The New York Times is running a series, which isn’t too bad. They at least talk to Robert Churchill, who understands the differences between the various groups. One other thing I’m happy to see is academics acknowledging that the government missteps, crimes and cover-ups at Ruby Ridge and Waco contributed to the rise of militia groups. The left shouldn’t just outright dismiss the concerns about criminal actions by law enforcement as just a bunch of right-wing nuttery. That’s something every American should be concerned about. When the people see their government commit crimes, and then not only fail to see the perpetrators held accountable, but so see them promoted while misdeeds are covered up, it undermines people’s faith in the system to the point where they believe drastic action is necessary. Given that pool of anger and resentment, you’re always going to find charlatans and opportunists willing and able to pour gasoline over the fire.
Year: 2010
Looking Back a Bit Further
In the last post, beatbox mentioned the Brady campaign finance data for their PAC arm and how much it has been hurting in recent years. I didn’t include that information in the initial look at the Brady finances because without diving into tons of very convoluted campaign finance reports, it’s a pain in the ass to break out by individual year as opposed to election cycle. And really, a year-by-year breakdown won’t give you any more insight that’s worth looking at. I wanted to keep the data sets in one post the same, or in the case of this post, similar.
Joe Huffman also piped up that he had some older 990s from the Brady camp, though it turns out they are only for the Center. Hugely useful data going back to 1999 (technically 1997, but missing 1998, so I’ll start out in 1999) for the Center, and he deserves a huge kudos for putting that together. But, because the Campaign appears to have been their core source of income until 2008, I don’t want to skew the data by updating only the Center’s numbers in the last post.
So what do the prior two paragraphs mean? Just that here is the data for the Brady PAC donation/expenditures/cash on hand for 1997-2008 (the 1998-2008 cycles) and the Brady Center revenue/expenses/ending assets for 1999-2008. (The ending asset is what I previously described as their cushion or nest egg, essentially savings they can dip into when they spend too much.)
Remember, these are similar time periods, not perfect matches. The PAC cycle includes two years that the Center graph does not.
For those of you keeping score at home, this shows that the “cushion” they could dip into when major legal threats come up has fallen by more than 67% since 1999.
Some Iowa Sheriffs “Just Know”
This here is exactly why we’re against wide discretion:
Based on their experience and contacts, sheriffs sometimes “just know” without written documentation that a person can’t be trusted with a carry permit, Gardner said.
No, you don’t just know. When someone comes in the door to hand you an application, you don’t know him from Adam. Talking to someone for a brief period isn’t like to be more revealing. If you can’t articulate the reasons a permit should be denied, you should issue. That’s how it works for most Iowa counties, and how it works in most states in this country.
“Brady Center Ceases Operations”
Two years ago today, mock stories appeared in the April Fool’s Day edition of The Outdoor Wire, and one stuck out at me as more of a potential prediction than a joke:
Brady Center Ceases Operations
Blames SCOTUS for “dwindling finances and shrinking supportâ€
Washington, D.C. – “We fought a hard fight, and lost. The people have spoken.†That’s the terse explanation offered up on the Brady Center’s website, announcing the dissolution of the longtime organization. An overwhelming majority decision (7-2) by the Supreme Court in 2008 that affirmed the individual right of firearms ownership led to a sweeping nationwide rejection of anti-firearms legislation and a precipitous decline in Brady Center financial support. As the Brady organization crumbled, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups saw memberships and coffers swell, allowing the NRA’s legislative action group to challenge and overturn what the NRA-ILA has described as “ridiculous†or “unenforceable†laws nationwide.
It’s possible that the only things wrong about this silly joke were the vote count (we won by 5-4), the Center closing shop before the Campaign, and the timing.
Looking at the Brady Campaign & Brady Center form 990s from 2004-2008, there is an unmistakable trend that may herald the real need to write the “joke” headline. Consider that the Brady Campaign – the legislative arm of the gun control organization – has seen donations drop off by more than 53% from 2004-2008. (The latest data available is from 2008, as 2009 tax documents are likely being filed now.) Total revenue that factors in revenue from assets and investments as well as the donations, is off slightly more – by more than 54% in the same time period. Unfortunately for them, the Brady Campaign has not been as successful at slashing expenses.
All I can say is ouch. That’s gotta hurt in a big way. I’m going to assume that the leveling off of expenses means they have slashed as much as possible without cutting significant staff or consultants. Obviously, that will have to change. A drop like this can’t simply be blamed on the recession, especially since the drops started two years before the official start of the downturn. (I don’t have data prior to 2004, so the drop may have started long before then.)
But upon seeing this, I suggested to Sebastian that perhaps they were re-aligning and putting more staff onto the Brady Center’s payroll – that is, their foundation division. It’s amazing how changing a few words can make it so you’re no longer lobbying for change, but merely educating lawmakers about the issues. Yes, it’s perfectly legal. To find out, we opened up all of their 990s from the same period, 2004-2008.
As you can see, they aren’t having much luck, either. Total revenue is down about $800K over 4 years, and expenses haven’t been consistently cut to match. The Center has been much better about keeping a nest egg of assets than the Campaign, but thanks to spending more than they receive in donations, even that cushion is down by more than 10% over the last 4 years.
In fact, at the end of 2008, the Brady Campaign was actually in the red by more than $450K. We can presume they spent 2009 fundraising like the devil and slashing expenses to make up for that, but it 2009 wasn’t exactly a great year for non-profits with so much uncertainty in the economy. The Brady Center, as mentioned before, has done much better about making sure it has some money to fall back on, so they had just under $2 million in savings.
So I guess the real question is: In what year does the April Fool’s gag of 2008 actually come true?
Not NRA’s Issue
Freedom States Alliance needs to be told what a lot of  Republicans need to often be reminded — NRA is a single issue organization.
Instead of looking at militias, such as the Hutaree, as some kind of an outlier, maybe it’s takes to confront the gun lobby about it’s rhetoric that they do in fact support and enable domestic terrorism.
It’s only when a militia is raided by the FBI that suddenly the NRA goes very, very quiet. Suddenly, their extreme ideology and rhetoric doesn’t look so appealing.
Did it occur to FSA that maybe NRA is silent about it because it’s not even remotely related to their issue? Did it even possibly enter into the minds of FSA that maybe some of us value the right to keep and bear arms to defend against domestic terrorists, and think folks like the Hutaree are just as nuts and dangerous as they do?
NRA is a single issue group — preserving the Second Amendment protecting an promoting the Shooting Sports is their core mission. Their issue is not, last I checked, making war on the State of Michigan or the United States in order to bring about a final apocalyptic battle with the Antichrist. At least I didn’t notice any literature about that last time I was at headquarters. Ack-Mac would charge a lot of something like that anyway.
Maybe ridiculous rhetoric like this is why FSA was folded into an umbrella group. Generally speaking, smearing four million Americans with this kind of crap isn’t a good way to make friends.
Anti-Terrorism in the Former Soviet Union
Tam’s quote on this is pretty spot on:
If I had to guess which country was most likely to take the path of systematic genocide as a terrorism fix, Russia would be my candidate. They’ve killed their own people in boxcar lots within living memory and, unlike Germany, haven’t had to deal with fifty years of international tongue-clucking and scolding because of it. (Not that caring what others think has ever been a defining characteristic of Russian leadership anyway.) The Chechen separatist strategy doesn’t strike me as very bright, poking this particular bear with this particular stick.
If there’s any lesson in post-Soviet Russia, it’s that Moscow doesn’t need much of an excuse to start shooting Chechens.
VPC Jumping to Conclusions?
Josh Sugarmann, with the taste and class we’ve come to know him for, is smearing permit holders with the loon who threatened Eric Cantor. Except they are relying on a statement from the family, and I think it’s possible the Philly Inquirer jumped to a conclusion that was incorrect:
Peter Leboon was concerned because his brother, who he said began showing signs of mental instability three years ago, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
“The last time I tried to get him help, we searched the whole house, six or seven of us, we couldn’t find the gun,” Peter Leboon said. “I found the permit, though, and destroyed it. Whatever happened to that gun, who knows?”
Given that Philadelphia will revoke an LTC if you spit on the sidewalk, I find this difficult to believe. The report says the guy had multiple run-ins with law enforcement. Even in fair jurisdictions, the Sheriffs are liable to revoke in that instance. I’m going to suggest what the family found was the copy of the Application/Record of Sale, which looks very official, and kind of like a permit, and the Inquirer took this to mean he had an LTC. I might be wrong, Maybe he did have an LTC, but this is the problem with Josh’s “Google Research.” He’s relying on reporting by a media who know nothing about this issue, and who very well might have gotten this completely wrong based on a misunderstanding. I sure wish I could get paid what Josh does to compile research by searching on the Internet.
Bloomberg Not Liking the Hope and Change
He joins with the Brady crowd that the Administration isn’t doing squat to further Mayors Against Illegal Guns Gun Control agenda. Apparently Bloomberg sent a scathing letter to Obama demanding that more be done. Because you know, beating up on gun owners after pissing everyone off on health care worked so well for the Democrats in 1994. Here’s what Bloomberg had to say:
“We appreciate the Department’s consideration of the report, but this is an urgent matter: further delay will almost certainly result in the needless loss of innocent lives, including many children. Mr. President, the time has come for action,” the mayors write. “Over the past six months, approximately 6,000 Americans have been gunned down in intentional acts of violence. The 40 recommendations in our Blueprint, many of which could be enacted immediately, offer the best hope we have for making our country safer over the next six months – and the years ahead.”
It’s for the children, you see. Man. Add some caps lock action to that and it could have been written by Abby Spangler. Think of the CHILDREN, and the SCONES. WHY WON’T ANYONE THINK OF THE SCONES!?!?!?!?
Brady Admits To Being Anti-Gun?
They are noting the anniversary of the Reagan Assassination attempt, where Jim Brady was shot and disabled by a bullet to the head, but the headline reads, “Jim and Sarah Brady: We’re Safer Thanks to Their Anti-Gun Efforts.” So is Brady admitting this isn’t about reasonable gun laws, but about being “anti-gun?”  I thought they hated that term. Now to be fair, I’ve had Opposing Views manipulate a few of my headlines, and maybe that’s the case here, but it seems like a fair manipulation to me if that was the case.
UPDATE: Their blog post on the subject is called “Making Lemonade,” so it woud seem this is an OV manipulation on the headline. Like I said, I’ve had them alter a few of mine too. Mine they did for the sake of clarity, but it would seem to me the OV editors ought to avoid making wholesale changes to the language, especially if they don’t know the issue well.
More on the New Jersey FOPA Case
There’s probably some things I should clear up on the FOPA case in the Third Circuit. This was not a criminal prosecution. This was a civil rights lawsuit filed under 42 USC Section 1983, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. That changes things considerably from a criminal prosecution. The criminal charges against Mr. Revell were dropped.
In order to sue a police officer in his personal capacity, you have to overcome qualified immunity. To do that you have to show the officer acted under color of law in violation of clearly established precedent. That’s a tough nut to crack. The plaintiff here, Mr. Revell, argued that FOPA’s peaceable journey language in 926A created an enforceable personal right. The Circuit Court upheld the District Court’s ruling that it could not, and that the plaintiff had to proceed with the suit on Fourth Amendment grounds. That means arguing the officer did not have probable cause to make the arrest. Since the Circuit Court found the arresting officer’s interpretation of the statute correct, they ruled that he had probable cause to make the arrest and retained his immunity against suit.
I should note that based on the courts interpretation of the FOPA safe harbor provision, it would even be unlawful if, traveling by car, you stopped in a hostile jurisdiction for an overnight stay. Ironically, if you left the gun in the trunk of the vehicle, where it could be stolen, you’d actually have a better case that you were still protected by FOPA than if you took the locked case into the hotel room for safe keeping. This is an absurd result, but the safe harbor provision is unfortunately narrow in its wording. This would be one of the provisions that the National Reciprocity Act would fix.