I’m all for common sense gun laws. The current laws restricting the exercise of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms are nonsensical.

Here is just a small sample of the stupidity of some of them:

• Short barreled rifles are restricted. You are allowed to own a handgun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches but if you cut the barrel and/or stock of a rifle down approaching the size of a handgun you go to jail.
• Noise suppressors are required on cars but restricted on firearms. Then the neighbors of ranges complain about the noise.
• Most states don’t have laws against openly carrying a firearm. But if you carry it concealed they have a problem. Even though some ignorant and/or malicious people threaten to, or do, call the police if someone openly carries a gun.
• Some guns are illegal to be imported into the U.S. But the same exact gun is perfectly legal if “enough” of its parts are made in the U.S. “Enough” is subject to the whims of regulators at the ATF.
• You are required to have a FFL to be “in the business” of selling firearms. It is okay if you occasionally sell or trade guns from your own collection. But if you sell or trade “too many” guns the ATF will charge you with “being in the business” without a license. They refuse to tell us how many is “too many”.

All of these are weak links that I think are should be challenged in court before some of the more difficult issues like “high capacity” magazines, “right to carry”, “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale”, “micro-stamping”, etc.

This doesn’t mean that I think anything other than “shall not be infringed” should be the final objective. It’s just that I’m a big proponent of picking the low hanging fruit first.

To that effect today we have the CCRKBA announcing they are attempting to pick some of that low hanging fruit:

CCRKBA FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING FEDERAL LAW ON HANDGUN PURCHASES

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed a lawsuit today in federal court in Texas against Attorney General Eric Holder and B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, challenging the current federal law prohibiting cross-state handgun purchases.

CCRKBA brings this lawsuit on behalf of its members throughout the country, who would legally buy and sell handguns outside of their home states, just as they currently do with long guns. Joining CCRKBA as plaintiffs in the case are Texas resident Fredric Russell Mance, Jr., and Tracey Ambeau Hanson and Andrew Hanson, both of Washington, D.C. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth division. Financial assistance for the lawsuit is provided by the Second Amendment Foundation.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, noting that his organization rarely pursues a legal action of such magnitude, said today’s lawsuit is necessary to advance the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens. He said current law essentially criminalizes the interstate handgun market, which does not apply to the sale of rifles or shotguns.

“It is overreaching, if not downright silly, in today’s environment with the federal instant background check system to perpetuate a prohibition on interstate handgun purchases that has outlived its usefulness,” Gottlieb observed. “If a law-abiding citizen can clear a background check and legally purchase a handgun in his own state, he would pass the same background check just across the border in another state.”

This is very important to District of Columbia residents, who can now legally purchase rifles and shotguns from federally-licensed gun dealers in neighboring states, but they still may not purchase handguns. Plaintiff Mance is a federally licensed firearms dealer who would sell handguns directly to consumers in other states, but under current law, he is prohibited from doing so. The Hansons are fully qualified under federal law, and laws in Texas and the District of Columbia, to purchase and possess handguns.

“Federal law allows for interstate long gun sales,” Gottlieb noted, “as long as the dealer follows the law, so what’s the logic of the federal government banning interstate handgun sales? Some states allow for, or even welcome, interstate handgun sales, so what’s the federal government doing?”

Well, thoughts on legal issues, anyway.

First, the Hobby Lobby decision came in from the SCOTUS. They won, the left-o-sphere melted down because the corporation could choose to not be involved in your sex life. To be more specific, they cannot be compelled to pay for contraception for the company employees. Somehow, the left equates “not required to pay for something they find repugnant” with “denying them basic medical care.” But their logic is that, because you have a right to healthcare, the company can’t deny them any specific birth control methods. Yeah, I know, it’s warped, but that’s sort of the left-wing thinking. Well, couldn’t we apply that to gun rights? I mean, if we have a right to own a firearm, must not a corporation recognize your right to carry them, so all those “gun free zones” are a clear violation, right? It’s amazing how selective some people are. This is just the abbreviated form of the argument, but I’m sure y’all are smart enough to figure out the details.

Secondly, It seems that some SWAT teams in Massachusetts are claiming to be exempt from normal FOIA and open records law requirements, because they have incorporated as 501(c)(3) corporations. Clever. But it seems that *IF* that were the case, they would *ALSO* not be immune from lawsuits via sovereign immunity. They should have the advantages of one or the other, but not both. If this thing doesn’t get shot (ahem) down right promptly, then I think we will see a HUGE wave of incorporation in government “industries.” If it’s upheld, then we can safely assume that another leg of the stool the constitution is standing on just got sawed off to a very short stump. Be fun to see them get sued for doing something stupid, make their argument in court, and be told that they gave away immunity for thirty pieces of paperwork (to mix my metaphors), so suck it up and face the jury.

From Chicago:

Chicago aldermen on Wednesday unanimously passed what Mayor Rahm Emanuel said is a “tough, smart and enforceable” ordinance that allows gun shops within city limits but regulates where they can exist and mandates that all sales have a video record.

…

firearms dealers will need to pay a $3,800 licensing fee and abide by a 72-hour waiting period for guns and a 12-hour waiting period for rifles and shotguns. A should [sic, perhaps they mean “store”] will also only be able to sell one gun per month per buyer.

Furthermore, retailers would face zoning restrictions would not be permitted to exist within 500 feet of any school or park.

I look forward to them being slapped down even harder by the courts. I suppose the courts have to get prosecutors to file charges and give them a trial for violation of 18 USC 242 and can’t just convict and sentence them on the spot. Although I’m pretty sure they can rule the new law is in violation of the previous court orders and demand they comply or be fined.

It’s time for them to give the Bill of Rights some respect so I’m in favor of all of them getting a felony conviction and spending a few years in prison. Perhaps they would have time to learn about the constitution while there. They could think of it as an educational experience.

From SPD Blotter:

When officers contacted the man—who had apparently torn out patches of his own hair—he refused to provide officers with his identity, giving them a fake name. Then he took off running.

Officers chased the man, who stopped mid-flight, picked up a large rock and turned back toward officers. Police told the man to drop the rock, which he did, before he again fled down the street, stripping off his remaining clothing as he ran.

Officers eventually found the now-completely naked suspect lying on his back in a planting strip in the 2000 block of Minor Ave E—about a half-mile from the scene of the original incident—and took him into custody.

The man told officers he had taken cocaine, methamphetamines, LSD and other unidentified drugs earlier in the evening.

After officers arrested the man, he began scratching all over his body, asked officers for his clothes, and then complained he was too hot.

…

Police weren’t immediately able to identify the man, who was unable to provide police with his real name or home address.

If the guy had tried to throw the rock at someone there is a fair chance it would have been sufficient grounds to shoot him. Don’t get your brain so scrambled with drugs that someone else is justified in scrambling it with lead. The high you get from the drugs isn’t worth the downer from the lead.

You haven’t seen a lot of outrage over the Abramski case in the gun blogosphere. It’s been mostly just a statement of the facts (see here, here, here, and here). There are some dissents (here and here) but while I agree Abramski didn’t do anything wrong in regards to the intent of congress he clearly did violate an ATF regulation. We were hoping to get the adults to put the ATF bully in their place for writing regulations unsupported by law. That didn’t happen.

That regulation should not exist because it doesn’t reflect the intent of the law in all cases. The law was intended to prevent guns from being sold to people forbidden by law from owning a gun. The question 11.a on form 4473 asks (bold in original):

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

The instructions do not include an exception for the situation Abramski found himself in. Hence it is clear that Abramski violated the letter of the regulation when he said that he was the actual buyer.

If I only focus on the narrow issues affecting of this case I see two things to complain about. 1) The prosecutor should never have pursued this case. Abramski didn’t deliver the gun into the hands of someone forbidden to own it. Didn’t he have a cases where there were victims to spend his time on? That the government was lied to over something this minor just doesn’t seem to be worth prosecuting over. 2) Herschel Smith explains the second issue in much better words than I can:

Regulations take on the force of law after comments responding to entries in the Federal Register are summarily ignored by the agency doing the regulating.  It makes little sense to respond with comments when the regulator’s mind is made up.  These regulations frequently far surpass the law in breadth, scope, depth and magnitude.

…

this kind of regulation seems onerous compared to what Congress wrote, but it is latitude given (and taken) by the federal regulators.  If there is a problem with legislating from the bench, there is even a worse problem with regulating by the executive branch from inside the beltway.  The problem will continue (and grow) as long as the public abides the abuse.

I haven’t read the briefs leading up to this decision but I don’t think the supporters of this case should have taken it to the Supreme Court. The only way they could have had a good chance of winning is if they had a lot of case law that supported attacking the lower court ruling on the basis of the overreaching regulation contrary to the law.

In order to get the case law to support slapping down zealous regulators we need to attack them on something less contentious like regulations forbidding the aging of cheese on wood shelves. But in those cases the regulators are going to cave like a school yard bully confronted by an adult without giving us the case law we need to confront the bullies in the ATF.

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy there is a post about the history of magazines with greater than ten rounds capacity. Very short version: The 9th Circuit court has a case challenging the greater than ten round magazine ban, called Fyock v. Sunnyvale. David Kopel co-authored an amicus brief that gives the history of such things. Many interesting factoids for gun hardware geeks to appreciate, and many things for gun-rights people in general. Many things I knew, many more I didn’t. Worth a read.

It’s another good case to watch.

Seattle police are suing the DOJ, The City of Seattle, Seattle Mayor, Seattle Chief of Police, and others about restrictions on their use of force and the right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment:

When a police officer is confronted with threatening behavior, he or she has the fundamental, individual right of self-defense under the Second Amendment, consistent with every other citizen, to protect himself or herself, and others, from apparent and immediate harm. As the Court has long recognized, the rules that define and determine self-defense are of universal application and are not affected by the character of a person’s employment.

This could be far more interesting than one might first guess. If the courts accept this argument then not only is the right to carry in public by private citizens bolstered but the rights of people to carry while at work is given support as well.

H/T to Dave Workman. See also the Seattle PI article.