Another Round of Good News for Us, Bad News for Bloomberg

On Friday morning, I noticed that the little counter on the MAIG website had Bloomberg’s numbers down to 400 mayors. Meanwhile, the news release touting more than 450 mayors was running on the website. (Apparently they haven’t discovered the memory hole, even though this would be an appropriate use for it.) Later that day, after more mayors were scrubbed, Sebastian noted that they removed the counter completely so you can no longer easily count the number of mayors in their organization. All of this happened after they removed their handy map and moved a request to join to the top of the home page.

So with all of the changes that Bloomberg is so desperate to hide, let’s do a survey of where we stand in the effort to oust mayors from anti-gun coalition:

NRA’s Postcard Mailing
NRA sent a postcard to members in select cities of MAIG coalition members in Pennsylvania and around the country. They set up a corresponding website and interactive map inspired by our use of the same type of map for Pennsylvania. We did directly contribute to quite a bit of research on mayors nationwide, but especially on Pennsylvania mayors based on information uncovered while doing the long series of initial Bloomberg posts.

Obviously, as the 800 lb. gorilla, their mailing has generated many media hits and direct pressure on mayors around the state. Reports range from anecdotal stories of small town mayors swamped by angry residents wondering what the hell they have been doing to small town mayors facing censure votes for making their town look anti-gun to NRA members simply giving up and not even picking up the phone. Some good, some awesome, and some sad.

PAFOA’s Educational Outreach
Shortly after the Bloomberg series of posts, Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association wrote to 15 mayors the organization thought they might be able to influence informing them of positions taken in their name and politely asking the mayors to resign from Bloomberg’s coalition. This morning PAFOA decided to turn up the pressure and asked their local members to call their mayors and again ask for their resignation. While the organization is not as large as NRA, it is full of activists who are more likely to be inspired to act quickly on the hells of success in other towns.

So where to do we stand as we head into this next round of taking out Bloomberg’s power structure in Pennsylvania?

  • On August 17, I reported there were 103 mayors in Pennsylvania who were members of MAIG.  We’re now down to 87.  Fifteen of those mayors left by resigning from the organization and one died.
  • In the same post, I asked: “Do you think the 684 residents of Ulysses know that Mayor Jane Haskins was campaigning against concealed carry and has supported lawsuits that put gun shops out of business?”  Mayor Haskins was among the first to leave the organization after the NRA postcards landed in her town.
  • I also noted a geographical surprise: “It might surprise people to see that most of the mayors who support Michael Bloomberg are not in the Philadelphia suburbs. In fact, 32% of the mayors are in far western Congressional districts.”  The statistical breakdown runs just about the same.  Only 25% of the mayors who have departed the organization were from those far west Congressional districts.  If they convince more mayors to leave, then we’ll have a more expected spread.
  • In August, the number of residents reached by Mayor Mike’s message was 2,899,142.  We’ve cut that down more than 33,000.  (Half of that number is Philadelphia alone.  The other big contributer is Pittsburgh.  It would be tough to convince either mayor to leave.  So a drastic change won’t likely happen with this statistic.)
  • The following day, I mentioned that Pennsylvania is the largest source of mayors for the anti-gun crusade.  “If he has at least 450 mayors, that means 23% of them are from Pennsylvania!”  Even reduced to 87, with all of the other mayors flocking to leave the coalition, we still have 22% here in Pennsylvania.  That’s disappointing, but it is a very small dent that we’ll keep working to make bigger.
  • I also mentioned that nine mayors have pushed illegal preemption-violating local gun ordinances have been members of MAIG.  Unfortunately, I don’t have great news to report on this front.  The York mayor who is proudly standing by Bloomberg pushed through a resolution supporting one gun a month in Pennsylvania after this campaign started.  However, this does reiterate that we need to reduce Bloomberg’s numbers to keep his influence minimal.

So overall, we’re not doing too badly.  However, there is still a lot of room for improvement.  By far, Pennsylvania has more mayors than any other state.  And if gun owners here don’t get active, they will lose their rights.  This is just one move, but it’s disabling what Bloomberg has envisioned as the future of the gun control movement.  We might as well make him a political liability and cut this thing off at the knees, so-to-speak.

For those who wonder about the PA mayors who have left, here’s the latest list:

  • Akron Mayor John McBeth
  • Beech Creek Mayor David E. Orr
  • Bowmanstown Mayor Keith G. Billig
  • Brackenridge Mayor Jeffrey Cowan
  • East Berlin Mayor Keith Hoffman
  • Gettysburg Mayor William Troxell
  • Harmony Mayor Cathryn H. Rape
  • Midway Mayor Karen Bartosh
  • Mt. Penn Mayor Josh Nowotarski
  • North Irwin Mayor Leonard L. Santimyer
  • Slatington Mayor Walter Niedermeyer
  • Summit Hill Mayor Paul R. McArdle
  • Tower City Mayor Dale Deiter
  • Ulysses Mayor Jane Haskins
  • West Reading Mayor Shane Keller

If your town or boro is on this list, please take a moment to call your mayor and say thank you.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Setting Political Sights on Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors, Part II
  2. Forcing a Response from Bloomberg’s Office
  3. MAIG Mayor Defeated

Same sh*t …

… different century.  A New York Times article from July 24, 1881 discussing a proclamation, issued by Mayor King of Philadelphia, on the carrying of concealed weapons:

Mayor King issued a proclamation this morning calling attention to the violation of law relative to the carrying of concealed deadly weapons.  Among other things he says that whoever carries concealed weapons carries also the concealed thought of murder.

Someone has to stop all those filthy wops from carrying guns around our fair city, don’t they?  It was all fine as long as white anglo-saxons protestants were carrying weapons.

UPDATE: Looks like Mayor King made the mistake of pissing off the pyrotechnics lobby.  Looks like they were successful in defeating him too.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. More on the Georgia Case
  2. Two Virginia Gun Bills
  3. Next Step

Encouraging Activism

A Louisville barber is running a free gun promotion that some would assume to drum up business. But it appears he wants a little more from his customers than just a one-time haircut.

A customer at the Okolona barbershop will win a Romanian made AK-47. …

The more involved someone is with guns and gun rights, the more chances they have to win the $750 semi-automatic weapon.

“You get one ticket per customer. If you are an NRA member you get two. If you join the NRA you get six,” said Gooden.

Gooden said the promotion is not just about increasing business, though business is up.
“It’s not so much about the AK. It’s about the second amendment. That’s what I’m trying to do, raise awareness,” he said.

Apparently Gooden is a very outspoken supporter of our rights. The article says that his shop is decorated with hunting mounts and pro-gun hats. Good for Gooden.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. A Useful Open Carry Activism Opportunity
  2. InBev Eyeing up Anheuser-Busch
  3. Gun Shops Happy About New AL NFA Law

A New Meaning to “Rubbing One Out”

Looks like they are developing a topical medication for erectile dysfunction.  Meaning you rub it you know where. This presents us with some hilarity:

A topical cream for erectile dysfunction shows promise in animal testing and could become an alternative for men who can’t tolerate the pill form of the drugs, U.S. researchers report.

Typical animals you’ll test on in a trial are rats, dogs, and sometimes simians. I’m pretty sure that’s going to be a job they give to the intern. I wouldn’t imagine that kind of job is what you thought you were signing up for when you got your degree in biology or animal sciences. But what about when it goes to human trials?

Clinical trials on humans typically recruit healthy young people, using double blind studies with some study groups getting the drug, and others getting placebo. In this case, you won’t be able to use healthy young males, because your placebo is liable to be 100% effective. So trials will definitely have to seek out people who have erectile difficulties, which is typically not your healthy young males.

But it’s a good development if it works. Viagra was actually meant to treat high blood pressure and angina, but it wasn’t terribly good at that. Rumor has it that people in the trials asked if they could keep getting more of the drug, and when researched discovered why, they realized that its side effect was worth more than it was for the initial disease. But Viagra still has effects on the cardiovascular system, so it’s not well tolerated by everyone.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Force Disparities
  2. The Aging Shooting Sports
  3. Should Kids Be Allowed to Shoot?

Not the Message I Got From Alan Gura

Paul Helmke says:

We also discussed the nature of the Second Amendment after the Heller decision and how most gun violence prevention laws appear likely to withstand scrutiny under Justice Scalia’s majority opinion. One of the big stories in Tennessee, by the way, is also the move by approximately 70 cities and towns to opt out of Tennessee legislation forcing guns into parks.

My travels this summer affirmed my belief that the debate over gun violence prevention is moving toward the middle ground and away from the extremes since last summer’s Supreme Court decision. There are a number of things we can do to make it harder for dangerous people to get guns while respecting the Second Amendment.

Paul has some amazing turd polishing skills, I have to give him that.  But the message I got from Alan Gura was his confidence we’ll get a pretty good Second Amendment out of all of this.  One the Brady Campaign certainly won’t be happy with.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Brady Flip-Flop?
  2. Cato Panel Featuring Alan Gura and Dennis Henigan
  3. More Stolen Guns in New York

Good Ideas, Bad Ideas, and How to Tell the Difference

There’s a lot of interesting talk in the comments of my Alan Gura report about how one defines good ideas, bad ideas, and who gets to decide this? I think it would be unfair to suggest the old Justice Potter Stewart, “I know it when I see it” approach, because every good idea is someone else’s bad idea. If there wasn’t a certain amount of relativity here, there would not be conflict. Suggesting one’s ideas are the right ideas, and someone else’s are the wrong ones, just because that’s clearly the case, is intellectually shallow. So how do we find truth, to the extent that it exists?

Conflict actually offers a way to separate good ideas from bad. That’s why Freedom of Speech is the first right in our society. Ideas are debated in the court of public opinion, which, at least ideally, allows good ideas to prevail over bad ones. But in order to separate good ideas from bad, you need to have some kind of framework. Otherwise you just have conflict for conflict’s sake, which advances nothing. That framework needs to be effectiveness, or “Do your ideas work?” In that framework, ideas that work and further a movement’s goals are good ideas, and ideas that don’t work, or don’t further a movement’s goals are bad ones. Having your ideas work is what lends them credibility, ultimately. Let’s just take a look at this example from the comments:

Sebastian, I understand your point, but how are we to judge what is a “good idea” vs. what is a “bad idea”? As I recall, Heller was roundly condemned (at one point) by the NRA as a bad idea, and it’s turned out to be a shining victory.

At one time I thought Parker was a bad idea, because I felt the chances of it winning were slim, and that it would create negative precedent to overcome. But Alan Gura was willing to go around on blogs and make the case for it, and the victories racked up built up his position, and weakened NRA’s position. I’d not agree with NRA today if they were still against a three branch strategy for the Second Amendment. Alan Gura’s ideas prevailed because he convinced people they were good ideas, and then created a track record of those ideas working to advance the movement.

I will take the example of Gary Gorski that I used in the previous post, who has his own ideas on how to conduct Second Amendment litigation. He’s responsible for the infamous Silveira case, which reenforced the collective rights view in the 9th Circuit. He’s also been a passionate advocate against Alan Gura’s strategy, and has even attacked Alan Gura personally. One can pretty easily conclude that Alan Gura’s ideas are good, and Gorski’s are bad, because Alan Gura’s ideas have a track record of winning and Gorski’s do not.

It is ultimately through argument and persuasion that we try to separate the wheat from the chaff, but any idea or strategy that is advanced eventually must be able to meet the hard cold test of succeeding in reality, and ideas which can’t answer basic challenges, deal with fundamental questions of practical implementation, or which fail when put into practice, have to be considered bad ideas and pushed aside as ineffective. I can’t think of any other way you keep a movement progressing forward.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. DC Trying to Screw Gura on Attorneys Fees
  2. Fun
  3. Gura Gets $1.1 Million for Heller