NRA has never had a very close relationship with the National Review crowd. To that part of the conservative movement, we’ve always been a bit of the crazy uncle in the attic. With that said, I’m glad to see an interview with Chris Cox in National Review.
Category: Guns
Important Castle Doctrine Vote Today
An alert from PAFOA on the matter. Today we’re having the vote on the discharge petition, to get it out of Dwight Evans’ appropriations committee, and get it onto the floor for a vote.
More in the Scott Case
From Confederate Yankee. Here’s an interesting observation from his account of the inquest:
One of the fundamental questions in this case is whether any Costco employee actually asked Scott to leave the store and if so, his response to that request. It is reasonable to believe that if anyone representing Costco had asked Scott to leave at any time, the police would have noted it and the prosecutor would have been sure to secure such testimony, but thus far, this does not seem to be the case. Considering the very negative thrust of the other evidence presented to Scott’s detriment, if such evidence, of an angry, armed man refusing a lawful order to leave the premises existed, surely it would have been made public at the inquest, but it has not.
I should note that there’s a difference between “legally justified” and “the guy got what was coming to him.” This is looking like the former case. This shooting didn’t need to happen, and I think mistakes were made on all sides that night. There are also, certainly, very legitimate criticisms of this inquest process. But if you put me on a jury, and every witness says he made a move for a gun, and they find the gun, even in its holster, near the guy, my vote is that the cops walk. I don’t expect them to note the difference between a gun in its holster, and a gun out of its holster. The question, legally, is what the cops reasonably believed was going to happen, not what actually happened.
Reasoned DiscorseTM Part MDCCCXLVII
By now it’s an old formula, pro-gun people find an anti-gun blog, pro-gun people engage anti-gun blog, anti-gun blog heavily moderates comments in an attempt to shift debate away from topics they’d rather not address. Common Gunsense has not completely shut down comments, but she’s also pretty clearly not interested in debate, only parroting the talking points:
The idea is to harangue and harass and hope I will go away. There was an early complaint that the Brady Campaign didn’t allow comments. I completely understand why. It is overwhelming and would require at least a full time staff person to publish and respond to comments. And to what end?
No, that’s not the idea at all. The idea is to show your ideas cannot stand up to open debate, and ultimately fail in the court of public opinion because of that. The idea isn’t to get you to go away, but to show that for all the accusations that have been flung at gun owners in the past decade, that they could not think for themselves, that they were essentially manipulated by the “evil gun lobby,” and could only regurgitate talking points, that is in fact more true about your side than ours. I’ve run into a few Brady staffers who know how to make an argument, but for the most part, any time I’ve pressed down on the astroturf, I don’t sense much in the way of depth below the surface.
If you were only moderating nasty comment, or even only moderating ridiculous comments, I wouldn’t have thought poorly of it. But it’s quite possible to talk through the unreasonable people and get to the folks who have something worthwhile to say. It doesn’t take a full time staffer to speak with commenters. I’ve floated at least one opportunity in the thread on private sales, where I once again proffered a slight variation on this idea, and asked her whether she would find this an acceptable idea, and if not, what was wrong with it?
I can only assume, since the comment was never approved, that it leads to an area that the Brady folks would rather not talk about, because it addresses the problem they claim to be concerned with, but doesn’t amount to much in the way of restricting law abiding people form purchasing guns. That’s also, I would point out, not a proposal you’ll see from the NRA any time soon. I’m sure a lot of folks there cringe every time I discuss such things. But where are your internal disagreements? Where are your debates? Ours are increasingly happening out in the open, because that’s what you’d expect when you have millions of opinions, thousands of activists, and hundreds of soap boxes.
Ultimately, I think we have come to the point where we have to agree to disagree. I think Joe is probably right about this whole circumstance, and I don’t see anything to be gained by further engagement. So I shall declare Reasoned DiscourseTM, and move on.
Latest MAIG “Research”
Released just today, but it seems to me that it’s making assumption on top of assumption. Nonetheless, it throws numbers around with authority. I’m not sure how statements like this are convincing, however:
Moreover, the average TTC of the ten states that export crime guns at the lowest rates is 14.1 years, while the average TTC of the ten states that export crime guns at the highest rates is 9.9 years. This average TTC data provides an alternative method to assess which states are the top sources of crime guns most likely to have been trafficked. However, this report primarily relies on the proportion of short TTC crime guns originating from a state because ATF has specifically identified a short TTC as a key indicator of gun trafficking.
OK, so the “source” states are still having an average “Time to Crime” rate of 9.9 years for guns recovered? Your average crime gun is still on the street 9.9 years before recovered in a crime? Sounds like we have a horrible trafficking problem to me. They also seem to claim that state laws against straw purchasing make a difference in TTC rates, and that restricting private sales does as well. Actually they seem to claim all gun control laws lower TTC.
But all of this is really based on some pretty wild assumption. I think it’s probably reasonable to conclude that guns will flow from places with low restrictions to places with great restrictions, because that’s easier than alternatives. But it makes the assumption that if we just make all the US a place of great restriction, we’ll solve this whole problem. But that ignores the alternative methods of trafficking and obtaining firearms. It might take a bit more creativity, and gaming the system, but where there’s demand, there will be supply. Just ask people who smoke crack.
Bloomberg also ignores the fact that we do not find New Jersey’s, New York’s or California’s gun laws acceptable, or constitutional. So keep tilting at windmills, Mayor Mike, we’re coming for your gun laws in short order. You will be made to comply. We promise.
Scott Case Looking More Like a Justified Shooting
Unless you believe there are multiple individuals who are all involved in a conspiracy to cover up the improper death of a person, Erik Scott isn’t turning out to be any kind of poster child. Generally speaking, if you buy the notion that most people will do the right thing most of the time (which is really what allowing carry is based on), that rules out broad conspiracies. Based on the Las Vegas Sun story on the inquest:
Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner in the Clark County Coroner’s Office, testified that Scott had a number of drugs in his system when he died. The levels of morphine and xanax found by a toxicology screen conducted after his death were very high and potentially lethal, she said. The levels also indicated that he had likely built up a tolerance to the drugs over time, she said.
This includes testimony from multiple doctors who said he had an issue, with even his most sympathetic doctor agreeing he was trying to wean him off narcotics. While this doesn’t have a whole lot of bearing on how things actually went down, and while there’s still conflicting statements from witnesses, but they all seem to agree on this:
Every one testified they saw Erik move his right hand towards his waist. It gets unclear as a few recall him pulling his gun out; pictures show the gun never left its holster.
There more here. I’m not sure it really matters if he drew or not. All witnesses seem to agree he made a move for his waist, and he was known to be armed. So far there have been more than twenty witnesses. I think we should be careful about drawing conclusions, and playing armchair jury. I certainly don’t absolve myself of jumping to conclusions here, in suggesting it looks liked it could be a civil rights lawsuit. So far, this is looks like a justifiable shooting on the part of the officers.
Pepper Jewelry
Breda is skeptical of this piece of jewelry that claims to deliver a dose of pepper spray to an attacker. I share her skepticism of the basic design and delivery method, but the idea of making pepper spray easier to carry I think has a lot of merit. With this ring, in addition to the accidental discharge issue, I’d be skeptical that it could deliver enough spray. Looking at some other descriptions of it, it has a range of a whopping twelve inches. You’d probably be better off following through on that short distance with a fist, to be honest.
My preferred option for spray these days is the Kimber Pepper Blaster, which is actually a gel, rather than a spray. It has a much better range, fits nicely in a pocket or purse, draws more naturally, and is a much more powerful formulation than typical sprays. The big downside is you get two shots. For something with a bit more, Fox Labs makes good sprays in a more traditional canister.
I still think it’s a good idea to carry OC. There’s a whole lot of force between harsh language and hot lead that pepper spray helps fill. One can imagine situations where someone is in desperate need of being in pain, but gunfire would not be legally justified. For instance, someone stealing the radio in your car: if you shoot him, you’re going to jail. But most state allow the use of force (but not deadly force) to protect property. Pepper spray is force, legally, and not all that high a level of force, so there is a greater number of useful circumstances where it can be employed.
Just One Question, Dodgy Response
Joe has some dialog with Ms. Peterson as well. The Brady folks really need to learn more about this issue than talking points. They need to learn how to argue. When I read threads like this, it’s almost sad, because I feel I could take their positions and argue them better than many of them are capable of. She still could not have answered, Joe’s question, but there are more effective ways to dodge and misdirect than that.
I Think a Lawsuit is in Order
The City of Madison apparently aren’t backing down on Disorderly Conduct charges on five open carriers, though they are dropping the obstruction charges on the two who refused to turn over identification. In order to conduct a Terry Stop, the officer has to have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has taken place. Open carry is lawful in Wisconsin. It is the only form of carry that is lawful. In addition, the Attorney General of Wisconsin’s opinion is that open carry alone does not amount to disorderly conduct. So what was the suspicion that a crime was taking place? If there was none, their Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, along with their Second. The only disturbance being caused was apparently from a woman who becomes unhinged at the sight of firearms.
That said, I don’t get the obsession with refusing identification. I know you’re right dammit, but I think here is a place to consider what the goals of the movement are. The best example for the hysterical 911 caller would have been for the police to show up, do their thing, and send the gun carrying folks on their way with a, “Have a nice day,” and for said hysterical woman to hear, “Sorry ma’am, they aren’t breaking any laws.” In addition to her, it matters for other witnesses as well. If you want open carry to be normal an accepted, and given that’s the only choice in Wisconsin, I would think that’s a worthwhile goal, then part of that is going to be people calling the police and being told “Well, are they doing something illegal? Because carrying a gun isn’t a crime” Seeing the gun carriers cuffed, hauled off to jail, or cited only reinforces the wrong message: that carrying a firearm is wrong and criminal. To me the primary goal should be getting the police to go away quietly, and if that involves some damage to your pride, so be it. If the police are stopping you, your rights are already being violated.
The only thing refusing to show identification accomplishes is creating an incident where one doesn’t need to exist, and getting that self-satisfied feeling that you’re right dammit. Turning over identification, even if the order is unlawful, doesn’t hurt your subsequent lawsuit any. As soon as you’re not free to leave, you’re technically under arrest, and into Fourth Amendment territory. You’re also getting your Second Amendment rights violated, in a context that would be favorable for asserting a right to carry. I do favor civil rights lawsuits.
GOP Committeeman Mark Hillman is a Bozo
Clearly they don’t appreciate the Second Amendment being a bipartisan issue, and is lashing out at NRA, and outright lying in at least one instance:
It’s simple: the NRA likes to play it safe by backing incumbents, even those whose support of gun rights is as sturdy as a soggy role of toilet paper. When the NRA endorsed liberal Democrat Sen. Harry Reid, NRA lobbyist Chris Cox explained that its “long-standing policy … gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues.â€
They back incumbents with pro-gun records, which Markey has. Secondly, NRA has not endorsed Harry Reid this election. If you’re going to throw bombs, at least get your facts straight. I’m also outraged that he demeans pro-gun votes by Democrats:
(Remember Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall voting to allow guns in national parks but only after obtaining permission from the Senate’s top gun-grabber, Sen. Charles Schumer? Markey’s votes were of the same lot — manipulative campaign fodder.)
You’re confusing the park issue with National Concealed Carry. But that aside, this is politics, and you know that given your position within the GOP. This happens with any controversial vote. At the end of the day they voted for it.
The GOP needs to get this through their thick skulls: you don’t own the gun vote. We owe you jack. The fact of the matter is we got more done in this Congress than we did in eight years of total GOP control. The way to compete with the Democrats isn’t to lambaste the NRA, it’s to tell us what more you’re going to do that the Democrats haven’t. There are ways to woo us.
I would strongly encourage members of the Colorado GOP to give them a call and tell them you expect them to compete against Democrats by kissing our asses even more, rather than berating NRA for following an incumbent friendly endorsement policy that they have benefited from, and will benefit from again. The bar is raised. We no longer have to depend on one party to secure our Second Amendment rights. Clearly some in the GOP aren’t happy about that. Hear that guys? World’s smallest violin.