Arms Control

... appears to involve a swat team ready to kill you if you don't agree to surrender voluntarily.

This particular incident wasn't even prompted by a crime.  Someone with a clean criminal record happened to buy guns with his tax refund after being put on administrative leave over a work dispute; someone brought this to the attention of the police, who felt it warranted a pre-emptive mental health evaluation.  Well, if you can use "warranted" for cases where the police don't bother to get a warrant.

The man has been released, his guns have been returned, and he has not been charged with anything.  I hope he sues.

Remember when Nazi Germany insisted that members of a particular religion wear identifying symbols so they could be ostracized and oppressed by everyone else? 

You may find that situation uncomfortably close to reality if you live in Maryland.  Legislation introduced in both the state House and state Senate will require that gun owners have a special license to purchase handguns, and will mark their status as a license holder with a "scarlet G for gun owner" on their existing drivers license. 

UPDATE: SaysUncle notes that he can't find that language in the bill.  I looked, and I can't find it either; in my original post I was relying on the summary at Ammoland, specifically this language:

It is uncertain whether or not a "gun owner" designation on a driver?s license will constitute "probable cause" to search a vehicle during a routine traffic stop.

It could be I jumped the gun a bit by not checking the language myself. 

If you haven't already seen Sebastian's scoop on the secret plans of the Mayors Against Guns to implement stealth gun control, go read it now.  The short version is that they plan to lobby a friendly administration for whatever gun control measures they can get by implementing rules changes, policy changes, or other administrative hurdles.  They won't try for new legislation, because they are (correctly) afraid of the political backlash, but they will do their best behind the scenes to mess things up.

Should an adoption agency be able to consider whether a household has firearms as part of a decision on whether to allow adoption?  The question has come to a head in Florida, where at least one agency is using forms that ask about firearms ownership as part of the adoption process. 

This one strikes a little close to home for me because I was adopted.  My adopted family did not have guns in the house while I was growing up, and I do not think that was a good thing.  Obviously it doesn't determine the outcome of a child's life, but it's made my own interest in firearms more difficult to pursue -- and I had more opportunities than most kids in a home without firearms would have, because I encountered firearms in a controlled and positive environment outside of the home.  Many others would have only negative experiences with guns in the absence of a family that can demonstrate positive gun ownership. 

So what are the pros and cons of considering gun ownership in the adoption process?  To start with, let's frame the question a little bit more.  Kids are not only adopted as newborns; some are adopted significantly older than that, even potentially as teenagers.  Some are adopted by strangers, others by family friends or relatives after the parents pass away.  There's a broad spectrum of adoptees to consider, and many of those who are no longer newborns are not exactly angels either.

So, on the pro side:

• Some children may not be responsible enough to handle firearms when adopted, through no fault of the adopting parents;
• Some children may intentionally misuse firearms.
• The adopting parents are taking an unknown factor into their home, and may not fully appreciate the necessary precautions.
• The decision to allow an adoption is one where a great deal of discretion is present on many different factors.  Gun ownership is by no means the only potentially discriminating factor.
• There is some evidence that responsible use of legal firearms helps children to avoid other negative behaviors.
  

On the con side:

• Asking about firearms ownership creates a registry of firearms in the possession of the government agencies charged with making that decision.
• Asking about firearms is likely to strongly, and irrationally, prejudice the people making the decision whether to allow the adoption.
  
• Making a gun-free home a prerequisite for adoption is likely to discourage an enumerated Constitutional right, even if such restrictions are not applied to a broad segment of the population.
• Nothing that I know of prevents adoptive parents from acquiring a firearm after the adoption decision has been made.
• The degree of scrutiny applied to potential adopting parents is almost certainly already sufficient to screen out felons, who are already prohibited from possessing firearms.
  

What it boils down to is simple.  There are people who can be trusted with firearms, there are people who can't be trusted with firearms, and people move between those groups in both directions.   Asking about gun ownership is not enough information (even if answered truthfully) to determine whether someone is a responsible gun owner, or whether a child is at particular risk for a bad outcome from being in a gun-owning home.  Asking the question by itself (regardless of how the answer is handled) creates some negative consequences.

And it's all unnecessary, because we already have a societal proxy for responsible gun ownership.  Quite simply, we treat felons (plus those convicted of domestic violence) as not being sufficiently responsible to own a gun; all other adults are considered responsible by default.  The adoption process almost certainly checks for a criminal record already.  Thus, we are already weeding out the "bad gun owners" earlier in the process, using a method which does not have privacy implications and does not impose a Constitutional right. 

Because felons are already excluded, asking about firearms specifically during the adoption process can only lead to negative results.  There is no positive benefit to asking about firearms in addition to checking for criminal background.

That should make the decision simple.

... here's another article describing the Obama Administration's attempt to ban pocketknives.

Yes, really.

He's been politically blocked from going after guns, so why not go after knives?  It's easier to slip that under the radar since there isn't an existing political infrastructure to defend it.

... possibly because Obama has been frustrated in his desire to ban guns.  From the Volokh Conspiracy:

Under the 1958 federal Switchblade Act, switchblade knives are not importable into the United States, and may not be shipped across state lines. On May 21, U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) proposed the revocation of four previous Ruling Letters; the effect would be a drastic expansion of the definition of non-importable knives. The organization KnifeRights warns that revocations would outlaw approximately 80 percent of the current market in knives.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say firearms... it just says arms.  To me, that means knives are included.  So far we have been lucky in that attempts at regulation have mostly been aimed at firearms, but if this rule change slips through the back door, that will no longer be true. 

The Huffington Post features an article in favor of concealed carry reciprocity (because it prevents hate crimes).  Shocking, but true.  It features the bare bones of Tom Palmer's story (a gay man who defended himself from a homophobic attack with a handgun); some of you may remember that Palmer was one of the original plaintiffs in the Heller case.

I am all in favor of responsible adults being armed, including minorities who are arguably more at risk.

A friend of mine forwarded this article:

"We're doing this just like we were having a church picnic," said Pastor Ken Pagano of New Bethel Church, describing what he calls, an "open carry celebration."

"We believe in the right to bear arms and we're promoting responsible gun ownership and safety with gun handling," he said. "You can bring your firearm, but it has to be unloaded and in a safe secure receptacle."

It's an interesting way to promote awareness of the "gun culture" among those who may not realize that it exists.  When I went to Boomershoot this year, I took along a new shooter with me -- someone who had shot before, occasionally, but not in a long time and not for fun.  One of the things they expressed to me about the process of getting a rifle set up for Boomershoot was that, once you started talking about guns, it was as if everyone around you suddenly clicked a box in their head that said "It's ok to talk about guns around this person", and suddenly there are a lot of people showing interest.

I think there is a kind of ... social restraint that many gun owners practice habitually.  A restraint that reflects the media's constant angry attacks on gun owners, and the perceived general social attitude towards us.  We don't talk about guns with just anyone, even if we are completely willing to open up on the topic with other gunnies. 

Since this person was relatively new to the whole idea, it was an eye-opening experience to suddenly see everyone around them in a new light.  And I can't help but think that we need more people to have this experience, to learn and to understand that normal folks, ordinary people, have and use guns for fun.  That the media stereotype is only a stereotype.

Here's the key paragraph:

Indeed, in virtually all cases where someone tries to link support for the rights of gun ownership to unlawful behavior, the facts paint a much different picture. The truth is, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that were obtained illegally. While the issues are often lightning rods for attack, fewer than 2 percent of all gun crimes involve guns purchased at gun shows, and concealed-carry permit holders commit so few crimes that the statistics can't even be tracked. When faced with these facts, anti-gun enthusiasts are left with only one option: attack on personal and/or cultural grounds. This is why we've become inundated with stories and depictions of gun nuts and violent extremists. Apparently, opponents of the right to bear arms believe that, if they can paint all supporters of gun rights with the same big brush, they don't have to come up with any real arguments.

I was reading an anti-gun editorial just before I read Orrin's piece.  Here are some selected quotes from the other article:

deep-pocketed influence peddling with political campaigns... people can see if their daycare worker or dentist is armed... "The NRA is asking gunmen to refrain from mass shootings while key gun bills are before legislators," says a newscaster in a recent editorial cartoon... the NRA realized its wet dream last year... recoiled at its paranoid secessionist/military weapon wing...

The only argument the anti-gun side has left is cultural bigotry and guilt by association.  They want to blame gun rights supporters for criminals who use guns illegally, and ignore the fact that every day, millions of gun owners did not use their guns to hurt anyone.  In fact, if you believe the National Crime Victimization Survey, approximate 220 people use a firearm to defend themselves each day.  (That's the low-end estimate, by the way).

... and yes, this time it really is common sense, not what usually passes for common sense among journalists.

Certain Democrats from largely pro-gun areas have gotten press for opposing gun control -- including both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party leaders of both House and Senate.  But their party is still the party of gun control.

The poll revealed that while 92% of identified Republicans who responded say the U.S. Constitution affirms an individual right to own a gun under the Second Amendment, only 64% of those who said they were Democrats believe that. They were even behind the 71 percent of respondents who claimed no political affiliation, while supporting individual gun rights..

Let's not get carried away with supposedly pro-gun Democrats.  Their supporters are much less likely to hold their feet to the fire on that issue.

It's not a great case.  According to the article, the police were called because a Down's Syndrome child was shooting at his neighbors with a BB gun.  The child let the police into the house, where the police located the parent's firearms.  The firearms were not secured as required by state law, and the owner's firearm identification card had expired. 

The owner is challenging the safe-storage and registration provisions of the law under Heller v DC.  The lower court dismissed the charges, and the prosecutor is appealing.

Leone's office filed an appeal in the state appeals court, disputing a Lowell District Court decision to dismiss gun charges against a Billerica man for improperly storing a firearm and possessing a firearm without a valid firearm identification card.

If the Supreme Court takes this case, it will present a fairly negative portrayal of gun owners. I don't know if a decision has been published in this case, so it's unclear if the decision touches on incorporation at all. I will try to find one.

It's not the only case like this in Massachusetts that has been dismissed.

Between the cases in the 7th Circuit, 9th Circuit, and this one in the 1st Circuit, I think that a Supreme Court case to resolve the split is probably inevitable.  The question is, which case will the justices pick?

... to schedule SB 730, the concealed-carry in parking lots bill.  If you want this bill to pass, contact them NOW: there are only a few days left in the session, and the legislature won't meet again for 2 years.  (Say, do you suppose we could convince the federal government to only meet once every two years?)

... this one over the issue of standing in the DC Circuit.  The case comes from an individual, who is a law enforcement officer in Virginia, seeking to carry a firearm within the District of Columbia.  The law enforcement in the District, however, doesn't think he should be allowed -- and has filed a warrant for his arrest on the charge of carrying an unlicensed firearm.  More details from Legal Times.  Gura's involvement in the case appears to be in the position of an amicus curiae. 

... but it usually takes longer than 3 years.  The DC Gun Rights Examiner has the scoop on plans for the DC City Council to refuse to allow re-registration of certain long guns presently allowed.  This will effectively ban those models.  It doesn't necessarily have to be a door-to-door confiscation, but you can bet that the District will be "notifying" those who registered rifles that will be banned under the new laws so that the rifles can be transferred out of the District.  And you can bet that if they don't get a satisfactory answer, notification by swat team will follow.

Ever since the Heller decision, in mid-2008, the DC police department has been forced to shift strategies on crime control.  They are no longer permitted to ban firearms from all DC residents in some absurd punish-the-innocent game of political blame-shifting.  Instead, they've been forced to aggressively prosecute criminals and leave law-abiding citizens mostly alone -- leaving the politicians free to dream up more red tape that falls just barely short of not permitting gun ownership at all.  And the results?

The D.C. police department's aggressive gun recovery efforts and the office of the attorney general's coordinated emphasis on prosecuting gun-related crimes are showing strong results: In the past year, robberies with guns have decreased 12 percent; assaults with guns have decreased 14 percent; and overall violent crime has decreased by 5 percent in the District.

You read that right.  By their own numbers, after Heller struck down their gun control laws, crime is down.  It looks like arresting criminals and putting them in jail works, and gun control doesn't.

Who would have thought?

This is what the "end game" of gun control looks like:

AB962, sponsored by Assembly Member Kevin De Leon (D-45), is in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. AB962 would make it a crime to privately transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month, even between family and friends, unless you are registered as a "handgun ammunition vendor" in the Department of Justice's database. Ammunition retailers would have to be licensed and store ammunition in such a manner that it would be inaccessible to purchasers. The bill would also require purchasers submit to fingerprinting, which would be submitted to the Department of Justice. Lastly, mail order ammunition sales would be prohibited.

Ever increasing and more draconian restrictions that provide more and more silly hoops for law abiding gun owners to jump through (not to mention more opportunities for accidentally becoming criminals), while real criminals simply ignore the restrictions.

I got the info from a CCRKBA alert, but they don't appear to have posted it to their website.  They did include contact information for your legislators in the email, but I don't want to post that here -- it's excessively long for something only of interest to Californians.  A little poking around should be sufficient to find the details on this legislation and who to contact in opposition to it.

... only this one is a "show" in the sense of being staged.  There's a ".50-caliber anti-aircraft machinegun platform" that is really an aluminum museum replica with an inaccurate, semiautomatic conversion of the BMG; there's a single young female "guard" who was arrested at the time of the seizure but not yet to be charged with anything.A former BATFE agent offers the following anonymous commentary:

The former agent says it is not out of the realm of possibility that the Mexican government staged the gun bust, or at least hyped the press conference, using previously seized weapons in order to bolster its chances of securing additional aid from the U.S. government to help continue its escalation of the drug war. The former agent adds that he is suspicious of all the coincidences surrounding the weapons seizure ? including the fact that the guns were found by accident during a routine patrol, at least one of the guns was a replica, and one of the gun platforms was nothing more than an aluminum prop.

?It?s happened before,? the former agent says. ?You bring in some dope or guns from the [police] warehouse as props. It?s a big game.?

A big game indeed: one that nets Mexican government officials more foreign aid from the US, and feeds Obama's desire for a casus belli on gun control.

Check out this fairly interesting examination of schools stifling the First Amendment rights of gun owners, by suppressing speech about guns even when no threats and no actual guns were involved.  It really is a case of thought police. 

There's also a theme to these incidents that runs a little deeper.  Gun bigots have managed to get mental illness defined as a reason to prevent someone from legally buying or possessing a firearm.  On its face, this is reasonable; people with serious mental disorders aren't capable of handling firearms safely.  The problem is that the left, mostly composed of gun bigots, mostly control the definition of mental illness according to their own prejudices and belief sets. 

If we allow them to control that definition, it won't be long before wanting to own a gun or being willing to kill to protect your own life (or the life of a loved one) is viewed as a disqualifying mental illness.  It's a classic catch-22: wanting to own a gun means you are insane, and insane people can't own guns.  But you can have a gun if you don't want one.

It seems the city of Milwaukee would like to pay some enterprising firearms enthusiasts a lot of money.  It sounds like the job is pretty harsh, though -- you have to travel to Milwaukee on your own funds, open-carry a firearm as permitted by Wisconsin law, and find of the the special Milwaukee police officers who will "put you on the ground, take your gun, and then decide if you have a right to carry it."  If the courts later decide that you had the right to open-carry the firearm, you'll get paid...

It seems like a very long and convoluted way to stimulate the economy, but hey, if you need the money maybe you could make it work for you.

It's anecdotal, for now, but it won't necessarily stay that way:

West said a customer of his recently stocked up on .223-caliber rounds, a caliber often used in assault-style weapons. The customer bought 1,000 rounds a few months ago through a mail order company.

Shortly after the purchase, he received a visit from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, whose interest was apparently piqued by a large-scale purchase of that caliber.

"His wife was home. He was at church," West said.

I don't know how Homeland Security would even find out about that, much less want to conduct a home visit purely as the result of an ammunition purchase.  However, the detail about the individual being at church while his wife spoke to the investigators is one of those little tidbits that hints that the story may have a factual basis.  After all, if you're just telling a story, why not talk to the investigators yourself?

It's possible they were already watching this individual for some other reason, but that doesn't necessarily help -- given the report that was recently issued from that agency, they might have been watching the guy because he's a recently returned veteran, or because he opposes gun control.

I guess we'll find out soon enough; I've ordered 800 rounds of .308 recently (for completely lawful purposes of course) and I'm not exactly friendly to the current administration.  They haven't visited me... yet.

Obama gave a speech in Mexico City recently.  He called for reviving the federal assault weapons ban and "more strictly enforcing existing gun laws" in an effort to fight drug violence in Mexico.  This follows on comments from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Holder, and others.  All of them used the same number -- 90% -- when referring to the number of guns seized in Mexico and traced to the US.

That number is a lie.

Many bloggers questioned it and Fox News definitively exposed it.

But they have continued to use the same number, and that tells me that the Obama adminstration has not gone off-plan; they had this messaging campaign planned from the very first comment and are still working from the original plan.  Ignoring dissent and commentary is not out of character for this administration.

Politifact asked a Mexican security consultant about the figure:

Alberto Islas, a security consultant with Risk Evaluation in Mexico City, said the 90 percent figure is based on an incomplete sample. Mexican officials only require ATF traces of guns used in "high impact crimes," he said. That certainly includes crimes involving violent drug cartels. That's the sample from which the ATF derives its 90 percent statistic. Driving up that percentage, Islas said, is the fact that nearly all of the handguns traced by ATF come from the U.S., Islas said, while assault weapons are more of a mixed bag - some come from the U.S., but others come through drug routes in Eastern Europe, Africa and elsewhere.

This is a more reasonable view, and it contains an important bit of new information: if guns are coming from the US, those guns are typically handguns (which US citizens have a Constitutional right to keep and bear, per the recent Heller case) rather than "assault weapons".  And it makes the Obama's administration's push to renew the assault weapons ban a deliberate political ploy to take advantage of the massive levels of violence in Mexico, rather than an honest attempt to do something about a problem.

"Never waste a crisis."   

David Kopel on the Volokh Conspiracy reports:

Montana's staunchly pro-Second Amendment Governor, Democrat Brian Schweitzer, has signed Montana HB 246, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. The bill declares that a firearm which is manufactured in Montana, and never leaves the State of Montana, "is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce."

Sometimes, I wish I lived in Montana.  This law should have... interesting... repercussions.  Unlike Rick Perry's succession threat on behalf of Texas, a limited challenge such as this can possibly bear fruit without doing more damage than it prevents. 

The problem is that the Supreme Court has already ruled on similar cases.  While this attempt will likely get a lot of attention and probably generate a legal challenge, it's basically asking the Supreme Court to overrule itself.  That's a difficult proposition.  The potential wildcard is the effect of the Heller case, recognizing an individual right to own a firearm. 

I don't really feel qualified to try to predict where this one is going. It's a tough question, and something I'll try to keep an eye on.

I have family that I'm trying to entice into the shooting sports in Louisville, Ky.  That's why the news that the Louisville mayor and city council are trying to pass gun control laws over and above those allowed by the state's preemption law bothers me.  To be sure, the attempt is a fairly minor one; banning firearms from the audience of a fireworks display.  Yet the attitude is all wrong, and the precedent if this regulation is allowed to stand would provide the opportunity for much worse later on.  Here's the actual rule:

For safety reasons the following are not permitted in the event area, which goes south from the Ohio River to Main Street between Clay Street and 10th Street:

No Tents

No cans or bottles are allowed at the event site. Plastic bottles and food are permitted. There is also plenty of food and soft drink stands to take care of any needs you may have. Beer is available at the Chow Wagon at Waterfront Park and the Belvedere Beer Garden.

No alcoholic beverages are allowed.

No bikes, skateboards or skates are allowed in the event venue. You will be asked to walk them in for pedestrian safety.

No firearms are allowed.

Please leave any pets at home.

Due to increased security - all persons and parcels are subject to search.

The fact is, states have preemption laws so that each little region within the state cannot put citizens of the state in legal jeopardy for exercising their right to be armed.  After all, how many small towns or cities do you visit on a regular basis?  Just in my daily commute to work, I pass through two counties and three cities (one large, two small).  If you take into account where I go over the space of a week, you can add another one or two. 

If I had to check the local laws for each of those jurisdictions before doing anything relating to firearms, it would be a lot of time and trouble better spent doing other things.  More importantly, if I didn't actually check -- and found myself unknowingly violating some silly, pointless gun ban, even without doing anyone any harm -- it would have dramatic legal consequences.  Even just for driving through town on my way to a shooting range -- or believing that a concealed-carry permit or open-carry law (both available in Kentucky) would enable me to carry a firearm for self-defense while attending Louisville's fireworks display.

That's not right.

For that matter, what happened to the Fourth Amendment?

Due to increased security - all persons and parcels are subject to search.

Remember, this is a 15x3 block area of public space they are talking about. Granted, it will be crowded, but that doesn't negate the right of self-defense OR the Fourth Amendment.

Don B Kates has a short but powerful opinion piece against gun control.