2010 – Page 40 – Shall Not Be Questioned

On the “B” Word

Over at Common Gunsense, our host has taken unkindly to being called a “Bigot.” My American Heritage dictionary defines the word thusly, “AÂ personÂ whoÂ isÂ utterlyÂ intolerantÂ ofÂ anyÂ differingÂ creed,Â belief,Â or opinion.” In the modern American vernacular, we’ve largely forgotten about the latter two objects and concentrate almost exclusively on the first. In terms of the literal definition, we have all certainly met gun control advocates who fit it, by displaying a wildly condescending and contemptuous view of those who exercise their rights. I will leave it to readers to decide whether the proprietor of Common Gunsense fits that definition, but it’s not my purpose in this post to weigh into that particular debate. My purpose is to point out that I think Ms. Peterson has a point about the “pot calling the kettle black” in terms of some of our folks having bigoted attitudes towards people who merely disagree with us about the role of arms in American society.

Most of the tossing around I’ve seen of the word “bigot” seems to germinate from a belief that because these individuals are advocating against an enumerated civil right, that they aren’t any different than those that advocated against civil rights for blacks and other racial or ethnic minorities. I’ve said before that I think there has to be a distinction, morally, between hatred of someone because of immutable characteristics, and hatred of someone because you abhor a behavior of theirs, even if that behavior is constitutionally protected.

You can draw First Amendment analogies here, since speech is characteristically a behavior rather than an immutable quality, and speech, like firearms ownership, is constitutionally protected. I don’t necessarily consider someone advocating for a law preventing Fred Phelps and others like him from picketing a funeral to be an intolerant bigot. Misguided, yes, but not necessarily a bigot. Reasonable people can disagree about the nature and scope of the First Amendment, especially weighted against protecting the privacy and dignity of the families of service members who have been killed in action.

Advocacy of a position only really descends into bigotry when it’s based on an intolerant contempt for the individual or individuals who are engaging in a behavior, or holding a contrary opinion. It wouldn’t, for instance, be bigotry for someone to suggest “I really believe that jury verdicts shouldn’t need to be unanimous, because it costs taxpayers a lot of money for new trials, and often lets the guilty go free.” You could express the exact same opinion in a Â bigoted way, however, by saying, “I really believe that jury verdicts shouldn’t need to be unanimous, because your average working class rube, too stupid to get out of jury duty, is too ignorant in judgement to be trusted with the outcome of a verdict.” The latter expression of the same idea displays a bigoted attitude towards average, working class individuals. Both attitudes are treading into the territory of weakening a traditional civil right, but only one displays any evidence of the opinion having a bigoted origin for the opinion.

In our issue, someone saying “I believe in banning handguns, machine guns and assault weapons, because they are dangerous to society, and no one except the police and military should be allowed to have them,” is not displaying any hint of bigotry. The same person saying “I believe in banning handguns, machine guns and assault weapons because anyone who could possibly want to use one is certainly a homicidal manic out to mow down kindergartners,” is a bigoted viewpoint. It might be a surprise to many who support gun control, but when you call people of good will and character dangerous, mentally deficient, sexually dysfunctional, or insane, only because they engage in a behavior or have an interest you disapprove of or don’t understand, they tend to take that quite personally, and will lash back with insults of their own.

If there’s to be any dialog, even if that dialog only results in having to agree to disagree, both sides need to come to terms with exactly who the other side is. Gun owners who believe in a very strong, broad, and robust Second Amendment are not evil, dangerous, sexually challenged, or mentally deranged people just because the hold that opinion. They aren’t scary, wild eyed beasts out to cause mayhem. And by the same token, those that advocate for a narrow or inconsequential Second Amendment are not necessarily that either, nor are they the modern day equivalent of the KKK.

I think both sides owe the other more than that. We may end up doing nasty and underhanded things to each other as we struggle against each other in the court of public opinion, but we should be cognizant of keeping the political struggle separated from personal ones. It is fine to be dogged, unrelenting and aggressive in the political space. The personal space is something else, and from what I’ve seen I don’t think either side has a monopoly on nastiness in that arena.

A Strange New World

So I reported a few days ago on the Joe Manchin ad, where he’s shown shooting the cap and trade bill. Well, the GOP has apparently become worried that the Democrats, the wild, crazy gunslingers we all know them to be, areÂ promoting a bad message when it comes to children being able to safely handle guns:

At the same time, Mike Stuart, chairman of the West Virginia Republican Party, chastised Manchin for not wearing safety gear when he fired the rifle.

“My children were watching,” Stuart said in a news release. “Where was his blaze orange clothing, his ear protection, his eye protection? … It is too bad the governor sent some very bad messages to the youth of West Virginia.”

Stuart believes Manchin should’ve been wearing orange clothing when taking aim at the cap-and-trade bill.

I’m not sure about the blaze orange. Who wears that shooting paper? Plus, as far as I know, there’s no season or bag limit for rent seeking, federal power grabbing bills. At least there shouldn’t be, since I’m pretty sure we can all agree that congressional bills have been responsible for significant depredation of the country.

This is a strange world we’re living in, folks. When the Democrats have become the wild gunslingers, and the GOP are the stodgy, “You better do that safely, lest my little Johnny start handling my guns with reckless abandon,” it’s hard to argue we haven’t completely won the culture war on the gun issue, at least in some parts of the country. I can only imagine the abject horror the Bradys must be feeling as they are watching all this go down.

Bryan Lentz Loses the Teamsters

Nobody can say that politics is boring this year. We’ve got angry independents, tea parties, bumbling Republicans, Democrats who can’t even get people to remember they are on the ballot, and outside groups pouring money into Pennsylvania to try and shake things up (or keep them the same – depending on their interests).

The Teamsters just withdrew their endorsement of Bryan Lentz in PA-7 yesterday. This can’t be good for him.

The district was represented by a Republican until 2006 when the FBI announced an investigation surrounding the GOP incumbent right before election day. The race had not been on anyone’s radar until that point. Suddenly, the Republican was booted out and the investigation lead to absolutely squat. Since then, it seems to have highlighted just how far left the primary counties in the district have gone. Even in a landmark year like this, polling hasn’t put the Republican former US Attorney terribly far ahead. Charlie Cook has it as a Lean R and Larry Sabato has it as a Toss-Up.

But, that said, Lentz can’t afford to lose any votes. And having a major Democratic interest group tell its members that they shouldn’t bother voting for you? Well, that’s not good. In fact, I would argue that a withdrawn endorsement is probably worse than having never had an endorsement at all, though I admit to not having much to back that up rather than gut feeling and a general knowledge of how NRA members would likely handle it if it happened on our issue.

With this news just adding to the excitement, I guess I should go buy some popcorn. Think they have the Christmas tubs on sale yet? This is going to be one very amusing election night.

Brady Campaign: Please Don’t Believe the NRA Democrats, Pretty Please!

It looks like Paulie is begging Democrats to ignore history, the advice of their past (successful) leaders, and scholarly research. In his post yesterday, he skirts around the truth in a plea begging Democrats not to go running into the arms of the NRA.

This myth that promoting and passing strict gun laws can be political suicide has its roots in the 1994 elections, when Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress. Bill Clinton was president and earlier in his term he supported and signed the laws restricting the sale of assault weapons and the Brady bill requiring that federally licensed dealers conduct background checks. In his 2004 autobiography he wrote, â€œThe NRA â€¦could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House speaker.â€

But as Clinton also pointed out, there were a lot of other reasons for the game-changing defeats. The party in control almost always loses seats in off-year elections. It was to be no different in 1994.

Let’s look at the mid-term elections prior to 1994 to see if we can see just how true that is:

1982	1986	1990	1994
26 seats	5 seats	8 seats	54 seats

At no point in my lifetime was there anything close to the election of 1994. You can’t compare losing 5 or 8 seats to losing 54 seats. You can’t even begin to compare 26 seats – the previous record of my lifetime. So, yes, Paul is telling the truth. But, he’s hiding the fact that you’re talking about a handful of people losing their seats to more than 10% of the House changing hands. To paraphrase Joe Biden, that’s a big freakin’ deal. Paul can try to downplay it all he wants, but he can’t escape those pesky contextual facts.

Even beyond the numbers game, there is a little bit of truth in what Paul argues – NRA’s support can’t make or break every race in every election. If leaders piss off grassroots members of 20 other interest groups, it’s going to be tough for the members of one single group to outnumber the members of so many others. Not to mention, now that Democrats have done all they can to piss off not only Republicans, but a majority of independents, well, there’s only so much we can do as one single group.

However, the power of the NRA is at the individual district level. An Independence Institute study found that for every 10,000 NRA members, an endorsement will add about 3% to a candidate’s total. I think our own congressional race is a great example.

When the two current candidates ran against each other in 2006, the difference was a mere 1,518 votes across the entire district. Most of the district is made up of Bucks County, so I’m looking at their license to carry information to give estimates on just how many votes gun owners can provide. In 2006, nearly 4,500 people of voting age got a carry license in Bucks County. Add in the “current” licenses of people at the time, and you’re talking about 17,194 potential votes in the district. There’s no way to figure it up for the portion of Philadelphia included in the congressional district, but that portion of the city has a large number of firefighters and police officers who are frequently pro-gun. (Believe me, we’ve had lots of cops calling to find out who is endorsed by NRA this year.) Let’s safely say 20,000 potential voters.

Every single one of those votes matters, and NRA has had an active voter registration drive going the last few years. If we can pull a couple of thousand more votes out of those numbers, then the endorsement & promotion will make a difference.

As mighty as the NRA is perceived to be by overly cautious politicians and their advisors, thanks to the courage of leaders, scores of victims, and supporters of sensible gun laws, the gun lobby doesnâ€™t make much of a difference on who wins and loses elections.

The Brady Campaign can’t point to a study of the impact of their endorsements in elections. They don’t have voters walking up to candidates with a voter guide in hand saying that the group’s support guided their votes. They can’t actually point to any races where their support did make a difference. In a year like this, NRA’s endorsement is likely to help boost the numbers by just enough to put some challengers over the top and possibly protect some incumbents.

Again, Paul is correct in that NRA doesn’t exactly get to handpick all of Congress. But, what they can measurably do is impact enough races that politicians clamor to us in order to pick up our votes in hopes that their race is one to benefit. So, once again, context matters.

The Need for LTC Reform

Getting highlighted in the debate over the passage of Castle Doctrine. Senator Daylin Leach, a far lefty, offered the “Florida Loophole” amendment:

Sen. Robert Robbins (R., Butler) said Philadelphia residents were being forced to go to other states because authorities have “reinterpreted” the state law. He said he had heard of cases where people were denied gun permits for minor infractions like parking tickets.

Leach argued that if Philadelphia was violating state law, then people could sue the city, and he told lawmakers that if the state law was too weak, then change the law.

So does that mean we can count on Seantor Leach’s support in removing the character clause then and making the standard for issuance, denial or revocation of a License to Carry strictly objective? As for suing the city, you have to hire a lawyer for that, and only the rich can afford lawyers. They are certainly orders of magnitude more expensive than paying the 120 or so dollars to Florida for one of their licenses.

Over at PAFOA, we can see for the last year such data was reported, Philadelphia revoked at a rate of approximately 17% of the permits issued in that year. From 2000 to 2006, they have represented anywhere from 32 to 40% of the total number of revocations in the entire Commonwealth, despite only issuing about 5% of the total LTCs statewide. Allegheny County’s revocation rate per year, by contrast, is anywhere from 0.46% to 1.28%. They peaked at 6.64% of the statewide total, issuing more than twice the number of LTCs as Philadelphia. This is all compiled with State Police data that mysteriously disappeared when the new anti-gun commissioner took over, though I still have the original sources.

Something is wrong with that picture, and it has to be fixed. Making people hire lawyers to sue the city is not the answer. The law has to be changed. I’m glad to see Leach realizing that, and look forward to his support on a reform bill.

New Lawsuit Challenging Misdemeanor Prohibitions

I have to hand it to Alan Gura, this looks like a brilliant way to attack the issue of people who have been prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights due to a misdemeanor conviction. The courts will be looking at, and issuing opinions and dicta on the issue without the baggage of a domestic violence conviction hanging like a black cloud over the case. Gura is very good at picking clients, and this guy couldn’t honestly look any better and still make a case.

He got a misdemeanor simple assault as a serviceman in the US Navy while stationed in Annapolis as a young man. He went on to serve in Vietnam and was honorably discharged. He has not been in trouble with the law since. But since Maryland did not set a maximum sentence for the crime, it is disabling under federal law. I had no idea, to be honest, this circumstance even existed.

Laying the Ground Work

The Brady Campaign is pretty clearly laying the ground work for their push to get the Democrats to abandon the NRA post-election, by saying the 1994 elections were never really about guns, and that the Democrats who do not take NRA money (and who are also, conveniently, in safe, heavily lefty Democratic urban districts) are going to fare better than those who do.

The real lesson for the Democrats is that you can’t expect to win your majority back with pro-gun Blue Dog Democrats, then twist their arms to vote for Pelosi and Obama’s radical agenda, and then expect the gun vote to save you. The gun vote is powerful, but not that powerful. Being pro-gun is still going to win those candidates more than it will cost them, and in some of those districts it’s necessary to get elected at all.

Concealed Carry Ban Unconstitutional

In Wisconsin, a judge has ruled it violates the Second Amendment.

Weird Blog Reading Habits

Based on a recommendation from another blogger, I decided to add bevlog to my regular reads to see what they had to offer. If you read their “about” section, you might find it’s a very odd topic to follow: “bevlog reviews almost all of the 100,000+ beer, wine and spirits labels approved by TTB each year. We try to bring you the most noteworthy.”

If I didn’t find the topic strangely intriguing, then I would have missed their coverage of Intercourse Blue Ball Porter. And, yes, that image is from the label. Click through the link to see the full label – for fascinating research purposes only, of course.

Social Issues in a Crumbling Economy

If you want to appear out-of-touch with voters, the fastest way to do that is to send the kind of flyer I received from Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy yesterday.

Background: According to the lists they have, I’m a Republican woman and have only been registered in Pennsylvania as a Republican. (This is unusual for me, as I haven’t been formally affiliated with either party since I was a teenager and initially registered in Oklahoma.) On paper, I’m dedicated enough to have voted in the Republican primary, and the last time I voted in a general, the GOP swept all of the county races. In other words, there’s nothing about my Pennsylvania voting history that indicates I’m open to their messages on either fiscal or social issues.

Every Democrat running in this state has been hammering on the economy. They know it’s what people want to hear. Yet, Murphy decided to send me a mailer that has women’s faces plastered on one side telling me that Mike Fitzpatrick will ban abortion. The other side says, “We’ve been here before.”

My response to Sebastian when I showed him the mailer this morning: “No, I’ve never been there before. I’m a Republican woman who is iffy on the abortion issue at best, and I’ve never been sitting on a dirty street with my head between my knees in a trashy looking dress.” There is literally nothing on the flyer that I can identify with – women having sex on the street, women getting abortions left and right, the fact that I know the Supremes are not going to change Roe, and there’s no serious threat to abortion in the political world right now.

Sebastian then pointed out that while there’s not a huge pro-life movement here in our district, the chances are extremely high that a woman who has registered with the Republican Party and votes in their primaries is actually an abortion opponent. He’s right about that, especially given the highly Catholic population around here. While many might overlook Murphy’s votes to fund abortions with their money, having his pro-abortion stance thrown in their face will almost certainly turn them off.

We can’t find one thing about this flyer that is remotely relevant to the issues that local voters are talking about this year. There’s nothing that’s on message to my voter file at all. I can’t even fathom what made him do this.