Author: Sebastian

In the previous post, I mostly concentrated on the hearts and minds consequences of this latest guns at rallies controversy.  Namely that a lot of folks who have little or no familiarity with the issue, but aren’t generally hostile to gun rights, are going to be turned off by seeing people use firearms in this matter.   There’s another side to this coin though too, and that’s motivating the opposition.

The gun rights movement has benefited greatly from the fact that no one on the left really has much passion for gun control these days.  We have a lot to credit in that regard, but it’s mostly driven by the fact the there’s a perception among many on the left that they’ve lost on a lot of important issues because of their past pro-gun control positions.  Credibility was lent to this perception by none other than Bill Clinton himself.

That could change greatly if left-progressives think gun rights means armed people showing up to, in their minds, intimidate the public out of agreeing or acquiescing to their position on issues that are important to them.  There’s some anecdotal evidence to support this already.  See the comments at Josh Horowitz HuffPo blog, or Paul Helmke’s.  Early on in the commenting, before pro-gun people arrived in force, I was noticing a lot more than the usual yawn most of Josh or Paul’s posts illicit form the left there.  That tells me this issue resonates.   That’s bad news for us if these incidents keep happening, and considering the people responsible for them are getting the attention they seek, I think that’s a guarantee.  If appearances of armed people at rallies turn guns back into a left/right issue, with the left motivated to stick it to us, it’s going to make our jobs of advancing gun rights a lot harder, and the anti-gun groups may even find a constituency to help push some of their agenda.

… who do not own guns.  What are the implications of that?  The implications are that you have to care what non-gun owners think about you, and think about gun owners and gun rights, because if you lose the support of the 240 million Americans who do not own firearms, the Second Amendment will be no more than a 200+ year old ink blot on a piece of old parchment.  I can’t think of any better way to lose the support of the majority of Americans that do not own guns than to make those people think the people that own them are not above using them as a means to gain political influence.  This has third world banana republic connotations to a lot of people.

Now, I suspect the gentleman involved in this last incident did not have making an implied political threat on his mind when he went to the protest with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder.  If I had to wager, I’d wager he was looking for media attention.  But it will be spun in the media to the 240 million Americans who do not own gun as a political gesture, and many will take it as a threat.  If Americans think that expanded gun rights means turning this country into a banana Republic, they will stop favoring expanding them.

Understand this, because it’s important: we are outvoted.  We only succeed when the vast majority of American believe in the right to bear arms.  We only beat back gun control because the vast majority of Americans aren’t passionate about gun control, and don’t vote on the issue.  We do vote on the issue, but we’re a minority of voters.  Compared to the electorate as a whole, we’re a small minority of voters.  There is no escaping that we have to convince others to support, or at least not oppose our position.  So you have to care about how gun owners, as a group, fare in the Court of Public Opinion.

Some might suggest I believe we ought to get back into the closet.  That’s not really accurate.  I don’t sugggest that.  But part of breaking down stereotypes and misconceptions about gun owners being deviant or abnormal is to act normal.  Normal people do not walk around with AR-15s slung over their shoulders.  You might have the right, and I don’t think it should be illegal, but you won’t get people to see gun owners as normal by engaging in that activity.  It would be roughly akin to trying to get the public to accept public nudity by running around in public nude.  It’s not liable to change anyone’s mind.

UPDATE: It’s been suggested that 240 million is a bit much because I’m includind every American and not just registered voters.  I think this is a valid point.  Number of registered voters is 170 million.  Others point out that the numbers are likely understated,  I also agree with that.  Even arguing the numbers are more like 70 million gun owners rather than 57, you’re still not at a majority until you’re over 85 million.  That’s also assuming all gun owners are registered to vote, which they aren’t.  That’s also assuming that gun owners all vote like gun owners, which they don’t.  NRA has run studies on this issue, and figures it has influence with about 33 million Americans.  That’s nothing to sneeze at, certainly, and it’s why we even had a vote on National Concealed Carry at all, but it’s not enough to guarantee our political fortunes.

AARP has 35 million members, and backs nationalized health care.  If AARP can’t ram through ObamaCare with 35 million members, why is that?  Why do we think we can get away with doing whatever the hell we want, and damn what the public thinks with 4 million?

The Tennessean ran a hit piece on concealed carry over the weekend:

But not touted, and often ignored, is a persistent group of Tennesseans with violent pasts who carry gun permits through loopholes, administrative mistakes and the realities of a court system where charges based on violent incidents can be reduced or eliminated in plea bargains.

The loophole?  You have to be convicted of a disqualifying offense.  It seems to me this article serves as an example of what’s wrong with the criminal justice system rather than the permit system.  In Pennsylvania, Sheriffs are given more leeway in denying someone a license because they are of a “character and reputation such that you would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.”  This guy probably would be denied a permit in PA.

However the police routinely abuse this clause to revoke permits, and I consider eliminating it to be a top priority.  Police routinely revoke permits because the user was carrying openly, a practice that’s completely legal in Pennsylvania.  Philadelphia routinely revokes permits for having your house broken into and having gun stolen.  Philadelphia has revoked permits for people legitimately defending themselves.

Gun control folks want these clauses to be in here, but in Pennsylvania we’ve shown that the authorities can’t be trusted to exercise the discretion responsibly.  That’s why most states leave the authorities with little or no discretion, and I think that’s the right way to do it.  For borderline cases, like what’s highlighted in this article, it’s not clear they wouldn’t carry without the permit anyway.

Via Instapundit, it looks like we’re going to have an anti-gunner as the head of OSHA.  I’m sure your imaginations can think up the potential consequences of that.  Imagine NRA not being able to allow employees to carry to work because it’s considered a workplace health an safety issues.  Don’t get me wrong, there might be cases when this is the case, such as working around explosives or volatile chemicals, but this guy would seem to think it’s a universal prescription, because guns are inherently dangerous, after all.

Father Snuffy had a gun buyback this weekend, along with a lot of other groups across the country.  Thirdpower lets everyone know what Fr. Snuffy’s buyback is all about.  The buyback in Philadelphia this weekend was giving out gift cards to a supermarket, and not even really that much.  They have learned better than to give out cash in this area.

Gun buybacks are a Cash for Clunkers program for gun nuts.  My only moral problem with the programs is that it entices people to turn in items that have significant historical value, which are then destroyed and lost for history.  If anti-gun groups and big city politicians want to raise the market floor on junk guns, I have no real problem.  It’s their money, and I’d rather than dump it into worthless, feel good programs like this than actually use it to challenge gun rights.