The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
By now, I think you’ve all heard the news that Harry Reid will not be getting an endorsement from NRA this election cycle. They didn’t come straight out and say it, but it appears the Sotomayor and Kagan votes are being graded heavily.
It would have been hard to defend an endorsement after the Kagan vote. NRA detractors certainly would have made that argument and they would have had a good point.
There was this somewhat stunning announcement from Chris Cox on the NRA’s Political Victory Fund site this afternoon:
Friday, August 27, 2010 In the coming days and weeks, the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will be announcing endorsements and candidate ratings in hundreds of federal races, as well as thousands of state legislative races. Unless these announcements are required by the timing of primary or special elections, the NRA-PVF generally does not issue endorsements while important legislative business is pending. The NRA-PVF also operates under a long-standing policy that gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues, which is explained in more detail here.The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan’s confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.
The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.
NRA members and other interested parties are encouraged to visit www.NRAPVF.org for more information as Election Day draws near.
Given that the NRA’s Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre are about as Washington Insider as it comes, the non-endorsement of Reid is recognition of two things in my opinion. First, the membership would rise up in protest if Harry Reid were to be endorsed. Second, the tide against the status quo is so strong that those who get in its way will be wiped out. Just ask Republican incumbents like Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina, and quite probably after all is said and done, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
PS: While Bitter and Sebastian are on vacation in Hawaii, I will be one of the guest bloggers in their absence. As my blog, No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money is quite new, I feel truly honored to be asked. I will do my best to keep up the standards that they have established.
Tam’s got a snippet from a New York Times column that tries to show how it was those evil Republicans who wanted to keep us women barefoot and pregnant – or at least out of the voting booth. I assume that the author’s access to the NYT archives must have been down the day he wrote that because I found a handy NYT article that shows it was the Republicans who finally got the 19th amendment moving.
In fact, it was the Democrats who seemed to provide the main opposition to the amendment. Out of 44 Republicans, 36 (82%) voted for it. Of the 37 Democrats, 17 (46%) voted against it. In the House vote, 200 Republicans (92%) voted for it and 70 Democrats (41%) voted against it.
In Tam’s neck of the woods, it looks like the powers that be are looking for excuses to not prosecute a local cop who, sauced up to .19BAC, killed some motorcyclists. Sadly this kind of thing goes on lots of places.
NPR, of all outlets, comments on a new trend: politicians featuring guns in their ads in an attempt to appeal to gun owners. It’s really nothing new, but years ago getting them into a duck blind, or posing with a shot gun at a clay range, was about the best you could hope for. Now we have politicians firing submachine guns and bragging about it. I consider this progress.
Dave Kopel thinks people should lay off Obama for playing so much golf. Personally, if he’d rather golf than continue ruining the country, I’m fine with that. Presidents need hobbies. If I were elected President, you can be sure the media would be abuzz of the wasted taxpayer dollars and time loss associated with weekly Presidential submachine gun practice with the Secret Service. It’s fun for the whole cabinet.
This 2010 election is highly important, and there are some great opportunities to get involved. There’s a Senate where the anti-gun incumbent is vulnerable. Washington has always struck me as being similarly situated as Pennsylvania is regards to the gun issue. You have a large city with a lot of anti-gun D’s, new transplants from out of state who are against gun rights, and deteriorating support within the Democratic Party for gun rights, yet still a large number of people who will pull the the lever for the D candidate regardless of their position on the issue.
I know everyone has seen this story already. It’s being touted as though Philadelphia is requiring a blogging license – which is not true. Philadelphia is requiring bloggers who make money off of their sites (in the cited examples, pitifully little money) to set them up as businesses. City Paper notes that they have the same requirements for freelance writers in Philadelphia. Bloggers aren’t being unfairly targeted – anyone conducting any form of financial transaction is being targeted.
Most of the commentary I’ve seen focuses on discretion in applying the law. I can sympathize with that point because it’s what we call “common sense.” And the impact will be felt here in the blogosphere. Wyatt says he’ll quit blogging if they come after him, and but all he’s got is a tip jar. I find his True Detective Stories to be a real eye-opener in the law enforcement world. (I assume most officers are brilliant like Wyatt, but it’s always good to be reminded that there are a significant number who are not. We’ll just leave it at that before I get into too much trouble.) I would consider the loss of his blog a real loss in the realm of serious public discussions, even if the True Detective Stories just want to make beat your head against your desk. (We live in the suburbs. Suck it, Philly.)
The good news is that the original story (and not the abbreviated/quoted Examiner piece that’s been linked everywhere) highlights one potential correction that’s not just a matter of relying on bureaucrats to use a little common sense when they try to open your wallet & take their “fair share.”
But bloggers aren’t the only ones upset with the city’s tax structure. In June, City Council members Bill Green and Maria Quiñones-Sánchez unveiled a proposal to reform the city’s business privilege tax in an effort to make Philly a more attractive place for small businesses. If their bill passes, bloggers will still have to get a privilege license if their sites are designed to make money, but they would no longer have to pay taxes on their first $100,000 in profit. (If bloggers don’t want to fork over $300 for a lifetime license, Green suggests they take the city’s $50-a-year plan.)
Their bill will be officially introduced in September.
The paper rightly points out that it doesn’t fix the business license requirement, and it still may mean they would have to pay more in taxes than they earn if they aren’t a large site. That’s a legit concern, but just like most things, fixes will come a step at a time.
The other good news is that this was a Drudge headline for a while, so it should drum up enough anger around the country to shame Philadelphia bureaucrats into behaving like reasonable adults for the time being. But, for any bloggers looking to escape, there are some lovely houses for sale in our suburban neighborhood.
While we would obviously fight any attempt by a township in this state to shut down a legitimate shooting range, shooting across roadways is to be generally frowned upon. Now a man’s quest for 1000 yard shooting (hard to find in PA) has run into his Township. The money quote here is:
Lavelle asked what London was doing in the photo Beatty took, and what the object identified as a target in DeBoer’s video was. London said he was shooting at a groundhog that was about 1,060 yards away, and the object was a five-gallon drum suspended by ropes used as a deer feeder, not a target.
[…]
Choman questioned if hunting groundhogs with a sniper rifle at a distance of 1,060 yards was extreme.
“I don’t think so,” said London.
If the guy is shooting over township roads, which he has admitted, and doesn’t have the appropriate safety measures in place, he needs to stop. While a .50BMG can’t travel “a distance of 45 miles,” as one Township Supervisor said, It can certainly travel quite a bit.