August 2013 – Page 4 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Latest CSGV Ad

In an attempt to be relevant for a cause that’s increasingly irrelevant, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence lets everyone know they oppose self-defense with a new video. At the risk of driving up their hit count:

The production values look pretty good, so I really hope they spent a lot of Joyce money on it, because the polling says this probably won’t shift the center of the debate much, and is as likely to motivate our side as theirs. I want people to realize these people are extremists who do not believe in your right to self-defense… period. This gets that across.

For a more detailed takedown of the video, see Legal Insurrection (h/t Miguel)

Shocker: NRA Finds Ways to Grow its List

Buzzfeed has run an article on the fact that NRA is “campaigning against the threat of a national database of firearms or their owners.Â But in fact, the sort of vast, secret database the NRA often warns of already exists, despite having been assembled largely without the knowledge or consent of gun owners.”

If they were like most groups that operate in DC, they’d consider themselves to have something like 33 million members (or however large their non-member contact list is), but are we supposed to be surprised by this? I only wish NRA was adept at using the types of sophisticated data mining techniques I’ve read about at work with the Obama Administration, but I’ve never gotten the impression their information technology capability even rose to close that level of sophistication.

Pretty clearly Buzzfeed is trying to damage NRA with this article. The fact is NRA would be stupid not to try to get lists of permit holders in states that have yet to make those lists private. It’s worth nothing that of the two states mentioned int his article, NRA has pushed for privacy laws in Iowa and passed the privacy laws in Virginia, the two states mentioned in this particular article.

But the biggest failing of the article is to assume that gun owners are opposed to gun registration for registration’s sake. We’re opposed to it because it gives officials a convenient list to come knocking on doors once the end game is reached, like they’ve done in New York City already. I’m really not concerned that Wayne LaPierre is going to come knocking on my door demanding I turn in my guns, and even if he did, NRA doesn’t have a list of every gun I own. I’m very concerned Diane “Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in” Feinstein would be quite willing to send government agents around, likely at gunpoint for dangerous folks like us, to collect them.

I’m far less concerned if someone knows I’m a gun owner, versus whether they know what guns I own. We already have de facto registration in this country via form 4473, but one reason the 4473 was preferred over a centralized registry is that in a desperate situation, 4473s are (well, mostly) local, in private hands, and can be effectively burned. Even absent that kind of civil disobedience, any list the government compiled wouldn’t be comprehensive anyway, because there are still legal avenues to transfer firearms without the 4473. In short, without a registry of guns, any confiscation effort will be futile, and will certainly be very incomplete.

Local Elections Matter

In Pennsylvania, we elect our judges. This can be a good thing, or it can be a bad thing. One of the biggest issues is the fact that even the most informed voters often know nothing about the judges on the ballot before them. Add to that the fact that these judges are elected in off-year elections with very low turnout, and it’s both an opportunity and an uphill battle if you want to see meaningful change in the justice system.

Consider the case in Erie right now. Erie 4th Ward District Judge Tom Robie isn’t on the ballot again until 2015. He last won in an unchallenged race in 2009 with the support of both parties from the looks of one of the election results pages I found. Unfortunately for the citizens of Erie, that may not be such a good thing if Judge Robie’s reported actions in a recent gun possession case are any indication.

Pennsylvania has a pretty clear preemption law that doesn’t allow local governments to regulate possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. The City of Erie violated the ban and passed their own ban on possession in city-owned parks. Several men were cited in violation of this illegal ordinance. And, according to social media posts by those involved in the case, the judge decided to find them guilty of violating the illegal ordinance anyway, despite the case law on the subject. I haven’t found a news story about the decision yet, but here is one with better background on the case.

For purposes of legal action, these guys can clearly appeal and hope that, at some level, they get a judge who cares about actually making sure that the laws are followed by both the government agents and citizens. However, even if that happens, the judge who ignored the case law on the issue gets to enjoy the perks of his taxpayer-funded job with few people caring that his cases may end up overturned because he appears to have opted to ignore the state’s preemption law and related established case law.

For election purposes, this is a great opportunity for local gun owners to get involved with local parties and start finding a replacement for Judge Robie on the next ballot. They can find him a primary challenger from either side. So, will local gun owners pick up this cause? It’s a long way to 2015, but since they need to find a candidate willing to take on this judge, the process needs to start early. But, if local gun owners would be willing to take up this cause, then it can send a clear message to many more local politicians – judicial or otherwise.

Gauss Gun Theory

Last weekÂ SayUncle, in the daily Gun Porn, pointed to this fully automatic gauss gun. I have looked into the possibility of building such a device, but I’m troubled by the implications of some of the theory. At least if I’m understanding it correctly. From that, it would seem that a gauss gun that uses conventional non-superconducting electromagnets can never really perform as well as even compressed air, at least no without having impractically huge coils. I don’t know as much about this field (no pun intended) as I should, so if anyone who remembers electromagnetism wants to opine, I’m all ears.

What Safety Rule?

Far be it for me to defend Bloomberg, but the only problem I can see here is that the slides aren’t locked back to indicate an empty chamber. But not all firearms have slides that lock back, so I consider that splitting hairs. No one is handling the guns that I can see, so unless you violate gun safety rules every time you go downrange with weapons cleared, there’s no problem here. The rule involves guns that are being handled. Guns sitting on a display table don’t magically go off. Otherwise your typical gun show is an egregious violation of gun safety rules.

Listen, I appreciate that the right media is getting into the gun thing, and trying to defend the right. But sometimes it’s not only the mainstream media, or left media, that needs to learn a lesson or two about guns.

More on the Illinois Bill Signed by Governor

Thirdpower notes that they are playing up what they got as part of the concealed carry deal, trying to spin it as a much bigger victory than it really is. Specifically, private transfers in Illinois will continue to work as they have. The law specifically doesn’t apply any criminal or civil penalties for failure to comply. It’s all carrot and no stick.

Monday News Links

This week is going to be rough due to some self-imposed deadlines I am determined to meet for work. I’m mostly in documenting mode, and while you might think someone who bangs out five or more blog posts a day can probably bang out documentation just as quickly, I’m slow with documenting, unfortunately, at least partly because it’s necessary but thoroughly joyless and uninteresting work. But one must plan for the proverbial bus (which always seems to run over the IT guy). With that, there is still some news:

Rubber band gun with functioning slide and ejector. Very cool.

The difference between Massachusetts and Florida. Our opponents really do seem to think that violence that isn’t gun violence is somehow preferable.

Bloomberg gets a press conference talking about how New York City’s gun problems are blamed on other jurisdictions. He wants everywhere to be as strict as New York, which essentially bans firearms.

The Myth of the Atomic AR. Something is fishy with that claim. Unless the bullet hit a propane bottle, I can’t see how the fire would get going that fast. Even a gas line would give you enough time to get out.

Piers Morgan’s Misstatement on Virginia murder rates. “This is a teachable moment, because this is what rabid gun control proponents are prone to doâ€”to argue from emotion rather than reason and throw out numbers that have no basis in reality.”

Some interesting history regarding passing FOPA, on how we outfoxed Rep. Hughes to get the bill to the floor. Of course, Rep. Hughes had some last minute revenge waiting for the bill, which we are all familiar. Most people I’ve talked to in the FOPA fight think if it hadn’t been for that bill, they would have succeeded in killing off the gun culture.

Not gun related, but one of my favorites series on PBS (or Channel 12, as we called it) growing up was Connections, with James Burke. So I was delighted to find the whole thing posted online.

Further Proof the Background Check Issue is a Red Herring

Illinois passes more gun control, including ending private transfers. Keep in mind you need to have a license in Illinois to own a gun, and to sell a gun to someone else, they also need to have a license. It requires a background check to obtain a license, and they revoke those licenses if someone commits a crime or otherwise becomes prohibited from owning firearms. It is, under any rational way of thinking, a perfect substitute for instant background checks.

However, that wasn’t enough. The background check issue is a total red herring. The gun control movement pushes universal registration under that rubric because background checks poll a lot better than registration. That’s their true goal. It goes back to what Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign to Save our Phony Baloney Jobs), said in 1976:

“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily â€” given the political realities â€” going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal â€” total control of handguns in the United States â€” is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition â€” except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors â€” totally illegal.”

Emphasis mine. Once upon a time, they weren’t so concerned about hiding their end game from the public. Background checks don’t really help them get anywhere. In fact, it probably helps take them backwards in the sense that it would destroy some of their most effective rhetoric without really giving them anything in return. The only things that prevents universal registration is the fact that guns can be bought and sold by people who are not Federal Firearms Licensees. If all transactions were to go through an FFL, we’d have de facto universal registration of all firearms within a generation.

UPDATE: See here. It would seem the private transfer provisions of this law are meaningless, and are being played up to make it seem like they actually won something.

Telling Our Stories

One way that seems to calm reactive anti-gun attitudes that pop up from time-to-time when the media stirs the pot is to emphasize what new gun regulations do to us as individuals. It makes it much less likely that high school acquaintance will want to mindlessly rant and rave demonizing gun owners if they see pictures periodically of safe and lawful use by someone they know. If a gun owner gets out there to tell their story, it really makes an impact with people who otherwise don’t follow the gun debate or typically feel passionate about it one way or the other.

Smith & Wesson is embracing the same strategy within their community, and it has caught the attention of local media.

James Debney, president and CEO of Smith & Wesson, said it was time for the company to start telling its story and the story of the 1,500 people who work at the company with an annual payroll of $77.5 million. The local ads also explained that Smith & Wesson doubled the size of its work force since 2007 and spends $63 million a year on goods and services with other Massachusetts employers.

â€œEmployees have told us that they are proud to work for Smith & Wesson and pleased that the company is reaching out to the local residents to make our presence known,â€ Elizabeth A. Sharp, Smith & Wesson vice president for investor relations, said in an email response to questions. â€œWe have also been hearing from the community as well, more than ever before. Many reach out to tell us that our presence is appreciated, and that they were previously unaware of the size of the company and its impact on the local economy.â€

The entire story is worth reading, as they highlight the way that Smith & Wesson is also using this same type of publicity effort to motivate more activism against anti-gun bills.

Who Has to Give and Who Has to Take to Win National Elections?

I’m rather tired of seeing some people in the Republican coalition trotting this out:Â in order to win, libertarians and conservatives must find common ground. This is true of any two factions who want to form a coalition, and that’s obvious. But if you read the article, I read their argument as saying, essentially, that libertarians just need to shut up and vote the way we tell you to. Why? I would say that social conservative aren’t in the position to be dictating terms here. It’s often said Mitt Romney lost for being a weak kneed Massachusetts moderate, but the turnout for 2012 would seem to say he was fine by evangelicals:

â€œEvangelicals turned out in record numbers and voted as heavily for Mitt Romney yesterday as they did for George W. Bush in 2004,â€ Reed observed. â€œThat is an astonishing outcome that few would have predicted even a few months ago.Â But Romney underperformed with younger voters and minorities and that in the end made the difference for Obama.â€

The GOP isn’t having a problem with the evangelical vote, save one. The one issue is that the evangelical vote isn’t enough to win national elections. So when it comes time to finding that common ground, I’m not sure it’s libertarians, however this article wants to define them, who need suck it up and give on some issues.

Political coalitions aren’t built on a great mutual fondness; they are built on bringing together factions who hate “those other people” more than they hate each other. I think the social conservative wing of the party needs to think hard about what they might be willing to give up, if we’re going to avoid another eight years of Hillary. My first suggestion would be to accept that the great culture wars against homosexuality are lost. My second would be to accept that shrinking the size and scope of government is the best way to promote strong families.