Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 755 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

Joan Peterson’s Legal Philosophy

I’ve come to one conclusion in what limited reading I’ve done of Joan Peterson’s blog. If it’s legal and she doesn’t like it, then she assumes it is actually illegal and everyone who does what she doesn’t like is a criminal. If it’s illegal, and yet criminals still find a way to get around the law, then clearly it is actually legal and she wants to regulate EVERYTHING in an attempt to make it illegal(er).

I’ve had my share of experiences at smaller non-profit shops that sometimes have board members who like to speak out on their own. If I worked for the other side, I’m pretty sure my head would be dented from banging it against the desk and/or wall after reading Peterson’s comments. Seriously, Peter, if you don’t have a stash of the Montezuma in your desk for a quick chug every time she posts, let me know and I’ll bring you a bottle next time I’m down there.

I admit that I had to laugh about her post on the Mary McFate story. She was McFate’s roommate in DC, and she gladly told her story of sorrow and opened her mouth about plans for the Minnesota gun rights groups. It’s similar to the actions of the former Executive Director of CeaseFire who invited McFate to stay in her home and attend board meetings. I don’t understand how you meet a woman like McFate and not have every alarm bell going off that something just isn’t adding up. Alarm bells should have been ringing in minutes, if not seconds, of meeting her, and yet she shared a room with the woman. Maybe I’m just protective of my personal space, but if someone creates discomfort for me or starts telling me things that don’t add up, then I am unlikely to continue sharing a hotel room with them while I sleep, bathe, and change clothes. But Joan might call that unwillingness to share my sleeping space with strangers who rub me the wrong way paranoia. I call it self-preservation.

I should feel sorry for Joan. The naÃ¯vetÃ© on display is almost sad for a grown woman. She laments that McFate was “lobbying” for the Brady Campaign on Capitol Hill. She’s convinced that McFate had full access to Senators and Representatives and was possibly telling them to be more pro-gun. Seriously, how many doors does she think the name “Brady Campaign” really opens on Capitol Hill? Even beyond the group name, how many doors get opened or people who aren’t constituents, large donors, or official lobbyists who can drive donations? Going one step further, on the occasion when doors are opened, they are rarely doors to lawmakers. Let me clue Joan in on the answer to these questions: Very few. Those powerful doors pretty much only open when a) you’re important, or b) they want a photo op.

There’s nothing illegal about allowing other people to spill their guts with little or no prompting. It’s not illegal to take advantage of the fact that the gun control groups will so quickly promote someone who just makes them feel good without asking serious questions. I think the only thing that shocked people was just how little effort, time, and money it takes to become a “leader” in the gun control community.

Of course, on the flip side, there’s nothing illegal about Michael Moore joining the NRA as a life member in an attempt to run for the board. He’s welcome to try. Of course, we require a little more than simply coming up with a sob story and showing up for a few rallies to be a leader of more organizations on this side of the argument. It doesn’t matter if someone just makes us “feel good,” they have to be willing to make an effort for the cause. Not only do we have many members who ask serious questions of those who want to step up into leadership, but those of us lawful gun owners active in the movement tend to ignore those who set off our alarm bells. We have a natural vetting process within our grassroots communities. Joan’s vetting process is limited to those who make her feel good or listen to her tell her stories. She tries to blame us for her lack of awareness, but I don’t think it fools anyone.

Is Gun Blogging Getting Harder?

I think this might be a consequence of winning: gun blogging is getting harder. As the idea that the Second Amendment is an individual right is percolating into the body politic, there seems to be less and less Second Amendment related news out there. Interestingly, I’ve noticed a significant uptick in positive shooting sports coverage from the media, which I don’t write about much here because it is either of local interest, or a bit off topic for what we generally talk about here. I prefer to comment on policy issues rather than do shooting sports news.

That’s not to say the controversy is over, but the media doesn’t seem to be as interested in it anymore. Overall that’s bad for gun blogging, but not nearly as bad as it is for our opponents, because I believe the reason coverage of this issue is down is because no one gives a crap about pushing gun control anymore, even the media. I suspect the reason isn’t necessarily that reporters are coming around, so much as they are tiring of the issue, and it’s one that’s not likely to go anywhere.

So if media acquiescence, and perhaps to some degree surrender, on the gun issue makes blogging harder, so be it. In the mean time hopefully things will get easier when we begin pushing our legislative agenda when all the various legislative bodies come back from their recesses or begin new sessions.

Armed Baristas

The Brady Campaign would have you believe something like this could never happen. I guess that’s one less Coffee joint they can frequent now. I would guess after a while, Peet’s gets a little old. Either way, if I worked in a retail food service job, there’s no way I wouldn’t be armed at all times. It’s one thing to not carry to avoid ruining a good career, but if you’re some coffee joint paying minimum wage or barely over, in an industry where robberies aren’t unheard of, I certainly wouldn’t risk taking a bullet for that kind of career.

Storing Duty Side Arms

The Pittsburgh-Post tribune has an article up about problems with how police are storing their firearms. Cops need to have firearms fairly ready for action, even off duty, yet the number of incidences is low. It’s interesting how the police brass don’t want to dictate to their officers exact methods for storing firearms, but it’s funny how many of them will turn around and tell civilians they need to be kept under lock and key at all times.

“Is Rendell French?”

So asks Robin Quillon of the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat. I guess not all papers in Pennsylvania are enthusiastic about the Governor’s veto. That was in response to Rendell’s quote:

â€œWhat this would do is expand the Castle Doctrine to outside the home, to a city street, for example, and eliminate the principle of law that weâ€™ve had since English common law: The duty to retreat.â€

As I mentioned in a previous study of English Common Law, the duty to retreat only applied to individuals who had become involved in an affray. Under Common Law, one could use deadly force to stop a felony without having to retreat, so someone trying to rob you, or who had broken into your home by night could be responded to with lethal force without any further qualifications. If Ed Rendell would like to go back to this, I’d have little issue. Many states still use this more traditional standard, such as Virginia.

Knife Rights Go Big Time?

I had to read the header at the top of the article twice just to make sure I wasn’t imagining things, because it’s that hard to believe the New York Times has written a two page article on the Knife Rights movement without getting completely hysterical. Talks about the success so far in Arizona and New Hampshire of getting knives deregulated and preempted.

If gun control is ridiculous, knife control is ten times so, because most people have more dangerous knives in their kitchen drawer than knives that are typically banned or restricted. Plus, I agree the Second Amendment protects the right to have bladed instruments just as much as it protects the right to have a firearm. It says to keep and bear arms, after all, not keep and bear guns.

More From the Very Brady LA Gala

Sean has video from Dana Gould, also spoke at the Brady Gala. Geez, did they have anyone speak at this thing that wasn’t a sanctimonious jackass?

I Guess Gun Deaths Are a Laughing Matter

At least they would seem to be if you’re the Brady Center. See, the Brady folks have posted their videos of a Very Brady Gala in Los Angeles earlier last month, and it’s quite telling how they think of people who choose to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms:

If you watch it, you’ll notice some choice quotes from TV director, producer, and otherwise vile human being, Steven Levitan. If Levitan even showed up at the station to board the “class” train, it had left long before he got there. First up is Levitan making fun of accidental shootings.

“In my quest for an entertaining speech, no small task given the seriousness of the subject matter, I did a Google search for the following phrase: ‘Man Accidentally Shoots Himself'”

So are people shooting themselves tragedies, or the butt of Brady Center jokes? Make up your mind. I guess they are tragedies when they happen to people who aren’t gun owners, eh? That must be why Levitan, after getting the crowd laughing at various stories of gun owners shooting themselves,

“Sort of funny, but of course not funny at all when these same idiots shoot someone else, except of course, when it was Dick Cheney, that was pretty funny.”

I’m sure the incident with Cheney wasn’t all that funny to Harry Whittington. But hey, Harry had a gun so he got what he deserved right?

“Unlike the gun enthusiasts, who’s simplistic slogans make for great bumper stickers, our arguments are complex.”

Gun control activists are, of course, sophisticated, with complex arguments, Â while we dumb redneck gun owners can’t manage more than a poorly crafted catchword? If there were a hall of fame for people with a smug sense of self-satisfaction, and over inflated estimates of their own intelligence and sophistication, this guy would be Joe DiMaggio.

“”They’ve gotten so stuck on ideology, and so powerful, and lawmakers have become so intimidated, that we’re fast losing the ability to have a sane and rational fact based debate about how to protect the ones we love.Â So I thank the Brady Center, in standing up for sane gun laws. They’ve made themselves the target of an entire movement, and a target is not something you want to be around those people.”

Because people who’s support and defend the Second Amendment clearly are just itching to shoot people who don’t believe, or don’t want to believe in the right. Levitan might want to reconsider his statement about a rational fact based debate about how to protect the ones we love,” because it’s pretty clear to me which side’s opinions are based on rationality and fact, and it’s not his.

Steven Levitan isn’t just some random Hollywood director and producer that just happen to get put on the speaking list by the Brady Center. He was there to get an award. Maybe the Brady Center couldn’t exercise that much control over the jokes Levitan made on stage, but they sure as heck can control their awards and the material they promote. But what do you expect from an organization that resorts to attacking the defendant in a civil rights case because they failed to make reasonable arguments against it?

Shot Across the Bow

The Philadelphia Inquirer is already trying to goad Corbett into giving up his support of self-defense and gun rights right out of the gate:

If the General Assembly returns next year with a similar proposal to expand the so-called “castle doctrine,” the new governor will be faced with endorsing what Rendell calls a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality that fails to “protect the sanctity of human life.”

The misguided legislation that Rendell rightly vetoed over the weekend would expand a homeowner’s right from being able to blast away at an intruder to shooting someone if threatened outside a home or vehicle.

Self-defense is one topic where elite opinion is drastically different than what ordinary people think about the subject. That’s one reason this vote was so lopsided. The Inquirer is just going to further distance themselves from their dwindling reader base with positions like this.

Beer Sellers Try to Make Buying Beer Harder

For those of you who have the luxury of living in what we refer to as Free America (aka places like New Jersey), you may not realize that our state governments wants to help us control our intake of alcohol. For that reason, we have beer laws that forbid us from buying more than 2 packs at a time – unless that is, you go to a distributor, in which case you’re buying a case at a time. We are also only allowed to buy beer from bars, restaurants, and distributors. Many bars have a “take out” section where you can grab a six pack to take home with you.

Wegmans, the most fabulous grocery store in the world, realized that with cafes in each of their Pennsylvania locations, they could qualify as a restaurant-type establishment for a license to sell beer. Under the law, the PLCB recognized that they did indeed qualify and granted them licenses to sell beer. For the consumer, it’s still not as easy as picking up a pie at Wegmans. See, the beer can’t be sold with your groceries. You have to buy it in a closed off area of the store at separate registers. The only thing it makes any easier is that I don’t technically have to drive anywhere else. It still requires two trips to/from the car and two different transactions. They also don’t have the world’s best selection, though it is certainly better than most takeouts near us.

Other beer sellers got jealous and sued.

The Malt Beverage Distributors Association, which represents 450 beer distributors across the state, had challenged Wegmans’ license on a number of grounds.

The group says letting Wegmans sell beer would allow other supermarkets and big retailers to horn in on the beer-selling trade by establishing their own eating areas and applying for licenses to serve beer and sell six-packs.

That, the association warned, could put beer distributorships – many of them small mom-and-pop operations – out of business.