Politics – Page 217 – Shall Not Be Questioned

I Do Love Politicians

Only a politician can call for a gun ban on Friday night and then sign on to speak at a pro-liberty shooting event hosted at a gun club on Tuesday and not see the hypocrisy.

As we’ve mentioned, Jack Wagner said he supported a ban on semi-automatic rifles on Friday night at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit. This afternoon, the Commonwealth Foundation posted a Facebook listing for their annual LiveFreePA fundraiser. Guess who confirmed his attendance? Jack Wagner. To his credit, he’s the only Democrat who is on their confirmed speakers list. To his discredit, he’d ban the guns that the members of the host club use regularly.

Why Philadelphia Can’t Control Its Criminals

When they do catch people, and prosecute them, under the laws we have against straw purchasing, they don’t get any real punishment. Yet they scream louder and louder every year at Harrisburg that they need more laws they won’t enforce. How are more laws going to help when they aren’t even using the ones they already have?

PA Democrats Don’t Support Gun Rights

As mentioned by Bitter yesterday, none of the Democratic candidates for Pennsylvania Governor support our Second Amendment rights. They are all in favor of radical gun control measures, including semi-auto bans, ending statewide preemption and letting local governments infringe on our rights, rationing gun purchases, and, in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller, requiring child safety locks. But I won’t make you take my word for it, I’ll let them do the talking.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-rxQkachrQ[/youtube]

Some things you will miss in this video, is the scant applause gun control receives from even this very progressive crowd. There’s maybe two to four people in the back clapping after every answer, whereas on other topics, like health care, the candidates get rousing and loud applause from the room. What does the Democratic Party think it has to gain in Pennsylvania by continuing to hammer away on this losing issue? Let’s teach them a lesson in November. Eight years is long enough to have a gun grabber in the Governor’s mansion.

Cure for Optimism

I found the cure for that pesky case of Optimism you’ve been fighting since Scott Brown’s election. It was on the front page of Politico this morning:

Real Life Politics

In case it’s not obvious from the last serious post, it’s time for real life politics to start in high gear. Here in the Keystone State, 10 of our 19 Congressional districts have been rated by Cook as reasonably competitive. Surprisingly, even our own home base district is more competitive even though the county GOP is seemingly trying to destroy any goodwill with voters it might have left.

I’ve managed to organize a meeting of upper level activists from across Eastern PA (plus NUGUN who is technically closer to the middle) in a couple of weeks to lay down ideas/tips/strategy for the upcoming election season.

Candidates are still declaring and still dropping out. We’re now up to 10 known pro-gun retirements in Harrisburg with fewer than half that for anti-gunners. Gun owners in Pennsylvania are even losing one of their most powerful allies – the Speaker of the House.

Contrary to the hype and buzz online, there’s not going to be one iota of change in our favor this year if people don’t step up. Talking about on the internet does not actually make it happen at the ballot box.

On the other hand, I am also in the process of trying to track down every candidate on Twitter and Facebook. I try to keep an eye on them in case they say anything stupid or anti-gun, but I suppose I’m being redundant.

Visualizing a Freeze

Obama’s plan to freeze some spending someday in the future sounds like a nice talking point for those voters who don’t really pay attention to the details. Here’s a video to show those folks just how hollow that promise really is:

By the way, I’ll admit that I was a little sad those weren’t jello shots.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gubernatorial Candidates Target Gun Owners

Most voters don’t spend Friday night tuned into PCN – Pennsylvania’s version of C-SPAN – to watch coverage of small political events. Perhaps that’s what the Democratic gubernatorial candidates were counting on when they debated at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit. Hoping gun owners, especially those registered as Democrats, wouldn’t find out, each of the candidates pledged to support more restrictions on your rights.

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato started the series of gun control promises by calling for a statewide so-called “lost and stolen” law. He apparently doesn’t mind that the legislation would change the justice system into one in which gun owners are guilty until proven innocent. Prosecutors could financially ruin gun owners as they try to prove themselves innocent. Onorato continued by pledging to support “child safety locks,” though he declined to explain whether his version of the legislation would mandate the sale of locks to increase gun prices or challenge the ruling of Heller by forcing gun owners to lock their guns at home. Finally, Onorato unveiled his most controversial plan for gun control – ending state preemption in Pennsylvania.

Under Onorato’s dismantling of state authority on gun laws, concealed carry permit holders could be arrested if they visit Philadelphia. Hunters heading to their favorite tree stand in the next county may find that their favorite hunting rifles are banned. Every time a gun owner crosses a city limit, he or she may be in violation of a local ordinance that could lead to arrest and cost them their rights.

Of course, Onorato told reporters at his campaign launch that any perception of a pro-rights record was a “mischaracterization.” I don’t think most gun owners would have realized how much of mischaracterization that really was!

Next, Auditor General Jack Wagner dodged most state policy issues on gun rights – save one. Unfortunately for gun owners, it was a very, very big issue. Wagner, while claiming to support the Second Amendment, stated his support for a ban on semi-automatic rifles. These are not machine guns, but average rifles that gun owners often take into the field for hunting or to the range for competition. He did not explain whether his support for such a ban would include confiscation for those already owned.

Third in line, Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty joined Onorato in his support of ending state preemption. In fact, this was actually the priority pledge in his debate response. Clearly, he hasn’t heard that a recent poll showed 56% of Pennsylvanians support preemption of gun laws. His other priority, should he take office, is to restrict sales of guns to only one per month. Collectors would no longer be allowed to by matching sets. The only way to track such sales would also mean the formal creation of a gun owner registry in Pennsylvania.

Finally, Joe Hoeffel, the candidate running farther left than most of the others kept his answer as essentially all of the above. Specifically, he named these priorities: gun sales limits (and presumably the registry needed to track such sales), lost and stolen legislation, mandatory locks (though again without clarification on whether this applies to sales or storage), and the end of state preemption. In addition to the previously discussed issues, Hoeffel also supports a ban on private sales of firearms in Pennsylvania. Selling the rifle that collects dust in the back of the safe to a trusted family member will become a criminal act in Pennsylvania if Joe Hoeffel has his way.

Gun owners, particularly those who are registered as Democrats, need to speak out to these candidates. The primary race is close, and there is no clear winner. Make sure these candidates know that their support of gun control will cost them votes at the ballot box.

Cross posted from PAGunRights.com.

Bizarre Political Moments

Tonight, Arlen Specter said he would endorse a constitutional amendment limiting corporate spending. Not corporate spending on campaigns. Just corporate spending.

I don’t know where to begin.

Bob Barker Lending His Support to HSUS in PA

Bob Barker is donating a million dollars to an animal rights group to fight for a pigeon shooting ban in Pennsylvania, and suggesting he’s going to join protestors outside of Philadelphia Gun Club. I have not been very supportive of Philadelphia Gun Club on this issue, and I consider to believe they are a liability on this issue, but nor am I a fan of the proposed ban HSUS is floating in Pennsylvania, largely because it will also ban many of the methods used in the training of hunting dogs, as well as other completely legitimate sporting activities in the Commonwealth.

The politics of this issue is difficult, because as the ban currently is must be opposed. But I have other, ancillary concerns with it as well. If a ban comes before the legislature, we have a number of local politicians who will likely part from NRA on this issue, even though on other issues they would be otherwise good. I don’t want them to get in the habit of having to go against NRA, especially when I know doing that isn’t likely to hurt them much considering the suburban makeup of the local gun community (most of whom don’t do pigeon shooting, or even hunting dog training for that matter). The only hope is to keep this bottled up in committee so they don’t have to vote on it. Philadelphia Gun Club is making it more likely there’s going to be a vote.

For the record, Pennsylvania is not the only state that still has pigeon shoots. The animal rights folks are lying in order to embarrass us on that count. But Philadelphia Gun Club is the only club in a suburban area doing them. While I understand the club has been around for a long time, and has been doing live pigeon shoots nearly as long, I think they are doing the shooting sports and hunters a grave disservice by continuing to hold live pigeon shoots in an area where it’s not possible to be discrete about it, and where the surrounding culture is not going to be supportive of the practice.

Radnor Township Considering Lost & Stolen

PAFOA thread on the topic here. Looks like several people are already on top of it. I do offer a bit of cautionary warning about open carrying to the public meeting, but that aside, this thread is only a day old, and it’s great to see people organizing against it in such a short amount of time. There’s a simple message I would suggest folks try to deliver to Radnor Township Supervisors:

Lost and Stolen ordinances have been passed across the state, but there has not been a single criminal prosecution under any of them.
It is the opinion of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania that these ordinances are unlawful under state law.
These laws have not been shown to be effective at reducing crime or reducing straw purchasing. These ordinances are being promoted by gun control proponents with a hidden agenda.

That’s essentially what I would focus on when confronting the Township Supervisors. Keep ancillary issues like open carry out of the equation, and not give the media any reason to focus on them, or to try to sell the pro-gun presence there as “intimidation”. The goal is to convince them that activists on the other side are playing them as fools, and that they would be inserting themselves into a contentious social issue for no good reason. Township level politicians aren’t used to controversy, and don’t typically seek it out. Give them controversy, plant doubt, and they will fold.