Holder has been known for getting the Administration into hot water by pushing a gun control agenda publicly (as opposed to the Administration’s actual strategy, which is to push it behind the scenes). Chris Cox, NRA-ILA’s Chief Lobbyist, points out what Holder has recently been saying, but I wanted to present the full video of the actual statement. If you’ve just eaten, I apologize, for the poor, and shameless dramatic acting here by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) is liable to make your stomach churn:
I do have to note that Issa is quite the fisherman rhetorically. After Connolly is finished his sorry display of dramatic acting, Issa casts the bait out there, and with the help of Connolly, Holder takes it hook, line and sinker. Issa asked the Administration to present to Congress the package of gun control it wants. I can promise you during the election year, this will not be forthcoming. In fact, Connolly should probably be happy Rahm is now mayor of Chicago. Getting confronted in the Congressional showers by a naked Rahm would be the least of Connolly’s problems with the now former Chief of Staff, given that he helped Issa bait Holder, and was probably too dumb to realize it.
We would dearly love to have the Administration on public record as pushing gun control heading into the 2012 election. That would make my job as a volunteer a lot easier, not to mention the folks back in Fairfax.
According to NRA, 13 anti-gun amendments have been filed in attempt to scuttle a bill to strengthen Pennsylvania’s pre-emption law. The House may take it up today.
It will be interesting to see how many get any votes outside of the standard liberal strongholds.
NRA reports that the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee passed the pre-emption bill today by a vote of 19-4. All of the Republicans who voted went in our favor, and six of the Democrats joined them. Politically speaking, the only name that jumps out at me as odd to want to pick a fight on gun rights in 2012 is Rep. Eugene DePasquale. He’s running for a statewide office, though one that NRA doesn’t grade on (to the best of my knowledge).
In the alert, NRA notes that the bill could be on the House floor as soon as Wednesday. They are asking people to call their state representatives to make sure that no poison pill amendments are added to the legislation.
If enacted, House Bill 1523 would help eliminate the need for litigation by gun owners who have been unduly burdened by local ordinances which violate the current state firearm preemption law. Citizens with no criminal intent should not be placed in jeopardy of running afoul of local restrictions they don’t even know exist simply because they have crossed from one municipality to another.
That would be nice. What a crazy concept that citizens won’t bear such a high burden of pointing out that a government shouldn’t be making illegal laws.
Professor Adam Winkler has an article in The Daily Beast suggesting that the Bloomberg/Mumbles Super Bowl ad will hurt Obama:
Gun-control proponents can only pray that Obama doesn’t take Menino and Bloomberg’s bait. Making gun control a more important issue in the election would be a terrible mistake for the president—and for the cause of gun control.
Yes, it most definitely would. Obama is playing the game smart, because the biggest threat to the Second Amendment these days is from the courts. The politicians we mostly have in line at this point. Gun issues just not being at the front of people’s minds is going to be the biggest challenge for NRA this election. Those who want to see more from Obama don’t understand just how much of a losing issue gun control is electorally.
John Richardson did some digging into the organization that Dan Gross founded to get an idea of what he bringing to the table. It definitely seems to be money.
…they use entertainment and New York sports figures as their draw. I think Brady is seeking an in to deep pockets and Gross will provide that. I’m sure he has a great Rolodex.
He also knows how to get taxpayer dollars according to what Jacob found.
I don’t believe he’s been on the receiving end of pork from Albany. He did get $50,000 (through PAX) from the NYC Council in ’10
Jacob also did some digging through NY state political donation records and it seems to indicate that he is not the same Dan Gross who has given modestly to Democrats the last few years. Instead, the new Brady president has only given to one candidate. He was backing a Democrat though, so he is likely on that side of the political spectrum.
More and more, it looks like the involvement of Dan Gross indicates that the Brady Center will be the big focus and they are likely quietly handing off the political work to Bloomberg. I noticed that the Brady accounts have been promoting Bloomberg’s MAIG Super Bowl commercial in social media, so that could be read as another sign that they are leaving that work up to the billionaire while the Brady Center staffers just try to fundraise to save their jobs. (This also wouldn’t be unheard of since we know that the partnership started a few years ago when both MAIG & Brady were using the same lobbyist who now heads CeaseFirePA.)
When I heard of Justice Ginsburg’s statement before an Egyptian audience today, I have to admit I just couldn’t work up the amount of outage as many on the right. Many folks fail to consider that a good part of our constitution is strictly mechanical, and represents compromises brought about by folks who were facing the daunting task of bringing 13 separate sovereigns together into some kind of national Republic. Much of the mechanics of the US constitution doesn’t translate into the political cultures of other countries, even if the overarching principles are worth studying (for which I would include to RKBA to be among those principles).
And it might well be that Egypt might be well-served by a very different approach than the U.S. Constitutions — for instance, with regard to relations between the federal government and more local governments, with regard to whether to have a Presidential system or a parliamentary system, with regard to how hard the constitution would be to amend, with regard to how judges are selected and how long they serve, with regard to how the President is selected, with regard to the relationship between the two chambers of the legislature, with regard to whether all executive officials work for the President or whether some are independently elected or selected, with regard to just how to craft the criminal justice system, and so on. (And here I just speak of the big picture questions, and not more specific details.) Remember that even our own states’ constitutions differ in many respects, especially with regard to separation of powers and the selection and tenure of judges, from the U.S. Constitution. Again, that the constitutional text, coupled with a wide range of extratextual political and legal practices, has worked well for us over 200+ years doesn’t tell us that it would work well for Egypt for the coming years.
I tend to agree, and with the rest of his argument. I certainly have many disagreements with Justice Ginsburg’s interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, but in many ways the US Constitution reflects the unique circumstances of this country’s founding, and continuing political struggles, that is not necessarily reflective of the political struggles in other countries. To be sure, it outlines many guarantees I believe are universal, but most of the constitution revolves around structural components which are arguably suited to our culture, but perhaps not others. It would, for instance, be difficult to imagine the French arguing over the meaning of interstate commerce, to the extent Americans do today, and have done since the founding.
Let’s face it, a lot of folks (even our dear, wonderful readers) like to bitch and moan. They also don’t like to do squat when it comes to their issue of choice. We usually hear that it’s because one person can’t make a difference. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Oh, and did I mention that this decision that relies on her proposal actually screws things up enough that candidates were already gathering petitions for the old (new) districts and now they may not even be able to run in them?
I hear those among you who say you’ll sit this election out. ”If the party loses because they didn’t go conservative enough for me, it’ll teach them a lesson”. That’s not only groaningly solipsistic – it’s not, after all, all about you – it’s also just not the way political parties and organizations work. I’ve said it a few times in the past few weeks, and I’m going to keep saying it until y’all get it right; Political parties don’t “learn lessons” – they reflect the will of those who show up. And if conservatives – and all you libertarian Ron Paul supporters – don’t show up, then the “establishment wins.
This is more true than many realize. I am most decidedly not a fan of how the GOP operates in both my county, and also the state, but the fact of the matter is you have to show up if you want to be have your voice heard. That requires, to some degree, knowing when to stick to your principles, and when to be willing to remain a part of a larger coalition. Too many make the mistake of believing that politics is about principles. It’s about no such thing. Politics is a beauty contest for ugly people. Principles provide you with goals; they tell you where you want to try to bring things in four years.
The rest of that game is all playing your cards well. But you have to be in the game if you want to have a possibility of winning. The big problem with libertarians is they make the mistake of believing politics is a philosophical debate, rather than a card game. It’s a lot more the latter than the former. You have to play the cards your dealt, and the only thing that is going to save our asses in this hand is the fact that our opponents have to play a worse one.
Using a chainsaw seems to me to be unnecessarily dangerous and doesn’t lend itself to stealth. Also, if I were sitting around my house and I saw and heard a chainsaw coming through the door, my first thought will not be it’s the police and I should cooperate.
Yeah, I would not think someone chainsawing my door is the cops. Then again, it would have to be an awfully stupid prowler too, considering how much noise that makes.
