Your AR-15 is dangerous and unusual, and isn't protected by the Second Amendment!

So says a federal judge, anyway. This was a case where Maryland banned ownership of certain rifles in thewake of the Sandy Hook shooting. Among the long list of banned rifles were AR-15s and AK-47s.

Naturally, this law was challenged on Constitutional grounds. However, the judge held that these types of rifles were not protected by the Second Amendment, because...get this...the AR-15 is dangerous and unusual.

Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.

(emphasis mine.)

Wait. How did "dangerous" become a disqualifying factor? All rifles are kind of dangerous, if you ask me. That's kind of the point though, isn't it? If a rifle isn't at least a little dangerous, it's not really worth having, is it? I don't even get this "dangerous" thing. The danger of a weapon has almost everything to do with the person holding the weapon, and very little to do with the weapon itself.

Moving on to the real part, this judge ruled that the AR-15 is "unusual". I'm not sure how you would call the most popular rifle in America "unusual". That's just stupid. This is an example of Judge that had already reached a conclusion and simply wrote an opinion that ended up where she wanted it to.

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.

Civil Rights Expanded in Georgia

Leftists are going to have their heads explode in 3....2....1.

Smart Guns are Kind of Stupid

This technology was developed in 1911.

The other day, Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress that he wished to "explore" the idea of smart-guns.

I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe. 

By making them either through fingerprint identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon. 

It’s those kinds of things that I think we want to try to explore so that we can make sure that people have the ability to enjoy their Second Amendment rights, but at the same time decreasing the misuse of weapons that lead to the kinds of things that we see on a daily basis.

As an initial matter, smart guns are a stupid idea. You're starting with a firearm that is pretty basic and introducing another layer of complexity that carries additional points where the firearm can fail. The batteries could die, electronics aren't water-friendly, bio-metric scanners require a good scan, and probably wouldn't work at all with gloves. Radio signals can be jammed, and electronics just don't work 100% of the time like we want them to. If you can't trust your iTunes 100% of the time, do you really want to wait for your self-defense tool to sync up?

Aside from the fact that it's just a stupid idea, Holder's attitude really annoys me. His tone is dripping with the implication that the federal government will indulge us citizens our adorable little rights, on the condition that he can make our firearms safe enough for him.

Our basic liberties and rights aren't something that we "enjoy" like building model airplanes or cooking. The second amendment is serious stuff. It's the last stop check and balance against the state. Honestly, the nature of the firearms that a citizen owns isn't any of the government's darn business. Regulate some interstate commerce, and otherwise get out of the way.

If there are citizens out there who want to introduce another layer of modern technology into their firearms, and have some sort of Wi-Fi connection for their handguns, they're free to do so. There isn't a demand for a smart gun, so as always, this leftist idea is so good, they'll have to force people to comply.

As for me, I'll stick with the technology developed circa 1911.

The Well-Regulated Militia, Chuck Norris, and Global Warming

Happy Monday.

Glenn Reynolds (a/k/a Instapundit) has an interesting essay on the origins and decline of the militia.

Also, it's Chuck Norris' birthday today, so you better watch yourself. I kind of just figured that Chuck Norris was the militia.

To recap the weekend, USC Baseball swept Brown University to improve to 15-0 on the year. We'll see how the team handles their first SEC games this weekend when the Gamecocks play host to Ole Miss for three games. My guess is that the Gamecocks take two out of three.

In the category of things that will make you dumber for having listened to, Senate Democrats are going to hold an all night "talkathon" on Global Warming darn, I mean Climate Change.

I just don't get the Climate Change people. The earth has been warming up and cooling down in cycles for millions of years. It's just nature. Man probably cannot affect the natural warming and cooling cycles of the entire planet, and it's just folly to say that this temperature, right now, is somehow inherently the "perfect temperature" for the planet.

Anyway, that's enough for now. Everyone go to work.

My Gun Control Proposals

Since I don't want to just sit on the sidelines and criticize other people's suggestions for how to improve our country, here are the Permanent Press Gun Control/Gun Safety Proposals:

1. If you want to own either a handgun or a long-gun (shotgun or rifle) you are required to take a basic, one day class to understand how to be moderately proficient in using the gun and in gun safety. You only have to do this once. (For example, if you are buying your second gun, you don't need to take the class again.)
2. Universal background checks for anyone transferring a firearm. For private sellers, a free internet portal shall be available to run the check. It's 2013, everyone can use the internet. Also, if you can't use the internet, you probably shouldn't be using a gun.
3. Each school district can decide for themselves what the appropriate level of security they want. If a small rural school in Wyoming doesn't want anything, that's fine. If an inner city school wants cops with riot shotguns in hallways, that's fine, too. But each locality gets to decide, because each locality has to pay for whatever they choose to have.
4. That's it. Enjoy the rest of your day.

The President's Executive Orders on Guns

I didn't watch the President's speech today. (I was in Court at the time) However, I did find the full text here. I thought this paragraph from the President was interesting:

Now, let me be absolutely clear: Like most Americans, I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. I respect our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen. There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting or sport or protection or collection.

I'm merely "collecting" the semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines. Purely for historical and artistic purposes, of course.

In all seriousness, the list of Executive Orders was mostly enforcement of existing law and telling people to do their jobs. I don't really have any objections. However, that isn't to say that any of these Executive Orders will be effective at stopping gun violence.

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.

DC Ordered to Pay $1M in Legal Fees to Heller

Remember DC v. Heller? Well, on remand back to the Federal District Court, the District of Columbia (the losing party) was just ordered to pay a little more than a million dollars in Heller's legal fees and costs for the case.

The trial judge based it on a $420/hour rate, which I think is in probably line with what a lawyer competent to argue in front of the Supreme Court would command. Maybe state and local governments will be a little more cautious before they infringe on second amendment rights next time. In my opinion, the prospect of being hit with attorneys' fees is sometimes the only incentive that some litigants have to be reasonable.