Year: 2009

The Washington Post seems to be reporting that D.C. voting rights advocates are optimistic that the gun rights “GOP Amendment” can be stripped from the bill.  GOP amendment?  Yeah, that’s why it passed with 62 votes.

The House is expected to pass its version of the bill next week without any gun language. The differences between the bills will have to be hashed out in a conference between the chambers.

“That’s why you have conferences. I’m sure there will be an effort to fix this,” said Tom Davis, the former Republican congressman from Virginia who was the original architect of the bill. He said the legislation appeared to have enough support to pass without the gun amendment attached.

Says Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:

Hoyer branded the gun amendment “inappropriate and wrong,” telling the Politics Program on WTOP (103.5 FM): “I hope it won’t be in the final product.”

Seems pretty appropriate to me.  If they want representation in the federal government, they have to follow the federal constitution.  Apparently Hoyer thinks that’s wrong an inappropriate.

The amendment drew widespread support, he said, because “people don’t want to vote against the National Rifle Association.”

But, he added, if the amendment was dropped, legislators could approve the bill and still get credit for their pro-gun stance in the earlier vote.

“You can have your cake and eat it, too,” he said.

He’s quite likely right about this, but as I pointed out before, the benefit is getting the Senate on record, and demonstrating to President Obama that he’s not going to get a break on this issue.  The stars lined up in our favor, and we moved on it.

For example, 26 states, including Maryland and Virginia, have laws requiring safe storage for guns. Virginia, Maryland and California have laws limiting buyers to one handgun purchase a month. A dozen states, including Maryland, require handgun owners to register their weapons with authorities or obtain licenses to possess them.

A dozen states?  A half dozen maybe, but I think they need to review state laws on this matter.

The legislative session for 2009 in Virginia has ended.  Head over to the VSSA blog for a review of the bills currently sitting on Governor Kaine’s desk.

It looks like things might actually be happening in Ilinois:

“It’s heating up. We think we’re close,” said Todd Vandermyde, a National Rifle Association lobbyist who has pushed the concealed-carry proposal in Springfield before. “You’ve got 48 states that have this. That’s a statement.”

Gun control advocates are firing back with bills to create new restrictions on the sale and transfer of those guns, while trying to stop the concealed-carry movement.

There are a lot of anti-gun bills in the Illinois legislature too, and a good offense is often the best defense.  They will have to expend energy to defeat this bill, which makes some of the other bad stuff take a back seat.  The Bradys are already worried about it.

Mannard, of the gun-control group, says that argument clashes with common sense. “If I’m walking down the street, and the neighbor across the street is carrying a loaded 9 millimeter with a 15-round clip, that doesn’t make me feel safer.”

A 9mm with a 15 round magazine?  Why, that’s exactly what I carry.  I’ve never noticed any of my neighbors giving me worried looks.  Apparently these people don’t quite grasp the definition of the word concealed.

Countertop has an excellent post describing how gun owners often miss an opporuntity for even simple political action.  In regards to an issue poll sent out by his local state representative:

Well, there were somewhere between 569 and 580 surveys responded to. Its a pathetic rate. But then, there is only a small pool of people (especially in a transient area like this) who pay attention to local politics. On most issues, its tough to get a sense of where the area is. Views on taxes run the gamut, and include plenty of conservative and liberal positions as well as those incorporate a little of both. Same with transportation. On many of the questions significant numbers of people simply responded “I need more info.” On one, dealing with energy, 27.9% responded they needed more info.

And what was the result on the gun issue?

Now, 571 people responded to the question. I know the NRA has at least that many members in his district. And VCDL too. Heck, my local gun club has that many, not to mention the local Republican party.

500 people responded yes. Thats 87.6%.
Only 48 people responded No, a paltry 8.4%.

Folks, I can’t hold Jim Scott’s gun banning ways against him anymore. He’d be a fool to be anything but a gun banner. We have no business complaining about his votes when in a District with diverse views on everything else, nearly 90% of his constituents who care are against our gun rights. Until the large gun rights crowd in McLean makes their voice heard, his votes fall on their inactive hands.

Read the whole thing.  It’s a continual frustration that even the simplest of actions aren’t undertaken by gun owners.  The vast majority won’t lift their fingers to do much for their gun rights.  Even most NRA members pay their 35 dollars a year to Fairfax and figure their rights are taken care of.  NRA is merely our agents.  Creating a beneficial political climate NRA can work in is our responsibility as members.  There’s a reason that all these years later, NRA is stll using the slogan “I am the NRA!” because it’s true.

Not having had much luck with the trial balloon last week, the media would appear to be stepping up the story:

U.S. officials acknowledge that U.S. gun laws are partly to blame. The 1994 ban on the sale of assault weapons like AK-47s in the U.S. led to a decrease of such weapons south of the border. But the ban expired in 2004, and the numbers in Mexico spiked. Last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would seek to reinstate the ban. Contributing to the problem is the fact that Mexico’s customs control is famously weak, and authorities rarely check inbound traffic from the U.S.

I think it is very interesting that the Brady Campaign has not commented on Mr. Holder’s statements publicly.  Why?  Quite likely because they understand what the consequences of it were.  It can successfully be classified as a “gaffe” which distracted the Administration from its legislative agenda, and angered enough Congresspeople that now Brady has to deal with a total repeal of D.C.’s ridiculous gun laws.

Not much hope/change for the Bradys yet.  They are still on the defensive.   But for how long?

UPDATE: They did make a release on it.  I must have missed it.