You’ll notice our best buddy, Ladd Everitt of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, attended a counter-protest. As for activity on our side, I’m generally of the opinion that the campus carry movement needs to be an organic movement among students, which is one reason I really like the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus group. I think when it’s done by mainstream groups like NRA or VCDL, it can come off as a bunch of old dudes trying to impose something on the student body, rather than something the students want for themselves. I was happy to see a lot of student-age looking folks in the video, but also some folks that would qualify as your pretty stereotypical gun owner demographic. If I were organizing a protest like this, I’d stipulate we want people under thirty for the cameras.
Category: Gun Rights
NRA Wins on Training Requirement in Wisconsin
The 4-hour minimum training required by the DOJ has been tossed. You still must obtain training, but there’s no longer any minimum time requirement, and a basic NRA pistol course would qualify. I believe this makes the training requirement for Wisconsin to be very similar to Florida.
Want to Make Something More Popular?
Ban it. Apparently across the pond fox hunting is more popular than ever:
Yet a bigger factor appears to be that exquisitely delinquent streak in the British character that reacts against the hectoring and bossiness of officialdom. As a result, thousands of people who previously had little obvious interest in hunting have taken it up.
“Our membership has doubled to around 1,000 since the law was passed,†says Sam Butler, the Warwickshire’s ebullient Master. “The support we are getting from the communities is incredible.
That certainly pleases me to hear there is at least some willingness to resist intrusions into country life over there. We had a similar experience over on this side of the Atlantic with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The “banned” weapons had a great increase in popularity both during the ban, and after it expired. The AR-15 was not as widely owned when they were banned in 1994. Shooters generally preferred the M1A, M1 Garand, or M1 carbines. Despite the fact that all of these firearms are military arms, or of a military pattern, they were popular, and so most states excepted them from their bans. They were also exempted from the federal ban. The AR-15 was not, and was, in fact, targeted by state and federal bans by name. Seventeen years later, and seven years after the expiration of the ban, the AR-15 is far more popular than any of the exempted firearms.
The ban had the unintended effect of piquing interesting in the banned rifles among shooters, and many competitors found the AR-15 more accurate and better suited for shooting matches. Collectors also developed interest. Americans, I believe, also possess the same “character that reacts against the hectoring and bossiness of officialdom,” as their British cousins.
My first rifle was an AK-47 patterned Romanian SAR1, which was not covered by the ban. I bought it specifically to make a statement. I didn’t really get into shooting in any serious way until later. In fact, it was the Assault Weapons Ban movement that made me start paying attention to the right to keep and bear arms, and developed my concern that the Second Amendment was in serious danger. I think there’s a whole generation of shooters who became concerned about their rights specifically through the 1994 ban.
I could make a good argument, in hindsight, that lobbying for, and eventually passing that ban, was the biggest strategic mistake the other side made. It was a bridge too far. It’s refreshing to see the fox hunting ban in the UK may be having the same kind of effect, especially since much of it is being driven by the political dominance of urban dwellers in the UK, who know nothing of the English and Welsh countryside, but who want to regulate life there heavily nonetheless, their traditions and pastimes be damned. That can have unintended consequences, and as our opponents on the “assault weapons” issue here would probably be willing to admit in their weaker moments, that doesn’t always work out in their favor over the long run.
Disarming Our Soldiers (For Their Own Good)
As the Brady Campaign descends to new depths of madness, here’s just one other objective our opponents are supporting:
The article they link to is here:
“Multiple studies indicate that preventing easy access to lethal means, such as firearms, is an effective form of suicide prevention,” authors Harrell and Berglass wrote.
They are urging Congress to repeal the restriction on the military interfering with the private firearm ownership of soldiers. Understand what they are saying here: we have to prevent “easy access” to “lethal means” for our nation’s soldiers.
If any police or military folks thinks these people won’t eventually disarm you, think again.
Tips for Influencing Canadians on Gun Rights
A timely topic, given the debate happening in Canada over the long gun registry, is how to influence Canadians when it comes to gun rights. Exurban Kevin, who is an expat from the Great White North offers some good advice on that, even when it comes to speaking about concealed carry. My understanding of Canadian gun laws suggests that guns that are most concealable are generally prohibited firearms. But there’s still plenty of concealable firearms that have barrels over 105mm. Plus, I can’t think of any better way to create a constituency for changing the law.
ACORN Behind Occupy?
I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you. Apparently they are going into extreme cover-up mode. Have these people been weaned from the public teat yet? I hope so.
More on Instructor Certification Non-Discrimination
Following up on the post from Friday, about the State of Texas threatening to revoke certification of a Texas man who ran a radio ad stating he won’t teach muslims, I have some additional thoughts for folks who are troubled by this. Let me state up front that this whole issue is an example of why requiring training to exercise a right is problematic. If this guy were in Pennsylvania, where we do not require training, this would be largely a non-issue, because the man would be free to teach whoever the hell he wanted, and not much would be implicated in terms of the right to bear arms. He is still free to teach or not teach who he wants in Texas, but the question at hand is whether it’s appropriate for the State of Texas to prohibit discrimination as a condition of holding a certification to teach their required concealed carry course.
My position is that it’s not inappropriate for the state to mandate this. By the state issuing instructor credentials, and requiring anyone wishing to carry a firearm to take instruction from a certified instructor, it makes those instructors an instrument of the state, and an instrument of state policy. In this instance, I believe the state may instruct the people carrying out its public policy that they may not discriminate. In fact, I believe that’s what’s morally required, given the exercise of a right is at stake.
I’ll put this in different terms, since prejudice against muslims is more prevalent today, and not as widely condemned. I’ll take it back 80 years or so, to the Jim Crow era. Texas has the same policy, except they allow discrimination by certified instructors. You’re a black man, and want to get a permit. You can’t find any white instructor who will teach you, and there aren’t any black instructors in your area because getting the certification is difficult and expensive, and there are only a handful of black instructors in the whole state. For the most part, this hypothetical black man has been disenfranchised out of his right to bear arms. If I were a fair minded federal judge, and this case came before me, I’d toss the training requirement, and make it clear to the State of Texas that it either needed to fix the discrimination problem, or go without training.
I don’t like training being a condition of accessing a right, because the cost alone puts its exercise out of reach of many. In my opinion, if the state is going to require training to access a right, it had damned well do its best to make sure the required training is widely available and affordable, and part of that can be an anti-discrimination policy that applies to instructors that are certified by the state under its training program.
Many states solve this problem by either not requiring training, or accepting privately certified instruction, and perhaps Texas should as well. That would largely remove the state from the equation in regards to this guy in Texas, though I would still argue if he were NRA certified, he should lose that certification too because I just flatly don’t agree with the kind of discrimination he’s practicing on general principle, and NRA, as a private entity, is perfectly free to set non-discrimination policies for the instructors it certifies.
Thinking Through Resistance
From Jewish Week, comes Guns and the Holocaust:
The idea that Jews or any of the other persecuted groups facing the Third Reich, the most lethal killing machine in human history could have somehow blasted their way out of Germany or German occupied territory with handguns or rifles from their homes is profoundly absurd.
Yes, armed partisan groups that contained Jews were effective in fighting the Nazis. With perhaps as many as a million fighters interspersed in Europe, they were like an additional army and yes, guns made them effective. But for the most part they worked in coordination with the Allies who provided arms and intelligence. Less organized resistance didn’t fare as well.
I think they are vastly understating the effectiveness armed resistance had against the Nazis. To put down the uprising in Warsaw, for instance, the Germans had to bring in crack SS troops, who during that period were not on the front fighting the Americans or the Russians.
But aside from that, Jewish Week is, quite improperly in my view, looking at this through a lens of military effectiveness. I could care less whether individual resistance to a murdering regime makes a huge difference in the overarching military picture. I do care greatly about an individual person’s right to decide if he’s going to die, he’s going to die a free man, and to take at least a few of those bastards out with him. If everyone was imbued with that attitude, what would it take to wage genocide?
I think can speak for many of us when I suggest that no one is going to stuff me into a cattle car alive. So just using a single individual as an example, not examining any greater resistance movement, what kind of resources would it take to get compliance to implement a Nazi-like final solution? You can’t send a few Gestapo agents to knock on the door and haul someone off, because they’ll all end up shot. You can send Stosstruppen to break down the door, and try to take someone by surprise, but now you’re already having to expend more resources, and I’m betting odds a prudent man would still be able to shoot a few members of the raiding party before being killed himself. I suppose they could always just bomb the house, or send a shell into it, but then you have one tank, or one plane, or one artillery piece that’s not serving on the front line. How many tanks, bombs, or artillery pieces would be needed to clear out an entire neighborhood?
I’ve long said, you won’t stop your government from killing you if that’s what it means to do, but you can raise the cost of doing so to an unacceptably high level. It’s not really about winning militarily, so much is it’s about allowing people to maintain their person dignity, and raising the cost of mass murder. That’s what Jewish Week is overlooking.
Congressman Dan Lungren Never Heard of the 14th Amendment
 Central Valley representatives who have made the wrong-headed decision to embrace the measure include Democrat Dennis Cardoza of Merced and Republicans Wally Herger of the Chico area, Tom McClintock of Elk Grove, Jeff Denham of Atwater, Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield and Devin Nunes, who represents Tulare and Fresno counties.
They hold up Rep. Dan Lungren, who was the only Republican committee member to vote against the measure, as the poster boy of right-thinking, and proof that Republicans can stand up to the wrong-think of the NRA.
“I believe in the Second Amendment. I also believe in the 10th Amendment,” Lungren, a former California attorney general, said after casting his no vote.
In Lungren’s view, California’s law governing concealed weapons may be too restrictive. But he also said: “That is part of the reality of dealing with what some people call federation and others call states’ rights.” States have rights.
No, Congressmen, states do not have rights. People have rights. States have powers which are delegated to it by the people, who in turn delegate certain enumerated powers to the federal government (at least in theory). One of those enumerated powers is the power to pass laws to protect the civil rights of Americans. Americans, through our constitutional system, have not delegated our right to bear arms to Government, but unique among nations, we have retained it for ourselves. California has no more power to restrict this right than Colorado, Alaska, or New York, and enforcement of this right against the states is very much part of our federal system.
I also believe in the 2nd and 10th Amendments, Congressman, and passionately so. But I also believe in the 14th Amendment with equal passion.
Ladd Everitt & Adam Winkler on “Here Women Talk”
Listen here. After listening to that, I am quite happy to be on the opposite side from Ladd. He pretty much spends the entire time mischaracterizing or making hyperbolic arguments that are ridiculous. He is the king of erecting straw men, and tearing them down. I think the best thing I heard out of Ladd was this:
But I think part of the gun control movement’s challenge right now is to become a little more sophisticated in messaging, and to have the type of strong messaging that the NRA has. One thing you can credit the NRA with is that when Wayne LaPierre become the leader of the NRA, he developed a very sophisticated marketing approach to the way they message and do their business, and I think they’ve had a great deal of success in selling their brand, as this brand based on American values — Freedom, Independence, Liberty, and self-reliance — getting people to think about the American values they agree with, so they never have to get to the point of looking at what the NRA is really advocating for. I think there’s a lot of power in that.
He speaks of Independence, Liberty and self-reliance as if it were a bad thing. But I think this is one of the more insightful things I’ve heard out of Ladd, because this is pretty much how NRA markets itself. The problem is, what American value can you sell with gun control? I mean, Independence, Liberty and self-reliance could arguably be the three principles that sum up this country. What American value involves ignoring its Bill of Rights and taking people’s freedoms away? So far the best they’ve been able to come up with is “common sense,” and we can see how well that’s working for them.