May 2014 – Page 3 – Shall Not Be Questioned

New Literature Challenging Standard Model

I have never read anything published by Professor Michael Waldman on the topic of the Second Amendment until I read this articleÂ in Politico, promoting his new book,Â The Second Amendment: A Biography. This book looks a lot like many of Adam Winkler’s assertions on early gun control laws, combined with a bit of CSGV tilting at windmills, reasserting ideas that have been thoroughly discredited in the Standard Model literature. From the Politico article, we begin with a marginalization of the Second Amendment as a quaint, meaningless passage in the Bill of Rights from the founders:

But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.

Yes, because for two centuries, there wasn’t any serious attempts to restrict it. Absent the laws on Title II firearms, under the National Firearms Act, almost every piece of gun control now present at either the state or local level was enacted in the past half-century. The research into the Second Amendment was a direct response to the Gun Control movement. It would not have existed without it.

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weaponâ€”and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand.

This is channeling some of the arguments in Professor Winkler’s work, Gunfight. But Clayton Cramer has probably done the most thorough research on this area with his books, Concealed Weapons Laws of the Early Republic,Â For the Defense of Themselves and the State, andÂ Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie. But I could spent paragraphs just listing out the academic works on this subject. Citing Patrick Henry’s famous quote that â€œThe great object is, that every man be armed.â€:

But if you look at the full text, he was complaining about the cost of both the federal government and the state arming the militia. (â€œThe great object is, that every man be armed,â€ he said. â€œAt a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed.â€) In other words: Sure, let every man be armed, but only once! Far from a ringing statement of individual gun-toting freedom, it was an early American example of a local politician complaining about government waste.

So the suggestion is that Henry would have promoted the idea that we can limit individuals to only one firearm? That’s quite a stretch. There’s another bit where he speaks of Jefferson quotes in context, where Jefferson uses the phrase “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them,” noting that the context shows Jefferson used this phrase as a metaphor. But Jefferson was an avid arms collector, as was George Washington, to whom Jefferson wrote this passage. You can find passages in writing where both Jefferson and Washington describe carrying firearms in private self-defense. It’s simply hard to believe either of these men would have had any sympathy or even notion of modern gun control laws, but in order to preserveÂ the modern 20th century sentiments on the right to keep and bear arms, they have to in fact turn the tables, and argue that it’s our view that is the modern invention, and not theirs.

I have purchased the Kindle Edition of his book. If I manage to get through it, I’ll review it.

Pennsylvania’s Marriage Law Overturned

This is somewhat outside the normal topic for this blog, but I felt I should note that aÂ federal court tossed Pennsylvania’s marriage law that excluded gays. I agree with the end result, but I’m skeptical that having the courts implement gay marriage will be healthy for the Republic over the long run. But regardless of that, the best thing the PA GOP could do for its future is to decline to appeal this ruling.

Given that it’s an election year, I think the chances of Corbett declining to appeal are zero. He has too much trouble with his base in general to just walk away from this. But here’s what’s going to happen: at some point, the Appeals Court will probably overturn the District Court ruling, restoring Pennsylvania’s original marriage law. It might take getting to the Supreme Court for this to happen, but unless the Supreme Court changes in the next three years (for the sake of gun rights, pray that it does not) it’s likely this ruling gets overturned.

And then what? Well, you have a whole generation of young people out there willing to vote on the issue of gay marriage, and to whom it will become quickly apparent that the only way to get gay marriage in Pennsylvania legislatively is to end Republican control of the House, Senate and the Governor’s mansion. I said originally that this is somewhat off topic. When the Republicans eventually fall on the issue of gay marriage, our gun rights are likely to go right along with it. It sucks, and it’s unfair, but Millennials are going to vote on gay marriage over gun rights, and a lot of Gen Xers will too. This is a hopeless struggle the GOP would do better to just give up on.

It Gets Worse

Bob Owens points out that one of the two individuals pictured at the Chipotle would seemingly have a drug problem, first noted by this anti-tea party site who went digging. The alleged Facebook post saying:

I want to Smoke Some Kushh so Badd. But fuckk thatt. My Babys need me And Not sitting behind barzz …. Maintaining….

Youngg enoughh to still Sell Dopee, But Old Enoughh … i Knows betterr.

Maybe he’s a recovering addict, and the latter are rap lyrics. As long as you’re not currently addicted, the law has nothing to say about it, but it’s illegal to be both a stoner and gun owner. Generally speaking, it takes seriously poor judgement to admit to a felony publicly. I hope for his sake he’s a recovering addict, because I would imagine this could be enough evidence to get a judge to support a search warrant. It would certainly warrant an officer checking on his background to ensure he’s not a prohibited person.

One problem I have with the tactics that OCT uses is that it had a very high likelihood of bringing out attention whores and other people with less than great social skills. You can’t control what people do, but you can control your tactics. Everyone supports making handgun OC in Texas legal, but there are probably dozens of better ways to go about achieving this. I’m not optimistic OCT will reconsider, but if they were open to ideas, I’d sure like them to see them adopt Chris from AK’s recommendations.

NRA “Freestyle” Attempt to Reach Younger Gun Owners

There’s been quite a bit of press attention over NRA’s new attempt to reach younger gun owners with “NRA Freestyle.” It turns out, I’m not too far off the target audience, except that I have a sense of civic duty and am actually engaged on the issue – something that doesn’t apply to the vast majority of the demographic they are targeting.

I’m technically a millennial and a woman. Only, unlike many people in my “generation,” I don’t believe the world exists to entertain me and I actually participate with the community around me. However, if you define me down by age and, to a lesser degree, gender, then I am close to who they want to reach.

So, with all the hubbub surrounding this, what’s my take? It’s ultimately, “eh.”

First, there’s the practical issue of the technology to access it. When I tried to access videos through the website, relying on Ackerman McQueen’s video system, it was completely unwatchable. The videos kept skipping as badly as an old, dirty record. I checked my internet connection, and it definitely was not on this end. I gave up in frustration. Only after things are posted to YouTube are they even accessible. So that’s a problem, and one that I’m sure NRA is paying extra for.

But, let’s face it, the content, when accessible by YouTube, is more important. So, let me start with my take on the show that is getting the most attention – Noir.

As others have noted, some of the attacks coming from the media and general left outlets are actually pretty racist. One piece compared Colion Noir using a stage/screen name to a porn actor, while never making such assertions about the many fairer skinned entertainers who use them, such as Brady Campaign celebrity supporters Anthony Dominick Benedetto and Eilleen Regina Edwards. When they have to resort to launching race-based attacks, I think that’s generally a good sign for our side. In fact, he had a little fun responding to pieces and how belittling they were to him as an individual capable of making informed decisions and living his life as he chooses on the second episode, which I think is a good thing.

But, that doesn’t mean I’m in love with the show. Colion Noir clearly built a following of gun people, many of whom trended much younger, on his own even before NRA ever reached out to him. He’s a bit more natural in the role, but his co-host is rather forced. Until her clearly scripted lines in the first episode, everything about her body language and facial expressions screamed discomfort. Sure, she successfully delivered her “pop culture” lines about topics like Lululemon (that I had to explain to Sebastian), and she does break up the action of just one man talking to a camera about a subject. It’s just that she doesn’t appear really comfortable with the gun topic in this format.

Here’s the thing that I would say about that. I am not a gun nut who can give you a detailed technical analysis of a favorite rifle. I am not the awesome font of gun knowledge that is a woman like Tam. I know that, and I don’t pretend to be that, so I’m perfectly comfortable in my level of involvement with and understanding of firearms. I freely admit that when I purchase a gun, the first thing that always pulls me in is when I think, “THAT’S SO PRETTY!” And, you know what? This method has worked for me and resulted in some guns that I really love, which is why I’m not afraid to own it. It is possible to not be a total gun nut, and be comfortable in your role in the gun community, and I think that’s what Amy Robbins is missing in these early episodes. I hope that will change.

There are several parts of the show that are a little awkward, specifically the segment on “Gun Pads” stands out on that front. It was just a clip show with cameras panning past guns and some airplanes. There was no context given, and it was entirely too long for nothing more than videos of guns in different places of a house and airplane hangar. If the same person owns those guns & airplanes, they are probably a pretty interesting person. Why not at least talk about them, even if they are a stereotype of old and white? If they have younger family members who share the passion for guns & planes, why not feature that family member as a spokesperson? I have an attention span longer than your average millennial, and I wanted to close it and watch something else.

While Reason criticizes the feature that reviews guns, they do seem to ignore that gun reviews and videos are some of the most popular features of any gun-related site or media venture no matter the age of their target audience. I suspect that they will never really say anything bad in any NRA Freestyle gun review, so it’s not a totall honest critique, but they can still highlight things they like about a gun without getting negative. Oh, and I might add that both Sebastian & I checked out the featured gun of the first episode at the NRA Annual Meeting and we both really liked the feel of it and because it would fit our carry/shooting lifestyle, which the Reason writer apparently believes to be a “cringe-inducing” feature in a gun review.

Funny enough, as a woman, the concept and content that appealed to me the most with NRA Freestyle is actually Dom Raso’s Media Lab that deconstructs and re-creates movie fight scenes. It has a clear purpose, and it’s fun. Given the body of work in all the big budget action movies that Hollywood has created, there’s really some potential to have some real fun critiquing movie fights and shoot outs.

Raso’s show kept a good pace in both episodes that have been released, and the fun he can have in the next episode (tomorrow) on “Dodging Full Auto” is something I’m actually looking forward to catching. The specific scene they will use as an example is from White House Down, a movie I haven’t seen. Though, let’s face it, with Roland Emmerich involved, I’m pretty sure I can sum it up as explosions, guns, and fights. The plot details aren’t important, and that’s why these things are purely entertainment.

This show has the most potential to reach a much broader audience. Everyone knows movies are fake, and everyone loves talking about how fake or unrealistic a scene was even as we chow down on our popcorn and pull the movie up on Netflix. Given the content, it’s also far more likely to be caught by people doing random searches for various movies who may be interested in the topic and also intrigued by the background NRA branding for something entertaining. It’s got the pop culture connections without being too over-the-top.

I guess my overall impressions with the two shows currently available is that Noir has potential, but if they continue try a little too hard to force the pop culture references, it risks coming off as the butchered version of Lelaina’s reality tv show from Reality Bites. (If I see floating faces on a pizza, I’m going to be very disturbed. For you youngsters responsible for Noir, that’s a Gen X movie reference – you know, the old people.) Media Lab needs a better name, but it has the best content, in my opinion. It flows a little more seamlessly right off the bat.

I think the best feature of both shows is that they don’t do a hard sell to connect with the organization. However, that also leaves me concerned about whether or not the target audience for the network will ever be told that they need to give enough of a shit about their guns to join NRA or join the actual grassroots movement instead of sitting around watching the videos all day.

Brian Anse Patrick on the NRA Annual Meeting

Brian Anse Patrick is the author of two books that I think are required reading for any Second Amendment activists, and that I think every new NRA employee should read as part of their orientation. Brian Anse Patrick was the speaker at the lunch portion of the law seminar, and I had the opportunity to speak with him at the reception. He seemed surprised when I mentioned I had read both of his books, and was a really nice guy. He’s working on a new book about the zombie phenomena.

Today, he released a post on his blog (which I didn’t know about before now) taking aim at Anna Marie Cox’s hit pieces in the Guardian just after the convention:

Noting another significant myth perpetuated by the column, NRA is not â€œthe gun lobby.â€ Among many other functions, too many to list here but which include safety training and civil rights legal defense issues, NRA does indeed lobby on behalf of gun owners. But the gun manufacturers have their own exclusive trade associations and lobbies. NRA represents the interests of a people, not an industry. Â These members pay the dues that support NRAâ€™s manifold operations; no shadowy corporations front the money. As such, NRA members assemble in voluntary association; they converse among themselves and with others by means of various print, broadcast and computer-based media; and they peaceably petition government entities.Â When the NRA does all this, organs such asÂ The GuardianÂ andÂ The New York TimesÂ call it â€œlobbying,â€ but more accurately, it should be described as a principled application of the First Amendment. Such â€œlobbyingâ€ is merely the First Amendment put into practice.

I would encourage folks to head over and read the whole thing.

Next Battles in the Restaurant Wars

Now that we’ve endured three losses at the hands of the rifle OC crowd, it does beg the question of what to do to mitigate the damage. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to get Texas to pass an open carry bill as soon as humanly possible, but I suspect that’s going to be a bigger uphill climb the longer this goes on. I also suspect it wouldn’t stop. If you take a look atÂ Open Carry Texas’ mission statement, you’ll notice affecting legislation is number three. Their primary goal is to “educate” Texans. So I think we’re stuck with this. I also don’t think we’re going to convince them to stop, so we can expect more losses. One thing I’d mention is that Watts seems to be pushing each company a little further. I believe this is meant to desensitize us to the losses, until she can eventually convince one company to actually ban guns on their premises, and then eventually to post. I’m fairly certain this is where it will lead. One one company crosses that Rubicon, others will follow. It’s a grim future.

Taking a look at Open Carry Texas’ busy schedule, we have the following Restaurants up who I’m nearly certain will be targeted by Shannon Watts:

Pizza Hut
Double Dave’s (Never heard of them before. We don’t have those up here.)
Sonic

I don’t believe Shannon Watts will jump on these until we’re closer to the planned event. She’ll want the pictures and the news footage to promote the campaign. Sonic is an Oklahoma-based business. They stand a good chance of standing up to Shannon Watts. But who knows? Open Carry Texas must be taking some heat, or they wouldn’t be trying to deny any responsibility. I’ll repeat, a tactic that accomplishes nearly nothing, yet motivates our opponents to action and causes us to lose ground in the culture is a bad tactic. The biggest asset we have, and the biggest problem they have, is that there’s a very wide enthusiasm gap on the gun issue. People who want gun control just don’t want it as bad as we want freedom. But OCT is helping close that gap. If you look at Moms Demand’s Facebook group, their posts on open carry draw a much higher level of engagement (measures by shares, likes and comments) than other non-OC topics. Whether you mean to or not, if you carry a rifle into a fast food joint, you’re not accomplishing anything except helping Shannon Watts succeed.

Fenway Gun Control Billboard to Find a New Home

So notes the Boston Globe:

The mega-billboard facing the Massachusetts Turnpike between Fenway Park and the Citgo sign has long been a landmark of grim tidings. On Monday, its updated digital counter read, â€œ45,864 Americans killed since the massacre at Sandy Hook.â€

It is the kind of stark message that has made the 252-foot-long billboard a graphic, look-at-me advertisement for stricter gun control. But after 19 years, its owner is searching for a new home.

Looks like the people who own the property are looking to do some kind of project that makes more money than a gun control billboard. Hopefully whatever new home it will find won’t be as good a location.

Hat Tip to Cam Edwards

Gun Control Activist Caught in Lie?

Bob Owens continues digging on the assertion of a pro-gun-control activist being spit upon by a pro-gun activists, and it looks more and more like it’s just a lie:

Progressives TodayÂ went one step further, noting that there wasÂ no footage of the Moms Demand protest shown at the airport.

I’d put my money on her being a liar. The whole thing has smelled of BS from the very beginning. I’d note if you follow the link to Bearing Arms, this is a progressive site reporting on this. Bob Owens notes:

It also remains to be seen if Longdonâ€™s apparent deception will be enough for Moms Demand Action/Everytown to dissociate themselves from her.

Fat chance. They are professional liars themselves. They have no concern for the truth if the media is willing to buy their lies hook, line and sinker.

Chipotle Caves

They pulled a Starbucks:

Chipotle is asking customers not to bring guns into its stores after it says gun rights advocates recently brought military-style assault rifles into one of its restaurants.

They’re not saying it’s a ban, which probably means it’s not. Either way, these are terrible cultural losses for us. How many of these are we going to have to endure before the rifle OCers start to understand they aren’t accomplishing anything except helping drive Shannon Watts’s fundraising, and helping her continue to build her organization?

UPDATE: Their release is here. Much more strongly worded than either Starbucks or Jack-in-the-Box. Personally I decided to stop going to Chipotle when they started putting anti-ag messages on their drink cups. I don’t need people preaching religious claptrap to me when I just want a burrito. That and the qualify of their food and service at our local location has headed downhill recently. I intend to comply with their request and take my business elsewhere. I strongly encourage other gun owners to do so as well.

Brady Center Sues to Implement NJ Smart Gun Law

ANJRPC is reporting:

This afternoon, the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March (Mercer County Chapter) announced that they are filing a lawsuit to force the New Jersey Attorney General to formally report on the public availability of so-called “smart guns.”Â The lawsuit is intended to trigger New Jersey’s 2002 smart gun law, which could eventually outlaw the transfer of handguns that do not incorporate the technology.

Â “New Jersey’s smart-gun law is a dumb as it gets,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “It forces you to use an unproven technology to defend your life, and then exempts the state from liability when the gun goes ‘click’ instead of ‘bang.’ If it’s such a great idea, then law enforcement shouldn’t be exempt, and the free market should be able to determine its viability.Â ANJRPC will spare no effort or expense to prevent this gun ban from going into effect.”

Â There will be a media frenzy covering this event.Â The first stories available online as this alert was prepared include the following:

NorthJersey.com

NBC40

yubanet.com

ANJRPC will provide additional details when they are available.

Just when you think it’s safe to start ignoring the Brady Campaign as irrelevant, something like this happens. But it does show why Armatix’s technology has to be killed with fire and the earth that bore it salted. Brady chose the more forthright path of just forcing the technology down our throats now, rather than repealing the law first, lulling us into a sense of security, and then reimposing it later.