Category: Gun Rights

Thirdpower points out that the bill Governor Ahnold just signed covers a lot more than just loaded ammunition, it would appear to affect bullets too, magazines, clips, and speed loaders. Because you know the gang bangers are all about loading their own bullets and use clips and speed loaders.

Robb makes an argument against my open carry post from earlier by transposing it into a different context:

Maybe Sebastian should take down his blog. I am not in any way, shape or form advocating free speech being illegal. I think it should be legal in all 50 states. I’m just saying if Sebastian does it, he shouldn’t pretend like he’s doing something great for the Second Amendment, because I don’t think he is.

I actually think that would be a perfectly valid opinion, and I agree that operating a blog is not a particularly stellar contribution to the cause of the Second Amendment. I would rank it somewhere north of donating a nice chunk of money to a local pro-gun campaign, even for blogs that have a good bit of reach. I think the big political blogs like Instapundit, the legal blogs like Volokh, and long time activists like Dave Hardy have done more within the blogosphere to advance the Second Amendment than I ever will. I would never presume Snowflakes in Hell is a great contribution to the movement, because I don’t think it is. I’m actually more proud of some of the things we’ve been able to do locally than anything I may or may not have contributed on here.

That’s why a year and a half ago I decided that I wasn’t happy with just running a blog as my contribution, and started getting more involved volunteering with NRA, inserting our issue into state and local politics, and getting more involved in the local shooting culture. Now that Bitter is up here too, she’s also helping out by taking over EVC duties for the neighboring Congressional district. It’s not a major contribution, certainly not even close to on par with guys like Dave Hardy, Dave Kopel, Clayton Cramer, Alan Gura, Harlon Carter, nor any of the other people I consider heros of the movement. But I consider that work more important than what I’m doing on this blog.

The plan we formulated with PAFOA to go after the Bloomberg Mayors was just reported here, most of the actual work in formulating a plan to try to convince Mayors to leave, and to get people to complain happened behind the scenes. It attracted some notice in the media, but not much. But I’m proud that at least one Mayor felt the need to respond publicly in the media. I was also happy to give information and ideas to folks I know at NRA to help them with their efforts. Overall, a very minor contribution, but still something.

But probably the best non-internet activism feedback I’ve gotten is from local pro-gun candidates who appreciate seeing someone working to support them in return for their support on this issue. We’re a long way from reversing the slide of this area into the other camp, but we’ve been noticed at least, and a few weeks ago managed to help elevate a pro-gun state rep to the state Senate, and been thanked for our efforts.

This is not aggressive, in your face activism, but I do think it makes a difference, and is the type of activism I try to make a case for. I give the open carry guys a lot of credit for showing up in Scranton and getting the City Council to think a little, but that had nothing to do with open carry, and everything to do with showing up. As I said, that puts them ahead of 98% of gun owners, and they deserve credit for that. But I think there would have been a better outcome if they had just gone concealed at the meeting. I can’t and don’t expect to force anyone to cover up, I’m just asking people to think about how they might make their activism more effective. I’d like to think it’s a subject I know a little about, at least.

Glad to see the open carry folks winning over more hearts and minds in Scranton. Whatever they had to say about lost and stolen was lost in the distraction of having a need to open carry firearms, no matter what the circumstance.

For a while I started to be brought around, but I’m becoming more convinced it’s just damaging the movement. I will continue to support open carry being legal, I just don’t think it has any place in Second Amendment activism. Open carry activists have a lot of energy, and they are willing to show up, and that alone puts them ahead of 98% of gun owners. But I think the open carry shit is distracting, and is taking away from what otherwise would be amazingly effective activism. Instead of having media stories about gun owners opposing lost and stolen, you have media stories about people showing up openly armed.

Governor Ahnold signed the draconian ammo restrictions, but vetoed the two other bill. I guess next time if he’s going to split the difference, we should make sure he understands which bill we really want him to veto. The other two sucked, but we could have lived with the gun show ban and additional paperwork on guns. The ammo restrictions are going to make being a competitive shooter in California very difficult and very expensive. There’s always Nevada and Arizona. No doubt there will be lots of cars coming back into California with tires close to the wheel wells.

So far the Obama Administration has shown about as much interest in picking a fight with gun owners as Iran has shown in making peace with Israel. But the UN is a big wild card in play. It’s possible to get an international arms control treaty that could have serious implications for American gun owners. See this AP article on the latest preparations. They would like to have a comprehensive treaty by 2012.

Whether President Barack Obama’s administration will now back negotiations remains to be seen.

Gun control is a hotly contentious issue in the United States, where the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizens the right to “keep and bear arms,” and powerful lobby groups routinely oppose almost every effort to restrict gun sales and ownership — and usually win.

Supporters of a new treaty stress that it will not interfere with legal arms sales but will target illegal weapons transfers.

We’ve heard that one before, and unfortunately, previous proposals would have forced the US to pass many more gun control laws in order for nations party to the treaty to be able to legally export small arms to the United States. In short, if you like your Glock pistol, Anschutz target rifle, or Perazzi shotgun, you’re going to be out of luck if a treaty is passed that prohibits exporting firearms to the United States, because we do not implement sufficient “controls” by international standards, for the transfers to qualify as “legal.”

A Pennsylvania man gets fired from his job for buying a part for his shotgun from a work computer:

When Jackson was searching the Web for a replacement shotgun stock, supervisor Christie Vazquez — who admitted in a subsequent deposition to being “very anti-gun” and had quarreled with him before about politics — noticed what he was doing. Vazquez said she was scared because it was only a few weeks after the Virginia Tech massacre (see CBS News video), so she promptly reported her colleague’s Web browsing to Planco’s human resources department. Vazquez also informed the HR department that Jackson owned guns and was a member of the National Rifle Association.

You can guess what happened next: according to court documents, the HR representative, Jamie Davis, replied that reporting the visits to Mossberg.com and other sites was “the right thing” to do, and ordered the information technology department to investigate Jackson’s Internet activity. After receiving a list of Web sites visited, Davis recommended that Jackson be placed on leave, which the company authorized. Planco disabled Jackson’s front door and computer access and arranged for undercover police to be at the building the next morning.

This is pretty appalling, and shame on Planco for treating people this way. Add that to the list of companies I will never work for or buy anything from.

Ride Fast reminds everyone that the time is running out to convince Schwartenegger to veto the ammunition bill and gun show ban bill in California. They become law if he doesn’t sign, but doesn’t veto.

Looks like NRA is being proactive in clearing up the record on MAIG in the media:

MAIG opposed the Thune Amendment, which would have allowed concealed carry permit holders a chance to defend themselves outside their home states. If MAIG is only going after “illegal guns,” then why is it opposed to a self-defense measure for law-abiding people who have been through background checks and satisfied other law-enforcement prerequisites to get their right-to-carry permits? There is nothing “illegal” about the firearms these people own.

It’s good that NRA’s Public Affairs office is working the media, but it really makes more of an impact if individual members do it.

From Reason Magazine on the University of Pennsylvania study we talked about a few days ago:

This is like noting that possessing a parachute is strongly associated with being injured while jumping from a plane, then concluding that skydivers would be better off unemcumbered by safety equipment designed to slow their descent.

Cam apparently mentioned this on his show last night, but I missed it because I was busy shooting a match.

Go to page fifteen of this new poll:

As you might know, there is a chance that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may soon hear a case regarding gun and firearm laws here in Pennsylvania. The current law came out of a case 13 years ago called Ortiz v. Commonwealth. There, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the state legislature is the only body that has the power to establish gun laws in the state and that municipalities cannot pass their own gun law ordinances.

Do you (ROTATED) agree or disagree with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling that the state legislature should be the only body of government to establish gun laws here in Pennsylvania? (PROBED: And would that be STRONGLY or SOMEWHAT AGREE/DISAGREE?)

56% TOTAL AGREE (NET)
39% STRONGLY AGREE
17% SOMEWHAT AGREE
38% TOTAL DISAGREE (NET)
11 % SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
27% STRONGLY DISAGREE

Also, the spread between gun owning and non-gun owning households was only five percent. So it would seem preemption has broad support among a large number of Pennsylvanians.