How Not to Win

More People Who Want Us to Lose

Bitter beat me to the story about State Representative Jewell Williams recieving a death threat from someone near Allentown. I sincerely hope that they find the guy and get him off the streets. This is not someone we need on our side. Here’s the story:

For protection, State Rep. Jewell Williams packs a .38-caliber revolver in his North Philadelphia district and while traveling to Harrisburg.But a threatening e-mail he received yesterday has him considering a further precaution: dusting off an old bulletproof vest stored for the last seven years in his closet.

The e-mail, sent by a man Williams identified as a resident of Allentown, said Williams should be shot while in the Capitol. â€¦

â€œNow that I hear this attitude of people recommending lynching, Iâ€™ll probably be wearing my gun more and possibly wearing my bulletproof vest, because we now think weâ€™re being threatened,â€ Williams, a former police officer, said yesterday at a news conference calling for tighter gun laws.

Jewell Williams is a grade A bozo, and hypocrite for calling for tougher gun laws that would disarm you and me while he himself is carrying a firearm for self-protection. Who elects people who think like this?

But threatening Williams is reprehensible. I support William’s right to carry a firearm to defend himself. I really do wish he’d support mine. One bit of advise for Representative Williams, though. Body armor has a limited shelf life, I think along the lines of five years. If that vest has been sitting in the closet for a while, it’s probably better to buy some new gear. The old stuff will probably still stop a bullet, according to its rating, but it’s not a good idea to take chances if the vest is beyond the manufacturers expiration date. Get a new one!

Glad I Didn’t Go!

This is one for the “How Not to Win Column”:

HARRISBURG — A sign waved at a gun supporters’ rally Tuesday outraged lawmakers who interpreted it as suggesting the lynching of a Philadelphia legislator and said they would report the incident to police as a death threat.

Two men stunned onlookers by raising the banner criticizing Democratic Rep. Angel Cruz, sponsor of a bill that would create a registry of gun owners and require people to pay a yearly $10 fee for each gun or face state police confiscation of their weapons. Cruz should be “hung from the tree of liberty for treasonous acts against the Constitution,” the sign read.

Are you friggin kidding me?Â Look, I’m against the gun registration as much as anyone, and I’d like nothing more than to see Cruz pay a political price for it.Â But let’s get real here.Â The proper remedy for a politician going against their political oath is to throw them out of office, not to suggest they ought to be hanged.Â This just makes us look insane.

The sign was “over the top,” Cruz said, but he said attendees had a right to express their opinions. He said people outside of Philadelphia don’t understand what it’s like in a city where “five or six killings” happen a day.

In the rest of Pennsylvania, “they don’t hunt human beings like they do in Philadelphia,” said Cruz, whose bill is before the House Judiciary Committee.

Imagine that.Â Lots of guns, and we don’t kill each other. Â Maybe Philadelphia has a criminal problem rather than a gun problem?

Republican Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, of Cranberry, a strong supporter of gun owners’ rights who helped organize the rally, said the sign contained “horrible statements” that had no place in a conversation about politics and policy. The people involved did not represent the event organizers, he said.

Geez guys, you even pissed off Daryl Metcalfe! Â He’s one of the staunchest supporters of gun rights in the legislature.

“The overwhelming majority of gun owners are not criminals. …They are not madmen, and they shouldn’t be treated as such. They’re hunters and sportsmen,” said Rep. Jesse White, a Democrat who represents portions of Washington, Beaver and Allegheny counties.

He’s right.Â It’s a pity a few bozos had to suggest otherwise.

Some Comment on the Comments

I see the commenters have been busy beavers while I was sleeping. It’s good that we have these kinds of ~~flame wars~~ discussions, though. I have some reactions to some things that were said. I don’t mean to ruffle any feathers here, just to present how I think about these things. We need the dedicated and passionate, badly, but I do worry sometimes that the dedication and passion can overflow a bit too much, and drive away some folks we need in order to help us keep winning politically.

First I want to start by saying it does frustrate me to no end that a lot of hunters could really care less about RKBA issues, but a large percentage of them are sympathetic, but uninvolved. Jym’s father falls into the latter category. These are people who can be helpful to us if we reach them, because they vote.

A lot of hunters, even those who disagreed with what Zumbo said, were nontheless upset that his career was ruined. I don’t apologize for our reaction as a community to his blog post. We needed to react strongly to that kind of statement, because of the kind of damage it can do. I wanted the industry and hunters to pay attention, and they have. It’s how we behave now that will determine whether or not we reconcile the hunting and shooting communities, or drive the wedge further in. Can you guess which outcome the Bradys are hoping for?

I do not, under any circumstances, make apologies for, or regret the reaction to Zumbo’s “terrorist rifles” blog post, but it saddens me that people aren’t willing to give him the benefit of doubt as he tries to reconcile himself with the shooting community. What does driving people away from the movement really accomplish for us? It might make us feel good, but it’s a sure path to take the movement out into the political wilderness.

Many of you folks I think need to understand the difference between someone hostile to the right to arms and someone sympathetic, but not really active within the community. People who are outright hostile and unapologetic, we do have no use for. If I encounter a hunter who rails against my “assault weapon”, and I’m unable to persuade, I’m quite happy to write that person off as as quickly as I would a die hard Brady supporter. But there are a lot of people out there like Jym’s dad, or even my dad, for that matter, who are generally sympathetic to RKBA, but just aren’t active in the issue anymore. We can’t drive those folks away because they might share some sympathy for Zumbo, or because they’ll never be gun nut enough for our liking. A distinction has to be made between people who are hostile, and people who just haven’t been reached. The former we can write off, but the latter we need. The die hard among us do not have the votes or money to win on this issue, and votes and money are everything in politics.

Zumbo’s Sincerity

I have something to say about the sincerity of Zumbo’s conversion that’s being questioned in both Uncle’s comments and mine: quite frankly, I don’t really give a shit whether he’s sincere or not.Â As long as he’s saying and doing the right things, it matters not to me whether he really believes it, or is just trying to salvage his career.

There’s a reason why I think it doesn’t matter, and it has to do with the sheer number of hunters that Jim is capable of reaching.Â We’re not going to do ourselves any favors by being stubborn and obstinate about this.Â We need hunters on our side, and if we’re going to insist on eating our own instead of fighting the anti-gun folks, we’re going to lose.

If Jim wants to spread the word to hunters, either to save his career, or because he’s seen the light on the issue, it’s not of much importance to me. Â The result is the same.

Eating our Own

When controversy erupts within our community, we need to not be so quick to eat our own. Early on there were many ill considered calls for boycotting Remington, even though they merely got an incidental mention from Zumbo. I think putting pressure on Outdoor Life was appropriate, but I have to admit I’m somewhat disappointed that Outdoor Life has responded by taking the Zumbo Blog down.

While I think that Zumbo’s statments were assenine, and the apology not quite enough to make up for the damage somegthing like that can do to us, I pretty strongly look down on trying to erase history. You can’t take stuff back on the Internet. That’s why we’re so angry about this.

I don’t want to see Zumbo lose his writing job, or have his blog taken down, because, as much as I’m upset over his statements, I genuinely believe they were based completely on ignorance, rather than on malice. Let Zumbo continue his blog. In the coming days, we can see where his heart really is on the issue. We’ve given him his baptism by fire into the blogosphere, and now let’s see which side he’s really on.

David Makes Some Good Points

Over at WarOnGuns, David Codrea posts in response to my post few a few days ago.Â I agree with several of David’s points.Â Namely:

As for Mr. Sawders’ letter, again, I agree it would not be advisable to send such a missive if the goal was to persuade Judge Hendren to “do the right thing.” What I reject is that anyone is capable of writing such a letter.

The judge has proven he is a creature who considers stare decisis the supreme law of the land. He will be guided on the sentencing by what the prosecution wants and what the guidelines and precedent say.

I essentially agree here.Â I do think there are a lot of folks out there who feel, rightly, like they are backed against the wall on the gun issue.Â I also agree that there is often no right case, and sometimes you have to go to court with a less than ideal case because it’s the right thing to do.Â What I do want to discourage is people getting themselves arrested with the intent of pushing a case through the courts.Â There might come a place and time for that, and when it comes, we’ll need folks like Mr. Fincher.Â I will post later on what the ideal first case might look like as a theoretical exercise, but David is right to point out you don’t always get to do things ideally.Â He’s also correct to point out:

is the court will rule it an individual right, but so narrowly, and with such deference to “compelling state interest” and “reasonable restrictions” as to make very little difference in terms of hampering new legislation to outlaw “assault weapons” again, “close the gun show loophole,” retain and share NICS data, etc., and of course, in terms of enforcing “existing gun laws.”

This is definitely something to be afraid of, and a big fear of mine as well.Â I’m not going to say much else about the topic of Mr. Sawders’ letter, because I don’t really want to stir up trouble within the community, and I am sympathetic to many of his arguments.Â We’re all on the same side, and while I think it’s good to air out differences in strategy and tactics for time to time, we need to keep our energy focused on the real opposition.Â Especially with the media seemingly bring gun control back to the surface in a big way.

Accusing Federal Judges of Treason is Definitely “How Not to Win”

I don’t enjoy criticizing members of our own community, especially when I think their hearts are in the right place. But I have to make exceptions when I think they are doing something that’s really damaging to the community as a whole. I’ve stated my opinions on the Wayne Fincher case before, but I noticed this appear WarOnGuns earlier that makes me want to bring it up again:

What was your price? What was offered you in that meeting with representatives of the prosecution that seems to have caused a complete reversal of what you had stated only the day before? Was it reward? Was it threat if you did not cooperate?

To sum it up in one question, “What price treason?”

Folks,we’re really not going to accomplish anything by antagonizing the federal judiciary. In fact, it’s going to seriously hurt us. These are the same federal judges we’ll be relying on to, someday, rule in our favor and throw out a gun law because of the second amendment.

The judge in the Fincher case was bound by the precedent of 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds that the Second Amendment is a collective right. I don’t think he was bribed or coerced into treason. I think he was made aware of controlling precedent in his circuit, which he was perhaps not initially, and also made aware that as a district judge in that circuit, he was bound by that precedent.

I may not agree with our court system’s near worship of stare decisis, especially in a case, such at this, where the precedent is clearly wrong, but it’s how the system works. If you want to work within the system, you have to deal with and understand these issues. We must be exceedingly careful when dealing with the courts, and judges.

We’re getting into territory where if we play our cards wrong, the judiciary will read the right to bear arms right out of the constitution. Maybe some of the anti-government types out there would love to have something like that to prove that our government is hopelessly corrupt, and beyond hope, but I think most of us would really like to fix this issue the proper way.

In order to fix it, you have to have the right case, the right defendant, and the right council. I’m sorry, but this case isn’t it. I don’t say this because I don’t care that Wayne is in prison, or because I think the precedent is correct. I say this because having the Supreme Court throw out the NFA is the only way we’re ever going to, once again, have the right to own machine guns. Going after the NFA straight out of the gate, with a defendant who is a militia member, in the 8th circuit, which is one of the most hostile ones, is a great way to make sure we get more precedent on the books when we eventually do go after the NFA in the Supreme Court. You can bet they will scrutinize every lower court ruling when coming to THAT decision. So please. Let’s not give the anti-gunners more ammo in court.

If you must write the federal judge that presided over the Fincher case, be polite, and stick to intelligent, well reasoned, and non-accusatory arguments that are grounded in the law. You will never win someone over to your cause by accusing them of having been bribed to commit treason. I would have hoped that was obvious to all of us.

The Courts Are Stacked Against Us

David Codrea has been tracking the unfortunate circumstance of Wayne Fincher, who was arrested for illegally manufacturing and possessing a machine gun, with the purposes of raising the constitutional question of whether there’s an individual right to keep and bear automatic weapons. Let me just say that I have a lot of respect for Mr. Fincher for caring enough about our rights to risk federal prosecution in order to try to win them back, but I have to question the wisdom using this method, because the courts, quite honestly are stacked against us, and going to court is a risky, risky proposition, even if you’re the perfect case with the perfect defendant. As much as I hope Mr. Fincher ends up winning his case, I suspect there’s going to be federal prison time in his future.

Unlike Mr. Fincher, judges these days are not brave people. They tend to be very reluctant to throw our laws that have been enacted by Congress. There’s a presumption of constitutionality the courts make, that any law Congress passes, and the president signs, must be constitutional, and therefore the burden is on the citizen to prove otherwise. But before you can even have standing to raise this issue, you have to be prosecuted. This is the path that Mr. Fincher has taken.

Mr. Fincher was prosecuted in Arkansas, which is in the 8th Federal Circuit, where the collective rights model is the controlling law. The judge in that case will not, and in Fischer’s case, has decided, not to allow him to raise 2nd amendment arguments during his trial. This is standard procedure in trials when the district justice is controlled by precedent from the higher circuit court. Fischer will be able to raise the issue on appeal, but the deck will be stacked against him. He’d have to convince the court to overturn one of their previous rulings. In all likelihood, the court will refuse to hear the appeal if it’s based on the second amendment. But what if they do?

The other big problem with using this case to get the courts to recognize the second amendment, is how big of a leap you’re asking the courts to take. The Supreme Court has never plainly stated the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. They have implied it in dicta, but there is no example of any federal law being invalided under second amendment grounds. We don’t really want the first case being taken before The Court to involve a machine gun in possession of someone the prosecution will have an easy time painting as a whacked out, subversive militia type (I’m not saying this is right or accurate, just that’s what the prosecution will do). We really don’t want this to happen in a circuit court that’s already hostile to the second amendment. A case like this would even be a leap in the 5th circuit, which so far is the only federal circuit that recognizes the second amendment as protecting an individual right. And remember that the 5th’s circuit’s ruling didn’t help out Dr. Emerson any, the Lautenberg restrictions on his right to bear arms were upheld as constitutional. Courts generally will not take major leaps of faith, and getting at least one of the circuit courts to even say that the second amendment protected an individual right was a major step in the right direction. But the next challenge has to be a baby step up from that. DC’s near total prohibition on firearms is probably a decent step, but even that might be asking for too much, and it’ll be easy for the courts to dodge the issue based on standing unless someone steps up and agrees to be prosecuted. Mr. Fincher has boldly settled the standing issue in his case, but I think it’s the wrong case in the wrong circuit for getting the second amendment recognized by the courts.

I don’t want to be misunderstood, I think the second amendment protects Mr. Fincher’s right to possess a machine gun, and I would refuse to convict if I were on the jury, but we have to be very careful about using the courts, because we can damage our cause in a serious way if we’re not prudent. I really do hope Wayne Fincher doesn’t end up in a federal prison, but I suspect he will. We do need to people like him that are willing to put so much on the line, but we have to be careful, and we have to understand how the courts work and how judges think, and take that into account when working toward our goals.

UPDATE: Wayne Fincher was found guilty of the charges against him after a very brief deliberation by the jury. I should also say that pissing off the presiding judge also is not a very good strategy to use in court. Check out this post over at Smallest Minority, which has a lot more really good information and commentary on the case. Looks like we’ll be adding Smallest Minority to the blogroll.

Pro-Gun Activists Need Women on Their Side

Today The View from North Central Idaho points us to a story in the media that’s decidedly not flattering to gun owners, but I put this in the category of “they gave us enough rope, and we didn’t disappoint”:

Wives were threats. Girlfriends were threats. They are the new scourges of secular life, hunting down unsuspecting men to get bucks and tear out their hearts. Women who talked too much were threats. And women who held public office and wouldn’t shut up were the scourge of the land. I also have picked up bumper stickers at gun shows that said: “I just got a gun for my wife. It’s the best trade I ever made.” Or handouts detailing the “Top 10 Reasons Handguns Are Better than Women,” ending with the No. 1 reason, “You can buy a silencer for a handgun.” I also had seen some pretty vicious materials on Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno. A new fear floated above some of the gun exhibits: judges, lawyers and voters were giving women too much power, and the women were using that power to take guns away from their husbands, their boyfriends and their constituents. A gun-grabber lurked in the heart of the liberated woman.

Women are the fastest growing segment of the shooting community.Â Saying and doing things that alienate them, and make them feel unwelcome, is a great way to put our right to bear arms in jeaopardy over the long run. This is bad press, I agree with Joe on that, but it’s bad press that we deserved. Maybe the reporter came to that gun show with a pre-existing bias, but maybe she didn’t and we created an enemy where none had previously existed.

I don’t agree with many of the things this reporter says, and the article is definitely overtly hostile, but it should serve as a lesson to gun folks out there that you have to treat noobs with kid gloves, and not to just assume that anyone you talk to is a fellow gun enthusiast, and has already drank the kool-aid. Getting into the our community can be an intimidating experience for nephytes, and that might mean setting aside a lot of the politics and rhetoric we use with each other, and just try to get the person excited about the sport. We can work on all the other prejudices, stereotypes, and preconceived notions later.

I’m going to start a category of gun related posts entitled “How Not to Win”.Â My intention is to point out issues within the pro-gun movement that I don’t think do us any favors politically, that don’t help win others over to our cause, and create barriers toward introducing new people to the shooting sports.Â These three things are critical, because most statistics are showing the traditional hunting culture is contracting, and if all of us want to keep our boomsticks, we need to work at replacing them with different kinds of shooters.Â As a community we certainly do a lot of squabbling among ourselves, , which is fine, even healthy, but at the end of the day, to quote Ben Franklin, we must hang together, or surely we will all hang seperately.