Colorado Recalls: Today Is It

Bloomberg has dropped $350,000 in an attempt to buy the race. All we have are our votes, so if you’re in those two districts, please be sure to vote today.

The money from Bloomberg, an advocate for stricter gun laws with his group Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns, is formidable compared to any single contribution that recall backers have publicly disclosed. In all, Morse and Giron’s supporters have raised about $2.5 million, including Bloomberg’s contribution and $250,000 from billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad.

And while recall backers have been mum about their spending, Democrats think the amount is formidable, noting that some of their opponents are nonprofits that don’t have to disclose their contributions.

In other words, their opponents are real grassroots organizations, and not a couple of rich assholes.

Victor Head, a 29-year-old plumber who organized the recall effort against Giron, said he and his friends were so enraged by what they saw at the state Capitol that they came to the simple conclusion: “No more sitting on the couch and shaking our fist at the TV.”

And that’s all it takes. A few motivated people can make a huge difference. Also, keep in mind that NRA is putting $361,700 into the recalls, and that money doesn’t come from a handful of wealthy patrons, it comes from you and me in 20 dollar increments here and there.

UPDATE: The stakes are high folks.

Surreal TV

This isn’t something I could have ever believed I’d see a decade ago. More on the gutting of Chicago’s gun control ordinances at the Chicago Sun-Times. To quote Joe Biden, this is a big effin deal.

UPDATE: Originally I tried to embed the video directly, but it sets to autoplay if you embed it, which I find to be one of those obnoxious things web designers do.

Waiting Periods are Back

It looks like Washington, DC wants to institute new waiting periods. The reason?

“They can’t be responsible for themselves, as well as the person doing the work on them,” [Council member Yvette M. Alexander] said. “We’re making sure when that decision is made that you’re in the right frame of mind, and you don’t wake up in the morning . . . saying, ‘Oh my God, what happened?’”

The new waiting periods are for tattoos and piercings. The people cannot be trusted to make decisions with their own bodies, so the government must restrict it.

I love how the tattoo artist interviewed notes that if the concern is regulating regret, then they could just restrict serving clearly intoxicated patrons. Instead, the new regulations will likely drive business underground where they won’t even honor basic regulations that actually have to do with public health concerns. Everyone will be more at risk to health problems because the DC City Council wants to institute a waiting period to stop even perfectly sober people from being pierced or inked on a whim.

For what it’s worth, I’ve had multiple piercings done on a whim. When I decided that I regretted one, I didn’t need a government bureaucrat to solve the problem for me. I managed to allow the hole to close completely on my own without an overbearing nanny state holding my hand. I’m sure that somewhere a bureaucrat is weeping to know that a citizen managed to make a decision without them.

Just One Man vs the Entire NRA

You know what’s always fun in politics? A little class warfare. Okay, it’s not really fun, but it does work for quite a few low information voters.

And while NRA could only afford to spend about $5.72 per member on lobbying, PAC spending & contributions, and direct campaign contributions during the last campaign cycle, Mike Bloomberg spent nearly $26 million himself. If you do much in the way of trying to motivate voters who aren’t the most active, that’s a great little fact to drop.

Don’t Forget About the Recall Elections in Colorado

They are tomorrow. Charles Cooke has a pretty good article about the recall efforts, and Jim Geraghty notes that Giron has enlisted some grassroots help of her own. Everyone who cares about Second Amendment rights in those districts need to get out to the polls. There’s absolutely no excuse for staying home.

Anti-Gun Group Funding

Jacob notes that NYAGV funding has been drying up. It’ll be very interesting to see the effect of the Obama gun control push on funding for anti-gun groups. Prior to this year, it’s been considered a losing issue for Democrats, but now that the President is behind it, and after Sandy Hook, it’s fashionable to be anti-gun again. Of course, MAIG is funding mostly by Bloomberg and taxpayers, so whatever happens to other groups doesn’t change the dynamics much. But I suspect other groups are doing better with money now. Having a President behind you on an issue is a huge deal.

On The Right to Bear Arms

Writes Joseph J. Ellis, in the Los Angeles Times:

The 2nd Amendment represented Madison’s attempt to respond to the fears of a standing army by assuring that national defense would reside in the states and in militias, not at the federal level in a professional army. The right to bear arms derived from the need to assure that state militia could perform its essential mission.

All this was what constitutional scholars call “settled law” until Heller, in which the high court ruled that the right to bear arms, despite the language of the 2nd Amendment and the historical context of its creation, existed independent of service in the militia.

I guess he missed the years of Second Amendment scholarship which generally convinced most of the legal academy that the “settled law” was anything but. Actually, Second Amendment law was far from settled in terms of collective rights. This article is full of ignorance on a great many topics, including the fact that “original intent” originalism has largely fallen out of fashion and has few supporters these days even among ardent originalists.

But even Scalia, fully aware of the legal precedents he was overturning, saw fit to insert the following caveats near the end of his opinion.

What legal precedents? Heller and McDonald have overturned nothing. Miller, in fact, is still valid case law because it was never the collective rights case that people imagined it to be.

Colorado Recall Elections Under Way

If you’re in one of the Colorado districts, or you’re nearby and have been on the ground locally, then please let us know what you’re seeing. Those of us in other Bloomberg target states are watching to see how this plays out.

On one hand, high turnout of actual voters to the polls seems like a good sign for us since that indicates a particular motivation. So, yay!

On the other hand, there are already people asking questions about sketchy ballot drop-offs that they claim aren’t right.

I don’t know enough about the details that were actually decided on for this election since it seems like every little aspect has been litigated and often decided from the bench or on a whim to know whether the claims in the video are truly a concern or not. Hopefully, it’s nothing. But it does go to show that people from both sides will likely be all over this race to squeeze out every single vote.

Pennsylvania Politics Gets Worse for Gun Owners

If you’re a gun owner in Pennsylvania, you need to be worried about 2014. You need to be very, very worried. Gov. Tom Corbett was amazing about putting down all talk of getting Pennsylvania to pass more gun control back in December that would bring us closer to the nightmares of neighbors New York and New Jersey. But his poll numbers are in the toilet, and the Democrats smell lots of blood in the water.

That wouldn’t be the end of the world if we had a serious pro-gun Democratic candidate, but we don’t.

Today comes news that a Bloomberg ally currently serving with MAIG has taken the legal steps to announce a run for governor. So far, every MAIG mayor in Pennsylvania who has tried running for higher office has lost. However, that doesn’t mean that trend will continue. I mean it was the supposedly pro-gun middle of the state that really ran up the numbers for Attorney General Kathleen Kane who has been doing everything she can to screw with reciprocity agreements for concealed carry. She also refuses to back any pro-Second Amendment briefs on federal cases.

However, the other issue is that the alternatives aren’t looking good, either. The leading candidate is F-rated Rep. Allyson Schwartz. There is no gun control idea she hasn’t backed – banning many semi-autos, effectively closing down gun shows, magazine bans, mandating “smart guns” that don’t exist – you name it, she’s backed it. She has no apologies for these positions, and she thinks she can win Pennsylvania on such a platform. She might be right.

Some other names in the running include Katie McGinty who is reportedly running on a “tighter gun control” platform, and Tom Wolf who is a possible slight improvement running on only “some gun control.”

The sad part is seeing just how much the Pennsylvania media will do to try and cover up any extreme positions on this subject so that it can never be a controversy. In 2010, a major local political news site at the time reported that the Democratic gubernatorial candidate was on the “right flank” of the party on guns and supported gun rights. A look at his policy proposals actually showed he was more extreme than even many F-rated lawmakers out of Philly.

It’s up to gun owners to spread the word about these candidates. Unfortunately, I’m not sure they are that excited to do it over the course of the next 14 months. Too many times, we hear people who don’t take the threat seriously because the GOP holds the House and Senate, too. Unfortunately, when we are losing seats in these chambers, they tend to flip from A to F-rated. When the switch is finally flipped in Pennsylvania, there’s a very good chance that the transition to New York & New Jersey-style laws will not be gradual. It could happen very quickly.

Gentlemen’s Weapons Only Please

A California court rules that there’s no Second Amendment protection for someone carrying a “billy.” In this case a baseball bat with a hole hollowed out and a bolt put through it, presumably for bashing in skulls with greater ease than one can accomplish with hickory alone.

Instead, it appears to us to be a weapon which, by its very nature, increases the risk of violence in any given situation, is a classic instrument of violence, and has a home-made criminal and improper purpose. Likewise, it appears to be the type of tool that a brawl fighter or a cowardly assassin would resort to using, designed for silent attacks, not a weapon that would commonly be used by a good citizen.

This strain of thinking has a long history among the courts in interpreting the right to keep and bear arms. There’s always been a strong bias against the types of weapons you might find wielded by the lower classes.