Team Obama Backs Away From Antique Firearms Sale

Candidate Obama said in 2008:

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference. 

 What changed his mind?


Fox News had the story yesterday regarding the Obama administration's reversal of its earlier decision to allow the sale of 86,000 M1 Garand and 22,000 Carbines to American gun collectors.  As it turns out, the administration doesn't have so much confidence in "background checks" or other measures to guarantee that these collectible firearms do not end up in the hands of very bad people.  


The Volokh Conspiracy reported on this in mid-August, noting the historic aspect of the guns:

These self-loading were rifles introduced in 1926 and 1941. As rifles, they are especially well-suited to community defense in an emergency, as in the cases of community defense following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Along with AR-15 type rifles, the M1 rifles are the quintessential firearms of responsible citizenship, precisely the type of firearms which civic responsibility organizations such as the Appleseed Project teach people how to use. 

It's highly unlikely that these weapons would actually fall into the hands of drug dealers or terrorists any more than any other weapon can and unless the administration intends to ban all firearms then this decision doesn't make a lot of sense.

Collectors focused on historic military collectibles would have a treasure trove with these South Korean weapons which were used by American soldiers in the Korean War.  There are many collectors groups focused strictly on the M1 Garand alone.

Volokh looks at the legality of the sale:

But in fact, increasing gun density in the United States has been associated with steeply declining rates of gun accidents. In 1948 there were .36 guns per person. (That is, about one gun for every three Americans.) By 2004, there was nearly one gun for every American. In 1948, there were 1.6 fatal gun accidents per 100,000 persons. By 2004, the rate had fallen by 86%, so that there were .22 fatal accidents per 100,000 persons. (For underlying data, see Appendix B of my amicus brief in Heller.)


Legally, it is indisputable that the guns are importable. Being over 50 years old, the rifles are automatically “Curios and Relics” according to federal law. 27 CFR section 478.11. Accordingly, they are by statutory definition importable. 18 USC section 925 (e)(1). Notwithstanding the law, the Obama administration has the ability to pressure the South Korean government to block the sale of the guns.

 Fox reports that other administrations have dealt with this issue before:

The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead.

In contrast, 200,000 M1 rifles from South Korea were allowed to be sold in the U.S. under the Reagan administration in 1987.

But, since candidate Obama professed concern for the Second Amendment and expressed faith in  those legal protections such as background checks, he should, in fact, allow these collectible firearms into the American market.

SCOTUS Smacks Chicago Handgun Ban

I guess it's safe to assume that Elena Kagan isn't happy with the Supreme Court decision on gun rights today.  Another reminder for the future that elections have consequences.

Professor Glenn Reynolds offers his thoughts here.  I find this interesting:

Third, it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward?

The Wall Street Journal has an early write-up:

The legal question before the court had much to do with questions of constitutional history. Before the Civil War, courts held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. After the Union victory, the Reconstruction amendments were adopted to elevate individual rights over state powers and cement the federal role in enforcing them.

The Supreme Court has subsequently held that many constitutional rights considered fundamental to American principles of liberty override state laws. However, more technical provisions—such as the Fifth Amendment requirement that grand juries approve criminal indictments—apply only to the federal government and don't necessarily bind states.

Monday's ruling elevates the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the status of a fundamental right that states can't abridge.

Also, see Mary Katharine Ham's response at Weekly Standard where she points out that the gun ban in Chicago has not actually led to an abatement of violence there but has instead left the innocent unprotected.

You can read the Court's opinion here (PDF / 214 pages)

Henry Burns Proposes Concealed Weapons in Churches

The Louisiana Legislature is never a dull place and with Rep. Barbara Norton in the House, well, it's even more interesting.

One piece of legislation garnering national attention is H.B. 68 (PDF: 4 pgs) by Rep. Henry Burns (R-Bossier) which will allow guns in churches "if the pastor or head of the religious body approves."  The bill has passed the House with by a vote of 74-18 and has been passed to the Senate where it currently has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Churches would be required to notify parishioners through bulletins, newsletters, or verbally that there is armed security in their congregation, reports this NOLA article last week.

Rep. Barbara Norton is, not surprisingly, totally against the bill:

"If God is looking down on us today I don't think he is happy with us discussing how we can carry our guns to church," Rep. Barbara Norton, D-Shreveport, a major opponent of the bill, said. "The church is a place of peace. I don't think God said it was OK to carry a gun in the house of the Lord.

"Nowhere does it say (in Scripture) the Lord said you have to have a gun in church. If you need to have a gun in church, you need to go to another church."

MSNBC interviewed Rep. Norton who voiced concern those that have concealed permits may not have proper firearms in which Rep. Norton describes a frightful free for all scenario:

"...When I think about, uh, we have no metal detectors that that is required to be placed in churches.  We don't know who is it may be sitting right next to us and a gun may go off and someone else thinks someone is shooting and then you have a lot of people pulling their guns.  The other thing is we may live in areas where there are crimes but at the same time that's what we pay our policemens and our sheriffs and our marshalls to protect us. If we give everybody a gun and tell them to go and start doing protecting themselves and others then we're taking it out of the hands of the law."

Video of Tamron Hall's interview is here.

Newsbusters plays devil's advocate with the Norton interview questioning why interviewer Tamron Hall didn't ask Rep. Norton about the 2007 Colorado incident in which an armed parishioner ended a shooting spree by an armed killer.

Church shootings have become more and more frequent.  In February of this year two teenagers were shot at a Richmond, California church.   In 2009 in Illinois a pastor was killed as he spoke to his congregation.  He tried to use his Bible to shield him from the bullets.  Two parishioners who tried to restrain the shooter were slashed with a four inch knife.  In July, 2008 a shooter entered a Knoxville, TN church during a childrens performance of Annie and opened fire, killing two and injuring several others.  And let's not forget about George Tiller who was killed last year as he entered his Wichita church.

Representative Burns does not require that churches have armed security.  It does require that parishioners be informed if there is armed security present.  From my perspective, I'd have some sense of security if I knew there was an armed police officer, or some other trained expert, in the congregation who could provide protection should the need arise.

For Representative Norton to assume that you are safe just because you are in church is to assume you are safe because you are locked in your home, because you're at school, or because you're at the mall.

It's naive.

Update:  By the way, Rep. Norton says in that interview with MSNBC that in Louisiana you don't have to have training to get a concealed handgun permit; she's wrong.  See the application here.

And There Go the Gun Shows...

Well this will make the anti-gun crowd happy.

From NYC.gov:

The undercover investigation sent professional investigators to seven gun shows in Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee to determine whether sellers would engage in two types of illegal transactions. The first involves private sellers selling guns to people who they thought could not pass a federal background check. The second involves licensed dealers conducting illegal straw sales, which are sales made to accomplices posing as buyers in order to help the real buyer avoid a criminal background check.

“The gun show loophole is a deadly serious problem – and this undercover operation exposes just how pervasive and serious it is,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “We are sending a copy of our detailed report Gun Show Undercover to every member of the United States Congress. We’ll work with Congressional leaders to pass legislation closing the gun show loophole. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; it’s about keeping guns from criminals, plain and simple.”

Now the folks at Crooks and Liars are comparing this to the ACORN video sting, because, you know, importing underage girls to use for prostitution is okay and the whole undercover video thing was so unfair.

Most sensible people would agree that criminals shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns at gun shows and that any loophole should be closed. No argument here. In this day and age we ought to be able to do instant background checks which would solve the problem, no? There are a lot of legitimate collectors and dealers at gun shows and such events offer an opportunity for collectors and aficionados to meet.

Bloomberg writes:

Congress should pass legislation requiring that all sales at gun shows be subject to criminal background checks -- a measure that has the support of Sen. John McCain, President Obama and 83% of gun owners. It is also time for Congress to support the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) with the resources it needs to crack down on illegal sales at gun shows.

The vast majority of gun buyers at gun shows are law abiding citizens. Closing the gun show loophole and increasing resources to help ATF enforce the laws will not detract from anyone's Second Amendment rights. What it will do is send the message that criminals are not welcome at gun shows.

But what you will see now is the paranoid left calling for the shut down of all gun shows. Case in point. You want to enter crazyville, just get into a discussion on gun rights with someone. Especially someone on the internet.

No, Bloomberg isn't calling for an end to gun shows, but the moonbats will. Just close the loophole, folks.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/gun-show-undercover_b_312339.html

(H/T: Memeorandum)

Mitt Romney at the NRA Convention

Mitt Romney's speech at the NRA convention yesterday was great! I'm waiting for a YouTube video of it to show up. Here's the text, and here are some highlights:

"Listening to our liberal friends sometimes, I'm reminded a little bit of the monarchists. Not because they want a king instead of a president, but because they place their faith in government. As they see it, government knows best. Government needs to protect us from ourselves. The supreme voice in the land is not the people, but the government."

On the Stimulus:

"Because the Democrats fundamentally believe that government knows best, they decided to give more money to government. And so Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and others put together a wish list of new ways to spend taxpayer dollars by the hundreds of billions. Will the economy come back? Of course it will, but not as quickly and as strongly as it could have. Why? Because the heavy hand of government is never as effective as the dreams and vision and hard work of 300 million Americans."

On Obama's apology tour:

"I'm glad that he backed away from his campaign promise to pull the troops immediately out of Iraq. I'm glad he is going to get tough on the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. I'm glad he's continuing to hold military tribunals for terrorists...President Obama, however, is wrong to back away on missile defense. He was wrong to go on Arab TV and claim that America has dictated to other nations. America has sacrificed more than any other nation to free people from dictators."

On national security:

"The jihadists are still at war with America, and we shouldn't be worried about whether someone reads them their rights. They are still determined to do our country great harm. Our government has no greater duty than a vigilant defense, and no greater purpose than victory for America and for the cause of freedom."