Update From Bob Brewer Campaign on Handgun Issue

I asked the Bob Brewer for DA campaign what the candidate's position was with regards to Drake v Jerejian, which revolves around requirement by the state of New Jersey that permitted handgun owner show "justifiable need" to be issued a permit to carry in public.  I did so because one of my beefs with Bonnie Dumanis during her tenure as DA was signing an amicus brief asking the courts to deny an individual right to bear arms in Heller v District of Columbia.  Drake v Jerejian was being considered by the Supreme Court at the time I asked the question, but has the petition to hear the case was subsequently denied.  Regardless, here is Bob Brewer's campaign manager's (Alex Roth) response to my query:

After Heller and McDonald, we were not surprised to see the Supreme Court taking up Drake v. Jerejian.  We don’t believe that the District Attorney should be filing amicus briefs on the issue – like Bonnie Dumanis did in Heller when she filed an amicus brief supporting DC’s (thereafter overturned) ban on keeping firearms in the home for self-defense.  We can’t be certain of the ruling or scope of the Court’s review in Drake, and Peruta allowed individuals to have a CCW without “good cause.” Therefore, this is the current state of the law.  As District Attorney, Bob Brewer is committed to enforcing the law.

That is probably as good as I was going to get from an attorney running for public office.  I appreciate that he wouldn't file amicus briefs against 2nd amendment challenges.  Certainly the reference to Peruta v County of San Diego is good; still, I was hoping for a more robust defense of the 2nd amendment in the response; but certainly better than Dumanis.

Time to Buy Guns

. . . and lots of them.  The Washington Post is reporting that the administration wants to make it hard for you to get guns and will include requirements for a mental health check to purchase a gun.  In Joseph Heller's novel, Catch-22, a bombardier thinks to avoid further combat duty by claiming insanity due to combat stress.  But the fact that he fears the real dangers of combat proves his rationality, and he is therefor clearly not insane, according to "Catch-22."  Similarly, the mental health check provision of any proposed legislation will be the mirror image.

Gov't agent: Why do you want a gun?
Me: To defend myself and to maintain my rights.
Gov't agent: The government will do that for you, therefore you clearly aren't in good mental health,  you fail the mental health check and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun.

I have never owned a gun in my life.  I never really felt the need. But if Obama wants to take away my right to buy guns, then clearly I need one.  How's that for Catch-22?

Many rural state Democrats aren't going to be down with such a broad assault on gun rights.  Our coalition can definitely defeat Obama on this.  It will feel good, because when he wins, his gloating is distasteful.

Unspoken in the Debate About Gun Controls

The President has promised to put his "full weight" to pass gun control legislation which proposals will likely include the usual suspects of an "assault weapons" ban, whatever that is, background checks, and assorted other restrictions.  The debate over guns will involve the left waiving the bloody shirt of the Newtown shootings while proposing legislation that will do little to prevent future occurrences.  I say that because, from what I can gather, the perpetrator had no criminal record, did not own the guns he used and of course violated a number of other "gun controls" including bringing a gun onto school property.  Beyond confiscation of all firearms, how will new laws prevent a similar attack?

Here is what the left will be thinking, but will not say openly; there is no legitimate reason to own guns.  Dana Sherne published an article on Policymic that almost says as much. They won't say so openly, because they know it evokes massive reaction that impedes their goal of banning firearms.  But they believe that only the government should have such weapons, make no mistake.  Why this is so has to do with the left's self identification with victimhood.  Gun owners tend not to be victims and in fact because gun owners are viewed as strong and competent, they are loathed on the left. 

But those on the right won't speak the full truth either.  There are a number of very impolitic reasons to own guns that don't get uttered publicly, only self defense and hunting are discussed.  However, I am considering buying guns for reasons of insurance.  First, there is the "zombie apocalypse" scenario; more accurately, the total break down of law and order, that is always possible due to some catastrophe.  Who doesn't believe that you will need a gun under those circumstances?  Nobody wants to say that guns are insurance, because it makes you sound like a crazy survivalist.  But insurance is about being prepared, and frankly guns need to be part of your thinking in case the world goes to hell.

The other aspect of insurance is even more unspeakable in polite company.  Ours is a government made of flawed human beings.  It is highly unlikely, but still possible, that it could deteriorate into a dictatorship.  Guns would be necessary to protect oneself from such a tyranny or to even actively fight back.  No one cares to utter these fears in open debate, but they are valid considerations.

So we will get some kind of ineffective legislation that slightly erodes our rights and sets dangerous precedents for further erosions, as the President refuses to let the crisis of the Newtown shootings go to waste.  But the measures will be ineffectual and in a few years we will have another mass killing at a school.  But that's what we expect when the President puts his "full weight" behind a bill.  Kind of like the affordable care act, we will get a contradictory and ultimately ineffective outcome that attacks our basic freedoms.