Illinois Approaching Deadline

Eugene Kontorovich over at The Volokh Conspiracy notes that the deadline is looming, and also discusses some of the Constitutional issues with Quinn’s amendatory veto:

Turning past the text – the purpose of the Second Amendment is self-defense. Limiting people to one gun fundamentally jeopardizes self-defense in the event the gun malfunctions, is dropped, etc. The best way to evaluate the seriousness of such concerns is to look to whether police and military personell carry multiple weapons, i.e., whether this is a done thing in contexts where regulation is not an obstacle. This of course is also the leading way of thinking about what kind of weapons can be banned. This is partially an empirical question; I don’t know the answer. The non-empirical part what the threshold must be – how many cops have to carry weapons to make this normal.

Some very good questions. I’ve long advocated that the courts need to evaluate police use to determine the scope of the constitutional protections, the police being situated similar to non-police citizens. That can become difficult. Are machine guns in common police use? Increasingly this is so. I think a reasonable standard would be that citizens can have anything the police can have, subject to the same or similar restrictions to police. This would also tend to serve as a check on the militarization of police forces, since they’d have to accept that issuing “special equipment” to cops means Joe Citizen has a right to access to the same. But we can always imagine far better constitutional regimes than the courts would ever be willing to implement.

UPDATE: More here.

R+P Keeps Digging

Look at this hilariousness. Those of you in the tech industry will truly appreciate it:

As such, we are implementing the necessary Web 3.0 Social capabilities to ensure that each individual voice is not just heard, but protected against cyber-bullying, virtual filibustering, off-topic rhetoric, or defamatory and inflammatory language that is not related to the discussion thread.

Read the whole sad thing. Web 3.0? Really? They are totally beyond this whole Web 2.0 thing. We dumb rednecks can’t even begin to appreciate their sophistication. Even Bloomberg isn’t stupid enough to be this condescending and insulting toward gun owners. Bloomberg, at least, has the decently to be forthrightly condescending to us. We know where Bloomberg stands.

The more I see from these R+P people, the more I believe they really think we’re the reason there can’t be a conversation. Even though none of us censor or squash dissenting viewpoints, whereas it’s SOP for their side (and apparently for R+P too). I think these guys believe they are what the gun debate has been waiting for. Sorry, no. We’ve read this shitty novel before, and didn’t like it 5 years ago either. R+P is nothing new. In fact, they are a far more humorous and amateurish than the previous version of this farce.

American Rifle and Pistol Association Responds

It looks like Peter Vogt has chosen to respond to Bitter’s article the other day, exposing the problems with American Rifle and Pistol Association. Go read the whole, sad thing. I didn’t really understand why anyone would want to join a group like this before they published this “interview.” Now, understanding they are actually a for-profit corporation, and don’t really seem to have any real mission or vision for what they want to stand for, I really don’t understand it.

Is the purpose just to make money? Trying to help along this national conversation the other side wants to pretend hasn’t happened because of the big-bad NRA? What these ARPA folks don’t seem to get is that they have approached this issue from an astounding ignorance. The gun rights movement is already hyper-connected on the Internet, as I’m sure these guys are now beginning to discover. Perhaps I might suggest they read Brian Anse Patrick’s “Rise of the Anti-Media” before proceeding further. And that’s just a start. There has been a national conversation on gun control, and it’s been raging for decades. The anti-gun folks want no part of it because they keep losing the arguments.

The Nanny State Comes from Voters

Remember that the nanny state isn’t just the work of power-hungry politicians looking to control every aspect of your lives. There are people who actually purposefully support this kind of control because they want all types of fun by others that might possibly disrupt their bubble to be banned. Think I’m kidding? This report come from the York, PA reporter seemingly in charge of the local beat today:

Think about that for a moment. A woman called the emergency services line to report that the government needs to put a stop to other people’s fun because it may be disrupting her cats. She may be a little off, but there’s a good chance that she would actually consider this a reasonable use of force to send a police officer with a gun after someone who simply frightened her cat. And she’s likely allowed to vote. There is no minimum sanity requirement for voting.

Happy Independence Day

I hope everyone enjoys the holiday. We’ll be busy moving and re-arranging. My office is complete, and more importantly, I have a desk:

IMG_1116

I’ve been waiting for this to be finished for some time, and now it is finally done. But moving back in is going to be arduous. This room was packed to the gills before.

The Latest Not-Really-Pro-Gun Group

Tomorrow, a new group claiming to represent America’s gun owners will launch that claims to be for “SANE” gun ownership policies. Their goal is to be an alternative to NRA on everything, including safety and firearms education. Yet, they also proudly declare that none of them are experts on firearms handling. That’s not their only disconcerting claim.

R + P CEO Waylan Johnson, a petroleum magnate, tells Whispers he hopes the group will also set itself apart by being more focused on members than the NRA.

“The NRA represents the firearms industry. There’s not a lot of membership input,” Johnson says.

This was a quote, presumably said with a straight face, by a man declared as CEO by an organization that, according to their own “Join” page, doesn’t appear to have a mechanism for the membership to vote on the leadership. Meanwhile, the supposedly firearms industry-run NRA sent out 1,718,786 ballots for NRA members to vote on the organization’s leadership this year.

There are so many over-the-top claims that this group is making, it’s really laughable that any reporter gave their PR girl the time of day. For example, their number one priority for use of member dollars? “Helping to Identify and Get Treatment for the Mentally Ill to prevent firearms abuse” So are they a mental health organization with professionals on staff to identify mentally ill people? Everything I’ve found about the leaders indicate that their backgrounds are in IT, energy, and other business ventures. How will these non-medical professionals designate appropriate treatment that will supposedly focus on preventing firearms abuse? They say the money will be spent on such treatment, so prospective members have a right to know about these programs they claim they fund.

This new American Rifle & Pistol Association says that their number two priority in using member dollars is to “Promoting Programs Aimed at Getting Illegal Guns off the Streets,” yet they tell us nothing about how they define an illegal gun or what those programs look like. Does that mean member dollars will be used to fund gun buybacks that often collect and destroy antiques and collectible firearms? Does it mean to support a registration system for all gun owners? There are all sorts of things such a broad message could mean.

The group wants you to know that they will give members “Representation before Elected Officials on behalf of the Voice of the R+P Membership,” presumably by the leadership team who have never made any donations of any kind to any officials as documented by OpenSecrets.org and the Texas Ethics Commission. In fact, the leaders want members to feel good about the fact that they have no background in lobbying and that they are NOT experts in the new field they will start lobbying in. Talk about convincing members that they are in the very best of hands…

For a group that claims to want to make sure that gun owners are trained in “SANE” handling, they so far refuse to share any information about their supposed “competency training and certification courses” that will presumably be developed by their non-expert leaders who are not actually elected or accountable to members. Unlike NRA-ILA’s library of resources on various issues that explain topics and give a general indication of their positions on the specifics of firearms policies, R+P provides no such information for prospective members. I guess their idea of “member-centric” is to keep prospective members in the dark about their actual planned lobbying efforts so that it’s all a big secret until you hand over the cash.

I’m curious how long the 15 minutes will last for this new astroturf group. I’m also curious as to how long they will continue the Horrible Capitalization Abuse on Their Website.

UPDATE: It turns out that the Enemies Of Proper Capitalization Use are also not such fans of gun ownership as they claim. (Thanks to reader Andrew for the tip.)

Here are the screenshots that show the Connecticut converted to Texan Chairman of American Rifle & Pistol Association who is an Obama supporter who is pushing Bloomberg/MAIG’s gun control campaigns while helping to promote Moms Demand Action, a group trying to pressure companies to ban lawful concealed carry so gun owners can’t carry in public anymore and convince gun retailers to stop selling the most popular guns in the country.

PersonalPhotosRemoved

PeterVogt7

PeterVogt5

PeterVogt6

Mike Bloomberg isn’t the only gun control supporting New Yorker that Peter Vogt promotes, as evidenced by his repeated sharing of a NY-based website run by people who believe that Senators supporting Second Amendment rights deserve the label of child killers.

PeterVogt2

Vogt is also a fan of New York lawmakers who are more interested in name-calling against gun owners than actually trying to have a conversation about concerns for Second Amendment rights.

PeterVogt4

PeterVogt3

These are the publicly shared views of American Rifle & Pistol Association’s leader, and it certainly does not appear to reflect someone who is actually concerned with protecting the individual right to bear arms. These shared materials reflect an ally of groups that would take your guns without a trial, ban licensed concealed carry owners from even getting a cup of coffee at the most common coffee house around, and who thinks that gun owners with concerns about federal legislation are just little jackasses.

Just like the concept of “member-centric,” I don’t think that the leaders of American Rifle & Pistol Association actually understand the concept of being pro-Second Amendment.

Airplane Needed for Leaflet Drop

Mike Bloomberg is hosting a 1000 dollar a plate fundraising dinner for his good buddy Joe Manchin. I would love to print out that invitation and air drop them all over the state of West Virginia. I don’t see this kind of thing going over well with the locals. Let us not forget that in addition to Bloomberg’s rampant nannying on every freedom issue under the sun, he’s also an avowed enemy of coal.

“Joe Manchin gets help from the Mayor of New York City, a billionaire who hates gun rights and wants coal mining to disappear. He throws fancy fundraising dinners for Joe in Manhattan that none of you could ever afford to attend, and that goes double when the coal jobs disappear.” Yeah, that’ll go over well in West Virginia. I’m sure of it.

Some questions for OC Opponents in Mississippi

Dave Hardy asks a few questions about the new OC law that’s now been enjoined in Mississippi.

Who drafted this pile of offal? Can officers of a county (which is generally a subdivision of the State) sue the State? Isn’t that a little like the City Planner suing the city because he doesn’t like the zoning plan?

Read the whole thing.

Quinn’s Expected Veto

Governor Quinn of Illinois apparently doesn’t care that the court has spoken. His amendatory veto suggests that:

  • You only be allowed to carry one gun. Because two would just be one too many?
  • No carrying any spare magazines.
  • No carrying anywhere alcohol is served, even if you’re drinking iced tea.
  • Requires businesses to opt-in to the concealed carry program rather an opt out.
  • Removes preemption of home rule regulation of so-called assault weapons.

Screw this guy. Tell your lawmakers you expect them to override Quinn and ignore his tantrum.