Carry your gun. It’s a lighter burden than regret.
Let’s go through last week, shall we?
We had another mass shooter. Somehow, this doofus got his hands on a weapon, even though he was rejected by NICS. This was a rare instance where the shooter acquired his weapon through a private seller. Who has subsequently been arrested for illegally selling weapons, and who will actually be prosecuted. Unlike most people charged with breaking federal firearms laws.
Wal-Mart came out and said they’re no longer going to sell handgun ammunition or “short-barreled” ammunition. Also, they don’t want people to open carry into their stores. Well, I guess that means Lucky Gunner and my local gun shops get my business.
Kroger then jumped into the corporate shaming of gun owners by asking folks not to open carry in their stores. Then Walgreens and CVS joined the show.
San Francisco decided that the NRA was a terrorist organization. They should know since the NRA has committed so many terrorist acts in San Fran. Like the SLA.
We live in interesting times. Excuse me while I go bug my elected officials.
I telework two days a week. I was talking with my coworker on our weekly call and mentioned I picked up a new fidget spinner for the home office. She asked me why I didn’t get one for the office. So, I sent her the link.
Denix 1869 Schofield Style… https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004BDTCDS?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share
She quickly agreed that it was probably not a good idea to bring one of those to work.
Nikki Fried, our relatively new Commissioner Of Agriculture declared she has both a concealed carry license and a medical marijuana card. Because she is a high profile individual, she can afford to flaunt federal law in a way others can’t. I’m a bit torn on this.
First, I don’t think what she is doing is wrong because I think the federal law is stupid. Both the overall prohibition on marijuana as well as not having changed the 4473s for states where marijuana is legal. It’s pretty clear which way the legalization winds are blowing, and it’s about damned time the federal government brought itself in line with the states.
On the other hand, we have stories coming out that since Fried has come into office, people looking to renew or obtain their CCWs have been running into all sorts of roadblocks. So, I’m kinda having trouble with the person most likely causing trouble for our state’s residents is flouting the same law being twisted to screw people out of licenses they should be issued.
Finally, I’m having a little issue with Fried having a CCW at all, considering she buddied up to the Demanding Mommies during the election. The same group that would love to rid our state of not only CCWs, but the very means of our protection.
Overall, the whole thing stinks of laws are for little people.
Here’s my initial take when the incident occurred.. My opinion then is reinforced with the guilty verdict. Also reinforced was the need for folks to have something between harsh words and lethal force.
Here’s Andrew Branca’s analysis, which you should read. Quick analysis was the prosecution played up the boyfriend and father defending his family from an abusive jerk, while the defense made a big deal about the victim being on drugs. That tells me the defense attorney was probably not strong on self defense law. Which just reinforces why I spend my money on ACLDN and make sure I read Branca’s Law of Self Defense.
One tidbit I heard from Rick Ector on Facebook was the jurors were confused about how to apply Florida’s self-defense statutes. As he stated, confused jurors are not what you want when facing jail time.
In the wake of El Paso and Dayton, we’re seeing the push again for so-called “Red Flag Laws”. For those of you who are unaware, these law purport to allow someone to make a complaint that someone else is a danger and should have his/her guns removed. If a judge agrees, then the police go remove the guns, and the owner must then prove (s)he is not a danger to get them returned. I have several problems with this.
If a person is so dangerous, that it is in the community’s best interest that his/her guns are taken away, why is this person still allowed access to other dangerous implements – such as gasoline, lighters, knives, bats, automobiles? All of which have been used to kill more people than rifles? If a person is that dangerous, why are we not Baker Acting them and getting them held for 72 hours to determine if they are a danger to themselves or others? I would imagine because these red flag laws have much lower evidentiary requirements than an involuntary commitment. Which leads to my second point.
Such laws are ripe for abuse, whether by people who are in a dispute, who hate guns, don’t like someone’s politics, or who want an unarmed victim. Many of the laws either passed or proposed have very broad categories of people who can make a complaint. The accused often have no chance to defend themselves before the cops show up at the door and seize their property – which has already led to one death in Maryland. The last time I looked at Florida’s statistics, almost all of the orders were overturned -which means people were deprived of their property and means of defense for no good reason.
This also assumes that a person will receive his/her property back once the cops have seized it. Another part that’s ripe for abuse is what happens once the cops take the guns. There are all sorts of bureaucratic hurdles they can throw up to prevent them from returning a person’s property once the government has it – particularly if the government officials are anti-gun.
Proponents of this law are drawing out the Parkland shooter as an example, while ignoring the numerous times the government had ample evidence to take actions that would have made him a prohibited person, and unable to legally purchase a firearm. They will also point to people who are making “disturbing” comments. The problem with these laws, like most laws rushed after a dramatic and horrifying event, is that they are rarely applied to the kinds of people the laws purport to target. More often, the laws are used as broadly as possible (can anyone say PATRIOT Act?)
You don’t get to pick the day you need your gun. Someone else gets to pick that day and they will only tell you at the last minute.
After the election, but before all the new state officials were sworn in, I was advising all of my friends, readers, and acquaintances in Florida, “If you want your CCW or need to renew your CCW, do it NOW!” Why? Because I knew our new Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs was bought and paid for by Bloomberg.
Less than a year in, and I get a mailer for the NRA-ILA, who is citing Florida Carry. (These two aren’t always the closest of allies.)
Mr. Eric Friday, a Jacksonville attorney and General Counsel for Florida Carry, reported today that “Despite the claims by the Commissioner there is ample evidence that the process for issuing Concealed Weapon Firearm License is not going as smoothly as she claims.”
“Florida Carry, Inc. has evidence that the Commissioner and her department are engaged in several processes to slow or delay Floridians’ ability to exercise their right to bear arms. These include using ‘secret’ evidence that the applicants and their lawyers are not allowed to see and refusing to grant formal evidence-based hearings as a matter of routine.”
“The department is also refusing to approve licenses based on decades old arrests that are not disqualifying and using other states’ (California and New Jersey among others) failure to respond to requests for records as a basis to indefinitely delay the issuance of licenses.”
“I am currently representing two clients regarding actions taken by the Department to deprive them of licenses without due process and based on information the Department knew or should have known was not reliable.”
Nikki’s doing her damndest to screw over Florida citizens on getting their CCW.
My browser is getting pretty full, and of course, a lot of those are links to articles from Reason. So, in the interest of closing browser tabs…
Irish democracy lives in New Zealand. Since the nation is pretty much an archipelago, I wonder how many “tragic boating accidents” gun owners have had down there.
From the Volokh Conspiracy comes an article about why we shouldn’t treat victims as policy experts. Both sides do it, and it’s just as wrong. Can victims become policy experts? Of course. However, using their stories to drive public policy is not a good idea. Laws named after victims are never good.
Clarence Thomas rarely speaks during SCOTUS sessions so he can bring his full force in written word. At least, that’s my head cannon. He’s disappointed me some over the last few years, but he’s still my favorite justice. Although Gorsich is quickly coming up fast.
Another good article on getting rid of qualified immunity. It’s a legal principle made up of whole cloth by judges to protect prosecutors and cops. Let the whole thing go over to the malpractice world, like most other professions.
Confessions Of a Former Climate Skeptic. A lot of folks I know think climate change is a hoax. Or if not a hoax, then it’s not as bad as the dire projections (some truth to that). I blame the activist scientists for that. The ones who immediately said that economies must be wrecked through invasive government schemes in the hopes that the Iron Law Of Bureaucracy can be subverted in this one instance. Unfortunately for both sides, climate change is real, but government cannot get us out of it. Human ingenuity and bringing people out of poverty are the keys.
Finally, we have a new law that stops the IRS from stealing money from people who have not broken the law. It’s like you need an actual crime to take people’s stuff.
If exercising my right to keep and bear arms, my right to freedom of speech, or my right to religious liberty makes you uncomfortable, just remember… The exercise of rights is only uncomfortable to two classes of people – tyrants and slaves. Take a moment to classify yourself.