Six Million And Counting

According to this article, we’ve hit six million people licensed to carry in the United States:

From its beginnings in the 1980s, the “right-to-carry” movement has succeeded in boosting the number of licensed concealed-gun carriers from fewer than 1 million to a record 6 million today, according to estimates from gun-rights groups that are supported by msnbc.com’s research.

I’ve been using 5 million, but I’ll switch to 6 now. Hat tip to Dave Hardy, who adds, “It’s far more balanced than you would have seen ten years ago.” This is true. As bad as the media environment is now, the media’s treatment of guns in the 90s is part of what radicalized me on this issue. They have gotten a bit better.

A Dependent Class

I agree with what Uncle says here:

Aside from my moral objection from congress mandating that I have to purchase goods and services, the US is creating a dependent class along with a vast entitlement program. That, in addition to the fact we can’t afford the two entitlement programs we already have. Yes. I see the pattern. A government creating a dependency on a significant portion of the population. This, folks, is the issue. And they’ve done it before with Social Security and Medicare. They’re creating a group beholden. A group that will vote a certain way or risk losing benefits. Another lobby group rivaling the AARP can spring from this and be a player under the guise of preventing what I talked about earlier from happening. But still complicit in the dependence.

The bill is so long there’s bound to be a lot of crap it in it that are really going to piss off voters. There’s even vending machine requirements that require posting nutrition information. That could be a problem for my club, who has a machine for members. I suspect given federal requirements, we’d just as soon scrap the whole thing. Nice thought, you see, but we don’t want to risk offending the federal requirements. You’d think the vending machine industry would be against such practices, but probably not. It’s regulatory capture. Vending providers will make out because they’ll be the only ones that can afford to deal with the regulations. Vending machine makers will make money on an entirely new class of machines that meet the requirements. How many other nanny state requirements are in this bill? Plenty, I’m sure. The people need to get pissed, and ride these mothers until things change. You can’t depend on the free market to save you. Corporations are now in bed with big government, and it’s all of us who will be the losers.

As for vandalizing private property, it would seem the three percent movement has adopted the tactics of Palestinian school children, and I expect all this to work out just about as well for liberty in this country as it has for the Palestinians. The brick hurlers can wrap themselves in the imagery of the founders all they like, but the founders deplored this kind of mob violence:

Some modern scholars have argued that this interpretation is a myth, and that there’s no evidence that Adams had anything to do with the Stamp Act riots.[58] After the fact, Adams did approve of the August 14 action because he saw no other legal options to resist what he viewed as an unconstitutional act by Parliament, but he condemned attacks on officials’ homes as “mobbish”.[59] According to the modern scholarly interpretation of Adams, he supported legal methods of resisting parliamentary taxation—petitions, boycotts, and nonviolent demonstrations—but he opposed mob violence, which he saw as illegal, dangerous, and counterproductive.[60]

The mob violence was mostly instigated by a gang leader and well known rioter and instigator Ebenezer McIntosh. Fortunately for this country, the movement against the Stamp Act would be taken up by cooler heads. There will always be “herds of fools, tools, and synchophants,” as Sam Adams once said, in any movement. The trick is identifying them and distancing yourself from them. Vandalizing private property is not civil disobedience, or righteous protest. It is, to borrow a term from Sam Adams, “mobbish,” and is not at all within the realm of what the founders would have viewed as legitimate action. If you want to stand with the founders, use the system they created and join us in helping vote these bastards out come November. Then we can see what our options are in terms of getting rid of the monstrosity.

Two More Communities Adopt Illegal Ordinances

This time West Conshokocken and Bridgeport. This was another case of not being aware, though neither of these boroughs publish an agenda online that could even be monitored. It’s like like living in Scotland and Northern England during the Viking raids. You never know where they are going to strike next. You just wake up to find a neighboring village on fire.

UPDATE: Hatboro rejected even the resolution compromise measure. When we have time and room to act, we win.

Culture Wars

Eric over at Classical Values seems to hate the fact that Health Care is going to make the culture wars explode like we’ve never seen before. I too am not looking forward to that:

It used to be that the term “Culture War” meant — for one “side” — being against gays simply for being gay (supporting discrimination and favoring sodomy laws), wanting to imprison women for having abortions, favoring censorship (of pornography, “anti-family” TV shows, Howard Stern, etc.), and engaging in all sorts of personal attacks on people for things like having long hair, wearing the wrong clothes, or smoking pot. For the most part, many of those on the other side wanted to be left alone, laissez-faire style. The majority of gays, for example, would like to be left alone. However, the situation has been compounded by activists who don’t want to leave anyone alone. They believe in identity politics, in-your-face lifestyle activism, inquisitory behavior like “outing” people, and in many cases their tactics have exceeded anything the other side has done.

Sounds all too familiar. Those of us active in the Second Amendment community are immersed in a culture war issue as well. I remember Eric once writing that he couldn’t stand activists. As an activist in the pro-2A issue, you’d think I’d take exception to that, but I know exactly what he means. I’m firmly in the “leave me the hell alone” category. I involve myself in this game (and make no mistake about it, it is a game) because no one is going to leave me alone just because I shout it loudly enough. You have to make them leave you alone, and that means fighting collectively as a community. Your ends might be individual, but you can only achieve goals through the political process by collective action. Even the revolutionary elements of our movement don’t escape the collective action problem, though that type of collective action is more emotionally appealing to many people.

Saul Alinsky says you need to paint the struggle in terms of black and white to be an effective organizer. Your side has to be on the side of the angels, and the other side is evil incarnate. I think he’s correct in that. There’s a deep need for people to feel they are on the side of the angels in a righteous struggle against pure, unadulterated evil. I think that is the essence of the culture war, and it’s become that on both sides. It’s tough business for someone who just wants everyone to agree to leave everyone else in peace, and not hijack the political process or cultural institutions to impose one way of living over another. I’ve never been able to bring myself to adopt Alinsky’s tactic, even though I know it can powerfully motivate people to action. To me, once you unleash that kind of thinking, it’s very difficult to get the genie back in the bottle. There are plenty of historical calamities that have resulted from it. Too many to name.

Sad Story Tells Need for Veterans Firearms Act

Before the Democrats took control of Congress again, NRA was pushing a bill in Congress to prevent exactly this kind of thing from happening. That bill was known as the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act, which would grant power to the Attorney General to offer a very limited amnesty to allow new registration for machine guns so that historic pieces like this Lewis Gun, and the German machine gun captured by Sergeant Alvin York, could find their way into museums and firearms collections where they belong, rather than having to be destroyed, or held by police departments indefinitely. I would think this is the kind of reasonable gun law we can all get behind. There’s effectively zero chance these firearms are going to end up in the wrong hands. They will only end up in museums and private collections, which you’d expect of valuable historical relics.

Time Highlights the Brady Act, and Gets History Wrong

In the wake of ObamaCare passing Congress, Time is highlighting the top ten knockdown congressional battles. One of them they highlighted is the Brady Act, but in typical old media fashion, they get the details wrong:

Once the Brady Bill was signed into law in 1993 — instituting a five-working-day waiting period and background check for any gun purchase — the NRA funded lawsuits that challenged its constitutionality. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forced federal background checks were unconstitutional; these days, background checks are carried out by state and local officials.

What they are referring to is Printz vs. United States, and in Printz, The Court did rule that forced federal background checks were unconstitutional, but the detail Time gets wrong is that it was state and local government who were being forced by the feds. They assume it to be individual gun shops, and get the remedy completely wrong.

The Printz case said that what was unconstitutional was the federal government forcing the state and local authorities to do the federal background check. The Printz Court ruled that, as separate sovereigns, states were not political subdivisions of the United States, and could not be forced to administer federal programs.

The Printz issue did not rule that the background checks were unconstitutional in and of themselves, just that the local police couldn’t be forced by federal law to carry them out. This only applied to the period of the Brady Act before the National Instant Check System (NICS) went into effect. During that period, and after the Printz ruling, whether or not there was a background check was completely voluntary on the part of the local police, and many did not perform them. Sales were permitted to proceed, even if the police did nothing, provided the Brady waiting period was complied with.

This issue all went away once the National Instant Check System (NICS) was in place. Once NICS went active, background checks then had to proceed through the federal system, which is administered by the FBI. Under the Brady Act regulations, states can voluntarily act as Points-of-Contacts for NICS, and route background checks through their own systems, but a majority of states have no system, forcing firearms dealers in those states to use the federal system.

It would only have taken a few minutes of googling to get the correct history, but hey, this is probably why Time is in the toilet right now with a dwindling subscriber base.

UPDATE: IIRC, Printz was consolidated on appeal with a similar case, also in the 9th Circuit, called Mack v. United States. Jay Printz is a Sheriff in Montana (an NRA Board member now, BTW), and Mack was a Sheriff in Arizona. The Attorney of Record for Sheriff Mack was none other than Dave Hardy.

Brady Surveying New “Members”

Looks like the Brady Campaign is surveying its list, I’m going to guess because of the signatures they got on the Starbucks Petition. This is something NRA has been doing for a while now, actually, though not in this level of detail. I’ve said that even though, so far, the Brady Campaign has lost the Battle of the Coffee and Scones, as I will now dub it, they won just by fighting. Now they have 33,000 new people they will want more information about so they can target with mailings and alerts, and more importantly fundraising letters.

I’m going to ask pro-gun people not to fill out the form to mess with them. If you do, you will be counted among the Brady Supporters the next time they march into a politician or corporate leader’s office and demand they do something. Brady is not a membership organization like NRA is, they use the standard DC model, which is if you’re on their mailing list, you’re a supporter.

UPDATE: Well, OK, if you’re going to make it that obvious :)

Obama is at The End of This History

The Belmont Club has an excellent post up about this health care bill, and points out:

The obvious difference between Roosevelt’s position in 1940 and Obama’s in 2010 was World War 2. That global conflict destroyed practically the entire productive capacity of the industrialized world with the exception of the US. It allowed for an unparalleled economic expansion and was followed by a burgeoning demographic explosion we know as the Baby Boom. Those two factors together made Roosevelt’s entitlements appear to be sustainable. Even Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society 20 years later could still count on riding those two trends. Today’s crisis is largely the result of the final exhaustion of those twin booms. Where FDR found himself at the beginning, Obama finds himself at the end.

Read the whole thing. Tomorrow we return to our regularly scheduled gun blogging, but I thought this health care vote was historic enough to warrant a day’s coverage.

Why the NRA Model Works

If there’s one thing that we’ve got going for the gun issue over all of the other general “right of center” issues, it’s a reasonable sense of discipline from both parties. On the fiscal/limited government front, no group comes close – nor, in my experience, do they have any desire to gain such discipline in both parties or even in the one party they claim to support. Because of this lack of general consistency, it’s going to be very tough for these groups to accomplish their real goals instead of just racking up a symbolic win periodically.

The NRA model focuses on the issue first. While senior Democrats may be more openly hostile to gun rights than their GOP counterparts, by taking the view that you reward individual politicians, there’s a huge incentive to make gun rights a moderating issue for Democrats who want to represent more conservative districts. More importantly, by being willing to work just as hard for Democrats as Republicans who support the issue, the NRA has built a general trust with their members and politicians. As you can see, the results of this mean we’ve been fairly safe even as Congress has been lead by anti-gun extremists. Yes, we still have battles, but not nearly the battles we would have if more centrist Democrats didn’t have a huge perceived incentive to stick with us.

The only problem is that among right-of-center pundits and organizations, NRA really isn’t treated with the respect it deserves for taking an issue they all claim to care about – the Second Amendment – and helping foist it above the standard political fray. For other liberty-minded organizations, they should froth at the chance to see that kind of success. That doesn’t mean their battles go away, it just means they have much more say in transforming the political agenda. Perhaps they could open a serious discussion on entitlement reform if they had that kind of influence and respect.

As someone who has had experience working with some of the economic liberty-oriented organizations on the right, it’s disheartening as a believer in smaller government to see them hitching their wagons to the GOP even as the party rolls all over them. When an organization that focuses on earmark reform looks the other way when a GOP leader pushes for a mind-boggling large earmark that benefits his wealthy buddies, well, it means there’s never going to be a serious discussion about earmark reform. Because as long as the group only targets the Democratic earmarks, who cares? No need to reform, and the group will do the legwork for opposition research for future GOP candidates.

There’s a bit of challenge here for groups that promote economic liberty, in that economic liberty fits with the supposed GOP platform more than it does even a moderate Democratic platform. However, by not being consistent on the issues because the only friends they’ve got in Congress are steamrolling them, they aren’t likely to facilitate much in the way of tangible improvements.

NRA has benefitted by mostly raising itself up above partisan politics. Yes, they are known to support more Republicans than Democrats, but it’s most important that the Democrats know they can get a fair shake out of NRA if they stand with us on the issues. A Republican can’t call for a gun ban and still slip by with an A rating while a Democrat who says they might be swayed on a pigeon shoot restriction gets an F. That’s not to say their system is perfect or there haven’t been legitimate disputes. But those disputes are usually based on individual candidate circumstances rather than over party affiliation.

Sadly, until the economic liberty organizations can figure out how to hold both parties accountable, they won’t see much in the way of real reform.