2011 – Page 105 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Redistricting Maps – Setting Political Legacies a Decade at a Time

You want to know what the big news for gun rights is this year? It’s not any one lawsuit. It’s not any single election. It’s redistricting. At its roots, redistricting is about setting the likely political landscape for the next decade.

At the federal level, Pennsylvania will lose one of our pro-gun Democrats. Why does this matter to those of you who don’t live here or don’t live specifically in one of the districts that will be chopped? Remember those 65 House Democrats who spoke up and told the Obama administration that they will not stand for a gun ban? Aside from all of those we lost in the November elections, we just lost another one.

Illinois Democrats accidentally left their redistricting maps open last night, so now we know what’s on the table in the Prairie State – it’s not pretty for the GOP. The Cook Political Report House guy said this on Twitter: “First impression…this is the real deal Dem gerrymander, not weak sauce.” On the gun issue, here’s the NRA grade breakdown of merged GOP districts:

Rep. Schock – A vs. Rep. Schilling – A
Rep. Biggert – A vs. Rep. Roskam – A
Rep. Walsh – A vs. Rep. Hultgren – A-
Rep. Dold – ? vs. Rep. Schakowsky – F
Rep. Kinzinger – A vs. Rep. Jackson – F
Rep. Shimkus – A vs. Rep. Johnson – A

In other words, four seats that merge two A- or higher rated lawmakers, and one that puts an A against an F. That’s not good when it comes to the Illinois delegation.

At the state level, many states will see the balance of political power shift. Here in the Keystone State, the Philadelphia suburbs will require a boatload of new districts while the Southwest will see a lot of their longtime lawmakers pitted against one another as the district lines are redrawn with dramatically fewer seats in that area. The Philly suburbs are already the key to power on the gun issue since neither side can win without at least some suburban lawmaker support. Based on what I saw in census numbers, the suburbs will basically control the policies. That’s why we have made it a goal to convert more borderline legislative supporters into those who give a damn.

Those elections? They have consequences. These consequences just happen to last for 10 years.

Scraps for the Underlings

An Open Letter to District of Columbia Parents with Children in Public Schools

Dear Parents,

When are you guys going to stand up and demand a better life for your children? Do you actually want to hold any of your elected leaders accountable for, oh, anything? Because that’s the first step in no longer making a better life not only for your kids, but for yourselves.

Take the scallion incident. Kids in the SE part of the city (the city’s poorest) were served raw green onions as part of the federal government’s Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program that cost us $1.2 million. Now the idea of giving kids a free fruit or vegetable is a noble one. I’m not going to get into a debate on spending issues since I suspect you and I would disagree on many of those topics. But, where I hope we can agree is on the fact that if we’re taking $1.2 million from taxpayers, that it should be spent on fruits and vegetables that children (and adults, for that matter) will actually eat instead of raw onions that will be thrown in the garbage.

There should be accountability here. Instead, the food service provider is dodging questions to both its leadership and the dietician on staff. I’m sorry, but there should be no excuse. If that dietician is charged with making sure your kids eat healthy food provided by the school, the company should have an open door policy to his or her office. These are your children, and the adults who carry the responsibility of caring for them during the day should not be allowed to hide from the public.

The school district is covering for the food service provider. They say that they are confident it was a one-time mistake and there was no big deal. If you care about your children, you need to tell them that making excuses isn’t good enough – and possibly research any political or friendly ties between the company and the District. If this happened in my poor school district in rural Oklahoma, parents would be at school board meetings demanding some kind of action. It might be as extreme as cutting the contract if there were other issues in the past. It also might be simply demanding some sort of restitution from the food service provider. According to the article, school staff had to scrounge up apples from their other supplies to provide the snack. That costs money for the apples and money for the staff time to do the job the contractor did not do. Force your school leaders to demand concessions, a statement, an open door policy when it comes to the contractor’s staff who make diet decisions for the school menus, and a plan of action to make sure these kinds of mistakes don’t happen again.

I’ll never understand the attitude that District residents seem to take with their leaders – that they will allow them to walk all over the citizens and treat them like crap. Serving raw scallions as a snack would not be tolerated in any of the wealthier schools & surrounding districts. Why do you allow your leaders to treat you and your children like this and then let them slide?

Just a few helpful suggestions from someone who thinks your kids deserve better.

Bitter

NRA’s Statement on the Paul Amendment

Via E-Mail:

As often happens with complex issues, NRA’s position on Sen. Rand Paul’s defeated PATRIOT Act amendment is being mis-reported by those who either don’t understand the facts, or prefer their own version of “facts.”

This amendment was rejected by 85 Senators, which included many of the strongest Second Amendment supporters in the U.S. Senate. Â Unfortunately, Senator Paul chose not to approach us on this issue before moving ahead. His amendment, which only received 10 votes, was poorly drafted and could have resulted in more problems for gun owners than it attempted to fix. For this reason, the NRA did not take a position on the amendment.

To be more specific about the amendment and its problems, the amendment would have prohibited use of PATRIOT Act legal authority for any “investigation or procurement of firearms records which is not authorized under [the Gun Control Act].” There have been no reports of the current PATRIOT Act being abused with respect to firearms records, however supporters suggested a far-fetched scenario in which every firearms sales record in the country–tens or hundreds of millions of documents dating back to 1968–could be sought. Â Again, we nor anyone else is aware of any case in which this authority has been used to abuse gun owners. Â (In fact, published reports indicate that few of these orders are ever sought for any reason.)

In particular, the amendment appeared to be aimed at so-called “section 215 letters”–orders from the FBI requiring the disclosure of “tangible things” such as records and documents.

Under the current PATRIOT Act, an application for this type of order with respect to firearms sales records has to be approved no lower than the director or deputy director of the FBI, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security. Â The application is made to a federal judge based on “a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation … to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” Â The judge has the power to modify the order and must direct the use of “minimization procedures” to protect the privacy of Americans.
If the Paul amendment were adopted, the FBI would have used other ways to access whatever firearms records it might need for intelligence or anti-terrorism investigations. This is especially troublesome for gun owners.

This would result in United States Attorneys simply demanding the same records through grand jury subpoenas, which require no judicial approval before issuance. Fighting a subpoena after the fact can be very costly and carries legal risks of its own, including possible charges for obstruction of justice.

Even worse, the government would have used the Gun Control Act’s provision that allows the Attorney General to “inspect or examine the inventory and records of [a licensee] without … reasonable cause or warrant” during a criminal investigation. Â That means by simply characterizing its activities as a “criminal investigation,” it would enter a licensee’s premises and demand these records without “reasonable cause or warrant”–in other words, without judicial oversight of any kind, and without any of the procedural limits imposed by the PATRIOT Act.

Therefore, given all of these potential problems for gun owners, the NRA could not support this poorly drafted amendment.

One reason I didn’t pay much attention to the Paul Amendment was because it seemed like trying to fix an issue that didn’t really exist. What NRA appears to be worried about, if I may read the tea leaves a bit, is that this is just going to give the feds ideas, while still leaving open many other, much easier channels by which they could accomplish the same thing. In other words, it would appear that the Paul Amendment wouldn’t actually fix anything.

Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine News

I’m surprised to see this press release from State Senator Richard Alloway, containing a link to an interview I did.Â Senator Alloway is the sponsor of the Castle Doctrine bill in the Senate, and has been instrumental in trying to get this passed for us, and off to the Governor. On the long road to get this bill passed, there have certainly been a lot of rumors, allegations, and frustrations expressed along the way. Senator Alloway addresses many of these in his release, but I’ve noticed the current delay in passage is creating more rumors.

One of those rumors is that there is a deal in the works to pass Florida Loophole along with Castle Doctrine. I talked to NRA’s PA Lobbyist, John Hohenwarter, and asked if there was a deal to amend the Florida Loophole in exchange for moving Castle Doctrine. He assured me that there is no deal in the works, and Castle Doctrine should be able to pass clean.

I have mentioned previously that the Senate is a tougher landscape for pro-Second Amendment legislation than the House. It’s important that you call your State Senator and tell them you want Castle Doctrine passed. The more they hear from us the faster this can happen. Keep in mind that our opposition’s goal is to drag things out as much as possible, in the hope of exhausting us, and turning us against each other. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, there’s evidence that tactic is working. We can get Castle Doctrine, but only if we keep marching in the same direction.

Concealed Carry Welcome

A South Carolina man has developed a sticker for businesses who are concealed carry-friendly to post to counter those businesses who post against carry. In all likelihood, many business owners just haven’t really thought about the issue one way or another. Most probably realize that if a customer who is lawfully carrying concealed comes in, it doesn’t matter one way or the other since they’ll never know or need a reason a to care. If someone comes in with the intent of using a gun illegally, a sign won’t stop them. I wouldn’t hold it against a business if they simply opted not to put up any signs on the issue.

Monopolies Make My Head Hurt

It’s no secret that I hate Pennsylvania’s liquor sales system. It’s run by a state agency with a mission to make it as miserable as possible to purchase liquor. Now they are pitching pieces to argue that it’s not really any cheaper to buy liquor out-of-state.

The perception in Pennsylvania is that other states have better prices on wine and liquor, so it makes sense to stock up when youâ€™re out of state. Maryland stores near the Pennsylvania line say they get plenty of customers from the Keystone State.

But a survey of liquor stores in four states conducted by The Patriot-News reveals that prices arenâ€™t always better across the state line. In fact, in some cases, Pennsylvania prices are cheaper.

I have no idea how they selected the stores they did to compare prices, because my price comparisons have always saved money in New Jersey. Sometimes, I might only save a buck or two, but if I’m stocking up on several wines, each of those dollars saved will pay for the gas over there. In the meantime, I also have tremendous selection. If I’m lucky (and driving 10 miles out of my way), a state-run store in Pennsylvania will have a <$15 Bordeaux that I find okay. In New Jersey, I know exactly where I can grab a $9 bottle that rates as pretty damn good for a casual dinner wine. Consistency, selection, and prices combine to make the privately run out-of-state retailers a good choice. The PLCB, in defense of their existence, prefers to ignore all of those factors that make shopping everywhere a positive experience.

For the record, the paper really had to have gone to some crappy stores to find prices that are higher than Pennsylvania’s stores. To defend the monopoly, they found two examples of products that are sold $1 cheaper in Pennsylvania. But, on the privatization side, they found a bottle of scotch that sells for $12 less in Delaware. They also interview a woman who cites Massachusetts as the land of the free (liquor & wine) because wines that cost only $3 or $4 there are double those prices here.

The PLCB also likes to tout that they have more buying power than a private entity because they buy for the entire freakin’ state and can pass on the lower prices. In that case, why did the paper only find savings of $1 or $2 over the private stores where they did find a difference in prices? Why didn’t the reporter ask the PLCB to explain why they don’t have significantly lower prices for consumers if this buying power gets them such great deals? We know it can happen – look at Wal-Mart. When you’re a big buyer, you have some room to truly negotiate bigger savings. It would appear that the PLCB doesn’t exactly exert its big buyer status.

Something has gone horribly wrong with liquor & wine sales in this state when we look to states like New Jersey, Massachusetts, and even Hawaii for lower prices.

(h/t to Capitol Ideas & Commonwealth Foundation)

CSGV’s Twitter Account

Still suspended. I would have thought it would be a relatively simple matter to get this restored, but I’m pondering whether Ladd Everitt couldn’t help himself and tried to win an argument with an Internet Administrator again and lost. Perhaps they are surrendering the field here, and concentrating their efforts on Facebook, where they can more easily delete any material that blocks the reverberations in their echo chamber.

Either way, given that losing a major social media account is, to be charitable, a monumental screw-up, Ladd Everitt is probably lucky this isn’t an accurate description of his current employment reality.

UPDATE: It would seem that their Twitter account has been paroled.

Constitutional Carry Clears Committee in WI

Looks like it’s been voted out of judiciary. Says NRA’s lobbyists working WI:

“Our perfect scenario is to have the constitutional carry bill pass, along with a licensing bill,” said LaSorte, shortly before boarding a plane back to Wisconsin late Monday afternoon.

Of course, <sarcasm>since it’s become such a well known fact that NRA is opposed to constitutional carry, clearly the newspaper has to be making this quote from Darren up out of whole cloth.</sarcasm>

I am working on a post regarding the late happenings in New Hampshire in regards to Constitutional Carry, but I want to make sure I have my facts straight first, which takes time, and my time is not a plentiful commodity right now.

Obama Administration Creates HSUS Wet Dream

If you haven’t yet read about the Missouri family being fined $90,643 for selling a few rabbits, then you should go read this story now. They are in no way accused of mistreating animals. In fact, they were recognized by folks in the area for their incredible quality and how well they treat them. That’s why a pet store started buying some off of them. And when they didn’t fill out the right paperwork, well, that brings down the force of the federal government on you.

But what’s telling about this story is that the USDA staff have repeatedly said they are stepping up enforcement of these laws – even if it means fining families $90K for paperwork violations – and that they intend to use these kinds of cases in order to teach a lesson. And where do we get that directive? Directly from the HSUS Change Agenda for Animals presented to the Obama administration at the beginning of his term. Here’s the portion relevant to the Missouri case:

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
3) Enforcement – …increase oversight of key federal laws (…Animal Welfare Act (AWA)…); …impose strong penalties (not suspension of fines, as is so typical now); …resume issuance of press releases on enforcement actions to maximize deterrent impact…

Hunters, you better pay attention. PAGunRights already outlined all of the provisions in the “Change Agenda” that go after your participation in the outdoor sports. They won’t ban it directly, but they’ll make your life hell with the full force of the federal government.

Things That Excite Me about Tim Pawlenty

Even though he’s a reasonably attractive candidate, Tim Pawlenty just isn’t driving a lot of excitement for Republican voters. He comes off as a pretty laid back guy just going in to do the jobs he has previously been elected to do. To be honest, that’s very appealing to me right now. It certainly has a lot more appeal than a leader who thinks he’s a rock star.

But I can tell you one thing that excites me about Pawlenty. I had the chance to meet him & actually talk to him at the Sportsmen for McCain launch in 2008. We had a chance to speak while we were watching the junior shooters who were shooting rounds of trap at the club. I didn’t really expect him to know gun policy. Many pro-gun politicians support the Second Amendment, but they don’t know the details of the actual policies that we either want to see enacted or benefit from in the real world like concealed carry. He and I chatted about concealed carry and other issues, and he actually knew the issues. I wish I could remember more specifics, but I was a little busy picking my jaw up off the ground after he started talking about it. So, yeah, that excites me.

Apologies for the poor video quality since my old digital camcorder was crap, but here is the video of his speech to kick off Sportsmen for McCain: