRA should be supporting this type of bill, since it looks to me like there can’t be any agreement, which means nothing passes. Why not let the Cornyn plan die in that case? What are we going to get in return for having a vote on this? What is the strategy here? Is it just disaster mitigation? Can we not hold the GOP together on this, or is there a real risk of losing GOP votes to a worse bill that might pick up Dem support?

The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.

I get that it’s bad optics to support “guns for terrorists,” and that half of the country, more than half of the GOP, and probably an uncomfortable portion of the NRA membership care not a whit about the due process rights and civil liberties of people on the terror watch list. The ACLU opposes using these secretÂ watch lists removing rights from people, as they should, but that’s because your typical ACLU type might be a raging liberal, but they aren’t authoritarians. There’s plenty of authoritarianism on both sides of the aisle, and that’s why I worry about this issue. It’s great for channeling the worst civil liberties instincts of both parties. The Republicans don’t care about civil liberties if it stops terrorists (or at least offers good theater for the public that it does) and Democrats don’t view there are any civil liberties issues when it comes to firearms. In their view it’s not a right: you may only possess arms as a privilege granted by the state.

Happy Independence Day

Fireworks

I hope you all have a great Independence Day. Sadly towns around here that chose to have their fireworks displays today are cancelling because inclement weather is descending upon us.

I went back to the home town yesterday for fireworks. Dude showed up with a sidecar motorcycle with a semi-auto RPK mounted to it. It was too dark to make out the motorcycle model. I wish I could have gotten a picture.

I do have to say that if you’re going to go forth to do some educatin’ of the soccer mommies, it would be awfully nice if you didn’t drive your motorcycle illegally into where the crowd was. But I suppose if you’re going to carry guns at people, you have to go where the people are. At the end of the day, it was too dark for anyone to really notice. Even the cops didn’t notice, or the dude is a known quantity. But you’d think they’d at least want to talk to to him about his parking job, and “hey, can you show me that magazine in your rifle is empty,” if they had. OC is legal in Pennsylvania without a license, but you can’t have a loaded long gun on or in a vehicle with or without a permit.

Brown Vetoes 4 “Gunpocalypse” Bills, Signs 6

California Flag The bills Brown signed were the worst of the bills. From the Firearms Policy Coalition:

The bills Brown signed, which will become law on January 1, 2017, are:

SB 880 (Hall) andÂ AB 1135 (Levine): Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.

SB 1235 (de Leon): Now competes with Gavin Newsom’s Safety for All Act/Ammo Ban.

SB 1446 (Hancock): Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity ammunition feeding devices.

AB 1511 (Santiago): Bans the loaning of firearms.

AB 1695 (Bonta): Makes some non-violent misdemeanors punishable by prohibitions on owning firearms.

The bills Brown vetoed are:

AB 1673 (Gipson): Redefines â€œfirearmsâ€ to include items that are not firearms.

AB 1674 (Santiago): Bans buying more than one firearm within a 30-day period.

AB 2607 (Ting): Dramatically expands who can request a Gun Violence Restraining order.

SB 894 (Jackson): Re-victimizes victims by criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms.

The only thing that’s going to save California is federal preemption.

NRA Worried Members Aren’t Lining Up Behind Trump?

First NRA ad of the season:

Reid Confident on Gun Control Deal

The Washington Times is reporting. Reid noted in a conference about the Zika virus that,Â â€œI think weâ€™ve taken a bite out of the NRA. I think theyâ€™ve done enough damage.â€ The threat is still from the bill the squishy Republican are getting behind, essentially the “no-fly, no-buy.”

The measure by Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, attracted 52 votes of support in a procedural vote last week, yet it fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a potential filibuster and advance, leaving the effort in limbo.

That doesn’t seem to fit Reid’s optimism. 52 is a good bit shy of 60. But we shouldn’t get cocky.

Bad Migraine

Sorry I have been out of commission today. I have suffered from migraine auras usually without headache for years now, but I’ve never had one this bad. Usually they start out as a dot on my field of vision that sparkles a bit, then expands to kind of a zig zaggy dazzling pattern. In the affected area, I can’t really see.

Usually the process runs through in less than an hour and I’m OK. Today I’ve been getting multiple waves of expanding auras and the dot area it usually starts as has persisted, which interferes with being able to read.

IÂ went to urgent care this afternoon and the doctor (who also suffers from them) checked me out and agreed the symptoms were that of a migraine. Eyes fine, arteries seemed to be moving blood fine, oxygenation fine, pulse and BP pretty high, but I have white coat pretty bad. No symptoms of anything indicating possible stroke. Doctor prescribed Sumatriptan, with the warning that it doesn’t often work. Took the first dose and the dot is still there, though not throwing off expanding auras anymore. Just took the second dose, so we’ll see if that helps, but I’m not optimistic.

I’ve had enough of these auras I usually shrug them off, but this one is terrifying because it’s hung around all day. In the mean time, reading is possible but difficult with that part of my field of vision distorted. Laying down in a dark room helps, but I can only do that so much before going stir crazy. I’m just hoping I don’t have a damned brain tumor or something.

Compared to some of my friends who have them, I have it easy. One can be debilitated with pain and light sensitivity for days at a time. Until now I’ve gotten off easy.

Journalists Who Can’t Do Math

This is real Baghdad Bob shit right here. Basically, to sum up, the NRA is increasingly dependent on the firearms industry for money, because $14 million has been donated by gun makers over the years. The author even mentions NRA’s revenue is $310 million from membership dues. Do you even math!?!?

But even with that, white men are headed to political extinction, gun ownership is in decline, especially among women, because the General Social Survey says so. NRA is facing stiff competition from Larry Pratt and Dudley Brown, most of its members secretly hate the NRA and disagree with it. Members will probably revolt just like Republicans did against the establishment because they secretly support gun control. Â 3D printing will be the end of the NRA because it will dry up that 14 million a year because it will put all the manufacturers out of business.

Seriously, Sarah Ellison ought to stick to writing about topics she knows about, and should also stay away from math. Last I checked $14 million dollars was 4.5% of NRA’s revenue from individual members. We call that “not really a lot.” Ms. Ellison could also use a lesson in discerning propaganda from gun control groups from actual research.

The Slippery Slope is Real

This article at Forbes titled, “Gun Policy Is Hard,” gets it right, mostly. I would encourage you to go read it. I’ll wait….

One of the authors assertions is that we shouldn’t so quickly dismiss the suicide argument. I’m not sure what the author thinks can be done to prevent someone who is suicidal from using a firearm without seriously restricting firearms generally. We can’t read people’s minds, and I don’t see any solution that doesn’t involve making firearms generally difficult to obtain, which is a non-starter with us for good reasons. That brings me to the argument I want to address:

Gun-rights supporters often argue every increase in gun regulation, no matter how tiny, is just one step on the path to the ultimate goal: prohibition. The NRA, in particular, has resisted nearly any gun-control proposal, partially because it warns against the boogey man of prohibition.

I think Eugene Volokh pretty successfully and decisively destroyed the notion that slippery slope arguments are a fallacy. The reason we make slippery slope arguments is because we’ve seen it happen. New Jersey and New York both started with licensing, and in New York’s case licensing and registration. Massachusetts also passed licensing and registration. California implemented bans on carrying firearms and enacted stringent waiting periods (15 days). With the sole exception of New York (who’s licensing law dates back to the early 20th century) all these restrictions were passed during theÂ first wave of gun control in the 60s and 70s. All of those states have successfully passed numerous more onerous restrictions since. California’s long slide, which is continuing as we speak, started with the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Ban in 1990.

The reason that has been successful is because each incremental restriction reduced the number of gun owners over time, and thus reduced our political power to fight new restrictions. During the second gun control wave in the 1990s, a lot of gun owners left these restrictive states for greener pastures, and the ones that remained tended to be either politically inactive and/or naive, further reducing our political power in those states.

The biggest predictor of whether or not you support gun control is “Do you own a gun?” If the answer is “yes,” you’re statistically unlikely to support very much gun control. If the answer is “no,” then you’re statistically likely to support more sweeping gun control. We’ve seen in history that even very minor restrictions, like California’s 15-day waiting period dating back to 1976, and the 5-day waiting period dating back to 1965, and the three-day waiting period dating back to 1956….. see where I’m going with this? Each incremental restriction reduces our political power, and over time that has added up to a rout. California is reaching the end. We are facing utter defeat there. An entire state of 38 million people is about to become like New York City, where firearms are not technically banned, but effectively very difficult to obtain and use.

So no, gun owners are not committing a logical fallacy worrying about the slippery slope. It’s real. Ask any state where these “reasonable common sense” measures have taken hold. All of them have only gotten worse over time. There no states that enacted gun control legislation during the first (60s & 70s) or second (90s) wave of gun control that have not gone on to enact more.

Supreme Court Delivers Gun Case

This is not a Second Amendment case, but rather one of statutory interpretationÂ with the Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits people convicted of Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence (MCDV) from possessing firearms. The question is whether reckless conduct qualifies as a MCDV, or whether the federal statute requires knowing, intentional conduct. The Court ruled that the statute makes no distinction. Justice Thomas dissented, with Sotomayor joining parts I and II of his dissent. Part III of Justice Thomas’s dissent argued that because this is dealing with a fundamental constitutional right, that the Court should read the statute narrowly to avoid the constitutional issue. From Thomas’s dissent:

Finally, and most problematic for the majorityâ€™s ap- proach, a person could recklessly unleash force that reck- lessly causes injury. Consider two examples:

1. The Text-Messaging Dad: Knowing that he should not be texting and driving, a father sends a text mes- sage to his wife. The distraction causes the father to rear end the car in front of him. His son, who is a passenger, is injured.

2. The Reckless Policeman: A police officer speeds to a crime scene without activating his emergency lights and siren and careens into another car in an intersec- tion. That accident causes the police officerâ€™s car to strike another police officer, who was standing at the intersection. See Seaton v. State, 385 S. W. 3d 85, 88 (Tex. App. 2012).

In these cases, both the unleashing of the â€œforceâ€ (the car crash) and the resulting harm (the physical injury) were reckless. Under the majorityâ€™s reading of Â§921(a) (33)(A)(ii), the husband â€œuse[d] . . . physical forceâ€ against his son, and the police officer â€œuse[d] . . . physical forceâ€ against the other officer.

But this category is where the majority and I part com- pany. These examples do not involve the â€œuse of physical forceâ€ under any conventional understanding of â€œuseâ€ because they do not involve an active employment of something for a particular purpose.

This strikes me as correct, and an unintended consequence of the majority’s thinking. Here’s another passage from Part III of Thomas’ dissent:

A mother who slaps her 18-year-old son for talking back to herâ€”an intentional use of forceâ€”could lose her right to bear arms forever if she is cited by the police under a local ordinance. The majority seeks to expand that already broad rule to any reckless physical injury or nonconsensual touch. I would not extend the statute into that constitutionally problematic territory …

… Today the majority expands Â§922(g)(9)â€™s sweep into patently unconstitutional territory. Under the majorityâ€™s reading, a single conviction under a state assault statute for recklessly causing an injury to a family memberâ€”such as by texting while drivingâ€”can now trigger a lifetime ban on gun ownership. And while it may be true that such incidents are rarely prosecuted, this decision leaves the right to keep and bear arms up to the discretion of federal, state, and local prosecutors.

Worth noting that no other justice was willing to join that.

Thinking About Safe Storage Laws

Police are charging the New Jersey woman who lost a child when her older child accidentally shot the other one playing with mom’s pistol. In her case, she was keeping the pistol illegally. Safe storage laws are meant to punish parents who do things like this. Any time a law is proposed to deal with a social issue it’s worth asking:

Is justice served by this law? This woman already lost one kid. If she goes to jail the other kids ends up in the state foster care system. Now in this case, given the criminal history of this woman, maybe the kids are better off in state care. But is that always the case? Is the behavior in question so bad that it’s worth breaking up families over?
Is the law going to deter the irresponsible behavior? I’ve often argued that in most cases when it comes to accidental shootings (which are actually pretty rare) the kinds of people who need to be deterred are the kinds that won’t be deterred. The fact is that most of the people reading this don’t need a law to tell them to do what is necessary to keep firearms secured from kiddies and other irresponsible persons. It’s difficult for me to believe that the potential loss of a child is not more of a deterrent than the law.
Is the law enforceable? As with most laws regulating personal behavior in the home, enforcement is only going to occur when the police become aware of a violation, which is only going to happen after an accidental shooting, the very thing the law is meant to deter.

Generally speaking, I’m skeptical of any law that controls people’s behavior in their own homes. My issue with safe storage laws in general has been:

They usually apply a one-size-fits all solution. There are a lot of ways to secure firearms. Some solutions, like trigger locks, are outright dangerous for someone who is uneducated on how to use one.
They usually don’t exempt households without children. I have no kids, and while I have a safe to secure my firearms from burglars, when I’m home we have unsecured firearms, and there’s no risk to either of us with that.
They are not enforceable, and the people they will be enforced against are already dealing with the loss of a child. When a child is accidentally poisoned (which happens far far more often than firearms accidents), we don’t generally charge the parent for leaving prescription drugs, drain cleaner, etc unsecured. We don’t charge pool owners for accidental drownings (also happens far more often than firearms accidents) if they left the gate open.

I think incidents like these are best left as torts when multiple parties are involved, and something for child services to investigate, and dealt with through family court if necessary. I’m not sure charging a mom who just lost a kid with a felony is really justice.