Year: 2010

Looks like some Maine legislators are crapping their pants about the new park rule. This would also prohibit carrying firearms on the Appalachian Trail through Maine as well. Who needs guns on the Appalachian Trail? I mean, it’s not like bears are anything to worry about either. It’s perfectly safe, really. Besides, you can always carry a whistle.

I note the Appalachian Trail Conservancy is supporting this, thus ensuring they will never see a dime of my money, and the next time I see them out on the trail heads recruiting or handing out literature I’m going to tell them why I want nothing to do with them:

“I believe allowing firearms on the Appalachian Trail is unnecessary, possibly dangerous and, simply put, a bad idea,” Proudman said. “Perhaps most important, we don’t want the culture to change.”

Nice of you to impose your choice on me jackass by using the government to lock me up if I choose differently. Screw the Appalachian Trail Conservatory. Don’t give those turds any money.

Allows carrying of pistols in vehicles provided they are in a locked compartment. We could use this in Pennsylvania too, since, with limited exception, you need to have a License to Carry to transport firearms in vehicles.

Looks like they also moved along the repeal of the restaurant ban in Virginia.

Ironically on the same day the new National Park regulations go into effect:

Hatboro Mayor Norm Hawkes proposed a lost or stolen handgun ordinance to borough council Monday night that he said would help keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

If adopted, the ordinance would require citizens to report their lost or stolen handguns to the police up to 72 hours after discovery.

Anyone who violates the ordinance would be subject to a fine of no more than $1,000, or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both, reads the draft ordinance.

Council will vote at its meeting Feb. 22 if it will advertise the ordinance for a future vote.

They introduced it the same night as Radnor’s, which was no doubt intended to spread us thin. Since we had more activists to work with in Radnor, that was probably the smarter township to target, but now I’m wondering, since apparently the Solicitor for the Township in Hatboro can read plain law:

Hatboro Solicitor Christen Pionzio told council she did not feel comfortable recommending it adopt the ordinance.

Looks like Max Nachemann is intending to keep us very busy.

The Arizona Rifleman is getting some first hand experience with on-the-ground activism with the campus carry movement. You can see his first hand account here, and here. Get involved enough, and eventually you’ll get this feeling too:

At several points, I wanted to say to the pro-gun people, “Stop it. You’re not helping.” — we’re not talking about the Second Amendment, nor guns in parking lots, nor anything else. We’re talking about whether the ASUA, the University of Arizona student government, should support or oppose a state senate bill that would allow faculty with valid CCW permits to carry concealed firearms on campus. Your efforts basically confirm every negative stereotype, though most of the pro-gun females who spoke were clear, articulate, and made some good points. This is a matter of giving responsible adults — professors, specifically — the choice to carry a firearm on campus if they wish.

Of course, the other side of the coin, like we experienced in Radnor earlier this week, is when a lot of highly involved and motivated people show up, and nail point after point that needed to be made. Our grassroots are both our greatest asset, and a huge liability, but I’d rather have our grassroots than the other side’s astroturf. The one thing I wish I could have said to the Radnor Township Board of Commissioners is,

“These residents you see here represent thousands of other people in this township who feel just as passionately as they do, but maybe couldn’t make it, or just aren’t as young or energetic. But I will tell you, they will show up at the polling stations and vote this issue if angered, and the activists here will make sure they know about it. I can promise you that nearly everyone in your Township who’s willing to vote for you because of this issue is in this room tonight. You have nothing to gain by voting yes, and everything by voting no.”

That’s why they lose, and we win, when you boil it down.

The further playing up of this rift between the petitioners and NRA in the McDonald case, both at Cato again, and also in the Washington Post, seems to be a distraction from the necessary task of winning the case. I didn’t think the motion was a smart thing either, but what’s done is done, and  I hope the parties can manage to bury the hatchet at least until the case is won.

The Brady Campaign pointed out:

From that flows the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with the effects of their gun advocacy — such as forcing families and children to accept semi-automatic pistols or assault weapons in the local Starbucks or other restaurant — is the same as those who refused service to African-Americans at a Woolworth’s lunch counter.

Funny they should point that out, because as Dave Kopel has the rest of the story about civil rights sit-ins that they’d probably prefer not to acknowledge.