Guns – Page 251 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Denying History

Several of you may have heard about the Connecticut student who was told to do a lesson denying that there’s an individual Second Amendment right to bear arms.

For those of you who didn’t catch the story I don’t mean that the text simply opts for the collective rights interpretation, I mean the teacher distributed a worksheet that completely denies history.

â€œThe courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms,â€ the worksheet states. â€œThe courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional.”

The worksheet, published by Instructional Fair, goes on to say that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states.

In the most generous interpretation of events, the teacher is using materials that are more than half a decade out-of-date and has simply opted not to keep up with current events or current curriculum. The less generous assumption is that the teacher is seeking out these false documents in an effort to deny history and purposefully lie to students. Either way, the school refuses to answer any questions about the situation or even provide a statement on whether they plan to stop purposefully giving out false information to students now that it has been brought to their attention.

Cam Edwards is hosting the father of this student on today’s Cam and Company at 4:20pm Eastern. I plan to tune in because, well, I was that pain-in-the-ass student who kept my teachers on their toes over stuff like this. :)

Cam did joke today when promoting his interview that he would love to see Dave Kopel be invited to respond to the class lesson. I just think it would be funny trying to picture the teacher arguing with Kopel that he wasn’t really in the SCOTUS building and sitting at the table during the Heller case – it is all simply a figment of his imagination.

On a related note, these are your public schools, folks.

UPDATE: Sadly, it doesn’t get much better at the college level with this report of a professor at a public university forcing her students to make anti-gun art espousing her personal views for her political crusade against firearms in direct violation of state law.

Gun Control Groups Claim Credit for NRA Member Calls

The anti-gun leaders are just so eager! It’s naÃ¯vely cute, except for the press that just happily relates their claims of success without actually questioning anything they do.

Take this NPR article that reports a claim by an anti-gun group that they generated tons of phone calls to Sen. Mark Warner’s office on the same as an NRA action alert that they were the ones who overwhelmed the office – not NRA members.

The National Rifle Association had told its members to barrage Warner’s office with calls that morning. When Moms Demand Action heard that, they launched a counteroffensive, clogging up Warner’s phone lines so badly that calls were going straight to voicemail.

The reporter does nothing to actually question the claim. Now, I wouldn’t expect them to demand a detailed list from the Senator’s office about how many calls came from each side. However, I would ask the anti-gun advocate how she came to that conclusion when she knew for a fact that the opposition with more than 4.5 million members known for political activism weren’t part of that barrage. If the anti-gun group couldn’t prove it, the the paragraph should have been worded very differently to note that it’s a claim by the organization based on member accounts or whatever metric the organization leader claimed. But that doesn’t drive the agenda of “proving” how weak NRA is compared to these anti-gun groups.

New Anti-Gun Divide & Conquer Strategy

Bloomberg has a new ad out semi-praising Sen. Pat Toomey based on the media reports that he’s working to push their gun control bill in the Senate. They present a new message that struck a cord for a number of reasons.

Interestingly, MAIG is trying to claim that the current federal bill just makes Pennsylvania’s language into federal law. That, of course, is bullsh*t.

While Pennsylvania law does require handgun sales to go through a dealer for a background check & does restrict some loans of handguns, Sebastian & I are not be felons for loaning guns to carry between one another. That’s what the federal bill does. This is a legitimate issue for us–and presumably other gun owning couples–since, at times, he has opted to carry my Sig (lawfully, since we both have licenses to carry) because it has a smaller profile than his Glock. He has also, at times, wanted to take off his jacket without open carrying, so he has given me his Glock to carry in my purse. If the current federal language were the law, we would both be in prison.

It’s interesting that this ad announcement comes today. Yesterday, a commenter on the PAGunRights.com Facebook page started trying to convince people that the federal bill would just make Pennsylvania laws the law of the land and that gun owners should just trust Joe Manchin to give them a bill we will all like. He tried to make it sound like there was no need to call Sen. Toomey to oppose his potential support the actual federal bill on the table.

I commented to Sebastian that it sounded like a gun control advocate who was not identifying himself as such. He didn’t think I should make that assumption, but something about this guy’s messaging that would discourage gun owners from getting engaged just seemed out of place for me. Typically, the lazy gun owners who don’t care about their rights don’t make the effort to even argue for being lazy. For me, the assumption was pretty much sealed when he took made the argument back to those who argued against him that the federal bill, based on a reading of actual language, that they essentially were advocating to undo the entire Pennsylvania law. (Since that’s not even on the table, there was just no need to feed the trolling. He was trying to derail a discussion of actual federal language.)

Anyway, with this new ad that has this commenter’s exact same Pennsylvania-themed message, I decided to Google his name. Turns out that he’s a co-founder of a new anti-gun group in his city that is promoting MAIG-funded efforts in Pennsylvania. Of course, he never disclosed such affiliations when he was trying to tell gun owners to cool off their activism. Isn’t that just convenient?

I do find it interesting that Bloomberg’s allies are now trying to infiltrate pro-gun groups online in an effort to convince gun owners that there’s nothing to worry about and no reason at all to call lawmakers. I think they are tired of the fact that we’re not just going down quietly.

MAIG to Issue Letter Grades

The Washington Post is reporting that MAIG is going to get into the grading business, noting that they are aiming to be a full counterweight to the NRA. I’m always surprised by anti-gun groups making this declaration, and then imitating NRA’s tactics. Without millions of single-issue or very near single issue voters, grading candidates won’t accomplish anything. It’ll amount to a tempest in a teapot. The only place MAIG can be a counterweight to NRA is in media buys, and then only because they are backed up by a billionaire mogul, and even with media buys, the benefit there is more likely scaring politicians rather than actually mobilizing a voting base.

People were surprised at my concern, when all this started back in December, because the anti-gun folks don’t bring much to the table. This is true, in terms of votes. But we only tally votes every two years, and in the mean time, perception is important. The gun vote has been greatly weakened the past two elections, in terms of perception, because of a combination of it not really being a top issue, and weaknesses on the top of the ticket. The great question is whether the gun vote was dead or merely sleeping. The reaction of the base in the past few months has indicated that it is the latter, but the true test will be the 2014 elections.

Every election since 2008 has been the most important election ever, and we’ve kept losing them (and yes, from a gun perspective, 2010 was a loss, because it wiped out the blue dogs, which was the Dem incentive to avoid gun control, hence where we are right now). MAIG can not be permitted to credibly claim victory in the 2014 races. Even if nothing substantive on guns gets through Congress up through 2014, if we think we’ve won, rather than just thinking we won round one, and go back to sleep, our gun rights will still be doomed in the long term.

UPDATE: Jacob came to the same conclusionÂ about the futility of MAIG letter grades.

Quote of the Day

From Ace:

This goes beyond the 2nd Amendment. Texas is attracting companies because it’s offering economic freedom. And it goes beyond that, too: This is about a fundamental dispute about whether our government exists to serve us and get out of the way of our exercise of our own free initiative, or whether government exists to instruct us and limit us as if we were schoolchildren in their care, permitted only to do the things the agreed to by a consensus of ill-educated moral scolds.

New England in a lot of ways never really got over puritanism. I think the puritan roots of New England largely explains why this kind of left-philosophy has gained such a strong foothold. The morality is different, but the inclination is the same.

“Clowns at the Circus”

I guess Governor Malloy doesn’t want to ever be President either. How much more of the Democratic bench are Bloomberg and Obama going to waste on gun control? Despite what Malloy thinks of the school security report funded by NRA, polls show people support the idea of armed security in schools. Nonetheless,Â the emotional blackmail will continue.

Pennsylvania Gun Woes

I guess there’s good news and bad news to being a Pennsylvania gun owner. The good news is that there’s little interest in pushing gun control at the state level by current leadership. The bad news is that our federal lawmakers didn’t get this message.

I never really know what to tell people about these kinds of stories. On one hand, many of the points in favor of Sen. Pat Toomey working with Joe Manchin for some kind of background check bill are valid. He’s a Senator who has to run in a blue state during the next presidential election when turnout among Democrats will be much, much higher. On the other hand, it’s not well sourced and may have easily been dropped by anti-gun forces just because Toomey’s office didn’t hang up on them. Or, it could be something in the middle where he’s talking to them, but pointing out some absolutely fundamental objections that doesn’t mean he’ll actually try to push whatever language they want to push.

Add in the fact that Bloomberg is targeting Toomey in his attack ads and OFA has been targeting GOP lawmakers in the Philadelphia suburbs who have perpetually tight races, and it’s a constant reminder for people to call their lawmakers.

Then, today I was getting pushback from someone who was advocating that gun owners not call their Senators just because he’s confident that the eventual bill won’t have any of the concerns raised by gun owners so far. I argued that those concerns were based on actual language of the bill, not talking points. Yet, he continued to tell people to sit back and just trust our lawmakers. I am still pondering if it’s an American Hunters & Shooters-style infiltrator trying to convince gun owners to lay off the pressure since we’ve managed to hold the feet of our lawmakers to the proverbial fire for this long.

I’m curious if others who live in states that aren’t under immediate local threat are feeling this same kind of frustration in mobilizing federal action.

But I Thought Law Enforcement Supported Gun Control!

Doesn’t fit the narrative:

The survey, which was conducted in early March 2013, received 15,000 responses from law enforcement professionals. It found that the overall attitude of law enforcement is strongly anti-gun legislation and pro-gun rights, with the belief that an armed citizenry is effective in stopping crime. Response percentages varied only slightly when analyzed by rank and department size. Among the results:

Here’s the detailed results. This is quite good because 15,000 police officers is a very sizable survey, and represents a good chunk of law enforcement officers. A lot of the survey data on law enforcement attitudes toward gun control were getting stale, so I welcome this. This goes to show that when the gun control movement claims law enforcement is on their side, they are full of it.

UPDATE: On further investigation, the methodology leaves a bit to be desired. But then again, so do Bloomberg’s surveys, so I don’t see any reason not to use it.

A Common Phrase in the Media

Say Uncle takes a look at the media treatment of negligent discharge cases. I see this one often: “Investigators said the gun owner wonâ€™t face charges because he has a carry permit.” I’ve always kind of been baffled by that one too.

Why Transfers?

Publicola notes:

That is why laws prohibitingÂ transfersÂ are a staple of most of the gun owner control packages we’ve seen this year; they want us to stop spreading our values and way of life. A culture is much harder to eradicate if it’s continually growing ya know.

I think this is absolutely right. There are ways to write a background check expansion that would be difficult to argue against, but that’s not what we’ve been seeing. We’ve been seeing sweeping prohibitions on even temporary and supervised transfers, where just handing a gun to someone else in the wrong circumstances would be prohibited. This reminds me of when they were targeting the “gun show loophole,” which you haven’t heard as much now because they decided “universal background checks,” was better rhetoric. Back then their bills allegedly were just meant to require background checks at gun shows, but contained onerous nonsense like requiring promoters (who just sell tables, not guns) to be licensed, for people entering gun shows be logged and reported, or other such nonsense which had nothing to do with background checks.

“Kill the Gun Culture” is an old game, and also, I think, one increasingly played by mostly old people. The real fear is if we free New York, Chicago, California and New Jersey, it’ll all be over for them. Heller and McDonald were just the beginning, and though we may not know where this road ultimately leads, the possibilities scare the snot out of people like Bloomberg.