Category: Gun Rights

Take a look at this video from a Tea Party forum that features the Republican Challengers for the seat currently held by F-rated Allyson Schwartz:

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

The first candidate at least has the right answer, but his big intellectual contribution to the issue would seem to be noticing that both Article I, Section 21 of the PA Constitution, and the Second Amendment both use the word “shall.”  The second guy, I have to think this is the first time he’s ever had to consider this issue seriously. He’s also got the right answers, but the fact that he’s not well versed is blindingly obvious. The third guy, Adcock, seems to be the leading contender, and probably has the best answer.

You can see from this that candidates often have no idea, honestly, what our concerns are, and haven’t thought much about our issue, or how to handle it publicly. These candidates need to talk to gun owners and develop an understanding they can build their positions from. This has recently been an issue in my club, where many of the club’s leaders don’t want to get involved in politics. I am an advocate for at least some degree of engagement, and preventing candidates for public office from wandering aimlessly around our issue is part of the reason. If they never hear our concerns, or never learn how to speak to the issue, it’s quite likely they are going to conclude there’s nothing to be gained in it, and drop it from their radar.

Hey, if having more open carry means we get more of the other, I’m fall for it:

Portland is becoming a popular site for people who want to show that they can do things that are legal, just not things usually done.

Earlier this month, Congress Street was home to a parade of topless women, who were asserting their right to appear in public while shirtless, which is the same as it is for a man.

This Sunday, Back Cove will be the site of a demonstration by gun rights enthusiasts, who will be asserting their rights to openly carry firearms.

Though, I seem to recall there was an incident in New Hampshire where someone combined these two forms of protest, and asserted her right to carry a firearm topless.

Covered by Jeff Soyer. It’s passed out of the Public Safety Committee, and now goes to Appropriations. Here’s a list of appropriations committee members. Now is the time to contact them and express opposition. The bill is AB1934. Having skimmed over the bill, I think the worst effect this has is not just banning openly carrying an unloaded handgun, but also making loaded open carry in an unincorporated area, which previously has been lawful in California, unlawful. It would seem to do this by removing a part of the law that explicitly defines carrying in a belt holster openly as not being concealed.

Practically speaking, I don’t know how many people availed themselves of open carry in an unincorporated area, and I don’t know how much of California is unincorporated, so it’s hard to assess the magnitude of this loss, should it come to pass.

Given what the law is for North Carolina, I think I’ll probably leave mine at home when we go to the NRA Annual Meeting in Charlotte. When it’s in Pittsburgh next year, you’ll be able to carry. The only place off limits in PA are court houses, and (maybe) primary and secondary schools. That’s it.

Looks like NRA is appealing in the decision from Pittsburgh.

Both Roll Call and the WaPo have pretty good articles on this topic. It looks like the Dems were on board with moving the bill, until there was an attempt to fix DC’s carry laws, which soured the deal. It looks like it would have made DC Alaska carry, but it’s hard to say whether that’s really the case, or whether it was a shall-issue provision. It’s Elanor Holmes Norton, and I doubt she understands the issue in detail.

Why up the ante? I don’t really know, since NRA doesn’t share with me the details of their legislative strategy. I can only speculate what’s going on. There are folks who believe they are conspiring with the GOP to kill the DCVRA, using the gun language as a hammer. I’m not sure why NRA would be all the concerned about DC voting rights (and they shouldn’t be), but it’s quite possible the minority critters are using the gun issue strategically in this manner. If you’re a lobbyist, what are you going to do? “No, we’ll score that vote against you and lower your grade if you offer that that amendment which favors our issue!” You’ll lose credibility quickly if you start doing that.

But either way I think we come out ahead. There’s not much to lose by upping the ante. The worst that happens is we don’t pass anything, and the Court cases challenging DC’s laws go ahead. That’s a slower, and less predictable path, with the possibility of setting bad precedent, but there’s at least a way to move forward. But even if you lose the legislative battle, you win, because the fight reveals useful information. We’ve had a few gunfights in the Senate already, the most important one being when we barely lost on the Thune Amendment. We haven’t had a gunfight in the House because the leadership isn’t allowing votes to come to the floor. Ahead of the 2010 elections, it would be really nice to get some of these newer “pro-gun” mostly Dem politicians on record with a vote. So I could see reasons why NRA wants to pick a fight, rather than just letting the Senate version move ahead without one. This puts the anti-gun leadership in a very tough position, and forces a lot of the newer politicians to put their money where their mouth is.

It sucks that rights of DC residents are tied up in this game, and I’m sympathetic to that frustration, but I think, in the end, one way or another, this is going to work out. We have a lot more options today than we did ten years ago.

Hoyer is saying it’s not going to happen. They hate the Second Amendment that much, because you can bet this would have passed already without the gun rights amendment attached in the Senate.

From the NSSF Bullet Points:

The first comprehensive survey to look at ownership and use of modern sporting rifles reveals that 8.9 million Americans went target shooting with AR-style rifles in 2009 and that participants using this type of rifle were the most active among all types of sport shooters. “These findings underscore that modern sporting rifles are becoming commonplace in America and are among the most desired firearms by sport shooters,” said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “Those who want to ban these civilian sporting rifles simply because they look like military rifles must acknowledge after seeing this study that AR-style rifles are exceedingly popular with millions of Americans. These rifles are our industry’s high-tech, cutting-edge product — rugged, accurate, versatile, fun to shoot and easily accessorized — and they’re here to stay.”

So how exactly wouldn’t these be the kind of rifles mentioned in Heller as “in common use at the time, and are thus protected. This weekend I plan to shoot my AR-15 in a match. Why? Because there’s not much that beats it for high-power shooting.

Iowa’s shall-issue bill was passed near the end of the legislative session so a pocket veto is an option. Culver is up for re-election in 2010, and this isn’t a good year to be a Democrat. You would think Culver would probably like some cover on the gun issue and will sign the bill into law. So says some folks in Iowa:

Schueller said he thinks the Democratic leadership might have been trying to garner support from gun-rights advocates such as the National Rifle Association, but he doubts it will pay off.

“Here’s my spin on it: the NRA is Republican, the NRA has been Republican forever, the NRA never votes Democrat. And if Gov. Culver thinks they’re going to start voting Democrat, I’ve got some swamp land I can sell him,” Schueller said.

Even if you think this is true, and it’s not — NRA has been happy to support Democrats — do you really want something else to fire up gun voters to get to the polls and vote for your opponent? This is going to be a tough year for Democrats. Republican voters are motivated to turn out. If the Governor is smart, he won’t let this become an election issue. He’ll sign the bill.

UPDATE: Currently on NRA News is NRA’s Lobbyist for Iowa, Chris Rager, and he’s asking people to contact the Governor’s office and ask that he sign the bill. It doesn’t sound like the Governor has indicated whether or not he’s planning to sign.