Snowflakes in Hell

The Chattanooga Times can’t understand the legal difference between a State Capitol and other public places.

State legislators do not allow people to carry guns into the state Capitol for a good reason. They’re afraid a deranged person, disturbed over some perceived legislative intrusion, might walk into their chambers and start shooting.

Their caution is understandable. We’re all well aware of how frequently such violent episodes occur at other places of work. Furthermore, lawmakers and most citizens know that gun violence can be triggered for myriad reasons and can occur randomly in almost any venue, from shopping malls to schools, from churches to colleges to strips of congested highways.

First off, someone deranged isn’t going to be stopped by a law or policy. I don’t know much about how Tennessee’s State Capitol works, but ours is similarly off limits because it’s also a courthouse, containing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. But a courthouse or state capitol is a vastly different type of public place than restaurants, rest stops, parks, or other places where we’ve been demanding our right to carry be respected.

It’s not just different because politicians are there, but is really a distinct kind of public place. The Supreme Court ruling in Heller suggests that state capitols and courthouses are the kinds of government buildings where it’s constitutional to restrict possession of firearms, at least temporarily. Whether you think that was right or wrong isn’t really what I mean to discuss here. The ruling says what it does, and it’s now law, so let’s speak for a minute about which “sensitive places” and “government buildings” might be covered, and why.

A courthouse or state capitol would, under Heller, likely be the kind of government building where firearms could be temporarily restricted. But given that the Second Amendment protects one’s right to self-defense, under what circumstances can this be the case? I think three aspects can make the case, substitution, screening, and storage. Let’s call them the three S’s. Let me explain what they mean.

1. Substitution. Is there an ample law enforcement presence in the building? In most state capitols and courthouses, the answer to this is clearly yes. In Pennsylvania, the Capitol is staffed by the Capitol Police, and courthouses in PA are staffed by the county Sheriff’s office. In both their presence is ubiquitous. There’s very few circumstances where they aren’t going to more ably to deal with a situation than an individual would be. If a gunfight breaks out in the capitol rotunda, I’m far more likely to leave it to the guys with the submachine guns than try my hand at dealing with the matter. There’s a reasonable substitution for your own side arm with the ubiquitous law enforcement presence.
2. Is the building screened? In other words, does everyone go through a security checkpoint? This isn’t perfect, but it’s a pretty good protection against someone disregarding the rules with intent to shoot the place up. In most courthouses I’ve been in, and in state capitols, there’s a security checkpoint with metal detectors and x-rays.
3. Storage is the third aspect. In Pennsylvania, the Capitol Police provide for checking your firearm as is required by state law. This means your Second Amendment rights aren’t infringed upon on your way to and from the building.

But how many public places even come close to passing the “Three S” test? Very few. If you believe in the right to self-defense, and believe in the Second Amendment, there might be reasons, as was mentioned in Heller, that you can’t carry a gun just anywhere, but there needs to be a higher level of concern than just “some random nut” as the Chattanooga Times implies. The random nut is always going to have a gun. If the government is going to disarm citizens, it should be for a damned good reason, and in an environment where the government can provide a reasonable substitute for personal protection. The old adage “I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy” applies. It’s not surprising that media outlets don’t want to go into this issue in that level of detail, but if it’s really a right, it needs to be treated like one. You can’t just declare, “It’s a right, but what about whack jobs?”  We don’t think of other rights that way, do we? “There’s a right to free press, but what about libel?”

Dan Thomasson of The Reporter says of gun ownership:

Then there are those who are nuts about guns, who collect them and seem almost to consider them affectionate, even sexual objects.

Yes, the sexual objects again. Next thing you know, he’ll say we’re all paranoids:

Present in all three classifications is an element of paranoia, a strong belief that without these weapons one is not likely to survive the truly crazy (like maybe one’s testy neighbor or a disaffected co-worker or student seeking revenge from bullies) or the ubiquitous criminals that use guns as necessary tools in their business.

Maybe we just want to pursue the hobbies that make us happy, and just be left alone rather than being blamed for all the ills of society, or looked down upon by our supposed betters who say we have mental or sexual deficiencies. A lot of gun owners and gun hobbyists are angry people. It’s crap like this that makes them angry people. Everyone is someone else’s weirdo. Time to accept that and move on. Kind of makes you wonder about Mr. Thomasson’s hobbies, doesn’t it?

With six to seven thousand people descending on the Illinois Capitol in Springfield, here’s a round up of all the main stream media coverage of the event:

This article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is on our side, and I’m happy about that, but:

If that indication from oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago holds true, the court will quash the notion that the Second Amendment somehow is a collective, “militia”-based right. If the rest of the Bill of Rights protects individual rights — and it does — so must the Second Amendment.

We won that argument already, two years ago. This one is just about incorporation.

The NJ Star-Ledger is pleading with Virginia not to re-open the “Iron Pipeline” by repealing its gun rationing law, but this previous editorial from the same paper notes that it never really closed, and suggests that most of New Jersey’s guns come from Pennsylvania and Virginia even though Virginia has a one-gun-a-month law. I don’t think the frequency that Virginia is cited as a source state for guns has diminished any as a result of their law.

This study of trafficking from the FBI in 1998 highlights the problem:

The straw purchase serves as another method often employed by an illegal firearms trafficker who cannot legally purchase firearms. Most traffickers use a series of straw purchasers directed to various firearms licensees. A common scenario entails the firearm trafficker accompanying the straw purchaser into the firearms store to pay for the purchase while the straw purchaser completes the paperwork. Store video surveillance can verify this type of purchase.

The problem is that the straw purchase rings, to the extent that they exist, aren’t stupid, and know to how to route around current trafficking detection practices. It’s relatively easy to route around others. Where there’s a high demand for a product, there’s going to be supply to meet that demand. You might be able to drive price higher with interdiction, but only to a point.

This time from the Washington Post, because Virginia is considering lifting its gun rationing law. They tell us to “get ready for mayhem” and say:

We hope reason prevails, and the state Senate kills the repeal. Because if Mr. Lingamfelter’s bill is enacted, here’s what police and prosecutors expect: Crack dealers in New York will pay 21-year-olds with no criminal records to buy dozens of Glock pistols at Virginia gun shops.

And to top it all off, we link to the queen of screaming, raving, mad hysterics, Abby Spangler.

One of the sad facts, as we approach the day that the ban on firearms in National Parks expires, is that we have to listen to the hysterical machinations of the media. I’ve seen some bad ones, but this one from the Philadelphia Inquirer takes the cake:

Whatever the gun rights of law-abiding park visitors, having loaded firearms in the national parks certainly will change the experience for everyone.

Every day could seem like the start of deer hunting season with people strolling the parks armed. That has to be a frightening prospect for families and others who aren’t accustomed to being around guns. And there’s also the risk of accidental shootings.

Like the start of deer season? Because we’re just going to shoot our guns all over eh? Does the Inquirer staff not wonder why this isn’t a problem in state parks, where people can legally carry guns, and have been able to for a few years now? How many times do they have to make dire predictions, only to have them turn out to be gravely wrong? I think this more than anything has destroyed the credibility of the gun control movement in the eyes of the public.

The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk seems to be having a cow at the idea that the Virginia legislature might repeal their one-gun-a-month law:

Taken together, the gun show loophole and repeal of one handgun a month could easily be called something else: The Strawman’s Bill of Rights.

Except that straw purchasing will be just as illegal after this bill is repealed as it was before it was repealed. How many people have been prosecuted under the one-gun-a-month law anyway? And for all their talk about the “iron pipeline,” I don’t hear East Coast mayors complaining any less loud about Virginia being a source of crime guns. The law is useless and infringes on a constitutional right. Get rid of it.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch seems to be OK with the idea:

One-gun-a-month served a practical function. But it also compromised important principles by infringing on the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution. Like Del. Joe Morrissey, who asked whether the law truly inconviences anyone, advocates of the measure stress that one gun a month should be enough for anyone; no one “needs” to buy more than that. Perhaps. On the other hand, rights are not supposed to be constrained by what some people think other people need. It could be argued that newspapers do not need to publish more than once a week, that nobody needs to buy more than two books a month, that the faithful do not need to attend church more than twice a year, or that no woman should need more than one abortion in her lifetime. Those are not decisions government should make.

Wait a minute, this is from a MSM news source? Do I need to go read that again? I’m going to guess their editorial board won’t be on the Brady Christmas Card list after that one.

The Philadelphia Inquirer is noting the growing momentum of the anti-gun movement in Pennsylvania, and taking shots at the only man who ever went after straw purchasers in a big way in Philadelphia: Tom Corbett.

So they are willing to cast aside someone who’s actually tried to do something about criminal misuse of firearms, by actually prosecuting criminals, and advocate replacing that person with someone who will just pass more laws the City won’t bother to enforce. Brilliant!

The Editorial Board of the Philadelphia Inquirer would presumably be against denying suspected terrorists of their fourth amendment rights, fifth amendment rights and sixth amendment rights, without due process of law. But they are absolutely fine with, and even advocate, denying American Citizens their Second Amendment right without due process.

While the rest of the country is busy giving homeowners more leeway, it would seem the Buffalo, New York media is trying to stir a debate about whether home defense with deadly force should be allowed at all:

Cherry, a soft-spoken and polite Army veteran, said he was protecting himself from a home burglary at about 11:20 a.m. Jan. 21, when he fired 15 shots from a military-style assault rifle at the vehicle of a fleeing intruder.

OK, that’s a legitimate prosecutable offense, and the fact that it was his step-daughter probably isn’t going to play well in front of a jury. But this shouldn’t be a debate, and I see no reason to drag other, legitimate home defense cases in with this one:

• Willie J. Carson, 52, shot Parrish C. Spencer Jr., 22, in the chest Jan. 20, after the younger man broke into Carson’s 25th Street home and went upstairs, Niagara Falls police said.

No charges have been filed against Carson, but police have said the case has been turned over to the Niagara County district attorney’s office for further investigation.

• An 82-year-old Niagara Falls man, apparently scared and confused after a group of teens attempted to break into his home Jan. 15, fired one shotgun blast at police after they entered the home and found him hiding behind a closed door.

No one was hit, and the elderly man was not charged.

• Charles E. Gidney Sr., an off-duty Buffalo police officer, shot and killed one intruder, Reno D. Sayles, 36, and seriously wounded another inside his Buffalo home last April 22.

In his statement to police, Gidney said he grabbed his handgun, pointed it at the two men, one wearing a ski mask, and ordered them to “freeze.” Instead, they rushed at him, and he fired several shots, he said.

With the exception of the old man mistakenly shooting at police, all of these look pretty legitimate, even for New York. Fortunately, the Buffalo News goes on to describe the legal distinctions when it comes to using deadly force to defend the home. I think it’s OK for papers to cover this, but it’s not really a “debate” per se. I would find it hard to believe juries even in New York will convict people for shooting home invaders. Shooting at someone fleeing is a different matter.

Jacob points out that New York Newsday, a Long Island based paper that is very anti-gun, is having some stellar success with their new online subscriber model. A revenue busting thirty five members have subscribed to the paper so far. Hell, I could probably raise more revenue than that for this blog if I put up a tip jar and begged for donations. Maybe they should have just started a blog.

Freedom of the press is not absolute. Professional journalists generally know their limits. Apparently the guys behind the ACORN sting operation didn’t, and are now facing felony charges.

The FBI, alleging a plot to wiretap Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office in downtown New Orleans, arrested four people Monday, including James O’Keefe, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group’s credibility.

FBI Special Agent Steven Rayes alleges that O’Keefe aided and abetted two others, Joseph Basel and Robert Flanagan, who dressed up as employees of a telephone company and attempted to interfere with the office’s telephone system.

A fourth person, Stan Dai, was accused of aiding and abetting Basel and Flanagan. All four were charged with entering fedral property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.

While I’m sure Landrieu has skeletons in her closet she’d not like seeing the light of day, there are good reasons why it’s unlawful to tap a Senator’s phone or bug an office. Senators, particularly those who sit on some key oversight committees, have access to information that’s sensitive for national security purposes. O’Keefe did good work taking down ACORN, but he went too far here. He’ll be lucky if he beats a felony rap on this one.

Bitter and I were talking yesterday about how the media seems to have largely moved away from the gun issue, and how much harder it’s getting to find media articles that are interesting, establish a pattern, or otherwise lend themselves to commentary or fisking. It’s actually making finding things to blog about more difficult, unfortunately. But every once in a while, I still see an article that may not follow a pattern, or be interesting, but that is so badly written, ignorant, and just overall poorly written that you can’t even really fisk it, because you just don’t know where to begin.

This is one such article. It’s just wrong in so many ways I don’t even know where to start. It’s not even on the same planet the issue is on at the moment. I’ve seen good arguments made against us, this is not among them.

Looks like the first of the New Jersey gun rationing lawsuit is hitting the main stream media:

New Jersey gun owners took a parting shot at the waning administration of Gov. Jon Corzine today, filing a federal lawsuit challenging his one-handgun-a-month law, claiming it is unconstitutional and that some towns already make it impossible to obtain one pistol in six months.

The article has it kind of right, though it really glosses over the fundamental issues, which I will cover later. Either way, it has Bryan Miller’s panties in a bunch:

“Typical gun-extremist nonsense,” said Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, a gun-control organization. “This is typical of the gun lobby — never satisfied, always seeking to have everybody armed. … I think the court will probably throw this frivolous suit out.”

Pretty clearly Bryan didn’t read the Complaint, unless he wants to explain why this lawsuit is “frivolous.” But hey, getting Bryan upset makes this all worth it to me. I will say, it’s nice scooping the MSM on a story.

I guess they were looking for an interesting story, but I don’t think they found it, so they tried to sensationalize as best they could, regardless:

They began arriving well before the 9 a.m. Sunday opening, cramming the parking lots and forcing latecomers onto snowy fields. At least half the vehicles were pickups, peppered with road salt and bearing such bumper stickers as “Don’t blame me, I voted for McCain” and “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

At least half the vehicles in that part of Pennsylvania, that time of year, in any given parking lot, are going to be pickups. I guess they missed the Honda CR-V, devoid of bumper stickers, that was driven by Bitter and I, because we were at this show looking for ammo for my Webley (found three boxes, old Canadian police surplus brand called “Dominion”, made by Canadian Industries Ltd.). My father moved recently about 15 minutes outside Lebanon, so we will probably attend this show somewhat regularly, as it’s a good show. Also funny, I maybe saw a handful of cars or trucks at most with bumper stickers on them.

Assault rifles were much in evidence. One table had an AR-15, originally made for the U.S. Army, for $875. A Russian-made AK-47, one of the most popular and widely used assault rifles in the world, was on sale for $495. There was a “Gun Show Special” on an SKS carbine for $165. An SKS was used in 2008 to kill a Philadelphia police officer.

Originally made for the US Army eh? Sorry, no. Russian made AK-47? Russian designed maybe. There are no Russian made AKs for sale the US. Importation of those has been banned since 1968.

Just across the aisle there was a $999 price tag on an FN Herstal Five-seveN tactical pistol. This weapon, also known as “the Cop Killer,” is believed to have been used is last year’s massacre at Fort Hood, Texas.

Off in a far corner, two long tables were arranged in an “L” shape to accommodate the show’s largest weapons. One was a Barrett 50, a .50-caliber sniper rifle with a five-foot barrel that is capable of taking out targets a mile away. It cost $8,995. Two subadolescent boys took turns aiming it at imaginary targets.

Sensationalize much? There’s no such thing as a “cop killer” gun. Armor piercing ability is a function of ammunition, not the gun its fired out of, and the ammunition that can pierce armor is unavailable to civilians. The barrel of the Barrett comes in 29 and 20 inches, last I checked that didn’t make 3 feet, let alone 5. The overall length of the rifle is not even five feet. But it’s not exactly the kind of rifle you pick up and aim if you’re a “subadolescent.” The thing weighs 30 pounds! But why bother with research when you can just describe the gun as being of such epic proportions. I’m surprised he didn’t mention its ability to take down satellites.

The biggest weapon, priced at $20,000, was a Bren MK 1, a light machine gun used by the British army in World War II and the Korean War. “It can fire up to 540 rounds per minute with an effective range of about 600 yards,” the sales clerk advised. “And it still works.”

This gun I did see. Still works, and not something you’re going to take home from the show. If you’re lucky, you might get through all the hoops you have to jump through in two months. I’m guessing the reporter either didn’t ask about that part, or chose to leave it out of the article. Describe the process one has to go through to get a machine gun, even after ponying up 20 large, it might not seem to scary to people.

The 4473 form is kept by the dealer for twenty years. ATF can request access to a 4473 from a dealer if a gun was used in a crime, or otherwise recovered by law enforcement. At least they reported you had to go through a background check, and didn’t mention the dreaded “gun show loophole” that lets you just waltz into a gun show and waltz out with any weapon imaginable, no questions asked.

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition made up of more than 340 mayors from across the nation, says Pennsylvania has more than 200 gun shows every year, a total exceeded only by Texas. Indeed, gun shows are a leading tourist attraction in the Lebanon Valley, which is hosting three this year. Tourist promotion officials estimate that each gun show will draw 6,000 visitors and generate between $2.5 million and $3 million for area businesses.

I went out to the show, then had dinner with my dad and step mother at a local restaurant, so I would believe it’s a significant boon to the local community. It’s a pretty rural area. Mostly dairy farms.

It was here in 2008 that a 30-year-old mother made national headlines by toting a gun to her daughter’s soccer game. Last year the woman was shot and killed by her husband, who then took his own life.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it’s offensive to even bring this up. Man, I really can’t wait for the Inquirer to finally quit circling the bowl and head down into the sewers where it belongs.

Now we have put the term “bling gun” into the vocabulary of reporters, namely the Washington Post. The article refers to the gold plated Desert Eagle that Gilbert Arenas was caught with in the Verizon Center in Washington D.C. That didn’t come from the reporter, it came from the owner of Atlantic Guns in Silver Springs. Nothing like associating legal gun purchases of legitimate collector pieces (a gold plated Desert Eagle is a wall piece, the kind you lock behind a nice piece a glass in a nice felt lined display case) with a term generally associated with people who have large sums of cash and few ways to convert them into legitimate, untraceable assets (gang members and drug dealers). That might lead the public to wonder what kind of people you’re selling guns to up there at Atlantic Guns. That might make them wonder about the legitimacy of the whole industry.

I’ve seen dealers represent the issue very well, but 9 times out of 10 a gun dealer talks to a reporter, they say something stupid. It’s really best if dealers, or really anyone not accustomed to dealing with them, take a policy of not taking to reporters. The few times I’ve been in that situation, I let Bitter deal with them (she’s a professional at this). Sometimes there are reporters looking to do a fair piece, most of the time they are looking for you to slip up so they can make gun owners look bad.

The Star Press is admitting that they are treating gun owners in Indiana like child molesters by publishing their permit information for people to search. The problem is they think this is how it should be, because those sex perverts could have gun permits, you know. Can you think of any offense that involves fondling children that doesn’t make one a prohibited person? I can’t.

They point out that the media only really follows body counts, and look at this example:

In Oklahoma City the previous week, an armed citizen singlehandedly stopped an attack that surely would have resulted in a multiple-victim public shooting. The media gave the event scant attention. The scene went down when a Marine, who was on leave and came home for the holidays, started firing in an apartment parking lot. Before anyone was harmed, another man aimed his permitted concealed handgun at the attacker and ordered him to put down his weapon. The shooter dropped his gun and ran into his father’s apartment, barricading himself in. Three-and-a-half hours later, the man surrendered to the police.

Such scant attention, it escaped even my attention, and I have this stuff Google alerted out the wazoo. No bodies, so it’s not a big news story. I have to say, it took a lot of guts to tell the guy to drop his weapon rather than just open fire.

The New Jersey Star Ledger speaks of New Jersey’s gun rationing scheme as a law aimed at “improving quality of life.”

This time from larger papers, like the LA Times and The Baltimore Sun. Both concentrate on the fact that Luntz is a “republican pollster,” not mentioning that he’s been sanctioned by two public polling associations.  I’m going to posit that “terror gap” and “gun show loophole” are difficult, if not impossible issues to poll accurately on, since there’s no way to assess a person’s knowledge of the subject being discussed.

Despite some confusion because of the misleading term “assault weapon,” I think this newspaper is starting to get it:

There are too many weapons in the hands of criminals and others who have no business with them. That is a problem not easily solved and gun control laws don’t work to do that. Even regulating a type of gun won’t solve that.

Strict enforcement of existing gun laws and citizen activism to report and crack down on illegal guns and gun-related crimes are needed. Punishment for crimes using guns needs to be more severe.

In this case, these people need to be found and be prosecuted criminally and civilly. Such acts rise above negligence.

I noticed the typical immune response to the word “assault weapon” being used in the comments, but I thought the paper deserved from praise for being willing to make a more serious look at the issue then just a reflexive call for more guns laws.

Follow the link here to see Caleb’s performance, which I thought was pretty good. We know the talking points now for the Brady Campaign, which is that these databases being public is important to be able to weed out people who were erroneously granted permits despite criminals records. Let me say that if this is the Brady Campaign’s primary concern, they should have been the first group to call the Times Herald to convince them not to publish the database.

No one would have objected to the newspaper, or anyone else for that matter, picking through the database and finding people who were erroneously issued carry permits who legitimately were not qualified to have them. It’s going to be a very small number of people who fit that mold, because applicants are already pre-screened for criminal records. The idea that you need to publish the entire database, 99.9% of which are people who are legitimately qualified to have them, is utter hogwash.

Indiana, along with many other states, has had gun permits as public records for a long time. In Indiana’s case, for decades. No one ever complained about it being that way until the Herald Times chose to publish those names. Gun owners are powerful enough to demand that law now be changed. The Bradys, newspapers, and other anti-violence groups have had access to that data for a long time, and could have been going through it looking for people who legitimately had criminal records that disqualified them. But they didn’t, which I think says something about their true motives.

You will notice now that the Brady Campaign no longer gives states grades, and have rather decided just to rank order them. This is likely because they’ve only had real success in a small handful of states. By rank ordering, it can make it seem like the gun control movement has actually been more effective. That must be why the Associated Press says stuff like this:

The availability of guns compounds the problem, criminologists say. But Pennsylvania, the state with the most gun-related officer deaths so far this year, has among the strictest gun laws in the country, according to a ranking by the pro-gun-control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Other states, like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kentucky, have very little oversight and had few, if any, officer gun deaths this year.

I guess the AP didn’t notice that Pennsylvania, which is ranked at number ten, has a score of 26 on a 100 point scale. Only the top six score above 50, with even top listed California only earning a 79. Pennsylvania ranks higher than a lot of other states because we restrict private transfers of handguns, and allow the state police to keep a illegal registry records of sale for handguns as well. You can rest assured, however, we are doing our level best to ensure the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania drops precipitously on the Brady List.