Category: Gun Rights

I have in my possession an e-mail from a reader that would appear to be from Insight Firearms Training Development, which asks folks to express to their elected representatives to oppose removing the requirement to have a permit to carry a concealed firearm. That’s right, it would seem a prominent training house is selling out the Second Amendment for their own financial gain. Click on the link to see the header for yourself. Here’s the letter they suggest people send:

RE: Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108

Dear Representatives:

I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.  Nevertheless, I strongly OPPOSE House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108 which would authorize Arizonans to carry a concealed weapon without the permit that is currently required by Arizona law.  I have recently taken the 8-hour CCW course required by  current law and I can tell you first-hand that it is invaluable and necessary for anyone who plans to carry a concealed weapon. I realized when I took the CCW course offered by Insight Firearms Training Development in Prescott Arizona that there was much that I did not know (or remember as the case may be) about the safe handling of firearms and, importantly, the law applicable to their use for purposes of personal protection in real life (and death) situations.  Persons who carry concealed weapons who are not properly trained and educated will be hazardous to you, me and all of the residents of this state.

The argument often offered in support of allowing a person to carry without proper training is that “criminals do not worry about CCW permits, so why should we require it of good, law-abiding citizens”.  That may be true, but the argument is disingenuous.  Our laws apply to all people – good and bad.  The fact that some choose to violate the laws of our society does not constitute good reason to modify them in a manner that will be injurious to the safety of our communities.  Should we modify every law in our society because the criminals don’t follow them? Should we base all laws of our society on the behavior of the criminals?

The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, does not proscribe reasonable governmental restrictions on an individual’s rights with respect to firearms.  To restrict individuals from carrying a handgun in a concealed manner under any circumstance would be unreasonable.  It is not unreasonable, however, to require that person to demonstrate that he has obtained the proper training and education in the use of that concealed weapon.  With every right comes a corresponding duty an responsibility!  We need to retain that requirement.

Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108

I agree with Insight that training is a good idea, but coming from a state that doesn’t require it, I don’t think it needs to be a legal requirement. I also fail to see how we have a right to “bear” arms if we have to get state permission before we can exercise that right.

I don’t appreciate members of the community crapping on our rights so they can continue to use force of law to extract money us. Has anyone else gotten this e-mail? If so, and you are an alumni of Insight, I would be sure to express your displeasure.

UPDATE: Please don’t confuse Insight Firearms Training Development with InSights Firearms Training of Seattle, Washington. They are separate companies. InSights has nothing to do with this controversy.

I think it’s quite ironic that it would seem that the gun rights movement is particularly strong in Southeastern Pennsylvania. CeaseFire Pennsylvania, in cooperation with Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have brought their preemption violating “Lost and Stolen” ordinances to my neck of Pennsylvania.

This time we had some grassroots action ready to meet them. First in Radnor, which has tabled the bill until April. On the same day CeaseFire Pennsylvania was tying us up in Radnor, Mayors Against Illegal Guns pushed the same ordinance to Hatboro. Hatboro has rejected the ordinance route in favor of a resolution, which they will be hearing Monday March 22nd. We still oppose the resolution, which urges the General Assembly to pass a state L&S law, but we’ve made progress. Ambler Borough has decided not to pursue an ordinance a few weeks ago. Now word has it that Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, a bastion of liberalism even back when Delaware County was solidly Republican, has decided to table its Lost and Stolen ordinance.

This has to be huge embarrassment for Joe Grace, EVP of CeaseFire PA, and it’s a slap in the face to MAIG too. It’s no accident. It’s the work of gun owners getting involved, showing up, and making effective arguments to their elected representatives. We succeeded against a strategy that was designed to spread us thin and wear us out. It has, so far, failed to work. I know many of my readers here were involved in these efforts, and we all owe them some thanks, especially to the people who were residents of these municipalities that showed up and spoke. Let’s hope we can keep pouring molasses over Bloomberg and Grace’s agenda. Let them have nothing without a fight.

UPDATE: PAFOA gives some of its members their due as well.

This time I’m harassing Josh Sugarmann. You can see the original article he wrote that I’m responding to here.

That’s the attitude of the reverend of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Richmond. He offers up the church which sits across from the Capitol for political use by lobbyists for all sorts of favored causes – unions, healthcare, and gun control. Rev. Wallace Adams-Riley claims that the church is available for just about any lobbyist to use as a headquarters – as long as they aren’t supportive of the Second Amendment. He points out that the one group he would actively turn away is the NRA. One might wonder if he has the same belief about turning away NRA members from his church.

Ed Friedman explains what they are for. Who would have thought fraudsters and embezzlers in the Department of Education were so dangerous? Maybe the Federal Government needs to think about its hiring practices.

Check out this interview with Matt Carmel, owner of Constitution Arms, where he discusses his struggle to sponsor a Little League baseball team, and then sponsor a Rugby Team.

Maybe I need a better analogy, but I said a few days ago in a comment that gaining progress in politics is a lot like flinging pooh at a wall and betting on which pieces of s**t stick. To be successful, you need to fling a lot, until you find the right kind of turd, then repeat the performance as many times as you can.

This is an example of that, only the turd fell off the wall. Time to try again. And really, we never really meant to fling that turd anyway. It was a mistake in turd selection. The goal is to try to get the Delaware Housing Authorities to respect the Constitution. We can accomplish that through legislation or a lawsuit. For various reasons (good reasons in my opinion), NRA is more comfortable with the former than the latter. But we can use the latter to push along the former. I suspect this is going to be one strategy going forward. We can spritz our turds with olive oil before flinging now. It helps with adhesion.

Dave Hardy points out the response from their director of public safety. These are the bureaucrats they believe you should rely on for your protection. I went to school in West Philly. The area we were in wasn’t too bad, but outside of University City, things could get dicy. I remember similar advice being doled out by campus security.

I never had any illusions about whether our campus security would protect me — I knew they wouldn’t. During a heated Teamsters strike, I once witnessed a group of Teamsters threatening a driver who tried to run their picket line. He started an altercation with one of the picketers, who then swarmed and surrounded him, and were obviously looking to teach him a lesson. Campus security bravely stayed on their radios until the Philadelphia Police arrived several minutes later to deal with the malfeasance, and haul off several of the union thugs.

I did not carry during my time in college, since I didn’t get an LTC until I was 28. But I do think students who meet the requirements for a state license to carry ought to be able to carry on their campus. I can understand a university’s concern about firearms in dorms, but there are ways we can deal with that problem that don’t have to leave qualified students defenseless, especially on urban campuses surrounded by bad neighborhoods, like the university I attended.