Hey, just what Texas needs: more California voters. This has worked out real well for Oregon, Nevada, and other western states who’ve seen huge influxes. You know, they don’t start voting red just because they move, Rick.
Year: 2013
The Bluing
Here’s a picture of Joe Biden’s gun control shindig in Philadelphia. You will note Attorney General Kathleen Kane and Alyson Schwartz seated near him. Alyson Schwartz is preparing to run against Tom Corbett for Governor. Alyson Schwartz is a leader on gun control. This is going to be it folks. One reason we aren’t worrying too much about Pennsylvania right now is because Governor Corbett came out early and said gun control wasn’t going to be a solution in Pennsylvania. If Schwartz wins and denies Corbett a second term, the game will be over for gun rights in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia and the far-left coalition that controls the near suburbs will control the state. The House Republicans will probably try to hold the line for a while, but that won’t last long term. Corbett has to win, and we need to pull out all of the stops to keep him in office for another term.
California’s First Gun Control Law
This was hiding out in the far reaches of my tabs, but this article by Clayton Cramer in America’s First Freedom is well worth reading. The primary motive behind the new law was racism. The law was so poorly received it was repealed a few years later:
Less than six years after that editorial from The Daily Alta California in support of the conealed weapons ban, the same newspaper ran an editorial arguing that the law was both impossible to enforce and unconstitutional because it violated the Second Amendment …
But I thought the notion that the Second Amendment was a fundamental, individual right was invented by the NRA in the 1970s, and sold to the rest of us stupid, unthinking yokels who can barely read, let alone know history?
Democrats See Opportunity in 2014 on Guns
Up until recently, it was an issue so toxic that it was not to be touched. In Obama’s first term, he avoided the issue for the most part. Now that he’s won re-election, gun control is a winning issue again:
Democrats see potential Republican opposition to the gun control push led by President Obama as jeopardizing the GOP’s appeal with voters in suburban districts, the very seats Democrats are focusing on in their bid to regain the House majority.
This was the same theory that they touted in 1994. It wasn’t true then, and it certainly isn’t true now. As Glenn Reynolds notes, commenting on this WaPo article, this is a “Self-inflicted wedge issue.”
A Movement of Old White Men
So Glenn Reynolds notes, along with a New York Times article that highlights the growth of women in the movement. Now to be fair, there’s plenty of old, white women in the gun control movement too. I’ve long pondered whether our success was a result of previous generations of culture warriors dying off, leaving behind younger generations that don’t care as much for the practice.
Going Soft
You could bowl me over with a feather:
“A coalition of House Republicans is willing to thwart the National Rifle Association’s opposition to broadening background checks for U.S. gun purchases. That may be President Barack Obama’s best chance for advancing tougher gun regulations this year.  Representatives Patrick Meehan and Michael Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania are among Republicans expressing openness to expanding the background-check system, including mandatory screening of buyers at gun shows …â€
I guess we have some more writing to do around these parts. They are betting on not being as bad as the other guy.
The coalition of House Republicans is probably no larger than 40, according to advocates of tighter gun restrictions, though it may grow once such measures advance in Congress.
Forty is a larger than the margin, though the Dems won’t all be together on the issue. The margin is 32 seats the GOP holds over the Demcorats.
The Scarlet License
Kathy Jackson of Cornered Cat fame, in the comments, floated an idea that I think merits some discussion:
Try this: they want to keep criminals and prohibited people from having guns.
We want to be sure that good people can always get guns without bureaucratic delays or mistaken denials.
The only way to meet both these demands is to refuse universal background checks while keeping a closer eye on prohibited people.
I suggest adding a prohibited stamp to the driver’s license of anyone who cannot legally buy or own a firearm. The seller should always check the buyer’s ID when they sell a gun. If the prohibited stamp isn’t there, they’re good to go. Jot down the date and the DL number, and you have your proof of a background check — without bureaucratic nonsense and with no possibility of registration.
No registration required. No bureaucratic bottlenecks.
The big problem you’re going to have with something like this is implementation. The federal government doesn’t control drivers’ licenses, the states do. What’s more, as the Supreme Court has stated in Printz v. United States and more recently in NFIB v. Sebelius, the federal government can neither commandeer state officials, nor can it coerce states. The only policy option that federal government has is enticement. So in order for this to work, it would require the cooperation of all 50 states. You likely can’t threaten highway or other funds if the states do not cooperate, given the ruling in NFIB. The only federal policy option would be federal licensing, but let us agree to not even go there.
Currently you have to produce some kind of state-issued identification to purchase a firearm at retail, and most private sellers will ask as well (to insure you live in the state). So if such a system were be put in place, and all paperwork and NICS checks eliminated, it would be a better option than the status quo. However, I do not believe the gun control advocates will go for this, because background checks are how the issue is sold. Background checks sound like a great thing to a lot of Americans, and it polls well. The primary purpose of banning private transfers is to implement a universal registration scheme through the 4473. Registration has never polled as well.
Sunday News Dump
Well, it looks like the slow news cycle only lasted for a couple of days, so we find ourselves, once again, with lots of news worth linking.
Connecticut’s “preppers” prepared for gun debate. They are a big and pretty engaged community. I’ve gotten some links form prepper blogs that can rival a link from Instapundit.
The Democratic Farmer-Labor in Minnesota (a.k.a the Democratic Party) sets a course on gun control. Needless to say, they are pushing for more. If you live in Minnesota, your imperative is to keep your rural DFLers in line.
The changing face of gun control. “I support the Second Amendment,” is the new refuge of scoundrels.
By now many of you have seen this video where Joe Biden admits gun control won’t be effective at stopping crime or mass shootings. Well, that’s because the purpose of gun control isn’t either of those things. To say that they want to turn millions of gun owners into criminals is not really accurate. What’s accurate is that they already think you’re a criminal. They just want to be able to punish you for it.
Joe Biden is coming to Pennsylvania to rub elbows with Bob Casey. Remember this in 2018, when casey is up again.
The inmates are truly running the asylum. The election has seriously emboldened the Democratic Party, and now the left is solidly running things. If the Republicans stand with us, we have to punish the Democrats in 2014. That’s going to take effort. Our people are very bad at positive reinforcement, and that’s something we have to change.
How the gun control movement got smart? When did this happen? Next article “How the pro-Second Amendment movement stopped being a herd of cats.”
David Keene sure seems to be racking up his frequent flyer miles. That’s good, because I think he’s been a good spokesman. More here.
Evolving Christian attitudes towards personal defense.
Martin O’Malley takes a swipe at the NRA. Along with Cuomo, he’s one of the other hopefuls for 2016. Hey, running on gun control worked for Al Gore, right?
Coverage of the rally in Trenton, to oppose this. More here. The snowstorm likely did not help turnout. There was also turnout in Utah, Maine, and Ohio.
Apparently some of our public schools are solving the problem of low scores in Algebra by just not teaching it. I hope you’re brushing up on your Mandarin.
Remember that only police can be trusted with guns.
Passing up a gun show for lack of parking. Seems to be a common problem these days.
Gun accidents down, while other accidents rise. Maybe society, and particularly doctors, ought to get their profession out of the business of taking sides in political debates, and instead focus on more common sources of accidents.
Anti-Gun Teachable Moments
This weekend, a reader sent us a link to a forum posting about a Pennsylvania DJ who was supposedly fired for being anti-gun. Before having all the facts, the original forum poster made a declaration that he was opposed to the firing over personal political views, and the reader indicated similar concerns based on the “facts” of the forum post. I didn’t post it because, to be honest, I don’t trust random forum posts that aren’t backed up by actual news sources.
When I finally found a real news source on the issue, it turns out that not only is the forum post completely wrong on the facts, any employment concerns on the part of the dj have little to do with political views.
To sum the situation up, a morning show dj, Tim Benz, is extremely anti-gun and used his show and the associated social media accounts as a way of promoting his personal politics. Apparently, he has been having fights with listeners in the Pittsburgh area about this issue recently. On Friday, he decided that he was sick of hearing from all these annoying pro-Second Amendment people and walked off of his job while on the air.
In other words, if he is actually fired, the dj will not be fired because of his personal views. If the station does let him go, he will be fired because he is incapable of behaving in a professional manner when people disagree with him – something Benz freely admits to in subsequent interviews. Now, obviously, Benz wants to keep his job. He claims that he did not officially resign, and he’s happy to serve out his contract in whatever manner the station chooses, even if it’s off of the air. However, given that the morning show slots are typically some of the most competitive times for listeners, it would seem unlikely that the station would have much interest in keeping a dj who acknowledges that he brings his personal politics to air and cannot accept disagreement in a rational manner.
I’ll be frank and say I don’t have much pity for the guy. He knew what kind of divisive topic he was bringing to his employer, and he couldn’t handle the notion that the listeners had different ideas that they care enough about to call in and/or comment about it online. He is the one who made the decision to walk off of the air rather than handling the debate in a more reasonable manner. Basically, he made a decision to screw his employer, so I think his employer is more than justified in releasing him from his contract.
That said, I think there are a few lessons here. One, if you’re a radio show host who cannot handle debate about core personal political views, it’s best to leave them out of your show. Two, if you’re a radio show host who cannot handle people who disagree with you, then perhaps you should steer clear of major political debates in general. Three, an employment agreement is not a matter of the First Amendment; you don’t get protection from saying things or behaving in a manner that reflects negatively on your employer, so don’t fall back on that defense. Four, this is somewhat related to a question that Uncle asks often in his posts: Why are anti-gun activists so violent? In this case, it’s not violence, but it is still an inability to control one’s temper to the point where it interferes with his ability to hold down his job.
Private Sale Ban in New Mexico
The New Mexico legislature is controlled by the Democratic Party, and they are wasting no time trying to ram through a ban on private sales. I did not want it to come to this, because I am not partisan when it comes to this issue. I welcome true pro-gun Democrats and appreciate them. I liked it when both parties were competing for our vote.
But the fact is the Democratic Party as a whole are now demonstrating they cannot be trusted when it comes to guns. Guns rights seem to be fashion to entirely too many Democrats. When it’s in-fashion to support gun rights, they support gun rights. But once their dear leader declares gun rights are no longer fashionable, they line up to see who can be the first to screw the Second Amendment. That’s not how a true friend behaves.
And to top it all off, the Republicans might just decide they can go back to being the party of “Not as bad as the other guy.”