Silliness Of The Day

This is threatening to be a regular feature.

For the record, the only constitutional requirement of the legislature is to pass a budget. If only they'd realize this fact. Instead, every year, they seem intent on proving 40 days is 39 too many.

Sen. John Bulloch (R-Down My Way) wants to allow hunters to use silencers.

A Georgia Senate proposal would end the ban on silencers for hunting firearms. Senate Bill 301 is sponsored by Sen. John Bulloch, who says allowing hunters to use silencers would keep them from disturbing their neighbors

Now in my 30 years of tromping through the south Georgia woods (and I'm sure it's a longer span for Sen. Bulloch), I've yet to encounter a neighbor who complains about the dulcet tones of a .270 Winchester Short Magnum ringing in the crisp autumn air.

I find it hard to believe that the good folks of Sen. Bulloch's home town, Ochlocknee, are a uniquely skittish bunch.

The Best Of The Drifts - The NRA Comes To Georgia

Originally Published April 18, 2007

Thugs

Let me say first, in the end they did the right thing.

Where to begin? There are so many angles.

The politics? Certainly, good politics dictates avoiding a controversial issue where many of your own allies stand against you - especially on the day following a national tragedy which can be linked to the matter.

The new media? It's hard to imagine this story being reported on the same day it occurred in the old media world. It is easy to imagine a past where it would have been buried on the third page of the metro section - a practice which would allow it to be quickly forgotten. Godspeed, Tom Baxter. It makes one wonder if the AJC actually realizes what it is losing.

No, instead the focus should be on the viscera. The awful feeling that roils the gut when one can't quite believe what is happening. Surely in our modern world, filled with civility and post-modern idealism we are beyond Preston Brooks walking into the Senate to thrash Charles Sumner. Certainly, we must believe a gang cannot simply enter our houses of government and bend the representatives of the people to their will. But, yesterday, that is exactly what happened in the Georgia Senate.

There were no beatings. There were no scuffles. There was no literal blood on the floor. In this new political world, the thugs do not strike in the dark alleys. They march down the tiled halls of power, boldly into the very heart of Democracy and drag their shockingly docile victims into side rooms for the figurative beat down.

Instead of wielding guns astride charging horses, the Gucci wearing lobbyist of the National Rifle Association flew from Washington in private jets armed with letters threatening political horror on any who opposed their latest pet bill. So confident were these vigilantes, they refused to remove their heels from the chest of the prostrate victims even when the Senators begged to let the matter quietly fade away in arcane procedure.

We may never know what happened behind closed doors last night in the Georgia Senate but in the end Casey Cagle and his Republican caucus marched back into their chamber and adjourned the session without a vote on Senate Bill 89. There were no visible bruises but the deeper hurts will linger. Although unsuccessful in the end, for a brief moment, a gang brought a house of the people to its knees.

Somewhere in the darkened halls, the thugs remain. Patiently biding their time until the predator instinct once again urges them to seek blood.

Guns, Guns Everywhere

Things are ramping up fast. Lt. Governor Cagle held his first press conference an the Galloway was there. Budget was on the tongues but so was guns.

The lieutenant governor was emphatic about one issue in particular. A bill to expand the public areas in which a permitted, concealed weapon can be carried will be going nowhere.

Did I just hear the sounds of jets firing up in DC? Will we sound hear the clickety-clack of lizard skins in the halls of the Capitol?

Heller

The word regulate appears exactly three times in the U.S. Constitution - twice in reference to commerce and once in regard to an armed citizenry.

Despite the First Amendment explicitly stating "Congress shall make no law", we accept restrictions on speech every day, however, mention restricting the ownership of guns and some suggest we cross a rubicon of government intrustion on the individual. It is a confusion which abounds, shockingly has never been addressed by our highest court and ultimate clarity rests on the strange construction of our most discussed federal law.

The Second Amendment may be the most tortuous clause in an aged document laced with dated verbage and 18th century mannerisms. Filled with commas and awkward phrases, it seems to simultaneously grant the government the ability to regulate arms for the purpose of defense yet absolutely states the right of the people shall not be infringed.

With the ever escalating heat of the gun debate, most on both sides ignore this critical nuance. With backs arched, the absolutists either claim all regulation is unconstitutional or claim regulation all the way to prohibition is perfectly reasonable.

Both are wrong and despite the political spin you will hear over the next few days, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority in Heller brilliantly explains why.

...the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons...The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity...Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation...Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

The majority ultimately decides that indeed government regulation is allowed in order to maintain security (the underlying purpose of the first portion) but cannot result in an absolute prohibition of individual ownership of firearms (the underlying principle of the second portion).

The District of Columbia with its absolute prohibition of handguns, as Justice Scalia referencing Miller states, weapons "in common use at the time", obviously uses the first clause of the amendment to attempt the utter destruction of the second clause.

Guns will continue to be regulated. However, regulation cannot overwhelm the ultimate right to bear arms. In the majority's view, even though it strongly avers the individual right, both must live in harmony.

It is in those harmonic moments where we discover the brilliance of the founders - radicals all but absolutists none. Whether "strict constructionist" or advocate of a "living document, all must understand the underlying principle of our greatest document is idealism tempered by reason.

Through this philosophical filter, Justice Scalia shows the Second is not so discordant after all. In fact, it sings.

Should We Trust The AHSA?

According to Erick Erickson, of course not! They support Democrats!

Who is the AHSA? It is the American Hunters and Shooters Association.

You can find an alternate viewpoint from Erick's "we're all going to soon be gulaged away by the Godless communists gun takers" worldview by reading what I wrote nearly two years ago on the AHSA . I leave you to your own judgment.

In the meantime, I have a question for Erick.

Should we gun owners instead trust an organization which promised failing grades to any legislator who refused to succumb to the strong arm tactics of mercenary lobbyists on a single local issue which even its local chapter deemed foolish?

I guess the grade only matters when the curve goes in favor of the class pets.

Shot Through The Heart

After two sessions, have we finally seen an end to HB 89? The infamous gun bill?

Chip Rogers of Woodstock was the original sponsor of the guns-in-parking-lots bill, and it’s customary for the originating lawmaker to be part of a conference committee...“I think you all know the significance of those appointments,” Johnson told reporters.

Translation of the political speak is the bill will slip into the ether of a never-agreeing conference committee. Isn't it interesting the boys up at the NRA hardly made a peep this year? Interesting indeed.

Welcome to the Crazy, Bubba

Welcome to the Georgia legislature.

A question gentle readers. How do you kill a bill nobody wants?

Your Political Insider explains.

In the blink of an eye, and with no fingerprints, the state Senate may have just deep-sixed H.B. 89, the tortured guns-in-parking-lots bill.

We wait with bated breath on news the thugs are gassing up the jets for a quick flight down here to once again place their pointy-toed lizard-skins on the chests of their wayward brethren.

They're Baaaaaaaack!

The NRA is coming back to town.

In case, you forgot their last visit. A reminder.

Guns For Everyone!

The NRA is ready to do battle in Georgia again.

I wonder if they will send their thugs down this year.

N.R.A. Endorses Whitehead

Jeff Emanuel of Peach Pundit reports the N.R.A. has endorsed Jim Whitehead for the 10th District.

you have earned an “A+” rating from the NRA-PVF. We urge our members and other gun owners and sportsmen to vote for you for Congress on June 19th.

Well, after the N.R.A.'s shenanigans this past April when they sent their personal thug down to the General Assembly to threaten legislators with an "F" grade if they didn't vote properly on the insane "bring your gun to work" bill, I think we all know just how honest and open those grades are.

Here's one gun owner and sportsman who thinks about as much of an N.R.A. endorsement as what I just left in my toilet.

Thugs

Let me say first, in the end they did the right thing.

Where to begin? There are so many angles.

The politics? Certainly, good politics would dictate avoiding a controversial issue where many of your own allies stand against you on the day following a national tragedy which can be linked to the matter.

The new media? It's hard to imagine this story being reported on the same day it occurred in the old media world. It is easy to imagine a past where it would have been buried on the third page of the metro section. A practice that would allow it to be quickly forgotten. Godspeed, Tom Baxter. It makes one wonder if the AJC actually realizes what it is losing.

No, instead the focus should be on the viscera. The awful feeling that roils the gut when one can't quite believe what is happening. Surely in our modern world, filled with civility and post-modern idealism we are beyond Preston Brooks walking into the Senate to thrash Charles Sumner. Certainly, we must believe a gang cannot simply enter our houses of government and bend the representatives of the people to their will. But, yesterday, that is exactly what happened in the Georgia Senate.

There were no beatings. There were no scuffles. There was no literal blood on the floor. In this new political world, the thugs do not strike in the dark alleys. They march down the tiled halls of power, boldly into the very heart of Democracy and drag their shockingly docile victims into side rooms for the figurative beat down.

Instead of wielding guns while charging on horses, the gucci wearing lobbyist of the National Rifle Association flew from Washington in private jets armed with letters threatening political horror on any who would oppose their latest pet bill. So confident are these vigilantes, they refuse to remove their heels from the chest of the prostrate victims even when they beg to let the matter quietly fade away in arcane procedure.

We may never know what happened behind closed doors last night in the Georgia Senate but in the end Casey Cagle and his Republican caucus did march back into their chamber and adjourn the session without a vote on Senate Bill 89. There were no visible bruises but the deeper hurts will linger. Although unsuccessful in the end, for a brief moment, a gang brought a house of the people to its knees.

Somewhere in the darkened halls, the thugs remain. Patiently biding their time until the predator instinct once again urges them to seek blood.

Senate Bill 89, also Genarlow Wilson Amendment

Senate Bill 89 is scheduled for floor debate in the Senate today. For those of you not in Georgia, this is the mutated form of the original Senate Bill 43. Bill 43 would have prevented employers from banning their employees from carrying guns onto company property. It is strongly supported by the national N.R.A. but opposed by the Georgia affililate of the N.R.A. and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. The national N.R.A. even went so far as to try to subvert the age old legal principle of vicarious liability.

Some say the new bill removes the vicarious liability sacrifice. The N.R.A claims it got everything it wants. After a full day of analysis by the wonks, I'm not sure anyone knows for sure. Perhaps today's debate can elucidate. But given the tragedy in Virginia yesterday, I doubt even such a serene body as the Senate can temper the emotions.

Via the live feed, I plan to live blog the debate. Prepare for the snark.


If they ever get to it.

UPDATE: Georgia Political Digest is reporting the vote may be delayed. Given the length of time spent on the appropriations bill and the sensitivity of the day, I'm predicitng GPD is going to be right.

UPDATE II: Session still not reconvened, but here's an interesting tidbit from the Political Insider.

We’re told that a handful of GOP senators are insisting on a vote — and that Cagle has promised the NRA that the revised bill will come to the floor. Another 10 to 11 senators adamantly oppose moving the bill today or any other day this session.

I can certainly imagine the angst this is causing the Republican leadership but to me the more interesting tidbit is the next paragraph.

The NRA has made the bill a scorecard issue, and promised an ‘F’ to any senator voting against it.

And there you have it. The N.R.A. scorecards are not based on a broad view of a legislator's history for or against gun ownership. It's based solely on whether said legislator is willing to drop trou and grab ankles over the latest piece of looniness dreamed up in a lobbyist think tank. Remember that the next time you consider being influenced by one of these "scorecards".

UPDATE III: Still no SB 89 but the Genarlow Wilson amendment is being presented.

UPDATE IV: I'm really disgusted by the whole thing. Sen. Jones tried to tailor his amendment as narrowly as possible in order to address the abomination that is the Genarlow Wilson case and now he is being pounded that it is too narrow. I hope you are proud Republicans. Smarmy doesn't even begin to describe this.

UPDATE V: Sen. Preston Smith. If you are so damned concerned about the constitutionality of the amendment based on the exclusion of those that pled guilty instead of asking for a jury trial than proffer a damned amendment. Based on the questions this thing is not going to pass. If I were a Republican in this state I would do some deep soul searching over the next year about the antics of your leadership on this matter.

UPDATE VI: Sen. Michael Meyer von Bremen (D-12) rescued Jones on the constitutionality question pointing out exclusions already exist in the current code as amended by this Senate last year. I have a new politician to admire.

UPDATE VII: Instead of Smith proffering an amendment to address the exclusion of pled sentences, David Adelman (D-Decatur) is offering the amendment. By God some Democrats are actually fighting! I'm wandering outside to see if pigs are flying.

UPDATE VIII: HERE'S JOHNSON! The gloves now really come off.

UPDATE IX: Johnson: "Wilson has an offer on the table to plead to a reduced sentence". BECAUSE HE WOULD STILL BE ON THE SEXUAL PREDATOR LIST. Johnson points out that he could conveniently wait the ten years to apply to be removed. Of course he doesn't mention how often that request is denied. Here we go with the second guessing again. Johnson: "We didn't listen to the evidence". But you got to Senator Johnson. For God knows what reason, the prosecutor in the Wilson case gave you the tape. And you and your cohorts have chosen to act as judge, jury and executioner while simultaneously asking others to not.

UPDATE X: Jones is trying to get Johnson to clarify some of his statements. Jones: "Doesn't the amendment simply require the case be reviewed by original judge". Johnson: "Judge could be dead". Can someone find out how much hay they grow in Savannah since Johnson seems so adept at constructing strawmen?

UPDATE XI: Smith is now up again stating the amendment would allow a reduction of the sentence of a conviction of a serious violent felony. THE AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES THOSE PARTICIPATING IN VIOLENCE. I am so mad now I could spit nails. Sen. Johnson and Sen. Smith you are not only liars but you are bullies. This is the chamber of reason and decorum? Today it is a sty. With hogs grinning as they roll in their own feces, self-satisfied that there is no world beyond their fence.

UPDATE XII: Two democrats, one who goofily used a Star Trek analogy, have stepped up to explain what this is really about. Redress for those convicted under "Romeo and Juliet" circumstances prior to this very legislative body changing that very law. The two Democrats certainly got sidetracked on some weird stuff but my God, at least they stated what the thing is really about.

UPDATE XIII: Smith is back in the well speaking of the continuing constititutional problems. Just prior to this he talked about how worked so hard with Jones on the amendment. As chair of the Judiciary committee if he worked so damned hard on the amendment, why is he just bringing up all these deadly problems now.

UPDATE XIV: Sen. Weber (R-40) is questioning Smith's position on the constitutionality. A Republican! Might he get some credit from Dekalb Democrats?

UPDATE XV: Amendment 1a fails 30-22. Amendment 1 fails 32-19. It should be noted Weber voted yea on both amendments. I'll look for a full rundown later. I want to say something here. I do not hate Republicans. I enjoy interacting with Republicans. I also attempt to abstain from painting with a broad brush. But right now I don't want to see or hear from any Republicans. I am just too damned disgusted.

UPDATE XVI: Now they are debating Peach care. I just don't have the energy left for this. They aren't going to get to SB89 and I need a drink.

The Speed Of Rhetoric In The New World

I'm watching coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings and immediately my mind wanders to the question of how long will be before both sides of the gun control issue start chirping. Turns out it didn't take long.

Glenn Reynolds wonders how it could have been different if a student or professor had been armed. Let the countdown begin until we see the N.R.A. using this incident to resurrect S.B. 43.

It should also be noted the other side is not silent. A reporter at the White House briefing asked if President Bush would consider a federal minimum age on the purchase of a handgun. Based on the evidence so far, a law which would have accomplished absolutely nothing in Blacksburg. Maybe there should a federal three strikes law on reporters asking idiot questions.

Is it too much to ask both sides exhibit restraint while bodies are still warm and victims are still bleeding?

N.R.A. Wants Florida Too!

Just in case you thought Georgia was the only place the N.R.A. is poking a finger squarely in the eye of property rights, it's happening a little further south too.

A second Senate committee this morning endorsed the National Rifle Association's push to make it illegal for businesses that try to prevent employees from keeping guns in their cars when they park at work.

More evidence the N.R.A. is completely around the bend. Jackasses.

Inside Bobby Franklin's Head

Can I get an e-ticket for a ride through the cranial convultions of Rep. Bobby Franklin brain? Earlier this month, he held a good ol' fashioned tent revival in the guise of a public hearing for his heinous House Bill 1. Now, with House Bill 6, he wants to insure the gummint can't take away our guns during a declared emergency.

...the bill which is aimed at preventing law enforcement from seizing your firearm during a declared state emergency. It would also prevent the state from imposing new regulations regarding the ownership or sale of firearms just because of a declared emergency. Basically, whatever rights you have when an emergency doesn't exist, can't be taken away just because there is an emergency.

I imagine somewhere in the dark recesses of Rep. Franklin's brain, in between synapse flashes of images of dead babies, resides a thought that some time in the near future during an apocolypse, we will be forced to raise arms against some totalitarian government.

I guess it's not really such a bad bill. No one wants some insane, out of control government suddenly declaring an emergency and scooping up all the guns. But logic necessitates my pointing out to Rep. Franklin that in such a situation with such a government, I doubt they will care very much about the niceties of law.

When Comic Books Go Bad

Remember how despite being a gun owner, I am no fan of the N.R.A.? Well, just when you think they can't get any crazier, they go and publish a graphic novel. It appears to be wonderfully drawn. The artwork of the crazy minority gang members, scary Hillary Clinton and buffoonish Michael Moore is striking. My personal favorite is the anonymous hairy-legged hippie animal rights activist. Okay, actually my favorite is the owl carrying dynamite. No, no, no, my favorite has to be the menacing lobster.

Add this to the list of reasons they've gone completely around the bend.

UPDATE: You can see the whole thing HERE!

Georgia Amendment II - Final Thought

I know a lot of people come here looking for thoughts on Georgia Amendment II. Well, it passed by a hefty margin.

My final reaction?

Meh.

I voted against it on a principle. I honestly don't think it does any harm in practice. It will sit there like a boil on the constitution's ass for infinity. But I see no need to lance it. The discomfort should be minimal.

So that's that. Let's move on.

Atlanta Police Chief Criticizes N.R.A

Once again the N.R.A. is going after certain federal gun regulations controlling the sale of firearms. Atlanta's own Richard Pennington doesn't like it one bit.

"What the gun lobby is doing in Washington is making it harder for me to do my job in Atlanta," Pennington said. "Instead of handcuffing law enforcement, we should put political handcuffs on the NRA's lobbyists."

As I have said in a couple of places, if the police say they need a certain regulation, I tend to agree. The question you have to ask yourself is are you going to trust the police or a political lobby? If it was any issue other than guns how would you answer that question?

Rethinking Georgia Amendment II AGAIN

It's interesting that this amendment that sort of simmered all summer long is suddenly getting people fired up.

I admit when I wrote Amendment II could cause a constitutional log jam if a local municipality passed an anti-hunting ordinance it was based on my memories of such things as non-hunting bird sanctuaries. I believed that there was certain leeways in the state regulations that allowed cities to pass certain type of bans on hunting. Fortunately, I have readers who will correct me. And in this case I was wrong.

The law was changed in 2001. Here is the relevant section.

No political subdivision of the state may regulate hunting, trapping, or fishing by local ordinance; provided, however, that a local government shall not be prohibited from exercising its management rights over real property owned or leased by it for purposes of prohibiting hunting, fishing, or trapping upon the property or for purposes of setting times when access to the property for purposes of hunting, fishing, or trapping in accordance with this title may be permitted. Nothing contained in this Code section shall prohibit municipalities or counties, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, from reasonably limiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms within the boundaries of the political subdivision for purposes of public safety. ~O.C.G.A. 27-1-3

So both Mike King and I were wrong. Hunting is the sole domain of the state. This amendment would do nothing to change that.

I'm still voting no. This is amendment is still badly written and wholly unnecessary. Few things cause more mischief than unneeded and vague additions to the highest law in our state.

Pro-amendment II people think I'm still nuts? Write and let me know why.

UPDATE: Former Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Joe Tanner supports Amendment II. Mr. Tanner is someone that I respect. I feel myself being pulled back up on the fence again.

Rethinking Georgia Amendment II

Georgia Amendment II:

Fishing and hunting. The tradition of fishing and hunting and the taking of fish and wildlife shall be preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good.

Originally, I was going to hold my nose and vote for this pig. After speaking to friends and fellow bloggers, no more.

The final blow was the AJC's Mike King's brief analysis of the proposed law. As he correctly points out there is a potentially nasty poison pill in the wording. The amendment might very well trump any local hunting ordinance. It's carte blanche for any nutjob to sue any well-intentioned city council for enacting reasonable hunting ordinances in populated areas. The fact that this type of case might be a winner is worrying enough. The reality that our appellate system could be tied up with about a bajillion of these nuisance complaints is truly frightening.

This is bad law. I strongly urge my fellow hunters to reject this type of crass politicization of something we love. It does us no good and ultimately could do us great harm.