January 2010 – Page 7 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Your Life in Press Release Headlines

Who wants to have a little goof on Friday? More fun from the Pennsylvania Capitol serves as inspiration:

Rep. John Yudichak, D-Luzerne, showed up for work this week. And he was so proud of what he was supposed to be doing in the first place that he felt obligated to put out a press release about it: “Yudichak Participates In Hearing On Establishing State Energy Agency,” was the breathless headline.

If merely showing up is all it takes to warrant a news release, here’s ours: “Micek Blogs, Has Ham Sandwich For Lunch, Enjoys Several Long Contemplative Silences.”

Try it at home … see if you can sum up your working week in a press release headline.

Practical Translation of Yesterday’s Supreme Court Decision

I’m not going to bore you with the complexity of campaign finance laws. Really, it’s tedious. But my prediction is that the end result voters will actually see will be an increase in attack ads.

The Morning Call‘s John Micek has rounded up some insights, one in particular stands out:

Larry Ceisler, a Democratic consultant from Philly, said he thinks that while corporations might hesitate, unions will jump in with both feet. He also said that there’s a risk that unfettered corporate speech might drown out candidates’ own ads, which could cost them control of their own messages.

“For instance, if an entity is supporting a candidate and doesn’t think the message is tough or sharp enough, they can go in and do it themselves,” he told the newspaper. “That could be good for a campaign – or disastrous.”

I would be willing to put money on the fact that groups will now go more negative earlier than any candidate will. It’s unfortunate, but it is the likely result. In the Brown-Coakley race, her campaign worked alongside national groups to bombard the airwaves in the last week with nothing but negative ads against Scott Brown. Yes he was elected, but you can’t really argue they didn’t work. Rasmussen found on election day that voters who made up their minds in the last few days before the election broke for Coakley at a higher rate. He also found that more of Coakley’s supporters were really going to vote against Brown rather than for Coakley than vice versa. Unfortunately for Coakley, she just didn’t get the ads on the air early enough.

After that loss, I would say to expect more and expect them earlier. Though hopefully they will stay off of the Weather Channel this time around.

UPDATE: Marginal Revolution has posted word clouds from both the majority and dissenting opinions to give you a better idea of what each side was focused on.

Campaign Finance Decision Out

The case is Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Looks like a bit of a judicial trainwreck, much like McConnell v. FEC was, but the good news is we’re rid of many of the restrictions, including restrictions on independent corporate expenditures, which would apply to groups like the National Rifle Association. So this is a positive development for us in the Second Amendment community.

For some expert opinion on the matter, see SCOTUSBlog, Volokh, and the Election Law Blog.

Positive AR Coverage on ESPN

Not a bad article on the rise of the AR platform. They talk about the rise, fall, and rise again of Jim Zumbo in that context, and the NSSF’s push to educate more traditional hunters and shooters about some of the myths and mischaracterizations that have followed these firearms as they’ve made their way into the shooting culture.

Privatizing Permit Records Stirring Controversy

Two states now are in the mix with this issue, the first is Virginia, where the push began after the Roanoke Times published a list of all the permit holders in the state. Now that the legislature and Governor’s office are more friendly, we can finally get this done. Indiana has been in the mix for the past two months, and also is now floating a bill that would close public access to carry permits. This has to be one of the lamest defenses I’ve seen of the databases.

And what about the employer who recently fired a disgruntled employee? Shouldnâ€™t that employer be able to discover the former worker now has a permit to carry a gun?

Public access supporters point out that gun rights advocates might be working against their own interests by shutting down access to these records.

How, for example, will they be able to prove that law-abiding citizens are wrongly being denied these permits if they cut off access to the information?

Because we know the law? Look, this isn’t a discretionary process. If you meet the qualifications, you get the permit. It’s abundantly clear if people are being denied permits unjustly. Plus, if they are denied, they aren’t going to appear in the database now are they? And why does an employer need to know whether someone has a permit to carry? Do people routinely get permits before coming in and shooting up the workplace? I mean, we can’t be carrying illegally on the way to murder people, can we?

Improvements in LTC System

Looks like the state is looking to make some improvements in the License to Carry application process, so make it more standardized and quicker. This looks overall positive to me. Â We need more standardization. As it stands, our Sheriffs often like to use processes for application that are out of line with general practice in the state. For instance, Montgomery County gives you a “police card” to take to your local PD and get them to sign off on the application. They will do same day issue, but the process isn’t nearly well defined enough under state law, and more standardization I think can only be a positive thing.

Todd Jarrett Leaving ParaUSA?

SayUncle is reporting Todd Jarrett would seem to be leaving Para to start his own 1911 company. ParaUSA and Todd were gracious enough to host gun bloggers a few summers ago, and I think I can safely say we all wish Todd the best of luck in his new endeavor. That 360 degree shoot house was the most fun I’ve ever had with a gun.

II

Possible threeper flag spotted at a Brown victory rally? Did a bit of searching, and it would seem it’s an unrelated flag.

UPDATE: Whoops. It would seem Traction Control found it too. I didn’t notice the second flag was a link.

Playing Out of Your League

There’s been some coverage of the Brady Campaign turning on the Obama Administration. Namely from The Hill, Politico, and NPR, just to name some. The biggest MSM coverage that I’ve seen is this blurb in USA Today, where it’s mentioned among many other left-leaning groups that graded Obama. but my favorite one is probably this, from a small town Washington State news outlet:

Also clearly, the folks [at the Brady Center] arenâ€™t showing much political savvy of the kind that allows a president to govern.

Case in point â€” the Massachusetts election Tuesday for the vacant U.S. Senate seat once held by Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The Brady Centerâ€™s Paul Helmke, in endorsing Democrat Martha Coakley, said: â€œThis race is a clear choice between a tough, law-and-order leader who wants to fight gun violence in Massachusetts and a state legislator who has, either wittingly or unwittingly, become a poster child for the â€˜guns everywhereâ€™ gun lobby.â€

The National Rifle Association was upfront about what it thought of her opponent, Republican Scott Brown.

â€œScott Brown is â€˜Aâ€™ rated by the NRA Political Victory Fund,â€ the NRAâ€™s Political Victory Fund website says.

Massachusetts voters resoundingly chose Brown, a state senator.

I don’t know if I’d be that harsh. Progressive are abandoning Obama like rats from a sinking ship at this point, and the Bradys are no doubt wanting to join, in the hopes that Obama might decide he needs to win back a few friends, and they might be one of them. Plus, getting cozy with other disillusioned progressives might bring some money in, and that wouldn’t be unwelcome by the Bradys, who have to be getting desperate for money at this point.

It wouldn’t be an unreasonable strategy if Brady had something to offer Obama and the Democrats in return for support, but what do they have? Money? No. Their PAC spent nary a cent in the last election, only 55 thousand dollars, or thereabouts. For contrast, Brady spending in 2004 was three times as much. Spending in the 2000 election was more than thirty times. Votes? The lack of ability for anti-gun groups to deliver votes is fairly undisputed in political circles at this point. So what do they have to offer Obama? Of the holy trinity, only favorable or unfavorable media can really be truly delivered, which is what they decided to try here. But I have to admit, they will need more than a brief blurb in USA Today, and some of the online sources to return to the former glory days of Handgun Control Incorporated. So far I would say this gambit is falling flat.

Course of Action

I’ve never been one to jump onto the victimization bandwagon or erect villains that gun rights folks can portray themselves as fighting against. I tend to think think this kind of activity can remove the focus from real action, and instead get people’s energies and attention fixated on the villains. ATF is one of our favorite villains, and much of the time they do things to deserve people’s derision and scorn. But ATF, while unique in some respects, doesn’t really act much differently than other federal regulatory bureaucracies, as anyone who’s ever worked in a regulated industry can attest to. As long as we have federal gun laws, there will be an agency charged with regulation and enforcement under the authority of those laws. That put us back to square one, no matter which three letter acronym the agency carries. That’s largely why in the case of the Austin Gun Show controversy, I’m a lot more interested talking about courses of action rather than railing against ATF for the sake of vilifying the agency. Action has to be related to goals, and the goal in this case is to preserve the integrity of the show, and prevent the City of Austin and ATF from attempting to meddle with any more shows. In the last post we saw that raising a preemption claim against the Austin Police Department was likely going to be problematic, because the landlord of the property is really the ones doing the coercion. But that doesn’t mean you can’t get the attention of these regulators. I would propose the following courses of action:

File state and federal FOIA requests in regards to any and all communication that happened between the involved agencies and the landlord (actually, this was Dave Hardy’s idea, and a good one I think.) Depending on what you find, you might have a preemption claim. But even if you don’t, you’ll have a clearer picture of what went on.
Almost all police departments receive funding from their states, and Texas has a very gun friendly legislature. Speak to the key committee chairs that control funding to local police departments. Agencies pay close attention when their funding sources get threatened, or there’s even a hint of a possible threat. Remember how I said how the request by APD nuisance unit to the landlord could have a threatening nature just by the very nature of who’s asking? Well, two can play at that game, and we should.
If you can get an impressive number of gun owners together in Austin to go to a City Council meeting, and make your displeasure known, that could also have an effect. But you’d have to make an impressive showing. Three guys showing up isn’t going to be intimidating to the politicians. Filling the room is going to make them concerned.
ATF is also not immune from funding pressures. Bit of a tougher fight there because Daniel Inouye is chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, but Hutchison is also on that committee and is running for governor, she’ll want to stay on the radar of the gun vote. Things in the are better, because Dave Obey heads the House Appropriations Committee, an A- rated Democrat. In addition, you have five Texans on that committee, the lowest of whom is a B rated Democrat, and the rest A rated. Make sure those individuals know you’re unhappy about ATF involvement in pressuring landlords who host gun shows.

I guess what I’m trying to suggest is: don’t get mad, get even. The way you get even with bureaucrats is to get the people who essentially pay them mad. There are other avenues other than ones I mentioned here. I offer these a way to think about how politics works, and how a motivated and pissed off group of gun owners can effectively direct their energies.