Yesterday, the full Alaska legislature held a vote on the nomination of NRA Board of Directors member Wayne Anthony Ross and rejected his nomination by Sarah Palin to be the state’s Attorney General. Nine Republicans crossed party lines to vote against him. Reasons for his rejections floated by the left ranged from his opinions on gays and lesbians to how to fill empty legislative seats to the fact that he’s an NRA Board Member to, I kid not, the argument that he uses his initials too much.
Year: 2009
Geographic Diversity of Blog Bash Attendees
So let me share in my excitement. Even in a down economy, we have officially surpassed the number of bloggers who registered for the Second Amendment Blog Bash last year. Whether we wind up with more last minute no shows determines if we actually managed to grow the event. Nobody thought that would happen this year. We all assumed it would see depressed turn out. I’m happy to see that we provide an interesting enough product that folks want to come out for it anyway.
In planning for the Bash, I’ve been analyzing random stats about the publishers registered so far. For example, bloggers traveled from 18 states to attend the Blog Bash in Louisville.
In 2009, we’ve got a more notable density of publishers coming from the host state. Even though we can brag about more registrations (and hopefully higher actual attendance), we only represent 16 states this year.
I assume this will change. In 2008, fully one-half of the local bloggers in Louisville decided they just weren’t that interested. I don’t expect that many to drop off this year, but I wouldn’t be shocked if a third of the Arizona publishers didn’t show. The upside to bringing in more people from around the country is that they are more likely to show up once they commit. They have to secure hotel rooms and plane tickets in advance, so skipping out is far more costly. For local folks, it’s no loss.
Of course, I also have not closed registration for the Bash yet. We may well end up with more folks registered by the time I shut it down on May 1. I have 24 21 people left on my “thinking about it” email list this year. (Those who have said they aren’t coming were already bumped to the 2010 recruiting list.) I also plan to do one more round of invites out to regional political bloggers.
Last night, I commented to Sebastian that this is the sort of thing that should really scare the Brady Campaign. We have literally hundreds of people who are passionate enough about the Second Amendment to write or talk about it online regularly and recruit more people into our movement. And every single year the NRA draws 50-66,000 people to their Annual Meeting for a celebration of our rights. In the new media realm, we’re able to draw dozens of those folks out consistently to join in the NRA celebration and cover it as grassroots reporters. Their friends and family will read about it, their gun range buddies might follow it from home, and their readers who range from a few hundred a week to tens of thousands per day will look forward to learning more about the issue and the industry. That’s pretty impressive. That’s dedication they will never know.
CNN Begging for a Gun Ban?
Perhaps it was due to the “bad” news that fewer people support gun control now, but it appears the question of whether Obama is going to actually push a gun ban might have different answers depending on the reporter. Ed Hornick and Kristi Keck of CNN only reported his full support for a ban last night.
Looking at other stories on the subject this morning, the Arizona Republic’s Chris Hawley took something else away completely.
President Barack Obama, outlining plans to help Mexico combat drug violence, promised Thursday to resurrect a treaty against arms trafficking that has been stuck in Congress for 12 years but rebuffed Mexico’s demands to curb sales of assault weapons in the United States. …
However, Obama showed little appetite for reviving the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban. …
Obama, who acknowledged the United States shares a responsibility for the bloodshed in Mexico, said that he still believes the Assault Weapons Ban “made sense” but that he wants to concentrate on measures against gun smuggling, not gun sales. …
“None of us is under the illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy, and so what we’ve focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws,” Obama said.
That hardly sounds like he’s going to be putting the weight of the White House behind any proposal. In fact, the article headline reads, “Obama rules out assault-rifle ban.”
So, is CNN simply clueless, actively pushing the Brady agenda, or a victim of wishful thinking on the part of their reporters?
Obama Pushing New AWB Too?
Obama reiterates his support for a new assault weapons ban:
Speaking alongside Mexican President Felipe Calderón, Obama said he has “not backed off at all” on a campaign pledge to try to restore the ban. It was instituted under President Clinton and allowed to lapse by President George W. Bush.
“I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment right in our Constitution — the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners that want to keep their families safe — to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know here in Mexico, are used to fuel violence,” Obama said.
Yes, I’m sure our founding fathers would be amazed that a future President would one day think the way you respect the Second Amendment is by banning guns. If these so called assault weapons are so useless for people “that want to keep their families safe” then why are they so popular among police officers? Police wouldn’t carry anything that’s not useful for self-defense.
CIFTA Might Be Good Ground for a Fight
CIFTA might be good ground for a fight with the Obama Adminsitration.  There’s enough crap in this treaty to scare the bejezes out of gun owners, but it is not self-executing. This means if it’s ratified by the Senate, it will not change any current US gun laws. Ratification would obligate Congress to pass implementing legislation, which are basically a body of laws that brings us into compliance with the treaty. Now, most of this treaty requires actions we already do, and it leaves it up to the State Party to decide a lot of things. But the treaty can be read as requiring a host of new restrictions we do not already have, as I outline in the link above.
I think it is incumbent on us to oppose this treaty’s ratification, because I think this is a can of worms we’d rather not open. Keep in mind the courts have generally read the treaty power as being quite substinative, and might be more willing to defer to Congress on implementing legislation, should we challenge it in court under the Second Amendment. But there’s a lot going for us in fighting a treaty too. For one, it takes a vote of 2/3rds of the Senate, meaning Obama would have to get 67 senators to vote for the treaty. That’s a tall order. Second, it lets us get Senators who are up for election in 2010 further establish a record with gun owners. And even if Obama does somehow manage to get 67 Senators to go along with this nonsense, we still haven’t lost yet. We can set up a fight over all the implementing legislation too.
The other side of the coin is, much of the treaty’s substance reflects existing United States law, so a lot of Senators might feel it’s no big deal to vote for it, figuring a lot of our fears about how far this treaty could be taken in terms of implementation would be unfounded. What we definitely don’t want, is for this treaty to be a rallying cry for the United States to change its gun laws. This treaty could be a lot worse, but I see no reason to roll over for the Administration. Let’s fight this one.
NRA Statement on Inter-American Arms Treaty
The NRA is well aware of the proposed Organization of American States treaty on firearms trafficking, known by its Spanish initials as CIFTA. The NRA monitored the development of this treaty from its earliest days, but contrary to news reports today, the NRA did not “participate” at the meeting where the treaty was approved.
The treaty does include language suggesting that it is not intended to restrict “lawful ownership and use” of firearms . Despite those words, the NRA knows that anti-gun advocates will still try to use this treaty to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners.
I sincerely hope that we have the votes to stop this treaty in the Senate.
More on the Inter-American Arms Treaty
You can find the text of the treaty here. Let’s take a look at the point of this treaty and see just how bad what Obama is advocating is. This treaty is definitely a problem, especially for home manufactures, hand loaders, and accessory makers. Let’s take a look at some of the provisions that should worry us.
The treaty bans “illicit”manufacturing” of firearms, defined as:
the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials:
a. from components or parts illicitly trafficked; or
b. without a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place; or
c. without marking the firearms that require marking at the time of manufacturing.
This would seem to require a government license for home building, assembling from parts, and quite likely many types of repairs and customizations. And here’s the really scary part, it defines “other related materials” this way: “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.” This would make all people who make accessories that attach to a firearm to have a license. It would presumably also ban home manufacture of these items without a government license. Do you own trigger jobs? Reload your own ammunition?  Not anymore, not without a government license!
It defines illegal trafficking as “the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials from or across the territory of one State Party to that of another State Party, if any one of the States Parties concerned does not authorize it.” This would not seem to affect any of these things happening exclusively within the domestic market.
It requires states to destroy seized firearms. “States Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.”
It would seem to require some vague requirement for transport: “States Parties, in an effort to eliminate loss or diversion, undertake to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the security of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials imported into, exported from, or in transit through their respective territories.”
Here are the licensing requirements:
- States Parties shall establish or maintain an effective system of export, import, and international transit licenses or authorizations for transfers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.
- States Parties shall not permit the transit of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials until the receiving State Party issues the corresponding license or authorization.
- States Parties, before releasing shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials for export, shall ensure that the importing and in-transit countries have issued the necessary licenses or authorizations.
- The importing State Party shall inform the exporting State Party, upon request, of the receipt of dispatched shipments of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.
It’s hard to say how they expect this to be implemented. It could, if interpreted strictly, make traveling internationally with a firearm impossible or next to impossible without expensive licenses. We already have licenses required for commercial import or export, but personal import, export, or international transit has always been considered a separate matter.
It would seem to regulate carriage of weapons:
1. States Parties shall exchange among themselves, in conformity with their respective domestic laws and applicable treaties, relevant information on matters such as:
a. authorized producers, dealers, importers, exporters, and, whenever possible, carriers of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;
This could mean your concealed carry records would be subject to being shared with foreign nations. It doesn’t specify whether they mean carrier in the sense of guns, or common carrier, in the sense of shippers. Do you trust the Mexican government with information about you? I don’t. I’d give the list about 10 minutes before someone bribes a Mexican official for the lists of American licensees.
I think this treaty fits in the framework of “very bad news.” We have to fight this.
Obama Puts His Gun Control Cards on the Table
Obama has announced he will support the Inter-American Arms Treaty:
The treaty requires countries to take a number of steps to reduce the illegal manufacture and trade in guns, ammunition and explosives.
In addition to making illegal the unauthorized manufacture and exporting of firearms, the treaty calls for countries to adopt strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a cooperative process for sharing information between national law-enforcement agencies investigating arms smuggling.
Licensing requirements? Unauthorized manufacture? The answer to this, from the Senate, better not be no. It needs to be “HELL NO!” If Harry Reid even peeps that he’ll back this, I can guarantee he will be target numero uno in 2010. He’s already facing a tough race.
Takedown
John Lott takes 20/20 to task for their hit piece on concealed carry. Taking on the notion that ordinary citizens can’t stop mass shooters:
In the real world, even having a gun and pointing it at an attacker has often convinced the attacker to stop shooting and surrender. Examples include high schools in Pearl, Mississippi and Edinboro, Pennsylvania, as well as the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Street attacks in Memphis to Detroit ended this way, too, without any more shots fired.
Then you have the notion that gun control would fix the problem:
You would think that if gun control worked as well as ABC implies, there wouldn’t be these multiple victim public shootings in those European countries with gun laws much stricter than those being publicly discussed in the United States or by ABC. Yet, multiple victim public shootings are quite common in Europe. In just the last few days, there have been a shooting at a college in Greece and in a crowded café in Rotterdam. Of course, the worst K-12 public school shootings are in Europe.
Read the whole thing. It’s well worth the time.
Competitive Shooting as Police Training
This article from Officer.com talks about the benefits and downsides to using IPSC and IDPA competition as training for Police Officers. I think a person who competes in IPSC and IDPA is going to do better in a gunfight than someone who does not. I think his points in regards to the downsides seem reasonable, but you can’t really practice real gunfighting. Competing in practical shooting sports isn’t perfect, but it helps. Ultimately, I agree with the conclusion:
Are you afraid that your shooting isn’t up to snuff? Well, you’re probably right – the average competitive shooter is a better shooter than the average cop. But you know something? They already know that! A friendlier, more supportive bunch of people you’ll never find. So swallow your pride and get to it!
That advice goes for people with concealed carry licenses too.