Jesus Wept: OCT President Unholsters Firearms in Public for Photo Op

Miguel, who is much more engaged with following anti-gun and pro-gun groups on social media than I could ever be, noticed something very important from Open Carry Texas’ statement the other day, quoting from their statement:

Black Powder revolvers have proven to be very effective and align with our goal of legalizing open carry with a handgun. We do understand that not everyone will be able to afford one, but if you can, we are requesting you do so. Almost every leader has gone to Black powder for a reason. It works.

I basically share Miguel’s reaction to this; what a wonderful idea. Surely no one would be alarmed greatly by a cap and ball revolver in a proper holster, right? Well, nope.

So here we have Open Carry Texas’ president in a public place, without any apparent holster I can see, finger fucking his side arm. A commenter on their Facebook page very wisely chastised [UPDATE: Seemingly has gone down the memory hole over there.]

 

IdiocyOnParade

“It’s not a firearm.” Dear God, is this really what we’re dealing with? Stop touching it! You have no business drawing a firearm in a public place unless it’s to protect life and limb. I echo the sentiments of Mr. Braaten: it doesn’t matter what the State of Texas calls it, or ATF calls it, for the purposes of safety and sensible carry protocol, if it launches a projectile at a speed sufficient to cause grave bodily injury or harm, it’s a firearm. It should be treated with the respect it deserves as a potentially deadly instrument.

Just when I want to start thinking better of this group, they up the ante on jackassery. I know some readers are tiring of this, but I honestly don’t care. These people are costing us hugely. They live up to everything the antis want the public to think about people who own and carry firearms. They have to be exposed for being the careless, thoughtless people they are. Back to Miguel:

If anything, it has been proven that their methods have been counterproductive delighting the Opposition (always looking for excuses to “stick it” to us) and garnering a massive amount of anger from Gun Owners who are tired of getting typecasted as brutish & dangerous people, undeserving of the right to Keep and Bear Arms. And they (we) are right to be pissed.

Amen. We’re going to be very lucky if we get through this without further damage. God give us the strength to deal with these thoughtless attention whores.

Because Your Blood Pressure is Too Low This Weekend

Read this letter from a DC mom who is fighting charges that she neglected her child because the girl and a friend were safely walking just a few minutes from a home – the same home they could give a phone number for where their parents available to pick them up if someone was truly concerned. But some man decided that the best decision was the call the police so that the parents would be arrested for the “crime” of allowing children to play unsupervised.

If you need to bring your blood pressure back down, there’s also this story about a group of parents who decided to stand up to the extremely anti-fun and anti-kid staff at what one parent called “Worst First Play Centre of Gloom” and encouraged their kids to violate all the rules against running and having fun. The parent report says that the staff hid away in the corners when they realized they were outnumbered by people who wouldn’t be strict rule enforcers. When these most obnoxious nannies are ignored and marginalized, they back down. We need to teach more people to stand up to them.

I realize these aren’t directly “gun rights” stories, and they both come out of areas (DC & Montreal) where the parents themselves might be horribly anti-gun, but these are issues related to freedom to live your life as you choose when you aren’t infringing on anyone else’s rights.

Shannon Watts Targets Chili’s

Fresh off the fallout from Chipotle, we have another battle in the Restaurant Wars to fight. Now Shannon Watts is going after Chili’s with the hashtag #RibsNotRifles, and it already looks like Chili’s is pre-conceding:

Chili’s isn’t going that far yet, but the idea is on the table. “Given the recent attention to open carry laws, we are evaluating our policy to ensure we provide a safe environment for our guests and team members,” a spokeswoman for Brinker International, Chili’s parent company, told The Huffington Post.

I’m not going to slam Open Carry Texas, because they did the right thing yesterday in offering new guidelines that includes telling people not to carry in restaurants. I sure wish they had gotten word out to supporters to remove any pictures or video of OC events in restaurants from the Internet, so they couldn’t be used against us. I certainly hope they are doing that now.

For all the losses so far, I never really frequented Starbucks very much, because I very seldom drink coffee. We don’t have Jack in the Box around here, so no big loss there. I’ve never been a big fan of Chipotle either. But Chili’s is kind of our go-to place when we don’t feel like cooking and are looking for something cheap. I’ve never felt a need to carry a long gun into Chili’s and film the reaction of the staff, but there have been times when we’ve decided to stop while I have a concealed pistol on me. So this would be the first loss that hurts if I can no longer eat in Chili’s because they don’t want business from those kinds of people, i.e. Bitter and me.

I sincerely hope that Chili’s decides to follow state law on the matter, but at this point, I wouldn’t blame them if they set a policy that customers may not display firearms while dining. But I do hope they consider that there are approximately 10 million potential customers in the United States who won’t be eating at their establishment if they cave to Shannon Watts.

UPDATE: I just noticed, as predicted, they are going after Sonic with #ShakesNotShotguns. Bitter grew up in Oklahoma, so she loves Sonic, but our nearest one isn’t that close, so we don’t go as often as we like. Though, given Sonic is mostly a drive-in, I doubt they will seriously want to regulate what their customers keep in their own vehicles.

Before the Gun Bans Came the Hatpin Bans

Before women got on board with the right to defend themselves with firearms, they turned to another tool which was widely available to them and could be easily concealed while still easily accessible – the hatpin.

Smithsonian ran a feature in April about the menace of women armed with hatpins. When Leoti Blaker boarded a stage coach in NYC in 1903, an older man was next to her. She noticed that at every bump, he seemed to move closer. Finally, he ended up squeezed next to her and then suddenly moved his arm to wrap around her lower back. Needless to say, this was beyond inappropriate for the time, and the grab was not welcomed at all. So, she pulled out her hatpin and “plunged it into the meat of the man’s arm.” He withdrew his arm, suddenly found plenty of space to move away before he jumped off at the next stop.

Blaker apparently told the local paper, “I’ve heard about Broadway mashers and ‘L’ mashers, but I didn’t know Fifth Avenue had a particular brand of its own…. If New York women will tolerate mashing, Kansas girls will not.”

The piece highlights that the press went wild with stories around of women using hatpins for self-defense, and men in government did not react well. The story highlights that the Chicago Vice Commission earned the ire of women when they turned the blame for assaults on the victims and argued “that unchaperoned women should dress as modestly as possible—no painted cheeks or glimpse of ankle—in order to avoid unwanted attention.” When women objected to being told that they were to blame for attacks and promoted the idea of using self-defense by hatpin, that’s when the men decided that they had enough.

Members of the press helped push a panic on the matter. The magazine spotlights one newspaper’s sarcastic response to women thinking they can defend themselves: “We look for the new and imported Colt’s hatpin or the Smith and Wesson Quick-action Pin.” When I searched for the term in the newspaper archives online, I found plenty of other articles that could have come from today’s anti-gun op-eds. A Chicago Record Herald editorial that also ran in a 1910 copy of the Savannah Tribune (GA) argued:

People take greater risks every day of their lives from other things than hat pins. But that isn’t the point. The hat pin risk is stupid, needless and reckless. It imperils eye, and one single human eye is worth more than all the dagger hat pins in the world.

No woman with any regard for other people’s rights would wear one. No woman who does wear one is entitled to any complaint if the city finds a good legal means of stopping her.

Doesn’t that sound like the argument that you don’t “need” a semi-automatic rifle? And then they add in the public shaming by arguing that only women who don’t respect other people would wear them, and they certainly don’t deserve a voice in opposing any new laws targeting their right to hatpins and self-defense.

Only, in 1910, women didn’t have any means to stand up to these men who wanted them defenseless because women didn’t have a right to vote. Chicago was one of the higher profile cities to target women’s hat pins in 1910 when Alderman Herman J Bauler pushed an ordinance that would declare the pins a “public nuisance.” The Montgomery Advertiser (AL) reported on his comments:

Hidden in a mass of plumage or hair [the hatpin] comes under the designation of concealed weapons.

Bauler got his way. By a vote of 68-2, Chicago classified wearing any hatpin with an exposed length of more than half an inch beyond the hat in public as a misdemeanor where women were subject to arrest and fined $50 ($1231.80 in 2013 dollars, according to an inflation calculator). Women booed and hissed the vote, but what could they do?

In Missouri, lawmakers pulled victims of hatpin “accidents” out of the woodwork to promote their effort to ban the tools. They pushed the stories in the media and used the argument that making their lives easier was more important than women securing their hats or having access to these “concealed weapons.” According to the Smithsonian piece, other cities also opted to regulate hatpin use or size, including Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and New Orleans.

By 1912, the anti-hatpin hysteria in men was making the millinery trade nervous and The Millinery Trade Review ran a piece that was picked up by the Idaho Stateman stating:

The millinery trade has the opportunity of making a concession to the public that will be appreciated and that is the reducing the size of the “deadly hat pin,” as the long hat pin is now termed by the press and men folk in general. …. Importers and manufacturers should produce a shorter pin, or a cap to fit on the end of a long pin, which could be attached to the hat by a light weight chain, so as to extend to the end of the pin wherever it protrudes from the hat. By making such a concession the trade would remove the excuse for the law makers of the country passing foolish laws to regulate the size of the hat pin.

Of course, these added features would only drive the cost of hatpins up so that poor women wouldn’t have access to “legal” hatpins. One reference I found mentioned that these lower income women were forced to use things like small pieces of potato to try and comply with the law. Wow, doesn’t that sound just like the war on cheaper handguns and the effort to mandate “smart” guns that many people can’t afford?

Ultimately, the hatpin fears largely went away when World War I broke out. Afterwards, the next great female to fear wasn’t one armed with a hatpin, but flappers, according to Smithsonian.

For more information on hatpins, here’s a guide on how to wear one (mostly with later style hats, so the pins don’t need to be as long) and there is even The American Hatpin Society for collectors. (h/t to Sarah who I know from the Annual Firearms Law Seminar for linking the Smithsonian piece when it came out and recognizing the same types of comparisons to anti-gun arguments today)

Quite an Audacious Editorial on Smart Guns

Most days I feel like I’ve seen about everything from the media that’s worth even commenting on, but sometimes they outdo themselves. Such an example can be found in this editorial from the Middletown Press:

Yet gun-rights activists have successfully intimidated stores in Maryland and California into not selling the iP1.

The gun-rights movement is treating the expansion of consumer choice not as free enterprise, but as treason.

It takes quite a lot of gall to suggest we’re fighting “the expansion of consumer choice.” We’re fighting smart gun mandates which would essentially create a sweeping gun ban across a large percentage of the population of the United States. This could have been about consumer choice, but people like the Editorial board of the Middletown Press, Bryan Miller, and other anti-gun nitwits made another choice.

Few industries need innovation as desperately as the gun trade. As Mauch writes in his essay, which appeared in the Washington Post, “Firearm safety has not meaningfully advanced in the past century.” Automobile safety, by contrast, has progressed so significantly in that same period that guns are poised to pass auto accidents as a cause of death.

And what do you idiots know about innovation in the gun trade? I’m always amazed at the arrogance of journalists willing to opine about topics they know absolutely nothing about. That seems to go double when the topic is firearms. Come to SHOT one year, and then argue there’s no innovation. There has been a lot of innovation. There has even been a lot of SAFETY innovation. Virtually all modern firearms are drop safe. That wasn’t the case even a few decades ago.

So maybe a compromise is in order: If New Jersey allows the marketplace to dictate the fate of smart guns, will the NRA and its followers be willing to do the same? That’s a deal worth making.

You put your cards on the table already. No deal. We fight the technology because we know what will be coming next. We simply do not trust you not to mandate the technology once it hits the market and you, the people who know nothing about firearms or firearms safety, decide it’s working well enough to impose on those people who do know about those things. Sorry, not accepting the firearm market being controlled by clueless journalists, sniveling politicians, and pearl clutching ninnies. That’s what we’re inviting if we give in to the smart gun technology.

Open Carry Texas Revises Its Protocols

Good on Open Carry Texas for setting things right. You can find the statement here:

For all further open carry walks with long guns, we are adopting the following unified protocol and general policy to best ensure meeting our respective legislative mission to legalize open carry:

  1. Always notify local law enforcement prior to the walk, especially the day of.
  2. Carry Flags and signs during your walk to increase awareness.
  3. Carry the long gun on a sling, not held.
  4. Do not go into corporate businesses without prior permission, preferably not at all.
  5. If asked to leave, do so quietly and do not make it a problem.
  6. Do not post pics publicly if you do get permission and are able to OC in a cooperate business.
  7. Do not go into businesses with TABC signs posted with a long gun (Ever).
  8. If at all possible, keep to local small businesses that are 2A friendly.

I think if people follow these new guidelines, we won’t have any problems form here on out. I still question the value of the overall tactic, but I’m mostly concerned about stopping the bleeding, and I think this should accomplish that. Now hopefully people will listen.

I’d also note that any time I offer criticism of other gun rights advocates or groups, there’s always one or two people who try to argue that arguing with each other is counterproductive, and only helps the antis. I agree that can sometimes be the case with petty bickering, but in cases where tactics put the image of the movement is at risk, and our opponents become energized and emboldened, I think it’s important to speak out. This shows that speaking out can work. Shame is a powerful motivator.

Hat Tip to Bob Owens, who notes this probably won’t be good news for Shannon Watts.

When Crafting Meets Concealed Carry

Did you know that there are more than 1,300 products that show up when you search Etsy for the term “gun holster”?

I guess I should be thrilled at so many entrepreneurs entering the carry market, but I have to admit that some leave me wondering if they understand the word “concealed” or “carry” in their product description.

For example, I checked out this all lace holster wondering just how the hell there could be any retention (it’s only based on how tightly you wrap it around your body) and then noticed the video on the website where the guns were printing horribly. Not to mention, while it’s shown in a way that implies it’s safe to carry your keys alongside the gun, that’s just assuming that you don’t remove the lining of the single pocket and leave the trigger guarded by a thin piece of lace. That seems like quite the negligent discharge waiting to happen. That is certainly not the only flimsy piece of lace billing itself as a method to carry a gun available on Etsy.

Then there’s one product known as the “Rocker Gun Holster” that seems to forget that carry means carrying an actual gun. Well, until I realized the shop owner is from Europe and thought that would make a witty name for a wearable purse. Anyone want to bet that the owner has received inquiries on what size gun the “holster” fits? That would probably be a pretty funny conversation to see.

Another one that stuck out to me was a piece of vinyl-wrapped foam that’s supposed to turn every purse into a carry purse. At least it covers the trigger, but I’ll be honest and say that it doesn’t exactly look like a product that’s great for the draw.

Regardless, you have to wonder what Etsy crafters think about selling alongside the holster entrepreneurs trying to pitch their products to the masses of new gun owners.

Justice Thomas Gets It

From a Supreme Court case in 2000, Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 1001 (2000), Footnote 16 of Justice Thomas’ dissent:

“The fact that the statutory term “partial birth abortion” may express a political or moral judgment, whereas “dilation and extraction” does not, is irrelevant. It is certainly true that technical terms are frequently empty of normative content. (Of course, the decision to use a technical term can itself be normative. … But, so long as statutory terms are adequately defined, there is no requirement that Congress or state legislatures draft statutes using morally agnostic terminology. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 922(v) (making it unlawful to “manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon”); Kobayashi & Olson, et al., In Re 101 California Street: A Legal and Economic Analysis of Strict Liability For The Manufacture And Sale Of “Assault Weapons,” 8 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 41, 43 (1997) (“Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of ‘assault rifles’ so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined ‘evil’ appearance”). See also Meese, 481 U.S., at 484—485.”

Emphasis mine. This shows at least one of the justices gets it. If you love your gun rights, pray for Justice Thomas’ good health.

h/t to Annual Firearms Law Seminar.

Thursday May 22, 2014 News Links

OCT Fallout:

Legal Insurrection’s Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self-Defense, does not go kindly on the Open Carry In Your Face crowd.

SayUncle notices something disappearing down the memory hole at NRA. This doesn’t happen very often, but I’ve seen it happen before. What probably happens is the person who puts together the news links puts up something NRA doesn’t want to take a position on. As annoying as the OCT crowd is, it’s best for NRA not to comment on it, even if it’s just offering up a link, and even if Shannon Watts is egging them on.

Esquire salutes the moms who got guns banned from Chipotle.

Christian Science Monitor’s Patrik Jonsson covers the broader issue and notes “The Chipotle decision, analysts say, may spur further campaigns to prod corporations to stake out ground on publicly displayed guns and whether they should become part of everyday life for Americans.” Yep. Thanks Open Carry Texas.

Bloomberg’s gun group now says it’s safe to eat at Chipotle. Obviously they’ve never tried their burritos. “Despite its new gun policy, Chipotle insists it is a neutral party in the Second Amendment debate.” They were a neutral party. Then you caved to Shannon Watts. Personally, I never really liked their crappy food.

Newsbusters takes a look at Jon Stewart’s reaction to the OCT demonstration in Chipotle. I don’t watch The Daily Show anymore, because I don’t like Stewart’s politics, but OCT gave him irresistible ammunition.

The havoc in their wake.

General Gun News:

Bob Owens of Bearing Arms talks about how the gun review world works. I’ve never been a fan of Truth About Guns because I don’t like sensationalism and don’t appreciate how they’ve interacted with the gun community. And that’s a shame, because sometimes their content is excellent.

Dave Kopel talks about the vagueness challenge to NYC’s interpretation of their gravity knife law.

Laser engraved bolts for the 10/22. I’ve always wanted to build a custom match grade 10/22. This would be a nice looking addition to such a project.

Dems pushing to restore CDC funding for using your tax dollars to undermine your gun rights.

SAF notes that being more gun friendly could help New Jersey’s economy and budget. They don’t care. As far as the anti-gun politicians in New Jersey are concerned, those are jobs for the wrong kind of people.

You would think that the Army Times would know something about guns.

Weird Crime Stories:

Another mass knifing, 4 killed and a dozen injured.

Those Crazy Anti-Gunners:

Tam: Clutch the pearls! Takeaway quote: “[Y]ou could turn up better out of the cabs of the pickup trucks in the parking lot of any blue collar employer in flyover country.”

Another MAIG Mayor charged with a crime. Everytown might be a stupid name, but can you blame the guy for rebranding?

OK, this one isn’t about anti-gunners, but a university in North Dakota kicks a fencing team off campus. It won’t just stop with guns. These people are mentally deranged.

It’s always good to talk to antis who are willing to talk, as Joe Huffman relays.

Hot Court Action:

Cal-FFL and Cal-Guns are taking Attorney General Kamala Harris to court again.

The Brady Center is suing Gander Mountain, they seem to assert that you can’t go shopping for firearms with a friend, spouse or girlfriend because that’s indicative of a straw buy. We’ve called out the anti-gunners before for equating women buying firearms as automatic suspected straw buyers.

John Richardson takes a deeper look at Brady’s suit against the NJ Attorney General to file the smart gun reports.

Legislative:

Massachusetts gearing up to make its gun laws worse. Yes, it’s apparently possible.

Off Topic:

P.J. O’Rourke’s commencement speech to Rutgers, if he had given one.

Allyson Schwartz’s Bad Night – A PA Primary Round-Up

Yesterday was primary day in Pennsylvania, and the big race to watch was to see how the Democratic primaries shaped up since those were the main contested races. NRA also offered a few endorsements, so we’ll look at how things shaped up.

Governor’s Race
I can report with 100% certainty that Tom will win the gubernatorial election in November. Unfortunately, we don’t know which Tom – Corbett or Wolf – it will be.

The biggest news from last night is just how terribly Rep. Allyson Schwartz did in an all-Democratic election. She was one who many people wondered if she would be a bit too liberal for a pretty purple state, but the Democratic voting base gave her an embarrassingly low second place finish last night – 40 points behind Tom Wolf. Instead, it turns out that she was ripped apart by progressives who were horrified by the fact that she has, at times in her nine year Congressional career, worked with moderate Democrats. Basically, the fact that she had a record to tear through worked against her.

For the gun issue, it’s not really good news or bad news. On one hand, the Democratic candidate with the lowest grade from Ceasefire won the primary. On the other hand, the entire pool of Democratic candidates for 2014 are far more hostile to our rights than the group in 2010.

Tom Wolf, the Democratic candidate now, told Ceasefire that he supports their policy proposal “imposing a ban under Pennsylvania law on the sale and possession of assault weapons.” A ban on possession implies confiscation. That’s a big freaking problem there, beyond the ban on sales which is also a hugely unacceptable response.

Wolf also said he supported their idea to “imposing a limit under Pennsylvania law on magazine capacity” where they did highlight that restrictions on size vary, so that paves the way for a push to something like NY’s SAFE Act coming from a Wolf administration.

On carry, Wolf says he will oppose any form of national reciprocity, and he also added a response to congratulate Attorney General Kathleen Kane for screwing with Pennsylvania’s reciprocity agreements. Oddly enough, he didn’t back the push for an outright ban on all campus carry, and he only stated that he believes colleges must make their carry policies transparent.

Wolf also says that he wants a bill “requiring gun owners to keep firearms and ammunition in separate secure locations.” That box of ammo you keep in your range bag? That’s not secure. The shelf you might keep your ammo sorted on? That’s not secure. Oh, and you can’t just stuff it into your 800 pound gun safe bolted to your floor because your guns are in there and they must be secured separately. That’s fine, you say, because it’s not like they’ll send inspectors around for this stuff. Well, just hope you never have to call 911 for a medical emergency in your home or have a fire where public safety staff will enter your home and report whatever they see that may possibly be a violation. Tell Grandma that her ambulance for the stroke she’s having will have to wait because you need to run out to a gun shop and find a new locking case for that ammunition.

Needless to say, those gun owners are going to be given a pretty stark contrast this year at the polls.

Lt. Governor’s Race
Again, the only race here was on the Democratic side. However, there is some news to report on the gun issue. First, the NRA grades for each of the candidates were rather interesting. In Mark Critz you had a man who had an A+ in 2012 drop to a C for this primary race, but who also refused to respond to the CeasefirePA questionnaire. Then there was Rep. Brandon Neuman who actually has a current A rating who also refused to answer to Ceasefire. But the winner came from the three candidates who did respond to Ceasefire with a 100% rating.

Oddly, the winner, Sen. Mike Stack, made a very bizarre claim to Ceasefire: “The NRA has consistently given me a failing grade. I would be honored to have CeaseFirePA’s
endorsement in this election and will wear it like a badge of honor right next to my NRA ‘F.'” Um, he has always had a C-, not an F, so his statement is an outright lie. That grade is based on a voting record, too. Regardless, it’s clear that he wants gun owners to know that he’s got a giant target set on their backs.

Congressional Races
PA-13
The other negative for Allyson Schwartz last night was that she was so confident in her status as a Democratic front-runner that she said she wouldn’t run again for her Congressional seat, but she would back a close supporter for the seat. That close supporter who also tried running on healthcare, Val Arkoosh, came in dead last in a four-way primary.

Perhaps the most interesting part for this solidly Democratic seat was that the so-called “liberal lion” of Pennsylvania politics came in a very close to last third place. The race really ended up being between Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law who the Clintons campaigned for and the winner, a state lawmaker who was attacked for backing some level of regulation for abortion clinics, especially in light of the Gosnell issues that happened right here in Pennsylvania.

However, it’s not like the winner is a friend of the Second Amendment, either. In his last state house run, he had a D+. One might expect that to drop to an F now that he’s in a solidly Democratic district and in need of a little extra cushion against the progressive wing of the party who has him in their sights.

PA-9
NRA endorsed in this primary because of the incumbent rule, so it’s good to report that Rep. Bill Shuster won. The other two candidates had AQs, so it’s not like it would have gone into anti-gun hands if he hadn’t made it.

PA-8
In our own Congressional district, there was a Democratic primary and the one who many would hope would bring the “War on Women” and “SCIENCE!” message to the race didn’t win. The winner, Kevin Strouse, wants the absolutely terrible Manchin-Toomey bill brought back up, and wants to “ban most ammunition—whether from handguns or rifles” that he arbitrarily decides defeats body armor. He offers no definitions of the terms he’s using, no context, just simply anything that police would support. The WaPo likes him because he has no record and is willing to speak in vague terms on the issue that leaves open the possibility of supporting quite extreme or complicated legislation that risks landing non-attorney gun owners trying to comply in jail.

PA-12
The Democrats has a competition here between a man whose main hiccup with ethics was on using proper account funds to attend a Friends of the NRA banquet on behalf of his boss, former Rep. John Murtha, and a woman who has backed portions of Obama’s gun control agenda. Unfortunately, the most anti-gun candidate won the primary in this case. I don’t know what her final grade will be, as she has no previous record to run on. She’s challenging Rep. Keith Rothfus who will likely carry the NRA endorsement.

Other Races
NRA endorsed in only a handful of primaries this year, but they won almost all of them.

For voters in the 66th State House district, the new GOP nominee, Cris Dush refused to return a questionnaire based on the ? following the name and the endorsement to an opponent who wasn’t too far behind on votes. Dush claims that he supports the Second Amendment on his website, but voters should probably let him know that he should be willing to sign his name to some policy specifics.

On the bad news front, the most hostile Republican to the Second Amendment in 176th State House district in Monroe County has a 19 vote lead right now. The county claims that all precincts have reported, but I’m not aware if any absentee ballots have been counted yet. Unfortunately, Jack Rader, Jr. returned a questionnaire with a pretty dismal C- rating, and local GOP voters opted for him over a candidate with an A. I don’t know what the Democrat’s grade will look like, but hopefully gun owners in that district will find some kind of friend on the ballot.

In one five-way Republican primary for the 17th State House district, one of the losers was the only GOP candidate to refuse to answer a questionnaire. Unfortunately for voters in that area, both Democrats also refused to answer questionnaires. There was a similar outcome in the four-way GOP contest for 169th State House district with the only GOP candidate refusing a questionnaire losing.