damnum absque injuria

May 18, 2010

NRA Convention

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:13 am

This year’s convention was almost mandatory Charlotte is an hour away, but it would have been well worth the drive even if I lived nowhere near there. I had the pleasure of finally meeting Sister Toldjah, whom I’ve followed off and on for almost as long as either of us have been blogging. Just as sweet in person as you’d think from her blog; not a gunnie but I’m working on that. Also had the pleasure of meeting Breda, Jay G., PDB, Alan, Weer’d Beard, Unix Jedi, OrangeNeck and others whose names I’ve already forgotten. And of course it was good to catch up with Bitter B., Uncle, Sebastian, Joe Huffman, Caleb, Mike W. and Countertop again. Among the missing were Robb, Tam and Sailorcurt, along with too many others to count. As to the all stars, we were lucky enough to meet with both of the Daves, although our light blue law allowed the first Drinking With The Daves to proceed as Kopel Runneth Over, while reducing the second, a Sunday brunch while liquor was banned, to Hardly With Hardy. Both events were highly educational, however, as was Saturday night with Alan Gura. Missed opportunities consisted of John Lott, who was also there but our paths never crossed, and Paul Helmke dba Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The gunbloggers present at the Federalist Society debate, consisting of Countertop, Uncly-Wuncly, Joe H. and myself, actually chatted with the entire organization guy briefly after the debate, and I failed to ask him even once if he … um, I mean, his organization … has anti-gun ranges at their national conventions. Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn.

Of course, not everyone in Charlotte this weekend was pro-gun:

May 14, 2010

At the Debate

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:12 pm



Here are pics of Alan “Mr. Second Amendment” Gura and Paul Helmke dba Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, soon to face off at the Federalist Society. More later.

May 8, 2010

More Reasoned Discourse on Guns

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 1:31 pm

“Momlogic” says everyone should get rid of their guns since 500 kids get killed by accident every year. Dadlogic says that in a nation of over 300 million people, 500 is a statistical zero. What say you?

UPDATE: Kevin Baker has more. Seems the 500 figure, puny as it is in a country of our size, is exaggerated. Kevin also gives an example of a much more egregious exaggeration from Salon. RTWT.

April 29, 2010


Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:45 pm

Much to the chagrin of the “too pro gun” dunderheads who opposed it, Iowa Gov. Chet Culver has signed Senate File 2379 into law, making Iowa a right to carry state effective 1/1/11, and bringing the number of may-issue states in the Central Time Zone (and, perhaps not coincidentally, the number of may-issue states that aren’t really “fuhgeddaboudit” states) down to 1.

April 17, 2010

And Then There Were Three

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 10:22 am

As of today, approximately 1.3 million Americans may carry a concealed handgun without a permit. By Labor Day,* 6.6 million Americans (h/t: Kevin Baker) will enjoy that right as well. This leaves two distinct but symbiotic breeds of sad panda:

  1. Gun-grabbers like Paul Helmke dba Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Depending on whether you count Vermont as a win or a loss for either side (I don’t, as their law hasn’t changed in either direction for a long, long time) the score is either 3-0 or 2-0 against him … er … I mean, “them.”
  2. “Too pro-gun” knuckleheads like Iowa State Rep. Kent Sorenson, who refused to support Iowa’s long overdue shall-issue reform because “you shouldn’t have to beg permission from the gummit, blah blah and friggin’ blah.” The score is now 2-0 against these sad pandas, as well, as both states that ultimately enacted the very reforms these Pro-Gunner-Than-Thous claim to want, did so by ignoring their idiotic advice and going shall-issue first, improving their shall-issue laws later, and only seriously considering going permit-optional long after the basic concept of right to carry had ceased to be controversial.

Makes me a feel a tinge of guilt for missing last year’s NRA convention last year in Arizona. I shan’t miss this year’s though. Like Tina Fey’s version of Sarah Palin, I can see Charlotte from my house!

UPDATE: USA Today (h/t: Glenn Reynolds) claims it is “now” legal to carry without a permit in Arizona. Um, no, it’s not. Will be soon, but isn’t yet. Rely on USA Today at your own peril.

UPDATE x2: Sebastian has more.

*Probably a little sooner, as SB 1108 will take effect 90 days after adjournment, which is expected to occur on 5/26.

March 3, 2010

Best. Summary. Of. Oral. Arguments. Ever.

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:39 pm


Hat tip: PDB.

March 2, 2010

McDonald Arguments

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:02 pm

I think Adam Liptak has it right for the most part, as does David Hardy. i.e., that the five brave souls in Heller who ruled that people are “people” within the meaning of the Second Amendment will also rule that “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed by federal or state government.” I also think it’s clear from the orals that the gunnies dodged a .50 caliber bullet when the Supremes awarded Paul Clement half of Alan Gura’s time. I’m glad the “privileges or immunities” argument was made, and won’t be the least bit surprised if Justice Thomas endorses it in a concurring opinion, but mark my words: it won’t carry the day; the traditional “due process” incorporation will. And when it does, I promise to be just as gracious in welcoming Chicago back to the Union as the North should have been after the last secession experiment went just as wrong.

February 23, 2010

Park Carry

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 8:00 am

Julie Cart of the Los Angeles Times celebrated PSH Day with a story titled “Guns are now permitted — but not necessarily welcomed — in national parks.” In its usual vein of editorializing while pretending to report the news, the story tells us that “the controversial law” (which was so damned controversial it sailed through a solidly Democrat Congress by a veto-proof majority, and was signed into law by the only President in history with a public record in support of banning handguns) took effect yesterday and now:

Visitors now can pack heat in any national park from Gates of the Arctic to Everglades, provided they comply with the firearms laws of the park’s home state[.]

Meaning, of course, if you are one of the three people who can legally carry a firearm in California, now you can carry at Yosemite, too. Yippee!

But opponents say guns don’t belong in the nation’s highly protected parks, where it remains illegal to fire a weapon or kill an animal and where employees, including most rangers, are unarmed.

The presence of guns, they say, could increase the chance of deadly accidents and up the ante in confrontations between park visitors or between visitors and wildlife.

Not a single opponent is cited by name, leading one to wonder whether the unnamed opponents consist of Ms. Cart herself, and maybe a few co-workers at the L.A. Times. Or maybe herself and Paul Helmke d/b/a The Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence. He … um, I mean, they … can be relied on to say those things, and it only takes two to justify the use of the plural, so there we are.

The law, passed by Congress in May, reverses 94 years of National Park Service policy that generally allowed visitors to transport unloaded, disassembled weapons in the trunks of their cars.

Really! I knew it felt like 94 years since the Reagan Administration but had no idea it really had been that long. Where does the time go?

Weapons won’t be allowed in buildings where federal employees work, such as the Statue of Liberty and park visitors centers.

Bummer for Howard Stern and the two other guys who can carry a firearm in NYC. To everyone else, fuhgeddaboudit. If you can’t carry in Manhattan, you couldn’t carry at the Statue of Liberty even if the new rule did apply there.

Returning to manufactured-controversy-mode, Cart writes:

Critics, however, say there are as many potential complications as there are state and local gun laws.

Oh goody, now are we going to hear from an actual … um … critic?

David Barna, a National Park Service spokesman, said park websites are providing some guidance to visitors, but it is the responsibility of each gun owner to understand the laws of the state they are visiting.

Ouch, that was some scathing criticism there. Gun owners responsible for understanding the laws of the state they visit! Take that, gun lobby.

That could confuse visitors at the more than 30 national parks that span more than one state. The Appalachian Trail crosses 14 states. And though Yellowstone is mostly in Wyoming, parts of the world’s first national park also straddle the borders of Montana and Idaho, each of which has different weapons laws.

Wow, I’m so, like, confused. You mean to say that Montana, Idaho and Wyoming are three individual, like, states? They’re all right to carry states, and they all recognize each other’s permits and the most common out of state ones (e.g., Utah and Florida), the only question is which of them recognize permits from your state. So yes, you should check up on that before you travel, but the good news is that Wyoming, which is probably the first state you think about planning the trip, is also the one least likely to recognize your permit. If they do recognize it, chances are Idaho and Montana do, too (but look it up!).

Implementing the law will be particularly hard in California, which has more national park units than any other state and some of the nation’s most restrictive firearms laws.

Yeah, enforcing state law as written is so, like, hard! Jeebus.

Officials are scrambling to fully comprehend how the law will play out at national park units in California, from Redwood and Presidio, to Death Valley and Joshua Tree.

Scramble no more: just read your own state’s damned laws. That’s how the new federal law will play out in your state. Duh.

“Many of the details of the law are unknown at this time,” said Deputy California Atty. Gen. Alison Merrilees. “It won’t be crystal clear the day the law goes into effect.”

Or until someone in California bothered to actually read the law, whichever came first. Apparently the former.

February 20, 2010

Another Bill O’Reilly Extremist

Bill O’Reilly thinks it’s a “pretty extreme position” that the Bill of Rights remains in force when it snows in wintertime:

The next night he non-explained his position by noting that President Lincoln (and many others, but who’s counting) suspended habeas corpus. Never mind that habeas has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, or that the part of the Constitution that does protect habeas, which is Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the original Constitution, expressly provides that habeas may be suspended “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” while no comparable limiting language appears anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The mainstream view of the Constitution is whatever Bill O’Reilly tells you it is. Actually reading the damned thing is an extremist position.

February 13, 2010

Secondhand Booze

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 10:14 am

Time to play “spot the disconnect.” Sam Isaac Edwards (‘hat tip: Uncle) argues that since he himself is a dumbass who got liquored up and shot his fridge, no stone cold sober individual should ever be allowed to carry a weapon in any location where others might consume alcohol.

Coming next: a ban on driving cars while others on the road may be intoxicated.


Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.