2011 – Page 152 – Shall Not Be Questioned

More on PGC Public Range Regulations

Bitter got the Pennsylvania Game Commission on the phone and asked them some questions about the new permit requirement for public shooting ranges in Pennsylvania. I think a lot of people will object to the fact that only $200,000 of $11,000,000 in Pittman-Robertson funds goes to range maintenance. This is especially true when you consider handguns make up more than half of PR funds, and very few handguns are used for hunting.

In effect, the whole of the shooting community is subsidizing hunting. This will no doubt be a controversial statement, but I think that shooters should accept this state of affairs. Until this past year, hunting numbers had been in decline, while hunting license fees have been relatively stable, and not kept up with inflation. This means in real terms, state wildlife management budgets have shrunk. Increasing budgets for shooting ranges would mean decreasing budgets to support hunting programs, or raising hunting license fees, which will only serve to drive more people out of the sport.

A lot of people are going to argue that the baby is sick, probably isn’t going to make it to shore, and we’d be far better off just throwing it off the life boat preemptively, so that we can use the supplies for the rest of us. The problem is, hunting is a critical part of this fight, and we’re going to be far weaker politically if we toss that baby over. We have hunting numbers on the upswing. Perhaps that will continue. Time will tell.

I’m Surprised

Not that Joe Huffman provided a thoughtful answer, but that MikeB actually asked a thoughtful question. Has MikeB decided to give up on life under the bridge?

My Kind of Change

The Republican lawmaker who beat David Levdansky has an op-ed in the Patriot News supporting Castle Doctrine. For those interested in Levdansky’s history in Pennsylvania, you can go here.

Biotech Industry Talk

Megan McArdle comments on this article that appeared in the economyÂ [link removed, here’s why]Â speakingÂ about how Big Pharma is destroying Biotech by pushing all the risk onto venture funded companies and then stiffing them when it comes to the reward side for all that risk.

I work for a Biotech, so I will get my bias out there, but this is absolutely true. As long as Venture Capitalists were willing to keep sheltering the risk, there was no reason for the Big Pharma to do anything other than let them. But the party is over, and with Big Pharma shedding R&D capability quite readily, and Biotechs running out of venture funding, who is going to be left to find new treatments?

I have personally witnessed every one of these tactics highlighted in the article. I think part of the problem is the “one product biotech” model is fundamentally flawed and unworkable, because the odds of any single program succeeding through to an approved drug, and then being a market success, are very small. Big Pharma would be far better partnering with many different biotechs with novel approaches to different parts of the drug discovery problem, and then figuring out what works and what doesn’t. They should be looking for innovation, and not necessarily programs. You can decide what innovation is worthwhile by what programs can be developed out of them.

Big Pharma is mostly good at regulatory compliance and marketing, and not so good at innovation. Biotechs are better at innovation, but don’t have the capital to do regulatory compliance or marketing. In order for this model to work, Big Pharma has to be willing to share risk and reward with investors. Until they figure that out, the industry is going to continue its downward spiral, and sadly, that’s going to mean fewer new treatments hitting the marketplace over the next decade.

P.S. – If any of my readers are venture capitalists with some money to spend on a Biotech with an innovative approach to drug discovery, let me know in the comments :)

Jury Nullification on Gun Charge

In New York City, of all places. I seem to recall hearing that half of all gun possession cases in DC ended up nullified. What do you think a London jury would have found? There is a Second Amendment in the minds of the people, whether our opponents want to recognize it or not.

Media Bloggers Association Stands up to Righthaven

Media Bloggers Association are standing up for a blogger who was sued, and rather than fight took a default judgement, they argue:

Media Bloggers Association on Wednesday called Righthavenâ€™s demands for damages against Hyatt outrageous given the nature of the alleged infringement and what they call Righthavenâ€™s abusive business model.

If you’re interested in joining, you can sign up here. This might be something I have to consider. Righthaven needs to be stopped. Take, for instance, this Pennsylvania couple who spent six months fighting a lawsuit when they weren’t even the proper party. Supposedly Righthaven has racked up $364,000 in settlements so far. This is a sick and twisted abuse of our legal system.

This blog will continue its policy of scrubbing links to any media outlet that works with Righthaven. I’m not driving traffic and Google love to pond suckers.

Chris Christie Pessimistic About Gun Law Reform

Unfortunately, the Governor is right. New Jersey is probably the most hostile legislature in the country when it comes to gun rights. Christie is coming at this issue in the same manner the Obama Administration is, in that he’d really prefer it go away, doesn’t want to burn any political capital on the issue, but at the same time doesn’t want to piss anyone off too much.

The Fine Line Between Fundraising Writing & BS

There’s an art to writing copy for an effective fundraising letter. It differs based on the medium, and it needs to stay within certain guidelines that I like to refer to as “reality.” There’s the kind of reality we talk about here to those of you who read and are relatively well informed about the issues. There’s also a kind of reality used in fundraising letters that’s often a bit on the scare tactic side, but it’s also meant to showcase very real threats that are technically on the horizon for those who don’t really pay attention to what’s happening in the various political debates. It’s not BS if the group is actually working on those issues. It is BS if a group is fundraising off of those issues and not actually in a position to do a damned thing about it.

So imagine my surprise when the National Association of Gun Rights started running Facebook ads with a petition to stop the UN from passing a small arms treaty. The ad linked to a fundraising appeal by a Congressman that says you must give to the “National Association for Gun Rights so [they] can fight for your gun rights and defeat the U.N. Small Arm’s Treaty.” Oh really? A Congressman who has no authority over treaties plans to work with a group that has no presence at the UN to stop unaccountable diplomats with an online petition? That is going to be some show.

Before you start in with rants about NRA fundraising using the UN as a basis for their appeals, I’ll point out one big freakin’ difference in the situations. The NRA is actually an official NGO at the UN so that they can work on this issue. They’ve been working that front for 15 years. In other words, when you respond to that appeal from NRA, your money is going to an organization that is actually able to fight it – with more than just an online petition & Congressman who has no authority over the issue.

Hypocrisy? What Hypocrisy?

Dennis Henigan says we’re being hypocrites, because we say we want to enforce existing laws, but then have Congress cut funding off for ATF to implement long gun reporting. Where to start? First off, the long gun reporting requirement isn’t going to accomplish jack, because even with the information voluntarily provided to ATF by dealers, they apparently lost track of about 2500 firearms, one of which was used to murder a border patrol officer. Secondly, this is not enforcing existing law, this is ATF making up law from whole cloth and implementing it. We’re in favor of using existing laws to lock up violent criminals, we are not in favor of a totalitarian state where bureaucrats get to make up their own law and ignore the limits Congress has placed on their powers.

Four Suggestions

Bryan Miller apparently thinks they are the four suggestions too:

Good to see Miller, a world renowned advocate of “gun safety” demonstrating just how little he knows about the subject.

I’ve been doing a little research on the incident that happened with Miller’s brother, and there’s a whole lot more to it than most of you have ever heard. For instance, there was a lawsuit filed for negligence against the District of Columbia because they failed to follow their own security protocol for the building. There is more I will speak of once I have time to put everything together.