2012 – Page 163 – Shall Not Be Questioned

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.

NSSF Loses Suit Against ATF

Yesterday, a ruling was handed down in NSSF’s case fighting the multiple long gun reporting requirement to dealers along the border. The short of it is that NSSF lost, and multiple reporting of long guns will have to proceed. I wanted to take the time to read the ruling before commenting on it. In short, several courts in sister circuits to DC have ruled that the demand letter power granted to the Attorney General (and thus ATF) by the Gun Control Act, while not unlimited, is quite broad. The DC district court just went along with these sister circuit rulings, and agreed the demand letters are not beyond that exercise of power.

I believe this is mistaken on the part of all the federal courts. The demand letter power was clearly intended to be limited to records already required to be kept, while in the course of a bone fide investigation. It was certainly not intended to allow the Attorney General to invent from whole cloth new record keeping rules.

The Demand Letter only requires FFLs to report record information that FFLs already are required to maintain. There is no evidence that ATF is using the Demand Letter as a ruse to create a national gun registry.

Plaintiffs here rehash arguments rejected by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits in J&G, Blaustein, and RSM, contending that ATFâ€™s reporting authority under Â§ 923(g)(5)(A) is limited by Â§ 923(g)(1)(A) (protecting FFLs from reporting requirements â€œexcept as expressly required by this sectionâ€) to the subject matters on which reporting is required under Â§ 923(g)(1)(B), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(6), and (g)(7). These subsections require FFLs to permit inspection or report record information under specific circumstances: Â§ 923(g)(1)(B) permits ATF to examine records without a warrant during a criminal investigation; (g)(3) requires reporting of sales of multiple handguns to the same person; (g)(4) requires FFLs that go out of business to report their records to ATF; (g)(6) requires FFLs to report loss or theft of a firearm within 48 hours; and (g)(7) requires FFLs to respond within 24 hours of a tracing request.

Except that this is a) not among the records dealers are already keeping. That includes 4473 and the dealers A&D record. b) this is not connected with a bone fide criminal investigation, but rather a sweeping edict that effectively creates a new requirement, and c) Congress only has required multiple handguns to be reported. Certainly there would have been no need to statutorily authorize this if it was already a power under the demand letters, and certainly Congress knew how to include shotguns and rifles if it had intended to.

NRA is requesting folks contact their Senators to get them to support S.570, sponsored by John Tester (D-MT) and Richard Burr (R-NC). This would prohibit long gun reporting by statute. I am pleased to report that both our Pennsylvania Senators are co-sponsors.

For the Children, Part MDCCXXIII

Our opponents are currently going hog wild over a blog post appearing Art on the Issues, by Dr. Art Kamm. I suspect they like it because Dr. Kamm runs some numbers which make gun ownership look weak, but I find his methodology suspect:

In examining the crude firearm homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants in countries that have a population exceeding 3.8 million and a GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, in excess of $20,000 (World Health Organization, 2002), the US rate dwarfs that of any other industrialized country(ref). Â The firearm homocide rate in the US was 5.5 times higher than Italy (the next highest) and several European Union countries reported insignificant levels of firearm homicides: only 45 were reported in the UK, 15 in Denmark, 10 in Norway, and 7 in Ireland. Â Whereas the US reported a total of 10,801 firearm homicides in 2000, the European Union, having a population of over 376 million (exceeding that of the US) reported only 1,260 firearm homicides. Â And in Japan, where less than 50 handguns were present (they are reserved to athletes participating in international shooting competitions), only 22 firearm homicides were reported.

Why is it legitimate to only examine homicide by firearm? Isn’t a better measure overall violent crime, or perhaps homicide in general? I’ve done some calculations on homicide rates as to whether there’s correlation to levels of gun ownership in industrialized countries (defines as GDP > 14,000) and there was none. I even threw out countries that would have made my numbers better, because they were highly undemocratic, or unstable.

What Dr. Kamm is doing here is essentially proving, to take this to another context, that countries that have a higher ownership of automobiles per capita have a higher rate of fatal accidents. That is hardly startling, given it takes owning an automobile to have a fatality with one, but it would tell us little overall about the dangers of automobiles compared to other forms of transportation. The question is whether firearms ownership has any effect on violent crime overall. I’ve found you can get correlation, but only by reducing the size of the sample set by choosing an arbitrarily high number for GDP, which excludes virtually all of Eastern Europe (some of which have high gun ownership rates, but low murder rates, and some which have very low gun ownership rates, and very high murder rates.) Barron Barnett has done some excellent work in this area as wellÂ on the domestic front.

I also note Dr. Kamm mixing firearms homicides (which does not include suicide) and firearm deaths (which does). As I’ve mentioned before, treating firearm suicide as a reason for restricting the rights and freedom of others is inappropriate in a free society. Research also bears out that internationally there is no correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates.

Dr. Kamm’s research on NRA’s funding sources is also very poor. A quick analysis of their publicly available form 990s (some of which I’ve done here, in a different context) show that NRA gets the vast majority of its funding from its individual members, rather than from corporations or large donors. While NRA’s recent efforts in seeking larger donors are paying off, its bread and butter is still fundraising from its membership base, much to the chagrin of many of its members. Dr. Kamm also fails to note that MidwayUSA, the largest corporate donor to NRA, raises that money through a “round up” program, that asks customers to round up to the nearest dollar to support NRA. This money may have a corporate source, but its a grassroots effort. It is not something easily matched by our opponents, because there’s no anti-gun shop, where you could source “round up” donations from.

Our opponents are far more reliant on donations from large foundations than NRA is. That they don’t come close to matching our grassroots muscle is probably the reason may of them are angry, bitter, and lashing out.

A Measure of Excitement?

One of the factors in determining the outcome of the 2012 presidential election will likely be how excited 2008 Obama voters are to get out and vote again. Think the Occupy movement knocking on doors and registering voters. Yeah, that will be fun.

But, with all that hate toward Republicans, how are those former Obama voters feeling about their guy this election? This might be one clue:

The uncontested primary of an unchallenged incumbent doesn’t mean much, but it can perhaps be taken as some kind of measure of intensity, partisan loyalty, or simple willingness to show up to and be counted.

And by those measures, George W. Bush handily defeated Barack Obama in New Hampshire last night.

The story compares the uncontested primary for Bush to the uncontested primary for Obama. But, there are also many data points lacking in the article. For example, how did each compare to the percentage of registered party voters? Regardless, we’ll have lots of points to compare once the primary really gets going.

Have any readers been visited by campaigns yet?