Gun bills backfire

It looks like the legislature's Republican majority has created a fine little mess for itself by enacting all those gun laws.

All across Tennessee, bar and restaurant owners are slapping up signs to ban guns. Starting this summer, visitors to Beale Street will have to go through some kind of screening process to make sure they're unarmed. The Tennessee Hospitality Association says more than 80 percent of its members are banning guns.

"We still haven't been able to figure out the problem that existed that caused the need for this legislation," the association's Walt Baker says.

But Pith always thought the guns-in-parks law was the one that would really backfire on Republicans. It's one thing to endanger the lives of drunks and barflies. It's another when families don't feel safe anymore at their city park because a few assclowns insist on striding around with guns on their hips. Local governments are rushing to opt out of that law, and everyone's wondering what exactly lawmakers were thinking when they passed it.

In Murfreesboro, the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association is threatening to hold Spring Fling somewhere else unless the council bans guns in parks. The weeklong high school sports tournaments bring more than $3 million in tourist dollars into the city. Also in Murfreesboro, they're worried about whether guns in parks might violate Little League baseball's safety policy.

Says one former ump: "If [Murfreesboro Little League organization] Optimist has to cut its Little League affiliation because of this stupid law, every Murfreesboro council member and legislator in Tennessee should be required to line up and get whacked in the head by a 12-year-old with a Little League-approved bat. Those are the only weapons that should be allowed in a ball park."

By: Jeff Woods, The Nashville Scene

State lawmakers pass guns-in-bars bill

With no debate, state lawmakers gave final approval this morning to legislation allowing some people to carry their loaded weapons into bars, restaurants and other places where alcohol is served.

Existing law makes having a gun in these places a crime. SB1113 creates an exception for the more than 125,000 Arizonans who have a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

The legislation forbids those who do have a gun from drinking. It also permits owners to post signs declaring their businesses to be weapons-free zones.

Backers of the measure said it is designed to ensure that those who carry guns for protection do not have to leave their weapons in their vehicles if they want to have a meal in a restaurant that also serves alcohol. But the bill was altered to cover all places with liquor licenses, whether or not they serve food.

Gov. Brewer has not specifically said how she feels about the change. But she has been a strong proponent of the right to bear arms and even made comments in a speech to the annual convention of the National Rifle Association earlier this year about the long history of Arizonans and their guns -- including in bars.

"You know, a saloon girl or two were even known to keep a derringer in their garter belt, just in case,'' she told those at the May conference.

By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Brady Campaign acknowledges proposed gun laws violate due process; doesn't care

That the Brady Campaign endorses legislation like United States Representative Peter King's (R-NY) H.R. 2159, the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act," and Senator Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) S. 1317 (H.R. 2159's Senate counterpart) is hardly surprising. These bills are, after all, draconian infringements on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and as such, are what organizations like the Brady Campaign exist for.

For those unfamiliar with the above bills (I discussed H.R. 2159 here a while ago), they would empower the Attorney General to block gun sales to anyone the AG claims to suspect is a "terrorist"--without a conviction, without and indictment, without so much as an arrest or formal accusation.

What surprises me, though, is that Brady Campaign Vice President (and ostensible Constitutional law expert) Dennis Henigan acknowledges that people guilty of nothing will be swept up in such nets, and says that doesn't matter.

If the Lautenberg/King approach were to become law, there would no doubt be some mistakes made, in which gun sales are blocked due to incorrect information, mistaken identities, or other problems.

Indeed--we are talking, after all, about a list so bloated with names that even Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on it. Simply having a name similar to a genuine terror suspect is sufficient to land an utterly innocent person on the list.

Henigan's reaction? A shrug, and a "well, you can appeal it":

Recognizing that no public policy applied in the real world is perfect, the Lautenberg/King legislation provides for mechanisms to correct such mistakes while making it harder for terrorist suspects to arm themselves.

That conveniently ignores the fact it's rather difficult to challenge one's inclusion on the list when the AG can claim that releasing information--such as the reason for the inclusion in the first place--must be kept secret for national security reasons, and that any documents submitted by the government to bolster its case can be redacted to hide "sensitive" information. Then, there's the little issue of requiring people to prove their innocence--with the expense of legal fees, missed work, etc.--before they can exercise their rights, rather than forcing the government to prove their guilt before denying them. Oh, and a would-be purchaser has 60 days from the date of being informed that the reason for the purchase denial was his status as a "suspected terrorist," to petition the government, but the government has, as far as I can determine, no obligation to ever tell him why the purchase was denied. The gun dealer certainly won't be able to tell him--all the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) will tell him is "purchase denied."

Henigan also drops this little gem:

It would give the Attorney General discretion to prevent gun sales to any person known or suspected to have engaged in conduct in aid of terrorism. Presumably, the candidates for such treatment would be those on the existing terrorist watch list.

Yes--"presumably," those denied gun purchase rights would be on the (fatally flawed) list--but there is no requirement that they be on it. The AG could unilaterally decide that a given would-be gun purchaser is a "suspected terrorist," and block the sale. Given AG Holder's hostility to gun rights, and his desire to ban so-called "assault weapons," is it inconceivable that Holder buys into the ridiculous notion that the only people who buy such "weapons of war" are terrorists, or something close to it, and that the mere desire to buy one is grounds for suspicion? Not to me, it doesn't, and this legislation would give him the power to act on such insane beliefs.

This type of legislation would give the Attorney General--one man--power to deny rights that the entire nation cannot rightfully deny. And the Brady Campaign's "Constitutional law expert" has no problem with that.

By: Kurt Hoffman, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner