Busybodies vs. the Productive

Richard Fernandez had an interesting post at the beginning of this week that discussed what I’ve long thought is the fundamental problem with preserving liberty:

Paradoxically, maybe Barack Obama is right about one thing. Capitalism is too preoccupied with doing things. It leaves governance as an afterthought. It puts the “pursuit of happiness” front and center and goes about its business trusting to the existence of a civil society or the continued maintenance of a social contract. People working one hundred hour weeks have no time to think about Roland Burris II. But the problem is that people like Roland Burris II have lots of time to think about them.  People like Blag probably think of nothing but. And therein lies the rub.  Capitalism has this blind spot. Obama is right about that. While government was small and largely charged with keeping the bandidos at bay and collecting the garbage it was possible to leave governance to take care of itself, except for the time just before and after elections. But with the increasing power of the state and its growing propensity to tax, perhaps it is no longer possible for the productive people in America to simply go about their tasks while leaving Washington to amuse itself.

Read the whole thing.  It’s excellent.  Activism is very time consuming.  During the run up to the 2008 election, it was like having a second full time job.  My weekends were spent working gun shows, and weeknights talking to gun clubs and gun owners.  If not that, then making calls for the local pro-gun politicians.  If it were not for the fact that Bitter was not employed, I doubt I could have dedicated as much to it as I did.  The 2010 elections will be much harder on our time if, God willing, we’re both employed.

Activism is difficult for the productive, and people with families.  It’s easy for those who make their careers as community organizers.  We on the right need to start thinking about better ways to organize, that reflect the reality that most of us have jobs and families.  Richard is right.  We can’t afford any longer to leave Washington and the left to their own devices.

Is CeaseFire New Jersey Defunct?

How the mighty seem to have fallen.  I first wondered when a few months ago a friend of mine noticed that their domain was in redemption, basically meaning they hadn’t renewed it, and the registar was giving them a grace period where they could get the domain out.  We had designs on grabbing it and using it to promote a pro-gun message.  Alas the folks at New Jersey Coalition for Self-Defense got it before we did.  We’re happy it at least ended up in the hands of a pro-gun group and not a domain farm.  Their previous page can be found here, in case you were wondering.

Of course, this could just be some carelessness on the part of a volunteer, or on Bryan Miller’s part.  I know he’s been rather busy lately losing in Trenton on his gun rationing scheme, so renewing the web site might not be much on his mind.

But a quick look through GuideStar shows they haven’t filed a form 990 since 2000, which means they are below the $25,000 income threshold for years.  A quick search of New Jersey’s public charity search turns up nothing.  The last address listed for CeaseFire turns out to be a church in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

But a quick check of their incorporation status turns up something interesting.  From 2003 to 2008, their incorporation status was listed as suspended.  They reincorporated last June, using a law office as their agent and mailing address for the corporation.  Bryan Miller is listed as the incorporator.

I now believe CeaseFire New Jersey to either be entirely the creation and pet project of Bryan Miller, or very close to it.  This likely means that CeaseFire is, in fact, effectively defunct as a political entity, even if it remains incorporated in name.  In short, there is absolutely nothing backing up Bryan Miller, except perhaps his relationship with the media.  For the “Garden State’s leading organization devoted to reducing gun violence,” their grass roots look an awful lot like a barren field of dirt.  Legislators in New Jersey fearing Bryan Miller can threaten their seats should fear not.  CeaseFire New Jersey truly is a paper tiger.

The Pressure is on the House

The news media has picked up the story that Pelosi had to pull her bill.  We might, from the articles, get an idea of what might happen in The House.  First, from the New York Times:

Chris Cox, the executive director of the N.R.A.’s legislative unit, wouldn’t confirm today that his organization threatened to monitor the vote in the House, or “score” it, as one of the gauges it uses to grade lawmakers’ adherence to the group’s agenda. “What I will say is that we would hold our right to take a position on a procedural motion that has a possibility of positively or adversely affecting the 2nd amendment,” Mr. Cox said. He termed “restoring Second Amendment rights” to district residents a “core issue’’ for his organization.

Next from the Washington Times:

House Democratic leaders have said the National Rifle Association is a major influence on some pro-gun Democrats on the Rules Committee, who may have agreed to attach the gun amendments to the bill.

“Leadership thought there was understanding with the NRA to keep the bill clean,” Mr. Connolly said. “Obviously there was a misunderstanding.”

From the Washington Post:

In an afternoon conference call with city officials, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said he did not have enough votes to bring the bill to the floor without the possibility of amendments, according to sources with knowledge of the discussion.

“We weren’t confident the votes would be there,” said a senior House aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to discuss the matter.

Hoyer put the bill on hold Tuesday after learning that the National Rifle Association was urging its members to use a procedural maneuver to press for amendments that would repeal many of the city’s gun laws.

Based on Chris Cox’s statements in the three articles, the NRA is playing its cards close to its chest, and so is the House leadership.  Pelosi and Hoyer pretty clearly don’t want to send Obama a bill with gun rights language in it — a bill Obama will likely have to sign.  There will be a lot of back room dealing over this bill, as both sides try to influence lawmakers.

This would be a good time to contact your Representatives and make sure they know how you expect them to vote on restoring the Second Amendment to the District of Columbia.  It’s a big help to NRA’s lobbyists if they are meeting with a representative who’s also gotten dozens of phone calls and e-mails about the issue, rather than heard nothing from constituents.

Hell Freezing Over

In perhaps an unintentional tribute to the title of this blog, I have to wonder about this bit from SayUncle:

If, say five year ago, you told me that there would be an actual discussion on the floor of passing concealed carry laws in Illinois, I would not have believed you.

And also this from Clayton Cramer:

See this video from CNN. They actually interview an expert pointing out that guns being used in Mexico aren’t assault weapons.

Lou Dobbs has been offering quite a lot of positive coverage about gun issues, and if you had told me five years ago CNN would be asking skeptical questions about a proposal for an assault weapons ban, and questioning whether it was constitutional, I also would not have believed you.

UPDATE: More from Lou Dobbs on the New Jersey One-Gun-a-Month bill here.

Earmark Reform

McCain introduced earmark reform in the Senate, and look who the Republicans are who opposed it:

Nine Republicans voted with Democrats against Mr. McCain’s amendment: Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Robert Bennett of Utah, Christopher Bond of Missouri, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. More here. (Via Tennessee Free)

It gores my goat that I’m going to have to help Specter out in 2010, in my capacity as EVC, because he’s likely to carry an NRA endorsement.  But given that NRA stays out of primary fights, I will absolutely back any actual Republican who wants to run against Specter in the primary.  Seriously, we might as well have a Democrat.  First the stimulus, now this.

Hat Tip Instapundit

Talking Out Two Sides of Their Website?

The fake pro-gun group American Hunters and Shooters Association seems to take one position in some places online, and other positions on their web site.  It would seem they are now waffling on the .50 caliber ban.  I anxiously await Bob Ricker’s explanation that we “self-defense whakos” just don’t understand their subtle nuance.

More Ineffectiveness from NRA

Those weak and defeated Lairds of Fairfax, who refuse to fight the good fight, and who are afraid of their own shadows, sure seem to have the leadership on Capitol Hill worried.

Democrats may be running the House, but the National Rifle Association (NRA) can still stop a bill in its tracks.

House Democratic leaders on Tuesday pulled legislation from the floor that seemingly had nothing to do with guns because the NRA disliked it.

The bill in question would give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress. The gun-rights lobby prefers a Senate version, which includes language amending the District’s gun policies, and some suggest the NRA could make life difficult for conservative Democrats if that language is not included in the House version.

Pelosi was all set up to pass a clean bill, and NRA threatened to make accepting the Senate version in the house a “key vote” meaning that politicians will be graded on the vote.  That was enough to get her to pull the bill.

“The D.C. vote bill needs to pass,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), a Blue Dog gun-rights supporter who sits on the House Rules Committee. “I would have concerns about any group who would tell us how to run our House.”

The NRA’s clout was evident last week when the amendment — removing D.C.’s ban on semiautomatic weapons, its registration requirement and trigger-lock rule — was adopted by the Senate, 62-36.

What Mr. Cardoza and his “blue dog” buddies need to understand is that it does no good if you just tell us you’re pro-Second Amendment, and answer your questionnaire well during election season.  At some point will come the time to vote.  Now is the time.  Look at blue dogs like Jason Altmire, who are actively out there fighting the leadership on this issue:

“They want to be like the rest of America. One of the things Americans do is pay attention to Supreme Court rulings,” said Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), a member of the House Second Amendment Task Force.

That’s what earns you those A grades.  The time to start dividing friend from foe is now.  Are you blue dog Dems friends of us?  Or friends of Pelosi and Hoyer?  Time to choose.

Interview with Scott Bach

Our first interview is with Scott Bach, currently serving NRA Board Member, and President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, which is the NRA State Association for New Jersey.  My questions are in bold.  Scott’s answers are italicized.

Why stay in New Jersey?  There’s plenty of freedom just across the river.  Why stay in New Jersey and fight against the odds?

There are many good reasons to leave New Jersey, and some of our finest patriots have made their exit in recent years. Those of us choosing to stay are determined to defend freedom no matter what the odds, and in recent years we have proven that anything is possible by repeatedly defeating the major legislative priorities of anti-gun extremists in a place where it should have been easy for them to prevail. By keeping the battle in the “front line” state of New Jersey, we occupy the resources of the anti-gun-rights movement and help keep the fight contained here rather than allowing it to easily spread elsewhere. For this reason, gun owners from other states should not write off New Jersey, and should actively support the gun rights organizations that have taken on this especially challenging burden, which actually helps the cause elsewhere. Because we face a State House controlled by anti-gunners, we have had to invent innovative techniques and strategies, and make novel arguments that have also helped shape the debate nationally.

The situation in New Jersey right now can best be described as defensive.  Lately it seems as though we may actually be making some progress in holding off new gun control in The Garden State.  If  presented with the opportunity to go on the offensive, what will your priorities be?

We are actively working under extremely challenging circumstances to elect a majority of pro-Second Amendment lawmakers, and to change the minds of those still in office.  A rapid sea change in the State House is unlikely right now (though we have opportunities to take back the Governor’s office and make inroads in the Assembly in 2009).  When the day eventually comes that we have a majority of pro-Second Amendment lawmakers in the State House, my priorities will include: repealing New Jersey’s misguided semi-auto ban and “smart gun” law, removing impediments to carry rights, strengthening citizens’ right of self-defense, making firearms easier for honest citizens to obtain, and eliminating New Jersey’s insane system of regulation which is in essence a ban on everything with narrow, ill-conceived exemptions which put honest citizens at risk of lengthy jail sentences for “crimes” like stopping for food or fuel on the way to or from the target range.  New Jersey needs to stop targeting gun rights and start punishing criminal behavior.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment was an individual right.  What impact do you think this could have on New Jersey’s draconian gun control laws?  Is this case something that can be used in the short term, or is there more legal precedent that needs to be hashed out before proceeding forward with a court strategy?

The Heller case essentially defined the outer contours of the Second Amendment, leaving a universe within those contours left to be explored by courts in decades to come.  Before that exploration can take place, there must be a judicial determination that the Second Amendment applies to the States via the somewhat obscure legal doctrine known as “incorporation.”  Several carefully selected incorporation cases are now pending in several states.  Once those cases are decided, there will be other cases that test draconian gun laws.  However, case selection is critically important, and should be viewed from a national perspective.  Only the clearest, most egregious cases should be brought first, in the places most likely to yield positive results, and the legal minds examining potential cases are absolutely first rate, and they comprehend the big picture.  A poorly selected case in one state could impact the entire nation negatively.  A decades-old New Jersey case by an overzealous party should serve as a warning.  That case, Burton v. Sills, actually held that the Second Amendment does NOT apply in New Jersey, and it was cited in Heller by anti-gunners as a model that should be followed nationally.  Fortunately, 5 Justices disagreed in Heller.  Gun owners need to be patient while the lengthy case selection process unfolds, and respect the judgment of the great legal minds of our day as to when and where the best cases should be taken up.  Those who have not been disciplined in this way in the past have done damage to our cause, and have made accomplishing our legal goals much more difficult.

One area of controversy in New Jersey is over bear hunting.  Most wildlife experts are in agreement that New Jersey is in desperate need of a bear hunt in order to reduce their population to manageable numbers.  What is ANJRPC doing to help authorize a bear hunt in New Jersey?

In partnership with sportsmen’s groups, ANJRPC has been working both publicly and behind the scenes to reinstate the New Jersey bear hunt as a public safety measure.  New Jersey’s out of control bear population is a threat to life and property.  Our bears have become habituated to humans and identify them as a potential food source, and have lost all fear of people.  As a result, we have had a dramatic rise in bear attacks and incidents, including home and car break-ins, stalkings and other predatory behavior.  In 2002, a 6-month old girl was yanked head-first out of a stroller and partially EATEN by a black bear before dying just a few miles north of New Jersey’s borders.  In 2003 and 2005, we were successful in reinstating limited hunts (the first in 35 years) which temporarily reduced bear incidents, but the Corzine administration has used every dirty trick in the book to block further hunts.  An exploding population of habituated bears combined with a shrinking habitat virtually ensure that subsequent incidents are inevitable.

I know you grew up in New York City, which is not typically fertile breeding ground for gun rights activists.  Given the high likelihood that subsequent case law built on Heller will invalidate much of the City’s gun laws, and probably some of New Jersey’s, what steps do you think could be taken to introduce the Second Amendment and shooting sports to more urban and suburban residents.

My observation is that there are already very healthy numbers of gun owners even in large metropolitan areas.  The problem is that they happen to be greatly outnumbered by anti-gunners, so their collective power is blunted.  There are already thriving outreach programs for new shooters in metropolitan areas, and those will continue to grow over time.  For example, NRA’s Women On Target and basic firearms instruction programs have an active presence based in New York City, and ANJRPC’s outreach programs to women, youth, and minorities draw several thousand new shooters per year.   These activities will continue and grow as Heller’s impact is felt.

I want to thank Scott for participating in our Q&A session, and I hope he will have your support for the Board of Directors.