Category: Gun Rights

I have been following the debate in Caleb’s comment section, and I wanted to point out a particular thread. I have to photo capture this because Caleb’s theme doesn’t seem to easily allow linking to comments:

I think John makes a good point. We’re really not as far along in this debate as many think. Gun owners need to repeat this unfortunate fact: the vast majority of Americans are wholly unconcerned with their rights, other than the rights which affect their individual, daily lives. If you’re talking about appealing to a deeply held principle of natural rights, that makes perfect sense to people who have studied Locke, or read the writings of Jefferson, Madison, or Adams, you’re talking about a concept that completely alien to the people who actually vote in elections. You can blame the educational system, or what have you, but the vast majority of the American public are not ideological voters. Most voters vote their interests, and you have to appeal to that.

Robb’s frustration in this is completely understandable. I have shared it many times. You will drive yourself crazy by what other gun owners are unwilling to do to support their own rights, even though we all share broad agreement. I don’t think many gun owners really understand the house of cards that this issue is built on, largely because of another bias in that thinking other people, of course, naturally have similar thought processes to you.

I have pointed out this thread, because I think this is one of those cases both people are making really excellent points. Worrying about public backlash is a concern of someone who understands the outer limits of this debate. We’re talking the issue being pushed by a determined minority, and if that determined minority is meets the brick wall of obstinate public opinion, the issue won’t advance much farther.

How far you can push your issue as a determined minority completely hinges on your ability to influence legislators and threaten their cushy jobs. It hinges on nothing else. If they are not true believers, and almost none of them are, your ability to influence them comes down to, in reality, a good poker bluff. You have to make them believe you can threaten their seat if the bluff gets called. But the politician you’re influencing also is bluffing. He’s betting you don’t have votes behind you on an issue he’s trying to avoid taking a position on, or is thinking about taking a contrary position on.

Neither you, nor they, may be entirely convinced who’s really bluffing. It is an accepted fact in politics now that when the gun vote really does get motivated, the results are epic. That’s the space you, as an activist, have to work in. If the politician in question calls your bluff, you better be sure you can deliver, or else your credibility is finished, and you can expect that legislator will no longer give a rat’s behind about anything you have to say.

This is the nature of the game, and it is a game. Don’t for a second kid yourself politics is about principles, logic, or deeply held tradition. You can appeal to these things; rhetoric is important, but it no more than a part of the game, of building a mystique, of posturing and maneuvering. It serves no purpose apart from that. It is deeply cultural, but also, at the end of the day still a game.

My opinions on open carry are driven largely by the fact that I see it divides gun owners, and our losses have always been driven through issues that divide us, whether it be background checks, or years ago the utility of these newfangled AR-15s, or cheap Chinese semi-automatic knockoffs of the AK-47. Our opponents have traditionally won where they’ve been able to exploit division in the ranks. Let me clarify that — our opponents have only won where they’ve been able to exploit division in the ranks. So I think when you get other activists, not just ordinary gun owners saying, “You know, I’m just not sure about this,” that should give you very serious pause, and open carry is one of those issues.

The question is whether, like the assault weapons issue, we can spend the next two decades educating people. I think what motivates most gun owner activists which are wary of open carry, is that even if it is a topic that 20 years of education can turn around,  it’s practically worth the effort expended when compared to other issues we have to build consensus for. In many ways, I think constitutional carry (i.e. carry, open or concealed, without a license) is less radical than open carry as a form of activism among gun owners. I think it is always important in considering whether a particular course of action offers opportunity to your opponents, and I believe in some cases, this can be the case with open carry. But not in all cases.

From local news up in Wisconsin:

On Facebook, Gander Mountain said it has been a long-time partner with the NRA – but its customers have diverse and varied interests. So the chain created a new policy that prohibits hosting events for political causes and candidates.

Political neutrality on the issue of guns and the Second Amendment is simply not an option for companies in the shooting, hunting and outdoor industry. I thought Bitter’s post on this subject hit better points than mine did in this regard. Nothing in Gander’s reaction has convinced me to ever shop there again.

We are, of course, very pleased to hear that Firearms Law & the Second Amendment; Regulations, Rights, and Policy co-authored by Professors Nicholas Johnson, Dave Kopel, George Moscary, and Michael O’Shea, is now available. We’re also pleased to hear it’s running along side Ted Nugent’s book in popularity for the category of Gun Control. I feel that a textbook such as this is sort of just spoils of war. The big advantage to having won Heller and McDonald, through a combination of good lawyering and years of scholarly research and writings, is that future legal minds will now be molded by textbooks such as this. All law students will learn that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual right.

Miguel notes some history of the concept, from 117 years ago, in two federal cases from 1895 and 1921. That’s right folks, there’s no duty to retreat under federal law, and that’s been the case since 1895 at least, and this duty was not unknown prior to this as well, as most western states never required such a duty, including California, which was admitted into the Union in 1850.

As a side note, I normally would not advocate debating CSGV, as opposed to pointing and laughing, since it’s about as pointless as beating your head against a wall, and about as entertaining as watching the grass grow. But you’ll note the other person involved in that conversation is a CNN legal analyst and anchor. If there’s even a chance that you can raise some doubt about CSGV’s, ahem, honesty, that’s worth beating your head against a wall for a little bit, don’t you think? She has a pretty interesting legal background. Clerked for the Chief Justice of Maryland’s Supreme Court, and worked for a bit as an AUSA in D.C.

This is quite encouraging:

They are very optimistic at this time that the bill can pass the House and  things appear to be shaping up in the Senate as well. If the bill get this through both houses in May, the right to carry lobby will be ready to go for the override of the governor’s promised veto in the fall veto session.

One of the core urban centers of anti-gun thought and culture is under siege by those who believe the Bill of Rights means something, regardless of whether you live in Chicago or Cheyenne. Eventually, the gates will fall. Bloomberg is next.

Still doesn’t exist. City Council has seen the writing on the wall, and are trying to improve matter in regards to gun rights in the District, and as Dave says, take them from insane, to merely being unreasonable and unconstitutional. But apparently Mayor Grey likes the crazy.

I’ve been watching our opponents somewhat carefully, since they launched the Second Chance on Shoot First campaign. I thought it was curious to note that while Mayor Bloomberg put his weight behind this effort, it did not appear that MAIG was joining. But then I noticed one of MAIG’s campaigns released a mother day message from Sabryna Fulton, however, you will note that it mentions nothing about Stand Your Ground, nor will you find it linked anywhere on the Fix Gun Checks Campaign web site. Why would this be?

Probably because Bloomberg can read polling data as much well as anyone else (h/t Dave Hardy for the link). There is a gap in thinking between elites and ordinary Americans on matters of self-defense, and Bloomberg has made a concerted effort to keep MAIG’s message narrow, and focused on topics that poll well. While the other two gun control groups, CSGV and Brady, have become a P.T. Barnum quality freak show, MAIG is being very careful with its image and message. Bloomberg must be worried fighting Stand your Ground using his Mayors could backfire on him.

He’s right. MAIG already got a small taste of what a minor campaign by NRA against his mayors cost him in terms of membership. He would not want to do anything to wake up the grassroots to take the fight to his mayors on their own. I think we can expect MAIG to largely stay out of the fight on Stand Your Ground, while Bloomberg will run a parallel effort under his own name, rather than that of his Mayors organization.

He’s helping with an Amicus brief challenging discretionary permit issuance, and he needs every “the blood will run in the streets” quote you all can find. Doesn’t have to literally be that, but any quite predicting murder, mayhem, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!