(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.
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.
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 80th 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.
By Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox urges members to cast ballot for just 1 man in race for 25 seats
Vote Board of DirectorsFirearmsCoalition.org
Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)- Every year the NRA elects one third of its 76-member Board of Directors to a three-year term, plus one to a one-year term, and every year I share my thoughts on the candidates.
Only Life Members and Annual Members with at least five consecutive years of membership are eligible to vote. Those members will have received a mail-in ballot in their latest NRA magazine. If you did, VOTE, and be sure to read the directions carefully.
For those voting members of NRA who don’t want to bother reading the whole column, I’ll tell you up front that I am only endorsing one candidate this year: Sean Maloney.
I encourage voting members to “Bullet Vote,” marking only Sean Maloney’s name and no one else.
This year there are two issues above and beyond regular NRA internal politics: a recall effort against Grover Norquist and the controversy over Ted Nugent’s “sharing” of a rather blatantly anti-Semitic Facebook meme.
I think the Facebook controversy surrounding Nugent is pretty overblown. Ted is an old-school rocker, not particularly known for PC sensibilities. He should have looked at the picture a little more closely before forwarding it on with his comments, but he didn’t, and people who don’t like him made a huge deal about it. I’ve known Ted for a long time. My sister used to babysit his kids. While he certainly has his faults, anti-Semitism isn’t one of them. In spite of monumental efforts from the anti-rights media, the charges against Ted seem to have fizzled after he made a public apology to, and through, the Zelman Partisans, a group of hardline rights activists who split from Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership after its founder, Aaron Zelman, passed away and the group was absorbed by Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation. The controversy is not going to hurt Ted’s re-election bid.
As to the effort to recall Grover Norquist, I do not support it. I’ve known Grover for a number of years, and while I don’t always agree with him on other political issues, and I would prefer that politicians, celebrities and political insiders like Norquist be part of an advisory board rather than members of the policymaking body of the NRA, I think the charges proffered against him are bogus and that removing him from office would be harmful to the Association.
I fully expect the membership to reject the recall, and I encourage members to vote NO.
NRA elects board members to a three-year term, with 25 seats, one-third of the board, up for election each year – and incumbents have a significant advantage. The class that is up for election this year has more “celebrity” members than either of the other two groups, making it the most difficult to break into. Along with Ted Nugent, Oliver North and Susan Howard of “Dallas” fame, the class also includes basketball’s Carl Malone, football star Dave Butz and NASCAR great Richard Childress. Then there are the politicians, former Sen. Larry Craig, former Reps. Don Young and Bob Barr, former Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt and Indiana State Sen. Johnny Nugent. Finally, there are the NRA and industry celebrities, former NRA Presidents Marion Hammer and Sandy Froman, and current NRA First Vice President Pete Brownell. Of these 14, only one is at any risk of failing to make the cut. I’ll leave it to you to guess which one. That leaves only 12 seats, and some of those are filled by well-respected stalwarts who are solidly ensconced.
At best, four, maybe five seats could be in play this year. Allen West, a former congressman and popular columnist, will almost certainly take a seat. Bart Skelton, gun writer and son of gun writing legend Skeeter Skelton, and Craig Morgan, country singer and outdoor show host, both have some celebrity status, but I’m not sure how deep that runs among voting members, or how much effort they have been putting into winning a seat. Either could possibly make the cut. There are also competitive shooters, likely to draw heavy support from those ranks, and local activists who are campaigning hard, but I doubt that will be enough. All appear to be solid candidates. Some are personal friends, but I don’t think it is likely that any of them can garner enough votes to unseat any of the incumbents.
Vote Sean Maloney for NRA Board
The one incumbent I strongly support, and who I see as most vulnerable, is Sean Maloney. I endorsed Maloney and his fellow Colorado Recall architect Timothy Knight last year. Knight made the cut, but Maloney did not. Thankfully, he was able to win election to the one-year, “76th Director” seat that is voted on each year at the NRA’s Annual Meeting of members. During his year on the board, he obviously impressed folks because he has gotten the nod from the Nominating Committee this year, as well as being nominated by petition. That’s pretty unusual but doesn’t surprise me. Maloney is an impressive guy and a workhorse for the cause. He’s an Ohio attorney, where he is very active in local battles, but he virtually moved to Colorado to assist with the recall effort. And that’s not the first, or last, time he’s simply shown up on the front lines with his work gloves on asking how he can help. He’s a firebrand and he’s smart. We need people like Maloney on the NRA Board.
I am going to vote only for Maloney, because if I cast a vote for any one of the other 19 candidates actually competing for the last few seats, that person – who I like but don’t support as strongly as I support Maloney – could bump Maloney out of the running, meaning I would be negating my own vote.
Therefore, I am asking NRA voting members to join me in casting a single “Bullet Vote” for Sean Maloney.
(February 4, 2016) I’ve received a number questions about who I like for the 2016 Presidential Elections. Frankly, I’m not anxious to pick a horse. All other issues aside, from a GunVoter perspective, the only Democrat candidate that I would have even considered considering was Jim Webb, and he dropped out of the race months ago – though he has kept the door open for the possibility of an independent run, and possibly as a hedge in case one of Hillary Clinton’s many scandals ever actually catches up with her.
In the expansive Republican field, I have been unimpressed. Donald Trump has been talking an over-the-top conservative game, shoveling out a lot of what the late New York Senator Daniel Moynihan used to call “boob bait for the bubbas.” The fact is, until recently, Trump was a Democrat, and in years past often expressed support for various gun control schemes. In spite of his recent positions on guns, his record moves him way down my list of acceptable candidates. Most of the rest of the field has already been winnowed down, with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio being the only other likely contenders at this point.
I have predicted that Trump’s huge popularity will not translate into actual votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, a prediction that has panned out in Iowa. I think the mainstream Republican base is just as mistrustful of him as I am, and the serious conservatives have always favored Cruz. I expect Cruz’s star to rise through the three contests remaining this month, but as Trump fades, the contest will shift from Trump vs. Cruz to Cruz vs. Rubio. By March 1, when 14 states will assign delegates on “Super Tuesday,” I think we will see Rubio surge. I’m not saying this is what I want to see happen; it’s a prediction, not a statement of preference. As I noted, I’m not picking a horse.
(January 14, 2016) A couple of weeks ago, a group angry over a controversial court decision, and led by Ammon Bundy, moved into buildings on a remote Oregon wildlife refuge. Bundy is known for his role in a tense standoff between federal agents and militia groups at his father’s Nevada ranch a couple of years ago. Like the Bundy Ranch incident, the occupation of the headquarters buildings of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge challenges federal authority over lands in the western U.S., and like the clash in Nevada, Bundy and his compatriots are armed and say that if attacked, they will defend themselves. It is this “heavily armed, anti-government militia” angle that has really caught the media’s attention.
Right after the group laid claim to the Wildlife Refuge headquarters, speculation ran rampant that the feds were going to come in hot and quash the dissidents, but so far the feds have shown no inclination to test the occupiers’ resolve. As a matter of fact they haven’t shown at all. After two weeks, there has been no sign of federal officers anywhere near the compound. The local sheriff has made efforts to talk Bundy and his friends into leaving, but Bundy politely declined the Sheriff’s offer of safe passage out of the state for the group.
Perhaps federal authorities actually learned something from deadly debacles like Ruby Ridge and the Waco tragedy. They have no urgent need to evict the group. The Refuge sees little activity in the winter months. There are no allegations of child abuse, illegal weapon stashes, or fears that a mass suicide might be in the works. There’s not even any indication that the group is mistreating the buildings or property. As a matter of fact, aside from a highly publicized fence cutting, it looks like they are taking good care of the place, and possibly even making some minor improvements.
Hands Up. Just Shoot! Witness says feds killed Finicum with hands in the air.
By Jeff Knox
[Update: Subsequent to the publication of this article, the FBI released aerial observation video of the stop in which LaVoy Finicum was killed. Without audio, and from a distance, it is impossible to tell exactly what happened, but what is clear is that Finicum drove away after being stopped, then crashed into a snowbank next to a roadblock a mile or so up the road. Finicum can be seen exiting the vehicle with his hands held high, but as he is confronted by an officer, he appears to reach suddenly into his jacket, upon which he is shot by an officer coming out of the trees. Some are suggesting that Finicum’s “furtive moves” were actually a response to being shot, while others insist that he was clearly reaching for a gun. Finicum was known to carry a pistol in a shoulder rig on that side, and to me, it looks like he is attempting to get at that gun, but I would like to see ground video with audio. All reports are that Finicum was very agitated from the initial stop, and there was apparently concern about passengers in his truck, particularly the 18-year old girl, Victoria Sharp, being placed in danger by any confrontation. It is quite possible that Finicum had determined not to be taken alive, and had exited the truck with his hands up as a way of getting away from the “non-combatants” before engaging the officers. We’ll never know for sure.
Under the law, the actions of the officers involved will be judged by the immediate circumstances, not the larger issues leading to those circumstances. This was an unneccessary death, and I don’t think any of this has helped the cause of liberty or helped to bring justice to the Hammond family. Perhaps it will help to bring attention to the growing stress between citizens, states, and federal land managers. — JAK]
(January 21, 2016) The annual Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show is under way in Las Vegas this week, and the massive trade show is experiencing record crowds. The show is not open to the public, but is limited to people in the industry. Even with these restrictions, the SHOT Show attracts more than 1,600 exhibitors and some 64,000 attendees during its 4-day, mid-week run. Most of those attendees are gun dealers, manufacturers, or importers looking to ink deals to buy or sell guns, ammunition, knives, accessories, clothing, or other hunting, shooting, or survival gear, and to see what their competitors are offering.
As my brother Chris and I have walked the aisles of the show for the past two days, examining exhibitors’ wares and talking with them about guns and politics, we’ve found consistent concern about the upcoming Presidential Election. With Hillary Clinton the presumptive candidate for the Democrats, in spite of her many scandals and the ongoing FBI investigation of her illegal handling of classified documents, and Republicans still whittling down their perspective candidates, and suggestions that leadership has cut a deal with Donald Trump, gun guys are justifiably worried about the future.
While Clinton and her avowed Socialist opponent, Bernie Sanders, argue about which of them is more dedicated to the cause of gun control, the Republican candidates are arguing the exact opposite. Front-runner Trump has put out position papers declaring his unyielding support of gun owner rights and opposition to gun control schemes, but, as opponents like Ted Cruz have been quick to point out, only a few years ago, Trump was advocating in favor of various gun control proposals, such as a renewed “assault weapon” ban. Trump supporters counter with challenges to Cruz’s claim of being an “avid” hunter, because he has only had a Texas hunting license off and on for a few of the past several years. And Marco Rubio has been criticized for a vote he cast while in the Florida State Senate, supporting private property rights over an NRA-backed bill to forbid the banning of firearms in locked vehicles in company parking lots.
(January 5, 2016) President Obama released details of his “New Executive Action to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities [sic]” last night, and the here’s the summary: It’s not new. There’s little action. And it will do nothing to reduce gun violence or make our communities safe.
The key feature most people have been talking about was the idea of providing a more specific definition of what constitutes “engaging in the business” of selling firearms. Many of us would welcome a clear definition for that term, because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has been playing fast and loose with the current, open-ended definition for almost 50 years. But in spite of all of the hints and speculation to the contrary, Obama left that bit of poorly-worded regulation in place. Instead, he merely reiterated that anyone “engaging in the business,” whether at a brick and mortar gun shop, a gun show, or through ads on the internet, is still “engaging in the business” and must be licensed.
Just as the requirement for car dealers to be licensed doesn’t prevent you from selling your car, the requirement to be licensed if you are “engaging in the business” of buying and selling firearms does not preclude someone from selling a gun, or guns that they no longer want. In fact, there are many people who routinely buy, sell, and trade guns as a hobby, like collecting coins or model train cars. The problem is that under the current definition, one guy might swap or sell dozens of guns in a year and not be considered to be “engaging in the business,” while another guy might only engage in a couple of transfers and face felony charges.
(December 31, 2015) Over the Christmas weekend my wife and I spent some time on the road traveling to visit family and friends. As usual, I was driving about 5 miles per hour over the posted speed limit of 65, and I assume the cars coming from the other direction were doing about the same, which reminded me of an analogy I have often used when talking about trust, responsible behavior, and the different perceptions people have about given situations.
Two cars driving opposite directions on a two-lane road at 70 miles per hour are effectively approaching each other at 140 miles per hour. At speeds like that, bumpers, crush zones, airbags, and seat belts are not likely to be of much use. The only thing between you and that 17-year old in the ’95 Chevy Silverado coming at you at 140 miles per hour is a 3-inch wide stripe of yellow paint, yet most of us face this situation almost every day without much thought. So as Janet and I wound our way from Wickenberg toward Yarnell and Peeples Valley, I wondered how many of the occupants of the cars swooshing past us would have been uncomfortable standing in line behind me in the supermarket when they noticed the .45 on my hip. Most real Arizonans would hardly take notice, but we have a lot of refugees from places like California and New York who are easily shocked by such a sight. Nothing in my appearance or demeanor presents a threat to them, but they don’t trust me and are concerned simply because I have a gun. They have an irrational fear of guns – hoplophobia.
I Trust You – with a Car or a Gun