From The View From North Central Idaho, in part…
While the Corps retains the right to regulate the possession and carrying of handguns on Corps property, this regulation imposes an outright ban, and is therefore unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny, as set forth in Heller and Peruta.
For all of the reasons cited above, the Court will grant plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment…
Summary judgment! Can school and Post Office carry be far behind?
One can only hope…
They’re with the missing IRS emails! :-)
DC forcing people to reregister and re-finger print gun owners, new fees
New Jovian Thunderbolt passes along an allegory on one Constitutional Issue versus another.
Both Constitutional and of equal status, right? Wrong!
Stop saying that Washington DC now allows conceal carry. People posted that all over. It’s May Issue. And like most May Issue states it means “nobody without the juice.” It’s not allowing CCW.
Saying DC allows conceal carry is like saying a black man in Alabama in 1885 had the right to vote. Look at the 15th Amendment! It says so! Highest law of the land says a black man can vote. But that’s not the reality on the ground back then, is it?
No, Gun Crow laws are still in effect in DC, Maryland, New Jersey, New York… others.
How would you feel if Oregon, Washington, California, and Nevada, assuming you don’t live there, were just ignoring the 19th Amendment and didn’t let women vote? Maybe let them pretend they are voting at the polls, but then just not counting those female votes? Would you feel a little less free in North Carolina or Maine, or Wisconsin? Doesn’t really impact women near you, so… What’s the big diff? Just tell women in California to move someplace better. Right? How does that make you feel? It’s not like it’s in another country. It’s still YOUR country out west, there. If you join the military you are fight for those hypothetical and blatant disenfranchising states, too.
People tell me to move out of THIS state because of the gun banning regime. No, I’ll stay here. The state will change. Same with Jersey. Same with DC, and New York…
In fact, YOU should move here.
Mea culpa. I, too, probably jumped on the same bandwagon, extolling the freedom now being exercised in D.C. OOPS. - Guffaw
(as purloined from Random Nuclear Strikes…)
While writing about the NYT tale of how “Assault Weapon” is a term made to scare white folks, Surber refuses to hold the tough questions back.
Instead of going after the gangs, Urban Democrats go after the law-abiding citizenry, unconstitutionally banning handguns and the like until the Supreme Court’s Heller decision reversed that.
In politics, unintended consequences are rare. By going after the weapons white suburbanites and rural people enjoy, Democrats obfuscate the real issue: Black young men killing black young men for profit in cities controlled by Democrats.
Don Surber – Do Democrats Care About Dead Black Men?
The answer is: Only if will help them get votes.
(Guffaw says) To be fair, every time this game has been played in a major metropolitan area in The United States (over the past 70 years) it hasn’t always been Democrats. But it’s always been Progressives of some ilk. And how have such policies worked in places like Chicago, New York and Los Angeles?
I’m not even expanding to discussing economies in such places as Detroit.
That’s for another blog.
A while back we blogged about an individual who took the Prince Law Office’s determination that, as a result of the ATF clarifying that “unincorporated trusts” are not “persons” under the Gun Control Act, it may have opened a way for trusts to manufacture new Post-86 machine guns. As I have written about before, machine guns are and have always been legal in the US, but those made and registered after 1986 are not legal for civilians to own, so we may only keep trading the ones already on the market.
Well a member of ar15.com submitted a form 1 for a machine gun (application for registration of an NFA firearm one produces) and it was approved… but don’t rejoice yet.
On September 10th, 2014 the stamp came back approved, bearing that green and all too familiar $200 stamp that would allow for a new machine gun to be made, but the man was immediately contacted by the ATF and was told that he must return the stamp and that it was/is not valid. The applicant says he is taking the issue to court, which could be very interesting for the NFA community. The man says the following in the massive thread:
“Stand by, because we will surely need contributions to a legal fund if it goes to court. All things considered, this looks like a realistic opportunity at taking back out rights to Machine Guns. If this fight starts moving forward, it’s going to take a monumental amount of commitment to see it through. Hold fast, everyone. We’re going to need all hands on deck for this one.”
While I wish the man the best and hope that somehow this opens the door for new MGs here in the USA, I do not see that happening. Of course the powers that be don’t want you to have cheap and readily available legal machine guns, so we will not get cheap and readily available legal machine guns but here are a few reasons why I am pessimistic:
- The ATF tried to say that “unincorporated trusts” were not persons under the 1968 GCA in order to implement a set of rules that would have required all trustees to fill out form 4s, undergo NICS checks, and get CLEO signatures. If you remember, the public outcry during the comment period stopped this (or at least pushed it back). This came back to bite them in the ass, big time, because of, well, this whole bit of shenanigans.
- The ATF flip flops all of the time. In just my memory as a young man, I have seen them approve devices like the Akins Accelerator (a spring assisted bump fire device) and then force them all the be recalled/have the springs removed, remember when they banned all shoestrings in the USA and then had to clarify that it was only when said strings were attached to firearms, and I remember when they said SBR engraving was not necessary and then decided that it was. This organization seems to have little oversight on the highest levels and, like many other government agencies, can make or rescind decisions on the fly.
- There are 186,619 transferable machine guns in the USA, and this number is as fixed as fixed gets. The 1986 FOPA banned the new production of fully automatic firearms for civilians, and that’s that. What is perceived as a loophole by addressing a technicality, will not undo this act of congress.
Do I hope that one day we can all run down to our local gun stores and buy new machine guns? Absolutely! Do I think it will happen? Not at all. In fact, I get asked this all the time by just about every gun savy person who knows I am into machine guns. “Wadaya gunna do when they unban these? Your collection will be worth nuttin’!” Well sure I and many other people will take a hit, but I see the greater good in 3 gun matches with bursts of mighty automatic fire, sub-gun matches becoming mainstream, and the Texas Bellagio being visible from space.
In other words, YRMV – Your Results May Vary…
(as received in my Email, yesterday, from The National Association For Gun Rights :-( )
I’ve got bad news.
Last night, Harry Reid’s attempt to muzzle pro-gun free speech with a new
Constitutional amendment passed its first Senate vote with enough Republican support
Fortunately, we’ve still got time to convince swing Senate Democrats and
Then, if you live in one of these swing-Senators’ states, please let them know you’re
At NRO, Frank Miniter examines what the billionaires contributing to gun control groups hope to accomplish, and the playbook they’re using:
In a section labeled “Overall Messaging Guidance,” the guide gives its number-one “Key Messaging Principle”: “Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments about gun violence, not the political food fight in Washington or wonky statistics.” It further explains this strategy by saying, “It’s critical that you ground your messaging around gun violence in prevention by making that emotional connection.” Its second key principle is: “Tell stories with images and feelings.” The guide says, “Our first task is to draw a vivid portrait and make an emotional connection. We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.” They realize they’ve lost the rational and empirical debates about what really stops gun violence and instead want the debate enflamed by emotion.
That’s ever the way, of course; you can’t win the argument with rational facts, so legislate by emotions.
Isn’t this the tack they take with virtually EVERYTHING? After all, it’s for the children!
(from JayG, in part)
More great news from the land I escaped…
A new app that allows people to find parking spaces in Boston is being shut down in response to a vote by the city council.
A new ordinance outlaws services that allow people to sell or save public parking spaces.
Got that? The app helped people find parking spaces, so what was the response from Boston? BAN IT. Smell that? It smells like Massachusetts. It gets better, though:
“They are dealing in hypotheticals. We’ve had no reported issues. We’ve heard this rhetoric, ‘There’s going to be blood in the streets,’ and that hasn’t happened. We’ve had over 1,000 successful transactions, and we haven’t seen any of that.”
Ah, yes, blood in the streets. We’ve never heard that prediction before. Ever. And even if we had, it certainly came true, right?
Of course, he’s referring to more citizens owning legal firearms. And they have, and the whole blood thing hasn’t materialized.
And violent crime has dropped where gun ownership has increased.
Even in places like Chicago and Detroit!
Personally, I believe governments should think long and hard before banning anything in a ‘free’ country. – Guffaw
First, let me state I support both organizations. You may see links to them (along with other fine organizations) on this blog.
Frankly, I’ve not had the time (okay, the inclination) to study this issue in depth. Mea culpa.
Thankfully, Erin Palette of Lurking Rhythmically has done quite a fine, succinct analysis. You may see it here.
The issue appears to be The Second Amendment Foundation is considering acquiring the financially-troubled Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.
Like Ms. Palette, I’ve no opinion on this issue. Go to the link to see her analysis.
The kerfluffle appears to be some folks don’t like the SAF, and think they would somehow water-down or edit the JFPO’s message…
h/t Lurking Rhythmically
(via Legal Insurrection)
As reported by Calguns, California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases has been ruled unconstitutional (for at least some residents), in Silvester v. Kamala, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California (full decision embedded below):
California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this morning in a significant victory for Second Amendment civil rights. The laws were challenged by California gun owners Jeffrey Silvester and Brandon Combs, as well as two gun rights groups, The Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation.
In the decision released this morning, Federal Eastern District of California Senior Judge Anthony W. Ishii, appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton, found that “the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment” as applied to members of certain classifications, like Silvester and Combs, and “burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs.”
Under the court order, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) must change its systems to accommodate the unobstructed release of guns to gun buyers who pass a background check and possess a California license to carry a handgun, or who hold a “Certificate of Eligibility” issued by the DOJ and already possess at least one firearm known to the state.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
As reported at the Volokh Conspiracy, a Baton Rouge ordinance (§ 13:95.3) that banned the possession of guns on property where alcohol is served or sold–inclusive of the parking lots of such establishments, the scope of which includes grocery stores and Walmart–has been found unconstitutional in Taylor v. City of Baton Rouge by the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (decision embedded below). Interestingly, this decision was made in response to a motion for default judgment, indicating that the city of Baton Rouge had simply failed to adequately respond:
[T]he Court finds that Taylor’s allegations, which the Court accepts as true based on Defendants’ default, are sufficient to establish a viable claim for relief under the Second Amendment. Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has established a sufficient basis for judgment in his favor.
Our Rights are being gradually re-acknowleged, one court decision at a time! – Guffaw