Kathy has a post up about her experience at a pro gun rally.
There is an enormous effort right now to get guns and gun owners back “in the closet.” The Hollywood/Media access is producing sanctimonious videos trying to marginalize shooters and their guns. We can’t let that happen! The way that we will win this is by cutting through the media campaign by providing a face to the shooting community.
Sebastian has linked to a an article describing a bill coming thorough the House. It proposes to limit all ammunition feeding devices to 10 rounds or less. It allows existing devices to be possessed, but bans transfers.
The idea of a magazine ban is the worst thing we could face as gun owners. As Sebastian points out, it will impact a large number of shooters. Worse still, I think it could be politically viable. I’ve spoken to gun owners who balk at the idea of a gun ban, but would be perfectly willing to accept a magazine restriction.
I’m writing to Boehner to ask him to shut this down; I suggest you do the same.
Howard Kurtz is upset that the DC police are investigating David Gregory. Relax, Howard, nothing will come of it. The laws are for the little people, you see.
The late word that NBC requested, and failed to receive, permission from the police certainly complicates the matter. But I don’t think Gregory was planning to commit any crimes.
News flash, Howard. When you call the police to see if something is illegal, then do it anyway, you are kind of, by definition, planning on committing a crime.
A Facebook conversation led to the concept of “reasonable restrictions” on the Second Amendment. Rather then leave my list there, I decided to leave it here.
We begin with first principles. I believe that the right to keep and bear arms flows directly from the right to self-defense. Put simply, we own our own bodies, and thus have the right to defend ourselves against attack.
Second, I believe the founders intended that the people have arms that were as good as those that the government has. (As an aside, in the American system, the government derives its powers from the people. It makes no sense to say that arms should only belong to “police and military.” You gave the police and military their powers.)
Given that the second amendment is a fundamental right, restrictions to the right are subject to strict scrutiny. In a nutshell, there has to be a darn good reason, and the restriction has to be proven to work.
In short, I think that the right to keep and bear arms is like the right to vote: fundamental, and not to be trifled with.
Here is what I think is reasonable:
- The government has a compelling interest in preventing firearms use by those who are incompetent (legally…this is not a comment on skill level). Those who are adjudicated to be mentally ill, for example, and felons. Adjudicated is the key word in this sentence. A judge would have to pronounce you unfit to exercise your civil rights. Age restrictions are probably ok under this test, as well.
- Any outright ban on a category of weapons is unreasonable. Call them what you like: “assault weapons”, “machine guns”, “high-power sniper weapons”…giving something a scary name doesn’t make it illegal. And yes, this means that I think that full-auto weapons should be sold over the counter.
- Registration schemes that amount to a ban are likewise unreasonable. Most of the National Firearms Act falls under this test.
- Magazine restrictions are unreasonable. They fail under the second test.
- Waiting periods are unreasonable. They haven’t been proven to
- Background checks are *not* unreasonable provided that they are time-boxed. The NICS system is a good example of this. If a “delay” is issued, then the system has a 48 hour window to deny, but the default is “proceed.” (Note that under the current system, the decision to proceed is up to the dealer’s discretion, which is really unfair to the dealer. If a sale is legal, it is legal.)
- Shall issue concealed carry permits are probably not unreasonable. Training requirements are. How is it that a literacy test for voting is a problem, but testing before being able to exercise the second amendment is ok?
From the “turnabout is fair play” department, a blogger has found and published the names and addresses of the reporters and editors involved with the Journal news map.
DiFi has released the specifics on her bill.
It’s ugly. Bans a bunch of things. “Grandfathers” banned weapons, but requires registration.
Buckle up, folks. It’s starting.
This is a little old, now, but here is a video of Alan Gura addressing the Cornell Law School Federalist Society. He goes into some detail on what was (and what was not) established under Heller and McDonald and where the limits of the court are today. Worth a listen, especially in the current climate.
I hope everyone had a restful holiday. We had a bit of a surprise here…wife came down with a 102 fever, so Christmas dinner got postponed. But now it is back to the battle.
Things are a little crazy at the moment. Tam notes some crazy pricing on the auction sites. I saw lower parts kit–parts kit, sans lower–for north of $280 dollars. USED aluminum mags for north of $35 each. Crazy!
It’s almost certain that some of this is speculation (people buying now with expectations of selling dearly “after the ban”), but I’m sure that some of this is panic buying. And the sad fact is that if everyone who was panic buying called or wrote their representatives, we would have this thing licked. This letter can be very simple:
Please understand three things:
1) I am opposed to ANY additional restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms.
2) This issue is the single most important issue that I consider when I decide whom to support for elected office.
3) There are a great many people who feel as I do.
Bitter has been posting a series of articles on some specific actions we can take to help stop the ban. She has written from the perspective of particular players in the gun community. Even if you don’t match any of the people she has written about, it is still worthwhile to read the whole thing.
God rest ye Merry, Gentlemen
Let nothing you dismay,
Remember Christ our Savior was born on Christmas Day!
Merry Christmas to one and all. My this day find you resting merry!
My letter to the Charlotte Observer:
To the editor:
In the aftermath of 9/11, the nation learned an important lesson: that the conventional wisdom of how to respond to hijackings was wrong, and that sitting passively and cooperating got people killed. We changed tactics, and passengers reacting immediately and forcefully to stop attackers has saved lives.
In the aftermath of Columbine, the nation learned an important lesson: that the conventional wisdom of how to respond to a mass shooting was wrong, and that setting up a perimeter and waiting for the criminal to come out got people killed. We changed tactics, and police entering aggressively to stop an active shooter has saved lives.
Now, finally, in the aftermath of Newtown, can we learn our lesson? That the conventional wisdom of gun bans and gun free zones is wrong, and that it gets people killed?
Paul Valone and Grass Roots North Carolina have made a modest proposal: that teachers in North Carolina, who have been trained, fingerprinted, background checked and thus earned the right to have a North Carolina concealed carry permit be permitted to carry their guns at schools. We already permit school resource officers to be armed in schools, and nothing bad has happened. Why not, then, extend the same rights to teachers?
We know that mass shooters only stop shooting when a good person with a gun confronts them. The key to saving lives is to stop them as soon as possible.
If the heroic principal and teacher who sacrificed their lives in Newtown to protect their students had the means to stop the murderer, we would have fewer victims today.
It’s time to learn our lesson: gun free zones get people killed.
UPDATE: The Observer is going to run this tomorrow.