Year: 2009

This poll is rather shocking.  It shows Kirsten Gillibrand losing in a Democratic primary to Carolyn McCarty, with 34 percent of Democratic voters supporting McCarthy, with only 24 percent supporting Gillibrand.  I’m a bit like a kid with an ant farm over this whole topic.  A pro-gun politician elevated to represent a staunchly anti-gun state as a member of the staunchly anti-gun party is not something I’ve seen in my lifetime, and it’s been fascinating to watch.

I still don’t believe there’s any real passion for gun control, even among New York City Democrats.  If there were, we’d run into them more often, and we don’t.  Even the Huffington Post is a rather lonely place for Paul Helmke.  But the fact remains that Carolyn McCarthy, a Congresswoman from Long Island, who’s sole issue is gun control, and who had no success getting anything relating to guns passed until NRA rewrote one of her bills and backed it, is ahead in polling for the Dem primary.

My theory is that it’s not so much gun control itself that is the issue, but that it represents a cultural signaling mechanism to the downstate establishment.  Gillibrand’s support of gun rights signals that she is not one of them.  That she comes from an area that hunts, fishes, and shoots.  That’s something upstate cousin-humpers do.  Those aren’t the values of the Upper East Side.  The message hammered home by the media downstate is that Kirsten Gillibrand is not one of you.  She’s not New York.  Carrie McCarthy?  Well, she’s from Long Island at least.  I do think the cultural condescention is actually that bad among upper middle class urban dwellers from the Northeast, which are going to be heavily represented in any Democratic primary in New York State.

I actually think framing the debate in terms of hunting hurts her.  Self-defense is another matter, and if I were advising Gillibrand on how to handle the gun issue, I would advise her to steer clear of hunting.  Hunting is something completely alien to someone who has lived in New York City all their lives.  Most everyone, even liberal Democrats, can relate to wanting to protect their family and their homes.  Gillibrand will no doubt want the media to drop the gun issue completely, but they won’t.  Given that, if she is going to keep her position on the issue, she needs to speak about it in a context New Yorkers can understand.

Tom King talks about the dichotomy that exists within the Empire State, and how it could play out for gun owners there.  Things do not look very good in New York State right now, so now is not the time to be complacent.

Some folks have asked about the DOJ response in the case the Brady Campaign have brought against the Department of Interior over the National Park carry rule.  For those of you who are interested, here it is.  I’ll update with later with any thoughts I have on it.

UPDATE: It appears that NRA  and Mountain States Legal Fund filed a Motion to Intervene.  What this is, essentially, is NRA and MSLF asking to become a party to the lawsuit.  DOJ, in this brief, is asking the court, that if they grant the motion, that they limit the intervention, so as not to “unduly multiply or delay these proceedings.”

I could be wrong about this, but it looks to me like DOJ would rather NRA and MSLF not be involved in the case, but don’t really have any legal grounds to argue they shouldn’t be.  The consequences of the limits being asked for is that the NRA and MSLF will be limited from seeking “discovery or extra-record consideration,” basically meaning they won’t be able to demand documents and other items from the agency in an attempt to build a case.

According to the Washington Post:

In its reply, the Justice Department wrote that the new rule “does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety.”

But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for an internal assessment of whether the measure has any environmental impacts the government needs to take into account, Interior spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said yesterday.

It is the duty of the Solicitor to defend the Administration’s policies, rules, and regulations in court.  Whether Obama likes it or not, with that rule change, carry in National Parks is among the regulations the Solicitor General’s office is obligated to defend.  If Obama wants to fish this turd out of his punch bowl, he’s going to have to undertake more rulemaking.

Evan Nappen makes some predictions about gun control, and he thinks Congressman Engel has provided the plan by which we will be attacked.  I agree with Evan that this is almost a no brainier for Obama if he’s looking to pick a fight with NRA.

How it would work is Obama would direct the ATF to do something about it, then ATF would propose a rule to change the Federal Regulations that govern imported parts guns.  There would be a period of public comment.  During that period gun owners would need to do what we did in regards to the National Park Carry bill.  In other words, flood them with comments opposing the rule change.  The rule might get implemented anyway.  We could, in that case, sue BATFE, just like the Brady’s are doing with the Department of the Interior, only we’ll have some better tools to use legally.

TD might be sorry he sold me that FAL :)