I decided to try out the Tweet This plug-in for WordPress, so folks can more easily share my posts via other new media. Â Well, really mostly so I can publish select links to my Twitter account, but if you want to use the links, I won’t complain about the extra traffic and exposure.
Month: September 2009
Making a Difference
It’s amazing what you can do for the Second Amendment in just a few minutes. As you all know by now, Sebastian and I are NRA Election Volunteer Coordinators that assist pro-gun candidates in finding NRA members who want to be politically involved to help keep Pennsylvania pro-gun. It’s not a terribly time consuming task, and it pays off when we hear that candidates specifically recognize gun owners as making a difference to their campaign.
I had a phone conversation today with a State Senate candidate and his Campaign Volunteer Coordinator who are gearing up for a special election next week. Rep. Bob Mensch is running for the open Senate seat in district 24, and yesterday we announced NRA-PVF’s endorsement in the race. Rep. Mensch’s opponent has been dodging debates and interviews, and she doesn’t exactly seem to be up on relevant state issues – something important for those who want state office. I haven’t seen her say a word about gun rights, only a friend of hers claiming in one interview that she used to hunt. So this could be potentially bad news for gun owners if this seat goes from an A rated candidate to an unknown who, at best, has her friend pay a simple platitude to hunting.
But back to that phone call. Knowing that they have the endorsement of NRA-PVF is huge news to Rep. Mensch’s campaign. Even though they are polling ahead of the Democratic candidate, it’s a seat that her party wants to win. In a special election where people may forget to vote, it’s vitally important that we make sure gun owners and other friendly-to-the-cause voters show up. So that is where Rep. Mensch needs our help. I’m about to put out an email to all of our contacts up here with the call to action, and information on how they can at least get a sign up in their yard even if they can’t help on Election Day.
I can’t tell you how excited the campaign staffer was over that offer to get the word out to those willing to volunteer. Just knowing that they have the NRA endorsement and then to have us call the very next day offering to try and scrounge up volunteers, they were so appreciative. The volunteer coordinator couldn’t express enough how much it meant to have a gun owner call and ask how to make the biggest difference for the campaign. Ultimately, these are the actions that make things go smoothly for us at the State House. These are the things that you can do to make a difference in your state – a tangible difference.
As easy as it is to just pound away on the keyboard, and as much as I do think new media is useful, these types of activities – picking up the phone and offering to help, and getting involved at the local level – are what make the most difference when it matters on an important vote. So with that in mind, I’m going to head up to the district on Tuesday and help with the GOTV operation. I may even poke Sebastian and see if he wants to go up this weekend and contribute a few hours. I think even he was rather amazed in November when at the end of a two hour calling shift, you could look down and realized you just reached 200+ voters, or in doing on precinct walk, you hit 50 households of voters. That kind of local reach is hard to do with a new media, so these kinds of traditional local political activities ought not be discounted by those who spend time in the internet world.
Don’t Let MAIG Get Away With This Snow Job
It’s been in media reports from around the country. Â MAIG isn’t a gun control group. Â They are only opposed to illegal guns. See the comments by Lancaster Mayor Rick Grey:
Gray, a Democrat running for a second term, spoke of a push by the National Rifle Association to pressure mayors to quit the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group. He said he would not be bowed by the NRA, and he affirmed the group’s efforts to curb illegal guns, while calling on his election opponent, former mayor Charlie Smithgall, to do the same.
Or Boyertown Mayor Marianne Deery:
Deery said the National Rifle Association has distributed postcards that read, “Your mayor, Marianne Deery, joined a national anti-gun group.â€
“That can be no further from the truth,†the mayor said. “I am against illegal guns.â€
“I will always stand up to fight for the second amendment of our Constitution,†Deery said. “I do believe that we have the right to own and bear arms.â€
She said MAIG also supports the second amendment.
Let me show for you a graphic originally presented to me by our friend Carl in Chicago. It’s undisputed that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violent is a group that advocates for more gun control and advocates for gun bans. Â Let us take a look at MAIG’s positions versus the Brady Campaign positions:
| Position on Federal Legislation | MAIG | Brady |
| Prohibit National Carry Reciprocity | x | x |
| Repeal Tiahrt Amendment | x | x |
| Criminalize private gun transfers | x | x |
| Prohibit gun sales to those on terrorist watch list | x | x |
| Prohibit gun dealers to liquidate inventory | x | x |
| Oppose BATFE modernization | x | x |
| Position on State Legislation | ||
| Require lost or stolen reporting | x | x |
| Support regional data-sharing on gun owners | x | x |
| Support microstamping requirements | x | x |
| Prohibit carry on city-owned public property | x | x |
Click on the links on the “x” for attribution of the organizations respective positions. There is no doubt folks, MAIG is a gun control group trying to hide behind the shield of only advocating getting rid of illegal guns. They just fail to mention to their prospective mayors that they favor making a lot more things illegal when it comes to guns. If you have a MAIG Mayor in your town, don’t let them get away with parroting this nonsense of only being against illegal guns. Make them own up for the gun control group they are a member of.
Why We Don’t Negotiate With Anti-Gunners
And also, really, why we call them anti-gunners. Â What’s being proposed in Massachusetts is an outrage:
If adopted, the regulations would prohibit machine guns at all public sporting club events, and require clubs to obtain special licenses, hire a police detail, and have one certified firearms safety instructor for every 20 people in attendance (or one for every five attendees if children are present) at all public events. The regulations would also require clubs to submit a safety plan to their local police department 30 days before each event.
I’m an officer at our local club, and I can tell you that if we had to do this every time we had a match open to the public, we wouldn’t open our matches up to the public. Public events and matches are a big part of what shooting clubs do, and this would effectively make them too costly to conduct. Over time, it would essentially destroy the shooting culture, and make the existence of clubs relatively pointless.
What happened was indeed a tragedy, and the people responsible for it are already being prosecuted under the laws that already exist. But instead of just accepting that, Governor Patrick has chosen to propose regulations that would effectively shut down the shooting club culture in Massachusetts. Why? Because you can’t let any good crisis, or tragedy in this case, go to waste.
You can’t negotiate with someone who’s end goal is to destroy your way of life.
UPDATE: More from Virginia Shooting Sports Association, who adds:
The Globe reports that the Ayer Gun and Sportsmen’s Club hosts an annual Military Demonstration Day featuring World War II machine guns. It may cease to exist, according to the club’s assistant range officer, Dan Damato. This event is held to honor veterans. Only one person is allowed to shoot the machine gun, while everyone else stands behind, Damato told the Globe. If Patrick’s machine gun ban takes effect the tradition will end.
Yes, the tradition will end, which is exactly the point.
I’ll give you two guesses …
… who’s behind this, despite what they say.
Security Theater Quote of the Day
From Joe Huffman, on the TSA’s new attention on powders aboard aircraft:
I wonder if my post contributed to that. I know it got some attention by “government employees”.
If it was my fault I’m not going to say I am sorry. One of the ways you get people to rethink their security systems is to overload them with false positives. If I could only demonstrate that it were relatively easy to bring down a plane by grinding up you hair into a fine powder and making an improvised explosive device out of it using a couple coins as tools…
What Joe is getting at is there’s really no way to adequately protect against the level of threat TSA is trying to protect against. It’s quite impossible to successfully screen for these kinds of items without a body cavity search. It was pointed out by science fiction writer David Brin not too long after 9/11:
Despite the yammerings on TV, a lack of security measures did not cause this tragedy. No, the failure on 9/11 was almost entirely one of DOCTRINE — a policy on how to deal with hijackers that was taught to pilots, flight attendants and the public for forty years.
He goes on to suggest what did work that day — individual initiative — that it was the passengers abroad flight 93 that changed the doctrine within an hour of the WTC attacks after they heard of it on their cell phones.
The doctrinal transformation – or change in the rules of engagement – took place swiftly and decisively, without deliberation by sober government agencies or sage committees. Three average men changed it upon hearing news via their own ‘intelligence network’. They acted as soldiers, heroes, without waiting for permission. It’s called initiative, a civic virtue, part of our national character that doesn’t get enough attention. Not from leaders and certainly not from our enemies.
You can’t defend against the level of threat Joe speaks of, and it’s probably not even worth it to try. Â TSA should concentrate on the obvious threats, that can be easily screened for, and not worry so much about the threats you can’t screen for. Air travel is already miserable enough with all the security theater. The last thing we need is more of it.
Out of the Closet
GruntDoc is a blog by an emergency room physician in Texas. He e-mailed me a few days ago, indicating apprehension that his regular audience might not enjoy his blogging about his hobby. Â Judging from the comments, I would say he’s got not much to worry about. Look at this comment:
Outstanding. I’m a .308 guy myself, but there’s nothing wrong with the 300 mag.  Shooting as a sport is as American as mom and apple pie. Anybody who’s going to be sickened and horrified that you own a bullet-launching device needs their head examined.[…]
Shooters are everywhere, and in places you’d never expect. It’s one of the few sports where you can be on the line with a carpenter on one side of you, and a college professor on the other side. In fact, you can find that at my club any given Thursday. Â I decided 7 years ago not to keep my hobby a secret, and I’ve never found anyone particularly offended by the idea.
I think it’s important for shooters to be open with people about their hobby, because knowing someone who shoots is going to be a big factor in putting things into perspective for the non-gun owning public, and you’ll probably be surprised just how many people actually share your hobby.
Interesting Twist in Air Gun Laws
Dave Markowitz pointed out this section of the United States Code I had never seen before. It deals with federal regulations concerning toy, look alike, or imitation firearms, and requires the orange barrel that anyone who has ever bought an Airsoft gun in this country is familiar with. But it contains this provision at the very end:
(g) The provisions of this section shall supersede any provision of State or local laws or ordinances which provide for markings or identification inconsistent with provisions of this section provided that no State shall—
(i) prohibit the sale or manufacture of any look-alike, nonfiring, collector replica of an antique firearm developed prior to 1898, or
(ii) prohibit the sale (other than prohibiting the sale to minors) of traditional B–B, paint ball, or pellet-firing air guns that expel a projectile through the force of air pressure.
This is worded in a confusing manner, but my read of it is that the preemption is limited to marking requirements, meaning if New York City were to require that all imitation guns be painted bright pink, federal law would preempt that, provided that New York State does not outright prohibit the sale of look-alike arms. By the same token, Philadelphia would be unable to stipulate markings for an imitation firearm because Pennsylvania does not fall under the exception.
I could be reading this wrong though. Because the way it’s worded, it seems to be that you could read it that if any state passes a law along the lines of (i) or (ii) the entire preemption would be nullified.
Izhmash Facing Bankruptcy?
Looks like the Great Obama Gun Rush isn’t enough to help Izhmash. Makes sense, really. Izhmash doesn’t sell much to the civilian market in the US. Most foreign manufacturers set up local shop in the US, or sell to a domestic partner like Century, to sell to the US market to get around our ridiculous importation laws. Remember kids, a domestic made AK-47 clone is just peachy, but you’ll use it to mow down a school if you import one.
Gunation
New polls results are out, and they don’t look good for the gun control groups. Â 75% believe the constitution guarantees a right to own a gun. Â Even on gun control, we’re roughly split:
What Outdoor Life left out was that Americans appear to be evenly divided regarding the much hotter issue of gun control:Â 44% of respondents said stricter laws are needed, while 44% said they’re not. The other 12% were unsure.
It’s the 12% of unsure people we need to reach. Â Also, much of that 44% have no idea what the current gun laws are. Â In my experience, people are more accepting of the status quo if they understand it. A lot of people honestly think machine guns are completely legal, and think those ought to be restricted. That’s more of the 44% than you might imagine.