January 2012 – Page 8 – Shall Not Be Questioned

The State of the Debate

By now anyone on Twitter, Facebook, or other places where our opponents lurk realize that the debate has gotten quite ugly. Even the Brady Campaign has diminished considerably in its professionalism after the departure of Paul Helmke, and their apparent inability to find new, effective leadership. CSGV has had zero professionalism since I’ve paid attention to it, but lately it’s descended into sheer madness.

Joe Huffman believes they have asked for it. Barron Barnett is considerably less forgiving, and notes the out of context quotes, he also tries to set the record straight. Jennifer tried to engage in some dialog, but that didn’t go too well. I think we have passed the point, to be honest, where these folks deserve the dignity of being treated like reasonable adults. As they have plainly demonstrated, they are incapable of acting in such a manner. There is a saying that I think is very telling for dealing with the likes of CSGV, Joan, and the various other public anti-gun individuals: it is never wise to wrestle with a pig. You’ll both end up covered in shit, but the pig will like it.

I don’t really see any point in debating children. When they spew official ridiculousness, naturally, I’ll point it out. But I’m through with the childish mud slinging from the likes of Ladd Everitt and Joan Peterson. No matter what halos they want to perch atop their heads, they are intellectual midgets who can’t stand up to serious debate without lashing out, and then hiding behind their victimhood when others rhetorically hit them back. It’s not a game we’re going to win, because all they are looking to accomplish is to drag us down to their level, and even the playing field. I am still a big believer in engagement with those who disagree with us, but not with people who are incapable of civilized debate. Engagement with such people can serve no purpose.

So from now on, I will only shame and criticize these people. I will no longer engage in debate, or give any credibility to them. Since the media no longer pays attention to them, I don’t see why we should. Let them continue to grease the slide that leads into the dustbin of history. and we can watch with detached amusement.

Galco Summer Comfort for Lightguard

Looks like Galco has decided to ride to the rescue of people who like the Crimson Trace Lightguard by making a holster for it.

Firearms in the Black Community

Given that today is Martin Luther King day, I thought it would be a great day to feature one of the speakers at the NRA CRDF seminar I attended recently. Professor Nick Johnson‘s presentation of a draft paper (not yet released, but should be public soon) is titled “Firearms and the Black Community: An Assessment of the Modern Orthodoxy.” I thought his presentation was one of the more interesting ones, because I expect his paper to stir up quite a lot of debate. Let me quote you one excerpt from the introduction:

Moreover, in terms of practice and policy, armed self-defense has been an essential private resource for Blacks.Â NotÂ only have many in the leadership owned, carried and used firearms for self-defense, as a matter of policy, Blacks from the leadership to the grassroots have supported armed self-defense by maintaining a crucial distinction between political violence (which was condemned as counterproductive to group advancement) and self-defense against imminent threats (for which there was no substitute).

This article elaborates these critiques of the modern orthodoxy. Part I shows that trusting the state for personal security is incompatible with the Black experience. Â Part II shows that the modern orthodoxy is incompatible with traditional practice and policy.Â Section A of Part II illustrates the tradition of firearms ownership and armed self-defense in the Black community.Â Section B shows how, traditionally, Blacks in the leadership and at the grassroots sustained and supported armed self-defense as a matter of policy by insisting upon a fundamental distinction between private self-defense against imminent threats and collective political violence that was considered damaging to group goals.Â Section B contends that this traditional support for armed self-defense was fundamentally a response to state failure and impotence which continues to this day.Â This continuing state failure and impotence pose a fundamental challenge to the modern orthodoxy.

I’ll direct everyone to the full paper when it comes out, which you should take time to read, because it’s excellent. Take this particular quote from Dr. King:

Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal.Â The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi … . When the Negro uses force in self-defense, he does not forfeit support;Â he may even win it, by the courage and self-respect it reflects.

This is from a series of essays between Martin Luther King and Robert F. Williams. Williams was an advocate for political violence, which King rejected. In this series of letters, King draws a clear distinction between political violence, which King rejected, and protective self-defense, which he did not reject. The NAACP eventually fired Williams for his inflammatory statements, but it made a statement along with his dismissal:

We do not deny but reaffirm that the right of an individual and collective self-defense against unlawful assaults […] by defending those who have exercised the right of self-defense, particularly in the Arkansas Riot Case, The Sweet case in Detroit, the Columbia, Tenn., Riot cases and the Ingram case in Georgia.

So it’s pretty clear even the NAACP endorsed armed self-defense at one point in its existence. Professor Johnson gets into how attitudes towards guns and self-defense changed, much of it more recently than one might imagine. He details how much of the changing attitudes of black leaders towards armed self-defense occurred largely to maintain alliances with progressive whites:

But for the growing Black membership of CORE, the practical necessity of armed self-defense in the field was obvious. Â “As early as 1965 … delegates openly contested the … commitment to pacifism … during CORE’s annual convention.”Â By 1966, Floyd McKissick had succeeded James Farmer as National Director of CORE.Â Though McKissick maintained a commitment to tactical nonviolence,Â his ascension marked a dramatic shift of policy and his rhetoric was moreÂ aggressive.Â He insisted for example that, “The right of self-defense is a constitutional right and you can’t expect Black people to surrender this right while whites maintain it.”Â For CORE’s pacifist, white members, this broke the bargain.Â By the end of 1966, CORE had lost most of its white support and transformed into an almost entirely Black organization.

I have just offered a few choice excerpts. The actual paper is considerably more detailed, and goes into greater detail how, what Professor Johnson calls “The Modern Orthodoxy,” emerged. The modern orthodoxy is what the gun control groups now cling to as gospel, that the Civil Rights movement rejected all violence, and endorsed gun control. While I don’t want to share the draft paper, I will share with you Professor Johnson’s talk, which goes into more detail.

Professor Nicholas Johnson: “Firearms and the Black Community” NRA CRDF Next Generation RKBA Seminar

More on Mitt Romney

Some seem to be thinking because Bitter wants to clear up some of Mitt’s record on gunsÂ that means we’re now backing Mitt. This is not really the case. Many folks are pointing out statements Romney has made in the media that indicates his support for strict gun control. This is the problem with Romney, and why neither of us is planning on backing him in the primary. If either of us do end up voting for him, it’ll be a wrong lizard kind of vote, not one with conviction behind it. Either way, the race is generally decided by the time Pennsylvania’s primary rolls around.

But the statements Mitt has made in the media illustrate the problem with him. His record isn’t all that remarkably bad, but he’ll say whatever he thinks will play well in the media. So GOAL and some of their few allies in the MA legislature, take a massive assault weapons ban expansion, gut it, and put in a few reforms, and guarantee the list of 700 exempted firearms. Then Mitt Romney comes along, and his handlers decide his signing statement should be about the evils of assault weapons, believing, probably correctly for Massachusetts, that will play better in the media.

The problem with Romney is that on Second Amendment and Firearms issues, the guy has no real convictions. Those who follow issues like abortion know that his lack of conviction is not limited to our issue either. He is not a friend of the Second Amendment, but nor is he an enemy. He’ll probably be willing to work with gun owners, and listen to the NRA. That makes him a much preferred alternative to Obama on our issue.

My main beef with Romney, actually, is outside this issue. I don’t like that he was the architect of Romneycare. I thought that would put a serious damper on his prospects, but the field this primary is just awful.

Where’s His Candle?

A fatal beating of a Temple student in Old City. Old City used to be relatively safe, even at night. But Nutterville is looking progressively more like an asylum run by the inmates. It is extremely unwise to venture into Philadelphia, anywhere in Philadelphia, unarmed.

Brady Loses in Court

Apparently they missed the filing deadline in one of the cases they were fighting, causing it to be dismissed.

After the Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs continued their attack against the PLCAA by renewing their motion to file a third amended complaint and separate motion to reargue the order dismissing their case. Unfortunately for the Brady Campaign, their attorneys filed their paperwork four minutes after the filing deadline. The Superior Court subsequently denied the motion to reargue as untimely and denied their motion to amend â€” in part because the plaintiffs had already been granted several opportunities to establish that their claims were not barred by the PLCAA and failed to do so each time.

Hat tip to Dave Hardy, who notes a few more things that made it a pretty good day. Of course, losing on the multiple rifle reporting requirement tempers that a bit, I think. However, I’ll take this victory. It’s almost like they aren’t even trying anymore.

The Truth about Mitt Romney’s Record on Guns

Let me start this post by injecting a little dose of political reality. The GOP field is what we’ve got to run against Obama, and that’s it. It doesn’t matter who shoulda/woulda/coulda run, the only ones who put themselves on the ballots are the only choices voters have in 2012. As much as I would love for Tim Pawlenty to still be in this race, he opted to drop out. I’ve seen people lament Mitch Daniels not entering the race, and don’t get me started on how many folks would cheer Paul Ryan making a run for the White House. None of that matters. None of those men put themselves on the ballot for president.

If Mitt ends up winning the race because GOP voters choose him in the nation’s primaries, gun owners need to know the truth about Mitt Romney’s record on guns as Governor of Massachusetts. I have said before many, many times that as a gun owner in Massachusetts during his term, I was extremely active in the efforts to fight more gun control. Guess who was on our side for that battle? Mitt.

As the state’s most active gun rights group notes in their write-up on Romney’s record, gun owners were able to make more reforms to the state’s oppressive gun laws under Mitt than they had in more than 20 years.

During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governorâ€™s desk.

Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Ownersâ€™ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006.

But what’s this? Didn’t you get the forwarded email from GOA and NAGR that Mitt went around and personally confiscated every firearm he called an “assault weapon” from gun owners in Massachusetts? I kid, but the exaggeration doesn’t seem terribly far off from some of the claims I’ve seen floating around the internet written by people who were not in the Bay State at the time and have no idea what gun laws were like before Mitt took office.

Massachusetts already had an AWB that was actually worse than the federal ban in unique ways. On the surface, it was exactly the same because it was partially tied to language in the federal ban. The state ban that was already on the books didnâ€™t have an expiration date â€“ their way of making sure that no matter what happened to the federal ban, the state ban would stand. In theory, when the federal ban expired, what was already on the books in Massachusetts would have just kept the same limits in effect. However, close reading revealed some big dangers for gun owners.

The state ban, in addition to no expiration date, didnâ€™t have the list of nearly 700 exempted guns that the federal ban allowed. In other words, lawful gun owner would become illegal assault weapons owner overnight and probably never understand why. If an enterprising prosecutor wanted to build up some gun convictions very quickly without much work, he or she could suddenly go after every owner of an M-1 Carbine, Mini-14, Marlin Model 60, or Ruger 10/22 (or other guns on this list) and have a collection of â€œassault weaponâ€ criminals locked up.

The original bill was written by an anti-gun senator who planned to expand the federal AWB dramatically. I donâ€™t even remember all the crap he wanted to ban, but it was absurd. However, he introduced it as the federal law was getting ready to expire so he could claim that he was merely making sure the same federal ban remained in place at the state level. Reporters never bothered to check that the state already had their own version with no expiration date (and no list of exempted guns), so they ate up his talking points. Gun owners managed to get enough pressure on lawmakers to strip out all of the expansion provisions, put in a bunch of reforms, and add one little bit of language to the state ban that was already on the books before Romney ever took office. They formally tied the state ban to the federal ban in a way that preserved the list of exempted guns.

So, what you really should be saying is that legislators managed to SAVE nearly 700 guns from being suddenly declared unlawful in the state, add in several reforms to licensing that were a problem, and put the stops on an anti-gun bill in a creative way that the media never saw coming.

Here is GOAL’s full write-up of what the bill did for gun owners in the Bay State:

1) Established the Firearm License Review Board (FLRB). The 1998 law created new criteria for disqualifying citizens for firearms licenses that included any misdemeanor punishable by more than two years even if no jail time was ever served.

For instance, a first conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence would result in the loss of your ability to own a handgun for life and long guns for a minimum of five years. This Board is now able to review cases under limited circumstances to restore licenses to individuals who meet certain criteria.

2) Mandated that a minimum of $50,000 of the licensing fees be used for the operation of the FLRB so that the Board would not cease operating under budget cuts.

3) Extended the term of the stateâ€™s firearm licenses from 4 years to 6 years.

4) Permanently attached the federal language concerning assault weapon exemptions in 18 USC 922 Appendix A to the Massachusetts assault weapons laws. This is the part that the media misrepresented.

In 1998 the Massachusetts legislature passed its own assault weapons ban (MGL Chapter 140, Section 131M). This ban did not rely on the federal language and contained no sunset clause. Knowing that we did not have the votes in 2004 to get rid of the state law, we did not want to loose all of the federal exemptions that were not in the state law so this new bill was amended to include them.

5) Re-instated a 90 day grace period for citizens who were trying to renew their firearm license. Over the past years, the government agencies in charge had fallen months behind in renewing licenses. At one point it was taking upwards of a year to renew a license. Under Massachusetts law, a citizen cannot have a firearm or ammunition in their home with an expired license.

6) Mandated that law enforcement must issue a receipt for firearms that are confiscated due to an expired license. Prior to this law, no receipts were given for property confiscated which led to accusations of stolen or lost firearms after they were confiscated by police.

7) Gave free license renewal for law enforcement officers who applied through their employing agency.

8) Changed the size and style of a firearm license to that of a driverâ€™s license so that it would fit in a normal wallet. The original license was 3â€ x 4â€.

9) Created stiffer penalties for armed home invaders.

They have a full list of other things Mitt signed and did during his term to improve the situation for the state’s gun owners. Were there setbacks under him? Yes. To his people’s credit, they did work to correct the situation. I only hope he still has those folks who learned their lesson on the issue around him. If you want an idea of many of his missteps, go read the full report from GOAL because they do include them.

I say all of this not because I’m trying to shill for the man. I’m not actually a fan of Mitt Romney’s, and I don’t anticipate voting for him in the Pennsylvania primary. However, if the other Republican voters around the country choose him as the candidate, I believe we are doing our constituency a disservice if we aren’t honest about Mitt’s record on gun rights.

Will Mitt, if elected, appoint fantastic pro-Second Amendment judges and justices? I hope so, but I realize there’s no guarantee. What I do know is that based on what we have seen from Obama’s appointments, we will absolutely get more anti-Second Amendment justices out of a second term. I’d rather take my chances with a president who may be willing to listen to me, along with millions of other gun owners who are concerned about our rights. Whether it’s on the issue of judicial appointments or signing bills, I realize the reality of our chances with Obama in the Oval Office versus a candidate like Mitt Romney.

All of that said, why did TPaw have to bow out so soon? *sob*

More Evidence We’re Winning

Wal-Mart is bringing guns and ammo back to many stores. Sales are up, and Wal-Mart is in the business of making money. But remember, the US gun industry is in decline, and they could prove it too if they just had access to all this information NSSF and NRA aren’t hiding.

UPDATE: ARs in Wal-Mart too.

SoCos Line Up Behind Santorum

It looks like Rick Santorum is gearing up to be the Huckabee of 2012. I’m sincerely hoping it ends in the same manner. What a disappointing primary. I thought it couldn’t get worse after 2008, and it turns out I was wrong. When Ron Paul starts looking like a reasonable choice, things have seriously gone off the rails. Santorum is just not acceptable to me at all. I’ll show up in the primary just to vote for Romney if that’s the only choice I have left by the time Pennsylvania’s primary rolls around.

Big Sis’s Priorities: Go After File Sharers

Apparently the one thing worse than being a terrorist is linking to sites which deprive an important Democratic constituency a source of revenue. Of course, on this count, the Republicans aren’t really any better, though I’ve never understood why, strategically, the GOP cares a whit if an industry that donates heavily to Democrats loses money. The GOP should be leading the call for copyright reform.