Currently Browsing: Gun Rights

Another Victory for Texas OC Activism

Suddenly there aren’t the votes for it in the Texas Legislature, according to the Lt. Governor. Remember, before their little stunt, this was supposedly a done deal. Are Second Amendment supporters going to get anything out of Austin this session? Remember, the Texas Legislature only meets on odd numbered years for a 140 day session, so anything we don’t get this session will have to wait until 2017. I do hope there are at least the votes to remove the prohibition on carry on college campuses this session.

So far all all the OC Tarrant County folks have accomplished this session is getting the legislature to install panic buttons, and scuttling a bill that looked like it had the legs to pass. What else will they manage to accomplish in this legislative session?

Progress, But Not Nearly Enough

Washington, D.C. has issued eight concealed carry permits:

“We’ve had 69 applications, of which 3 were canceled at the request of the applicant,” Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump said. “So far eight licenses have been approved and issued.”

Completely unacceptable. They ought to be charged with contempt. But nonetheless, there are eight people in DC who have, albeit limited, carry permits. These eight are pioneers, who would never have had them without court intervention. Let’s hope these pioneers are followed by many, many others.

Carrots and Sticks

A very good essay by Brian Keith up on Joe Huffman’s site describing the divide between the two parts of our movement in terms of “carrots” and “sticks.” I agree with the basic premise. The only thing I would add is that sometimes the things sticks can do can thoroughly screw up what the carrots are trying to accomplish through the political process. That’s not how we’d like it to be, but politicians are not courageous people, and getting the cats to herd the way we want is a tricky and delicate process.

Like I said in a previous post, philosophically, I have no problem with the “I Will Not Comply Crowd.” I live in a state with a similar regime to Washington for handguns, and it’s probably one of the most ignored laws in the commonwealth. I have no problem with civil disobedience.  I don’t disapprove of what the sticks have been doing in Connecticut, because I don’t think there’s anything we carrots can do to help the Nutmeg State, for the time being. We’re challenging the law in federal court, and maybe, maybe down the road we could federally preempt it using Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That’s thin gruel, and I recognize that. But we are trying, and I think over the long run we have a good chance of being successful.

The big strategic question of gun rights in the last two years of the Obama Administration is how we defang Bloomberg, because he, without a doubt, is the single biggest threat our gun rights have faced since the 1990s. He’s not going to be intimidated by sticks; he has enough money to hire his own private army to protect him if he wishes. He’s not going to be concerned with carrots either, because most of us aren’t billionaires, and don’t have the money to throw around the political process that he does. So what do we do?

Is Losing Big Better Than Losing Small?

Other bloggers have linked Publicola’s post about the dangers of compromise, so you might have seen it already. I had to wait until I had time to address it. Publicola is argues the no-compromise position, but he’s always been a reasonable fellow, and willing to make arguments instead of flinging insults, so I respect him for that. His post is probably one of the best defenses of the no-compromise position I’ve read:

In the short term it seems to help by lessening the damage done by a law, but in the long run it makes a law harder to repeal or have ruled unconstitutional. Further it makes intensifying the effects of a law by further additions over time more plausible.

Read the whole thing. One thing I would point out is that the courts weren’t much of an option for us until 2008 for federal gun laws, and not until 2014 for state gun laws (at least in federal court). So prior to 2008, or at least prior to the retirement of Sandra Day O’Conner, the courts were never going to rule anything unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds because they didn’t have the votes for it.

But that’s not to say it’s a bad point Publicola makes. I’d feel a lot better challenging a five round limit in court than a fifteen round limit, because the five round limit is more apparently unreasonable. But I still wouldn’t feel good about either, because I know what arguments the other side will make and how federal judges mostly think about the issue. For the foreseeable future, the courts are a crapshoot when it comes to challenging gun control. If the courts are ever stronger defenders of Second Amendment rights, I think this point will be completely valid, and it might make sense to remain obstinate, knowing the courts will more likely have your back with a more intrusive law.

I’d also concede that when we accepted the position of instant background checks, we made our position for arguing against expanding them more difficult. We absolutely did. But by the same token, it’s hard to see how we’d be better off as a community if we had been stuck with 7-day waiting periods, as the original Brady Bill originally wanted, or been stuck with the local police, given later non-commandeering doctrine development by the courts, compiling their own registries using the background check applications as originally envisioned by the early versions of the Brady Bill. It’s also difficult to see how we’d have been better off with an assault weapons ban with a one-feature test, no sunset, and a five round magazine limit (which is what they wanted, originally). Most of the current “Gun Culture 2.0″ never could have developed and flourished under those circumstances, and a lot of people would have moved on.

The ultimate problem with the argument is that it assumes everyone stay outraged and angry, and will keep fighting. Some will, no doubt, but many won’t. They will exit the gun community. More importantly, their kids will likely not be part of it. With the right law, they can destroy or heavily curtail the gun culture. Look at New Jersey, for instance. Most of their worst New Jersey gun control laws date back in 1960s, and while there are still impassioned people fighting over there, for the most part New Jersey’s laws have succeeded in destroying their gun culture to the point where they are pretty much at the mercy of the legislature. California and New York are also in the same boat. I don’t think the gun culture in any of those states is better off for having lost big.

News Links for Wednesday 1-21-2014

You may have noticed posting getting a bit light again. That is because I have been re-engaged at my client this week, as their project is wrapping up. Additionally, I’ll be taking on another client for a infrastructure and security evaluation, but the deliverable there is a report, so I don’t expect that to be a huge time suck. There has actually been a decent amount of gun news, which I present thusly:

I continue my tradition of not going to SHOT. Not that I don’t want to go, but I don’t really have the money to dump on a week in Vegas. Going to the NRA Annual Meeting every year is about all we can muster. If you’re looking for good SHOT coverage, visit The Firearm Blog.

Why are anti-gunners so violent? Mouth foaming CSGV supporters agree! Also, why does Shannon Watts hate America?

Oh, speaking of CSGV’s foaming at the mouth supporters …

What was the motivation behind the M4/M16 hit piece that recently cropped up? Tam has a look.

Looks like Bloomberg is already lining up his rich buddies to repeat “rich assholes buy democracy” in Nevada.

Maryland’s new gun laws are headed to appeal.

MyFoxPhilly: “Legally purchased guns caused a man to lose custody of his son.

Dems in Western PA: “Hey, we’re not those anti-gun kinda Dems around here.” Unfortunately, it’s becoming your parties brand. I think a lot of blue dogs are going to be sorry they ever shilled for Obama, and a lot of them did.

Federal judge considering whether to hold DC in contempt. They aren’t going to let people carry unless the judge shows he’s serious. I hope he does hold them in as much contempt as they are holding all our rights.

SayUncle said it better than me about the TTAG Charlie Hedbo simulation. Also, from the comments, it looks like Michael Bane is planning to do one of his own. I think that’s a good idea. My only objection was to inviting the media to a hurried and seemingly not well-planned event.

Democracy is the serially uninformed and easily led being suckered into voting against their own best interests by deep-pocketed grifters who are looking out only for themselves.” Sometimes it doesn’t seem republics are any better, but they are better.

Ace of Spades updates on the recent ATF rulings. ATF is getting more absurd, and more arbitrary and capricious in its rulings. This is entirely inappropriate when it comes to a protected civil right. What is the sense in denying people the ability to rent machines in order to make lowers? I think this is ripe for a lawsuit.

Michael Bane reminds everyone that we did have a media education program, a la Bloomberg. Well, not a la Bloomberg. Our folks weren’t peddling garbage.

S.E. Cupp also has more to say about Bloomberg’s “education” program. Also see more on the subject here.

Turns out Michigan Governor Rick Snyder isn’t all that reliable on Second Amendment issues when he doesn’t have to face voters again. Hope he’s not aspiring to higher office, because if he is, we’ll be sure he flames out in his primary.

Joe Huffman posts his speech from the January 15th rally in Olympia. I think everyone should read it. If you’d rather watch it, head here.

The OC clowns have now accomplished getting firearms banned from the House and Senate galleries in Washington State. I take issue with Alan Gottlieb’s assertions that people like this are on our side. This follows on the great success of Texas activists in getting the legislature to vote for panic buttons in offices. Much more of this, Bloomberg can quit spending his money and just let misguided OC activists handle everything.

“This is a culture war, folks,” said Blake.  “They don’t like what we do.”

Politico: “The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership.” I say drop the writers off in the worst neighborhood in Detroit, and then see how they feel about defensive gun ownership. You’ll see a lot more of this. The left is scared to death of the trent in public opinion, and they will use their media allies to do whatever they can to reverse it.

Why the CDC isn’t funding anti-gun propaganda.

Demographics is not destiny. It’s worth noting that Bush managed to get a significant chunk of the Hispanic vote ten years ago. Parties get cocky and arrogant at their own risk.

Conservatives battling Comcast. My act of defiance against Comcast’s evil was to cut the cord. Don’t give them money. There’s nothing worth watching on TV these days anyway.

Could We Sue Over Operation Choke Point?

We’ve been noticing more problems with Operation Choke Point, the Obama Administration’s program to bully banks into starving the gun industry of financial services. As Prof. Glenn Reynolds notes, “Sounds like a conspiracy to deny civil rights.” That would be under 18 U.S.C. 241. The Second Amendment necessarily has to protect a right, though one subject to regulation according to the Heller decision, to engage in commerce with firearms. If it’s not legal to engage in the business of manufacturing or selling firearms, then in effect the Second Amendment would be meaningless.

Now, I don’t expect Eric Holder to prosecute himself, but that’s why we have 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which allows a person subject to deprivation of rights to file suit. It looks like in the time since Prof. Reynolds original post, the financial institution has retracted its statement that Operation Chokepoint was to blame. But if we can get some solid proof, why not file a 1983 action against the DOJ, going all the way up to President Obama? The discovery alone would be epic.

Bloomberg Probing our Defenses in the Green Mountain State

I was concerned when it looked like Bloomberg was moving in on Vermont, and trying to get some gun control momentum in the Green Mountain State. Vermont can probably best be summed up with “armed hippies.” Fortunately, even the Dems seem to be saying no. Probably the best argument Vermont has is that there’s basically no crime, so what problem are you trying to solve, exactly?

That’s not to say the threat is over. Vermont is taking in a lot of people from states that have severely curtailed the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, and that will bring anti-gun attitudes. Additionally, you never know when our opponents may find an appropriate tragedy to exploit. The fortunate thing for us is that there is no ballot in Vermont, so Bloomberg’s tactic of rounding up his fellow billionaires to outspend us 10:1 in order to sell his trojan horse to voters is not an option for him.

UPDATE: More ground prep here.

Who’s the Sad Panda?

Gun control got a snub from the Commander in Chief during the State of the Union. Not a mention, not a one. The best they mustered was a vague reference to Newtown. Not even Newtown, CT, just Everytown, Newtown. Shit, the President worked harder to win the hearts and minds of the French this year. The French! They got a speech and James Taylor song. What did the gun control crowd get? Even the left is recognizing it.

Pundits might be debating who’s really winning the gun control debate, but it’s apparent that even the true believers in the Obama White House believe it’s lost cause enough to not even be worth more than a vague dog whistle in the SOTU. That’s what they’ve been reduced to. That is what Bloomberg and his rich buddies are getting behind as a winning idea. Even the White House doesn’t believe it anymore.

Bringing Colorado Back into the Fold


I was pleased to see there might be a ray of hope after the 2014 elections, to bring Colorado back to free America:

The state legislative session just started this week. It is already apparent that Republicans are aiming to repeal the unpopular gun control bills and expand gun rights:

  • House Bill (HB) 15-1009 would repeal the magazine ban
  • HB 15-1049 would extend the “castle doctrine” to include businesses
  • HB 15-1050 would repeal the expanded background check and fees
  • Senate Bill 15-032 would allow concealed carry without a permit

Will any of these bills make it through the legislature and onto Democrat Gov. Hickenlooper’s desk? Would he sign them? He already told a meeting of Colorado sheriffs last year that he hadn’t really read the earlier bills and that it was a mistake to sign them. It would be a great opportunity to see if there was any truth behind his words.

Read the whole thing. Things sound very promising. It would be a tremendous rebuke to Bloomberg to bring Colorado back from the brink of being an anti-gun state, and to do it with Hickenlooper’s signature. In fact, it would be the first time, I can recall, a state would have repealed laws such as this. Every other state that’s started going down Colorado’s path has only gotten worst over time. Once the scales tip, there’s usually no going back.

Colorado has a strong libertarian streak compared to many other states. Unfortunately, the Colorado GOP has been largely unable to jettison the parts of its coalition which are a severe liability to it. Let’s hope we can bring Colorado back and keep it back.

We Have Our Share of Rage Mongers

Jim Geraghty has this to say about recent incidents in the name of #BlackLivesMatter:

My fellow men and women of the Right… yes, we have our bad days. Yes, there are times somebody on our side embarrasses us or does something stupid. But we can all thank our lucky stars we don’t have idiots, losers, and misanthropic rage-mongers like this claiming to act in the name in our cause.

You sure about that Jim? The thing that pisses me off about the current situation in Washington State is that we need people who engage in peaceful civil disobedience. We need people who are willing to engage in some Irish Democracy. I have no beef, in principle, with the “We Will Not Comply” crowd. But why would any sensible person want to live under a horrendously bad law when there’s an opportunity to make it just a bad law? To me, you take ground back where you can.

I get that a lot of people are unhappy with Alan Gottlieb because of the Manchin-Toomey deal. I was not happy with him after Manchin-Toomey either. It was a bad deal, and we had the votes to kill it, so we killed it. We were very lucky that Gottlieb’s endorsement didn’t cost us that vote, because it was very close. My fear at the time was some of our weaker Senators would use his seal of approval as pro-gun cover to switch their vote to a “yes”. I think it’s fair to criticize this move.

But I think trying to shit on other hard-working activists who are trying to take as much ground back right now, because they think they can get it, is beyond the pale. Taking back lost ground is not compromise. Even the simple measure of exempting transfers to Washington LCCP holders would destroy I594’s usefulness as a scheme to register all firearms. I don’t see the logic in not seeking even a simple exemption like that if the votes could be mustered for it in the legislature.

The law doesn’t cease becoming the law just because you choose to ignore it. They aren’t going to arrest people en mass engaging in political protest. They aren’t going to arrest someone who transfers a firearm to a friend. What they will do is take cases on the margin, and make examples out of those folks to intimidate the rest of the scofflaws. This is not a plea to comply with the law, just a dose of reality for how it’s going to work. If we can take action now to ease the law to make fewer scofflaws, we ought to.

« Previous Entries