The Inconsistency of the Left on Big Money

Like people everywhere who ride political hobby horses, big money is condemned when it’s coming from the right, but suddenly, they go silent when Bloomberg dumps millions of his own dollars into gun control. I think free speech is important enough that I would never argue government ought to be used to silence Bloomberg, anyone else, or even corporations, by restricting the money they can spend on hawking their message to the public. I’ll gladly help use our own speech to tie the gun control issue to an obnoxious, meddling, wealthy plutocrat who also happens to be Mayor of New York City and watch it sink like a stone in most of America.

I strongly disagree with the author on the matter of speech suppressing laws under the guise of campaign finance reform, but I at least hand it to him for being consistent.

Connecticut Gun Shops Swarmed

Apparently, gun owners are swarming gun shops today ahead of votes in the Connecticut legislature.

Dear gun shop owners, you know what would be very handy to do today for every customer who isn’t at the Capitol? The phone suggestion here in this post – have those customers who aren’t lobbying in person fill their voicemail boxes while the staffers deal with constituents in person.

A Novel Theory That’s Wrong

Both Jim Geraghty and John Richardson are covering a new, but really not so new claim by gun control advocates:

“If there was a secret-ballot vote it would pass overwhelmingly, because from a substantive point of view most of these senators understand that this is the right thing to do,” said Matt Bennett, a gun-control advocate and senior vice president at Third Way, a centrist think tank. “What’s holding them back is pure politics.”

This novel theory  was floated in Pennsylvania back in 2006.

Anti-gun forces in the Pennsylvania legislature became convinced that if the votes weren’t on the record, gun control would pass handily. They called for the House to meet in a Committee of the Whole, where recorded votes would not be posted, and thus lawmakers would be free to express themselves without fear of the NRA. So how did this particular experiment in one of our 50 laboratories of Democracy go? Utter fail for the gun control folks. The politicians still, even off the record, don’t want anything to do with gun control, because it’s a political loser. As Jim Geraghty noted, this is really a complaint that politicians are held accountable to the public.

A Lot of Pennsylvanians are Paying Attention to Sheriffs

I’ve gotten a lot of inquires into Sheriff elections, and a faction of the local gun rights group in Bucks County is very focused on sheriff issues, putting pressure on the local Sheriff Joe “Duke” Donnelly to sign pledges, etc. The focus on Sheriffs, as best I can research, is a legacy from the militia movement in the 90s, and was mostly hatched in states where Sheriffs play a greater role than they do here. I think it’s a huge distraction from the real issues in Pennsylvania.

First, the sheriff is not not imparted with any special constitutional status in our federal system, short of what state constitutions and state law have to say about the office, and that’s going to vary wildly from state-to-state. The only thing special about the office of Sheriff is that it is, in most states, an elected office, whereas the people don’t really have direct say, in most cases, about who ends up Chief of Police, except by proxy through City Counsels and Mayors for local police, or State Legislators and Governors for State Police. I think direct election of law enforcement is actually a good thing in a free society, and think we should do more of it, but that’s a separate issue from Sheriffs. In Pennsylvania, there are two issues with Sheriffs when it comes to guns in Pennsylvania.

One is that they issue permits. Historically (though it’s getting better) some Sheriffs have loved to add their own requirements, overcharge for the permit, or in the case of Philadelphia (who by state law issue through the Philadelphia Police Department rather than Philadelphia Sheriff) engage in all kinds of extralegal jerking around of LTC applicants and holders. That’s an issue to be cognizant of when election time comes around.

The other is that for NFA paperwork, the Pennsylvania Sheriffs are usually considered the CLEO when it comes to sign-off on ATF Form 4s. While ATF will accept local Chiefs’ signatures, Chiefs will often defer to the Sheriff on that matter. If your Sheriff won’t sign off, your only other route is an NFA trust, and there are numerous counties that won’t sign Form 4. In my area, Bucks and Chester are the only two counties I’m aware of that will sign-off. So this is a legitimate consideration.

Beyond those two issues, Sheriffs in Pennsylvania, and Constables, are a legacy from the time when most states had no professional law enforcement. While they are considered sworn officers under Pennsylvania law, the law does not give the office of Sheriff or Constable generalized law enforcement powers, such as those exercised by the State Police or your local police department. The Sheriff only has the power to enforce edicts of the Commonwealth Courts. Traditionally, before the age of professional law enforcement, if a Sheriff needed assistance to serve a warrant or bring someone before the Courts for trial, he would deputize local militia. Sheriffs still have the power in Pennsylvania, but I’m not aware it’s ever been used in modern times.

In short, when it comes to enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws, you’re barking up the wrong tree if you’re harassing your Sheriff. That’s a matter to take up within your local communities and with your local police chief, and with the State Police through state representatives, Senators, and the Governor’s office. Local police cannot be commandeered to enforce federal law under the anti-commandeering doctrine, as a matter of already established case law. Any enforcement of federal law by local authorities is purely voluntary on their part, and they cannot legally be forced to cooperate in any federal gun control scheme. But regardless of whether that’s the case or not, it’s not something Sheriffs have anything to do with in Pennsylvania.

Targeting Pennsylvania – Again

A Democratic PAC is pushing gun control in Pennsylvania with a $50,000 ad purchase. It won’t be a long-running campaign like Bloomberg’s, but it is still designed to put pressure on Republicans to cave.

This purchase also targets lawmakers in New Hampshire and North Dakota.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns Rally in Pennsylvania

This was an unintentional laugh line during the Mayors Against Illegal Guns-sponsored rally in suburban Philadelphia today, but it reflected the non-sensical rambling of many of the speakers. Earlier this week, the local organizers of the MAIG rally told the media that they expected NRA would bus in people to oppose their gun control event. As is so common in the gun control movement, it was really a case of projection when the gun control crowd from OFA actually brought people in from DC.

MAIG Rally DC Import

The message of the MAIG-sponsored event was that we’re uncivilized if we don’t believe that more gun control is the answer and that 97% of American voters support Obama’s agenda of the background check bill and the modern sporting rifle ban. Not even Bloomberg himself makes such outlandish claims, but the speakers chosen to run his rallies argue that absurdity.

Guns Equal Death

Interestingly, the rally featured a speaker who called gun confiscation plans “a political miracle,” and he made it clear that confiscation of at least some firearms was part of his larger agenda for the MAIG-sponsored rally. So the next time that Bloomberg says that he’s not trying to take guns from people, ask why his organization sponsored Rev. Robert Moore to talk about how wonderful confiscation was as a political goal. If Bloomberg wants MAIG to sponsor rallies, he can own the false statistics and the political agendas of his speakers.

The MAIG mayor who stepped up to the mic after the raving Reverend tried to claim that they were just pushing policies that respect people’s Second Amendment rights, but he did not denounce the previous claims that confiscation is a great political goal. Funny how they call us paranoid for pointing out when their own leaders are calling for taking guns.

Pro-gun protesters were out in force. It was tough to gauge exactly how many were there compared to the anti-gun rally since gun owners were spread out down the sidewalks and actually at the back of the rally crowd. The rally crowd was crammed into a small space so that no matter how many turned up, it would look full. Overall, I’d say they were roughly equal crowds. If one side was larger than the other, it would be by no more than about 20%.

CuteKidsMAIGRally

Neither side can claim a moral high ground on behavior. There were some pro-gun folks who crossed the line from respectful while agressive into flat out rude. However, the anti-gun crowd wasn’t exactly a model of good behavior with one little old woman going around trying to pick fights with “big bad gun owners” even after a cop stepped in and asked her to knock it off. Then a bunch of other older women walked back to the pro-rights crowd and spoke loudly about how the only reason we weren’t in support of more gun control is simply because we are not capable of any serious thought. The raving Reverend felt he needed to step up to the microphone in closing and remind his supporters that before they set out down the sidewalks and encounter the pro-gun crowds, they needed to remember that they are believers in non-violence, so they shouldn’t try to start fights.

OCMAIGRally

There were many folks open carrying, but it really didn’t seem to make a difference with the crowd at the rally. Many were as visibly disgusted and annoyed by the people with peaceful signs and American flags as they were at the open carry crowd. They were simply that hostile to any kind of dissenting thought.

BloombergProtestSign

My protest sign for Bloomberg’s sponsored rally was somewhat subtle, but I feel like the branding of a nice “red state” company was like extra sugary frosting on top of the cake. (Sonic is based in Oklahoma, a state that is actively reaching out to gun companies being attacked in anti-gun states.)

ATF Raid on FPS Russia

ATF raids FPS Russia. Seems they are using a novel theory that if you take video of, say, shooting Tannerite, then make money off the YouTube videos, you need to have an explosives license because you’re “engaged in the business.” Sounds like bullshit to me. Sounds like his crime was having a high profile in a gun issue, and doing things that generally displease bureaucrats.

Misplaced Words or True Intent?

It’s not hard to see why tin foil hats are becoming quite the fashion statement in today’s political climate. Whether they started out with a purpose of making as many gun owners as possible into felons, that’s what the current so-called “background check” proposals do.

Today, we have another example of a peculiar choice of words from Obama that makes it appear as though his intent is to effectively shut down gun shows instead of simply pushing a supposed “background check” for gun sales bill. As Great Satan, Inc. highlights, Obama’s speech today called for background checks before a person even enters a gun show. A policy like that would effectively close down some of our biggest gathering places.

It’s not unreasonable to think that this is the goal since Bloomberg has made gun shows a target of such extreme regulation proposals as recently as 2010.

Anti-gun advocates like to say that we’re paranoid to think that they are really trying to go after our entire gun culture, yet it seems to me that we’re just remarkably well-informed and that we pay very close attention to the publicly announce plans of our opponents.

Anti-Gun Resources Flowing into Pennsylvania

We already know that Mike Bloomberg is spending millions to put his advertisements on tv in Pennsylvania with an actor telling gun owners that they have nothing to worry about in the bill that could make many of them felons.

Bloomberg’s coalition of anti-gun mayors are also hoping on board to promote a grassroots feel with anti-gun rallies in Eastern Pennsylvania.

MAIG is sponsoring a rally for gun control on Saturday just north of Philadelphia, alongside a local state representative’s new anti-gun advocacy group, Bucks Safe, that will coincide with the multi-million dollar television ad purchase. Locally, Concerned Gun Owners of Bucks County are letting gun owners know that they can go oppose it, but advise folks to take a very non-aggressive tone in any signs and to make it a fairly silent protest. (I think it’s great advice. It’s also another example of fantastic use of local organizing to stay on top of events that larger groups can’t really cover in the same way.) Farther north, MAIG’s representative in Easton, PA is partnering with Organizing for Action for an anti-gun rally tomorrow afternoon. Another MAIG mayor, this one from Chester in Delaware County, is advertising a press event for more gun control.

Speaking of OFA, they must have heard that Pennsylvania gun owners have been organizing massive postcard and letter campaigns to lawmakers as of late because now they are trying to do petitions for gun control in Democratic strongholds in and around Philadelphia like Media, Center City, New Hope, Ambler, and North Philadelphia.

On the rally front, OFA has recruited Montgomery County Commissioner Josh Shapiro to lead their gun control drive locally tomorrow. (Everyone in political circles says that Shapiro has eyes on statewide office – Governor or a Senate seat – so make sure to keep this in mind next time local gun owners see his name on a ballot.) In the Lehigh Valley area, OFA is doing a vigil tomorrow night to promote more gun control. (It’s probably wrong to admit this, but I would get a good chuckle out of anyone who brought one of the many fire extinguisher-themed pro-rights messages to stand across from a candlelight vigil.)