Guns – Page 148 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Quite an Audacious Editorial on Smart Guns

Most days I feel like I’ve seen about everything from the media that’s worth even commenting on, but sometimes they outdo themselves. Such an example can be found in this editorialÂ from the Middletown Press:

Yet gun-rights activists have successfully intimidated stores in Maryland and California into not selling the iP1.

The gun-rights movement is treating the expansion of consumer choice not as free enterprise, but as treason.

It takes quite a lot of gall to suggest we’re fighting “the expansion of consumer choice.” We’re fighting smart gun mandates which would essentially create a sweeping gun ban across a large percentage of the population of the United States. This could have been about consumer choice, but people like the Editorial board of the Middletown Press, Bryan Miller, and other anti-gun nitwits made another choice.

Few industries need innovation as desperately as the gun trade. As Mauch writes in his essay, which appeared in the Washington Post, â€œFirearm safety has not meaningfully advanced in the past century.â€ Automobile safety, by contrast, has progressed so significantly in that same period that guns are poised to pass auto accidents as a cause of death.

And what do you idiots know about innovation in the gun trade? I’m always amazed at the arrogance of journalists willing to opine about topics they know absolutely nothing about. That seems to go double when the topic is firearms. Come to SHOT one year, and then argue there’s no innovation.Â There has been a lot of innovation. There has even been a lot of SAFETY innovation. Virtually all modern firearms are drop safe. That wasn’t the case even a few decades ago.

So maybe a compromise is in order: If New Jersey allows the marketplace to dictate the fate of smart guns, will the NRA and its followers be willing to do the same? Thatâ€™s a deal worth making.

You put your cards on the table already. No deal. We fight the technology because we know what will be coming next. We simply do not trust you not to mandate the technology once it hits the market and you, the people who know nothing about firearms or firearms safety, decide it’s working well enough to impose on those people who do know about those things. Sorry, not accepting the firearm market being controlled by clueless journalists, sniveling politicians, and pearl clutching ninnies. That’s what we’re inviting if we give in to the smart gun technology.

Open Carry Texas Revises Its Protocols

Good on Open Carry Texas for setting things right. You can find the statement here:

For all further open carry walks with long guns, we are adopting the following unified protocol and general policy to best ensure meeting our respective legislative mission to legalize open carry:

Always notify local law enforcement prior to the walk, especially the day of.

Carry Flags and signs during your walk to increase awareness.

Carry the long gun on a sling, not held.

Do not go into corporate businesses without prior permission, preferably not at all.

If asked to leave, do so quietly and do not make it a problem.

Do not post pics publicly if you do get permission and are able to OC in a cooperate business.

Do not go into businesses with TABC signs posted with a long gun (Ever).

If at all possible, keep to local small businesses that are 2A friendly.

I think if people follow these new guidelines, we won’t have any problems form here on out. I still question the value of the overall tactic, but I’m mostly concerned about stopping the bleeding, and I think this should accomplish that. Now hopefully people will listen.

I’d also note that any time I offer criticism of other gun rights advocates or groups, there’s always one or two people who try to argue that arguing with each other is counterproductive, and only helps the antis. I agree that can sometimes be the case with petty bickering, but in cases where tactics put theÂ image of the movement is at risk, and our opponents become energized and emboldened, I think it’s important to speak out. This shows that speaking out can work. Shame is a powerful motivator.

Hat Tip to Bob Owens, who notes this probably won’t be good news for Shannon Watts.

When Crafting Meets Concealed Carry

Did you know that there are more than 1,300 products that show up when you search Etsy for the term “gun holster”?

I guess I should be thrilled at so many entrepreneurs entering the carry market, but I have to admit that some leave me wondering if they understand the word “concealed” or “carry” in their product description.

For example, I checked out this all lace holster wondering just how the hell there could be any retention (it’s only based on how tightly you wrap it around your body) and then noticed the video on the website where the guns were printing horribly. Not to mention, while it’s shown in a way that implies it’s safe to carry your keys alongside the gun, that’s just assuming that you don’t remove the lining of the single pocket and leave the trigger guarded by a thin piece of lace. That seems like quite the negligent discharge waiting to happen. That is certainly not the only flimsy piece of lace billing itself as a method to carry a gun available on Etsy.

Then there’s one product known as the “Rocker Gun Holster” that seems to forget that carry means carrying an actual gun. Well, until I realized the shop owner is from Europe and thought that would make a witty name for a wearable purse. Anyone want to bet that the owner has received inquiries on what size gun the “holster” fits? That would probably be a pretty funny conversation to see.

Another one that stuck out to me was a piece of vinyl-wrapped foam that’s supposed to turn every purse into a carry purse. At least it covers the trigger, but I’ll be honest and say that it doesn’t exactly look like a product that’s great for the draw.

Regardless, you have to wonder what Etsy crafters think about selling alongside the holster entrepreneurs trying to pitch their products to the masses of new gun owners.

Justice Thomas Gets It

From a Supreme Court case in 2000,Â Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 1001 (2000), Footnote 16 of Justice Thomas’ dissent:

“The fact that the statutory term â€œpartial birth abortionâ€ may express a political or moral judgment, whereas â€œdilation and extractionâ€ does not, is irrelevant. It is certainly true that technical terms are frequently empty of normative content. (Of course, the decision to use a technical term can itself be normative. … But, so long as statutory terms are adequately defined, there is no requirement that Congress or state legislatures draft statutes using morally agnostic terminology. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. Â§ 922(v) (making it unlawful to â€œmanufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weaponâ€); Kobayashi & Olson, et al., In Re 101 California Street: A Legal and Economic Analysis of Strict Liability For The Manufacture And Sale Of â€œAssault Weapons,â€ 8 Stan. L. & Polâ€™y Rev. 41, 43 (1997) (â€œPrior to 1989, the term â€˜assault weaponâ€™ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of â€˜assault riflesâ€™ so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined â€˜evilâ€™ appearanceâ€). See also Meese, 481 U.S., at 484â€”485.”

Emphasis mine. This shows at least one of the justices gets it. If you love your gun rights, pray for Justice Thomas’ good health.

h/t to Annual Firearms Law Seminar.

Thursday May 22, 2014 News Links

OCT Fallout:

Legal Insurrection’s Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self-Defense, does not go kindly on the Open Carry In Your Face crowd.

SayUncle notices something disappearing down the memory hole at NRA. This doesn’t happen very often, but I’ve seen it happen before. What probably happens is the person who puts together the news links puts up something NRA doesn’t want to take a position on. As annoying as the OCT crowd is, it’s best for NRA not to comment on it, even if it’s just offering up a link, and even if Shannon Watts is egging them on.

Esquire salutes the moms who got guns banned from Chipotle.

Christian Science Monitor’s Patrik Jonsson covers the broader issue and notes “The Chipotle decision, analysts say, may spur further campaigns to prod corporations to stake out ground on publicly displayed guns and whether they should become part of everyday life for Americans.” Yep. Thanks Open Carry Texas.

Bloomberg’s gun group now says it’s safe to eat at Chipotle. Obviously they’ve never tried their burritos. “Despite its new gun policy, Chipotle insists it is a neutral party in the Second Amendment debate.” They were a neutral party. Then you caved to Shannon Watts. Personally, I never really liked their crappy food.

Newsbusters takes a look at Jon Stewart’s reaction to the OCT demonstration in Chipotle. I don’t watch The Daily Show anymore, because I don’t like Stewart’s politics, but OCT gave him irresistible ammunition.

The havoc in their wake.

General Gun News:

Bob Owens of Bearing Arms talks about how the gun review world works. I’ve never been a fan of Truth About Guns because I don’t like sensationalism and don’t appreciate how they’ve interacted with the gun community. And that’s a shame, because sometimes their content is excellent.

Dave Kopel talks about the vagueness challenge to NYC’s interpretation of their gravity knife law.

Laser engraved bolts for the 10/22. I’ve always wanted to build a custom match grade 10/22. This would be a nice looking addition to such a project.

Dems pushing to restore CDC funding for using your tax dollars to undermine your gun rights.

SAF notes that being more gun friendly could help New Jersey’s economy and budget. They don’t care. As far as the anti-gun politicians in New Jersey are concerned, those are jobs for the wrong kind of people.

You would think that the Army Times would know something about guns.

Weird Crime Stories:

Another mass knifing, 4 killed and a dozen injured.

Those Crazy Anti-Gunners:

Tam: Clutch the pearls! Takeaway quote: “[Y]ou could turn up better out of the cabs of the pickup trucks in the parking lot of any blue collar employer in flyover country.”

Another MAIG Mayor charged with a crime. Everytown might be a stupid name, but can you blame the guy for rebranding?

OK, this one isn’t about anti-gunners, but a university in North Dakota kicks a fencing team off campus. It won’t just stop with guns. These people are mentally deranged.

It’s always good to talk to antis who are willing to talk, as Joe Huffman relays.

Hot Court Action:

Cal-FFL and Cal-Guns are taking Attorney General Kamala Harris to court again.

The Brady Center is suing Gander Mountain, they seem to assert that you can’t go shopping for firearms with a friend, spouse or girlfriend because that’s indicative of a straw buy. We’ve called out theÂ anti-gunners before for equating women buying firearms as automatic suspected straw buyers.

John Richardson takes a deeper look at Brady’s suit against the NJ Attorney General to file the smart gun reports.

Legislative:

Massachusetts gearing up to make its gun laws worse. Yes, it’s apparently possible.

Off Topic:

P.J. O’Rourke’s commencement speech to Rutgers, if he had given one.

New Literature Challenging Standard Model

I have never read anything published by Professor Michael Waldman on the topic of the Second Amendment until I read this articleÂ in Politico, promoting his new book,Â The Second Amendment: A Biography. This book looks a lot like many of Adam Winkler’s assertions on early gun control laws, combined with a bit of CSGV tilting at windmills, reasserting ideas that have been thoroughly discredited in the Standard Model literature. From the Politico article, we begin with a marginalization of the Second Amendment as a quaint, meaningless passage in the Bill of Rights from the founders:

But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored.

Yes, because for two centuries, there wasn’t any serious attempts to restrict it. Absent the laws on Title II firearms, under the National Firearms Act, almost every piece of gun control now present at either the state or local level was enacted in the past half-century. The research into the Second Amendment was a direct response to the Gun Control movement. It would not have existed without it.

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weaponâ€”and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand.

This is channeling some of the arguments in Professor Winkler’s work, Gunfight. But Clayton Cramer has probably done the most thorough research on this area with his books, Concealed Weapons Laws of the Early Republic,Â For the Defense of Themselves and the State, andÂ Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie. But I could spent paragraphs just listing out the academic works on this subject. Citing Patrick Henry’s famous quote that â€œThe great object is, that every man be armed.â€:

But if you look at the full text, he was complaining about the cost of both the federal government and the state arming the militia. (â€œThe great object is, that every man be armed,â€ he said. â€œAt a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed.â€) In other words: Sure, let every man be armed, but only once! Far from a ringing statement of individual gun-toting freedom, it was an early American example of a local politician complaining about government waste.

So the suggestion is that Henry would have promoted the idea that we can limit individuals to only one firearm? That’s quite a stretch. There’s another bit where he speaks of Jefferson quotes in context, where Jefferson uses the phrase “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them,” noting that the context shows Jefferson used this phrase as a metaphor. But Jefferson was an avid arms collector, as was George Washington, to whom Jefferson wrote this passage. You can find passages in writing where both Jefferson and Washington describe carrying firearms in private self-defense. It’s simply hard to believe either of these men would have had any sympathy or even notion of modern gun control laws, but in order to preserveÂ the modern 20th century sentiments on the right to keep and bear arms, they have to in fact turn the tables, and argue that it’s our view that is the modern invention, and not theirs.

I have purchased the Kindle Edition of his book. If I manage to get through it, I’ll review it.

It Gets Worse

Bob Owens points out that one of the two individuals pictured at the Chipotle would seemingly have a drug problem, first noted by this anti-tea party site who went digging. The alleged Facebook post saying:

I want to Smoke Some Kushh so Badd. But fuckk thatt. My Babys need me And Not sitting behind barzz …. Maintaining….

Youngg enoughh to still Sell Dopee, But Old Enoughh … i Knows betterr.

Maybe he’s a recovering addict, and the latter are rap lyrics. As long as you’re not currently addicted, the law has nothing to say about it, but it’s illegal to be both a stoner and gun owner. Generally speaking, it takes seriously poor judgement to admit to a felony publicly. I hope for his sake he’s a recovering addict, because I would imagine this could be enough evidence to get a judge to support a search warrant. It would certainly warrant an officer checking on his background to ensure he’s not a prohibited person.

One problem I have with the tactics that OCT uses is that it had a very high likelihood of bringing out attention whores and other people with less than great social skills. You can’t control what people do, but you can control your tactics. Everyone supports making handgun OC in Texas legal, but there are probably dozens of better ways to go about achieving this. I’m not optimistic OCT will reconsider, but if they were open to ideas, I’d sure like them to see them adopt Chris from AK’s recommendations.

NRA “Freestyle” Attempt to Reach Younger Gun Owners

There’s been quite a bit of press attention over NRA’s new attempt to reach younger gun owners with “NRA Freestyle.” It turns out, I’m not too far off the target audience, except that I have a sense of civic duty and am actually engaged on the issue – something that doesn’t apply to the vast majority of the demographic they are targeting.

I’m technically a millennial and a woman. Only, unlike many people in my “generation,” I don’t believe the world exists to entertain me and I actually participate with the community around me. However, if you define me down by age and, to a lesser degree, gender, then I am close to who they want to reach.

So, with all the hubbub surrounding this, what’s my take? It’s ultimately, “eh.”

First, there’s the practical issue of the technology to access it. When I tried to access videos through the website, relying on Ackerman McQueen’s video system, it was completely unwatchable. The videos kept skipping as badly as an old, dirty record. I checked my internet connection, and it definitely was not on this end. I gave up in frustration. Only after things are posted to YouTube are they even accessible. So that’s a problem, and one that I’m sure NRA is paying extra for.

But, let’s face it, the content, when accessible by YouTube, is more important. So, let me start with my take on the show that is getting the most attention – Noir.

As others have noted, some of the attacks coming from the media and general left outlets are actually pretty racist. One piece compared Colion Noir using a stage/screen name to a porn actor, while never making such assertions about the many fairer skinned entertainers who use them, such as Brady Campaign celebrity supporters Anthony Dominick Benedetto and Eilleen Regina Edwards. When they have to resort to launching race-based attacks, I think that’s generally a good sign for our side. In fact, he had a little fun responding to pieces and how belittling they were to him as an individual capable of making informed decisions and living his life as he chooses on the second episode, which I think is a good thing.

But, that doesn’t mean I’m in love with the show. Colion Noir clearly built a following of gun people, many of whom trended much younger, on his own even before NRA ever reached out to him. He’s a bit more natural in the role, but his co-host is rather forced. Until her clearly scripted lines in the first episode, everything about her body language and facial expressions screamed discomfort. Sure, she successfully delivered her “pop culture” lines about topics like Lululemon (that I had to explain to Sebastian), and she does break up the action of just one man talking to a camera about a subject. It’s just that she doesn’t appear really comfortable with the gun topic in this format.

Here’s the thing that I would say about that. I am not a gun nut who can give you a detailed technical analysis of a favorite rifle. I am not the awesome font of gun knowledge that is a woman like Tam. I know that, and I don’t pretend to be that, so I’m perfectly comfortable in my level of involvement with and understanding of firearms. I freely admit that when I purchase a gun, the first thing that always pulls me in is when I think, “THAT’S SO PRETTY!” And, you know what? This method has worked for me and resulted in some guns that I really love, which is why I’m not afraid to own it. It is possible to not be a total gun nut, and be comfortable in your role in the gun community, and I think that’s what Amy Robbins is missing in these early episodes. I hope that will change.

There are several parts of the show that are a little awkward, specifically the segment on “Gun Pads” stands out on that front. It was just a clip show with cameras panning past guns and some airplanes. There was no context given, and it was entirely too long for nothing more than videos of guns in different places of a house and airplane hangar. If the same person owns those guns & airplanes, they are probably a pretty interesting person. Why not at least talk about them, even if they are a stereotype of old and white? If they have younger family members who share the passion for guns & planes, why not feature that family member as a spokesperson? I have an attention span longer than your average millennial, and I wanted to close it and watch something else.

While Reason criticizes the feature that reviews guns, they do seem to ignore that gun reviews and videos are some of the most popular features of any gun-related site or media venture no matter the age of their target audience. I suspect that they will never really say anything bad in any NRA Freestyle gun review, so it’s not a totall honest critique, but they can still highlight things they like about a gun without getting negative. Oh, and I might add that both Sebastian & I checked out the featured gun of the first episode at the NRA Annual Meeting and we both really liked the feel of it and because it would fit our carry/shooting lifestyle, which the Reason writer apparently believes to be a “cringe-inducing” feature in a gun review.

Funny enough, as a woman, the concept and content that appealed to me the most with NRA Freestyle is actually Dom Raso’s Media Lab that deconstructs and re-creates movie fight scenes. It has a clear purpose, and it’s fun. Given the body of work in all the big budget action movies that Hollywood has created, there’s really some potential to have some real fun critiquing movie fights and shoot outs.

Raso’s show kept a good pace in both episodes that have been released, and the fun he can have in the next episode (tomorrow) on “Dodging Full Auto” is something I’m actually looking forward to catching. The specific scene they will use as an example is from White House Down, a movie I haven’t seen. Though, let’s face it, with Roland Emmerich involved, I’m pretty sure I can sum it up as explosions, guns, and fights. The plot details aren’t important, and that’s why these things are purely entertainment.

This show has the most potential to reach a much broader audience. Everyone knows movies are fake, and everyone loves talking about how fake or unrealistic a scene was even as we chow down on our popcorn and pull the movie up on Netflix. Given the content, it’s also far more likely to be caught by people doing random searches for various movies who may be interested in the topic and also intrigued by the background NRA branding for something entertaining. It’s got the pop culture connections without being too over-the-top.

I guess my overall impressions with the two shows currently available is that Noir has potential, but if they continue try a little too hard to force the pop culture references, it risks coming off as the butchered version of Lelaina’s reality tv show from Reality Bites. (If I see floating faces on a pizza, I’m going to be very disturbed. For you youngsters responsible for Noir, that’s a Gen X movie reference – you know, the old people.) Media Lab needs a better name, but it has the best content, in my opinion. It flows a little more seamlessly right off the bat.

I think the best feature of both shows is that they don’t do a hard sell to connect with the organization. However, that also leaves me concerned about whether or not the target audience for the network will ever be told that they need to give enough of a shit about their guns to join NRA or join the actual grassroots movement instead of sitting around watching the videos all day.

Brian Anse Patrick on the NRA Annual Meeting

Brian Anse Patrick is the author of two books that I think are required reading for any Second Amendment activists, and that I think every new NRA employee should read as part of their orientation. Brian Anse Patrick was the speaker at the lunch portion of the law seminar, and I had the opportunity to speak with him at the reception. He seemed surprised when I mentioned I had read both of his books, and was a really nice guy. He’s working on a new book about the zombie phenomena.

Today, he released a post on his blog (which I didn’t know about before now) taking aim at Anna Marie Cox’s hit pieces in the Guardian just after the convention:

Noting another significant myth perpetuated by the column, NRA is not â€œthe gun lobby.â€ Among many other functions, too many to list here but which include safety training and civil rights legal defense issues, NRA does indeed lobby on behalf of gun owners. But the gun manufacturers have their own exclusive trade associations and lobbies. NRA represents the interests of a people, not an industry. Â These members pay the dues that support NRAâ€™s manifold operations; no shadowy corporations front the money. As such, NRA members assemble in voluntary association; they converse among themselves and with others by means of various print, broadcast and computer-based media; and they peaceably petition government entities.Â When the NRA does all this, organs such asÂ The GuardianÂ andÂ The New York TimesÂ call it â€œlobbying,â€ but more accurately, it should be described as a principled application of the First Amendment. Such â€œlobbyingâ€ is merely the First Amendment put into practice.

I would encourage folks to head over and read the whole thing.

Next Battles in the Restaurant Wars

Now that we’ve endured three losses at the hands of the rifle OC crowd, it does beg the question of what to do to mitigate the damage. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to get Texas to pass an open carry bill as soon as humanly possible, but I suspect that’s going to be a bigger uphill climb the longer this goes on. I also suspect it wouldn’t stop. If you take a look atÂ Open Carry Texas’ mission statement, you’ll notice affecting legislation is number three. Their primary goal is to “educate” Texans. So I think we’re stuck with this. I also don’t think we’re going to convince them to stop, so we can expect more losses. One thing I’d mention is that Watts seems to be pushing each company a little further. I believe this is meant to desensitize us to the losses, until she can eventually convince one company to actually ban guns on their premises, and then eventually to post. I’m fairly certain this is where it will lead. One one company crosses that Rubicon, others will follow. It’s a grim future.

Taking a look at Open Carry Texas’ busy schedule, we have the following Restaurants up who I’m nearly certain will be targeted by Shannon Watts:

Pizza Hut
Double Dave’s (Never heard of them before. We don’t have those up here.)
Sonic

I don’t believe Shannon Watts will jump on these until we’re closer to the planned event. She’ll want the pictures and the news footage to promote the campaign. Sonic is an Oklahoma-based business. They stand a good chance of standing up to Shannon Watts. But who knows? Open Carry Texas must be taking some heat, or they wouldn’t be trying to deny any responsibility. I’ll repeat, a tactic that accomplishes nearly nothing, yet motivates our opponents to action and causes us to lose ground in the culture is a bad tactic. The biggest asset we have, and the biggest problem they have, is that there’s a very wide enthusiasm gap on the gun issue. People who want gun control just don’t want it as bad as we want freedom. But OCT is helping close that gap. If you look at Moms Demand’s Facebook group, their posts on open carry draw a much higher level of engagement (measures by shares, likes and comments) than other non-OC topics. Whether you mean to or not, if you carry a rifle into a fast food joint, you’re not accomplishing anything except helping Shannon Watts succeed.