The Roar of Freedom!

By Jeff Knox

(March 23, 2016) John Adams said that Independence Day should be “solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.”  At the Big Sandy Machine Gun Shoot, it’s Independence Day twice a year.  Nothing says “Freedom!” louder than a few hundred privately owned machine guns all firing at once, especially if they’re firing at exploding targets.  That’s exactly what happens every spring and fall in northwestern Arizona at the Big Sandy.  Participants bring guns of every type and size – machine guns, submachine guns, short-barreled rifles, conventional rifles, suppressors, cannons, artillery pieces, and even tanks on occasion – along with plenty of ammo – to shoot, show off, and celebrate the liberty this great nation was founded on.

Due to rampant media misinformation, members of the general public are often confused about civilian possession of machine guns, and even what a “machine gun” actually is.  A lot of folks think common, semi-automatic rifles and pistols are machine guns just because they look military.  Even many gun owners don’t understand that machine guns are perfectly legal to own in most states.  Ownership requires registration, background checks, and payment of hefty taxes under the National Firearms Act of 1934, or NFA.  Prior to passage of the NFA, you could buy a Thompson or other full-auto firearm at your local hardware store with no more restrictions than for buying a shovel. 

In 1986 the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act reformed the 1968 Gun Control Act.  As that bill passed into law, an amendment was tacked on freezing the NFA registry and effectively forbidding the sale of any new, full-auto guns to civilians.  The so-called “machine gun freeze” capped the total number of machine guns available to the civilian market to only those that were already registered with the federal government – about 175,000 in all.  The limited supply coupled with soaring demand drove prices for those guns through the roof, so now the cost of buying them is a bigger deterrent than the laws.

Continue reading The Roar of Freedom →

NRA Says “No” to Garland

By Jeff Knox

(March 17, 2016) In an unusual move, the National Rifle Association released a statement of strong opposition to President Obama’s pick of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, on the same day Obama announced the nomination.

           Historically NRA has refrained from jumping in on presidential appointments until late in the confirmation process – if at all – and they’ve caught quite a bit of flak for this in recent years, including strong criticism from us at The Firearms Coalition.  When Obama named Eric Holder as his choice for Attorney General, we, along with many others in the rights community, pressed the NRA to oppose his confirmation.  NRA remained silent through the confirmation process, then promised that they would not grade Senators on the Holder vote.  They did send out letters expressing concerns about Holder and asking senators to keep their concerns in mind when voting, but since they were not scoring the votes, there was no power behind that request, and 6 out of 8 “A-Rated” senators on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of confirmation. 

When Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the NRA refrained from commenting on the appointment until late in the process, issuing a last-minute pledge – after loud complaints about their inaction – to score the vote.  She was subsequently confirmed on an almost straight party line vote. 

Again, with the appointment of Elena Kagan, NRA waited to weigh in on the nomination until after Senate hearings, and although they did speak up a little earlier in the process than they had with Sotomayor, the threat of scoring the vote didn’t seem to have much commitment behind it.  Indeed, in subsequent elections, many “A-Rated” incumbents who had voted in favor of Sotomayor and Kagan, retained their “A” ratings from NRA.

Continue reading NRA Says “No” to Garland →

Firearm Truths Everyone Should Know

By Jeff Knox

(March 9, 2016) One of the problems in discussing guns and gun laws is the fact that many people don’t know what they’re talking about – especially among those advocating for stricter gun laws.  To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it’s not so much that gun control advocates don’t know anything; it’s that so much of what they know is wrong.

Let’s review some facts about terminology frequently used regarding guns and gun laws.

1.       There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.”  Truth be told, marketers and the gun press of the 1980s bear some responsibility for creating and popularizing the term, but then it was picked up by the anti-rights lobby, and they’ve ridden it for all it’s worth.  Today it is liberally applied to any gun that someone thinks looks scary or militaristic.  Like beauty, “good” art, or pornography, what constitutes “assault weapon” is in the eye of the beholder.  So-called “assault weapons” are not machine guns, and the laws restricting “assault weapons” do not apply to machine guns.  Nonetheless, folks like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and a multitude of media outlets routinely suggest that the guns they are talking about when they mention “assault weapons” are fully-automatic machine guns. 

Before the atrocity at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the state of Connecticut had some of the toughest restrictions on “assault weapons” in the country.  That law didn’t prevent the murders.  After the tragedy, the state implemented additional restrictions – none of which would have prevented or mitigated the horror in any way had they been in effect prior to the attack.  Similarly, California has strict regulations regarding “assault weapons,” but these laws did not prevent or mitigate the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

2.       There is no “gun show loophole,” no “Internet loophole,” and no “private transfer loophole.”  When the Brady Background Check law was negotiated and passed, this issue was raised, and private transfers were specifically and intentionally exempted from the law.  That’s a feature, not a loophole. 

Continue reading Firearm Truths →

Justice Thomas Breaks His Silence
Bad law still prevails

By Jeff Knox

(March 2, 2016) “One question…  This is a misdemeanor violation.  It suspends a constitutional right.  Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

With that “one question,” two weeks after the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and one week after the unofficial anniversary of a decade of silence during oral arguments in the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas broke his inquisitional fast.  The question, and several follow-up questions along the same theme, obviously flustered the Assistant U.S. Solicitor General to whom the questions were addressed, and stunned court-watchers who have grown accustomed to the high court’s lone African American voice – and its most conservative – not being heard from the bench.

Beyond the novelty of Justice Thomas breaking his silence for the first time in 10 years, the topic of his questions also raised some eyebrows.  The case at hand, Voisine v. U.S., challenges the applicability of a federal law which makes it a felony for anyone ever convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, to possess a firearm or ammunition.  The law, commonly known as the Lautenberg Amendment, specifies that it only applies to those DV misdemeanors which have, “as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon,” within a defined domestic relationship.  The petitioners contend that, because the state DV law under which they were convicted uses a broader definition for DV, which can include unintentional physical contact, that unless the charge specifies use of force or threats, as described in the Lautenberg law, the proscription of firearms cannot be legally applied.  Their petition goes on to challenge the constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment itself under the provisions of Article One’s ex post facto restrictions, and  the Second, Fifth, and Sixth amendments.

Continue reading Justice Thomas Breaks His Silence →

Courting Disaster
Could Barack Obama replace Justice Scalia?

By Jeff Knox

(February 17, 2016) On Saturday, February 13, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died at a West Texas hunting resort, one month shy of his 80^th birthday.  New York Times columnist Ross Douthat commented, “Politics aside, we should all die full of years, with 28 grandchildren, in our sleep after quail hunting.”  But politics was not really put aside for a moment.  Justice Scalia led the “conservative” wing of the precariously balanced court and his death immediately raises questions about succession.  As we have often reported in recent months, the Supreme Court is, or should be, one of the central issues of the 2016 Presidential Election.  The untimely death of Justice Scalia has brought that fact home in a very tangible way. 

The two sides of the court have been almost evenly split, with a slight edge to the “conservatives,” for over two decades.  On the “liberal side, are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg (83), Stephen Breyer (77), Elana Kagan (56), and Sonia Sotomayor (62).  On the “conservative” side are Chief Justice John Roberts (61), Samuel Alito (66), and Clarence Thomas (68).  Holding the critical “swing” position is Justice Anthony Kennedy (79), who usually leans to the “conservative” side, but often swings to the “liberal” wing, particularly on “social” issues.  With Scalia on the court, “conservatives” had an edge, not just in votes, but in intellect, philosophy, and powers of persuasion.  Scalia was smart, thorough, extremely knowledgeable, and he wielded significant influence over his fellow justices.  No new justice, no matter how qualified, is going to have the respect Scalia had earned.

With almost a year left in his term as President, Barack Obama has the right to nominate someone to fill the vacancy on the court – with the advice and consent of the Senate.  With a Republican-controlled Senate, that consent is not going to come easily, especially considering Barack Obama’s record when it comes to taking advice from Republicans.

Continue reading Courting Disaster →