Some of the Interesting Votes of the Day

After a shared bottle of sparkling wine, a nice dinner of salmon with lime butter, and another shared bottle of white wine just for giggles, I’m ready to look at the votes in the roll call records. I said earlier that I found the 6 vote disparity on the gun ban and the magazine ban to be the most interesting. Those had pretty much the same universal opposition on the ground, so why would they not have nearly the same vote tallies?

These Senators voted against the gun ban, but voted to ban the magazines that are commonly used with those guns and so many more models:

Mike Bennet (D-CO)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Angus King (I-ME)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Tom Udall (D-NM)

Johnson has already announced his retirement, so this was a giant “screw you” to South Dakota gun owners. In my opinion, South Dakota gun owners need to punish his party for his vote severely in 2014. I realize that the party could put up a person with a pretty pro-gun record. But, unless the Republicans put up a nominee with an anti-gun record, I would still suggest punishing the party in order to remind them not to screw with the gun vote. In fact, I would suggest that if the Dems do put up a pro-gun candidate, gun owners should go out of the their way to contact that person and the local party officials to let them know that you’re really sorry, but you can’t support their guy/gal after the betrayal by Johnson. Ruin his political brand and the association with gun control, even if he never plans on running again. It will show that not only will you punish those who vote against your rights, you’ll hold the state party accountable for the votes.

In Colorado, Bennett isn’t up until 2016. However, the degree to which gun owners have been screwed should motivate them to stay active until then. It would be quite nice to send him back home. His 2010 election was less than a 2 point race, and he couldn’t break 50% as the winner. However, the his colleague Mark Udall is up first in 2014. Unfortunately, he had much bigger numbers on the board during his last race, winning a 10 point victory. It’s clear that one goal of passing a magazine ban in Colorado was to give political cover to both of the senators to vote for federal bans. They simply proved what we warned gun owners about – they’ll tell you they are only after the magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, then they’ll say 10 rounds, and next it will be 7 before it drops again. So, Colorado gun owners, get to work to send a message to Udall. If you can do it through a direct election loss, awesome. If not, focus your efforts on the state-level Democrats you can target.

For New Mexico gun owners, you have your own Udall on the ballot in 2014. Tom Udall is up, but I’m not sure how likely he is to beat. I don’t really know what to suggest to local gun owners there based on the 2008 results. On one hand, there’s a much better chance of sending him packing from DC in an off-year. On the other, he won by nearly 23 points. That was a better performance than Obama in the same year. Local folks are free to give their thoughts on any potential electoral punishment on that front. Unfortunately, his colleague, Heinrich was just elected and won’t be up again until 2018.

King from Maine isn’t up until 2018, so I’m not sure there’s much that can be done on that front for the state’s gun owners. I guess the best advice would be to start “investing” in pro-gun potential challengers. Give money when you can and help out with elections between now and then. The best long-term strategy in that situation is to make sure there are plenty of viable pro-2A candidates to choose from by the time it someone needs to declare. Not even Susan Collins felt the need to vote for a ban, and she’s actually on the ballot in a blue state in the next election.

Only The Police Are Responsible Enough to Have Guns

An M16 is missing from a Philadelphia Police locker:

“Obviously, this is very, very serious,” Ramsey said. “And believe me, we will get to the bottom of it, one way or another, I guarantee that.”

You’d think a critical mass of plutonium had gone missing or something. I mean, not that it’s not a problem, but I won’t lose any sleep over a missing M16, at least not anymore than who might be buying pressure cookers.

I’d also note that I hope that the weapon pictured in the story is not typical of the condition of the firearms in the PPD arsenal. If so, ugh.

Anti-Gunners Lose More Money…

NRA just helped deal a one-two economic punch to anti-gunners today. We’re talking millions of dollars worth of a punch.

In case you’ve forgotten the story, Reed Exhibitions sponsored the Eastern Sport & Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania every year and managed to generate upwards of $74 million in the local economy and in support of the non-profits that raise money and sign up memberships at the ESOS every year. However, Reed banned the display of modern sporting rifles and the backlash of their attack on our community cost them so many vendors and customer refund requests that they had to “postpone” the show. Obviously, the show has never been rescheduled and it was handled so poorly by Reed that lawmakers asked that they never be allowed to host the show again.

All of that meant that Harrisburg-area tourism groups and Farm Show complex organizers went shopping for a new host to a sporting show for the region. What do you know? NRA happens to host a smaller scale show just 70 miles down the road in Maryland right around the same time of year.

It was announced today that NRA has been selected as the vendor to run a much larger scale Great American Outdoor Show in Harrisburg during the traditional time of the Eastern Sport & Outdoor Show. Maryland, after pushing extreme gun legislation, now loses the economic impact of that show and Pennsylvania gets a new vendor for the sportsmen’s show that doesn’t hate hunters & shooters. To top it off, Reed forever loses the multi-million dollar show they once hosted. Anti-gunners lose and a pro-gun state wins.

OFA Flooding the Senate Phone Lines

At least, OFA wants to flood the phone lines of all of the senators in order to push the gun control bill on Tuesday. The question is, will gun owners also being calling Senate offices tomorrow to make sure that Senate staff don’t just hear the anti-gun views?

Remember that if you cannot get through on their DC phone numbers, there’s always a district office (or seven, as is the case here) to call.

I suggest calling again because we need to show strength. OFA has been advertising that they will be the ones to overcome the grassroots power of the NRA, and we need to show them that gun owners will unite to fight gun control. Not to mention, we have no idea what damage could end up happening to any prospective pro-gun amendments with the promises made by Alan Gottlieb long before any votes happen.

UPDATE: OFA has decided to postpone their day of making phone calls. Interestingly, Toomey also selected tomorrow as a day to move offices so his phone lines would be down. Presumably that was already scheduled, but the timing of it sure would leave activists on either side of the issue wondering if it was intentional.

Anti-Gun Reactions

I pondered with Sebastian this morning what the reaction from anti-gun advocates would be in response to the Manchin-Toomey deal if it really turned out that it left many private sales alone, pushed no other fronts of gun control, and possibly gave gun owners several benefits.

I admit to being thoroughly amused by the first Brady tweet following the press conference.


It kind of brands whatever happens in the Senate as Obama instead of Brady. Combine that with the fact that they still haven’t released a statement on the deal limitations yet, and I’m thinking they are none too happy.

As VSSA notes, CSGV is talking to the press about how they want Senate Democrats to ignore all the pundits warning them off hardline gun control measures and just pass it already. (Although they have opted to remain silent after the press conference and just promoted their protest against a filibuster.)

Remember that the White House told the gun control groups that they are not allowed to criticize anything in this debate. They are no even allowed to second guess anything publicly.

Now the question is whether the gun control groups have the nerve to pick a fight with the White House over the deal if the administration decides that they’ll take whatever Reid can manage to send over to the House. How much are they willing to risk being shut out of meetings where they will get to “feel” important?

MAIG, for their part, has decided to focus their attention on possible GOP presidential contenders in elections that are years away. That doesn’t exactly sound like they are jumping up and down in excitement there in Bloomberg’s office.

UPDATE: Just as I put this up, the Brady Campaign says they “are reviewing carefully.”

NRA’s Reaction to the “Deal” on a Gun Bill

It’s here. It really highlights the mixed bag from this morning’s news.

While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s “universal” background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows.

Coverage of the Toomey-Manchin Gun Control Press Conference

Well, my first attempt to live blog today didn’t go so well when the Democratic gun control sponsors decided not to stream their press conference to the public after promising they would do so. With that, I’m moving on to the feds and their bill.

So far, we’ve just got lots of panning around the room looking at reporters.

Joe Manchin starts off, calling Pat Toomey his “good friend,” along with Chuck Schumer and Mark Kirk as being key to this gun control bill.

Manchin says there’s still a lot of work left to do. It’s a deal with Schumer, not a deal with Manchin. It’s not clear who is actually writing the bill.

Manchin says that we need a federal government commission to study violence.

Manchin is using the promotion words of anti-gun groups by calling this “gunsense.” He says that this bill is this “gunsense.”

He just keeps saying that it’s about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and insane people, but won’t offer specifics at all.

Manchin still loves Pat Toomey, his “dear friend.”

Toomey is now speaking.

Toomey applauds his staff for their work on the bill – the same staff who were telling voters that Pat Toomey wasn’t working with Manchin at all. Trust.

Toomey says that there’s no gun control in background checks at all. He won’t volunteer what kind of issues he’s promoting other than lots and lots of background checks.

Toomey now claims he didn’t seek out working on gun control, but then immediately complains about how there was a “risk” that no gun control would pass. He says he reached out to Manchin & Kirk.

He now points out that background checks aren’t a cure for crime.

Toomey says that no records would be mandated from private citizens, but he won’t volunteer exactly what he means by requirements of background checks at gun shows and online.

Toomey claims that gun owners get benefits, but he refuses to say what they are.

This will be an amendment, so those of us outside probably won’t see any language.

Manchin says he’s “been in dialogue” with NRA, but he admits that he can’t actually speak for how the organization will react.

In taking questions, Manchin is just repeating the same things he said earlier in the press conference. He claims that he strengthened his own personal gun rights, but he still won’t say what he’s actually promoting.

Toomey was asked if his NRA ‘A’ rating even matters to him, whether he’s worried about it. He says he only cares about what people want.

Toomey is asked if he’ll get more Republicans between him & Kirk. Toomey admits he has absolutely no idea if there’s any other Republican who supports this.

Manchin has pledged to vote for the bill, no matter what it is, if his amendment is on it. Toomey says that because other amendments could be added, he won’t pledge to vote for it.

Manchin is specifically asked about private sales, and he just says that gun sales at shows and online will be covered.

Toomey is challenged on the benefit for gun owners. He just gives an example, not a list. It sounds like strengthening FOPA while driving. It supposedly fixes where active duty military can buy guns.

Toomey is then asked whether the driving protections are a “first step” toward national concealed carry reciprocity. Manchin jumps in and say, “YES!” Toomey more quietly says that he supports it.

I’m assuming that there’s some content the reporters have that we don’t because there’s something about concealed carry licenses protecting you from arrest at NY airports while traveling.

Manchin promises that when he gave the talking points to his political friends back home and they are fine with it.

Toomey goes to the Morning Call for the last question. She asks him if he’s bringing along House Republicans from the Philly suburbs along on this bill. He said that there is interest, but they want to know what’s really in the bill first.