FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FAA WITHDRAWS COLLECTIVE RIGHTS INTEPRETATION OF SECOND AMENDMENT

A WarOnGuns Exclusive

In reference to previous posts and observations presented by The War on Guns:



The new text is as follows:

[Federal Register: February 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 33)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7740-7741]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20fe07-3]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration.

14 CFR Parts 401, 415, 431, 435, 440, and 460

[Docket No. FAA-2005-23449]
RIN 2120-AI57


Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: When the FAA issued a final rule on human space flight, it described one rule as consistent with the Second Amendment of the Constitution because, among other things, the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment is a collective right. The FAA now withdraws that characterization and amends its description.

DATES: This correction is effective February 20, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact Kenneth Wong, Deputy Manager, Licensing and Safety Division, Commercial Space Transportation, AST-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8465; facsimile (202) 267-3686, e-mail ken.wong@faa.gov. For legal information, contact Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3150; facsimile
(202) 267-7971, e-mail laura.montgomery@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As required by the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, the FAA established Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants, 71 FR 75616 (Dec. 15, 2006). The FAA's new requirements for commercial human space flight include a rule on security mandating that operators ``implement security requirements to prevent any space flight participant from jeopardizing the safety of the flight crew or the public'' and prohibiting a space flight participant from carrying on board ``any explosives, firearms, knives or other weapons.'' 14 CFR 460.53. In explaining this rule in response to a comment, the FAA characterized the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Constitution as ``a collective right.'' 71 FR at 75626. The FAA now withdraws that characterization of the right to bear arms. The prohibition on the carriage of firearms by participants in commercial space flights remains unchanged.
The Executive Branch, through the Department of Justice, interprets the Second Amendment as securing a right of individuals to keep and bear arms. (See Memorandum for the Attorney General from Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, et al., Re: Whether The Second Amendment Secures An Individual Right (Aug. 24, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olcsecondoamendment2.pdf ). In light of this interpretation, the FAA is withdrawing the statement made in the final rule.
Regardless of the nature of the right, however, it remains true, as we noted, that the right is, like any other, not unfettered. The Justice Department itself made this abundantly clear in its analysis and through its historical review. (See generally id. at 1-5, 6 n.19, 8 n.29, 18 n.68, 61-68, 73, 81-82, 87-98, 102-04.) Similarly, the Fifth Circuit, which treats the right to bear arms as an

[[Page 7741]]

individual right, has stated, ``Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically
understood in this country.'' U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.
2001).
The FAA continues to believe that the possession of weapons by space flight participants on board a suborbital rocket poses an unacceptably high risk to the integrity of the vehicle and the safety of the public, and that the rule is consistent with the Second Amendment. In proposing the rule, we pointed out that ``[s]ecurity restrictions currently apply to passengers for airlines. Some of the restrictions prohibit a person carrying explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons from boarding an airplane. Similar types of security restrictions for launch or reentry vehicles would contribute to the safety of the public by preventing a space flight participant from potentially interfering with the flight crew's ability to protect the public.'' 70 FR 77262-01, 77271. In response to the comment regarding
the Second Amendment, we added that ``in 1958, Congress made it a criminal offense to knowingly carry a firearm onto an airplane engaged in air transportation. 49 U.S.C. 46505.'' 71 FR at 75626. The FAA thus has authority to issue this rule.

Correction

In final rule FR Doc. No FAA-2005-23449, published on December 15,2006 (71 FR 75616), make the following correction: On page 75626, in the third column, fourth full paragraph, lines 16 through 20, correct, ``Additionally, nearly all courts have also held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal
right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective right to bear arms, the FAA has'' to read ``By analogy, and for the reasons given when the FAA issued its human space flight requirements, the FAA has, consistent with the right to bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.''
* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 14, 2007.
Rebecca MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. E7-2851 Filed 2-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

Now the debate can focus on the "fettering" (read "infringing") aspect of the rule. You may ask "so what?" as if this changes nothing, but in fact, withdrawing the collective rights interpetation is significant, and here's the reality I want WoG readers to walk away understanding: If you know you're right, keep pushing--even if those with vastly more reach ignore you and others actively oppose you or put you down for it--all of which happened in this case. We can't let that deter us from doing what's right. We, and by that, know that it includes YOU, can effect change when the truths we present are undeniable.

Open Letter to President Bush on FAA Assertion that Second Amendment is a "Collective Right"

Dear Mr. President,

From Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)
[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 75615-75645]
II.C.6: Security Requirements:

Additionally, nearly all courts have also held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective right to bear arms, the FAA has the authority to prohibit firearms on launch and reentry vehicles for safety and security purposes.

From Laura Montgomery
Senior Attorney
Office of the Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration:

This rule, including its security requirements, underwent coordination and review within the executive branch. It was reviewed and approved by the Executive Office of the President.

From "President George W. Bush Speaks On The Record":

NRA: Also early on in your Administration, Attorney General John Ashcroft stated his view "that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms." This was a clear reversal, was it not, of the Clinton Administration's position?

President Bush: It was a clear reversal. It was a position that needed to be reversed--—the prior Administration had taken the position that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias and doesn'’t protect an individual right to bear arms. My opponent issued a press release earlier this year supporting that exact same position. I know that'’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution gives people a personal right to bear arms. So we did reverse the Clinton Administration'’s position, and I think that was the right thing to do.

Mr. President, is it still "the right thing to do"? Clearly, the language that the Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for the FAA says was "reviewed and approved by the Executive Office of the President" directly contradicts your earlier stated position.

Some have suggested this is merely a bureaucratic oversight--a staffer issuing routine approval without a meticulous detail check and without your cognizance. Others fear it may signal a change in your administration's official position on the Second Amendment.

If it's the former, will you take immediate steps to revise the Final Rule and delete all references to "collective rights," as well as establish controls to prevent such oversights from happening in future rulemaking?

If it's the latter, will you issue a public explanation of your new position and the reasons behind it?

Your immediate attention and personal response to this matter will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

David Codrea
Citizen

CC: Laura Montgomery

------------

Related Reading:

Further Thoughts on the Bush 2A Reversal
Bush Administration Reverses Ashcroft Interpretation of 2A
Bush Administration Declares 2A a "Collective Right"
FAA to Disarm Universe
Other Links

Bush Administration Declares Second Amendment a "Collective Right"

As in the NPRM, under Sec. 460.53, a space flight participant may not carry on board any explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons.

XCOR inquired whether the FAA had the authority to impose security requirements under its statute and the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' This right is not unfettered. Nearly every statute restricting the right to bear arms has been upheld. For example, in 1958, Congress made it a criminal offense to knowingly carry a firearm onto an airplane engaged in air transportation. 49 U.S.C. 46505. Additionally, nearly all courts have also held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective right to bear arms, the FAA has the authority to prohibit firearms on launch and reentry vehicles for safety and security purposes. [Emphasis added-DC]

The FAA has released its rules for tourists in space. And per the AP, if you wish to travel, you have to "promise not to sue the government." They issue a license, you sign a "waiver of claims" (Sec.440.17). So a Citizen would presumably have no standing if they wanted to challenge a ruling by unelected bureaucrats on Constitutional grounds. Pretty nice to be able to mandate yourself not responsible, that is, irresponsible, for that which you are, in fact, responsible.

The FAA reports to the DOT, and Secretary Peters reports directly to the President. It is inconceivable that she would allow policy directives to be issued against his will.

It looks like they didn't consider my comments when they crafted the final set of rules, but that's OK. Could I have some more Republican Kool-Aid, please?

----------------

I just sent the following to Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration:


Of course I will post any reply...

FAA to Disarm Universe

More than 120 pages of proposed rules, released Thursday, governing the future of space tourism touch on medical standards for passengers, preflight training and other topics.

What kind of "other topics" are addressed in Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants?

For one thing, Section II.A.9, "Human Factors" (p.29) states:

The FAA proposes to require an operator to make provisions for restraint or stowage of all individuals and objects in the cabin, so moving objects do not interfere with the flight crew's operation of the vehicle during flight.

II.B.5., "Security Requirements" (p.38) is where things really start to get interesting:

The FAA proposes to require an operator to implement security requirements to prevent any space flight participant from jeopardizing the safety of the flight crew or the public. Security restrictions currently apply to passengers for airlines. Some of the restrictions prohibit a person carrying explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons from boarding an airplane. Similar types of security restrictions for launch or reentry vehicles would contribute to the safety of the public by preventing a space flight participant from potentially interfering with the flight crew's operation of the vehicle. Any such interference might jeopardize the flight crew's ability to protect the public. The FAA notes that one means of satisfying part of this requirement would be for an operator to consult the "no-fly" list of the Transportation Security Administration.

So just to get things straight: Seeing as how government does everything so well, including the astounding competence demonstrated by the TSA, the feds (naturally, and unsurprisingly) intend to extend their clutches into private space travel. The pioneer developers clearly aren't competent to decide for themselves who and what they wish to let aboard their craft, and under what mutually acceptable contractual terms and conditions.

The bureaucrats aren't very imaginative, are they? You don't need to be a speculative/science fiction enthusiast to imagine the opportunities for an "outlaw" existence once colonization of the Moon and Mars begins in earnest, or asteroid mining, or beyond...

The desire for freedom will not be lessened, nor will the righteous defiance of tyrannical restraints. What kind of people do these form-stamping parasites think the new pioneers will be?

UPDATE: I posted this article to their Public Comment form. Please consider sending them comments of your own.

[Jed has more.]

The Final Frontier

How could the FAA issue rules in conflict with the DOJ and President? Who had approved this?

According to the Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for the FAA, “This rule … was reviewed and approved by the Executive Office of the President.”

"The Final Frontier," my September 2007 Rights Watch column for GUNS Magazine chronicling my adventures with the FAA, is now online.

Happy Flying!

Until recently, the FAA told potential recruits the CTI program was a preferred method to become an air traffic controller. But in 2013 the FAA abruptly changed its hiring practices in an attempt to become more racially diverse. [More]

Brought to you by the same people who subject baggage-handling green-carders to the same "standards" as agricultural workers!

After "rigorous security screenings," of course.

See, I knew there was a reason they've resorted to profiling -- for our own "good."

This brief instructional video explains:

Maybe if some online "conservative" group charges us to send fax blasts to Democrat reps we can get this fixed!

[Via Florida Guy]   

A Big Turn-Off

Because, US FAA regulations prohibited an actual demonstration... [More]

Assuming it's not restricted to government only, I'll be surprised if this isn't shut down.

Ahhh -- looks like it's never started up. If it ever is, I'll also be surprised if ITAR regs don't apply, making it fall under more than FAA, but also State.

Say, you know what I bet the government would fast-track for approval? Required "smart guns" that police carrying a modification of these babies could disable.

[Via Florida Guy]   

FAA Blocking Blogspot?

I've received information that FAA servers are blocking all Blogspot sites, and that WordPress sites are as yet unaffected.

Anyone with information/clarification on this, please weigh in.

Talkin' to Aaron Zelman

I just completed an interview with Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation fo Firearms Ownership for their "Talkin' to America" podcast program. We discussed, among other things, the Wayne Fincher case, the recent controversy broken by WarOnGuns about the FAA asserting a "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment, this blog, my GUNS Magazine columns, the BIDS System, my Domestic Enemies review, and a whole bunch of other cool and groovy things.

I'll put up a link and announcement when he's got the finished product posted.
------------

We ran out of time and did not get to the FAA story. I think it went well, but you can judge for yourself when the podcast goes up on the JPFO site.

Many thanks, Aaron--you're a gracious host.

Mr. Connery, You'll Have to Check That Shotgun

Taking a lesson from the 1981 Sean Connery sci fi western Outland, which showed how dangerous it can be to mix guns with spaceflight, the Federal Aviation Administration wants to keep passengers from carrying firearms on rocket ships...

[T]he FAA casually and gratuitously endorsed the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment, according to which the amendment poses no obstacle to gun control because it has nothing to do with an individual right to keep and bear arms, instead protecting states' prerogatives vis-à-vis their militias...

For supporters of the right to armed self-defense, them's fightin' words. Pro-gun-rights blogger David Codrea asked the FAA how it could reconcile this language with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's statement, in a May 2001 letter to the National Rifle Association, that "the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms."

Well, this has certainly gone a lot farther than I'd expected. Let's see if interest evaporates or if it gains wider attention, the goal being to press the administration to explain itself and rescind the "collective rights" language.

Banned Forever!

[More]

As a rule, I stay away from forums. While there are some notable exceptions, I've found too many of them are simply places where the closed-minded congregate to insulate themselves from anything that challenges their preconceptions. Too much nastiness and not enough thought go into many of the posts, and it's clear that many comments are the results of hip shots based on other posted comments rather than actually considering what the original source of the discussion had to say about a subject. That's why you'll find--in some of the forums discussing the Bush administration approving the "collective rights" theory of the Second Amendment as justification for its new space flight security rules--the major premise is ignored in favor of people ridiculing guns on spacecraft--a debate topic for another day, to be sure, but only incidental to the topic I was writing about.

But then you get acts of actual sabotage, where the poster knows damned well what he's doing, and whether out of fear or hatred, lashes out with lies, ad hominem attacks, and proclamations that are simply and demonstrably wrong.

Meet NRA grassrooter Mike Haas, someone who has been vocal at attempting to derail just about every Second Amendment activism effort I can recall being part of over the past 10 years. I'm not sure if it's pathological with this guy or if he simply views any new ideas that don't come from his camp as threats, but the guy's a Fairfax worshipper of the first order. Fortunately, he's also incompetent and dishonest, so his attacks are easy to defeat simply by presenting the documented truth.

Because I've been banned for "insulting" him from CalGuns forums, (and from accessing the website itself--at least from my home computer) and because CalGuns.Net will not allow a man who's been attacked to defend himself, which is pretty telling about their mindset, I'm presenting my rebuttal to Haas' baseless attack here:

Response to Mike Haas

I note Haas has not addressed what I actually wrote, just went straight into character assassination. That's one of the oldest deflection tactics in the book. I see some of you have opted to take his side just because, which is your choice and your right. If anyone here is interested in looking a little deeper, read on.

I've never joined a forum before, because they are typically not the most effective means of using limited time if my goal is to reach a wider audience--and the only reason I'm posting here is to defend myself against an unprovoked attack. I probably won't be back, but in any case will not even be able to check for a few days because I'm heading to the mountains with no computer access. We'll see if open minds are receptive to a counter to Mr. Haas' peculiar venom. And for the record, he never contacted me first--something I've done and documented numerous times when I've had differences with NRA.

Stick to the topic I actually wrote about if you're going to "debunk" what I said, Mike. Yes or no, did the FAA cite the "collective rights" theory of the 2nd Amendment as their legal justification for imposing their rules, and yes or no, did the Sr Counsel for the FAA say that this was approved by the executive office of the president? You don't have to be a legal scholar or have some sort of special qualifications to "interpret" that, Mike. Answer those basic questions.

Where to start? How about me being "one of the most anti-NRA entities one can encounter." Note he hasn't given you an actual example of one of these "attacks" because, then you might have to look at the uncomfortable fact of whether or not what I said was true--for instance giving anti-CCW sheriff candidate Bill Brown in Santa Barbara an A rating. The fact is, I AM the NRA--life member,former members council officer, long-time volunteer and financial contributor--you can read my position on that here:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2005/08/im-nra.html

Then there are the fabricated LIES, yes, I said "lies"-- about our petition effort. It's still online on KABA. Go ahead, Mike--out of all the entries at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/petition/, please point everyone to the fundraising appeal--that's what you told them we were trying to do. Good Lord--coming from an NRA management apologist with their interminable fundraisers, that sounds kind of like a pimp calling me a slut. The point of our petition was also well explained, and we never pretended it was one of those "official" ones Mike wants to belittle us for not being--gee, kind of like those appeals and cards and things NRA management sends its members to contact our representatives--along with a plea for more money. We were pretty proud of our effort, actually, Mike--got some national press, got mentioned twice by Wm F Buckley, writtten up several times on WorldNetDaily, and got responses from every state in the union--over 30,0000 of them, which, while a number you might laugh at in your superiority, ain't bad considering IT WAS ENTIRELY SELF-FUNDED and with all work done by basically 3 people. I personally spent a couple hundred out of pocket. I do recall one or two people enclosed 5 bucks or so. And, oh, keeping names and addresses is now "illegal"? So NRA management will destroy their lists? Hey Mike, you missed again--we kept no names and addresses--we sent them all to Mr. Ashcroft. How can I prove that? Not directly, but indirectly--find ONE Ashcroft petition signatory who says we then used the petitions to send him junk mail or spam. You can't Mike, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Oh, and a "PS" I almost forgot--you know who else supported the petition--publicly--wrote me a nice letter, wrote about it in his column, and even signed up supporters at his class? The late Col. Jeff Cooper. So I'm pretty comfortable with the company I kept on that effort. Mike.

You want to talk Silveira now? How it had such a losing streak? As opposed to the winning streak on 2A Mike and his friends have achieved? Take a look at why the 9th circuit said it didn't have standing--gee--couldn't have anything to do with PRECEDENT established in prior losing efforts that those friends engineered, could it? We had a unique effort and we were right--and we had a lawyer doing the scholarly work who had actually been part of a winning Supreme Court effort, and who, unfortunately, died shortly before cert was denied. We can't rehash the whole thing in this forum--if any of you have the time, the whole thing is still over at KABA and you can see for yourself what we said and did, and again, I'm proud of that effort and the people I worked with as an unpaid volunteer, as was Angel, who Mike hates, which may explain some of this, and Brian Puckett. But here's the one thing I want those reading this to walk away with: Silveira established no new precedent, as Mike seems to indicate with the "damage" he accuses us of almost doing--and for someone who questions MY legal acumen and talent, "the defendant" who "was hardly the ideal gun owner" in the Silveira case was the state of California, Mike, via AG Lockyer and Grey Davis, and Sean Silveira et al were the PLAINTIFFS. So you again don't know what the hell you're talking about. But let's take a look at the character of these "defendants" Mr. Haas would have you doubt just based on his say-so--you know, the "less than ideal" gun owners. It's copied directly from the complaint.
33. Plaintiff JACK SAFFORD is a resident of Corning, California, husband and father, and owns substantial acreage/farm land. He owns his own insurance agency and is a model citizen. He is a graduate of California State University, Chico.
34. Plaintiff SEAN SILVEIRA is a resident of Marin County, California, husband and father of two, and owns real property in Marin. He is a civil engineer, model citizen, and a graduate of California State University, Chico.
35. Plaintiff PATRICK OVERSTREET is a resident of Marin County, California, husband, and owns real property in Marin. He is employed by the San Francisco Police Department as a S.W.A.T. officer, and a graduate of California State University, San Diego.
36. Plaintiff DAVID K. MEHL is a resident of Sacramento, California, husband, and owns real property in Sacramento. He is a chemical engineer, graduate of the University of California, Davis, and a model citizen.
37. Plaintiff SGT. STEVEN FOCHT is a resident of Placer County, husband and father, and owns real property in Placer County. He was a Marine Corp sniper who performed military functions in Desert Storm, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Thailand, in addition to Mogadishu,Somalia. He was honorably discharged, and currently a Sergeant in the California Army National Guard. He is a model citizen.
38. Plaintiff SGT. DAVID BLALOCK is a resident of Sacramento County and owns real property in Sacramento County. He was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division who is a Purple Heart recipient from combat injuries (AK 47 round through his arm) occurring in the Noriega police operation (invasion of Panama) and currently a Sergeant in the California Army National Guard. He is a model citizen.
39. Plaintiff MARCUS DAVIS is a resident of Sacramento, California, husband and expecting father, and real property owner. He is mortgage broker, graduate of the University of California, Davis, and a model citizen.
40. Plaintiff VANCE BOYCE is a resident of Colusa, California, husband and father, and real property owner. He is a of California State University, Fresno.
41. Plaintiff KEN DEWALD is a resident of Paradise, California, husband and father, and real property owner. He was honorably discharged from the Air Force, and is currently employed as a California Correctional Officer and a model citizen.

Go ahead, Mike, you ignorant fraud. Tell your admirers on this board how these "defendants" are "far from ideal gun owners".

Now we can get into my recommendations of "civil disobedience"--you know there's no tradition of that in forging freedom for this country--no, I'm sure Thoreau and others would have applauded NRA grassroots having DOJ reps come before their membership to tell them the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, and then demand they fill out registration forms for property they already lawfully purchased and owned. Yep, guilty as charged, and proud of it--because we've seen through the Bill Doss example how NRA's lawyer provided the escort service to surrender that registered weapon to the state. I don't know what the hell good Mike thinks 2A is if it means we're just going to obey every order the govt issues to us--including surrendering our firearms to the state on demand. If that's your idea of skillful activism, Mike, go for it. Me, I'll defy and resist and disobey, and live with the stinging pain of having incurred your bitchy and impotent scorn.

I guess we could now get into a debate on what kind of talent I AM close to possessing, but you know what, Mike? I really don't care what you think about me. I play damned well with others--that is, with men and women whom I respect. And I don't consider us on the same "side" Mike--You publicly lie about people and their efforts, and you don't know what you're talking about. I want as far from that side as I can get.

I'll be back in a few days. Feel free to use it to your best advantage. Someone who lies and doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't worry me too much.

Just see if you can nail him down to address the specific points I made in the article he used as the catalyst for his stupid, ineffectual attack.

David Codrea

One final word to those who are members and supporters of CalGuns Forums: Do you like being fed demonstrably false information, and then having what you're allowed to see and comment on manipulated and censored? Do you think it's fair to attack a person, his efforts and his reputation, and then prohibit that attacked party from presenting the truth? Then you've found the right place. Enjoy your association with such transparent and malicious propagandists.

Me, I'm not afraid of entering the lion's den, alone and against all they can muster, but surface appearances indicate they're afraid of me--even on their own turf. And unlike those cowardly gatekeepers who manipulate what they will allow you to consider in a debate, comments here at WarOnGuns are open--I think with the exception of some spam, a few pornographic comments and some ill-advised statements that might be construed as threats, I've never interfered with anyone saying anything--including comments highly critical of me.

I'm even going to be gone for a few days without computer access, so now's the time to get your cheap shots in, boys, and I use that term deliberately. You have something to say? Go for it.

That includes you , Mike.

Comments on FAA Space Regs

Space Politics observes that the first comments on proposed FAA space edicts have been posted (enter docket # 23449), including the one submitted by yours truly.

Have you let them know what you think yet?

Why on (or off) Earth not?

Because They Don't Want You to Know

 FAA grounds Fox News drones near where thousands of migrants are sheltering under a bridge [More]

These are the same people who want you to trust them so much you'll give them your guns and let them inject you.

By the Numbers

Nearly 4,500 people were found with guns at security checkpoints in 2019, leading to TSA firearm confiscations, setting a new record. [More]

That's a lot of dumb@$$ people. That said, before the antis all start shrieking, it sounds worse than it is when you consider practically no one had evil intent and that "Every day, the FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) provides service to more than ... 2.7 million airline passengers..."

x 365 = ...

In addition to the negligent, I blame the fact that this society places such limited value on making adequate gun education an expectation.

[Via Wynn A] 

Not Quite Clear on the Concept

Good basic idea, except for that "license" part. [More]

That and I would think, aside from hobbyist toys, the serious government stuff would be way too high up.  It reminds me of a story I heard from when the theocracy first took over Iran after the Shah fled, and they ordered the air force to shoot down U.S. spy satellites.

I'm actually seeing a lot of potential for liberty-minded people to embrace such technology's early warning and counter-surveillance capabilities. And more.

Check this out. Naturally, the FAA is looking to discourage and control.

Good luck with that.

[Via cydl]

For Once I'm Speechless

Today's mail came in, and included a hefty box from CCRKBA. Seems I was the April 2007 Gun Rights Defender of the Month for my expose resulting in the FAA issuing a correction in the Federal Register to their previous assertion that the Second Amendment is a collective right. This is the first I've heard of this, so I hope they don't think I'm an ingrate for not thanking them before now.

I must say this caught me flat-footed--I do recall corresponding with John M. Snyder a while back thinking he was going to mention something about my work in a write-up, and when I heard nothing more assumed it was one of those articles that never makes it past the idea stage. I'll also admit that I'm generally one to forego awards and banquets and all their trappings because there is work in the trenches to be done--that, and if I'd wanted to be popular, I'd be prattling on about Paris and Britney instead of ...ick!... gun rights.

But the plaque sure is nice (it matches my office/den decor perfectly),and their write-up is too, especially when you consider I've not been shy about disagreeing with CCRKBA in the past, and they're big enough to not hold that against me.

So thank you, Mr. Gottlieb and Mr. Snyder. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and generosity you have extended to a wild-eyed, intemperate troublemaker like me, and will do my best to continue being one.

Guns in Space

After tripping into a constitutional gun rights controversy, the FAA has amended a rule that bans carrying guns on commercial space ships.

I guess after complaining that no one from the "authorized journalist" camp was picking up on this story, I should be grateful for this exposure, even if it is on the ABC blog as opposed to their news site, even if they didn't credit the source, and even if their attitude is borderline belittling and only marginally on point.

That whole gift horse/mouth thing always seemed counterintuitive...

This might be a good time to contact "mainstream" new providers and ask them why they thought this story wasn't important enough to call to the attention of their readers/viewers. More of my thoughts on that are here and here.

...Until We Meet Again

I gave a heads up earlier in the week that WarOnGuns would be going on hiatus for a while. I'm grateful to those of you who took the time to contact me and let me know you find value in spending time here every day. Thank you.

I'm moving. After almost 30 years in Southern California, I'm going back to Ohio where I still have family. Last month when I advised there would be sporadic posting, I was back there buying a house. Leaving SoCal is not a political statement on my part, although I could make it one. But truth is, we're moving because it makes economic and personal sense to do so.

First some housekeeping:

• To those of you who told me you'd miss the daily posts, there are a lot of fine blogs over in the left margin. Still, you can also spend some time going through the archives here--maybe visit posts for the corresponding day back in '05 or '06...or perhaps just breathe a sigh of relief that you're rid of me for a while.
  
• My email address will go inactive some time next week. Please understand if I don't reply, effective immediately. Got one heck of a lot to do here on this end. When I've relocated and set up with my new ISP, I'll be sharing my new edress.
• After today, I will deactivate the "Comments" feature to WoG posts. This will remain in effect until I reopen shop. I've already deleted one slimebag spammer this morning, and I don't want them trashing the joint in my absence.
  

Current events make it difficult for me to take a break. There are some stories I've been covering that deserve attention, for example:

• Wayne Fincher will be sentenced next Friday, the 22nd. Do a news search for his name to stay informed. And better yet, use the time you won't be reading WarOnGuns to write a letter to the judge asking for leniency.
• I expect to see some legal action pertaining to the ongoing BATFU persecution of Red's Trading Post (link goes to Ryan Horsley's blog--consult it to keep on top of developments.) Y'all have written to the judge on this case, too, right? Yes?
• No day would be complete without doing a Snuffy news search. Armed and Safe has been keeping up with the latest Pfather Pfleger Pfloutings, along with current "this is not gun control" NRAntics.
  
• Speaking of the Snuffster, if you find yourself with some time on your hands, why not send an email to our pals at Americans United for the Alliance of Left-Wing Churches and State and ask 'em why the hell they employ such transparent double standards?
• Don't forget to check the newsstands in about two weeks for the new issue of GUNS Magazine. I've got a few in the queue, so I'm not sure which article will be in next month's issue--I believe it may be "The Final Frontier," dealing with the FAA declaring the Second Amendment a collective right--and their subsequent reversal. [UPDATE/CORRECTION: My editor reminds me that the August Rights Watch column is "A Very Sound Policy," one I put together quickly to deal with Virginia Tech in as timely a manner possible for magazines, so it bumped the scheduled column. Apparently subscribers are already getting their copies in the mail.] Also, be sure and check the GUNS website some time after July 1st for an online version of my current column, and of course, the free online issue from July 1957.
• One last thing--I removed the current poll a couple days shy of the usual full week because I'm closing down today. Here are the results (click to enlarge):

That's pretty much it. I look forward to getting back online as soon as I can, but there is much to do first. Last person out, please turn off the lights and leave the key under the mat. I'll need it when I return.

Common Sense Drone Safety Laws

Man who built gun drone, flamethrower drone argues FAA can’t regulate him [More]

Those things looked like so much fun I laughed out loud just watching the videos. Obviously the guy behind them is just having a ball in pursuit of happiness and isn't endangering a soul.

So naturally, the grey, unimaginative little bureaucrats who crave power over others to compensate for their own personal inadequacies are going to put a stop to that!

[Via Florida Guy]   

A Mitigating Circumstance?

The insane procedures required by the TSA demands that our pilots to lock and then un-lock their .40 side arms was and is a solid recipe for disaster. Did the TSA deliberately create this bizarre and unconventional Rube Goldberg firearm retention system hoping for this result? The sordid history of the FAA and TSA’s total resistance to the concept of arming pilots to protect Americans is in itself a scandal.

Putting a gun into a holster and then threading a padlock through the trigger and trigger-guard is required every time the pilots enter or leave the cockpit.

Looks like there's more to this story. It's time to find out who was responsible for initially proposing and then ramming this requirement through--as well as his qualifications and credentials that made others think it was a good idea.