Currently Browsing: Gun Rights

This is Why We Need Constitutional Carry

Because protections built into the law mean nothing to the Pennsylvania State Police. They illegally linked the LTCF information to our Drivers’ Licenses so that when you’re pulled over at a traffic stop the officer can see all your information related to the LTCF. It may not just be cops either:

Furthermore, even if there was, it is illegal to disclose this information to individuals other than a law enforcement officer acting in the scope of his/her duties. As I understand the new system, it is being relayed to emergency responders, which may even include tow truck drivers that are part of the system.

I’m very uncomfortable with this state of affairs. This essentially makes Pennsylvania a duty-to-inform state. How long before they link this to the plate readers the cops use these days? Bullshit. This information was supposed to be private and increasingly we’re seeing state officials violate the law when they feel like it. What’s worse? Most of the time they get away with it.

Preemption Enhancement Back in Action

The new pre-emtiion enhancement bill, HB 2258, is now going before the Pennsylvania House floor, having been voted out of committee by a 21-6 vote. I’m curious to see if we can pass this with a veto-proof or near veto-proof majority. The GOP controls the House and Senate at levels in this state that have not been seen for decades, and there are still some pro-gun Democrats out there, so I’m hopeful we’ll get a good vote tally.

When this bill was briefly law before it was invalidated by the courts for violating the single-subject requirement of our state constitution, it did a lot of good. Most municipalities folded like a cheap deck of cards once challenged under it. The only holdouts were the big cities, which fought the law using the single-subject argument.

Follow this link to go to NRA’s handy app that will help you write your rep. Let’s get this done.

Constitutional Carry Veto Override Successful

NRA is reporting that the Missouri legislature has successfully overridden Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of Constitutional Carry, among other pro-gun measures. This makes Missouri the 11th state to adopt Constitutional Carry. This has been a good year for the movement, and Missouri is a decently sized state with a reasonably large city (St. Louis). It’s a good state to have under our belt.

My only fear is that we’re making red states better, and meanwhile Bloomberg is showing a willingness to spend $600 grand a week to get what he wants in Nevada, and $200k to get what he wants in Maine. We have to punch him in the nose in purple states in a big way. Otherwise this is going to end up in bifurcation of the country, where the Second Amendment means a lot of different things depending on what jurisdiction you’re in. Bloomberg is willing to spend big money to make that a reality! What are you willing to do to fight him?

VCDL Sues Katie Couric

Bearing Arms is reporting. I don’t honestly think they have a case, and expect it will be quickly dismissed.

The Defendants manipulated the footage in service of an agenda: they wanted to establish that there is no basis for opposing universal background checks by fooling viewers into believing that even a panel of pro-Second Amendment advocates could not provide one.

Yeah, I’m not sure that’s legally defamation. Additionally their claims of harm are somewhat dubious. One claim is that an FFL holder lost business for being thought a fool, and the same for the attorney.

Sadly, this is freedom of the press. The recourse we have as gun owners is to not watch or subscribe to their content, and not to agree to be interviewed by hacks like Couric.

Primary & Secondary School Weapons Ban to be Reconsidered

Good news from Firearms Attorney Joshua Prince regarding the Pennsylvania Superior Court case that ruled “other lawful purposes” language in the Pennsylvania school weapons ban didn’t include legally carrying a firearm, but instead meant that lunch ladies could have knives in the kitchen, or other such school related activity:

After the decision, Mr. Goslin contacted me and we, pro-bono, filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Reargument en banc, wherein, inter alia, we argued that the Superior Court should permit new briefs to be filed and oral argument, after vacating the court’s July 6, 2016 decision. Today, the Superior Court GRANTED the motion, withdrew the July 6, 2016 decisions and scheduled re-briefing and argument.

That’s definitely good news. Hopefully we can get a better result on appeal. If this case loses, it would technically be a serious violation to drop your kid off at school with a firearm in the vehicle, or even to turn around in a school parking lot on the way to the range. What about a sidewalk that transits school property? The “other lawful purposes” was what prevents this law from applying to ordinary people, rather than only to people who don’t have lawful intent.

A Lesson for Gun Voters

Could gun owners suffer the fate of black voters who are loyal only to one party and thus taken for granted? It could be argued this has happened to us.:

The captured group theory was put forward by Princeton political scientist Paul Frymer in a book first published in 1999, “Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America.1 He argued that politicians focus their attention on white swing voters, and that the two-party system is structured to push aside the concerns of black voters2 because they consistently and overwhelmingly favor one party.

Eventually, if there is no pro-gun insurgency within the Democratic Party, we’ll just get baked into the election numbers for the GOP and there won’t any good reason for the Dems to improve their standing with gun voters, and the the Republicans won’t have to work very hard to please us.

And That’s Just People Who Will Admit It to Strangers

Household gun ownership is increasing. That tells me we definitely have a decent amount of uninitiated people entering the shooting world. Most of us experienced in the issue aren’t going to talk to random people calling to ask about guns in the house.

But let me talk for a minute about the actual poll. I’m going to assume below that you skim the poll.

Household gun ownership: It’s good news that overall household gun ownership has increased, but if that’s all happening in red states, it actually doesn’t help us. What I see is an increasing divide between Republicans and Democrats on the gun issue. If that managed to marginalize the Democrats so they couldn’t win elections, that would be fine, but it does not appear the Democratic Party is in decline. A big increase in household gun ownership in swing states would be great news. We have some good evidence that it’s increasing in blue states, but real polling would be helpful.

Gender gap: The gender gap on the issue is still very significant. It would be interesting to see gender cross tabs broken down by race. I suspect we’re doing much better with white women, but not doing as much to reach minority women.

Generation gap: There’s no serious generation gap on the issues the Dems are likely to be able to achieve on, except for a federal database of gun sales. Unfortunately, millennials aren’t very big privacy wonks. Millennials do seem, however, to have figured out the “assault weapons” issue is bullshit.

Overall I’d say the poll is good news. But I’m worried about anti-gun attitudes becoming a shibboleth among Democrats. If they can achieve that kind of cultural unity, and still win elections, eventually our goose is going to get cooked.

But I Thought Gun Control Was a Winning Issue?

The Boston Heard thinks that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healy shot “shot the Dems in the foot” with her new autocratic “Assault Weapons” Ban. But how can that be? Hillary and Obama think gun control is a winning issue. So much so that Hillary has chosen to make it a centerpiece of her campaign.

Nonetheless, in deep blue Massachusetts, she finds herself in the middle of a backlash, even from liberal members of her own party. Gun bans have never been popular, no matter how much they want to delude themselves that they are. I keep saying the worst thing the Dems and gun control movement could do to us is to drop the assault weapons issue entirely, repeal all the state bans, and push hard on issues that sound reasonable to the uninitiated, but actually quietly nibble away at our political power. Bloomberg almost seems to get it, and that’s why he worries me.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, who notes: “Punch back twice as hard, as a famous man says.

Getting too Wrapped Up In Your Own Views

Time has an interesting story on how most Americans think their views on guns are the majority view, even when they are not. This has been a consistent issue since I started writing about gun politics a decade ago. You see it all the time in people who whine about the Hughes Amendment (the 1986 machine gun ban), or various other this and thats we can’t change because it’s beyond our political power. For years I had to explain that the NFA was untouchable because the fact was that a majority of Americans (and I would argue gun owners) did not agree with us, and more importantly neither did a majority of lawmakers. There was no easy way to convince lawmakers that voting to repeal the NFA was in their political interests, and if we wanted to change that, we had to work on the people, not the politicians.

Now a decade later, I think getting suppressors/silencers delisted from the NFA may be within reach if we have a few favorable elections, and the Dems start falling apart the same way the Republicans are falling apart. The reason for that is we have very compelling arguments, both in terms of being kind to neighbors’ ears and also to our own. The arguments we can use for suppressors are easily understandable to people who don’t shoot. They are almost definitely understandable to anyone living near a shooting range in a suburban area, of which I can point to several examples near where I live. It might be possible for gun ranges to mandate suppressor use if they were deregulated. Right now that’s completely unrealistic, because your average shooter isn’t going to bother with all the regulatory compliance involved.

The article speaks of the “false consensus effect.”:

In a less formal sense, the “false consensus effect” was on display at the political conventions, where both parties presented their views on the virtues or dangers of owning a firearm as representing the common-sense attitude of most Americans. Republican nominee Donald J. Trump declared that he would “protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe,” while Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy took the stage at the Democratic Convention to declare that “the gun lobby fights to keep open glaring loopholes that 90 percent of Americans want closed.”

This is why it’s important to be open with people about what you spend your weekends doing. The false consensus effect can either be our friend or our enemy. Which way that goes depends on us being good ambassadors.

History is Made By Determined Minorities

This is a very interesting read, with lessons for the gun rights movement:

This idea of one-sidedness can help us debunk a few more misconceptions. How do books get banned? Certainly not because they offend the average person –most persons are passive and don’t really care, or don’t care enough to request the banning. It looks like, from past episodes, that all it takes is a few (motivated) activists for the banning of some books, or the black-listing of some people. The great philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell lost his job at the City University of New York owing to a letter by an angry –and stubborn –mother who did not wish to have her daughter in the same room as the fellow with dissolute lifestyle and unruly ideas.

The same seems to apply to prohibitions –at least the prohibition of alcohol in the United States which led to interesting Mafia stories.

Let us conjecture that the formation of moral values in society doesn’t come from the evolution of the consensus. No, it is the most intolerant person who imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance. The same can apply to civil rights.

Read the whole thing. The question for us is, “who are more intolerant?” If we’re going to come out on top as a movement, we have to be intolerant of their intolerance. We have to be as insistent that we be left alone as those who believe we ought to be interfered with.

What made me very uncomfortable with this article was that I believe he’s right, and I’m becoming less convinced gun owners have it in us to drive the culture. Sure, I do believe we’ve been successful at growing the culture. But I believe there is a lack of awareness among the new arrivals that everything we have today is a result of a few tenacious and stubborn bastards, many of whom are dead and or getting old. Who will replace them?

« Previous Entries