Sebastian – Page 772 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Clamoring for Relevance

The Brady Campaign is working on a petition to tell Starbucks to ban guns in their stores, and I have to give them an A for creativity with the icon for the campaign.

Do they really want to play the grassroots game with us? I appreciate them telling me that California Pizza Kitchen banned guns. I was not aware. Now I have one more reason not to eat their overpriced, shitty pizza. I’ve never even heard of Peet’s Coffee, is that anything like Tweek’s Coffee?

UPDATE: I notice this only refers to open-carried guns. Does this mean the Brady Campaign is OK with concealed carry now? Or are they trying to scare corporations with the idea if they don’t ban guns people will openly carry them into their establishments?

UPDATE: This campaign would appear to be the result of this article at ABC News, so it would appear indeed that the Brady Campaign is egging corporations to ban guns in their establishments by threatening with the prospect of open carry.

Corporations should understand this: there are a lot more of us than there are people who will sign that petition, and if you want to keep our business, you’ll respect our rights.

Demonsheep is a Sensation

Jim Geraghty thinks it’s genius. Tam likes it too, and adds:

I was mildly disappointed that a flaming midget clown on a tricycle never pedaled furiously through the meadow yelling “Verboten!”. Other than that, it was very nearly perfect.

The Hill reports that Demonsheep now even has his own Twitter feed. Thanks Carly. I’m not sure this helps you win, but it’s at least injected some fun into the race.

What Caused 1994

Interesting article from Real Clear Politics, about how passing Obamacare won’t save Democrats, but it does have this tidbit:

There were two controversial pieces of legislation that defined the Clinton Administration for Republican-leaning voters: the assault weapons ban and the first Clinton budget (a.k.a. the tax hike). If we look at the fifteen Democrats who voted against both pieces of legislation, only one lost (she represented a district that gave Bush a 15-point win in 1992). In fact, about half of them saw their share of the vote increase or stay roughly the same from 1992!

Letâ€™s move on to Democratic incumbents who represented Republican-leaning districts who voted for only one of these two pieces of legislation. There were thirty-seven such Democrats. The casualty rate here is a little higher; thirteen of them, or thirty-five percent of them, lost. And of the twenty-two Democrats from Republican-leaning districts who voted forÂ both pieces of controversial legislation, ten of them (45%) lost.

In other words, the problem for Democrats in 1994 was not that they didnâ€™t support Clintonâ€™s agenda enough. It was that they got too far out in front of their conservative-leaning districts and supported the President too much.

We can use a more quantitative approach. I constructed a simple regression model to try to measure what factors played a role in Democratsâ€™ downfall in 1994. If you want the nitty gritty of the model, you can click this footnoteÂ ^[2]. But the bottom line is that, holding all other things equal, a Democrat in a Republican district who voted for the assault weapons ban lost 4.2 percentage points off of his 1992 numbers. If the same Democrat voted for the Clinton budget, she lost 3.7 points. In other words,Â these two votes alone could take a Democrat who won a comfortable election with 56 percent of the vote in 1992, and turn her into a loser in 1994.

No doubt our opponents will argue this is just another flak perpetuating the myth that the NRA has any political power, and there’s nothing to lose by voting for gun control. We’re hearing that swan song once again, with the Luntz poll pushed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It would behoove politicians to remember that public polling in the mid 90s showed the same numbers that their agenda shows today. People had no idea what an assault weapon was. When they found out, they were pissed.

Anthropomorphic Guns

I think some politicians really do believe they have inherent qualities, and can compel people to do evil.

It’s Back: The Maryland Assault Weapons Ban

They tried in Washington State, and met stiff opposition. Now it looks like they aim to try again in Maryland. This is nothing new: they’ve tried to pass an AWB in Old Line State for years, and we’ve managed to bottle it up every time. But we have to fight nonetheless. The other side is desperate for a victory.

You can find more discussion here, but this would actually be the most draconian bans out of any of the states, as it would ban just about all semi-automatic rifles currently on the market, and many competition semi-auto pistols that had their magazine attached somewhere outside the grip. It would ban the Ruger Charger through an over-broad and vague definition of “barrel shroud” (that shoulder thing that goes up, apparently the MD Senate doesn’t know what it is either). It bans any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle with a thumbhole stock.

The bill grandfathers existing firearms, but requires you to register them. In addition, transportation into the state will be unlawful, for those of you who need to travel through or to Maryland to take part in shooting competitions.

Weapons Storage in Northampton County Courthouse

Maybe I shouldn’t feel too bad about not checking a gun when I went to serve today.

Perhaps the Most Bizarre Campaign Ad of Our Time

I think Carly Fiorina might be channeling Satan. It’s morning in America, morning with really scary glowing red eyed sheep monster!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo7HiQRM7BA[/youtube]

I don’t know if her ad people are strung out on some of that California legal medical marijuana, or what. But WTF?

What The Other Side Thinks of Us

Dennis Henigan’s brings the unscientific and loaded Luntz poll up once again, and I think it reveals a lot about what they think about gun owners:

As I have observed elsewhere, talking about guns as a “cultural” issue is a way of framing the issue that is highly beneficial to the NRA. The core of the gun lobby’s strategy is to use fear tactics to keep gun owners in a constant state of agitation so that they can be activated to oppose even modest gun law reforms. The NRA needs gun owners to believe that the debate is not “really about” such reforms as background checks at gun shows, but rather is about a sustained attack on a personal possession that has great practical and symbolic significance for millions of Americans and is, ultimately, about the values of those gun-owning Americans.

In short, the NRA needs the debate to be about banning the guns used by Americans for hunting and self-defense. If, on the other hand, the debate focuses on the pros and cons of specific reforms to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, the NRA is on shaky ground because its own members actually support many of those reforms on the merits. That, of course, is why the NRA is so threatened by the Luntz survey.

What Dennis doesn’t want you to know is they use the same tactics NRA does to raise money. Why? Because it works. If we operate off of fear, they also operate off fear. It may be the opposite face, but it’s still the same coin. But to suggest it’s fear that motivates your average gun owner is disingenuous and insulting. Many join NRA because they are concerned about their Second Amendment rights. They may or may not have a deep understanding of all the intricacies of the issue, or really understand the consequences of certain policies. They are rationally ignorant of much of this, and are fine with joining groups that represent their interests, and not paying close attention to what “gun show loophole” means or what a “terrorist watch list” really is. Explain those things to them, you’ll probably find they don’t support the Brady agenda, and will be angry once they realize someone was trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

Though I still find it interesting that the Brady position continues to, essentially boiled down to “You all are a bunch of paranoids because you won Heller, Obama won’t do anything for us, and you’re kicking our asses in every legislative body in this country. So just shut up and accept gun control already!”

Released from State Custody

I was not selected for a trial, and they dismissed the remaining jurors this afternoon. I am now $15.80 richer, thanks to the state feeling like they have to pay me, so this doesn’t get misconstrued as slavery, or something like that. The good thing is, it wasn’t a lost day, since they had WiFi in the jury lounge and I was able to VPN into work while I waited for them to tell me they didn’t need me.

I think I can now safely say I have a good luck streak going with jury duty. First time I got called I was in college, and it was the feds calling. They kept deferring me until they finally got me after I graduated. It was two days or one trial. Narrowly missed being selected for one panel the judge said would probably take four days or more. Didn’t get selected in another, and was sent home after just one day. Second time I was called it was Delaware County, and I had just moved to Chester County two weeks ago. Easy out. This time I don’t even end up getting considered, and am sent home after a few hours.

I figure next time my luck will run out, and I’ll get stuck on some complex civil trial for weeks. But for at least the next three years, I don’t have to worry about the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bothering me again.

UPDATE: For those wondering, I did not check a firearm with the Sheriff. By law all courthouses in PA are required to have checking facilities for people who carry firearms. Court houses are one of the few places off limits in PA. Some Courts have a reputation of not dealing with this well, and it would have been a good activist of me to go and check a firearm just so they have to run through the process every once in a while, and remain used to the idea. But I had to be in Doylestown at 8:30, which means I needed to leave at 7:30, there was snow on the ground, and I just didn’t want to deal with getting delayed if they Sheriff wasn’t used to handling it.

Delaware Housing Authority Folds

From the Caesar Rodney Institute:

A section in the handbook requiring that tenants must â€œnot possess explosives, firearms or flammable material on NHAâ€™s property,â€ will be removed, Detwiler told the Caesar Rodney Institute Wednesday morning.

Detwiler, who is nearing the end of his six-year term as commissioner, said NHA executive director Marene Jordan is â€œlooking to change the pamphlet a soon as possible.â€

Meanwhile, Detwiler said, NHA residents may possess firearms, â€œas long as theyâ€™re legal.â€

â€œIt should be an absolute moot issue in the near future,â€ Detwiler said. â€œThe handbook was misleading. I think the previous executive director made up that policy. I do believe it is my constitutional right [to own firearms]. I support my Constitution.â€

Jordan did not immediately return calls seeking comment

Gun bans at the Newark Housing Authority, along with the Delaware State Housing Authority and those in Wilmington and Dover are the subject of an ongoing series by the Caesar Rodney Institute.

After the series was published, the National Rifle Association informed the housing authorities they would take legal action if the unconstitutional gun bans were not immediately withdrawn.

I will continue to laugh at those who say Heller was a loss or didn’t mean anything. Now all it takes to get an unconstitutional gun ban out the door is a sharply worded letter. That wouldn’t have been possible without the Supreme Court ruling.