Category: Gun Rights

West Virginia is floating a bill to make Bloomberg’s gun show stings illegal, citing that they could interfere with ongoing law enforcement investigations. It will do this by making it a crime for anyone to persuade, encourage or entice a dealer or person into making an unlawful sale.

Looks like the NARGC, which his the Irish equivalent of the NRA, is doing its level best to fight the state’s new restrictive handgun licensing policy, which basically only recognizing Olympic shooting sports as legitimate reason to own a pistol, and then only pistols suitable for that purpose.

It’s looking like Seattle’s Mayor, having had his city’s gun ban tossed out by the courts for violating preemption, is advocating the state legislature repeal preemption. Pennsylvania isn’t the only state where anti-gun activists are working hard to erase one of our bedrock victories in the last several decades. Without preemption, pretty much every gain we’ve made in the protection of our rights becomes meaningless. It becomes impossible to transport, carry, or even own firearms without worrying about a patchwork of local ordinances and regulation.

Joe Huffman floated an idea to a few gun bloggers over the weekend to organize a Starbucks appreciation day. I thought it sounded like a good idea, so I’ll join in asking people to participate.

This coming Sunday, February 21st we’re asking folks to go to Starbucks and buy something. But, perhaps most importantly, to let them know you’re taking part in an appreciation day organized by Second Amendment bloggers. Joe suggests telling the local folks, but I’m going to suggest you tell Starbucks corporate after you make your purchase. Corporate are the decision makers. So, next Sunday, I would suggest something like the following:

Some Second Amendment bloggers have organized an appreciation day, asking their readers to go patronize their local Starbucks this Sunday. Just wanted you folks to know that I went myself and enjoyed some XXXX, YYYY, and ZZZZ in appreciation for Starbucks continuing its focus on making a great products and great service rather than making statements on contentious social issues as the Brady Campaign suggests. Thanks for standing up to them.

I figure even if they only get a few hundred responses, it at least gives them a sense of the depth of passion on this issue, and this isn’t something just being driven by interest groups in Washington (well, at least on our side).

I signed up for an account on Opposing Views the other day in order to respond to the Brady post there. It was basically a variation on a post a few days ago. They e-mailed me over the weekend to say they had put my post on the front page, and hope to see more from me. I notice the NRA decided the water looked nice and jumped in the pool too. I just hope Opposing Views readers notice mine was a reply to the Brady Post, because it doesn’t make much sense if you don’t have that prior context.

I will keep posting there. No need to let the Brady Campaign have an open forum where people don’t get to see the other point of view. They’ve had enough of that from the mainstream media for the past few decades.

The Brady folks are bragging about another chain restaurant, one they didn’t get to change it’s policy, since it’s always had a “no guns” policy, but they did get the store to reiterate their policy. What has me concerned is this that Buckhorn Grill is now claiming they were mislead by activists about the nature of the event, and how many people would be there.

Apparently about 100 people showed up with unloaded pistols on their hip, which I’m guessing the restaurant was not expecting. I would not close the door entirely on open carry being used as a means to generate public discussion about liberalizing carry laws, but I think one has to start asking whether this will work in the bay area. At the least, I think the activists need to plan carefully, and make sure they choose venues that are known to be supportive ahead of time, and be thorough with setting expectations for the owners. Every business that lashes back like this because they ended up in a situation they weren’t prepared for is a victory for the other side, and will help the Bradys put pressure on Starbucks.

It’s pretty balanced. Good reporting. It quotes several residents who got up to speak. I did not speak at the meeting, because I was not a resident, and because my writing skills are far in excess of my public speaking skills. If you don’t think too much of my writing skills my assessment still holds.

Charles Bronson is the guy in charge of Florida Department of Agriculture, the agency in that state responsible for issuing concealed weapons licenses. He apparently doesn’t appreciate the Daily New’s distortions that his agency hands out permits like candy to criminals in Pennsylvania. I don’t blame him. The reason that we have reciprocity with Florida, and the reason people like me have Florida licenses, is because it’s more widely recognized. The reason it’s more widely recognized is because its standards are more similar to other states, and more strict then Pennsylvania. This fact is seemingly lost on the Daily News. The only reason it may not be more strict than Philadelphia is because Philadelphia is routinely breaking the law when it comes to issuance of LTCs.

An editorial by the Daily News, saying we need to close the “Florida Loophole.” If CeaseFire PA wants to throw down on this issue, how about we use our lobbying muscle and electoral muscle to get a pro-gun Governor elected, and we push through a repeal of the “character and reputation” clause, that more than a few jurisdictions in Pennsylvania don’t seem to be able to use responsibility? Philadelphia has effectively turned the city into a may-issue jurisdiction, in a complete mockery of the Uniform Firearms Act. You want the “Florida Loophole” to go away? Oh, we can make it go away. But I don’t think Joe Grace and his ilk will like how we do it.