Ryan losing again

Ryan faces GOP defections on gun proposal

Already dealing with threats of another Democratic floor protest, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is now facing defections from the right on a GOP gun bill that conservatives complain is unconstitutional.

The handful of Republican naysayers has raised doubts about whether Ryan can muster enough votes from his own party to pass the gun provision. Backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the GOP legislation was favored by Republican leaders as a more acceptable alternative to Democratic gun-control bills.

But Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), an opponent of the GOP provision, said: “I think it’s dead.”

Here’s why:

But conservative lawmakers, including several who belong to the far-right House Freedom Caucus, argued that the legislation could violate an individual’s Second Amendment rights, based on what the government anticipates that person might do in the future.

“If the bill becomes law, it will mark a massive expansion of the government’s ability to restrict gun rights on the basis of precrime—a crime not yet committed,” Freedom Caucus member Justin Amash (R-Mich.) posted in a lengthy diatribe on his Facebook page. This bill “is the actualization of dystopian fiction.”

NBA’s Steve Kerr believes the Bill of Rights is ‘Outdated’

Steve Kerr, head coach of the NBA's Golden State Warriors, thinks that the Bill of Rights is 'outdated.' He also thinks that lots of people own automatic weapons. Steve Kerr is very confused.
Steve Kerr, head coach of the NBA’s Golden State Warriors, thinks that the Bill of Rights is ‘outdated.’ He also thinks that lots of people own automatic weapons. Steve Kerr is very confused.

Steve Kerr, head coach of the NBA’s Golden State Warriors, thinks that the Bill of Rights is ‘outdated.’ He also thinks that lots of people own automatic weapons. Steve Kerr is very confused.[/caption]NBA coach Steve Kerr rails against ‘totally outdated Bill of Rights’

Coach Steve Kerr of the NBA’s Golden State Warriors has some opinions on guns and the Bill of Rights:

It’s easier to get a gun than it is a driver’s license. And it’s insane. And as somebody who has had a family member shot and killed, it just devastates me every time I read about this stuff, like what happened in Orlando, and then it’s even more devastating to see the government just cowing to the NRA and going to this totally outdated Bill of Rights, right to bear arms, you know, if you want to own a musket, fine–but come on.

Mr. Kerr also says that people are carrying “these automatic weapons.” So he’s obviously got a lot of things factually wrong.

But the most telling part of his diatribe is his claim that the Bill of Rights is “outdated.” The idea that basic human rights can become “outdated” says an awful lot about Mr. Kerr.

He obviously is not a fan of the 2nd Amendment. I wonder what the reaction would be if an NBA head coach claimed that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were outdated. (Just kidding. Murdoc doesn’t wonder.)

Ohio Court of Appeals Holds ‘that the right to bear arms ensured by the Second Amendment does, in fact, extend to motor vehicles’

Eugene Volokh in the WaPo:

The view that the Second Amendment protects some sort of right to carry guns outside the home remains the minority view among post-Heller appellate courts, but it’s a substantial minority, and this decision adds to that minority.

Here is a bit from the decision noting that while both Heller and McDonald dealt specifically with guns in the home, their decisions clearly didn’t apply only to the home:

Though Heller and McDonald say that “‘the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute’ in the home,” that language does not mean that the need for defense of self, family and property never arises out of the home. Moore, 702 F.3d at 935. In fact, by using the modifier “most” in front of “acute,” the court acknowledged the need for self-defense in places other than the home. As the Second Amendment primarily ensures the right of an individual to bear arms “in case of confrontation,” surely the contours of that right would extend to situations where an individual would need to act in self-defense outside the individual’s home. Heller, 554 U.S. at 592.

Moreover, because the court identified reasonable restrictions such as “carrying [] firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” the court clearly acknowledged that the scope of the Second Amendment reaches beyond the home. Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–627. Otherwise, such “restrictions” need not be identified or examined….

They also discuss the “keep” vs. “bear” aspect of the 2A. This is something that Murdoc brings up in conversation from time to time. If the 2A really meant citizens should be allowed to own guns in case they need them for service in a government militia, “keeping” them would be enough. Likewise for those who argue that guns should not be allowed outside the home and/or that they must be locked up, often separate from ammunition, sometimes disabled by trigger locks or dis-assembly. That might be “keeping,” but it sure isn’t “bearing.”

Stun Guns in the Wolverine State

Somehow I missed this:

Michigan Court of Appeals Strikes Down Stun Gun Ban, Says Second Amendment Applies to Open Carry in Public

I think this is correct. But Murdoc is more interested in HOW they reached that decision, especially:

The Second Amendment applies not just to firearms but to other weapons as well. “[The state] argues that Heller is strictly a gun control case, but the broad nature of the language used in Heller’s definition of arms clearly covers more than just firearms.”

I just had this discussion a few days ago. The Second Amendment is a legal guarantee that citizens can keep and bear ARMS. Arms are a lot more than guns.

Via Say Uncle.

Willfully Ignorant

Antis, Once Again, Conveniently Using Their Own Facts

The Second Amendment was written at a time when the United States was little more than jungle with bandits, savage Indians and wild animals that we needed to protect ourselves from. Yes, and to hunt food. We have long outgrown that kind of life.

That is all true.

But none of it has anything to do with WHY the Second Amendment was written.

The 2A is a ‘Complication’

Sebasitan writes about a Car Analogy Epic Fail in the New York Times by Nicholas D. Kristof. Now, one of the Murdoc’s favorite pastimes is discussing gun control with those who say gun ownership should be like car ownership and make all sorts of driver’s license analogies. Good times.

But this is Murdoc’s favorite bit of the Kristof op-ed:

Granted, the Second Amendment complicates gun regulation (I accept that the framers intended for state militias, and possibly individuals, to have the right to bear flintlocks). [emphasis Murdoc’s]

First, I love it how the self-evident God-given rights of all humans which are merely legally guaranteed in the US Constitution are simply “complications” when they don’t fit the view of the critic. Those pesky human rights; if not for all of that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness jazz, we could really get things done.

Secondly, I have a true, heartfelt appreciation for the opinion a journalist who argues that Revolutionary-era documents defining what the government can and can’t do only meant as applicable to Revolutionary-era technology and society. Especially when he argues it on the internet.

“Arms” in the Second Amendment means “flintlocks only” as much as “freedom…of the press” in the First Amendment means “set and printed on hand-operated presses and distributed via horse-drawn transport and manual labor.”

As I noted on Sebastian’s blog, I doubt that Kristof is really that dumb or really believes any of that. He just thinks his readers are and that he can get away with it.

He goes on to argue

But even among those favoring a broader interpretation, the Second Amendment hasn’t prevented bans on machine guns

Which is sort of meaningless because “those favoring a broader interpretation” aren’t the ones who created the ban on machine guns. That’s like arguing that “even among those in favor of same-sex marriage, it is still illegal in most states” supports the idea that gay marriage bans are legally fine.

And, for the record, Murdoc thinks the Founding Fathers meant machine guns, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and shoulder things that go up.

Daley Backs Down, But Only A Bit

Mayor Daley backs off plan to limit residents to one gun

The headline makes it sound like good news, but check out some more details in the Sun-Times:

It prohibits possession of those handguns outside the home. The home is specifically defined as the inside portion “traditionally used for living purposes” — not the garage, yard, porch, deck or walkway.

No more than one firearm in the home could be “assembled and operable.” The rest must be secured by a trigger lock or locked box or “broken down in a non-functioning state.”

Additionally, a $100 firearms permit good for three years would be required for each gun owner and an application fee of $15 plus an annual “reporting fee” of $10 for each gun. Mandatory classroom training and range time (cost unspecified) would be required to get the firearms permit.

Here’s an interesting bit: people over 18 but under 21 would require parental permission to obtain a gun. They want to tell 20-year-olds to go get a note from their mommy.

No gun shops allowed. Period. Buy your guns elsewhere. (Though I’ve got to think that ten thousand prospective gun shop owners are licking their chops about the possibility of setting up a store just outside the city.)

Finally, the city would maintain a list of “permissible” guns that residents could own. No word on what would be on the list.

Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, who a couple of days ago said that previously proposed restrictions, including one handgun per person, were reasonable and would stand up in court says, well, that these new proposed restrictions are reasonable and would stand up in court.

She also makes the driver’s license comparison. I keep seeing that one. I really don’t think those people making that argument have thought things through.

Chicago Moves Quickly To Draft New Gun Ordinance

Via Say Uncle and Newsalert:

Chicago Moves Quickly To Draft New Gun Ordinance

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley will push for a strict handgun ordinance to replace its doomed gun ban that will likely include limiting each resident to a single handgun, requiring gun owners to have insurance and prohibiting gun stores from setting up shop in the city, his top lawyer said Tuesday.

This is all part of the way things are done. Rulings are handed down, the losing side tries to make new rules that comply to the letter of the new but the spirit of the old. If it’s not good enough, the new rules get challenged and, if warranted, overturned. And establish precedent along the way.

Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges weighed in:

She said that limiting Chicago residents to one handgun would pass constitutional muster. Nowhere has the court determined that “a person is entitled to more than one handgun,” she said. “And one handgun is sufficient for self defense.”

She said banning gun shops in the city is another reasonable restriction. She said studies have shown a disproportionate number of shootings near gun shops and because there are dozens of gun shops in the Chicago area — 40 in Cook County alone — a ban would not inconvenience gun buyers.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Georges’ logic, let’s just look at her previous statements about the 2nd Amendment, gun laws, and how they’ll hold up in court:

City Corporation Counsel Mara Georges has told two City Council committees she’s confident Chicago’s law will stand.

Georges tells Aldermen the Supreme Court’s decision on Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban shouldn’t apply to Chicago, because previous Supreme Court rulings have said Second Amendment “right to bear arms” doesn’t apply to local governments, like Cities. She says D.C. is a federal jurisdiction.

Hmmm. She didn’t quite get that one right.

Anyway, it’s probably easier for everyone if she convinces Daley to just keep trying to restrict things unreasonably. That way the challengers don’t have to travel all over the country to get stuff struck down.