search
top
Currently Browsing: Gun Rights

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?

Bad Idea of the Day: Fighting Back with the Ballot in California

I get that California gun owners are in desperate straits, so I don’t really blame them for desperate measures, but this is a desperate measure that’s practically guaranteed to fail and backfire. NRA is smart for not getting involved. There’s always a tendency among people active in politics to assume their positions are more popular than they really are. The reality is that most of the voting public doesn’t know bunk about your pet issue, taxation, deficits, etc. Most of the public thinks most of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. They point out that California beat the handgun freeze proposal in 1982, and that is true, but the demographics of California have changed greatly since 1982. Take a good hard look at those numbers. They do not add up to this being winnable.

At this time the NRA and other gun groups are not on board. Giving them the benefit of doubt, I believe the reason for their lack of involvement at this time has to do with the fact that they have played ‘defense’ and what we are doing here is ‘offense’.

No, the reason NRA is not on board is likely because ballot fights cost a ton of money, the victory almost always goes to the side that spends the most money, and we cannot outspend Bloomberg, Silicon Valley oligarchs, and all the other lefty groups in California that are guaranteed to pour money into defeating us.

I hate to say it, because it pains me to say it, but California is lost if we can’t save it through the courts or federal preemption. Given that the GOP is a hot dumpster fire right now full of unserious and stupid “elites” and an unserious and naive base, both are looking pretty unlikely. In the past I’ve been reluctant to tell people to move out of their states, rather than stay and fight, but at this point that’s what we’re looking at. It’s time to move out of California if you live there and are a gun owner. The only thing this ballot measure is likely to accomplish is giving Bloomberg another head on his pike, and that’s going to help carry California’s bullshit to other states, not prevent it.

Sheriffs Oppose Bloomberg Ballot Measure in Nevada

Question 1 on the Nevada Ballot is basically what Bloomberg successfully spent tons of money to get in Washington State. They are back for more of the gun rights pie in Washington, and you can be sure they will be in Nevada as well. Ballot fights almost always go to the side the spends on the most money. Sure, eventually Bloomberg will likely overreach and lose, but where will that be? We were successful at defeating handgun bans via ballot in the 1970s, but what about the new strategy of nibbling around the margins?

It’s useful that a majority of Nevada sheriffs have come out against Question 1.

“It really shows how gun violence is impacting various areas in our communities,” said Jennifer Crowe, spokeswoman for Nevadans for Background Checks. “They know it’ll make a difference and save lives.”

Ask Jennifer Crowe how much money she’s getting from Bloomberg. Rest assured, she’s paid, just like the people who went around to collect the signatures required.
Remember, they’ve been offered a compromise on this which involved full background checks for ever sale, and they rejected it out of hand. This isn’t and has never been about background checks. It’s about using the 4473 to create de-facto registration.

Positive Signs

NBC News is reporting “Millennials Are Less Likely to Support Gun Control Than You’d Think.” There’s a component of that generation that borrowed radicalism from their late boomer parents. But for the most part Millennials are more open to letting people do their thing if they aren’t bothering anyone. They are tolerant to a fault, if anything. There isn’t a whole lot of busy-body in that generation. So there is hope. But like I’ve said many times, if we can’t get them voting on gun rights, it won’t matter.

From the Columbus Dispatch, “More African-Americans favoring owning guns, but racial inequity alleged on exercise of rights.

Smith’s forum reflects what researchers see as growing interest among African-Americans in gun ownership. But becoming a black licensed gun owner is not a risk-free prospect, a fact brought to light this month by the police shooting of Philando Castile, who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon when he was shot in his car July 6, and by the presence at a Dallas rally the next day of perhaps 30 marchers openly carrying rifles.

Dallas police mistakenly labeled a black licensed gun owner as a “person of interest” after a black gunman who was not part of the rally opened fire, killing five police officers.

Read the whole thing. I’d expect that person would have been a “person of interest” no matter what color the protesters were. That isn’t intended to undermine the issue, because I think it’s real. It’s important that the RKBA movement keep spreading the history. If we can crack into the black community, women, and hispanics, the gun control movement has no viable future, even if Bloomberg keeps spending big.

Jerry Brown Signs Serialization Bill

Jerry Brown signed the bill that requires serial numbers on all firearms. The basic law says that anyone who manufactures, sells or transfers a firearm must have a serial number engraved on it that has been assigned by the California DOJ. Based on my reading of the bill, it exempts antiques, curios and relics, and any long gun manufactured before the Gun Control Act. So it will at least, as far as I can tell, not compel people to take collectable firearms and destroy their value by defacing them.

We Have to Reverse This

College rifle and pistol teams are coming under fire in the current fascist PC conformity that’s the current vogue in academia. What colleges and universities are doing is banning the groups from taking funding from NSSF and NRA to support their programs. The kids today are open to the shooting sports, because they don’t come with a whole lot of preconceived prejudices towards things. If we can get them hooked on shooting, it’ll be something they care about, and that will translate into something they vote on.

Quote of the Day

Charles C.W. Cooke commenting on the Massachusetts AG assault weapons ban reinterpretation:

In order to avoid the confusion and the caprice that this sort of behavior inevitably yields, I propose a better means of regulating the behavior of the citizenry henceforth: We could call it “the law,” and we could demand that it be written by “legislators” and subject to the strictures of a “constitution.” Crazy, I know.

The whole thing is a hot dumpster fire, but the Massachusetts Court system has been so biased against any idea of a Second Amendment right that the Supreme Court overturned them unanimously on stun guns. I know we’ve gotten this kind of arbitrariness and capriciousness thrown out in other states when they’ve tried it, but I don’t have a lot of faith in the Massachusetts Court system, or the federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

New Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban

Via the Boston Globe. This was done entirely by executive fiat of the Attorney General. You can bet Bloomberg’s fingerprints are all over this:

The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.

It won’t apply to firearms purchased before the new rule, but from hereon out, this is the new rule. Things are just going to continue to get worse in blue-model states that Dems control. The only way we’re going to save them is federal preemption, either by the courts or Congress, and if Hillary wins, you can forget the Courts. If you live in those states, I’m sorry, but that’s just how it is. And the worst part? Oregon, Colorado, Washington, all states that for now are blue but still good, are probably most in jeopardy. Pennsylvania is currently controlled by the GOP in both houses, but that won’t last forever.

Gun owners need to wake up, or things are going to get very, very bad in blue and purple states. If you’re in those states and still voting for Dems, you either a fool, or at the end of the day don’t really value your gun rights.

Give Me That Old Time Law and Order

The Cleveland Police Union asks that open carry be banned for the Republican National Convention. I can certainly understand why they would prefer this. I can certainly understand why they might just want to ban protests too. But the fact of the matter is that it’s just not constitutional under the laws of Ohio for the governor to do this. Fortunately, Kasich seems to know his limits.

Recall it was an armed march by the Black Panthers during Ronald’s Reagan’s stint as Governor of California that prompted the legislature to pass, and Governor Reagan to sign, the first ban on open carry in the Golden State.

Sometimes respecting constitutional rights makes the job of the police difficult. That said, if you’re planning to OC at the RNC, I’d keep it slung/holstered if I were you.

« Previous Entries

top