Bitter – Page 89 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Learning from the Past

Dave Kopel wrote an article for the February edition of First Freedom that I believe should be mandatory reading for every gun owner in the country. In it, he tells the story of Massachusetts gun owners who faced an all out confiscation measure that was put to the ballot in 1976. There are lessons for every type of political scenario we face in 2012, even if confiscation is currently off the table as long as Heller and McDonald are allowed to stand.

I think some of the tidbits from the article very much relate to the issues we face today. For example, the issue of whether NRA should back pro-gun Democrats:

The leader of the â€œPeople vs. Handgunsâ€ organization was the popular Republican John Buckley, the sheriff of Middlesex County. Buckley was fresh off a 1974 win against a pro-gun challenger. Alongside Buckley was Robert diGrazia, the police commissioner of Boston who was appointed by the staunchly anti-gun Boston Mayor Kevin White.

At the insistence of Buckley and diGrazia, the Massachusetts handgun prohibition lobby did not think small. Confiscation would be total, with no exemption for licensed security guards or target shooting clubs. Even transporting a handgun through Massachusetts (e.g., while traveling from oneâ€™s home in Rhode Island to a vacation spot in Maine or a target competition in New Hampshire) would be illegal, except for people with handgun carry permits (which, as of 1976, were almost never issued by most states).

Buckley had the benefit of “incumbency” in the election for the Sheriff’s office because he was appointed by a Republican governor, according to this history of the office.

Kopel also highlights the plans for anti-gun groups to take the confiscation plan far beyond the borders of the Bay State, and how this plan has still been used in recent history.

A Buckley speech to the Conference of Mayors detailed â€œHow to Circumvent the Legislature for Gun Confiscation in 37 States by the Initiative Petition.â€

Eventually, it was hoped, the mass of state and local bans would provide the foundation for a national ban. …

The tactics of the national gun-ban groups are to use state and local bans as the starting point for national bans.

By 1994, only four states and a handful of cities had passed bans on so-called â€œassault weapons.â€ Two of the states (California and New Jersey) had far-reaching bans, while in Maryland and Hawaii, the ban was only for â€œassaultâ€ handguns. Yet this four-state foundation was enough for the gun prohibition lobbies to be able to push a national ban into law in 1994.

To me, this is one of the biggest problems we’ve faced in the pro-gun movement. While not screaming that the sky is falling at every turn, making gun owners realize just how close we have been to actually dealing with the knock at the door by Dianne Feinstein is something we are really only starting to overcome thanks to the internet.

I recall a story from the 2004 Pittsburgh NRA meeting where I was told an activist from Massachusetts sat down at a bar for a meal next to a guy from Pennsylvania who also came in for the convention. When the Massachusetts resident described what it was like to be a gun owner in the Bay State, the guy from Pennsylvania argued that he was exaggerating because things like that simply can’t happen in America.

Oh yes, they can. They can, and they do. I wouldn’t be shocked if that same Pennsylvania guy was actually floored by the news with Heller that the Second Amendment had never been interpreted as an individual right by the Supreme Court. For many of these types, it’s not that they don’t care, it’s that they find it hard to swallow that other citizens allow governments to act so badly without fixing it at the ballot box.

Go read the entire article. Come back here to discuss it if you like. It’s really eye-opening and worth your time.

Arrested without Evidence over Accusation of Gun Ownership

There’s a story out of Canada about a guy who was arrested and told by officers that he was being charged with possession of a firearm. Normally, you would expect this to happen after they found someone in possession of a firearm.

He was given an attorney who was informed of the charges and even had a date set with a judge for a bail hearing for this charge. At no point did he ever possess a firearm, but they kept him locked up and moved forward with the charges.

With his wife hauled down to the station and his children taken in for questioning by the relevant agency for possible endangerment issues, he signed a document that allowed police to search his home. They did and there was still no firearm found in his possession. Finally, they let him go free.

The evidence seems to come from a he said/she said scenario because his 4-year-old daughter drew a picture of a firearm and said the guy holding it was her daddy who would fight off bad guys and monsters. Yes, a child who thinks monsters are real was used as evidence for the arrest instead of, you know, actual possession of a firearm.

Sebastian and I were talking about this, and it’s not actually that easy to pinpoint where things broke down beyond what seems to be an irrational fear of firearms and the mandate to report everything to authorities before anyone stops to ask logical questions.

Blame the police? They definitely take the blame for actually arresting the guy without question, but I don’t know the standards of arresting people in Canada.

Blame the social services workers who called police? They have to report it to them if they think a crime may have happened. What if they were told the little girl was drawing graphic scenes of her father killing “bad guys” that came along with a story of how he does this around her? If they didn’t see the drawing yet or actually overhear the interaction with the teacher, then that can sound pretty damn bad and very criminal in nature.

Blame the principal who called the social services workers who were then required to call police? What if she was told something similar to what I outline for the social services worker? Or, maybe it is her fault for misrepresenting what the teacher told her?

Ultimately, I do think that someone should have stopped the process and really inquired just what the hell actually happened in regards to the drawing and how the teacher asked questions about it. However, depending on how stories are passed along, concerns about a potential crime could continue to be blown way out of proportion. Ever played a game of telephone? Yeah, same thing, only with real lives on the line.

But, when we have a bunch of bureaucrats who believe they are there to do good no matter what impact it might have on innocent people and who fear not following an exact protocol that makes no accommodation for stopping to ask questions, then things like this will happen more often regardless of the country. At some point, we have to demand accountability from those who allow these things to get out of hand. Unfortunately, that’s not something that’s easy to do, especially with many protections in place for staff in these various jobs.

Two Wolves & a Sheep Voting on Dinner – Anti-Gunners & the Media

Emotionally charged questions that leave out important context to a debate? Check.
Misrepresenting pro-gun groups? Check.
Lies? Check.
Radical policy statements that go ignored by reporters? Check.
Callers who are convinced it’s all a conspiracy? Check.

Why, I do believe we have all the mandatory requirements for an hour of conversation about Second Amendment rights on NPR.

It started this morning with alerts for multiple tweets from NPR’s Philly station WHYY claiming that representatives from @PAGunRights would be on their station debating anti-gun advocates. Well, this would be news to anyone who has ever contributed to the PAGunRights.com site since no current or former volunteer contributor that I know of was speaking to them.

Even though NPR was claiming that “individuals” (plural) from the pro-gun side would be on the show, they actually on had one speaker for the Second Amendment from NRA-ILA. Meanwhile, they hosted two anti-gun folks, one professional group leader and the other a member of Bloomberg’s group. Fair and balanced means two against one, apparently. Not to mention, the host was blatantly biased. Here as some examples of the absurdity pushed by the NPR host:

When asking NRA’s representative about their support for state preemption laws, the host phrased the question as, “Why is NRA against police chiefs?” No, I’m not kidding.
When CeaseFirePA’s leader called for lost and stolen violations to be felonies AND for them to remain municipal offenses, at no point was he questioned about what the means for completely changing the legal system in Pennsylvania which limits felonies to state charges. Nope, upending the entire state justice system apparently requires zero follow-up.
While CeaseFirePA’s leader claimed anti-gun people didn’t know about a hearing on the strengthened preemption bill which essentially asserts that they violated sunshine laws, the host let it slide when he later contradicted himself admitting that their legislative supporters knew about it three days before a committee hearing. Fortunately, NRA was able to at least point out that legislators did not violate any laws.
The host let a caller propose making lost and stolen reporting a federal offense, but never once questioned how that would work. Instead, it was treated as a perfectly reasonable suggestion instead of raising any kind of question about which federal agencies would be responsible for handling it or how exactly charges of violating the ordinance would work when there are already few federal prosecutions for actual straw purchasing cases.

Back to the content of the guests and the callers, MAIG’s Pennsylvania representative on the show advocated for lost and stolen laws to be felonies as well, but also specified that he encouraged a patchwork of laws across Pennsylvania that will ensnare lawful gun owners. It looks like Bloomberg’s position on NYC laws are spreading.

The callers I heard were just absurd. I think it’s funny the rightwing talk radio has the reputation for attracting conspiracy callers because there was woman who was convinced that because one NRA employee could not recall an exact number for campaign contributions donated to all Pennsylvania politicians, it was clearly evidence that NRA was simply buying off lawmakers. Never mind that it was pointed out that it is all a matter of public record that she herself could look up. Never mind that NRA has hundreds of thousands of members in the state. It never even occurred to her that there was any reason a legislator would vote for the Second Amendment other than being bought.

A number of other callers were mysteriously disconnected before being allowed to speak, so the only voices I heard were anti-gun. I know what to expect out of NPR on the issue of Second Amendment rights, but this was over-the-top even by their standards.

On Not Being an Activist

Thirdpower highlights an Illinois lobbyist, Brady Campaign volunteer, National Gun Victims Action Council board member, and spokesman for gun control issues who convinces the press that he’s not a formal activist. And what is it about those traditional media outlets that claim the benefit from the presence of editors?

Auto Union Opposes Scrapping the Canadian Gun Registry

Perhaps someone who knows more than I do about Canadian politics can help me understand why the Canadian auto workers union is getting involved in the fight to keep the long gun registry data and touting the importance of symbolic gun control.

NYT Worries Philly Papers to Become Democratic Propaganda Tools

I had to laugh. According to the coverage of the potential sale of the two primary Philadelphia newspapers, the New York Times seems concerned that the papers will become nothing more than mouthpieces for the Democratic Party and union leaders. I would like to ask them how that is any different than it is today.

The NYT breaks down the coverage by the papers about their own sale. The CEO called his senior editors into a three hour meeting to demand editorial control over all stories regarding the potential sale of the papers. Of course, he denies it. (Well, he ultimately admitted it, but still tries to deny it.) Then one of the bloggers did a story about another group of buyers not lead by local Democratic leaders, and the paper deleted the post. Of course, they deny it. (Well, they ultimately admitted they deleted it, but still try to deny they meant to delete that post.) In other words, it’s deny, deny, deny until they are proven wrong, then it’s concede a little, but deny, deny, deny the fact that they have actually become shills for the local political party and its leaders who are trying to buy them.

Why would the NYT be concerned about two papers in another state becoming a formal propaganda tool for the Democratic Party? Well, it appears that the lead buyer, Governor Ed Rendell, has a history of getting a bit too “hand on” with the press.

Mr. Rendell has a complicated relationship with the media, which may have reached a low point in 1994 when he clamped his hand around the neck of Amy S. Rosenberg, an Inquirer reporter who was questioning him about potentially losing federal money for the homeless.

I kid you not when I say that his spokeswomen actually defends the action as a reflection of a guy who is “an extremely engaging, friendly person.” I don’t know too many women who consider the hands of man she doesn’t know wrapped around her neck as a friendly action.

Oh, it should be noted that Rendell has promised the CEO gets to keep his job if his group buys the paper. So clearly, the CEO has no personal financial interest in making sure Rendell gets favorable coverage. Deny, deny, deny.

Bonding Over the Second Amendment

With all the fun had yesterday getting caffeinated via Starbucks, I’m reminded of what a good time we gun owners typically have when we’re advancing our cause.

Reader Adam Z. recently pointed out the other day that the Philadelphia Friends of NRA dinner is coming up in March. Are there any Philly-area readers interested in coming out to have a good time again? If so, would you guys be interested in a table or two for gun blog readers?

It’s scheduled for March 27 at Cannstatter’s with doors open at 5pm and, assuming the typical schedule, that will mean dinner around 7pm. The Philly dinner is pretty well established, so they have some great games with far more prizes and games than the typical Friends dinner. Signal your interest with a comment that includes how many tickets you’re buying, and I’ll let you know when we hit the number for a table.

Remember, the Friends program is about the direct outreach side of NRA. These events provide funds for new shooter events, youth competitive shooting programs, and firearms training for women. Another thing that the Friends dinner funds are local Civil Rights Defense Fund cases. The local challenges to gun laws, whether by NRA directly or by people who have been unfairly prosecuted, are often eligible for funding or other assistance by the Civil Rights Defense Fund.

P.S. The much lower attended Bucks County dinner will be in the fall. I’ll be bugging you all before that one, too. If you want to minimize your chances of a fight over the NRA waffle iron, I suggest attending both dinners so you have a chance at both of them.

UPDATE: Reader Ed reminds us of another Eastern PA event on April 24 where doors open at 5:30pm. Anyone in the Bethlehem area interested?

Rick Santorum, Virginian

The last time he ran for office in Pennsylvania, questions arose about where Rick Santorum really lived – in Pennsylvania or Virginia. It’s not uncommon for members of Congress to rent or purchase second homes in or new the District of Columbia because of the fact that they are there so often during the week and year. However, most return home for long weekends and breaks in the Congressional calendar, even if their families have also joined them closer to DC. It seems there were questions about whether Santorum even did that considering the house he claimed as his residence wasn’t even furnished.

While running for President, it appears as though he isn’t even pretending to be from Pennsylvania anymore.

R. Lee Ermey “Retires”

You may think that gun owners are pretty much universally registered to vote. If you think that, it’s just about as funny as The Gunny in this ad. It’s actually pretty disturbing when you talk to a lot of gun owners and realize that a significant number haven’t ever bothered to register.

Because I know all of the wonderful readers here have registered at some point in their lives, I’ll just remind you to make sure yours is up-to-date. If you’ve moved or anything, you’ll need to re-register. It’s a good time to remind folks since the primaries are coming up here in the Keystone State. The deadline for candidates to file was actually yesterday, and some of our pro-gun Congressmen are going to need the help.

Crime Control Theater

Those of us who follow the debate over various gun controls understand the concept of “crime control theater,” though it’s something we usually talk about in regards to security measures that are actually quite worthless. I’m thinking about the subject because I just stumbled across this paper abstract on AMBER alerts that find they are actually not terribly successful.

Why am I looking up AMBER alerts? Well, because a girl from my high school class recently had her 17-month-old daughter taken by child’s biological father. Because she was not abducted by a stranger and has no medical conditions that put her in immediate danger, the child’s disappearance can’t be reported via AMBER alert. It also doesn’t seem to be getting any media attention, though that may be due to law enforcement procedures.

I feel terrible for the mother. There’s really not much she can do, but she is using social media to try and spread the photos of her daughter, her ex, and the last car he was known to be driving. A quick search indicates that the father was recently indicted in Texas on theft charges, so it’s questionable what his return plans are now that there’s a new warrant for failure to return in Oklahoma.

This is the ultimate type of case where there really isn’t much that can be done by the victims, so I understand where the support for some type of “crime control theater” comes from. Is it smart policy to do something that makes the victims feel good even if it doesn’t have a direct impact on the resolution of the crime? I don’t think so. The paper abstract points out that there is risk of blowback, which is a legitimate concern. Unfortunately, it doesn’t make the victims feel any better when the child is still missing.

UPDATE: I noticed that folks in the mother’s social circle are already talking about the “broken system” of the AMBER alert process. They want it “fixed” so that it will publish every missing child.

Needless to say, now is not the time I would even consider having a discussion over whether or not it is truly broken, but it does show how easy it is to get wrapped up in the theater without focusing on crime control solutions that will actually yield results. However, given that this situation is one where a non-custodial parent has taken the child, it’s been more than 10 days since she was last seen, and the father has access to multiple cars, the chances of the alert system working are basically nil. Again, that’s not what those who are calling the system “broken” want to hear.

It does rather remind me of many gun control supporters who came to the issue through knowing a victim. It doesn’t matter that their case would not have turned out any different if the laws were changed, they feel something in the legal system broken just because someone else was able to do something bad.