Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 897 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

Probably a Bit Optimistic

Chicago area gun stores are preparing for a huge surge in sales. I think they may be underestimating how many obstacles Daley is going to throw in the way of residents who want handguns. Technically it’s legal in DC to get a handgun if you jump through all the hoops, but my understanding is that very few people have. Even if McDonald is a win, it’s not going to be like Chicago residents will be able to head out to the gun shop and pick up a heater. There will still be a process, and it’s probably not going to be easy.

We probably stand a good chance of getting many of those obstacles removed in later cases, but it’s going to take a while.

All the Election News You Need to Know – For Now

I spent the better part of two days examining every single state race going on in our districts – PA-8 & PA-13. If you live in Bucks, Montgomery, or North Philly and own guns, you should go find your local races and get an idea of what’s going on.

For those of you not in the area, here are a few interesting observations:

For the federal races, both districts will have competitive Republican primaries with no Democrats on the ballot other than incumbents. In PA-13, it won’t really matter since the chances of unseating Schwartz run at about 1 in a million if you’re feeling generous to the challenger. Other than the more sparsely populated northern tier of her district, that area is solidly Democratic – and pretty far left Democratic at that. In PA-8, I have my doubts about all of the GOP candidates against Murphy in the fall. However, professional political observers in DC say that if Fitzpatrick can pull out a win in May, he’ll have a good shot at beating Murphy. I’m on the ground and am far more skeptical.
Out of the 6 state senate districts in the area, only one is held by an incumbent with less than an A or B from NRA. Granted, she’s got an F, but she represents primarily Philly. In smaller races with less direct influence from Philadelphia, we can still do reasonably well. Regardless of whether you live in this area or even another state, that’s something to keep in mind if you have a safe anti-gun Congressman. There may be local races where your help can make the difference.
Bad news: A lot of poorly rated Philadelphia politicians have no challengers this year from either side. In theory, a write-in campaign could change this. In reality, it’s not likely to make a difference without serious planning and the incumbent over a dead body.
Good news: A handful of friendly (or at least not hostile & willing to listen) lawmakers – even some from Philly! – also have no challengers from either side. Again, this could change with an effective write-in campaign. While that makes it an uphill battle, gun owners should still keep an eye out.
Of all of the races that are re-matches from 2008, the GOP looks like it could pick up seats in all but one. One re-match was decided for the Democrat by less than 900 votes in a record-setting Democratic year. While the Republican candidate still has to beat the incumbency factor, this is a great year to pick up this battle again.

If you are in the area and have a favorite already, get in touch and I’ll let you know how you can get involved.

How Unconstitutional is the Slaughter Solution?

You really couldn’t come up with a better name for the latest scheme the Democrats have come up with to pass health care. Absent the votes to actually pass this monstrosity, we’ll just slaughter the Republic and the Constitution and ram it through! But there seems to be some debate as to whether this mess is constitutional. Here are some thoughts on the matter, keeping in mind I’m far from an expert on these topics.

It would seems to me to be perfectly constitutional for the House to amend the Senate version, then send it back to the Senate, which the Senate will then pass and go on to the President. This path, however is closed by rule, since it would require 60 votes in the Senate to shut off debate on the bill, which the Democrats no longer have (thank you Massachusetts!). There’s also the political problem that Pelosi would no longer appear to have the votes necessary to pass anything called “Health Care” in the House.

My understanding of the Slaughter Solution is that they pass a reconciliation bill, along with a rule change that deems the Senate version to have been passed (even though it has not). The reconciliation bill then goes to the Senate under reconciliation rules, under which the terms of debate do not allow for the filibuster. The reconciliation bill, being signed by the President, then becomes the Health Care law. Now, there seems to be some question on whether, after the reconciliation bill passes the Senate, the House will then actually have a vote on the Senate bill, and if passed, both bills will be presented to the President for his signature or veto.

It would seem to me any law which is presented to Obama, not having passed both houses of Congress, would be pretty clearly unconstitutional. But is it judicable? In other words, can someone file suit. I think that yes, a minority of members of Congress could sue because they were denied their constitutional power to request a roll call vote. This is pretty explicitly in the constitution, and it would seem to be to be fairlyÂ unambiguous that this path would be unconstitutional, and the minority would have a means for invalidating the bill. The only counter argument I could see here is that, effectively, the House combined several questions into one vote, which is should be permitted to do if the House rules allow it. But how far would this be allowed to go? What if the House changed its rules to say any bill which the Senate passes in a given session will be “deemed” to have pass? It would seem to me there also might be questions that could be raised under the Non-Delegation Doctrine as well.

The latter case, where the House moves a reconciliation bill forward, under a rule that deems the Senate version to have passed the House, but with the Senate version later being actually voted on by the House and both bills being presented to the President simultaneously is a bit more constitutionallyÂ ambiguous. There’s a better case that this is constitutional., since the House and Senate will have, effectively, passed two bills, and presented both to the President. The “deeming” of the Senate bill being passed, in this instance, would merely be a procedural maneuver that would allow the Senate to use the reconciliation rules to get the fixes some House members are demanding before they’ll flip their vote. It’s my opinion that if this is the plan, it’s likely constitutional. The question is whether it violates the reconciliation rules. Reconciliation rules require that you change a budgetary matter that is actually existing law. It would seem to me that this Slaughter rule wouldn’t really get around that. They’d essentially be changing budgetary issues that don’t effectively exist. The House passing a rule that “deems” a bill to be passed does not actually make it so.

Either way you go, this tactic is a disgusting abuse of procedure and an affront to the democratic process. It’s hard for me to understand how it’s legal under either path. I definitely don’t see how the House gets around having to vote for the Senate bill. It would seem to me you can’t pass two bills with one vote because of the Article 1 Section 5 requirements in the constitution. If anyone out there has any specific expertise on this topic (and after reading the actual rules, if you do, I have a huge amount of respect for you, these rules areÂ complicated) feel free to chime in with comments.

Disgusted, But Not Surprised

I think any American, no matter how they feel about health care, ought to be outraged by this tactic. Dave Kopel asks whether it’s even Constitutional.

What Remarkable Tolerance

Dan Thomasson of The Reporter says of gun ownership:

Then there are those who are nuts about guns, who collect them and seem almost to consider them affectionate, even sexual objects.

Yes, the sexual objects again. Next thing you know, he’ll say we’re all paranoids:

Present in all three classifications is an element of paranoia, a strong belief that without these weapons one is not likely to survive the truly crazy (like maybe one’s testy neighbor or a disaffected co-worker or student seeking revenge from bullies) or the ubiquitous criminals that use guns as necessary tools in their business.

Maybe we just want to pursue the hobbies that make us happy, and just be left alone rather than being blamed for all the ills of society, or looked down upon by our supposed betters who say we have mental or sexual deficiencies. A lot of gun owners and gun hobbyists are angry people. It’s crap like this that makes them angry people. Everyone is someone else’s weirdo. Time to accept that and move on. Kind of makes you wonder about Mr. Thomasson’s hobbies, doesn’t it?

New York Election News

Jacob has some coverage, including a return of Doug Hoffman, and Kirsten Gillibrand attracting yet another challenger. Before too long it seems like half the State of New York will have announced they are primarying Gillibrand. Apparently even Bloomberg’s girlfriend wants a piece of that action.

JPFO Not Helping

Jeff Soyer brings us a piece from the Baltimore Sun that highlights a mailing done by JPFO. JPFO denies distributing them, but admits to putting them on the Internet for other people to distribute. For reference, the flyers Jeff talks about are here, and here.

This is why JPFO will never see a dime of my money. Now, the charge of anti-semitism is rather silly when this material is produced by someone who is Jewish. But what do you think someone not part of the pro-gun community is going to think upon seeing one of these flyers? I can assure you the folks in this Sun article’s reaction is not going to be atypical.

I stick to donating my money to NRA and SAF. Many of the other groups out there aren’t doing any favors for the movement. JPFO has lately been one of them. This is a shame, I think, because JPFO can often have a powerful message about the importance of gun rights for the Jewish community, but Zelman can’t seem to help going over the top with ridiculous crap like this. I agree with Jeff wholeheartedly on this one.

Insight Firearms Training Opposing Constitutional Carry?

I have in my possession an e-mail from a reader that would appear to be from Insight Firearms Training Development, which asks folks to express to their elected representatives to oppose removing the requirement to have a permit to carry a concealed firearm. That’s right, it would seem a prominent training house is selling out the Second Amendment for their own financial gain. Click on the link to see the header for yourself. Here’s the letter they suggest people send:

RE: Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108

Dear Representatives:

I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Â Nevertheless, I strongly OPPOSE House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108 which would authorize Arizonans to carry a concealed weapon without the permit that is currently required by Arizona law. Â I have recently taken the 8-hour CCW course required by Â current law and I can tell you first-hand that it is invaluable and necessary for anyone who plans to carry a concealed weapon. I realized when I took the CCW course offered by Insight Firearms Training Development in Prescott Arizona that there was much that I did not know (or remember as the case may be) about the safe handling of firearms and, importantly, the law applicable to their use for purposes of personal protection in real life (and death) situations. Â Persons who carry concealed weapons who are not properly trained and educated will be hazardous to you, me and all of the residents of this state.

The argument often offered in support of allowing a person to carry without proper training is that “criminals do not worry about CCW permits, so why should we require it of good, law-abiding citizens”. Â That may be true, but the argument is disingenuous. Â Our laws apply to all people – good and bad. Â The fact that some choose to violate the laws of our society does not constitute good reason to modify them in a manner that will be injurious to the safety of our communities. Â Should we modify every law in our society because the criminals don’t follow them? Should we base all laws of our society on the behavior of the criminals?

The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, does not proscribe reasonable governmental restrictions on an individual’s rights with respect to firearms. Â To restrict individuals from carrying a handgun in a concealed manner under any circumstance would be unreasonable. Â It is not unreasonable, however, to require that person to demonstrate that he has obtained the proper training and education in the use of that concealed weapon. Â With every right comes a corresponding duty an responsibility! Â We need to retain that requirement.

Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108

I agree with Insight that training is a good idea, but coming from a state that doesn’t require it, I don’t think it needs to be a legal requirement. I also fail to see how we have a right to “bear” arms if we have to get state permission before we can exercise that right.

I don’t appreciate members of the community crapping on our rights so they can continue to use force of law to extract money us.Â Has anyone else gotten this e-mail? If so, and you are an alumni of Insight, I would be sure to express your displeasure.

UPDATE: Please don’t confuse Insight Firearms Training Development with InSights Firearms Training of Seattle, Washington. They are separate companies. InSights has nothing to do with this controversy.

Success Against The Bloomberg Juggernaut

I think it’s quite ironic that it would seem that the gun rights movement is particularly strong in Southeastern Pennsylvania. CeaseFire Pennsylvania, in cooperation with Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have brought their preemption violating “Lost and Stolen” ordinances to my neck of Pennsylvania.

This time we had some grassroots action ready to meet them. First in Radnor, which has tabled the bill until April. On the same day CeaseFire Pennsylvania was tying us up in Radnor, Mayors Against Illegal Guns pushed the same ordinance to Hatboro. Hatboro has rejected the ordinance route in favor of a resolution, which they will be hearing Monday March 22nd. We still oppose the resolution, which urges the General Assembly to pass a state L&S law, but we’ve made progress. Ambler Borough has decided not to pursue an ordinance a few weeks ago. Now word has it that Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, a bastion of liberalism even back when Delaware County was solidly Republican, has decided to table its Lost and Stolen ordinance.

This has to be huge embarrassment for Joe Grace, EVP of CeaseFire PA, and it’s a slap in the face to MAIG too. It’s no accident. It’s the work of gun owners getting involved, showing up, and making effective arguments to their elected representatives. We succeeded against a strategy that was designed to spread us thin and wear us out. It has, so far, failed to work. I know many of my readers here were involved in these efforts, and we all owe them some thanks, especially to the people who were residents of these municipalities that showed up and spoke. Let’s hope we can keep pouring molasses over Bloomberg and Grace’s agenda. Let them have nothing without a fight.

UPDATE: PAFOA gives some of its members their due as well.

Questions

I’ve gotten a steady stream of questions in for our board candidates. Most of them quite good. However a number of them are on legislative topics, and legislative priorities, which the NRA Board is only tangentially involved in. Those decisions get made by ILA. For those that asked questions of this nature, I will see if I can get an interview with a decision maker at ILA after we’re finished with all the board stuff.