2013 – Page 134 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show Bans Modern Rifles & Magazines

If you’re a gun owner or hunter anywhere within a day’s drive of Pennsylvania, there’s a good chance you’ve at least heard of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in passing. It’s an absolutely massive outdoor show that has previously allowed firearms vendors to showcase their wares alongside outfitters looking whisk you away on a new hunt. Not this year.

We saw news from a credible source last Friday that the show was putting a ban on modern sporting rifles & magazines. Not only can the firearms and magazines not be on display, “no brochures or documentation that mentions or pictures any ‘black rifle’ or high capacity magazine will be allowed.” We asked around about the issue, and of course, noted as soon as we saw the statement that the company that actually puts on the show is none other than Reed Exhibitions – the same company that NSSF contracts with to put on SHOT Show. Needless to say, Reed did not institute such a ban on SHOT, only on the ordinary consumers that will be frequenting the ESOS. To them, it’s apparently a privilege that only credentialed people can look at the guns or hear their names, but we lowly citizens have no rights to speak or see these firearms and accessories.

Needless to say, the post we saw about the potential ban was verified this week. What’s more, according to one vendor who posted their letter to Reed online, Reed has seemingly violated their agreements with vendors on not only what would be allowed, but how parts of the show would be marketed. Domari Nolo Defense Consulting reports:

In particular, the removal of the promised Tactical section and renaming of that part of the event in a way that belittles the efforts of companies involved is unacceptable.

We would not have agreed to be included in a ‘Wild West’ area had that been the original agreement. Our sponsors also do not want such an association, and have pulled their support of our show presence.

In fact, according to other exhibitor reports, the organizers behind the ESOS won’t even return phone calls or emails to the exhibitors concerned and impacted by the decision. In other words, our money and the money from vendors who sell guns we use was good enough for Reed before, but now they want to have us banned from the premises.

Fortunately, we gun owners are happy to listen. Sebastian & I were planning to attend the Eastern Sports & Outdoors Show – something we have done while also lending a hand to NRA’s booth in the past. We pay for our own entrance fees and we support the vendors on the floor. Well, we did do all of those things. We will not be doing it this year. We will also ask our family members in the area not to attend.

Reed is more than happy to take the money of the modern firearms industry from NSSF with SHOT Show, and word on some forums is that they are keeping the money of the vendors who are pulling out now that they can no longer support the show’s restrictions on their products or those related to their products. They will take our money, but they will work against our Second Amendment rights and actively work to hurt the shooting sports communities. That is a problem.

People boycotting the show have already started to organize, and they are also doing great work in highlighting the exhibitors who are taking a significant financial loss and pulling out of the show over this decision – even when their products aren’t being banned (yet).

Gun owners, especially those in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, are asked to contact Reed’s headquarters at 203-840-4800, inquiry@reedexpo.com, or by fax at 203-840-5805.

Or, as boycotting folks have noted, the information for the Reed employees (or director contractors) assigned to run the ESOS were previously published online, and some of the key folks include:

Group Vice President – Ed Several
Phone: 203-840-5932 Fax: 203-840-9932 Email: eseveral@reedexpo.com

Event Director – Chris O’Hara
Phone: 717-368-7487 Fax: 203-840-9868 Email: cohara@reedexpo.com

Public Relations – Deb Davis
Phone: 717-834-6267 Fax: 717-834-6207 Email: ddavis@conceptoneinc.com

Marketing – Cathy Kitlasz
Phone: 203-840-5871 Fax: 203-840-9781 Email: ckitlasz@reedexpo.com

If you have a moment, also consider checking out the products of some of the companies that have decided to stand with us and lose the investment they paid to exhibit at the show. Here are the ones I have found so far:

In addition to the above vendors who are sacrificing thousands of dollars just in deposits and many more thousands in lost sales, The Bear Whisperer, Fred & Michele Eichler, Lee & Tiffany Lakosky, and Ralph & Vicki Cianciarulo are withdrawing from their promotional and seminar appearances.

What Would Romney Have Done?

I pretty much agree with Tam’s take on this. Romney would be singing platitudes, and trying to avoid talking about the issue, but Barry would still be President right now. The only difference would be that I’d feel a bit better about the future. I say a bit, because I still wouldn’t trust Mitt. The other thing I’d suggest is that if Barry were on his way out, those executive orders would have been a lot worse. They would have been Barry’s dog shit in a paper bag left burning on the White House steps, daring Mitt to step on it.

I think we’d still be in trouble even if we had elected Mitt, but we’d probably need to be less concerned about long term trouble. Mitt would be looking to get re-elected, and throwing a key constituency under the bus early on wouldn’t be a great way to start a term. We also would likely be dealing with a demoralized and defeated left, rather than the energized and active left we’re facing now. So would it have mattered for now? Not much. But over the long term, I think we could count on a fierce fight over the next year, with Mitt disappointing us in some ways, but over the long haul, I think we’d be safer, and would have more options than we do looking forward now. I’d also feel a lot better if the GOP house had a President to protect, rather than to fight against. Mitt would likely, I think, take the Bush approach. He’d endorse legislation he knows Congress has no intention of ever putting on his desk.

The 40% Number

Getting a late start today because I was too busy last night to get anything up for this morning. But I’ll try to catch up a bit.

Clayton has an interesting article over at PJ Media questioning the scope of the “gun show loophole” problem, and also more at his blog on the much touted “40% of all guns sales are private,” number. This sounded awfully suspicious to me too, to be honest. I’m about as gun nutty as they come, and I can count on one hand the number of private transfers I’ve done. In two cases, I was the seller, and in two the buyer. In both cases I knew the person I was buying/selling from. I know people who are true collectors, who do a lot more buying and selling privately than I do, but true collectors do not represent a large majority of gun owners.

Protection Against Tyranny

Two thirds of American agree that is what the Second Amendment is aboutÂ (Warning, auto play video at that link):

Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.

While there are often wide partisan differences of opinion on gun-related issues, even 54% of Democrats agree with 75% of Republicans and 68% of those not affiliated with either major party that the right to own a gun is to ensure such freedom.

This was a losing issue for them a few months ago. I think it still mostly is. But I’m not sure how much that matters in the current political climate. The only way it’s really a losing issue for them is if we make them lose.

Ooops

The idiot Cuomo forgot to exempt cops from his draconian new gun ban. I agree with Glenn Reynolds, who notes: “If I were a member of the legislature, Iâ€™d oppose a fix just as a lesson…”

Thoughtful Commentary on Today’s Situation

Dave Hardy looks at some history on this background check issue. Here is the gun control logic in a nutshell, imagined as a conversation between gun control advocates and policymakers:

Circa 1968:

Gun control advocate: “Well, you see, we have this problem, and the problem is that that all these gun transfers are private and largely unregulated, and we need a way to regulate and scrutinize these things.”

Policymaker: “Here is a Gun Control Act, which is the solution! We will license them!”

And the gun control advocates did thus rejoice.

Circa 1993:

Gun control advocate: “The problem is that too many people are complying with your previous solution and getting too many licenses, so now we need a solution to the problem caused by the first solution.”

Policymaker: “Well, OK then, we’ll make it expensive and difficult to get an FFL, and add all kinds of new requirements!”

And the gun control advocates did thus rejoice.

Circa Right Now:

Gun control advocate: “Well, we a problem with all these private, unregulated sales, so we need a solution to the problem caused by theÂ solution to the problem caused by our first solution.”

Policymaker: “It sounds likeÂ the problem caused by theÂ solution to the problem caused by the first solution is an awful lot like the original problem we passed the first solution for in the first place.”

Gun control advocate: “Well, do you want to talk about a solution for the problem of there being gun owners yet?”

More Stolen Guns in New York

Another home robbed of firearms, thanks to the handy map of targets provided by the Journal News. How can these people claim, with a straight face, the anti-gun cause is really about gun violence prevention? It has never been about that. It’s about shaming people out of gun ownership and hating on people who refuse to take cues from hacks pretending to be their cultural betters. If this was about gun violence prevention, something like this never would have been published.

Of course, I guess there’s nothing to worry about since Governor Cuomo made it a crime to fill the magazine. Surely that was complied with, and criminals, of course, have no idea how to top off a magazine.

What Bloomberg’s Money is Buying?

Recommendations from the Gun Policy Summit, which I’m sure did not include any actual experts on guns or policy, and more accurately is a summit composed of a bunch of people with pieces of paper that they think say they are smarter than the rest of us. The rest of us who decided to forgo six figure debt to get into an unrewarding and over-regulated profession controlled by politicians, government bureaucrats and insurance company lobbyists. See also, anti-gun hacks sitting around a table trying to figure out how to better run your lives. No wonder Bloomberg is funding this. He loves this kind of nanny bullshit.

Filibuster Deal?

Being reported by Red State.

The left is fully on board and gearing up for this fight because they think they can get gun control through the Senate and other liberal initiatives.

A big problem we’re going to have is that I’m not sure the GOP would be too concerned about getting certain Democrats on record as supporting gun control. But by the same token, I don’t think they are going to want the House to look obstructionist either. One thing is for sure, if the GOP want to play games, they better pray nothing gets through, because if they hold together, nothing will. This means we still need to be writing our reps.

Al Franken Showing Signs of Weakness?

Not to us, to them. He’s backpedalling quickly, but he still was wishy washy when asked. Franken is up in 2014. I’m going to suggest the threat profile is quickly shifting from assault weapons to magazines. If you’re going to write your reps, I’d make sure they understand that the magazine issue is just as important to use as the assault weapons issue. It’s not a compromise we’re going to accept. Not with what happened in New York, and several other states talking about 7 rounds now instead of ten. They can f**k right the hell off on magazine limits at this point. How long before 7 is just too many? No. NO!