New York

So I see a rumor that Charles Schumer mr. anti civil rights   himself has a NYC unrestricted gun permit, meaning he is one of 30,000 people out of 8,000,000 and actually about 22,000 of those are retired cops which leaves us with about 8,000 non LEO permit holders.  That 8,000 is primarily the ultra well connected of NYC, people such as Robert DeNiro, Don Imus, Harvey Keitel,Joan Rivers, The Donald and a variety of politicians.  Contrast that with MN that has a shall issue carry permit system as of this month there are 71,000 permit holders out of a population of 5.2 million with the vast majority of them being civilians and that has happened in the just over 5 years MN has had a non discretionary permit system.
This quote from Wikipedia regarding the Sullivan act:   Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile [1]. Whether this was part of the law’s intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against “undesirable” elements. Sponsor “Big Tim” Sullivan reputedly desired the law so that his criminal cohorts could go about their activities unimpeded by citizens defending themselves with concealed handguns. does a fine job of showing what gun control is really about taking gun out of the hands of a feared minority.  Look at the cities and states that have the most draconian gun laws; Washington D.C., Chicago, NYC , California, Massachusetts, Maryland are all winners on the Brady Campaign scorecard all have had large immigrant populations and now have  a large minority population.
In June we will see NYC attempt to defend itself because it is next up on the list.

It appears the WA state Supreme Court has incorporated the 2nd amendment under the due process clause of the 14th. Volokh Conspiracy  link.
A couple excerpts

"Like Presser and Cruikshank we question
the relevance of United States v. Miller to the instant matter, albeit for different reasons. Miller concerned the constitutionality of a federal regulation barring interstate transport of, for example, an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. The Court upheld the federal regulation stating, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Id. at 178. Miller’s holding stands for the proposition—and little more—that certain types of weapons are
not linked to militia service."
"Sieyes’s objection may be that he was 17 years old at the time of his arrest, and his right to bear arms should be equal to that of an 18-year-old’s, but his arguments fail to challenge the statutory age limit set by this statute. In sum appellant offers no convincing authority supporting his argument that Washington’s limit on childhood firearm possession violates the United States or Washington Constitutions. Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day."
 "The Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

I am surprised by a couple things, the biggest of which is that they correctly read Miller because that is the case that is used by the anti civil rights crowd to cite the 2nd as reserving the RKBA to the state militias. It also appears that if Sieyes had actually supported his argument by using Gunwall they might have reversed his conviction. The last thing I find surprising is they came very close to deciding on a standard of review for use in 2A cases and that it looked like they were going for strict scrutiny, in fact that is what judge Jim Johnson suggested in his dissent. That makes perfect sense as we are talking about a fundamental right after all but it stands to lay waste to an awful lot of firearms law that is based on prior restraint at this point, background checks being the most obvious one.  
 This is sure to give the VPC and Brady Campaign fits because if the US Supreme Court uses the same reasoning for McDonald (which most folk suspect they will) incorporation is a slam dunk and sure to create several more challenges to asinine state laws such as California and New Jersey's "Assault Weapon Ban"s and their may issue carry permit rules. 

Rewarding the good guys

So Sunday I'm going to give money to Starbucks in a show of support as detailed by gun bloggers everywhere but I think I'm going to pass on the political statement to the barista because Stingray brings up a couple good points. I have emailed Starbucks and will fill out a comment card Sunday when I make a 30 mile trip for a cup of coffee.

Wyoming Starbucks cowboy ups

Wyoming Starbucks cowboy ups 
 Good piece on open carry and Starbucks.

Posted using ShareThis

San Diego smackdown

From Arms and the Law comes this tidbit;
The city of San Diego got a ruler across it's grubby little fingers regarding it's denial of a concealed carry permit to a resident. There are a couple interesting bits when reading the PDF I linked to. One is the plaintiff brought a section 1983 civil discrimination suit, plus he cited the 2nd, 8th and 14th amendments as rights he was denied by the city. The other is the Judge Irma Gonzalez basically told the cities attorney's you didn't even try to advance a compelling state interest and that if you had it still wouldn't pass intermediate or strict scrutiny with regards to what are fundamental civil rights.
The fallout from Heller is starting to be felt on the left coast and if McDonald vs Chicago goes the way the pundits expect I think a lot of our 20,000 plus gun laws are going to crumble over the next decade.

Gun-control advocates play fast and loose

A telling paragraph from the article;
"Yet to listen to the VPC's Kristen Brand - who says "concealed handgun permit holders are killing people over parking spaces, football games, and family arguments" - you'd think the cohort of permit holders was as dangerous as the gang at Rikers Island."
The freaky thing is this is a newspaper article and gun owners don't see a lot of love from the press as a rule. It's much more common to see an editorial comparing us to gang bangers and or Billy the Kid. Did hell freeze over or are we winning the debate?

H/T to Alphecca

Tiart and the MAIGs

Bloomberg, MAIG and the fourth estate are lying again trying to drum up support to use the no fly list to deny people trying to buy guns. The NSSF has some corrections here.

Dhimmi

An interesting article by David Kopel on Shari'a law as it relates to arms and self defense. For me it reinforces that Islam isn't all that peaceful if you don't believe in it.

Dhimmitude

Can ATF be reformed?

Can ATF be reformed?
David Codrea has some thoughts over at the Examiner. So do I .....to put it simply. No.
A tax collector should never have guns, there is no need, they already have the power to raid your bank account and put liens on all the large possessions in your life to ensure they get their money. Unless the point of their guns is to intimidate and frighten the ordinary citizen. If that's the case how are they any different than any of a number of dictator's storm troopers or the common Washington D.C. mugger.
If one looks at the overwhelming number of prosecutions brought by the ATF, it goes after gun collectors, especially machine gun collectors but really any collector will do, why, because collectors don't shoot back whereas actual gun runners and other criminals do.

The Newbius Papers: Reminder

A reminder

From Newbius comes a few words on government

For those who were wondering.

Gun Rights 101: What is open carry? From Don in IL who can't carry a loaded firearm either way in his home state. Here in Wisconsin I can open carry anywhere except in a vehicle (and within 1000' of a school or in a government building or bar). This leads to the loading and unloading and storing or holstering of my handgun every time I get in or out of the car until I hit the MN border at which point I can do either open or concealed carry and can even carry a loaded long gun to a political rally at the St Paul capitol grounds if I want. Of course in Minnesota because they have no right to keep and bear arms in their Constitution I need a carry permit which runs about $200.00 to 350.00 after training course, ammo and range fee for the qualification and government fee.
If you are going to open carry a retention holster is a good idea Galco, Blackhawk and several others make them in both Kydex and leather. It is also of course a good idea to maintain situational awareness so the retention capabilities don't get tested.
As an aside regarding permits, I am a middle class guy, the cost of the class and permit were not that big of a deal for me but for the woman who may need a firearm to protect her children or herself that 250.00 may be the grocery budget for the month. That mom may also live in a crappy and crime ridden area or she may have an ex who isn't paying attention to the restraining order a judge issued, is it right or fair she is denied an effective means of self defense because she cannot afford the fees that legitimizes for the government her carrying a weapon to preserve her life so she gets a chance to pursue liberty and happiness? Ideally she lives in Alaska or Vermont neither of which have laws preventing open or concealed carry by any American citizen not barred from possession due to felony conviction or suspicion/conviction of domestic abuse. Barring that hopefully she lives in one of the states which allows open carry with no permit. It may involve some odd looks or derision from some but it may also save her life.
I've said it a multitude of times gun control is racist, sexist and usually classist. It always disarms minorities and the poor whether it be Christians in Islamic countries, Jews, political dissidents or as in our past Indians, Blacks and the poor. It also always leads to higher crime rates and regularly leads to democide (murder of citizens by the state, see American Indians, Germany, Russia, China, Uganda, Cambodia and of course the latest Darfur).

Registration anyone?

The Smallest Minority aka Kevin has this to say "I'm forced to admit that I agree with the good professor. If the .gov wants to know if I have at least one "qualifying gun," I'll be more than happy to tell them. I have a CCW, so they already have reason to believe I own at least one handgun (and I write this blog, so they know I own a lot more than that, but not how many in total, and not by serial number.) But if they want a list of everything I own, not only "No," but "HELL NO!"

Andrew at Snarky Bytes points out this gem regarding America and what happened when we disarmed a population.

Gun control is bad mmmkay? I won't register my firearms it makes no sense to aid democide.

About those illegal Mexican guns , Days of our Trailers has found an interesting study. He gets a dig in at Chicago too.

Never again

The Holocaust museum shooting illustrates a couple things, one those bent on violence are undeterred by those cute little gun free zone signs, in fact many seem drawn to them as it give a ready supply of victims and that good people should be armed to repel and deter the previously mentioned psychotic assholes.
From my friend Andrew, Molon Labe
Don't be prey.

Not so paranoid

And I ask, whose paranoid are you?: Lessons from the Columbine School Shooting
Waiting for the state will get you killed.

Op-Ed Contributor - What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Contributor - What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? - NYTimes.com

I like Mr Carter's Habitat for Humanity thing, I like that he is a man of faith though not mine. He also gets a bunch of bonus points for being a former US president so it pains me to have to tear his editorial apart. Some quotes and my commentary.

"I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office."

That's great sir I am pleased to hear you hunt even though I don't quite get the killing of our furry woodland brothers. I personally have weapons of self defense, target shooting and very occassional pest control.

"But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives."
Oh boy now I am being equated with mass murderers because I own semi automatic rifles that look like an M16 or AK. Sweet. Do I really have to kill people, can't I just keep shooting bulls eye targets at 200 to 600 meters like I have been. Oh wait they are also useful as militia weapons which is part of the reason for the 2nd amendment, some would say the whole reason.

"An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case."

Sir you cannot say you want to ban a class of firearm and then turn around and tell us there is no threat to our constitutional rights and expect us to believe it. It's like you banning Playboy and then saying you aren't infringing on Hughes 1st amendment rights. Actually you can't say a majority of Americans support any bans because Americans belief in gun control is at an all time low according to Gallop. It is also unfortunately true that the VPC and Brady Campaign has never seen a gun they liked. They are too small or too big or too accurate or bayonet luggy.

" What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths."

Oddly enough of those 30,000 (less than 1/1000th of a percent of the nations population) according to the FBI 12,000 were homicides, of that somewhere around 2.5% were committed with a rifle or shotgun and again by FBI stats less than 1% of those long arms were "assault weapons". About 17, 000 were suicides which wouldn't be affected by a ban on scary looking guns because handguns are used overwhelmingly in suicides just like in crime and because if you take away the gun there is still rope, cliffs or bridges or razor blades.

"In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide."

It's good he got the teenager (actually up to and including 25 year olds) part in there because that statistic relies on gang violence fueled by the prohibition of drugs and the drug war you and your replacements continue to prosecute in the face of overwhelming evidence it does no good at all. Let me repeat that the War on Some Drugs does no good at all. None.

" Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows."

I will leave aside the drift our former President is doing, he's getting old after all.
Any and I do mean any modern centerfire rifle bullet will penetrate normal police body armor. In fact the ubiqutis 30.06 or 30-30 round will do it far better than the 5.56 mm round out of an AR. We won't even mention how incredibly rare it is for a police officer to be shot in the first place, nor that the vast majority of cops who are shot on the job are shot with their own firearm after it has been wrested from their control by a bad guy.
I would also like to point out that private gun dealers do not exist. What he is referring to is a guy choosing to sell a firearm where the interested people are, much like cars get sold at cars shows. If there was someone who was dealing firearms without a license it's already against the law. One of the 20,000 that the BATFE is pretty aggressive about enforcing.

"Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States"

Why am I supposed to give up one of my fundamental civil rights because some people don't follow laws in another country? Maybe Mexico could split the cost of a wall with us then the drugs could stay on their side and the guns on ours.
The machine gun thing has already been debunked so many times I can't believe these people are still using it but since they are.... You can't buy "advanced weaponry" as a civilian in the US without involving your local sheriff, the FBI and BATFE and a 6 month wait before taking possession period. Machine guns, grenade launchers and grenades are heavily regulated by the NFA of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and last but not least the supply of them was choked in 1986 by FOPA at which time the ATF machine gun registry was closed, fixing the supply to those on the list as of May 1986. Drug cartels aren't stupid the machine guns they possess are from defecting Federales and Military (150,000 in the last 6 years) and from countries further south such as Nicaragua, El Salvador and Columbia because that's where you can get a couple crates for what a single M16 would cost in the US.

" The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend."

What former President Carter fails to understand is the text of the 2nd amendment is even more restrictive upon government to leave a basic human right alone than the 1st and that some of us are tired of compromising because it does no good.
It does no good because the Brady's are back in a couple years asking for more restrictions and because criminals don't follow laws. Honest they don't, if they did there would not be 26,000 murders a year 50 % of which are done with knives, baseball bats, hands and feet or whatever else comes to hand. If they followed the law we wouldn't have a drug cartels, if they followed the law rape wouldn't happen. If they followed the law there would be no gun violence in Britain, Australia, Jamaica, Mexico, South Africa, Sudan, Dar fur, Germany all places where guns are heavily restricted or banned.

Like I said at the beginning I like some of what Mr Carter has done with his life but he has never shown a whole lot of understanding of thugs and criminals. Why should I listen to him now?

The War on Guns: Can Gun Control Reduce Violence?

The War on Guns: Can Gun Control Reduce Violence?

An excellent bit of testimony by someone who actually appears to know what he is talking about. From David Codrea

Interesting debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vWQmnLbD0U&feature=channel_page

From the 9th circuit ruling

Judge Gould of the 9th circuit court goes farther than even Judge Scalia in his assessment of the 2nd amendment and in my opinion he is more correct than Scalia which I suppose makes me a right wing extremist. Do you think I should turn myself in now or wait?

Quote:
GOULD, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in Judge O’Scannlain’s opinion but write to elaborate
my view of the policies underlying the selective incorporation
decision. First, as Judge O’Scannlain has aptly
explained, the rights secured by the Second Amendment are
“deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and
“necessary to the Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty.”
The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to
bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear
arms is a bulwark against external invasion. We should not be
overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone
can preserve security. We recently saw in the case of the terrorist
attack on Mumbai that terrorists may enter a country
covertly by ocean routes, landing in small craft and then
assembling to wreak havoc. That we have a lawfully armed
populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes
it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in
an attack on any community before more professional forces
arrived.1 Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against
the possibility that even our own government could degenerate
into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility
should be guarded against with individual diligence.
Third, while the Second Amendment thus stands as a protection
against both external threat and internal tyranny, the recognition
of the individual’s right in the Second Amendment,
and its incorporation by the Due Process Clause against the
states, is not inconsistent with the reasonable regulation of
weaponry. All weapons are not “arms” within the meaning of
the Second Amendment, so, for example, no individual could
sensibly argue that the Second Amendment gives them a right
to have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons in their home
for self-defense. Also, important governmental interests will
justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the
problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular
regulation by the states and municipalities, what is rea-
sonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and
offensive to the Second Amendment. End quote. He makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Today's highlights

First up WI AG clarifies open carry, it's first because I live in Wisconsin.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf

Next is the Nordyke v Alemeda County, CA
Incorporation of the 2nd under the 14th amendment

Last but not least is a rebuttal of ABCs 20/20 If Only I Had a Gun here.

Excellent day for gun rights in my humble opinion.