Posts tagged ‘Heller’

01/12/2013

Quote of the Indeterminate Time Interval – Wikipedia

by wfgodbold

Apropos of David Gregory’s violation of Washington, D.C.’s  strict liability standard capacity magazine ban, and the D.C. attorney general’s decision to forego prosecution:

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from they desire favors.

Of course, if you’re not David Gregory, and don’t have David Gregory’s connections, the D.C. attorney general is not nearly so understanding.

Tens–likely hundreds–of millions of such magazines are lawfully possessed in the United States by law-abiding gun owners. More than 1 million PMAGs are backordered from Magpul. Brownells sold through three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in three days.

Magazines like the one Gregory displayed on Meet the Press, and Magpul’s PMAG, are not complicated; they are made up of a box and a spring. Given the sheer number of standard capacity magazines in the United States, and the infrequency of mass shootings (they are not becoming more common, and your chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about the same as your chances of being struck by lightning), these magazines, as well as the AR-15 rifle (and all semi-automatic weapons) are in common use for lawful purposes.

If in common use is to mean anything at all, it must cover the AR-15–America’s most popular rifle–and standard capacity magazines.

 

08/07/2012

Why should I do any soul-searching?

by wfgodbold

I didn’t kill anyone.

I didn’t suggest that someone else kill someone.

Yes, the shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin was a tragedy. But it was no less a tragedy than the recent mass stabbing in China (which, you will notice, was more deadly: 8 killed and 5 wounded in China, as opposed to 6 killed and 4 wounded in Wisconsin).

President Obama said that we must “do some soul searching to examine additional ways that we can reduce violence.”

I will commend him for not actually saying “gun violence;”* being shot kills you just as dead as being stabbed, bludgeoned, or poisoned. However, I can’t actually reduce violence myself; I’m not violent.

“But,” you say, “don’t you carry a weapon?”

Yes, but I don’t carry it to be violent.

I carry to prevent violence.

The police aren’t there to protect me. They’re not there to protect you.

The police are there to clean up after the fact, investigate, and deter criminal behavior.

Not to protect anyone else.

Since I can’t afford bodyguards (like Michael Bloomberg or Richard Daley), I choose to take responsibility for my own safety.

*Unlike the nanny of the decade, Michael Bloomberg. Given his track record with other amendments, it’s not surprising he still hates the second. DC v. Heller is still good law; handguns and semi-auto weapons are protected because they’re in common use.**

**This standard seems to be begging the question. Automatic weapons aren’t in common use because they’ve been heavily regulated since the 1934 NFA, and de facto banned since 1986***. According to the court’s logic in Heller, this ban is fine because automatic weapons aren’t in common use, but they’re not in common use because they’re banned.

***They’re not actually banned de jure; if you pay for the tax stamp, you can buy a machine gun that was manufactured before 1986; however, they’re not making any more of them, so qualifying automatic weapons can cost upwards of $10,000.

04/27/2012

Jim McGovern came up with a genius plan to eviscerate Citizens United…

by wfgodbold

By amending the Constitution such that (H/T Eugene Volokh):

Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulations as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

Prof. Volokh focuses on the impact this will have on freedom of the press; since most media organizations are corporations, and Section 2 expressly excludes corporations from any constitutional protections of any kind (including freedom of the press), this will make it more difficult to raise capital.

That’s all well and good, but as I read Sections 1 and 2, it occurred to me that Jim “NRA F-rated” McGovern had inadvertently delivered the coup de grace to the “collective rights” argument for infringing on the Second Amendment (which, after Heller and McDonald, was already practically dead (you know, aside from certain reactionary holdouts)).

After all, if “people” refers to natural persons, how could it possibly mean the right to keep and bear arms in the service of a militia? Or as part of an army?

Sure, those aren’t corporations, but the Second Amendment refers to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And if this new amendment explicitly states that the rights protected by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons (and an army or a militia is no more a natural person than a corporation is), I don’t see how you could consistently argue that in this one case, the right isn’t an individual right.

Well done, Jim McGovern.

In your misguided quest to infringe on free speech, you inadvertently euthanized the antiquated view that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right.

10/04/2011

Quote of the Indeterminate Time Interval – Brett Kavanaugh

by wfgodbold

Countdown to froth-mouthed anti-gunners ranting about how speech is different from guns in 3, 2, 1 …

A ban on a class of arms is not an “incidental” regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech. Such restrictions on core enumerated constitutional protections are not subjected to mere intermediate scrutiny review. The majority opinion here is in uncharted territory in suggesting that intermediate scrutiny can apply to an outright ban on possession of a class of weapons that have not traditionally been banned.

That’s DC circuit judge Brett Kavanaugh, writing in his dissent from the recent ruling on Heller’s lawsuit regarding several problems with DC’s post-Heller firearms registration regulations (the consensus is that he tried to shoehorn too much into the suit instead of taking a more incremental approach).

It’s not just gunbloggers that analogize restrictions on the RKBA to restrictions on speech; now it’s federal judges, too.

Let the PSH commence!

H/T: Sebastian.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: