The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
A Democratic PAC is pushing gun control in Pennsylvania with a $50,000 ad purchase. It won’t be a long-running campaign like Bloomberg’s, but it is still designed to put pressure on Republicans to cave.
This purchase also targets lawmakers in New Hampshire and North Dakota.
From a New Yorker article our opponents seem to be quite enamored over:
If American had gun laws like those in Canada, England, or Australia, it would have a level of gun violence more like that of Canada, England, or Australia. That’s as certain a prediction as any that the social sciences can provide. To believe that gun control can’t work here is to believe that the psyches of Americans are different from those of everyone else on earth. That’s a form of American exceptionalism—the belief that Americans are uniquely evil and incorrigibly violent, and that nothing to be done about it—that doesn’t seem to be the one that is usually endorsed.
This is essentially a restatement of, “The Arabs yearn for liberal democracy, all we have to do is bring it to them.” Culture matters, a lot. There are parts of this country that do have gun violence levels that low, despite being awash in guns, and there are places, like Chicago, who have restrictions even more severe than Canada and Australia who have many times the crime rates.
Even minus culture, this is already a country with 300 million guns and they aren’t going to disappear just because the laws change. The New Yorker article points to this JAMA study, which includes suicides, and is therefore deceiving. I did a similar run with just crime figures and found there’s no strong correlation.
Our opponents firmly disagree with this, and the meddling nanny doctors groups certainly will, but suicide prevention cannot be a reason for depriving everyone of dangerous objects in a free society. We are not infants, and a free people’s government shouldn’t treat its people like infants.
While I don’t tend to cover defensive shootings (because they are man bites dog, to be honest), this one caught my eye:
Under Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine, Heng most likely will not be charged, since he was defending his property. Since the gun was inside of his home, he’s not required to have a permit.
I’d say when someone climbs through your bathroom window while your kids are sleeping, and you shoot them in a struggle, it’s not your property you’re defending. And does this also surmise that before Castle Doctrine, they would have charged this guy? I’d say good luck getting a jury to convict on those circumstances anywhere in this country, even in Philly or New York, castle doctrine or not. Though, in New York he’d certainly be facing weapons charges since the pistol would have, more likely than not, been illegal. That’s justice in Bloomberg’s town.
Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, plans to soon announce NRA’s next offensive in the struggle against gun control by running for Mayor of New York City.
“We gave this a lot of thought, and have decided the only way we’re going to stop MAIG once and for all is for your NRA to run New York City,” LaPierre said, to a private conference with gun friendly media and bloggers, “The only way to stop a bad guy in the Mayor’s office, is to put a good guy in the Mayor’s office!”
NRA plans to launch a multi-million dollar ad buy in New York to get ahead of potential rivals in the early stages of the campaign.
“We’re going to get out ahead of this thing. We expect our main rival to come at us hard, but we think this early ad campaign will soften him up,” LaPierre said of his likely rival, disgraced former Congressman Anthony Wiener, “by the time we head into the general election, we expect his campaign to be completely impotent.”
LaPierre noted the ad campaign will launch sometime in the next several weeks, after the press conference announcing the candidacy is finally scheduled.
There were quite a number of media roaming around the rally, so this naturally made me wonder how fair the media coverage would be. Only two news outlets have covered it, or at least put their stories online. The first is the Intelligencer:
The pro-gun protesters tried to shout down speakers throughout the 45-minute rally, even as Moore sought a moment of silence for victims of gun violence and as Kessleman spoke of his dead son.
“I thought that was disrespectful,†Avino said. “It’s a poor reflection on them.â€
There weren’t any groups backing the protest, which was largely self-organized through informal communication networks, forums, Facebook, etc. Going in, it was hard to say what a smart tactic would be, because you don’t know what our opponents are going to focus on. If it’s a more vigil type rally, with speakers recounting lost loves ones, aggressive tactics would be boorish. But for an explicitly political rally, with calls to political action, chanting, etc, I don’t see why quiet opposition is necessarily the smart tactic.
This rally was not a vigil type rally, but it was explicitly political, with calls for action, including confiscation. More aggressive tactics were justified. When the line “for too many years Congress has done the bidding of the NRA,†our side cheered. When they called for bans on guns and magazine, our side booed. The speaker from New Jersey was heckled with calls to “Go back to Jersey!” When they tried to rally their crowd with “What do we want? Action!” and the pro-2A crowd drowned them out with “Freedom!” Cries of “leave us alone” were also often heard from the crowd when speakers called for action.
Where I think our side did cross the line was the few early hecklers during the moment of silence. Fortunately that quickly stopped, and our side did observe it, but those few early people own that quote above. Channel 10 News also covered the rally, I think a bit more fairly than the Intelligencer:
View more videos at: http://nbcphiladelphia.com.
UPDATE: Here’s video from the rally organizers. Decide for yourself whether they are being shouted down or just opposed.
Mayor of Chester: “We need to ban all these illegal guns!”
— Sebastian (@SebastianSNBQ) March 30, 2013
This was an unintentional laugh line during the Mayors Against Illegal Guns-sponsored rally in suburban Philadelphia today, but it reflected the non-sensical rambling of many of the speakers. Earlier this week, the local organizers of the MAIG rally told the media that they expected NRA would bus in people to oppose their gun control event. As is so common in the gun control movement, it was really a case of projection when the gun control crowd from OFA actually brought people in from DC.
The message of the MAIG-sponsored event was that we’re uncivilized if we don’t believe that more gun control is the answer and that 97% of American voters support Obama’s agenda of the background check bill and the modern sporting rifle ban. Not even Bloomberg himself makes such outlandish claims, but the speakers chosen to run his rallies argue that absurdity.
Interestingly, the rally featured a speaker who called gun confiscation plans “a political miracle,” and he made it clear that confiscation of at least some firearms was part of his larger agenda for the MAIG-sponsored rally. So the next time that Bloomberg says that he’s not trying to take guns from people, ask why his organization sponsored Rev. Robert Moore to talk about how wonderful confiscation was as a political goal. If Bloomberg wants MAIG to sponsor rallies, he can own the false statistics and the political agendas of his speakers.
When the anti-gun speaker says Congress has listened to NRA, cheers went up from pro-2A crowd.
— bitterb (@bitterb) March 30, 2013
The MAIG mayor who stepped up to the mic after the raving Reverend tried to claim that they were just pushing policies that respect people’s Second Amendment rights, but he did not denounce the previous claims that confiscation is a great political goal. Funny how they call us paranoid for pointing out when their own leaders are calling for taking guns.
They are importing mayors from cities with high crime rates telling us we should support their policies. Um, no thanks.
— bitterb (@bitterb) March 30, 2013
Pro-gun protesters were out in force. It was tough to gauge exactly how many were there compared to the anti-gun rally since gun owners were spread out down the sidewalks and actually at the back of the rally crowd. The rally crowd was crammed into a small space so that no matter how many turned up, it would look full. Overall, I’d say they were roughly equal crowds. If one side was larger than the other, it would be by no more than about 20%.
Neither side can claim a moral high ground on behavior. There were some pro-gun folks who crossed the line from respectful while agressive into flat out rude. However, the anti-gun crowd wasn’t exactly a model of good behavior with one little old woman going around trying to pick fights with “big bad gun owners” even after a cop stepped in and asked her to knock it off. Then a bunch of other older women walked back to the pro-rights crowd and spoke loudly about how the only reason we weren’t in support of more gun control is simply because we are not capable of any serious thought. The raving Reverend felt he needed to step up to the microphone in closing and remind his supporters that before they set out down the sidewalks and encounter the pro-gun crowds, they needed to remember that they are believers in non-violence, so they shouldn’t try to start fights.
There were many folks open carrying, but it really didn’t seem to make a difference with the crowd at the rally. Many were as visibly disgusted and annoyed by the people with peaceful signs and American flags as they were at the open carry crowd. They were simply that hostile to any kind of dissenting thought.
My protest sign for Bloomberg’s sponsored rally was somewhat subtle, but I feel like the branding of a nice “red state” company was like extra sugary frosting on top of the cake. (Sonic is based in Oklahoma, a state that is actively reaching out to gun companies being attacked in anti-gun states.)
NRA is alerting on HB 35, which passed the Delaware House by a 24-17 vote. Again, this bill isn’t just about firearm sale, it stipulates sales or transfers, defined as:
(3) “Transfer†means assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of, but does not include:
(A) the loan of a firearm for any lawful purpose, for a period of 14 days or less, by the owner of said firearm to a person known personally to him or her;
(B) a temporary transfer for any lawful purpose that occurs while in the continuous presence of the owner of the firearm, provided that such temporary transfer shall not exceed 24 hours in duration;
(C) the transfer of a firearm for repair, service or modification to a licensed gunsmith or other person lawfully engaged in such activities as a regular course of trade or business; or
(D) a transfer that occurs by operation of law or because of the death of a person for whom the prospective transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate or a trustee of a trust created in a will.
Again, if you’re cohabiting with someone, say, in a gay relationship because you can’t get married, if you leave town for three weeks and leave your firearms in the care of your significant other, you’re making an unlawful transfer. Why the need to restrict the duration in section (B) to 24 hours? If I invite someone on my land to shoot, and loan him a gun for the weekend trip, should I be charged with a misdemeanor?
The bill also exempts people who hold Delaware Concealed Deadly Weapons Licenses, but it should be noted that Delaware is technically may-issue (though unlike a lot of other states, it’s not impossible to get a CDWL in Delaware if you jump through the hoops).
Also, this amendment brings up an interesting point on banning private transfers: if you transfer your gun into the dealer’s inventory, and the prospective buyer flunks the check, what then? Are you out the transfer fee to get your own gun back? Delaware’s bill says no, but that’s another nail in the coffin of the proposed federal bill I hadn’t thought of. Currently, the answer would likely be yes, you’d have to pay and go through the 4473 and whole deal to get your own gun back. I think you still would in Delaware too, except the dealer couldn’t charge you for it. This also will make it less likely dealers will want to process third party transfers.
This is what “universal background checks” mean folks. It’s one of those things that sounds dandy until you start thinking about how it would need to be implemented. This bill still has to pass the Delaware Senate, and NRA is asking Delawareans to contact their State Senators.
ATF raids FPS Russia. Seems they are using a novel theory that if you take video of, say, shooting Tannerite, then make money off the YouTube videos, you need to have an explosives license because you’re “engaged in the business.” Sounds like bullshit to me. Sounds like his crime was having a high profile in a gun issue, and doing things that generally displease bureaucrats.
I guess we’ll see:
NRA President: Gun control advocates were ready for Newtown. Once Obama had won re-election, a gun control push was a fore drawn conclusion. Newtown was merely the pretext.
Mike Bloomberg, best thing to happen to the GOP since Citizen’s United? That all depends on the GOP. Before they can take advantage of the opportunity Bloomberg presents, they have to first stand up for Second Amendment rights. So far, they’ve been doing well, but that needs to hold.
A man breaks into someone’s home, gets shot dead, and his family claims he was a victim. Thirdpower found the guy’s rap sheet.
That .323 caliber Enfield. What’s scary is that it would seem the Connecticut State Police know next to nothing about guns. That check for the C183 I mentioned yesterday came straight from the police report. It was the cops that assumed that was a firearm.
Sean crashed one of Bloomberg’s pressers, talking about what Bloomberg’s “background check” bill would actually do.
Mr. C and Keewee are OK after a big land slide on Whidbey Island. Didn’t happen near them. We’re glad to hear that. Mr. C organizes postal matches for gun bloggers and readers. If you have any ammo to spare, they are fun.
Big Democratic donors are demanding some action on gun control, or screw those Dems who hold office in cousin humping redneck states. Have it your way. I’ll be happy to contain the Democratic Party to the Northeast and West Coast.
The biggest gun banning states have the lowest rates for actually prosecuting crimes involving guns. Pennsylvania bans private transfers, and it’s a well established fact that Philly prosecutors rarely use these laws to go after criminals. So why have them?
Clayton takes a look at some of the claims made about background checks working, and is skeptical of the evidence presented. I’ve always thought this BJS survey of criminal gun use, including where criminals were getting their guns, shows pretty clearly that all background checks have accomplished is shifting the source from retail, or lie and buy, to street sources which are more difficult if not impossible to regulate.