Category: Gun Rights

According to the Washington Post:

In its reply, the Justice Department wrote that the new rule “does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety.”

But Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for an internal assessment of whether the measure has any environmental impacts the government needs to take into account, Interior spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley said yesterday.

It is the duty of the Solicitor to defend the Administration’s policies, rules, and regulations in court.  Whether Obama likes it or not, with that rule change, carry in National Parks is among the regulations the Solicitor General’s office is obligated to defend.  If Obama wants to fish this turd out of his punch bowl, he’s going to have to undertake more rulemaking.

Evan Nappen makes some predictions about gun control, and he thinks Congressman Engel has provided the plan by which we will be attacked.  I agree with Evan that this is almost a no brainier for Obama if he’s looking to pick a fight with NRA.

How it would work is Obama would direct the ATF to do something about it, then ATF would propose a rule to change the Federal Regulations that govern imported parts guns.  There would be a period of public comment.  During that period gun owners would need to do what we did in regards to the National Park Carry bill.  In other words, flood them with comments opposing the rule change.  The rule might get implemented anyway.  We could, in that case, sue BATFE, just like the Brady’s are doing with the Department of the Interior, only we’ll have some better tools to use legally.

TD might be sorry he sold me that FAL :)

I posted about the letter from Congressman Eliot Engel Friday, the one where he asks the BATFE to really start enforcing the assault weapons ban under the sporting purposes provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968.  A few members of the Pennsylvania Congressional Delegation have signed onto the letter:

• Chaka Fattah (D-PA) (Philadelphia)
• Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) (Philadelphia, Montgomery Co.)

Only two Republicans have signed onto this letter, Mike Castle of Delaware, and Chris Smith of New Jersey.  Notably absent from the Pennsylvania delegation is Congressman Patrick Murphy, who signed onto HR1022 in the 110th Congress.  Why wouldn’t he get on board with this?  It’s hard to imagine he wasn’t asked when Schwartz is on it.  I am beginning to believe that Congressman Murphy might now understand that supporting gun control is not compatible with his political ambitions.

Never let it be said that smart political organizing can’t have an impact.  Our efforts at organizing gun owners were noted and appreciated by the GOP of Bucks County, so it’s hard to imagine they went unnoticed by the Democratic Party.  If Murphy is endeavoring to make my life more difficult by keeping a low profile on the gun issue, that’s fine with me.  But at some point, I’ll start wondering why instead of just not attacking us, he doesn’t help us out.  Murphy’s record in the 110th Congress was not good, and it’s going to take more than just neutrality to make up for that in the 111th.

From an interview today in Newsday New York:

But even after living in Manhattan with its gun violence for 12 years, Gillibrand, who as a House member won the National Rifle Association’s top rating, rejects city gun bans or limits on legally owned guns.

“It’s a false debate,” she said. “It’s political rhetoric that’s sucking you in to believe that hunters owning a gun or an American citizen who wants to protect his home owning a gun somehow increases gun violence.”

Asked if she owned a gun, she said, “We own two.”

Asked where she kept them, she said, “Under the bed.”

Gillibrand said while she and her husband don’t hunt, her mother, brother and father do.

“I grew up in a house where my mom owns about eight guns. She keeps them in a gun case,” Gillibrand said.

What her ultimate voting record in the Senate will be I would not wager on at this point, as the politics of this will be complex.  But her primary thought for the next two years will be her primary.  The Democratic Party wants someone who will hold on to that seat in what’s likely to be a Republican voting year.  My hope is she keeps the majority of her pro-gun views, and the Democrats will keep McCarthy on a short leash.

The following will be sent to Kirsten Gillibrand’s Senate office.  It doesn’t look like they have e-mail set up just yet:

The Honorable Kirsten Gillibrand
531 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 2051

Dear Senator Gillibrand,

While I am not a constituent of yours, I am am a pro-Second Amendment activist and volunteer here in Pennsylvania.  Because of your record in support of the Second Amendment, I have donated to your campaign and, through my networks, have encouraged others to donate as well.

I was disappointed to see in an interview with News 4 New York that you may have indicated you are softening your support for measures that we consider to be vital for strengthening the Second Amendment, namely the ATF Reform bill that was introduced in the 110th Congress and which you co-sponsored in the House.

I understand that you are under a tremendous amount of pressure right now, both from your own party, from the downstate New York media, to abandon your support for the Second Amendment.  While I understand the difficulty this causes for you, consider the difficulty for activists, such as myself, who have publicly asked hunters and shooters to get behind your candidacy in 2010.  I sincerely hope that when push comes to shove, you will stand with us and oppose new gun control measures in the Senate.

Sincerely,

[Someone You’ll Never Get a Dime From Again If You Double Cross Me.]

OK, so I signed my real name instead, but that’s basically the point.  Remember the influence heirarchy.  If you are a constituent of hers, send a letter now. Especially if you donated, send a letter, and be sure you mention that.  Even if you’re not a constituent, or didn’t donate, send her something promising you’ll do whatever you can to support her re-election if she votes with us.

The other side is twisting the hell out of her left arm.  We must twist her right.  The basic message needs to be that we know you supported us in the past, and we hope and expect you will continue to do so.  She needs to understand there will be rewards for support, namely in money and vote delivery.

Kirsten Gillibrand gave an interview with New York News 4 where she seemed to back off the provisions of HR4900 that would make the Tiahrt Amendment a matter of law, rather than a matter of having to repass a spending provision each year refusing ATF funding to release trace data except for law enforcement investigations.

I saw the video interview, and it’s pretty heavily edited, which makes me wonder what the full context was of what she said.  Bloomberg is also speaking of productive meetings with her, but he will say that because it’s smart politics for him in terms of twisting her arm.  I should note that HR4900 is dead letter, because it was a bill in the 110th Congress.  Such a bill might be introduced in the 111th Congress, but chances of the bill going anywhere are slim.

I’ve never seen such arm twisting of a politician as the New York media and political establishment are doing to Gillibrand over the gun issue.  We’re now seeing why New York puts F rated politicians into office.  I’m hoping against hope that Gillibrand will dodge, triangulate, and say what she has to say to get the New York Media and Bloomberg off her back, but will vote with us on the really important things.   I would not be surprised if Gillibrand decides to surrender her A, and stakes out a middle ground.  Politically, she might have to.  If she drops to a B or even C rated politician, occupying the seat once occupied by Hillary Clinton, I still say it wasn’t a bad trade.  Given the chance, I’d say the same thing for Schumer’s seat.  This is New York.

There are rumblings out of Canada that the first attempts at a low-key administrative attack on guns is beginning.  Jim Sheperd reports in this morning’s Shooting Wire:

A report making the rounds in Canada that says officials have it on “good authority” that our State Department may be on the verge of cutting off all imports of certain calibers of ammunition.

Ammos listed for this rumored ban include the .50BMG, 7.62x39mm Soviet, 7.62x51mm NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Additionally, we’re hearing that an expansion of this proposed ban might be broadened to include the 6.8mm SPC, 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP- among others.

In other words, State Department officials may be floating a trial balloon to see if there are howls of protest, or whimpers of compliance. …

Additionally, Canadian officials tell me they are hearing rumblings of blanket export bans on certain firearms to Canada and the attachment of DSP-83 End Use Certificates (with their $250 Export Fee) attached to all other types of American firearms.

I would question whether there is the authority to regulate importation/exportation of ammunition and assess fees on firearm exports, but I haven’t read all the relevant federal statutes and regulations.

I should have made it clearer that I wasn’t taking the position that Kirsten Gillibrand was changing her position on guns in my post yesterday, and actually meant to use a question mark in the post title.  I agree with both Bitter and Uncle about what the Times is trying to do here, and that’s she’s given little indication she’s changing her position.

What she is doing is trying to find some cover on the issue as a pro-gun candidate in a very anti-gun media market (Downstate New York).  Because of the intense media pressure, and pressure from within her own party, to change her position, I think it would be a bit bold to count her as a reliable pro-gun vote, largely because I don’t like how the politics work out for her if she continues to vote with the NRA.

This is why originally Bitter was an advocate of donating to her campaign.  She has a record on the issue, and while it’s not long, it’s good. Gun owners will wield more influence over her during a critical vote if they are on board already.  If they are not, her fellow Democrats are going to tell her “Those cousin-humpers upstate will never vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Democrat, so you can forget about them and vote the way we expect you to,” and she will have nothing to fight back with.

Politicians pay considerably more attention to campaign donors than they do ordinary constituents, and the threat she could use that kind of support might be enough to keep her with us.  My fear, however, is that New York gun owners will take a wait and see approach in regards to Gillibrand, which I think is incorrect.  The time to influence and help her is now, because she’s politically at her weakest.  If she keeps voting with us, and wins in 2010, it’s likely she’ll stay with us.  The New York Times is doing their level best to take advantage of Gillibrand’s weakness, and tie her hands on the gun issue.  What are gun owners willing to do for her?

Kirsten Gillibrand’s ascendancy to the Senate has been a good lesson on how gun control thrives.  This New York Times piece indicates she’s softening her support of gun rights a bit.

Understand that these articles have a purpose, a political purpose.  They are intended to cajole Gillibrand out of her previous gun rights positions by limiting her range of action.  If the New York Times comes out and says Gillibrand is softening her position on guns, with a new state-wide view, well, then she better do it.  The paper of record now has her on record.

And this, my friends, is how gun control thrives.  A media willing to guilt politicians out of positions they find unsavory, and a population who doesn’t have enough experience with the issue to know differently.  Will Kirsten Gillibrand hold strong?  I hope she does.  But I would be reluctant to count her as a reliable vote in our favor should something come up.   A lot of that will depend on what gun owners are willing to do for her if she angers the New York Times.

UPDATE: Bitter suggests in the comments that the NYT is trying to characterize her as sofening, but doesn’t believe she’s given any indication that she’s changing her position.  I should be clear that I think this is the case, but I still think it’s difficult to say whether she’d be a reliable vote at this point.  I’m honestly just not sure how much gun owners in New York State have to offer her if she votes on a bill in a way that will piss off the New York City political elite.  Right now she’s under a lot of pressure to cave on this issue, and remember, she has to win a Democratic primary in one of the bluest states in the country.  What incentive are gun owners going to offer her to stay a favorable vote?