Guns – Page 572 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Someone to Vouch for McCarthy’s Opponent

Looks like John Richardson knows the guy running against Carolyn McCarthy. She’s looking more an more vulnerable, and I’m really salivating over the possibility of getting her out. Brady has raised very little federal PAC money in the 2010 cycle. I think their only donations have been incidental. Of the approximately 4700 dollars they have spent, McCarthy has been the only person in Congress Brady has donated to at the 1000 dollar level, and only one of two candidates getting that much this cycle. They are busy raising money for their Illinois PAC, however, and this indicates that this election they are just trying not to lose more ground. There’s a very good chance that Illinois is going to flip from anti to pro in the next election.

UPDATE: Jacob, in the comments, points out that he voted along with Bloomberg on colored guns. That certainly doesn’t speak well for him, but all I need from him at this point is just to be better than Carolyn McCarthy. I’ll worry about rolling the dice again with him later.

Magical Falling Grades

Days of Our Trailers notices another case of questionable grading on the part of GOA. A common theme seems to be that they are Democrats.

Good News for Gun Owners

Carolyn McCarthy is on the verge of being tea partied out of office. Needless to say, despite her ineffectiveness, it would be wonderful to get her out of Congress. If you want to donate to her challenger’s campaign, you can here. He is pro-Second Amendment.

Fact Checking Fact Checking

From Mother Jones:

I factchecked this, and the answer is: Not exactly. TheÂ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found that states with tougher gun laws in factÂ export the guns used in crimes(PDF) at a much lower rate than states with weak gun laws. That is, those illegal guns handled by criminals and confiscated at crime scenes are most often traced back to states that don’t do background checks for all guns purchased at gun showsÂ [CLICK HERE FOR MOJO’S ARTICLE ON GUN SHOWS], that don’t require purchase permits, that don’t prosecute gun dealers who violate background check laws, and that don’t allow local law enforcement to approve or deny conceal carry permits. Findings confirm that regulationsÂ dodeter criminals from getting guns.

ATF hasn’t found squat. That’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a gun control advocacy group, who has drawn that conclusion. My fact checking tells a very different story. Lesson for Mother Jones: If you’re going to fact check, it helps to have the facts.

More on Citibank

In some back and forth between myself and the folks at Forces of Darkness HQ, I asked about the situation from Citibank’s past, highlighted by SayUncle here. They had this to say about that matter:

NRA-ILA investigated a previous problem with Citibank in 2008, which involved Citi Merchant Services denying its processing services to a major firearms distributor. Â ILA staff contacted Citibank, who put us in touch with Citi’s contractor for these services, First Data. First Data investigated internally and discovered that it had one employee who was denying services to firearms industry members.

The employee’s motives remain unclear, but First Data appears to have solved the problem. ILA has had no complaints about Citi between that time and the current situation. Â The current case appears to be of a completely different nature.

So my suggestion that we back off on Citibank wasn’t based on my forgiving them for their previous transgressions, but based on the fact that they seem to have fixed the problem that existed previously, and walked into this current situation through a mistake rather than maliciousness.

Incumbent Friendly Policy

A lot of folks have questioned why NRA has a policy that’s incumbent friendly. This article pretty much nails the reason:

If 2010 is an “anti-incumbent” election, how can it be that 80 percent of the incumbents will be re-elected?

And as Glenn Reynolds points out:

Though based on the last several decades, an election whereÂ only 80 percent of incumbents survive is actually a big deal.

Yes, it is. The reason for an incumbent friendly policy isn’t because we should love incumbents for incumbency sake, but that they have a significantly high likelihood of winning their election, even this year, and that incumbency brings with it seniority, which brings with it the power to drive the agenda of the legislative body. From a lobbying point of view, once you find a friend, the last thing you want to do is toss him.

I’ve never bought into the notion of tossing lawmakers, because, like diapers, they need to be changed often. I’m in favor of tossing lawmakers when they stop serving liberty and start serving themselves. If we got a libertarian majority in Congress this November, I’d want to keep the incumbent re-election rate as high as possible as long as Congress were serving that end. The article points out:

Here’s a valuable piece of historical fact – Prior to the Civil War, it was not unusual for half or more of each new Congress to be freshmen. It was only after World War II that America’s incumbent re-election rate skyrocketed to its present 90+ percent level.

I would argue the primary driving factor behind a high incumbent re-election rate that people are rationally ignorant of politics, and as we’ve expanded the voting franchise, and increasingly consolidated the power of the media into the hands of the few, incumbent re-election rates have gone up. They probably should not be as high as they are, but perhaps the Internet has the potential to balance the media situation out sufficiently, so that better information on just how bad your current legislative critter is has more of a chance to come to the attention of your average Joe who barely pays attention.

In the mean time, NRA’s policy preferring incumbents is the smart thing to do.

Reading too Many Vampire Novels?

First we’re the forces of darkness. Â Now violent death stalks us all. Geez, with an outlook like that, you’d think I might want to carry a gun or something.

Update on the Citibank Situation

From someone at NRA:

NRA-ILA has been made aware of an issue over business credit disapproval for scope mount and accessories manufacturer Warne Scope Mounts Company and Citibank SD.Â At this time, we understand the specifics of the problem revolve around an industry code that was applied to Warne, a designation that seems to be incorrect.

Contact has been made to Citibank SD media relations and they have shared some general information.Â That information has been relayed to Warne so that they may follow up directly with Citibank SD to resolve their specific problem.Â ILA staff will follow-up with contact with Citibank SD to inquire regarding a review of their policies to help prevent these problems in the future.

At this time, it is not the opinion of NRA-ILA that Citibank is actively denying banking services or credit in an attempt to discriminate against firearm related businesses.Â Rather, we believe that this is a problem created by a mistaken understanding as to the nature of business conducted by Warne. It is our hope that that particular problem will be resolved in the coming days.

As more information is learned, NRA-ILA will inform our members if it is found that this is not the case or if Citibank SD is uncooperative in dealing with these issues.

We might want to put out the torches and put down the pitchforks for now. It looks like this was likely a simple mistake.

New Sniper Rifle

XM2010, supposed to replace the M24. It uses a pistol grip rather than a traditional stock. Clearly this bolt-action menace is meant to be spray fired from the hip.

Can’t Get a Home Depot Line of Credit if You’re a Gun Company

Not because of Home Depot though, but because their credit is underwritten by Citibank, who have a very odd explanation for why they denied a gun businesses line of credit. Apparently they prohibit lines of credit to people who manufacture and sell firearms for military use. That’s very strange. I wonder why this is.