Snowflakes in Hell

My mother was a big fan of Mr. Wizard when he was on TV when she was a kid in the 50s and 60s. When I was a kid, his TV series aired by Nickelodeon was one of my favorites. Today he died at the age of 89. He will be missed.

The NRA has a blog entry up in regards to H.R.2640:

The NICS bill, as written, wouldn’t expand the definition of a prohibited person. It wouldn’t disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm. In fact, it would provide an opportunity for people who’ve been disqualified to clear their name. Right now, folks don’t have that ability. Gun owners lose nothing in the bill as it’s currently written, and in fact the bill improves the system for those who’ve been caught in the bureaucratic red tape.

I understand that, and I agree, that a good deal was worked out, but:

So why is this being called a gun-control bill? In part because one of the bill’s authors is anti-gun Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. It’s easy to call any piece of legislation from McCarthy anti-gun, even if it’s not. But the biggest reason the media’s calling this “gun-control” is because they’re desperate to report on a gun-control victory in Congress.

Do you guys have any idea how much harder it makes explaining this bill to other gun owners because Carolyn McCarthy has her name on it? What efforts were made to get her off it? Did you guys even try? Sure the media is desperate to report this as a gun control victory, and by not getting McCarthy away from this legislation, you just made that a whole lot easier for them to do.

Here’s the simple truth: If this bill turns into a piece of gun-control legislation, the NRA will withdraw its support. We won’t stand idly by while the bill is amended by the anti-gunners in the House or Senate. This is a bill that’s designed to improve the reporting by states to the NICS system, as well as provide an opportunity for people to clear their names once they’ve completed treatment for an illness, and that’s it. The addition of any anti-gun provisions will turn this piece of legislation into a poison pill, and the NRA will actively oppose its passage.

I’m glad the NRA has stated this, but I’m still nervous. Fire is being played with here. I do not trust the leadership of this Democratic Congress on the gun issue any farther than I can throw them, and I certainly don’t trust the loon from New York who is sponsoring this. I do hope NRA has its ducks lined up, and this will go through smoothly without any special additions. I do think it’s a good deal, but I still think NRA has screwed up by letting Carolyn McCarthy have any part in it. I’d really like an explanation for how that happened.

I am rather nonplussed at Carolyn McCarthy’s sponsorship of H.R.2640. I would have sincerely hoped that any deal that could be worked out would have sidelined her, and relegated her to a co-sponsorship, rather than being sponsor.

I don’t really like personality politics. I’d much rather judge a bill according to its merits, rather than by the person sponsoring it, but there are important political considerations at work in wanting to keep McCarthy sidelined, and out of the process.

McCarthy is rabidly anti-gun. She doesn’t have a modicum of trust with gun owners. Any political deal with her is automatically suspect. Her pet issue is gun control. To date, she’s accomplished exactly nothing in regards to getting any major gun legislation passed. This is good for us. If she gets a reputation for getting things done, she’ll gain more political clout.

With McCarthy out there as the leader on this legislation, even if that leadership is entirely symbolic, the media and anti-gun groups will spin this as a big victory for gun control, even though it’s no such thing in the current form. This is a net loss for our cause, because the NRA will be seen as complicit in it, and folks won’t bother to check on the details.

I do think Dingell, Boucher, and the NRA have worked out a favorable deal with this bill, but I think they’ve made a big error in letting Congresswoman McCarthy take possession of it. It’s certainly making me reconsider my decision to not oppose the bill, based on the information I have now. Tomorrow I may contact the NRA, and see if I can get an explanation here.

Dave Hardy has the language, and cuts to the relevant parts for us. The bill will be HR2640. Take a read. As best as I can tell from my reading of it, the key things we get out of this are:

• Clarification of the language of what “adjudicated mental defective” actually means.
• Ability to have mental health related disability removed through a state process
• The ability to appeal decisions of state bodies in regards to mental health related disability removal.

I was hoping for a little more, personally. But this addresses much of the concern we had about state mental health records being put into NICS. I still believe this bill is a net gain for us rather than a loss, so given the current language, I’m still inclined to not oppose passage of this bill.

UPDATE: You can see the bill here on GovTrack.  Still no text yet, but we can see the cosponsors.   I am very sorry to say that the sponsor of this legislation is Carolyn McCarthy.  I’m guessing the Democrats let her introduce the bill so she wouldn’t get snubbed by her own party.  This is a disappointment.  The Democrats would have pulled off more of a public relations coup by having Boucher introduce it.

Via David, this article gives us more information on the Wintemute “study”:

Another surprise was the straw purchases. Wintemute thought they would be uncommon no matter the location of the gun show because federal law bans straw purchases nationwide. Instead, he reported seeing “24 definite and three probable straw purchases” in the four comparison states, and “one straw purchase and one probable straw purchase” in California.

Some were fairly blatant. On three occasions, all outside California, he observed straw purchasers buying multiple guns in a single transaction. He even saw a licensed retailer at a gun show in Florida processing multiple straw purchases simultaneously.

Also in Florida, Wintemute saw a woman in her twenties buying a rifle with a bayonet and 30-round magazine from a licensed retailer while her male partner, who had selected the firearm, stood 15 feet away while she completed the paperwork. As the background check was being run on her, the man talked with the retailer about the rifle and then bought ammunition for it once the background check had been completed.

I don’t think Wintemute understands what a straw purchase is. Only if the other party is a prohibited person, which, unless you heard the guy say “I’m a convicted felon” or “I can’t pass the background check” or something like that, it’s not a straw purchase under the law. For all this guy knows, the boyfriend was helping his girlfriend buy her first rifle. This is not illegal activity, and portraying it as such is disingenuous and unethical. But that’s what we’ve come to expect from people like this.

Straw purchases, particularly in the comparison states, were “out in the open, with no evidence that the buyer or seller felt the need to hide their conduct,” Wintemute said. “So I infer from that that there’s no substantial effort to enforce [the federal law banning straw purchases] at gun shows.”

Of course it was out in the open, because it’s not a straw purchase, and not illegal, unless the other person is known to be a prohibited person by the person transferring the firearm to them.

OK, it’s not often I will link The Gun Guys, because it’s really hard to take the site seriously, but if the Freedom States alliance folks aren’t happy with the deal struck between the Democrats and the NRA, then it certainly helps me feel a little better about it.

UPDATE: The link is now broken. I guess they want me to be worried.

UPDATE: Thirdpower provides us with a cached version.

Eric at Classical Values has an excellent post about the war on dogs.

… was an evil “assault weapon” that had no sporting purpose.    Surely the Brady Campaign, and every other gun control organization, would never think about misleading the public on this matter.

Via: SayUncle

SayUncle mentions the fourth circuit decision that the feds can’t hold people indefinitely without charging them, and says it’s good. I agree that it’s good, in this case, but it does bring up an interesting problem of how to deal with the topic of prisoners in this type of warfare, which is something civil libertarians don’t spend enough time thinking about.

It’s generally been understood that the military may detain, without charges, and without recourse to the civilian courts, combatants that have been captured in a theater of war. It’s also understood that spies and saboteurs, even if captured away from the battlefield, may fall under military jurisdiction if captured. This is one of those essential things that government traditionally have been allowed to do in the exercise of their military powers.

The big problem I see with the “War on Terror” (we really need to come up with a better name) is that it paints a very fuzzy line between the state’s exercise of military power and the exercise of police power. Because we’re not dealing with the typical type of belligerent you encounter in war; because we’re not fighting any single nation, with an army who’s soldiers wear uniforms, bear arms openly, and fight in organized military units, it’s not clear where the state’s military power should end, and the police power ought to apply.

I do think in the current conflict that the military needs to retain the ability to keep prisoners of war, but when combatants should be considered POWs, held under military authority, or prisoners, held under civilian authority, I’m not sure about.

The best I can come up with is that if persons are captured as combatants in a theater of war they may be treated as prisoners of war for the duration of that conflict. If they are captured domestically, or even internationally, as part of police actions, rather than military operations, they are entitled to the same due process as anyone else subject to criminal prosecution.

But that does raise the problem of status. What’s to stop abuses by the executive branch of its military power? How does someone detained under military jurisdiction challenge his status? I think these are questions that Congress probably ought to be thinking about. In wars between organized states, and their armies, having a recourse to civilian courts could create a nightmare, as enemy prisoners of war would be trained to file lawsuits in order to drain their opponents resources. But we’re not likely to see large numbers of prisoners of war in this current conflict.

This war is different, and we’ll need different rules. But the left certainly isn’t seriously thinking about the issue in a helpful or intelligent manner, and the right certainly can’t be trusted to come up with rules that respect proper limits on the state’s military powers. It’s something for liberty minded folks to think about, because we’re going to be having this debate as a matter of consequence, whether we want it or not. With the left being intellectually out to lunch, those of us who cherish liberty and individual rights may have to tow the banner on this, but I think we have to come up with rules that respect the individual, without limiting the state’s military powers to such a degree that we can no longer prosecute wars effectively.

UPDATE: Professor Kerr has more on the subject here.

Apparently the PA house wants to add “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” to the state flag, just in case we weren’t sure. You know, if this is what you folks in Harrisburg have time to debate, I’m thinking a part time legislature sounds like a good way to save the state some money.  Oh well, I guess it’s better than spending time raising taxes yet again.

This Newsday article has Carolyn McCarthy involved in the NICS deal:

“Mentioning the NRA and Carolyn McCarthy in the same breath is like oil and water,” McCarthy said. “They’re certainly nervous about their membership working with me. My side, my groups are nervous about me working wih Dingell and the NRA.”

Dingell’s office helped conduct daily discussions on the bill’s specifics, according to McCarthy spokesman George Burke, and McCarthy’s office signed off on the final agreement. Dingell was a co-sponsor of the first bill in 2002 and a co-sponsor of this year’s version.

I’m not much inclined to give too much credence to statements from McCarthy’s office that she was involved.  Of course they won’t want to paint her as an utter failure, and admit that she was sidelined.

The article also mentions, “McCarthy said the bill could reach the House floor for a vote this week.” which would indicate that it is not her own bill, which is already introduced.   We’ll see though.

There is some more clarity here:

Democrats agreed to allow up to 109,000 armed services veterans, placed into the NICS system for mental health reasons determined by a physician but not adjudicated by law, a chance to remove their names from the system.

Those with minor infractions, such as temporary restraining orders which have since expired, could also petition the state for removal from the system.

The federal government would also be barred from charging gun buyers or sellers for background checks.

I’m hoping such as merely includes that, and doesn’t indicate things like temporary restraining orders are the only thing that can be challenged.   We’ll have to see the bill though.  The NRA also notes that this isn’t yet a done deal, and they will oppose the bill if the deal goes sour.  I’m wondering if perhaps this was leaked to the press before it was really ready in an attempt to force one of the parties hands.

This would all be less nerve wracking if I trusted the Democrats on this issue, which I do not.