2011 – Page 123 – Shall Not Be Questioned

What CSGV Is Doing

I’ve been observing Coalition to Stop Gun Violence for the past several days on Twitter, trying to figure out what they thought they had to gain by debating this and that with pro-2A tweeters. Then, when they kept pushing this post on their Twitter and Facebook feeds it kind of clicked.

One of the great myths our opponents hold on to is that of fighting some nameless, faceless, and positively evil force that’s trying to bring more chaos and violence into the world in the worship of the almighty dollar. In the past this has been some faceless “gun lobby” who are, of course, intimately intertwined with gun manufacturers, who naturally want more gun violence, because it means more money in their pockets. You can see Violence Policy Center still pushing that meme heavily, even though the fact that the firearms industry provides a tiny fraction of NRA’s total operating income is easily verifiable.

They hold on to this myth because it is necessary for them. The more mainstream groups are starting to realize VPC’s ridiculous won’t hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. Newspapers know there’s millions of American behind this effort, because they get floods of e-mails and comments any time they bring up the issue. We’ve been visible, out there, and more importantly seen defending our rights. The loss of this myth is extremely devastating to the anti-gun movement because it is much easier to convince your people to struggle against a faceless, evil force than it is to convince your people to take away something from fellow citizens that they think is important to them. What CSGV is trying to do is to replace the notion that the gun lobby is evil, with the notion that gun owners are evil.Â By showcasing some of our side’s more blunt and nasty comments, they can get their people fired up, and make them feel good that they are struggling against evil people. That’s reflected in the comments:

(Remember, they don’t want to ban guns. Right? Right!?)

I’ve also noticed that these particular threads attract more comments. CSGV knows that, which is why they are showcasing our nasty comments to their followers. I think we do better as a movement when we present ourselves as reasonable people, and flip the debate around to demand to know why they want to take an important constitutional right away from us. Why they don’t think we should have the ability to defend our families. Put a happy face on it, and watch it sap their motivation. These people are busybodies that want to insert their noses into places they don’t belong. Call them out on it. But it’s wise to not live up to everything they want to believe about us.

Death of the Pro-Gun Democratic Party?

The new DNC chair being a gun controller does not bode well for us. The one thing that allows the Republicans to take us for granted is their knowledge that they don’t really have to be that pro-2A, they just need to be better than the other guy. With the past Congress having a lot of pro-gun Democrats, it actually forced the GOP to try a little. Tim Kaine was never all that pro-2A, but by the same token it wasn’t all that anti-2A either. The question going forward is whether the DNC chief will put gun control back on the Dem radar. If she does, look for things to get harder for us.

Down the Memory Hole

Apparently Righthaven’s web site went poof last night. I’m guessing Righthaven/Stevens Media is hunkering down for the inevitable backlash. The Righthaven Victims blog is pretty clearly enjoying the Karma.

UPDATE: More from EFF here.

Firearms Law Seminar

Dave Kopel talks about the upcoming Firearms Law seminar. Both Bitter and I will be attending this year. If you would like to attend, you don’t have to be a lawyer, but if you are a lawyer, CLE credit is available. It does cost money, but if you’re interested in 2A legal topics, this is the place to find the experts. If you’re interested in attending, I’ve been running an ad on the side bar to support the Firearms Law Seminar. If you click in it, it’ll take you to more information.

Just in the interest of transparency, while NRA is not paying me for the ad, they are letting me into the seminar gratis.

Brewer Vetoes Campus Carry

I guess after signing Constitutional Carry, she didn’t feel like we had much room to ask her to take another chance on us. In her veto statement, she expressed a belief that the law was unclear, because it only protected the right-to-carry on “rights of way” through campus. Legislators understood this to mean streets and sidewalks, but Brewer stated, “Bills impacting our Second Amendment rights have to be crystal clear so that gun owners don’t become lawbreakers by accident.”

We got it through the legislature this year. My opinion is that we come back next year, take the Governor’s words to heart, and give her a clear bill she can’t veto.

Common Sense Gun Laws

Apparently they mean discouraging people from taking any initiative on their own. This is a story of a school safety agent, who picked up a downed officer’s Glock, and fought off the attackers:

The agent, who is not licensed to carry a gun, could face charges, sources said.Â Two of the robbers were wounded in the gun battle.

Clearly these are common sense gun laws. You see, we’re all cowards. They are heros defending the world against gun violence. They want us to be as impotent as they are. In fact, they will demand it. You will comply or face the wrath of the state. You will be a compliant citizen, or else.

We have to destroy these people politically. The New York and Chicago citizen control regimes have to be utterly laid to waste, or we have failed.

Hat tip to Dan Pehrson.

Second Amendment Right in Someone Else’s Home

A Massachusetts appeals court rejected an argument that there’s a Second Amendment right to have a gun in someone else’s home. Eugene Volokh thinks this is an incorrect ruling. It’s been a huge disappointment to see how few courts are taking the right seriously. While I am still optimistic we’ll end up better off for having gone to Court, I don’t think we’ll end up with nearly the level of protection most of us would like.

Copyright Trolls In Trouble?

Clayton has an interesting story about Righthaven, who had a court unseal the agreement they have with Stevens Media. Turns out they may not own the copyrights they are suing over after all. You can find more information about this over at the Righthaven Victim’s blog. The Las Vegas Sun reports attorneys are filing t have cases dismissed:

“Righthaven has willfully deceived this court. Righthaven fought mightily to keep this evidence from the public and from all defendants in its legion of cases brought in this district. An examination of the document and its implications for Righthavenâ€™s business model make the reason plain â€“ it reveals the unlawful nature of Righthavenâ€™s actions before this court and renders all of its lawsuits null and void,â€™â€™ the filing said.

They said Righthaven perpetrated upon the court a “shamâ€™â€™ and a “fraudâ€™â€™ hundreds of times in its lawsuits by claiming in the lawsuits that Righthaven “ownsâ€™â€™ the copyrighted stories, photos and graphics it sues over, and has exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute them, when in fact its contract with Stephens Media says Stephens Media retains those rights.

I sincerely hope that everyone who settled with Righthaven will now be filing suit against Righthaven and Stevens Media to recover their settlement. I would imagine they would also be on the hook for attorneys fees as well.

Women and Guns

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is even noticing the trend, which I think is one of the major factors in the misfortunes of our opponents. The gender gap on this issue has been narrowing, and that’s despite our opponents branding themselves in terms more likely to appeal to women.

A Defense of Cuccinelli’s Ruling on Guns and Churches

I’m surprised that the Roanoke Times, of all papers, would say gun control advocates are too quick to criticize Virginia’s Attorney General for his ruling that self-defense was a sufficient reason to carry a firearm in a church. Virginia law prohibits carry in churches unless the person hasÂ “good and sufficient reason.” Cuccinelli’s ruling is a completely reasonable reading of the statute.