Guns – Page 227 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Quality of Life & Gun Ownership

ExurbanKevin has a story out of north central Massachusetts that highlights the issues with may issue concealed carry laws. The Fitchburg, MA police chief takes pride in the fact that he denies carry permits to about 90% of new applicants. To those 90%, he adds the restriction that they may only use their firearms for hunting and target practice.

What’s interesting about the story that isn’t explicitly stated is that the other town he mentions, Leominster, will issue a concealed carry license without restriction to new applicants, or at least they would 10 years ago. I know because I got mine through Leominster.

In fact, due to the Massachusetts gun laws, I couldn’t look for housing after I graduated college like most recent grads–finding the cheapest place with the fewest possible roommates in the neighborhood least likely to result in a stolen or damaged car.

My first step was drawing a circle around the city in which I would be working to encompass any city within reasonable driving distance where the gas wouldn’t make me go broke before I even took home a paycheck. Then, I checked with the local gun community about all the cities within that circle. The cheapest and closest apartments I could find were in a city that refused to issue concealed carry licenses. That was off the list. Eventually, after taking several other options off the list either due to the unknown issuing policies or because it was widely known they add restrictions to licenses, I found a place that I could just barely afford in Leominster.

I admit that I really liked Leominster. My apartment wasn’t in the greatest of neighborhoods, but the crime rate was sure as hell better than the neighboring Fitchburg (which does not issue for carry, and, according to what I’d heard, did not issue then, either). It was a cute apartment; my car remained safe, as did my boyfriend’s when he came to visit. The times I did have a scare–when there was a domestic dispute involving some death threats outside my bedroom windows and when maintenance accidentally left my door partially open after fixing the a/c–I didn’t have to worry about restrictions on my license getting me into trouble. I could grab my gun out of my purse and have it ready if needed. As a woman living alone in an area where family was a good 14 hours away, a boyfriend who lived about 4 hours away, and my closest good friends were back in Western Massachusetts a good hour or more away, I appreciated the fact that I had a tool to defend myself if needed.

But the fact remains that I had to spend substantially more money in rent and living expenses in order to have that peace of mind. That single decision by the police department to issue or deny my right to self-defense changed the entire equation about my lifestyle choices. At least I had the economic freedom to have a little wiggle room that would allow me to choose a jurisdiction that recognized self-defense. For those less fortunate, they still don’t have those options, and that’s a problem we need fix.

A Response from MSNBC

MSNBC has quoted us on an article, based on my Thursday post on the topic.Â This article was actually released Thursday night, but I have not honestly had time to link it until now. It’s actually a pretty balanced article, on the whole. But I never know ahead of time when contacted by a reporter whether it’s something looking for some balance, or whether it’s going to be a hack job. Unfortunately, when it’s MSNBC, my gut tells me hack job. In this case that wasn’t the case.

No doubt MAIG is going to try to drive that 1.5 million number as hard and far as they can. The question is whether any politicians will buy it. Regardless of whether it’s real grassroots or not, it’s likely MAIG has accomplished more here than the Brady Organization has, even in the past.

Administration’s Gun Control Priorities vs Senate Democratic Priorities

This is a great day to call your Congressional Representative and let them know you stand for gun rights, and you want to make sure they remember to do the same. Today, the Obama Administration is pushing gun control again. I mentioned the rallies previously, but people on his mailing list are also getting an email pitch from the daughter of the Sandy Hook principal urging phone calls to Congress.

In the weeks and months after that horrible day, lawmakers from across the country told us, the families of the victims, that they’d take action to make our communities safer. What we found out is that, for some of our members of Congress, those were empty promises.

It’s very sad about those empty promises. It’s not quite as sad as the blatant partisan nature of this call to action that is designed to try and demonize the GOP-controlled House when it’s the Democratic Senate that acknowledges they should be the first to pass a bill with any chance of moving.

What I find most interesting about this partisan pitch by a gun control activist is that it shows how unserious they really are about the actual cause as opposed to the politics of promoting their party. All of my local lawmakers know that I’m with them because of gun rights. I’ll be against them, should it be warranted, because of gun rights. My support focuses on actually getting things accomplished or keeping threats at bay rather than simply using the issue to hurt a political party. That does not appear to be the case for many of the new advocates for gun control. If this woman wanted action, she would insist that her email be targeted to Senators, not Republican House members.

Meanwhile, Charles Cooke from National Review highlights the rather shocking (to none outside of the White House) news that contrary to what the Obama Administration is trying to demand of Democrats, they have no serious desire to keep harping on gun control.

Do you mean to say that a couple of months after the bill went down, there isnâ€™t, magically, a groundswell of support for its revival? That the statistics showing that Americans really donâ€™t care about this and donâ€™t want the Senate to spend its time on it havenâ€™t changed? That the 2014 elections are still going to be held in 2014, and that conservative Democrats still fear the voters on this issue?

When you combine the efforts of Bloomberg with the Obama team, I have to wonder if they have decided it is time to purge the Democratic Party of all leaders who find gun ownership remotely acceptable. While Obama isn’t being quite as hostile to pro-gun Dems as Bloomberg, he’s still trying to brand the GOP as the party to save gun rights with his attacks on the House.

Yes, Gun Control is Still Pretty Much Astroturf

An MSNBC contributor e-mailed me looking for a statement. As a policy, I don’t return e-mail from the Administration’s propagandists, but I figured a public response would do just fine:

You have accused Mayor Bloomberg of being “Astorturf-in-Chief” and the gun control movement of being “astroturf” instead of a grassroots movement.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns now has 1.5 million supporters, and they organizing events in ten cities. The Newtown Action Alliance also held an event today on Capitol Hill.

Does the mean the “astroturf” efforts are becoming a grassroots movement for control? Or does it still just amount to “astroturf”?

What Bloomberg is likely defining as “supporters” are people who have gotten on his e-mail list. How one defines a supporter is quite flexible, but that’s a vastly different animal than a dues paying member. NRA actually has one of the strictest standards for membership of any interest group that plays in DC.

NRA has 5 million members. That’s 5 million people who forked over money, usually 25-35 dollars to become members, and who have to keep paying that every year to remain on the rolls. Voting members, which includes life members (who forked out anywhere from 300-1000 dollars) and people who have been members for 5 unbroken years, number 1.72 million by the number of ballots that went out for the last Board election.

But it’s not just that. Where are the anti-gun blogs? Where’s the anti-gun convention that turns out 82,000 people like NRA did in Houston last month? Why are we able to mobilize bigger protests ad-hoc than they can manage even with professional organizers and slick ad campaigns. If Bloomberg has grassroots why is his bus tour schedule not being made public? Perhaps because he is well aware our people will show up and risk MAIG not getting the media’s undivided attention?

If I wanted to play Bloomberg’s game, just doing a quick query on the blog’s database, I have 7139 supporters in just my small corner of the pro-2A universe. That’s how many unique people have ever commented on this blog. We’ve hadÂ 1.9 million unique people who have visited this blog since I’ve been keeping stats. Of those, about 260,000 have returned to the site at least once. The metric I use to determine how many regular readers I have comes out to about 2300 now, and 7000 over the years if I take the data back far enough. We have 520 Facebook fans, and between Bitter and I, we have 2500 followers on Twitter. I am a blog about gun politics, and that’s all I generally blog about. That’s a pretty niche topic, as things go, and I’ve never spent so much as a dime on an ad campaign, or made any effort to compile a list of “supporters.” What could I have accomplished if I had sunk even a million of Bloomberg’s money into marketing?

So yes, I believe the gun control movement is still mostly Astroturf. I am sure millions of Americans are willing to say they support gun control, and some might even be willing to sign up for an e-mail list. But it takes more than that to win in politics. Bloomberg’s 1.5 million doesn’t matter if none of those people are willing to act or vote on the issue. NRA’s 5 million people will act, and will vote, and largely on that one issue. We will crawl over broken glass to defend the Second Amendment. In fact, most of us would do more if necessary.

Bloomberg Peeing in a lot of People’s Pools

There’s been a lot of people getting upset at Bloomberg’s insistence in taking his fight a bit too far. Even Chucky Schumer seems to be getting a bit peeved with Bloomberg’s antics. It’s pretty simple to see why. If you count up the number of states that went blue in 2012 you get 25. If the Democrats are going to hold a majority in the Senate, they need to be able to appeal to red state voters. Even Chuck Schumer is more interested in holding onto power (and being Majority Leader someday) than he is in advancing gun control.

But that’s a separate issue from whether Bloomberg’s strategy is a smart one, if you concede Bloomberg is actually a true believer when it comes to gun control. Over the short term, I think Bloomberg’s strategy is disastrous. At best it weakens red state Dems with their base, and throws the seat and possibly the Senate to pro-gun Republicans. That lays the groundwork for us to take National Reciprocity, and make Bloomberg eat it (along with plenty of salt and a 20oz Coke). At worst for Bloomberg the ads have no effect, or actually help, in which case we can probably count on that Democrat to be a solid vote for us in the future. Not only that, but it would make Bloomberg appear impotent politically at a critical time for the Democratic Party.

Over the long term, Bloomberg’s strategy could be beneficial if he can make Democrats afraid to cross his money and influence. If he can win, he could succeed inÂ cementing the Democratic Party as the anti-gun party, with gun control as a lasting major party plank. Will it work? It’s a bit of a long shot, but there’s only so much you can do when you’re just one rich asshole. Keeping the Dems anti-gun, and then waiting for the inevitable political winds to shift in their favor might be a strategy that can pay off eventually. But given the force disparity between the pro and anti camp, I think gun control being front and center will make it much harder for the Democrats to crawl their way back to a majority. Bloomberg needs to be careful. NRA is always careful not to pee in too many people’s pools. If you threaten to upset the apple cart too much, even your allies will turn against you.

The LTC Process in Philly

Despite the state making an effort to standardize the LTC application process, Philly is still wants to do things their own way.

The application itself is 4 (four) pages if you print some of them front/back. Doesnt that go against what is outline in:

18 Pa.C.S. Â§ 6109: Licenses (c) Form of application and content.–The application for a license to carry a firearm shall be uniform throughout this Commonwealth and shall be on a form prescribed by the Pennsylvania State Police. The form may contain provisions, not exceeding one page, to assure compliance with this section. Issuing authorities shall use only the application form prescribed by the Pennsylvania State Police.

Or am I just dense?

You’re not dense, no. But the law doesn’t honestly mean anything to these people, and it’s always just been cheaper to go get yourself a Florida license that to try to challenge the system. Kathy Kane might have just changed that equation, however. In every jurisdiction except for “cities of the first class,” which Philadelphia (and only Philadelphia) is under PA law, the issuing authority is the sheriff. For Philadelphia it is the Chief of Police. One bill I’ve seen would allow applications to be made to neighboring jurisdictions. This would be a useful first step, on the way to fixing this issue by not requiring permits, and may be useful for people who live in sprawling counties where the neighboring sheriff may actually be closer.

Dean Heller Says No to Manchin-Toomey

Dean Heller, Republican Senator from Nevada, has said he’s unlikely to support any ban on private transactions by gun owners under any circumstances.

â€œWhat weâ€™re doing is criminalizing any private transaction by gun owners,â€ Heller said. â€œâ€¦If we can get the onus off the law abiding citizens and make it a responsibility of those who have committed felons or adjudicated mental health issues, then Iâ€™m open for discussion, but not until then.â€

I’d agree with the author of the post that it would seem Manchin is barking up the wrong tree in trying to influence Heller’s vote. They need to switch six Senators to get to 60.

More NAGR Amateur Mistakes

It looks as if NAGR were robocalling gun owners with the wrong information, and were actually telling people to ask Governor Sandoval to sign the private transfer ban that’s currently sitting on his desk. It would seem they’ve since corrected it, but it’s amateurish mistakes like this which make me not take NAGR or Dudley Brown seriously at all. This article, from someone in Colorado, was a little to “rah-rah my team” for my taste, but it has some interesting bits:

Apparently, Mr. Brown has been (for many years) using third-party â€œfront groupsâ€ that claim to represent hot-button social issues (like abortion and gay marriage), but in reality, are littleÂ more than direct mail operations designed to â€œpunishâ€ Mr. Brownâ€™s opponents. When voters receive these last-minute attack mailers they get the impression that the candidate in question (whichever candidate Mr. Brown opposes at the time) are also opposed by a â€œwide spectrumâ€ of other conservative groups. The mailers are often completely false, as with my own legislative race, where Dudleyâ€™sÂ BeltwayÂ minions sent pieces that claimed that I was pro-gay rights and â€œsoftâ€ on Pro-Life issues. Anyone that knows me, knows these claims are laughable. But by then, the damage has been done.

And just recently, a reader in Virginia who knows my disdain for Brown an NAGR sent me an e-mail from a Virginia State Delegate (no link, sorry) which was sent to supporters:

You see,Â [NAGR] would rather line their pockets, posing as a legitimate gun organization, and attack pro-gun legislators instead of going after the liberal Democrats who boast of taking our guns. Â Simply put, it is a “get-rich-quick” scheme at the expense of gun owners and their rights.

I am their latest target. My primary election isÂ this coming Tuesday, and NAGR is engaging inone false attack after anotherÂ against me.

I am known in Richmond and throughout Virginia as one of our legislature’s staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment. I have an “A+” career rating from the NRA and am endorsed in my current primary election by not only the National Rifle Association and the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, but by legitimate “no compromise” groups like the Virginia Citizens Defense League PAC and Gun Owners of America.Â These folks have seen my good work protecting your rights, and they know the real deal when they see it.

I’m not actually sure it’s so much a “get rich quick” scheme, as it is an attempt to use the gun vote to promote other, unrelated causes in social conservatism that have nothing to do with the Second Amendment. I continue to encourage gun owners to not have anything to do with Dudley Brown or NAGR. Don’t give them money, don’t give them support.

Serious Improvements in Carry Laws in North Carolina

Sean Sorrentino has the low down on what the bill would do. It’s not just carry either. It will eliminate the purchase permit requirement that’s a throwback to the era when they were trying to prevent the wrong kind of Americans from exercising their enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It should be up for a vote today. Let us hope this passes. This would be a major improvement for North Carolina.

Because People Might Repair Evil “Assault Weapons”

California is going after makers of repair kits, notes Dave Hardy. I really think at some point we’re going to need pre-clearance for some states, like we’ve had for the voting rights act. Congress needs to being these states into line. Most civil rights in our history haven’t been all that well protected by the courts. I has often taken congressional enforcement to actually do most of the heavy lifting, and I think some of these states may, in fact, require something like that. Just look at how hard it was to drag the Illinois legislature kicking and screaming in the face of a court order to modify their unconstitutional law?