Politics – Page 182 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Self-Defense Opponents Won’t Give Up

I have a headache. I don’t think it was caused by beating my head against the wall over getting a simple bill like Castle Doctrine passed, but I’m pretty sure that’s why it won’t go away.

Good News: Today there should be movement in the Senate. (Link courtesy of reader Adam Z.) This is particularly important because of this is the week it has to pass to make it to the Governor’s desk.

Bad News: Reports that the anti’s just won’t give up on this one. This may mean a problem with amendments. If any amendments are added, the bill is dead. There’s no opportunity for the House to take it up again. It must be a clean bill.

Back to what makes this so infuriating: How on earth does a bill that passed the House by a 4-1 margin end up being so hard to pass through the legislature? This isn’t even a gun bill, it’s an issue of clarifying the self-defense laws!

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.

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.

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.

Elections have Consequences

In this case, maybe the consequences wouldn’t quite be the end of the world if the Democrats manage to keep hold of the state House – at least for gun owners. From the always witty John Micek:

At 10 a.m. in the Media Center, Rep. Nick Kotik, D-Allegheny, puts his cart well before the horse by announcing his plan to run for House speaker next year. Have to hold onto the majority first, Representative.

Currently, the House is run by Rep. Keith McCall who is solidly pro-gun. I have no doubt that fact played a huge role in the success of moving Castle Doctrine as a clean bill yesterday. However, he announced he planned to retire after this term, so we were stuck in limbo wondering if an anti-gunner would run for Speaker. The good news is that Rep. Kotik was rated A in 2008 and even carried the endorsement in his last race.*

The downside of the Democrats holding on to the House would be in redistricting battles and the fact that committee chairs would still mostly be anti-gun folks. Moving bills would still be very hard, even with overwhelming support in the full chamber. So, even though I love my pro-gun Democrats, I’m still going to work to make sure that the House flips to Republican hands.

*Since NRA’s new PVF website removed the archives, I had to put in a request for the grade. (Hint, hint guys – I used that information for post research.)

Castle Doctrine Finally Overcomes Opposition

We’re not done yet, but Castle Doctrine has finally come through the House. The vote was earlier this evening, and involved lots of yelling, many threats, and even some cane waving. There was some of the most entertaining sausage making I’ve ever seen. I wished I had recorded it for future laughs.

The bill faced several hurdles, including an attempt to adjourn instead of actually holding a vote. The Philadelphia Democrats tried out-of-order motions to table the bill, even when the Speaker repeatedly announced the call for a vote on the actual bill.

At least one AP reporter “gets it” with this summary of what’s going on:

The vote to widen the “castle doctrine” so that it applies beyond homes and vehicles was 159-38, with dozens of Democrats voting with Republicans, the latest demonstration of how gun issues do not follow partisan political lines in the Pennsylvania Legislature.

It’s so refreshing knowing to see a reporter acknowledge that the important issues doesn’t break along party lines. The article also reports that a Senate Republican source says the Senate will, in fact, take up the bill next week. Gov. Rendell still won’t say whether he will veto or sign.

The Odd Election Year Dance Around Self-Defense

As we wait for the House of Representatives to cast the final floor vote on Castle Doctrine today, I decided to take a look at the weird little dance that some Democrats and Republicans took around the issue. Some of these moves just leave me scratching my head. Why pick some of these fights in an election year? For others, they deserve big kudos.

Todd Eachus (D) – This guy baffles me. In 2008, he was A rated and received the NRA endorsement. Based on that, you’d think he wouldn’t have a problem with self-defense. And, based on his vote to pass Castle Doctrine, that would seem to be the case. But, his comments and other votes are what add to the confusion. First, he voted on the motion to have a floor vote on Castle Doctrine. Then, he voted against the motion that withheld the anti-gun amendments. So he wanted the anti-gun stuff to come up for a vote. Okay…that could be argued that as Majority Leader, he was just trying to appease the Philly delegation in a vote that would lose with or without his support.

But, this morning he’s quoted in the papers bitching that we were “heavyhanded” in trying to get a floor vote. If the vote was a throw away to the Philly delegation, that’s not ideal, but not the end of the world. But why be their go-to boy for the anti-gun coalition in the press? Why not leave the Philly delegation to do their own dirty work? As Sebastian said when I read that to him on his drive to work, “Aren’t the members from Philly the ones being ‘heavyhanded’ since they held up a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support?”

I’m assuming that he’ll be safe with NRA support this year, and I don’t blame them for that. But, if he insists on going above and beyond for the Philly delegation on the gun issue, then I’ll make sure we cover every statement. There’s no need to be their spokesman, they do a fine job of shoving their feet down their own throats when it comes to speaking out on our Constitutional rights.

Denny O’Brien (R) – What on earth. This guy was A rated in 2008. He is one of few and far between pro-gun Philly representatives. Really? Self-defense is what moves him to vote against us? He voted to bring the bill up for a floor vote, then he turned and voted against us by opposing the vote to keep it a clean bill, and then he voted against us on the actual floor vote. That’s disappointing because several of the police officers who have called me in the last few days to find out who to vote for have been in his district. I’ll keep an open mind until the final vote today to see if there was some confusion yesterday, but I’d hate to call them all and tell them that Rep. O’Brien suddenly voted against us on this important issue.

Josh Shapiro (D) – I’m confused. This is a representative who should not want to vote on gun issues. Yes, he represents a part of Montgomery County that very well might back a gun ban, but being anti-gun doesn’t win him any votes. In fact, he has his eye on higher office – statewide office. He cannot win with a strong anti-gun record if he has to campaign outside of his immediate area. So, you would think that it would be in his best interest to stick with us (he’s been with us a few times) when it’s a fairly uncontroversial vote and then lay low the rest of the time. It doesn’t hurt him, and he won’t have to worry about a negative record when he finally takes the plunge statewide.

While we should give him kudos for supporting the uncontroversial Castle Doctrine bill, I would love to understand why he decided to join the Philly delegation in wanting to bring up the half dozen or so anti-gun amendments forward. If their effort had been successful, he would have had to vote on every one of those amendments. While he’s probably vote with us on some, he’d then put a political target on his back for every single anti-gun vote he cast.

Jim Wansacz (D) – I took some hell for supporting this pro-gun representative in his solidly Democratic district. Unfortunately, he didn’t win the primary to take the Senate seat up there, so he won’t be serving in the legislature in the future. But, I’m really happy to see that regardless of his legislative future, Rep. Wansacz stuck with us on all three votes yesterday. If there are any readers up in his district, you should probably drop him a note of thanks.

Frank Farry (R) – He gets a mention since he’s our representative, and he voted the right way on every single vote on Castle Doctrine. This comes from a guy whose campaign didn’t return the NRA questionnaire in 2008. He actually knows he lost votes because of it, and just like we predicted, Rep. Farry is willing to stand up for our right to self-defense. Go us. (And, tomorrow I’ll see if I can track down a lawn sign to go up immediately until Election Day.)

Steve Santarsiero (D) – What is this dude thinking? His district is even farther out of Philly than ours is, and he’s a Democrat running in a year that doesn’t exactly have high expectations for his party. He was only elected in 2008, and he submitted a questionnaire that earned him a B rating against a Republican who refused to answer the questionnaire. However, his votes against us, and his subsequent endorsement by CeaseFire have shown his true colors. For a guy who rode the coattails of Obama to his office, you’d think that he’d not pick a fight with us. That would be the smart thing to do for anyone who wanted to keep their office. And now, it looks like that grade will drop, and his opponent has been reaching out to sportsmen in the district.

LA Times Favors Boxer

Hopefully they’ll remember to call her “Senator.” Either way, the Brady folks are thrilled because their issue got a mention in the LA Times, which hasn’t really been focusing very heavily on the gun issue:

Boxer supports California’s ban on assault weapons and the revival of a similar law at the federal level. Fiorina has criticized the federal law’s definition of assault weapons as “extremely arbitrary” and emphasizes other ways of combating gun crimes, none of which is a substitute for a ban. She also believes that travelers on the federal government’s no-fly list should be allowed to own firearms

I’m not sure how thrilled I’d be though, given that they balanced it with Fiorina’s view on the matter, which has a basis in fact, and they failed to frame the “terror gap” issue properly. I think most Americans understand the “No-Fly” list is a sham, but the “Terror Watch List” sounds much more ominous. Ten years ago the LA Times would have said “Fiorina wants to legalize assault weapons, which are the weapons of choice for gang members in California, and ridiculously wants terrorists to be able to buy guns.”

I guess when you’re down and out, you’ll take any piece of bread thrown at you, but given what we’ve seen from the LA Times in the past, I consider this progress.

Mini-Update on Castle Doctrine

I think the levels of ups and downs of the last two weeks was best described from Rep. Seth Grove, at least from his perspective as a legislator:

I was already to do battle against the Gun Control amendments on HB 40 – Castle Doctrine too. Maybe next time.

We were supposed to face down anywhere from six to eight anti-gun amendments ranging from one gun a month to restricting reciprocity of carry licenses. While it’s a good thing to never have to worry about anti-gun legislation, it’s also a bit of a frustration that we warn people about all of these threats that never end up happening. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing we had the support of 156 lawmakers to vote this thing through to another step in the process. But, it’s frustrating that I know some gun owners will believe we were blowing smoke up their asses for the anti-gun amendments that never came. We weren’t. The legislators themselves can attest to that.

So tomorrow, should the Speaker of the House indulge us, we should have the final floor vote in the House on Castle Doctrine. Hopefully the Senate will take it up. I haven’t really been paying attention to anything in the Senate lately, other than some political commentary on tax hikes that they won’t likely take up this year. So we’ll see.

I did read a few notes on Facebook by someone who said they caught part of a presser hosted by Gov. Rendell who was none too pleased about the self-defense bill actually getting traction. But, if he gives us grief, he’s gone and irrelevant in January. And, to boot, we’ll punish the rest of his party who stand with him on the issue and just flip the House so the Democrats are out to pasture in Pennsylvania politics.

More Castle Doctrine Fights Today

According to some state representatives on Facebook, we’re back on to fight for our right to defend ourselves on/in our own property today. From Rep. Seth Grove:

Going to be an interesting a fun week in Harrisburg. Supposedly we might have some transportation funding votes, but we will be voting on “Castle Doctrine” and I will thoroughly enjoy voting NO on all the gun control amendments and enjoy voting YES on a clean HB 40!

FYI – I think he’s my new favorite legislator. This update comes from another co-sponsor, Rep. Bryan Cutler:

HB 40, or the Castle Doctrine bill, is expected to come up for a vote today. I know many of you have been asking about this legislation, which I am co-sponsoring. I’ll let you know how the vote turns out.

Interestingly (and wisely, IMHO), NRA-PVF has opted to withhold state legislative endorsements and grades until the vote on Castle Doctrine & the half dozen or so anti-gun amendments that will be introduced.