Cowboy Up

Interesting article about a man who retired from Massachusetts to Arizona and took up what, for Massachusetts, would be an unusual hobby: Cowboy Action Shooting.

He and wife Debbie, aka Ruby Tucson, have gone to several shooting events, including one held in October in Tombstone.

At these events, says Gretsky, “only the top 1 or 2 percent are national competitors. The rest of us are just there to have fun.”

Even so, Gretsky has wound up with an arsenal that includes two six-guns, one shotgun and a rifle — something he says would have been tough to do back East.

“In Massachusetts there are very strict gun laws,” says Gretsky, who stresses that he’s “not a gun nut.”

Not long after moving to Tucson, Gretsky went to a local firing range. “It was the first time I’d held a gun since I’d used a .22 in Boy Scouts,” he says.

But he soon found out just going to the range “was kinda boring.” Then someone told him about cowboy action shooting.

He’s not a gun nut, but he acknowledges his completely leigitimate pastime would have been difficult to do back in Massachusetts.  Cowboy Action is a quickly growing segment of the shooting sports with an apparently wide appeal.  I think it will probably get wider as the baby boom generation, who were raised on westerns, start to retire, and head to places with sunshine and “easy access” to such lethal killing machines as a Ruger Single Six, which I’m not sure are on the Massachusetts “approved” list.  Even if it was, you have to convince your local police chief that you have a good reason to keeping one, which he’s completely free to disagree with and tell you “no constitutional rights for you.”

Cowboy shooters are people we need to be reaching out to.  I think their numbers are going to keep getting bigger.

Trial Day

Today Greg Rotz is going to court to challenge the unlawful revocation of his License to Carry Firearms by Franklin County Sheriff Robert Wollyung. Rotz had his license revoked for carrying openly, an activity not forbidden by Pennsylvania law, in a place he had a legal right to be while armed.

I talked about this story previously here, here, and here. For the sake of all of us in Pennsylvania, we do hope he prevails. I will let everyone know the verdict as soon as I can find out.

UPDATE: It would appear from folks who attended his hearing that Mr. Rotz has had his License to Carry Firearms reinstated. Excellent! Sheriff Wollyung has a lot to answer for in regards to abusing his authority.

Bob Barr on Georgia Issues & Heller

I’m glad to see Congressman Bob Barr, who has done more for gun rights in this country, both in and out of Congress, than a lot of other folks, speaking about the Heller case, and also praising some of the excellent work done by GeorgiaCarry.org:

While the debate over firearms rights in Georgia is often seen as a black and white issue — with gun control advocates lining up against the National Rifle Association (for which I serve as a board member) and other pro-Second Amendment groups, and with various media outlets taking sides reflective of the views of their editorial directors — the fact is, there is probably more that is not known about Georgia�s gun laws than is known. At least one group — GeorgiaCarry.Org — is working to educate not only lawmakers, but also journalists and the citizenry, concerning the history and extent of our state’s gun laws.

And closes with this:

These and other firearms-related issues likely will — and should — occupy the attention of our legislators during the 2008 session. One hopes that organizations like the NRA and GeorgiaCarry.Org, will continue to proactively educate and advocate on behalf of the inherent Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Georgians, just as the lawyers representing such citizens in the District of Columbia will be doing in the Supreme Court early next year.

Hopefully NRA and GeorgiaCarry.org will be able to resolve differences over bills and work together.  HB 915 is mostly a fine bill, with laudable and necessary objectives, but including the provision scuttling the parking lot bill was guaranteed to ensure NRA would not get behind it.  Sometimes to work together, you have to put minor differences aside.  Car carry is important to some gun owners, and while I don’t agree with it, if HB 915 is important to you, it’s not exactly a winning move to be selfish about your concerns, while saying someone else’s don’t matter.

I think reasonable people can disagree on the property rights aspects, I certainly have my views, which contrast against NRA’s and more than a few of my readers, I understand that taking that position has its consequences with other gun owners who disagree with me.

More on Georgia Issues

The Rome News-Tribune is covering the HB89, HB 915 controversy, and stumbles across the reason NRA is probably not backing HB 915:

Now for the meat in the coconut. Bearden’s bill – prefiled last week as HB 915 – contains this language: “Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, unless such private property has been leased to a government entity, and nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.”

I didn’t see this section of HB 915 upon my first reading of the bill, or rather, what it did exactly didn’t quite sink in:

(c) This Nothing in this Code section shall not apply to competitors participating in organized sport shooting events. Law enforcement officers, peace officers retired from state or federal law enforcement agencies, judges, magistrates, solicitors-general, and district attorneys may carry pistols in publicly owned or operated buildings be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, unless such private property has been leased to a government entity, and nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private tenant, private employer, or private business entity

So basically HB 915, GeorgiaCarry’s preferred bill, scuttles HB 89, the NRA bill, by design, and you folks are wondering why NRA isn’t getting behind HB 915? Listen, I like the rest of the provisions in HB 915, but this isn’t a way to get things done.

I don’t agree with the NRA bill, but smearing them for not supporting your preferred bill when it undermines their preferred bill strikes me as not only unfair, but underhanded. If we spent half as much time going after the anti-gunners as we spend going after each other, we might get somewhere.

UPDATE:  GeorgiaCarry.org has responded that HB 915 has nothing to do with HB 89, and that they have been working on this bill long before NRA introduced the parking lot bill.  I do apologize for the insinuation that this was deliberate, but I’m still not sure I agree that this section doesn’t interfere with the main purpose of HB 89.  I will have more on this, but be sure to follow the link to hear their side of this issue.

Unhappy Georgians

Both Conservative Scalawag and this guy are unhappy about NRA’s lack of support for Georgia HB 915, which improves Georgia’s carry laws by removing off limits places, and also includes a number of other pro-gun provisions:

Yep, the NRA, in my opinion has completely alienated the Georgia citizens and gun owners. This begs the question, are they even relevant as a pro-2nd Amendment organization any longer, or just another DC lobbyist group with its own interest at heart.

I wouldn’t go that far, but I agree that we should be asking for answers here, and I’m going to try to get one.  This could be a matter of NRA believing that HB 89 is a more important legislative priority for them, which I think would be a mistake, but I also think it would be a mistake to pick up our toys and go home because we disagree on priority, or in my case, whether HB 89 is desirable at all.

If NRA were ignoring fighting an anti-gun bill in favor of pushing HB 89, then I would agree with a high level of outrage, but that’s not the case here.  The fact is, HB 89, which prevents employers from firing employees for having a firearm in their vehicle, is important to a lot of gun owners, and I doubt the folks who support that bill feel like NRA is ignoring their concerns.   We all have to be a little patient here.

As I have said before, I don’t agree with the NRA on pushing the parking lot stuff, but I’m not going to agree with the NRA on a lot of things over the course of years.   Nonetheless, they’ve staked a lot of political capital on this particular issue, so from their perspective, it’s necessary for them to follow through.  Before we get out the torches and pitchforks, let me see if I can find out what’s going on.

Robinson Arms Controversy?

From Robinson Arms XCR Wikipedia Entry:

On January 1, 2008, Alex Robinson, CEO of Robinson Armament Co., announced his endorsement of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on the Robinson Armament Co. website. This has led to considerable controversy in the firearms enthusiast community, as Romney indicated on a December 16, 2007 interview on Meet the Press that he would sign a reauthorization of the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. This endorsement is seen as peculiar because reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban would make sale of the XCR to civilians in the United States illegal. The endorsement has led to calls for a boycott of Robinson Armament Co. in the firearms community.[2]

Robinson Armament has released a statement about this.

Many of you are supporting one of the very pro-gun candidates. That’s great. The question is: What if Mitt, Rudi, or John get the nomination? I think this is fair question.

If one of the solid gun stance candidates do not win and we totally alienate the other candidates, where are we?

If we were all really smart and working together to make sure all the bases are covered, we would make sure that we have some people working with the candidates who have less than stellar pro-gun records. Just in case they make it.

The reason I’ve been working with Romney is that I knew early on that he would be a contender. He’s got a lot going for him that a lot of people like. Though gun control issues are the biggest issues for you and I, many Americans feel there are bigger and more important issues. I completely disagree. A candidate’s stand on the Second Amendment is a litmus test. Candidates who want gun control are typically for big government, want to tax us out of existence, and support lots of other liberal ideas.

Read the whole thing. I don’t know if I’ll be willing to join the call for a boycott over this, but it’s some pretty bad political reasoning. Alex Robinson should have a talk with Bitter, who worked in this issue in Massachusetts under Romney. He’s unreliable, and will throw anyone under the bus if the political winds change, and he thinks it’s politically expedient for him to do so. It would be one thing if Romney already had the nomination locked up, but he doesn’t. It’s still time to fight for pro-gun rights candidates.

UPDATE: One guy even wants to go so far as to cut up and destroy his SBR XCR.  I’d be happy to take it off his hands if it makes him feel dirty.  I might be convinced to join a boycott, but I won’t go so far as suggesting people destroy a perfectly good rifle!

NRA and ATF Reform

Bitter and I attended part of the Board of Directors meeting for the NRA this weekend, since we were in Virginia this weekend.  Chris Cox’s report before the Board stressed the dire need for ATF reform, speaking about how far back this problem goes, and their strategy to fix it through congressional action.  Also stressed were all the upcoming challenges we will be facing in 2008, which are numerous.  I was also quite happy that he thought highly enough of our meeting with NRA folks at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous to mention that specifically in his report before the directors, given that we were a tough crowd.

The NRA isn’t a closed society.  Any member can attend the Board of Directors meeting, though some items do tend to be discussed in executive session, with only board members and officers present.  Of course, I’d be a liar if I told you it was exciting and riveting.  Think of your local gun club meeting, only a lot longer, and with a lot more items to discuss and report on.  More speeches too.