Keyboard and a .45 talks about the importance of downstream candidates for state and local races. This can’t really be stressed enough. Even if you completely hate McCain, and can’t bring yourself to vote for him, there are still a lot of candidates on the ballot who deserve support. We’re seriously looking at the possibility of a fillibuster proof majority Democratic controlled Senate, and a Democrat controlled house. That’s not even mentioning all the states that could go to the Democrats.  Remember in 2010 you have the census, which allows the resdistricting monster to rear its ugly head. This is definitely no time to just stay home.
Year: 2008
Something Republicans Need to Start Accepting
The whole gay cootie thing is a loser issue. Republicans are going to need to find a way to appeal to religious voters without bashing on gays politically. It’s one thing to be against gay marriage, even Democrats aren’t coming out in favor of that, but it’s another thing to suggest we need to change our constitution because of what the queers are doing to the soil. If we lose the next generation of voters to the Democrats, we’re royally screwed, especially if they are going to keep nominating candidates like Barack Obama.
UPDATE: This doesn’t seem like a good idea either.
The Bullet Counters
Wyatt points out a rather good article in Townhall about police shootings. This stuff applies to anyone who has to use a firearm in self-defense. Police aren’t the only ones that get subject to 20/20 hindsight by people who don’t know much about these matters, so go have a read.
Microstamping in New York
Tom King, President of New York State Rifle and Pistol Assocation, has a post up debunking Microstamping, which is in real danger of passing in New York State. They’ve been able to hold off new gun control in New York thanks to a Republican controlled senate, but after 2008, there’s a real danger of the state sinking into the gun control abyss if the Democrats regain control. We briefly interviewed Tom at the Annual Meeting after Governor Patterson announced his “screw gun owners” legislative agenda:
An Open Invitation
Doug Pennington is an employee of the Brady Campaign, and I’m pretty sure the guy who does the Brady Campaign blog on Paul’s behalf. As Thirdpower points out, he’s been commenting at The Huffington Post. Here’s what he says in one of his comments:
One thing: I’ve read comments off and on over the months on the blog, and one reason I (and I suspect others) choose not to get between the warring sides here is that nobody listens to anybody. Commenters here seem to be good at the schoolyard taunts and calling each other “liars,” etc, though. A few do seem to have arguments at the ready and numbers to go along with them – on both sides. (If I can make it through the drek, I can actually learn things.) Almost nobody, though, shows a sense that they may not actually have all the answers. Get in the middle of a bunch of know-it-alls convinced of their correctness? Disagree and be called a liar? Spend hours going tit-for-tat in a pointless spiral? Uh, no thanks….
Welcome to the Internet, Doug. I agree that once you get beyond the first couple of iterations of comment-reply-comment, it goes downhill pretty quickly. So I’ll extend an open invitation to Doug to have a public discussion with him on this blog regarding any gun control related topic he may want to talk about. The discussion could happen over a series of e-mails, with the end result being published here. No Kelli, no Macca, No Thirdpower, no Kaveman. Just Doug and myself.
Think they’ll take me up on it?
New Anti-Gun Blog
Thanks to Paul Helmke for pointing out a new, or at least new to me, anti-gun blog. Since the good reverend is clinging to God, but not guns, one wonders whether she’s still one of Obama’s “bitter” ones. But regardless, it appears that the blog allows comments. I haven’t tried to place one yet, but I’m going to guess “heavily moderated.” Just a hunch. Can’t have too much reasoned discourse now, can we? But proceed respectually and factually, as I know our commenters are wont to do. Engage the good reverend, and let the reasoned discourse flow.
More on Arizona Justification Bill
Actual text of the bill is here. Basically it allows you to verbally announce you’re armed to an attacker, allows a transition from concealed to open carry when under threat of physical force (not necessarily deadly physical force). It also would appear to allow you to draw into the ready position under threat of physical force. Based on a quick review of Arizona’s criminal statutes, it doesn’t appear to be unlawful to draw a gun on someone as long as you’re justified in using deadly force, even if you don’t have to shoot. Arizona’s self-defense statute would appear to remove self-defense as a justification if you are responsible for escalating the confrontation. So a question I would have is, if you draw one someone threatening physical force (not deadly physical force), and they don’t back down, then what? They are threatening physical force, you’re threatening deadly physical force. If you end up shooting him, do you lose justification?
Mass Shooting Stopped by Gun Carrying Citizen
First I’ve heard of this is from Dustin’s blog. If he had succeeded in carrying out his mass shooting, any doubt this would have made national headlines? Also of note that in most states, bars are gun free zones. In Nevada, they are not. Yet somehow, someone managed to think clearly and take action, at a place where we’re told that people won’t act responsibly.
And it doesn’t register as a blip on the national news.
Today on Security Theater …
… some sharp objects to be allowed back on planes. Some experts agree with the move, arguing they should be concentrating on finding explosives. Like coffee creamer?
Veto on Arizona Bills
According to Dave Hardy, Napolitano has vetoed two gun bills. The first:
Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed legislation Tuesday which would have allowed individuals to draw their weapons in cases where a reasonable person would believe it is necessary to protect against the use or attempted use of physical force.
I have to say, I agree with the governor on this one. Unless you’re justified in using deadly force, your gun should stay in its holster. For situations like the one described here:
“You wait ’til the big 6-foot-5, 280-pound guy knocks you on the ground and incapacitates you before you can tell him, ‘I’ve got a gun,’ ” he said.
“If that big guy threatens you, the next thing is he’s going to hit you,” Pearce explained, at which point “it’s too late to say anything.” He said Napolitano missed the whole point of the bill.
There’s already force disparity defenses to deal with that situation if you have to use deadly force on someone much larger than you, even if the offending party doesn’t have a weapon. Fists can be considered deadly weapons under some circumstances. One reason I think carrying OC [self-defense spray] is a good idea is because it’s useful for getting out of a physical altercation where deadly force wouldn’t be justified. While I agree with eliminating duties to retreat, allowing people to bring deadly force into a situation that has not yet escalating into that grave a situation seems like a bad idea.
The other bill Nepolitano vetoed was this:
Napolitano separately vetoed another measure Tuesday which would have made state-issued permits to carry a concealed weapon valid for the owner’s lifetime.
Little reason to veto this, since most state law enforcement agencies are monitoring criminal records of license holders and will revoke if you do something that makes you unqualified. The renewal is just a hoop to jump through so everyone can feel better.
UPDATE: It seems I may be misunderstanding Arizona law here. In Pennsylvania, we have no law against brandishing a firearm. If you pull a gun on someone, and don’t use it, you’re not liable if the bad guy beats a retreat or backs down, as long as the circumstances that caused you to draw was a deadly force situation. Folks are suggesting that’s not the case in Arizona. If Arizona law does punish for drawing, but not shooting, then that would seem to be something that should be fixed.
UPDATE: After looking at Arizona Revised Statutes on Justification, I’m not sure I was misunderstanding it. I have more information and questions here.