Looks like they managed a successful discharge petition in the Ohio house, advancing several pro-gun measures. But the Democratic Speaker, who is against these measures, may be able to thwart a vote.
Category: Guns
Gun Shop Restrictions
It looks like some anti-gunners are seizing upon Obama’s (old) platform of banning gun stores in any area you might actually visit. Obama’s idea – banning them within 5 miles of schools or parks – would have effectively shut down just about every gun store in most parts of the country. Here in Pennsylvania, one group appears to be testing the waters on the idea, taking it even further:
CeaseFire PA sent their own questionnaires to candidates earlier this year to test the waters for rather extreme policies – including closing down gun stores within an arbitrary, undefined distance of any school, daycare center, park, or residential area.
That would shut down every shop in Pennsylvania, I can pretty much guarantee it. Turns out some anti-gun parents in Wisconsin are pushing a similar agenda now that a gun store is opening near an elementary school. Because we all know that when a gun store opens near a school, elementary school thugs will get their hands on an uzi and start robbing the younger kids of their milk money – or something.
The City of West Allis is considering limiting where gun dealers can open up shop. It all started with a controversial store right across the street from an elementary school.
During a December 7th meeting the City of West Allis considered where gun businesses and shooting ranges can and cannot set up shop. …
Parents of students collected more than 800 signatures to prevent the business from opening there, but city leaders say the location does not violate any laws.
The proposed ordinance won’t affect current gun shops including Shorty’s. They all will be grandfathered in.
The proposed ordinance will shrink the area gun sellers could operate out of, putting future retailers and shooting ranges in more industrial sections labeled in blue.
I don’t understand the irrational fear of these folks about gun dealers near schools. Their kids can’t buy guns. There won’t guns disposed of on the street when customers come in to buy new ones. I had my first experience with this form of crazy in college when a gun shop opened up about a mile from campus. An alum came in ranting about how things were going to hell in a handbasket because a gun store was nearby. I couldn’t wrap my head around why that was bad then, and I still don’t get it today.
Transparency, Government, and Gun Rights
Thanks to David Post for pointing to these excellent thoughts on the Wikileaks scandal, because I think it has a useful concept that also speaks to some recent happenings in the gun rights movement here in Pennsylvania:
On the other hand, human systems can’t stand pure transparency. For negotiation to work, people’s stated positions have to change, but change is seen, almost universally, as weakness. People trying to come to consensus must be able to privately voice opinions they would publicly abjure, and may later abandon. Wikileaks plainly damages those abilities. (If Aaron Bady’s analysis is correct, it is the damage and not the oversight that Wikileaks is designed to create.*)
And so we have a tension between two requirements for democratic statecraft, one that can’t be resolved, but can be brought to an acceptable equilibrium. Indeed, like the virtues of equality vs. liberty, or popular will vs. fundamental rights, it has to be brought into such an equilibrium for democratic statecraft not to be wrecked either by too much secrecy or too much transparency.
So how does this relate to the gun rights movement? Because it explains why it’s not really possible for NRA, or any other group that may be in a position to know legislatively sensitive information, to share that information with grassroots activists who aren’t made privy to it. I think the root of much of the tension is that negotiation and dealings happen behind closed doors, and there’s not enough trust that the people who are in the smoked filled room will do the right things.
There’s always the argument that perhaps there ought to be more transparency in the process, and I think there is merit to the argument that NRA hasn’t been transparent enough in what it’s doing when lobbying legislatures. But it can’t be perfectly transparent. There will be some point where John Hohenwarter goes into the smoke filled room, and you’re stuck having to live with whatever comes out of that process. There might be times when it’s someone else headed into the smoked filled room to negotiate on our behalf. But it’s going to be someone, and can’t be everyone. And that someone is going to keep his cards very close to his chest, if he or she is a smart negotiator.
That’s one reason I’m not sure what cooperation between pro-gun groups in Pennsylvania is really going to look like. Not all groups are going to be on equal footing in the minds of the elected officials who control access to the smoke filled room, which means not all groups will have the same information. Not all of that information will be of a nature that can be shared broadly without risking compromising the overall legislative agenda. If the first requirement for harmony is for everyone to be on equal footing, information and access wise, that’s a non-starter out of the gate.
So I suppose it comes down to who you trust? Do I trust John Hohenwarter of NRA? Do I trust Kim Stolfer of FOAC? Do I trust Dan Pehrson of PAFOA? I would trust any of them to do the best they could for gun owners behind closed doors, because I think they all sincerely care about the issue, and have the best interests of our movement at heart. That’s really all I can ask for. I don’t expect a poker player to win every hand at poker, and I don’t expect a lobbyist to win every vote in a legislative battle either. Obviously, someone visibly incompetent at playing would be another matter, but I don’t think we have anyone who fits that bill in Pennsylvania.
Assessing the Impact of Heller and McDonald
Ilya Somin agrees with Josh Blackman that the impact is going to be pretty limited. When looking short term, I tend to agree with that. I believe what will end up happening legally is that the status quo is largely frozen into place, with some of the very restrictive jurisdictions forced to relax their rules to a large degree. But in the end, I still think having a gun and carrying one in New York City will be more of a pain in the ass than doing the same in Phoenix. The judiciary will give them more leeway than we would like. However, the question becomes, if they can’t too seriously and substantively interfere with the right to the point of near destruction, will they bother? How will that alter the political dynamic? How will the next generation of federal judges look at the Second Amendment?
In the end, the Brady Campaign is right. It largely does take the extremes off the table. What they don’t realize is that’s far worse news for them than it is for us. It’s incumbent on us to expand the Heller majority. We’ve already missed two important opportunities for that. I agree with Professor Somin’s assessment that the two decisions we have speaks to the Heller/McDonald coalition of five justices to have breaking points.
Fred Madden Throws A Rotten Bone
You remember Fred Madden? The New Jersey State Senator who rolled over for Governor Corzine to bring one-gun-a-month to the Garden State? Well, apparently he’s come up with a considerably less than ideal solution that doesn’t even begin to make up for it. Fred Madden is up for re-election in 2011. Gun owners in New Jersey need to show they can target an unseat someone like Madden. You only need a few heads on a pike before the politicians there start listening.
More Class from the Other Side
Josh Horwitz is now comparing James D’Cruz to Dylan Klebold. The fact that each of these stories shows new quotes which we have not yet seen is a good sign our opponents are all sharing the information on James’ Facebook:
The best case scenario here is that D’Cruz is strikingly immature and incapable of handling the serious responsibilities that come with gun ownership. The worst case scenario is that he’s a ticking time bomb in need of psychiatric care. In either case, he’s a poster boy for why we should prevent handgun sales to those under 21 years of age.
So he’s strikingly immature because he likes to quote movies and books? D’Cruz’s only gaffe here is that he either didn’t realize, or wasn’t coached, that being a plaintiff in a high profile civil rights case was going to put him under the microscope of unscrupulous people who would take anything they could out of context to smear him. I will grant, it is probably is something beyond the comprehension of someone under thirty, just how treacherous a game politics can be.
The notion that James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to guarantee the right of violence-obsessed teenagers to buy handguns and carry them in public–divorced from any type of civic or military duty–is asinine.
Well, good thing James is preparing for a career in our nation’s military then eh? Or did you miss the picture of him in that snappy JROTC uniform that was right next to the one in his Halloween costume that you guys cribbed?
Everything Old is New Again
Shooting in New York City
From Forbes, at the only range left in Manhattan:
Part of the West Side’s appeal is the thrill of the forbidden–firing a weapon in New York City, which has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. “That restriction makes it more desirable,” says Leung, who has been co-owner since 1994, along with Bob Derrig, 71, a former dispatcher for an alarm company. The range also teaches self-defense courses and sells survival-kit “go bags.”
I think we’re going to change that, as well as ensure that Mr. Leung gets some competition.
Joan Peterson’s Legal Philosophy
I’ve come to one conclusion in what limited reading I’ve done of Joan Peterson’s blog. If it’s legal and she doesn’t like it, then she assumes it is actually illegal and everyone who does what she doesn’t like is a criminal. If it’s illegal, and yet criminals still find a way to get around the law, then clearly it is actually legal and she wants to regulate EVERYTHING in an attempt to make it illegal(er).
I’ve had my share of experiences at smaller non-profit shops that sometimes have board members who like to speak out on their own. If I worked for the other side, I’m pretty sure my head would be dented from banging it against the desk and/or wall after reading Peterson’s comments. Seriously, Peter, if you don’t have a stash of the Montezuma in your desk for a quick chug every time she posts, let me know and I’ll bring you a bottle next time I’m down there.
I admit that I had to laugh about her post on the Mary McFate story. She was McFate’s roommate in DC, and she gladly told her story of sorrow and opened her mouth about plans for the Minnesota gun rights groups. It’s similar to the actions of the former Executive Director of CeaseFire who invited McFate to stay in her home and attend board meetings. I don’t understand how you meet a woman like McFate and not have every alarm bell going off that something just isn’t adding up. Alarm bells should have been ringing in minutes, if not seconds, of meeting her, and yet she shared a room with the woman. Maybe I’m just protective of my personal space, but if someone creates discomfort for me or starts telling me things that don’t add up, then I am unlikely to continue sharing a hotel room with them while I sleep, bathe, and change clothes. But Joan might call that unwillingness to share my sleeping space with strangers who rub me the wrong way paranoia. I call it self-preservation.
I should feel sorry for Joan. The naïveté on display is almost sad for a grown woman. She laments that McFate was “lobbying” for the Brady Campaign on Capitol Hill. She’s convinced that McFate had full access to Senators and Representatives and was possibly telling them to be more pro-gun. Seriously, how many doors does she think the name “Brady Campaign” really opens on Capitol Hill? Even beyond the group name, how many doors get opened or people who aren’t constituents, large donors, or official lobbyists who can drive donations? Going one step further, on the occasion when doors are opened, they are rarely doors to lawmakers. Let me clue Joan in on the answer to these questions: Very few. Those powerful doors pretty much only open when a) you’re important, or b) they want a photo op.
There’s nothing illegal about allowing other people to spill their guts with little or no prompting. It’s not illegal to take advantage of the fact that the gun control groups will so quickly promote someone who just makes them feel good without asking serious questions. I think the only thing that shocked people was just how little effort, time, and money it takes to become a “leader” in the gun control community.
Of course, on the flip side, there’s nothing illegal about Michael Moore joining the NRA as a life member in an attempt to run for the board. He’s welcome to try. Of course, we require a little more than simply coming up with a sob story and showing up for a few rallies to be a leader of more organizations on this side of the argument. It doesn’t matter if someone just makes us “feel good,” they have to be willing to make an effort for the cause. Not only do we have many members who ask serious questions of those who want to step up into leadership, but those of us lawful gun owners active in the movement tend to ignore those who set off our alarm bells. We have a natural vetting process within our grassroots communities. Joan’s vetting process is limited to those who make her feel good or listen to her tell her stories. She tries to blame us for her lack of awareness, but I don’t think it fools anyone.
Armed Baristas
The Brady Campaign would have you believe something like this could never happen. I guess that’s one less Coffee joint they can frequent now. I would guess after a while, Peet’s gets a little old. Either way, if I worked in a retail food service job, there’s no way I wouldn’t be armed at all times. It’s one thing to not carry to avoid ruining a good career, but if you’re some coffee joint paying minimum wage or barely over, in an industry where robberies aren’t unheard of, I certainly wouldn’t risk taking a bullet for that kind of career.