Brady Mailing to Help MAIG?

What this blogger is reporting would certainly seem to indicate that:

Through the Brady Center I have learned about an organization of over 450 mayor’s who are trying to rid their cities of illegal guns. Amazingly, the NRA is targeting many of these mayor’s and spreading lies about the organization. All of the mayor’s of Ohio’s major cities belong to this group.

Except, as we’ve well established both here, and at our other grass roots site, it’s not a lie. They are  gun control group, and we’re discovering new connections to the Bradys regularly these past few days. How is it irresponsible for NRA to point out to their membership that their mayor is a member of a group that promotes just about every issue the Brady organization does?

The Real Effect of AB962 in California

Arizona Rifleman summarizes how it’s going to affect ammunition purchasers in California. It’s not too late to call the Governator to ask him to veto this bill. It’s a good thing they got that ammo shortage in Reno squared away, because I predict there will be more ammunition moving through Donner Pass than was moving on the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the height of the Vietnam War.

Quote of the Week

From SayUncle, on discovering Qaddafi was allowed to roam around New York City with his heavily armed cadre of women:

So, in NYC, even tinpot dictators are like you and me only better.

But Bloomberg isn’t anti-gun.  Just ask Mayor Baughman. He’s only against illegal guns. As long as it’s just your guns that are illegal. Qaddafi’s S&M guard, not so much.

Bitter on Cam & Company Tonight @ 9:20

Bitter will be on Cam & Company at 9:20 to talk about our investigative journalism into Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  Tune in at NRANews.com or on Sirius Satellite Radio, Channel 144.

UPDATE: For those who missed Bitter, you can find the segment below. This is her first time appearing on NRA News representing Snowflakes in Hell.  She has been on before representing The Bitch Girls, and using her real name for other interests, but I think she did very well representing my blog. Here’s the segment:

A Living Constitution & The Right to Bear Arms

The Pennsylvania Constitution is an interesting beast.  Most of us are well aware of its right to bear arms provision, which is one of the strongest worded for an individual right. That’s what we will examine here, through the various revisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and there have been many:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been governed by five constitutions between 1776 and 1968. Before that, the province of Pennsylvania was governed for almost a century by four successive constitutions, referred to as The Frame of Government.

The first Frame of Government 1682, also known as Penn’s Charter, was written by William Penn while he was still in England, and was repudiated by Pennsylvania’s Colonial Assembly. In the preface, Penn stated his political philosophy on government: “Any government is free to the people under it … where the laws rule and the people are a party to those laws.”

None of the four Frames of Government that defined Pennsylvania’s colonial Quaker government had any right to bear arms provision. That had its start in the Constitution of 1776:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

In the Constitution of 1790, the right to bear arms provision was changed to:

Sec. 21. That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

The Pennsylvania Constitution would undergo it’s next major revision in 1838, slightly changing the wording by changing “citizens” to “the citizens”:

Section XXI. The right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

Move to the Constitution of 1874, you get some punctuation changes:

Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

That language persisted through the Constitution of 1968, which is the current constitution the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania operates under. Pennsylvania has a living constitution, and multiple generations of revisions and conventions have chosen to preserve the right to bear arms as part of it. I would think that to even a living constitutionalist, this has to mean something.

Time to Put My Money where My Mouth Is

With all of our coverage of Mayor Bloomberg’s work with the Brady Campaign to protect and promote anti-gun local politicians, it’s time to keep up the pressure. Last month I made a donation to NRA that was designated for their media programs to turn up the heat through the media. I guess you could say that heat has been appropriately raised. Bloomberg’s numbers are down, mayors are giving us dirt on his questionable practices of how they were unknowingly signed up for the campaign, and his professional staff have been outed as Brady Campaign representatives.

But it’s clear that Bloomberg is digging in, and we need to do the same. So with that I’ve picked two programs for donations to help NRA keep fighting this battle.

The first is obvious, it’s the Institute for Legislative Action in recognition of their postcard mailing and political work on the effort to get more mayors to leave the coalition. This is fundamentally a political fight because these mayors may be the next crop of regional, statewide, and federal gun control leaders.

The second donation goes to the Freedom Action Foundation. This new Foundation fund is focused on non-partisan and non-political fundamental outreach that can ultimately support the other fights. The money donated to the fund will help identify those who aren’t registered to vote and show them why it’s important. If we’re going to oust these mayors from office, keep them from climbing to higher political office, or swaying federal and state lawmakers, we need to make sure more gun owners are registered to vote. You’d be surprised if you checked voter registration records how many gun owners are not registered to vote. But, once registered, the likely voter rate is quite high. So if we can get these men and women signed up, we can hope they get involved with ILA to find out what’s going on in their districts.

If you want to turn up the heat on these mayors and other politicians, I hope you’ll choose to give to one of these funds. Donations to ILA are not deductible, but donations to the Freedom Action Fund are.

All It Takes is One Moment of Stupidity

And gun owners everywhere look like reckless jackasses.  The media is quick to pick up on it, and then you have the Brady Campaign.  From the OpenCarry forum:

An AD happened near the end of the picnic while a non-CPL holder was unloading his firearm so he could enter his vehicle lawfully.  He was at the Picnic with some friends and family earlier in the day.  This person is not a member of MOC, Inc.

This is why Michigan needs to allow any person that can lawfully own a handgun to carry it loaded in their vehicle.  The less a person has to handle their firearm the less chance for an AD.

This is also a cautionary tale to always be careful when handling any firearm.  It should be noted that the firearm was pointed in a safe direction (the ground) when it was fired.

That and the info in the article is all I know of at this time.

I wouldn’t call it an accidental discharge. Guns don’t go off if you don’t pull the trigger. ND, or negligent discharge, is the appropriate description.  I agree that laws that encourage gun handling are bad, but that doesn’t excuse unsafe gun handling. We’re fortunate in this case that he only broke one of the four rules, and no one was hurt.

Open Carry people represent us all when they do what they do. If you’re going to take on that responsibility, it would be nice if it were treated like a responsibility.

Stroudsburg Mayor Baughman Buying Snow Job

The Mayor of Stroudsburg is standing by Bloomberg, with some helpful cover by the Pocono Record. Bitter and I have been working closely with Dan of PAFOA on this project, and we’re happy to see our results get noticed by the media, but the rest is going to be up to the grassroots. Let’s see what The Pocono Record is saying:

Founded in 2006 by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and funded primarily by Bloomberg, MAIG works with law enforcement agencies and advocacy groups and operates by the following principles:

  • Target and hold accountable irresponsible gun dealers who break the law by knowingly selling guns to straw purchasers.
  • Oppose all federal efforts to restrict cities’ right to access, use and share trace data essential to effective enforcement, or interfere with the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to combat illegal gun trafficking.
  • Develop and use technologies that aid in the detection and tracing of illegal guns.
  • Support all local state and federal legislation that targets illegal guns; coordinate legislative, enforcement and litigation strategies; and share information and best practices.
  • Invite other cities to join in this new national effort.

As we’ve pointed out on the blog here, and in the latest bombshell on MAIG’s associations with other gun control groups, this is a complete snow job on the part of Bloomberg’s coalition. They support going after illegal guns by making more guns illegal, and more of the types of transactions law abiding people do illegal. They are a gun control group. There can be no doubting that at this point.  That’s why this assertion by MAIG has no credibility at this point:

MAIG on its Web site corrects some misperceptions others have of the coalition:

  • MAIG is not against all guns and supports the Second Amendment, as well as practical, constitutional policies to keep guns away from criminals.
  • MAIG does not oppose concealed-carry permits allowing people to carry guns on their persons or in their vehicles.

The Record then goes on to say that they just don’t support reciprocity, which would allow us to carry guns on their person and in their vehicles in other states which allow some form of concealed carry. If MAIG is so in favor of concealed and vehicle carry, is Mayor Bloomberg going to pass a law allowing me to do so in New York City? How is opposing legislation that expands my right to carry supporting the Second Amendment?  Bloomberg is opposing efforts relating to being able to transport guns on Amtrak so hunters and shooters could consider travel by rail to go to competitions and on hunting trips. How is that supporting the Second Amendment?

“If you’re asking whether I’m considering quitting my membership with MAIG, the answer is no,” Baughman said. “But, if I’m ever presented with factual, convincing information that the coalition truly doesn’t support the best interests of those protected under the Second Amendment, then I would think differently. So far, I haven’t come across or been presented with any such information.”

I just presented you with such information.  The question is does Mayor Baughman want to listen? Not if gun owners don’t make him listen. Regardless of what Mayor Baughman wants to believe, he’s standing along side gun control advocates, and we will remember that come election day. We’ll make sure of that.

    Criminal Trespass = Civil Disobedience?

    The Philadelphia Daily News couldn’t be more thrilled:

    The civil disobedience followed weeks of discussions with Colosimo’s in which activists urging the store to accept a voluntary 10-point code of conduct that was created by a national coalition of mayors, including Mayor Nutter. The code was aimed at preventing gun traffickers from hiding their identities by using intermediaries — the kind of purchases Colosimo now is charged with allowing. (Demonstrators were acquitted of misdemeanor charges in May.)

    They are speaking of this civil disobedience. Congratulations, Heeding God’s Call, you convinced the feds to take him down. Easy target. He was an old man who doesn’t want to fight anymore. But you can bet they will try this with other Philadelphia gun shops, in an attempt to get them closed down too. Any gun shop near a major city that does any volume of business is going to end up selling some guns that are used in crimes. That’s a given. Any gun shop that does any volume of business is going to have some record keeping anomalies. They know this. They will try again.