Links For Your Weekend Reading

I spent three days this week in the gun control paradise known as Chicago. So I'm doing a little catch-up on my reading and I've come across a few blog posts that I think are must reads.

Since the murders at Majory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Florida, we have subjected to a non-stop assault on our civil rights from the gun control industry and their media allies. As the late Professor Brian Anse Patrick showed in his research, the NRA and gun rights groups in general actually benefit from this assault. My friend and Polite Society Podcast co-host Rob Morse has a post up about how NRA and SAF memberships have been rising with this assault. If you want to go into more depth on this, I highly recommend Prof. Patrick's The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage. The Kindle edition is $9.99 or about half the cost of the paperback version.

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has two posts up that I would encourage you to read. The first, Dear NRA, says we and the NRA need to up our grassroots game. In particular, we need to convert those who believe in the Second Amendment from being passive observers to active participants. Our opponents have upped their game and are becoming much more effective. It will not be merely enough to watch a NRA-TV video with Dana Loesch or Colion Noir and nod your head in agreement. It will entail getting our rear ends out to city council meetings and hearings when they impact our gun rights.

In his second post, Sebastian has a lexicon of gun terms that the media has thrown out there to confuse non-gun owners. He addresses them and how we should in turn address them when a non-gun owner asks us questions. In one sense - and this is me saying it and not Sebastian - we need to listen to the immortal words of Crash Davis in Bull Durham, "You're gonna have to learn your cliches. You're gonna have to study them, you're gonna have to learn them, you're gonna have to know them. They're your friends." In other words, we need to know the gun prohibitionists' argument better than they do. You should also read Tam's post on Magical Thinking which also addresses this.

Kevin Creighton has a short post saying we need to get back into the game. He's right. We need to get back into the cultural game because we are in a cultural war. Two things he suggests is reaching out to motorcycle riders as we have a shared interest in freedom and to videogamers to encourage them to get into competitive shooting.

Finally, Erin Palette looks at SB 7026 which was signed in Florida on Friday by Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL). She analyzes it in depth and the implications of many of the things in the bill are horrendous. Insofar as creating "school guardians", it will be dependent upon a county's sheriff to approve it there. Moreover, it will require 132 hours of training to become qualified as well as another 12 hours in a "certified nationally recognized diversity training program". Diversity training for stopping an armed attacker? Who the f*&k came up with that nonsense.

So now you have your weekend reading in nice, digestible nuggets. My other suggestion is if there is a gun show in your area, go to it.  Spend some quality time with your cultural brothers and sisters. And, if you are in the Asheville area, go to the Asheville Gun Show at the WNC Ag Center. While there, stop at the Grass Roots North Carolina booth and say hello. I'll be working it from 10am until 5pm.

DC Won't Appeal In Wrenn Case

It is being reported by District of Columbia new station WTOP that the Attorney General of DC has decided not to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision in Wrenn v. DC. The decision overturned the District's "good reason" requirement to obtain a carry permit. The last time the District of Columbia lost in a major Second Amendment case they appealed. That case was DC v. Heller.

From WTOP:

After days of consulting with the mayor’s office and city council members, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine has reportedly decided not to fight a ruling that effectively strikes down the District’s strict law that makes it difficult for gun owners to get concealed carry permits.

Sources told WTOP’s broadcast news partner NBC Washington that Racine made the decision not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and will formally make an announcement later on Thursday.

This cements the win for carry in DC. Conversely, an appeal to the Supreme Court might have provided the opportunity to overturn negative decisions on carry such Peruta in the 9th Circuit and Kalchalsky in the 2nd Circuit. Whether or not the Supreme Court will ever take up a carry case still remains to be seen.


H/T Sebastian

A Must Read

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has a blog post up analyzing the finances of the gun prohibitionists. The Form 990s have been posted and he has dug into them. They definitely had an influx of cash post-Newtown.

However, he ends with this:

Because in 2012, NRA’s revenues went from 219MM to 256MM, and in 2013 they went to $348MM. Get that? Between 2011 and 2013, NRA’s revenue increased by 129MM. That’smore than 3x the amount of every other gun control group’s revenue increase from 2011 to 2013 combined. And that’s just NRA proper. The NRA Foundation went from 29MM to 43MM from 2011 to 2012, then dropping slightly to 41MM in 2013, I suspect because people wanted to donate to the political arm since that’s where the threats were coming from.

The President’s and Bloomberg ginning up of gun control post-Sandy Hook has made NRA much stronger proportionally than the gun control movement. That’s because of people out there like you.

We are doing a lot better than the media would credit us with but we can still do better. This is a fight where we can't slack off because our opponents and their media lapdogs certainly won't.

Clowns To The Left Of Me, Jokers To The Right

The rest of that song by Stealers Wheel goes "here I am stuck in the middle with you."

That is how I'm feeling about the whole open carry fiasco in Texas. I doubt that there are many readers of this blog that don't support the extension of open carry in Texas to include handguns. Many states including my own North Carolina have unlicensed open carry.

What is incredibly frustrating is watching Shannon Watts and her fellow gun prohibitionists at Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors making hay out of the bumbling ineptitude of groups like Open Carry Texas. Sonic, Chipotle, and god knows who's next have issued "Starbucks-style" statement asking the open carry activists to leave them out of the argument.

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has done yeoman's work in examining the folly of their actions. You can read some of those posts here, here, and here. There are more.

The attention whoring of these OC activists has caused such backlash that the NRA issued a statement last Thursday which said, in part,

Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms.

Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it's downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one's cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.

As a result of these hijinx, two popular fast food outlets have recently requested patrons to keep guns off the premises (more information can be found here and here). In other words, the freedom and goodwill these businesses had previously extended to gun owners has been curtailed because of the actions of an attention-hungry few who thought only of themselves and not of those who might be affected by their behavior. To state the obvious, that's counterproductive for the gun owning community.

More to the point, it's just not neighborly, which is out of character for the big-hearted residents of Texas. Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. That's not the Texas way. And that's certainly not the NRA way.

Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA backed away from that statement yesterday saying it was the personal opinion of some unnamed staffer and not the NRA's official position. He apologized for any confusion it caused. Others such as Charles Cooke of National Review disagreed saying that it was what needed to be said. I think I and the majority of the gun blogging and gun podcast community would agree that it needed to said.

Bob Owens had an interesting observation on this at BearingArms.com. He noted that often in cases like this where a statement is retracted that it is the original statement which reflects the internal thinking of the organization. In other words, it was what we called back in my political science days "signalling".

As Michael Bane emphasized today in his Downrange Radio podcast, our goal in the gun rights community needs to be winning. We no more win hearts and minds with these open carry demonstrations in restaurants than the US Air Force did with carpet bombing in South Vietnam. I would send a copy of Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People to everyone in the Texas open carry leadership if I could.

I can't, so in the meantime I will implore them to cut out the narcissistic displays, clean up their websites and Facebook pages, and, as Michael suggested, think before you do stupid. Those of us stuck in the middle would appreciate it.

This One's For Sebastian

I didn't know about Google shutting down Google Reader until I read about it yesterday on Shall Not Be Questioned. I thought no big deal until I realized that the Reeder app that I use on my iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Air is just an extension of Google Reader.

Holy crap! This is a problem. I use it to keep up with stuff for blog posting and to see what my friends are posting in their blogs.

So this one is for Sebastian for alerting me to the problem. Now to just find a usable substitute. I'll let the more tech savvy hash it out and then see if their solution works for me. But in the meantime, there is always the Twitter feed from Stalin.

Federal Firearms Legislation Introduced In The Past Week

Three new firearms related bills have been introduced since the middle of last week in Congress. Two deal with gun trafficking and one is actually a decent bill dealing with amnesty for NFA war trophies.

HR 449 - Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL)
To provide an amnesty period during which veterans and their family members can register certain firearms in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and for other purposes.
Referred to House Judiciary Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, and House Veterans Affairs Committee.

HR 452 - Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Co-Sponsors:
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD] - 2/4/2013
Rep Meehan, Patrick [R-PA] - 2/4/2013
Rep Rigell, E. Scott [R-VA] - 2/4/2013
To prevent gun trafficking. 
Referred to House Judiciary Committee.

S 179 - Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Co-Sponsor:
Sen Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL] - 1/30/2013
To prevent gun trafficking.
Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee

Unless I am greatly mistaken, HR 452 and S 179 will be a reprise of legislation proposed by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) in the last session of Congress. The purpose of that bill was to deflect attention from Attorney General Eric Holder, the Department of Justice, and BATFE over Project Gunwalker. This time I think it is a cynical attempt to say there is bi-partisan support for gun control.

Reading the press release from Rep. Maloney on HR 452 one can't help but notice that all the supporters of the bill that she lists are known gun control backers.

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department, the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association, the Baltimore Police Department, Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Office, and the Petersburg Bureau of Police. Also in attendance were representatives from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Bar Association, CeaseFirePA, the Violence Policy Center, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

CSGV and VPC? They are the enemies of gun rights. They have always been and always will be opposed to our gun rights. If they are in support of legislation dealing with firearms, it is prima facie suspect.

Sebastian has more on this bill here and suggests we keep our eye on it. I agree. I also think this falls under the rubric of what Michael Bane called flypaper laws in a blog post today. They are a trap for gun owners and are meant to trip us up one way or another.

Wouldn't This Make Them "In Common Use"?

The Fontana School District is buying 14 Colt Model LE6490 AR-15s to equip school police officers. They will be stored at school police headquarters to be used in case of an active shooter situation.





I won't even touch up on the level of firearms ignorance espoused by the opponents of the police being armed with AR-15s.

However, as SayUncle pointed out yesterday, he doubted that the most popular rifle type in America is "unusual" taken in the context of the Heller decision. Sebastian takes this a step further.

I’ve also advocated that the courts should consider police use when making a determination about “common use.” If a type of weapon is part of ordinary police equipment, it can’t be dangerous and unusual, and ought to be defined as in common use, even if it’s only in common police use.

I agree with both SayUncle and Sebastian that the AR-15 is in common use. One could argue that the move by the Fontana School District and their police force puts the "normal" AR-15 into common use in California. There is no mention of the police having to have bullet buttons or reduced capacity magazines in the report from CBS Los Angeles. This is something to bear in mind if the California Assembly tries to adopt even more draconian gun laws.

Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned. He notes the narrative continues despite all indications from recent reports that the Stand Your Ground law has no real bearing on the Trayvon Martin case anymore.

This stopped being about Trayvon Martin days ago. The media is now in a full court press to blame the laws, despite the current witness testimony that essentially reveal that Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shooting occurred. Duty to retreat is not at issue here. It can’t be at issue. Zimmerman had no means of retreat. The entire question, as I have said since the beginning, will hinge on whether Zimmerman is faultless.

Bloomberg's Nannystate Goes High Tech

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned just posted on a potential new technology being tested in New York City that would detect a weapon on a person at a distance. It is a scanner that can be mounted on a police car or in a stationary location which measures energy radiating from a person. They are looking for anything that would block it.

The NY Civil Liberties Union is not so sure it isn't an invasion of your rights with which I agree. However, bear in mind that this is Mayor Bloomberg's New York. As Sebastian notes, "Bloomberg has never been remarkably concerned about American liberties, however, so it doesn’t surprise me this is coming out of New York."

The video below from CBS New York concludes with a comment from a guy who says, "Who cares?" Maybe he'll start to care when he gets flung up against a wall by a cop just because he is carrying an aluminum wallet (as Seen on TV!)





UPDATE: The New York Daily News has a report on this as well. I can foresee gangs sending out decoys with a piece of metal in the shape of a gun to lure the cops away from the scene of a crime.

Sunday Morning Hodge-Podge

I normally don't watch CBS's Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer because he drives me nuts. Today, I will make an exception. The topic for discussion will be on Project Gunwalker.

Coming Up on Face the Nation

Topic: "Fast and Furious" gunwalker case
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Chairman, Oversight & Government Reform Committee

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., Ranking Member, Oversight & Government Reform Committee

Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News Investigative Correspondent

It airs at 10:30 am Eastern. As they say, check your local listings for times in your area.

I don't think I can overstate the importance of this. Face The Nation along with NBC's Meet the Press, ABC's This Week, and Fox's Fox News Sunday is the type of program where major issues are discussed with the aim of influencing policymakers. Usually the topics revolve around taxes, jobs, the economy, and war. To have them discuss Project Gunwalker is evidence that at least CBS News is recognizing that it is a critical scandal for the Obama Administration. Moreover, it also makes it harder for the rest of the mainstream media to keep burying the story.

In gun blogging news, it is time to welcome a new gun blog called Shall Not Be Questioned. It really isn't so much a new blog as a rebranded blog. It is the old Snowflakes In Hell blog with a new name, new look, and a new feel. That said, it will still be a gun blog run by Sebastian. He has this to say about why he is making the change.

But the biggest change you’ll probably notice, unless I can’t make my idea for it work (I’m a horrible graphic artist), is a name change for the blog. With the exception of the name, and a new look and feel, it’ll be the same blog. Same posts, same archives, and same comments as always. If links worked before, they’ll still work. I am looking at implementing a few requested enhancements people asked for.

I picked the name “Snowflakes in Hell” hastily, never thinking I’d keep this up. Ever since I passed the 1000 visitors a day mark, I’ve hated it. I’ve also hated it when I introduce myself as a blogger, and I get a weird look from the uninitiated when I tell them the name. Rather than talking about the blog, I get to spend the first 10 minutes explaining the name. I’ve also, rather humorously, heard people that did not know I was Sebastian mention they found something on this site “Snowflakes in Hell,” but they didn’t understand what kind of site it was. With my name and theme, who can blame them? I want a theme and a name that draws people in. I think a more relevant name and theme will be necessary to take this blog to the next level, and continue to grow my audience, and improve my brand.

I've updated by my gun blog links here to reflect the changeover. Having visited Shall Not Be Questioned, I think Sebastian has done a masterful job with the new look and feel. The typeface and background give it a Colonial period look which says to me the fight for freedom has been going on for over two hundred years.

Good luck to Sebastian and Bitter with the "new" blog.

Finally, over at Sipsey Street Irregulars, Mike Vanderboegh has a post on selective White House document releases. It appears to be an effort to shift blame for gunwalking back to the Bush Administration. However, it looks like it will end up rebounding on them.

You know, the best disinformation is a lie wrapped in a kernel of truth. Recall that early on the DOJ floated the excuse that "gun walking" was all Newell's idea. We pooh-poohed that at the time, saying that Newell did not have the authority to make this multi-jurisdictional anti-law enforcement cluster coital situation happen.

But the Obama flacks knew what they were talking about, as far as it went.

Gunwalking WAS Bill Newell's idea, and nobody knew that better than the people he sold the idea to.

And now, thanks to the desperate and incompetent folks at the White House scandal deflection team, we have more details of the early experiences of William "Gunwalker Bill" Newell, the guy who sold the whole idea to the people in the White House -- who then began to make things happen to try to make the Ninety Percent Myth come true.

Make sure to read the whole post. It ties a lot of stuff together.

Jennings et al v. BATFE et al Loses In District Court

The NRA challenge to the ban on purchases of handguns from licensed dealers for those over 18 but under 21 was found in the favor of the defendants by U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings yesterday. The suit, Jennings et al v. BATFE et al (former D'Cruz v. BATFE), was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The NRA brought this suit approximately one year ago along with a companion suit against the State of Texas to allow the same age group concealed carry licenses. Texas currently only allows those who are serving or have served in the military to be able to obtain Texas concealed carry permits if they are under the age of 21. These are the suits in which the Brady Campaign took the low road and tried to villify James D'Cruz due to his Halloween costume.

The NRA brought both suits on Second Amendment and Equal Protection grounds.

The first thing Judge Cummings considered was whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The DOJ attorneys sought to have the case dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) saying that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Judge Cummings denied their Motion to Dismiss saying:

The ban prevents 18- to 20-year-olds from purchasing handguns and handgun ammunition from FFLs who would likely purchase these items were it legal to do so. The NRA presents evidence from its vendor members that they have lost profits from refusing to sell handguns to 18- to 20-year-olds and would sell handguns to law-abiding citizens in this age range if it were legal to do so. The fact that the ban restricts a would-be buyers’ market demonstrates a judicially cognizable injury directly affecting FFLs. See Craig, 429 U.S. at 194. As such, the NRA also has standing to bring this suit on behalf of its FFL members.

Judge Cummings then examined whether the ban on the sale of handguns by FFLs to the 18 to 20-years olds violated their rights under the Second Amendment. Noting along the way that nothing precluded them from purchasing handguns in private sales, he said that based upon the exceptions noted in Heller and on 5th Circuit precedent which made a distinction between possessing and the dealing of firearms, the rights of this age group were not violated under the Second Amendment. He then suggested that it was up to Congress to make the decision on this.

In essence, it is within the purview of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the relative policy considerations and to make decisions as to the age of the customer to whom those licensed by the federal government may sell handguns and handgun ammunition.

With that he granted the government's Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment as to the Second Amendment grounds. He also denied as moot the defendant's motion to dismiss on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds (failure to state a complaint).

Finally, Judge Cummings examined whether this ban on the sale of handguns by FFLs to 18 to 20-years olds violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause. While these rights apply expressly to the states, the Supreme Court has found that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment encompasses the rights provided by the Equal Protection Clause.

Noting that the Supreme Court has held that age is not a suspect classification and that the defendants had presented evidence that Congress in passing the Gun Control Act of 1968 had made the considered decision that this age group was "emotionally immature, or thrill-bent juveniles and minors prone to criminal behavior", he again found that the government was not violating the plaintiffs' Equal Protection rights. He applied a Rational Basis scrutiny to this claim and said:

Congress identified a legitimate state interest—public safety—and passed legislation that is rationally related to addressing that issue—the ban; thus, it acted within its constitutional powers and in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause.

With that he granted the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, denied that of the plaintiffs, and denied the defense motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on their Equal Protection claim.

I would presume now that the NRA will appeal this case to the 5th Circuit as they needed a judgment at this level before they could move up the appellate chain. I know Alan Gura has said that in the cases he has brought for the Second Amendment Foundation that he has sought a quick decision, whether good or bad, so that the cases can then be brought to the relevant Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell is critical of Judge Cummings' attempt to punt a decision on this back to Congress.

So Congress could say no one who has not yet attained the age of 90 is permitted to own a firearm, and that is completely within Congress’ purview? The Courts should have nothing to say about it? What other right do we treat that way?

It continues to amaze me how little regard lower courts have for Heller and McDonald. Maybe there’s sound legal reasoning involved here. I have not seen the opinion. But punting to Congress strikes me as awfully weak.

While I would agree with Sebastian, I do think Judge Cummings threw the NRA a bone when it said they and the plaintiffs had standing to sue. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a District Court judge to go against precedent within his own circuit nor what other courts have said post-Heller on this sensitive issue. I think by saying they had standing and by closing this case out in just a little over a year, Judge Cummings may have done as much as he could do. This case was always going to be appealed regardless of how he ruled.

UPDATE: The NRA-ILA has announced plans to file a prompt appeal of Judge Cummings' ruling in this case.

Yesterday, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the federal ban on dealer sales of handguns to adults from the ages of 18 to 20 does not violate the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association plans to file a prompt appeal of the court's ruling to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

"We strongly disagree with this ruling," said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. "As we said when we filed this case, adults 18 and up have fought and died for American freedom throughout our country's history. They are adults for virtually every legal purpose under federal and state law, and that should include the ability to buy handguns from licensed dealers to defend themselves, their homes and their families. Our fellow plaintiffs in this case are law-abiding and responsible young adults. We plan to defend their rights to the very end."

The case is Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. A related case challenging Texas' ban on issuance of concealed handgun licenses to adults in the same age group is still pending before the same court.

The NRA, Gun Manufacturers, and GCA '68

I was alive when the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted. However, given I was an 11-year old, I don't have any memories of its enactment and the debate around it. I do remember Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King being assassinated and the riots after Dr. King's death. I do remember the war in South Vietnam because my Dad was "in country" at the time. However, policy debates on firearms just were not on my radar at the time.

Fortunately, Sebastian at Snowflakes In Hell has done an excellent job of examining some of the myths around the passage including those that the NRA and major gun manufacturers were complicit in its passage. He also looks at some of the other myths regarding the enactment of  the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Sebastian is correct that much more research using original documents is needed to get a better handle on all the issues surrounding the passage of this legislation. Rather than relying on undersourced modern accounts of the bill's passage, using the original documents will give a clearer picture of the forces involved in the bill's passage as well as the forces that opposed it.

Not Above The Rules

If you go the the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's website today, you will see a blue hole where their Twitter feed used to be. The reason is that their Twitter account has been suspended due to a violation of the terms of service. In other words, by using Twitter to "out" bloggers and, more importantly, reveal their personal information including home addresses, Ladd Everitt and CSGV broke the rules and are now paying for it.





The @CSGV Twitter account was suspended because Linoge of Walls of the City blog requested that three of CSGV's posts be removed because they constituted harassment. As one might expect from those of their ilk, Ladd Everitt and CSGV are playing the victim and claiming it was removed due to a false report.

Sebastian at Snow Flakes in Hell who has also been a target of their "outing" campaign and harassment posted this regarding their Facebook page and missing posts. It is easy to play the victim to your adoring synchophants when you remove all contradictory information. As it is, Sebastian refused to play their little game of releasing personal information on Ladd Everitt.

I think Linoge's post, The Dustbin of History, really sums up the desperation shown by CSGV and the other gun prohibitionist groups. The "outing" campaign was just one manifestation of that desperation. It is definitely worth a read including following the embedded links.

The Gerald Ung Case - Sebastian On Cam & Company

This is an interesting case with a fortunate outcome. It is instructive for anyone who carries concealed as to what can happen.

Sebastian has done really good work following the case. Go to Snowflakes In Hell for more info on the case.