Sure they do.

The Duke Center for Firearms Law is searching for a scholarly alternative to the politically charged national debate surrounding gun rights and regulation.

Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith ’67 professor of law, and Darrell Miller, the Melvin G. Shimm professor of law, created the Center to advance non-partisan scholarship about the Second Amendment. The two co-directors are joined by Jake Charles, Law School ’13, as the Center’s executive director.

Blocher said there is a lack of reliable scholarship on the Second Amendment and the constitutional questions it raises. These legal questions are especially important after the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, in which the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms for individuals’ private purposes, including self-defense.

“I think that there’s not enough attention paid in the scholarly community to this really important and complex and interesting and nuanced set of questions,” he said.

Complex and nuanced.  Remember that.

Compared to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Blocher said, the Second Amendment is seriously lacking in scholarship.

[ … ]

“One primary focus of my career has been how to accommodate two sometimes conflicting American traditions—that of gun rights and that of gun regulation,” Blocher said.

After law school, Blocher worked under Walter Dellinger III, who led the District of Columbia’s arguments in D.C. v. Heller and is now the Douglas B. Maggs professor emeritus of law at Duke. Blocher assisted with the briefing in support of the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun regulation.

[ … ]

Firearms law scholarship may also help create a middle ground in the current gun debate that is dominated by polarizing political views and the scholarship put out by advocates on both sides of the issue. Blocher and Charles hope that Second Amendment scholarship may help policymakers reach compromises that are both effective and constitutionally sound.

“People too often think that it’s a question of either rights or regulation—that if you support gun rights, then you can’t support any regulation and vice versa,” Blocher said. “And that’s just a false choice.”

Remember that too.  In their opinion the second amendment is seriously lacking in scholarship.  Shall not be infringed isn’t clear enough.  Let’s turn to another article on this same announcement, shall we?

He and Miller agree that gun rights scholarship is, by and large, unbalanced, suffering from hyper-partisanship and lack of rigor, which often make it even harder to find reasonable solutions to problems of gun violence. For example, there’s still scholarly disagreement on when a weapon is “dangerous and unusual,” and therefore unprotected by the Constitution; or the full extent of gun regulation in states and municipalities prior to the 1930s. “This has real consequences for firearms law and policy,” said Miller, the Melvin G. Shimm Professor of Law.  “The paucity of solid, balanced, responsible, and reliable scholarship on firearms law is bad for the academy, bad for the judicial system, and bad for the public.”

Hear that?  They’re here to protect you, dammit.  We need reasonable solutions to the wickedness of mankind resulting from federal headship in Adam.

Conceived as a resource by Saul Cornell, the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University,  and created in partnership with researchers at Duke, Fordham University, and elsewhere, the repository contains more than 1,500 examples of American gun regulations as well as historical European regulations that informed U.S. lawmakers’ thoughts on the issue.

The Heller and McDonald opinions relied heavily on history to define the scope of the right to bear arms, said Miller. “In fact, Justice [Antonin] Scalia says in the Heller opinion that you understand the contours of the Second Amendment by reference to regulations that are longstanding.” Yet the repository reflects the first catalogue of historical regulations.

“Part of our goal, with the repository and with the center, is to correct the misconception that gun regulation is a brand-new phenomenon,” Blocher said. “The 1,500 examples in the repository are only a subset of the different ways guns have been regulated in the United States. Any legal or scholarly analysis of the Second Amiendment has to take into account this history of gun regulation.”

They intend to correct the notion that the constitution doesn’t really mean that lawmakers can’t pass gun regulation.  They’re going to prove it with examples of gun regulation.  Now, let’s fast forward to the end of this dreadful piece.

The Center for Firearms Law is supported by grants from the Katie McGrath & J. J. Abrams Family Foundation, Crankstart, Everytown for Gun Safety, the Joyce Foundation, Andrew Marks, Howard & Nancy Marks, and Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock.

Oh, okay then.  It all makes better sense now.  Everytown and the Joyce Foundation is at the root of this abortion.

No man can do only what God can do, which is bring peace among His people, and show men how to walk humbly before God and love his neighbor.  No law, no man, no regulation, no system of government, no ordinance, and no leader can accomplish what only the Almighty can do.  But they don’t really want to end polarization.  They just made that up.

Instead, this startup depends on money from Bloomberg and other money sources they didn’t earn and to which they have no right.  The intent is clearly to be a repository for gun control laws, as progressives continue to work towards control over every aspect of our lives.

The polarization to which they speak isn’t a result of guns, nor of leaders, nor of laws.  The polarization is a symptom of the larger issue of a society which is breaking apart because of disparate world views.

So here’s a suggestion for topic number 1 for the upstarts at this oh-so-scholarly center.  How many victims of mass shootings perished at the hands of state actors in the twentieth century?

Here’s another question for the “scholars.”  What does God have to say about gun control?

David Codrea:

… the new climate in Florida where even some Republicans are scrambling to support citizen disarmament edicts. Pizzo is now pushing a bill that, along with “lock up your safety” infringements, makes “posting or publishing of a picture of a firearm, BB gun, air or gas-operated gun, or device displayed to resemble a firearm to social media” by minors a criminal act that will result in guns being “promptly seized by a law enforcement officer and disposed of,” and other penalties.

Don’t say the wrong things.  Don’t think the wrong things or we’ll charge you with a hate crime (don’t get me started on how stupid I think the concept of a “hate crime” is).  Don’t even post the wrong things on social media.  According to us, the controllers.  We make the decisions in appropriateness.  Not you.

Because public schools have become full blown communist indoctrination camps.

The Washington Times:

ICE officers who endorsed President Trump in 2016 now say he has failed to follow through on his get-tough promises, saying catch-and-release of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. is not only still happening, but has gone into “overdrive.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers say they’re being roped into such mundane tasks as opening the doors on vans to release immigrants already caught by Border Patrol agents. That’s dragging the officers from their usual duties of nabbing fugitives, or scouring local prisons and jails for immigrant criminals who lived illegally in the U.S. ready to be deported.

The shell game is all the more “ridiculous,” the officers said, because Border Patrol agents could fill out paperwork and open the doors themselves, but the agency’s leaders don’t want to be part of catch-and-release.

“Hundreds of man hours are wasted each day at a time of crisis on the border,” the leaders of the National ICE Council, the union that represents ICE officers, said in a letter sent directly to Mr. Trump on Monday.

[ … ]

“You frequently speak publicly of the great public safety work ICE is doing under your leadership. To be direct Mr. President — the rhetoric doesn’t match reality and we hope that this letter shows you the complete and total nonsense that is really taking place under the Trump Administration on the southern border,” the ICE officers said.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The letter comes as the situation at the southwestern border has grown out of control for Homeland Security.

Some 160,000 migrant children and family members have been encountered at the border over the last five months, shattering previous records.

Most are arrested by the Border Patrol, though 10-15 percent are encountered by Customs and Border Protection officers trying to come through a border crossing without permission.

Because of the overwhelming numbers, lack of bed space and court rulings, Homeland Security usually processes and quickly releases most of them, with the vain hope that they’ll come back for hearings and eventual deportation.

That’s been dubbed “catch-and-release,” and Mr. Trump took office promising to stop it.

Instead the rate has increased, and it’s spurred the bureaucratic sparring.

Mr. Crane says Border Patrol agents have the power to fill out the release paperwork and to do the releases on their own, but they don’t want to face the embarrassment. So they make ICE officers fill out the release paperwork, and when they drive the immigrants to bus stations to be dropped off, they make an ICE officer actually open the van doors.

Because if Trump ever did intend to do anything about immigration and the border (and he was probably being dishonest about immigration), he intended to wait until after he no longer had the House of Representatives to make it a big deal so that he would be blocked and could make it a re-election issue.

Because he thinks Americans are tools.  By my calculations the only good thing we’ve gotten from Trump is Neil Gorsuch.

News from NYC:

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — The NYPD posted a photo on social media of a rifle and bullets that were seized during a domestic incident in New Springville.

Domestic Violence and Field Intelligence officers found the gun and ammunition during a home visit, according to the 121st Precinct Twitter feed.

The officers were conducting a home visit in the vicinity of Windham Loop and Marsh Avenue on Monday when they were made aware of a gun that was not registered, according to a spokeswoman for the NYPD’s Deputy Commissioner of Public Information.

No arrests were made and the weapon was confiscated, the police spokeswoman said.

A verbal dispute between a husband and wife prompted the visit from the Domestic Violence officers, according to a source with knowledge of the investigation.

The husband had failed to re-register the hunting rifle, the source said.

It’s hard to tell what the rifle is, but it’s not a rimfire gun.  It’s a carbine of some sort, but some reader can help with this I’m sure.

This is what we’re reduced to – the NYPD posting pictures to Twitter with hashtag #OneLessGun.  Proudly, no less.

Despicable.  Nothing good ever comes from calling the police to your home.  Why did they do that over an argument?  Why?

ICE had to simply drop off newly minted immigrants to a bus stop.

Immigration officials dropped off about 50 more undocumented migrants, mostly from Central America, Friday morning at a Greyhound bus station near Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, where they were left to fend for themselves as overwhelmed volunteers sought help for them.

[ … ]

Since Dec. 21, according to the data, ICE has released 84,500 migrant family members. Of that, 14,500 have been released in the Phoenix area, 37,500 have been released in communities in south Texas, 24,000 in El Paso and 8,500 in San Diego, the data shows.

They just let them go.  Cheer up.  We can all pay their medical bills when they go to the local hospital ER for care.

But the real problem isn’t even illegal immigration, it’s legal immigration (via WRSA):

The legal immigration problem has dropped off America’s radar screen—displaced by the undeniable crisis over illegals.

But legal immigration is larger, growing faster, potentially more disruptive—and, because it is set by inflexible statute, just as much out of control.

Go check out all of his data.  From the most recent NumbersUSA newsletter, Trump isn’t helping anything with his actions or rhetoric.

The problem is that President Trump appears be backing off his campaign pledge in favor of placating the business lobby clamoring for an increase in foreign workers.

The White House goes on to describe the meeting with “some of the country’s top CEO –including Apple’s Tim Cook and Walmart’s Doug McMillon.”

Employers were coming to us and they were saying, ‘We’re optimistic about America, we want to invest here and a constraint for growth is the lack of a skilled workforce,'” Ms. Trump told The Wall Street Journal this week. “We don’t have people to fill the jobs.

The President has strongly indicated he no longer supports immigration reduction, including at the White House meeting this week.

‘We want to have a very strong border, but we want to have a lot of people coming in,’ Trump said during a White House meeting with more than 20 CEOs and officials from state and local governments.’ A lot of people don’t understand that. They think we’re shutting it out. We’re not shutting it out. We want people to come in, but they have to come in through a process.

President Trump’s rhetoric is not far removed from U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donahue, who said last October that “The United States is fundamentally out of people.”

When there are still 50 million people in the United States between the ages of 18 and 64 who are not employed, the problem is not a lack of workers.

The problem of course is that the democrats want Latinos for their votes, and republican elitists and corporations want them for their cheap labor, cheap that is, as long as the law, regulations and codes are in place to let everyone else pay for their medical care so the corporations don’t have to.  The cost isn’t so much hidden or non-existent as it is borne on the backs of American workers who can’t save or invest because of this corporate theft.

So in addition to Trump making half a million bump stock owners felons with the stroke of a pen, in addition to his support for red flag laws (which after Lindsey Graham and the democrats send to him he will sign on a federal level), he wants to flood the country with more foreign workers for you to support, just as long as it’s all legal.

Or in other words, America may as well have elected a democrat, huh?  Oh, and by the way, don’t worry about how all of those Latinos are going to vote in the presidential elections.  I’m sure it’ll all work out to support your 2A rights.

Breitbart:

In October 2017, one instructor asked his students to show up for physical training the Thursday before a four-day weekend. When only three students showed up out of 40, he called another mandatory training session that weekend. Two hours later, he was fired.

Poor babies.  I feel so sorry for them.  I’m glad the USMC wouldn’t have done anything so wicked to my son when he was in the fleet.

Maybe we could have the officers and NCOs arrange for catered meals, back rubs and lacy underwear for them all?

Shooting Illustrated:

Nothing particularly appeals to me about either cartridge, but if you’re into one or the other, or both, it would seem that the sweet spot is 110-gr BO, with the best accuracy coupled with about the highest muzzle velocity.

News from New Mexico:

Extensive advocacy work by proponents of stronger gun regulations in New Mexico has led to a new law that will require federal background checks for most gun purchases, including online sales and at gun shows.

Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who took office in January, signed Senate Bill 8 into law on Friday. It will take effect in July.

“We all have a constitutional right to be safe in our homes and communities,” Lujan Grisham said, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

At an emotional signing ceremony, the governor was accompanied by several young people, law enforcement officials, and gun reform advocates, the Associated Press reported.

The governor is an idiot.  There is no such constitutional guarantee and she can’t quote one.  As we had discussed earlier, there is a problem is utopia.

… in New Mexico, 30 of 33 county sheriffs have signed a letter pledging to not help enforce several gun-control measures supported by Democrats in Santa Fe, according to the state’s sheriff association. The sheriffs, who are elected, say they are heeding the wishes of voters in the counties they serve. More than two dozen counties in the state have enacted “sanctuary” resolutions backing the sheriffs and affirming that no tax dollars in their jurisdictions should go to enforcing the proposed laws.

[ … ]

Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said local officials should comply with state and federal law but declined to say what measures he would take if they don’t.

Local Sheriffs could stop this all in its tracks if they chose to.  The AG didn’t say what measures he would take because he doesn’t know what to do with men who hold weapons and refuse to comply.

Weapons.  Refuse to comply.  There’s a moral to that story, yes?

News from Washington:

For the third time in the last month, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has sent a letter to the mostly rural areas in Washington where county sheriffs have threatened to not enforce the new, stricter gun laws that state voters approved last year.

On Thursday, Ferguson and Gov. Jay Inslee sent a letter to 262 gun dealers in counties where sheriffs have said they won’t enforce the new law, known as Initiative 1639. The letters warned that the dealers are still responsible for following the law, which bars the sale of semi-automatic rifles to anyone under 21 and requires enhanced background checks for those guns.

“Certain officials in your county have publicly said they will not enforce Initiative 1639 because they believe it is unconstitutional,” Inslee and Ferguson wrote. “We want to prevent you and your business from finding yourself in legal jeopardy because of a misunderstanding of the law caused by statements made by elected officials in your area.”

Yes, it’s all so altruistic, isn’t it?  They want to prevent good people from running afoul of the new law because of misunderstandings.  How retarded.

The AG is like a little boy screaming on the playground, and he disgusts me.  This situation is similar to the one in New Mexico, but slightly different because in Washington there is now an age limit.  In both cases it’s difficult to see the state turning over cases to the FedGov for prosecution if Form 4473 is properly completed.

It would take local or county officials to effect arrests of people in person to person transfers (if the state becomes aware of them, a highly dubious assumption).

It’s likely that this law won’t have much affect on person to person transfers, but it remains to be seen if any Sheriffs will mobilize their deputies in the defense of persons (be they gun store employees or not) to run afoul of the law.

My bet is not.  A promise not to enforce the law isn’t the same thing as a promise to engage in gun battle with state police in the defense of supposed “sanctuary” counties or cities.

B J Campbell:

There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones. Gun ownership doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us less safe. A bivariate correlation simply isn’t there. It is blatantly not-there. It is so tremendously not-there that the “not-there-ness” of it alone should be a huge news story.

A correlation coefficient (R^2) of < 0.5%.  Worthless.

Be sure to read the rest of his piece, where he fisks the jobs that Mother Jones, Vox and others do with the data.  Spread it far and wide.