Summary of the Bloomberg Posts

I feel bad that Bitter’s lengthy and thorough work at researching a strategy that could be used to cut Mayor Bloomberg’s MAIG group down to size kind of got lost in the open carry hubbub from yesterday.  For those that might have missed it, a summary can be found at the other site we run for EVC activities, pagunrights.com

For those who’d like to see the whole thing, you can start following at this post here, and follow the links at the bottom.  Bitter has spent a lot of time on this, and on helping keeping the blog going in general when I’ve been too busy to do research, to look things up, or to go searching for news stories.  She’s my behind the scenes correspondent most of the times, even when she’s not posting herself.

New Line of Work?

Dave Hardy thinks it’s time for the Brady folks to start polishing up their resumes because of the White House endorsing the right of Americans to protest while armed.   Obama would probably prefer the issue to go away.  That’s not good news for anti-gun groups, who by now have to be feeling pretty down that Obama is doing everything he can to not end up in a fight with gun owners.

Norton Begging DHS and SS to Ban Guns Near Obama

Elanor Holmes Norton is asking — well, I don’t really know what she’s asking — I don’t know if she knows what she’s asking either.  But to try to make sense of it, she seems to be asking that the Secret Service expand its zone of protection around Obama to keep these nasty gun toters away.

I’m not sure why she thinks this makes sense, given that the toters were never anywhere near Obama to begin with.  Even if they move them a mile away, the media is still going to report they carried guns to an Obama event.  Pretty soon he’ll be visiting Phoenix, and some dude open carrying in Tuscon is going to get interviewed for why he was carrying a gun at an Obama rally.

Setting Political Sights on Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors, Part V

The biggest issue for most Pennsylvanians looking to call for their mayors to leave Bloomberg’s coalition will be convincing them that Mayor Mikey is a political liability. If the mayor is a true believer, you might as well stop and either concentrate on booting them out via the ballot box or find another election to get involved with in advance of next year’s battles.

However, one thing you’ll rarely find in politics is a true believer. That doesn’t mean hope is lost. There are arguments to be made that Bloomberg brings baggage.

  1. Make the mayor aware that Bloomberg signed his/her name to an ad that was run in both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Philadelphia Inquirer opposing a bipartisan federal concealed carry amendment that carried 58 votes in the Senate. Ask if the mayor approved the ad and gave permission for their name to be attached. Also ask the mayor if he/she gave approval for the USA Today ad that says law-abiding concealed carry permit holders “threaten the safety of our police officers.”  The ad also says that allowing such permit holders the cross state borders will “undoubtedly result in the deaths of more innocent Americans.”
  2. If challenged, politely point out that his/her name is specifically included on ads.  Perhaps offer to fax a copy of the ads or email a copy to the mayor.  Highlight or circle the name for good measure.
  3. In fact, you might want to ask if any local tax dollars contributed toward paying for the ads. You might also ask if any tax dollars or city services are contributed toward the other programs Bloomberg is running within the coalition.  Ask if local money has funded any trips to meet with him or federal officials in regards to Second Amendment issues. With more than half a million of us, it’s a reasonable question to which other gun owners in the town would love to know the answer.
  4. Also inquire about the letters sent to Congress on concealed carry and other federal issues.  If they mayor doesn’t know what you’re talking about, point out that all of the coalition mayors signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi condemning concealed carry across the country.  Ask why he/she personally believes that the existence of your concealed carry permit makes you a gun trafficker, as the letter implies. Find out if your mayor endorses the position of revoking Constitutional rights without due process via the terror watch list. Take your favorite quotes and ask if he/she endorses them.  Ask about current activities the mayor is involved in at the federal level, and if he/she plans to keep the town’s residents informed of these activities. If they don’t support these actions, suggest that rather than having the Mayor of NYC attribute these statements, they might consider leaving the organization.
  5. Politely let the mayor know that a decision to leave is not one that will hurt him/her.  First, gun control supporters don’t vote on that issue, but gun owners do.  Second, they will join a list of mayors, include recent dropouts from Ohio and Texas (Houston, no less!).  Previous Pennsylvania mayors have also dropped out, arguing that the coalition was not as presented, “I have learned that the coalition may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership, and that some actions on your behalf are dubious.” Even New Jersey mayors have removed themselves after find out what Bloomberg was doing in their name, “Regrettably, it has become abundantly clear to me that you are using this coalition of mayors to advance a hidden agenda of bringing lawsuits against members of the firearms industry and spreading anti-gun propaganda.”

If the mayor doesn’t make any promises, have family members or shooting buddies call in the next few days.  Spread the word around the local range.  Start with phone calls and/or emails asking pointed (and polite!) questions about their involvement.  Do it as a concerned citizen and a citizen journalist.

The next step before the ballot box might be letters to the editor, particularly if you have a town newspaper.  The smaller, the better in many cases.  The small papers eat stuff like this up!  A letter to the editor may inspire questions from the paper.  A little local controversy is always good for readership.  (One angle would be to press the tax dollar/time contributed line of questions first. In this economy, there’s no room for wasting time or money on these issues at the local level of government.)

Remember, the goal is to reduce Bloomberg’s sphere of influence.  If the mayor is willing to leave the group, say thank you!  Ask for verification, or if they might be willing to share the notification letter with you so you can pass it along to other gun owners.  Be willing to accept that some people really didn’t understand what they were signing on to with this group.  While it can legitimately be argued they should have done their homework, there’s more peer pressure in Pennsylvania than anywhere else in the country.  Let’s make sure they remember that constituents are more important than government peers.

If you choose to take this on, please let me know. I’d love to keep tabs on the mayors who are being questioned by their constituents.  In addition, whatever the result, I invite you to guest post your experience here.  Share with the pro-gun world what worked and what did not work.  Let us celebrate in your success or start helping you build a network of support if the mayor refuses.

I’ll Take the Hysteria, With a Side of Over the Top

Bryan Miller is a funny guy:

There’s even an organization whose raison d’etre is promotion of open carry (see http://opencarry.org/). These are the shock troops of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away. We’re going to see more of them and we’ll be seeing increasing incidents of open carry, not just at big events for publicity, but at grocery stores, at concerts, on the street, in places of worship.

Shock troops?  Hyperbole much?

The most important point, though, is that such open carrying of guns is a logical step in the gun lobby’s campaign to arm everyone everywhere. For, an armed society is one that will make the gun lobby’s patrons in the gun industry rich.

What color is the sky in Bryan’s world?  I mean, this is a controversial issue even among gun people.  A visit to any gun forum will reveal endless back and forth about open carry.  But hey, why tell the truth when you can paint all this as a result of highly orchestrated shock troops marching to the beat of the fat men in the cigar filled room who are really calling all the shots.   What I wonder is whether Bryan actually believes this, or just believes this kind of rhetoric works.

If it’s the former, the fact that the gun control movement doesn’t have real grass roots could not be more apparent.  If they did, they would also have these kinds of internal squabbles.  As much as I might worry that some people are taking things too far, I’d rather have that problem than to have control over the message because no one really gives a shit about my issue.  Hell, even the White House doesn’t want to touch this.  That’s got to hurt if you’re Paul Helmke or Bryan Miller.

The Kind of Hysterics I Don’t Agree With

The argument that these protesters with guns are a threat to the President are a more than bit rich.  First off, I’m pretty sure that assassins are not known to openly carry their implements of assassination openly.  Secondly, I’m pretty sure the Secret Service, who did not have concerns about these protesters, isn’t too worried about people packing small arms well away from where the President is or is going to be.

No responsible gun owner, law enforcement executive, or public official should endorse or allow these armed protests anywhere near the president.

They weren’t near the President, and that’s exactly why the Secret Service did not have a problem.  Look, it’s not the guy who’s open carrying his pistol or rifle to get press attention that I’m worried about.  The guy you have to worry about is the one you won’t see coming.  As I covered in excruciating detail yesterday, I think there are reasons this is a bad thing to promote, but the safety of the President is not among those reasons.

Views From Around the Blogosphere

Some other viewpoints on the slung AR-15 at a rally incident:

Murdoc covers the story here, and here, largely in agreement with my position.  I also agree with Murdoc’s assessment of the potential gain from incidents like this.  I’m willing to take more risks with something that has the potential to greatly benefit the cause, like National Concealed Carry, or even National Open Carry, if Congress wanted to go that route.  But I just don’t see much upside potential to this for a lot of risk.

In contrast to Murdoc, Linoge takes great exception, and points out that the folks involved in this did everything right, from dress to disposition.  I actually agree with this portion.  I think the individuals who did this played their cards well.  I’m just not sure what I win in the end, and I see a great risk in encouraging other attention seekers to use this tactic.  Maybe I’m wrong and this will fizzle out, but what’s going to happen with some other fringe groups wants to use this to attract the cameras?

Jeff Soyer initially think it’s not helpful, but then softens his opinion based on how the White House handled it.  I think the reaction on the part of the White House was smart.  I think if the Administration had alluded to being displeased, or upset, it would probably mean more of these incidents would happen.  The White House’s goal is to take the message for their health plan to the public, and this is a distraction.

Instapundit covers a lot of reaction, and thinks the press is overreacting.  Certainly they are overreacting, because they think this kind of crap will get people to consume whatever media they are selling, and the more sensational the better.

Dave Hardy suggests maybe carrying rifles to rallies isn’t such a bad idea, but thinks these guys pulled it off very well, and hilariously suggests they do Monty Python or BlackAdder.

Robb takes pretty strong disagreement to those of us who think this isn’t the best public relations strategy for gun rights.  I’m not against people open carrying generally, and if this guy had just been some poor schlob who got picked out of the crowd by the media because he was openly carrying a firearm, I would have been sympathetic.  But I think there’s a difference between that, and strapping on, and going out and looking for the cameras to push issues only tangentially related to gun rights.  In short, I think open carry as a form of activism doesn’t have that much upside.  I’m not sure what I get in the end.  If people want to do it, it’s your right, but I don’t think it’s a great public relations tool for the cause.

UPDATE: More from Exurban Kevin and The Arizina Rifleman

UPDATE: Gun Nuts Radio had a whole show on this, which I haven’t gotten a chance to listen to yet.

UPDATE: Clayton Cramer

Setting Political Sights on Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors, Part IV

Why should we bother trying to reduce the number of mayors in Bloomberg’s group by way of the soapbox or ballot box? Is it just a distraction from other races and issues at the moment?

I would argue it’s important and not a distraction because it’s an off year activity with reduced participation so our potential impact may wield more influence in the direct results. It also has long-term political implications for the Commonwealth.

This coalition is one of Bloomberg’s favorite PR tools, so it would be nice to disable it. He claims that it’s not just a big city issue, that he has pulled more than 450 mayors from across the country to stand with him in his attacks on gun rights. If he has at least 450 mayors, that means 23% of them are from Pennsylvania!

Bloomberg has invested heavily in this state, and we should be concerned by that fact. What is he hoping to get from that investment? More importantly, what has he already received and what is on the immediate horizon?

Consider the attack on preemption we’re seeing across Pennsylvania. When cities and towns are passing legislation requiring you to report lost or stolen guns in a manner they arbitrarily consider reasonable, it makes gun owners potential victims to abusive prosecutors. Those nine cities are: Erie, Allentown, Reading, Pottsville, Pittsburgh, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Wilkinsburg. Guess how many of those cities have mayors in the coalition? Nine.

Not to mention, some of these mayors have their eye on higher offices (hopefully not Mayor Rape). Consider Mayor John Callahan of Bethlehem (population 71,329) who is challenging Congressman Charlie Dent for his seat. Should he be successful (reports indicate he will be a very strong challenger), that seat will go from an A rating to Bloomberg-controlled anti-gun overnight.

While we can’t stop Mayor Callahan until next November, we could see that other mayors find the New York-based coalition to be a political liability for future office and convince them to denounce his positions. If they continue to stand by Bloomberg, we can show up at the ballot box and try to put a stop to their political futures by ousting them from the office.

What I hope is that the citizens of Birdsboro convince Mayor Robert Myers to leave Bloomberg’s anti-gun agenda behind (or send him packing if he refuses) so that the 5,064 residents don’t have to fear a patchwork of local laws.

I don’t want the gun owners among the 2,812 residents of Wind Gap to stand confused should Mayor Mitchell Mogilski try to implement Bloomberg’s ideal gun controls in their town.

The shooting community within the 7,589 residents of Downingtown deserves better if Mayor Heather Ann Bruno refuses to step down from Bloomberg’s comments made in her name against concealed carry holders.