Category: Gun Rights

Harry Reid has decided he doesn’t want Hilly and Obama to have to vote on it (i.e. they will vote against it, which could become an issue in the election):

Republicans counter that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to protect the two leading Democratic candidates for president by shielding them from a politically difficult vote on an issue that many rural voters consider crucial.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the leading Republican contender for president, is a co-sponsor of the amendment, which would allow gun owners to carry loaded, accessible firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges. Current regulations ban gun owners from carrying easy-to-reach firearms onto lands managed by the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service.

Is it political pandering on McCain’s part to co-sponsor this bill?  Or are there real differences between McCain and Obillery on the gun issue?

Hat tip to Of Arms and the Law

I know some of you might be shocked to hear an NRA board member say Compromises Do Not Work, but that’s what Tom King is trying to do with one guy that goes by the alias “Gman”.  Gman is one of the disenfranchised souls that is disappointed Harlan Carter managed to wrest control of the NRA in the 1977 “Cinncinatti Revolt”.

It’s generally been my experience that, unless you’re the type that thrives on politics, the more understanding of the process that you have, the less you trust it.  Gman says this, in regards to Tom’s last post on ballistic imaging and microstamping:

Don’t be shocked, but I happen to agree 110% with you on this one…and would like to take a step back to my post on microstamping. Because it would seem to me to be pretty much the same logical principle; that it really does not aid in apprehending a criminal, even if the gun is ID’ed. It just adds expense. The new evidence on imaging should help make the case for microstamping moot up in the Capitol.

It really seems to me to be a no-brainer. And I would think that it would be one of those issues that would be fairly simple to head off early in the legislative process by a fairly clear explanation; that is, an issue that the legislative liaison folks could take care of, alleviating the information overload on Joe Sixpack gun owner.

My response to that is one should never assume the legislative process involves a bunch of smart, well meaning people sitting around trying to fix real problems with real solutions. Think of the opposite of that, and you have the legislative process. This isn’t about the utility microstamping has in crime solving, it’s being pushed by the gun control groups because it will drive the cost of guns up, and drive some manufacturers who won’t be able to afford to add this to their production process to either close shop if they manufacture in-state, or sacrifice the market in a large state (like New York and California).  The gun control groups don’t give a whit if it never solves a single crime, beause it’s about increasing the regulatory burden on the gun industry, driving prices up, and putting a damper on the market.

Politicians will go along with this if they think they can go back to their constitents, and talk about all the wonderful things they are doing to fight crime.  This is why you can’t rely on liasons, you have to educate people, tie these issues together, so that gun owners understand what they are up against, and will tell their legislators that they want none of this nonsense.

Couldn’t get this up earlier because of the server crash, but Pennsylvania has an emergency powers bill that needs our support:

Today, Senate Bill 1172, Pennsylvania’s “Emergency Powers” legislation, sponsored by State Senator Robert Robbins (R-50), was passed unanimously by the State Senate.  The bill now heads to the State House of Representatives for consideration.

SB 1172 will protect our Second Amendment rights by prohibiting any government agency from confiscating or regulating the lawful sale, possession, transfer, transport and carry of firearms during a state of emergency, such as occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Please contact your State Representative today and urge him or her to protect our Second Amendment rights by supporting SB1172.  To find your State Representative, please click here.

Excellent.

Chicago Handgun Rights gives us a review of the goings on in New York State in regards to gun control advocates there attempting to close the “Musket Loophole”  But in addition, he also tells us what the “Musket Loophole” means for Chicago residents.

Red’s trading post has a bit up about Idaho’s efforts to court gun makers. I’m sure Idaho is also a good state to do business in, in addition to having reasonable gun laws. Idaho has some other states to compete with, however.  There’s very little chance Pennsylvania would ever see any of this action.

While our gun laws are not bad, from a manufacturing point of view, our business climate is terrible, and it’s one of the worst states in the country in which to set up a manufacturing operation. Plus, you can bet that Fast Eddie Rendell won’t be offering any tax breaks for that industry.

It’s good to see Idaho stepping up to offer a home to gun makers who are being driven out of their increasingly hostile home states. I suspect the competition here will be stiff, though. Still, if I had my chance, I’d love to live in Idaho.

Ahab thinks it’s time. I agree. In very worried about what’s going to happen in November. In the primary election, Democrats are turning out way more to vote than Republicans, which tells me Republicans are feeling alienated from their party (and for good reason). Hillary would be unlikely to push for a new assault weapons ban in a serious way (other than lip service), because she’s been burnt in a big way on that issue in the past, and I’m sure she still feels the sting. I think if we get The Hildabeast, the main thing we have to watch out for is preserving the ability to sell firearms privately.

Obama, on the other hand, is politically naive, and I don’t think understands the world very well outside of Chicago. Despite the fact that I lack the loathing disdain for Obama that I have for Hillary Clinton, he’s probably the biggest danger to gun rights.

UPDATE: Stock up on magazines too.  That’s another likely avenue of attack under a Democrat president.  Either one I think is likely to do that.

I’ve been critical of GOA often in the past, but ouch:

Bottom line, the Gun Owners of America (and by implication Larry Pratt) aren’t worth the paper I just used to wipe shit from ass.

Follow the comment he linked to, where he deconstructs McCain’s GOA F rating.  I would note, though, that NRA also dinged McCain’s grade because of McCain-Feingold.  Last time he ran with a NRA grade of C+, if I recall.

To my mind, McCain’s worst sin against gun owners is huckstering for AHSA speaking in favor of banning private sales at gun shows.   His worst sin against the constitution is McCain-Feingold.

Looks like he’s been audited, once again:

Their intentions were not to bring us into compliance as they have claimed in the past but it was to specifically try and drum up violations in an attempt to paint us in a bad light before the Judge.

Looks like they felt like they needed to dig for some dirt now that they lost their motion for summary judgment.  Ryan also has some tales of SHOT show.

Thirdpower speaks of a commenter regularly appearing over at Tom King’s blog:

What he considers a “principled” stance is to throw gun owners he doesn’t associate with under the bus to protect his personal interests for the time being yet can’t seem to understand why we don’t like him.

I’m willing to stand with a hunter who will stand with me any day of the week, but I’m even willing to stand with a hunter who mostly just fights for his sport, as long as he doesn’t actively work against mine. I’d hardly consider that Great Britain was being a good ally to Czechoslovakia when they agreed to let Hitler gobble it up in order to have “Peace in our Time”, and it’s hard to consider a guy like this a real ally too, even a moderate one.

But I do think we need to dispense with the term “Fudd,” and drop the generally adversarial relationship we often promote with the hunting community. We need hunters, for a lot of reasons. I’m a proponent of getting them more on board with the gun rights thing, and it’s hard to do that if they see us insulting them, and denigrating their sport. We won’t get through to all of them, but I don’t see any reason to write off this important demographic in the shooting community. We may not convert this moderate “ally” into someone who sees the light, but there’s no reason not to try.

UPDATE: Pistolero has a different point of view.  I should clarify that I’m not suggesting we need to abide by hunters who just decide to be selfish and actively work against the gun rights of others.  The proper term for someone like that is gun control advocate, and they must be opposed.  My caution here is to not assume that every horse of this persuasion can’t be lead to water.  Many of them can.  That’s why I caution against terms like “Fudd” that some might see as denigrating.  If the shooting community factionalizes, we’re doomed.