2010 – Page 156 – Shall Not Be Questioned

What Remarkable Tolerance

Dan Thomasson of The Reporter says of gun ownership:

Then there are those who are nuts about guns, who collect them and seem almost to consider them affectionate, even sexual objects.

Yes, the sexual objects again. Next thing you know, he’ll say we’re all paranoids:

Present in all three classifications is an element of paranoia, a strong belief that without these weapons one is not likely to survive the truly crazy (like maybe one’s testy neighbor or a disaffected co-worker or student seeking revenge from bullies) or the ubiquitous criminals that use guns as necessary tools in their business.

Maybe we just want to pursue the hobbies that make us happy, and just be left alone rather than being blamed for all the ills of society, or looked down upon by our supposed betters who say we have mental or sexual deficiencies. A lot of gun owners and gun hobbyists are angry people. It’s crap like this that makes them angry people. Everyone is someone else’s weirdo. Time to accept that and move on. Kind of makes you wonder about Mr. Thomasson’s hobbies, doesn’t it?

New York Election News

Jacob has some coverage, including a return of Doug Hoffman, and Kirsten Gillibrand attracting yet another challenger. Before too long it seems like half the State of New York will have announced they are primarying Gillibrand. Apparently even Bloomberg’s girlfriend wants a piece of that action.

JPFO Not Helping

Jeff Soyer brings us a piece from the Baltimore Sun that highlights a mailing done by JPFO. JPFO denies distributing them, but admits to putting them on the Internet for other people to distribute. For reference, the flyers Jeff talks about are here, and here.

This is why JPFO will never see a dime of my money. Now, the charge of anti-semitism is rather silly when this material is produced by someone who is Jewish. But what do you think someone not part of the pro-gun community is going to think upon seeing one of these flyers? I can assure you the folks in this Sun article’s reaction is not going to be atypical.

I stick to donating my money to NRA and SAF. Many of the other groups out there aren’t doing any favors for the movement. JPFO has lately been one of them. This is a shame, I think, because JPFO can often have a powerful message about the importance of gun rights for the Jewish community, but Zelman can’t seem to help going over the top with ridiculous crap like this. I agree with Jeff wholeheartedly on this one.

Insight Firearms Training Opposing Constitutional Carry?

I have in my possession an e-mail from a reader that would appear to be from Insight Firearms Training Development, which asks folks to express to their elected representatives to oppose removing the requirement to have a permit to carry a concealed firearm. That’s right, it would seem a prominent training house is selling out the Second Amendment for their own financial gain. Click on the link to see the header for yourself. Here’s the letter they suggest people send:

RE: Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108

Dear Representatives:

I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Â Nevertheless, I strongly OPPOSE House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108 which would authorize Arizonans to carry a concealed weapon without the permit that is currently required by Arizona law. Â I have recently taken the 8-hour CCW course required by Â current law and I can tell you first-hand that it is invaluable and necessary for anyone who plans to carry a concealed weapon. I realized when I took the CCW course offered by Insight Firearms Training Development in Prescott Arizona that there was much that I did not know (or remember as the case may be) about the safe handling of firearms and, importantly, the law applicable to their use for purposes of personal protection in real life (and death) situations. Â Persons who carry concealed weapons who are not properly trained and educated will be hazardous to you, me and all of the residents of this state.

The argument often offered in support of allowing a person to carry without proper training is that “criminals do not worry about CCW permits, so why should we require it of good, law-abiding citizens”. Â That may be true, but the argument is disingenuous. Â Our laws apply to all people – good and bad. Â The fact that some choose to violate the laws of our society does not constitute good reason to modify them in a manner that will be injurious to the safety of our communities. Â Should we modify every law in our society because the criminals don’t follow them? Should we base all laws of our society on the behavior of the criminals?

The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, does not proscribe reasonable governmental restrictions on an individual’s rights with respect to firearms. Â To restrict individuals from carrying a handgun in a concealed manner under any circumstance would be unreasonable. Â It is not unreasonable, however, to require that person to demonstrate that he has obtained the proper training and education in the use of that concealed weapon. Â With every right comes a corresponding duty an responsibility! Â We need to retain that requirement.

Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108

I agree with Insight that training is a good idea, but coming from a state that doesn’t require it, I don’t think it needs to be a legal requirement. I also fail to see how we have a right to “bear” arms if we have to get state permission before we can exercise that right.

I don’t appreciate members of the community crapping on our rights so they can continue to use force of law to extract money us.Â Has anyone else gotten this e-mail? If so, and you are an alumni of Insight, I would be sure to express your displeasure.

UPDATE: Please don’t confuse Insight Firearms Training Development with InSights Firearms Training of Seattle, Washington. They are separate companies. InSights has nothing to do with this controversy.

Success Against The Bloomberg Juggernaut

I think it’s quite ironic that it would seem that the gun rights movement is particularly strong in Southeastern Pennsylvania. CeaseFire Pennsylvania, in cooperation with Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have brought their preemption violating “Lost and Stolen” ordinances to my neck of Pennsylvania.

This time we had some grassroots action ready to meet them. First in Radnor, which has tabled the bill until April. On the same day CeaseFire Pennsylvania was tying us up in Radnor, Mayors Against Illegal Guns pushed the same ordinance to Hatboro. Hatboro has rejected the ordinance route in favor of a resolution, which they will be hearing Monday March 22nd. We still oppose the resolution, which urges the General Assembly to pass a state L&S law, but we’ve made progress. Ambler Borough has decided not to pursue an ordinance a few weeks ago. Now word has it that Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, a bastion of liberalism even back when Delaware County was solidly Republican, has decided to table its Lost and Stolen ordinance.

This has to be huge embarrassment for Joe Grace, EVP of CeaseFire PA, and it’s a slap in the face to MAIG too. It’s no accident. It’s the work of gun owners getting involved, showing up, and making effective arguments to their elected representatives. We succeeded against a strategy that was designed to spread us thin and wear us out. It has, so far, failed to work. I know many of my readers here were involved in these efforts, and we all owe them some thanks, especially to the people who were residents of these municipalities that showed up and spoke. Let’s hope we can keep pouring molasses over Bloomberg and Grace’s agenda. Let them have nothing without a fight.

UPDATE: PAFOA gives some of its members their due as well.

Questions

I’ve gotten a steady stream of questions in for our board candidates. Most of them quite good. However a number of them are on legislative topics, and legislative priorities, which the NRA Board is only tangentially involved in. Those decisions get made by ILA. For those that asked questions of this nature, I will see if I can get an interview with a decision maker at ILA after we’re finished with all the board stuff.

Another Article Over At Opposing Views

This time I’m harassing Josh Sugarmann. You can see the original article he wrote that I’m responding to here.

Play on Taxpayer Concerns when Fighting Gun Control

Ultimately, the Albion Borough Council which previously banned guns on city property rescinded their ban after they realized it would cost a pretty penny to defend against lawsuits that they could very likely lose.

The financial cost to taxpayers is a talking point that non-gun owners can identify with, and a major source of contention in Pennsylvania after last year’s state budget fiasco and the simple fact that the Governor has been simply unable to deliver a budget on time since he’s been in office. Local budgets can’t afford partisan political games from Harrisburg, so they definitely don’t have the spare cash to fight lawsuits. It doesn’t have to be your only argument against local gun control, but make sure it gets made.

Gun Owners Aren’t Welcome at Church

That’s the attitude of the reverend of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Richmond. He offers up the church which sits across from the Capitol for political use by lobbyists for all sorts of favored causes – unions, healthcare, and gun control. Rev. Wallace Adams-Riley claims that the church is available for just about any lobbyist to use as a headquarters – as long as they aren’t supportive of the Second Amendment. He points out that the one group he would actively turn away is the NRA. One might wonder if he has the same belief about turning away NRA members from his church.

The Most Interesting Races in the Must Watch State

Everyone says we should look to Pennsylvania as a bellwether of 2010 politics. We have the most number of competitive Congressional races, and we’ve got major statewide elections that will drive people out to the polls more so than other states in this year’s non-presidential cycle. We also have a very good shot at turning the Pennsylvania House over to GOP – a strictly partisan move I would not have cared much for until the very centrist Democrat House Speaker announced his retirement. I do not trust who might move up to that top spot if the Democrats remain in control. (Here is an effort to draw attention to states with closely split legislative houses that can be flipped by pushing just a handful of candidates.)

Last night was the local GOP vote for John Murtha’s former seat. Due to the timing of his death, this election cycle is pretty complicated with two different elections with some of the same and some different candidates held for the same seat on the same day. The shorter story you need to know is that both parties have selected candidates for their races who are political unknowns. The Democrats chose Murtha’s former district director who clearly has political experience, but isn’t on the record with his own views. We don’t know if he shares Murtha’s dedication to gun rights. On the GOP side, there’s a businessman who brings new energy to the grassroots and who the Democrats have resorted to calling mean because he once built a successful business, sold it, and the other owners laid people off. (I expect PA-12 to turn into a children’s playground at the rate the campaign is going because of outside candidates who didn’t have local support. Expect spitballs and screams of “I’m gonna tell on you!” any day now.) As a political newbie, GOP candidate Tim Burns also doesn’t have a record on gun rights yet. So this should be interesting. The district has always been reliable for guns, but we don’t know if it will remain that way.

Depending on how things go, we can see it as a blessing or a curse that we’ll be losing that district anyway. Given that the candidate will have only served a term and a half, it is likely that both parties will agree to do away with PA-12 when we have to give up a seat following the Census.

Depending on how much you like politics, this is either a political junkie’s dream world or a cynic’s worst nightmare. For me, it relies on my mood. Since the political attitude is more anti-incumbent than pro-Republican, I’m really not sure how this will play out. Given that uncertainty, and the fact that the local GOP is trying to actively drive voters into the arms of Democrats, I’m leaning more toward a nightmare mood.

If you’re a Pennsylvania politico, or just a politics watcher who generally has a feel for what’s going on, take the PoliticsPA poll (on the left, about halfway down) on which will be the most interesting May 18 race. Also leave your answer as a comment if you’re so inclined. I’d like to know which races you guys are interested in.