Guns – Page 635 – Shall Not Be Questioned

DCVRA Reactions

Both Roll Call and the WaPo have pretty good articles on this topic. It looks like the Dems were on board with moving the bill, until there was an attempt to fix DC’s carry laws, which soured the deal. It looks like it would have made DC Alaska carry, but it’s hard to say whether that’s really the case, or whether it was a shall-issue provision. It’s Elanor Holmes Norton, and I doubt she understands the issue in detail.

Why up the ante? I don’t really know, since NRA doesn’t share with me the details of their legislative strategy. I can only speculate what’s going on. There are folks who believe they are conspiring with the GOP to kill the DCVRA, using the gun language as a hammer. I’m not sure why NRA would be all the concerned about DC voting rights (and they shouldn’t be), but it’s quite possible the minority critters are using the gun issue strategically in this manner. If you’re a lobbyist, what are you going to do? “No, we’ll score that vote against you and lower your grade if you offer that that amendment which favors our issue!” You’ll lose credibility quickly if you start doing that.

But either way I think we come out ahead. There’s not much to lose by upping the ante. The worst that happens is we don’t pass anything, and the Court cases challenging DC’s laws go ahead. That’s a slower, and less predictable path, with the possibility of setting bad precedent, but there’s at least a way to move forward. But even if you lose the legislative battle, you win, because the fight reveals useful information. We’ve had a few gunfights in the Senate already, the most important one being when we barely lost on the Thune Amendment. We haven’t had a gunfight in the House because the leadership isn’t allowing votes to come to the floor. Ahead of the 2010 elections, it would be really nice to get some of these newer “pro-gun” mostly Dem politicians on record with a vote. So I could see reasons why NRA wants to pick a fight, rather than just letting the Senate version move ahead without one. This puts the anti-gun leadership in a very tough position, and forces a lot of the newer politicians to put their money where their mouth is.

It sucks that rights of DC residents are tied up in this game, and I’m sympathetic to that frustration, but I think, in the end, one way or another, this is going to work out. We have a lot more options today than we did ten years ago.

Helmke’s View of the Marchers

Disconnected is a very apt word, if you ask me, but it’s a masterful piece of gun control propaganda with the usual half-truths an omissions. I’ll take them one-by-one:

â€œDonâ€™t Tread on Me Flagsâ€ on the Mall framed by flags at half-staff around the Washington Monument in memory of victims of terrorism since yesterday was the 15th Anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing by an anti-government NRA member who made the money to make his bomb by selling weapons at gun shows;

One variant of the “Dont Tread on Me” flag is our current Navy Jack. Surely that’s not a disconnect for flags flying at half staff, is it? Plus, if you read the book American Terrorist, you’ll find McVeigh quit the NRA because it was too soft, and went around to gun shows handing out hate literature, rather than selling guns to make money to buy his bomb. Considering his bomb was diesel fuel an fertilizer, I’m not sure how much it cost to buy it anyway. Either way, if he had worked at a gas station to make the money, we wouldn’t blame the gas station.

Speeches that focused less on guns and more on health care, the federal deficit, bailouts, and other decisions with which they disagreed with the very express implication that the reason they were carrying (or wanting to carry) their guns was becauseÂ â€œthe guys with the guns make the rulesâ€ (as stated by the NRA boss Wayne LaPierre last Spring after Obama took office);

Brady would love people to believe they were egging on extremists to take their guns and go out and “make the rules” but it was another group of extremists he was referring to.

Seeing guns carried in an area where Confederate troops may once have marched within view of the Capitol Dome which was being constructed when Lee and Davis and the Southern states decided that they wanted to â€œrestoreâ€ a different understanding of the Constitution than that endorsed by Lincoln and the voters who elected him

Sure, get a few hidden hints at racism in there for good measure. Too bad the history is wrong, because pretty much all of Northern Virginia that was in artillery range of Washington D.C. was occupied by federal troops for the duration of the Civil War.

Seeing guns carried close enough to the Reagan National Airport (named after a President who was shot by a gunman in DC in 1981) where a 50 caliber sniper rifle (legal in this country and now allowed in national parks) might easily take out airplanes on the ground (or about to land or take off);

If the standard is being able to punch holes through the relatively thin aluminum skin of an aircraft, then no small arm short of maybe a .22 is acceptable to the Brady folks. But here you were with some of the most extreme people our movement has to offer, and no planes were shot down, no revolution got started, no one got shot, and they were polite:

And finally, being treated (for the most part) politely by people on a beautiful sunny day whose level of fear and paranoia seemed to reflect a dark view of society and our nation.

Surprised? I have disagreements with these folks on tactics, and I don’t agree with them that our government is anywhere close to being the kind of Government Jefferson spoke about in the Declaration of Independence. But our federal government is supposed to be one of limited and enumerated powers. Raise people to believe that, then suddenly change the rules and start telling them it’s really unlimited, I can’t blame them for being pissed. I’d hardly call urging a return to that state a “dark view.” They take to using guns as props in their political theater because they’ve been made to feel powerless and unrepresented by the political process. The reasons for that I think are complex, but why think about the topic seriously when you can use a few sentences to mold everything into the left’s narrative about the right, and particularly gun owners, being dangerous.

The First Amendment Wins!

I have a slightly more detailed post up over at PAGunRights about today’s important win at the Supreme Court. It was a First Amendment fight that could have spelled the end for all outdoor magazines and any commercial sharing of hunting images across state lines.

There is so much to say about this case, and it calls for far more attention than I can give it right now. This a law that even Bill Clinton knew was unconstitutional when he signed it back in 1999. He added an order for the Justice Department to limit how it was enforced, but in their first ever prosecution, they strayed from that order. And because of that very stupid move, they set up a case that showed the law was overly broad and chilled free speech.

The odd bit here is that no one in the hunting community really noticed this law when it passed. Technically, publishing Pennsylvania bear hunting photos in an outdoor magazine that could be sold in New Jersey was a federal felony for a decade. But because no one was prosecuted, no one paid attention. The case that was brought against a person didn’t have to do with hunting, but dog fighting. Using video from an event that was legal in the location it was filmed, the defendant created a so-called “documentary” about dog fighting and sold it. It was not a recording of criminal activity, but perfectly lawful (in its location) activity. The feds declared that the mere depiction was a crime, which is why the outdoor media community would have been decimated if this law stood. Field & Stream would be contraband in DC because the District allows no hunting. Better hope that online forum with ads where you posted that picture of the deer killed with a crossbow doesn’t get read by someone where use of crossbows are illegal. It was that bad.

DC Voting Rights Bill Dead Again

Hoyer is saying it’s not going to happen. They hate the Second Amendment that much, because you can bet this would have passed already without the gun rights amendment attached in the Senate.

Lobbying Mistakes

If there’s one thing that’s true about politicians is that they don’t want to come out and directly tell anyone “no.” They’ll beat around the bush and go about it in subtle ways. Such was the case with pro-gun Virginia Senator Jim Webb, but apparently Abby Spangler has a hard time reading between the lines, and ended up with a very public repudiation in the Washington Post. This is a big error on the part of Protest Easy Guns, and you can bet Webb’s office isn’t happy. This kind of thing has happened on our side too, so we shouldn’t get too proud, but generally, our folks do a better job of handling this kind of stuff. Perhaps Senator Webb will remember next time to speak in Abby’s language, withÂ gratuitousÂ use of the shift key.

The Attack Begins

From Roll Call:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (D), is expected today to unveil a lobbying blitz to prod Congress to approve legislation that would require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.

The group will launch a six-figure media campaign that includes both national cable and selected state advertising spots as well as an online petition drive.

â€œThe truth is the conventional wisdom is just wrong that you canâ€™t do a gun issue,â€ said John Feinblatt, Bloombergâ€™s chief adviser for policy and strategic planning.

Six figures doesn’t buy you that much, but it’s still a threat. It shows that Bloomberg is willing to dump serious money into the issue in order to move the ball forward. NRA is very very good at playing the lobby and electioneering game. They are much less adept at media campaigns to shape public opinion. That’s always been the other side’s core strength against us.

In addition, there was a story last week about MAIG looking to hire an Ohio coalition coordinator with a $75,000 grant, much like Max Nacheman here in Pennsylvania. Let me tell you, Max is a tough, tough adversary for us here in Pennsylvania. This is not good news for Ohio activists.

Common Use

From the NSSF Bullet Points:

TheÂ first comprehensive survey to look at ownership and use of modern sporting rifles reveals that 8.9 million Americans went target shooting with AR-style rifles in 2009 and that participants using this type of rifle were the most active among all types of sport shooters. “These findings underscore that modern sporting rifles are becoming commonplace in America and are among the most desired firearms by sport shooters,” said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “Those who want to ban these civilian sporting rifles simply because they look like military rifles must acknowledge after seeing this study that AR-style rifles are exceedingly popular with millions of Americans. These rifles are our industry’s high-tech, cutting-edge product — rugged, accurate, versatile, fun to shoot and easily accessorized — and they’re here to stay.”

So how exactly wouldn’t these be the kind of rifles mentioned in Heller as “in common use at the time, and are thus protected. This weekend I plan to shoot my AR-15 in a match. Why? Because there’s not much that beats it for high-power shooting.

Culver May Pocket Veto Shall-Issue in Iowa

Iowa’s shall-issue bill was passed near the end of the legislative session so a pocket veto is an option. Culver is up for re-election in 2010, and this isn’t a good year to be a Democrat. You would think Culver would probably like some cover on the gun issue and will sign the bill into law. So says some folks in Iowa:

Schueller said he thinks the Democratic leadership might have been trying to garner support from gun-rights advocates such as the National Rifle Association, but he doubts it will pay off.

“Here’s my spin on it: the NRA is Republican, the NRA has been Republican forever, the NRA never votes Democrat. And if Gov. Culver thinks they’re going to start voting Democrat, I’ve got some swamp land I can sell him,” Schueller said.

Even if you think this is true, and it’s not — NRA has been happy to support Democrats — do you really want something else to fire up gun voters to get to the polls and vote for your opponent? This is going to be a tough year for Democrats. Republican voters are motivated to turn out. If the Governor is smart, he won’t let this become an election issue. He’ll sign the bill.

UPDATE: Currently on NRA News is NRA’s Lobbyist for Iowa, Chris Rager, and he’s asking people to contact the Governor’s office and ask that he sign the bill. It doesn’t sound like the Governor has indicated whether or not he’s planning to sign.

Second Amendment Rally Coverage Round Up

From the AP. Focuses mostly on Mike Vanderbough and the Virginia rally. Â The Washington Independent, focusing on a statement by Mike Vanderbough. The HuffPo with photos and videos. From the WaPo blog mostly covering the DC rally, and in the theme that there really isn’t anything to protest on the gun front. CNN’s coverage focused mostly on the rally in DC, but did make a mention of the Virginia rally. Probably the worst coverage was AFP:

“We are the tip of the Tea Party’s spear. We are the IRA to the Tea Party’s Sinn Fein,” Vanderboegh said, referring to the Irish Republican Army, the main paramilitary force in three decades of violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, and its political wing.

Not playing into any carefully constructed narratives there about the Tea Party. No. None at all. The AP had later coverage which they note the numbers were in the hundreds. I wouldn’t say that’s undercounting based on the pictures so far. The Richmond Times Dispatch says VCDL delivered at least 100 people to the rally.

Brady Fundraising

They are trying to raise money on the Second Amendment rally:

Today, on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, there’s a Second Amendment march on Washington. They’re not allowed to bring guns onto the National Mall, but if they had their way, someday they could march into Washington with guns at their sides. Unless we stop them.

I’ll remember this one next time I hear accusations from the other side that NRA raises money based on fear and ignorance.