ACLU v. US Constitution

Despite DC v. Heller and a strong belief that all the other items in the Bill of Rights refer to individual rights, the ACLU's official stance is a failed exercise in reading comprehension:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

There are many things wrong with this position. First, the collective rights premise has never had support from very many legal historians or scholars. The Heller decision is hardly a reinterpretation as there is plainly little if any stare decisis (previous court decisions) to refer to and there is disagreement amongst the circuits (specifically, the most reversed circuit in the world, the 9th Circuit, held the collective rights theory). Finally, it is clear that certain classes of weapons cannot be banned, specifically handguns, because we have a right to own them.

A reminder, from the court's decision:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

I suspect the next real tests will be an incorporation and “assault weapons.” The ACLU seems to be putting itself on the wrong side of these issues as well.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Thursday, Jul 3 2008 11:44 AM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Is Chicago Next?

Within 15 minutes of the affirmation of DC v. Heller the Illinois State Rifle Association sued to overturn the Chicago handgun ban.

From that same article, this moment of fear-mongering:

Speaking during a morning event at Navy Pier, [Mayor] Daley said any effort to strike down Chicago's handgun ban would likely increase taxes because of the increased need for police presence. He also says violence sparked by the end of the ban would also increase hospitalizations.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Thursday, Jun 26 2008 12:42 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Incorporation of DC v. Heller

There are many that have said that the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller only affects Federal laws and did not address incporation—the application of the Federal law to the laws of the states. However, the decision cited the role of the Second Amendment in arguments for ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment on pages 43 and 44:

The understanding that the Second Amendment gave freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms was reflected in congressional discussion of the bill [the Freedman's Bureau Act], with even an opponent of it saying that the founding generation “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 362, 371 (1866) (Sen. Davis).
Similar discussion attended the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, Representative Butler said of the Act: “Section eight is intended to enforce the well-known constitutional provision guaranteeing the right of the citizen to ‘keep and bear arms,’ and provides that whoever shall take away, by force or violence, or by threats and intimidation, the arms and weapons which any person may have for his defense, shall be deemed guilty of larceny of the same.” H. R. Rep. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 7–8 (1871). With respect to the proposed Amendment, Senator Pomeroy described as one of the three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty . . . under the Constitution” a man’s “right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1182 (1866). Representative Nye thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary because “[a]s citizens of the United States [blacks] have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” Id., at 1073 (1866).

If the Second Amendment was a impetus to pass the Fourteenth Amendment in order to incorporate the right into all of the states, clearly today's decision affects state laws as well.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Thursday, Jun 26 2008 11:03 AM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

DC v. Heller Affirmed

The Supreme Court, in DC v. Heller has affirmed the decision of the DC Court of Appeals that the DC Gun Ban was unconstitutional.

Update: I have placed a local copy of the opinion here.

Held:
  1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    1. The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
    2. The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
    3. The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
    4. The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
    5. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
    6. None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
  2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
  3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Update: Another good quote:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Thursday, Jun 26 2008 07:10 AM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Supreme Court Gun Case Imminent

According to SCOTUSblog the DC v. Heller case will have an opinion tomorrow. That is likely to be an interesting opinion.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Wednesday, Jun 25 2008 07:39 AM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Academics for the Second Amendment (A2A)

Academics for the Second Amendment (A2A) now has a blog and they are asking for donations to file an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on their brief for the U.S. v. Emerson case, I think that's good enough to get into my blogroll.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Thursday, Nov 22 2007 09:59 AM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

What Happens When The Supreme Court Rules on District of Columbia v. Heller

“Ride Fast” at Ride Fast & Shoot Straight asks “So what might happen if we win?”

Let's look at the individual laws in question, because we're looking at three rulings here, if not quite a few more.

First there's D.C. Code sec. 7-2502.02(a)(4):

§ 7-2502.02. Registration of certain firearms prohibited.
(a) A registration certificate shall not be issued for a:
…
  (4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976, except that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any organization that employs at least 1 commissioned special police officer or other employee licensed to carry a firearm and that arms the employee with a firearm during the employee's duty hours or to a police officer who has retired from the Metropolitan Police Department.

This does not allow the registration of handguns after 1976. If this tiny but evil piece of code is found unconstitutional I believe it implies that banning guns by not allowing registration is illegal. The first policy item that comes to mind similar to this is the outright refusal of BATFE to register fully-automatic firearms made since 1986. Overturning this tiny piece of code does not make registration unconstitutional, however, it just makes it inappropriate to say “all x must be registered and by the way you can't register it.”

There's history here that can be leveraged, for example the egregious requirements like poll taxes used to deter people from voting. If we lose this one the tactic of registration leading to de facto bans would be affirmed.

What's not being looked at here is the separate numbers in this piece of code which banned other types of firearms than pistols. We don't get to look at sawed-off shotguns or assault rifles this time, sorry.

It's possible we can look at the registration question here, but I doubt it. Getting a consensus amongst five justices often requires very narrow looks at the questions at hand.

Next is D.C. Code sec. 22-4504(a):

§ 22-4504. Carrying concealed weapons; possession of weapons during commission of crime of violence; penalty.
(a) No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed. Whoever violates this section shall be punished as provided in § 22-4515, except that:
  (1) A person who violates this section by carrying a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon, in a place other than the person's dwelling place, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or
  (2) If the violation of this section occurs after a person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this section or of a felony, either in the District of Columbia or another jurisdiction, the person shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

This prohibits carry, open or concealed, of a firearm in any place other than their home, property, or place of business. It also prohibits the carry, open or concealed, of an unlicensed pistol on even those sanctuaries. This piece of code could get partititioned and we'd be looking at the possibility of having a constitutional right to bear arms on our own property, but not elsewhere. We could also look at the question of licensure in this one. The vast swathes of concealed carry legislation are not being considered here so I'd again expect a fairly limited look. A constitutional protection for carrying on gun on your own property without a license is what I would expect.

Finally there is D.C. Code sec. 7-2507.02:

§ 7-2507.02. Firearms required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked.
Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.

This essentially penalizes people that don't disable their firearms so they cannot be readily used. Winning this one would imply a constitutional protection for unfettered access to one's firearms. Such a ruling might stop one particular “slippery slope”-style incursion on firearms ownership, although I believe that one should secure ones firearms away from misuse by others anyway. Losing this one allows for the slippery slope to continue.

That's essentially it. As one would expect the slices of gun laws being examined are quite limited and the implications of protection from a Supreme Court ruling are similarly limited. Some folks are hoping for rubber-stamping the removal of all gun laws, or the outright ban of guns, but neither is likely from this case. I doubt any case would make it to the Supreme Court with such far-reaching potential.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Wednesday, Nov 21 2007 06:39 AM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Supreme Court To Hear District of Columbia v. Heller

Finally the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) will be considered by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller after 68 years of messed up gun laws under the botched United States v. Miller.

Apparently it took some effort to frame the question, but this is what they ended up with

Whether the following provisions—D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02—violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

(via SCOTUS Blog.)

Update: There's a lot of background information at the SCOTUS Wiki.

The Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence has sent out a letter begging for $50,000 by November 30 so they can file an amicus brief.

The Washington Post has written a longer article on this case, as has the Associated Press, which you can read here at Fox News.

Finally, there's some lively discussion on the case at Hot Air.

Update: The grant of certiorari is here amongst the other orders.

Update: Plenty of good background at The Volokh Conspiracy, too. Here, here, and here. Also some discussion about Justice Kennedy's vote.

Update: The Federalist Society has published an email debate on this case. Notice Glenn Reynolds (the InstaPundit) predicting that the Supreme Court would not grant certiorari. Thanks, Dad, for the link!

Update: The Wall Street Journal has weighed in with an article and a Law Blog Q&A posting. The Law Blog swings against the individual right interpretation, which seems contrary to a lot of other thinking.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Tuesday, Nov 20 2007 10:15 AM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

More Trash Talk From the Freedom States Alliance

The Freedom States Alliance is an anti-gun group that has me on its mailing list. Every day they send me some piece of hyperbole or nanny-state fetishism. Today they equate the hanging of traitors with racist executions:

Help Prevent the Lynching of America by the Gun Lobby
September 12, 2007
Dear Joshua
In Pennsylvania, gun lobbyists threatened the sponsor of a gun control bill, suggesting that he be “hung from the tree of liberty for treasonous acts against the constitution.”
Have you had enough of the threats of violence from gun “enthusiasts”?
We have.
…

It seems to me more like a threat of prosecution to me.

Attempts to portray gun owners who protect their rights as racist rednecks to the anti-freedom lobby. Between mocking people with quotation marks and smug pronouncements with trite phrases, the Freedom States Alliance has it all, swiftly produced through a media machine intended to draw donations.

Let's ask. What should the penalty for treason be? Isn't subverting the Constitution a form of treason since it invalidates the consent of the governed?

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Wednesday, Sep 12 2007 02:28 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Shakedown Artist Plans Public Exortion Attempt

Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr., notorious attention-seeker, plans to protest a gun shop in the Chicago, Illinois suburbs for being the most popular in the nation. I guess someone has to be number one.

While he makes wondrous noises and platitudes, for example, “We have the right to live safe and secure, no matter where we live in America.” he seeks to shut down the very stores that offer (for many) a safe and effective solution to threats of personal violence.

“Our marching does not kill people; people who buy guns from gun shops kill people,” he says, forgetting the intended consequence that marching shuts down gun shops, threatening the lives of innocent people no longer able to even the odds against larger, more aggressive criminal assailants. I suppose known misogynist Jackson prefers rape victims to dead attackers in the national equation.

Jesse must believe that after the Virginia Tech incident that gun control is again a hot button in America, but he's wrong. The reaction of the public has been mixed, ranging from his bitter invective of disarm everyone so only muscles and gangs rule the streets, to the opposite side of arming students and teachers against possible future wackos.

Go ahead and have your protest, Jesse, only your fellow travelers in the Brady Coalition even noticed you are up to something, or care.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Friday, Jul 6 2007 04:02 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Virginia Tech

Of course the Virginia Tech shootings are a significant disaster, both in loss of life as well as public morale. It is horrible to see a single deranged individual pick up two commonplace handguns and end up killing 32 other people.

The question is what we will learn from it.

Already there are calls for more gun control, but it should be clear that gun control failed in this instance. He made it past the waiting periods, the background check, and laws making it illegal to bring them on campus. Of course, it's also illegal to murder people.

On the other side, what if one or two people had been able to have their own guns for self-defense? Would they have stopped the slaughter? History shows that while some victims are passive (rumors indicate that he lined people up and executed them), others take action to protect others while endangering themselves. Professor Liviu Librescu tried to block the killer out of his classroom and was shot for his trouble, but he may have saved his students.

I had believed that after 9/11 there would never be passive victims to such crimes again in our national memory. Now I don't know what to think.

Beyond guns there is a discussion about mental health. The warning signs of a troubled young man abounded here, with warnings from teachers and even court proceedings related to his mental state. Could we have understood him better and done something more in advance? There are limits, here, too. We can second-guess the judge that allowed him outpatient mental health care which kept the killer from being barred from owning a firearm, but what's the point? Dedicated individuals can find weaponry of any sort to act out their hate. Recall that dedicated Jihadis turn themselves or their cars into weapons or that Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel to kill more than the VT killer did.

I believe that pre-emption against unknown threats is a fruitless endeavor and that the best strategy is improving our ability to react. In Iraq we dealt with a known serious threat with pre-emption. At home, where we don't know the threats, he harden the obvious targets and grow our ability to respond. The wrong response would be to soften obvious targets like schools and malls by prohibiting the very best tools of response.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Thursday, Apr 19 2007 11:26 AM  |  Permalink  |  1 comment  |  No trackbacks

More 'News' Pushing for Gun Control

Melissa Santos of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer laments “Despite shootings, gun control unlikely.” While the piece is more balanced than most, it's still a hit job on the rights of gun owners. One usually expects Seattle's paper to print Washington Ceasefire releases nearly verbatim and call for draconian restrictions.

I doubt this plea will be heard, however. Despite a Democratic majority in Washington politics, my state legislators are aware that there are very few gun crimes and quite a few gun owners in the state. It doesn't take much for their to be a backlash against Democrats over wedge issues such as gun ownership.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns, Politics” Friday, Jan 5 2007 12:39 PM  |  Permalink  |  1 comment  |  No trackbacks

The Anti-Gun Senate Judiciary Committee

Looks like the Democrats are sending the most anti-gun Senators to their side of the Senate Judiciary Committee (per the Knox fcalerts list):

The Senate Democrats have already made their committee assignments and stacked the Judiciary Committee with the bottom of the anti-gun barrel - Leahy, Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Biden, Feingold, Kohl, Cardin, and Whitehouse, but the Republicans are expected to handle that business over the next week or two.

There are some folks on that list that have always hated gun owners (and, in general, citizens that want to defend themselves). We need to make sure the GOP side of the committee is not anti-gun as well. Of those on the GOP side from before, we lost one anti-gunner, DeWine, and there are a few that are positively pro-gun. Fcalerts recommends this:

Please contact Senate Republican Leader Elect Mitch McConnell and Republican Whip Elect Trent Lott, and ask them to keep Coburn, Cornyn, and Sessions on the Judiciary Committee.

Coburn, you may recall, was also a significant porkbuster in his latest term. He's a good guy.

You can leave feedback for those building the committee assignments at Senator McConnell's Office and Senator Lott's Office.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns, Politics” Tuesday, Nov 21 2006 02:37 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

2006 Election Not As Bad For Gun Owners

Dave Kopel has the scorecard.

A short summary:

Governors:
Net gubernatorial results: -1.5.
Gains: Ohio.
Losses: Colorado, Maryland, and half of one in New York.
Senate:
Net Senate results: -1.
House:
Net House results: -14, which would drop to -15 if Reichert (WA 8) loses his lead.

I don't like the minuses, but those minuses aren't as bad as they were for the GOP.

Here's in Washington, however, the net loss was quite bad. Joe Waldron of Washington GOAL put it succinctly:

In Olympia it will get real interesting. A Senate split 32D-17R will mean reordering of committees. Senate Judiciary will likely switch from 5D-4R to 6D-3R. That means gun bills (plural) may come out of committee, leading to floor votes. With a 32-17 Senate, I'm not optimistic about holding bills there. The fight will shift to the House, where we have a number of pro-gun Dems. Will it be enough? Good question.
When we put out the call for people to come to Oly for hearings, you'd better come. Legislators are sensitive to this. When we put nearly 400 gunnies into the Senate Judiciary hearing room (and two overflow rooms) two years ago, people noticed.
Our strength is in grassroots. We'll have several opportunities to prove this in Olympia next year.

We shall live in interesting times.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns, Politics” Wednesday, Nov 8 2006 07:15 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Costco Bans Guns

According to Keep And Bear Arms Costco doesn't want people to carry guns in its stores. They've never harassed me about it, but then again I don't open carry. Perhaps I should cancel my membership anyway.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Thursday, Oct 19 2006 03:56 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Pac. Nw. Shooting Park v. City of Sequim

In a setback, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against Pacific Northwest Shooting Park, finding that statewide preemption applies only to criminal matters and not civil ones where a municipality or county “acts in a capacity that is comparable to that of a private party.” This is likely to have far-reaching effects.

I have noted before that preemption prevented municipalities and counties from restricting concealed carry on their various properties but with this ruling I predict the return to a multitude of new regulations to harass our people and eat out their substance. There is a glimmer of light in the opinion of the court:

The critical point is that the conditions the city imposed related to a permit for private use of its property. They were not laws or regulations of application to the general public.

Even so, this still implies any private function on public land can now have municipal restrictions on concealed carry.

Still, the court is being disingenuous here. Governments within the state are not private citizens, and they are of course restricted by RCW 9.41.290. Look at how it's worded:

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

Clearly a contractual agreement has the force of the municipality behind it, and municipalities are specifically preempted from regulating firearms. Regulating by contract is not sufficiently different than regulating by ordinance or policy, especially when it affects the actions of the general public (and the general public is indeed invited to gun shows). Even if they were renting out the convention center for a wedding, this sort of contractual clause runs afoul of preemption. Cities that own public property and use that power to create the effect of regulation are sufficiently appearing to regulate in my humble opinion, and RCW 4.91.290 was specifically written to preempt such regulation.

The problem crops up in RCW 9.41.300. Convention centers are called out for local regulation except for CCW or “any showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms.” Yeah, they managed to weasel on that point. A gun show is not concealed carry or an showing, demonstration, or lecture. It is a gathering to trade firearms.

Except the section right after the above says this:

(3)(a) Cities, towns, and counties may enact ordinances restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold, but, except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a business selling firearms may not be treated more restrictively than other businesses located within the same zone. An ordinance requiring the cessation of business within a zone shall not have a shorter grandfather period for businesses selling firearms than for any other businesses within the zone.
(b) Cities, towns, and counties may restrict the location of a business selling firearms to not less than five hundred feet from primary or secondary school grounds, if the business has a storefront, has hours during which it is open for business, and posts advertisements or signs observable to passersby that firearms are available for sale. A business selling firearms that exists as of the date a restriction is enacted under this subsection (3)(b) shall be grandfathered according to existing law.

So, weaseling is not enough. It's pretty clear that gun shows cannot be treated any differently than any other show. Unless the City of Sequim has boilerplate on the sales of firearms to anyone renting the convention center, the gun show in question was treated differently because they were selling firearms!

Justice Richard B. Sanders's dissent is great:

The majority concludes Pacific Northwest Shooting Park Association (PNSPA) insufficiently pleaded a claim of tortious interference with a business expectancy because its complaints do not specifically state it expected to do business with vendors and the general public. The majority is wrong. A pleading is sufficient so long as it provides notice of the general nature of the claim asserted. The nature of PNSPA's claim is pellucid and its complaints entirely adequate. It alleges tortious interference with its expectation of hosting a gun show. No additional specificity is required.
Furthermore, the majority concludes RCW 9.41.300, which prohibits municipalities from regulating gun shows, permits municipalities to regulate gun shows. I am nonplussed. The statute means what it says. City of Sequim lacked authority to regulate PNSPA's gun show.

Justice James M. Johnson's dissent was also pretty harsh:

I concur with the dissent; however, I write separately in order to briefly clarify Washington law regarding firearms and their sale, which was misstated or improperly applied by the police chief here. This is particularly important as the Washington constitutional right “of the individual citizen to bear arms” could have also been implicated in this case. Whether this right includes a corollary constitutional right to sell or trade firearms need not be decided since Washington statutory law, correctly understood, allows the sales. I concur with the dissent.
Police Chief Nelson made a significant legal error in his April 11, 2002 memo, which he personally distributed. The memo restricted gun sales at the show in a manner not allowed by Washington law. It is difficult to find that a law enforcement officer, who surely had access to the RCWs, could incorrectly state the law in good faith.

I have edited citations out of the opinions here for brevity. Check out the opinions directly for full text and the background information.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns, Politics” Thursday, Oct 12 2006 12:16 PM  |  Permalink  |  1 comment  |  No trackbacks

Weapons of Choice

The real “weapon of choice” of terrorists is TATP, not so-called Assault Weapons, Saturday Night Specials, or the infamous .50 BMG.

TATP is a powerful and compact explosive, recently in the news with the terror plot to blow up several planes with liquid explosive in energy drink cans, but also under the feet of shoe bomber Reichard Reid and the Madrid Train Bombers.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns, Terrorism” Thursday, Aug 10 2006 03:17 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Carnival of Cordite #65

Carnival of Cordite #65 is up at Spank That Donkey. My two posts from yesterday questioning the recent gun rights victories made the list.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Sunday, Jul 16 2006 06:36 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

No Action by the UN A Big Victory?

So, the UN Conference on Small Arms without them doing something and gun rights supporters consider this a big victory?

No recommendations on ammunition, civilian possession or future UN meetings, or for that matter any other subjects, were adopted. The failure of this five-year program to impact the legitimate firearms industry, and the 2nd Amendment rights of U.S. citizens was total.

This is victory? I define victory as something more akin to L. Neil Smith's Atlanta Declaration:

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon—rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

When this conference works towards implementing the above goal everywhere on the globe, we might be getting somewhere. When we think it's great that the US Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph strongly states that the UN should not meddle with the US Right To Keep And Bear ArmsTM then we set our sights too low. Instead I want to hear a strong statement that the rights of US citizens are a model for responsible democracies everywhere, and we're taking the first step by dismantling the 20,000 gun laws on our own books, one by one. We can't expect other countries to stop their shameful practices with their own citizens until we can set a good example.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Saturday, Jul 15 2006 01:19 PM  |  Permalink  |  1 comment  |  No trackbacks

Vitter Amendment A Big Victory?

Various gun rights organizations have credited an amendment to the 2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (HR 5441) as a great victory for gun rights. On first blush it may be, at least, a concession to law-abiding gun owners' need to defend themselves in a crisis.

Here's the amendment (SA 4615):

SEC. 540. PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.
None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to temporarily or permanently seize any firearm during an emergency or major disaster (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal or State law or as evidence in a criminal investigation.

So, this is a form of pre-emption. Your local tin pot Mayor can't order the cops to take your guns just because the fit hit the shan. However, this amendment only removes federal funding for disaster workers confiscating guns, and the States can make their own laws in this regard and get the money then, so is this really a victory?

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Saturday, Jul 15 2006 12:14 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

NWSAFE Calendar

Why not have the NWSAFE Calendar available as a Google calendar?

6/28 Update:

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Monday, Jun 5 2006 05:07 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

It's About Time

The NRA's Personal Protection Outside the Home course is finally going to see the light of day and may even be offered by instructors near you by the end of this year. This course will build upon the successful and comprehensive Basic Personal Protection In The Home course by offering basic instruction for those who have concealed carry permits.

For years I have groused about this developed but not released course that has been languishing inside the Training Department at the NRA, putatively on hold awaiting approval from the legal department. Starting June 10th of this year, Senior Training Counselors will receive training in hopes of minting instructors for this course and perhaps offering instruction later this year.

Already the handbook for this course is available from the NRA Program Materials department although I do not see the handbook available from the online catalog. You can order it directly by calling 888-607-6007, pressing 2, then 1, then asking for catalog number ES30000. I have done the same but I don't expect to get my shipment for a week or so.

Rest assured that once a local Senior Training Counselor (STC) has been trained I will be among the first in line (as a Training Counselor) to get my certification updated for this new course. Then perhaps we'll see NWSAFE offer this material later this year. We've got plenty of folks that have taken our beginning pistol and personal protection courses in the past few years.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Wednesday, May 24 2006 03:16 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Gun Guys Mess Up

The Gun Guys run a regular mailing list (ostensibly for their fellow petty tyrants) where they tout control fantasies and smear pieces on their own ilk before they get sent to the general public. Today they wrote a screed intended to decry the salary of Wayne LaPierre, putatively the CEO of the NRA:

A million dollars is a lot of money, even when you're talking about the NRA. According to our calculations, that means 35,000 NRA memberships have already been spent, before any gun lobby crony's campaign funds ever see a dime.

No NRA membership money goes to lobbying. Lobbying is paid for solely by donations to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. The ILA is an independent organization within the NRA which conducts all lobbying activities.

NRA membership money goes into other activities, like training (both for police and private citizens), magazines for the members to read, firearms range development, and firearms competitions.

Of course, they don't mention that there are four million members of the NRA, therefore the “35,000” who pay Wayne's salary are a drop in the bucket. They also don't mention that many members are life members (or beyond—for example, I'm an “endowment” member).

Make no mistake, the NRA is a large organization devoted to teaching people how to be safe with firearms and shoot well. It's the largest police firearms training organization in the world. It promotes hundreds of competitions with the intent of safe, accurate, and fun shooting. But are the members money wasted on Wayne LaPierre? Doesn't the third largest lobby US deserve the finest CEO they can afford?

If you're going to smear an organization, at least get your facts straight.

So, ever wonder why these guys know LaPierre's salary? These anonymous fear and smear campaigners pulled the information from his tax forms! Quick! Alert the ACLU!

Update: The Gun Guys corrected their posting to indicate that they looked at the NRA's Form 990, but the email they sent out said this:

Because according to tax forms obtained by us, the guy's making almost (if not more than) a million dollars a year.

Sounds different, doesn't it?

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Thursday, May 11 2006 02:47 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  1 trackback

Foot Shooter Sues DEA

The infamous DEA agent who shot himself in the foot moments after claiming to be the only one in the room professional enough to carry the gun is suing the DEA because of the Internet distribution of the video. Apparently his cover has been blown and he is no longer desired as a motivational or educational speaker.

The Smoking Gun, and the complaint, say he accidentally discharged his Glock. From what I saw in the video, I'd call it negligence, if not reckless endangerment. I harped about this in my first posting in reaction to the incident.

This guy was a college and NFL football player as well as spokesman for the Ambassador of Nassau, Bahamas on the issue of drug enforcement. He claims to have been one of the best undercover DEA agents we had. It's amazing how a career can collapse from a careless moment with a gun. In an age where cameras are in everyone's phones, it's silly to think any careless moment won't be captured and published to the Internet moments later.

Previously on Josh's Weblog:
DEA Agent Redux
DEA Annoyed By Internet Exposure of Agent That Shot Himself
The Three Rules of Safe Firearms Handling

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Tuesday, Apr 11 2006 03:03 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  1 trackback

Pimp Gun

Looking through my pictures archive I discovered my .357 picture was corrupt, so I fixed that. Then I noticed I had never posted a picture of the “pimp gun” here:

pimpgun.jpg

And it can't be a pimp gun without a Miami Vice caliber:

pimpgun-detail.jpg

Obviously this gun is used primarily for special occasions. Shooting a lot of 10mm is rough on the gun.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns, Pictures” Wednesday, Mar 1 2006 09:36 AM  |  Permalink  |  1 comment  |  1 trackback

Gun Pictures Are Popular

I get a lot of hits on my website looking for gun pictures, even more than cat pictures or my commentary. Here's a little more for the folks that come here looking for guns!

Gripped 1911 by John McEnroe

John McEnroe took the picture, but it's my hands and my Wilson Combat Protector (a very nice 1911, if I say so myself). Notice all the wear and tear on the poor thing as it's my day-to-day carry piece.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Blogging, Guns, Pictures” Tuesday, Jan 24 2006 06:23 PM  |  Permalink  |  5 comments  |  1 trackback

Guncrafter Industries Model No. 2

Guncrafter Industries is showing a sneak preview of their Model No. 2 1911-style .50 GI handgun. It has a full-length dust cover, solid reverse plug, and a equipment rail (best used for a light). I don't think I'd use the equipment rail—I consider lights to be bullet magnets and I don't want it near me—but I like the extra weight of the dust cover as well as the reduced chances of getting crud in the gun because of the redone reverse plug. Add a ambidextrous safety and I like it a lot.

The .50 GI cartridge is controversial, however. Some people don't like unusual case head design, others don't like the low velocity. I kinda like the idea, but I'm worried about the cost of ammunition. This one is really designed for people who reload, and I'm not set up for that (yet). I am a believer in .45 ACP and find it to be comfortable to shoot. The .50 GI is supposed to be similar in recoil and makes for large holes in the target.

The next question is “would I carry it?” There are risks in carrying an unusual caliber, and there are also risks in carrying a gun whose reliability has not been proven in your own hands yet, so for me the jury has evidence yet to hear (let alone being “out”). I have a few 1911s I trust carrying, primarily my Wilson Protector and my Kimber (I sold my Springfield—it hard really sharp edges). I like the familiarity of the Model No. 1's design, therefore, and I'd love to give it a try. I just need three spare kilobucks to try it out…

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Monday, Jan 16 2006 10:58 AM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Carnival of Cordite #42

After a holiday break, Carnival of Cordite #42 is up at Resistance is futile! Send congrats to Gullyborg for his marriage over the break, and to the many others with gun-related Christmas presents.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Sunday, Jan 8 2006 10:26 AM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Hawaii Cub Scouts Get to Break the Rules

When we conduct “Camp White Feather” here in the Pacific Northwest, we train dozens of boy scouts to earn their rifle shooting merit badges and we conduct the entire affair with a keen eye on safety, both in the way we conduct the event and how we teach heart-felt safe gun handling habits in the children that participate. We also try very hard not to get the kind of publicity evident in this article.

Enthusiasm for the hands-on event was strong yesterday, as more than 300 boys—mostly ages 7, 8 or 9—participated in what has been an annual tradition for the Cub Scouts and Schofield soldiers since 1968. Other groups were at the half-day camp Tuesday and today.

It's fun to do a shooting camp. I've done so for many years. However, the maturity of seven-year-old boys requires us to be very careful about how we conduct such a camp. We get very few that young, and we trust parents to bring children that are capable of learning and performing the required skills and the required level of skill or safety (from our application form):

Rifle shooting requires Scouts to “concentrate totally and consistently,” block out distractions and “hold the body completely still while firing the shot.” Scouts who have difficulty concentrating, are easily distracted, or have difficulty holding still will have a very difficult time meeting the shooting requirements.

Soldiers, in general, are also held to a very high standard of maturity with firearms when they are being trained. That's why the following pictures from this article surprised me somewhat.

I'm going to use two pictures of the article under “fair use” rules here. They clearly demonstrate unsafe behavior by the scouts and I want to point out why. One of our teaching rules is “never demonstrate an incorrect technique” but these two photos need comment. They were photographed by Cindy Ellen Russell of the Honolulu Star Bulletin and published in the above article.

Kids running with guns, Cindy Ellen Russell, Honolulu Star Bulletin

We try hard to avoid activities that lead to the photos in that article. The top one, clearly showing children running with M-16s, shows rifles pointed in an unsafe direction, and the possibility of a finger or two on a trigger when it's obvious they are not shooting. We do conduct safe gun handling exercises where kids hold guns, and pass them to one another, and never do we see guns pointed in unsafe directions or with little fingers on the trigger.

Kid pointing gun at photographer, Cindy Ellen Russell, Honolulu Star Bulletin

In this picture, it's clear that a kid is point a gun in an unsafe direction, at the camera person! We never allow parents go down range to take pictures like this (and someone always wants to), and we never let kids aim at a person, or a person-like target. We never let anyone go downrange when someone is near a firearm.

When we teach kids how to earn their merit badges we talk about and demonstrate safety for a whole day. Hitting the target and improving skills comes after a demonstrated understanding of the three rules we should always follow when handling firearms:

  • Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction
  • Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot
  • Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use

I understand that most soldiers don't like what they consider to be bureaucratic nonsense and may not understand the single-minded pursuit of shocking imagery common in journalism, but the above two pictures are more damaging to teaching kids how to use firearms responsibly than they are evidence of fun. The soldiers will say that the guns were unloaded, and military discipline on ammunition is pretty good. However, most of the world is not a military camp, and the actions shown above can lead to firearms accidents.

(Hat tip to Alphecca, who pointed to the article here.)

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Friday, Dec 30 2005 09:33 AM  |  Permalink  |  3 comments  |  No trackbacks

New Supreme Court Pick a Real Winner

From Gun Owners of America:

GOA wants to thank all of you who contacted the President recently and suggested that he appoint a strong constitutionalist like Samuel Alito, Jr., to the Supreme Court.
As you know, Judge Alito (from the Third Circuit) has a strong record in support of the Constitution. Gun Owners Foundation was involved in the Rybar machine gun case which we ultimately lost in the courts. But Judge Alito offered a strong dissenting opinion to the majority report and argued that Congress has no right to regulate the private possession of machine guns.

Anyone that can actually read the second amendment is more likely to get my vote too!

The nomination of Alito is going to drive the other side crazy. Good. Judge Alito is a tremendous choice, and GOA will be asking you in the future to lobby your two U.S. Senators in favor of this pick.
In the meantime, thank the President for making such a good choice. And thank him for bypassing, once again, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a pick for the Supreme Court.

Gonzales was calling for a renewal of the time-, money-, and freedom-wasting Assault Weapons Ban.

GOA has asked you several times to contact the President and oppose a Gonzales nomination, because as one of the President's good friends, Gonzales has long been reputed to be on Bush's “short list.”
But that seems to have changed. The Associated Press recently reported that Gonzales is no longer on that “short list” because Bush is “trying to dampen [opposition] on the Republican right, which doesn't think Gonzales is a reliable conservative vote.”
Thank goodness. Bush didn't use to think that way. But you can pat yourself on the back for helping impress this new way of thinking into Bush's head.

Sounds like GOA likes Alito. That's quite different than with previous nominees.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Tuesday, Nov 1 2005 03:25 PM  |  Permalink  |  2 comments  |  No trackbacks

S. 397 vs. The Living Constitution

Eugene Volokh has a piece up today looking at the “findings” at the beginning of S. 397 as more ammunition against the Living Constitution attacks on the Second Amendment.

First, the findings in question:

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

Certainly words for me to like, but why do we care that they are in there? Prof. Volokh explains:

Of course, courts interpreting constitutional provisions are by no means bound by Congress's assertions about the provision's meaning; they may interpret the provision more broadly than Congress urges, or more narrowly. Yet I take it that part of the reason for the findings was that courts sometimes are influenced, at least in some measure, by the judgments of a coordinate branch of the federal government. (At least courts sometimes says that they are thus influenced; query how sincere such assertions are, and to what extent they are just there to support a conclusion that the judges would have reached in any way.)

He goes on to point out other assertions and findings from the executive branch and then attacks the Living Constitution view of the Second Amendment from four quarters. It's definitely worth a read.

I've never doubted that the correct reading of the Constitution maximizes the freedoms mentioned, but it's alays good to see someone else support that view.

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights,” Justice Jackson wrote in the 1943 flag-salute case, “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Words to live by, it seems to me.

Hear, hear.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Wednesday, Oct 26 2005 01:18 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

Carnival of Cordite #35

Carnival of Cordite #35 is up at Resistance is Futile!

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Friday, Oct 21 2005 07:54 PM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks

S. 397 Passes House

S. 397 was passed by the House today. As a result the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” has passed in the same form by both the House and the Senate and is on its way to the President's desk. It came through a tortuous to make it here, however.

This particular act started in two forms, S. 397 in the Senate, and HR. 800 in the House. The House version is superior, in my opinion, because it has two less sections.

First, where they agree.

A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

where a qualified civil liability action is defined:

…a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product [firearms, ammunition, and the like], or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief' resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party…

It excludes intentional harm or negligence, of course.

Sure, I'd like to see “trainer” or “instructor” in that list, but this is a good start. I'd love for my firearms instruction insurance to go down in price.

But what about where the House and Senate bills are different?

S. 397's Section 5, “Child Safety Locks” requires the inclusion of a trigger lock with every handgun sale, for the stated purposes of

(1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers;
(2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun; and
(3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

There, of course, is the unstated purposes of being a nuisance for handgun manufacturers and dealers, as well as opening the door for potential liabilty if people don't keep their guns locked up all the time. At any rate, it modifies 18 USC 922 and threatens dealers with suspension of their license to sell firearms if they sell a handgun without a lock.

It also has a curious addition:

(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action.
(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS- A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
(C) DEFINED TERM- As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'--
(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if--
(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and
(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and
(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.

A compromise within a compromise! One can almost imagine the point and counterpoint of congressmen amending each other's amendments to make oddities like this. Does this mean we at least get some relief from civil liability if we make a decent attempt to secure a handgun and it gets sprung or stolen? It will probably take some time to put this to a test, but it's an interesting development.

The more insidious piece is the next section, Section 6, “Armor Piercing Ammunition”. This outlaws the manufacture or importation of armor piercing ammunition, with certain exceptions, and asks the Attorney General to do a study and report:

(1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.
(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED- The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and
(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.
(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--
(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

A typical compromise measure is to order studies into issues at dispute in order to create a new bureaucracy that studies question endlessly. Most likely a study will find that anything suitable for hunting deer is also likely to defeat most piece of body armor comfortable enough for a police officer to wear in normal duty, therefore more study is required. Studies generally require there to be somewhat friendly bureaucracies to be present. Imagine what would happen if zealots who wish to ban all guns and ammunition were able to conduct such a study.

So, S. 397 passed. What's the reaction?

From the NRA, we have this:

Commenting on the passage of this landmark legislation, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, “This is an historic victory for the NRA. Freedom, truth and justice prevailed, and today S. 397 is one step closer to becoming the law of the land. No other industry is forced to defend themselves when a violent criminal they do not know, have never met and cannot control, misuses a legal non-defective product. American firearms manufacturers will now receive the same fair treatment.”
Joining LaPierre in commenting on this victory, NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox added, “Our judicial system has been exploited for politics and Congress put a stop to that. Passage of the 'Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act' would not have been possible without the support of the 257 House co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. We appreciate the tireless efforts of Rep. Cliff Stearns and Rep. Rick Boucher and the Republican members of House leadership who worked to move the bill in this chamber.”

If only they could have brokered a deal where HR. 800 was passed instead of S. 397.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) has similar praise for passage of S. 397:

“This important legislation will stop the anti-gunners cold in their attempts to bankrupt firearms manufacturers, distributors and retailers,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb. “It closes an important loophole through which extremist gun grabbers have been trying to use the courts to crush gun ownership in this country, when they could not get Congress or state legislatures to do their bidding.”
“This common sense legislation,” added CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, “is long overdue. It sends a clear signal to the anti-gun lobby that mainstream America has had enough of their attempts to have their political agenda forced on us all by the courts.”

What about pro-gun organizations that are not as happy about S. 397? I haven't seen a release from Gun Owners of America yet, but they were pushing hard for HR. 800 instead of S. 397.

The Oregon Firearms Federation sent out a release, though, stating

This bill, strongly supported by the NRA, was intended to protect gun makers and sellers, however it came at a cost of more gun control in the form of mandatory gun locks and other provisions which are dangerous to gun owners.

Also,

While we are pleased that gun makers and sellers will get a measure of protection against baseless lawsuits, we are disappointed that the NRA and other groups were so eager to pass this bill instead of the House version, HR 800 which would have accomplished the same thing without giving up more of our rights and freedoms.

We've long known that gun owners have more friends in the House than in the Senate, and it's not just because of the battle lines drawn between the Republicans and Democrats. Even so, those who feel citizens should be subjects have vowed to fight on (as quoted from the OFF release):

In a press release sent immediately after the bill passed, the “Coalition To Stop Gun Violence” stated: “We plan to move forward with our lawsuit against the gun makers and dealers involved in the sale of guns to Buford Furrow, the convicted felon, ex-mental patient, and white supremacist who went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish day care center near Los Angeles, and we believe nothing in the new gun industry immunity bill will prevent us from obtaining a judgment against these companies.”

I haven't seen the Brady Campaign's reaction, but I'm sure it will be similar.

Update: More reactions as relayed by Fox News:

“This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America,” said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.

Update 2: I'm adding this to the Beltway Traffic Jam at Outside the Beltway.

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Thursday, Oct 20 2005 11:45 AM  |  Permalink  |  1 comment  |  1 trackback

Carnival of Cordite #32

Carnival of Cordite #32 is up at Resistance is futile!

Josh Poulson

Posted in category “Guns” Saturday, Oct 1 2005 08:21 AM  |  Permalink  |  No comments  |  No trackbacks