Elections. Our opponents have truly become a parody of themselves. It would be sad if it was happening to anyone else who did not so richly deserve it.
Year: 2012
How New York City Maintains a Low Crime Rate
Shooting at Family Research Council
You’d think another domestic terror shooting incident would be all over the media, but you’d be wrong. I think Fox has been the only main stream media outlet I’ve seen covering the shooting at Family Research Council. I read about this on Instapundit earlier. Thirdpower notes that all the gun violence ownership prevention groups are silent on this one. Of course they are. Doesn’t fit the narrative. Plus, all these gun violence prevention people have been doing nothing but ginning up mouth foamers, and encouraging hateful rhetoric against those who advocate for the right to keep and bear arms. Should we be surprised that some on the left are choosing to act in this climate of hate?
I am not FRC’s biggest fan either, and disagree with a great deal of what they advocate. But in this country, we don’t shoot people because we disagree with them. Decisive and quick action by the security guard, after he had been shot, probably prevented this from turning into a mass shooting. Looks like everyone is going to be OK, though.
Why There is No Negotiation on “Florida Loophole”
As long as the information is public, look at some of these reasons for appeal:
I am pastor of a church; I carry large sums of money to bank at least 2-3 times a week. As a businessman, I was robbed once. I could very well be a target for the automobile I drive and my appearance.
Pastor of a church, real danger to society there.
I answered all questions on the gun permit application truthfully. The previous referred to in the denial letter occurred more than thirty years ago.
Previously denied for a permit 30 years ago when the city was may-issue? This is now a ground for denial? This is illegal.
 I don’t think it was right for them to take my license. I was the victim. They came into my home and I shot a warning shot.
So someone breaks into your home, you fire a warning shot (admittedly not wise) and that’s ground for a permit revocation?
The reason why my gun was left in my car was due to the fact that my brother asked me to watch my nephew for a few minutes and I was on my way out. My nephew likes to grab on me and hang on me and I was afraid he would grab my weapon. I never leave my weapon in my vehicle and would never do it again.
Leaving a gun in a locked vehicle is grounds for revocation of a license?
I was wrongly accused of being a bartender. I was not arrested or charged with any crime.
So we’re denying based on profession?
There’s an old saying we often tell children: if you can’t play with the toy nicely, you can’t have the toy. The end result of this is going to be the character and reputation clause being removed, since the City of Philadelphia is incapable of not abusing it. Most of these folks have arrests, many of them long long ago. Arrests should not be grounds for denying a fundamental constitutional right. The character and reputation clause is therefore unconstitutional, and should be removed from the Uniform Firearms Act.
Whether the City realizes it or not, they have given actual hard evidence that yes, they are abusing the permit process, and with that hard evidence, we are going to redouble our efforts to stop them from doing it. There can be no negotiation on closing the Florida Loophole until this abuse is taken seriously.
A Violation of Pennsylvania Law by Philadelphia
Last weekend, Philadelphia’s Department of Licenses and Inspections, an agency not usually known for its transparency and user-friendliness, unveiled a new web app that displays licensing, permit and violation information on a (relatively) easy-to-use interactive map. One of the more interesting aspects to this new data transparency is an array of gun permit appeals, essentially a list of Philadelphians who have been denied a gun permit or had their permit revoked and who have appealed to have the decision overturned.
This is completely illegal, and there are penalties. Allow me to point you to the Uniform Firearms Act of Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania Code. From the UFA:
(i) Confidentiality.–All information provided by the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant, including, but not limited to, the potential purchaser, transferee or applicant’s name or identity, furnished by a potential purchaser or transferee under this section or any applicant for a license to carry a firearm as provided by section 6109 shall be confidential and not subject to public disclosure. In addition to any other sanction or penalty imposed by this chapter, any person, licensed dealer, State or local governmental agency or department that violates this subsection shall be liable in civil damages in the amount of $1,000 per occurrence or three times the actual damages incurred as a result of the violation, whichever is greater, as well as reasonable attorney fees.
If I were one of these people listed, I’d be filing the lawsuit right now. This is unconscionable. The criminals that run that city clearly think they are above the law. I say we ought to show them who can get away with what. I count at least $29,000 dollars worth of violations here, and attorneys fees will probably drive that higher by orders of magnitude. They should be made to pay for this.
A Little 2012 Newsflash
I think there’s a difference between “we’re winning” in the cultural sense and “we’re winning” in the political sense. I don’t think I need to remind people that sometimes something that is highly unpopular and opposed by many people can “win” in the political sense. *cough*Obamacare*cough*
Sebastian already pointed out that we have a Democrat who represents a more suburban/rural part of Pennsylvania running on a platform of gun bans and ammunition control – and he’ll win his race without putting out any serious effort this November!
If my list is up-to-date, we’ll have lost 23 lawmakers in Harrisburg to legislative retirements throughout 2012. Twelve of those are A or A+ rated by NRA. When I went to look up their last opponents to get an idea of what the new races could mean for gun owners, 2/3 of those districts were last challenged by declared or presumed anti-gunners. Folks, that’s an awful lot of pro-gun votes to have at risk.
Think about what a battle it was for us to pass the last Castle Doctrine measure here in Pennsylvania – that fight went across multiple governors. That was simply Castle Doctrine that allows you to defend yourself on your own property, and yet gun owners had to work very had to make that happen. I personally don’t think we can afford to lose any allies in Harrisburg if a simple self-defense bill took so much time and energy.
Culturally, we’re making progress. Politically, we’re still at a very dangerous time for gun rights in many areas.
Holding the Line: SB 249 is Dead for the Year
SB 249 has been pulled from committee. The bill is dead for the year. I can’t remember the last time we stopped a major piece of gun control legislation in its tracks in California, but I guess we made enough noise. For those who haven’t kept up on what SB 249 is, see this site created by the CalGuns Foundation.
UPDATE: Not so fast. It still has the rest of the week to live. This could be a feint. Continue making noise.
The Truth About ARs
I’m glad to see outdoor writers clearing the air in regards to AR rifles, and telling the truth about them, including explaining the recent surge in sales. Looks like they interviewed State Rep. Bryan Cutler for this article, speaking of his bill, H.B. 347, which would open the door to legal semi-auto rifle hunting in Pennsylvania:
State Rep. Bryan Cutler, of Peach Bottom, is one hunter and gun enthusiast who joined the AR craze. Cutler built his own .223-caliber AR by getting the various parts and creating a custom gun. “That’s something I just always wanted to do,” he said. Cutler uses his AR for target shooting, and hopes to one day shoot it competitively. “I’ve always had an interest in the three-gun competition, so maybe I’ll get into that somewhere down the road when my schedule allows it.”
In a three-gun competition, shooters work through a tactical course, firing a handgun, shotgun and AR rifle at targets. Cutler also hopes to someday be allowed to use his AR for hunting varmints and predators in Pennsylvania. He’s a co-sponsor of House Bill 347, which would legalize the use of “any semi-automatic rimfire rifle, .22 caliber or less, for the taking of coyotes, foxes or woodchucks,” the bill states. The bill is intended to crack the door for using semi-automatic rifles for hunting here.
I’d work hard to keep any politician that was actually interested in three gun and built his own AR. That’s a rare breed in politics. His bill only legalizes semi-auto rimfire in .22 or less, and obviously we’d eventually like to see centerfire semi-automatic rifles hunting legal in Pennsylvania, but baby steps. Read the whole article. It’s pretty refreshing to see something like this in the main stream media.
Visiting a Sikh Temple
Sean took a visit to a temple in North Carolina, and found some fellow gun nuts. I’m not an expert on the Sikh religion, but the way I understood their dedication to peace, among all peoples, was that it was backed up with a healthy, “but don’t f**k with us,” philosophy on the virtue of self-defense. That’s the kind of peace I can believe in.
Wrong Strategies
For ideas on how to improve their effectiveness, gun control advocates could do worse than to study the playbook of the most effective liberal policy initiative in recent years: the movement to legalize same-sex marriage.
I would turn around and argue the movement to legalize same-sex marriage has been an utter disaster for gays who want to marry. They’ve been screwed by the radicalness of their own leadership, who chose to try to force this through the judicial system, and then faced a backlash by a public that was overwhelmingly opposed to it. How many states now need a constitutional amendment passed in order to legalize same-sex marriage? Anyone with strategic sense, looking at the generation gap on this issue, would have decided the prudent course of action would be a legislative strategy in blue states, followed by purple, and then red, as the generation gap played out over time. As it is, it will take serious effort to undo the damage done by a panicked public, caused by the choice to try to enact gay marriage through judicial fiat. So I don’t think that the gay marriage movement is a model. It is a case of a bridge too far, too soon, and if we had that much damage to undo with gun rights, I wouldn’t feel very good about things right now.
Now, the overall gay rights movement, on the other hand, is a fairly effective model, but as  Joe Huffman also notes that this guy has it backwards, but it looks like Reasoned Discourse is in effect over there.