Poll Dancing

Thank all the gods in the heavens your constitutional rights aren’t subject to public opinion polls because the Bill of Rights might be in tatters, and that would be especially so for the Second Amendment.

(Note to the establishment media: Your First Amendment protections would probably be in trouble as well if “freedom of the press” were put to a popular vote. If the government can take your guns, what will stop the government from taking your pen, keyboard and notepad?)

Just a few weeks ago, Fox News published the results of a survey which included a few questions about firearms and Second Amendment rights. The results were not simply disappointing, they were shocking in a couple of instances.

For example, 77% of respondents favor a 30-day waiting period on gun purchases! That’s not a typo, and you didn’t read it wrong. That’s three out of four people contacted for the poll, which reached out to 1,004 registered voters selected at random from all around the country. The polling was done in late April by Beacon Research and Shaw & Company, with a sampling error of +/- 3 percentage points.

Another alarming revelation was that 80% of survey respondents believe mental health checks should be required of all gun buyers. Want to buy a gun? Go see a shrink first.

One of the more predictable revelations was the breakdown between political party affiliates. Eighty-four percent of Democrats support banning so-called “assault weapons.” Surprisingly, 36% of identified Republicans also want modern semi-auto rifles banned.

Want to carry concealed? Don’t discuss it with Democrats because only 27% think you should be packing iron for your personal defense. The survey said 61% of Republicans support carrying guns for self-defense, which may seem like “not enough” to the gun rights purist.

Last and certainly not least, a whopping 81% of survey respondents think the minimum age for purchasing a firearm should be raised from 18 to 21. Sure, those young adults are still mature enough at 18 to vote, join the military, get married, start a business, sign contracts and even run for public office. They just can’t be trusted to buy a firearm.

Needs Civics Refresher

A few days after Democrat Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed legislation to ban semi-auto rifles — a move that promptly got him sued, as Insider reported last month — a columnist at the Tacoma News Tribune made it clear he liked the idea.

Matt Driscoll, who doubles as the Opinion editor, wrote, “The Second Amendment gives American citizens the right to keep and bear arms. How we define that is up to us.” Quick, what’s wrong with this sentence?

The Second Amendment doesn’t give anybody anything. It protects the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, which pre-dates the Constitution. The Second Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right, although politicians in New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon and a few other places seem to believe otherwise. Oh, and it has already been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the final word on such matters.

Driscoll’s column ran in several Evergreen State newspapers.

‘Literacy Test?’

When Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill requiring proof of firearms safety training before someone can purchase a firearm, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms called the mandate tantamount to a “literacy test.”

For those too young to remember, or maybe they weren’t teaching about it in school when you were there, “literacy tests” were used in the Deep South decades ago to prevent or discourage minorities from voting. The deplorable practice was finally struck down by the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

By the time you read this, there could be a legal challenge in the works. I traded emails with an attorney pal whose assessment of the new requirement was the same as CCRKBA’s. Keep an eye peeled for such testing mandates in your state.

Inslee recently announced he is not running for a fourth term. Within hours, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who had requested legislation banning so-called “assault weapons” in the state, announced an “exploratory” effort, which translates to he’s running to succeed Inslee.

CA Waiting Period Challenged

Just as we were wrapping up this week’s Insider Online, a federal lawsuit was filed in California alleging the state’s long-standing 10-day waiting period for firearm purchases violates the Second Amendment.

The 22-page lawsuit was filed by attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners, the North County Shooting Center, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, California Gun Rights Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, PWGG LLP, John Phillips, Alisha Curtin, Dakota Adelphia, Michael Schwartz, Darin Prince and Claire Richards. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay at Benbrook Law Group in Sacramento. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and is known as Richards v. Bonta.

Defendants are Attorney General Rob Bonta and Allison Mendoza, director of the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms, in their official capacities.

“There is nothing in the Second Amendment about waiting more than a week in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb in a news release. “California’s waiting period relegates the Second Amendment to the status of a government-regulated privilege, in direct conflict to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared in its 2008 Heller ruling that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.”

Mailbag

‘Adequate Horsepower’

Dave, just read the article “Adequate Horsepower” (April 21). I couldn’t agree more. I like to shoot, mostly pistol, but, alas, I don’t own a .41 magnum. I load most of my reloads with loads I estimate at 85-90% of max. In the .45 auto I load just enough to reliably cycle a 1911. In self-defense pistols I load closer to 90-95% as I want them to simulate factory premium as much as possible. I see no reason to willingly beat up me, or my pistols when punching paper, busting rocks, or clay targets.

When I started shooting as a younger man, like many I had “magnumitis” and carefully tried to stuff every tenth of a grain my firearms would allow into those shiny brass cases. When I matured a bit, the first thing I realized was that maximum accuracy most often came under the max load.

The .45 ACP proved that the lowest recoil you could reliably achieve allowed the best groups.

The secondary benefit comes with aging, arthritic hands that are a lot happier with milder loads.

I had to trade off most of my single action pistols (Colts and Colt clones) as the hands could not tolerate the trigger guard rapping the middle finger. 1911s solved that problem.
I like your articles and look forward to them.

Regards,
Paul

Dave replies: I’ve tried reduced loads in my Colt Commanders, and sometimes they failed to cycle, so I feed them the same reliable handloads I’ve used for many years in my Government models. They shoot straight, which is the only thing that counts. Thanks so much for reading Insider Online.

‘Anatomy of a Lawsuit’

I feel Dave knocked it out of the park with this article (“Anatomy of a Lawsuit,” April 28). After reading it, I felt compelled to share it with approximately 25 friends Bcc as I don’t share contact information even between friends and tried to help bolster membership in what I feel is a truly great organization…

This is an important read if you are a gun owner. I just can’t express how important it is to join the Second Amendment Foundation.

In the 80’s, I met Alan Gottlieb at a Gun Show in Everett, Washington. He had a card table selling memberships to the Second Amendment Foundation and was trying to get the organization on a role. He promised there would not be lots of ads or flyers mailed out. No free gifts for memberships, just a team of competent attorneys fighting for Gun Owners’ rights and an affordable membership cost…

I promised Mr. Gottlieb back in the 80’s at that gun show, “If I see you are doing what you promised, I’ll join up”. I try to fulfill promises made or I don’t make them.

I looked into joining and surprisingly it was way less expensive than the NRA (I’m a Life Benefactor Member) and bought a five-year membership as it was a near $50. I threw in another $50 as a donation. I’ve not gotten deluged with emails and letters like with the other guys. No fancy banquets. Just knowledge like in this article about the good work they do every day.

Instead of going out for dinner one night, consider joining up its easy and money well spent.

Jack Kellum

Dave replies: Thanks for the kind words, Jack. With the rash of gun control laws being passed in several states, we can expect more legal challenges. They won’t come easy, and they will not be cheap! Alan Gottlieb has a slogan: “Winning firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.” This pretty much describes the situation gun owners are in right now. Thanks for reading Insider Online and sharing it with your pals.

Subscribe To American Handgunner