Even Gun Control Supporters Have Guns

Maher then looked at Affleck and said, "I mean, you have guns." To which Affleck responded, "I do." The audience grew quiet for a second and then roused up when Maher said, "So do I, and for that exact reason." Maher added: "I'm not disarming unilaterally."  

-Ben Affleck and Bill Maher on Owning Guns (Real Time With Bill Maher October 3rd)
Huh. Kind of funny how that works, ain't it?

Women on "The View" Have Clarity on Guns and a Woman's Self-Defense

Take a look at this ad. Then read the rest of this post below the jump. Lots to unpack here.

Done? Ok, go below the jump.

Two Recent Civil Rights Victories and Implications for South Carolina

Last Thursday, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down what was essentially a blanket ban on carrying a handgun in DC. [Opinion here]

Basically, DC let you have a handgun in your home for self-defense, but DC had a longstanding ban on possession of a handgun outside of your home. The relevant part of the opinion is here:

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.

Frankly, I'm not sure if this means you can openly carry in DC or not. The ruling doesn't say what an individual can do - it only says that the District cannot enforce it's existing laws until the District sets up a Constitutional licensing system. I think to be safe, you would probably not want to carry openly. To me, that's just asking for unnecessary heat.

Also, note: this opinion doesn't touch the specific bans on carrying into specific places like the Capitol grounds, government buildings, etc. Those prohibitions are still legal.  Finally, this ruling prohibits the District from applying the law to non-residents based solely on the fact that they are non-residents. Once a licensing system is set up, I think this will change.

In an update, the District is asking for a stay of this ruling while they either appeal to the next level and/or work to put together a licencing system.

ALSO...IN OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS VICTORIES

Yesterday, a three judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld (2-1) the trial court's decision to strike down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. [Opinion here]

This is important because the 4th Circuit covers South Carolina. That means there is now established precedent in our federal circuit for invalidating state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. I would be very surprised if Plaintiffs from South Carolina are not already in the process of bringing an action. Based on this ruling, I would be surprised if South Carolina's law survives.

To sum up, same-sex marriage advocates and gun-rights advocates both had good days in court, while governments seeking to abridge the rights of citizens had bad days in court.

More freedom is a good thing. As Instapundit says, "in my ideal world, happily married gay couples would have closets full of assault weapons."

With these two decisions, we're one or two steps closer to that now.

I Guess They Didn't See the Sign

Three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor.

I guess they just missed the gun-free zone signs on the North Carolina restaurant because they came in the back door. If only the robbers would have come through the front door, the no-guns sign would have stopped them cold.

C.W. Cooke's Response to E.J. Dionne's Head Exploding

Does this make your head explode?

C.W. Cooke actually does a nice little fisking of E.J. Dionne's emotional temper tantrum, that I linked here yesterday.

This is all very entertaining, of course. But is it true? Has Georgia really adopted unusual, groundbreaking laws? Has it really opened up a new front in the campaign for gun rights? Has it really moved “out of the mainstream”? Well, not really, no. A quick review of the facts reveals that it has merely brought itself into line with much of the rest of the country. And about time, too.

Go read the whole thing.

E.J. Dionne's Head Just Exploded

Remember when I said that the Georgia gun legislation was going to cause some head explosions over on the left?

Yeah, E.J. Dionne just had his head explode on Sunday. Clean up on aisle 4, please.

The amusing thing is that his entire piece is devoid of any logical argument. Apparently, his position is to light his hair on fire and run around screaming about how the end is near because of this new expanded carry law. That's basically his argument.

Hey, the facts are on your side argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither the facts nor the law is on your side - pound the table.

Dionne is pounding the table.

The really funny thing is that in freaking out over the Georgia law that allows CWP into restaurants, places like the post office, and other areas, he's missed something. Most states already have similar laws. If Dionne ever figures out how to work Google, he's going to have an aneurysm when he sees how this sort of law is actually fairly standard across the country.

Cold Breakdown of the SC CWP Bill

If you read my blog regularly, you know that I'm both a lawyer and a gun owner with a CWP here in South Carolina. The new CWP bill that is about to become law hasn't really received an in-depth analysis other than focus on "you can carry in restaurants" line.

I'm not just blaming newspaper journalists here. Even the NRA's legal blog team has a cursory few sentences about this law that don't really tell you much. When you dig into this bill, there are actually some serious things that people need to know.

So, I (your humble blogger) have done the hard work of looking at the actual legislative language of the bill to let you know exactly what this bill does and doesn't do. So, here goes. (The alphabetical list is my own. It doesn't refer to any specific subsections. It was just a way to organize the points.)

A.     Carry Allowed into Restaurants and Bars: This is what most people know, as it's the big headline getter. As it stands right now, a person with a valid CWP (like me) cannot carry concealed into a bar or restaurant that sells alcohol for on-premises consumption. That means I can't carry into Apple-bee's or Rosso tonight because they serve alcohol. So, this law now amends that provision to say that a person who has a valid CWP license may carry concealed into a a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption. However, that person may not consume alcohol at all. If you drink while carrying, you lose your CWP, and can go to jail for up to two years.

B.     Restaurants and Bars May Prohibit Carry: Now, there are a good number of people who don't like the new tweak to the law as described above. Accordingly, there's a second tweak. Any restaurant and bar may simply post a sign that prohibits carrying concealed, and no one will be allowed to carry concealed. If you ignore the sign and carry concealed anyway, same penalty as above. I like to think of this as the "If you like your gun free zone, you can keep your gun free zone" provision.

Additionally, even if the bar or restaurant doesn't post the sign, they can still request that any particular person carrying concealed leave on a case-by-case basis. If that person refuses to leave, same penalty as above. So if you're a bar or restaurant, you can either chose to have an entirely gun free zone, or a selectively gun free zone.

C.     Tweaks to CWP Applications/Requirements: Before, you had to have a valid SC driver's license. Now, any photo ID issued by a state will work, as long as you qualify as a resident. The residency definition is also modified to allow certain classes of applicants (former and/or current military, police, law enforcement) to be exempt from most the training certifications.

D.     Elimination of the 8 Hour Training Requirement: Before, pretty much everyone had to go through a class that was a minimum of 8 hours as a requirement for your CWP. The 8 hour class length requirement has been eliminated. You still have to do the same things (including actually firing a handgun in the presence of the instructor) but there's no time minimum for each class.

E.     Online Applications: You can now submit your application to SLED online.

F.     Express Written Consent In Contradiction of Posted Sign: Kind of an interesting amendment. You can now, post a sign in front of your business and completely prohibit concealed carry. This bill now has a provision that would allow the owner to issue someone a written exemption from the sign generally prohibiting carrying.

G.     Renewals/Vehicle Storage: Currently, your CWP is valid for four years, then you have to renew. The bill changes that to five years. The renewal fee is still $50.00. Also, it allows CWP holders to store a pistol under their seat in their vehicle or in any storage compartment. (Although I wouldn't recommend that.)

That's basically it. So on to the opinion part of this.

Is this a good bill or not? The substantive part about carrying in places that serve alcohol is not as big of a deal as either side would probably want you to believe. If you run a bar or restaurant and you want to keep CWP folks out, then all you have to do is put up a sign. The good thing about this law is that it doesn't force anyone to do anything. It offers a set of rules for everyone to follow according to whatever choices they want to make, and I like that.

Just because I like to carry CWP doesn't mean everyone does. I'm sure there are people out there who own restaurants that don't want guns in their establishments. That's fine. This law respects their wishes.

As for the other provisions, I'm not really wild about eliminating the 8 hour minimum class time. I took the class, and it was really informative, even though I already had a solid background in guns and shooting. There were some people in my class who has zero knowledge going in, and they needed every minute of that eight hours to get comfortable. At the end, they felt very much empowered by their knowledge of how a gun actually works, the different parts of a gun, and all sorts of other basics. I just don't feel like 8 hours is too much to ask for if you're going to want to carry CWP, if you're going to take it seriously.

Also, if you read the NRA's summary of the law, they say this bill "improves training standards". I kind of think that's misleading at best.

I'm fine with the online application, since you have to send all the same information anyway. It's just an acknowledgement that e-mail is a simple way to communicate.

The express written consent is an interesting tweak. It means that someone can selectively allow CWP into their place by giving written consent to whomever they choose. I guess if a bar or restaurant wanted to ban CWP, but then wanted to allow a regular guy they know really well to carry, they can exempt him. Kind of interesting, and since it's all left up to the individual owners, I'm fine with that. I doubt this will happen much in practice, though.

So is it a good law? I think it's a good law in that it has taken an existing law and given more flexibility for each individual citizen and business to decide how they want to conduct themselves. Will it actually change that much of what goes on in practical terms? Probably not. All the folks who say this bill will turn SC into the "wild west" with shootouts in saloons are blowing smoke. Guns are a hot-button issue, so each political "team" will try to amp their base up by either saying this law is horrible or that it's panacea. To me, it's very vanilla stuff that could have easily been included in the first CWP Bill.

If you're an anti-gun person, I hope this analysis has calmed you. If you're pro-gun, I hope this has shown you that you don't have the freedom to carry anywhere anytime, and that there are stiff penalties for breaking the law in this regard.

So there you have it, campers. I feel that I've done my public service for the week and made up for not posting yesterday. If you have any questions or comments about the CWP bill, I'd be interested to hear them. Also, if you think I got any interpretation of the law wrong, let me know.

You Don't Need An AK-47 Unless...

You actually happen to need it.

There's just no substitute for the right tool for the job.

NY Passes Most Restrictive Gun Laws in Country

NY now has new gun laws. It's some pretty tough stuff: no magazines with capacity over seven rounds, all gun sales must have a check, and ammo sales are now going to require a background check (and are additionally taxed).

This gun is now illegal in New York since it has a 15 round magazine: [UPDATE] Actually, I went through and read the full text of the law, and lever action rifles are exempted. So....you can still legally own this gun. Since they've basically made the modern version of this gun illegal, maybe the ol' 1873 will have experience a renaissance.

Winchester 1873 (Yes, it was designed in 1873)

Hey, this was an "assault weapon" back in 1873.

Mayor Joe Riley's Ideas for Gun Control

The much beloved mayor of Charleston has an editorial in Sunday's Post and Courier detailing his proposal for new gun regulations. I have a great deal of respect for Mayor Riley, and he is arguably the most successful mayor in South Carolina. Accordingly, I was interested to see what he thought would be "common-sense" regulations.

1) Restore the assault weapons ban. These are not sporting weapons. They are not needed for protecting our homes or for self-defense. And conversely, when they get in the hands of deranged or hate-filled people, they become the tools of mass murder.

An assault weapon can shoot many rounds per second. These are deadly, certain to kill — the weapon and the operator of the weapon can reload in seconds and keep firing.

Sigh. His first proposal is to restore the Assault Weapons Ban that was previously in effect from 1994 - 2004. What's an assault weapon again? I keep forgetting. When you think about the words, it's kind of funny. If I beat you to death with a lead pipe, the lead pipe would be the weapon...which I just assaulted you with. Oh no! Lead pipes can be assault weapons! So it's a silly term, and people who use it are equally silly and unserious.

Also, was everything better from 1994 - 2004? I don't remember a wave of peace breaking out across the nation. Anyway, Riley's assertion that certain types of firearms are not "sporting" strikes me as both odd and irrelevant. There isn't a "sporting" aspect in a great many firearms. However, that isn't a reason to ban them. Firearms aren't solely for "sportsmen".

On a side note, I really hate it when someone says You can still keep your guns for hunting and sporting. First of all, thanks for allowing me to continue exercising a basic right. Don't do me any favors, bro. Second, the point of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting. I may do a whole post on that later.

Back to Riley, he throws out the "No one needs a _______..." argument for guns. We don't make things illegal based on whether or not they are necessities. We don't really need  a law school in Charleston, but they decided to put one there. You don't really need that dopey-looking SmartCar, but people have them anyway.

Just like guns, SmartCars can become a tool for mass murder in the hands of a deranged person. Maybe we should talk about helping deranged people. (just a thought)

Riley's second paragraph here is odd. Is this Riley's definition of an "assault weapon"? Firing many rounds per second? Also, "these are deadly, certain to kill" makes no sense. Most guns are "certain to kill" if you shoot someone in a vital area. However, Riley seems to be saying that the reason these guns are "certain to kill" is because you can quickly reload them. Wait, what?

You can quickly reload almost all firearms, or maybe you can't. That has to do with the skill of the person - not the firearm. I could give the same firearm to two different people, and they would reload it at different speeds based upon their familiarity with the firearm.

This first idea makes people in the "guns are icky" group feel good. Unfortunately, it won't really make our society more safe, so it's not really common-sense, is it? But hey, I'm just using reason, logic, and experience here. That's probably not fair.

2) Ban high-capacity magazines. These magazines offer deranged individuals who wish to massacre large numbers of people the means to do so. They can equip semi-automatic and automatic weapons to fire a hundred rounds per minute. An assailant with a backpack or pockets full of these magazines can keep firing for a very long time.

There is simply no place for high-capacity magazines in self-defense or home-protection.

Ok, so we've already banned "assault weapons", whatever those are. Now, we have another proposal to get rid of all those high-capacity magazines for...our "non-assault weapons" that we've been allowed to keep. Awesome.

Unfortunately, Mayor Riley doesn't give us a number on what is "high-capacity". Is it 15, 10, 5, or 3?  No specifics here. I wonder why. Also, notice it's because deranged people could get these. Maybe we should do something about all these deranged people roaming around.

As far as there being "no place" for high capacity magazines in self-defense, that's what my law professors would call a "conclusory statement". It just a conclusion - not an argument. You have to say WHY. Unfortunately we don't get that. Oh well.

Riley here also refers to automatic and semi-automatic, and he just glosses over that. It's almost like he's just throwing those words in there because they sound scary. I'm not going to bore you with the automatic vs. semi-automatic thing, and I'm tired of explaining it over and over. On the specific issue of magazines, it's just silly to think lower capacity magazines are going to change anything. It's like saying you're going to reduce DUIs by requiring that we buy beer in tiny cans. If you have a "backpack or pockets" full of loaded magazines, what's the difference?

Would it make you feel safer if a deranged person had ten magazines that held ten rounds each, or five magazines that held twenty rounds each? Math, how does it work again?

Again, this is a law that makes people feel good, but doesn't accomplish anything. This is some major-league fail-boating. Come on, Riley. You're 0-2.

3) Strengthen the background-check system and close the loopholes in our gun laws.

Through the gun-show loophole, for example, a person who would not be cleared by a background check can go to a gun show and buy an arsenal and go to another gun show and buy another arsenal.

Through purchases at gun shows, any individual can bypass the background check system and fill a house with weapons they are not legally allowed to purchase.

This is ridiculous.

I agree. Currently, if I want to sell you my shotgun, I can do that without as much paperwork as a gun dealer would. Basically, I give you my shotgun, and you give me money. That's pretty much it. Now, I still cannot sell my shotgun to someone who couldn't own it legally (a child, a fugitive, or a mentally incompetent person). So, how would I make sure I don't do this? I just ask you: "Are you allowed to otherwise own this gun?". Yes? Ok, here you go.

Obviously, that's not a great way to check. As you may be aware, people sometimes lie. If there was an easy, free, and quick way for me to check you out, I would do it. Let's figure out how to make that database current, secure, and easily accessible to check. It would allow responsible gun owners who want to sell their guns the ability to make sure they aren't selling guns to bad guys.

HOLY MOLY! I think Mayor Riley and I just came up with a common-sense gun law.

4) We should impose stiffer penalties on “straw purchases” of guns. A straw purchase is when someone who can legally purchase a gun buys one for someone who cannot. A person who facilitates illegal possession of a weapon should face penalties for helping the illegal purchaser circumvent the law and for the consequences of any illegal use of the weapon.

So, Mayor Riley is not saying we need a new law; he's just saying we should impose tougher sanctions for violating a law that we already have. That's cool with me. People who knowingly facilitate getting guns to bad guys should be punished. Count me in on this one.

To sum up, Mayor Riley has two bad ideas (banning some guns, and banning some accessories) that won't solve any problems and two ideas (helping to ensure that background checks can be done and putting tough sentences on criminals) that might help. I guess 50% isn't too bad.

Conversation about Guns

Ok, y'all. I keep hearing that we need to have a "serious conversation" about guns. That's wonderful. I love having conversations about guns. Seriously. I could talk about guns all day. So, I would welcome anyone to have a rational, logical, legal, and fact-based conversation about guns, gun control, gun regulation, gun restrictions, cool pictures of girls with guns, whatever...here on Permanent Press, it's all good. Here are a few ground rules, though:

You have to be informed. This means you have to have done a little homework about guns. You have to know the definition of the word "automatic" and the word "semi-automatic" and you have to know the difference. I would prefer the proper usage of "magazines" and "clips", but I'll let you slide a little on that one. You also have to know a little bit of constitutional case-law, specifically, but not limited to, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Knowledge of US history is also helpful.  

You have to be specific. If you want to talk about "assault weapons", you need to specify what that means. If you want to talk about specifics, be specific. If you're proposing a new law, you have to say exactly what the law would say, and why it would be beneficial. Remember, in a democracy the burden of persuasion is one anyone proposing new laws.

Check your emotion at the door. This is the time for factual, logical reasoning. Not shrill cries to "do something".

I'll start. I don't think that any additional laws are necessary. We need to stop half-ass enforcing the ones we have. I believe this because the laws that we currently have were all broken in the mass shootings we have recently had.

Specifically: You have to be 21 years old to own or possess a handgun in Connecticut. (See page 29 (on the .pdf counter) at this link). Also, you cannot take firearms onto school grounds in Connecticut. (See page 64 (on the .pdf counter) at this link). Obviously, these laws did not actually protect anyone in Newtown.

I don't think any additional laws would have prevented this tragedy. Arguably, the gun-free zone of the school was a bit of a disaster. Everyone keeps praising the "first responders" who came to the school. Those are the good guys with the guns, y'all. Maybe we should figure out a way for the good guys (who are already at the school) to be the first responders. It wouldn't be hard for the principal of the school to have a gun locker in his office. That might have helped, and it's certainly better waiting for the first responders.

Also, there may be some issues with how these guns were stored, whereby the shooter gained access to them. Were they in a safe? I don't really know, but it seems that the underage shooter had a relatively easy time accessing his mother's guns.

If you disagree, I would love to have a conversation with you. But...remember the ground rules.

Enjoy. I'm happy to talk about guns, gun control, and how to make our children society more safe all day long.

Bob Costas Is A Moron

But if you're a big sports fan and you've had to sit through him during a baseball game, you probably already knew that.

By now, you probably heard the story of the NFL player who shot the mother of his child and then shot himself. It's really sad.

Bob Costas decided that he would talk about that during halftime of last night's Sunday Night Football game and give his editorial on the subject. Keeping it to something like "We pray for the families and the surviving child." would have been fine. However, that's not what he did. Ol' Bobby decided that he was going to assign blame for why this tragedy happened. Guess who he blamed?

You might think that naturally the person, you know, the sentient being who decided to actually kill the other person and then commit suicide. Sure, that would be one way to go. Pretty predictable and logical, though. Where's the fun in that?

But if you don't want to blame the killer, you could go Costas-Crazy and blame the inanimate object that happened to be the instrument of death. You know, the gun.

Here's the problem with Costas blaming the gun: it's weapons-grade stupid.

The gun didn't do anything wrong. It didn't do anything right. It's just a gun. It doesn't have a good or evil spirit, it doesn't make people do things, it doesn't do anything other than make a small piece of lead go really fast. It's a dangerous tool, but hey, there are lots of dangerous things out there. A gun is not a good thing, and it's not a bad thing. It's just a thing. Inanimate objects don't get moral status.

Costas specifically went on to blame the "gun culture".

Ok, let's talk about that. With all due respect to Bob Costas, he has no freaking clue about the "gun culture". I bet you a silver dollar that Bob Costas has never done much shooting (if any), or even knows people who shoot. Accordingly, he is about as much of an authority on the "gun culture" as I am on the "Chinese Culture". (Side-note: Ever notice how people with no idea what they are talking about have the strongest opinions?) Just a thought.

Not to be deterred by something as insignificant as facts, knowledge and experience, ol' Bobby tells us what the gun culture promulgates and stands for:

"Our current gun culture, ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead."

If you're going to shoot someone because you're in a domestic dispute or their music is too loud, you need to sit down and examine yourself. Also, I'd like to note that it's illegal for teenagers (boys or girls) to own handguns. Am I to understand that law is ineffective? Where is my fainting couch? Try removing the word gun and re-read the sentence. That's actually something worth discussing.

Costas goes on to further illuminate us with the light of his genius:

"Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?"

Let's take this piece by piece. "Handguns do not enhance our safety." Do I really need to explain why this is a moronic statement? Next time you see a police officer, ask him if his sidearm enhances his safety.

The second sentence: "They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it." A gun is an inanimate object: like a rock, or a pencil, or a necklace. It doesn't enhance your flaws. A person's flaws are what they are. This is probably the most insidious line of the whole piece. Right here, Costas is shifting blame from the murderer to the murder weapon. The killer is not less guilty because he killed someone with a gun. The gun didn't make him kill someone. If inanimate objects can enhance our flaws, can any objects minimize them? Does carrying around a pocket Bible make you a less flawed person?

In his soaring crescendo of stupidity, Costas closes with:

"But here is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."

Apparently, no guns = no murder in Costas-Land. Unfortunately, that's not true. It would be nice if that were true, but it's not. Maybe it makes Bob feel better to believe that. I wonder if he still believes in the Tooth Fairy.

DC Court of Appeals Upholds Obamacare

Yet another ruling. Eventually, the Supremes (Kennedy, really) needs to come down on this issue and be the law-giver, but the wheels of justice are slow.

If the Constitution does not prevent Congress from mandating that everyone buy health insurance to solve the national problem of health care, then I'm hoping we get a law requiring everyone to own (and carry) a semiautomatic sidearm to solve the national problem of crime. Who's with me?

Assistant AG Breuer Knows What's Best for You

Assistant AG Lanny Breuer said this to Congress to justify more controls and regulation of guns:

“Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people really need to have semiautomatic weapons or long guns.”

Bless his little heart, but he's a moron. First, it makes me question if he even understands what "semiautomatic" means. What about revolvers? Is he cool with them? What if they're single-action? Is AG Breuer saying I really can't have a sidearm designed in prior to the outbreak of WWI?

Does AG Breuer even know anything about guns, or is he just using the word "semiautomatic" because it sounds like "automatic" if you mumble? Second, and more importantly, who is he to say whether or not I need a one or not? You know what? I don't think he needs a car. He should walk to work. You know...because cars are really dangerous. We don't even have an amendment protecting cars. Get those damn death machines off the road now.

And what the heck does need have to do with it? I don't need a whole bunch of things other than food, water, and shelter. I don't need this nice little MacBook Air that I'm blogging on, my lawnmower, or a grill in my backyard. Yet, I am allowed to have these, and I could probably kill you will all of them.

Third, and most importantly, the Constitution doesn't say "only arms for sporting and hunting purposes are protected." Maybe Assistant AG Breuer should should pick up a copy of a Con Law hornbook and do some reading. He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. 

I'm constantly amazed at how many people try to take something that is their own private opinion and turn it into policy because they think they know best.

[H/T The Captain's Journal via Arms and the Law]

You Don't have Second Amendment Rights in NC...

...when the weather is bad. NC cancels all CCW permits because of hurricane threat.

Just when you might actually need a firearm.