The NTSB recommends banning cell phone use in cars. Even hands free. This is at least keeping with research that shows hands free doesn’t matter for safety. I’m wondering whether banning passengers is next. Our state recently passed a ban that only covers texting, but interestingly enough it probably also has the unintended consequence of banning Apple’s Siri technology. This is really something politicians should just but their noses out of. There’s lots of potentially dangerous distractions in automobiles, and what problems technology can create, technology can fix.
Category: Politics
Right Wing Anti-Government Paranoia
Apparently it’s catching on, which makes Joe Huffman wonder if it’s really paranoia if a large majority of the population believes it. Well, for all the folks who think big government is a big threat, how about we elect a government on a platform of leaving us the hell alone? Can it be that hard?
Chicago Statehood?
Apparently there’s a proposal to make Chicago the 51st state. I’m not sure what they think this will get them out of, given that the Constitution would apply just as readily to Chicago the state as it does to the city. But perhaps they see the writing on the wall in regards to which way this is going.
Personally, I am against this proposal, because I see no reason to the leaders of that city two Senate seats they can put up for sale, and fill with cronies.
Robots, No; Serious People, Yes
Unlike the head of the Pennsylvania GOP, I’m not afraid of a Texas candidate with a style of folksy flair. However, there is such a thing as taking the folksy thing a bit too far when a candidate not only reveals ignorance, but defends that ignorance as something the American people want. If we were talking about ignorance of something like an obscure genre of literature, yeah, most voters could give a damn about a what a presidential candidate knows. If we’re talking about the nine current members of the Supreme Court, uh, that’s just a tad more important.
“I don’t have memorized all of the Supreme Court judges,†Perry said on “Fox News Sunday,” responding to a question about a Des Moines Register interview he did last week when he referred to the eight justices of the high court. After the interview, the campaign said Perry was referring to a specific case that went 8-to-1 in a direction Perry didn’t agree with.
The American people “aren’t looking for a robot that can spit out the name of every Supreme Court justice or someone that’s going to be perfect in every way. They’re looking for somebody who’s got values,” Perry said.
I think it’s a bit appalling that he just called all of us who can name all nine justices robots. And, no, I don’t want a robot in the Oval Office. I do want a leader who understands that regardless of what pro-gun legislation he/she might sign or anti-gun legislation to be vetoed, the most important Second Amendment decisions he/she will likely make will be in a Supreme Court appointment and any federal bench appointments. Knowing the nine sitting justices is a reasonable measure that one takes the Court seriously.
As a side note, I think the campaign’s spin for Perry is actually worse than what he said. They claim he just couldn’t remember how the justices fell in a case on which he held an opinion strong enough to make it a campaign issue. If the case is that important, shouldn’t Perry know the justice who stood with his position which would, by default, give him the names of the eight who voted against his position?
CeaseFirePA Writes Re-Election Ads for Pro-Gun Lawmakers
There is nothing about this headline that doesn’t scream “re-elect these people,” and we have our opponents to thank.
Anti-gun violence group targets legislators
CeaseFirePA campaigns against Barletta and Marino for backing border legislation.
The article immediately puts CeaseFirePA on the defensive, forcing them to answer the question over whether their targeting of Republican Reps. Lou Barletta & Tom Marino is really just about partisan politics. They cite an ad targeted at Rep. Mark Critz in the southwest corner of the state, but they fail to mention anything about Reps. Tim Holden or Jason Altmire in their interviews on the ad buy. I guess the former Democratic staffer running the organization doesn’t want to piss off the two Democrats most likely to keep their seats in redistricting.
Back to the title of this post, this is where you know CeaseFirePA made a great investment in making sure that pro-gun lawmakers stay in office in those districts that are extremely friendly to our rights:
For their part, Barletta and Marino say they have no qualms about having voted for the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which gives gun owners who have a concealed carry license from one state the right to arm themselves in any other state that also has a concealed carry law.
The spokespeople for the representatives talk about how this would simply be like the same recognition as a driver’s license and how Pennsylvania already has reciprocity with 26 states. It’s simply no big deal.
I just have to laugh at the ad targeting one more time. Even the Democrats who held these seats in safer years went out of their way to be seen as pro-gun, and you’d frequently see “Sportsmen for…” signs out for candidates of both parties. So, thanks CeaseFirePA! The myopic NJ-centric attitude of the organization’s leader is helpful with silly moves like this.
Concealed Carry Numbers for Pennsylvania Counties
After an email exchange with Dannytheman this morning, I was reminded of a method we used to answer questions about how big the pro-gun electorate in Bucks County was during the 2010 elections. We were asked by campaign advisors who weren’t the types to turn their back on gun owners if our numbers were small, but they would have liked to have the number quantified just so they could understand priority in doing outreach during campaign season.
The first form this question takes is usually how many NRA members are in a given district. Well, we don’t know that. Not even NRA knows exactly how many they reach in a given area. (I explain the reasons for this in a post on the same topic for PAGunRights.)
Nor is there a way to calculate exactly how many gun owners there are in a standard political district. A person whose entire collection of firearms was inherited 20 years ago may make voting in defense of their rights just as much a priority as someone who recently sought out training for the first time and is buying everything new. In addition, while all firearms in a household may actually belong to one person, the family may vote along the same principles.
However, we can use concealed carry license numbers as a rough guide. These are people who take gun ownership serious enough that they undergo additional background checks and pay extra fees. They take the time out of their busy lives to stop by the sheriff’s office and wait in line for their license. Even if they aren’t putting a gun on as part of their daily routine, they care enough to make an extra effort in defense of themselves and their rights. This is a reasonable substitute to give a rough idea of the number of voters interested in hearing about a candidate’s record on the Second Amendment.
In Bucks County, that number based on the latest available data is right around 27,000. That includes the nearly 1,000 sportsmen’s firearms permits issued. Even though that is a fairly small percentage of the entire county population, it’s still a very large interest group in one region.
So, if you’re looking for a way to articulate the approximate impact of people who will be interested in a candidate’s Second Amendment record, consider using the number of licenses and permits issued as a reasonable proxy. My guess is that it still underestimates the number of people who care about the issue because of the influence of family and friends on voters, but it’s a reasonable measure to consider when having these sorts of discussions with lawmakers and candidates.
GOP Senate Candidates on Board with Second Amendment Rights
Today, seven Republican candidates met for a debate leading up to the primary to ultimate take on Sen. Bob Casey. Most questions focused on tax policy, the economy, and healthcare. However, during the lightning round where questions were answered with a show of hands, they asked two gun questions.
One question was whether they support national concealed carry reciprocity. Every single candidate raised their hand without visible hesitation (that I caught, or that moderators caught). The second question was whether they could imagine a scenario where they would restrict any firearms sales to lawful owners. Not a single hand raised.
I mention the hesitation thing because moderators were looking for disagreement, hesitation, eye rolls, or other non-verbal communication so they could pick on candidates for detailed follow-up. None of the follow-ups were related to the gun questions.
Hesitation is also relevant given the squishy vote on the issue from the incumbent senator on the issue in the previous Congress.
It’s Not a Compliment
Jim Geraghty was hitting some great notes in today’s Morning Jolt on the topic of Jon Corzine’s testimony to Congress. He claims that even though he ran the company, he just doesn’t know where the $1.2 billion in missing customer money went in the final days of his tenure at MF Global.
Corzine conceded that he knew “there were an extraordinary number of transactions during MF Global’s last few days,” but he didn’t know that the customer cash went missing. Geraghty’s response:
Ah. So Jon Corzine ran MF Global the way Eric Holder runs the Justice Department.
Another gem out of the email has absolutely nothing to do with guns, but I thought I would share regardless:
I find Corzine to be a fascinating case. He was the man from Wall Street, wholeheartedly embraced by the Democratic party at the precise time they were denouncing Wall Street. The man went back to Wall Street and then promptly made the kind of big gambles that Solyndra-cash-losing President Obama is denouncing. He is the walking, breathing personification of the Democrats’ hypocrisy in how they view Wall Street and wealth.
Fast and Furious Hearings
Dave Hardy has some good excerpts of the hearings going on in Washington currently. This scandal has started to become like an overly drawn out drama, where you get tired of the movie, and just want to get to the end, where the villain gets what’s coming to him. But the political process, unfortunately, does not work like that. Republicans will have no problem dragging this scandal out to election season. Their desire to get Holder removed I think is sincere, but they’d much prefer to do that through the elections by removing his boss. That’s why I don’t think they are pushing that hard.
County Wasting Money on Gun Buybacks
It looks like the County (my the County) officials are busy allocating public funds to cover the costs of gun buybacks in Bristol Township:
BRISTOL TOWNSHIP: $50,000 for municipal building roofing project; $35,000 for a 80 kw portable generator; $17,000 for GIS mapping services for GIS system upgrade; $200,000 for road improvements; $58,000 to the township public works department for a diesel bypass pump; $48,000 for a township public works department roofing project; $60,000 for a storm water inlet replacement project; $30,000 for a municipal complex solar lighting project; $22,000 for a municipal complex sign project; $25,000 to the township police department for a gun buyback program
The authority that is responsible for distributing these funds is the Bucks County Redevelopment Authority. No doubt Bristol Township officials requested it, but the redevelopment authority still approved. In other news, it looks like the County SWAT team will be getting some money for new toys.
My concern here is that this a waste of money that could be better spent on measures more proven to actually do something to reduce crime. The amount being allocated here would cover a decent portion of the cost to hire a whole extra police officer. I thought I’d let me local readers know in case anyone wants to go stake out the buy backs and make sure no one turns in history for destruction; my other big issue with buy back programs.