The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Our only athlete competing in this year’s Olympic Trapshooting games is a woman, Corey Cogdell. I have to agree with Wyatt, that Olympic Trapshooting will definitely be worth tuning in this year. Best of luck to Ms. Cogdell.
Hat Tip to Mr. Hippiesmite, who’s friend’s with my neighbor — the person that tipped me off to my bird-roosting-in-the-house woes.
Thirdpower has a hilarious troll of CSGV’s Facebook page. I don’t know who this Chris Conmy guys is, but if he is a reader, well played, sir. Well played.
Sorry for the lack of posting today. In the office for a meeting today to discuss the plan for the final push on my project. But in other news, looks like Louisiana is on track to have the strongest right to keep and bear arms language yet. The bill is now cleared the house, and Governor Jindal supports it. It’s on to the people of Louisiana next.
“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.â€
This is in response to the Louisiana Supreme Court essentially gutting their own state right to bear arms provision which currently reads:
The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.Â
I consider projects like this important for a couple of reasons. For one, it reminds the courts what the people think their right means. Two, it’s batting practice in the event we end up having to do this federally because Obama manages to replace one of the Heller Five, and the Second Amendment is essentially read out of the constitution entirely, or narrowed into effective meaninglessness. Three, it demonstrates to our opponents that we can indeed do this, putting to rest any argument that this is an antiquated right which is unimportant to the people.
The Daily Caller, a conservative leaning news outlet, is giving away one gun per week up until election day, in an effort to get people to subscribe to their newsletters. The fact the the DC is using firearms to promote their business is rubbing the right people the wrong way, such that Soros has his minions poring through everything the owner of the company that makes the gun ever wrote, looking for things to use against the guy. Sadly for the owner, they don’t come up empty, since he seems to have written several race-laced diatribes over at his blog on the topic of Obama.
They paymasters who are bankrolling Media Matters have to understand that mainstreaming of guns in America puts them on a road to utter defeat on this issue. That’s why they are quick to dig to try to discredit those who undermine their agenda. What would be really nice is if people on our side didn’t make their job so easy. I’m not of the opinion that race discussions are never to be had, but I do indeed question someone who seems hung up on Obama in the race department. I’ve never been of the opinion the man’s skin color really needs to be an issue in this debate. That particular fever swamp is really best left to the left.
But I don’t believe this ought to reflect badly on the Daily Caller, who I doubt had the time or inclination to pore through everything the owner of the company ever wrote to see if they could find anything to use against him. I guess the folks over at Media Matters are upset that the owner of that company never offered to give away a gun to David Brock so he could have an assistant illegally tote it around D.C.
In yet another round of evidence that our opponents bet their paychecks on a lame horse, a new Quinnipiac poll is showing that 56% of registered voters in Florida support the law. Along the racial divide, 53% of Hispanics support the law, and 56% of blacks oppose the law. There’s an even more stark division by party:
Meanwhile, support was strongest among Republicans, who supported it 78 percent to 15 percent, while independents supported it 58 percent to 35 percent. A majority of Democrats opposed it: 59 percent to 32
Strong independent support means the law is likely safe from legislative interference, provided gun owners remain vigilant on this matter. But it’s always good to be able to show legislators that polling runs in your favor.
As far as opposition from Blacks goes, I would pose this question collectively to the black community. Who is more likely to end up having to defend themselves with deadly force? A black person who lives in a lousy neighborhood, or a white person who lives in a quiet suburb? Who do you think is more likely to be forced to explain himself in front of a jury, because the prosecutor didn’t want to cut them a break? A middle class white person, who can afford a good attorney, or a poor black person who has to fall back on a public defender? Who’s case of self-defense do you think is likely to be viewed more suspiciously by authorities?
A big reason why I think the Trayvon Martin shooting resonated with the black community is because there’s an underlying, and often correct belief, that blacks don’t get a fair shake from the justice system. But Martin is one case, and I think forming an opinion on one emotionally charged case is short sighted. The fact remains that because of high levels of black-on-black violence, African-Americans are far more likely to need to defend themselves than average. Combine that with a legal system which is reluctance to offer black defendents, particularly poor blacks that can’t afford to hire good attorneys, benefit of doubt, is all the more reason for there to be mechanisms in place to make it more difficult for an ambitious prosecutor to railroad a defendant engaged in a legitimate act of self-defense. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said in a judicial opinion upholding Stand Your Ground, that “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.”
Thirdpower shows that the Illinois State Police are threatening to further delay FOID approvals, and stop processing background checks if they don’t get a bill they want, which has a number of gun control measures attached to it.
It’s going to take incidents like this to convince the Supreme Court that there can’t really be any licensing of this right. Not when people like Mayor Rahm are out there, and view licensing as a way to limit its exercise. Ironically, I think these kinds of childish tantrums might be able to help move the courts in the right direction over the long term. If they were willing to treat gun licenses like hunting licenses or marriage licenses, I would be worried the courts may uphold them. But they still view licensing as a means of disenfranchising people, and turning a right into a state granted privilege. It shows no more clearly than it does in this case, and I don’t think the Court should stand by it.
The Violence Policy Center is busy bowling us over with the might of their research, once again. This time telling us that cars are becoming so safe that people killing themselves with guns is becoming a higher cause of death in some states than auto accidents. Eugene Volokh takes apart some of the flawed logic on display here.
I would make a wager that the Violence Policy Center has become the most irrelevant anti-gun group out there. If they disappeared tomorrow, I don’t think the anti-gun movement would notice. VPC is, in fact, in trouble as an organization. One can see from their Form 990 for 2010, that pretty much their sole purpose as an organization is to serve as a jobs program for Josh Sugarmann and Kristen Rand, who compromise approximately 55% of their salary expenses. Also worth noting that public support, a measure the IRS uses to determine whether a non-profit organized under 501(c)(3) is a “public charity” or a “private foundation,” has been in precipitous decline at the VPC. The IRS generally requires an organization to receive one third of its support from public sources in order to be considered a public charity. There are mitigating factors that the IRS considers, but it you look at the total return for 2010, it follows with a letter which essentially begs the IRS not to classify them as a private foundation, which would eliminate certain deductions, and make donor information public. VPC’s 17% of public support in 2010 should be very worrying for them, since below 10%, regardless of mitigating factors, you cannot claim public charity status. Here’s how VPC’s public support has been trending:
| Year | % Donations to VPC From General Public |
| 2007 | 24.19% |
| 2008 | 22.01% |
| 2009 | 17.82% |
| 2010 | 16.93% |
One can see that as VPC has become increasingly dependent on grants from a small number of foundational donors, they are increasingly less and less qualifying to be considered a public charity. In contrast, EFSGV’s public support percentage is 87.5%, and Brady Center’s is 97.41%. Given these facts, it’s amazing that VPC isn’t trying to do more to be relevant. I can’t imagine the good graces of the IRS will last forever, and they are dropping precipitously close to the 10% floor beyond which no one can claim to be publicly supported.
I think it just desserts that the organization behind the assault weapons strategy is now, probably, the most irrelevant gun control group out there, and quickly on its way to even greater irrelevancy as a private foundation no one pays attention or donates to. You have to wonder how long before even their Joyce backers realize their grants to VPC are just good money chasing bad.
Thirdpower finds another instance of left wing eliminationist rhetoric that isn’t going to be showing up on CSGV’s Insurrectionist Timeline anytime soon.
A letter to Congressmen Stearns and Shuler, from 22 state Attorneys General. Who is not among the signers? Linda Kelly, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, who replaced Tom Corbett when he became Governor. Disappointing.
I have been following the debate in Caleb’s comment section, and I wanted to point out a particular thread. I have to photo capture this because Caleb’s theme doesn’t seem to easily allow linking to comments:
I think John makes a good point. We’re really not as far along in this debate as many think. Gun owners need to repeat this unfortunate fact: the vast majority of Americans are wholly unconcerned with their rights, other than the rights which affect their individual, daily lives. If you’re talking about appealing to a deeply held principle of natural rights, that makes perfect sense to people who have studied Locke, or read the writings of Jefferson, Madison, or Adams, you’re talking about a concept that completely alien to the people who actually vote in elections. You can blame the educational system, or what have you, but the vast majority of the American public are not ideological voters. Most voters vote their interests, and you have to appeal to that.
Robb’s frustration in this is completely understandable. I have shared it many times. You will drive yourself crazy by what other gun owners are unwilling to do to support their own rights, even though we all share broad agreement. I don’t think many gun owners really understand the house of cards that this issue is built on, largely because of another bias in that thinking other people, of course, naturally have similar thought processes to you.
I have pointed out this thread, because I think this is one of those cases both people are making really excellent points. Worrying about public backlash is a concern of someone who understands the outer limits of this debate. We’re talking the issue being pushed by a determined minority, and if that determined minority is meets the brick wall of obstinate public opinion, the issue won’t advance much farther.
How far you can push your issue as a determined minority completely hinges on your ability to influence legislators and threaten their cushy jobs. It hinges on nothing else. If they are not true believers, and almost none of them are, your ability to influence them comes down to, in reality, a good poker bluff. You have to make them believe you can threaten their seat if the bluff gets called. But the politician you’re influencing also is bluffing. He’s betting you don’t have votes behind you on an issue he’s trying to avoid taking a position on, or is thinking about taking a contrary position on.
Neither you, nor they, may be entirely convinced who’s really bluffing. It is an accepted fact in politics now that when the gun vote really does get motivated, the results are epic. That’s the space you, as an activist, have to work in. If the politician in question calls your bluff, you better be sure you can deliver, or else your credibility is finished, and you can expect that legislator will no longer give a rat’s behind about anything you have to say.
This is the nature of the game, and it is a game. Don’t for a second kid yourself politics is about principles, logic, or deeply held tradition. You can appeal to these things; rhetoric is important, but it no more than a part of the game, of building a mystique, of posturing and maneuvering. It serves no purpose apart from that. It is deeply cultural, but also, at the end of the day still a game.
My opinions on open carry are driven largely by the fact that I see it divides gun owners, and our losses have always been driven through issues that divide us, whether it be background checks, or years ago the utility of these newfangled AR-15s, or cheap Chinese semi-automatic knockoffs of the AK-47. Our opponents have traditionally won where they’ve been able to exploit division in the ranks. Let me clarify that — our opponents have only won where they’ve been able to exploit division in the ranks. So I think when you get other activists, not just ordinary gun owners saying, “You know, I’m just not sure about this,” that should give you very serious pause, and open carry is one of those issues.
The question is whether, like the assault weapons issue, we can spend the next two decades educating people. I think what motivates most gun owner activists which are wary of open carry, is that even if it is a topic that 20 years of education can turn around, Â it’s practically worth the effort expended when compared to other issues we have to build consensus for. In many ways, I think constitutional carry (i.e. carry, open or concealed, without a license) is less radical than open carry as a form of activism among gun owners. I think it is always important in considering whether a particular course of action offers opportunity to your opponents, and I believe in some cases, this can be the case with open carry. But not in all cases.