November 2011 – Page 9 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Debate on HR822

It can be watched here. The anti-gun folks in Congress are using NAGR’s opposition in attempt to defeat the bill. Many of them are saying they have never heard from their constituents on the issue. Make sure that’s not the case. Call your member of Congress here.

UPDATE: I really have to wonder all these gun control supporting Democrats, including Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Hank Johnson (D-GA), will be open to “states rights” arguments the next time they come forward with a federal law that restricts firearms. Using “states rights” arguments against HR822 is the height of hypocrisy for these people.

UPDATE: Democrats keep saying we need to concentrate on the economy, and that people keep telling them they want the focus to be on jobs. Funny, the Democrats were never that concerned about people wanting the focus on jobs when they were busy shoving an expensive, job-killing health care monstrosity nobody wanted down all our throats.

UPDATE: The rules under which HR822 will be considered on the floor are being voted on now. Looks like Don Young wants to attach some Coast Guard museum amendment to it. Earmark? Now it looks like the Coast Guard reauthorization is to be attached? I believe these amendments aren’t being voted on right now, we’re just trying to establish which amendments may be considered under the rule.

UPDATE: I think they are considering rules for another bill now. I didn’t quite follow what became of the rule on HR822, because C-SPAN decided to cut out.

UPDATE: Looks like the rules vote will be at 2. The debate on the underlying bill and amendments will be tomorrow.

A Handy Map

I have to thank Mother Jones for coming up with this handy map for us, even though the intent of the article it is attached is some good old fashioned fear mongering ahead of the vote on HR822. My state not only allows carry in restaurants, you can have a glass or two of wine with dinner without anyone getting bent out of shape. It’s been that way since 1988 too. While you’re likely to lose your license if you get caught carrying drunk as a skunk, or staggering down main street with a pistol in your hand shooting at the street lamps, generally speaking PA law has treated people like responsible adults. I don’t think we have any serious problems with drunk toters above and beyond other states that do restrict carrying in establishments with liquor licenses, or with very strict laws about drinking.

Winning on Lead Bullets

This is good news:

A group called the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in 2009 asking the courts to prohibit the use of lead bullets on Bureau of Land Management property in Arizona. It contended that California condors were being poisoned by scavenging game killed by hunters using lead ammunition.

A federal judge has thrown the lawsuit out, however.

Threats to lead based ammunition is one of the biggest problems we’re facing today. Had this suit been allowed to proceed, it would have been really bad news.

“Chicks With Guns” Appears in Time LightBox

I spoke about the “Chicks with Guns” display at the Beretta Gallery in New York a few days ago. Now it’s appearing in Time Magazine. You can buy it on Amazon, and if you ask me, it would make a great holiday gift. I’m surprised to see it in Time, which has traditionally been quite anti-gun. It has to drive our opponents nuts to see guns getting mainstream play like this. It’s basically more messaging to women that it’s OK to own guns.

Bloomberg’s Justice

Having failed to obtain the conviction of a woman who killed her husband who had threatened to kill her, they apparently decided to go after her for using her abusive husband’s gun. And Bloomberg wonders why we’re committed to dismantling New York City’s gun laws.

McCarthy and Lautenberg Urge Obama to Veto HR822

Not surprising, but if they could get other lawmakers to sign on, you think they’d take the time. From the letter to the White House:

In our states, we work hard to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business having them. In New Jersey and New York, law enforcement is directly involved in the concealed carry permit process and has discretion to approver deny a permit if it would jeopardize public safety.

Let me rephrase that for the Senator and Congresswoman:

In our states, we work hard to keep guns out of the hands of as many people as we can. In New Jersey and New York, law enforcement is directly involved in the concealed carry permit process, and has discretion to approve or deny a permit if the person applying isn’t well connected, or hasn’t donated to the right campaigns.

That’s more like it. I don’t know why they’d think Obama would want to issue a veto threat. If I had to guess, this White House is going to work behind the scenes to make sure this bill dies in the Senate. They aren’t going to want to publicly take a position on it if they don’t have to. That would actually play right into our hands.

New York Times on Felons and Guns

Convenient timing for the Times to run a piece on felons and guns right ahead of the vote on HR822, with our opponents claiming it will allow felons to carry:

Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights in the state â€” 430 in 2010 alone â€” according to the analysis of data provided by the state police and the court system. Of that number, more than 400 â€” about 13 percent â€” have subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degree, child rape and drive-by shooting.

The question I would have is how many committed new crimes where the restoration of their civil rights was a factor in the new crime? I’m relatively unconcerned about someone convicted of tax evasion getting his civil rights restored, and then committing tax evasion again. In that instance there was no social problem caused by the restoration of that person’s right. I’d really like to know what percentage of folks having their rights restored go on to commit other violent crimes using a gun. I’d even settle for the percentage that go on to commit any violent crimes, whether a gun was used or not. I suspect the rate of people violently re-offending is probably much lower than the Times’ 13%. The Times is quick to point out anecdotes, but anecdotes are not data.

It’s also worth pointing out that a recidivism rate of 13%, compared to the 50% to 70% rate found among the general population of people having served time, is actually pretty good. If I wanted to play the same correlation vs. causation games our opponents play, I could argue that restoration of rights is an important aspect of keeping recidivism rates much much lower than they otherwise would be.

On Scott Brown & National Concealed Carry

On the eve of a House vote on H.R.822, the national concealed carry law, I have a few random thoughts on Scott Brown’s statement against us on the issue. As a former Massachusetts resident, and as someone who supported his run for the State Senate, it’s a bit disappointing, but it’s far more baffling from a political standpoint.

What He Doesn’t Gain
Typically, the easiest way to figure out why a politician does something is to figure out what he will gain. This may mean the support of constituent groups or access to new campaign donors. But, Sen. Brown seems to ignore the fact that Tom Menino isn’t going to run around campaigning for him in 2012. Gun control groups in Massachusetts won’t suddenly endorse him. He won’t gain any votes for his position because anyone who looks to this as a key vote will choose to back a more extreme anti-gun candidate. I doubt he’ll line up any new donors for his single position on the bill if he won’t even earn their votes for it.

In a best case scenario, he saved himself from direct attacks on this issue. However, it won’t stop Democrats for attacking him for his previous pro-gun votes. Taking this very specific gun policy off the table doesn’t take the entire gun issue off the table, and they will hit him for every remotely positive thing he has ever said or done to support the right to bear arms. In fact, Menino has made 2011 the year of attacking Scott Brown over his support of gun owners. Ever since Brown was elected, there have been discussions about the massive warchests Massachusetts Democrats have been building to boot him from office. In other words, appeasing them on this one issue isn’t going to stop his opponents.

The Very Odd Timing
He wrote a letter to Menino nearly two weeks before a House vote. That might make sense if he served in that chamber. He doesn’t. Given that it’s nearly the end of 2011, we don’t even know if H.R.822 will be on the Senate’s radar in coming months or by the election. In other words, he made a public declaration that gains him nothing in an election as campaign season starts to ramp up before it’s even an issue in the chamber where he actually has a voice and vote. What was the purpose in that?

What Gun Owners Should Do
Make it known that he’s needlessly pissed you off if you’re a Massachusetts voter. Remind him that he needs every vote he can get, and he has now put yours at risk. Remind him that Massachusetts has a very big problem with discretionary issue of the license to even own a firearm to law abiding citizens, so the state can’t be trusted not to abuse the rights of gun owners.

What He Loses
Here’s the thing, Massachusetts gun owners are used to having to make a choice between “actively hates my rights” and “sometimes surprises us with a vote in our favor.” But, with this being the only major issue up before the election, he’s running off gun owners who might have been preparing to volunteer for him or start talking to friends and family about they planned to vote for Scott Brown.

Unlike the frustrations we sometimes face in a state where gun owners always feel safe, many folks in Massachusetts are willing to get involved and help out for a political cause. I remember when some guys would take laptops & printers to their club meetings to get everyone to write up a letter & sign it for a political issue before a big vote. The club leaders would then gather the letters & coordinate to get them to the State House. He could have had that system working on his re-election. Now, there will probably be a few who are a little less inclined to do that in 2012.

The good news is that because this isn’t an actual vote in the Senate, he still has plenty of opportunities to do the right thing so that he doesn’t lose these valuable supporters. We should try to make sure he sees enough support to come around to the right decision.

HR822 Up For Full House Vote Tomorrow

Time to get calling your reps, because the bill goes up for a vote tomorrow. It is expected to pass, and hopefully it will pass smoothly. I would emphasize to your rep that you want a clean bill. I would say this goes double if you live in Jim Gerlach’s or Pat Meehan’s district, neither of whom are co-sponsoring the bill. Both carry NRA endorsement, so I am presuming they will vote yes, but don’t ever count on the endorsement convincing them to do the right thing. The opposition is currently going wild.Â Bloomberg is on the radio trying to whip up hysterics ahead of the vote:

â€œButÂ unfortunatelyÂ the group of people who think everybody should be carrying guns, including children and people with psychiatric problems and people with criminal records still have an enormous amount of power.â€

“Some states you can have an enormous crimincal record and psycholgoical problems and be ten years old and be able to get a gun”

Also, in some states, I hear they’ll give permits to carry to dogs, cats, and ferrets. Hand to God! Of course, none of this is true, but what’s truth when it comes to achieving your agenda? The podcast Bloomberg appeared on can be found here.

Suicide Risk

I tired of hearing things like this from our opponents:

Is there any doubt that having a firearm, especially in the home, is a risk for suicide? No. And yet some of the gun rights extremists don’t like it when physicians or military personnel advise people not to have guns around when someone is at risk for mental illness and/or suicide.

Having a firearm in the home is no more a risk for suicide than having Tylenol, rope, or a belt. I can assure you that my household suicide risk right now is effectively zero. Neither Bitter nor I are currently, nor have we ever been, suicidal people. Given that most of my personal fears and anxieties revolve around getting old, getting sick, and dying, I can see into the future and make a prediction that my suicide risk from now until I’m in the ground is also effectively zero. I spent way too much time watching my mother struggle to hang on to her own life, largely for the sake of our family, to just throw mine away like that.

Guns in my house do not increase my suicide risk a single iota. Would I keep guns locked away if someone in the house were suicidally depressed? Sure. But my primary concern would be that there’s someone in the house that’s suicidally depressed. I can’t remove everything a person in that state could possibly use to hurt themselves.

I believe the suicide angle is one of the most ridiculous arguments our opponents make. The most popular suicide attraction in the world is the Golden Gate Bridge, in San Francisco:

An official suicide count was kept, sorted according to which of the bridge’s 128 lamp posts the jumper was nearest when he or she jumped. By 2005, this count exceeded 1,200 and new suicides were occurring about once every two weeks.

Suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is a far more effective method than firearms. I think we can also agree that most Americans live near at least one or two tall object of relative note, and that are reasonably accessible. The San Francisco community has repeatedly resisted attempts to install a suicide barrier on the bridge, for fear of ruining the classic beauty of this iconic San Francisco landmark.

So when it comes to bridges, even the most liberal city in the Untied States accepts there can be tradeoffs. Our opponents, however, do not. Dangerous objects clearly need to be restricted, because you might hurt yourself with them. I’m pretty certain your average person can successfully realize that doing such a thing is a one-way road to an infantalized society. Ultimately, I think this angle will ring hollow.