Be Sure to Thank Starbucks

They basically told the Brady folks to go eat the yellow snow (of which they should be able to find plenty of today).

“Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue,”

Naturally, this was very disappointing to our Brady opponents, so horray for Starbucks! I’m more of a tea drinker than coffee drinker, but as soon as I dig myself out from under this mountain of snow, Bitter and I will go get an expresso shot from Starbucks. And yes, I will carry (concealed, however).

Be sure to thank Starbucks, folks, which you can do here.

What do the Bradys Think of Gun Owners?

The Brady Campaign openly endorses this intolerant piece by Mark Morford:

Oh, please do not misunderstand! We are all terribly impressed. It is so very patriotic of you to show off your little popper! Are you in a gang? Are you a drug dealer? Are you going to shoot some scary terrorists, Mr. pallid paranoid Constitution-misquoting videogame-addicted guy? Protect all of us here in the casual neighborhood coffee shop from those crazy liberals and their health care reform and organic pretzels? Thank you so much! But really, I think we’ll be OK without your little display. Enjoy your frappucino, won’t you?

Anyone who’s read this blog has known that I have not been all that supportive of open carry activism, but I find it amazing that a guy like Mark Morford who doesn’t like people shoving their Second Amendment rights in his face, but oh, he has no problems shoving this in the face of San Franciscans (NSFW, don’t say I didn’t warn you), as evidenced by this passage:

That’s right, it’s S&M for charity. It’s S&M for hope and health and progress. Keep your bake sale and your car wash and your telemarketing scams. You want to raise some cash for a cause? Bend over in your buttless leather chaps in a charity spanking booth and let a large hairy sweaty grinning man slap your ass with a leather paddle until it’s the color of a tomato in summer. And sing while he does it. And hand out flowers. And condoms. And smile at the over 300,000 passersby.

Mark Morford would like you to think he’s tolerant, but he’s a piece of intolerant garbage. He’s only tolerant of thinks he believes are enlightened, of things he believes should be tolerated. That’s not tolerance, that’s actually no better than the people he derides as “religious conservatives” trying to “force their morality on everyone else.” Maybe the reason Morford hates them so much is because he has seen the enemy, and it is him.

UPDATE: Apparently my point was lost on the Brady folks, who have updated their post to respond to mine. As someone who supports both gun rights and gay rights, I’m equally sympathetic to both the notion that perhaps we do not advance either respective agenda by shoving guns or assless chaps into anyone’s face who is perhaps less than comfortable wither either. What angers me about people like Morford is they deride and sneer at others for practices that they themselves promote in their own favored cause. Even most open carriers have the consistency to argue that the San Francisco gay rights activists’ flamboyant public displays are equally effective and acceptable. Can’t we expect the same courtesy from someone like Morford to perhaps accept that maybe some gun rights activists are as enthusiastic, and perhaps misguided, as those who would wear assess chaps  for a public flogging at a gay pride fair, believing that they are advancing their cause? If one is OK, so is the other. And one doesn’t have to believe in either banning homosexuality in public or banning guns in public to accept that some people will take it farther than is wise. Morford doesn’t offer us that courtesy, or even accept that we’re honest citizens with legitimate grievances and concerns. Does the Brady Campaign agree with that?

UPDATE2: I guess since we’re both snowed in, it’s a virtual snowball fight with the Brady folk.

Being concerned about lethal weaponry in the hands of people with no law enforcement training inside a coffee shop patronized by families with kids is simply not in the same universe as outlandish behavior at a “gay pride fair”. They aren’t even remotely comparable.

This is really the heart of the pro-carry/anti-carry debate, and where we’ll find no common ground. They defend Morford’s dichotomy by rejecting the comparison to gay rights altogether. I would not argue that the respective causes are precisely similar, but I think most ordinary folks with children would probably not agree that no one is harmed by seeing one man whip another man with assless chaps. Certainly there are many that would rather their child see an openly holstered firearm carried by someone who is not law enforcement. Which act would you rather explain to a young child?

But we’ll find no agreement, because they believe the mere act of carrying a firearm is dangerous, unless you have some magical “law enforcement training” which will naturally make the gun not dangerous. We do not believe the act of carrying a firearm to be inherently dangerous, because a holstered firearm (and unloaded in the case of these California activists) is not a dangerous item. Nearly all other potentially dangerous acts involving firearms in public are crimes which people can be punished for, save for self-defense, and if it comes to that in a public place like Starbucks, you’re probably going to be glad someone was there with a gun, whether they have magical “law enforcement training” or not.

Chicago Picks Its Lawyer

Looks like Alan Gura and Paul Clement will be going up against James Feldman:

A Washington, D.C. solo practitioner with extensive experience before the Supreme Court will argue in defense of the city of Chicago’s strict handgun ordinance in a closely watched Second Amendment case next month.

James Feldman, who argued 45 times before the high court as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, got the nod to argue in what is widely viewed as an uphill battle for gun control advocates. The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago.

He’s going to have a lot of work cut out of him to try to argue such a legally untenable position.

Context Matters?: AR-15 Open Carry in Michigan

SayUncle says that this isn’t helpful. I have to agree with Tam on this one, “Ten out of ten for enthusiasm, but minus several thousand for Thinking Things All The Fucking Way Through.” What I don’t understand is why folks in the comments, who say they generally support open carry, don’t support this. I have to applaud Packetman for at least being consistent. If there’s no problem with people open carrying a pistol, there’s no problem with people open carrying an AR-15. It’s just a matter of degree. Won’t it get people used to the idea of seeing guns in public? If you say no, then you admit that there’s time, place, and other contextual considerations at play here, in which case it’s fair to say that maybe those who think open carry ought to be legal, but perhaps isn’t effective or appropriate anywhere, anytime might have a point.

Concealed Carry Without a Permit in Arizona?

This article in the Arizona Republic quotes heavily from NRA Board member Todd Rathner, who speaks about a number of proposed bills to liberalize Arizona’s weapons laws. They are reportedly even seeking legalizing concealed carry bill without a requirement to first obtain a permit or license, which has some D.C. based people in hysterics:

Two bills, one to allow concealed weapons without a permit and the other to exempt guns made and kept in the state from federal regulation, each has more than a dozen legislators backing them. If passed, Arizona would be only the third state in the nation to allow either of the looser restrictions.

Everitt called the proposal to no longer require a concealed-carry permit “crazy.”

“You would have dangerous individuals and criminals carrying weapons in public,” he said.

And presumably Everitt thinks they already aren’t? I don’t know enough about Arizona politics to know whether this has any chance of passing, but if it did, Arizona is a state with a major city. Alaska and Vermont are interesting, in that they don’t require a license to carry firearms concealed or unconcealed, but it’s easy for opponents to dismiss this with “It’ll never work for our state. We’re too urban, too populated. Alaska and Vermont are very rural states that don’t have the same problems we do.”

All it really takes is one state with big cities and sprawling suburbs to pass this, and when the sky doesn’t fall, we can probably start passing it in other states. In the late 80s it was Florida that started the shall-issue licensing trend, and it started a tidal wave that spread across the country. In most states, the votes just aren’t going to be there to pass something like this, but they weren’t with concealed carry either, until suddenly we got the votes in Florida, and the rest is history. I have my doubts that the Arizona Legislature has the votes to pass this, but it they did, it might be the push needed to start the dominoes falling.

Moving Bills in the 111th Congress?

According to Roll Call, which is unfortunately behind a subscriber wall:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has quietly been preparing a series of gun rights amendments that he intends to offer to must-pass Senate bills this year, hoping to force Democrats to take tough votes and draw clear distinctions between the two parties heading into the midterms.

I managed to get a copy from someone who had a subscription, and I won’t repost what is not publicly readable, but the gist is that it’s part of the GOP 2010 strategy, and that would appear to be to show the Democrats that they are the party of gun rights, by one upping them. I have to admit to liking having both parties fighting over us like we’re some hot date at the prom.

Coburn says one of the Amendments will deal with restoring gun rights to veterans who were declared mentally incompetent, because they weren’t able to handle things like their own finances, but who are recovered currently. Under the Clinton Administration, all these folks were stuffed into NICS as prohibited purchasers, even though current guidelines would not allow this (H.R. 2640, passed under some GOA generated controversy a few years ago, restricted this practice). Also back on the table is the concealed carry reciprocity bill, and ATF reform. Sounds pretty good to me. I look forward to watching the anti-gun minority in Congress have a cow when this stuff hits the floor.

Quote of the Day

Fait of the World, a new blog to me, has this to say about the Brady folks:

The Brady Bunch are starting to see the writing on the wall and they have grown desperate.  The evidence over the last 10 years have proven their every argument wrong.  Gun control hasn’t worked.  Gun rights have.  States that have the least restrictions tend to also have the least amount of crime.  England banned handguns in 1997.  In 4 years, their gun crime doubled and their overall violent crime went up 118%.  The prophesy, of murder in the streets, given when conceal carry started to be debated in the first states to take it up… never happened.

People are starting to realize the emperor has no clothes, and with the courts hopefully about to take prohibition off the table, I think the gun control movement will find fewer people interested in donating money so we can nickel and dime gun owners with meaningless and useless restrictions. Their folks were about prohibition — making a statement about the kind of country they wanted to live in, and the kind of society they wanted us to be. The sun is rapidly setting on that possibility.

The “Florida Loophole”

The Philadelphia Daily News has really outdone themselves this time. We’ve seen the abuse of the term “loophole” to describe perfectly lawful activity the anti-gun groups and anti-gun media want to portray as sneaky, and something that obviously ought to be illegal, but this article really takes the cake.

“They could be disapproved here and they could apply in Florida and we are not notified,” said Philadelphia Police Lt. Lisa King, commander of the Gun Permit Unit. “So if we are not giving them a permit to carry, how is Florida allowed to override our decision?”

District Attorney Seth Williams said that the loophole defeats local efforts to keep streets safe.

“We should not allow Florida to pierce the veil of sovereignty of Pennsylvania,” he said. “This is something I’m going to direct my legislation unit to look into. This is a loophole I think it would be best to close.”

It’s not doing anything about Pennsylvania sovereignty. Pennsylvania has a law that recognizes licenses to carry from other states, and that law makes no distinction between residents and non-residents. If you possess a license from that state, you’re good. What the Inquirer also does not mention is that the requirements for a Florida license are more stringent than Pennsylvania’s, a reason that it’s more widely recognized by other states.

Locally, though, it’s become known as the “Florida loophole” because that’s where most of the out-of-state permits are coming from, according to police and prosecutors.

Locally I’ve never heard that term before. You mean locally around the newsroom? Around CeaseFire PA headquarters?

But CeaseFire PA executive director Joe Grace called the loophole “outrageous” and said that the issue is one his group will push in the upcoming governor’s race, in which Attorney General Tom Corbett is a candidate.

Grace said that the reciprocity law is not unusual, but blamed the loophole on Corbett’s translation of the law.

There’s no mistranslation. Corbett has an affirmative duty under Pennsylvania law to seek out reciprocity with states that are willing. Grace may want to smear Corbett in an election year, but Corbett is only exercising his duty under the law with these agreements. The law makes no provision to denying licensing to non-residents.

“People engaged in criminal activity are smart enough that once they are denied here, they are aware of this law and apply in Florida,” he said. “That’s thwarting the ability of Philadelphia police or any department to police Pennsylvania law.”

If gang members in Philadelphia are paying 123 dollars to the Florida Department of Agriculture, going through the training requirements, getting fingerprinted, and submitting to an FBI background check, I’ll eat my hat. They can point to one guy who ended up charged with a crime. One guy.

Grace cited an example of a Philadelphia man who obtained a Florida license to carry. He was subsequently pulled over in a traffic stop, and not only did he have two handguns on him, but he also had a half-pound of marijuana, numerous other drugs and several thousand dollars in cash.

When the case went to court, prosecutors could not charge the man with any gun violations, Grace said, because of his Florida permit.

Funny thing is, I was aware of this case, and was very, very curious as to its outcome, because there had been no precedent in the courts as to whether a Florida license would actually be recognized in the case where a person was not in possession of a PA LTC but was a resident of PA. The law said it should be, but that doesn’t mean a judge will see the law the same way.

“They mention that they’ve been denied a permit in Philadelphia for everything from parking tickets to child-support payments,” he said. “You may not have a criminal record but you owe some tickets or child support and they deny you when the rest of the state doesn’t.

“That’s not to say I’m for the deadbeat dad, but if you’re behind in your bills are you not allowed to protect yourself?”

Christie Caywood, a member of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association, who spoke on the organization’s behalf, said that Philadelphia’s practice of revoking licenses of victims whose guns have been stolen, and the department’s high permit-revocation rate – 505 last year – send residents to other states.

“It is not surprising that some gun owners may opt for more uniform standards of another state license over the discriminatory abuses of the Philadelphia Police Department,” she said.

I don’t know who this Christie Caywood person is, but she’s a great spokeswoman for PAFOA. It’s the discriminatory abuses in Philadelphia that drive people to get Florida Licenses. I’m very happy that the city wants to push this issue, because we should have this conversation.

Clamoring for Relevance

The Brady Campaign is working on a petition to tell Starbucks to ban guns in their stores, and I have to give them an A for creativity with the icon for the campaign.

Do they really want to play the grassroots game with us? I appreciate them telling me that California Pizza Kitchen banned guns. I was not aware. Now I have one more reason not to eat their overpriced, shitty pizza. I’ve never even heard of Peet’s Coffee, is that anything like Tweek’s Coffee?

UPDATE: I notice this only refers to open-carried guns. Does this mean the Brady Campaign is OK with concealed carry now? Or are they trying to scare corporations with the idea if they don’t ban guns people will openly carry them into their establishments?

UPDATE: This campaign would appear to be the result of this article at ABC News, so it would appear indeed that the Brady Campaign is egging corporations to ban guns in their establishments by threatening with the prospect of open carry.

Corporations should understand this: there are a lot more of us than there are people who will sign that petition, and if you want to keep our business, you’ll respect our rights.