Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 924 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

An International Human Right?

I would have said the chances are slim, but even the Washington Post is covering the possibility of a gun rights movement in India:

When gunmen attacked 10 sites in Mumbai in November 2008, including two five-star hotels and a train station, Mumbai resident Kumar Verma sat at home glued to the television, feeling outraged and unsafe.

Before the end of December, Verma and his friends had applied for gun licenses. He read up onÂ India’sgun laws and joined the Web forumÂ Indians for Guns. When he got his license seven months later, he bought a black, secondhand, snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver with a walnut grip.

It’ll be interesting if India turns out to be a major front in the international battle to get other governments to recognize their people have the right to effective tools needed to defend their lives and liberty against predation, like we saw in the Mumbai attacks.

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.

Sunday Full Auto Fun

This IPSC like stage with submachine guns looks like a hell of a lot of fun. Seems the winning strategy is to have a drum mag of some kind. The folks with .22LR submachine guns seem to do well just mowing down the bowling pins:

Courtesy of Vegas Shooters. Click here if you can’t see the embedded link above.

UPDATE: Sorry folks, I didn’t realize it was set to auto play. Next time that happens let me know. I will never intentionally set up anything to auto play on this blog. If you see it, it’s a mistake.

Local Paper on Barker’s Donation

The Bucks County Courier Times covers the 1 million dollars donation by Barker too, and includes this:

Barker said he believes “the good citizens in Pennsylvania would be embarrassed if they knew in detail just how horrific these pigeon shoots are,” Barker said. “These are not hunters. They’re assassins.”

Assassins kill people. Birds are not people. Whether pigeon shooting is right or wrong, it’s not the moral equivalent to murdering humans, sorry.

For years, Barker said, “I’ve heard the same thing from everyone that is tormenting animals. There are thousands of people who are helping with every disease and the children of Haiti, but there are very few who are giving any money to help animals,” Barker said. “That’s what I do.

“I wonder how much the members of the gun club have given for the children of Haiti,” Barker added.

How many children in Haiti would that cool million have helped Bob? Don’t play that moral card with us, asshole. You’re donating a million to save fucking pigeons. There’s nothing particularly noble about that. If you have a million dollars burning a hole in your pocket, why not donate it to children in Haiti? If it’s because the pigeons are important to you, you have no moral room to disparage others who also feel passionately about the pigeons… err… as targets.

Even if protesters somehow managed to shut down the pigeon shoots, that wouldn’t save the birds, Corr said. “The pigeons in question have been trapped as pests and are in line for extermination,” according to Corr. “The pest control companies usually accomplish this by asphyxiation, more precisely by sealing the trap with plastic and then introducing carbon dioxide gas.”

One could perhaps argue that’s more humane than shooting them, but the point that pigeons are vermin is a valid one. They will be killed one way or the other. What makes Leo Holt particularly more reprehensible than the pest control workers who kill the pigeons by gassing them to death or poisoning them?

Keep in mind that I have no issue with groups putting social pressure on PGC to cease their pigeon shoots, and wouldn’t even have a problem with Bob Barker lending his celebrity to the cause. But that million will go to lobbying — lobbying for a ban that’s going to ban many forms of dog training, among other things as well, including putting pigeon shooters in prison. Social pressure is fine, but I do not advocate the government coming in and forcing one group’s moral preferences on another. Isn’t that what folks get uppity about the religious right for?

Dave Hardy on Unity

I’m not generally one to make calls for unity, probably because I think some degree of debate and disagreement within the community is healthy and understandable. But I have to agree with Dave Hardy on this one:

There are three ways to reach Second Amendment incorporation, at least two of which have present and powerful advocates. I can only say that I’m in correspondence with both, and they really wish there could be an end to to conflict. Bottom line: if the three routes to incorporation each got two votes, it’s still a 6-3 and a win, the other side is left to ponder that “almost” only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades, and the winner who favors one route or another has some votes (for the first time in my lifetime) on which to build. They’re going into the fight of their lives, no OUR lives, and don’t need the distractions. We can all engage in internecine battles after oral argument, or better yet, the decision. For now they need to concentrate.

Hardy is, of course, speaking about the conflict brought about by this, whichÂ is one of the reasons I felt it was a poor course of action; that it would promote a conflict at a time when we did not need one. That’s spilled into the blogosphere a bit with statements said here, here, here,Â and here.Â However, I agree with Dave, there’s no bad way to win this, the important thing is that we win.

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.

Anti-Gun Paper Has Fantastic Success With Subscriber Model

Jacob points out that New York Newsday, a Long Island based paper that is very anti-gun, is having some stellar success with their new online subscriber model. A revenue busting thirty five members have subscribed to the paper so far. Hell, I could probably raise more revenue than that for this blog if I put up a tip jar and begged for donations. Maybe they should have just started a blog.

Summary of the McDonald Reply Briefs

Dave Hardy has an excellent summary of the reply briefs in the McDonald case. Â These are the briefs filed by the Petitioners (McDonald et al. represented by Alan Gura) and the Respondents in Support of the Petitioners (NRA represented by Stephen Poss and Stephen Halbrook), an excerpt:

The Steves (Halbrook and Poss), briefing for NRA, put their main weight on this clause. Chicago’s claims are paradoxical — that infringing a right can contribute to “ordered liberty.” Its idea of ordered liberty is that of a police state, order always triumphs over liberty. It claims falsely that the 14th Amendment is all about equality, not only equality of rights but equality of their infringement. Presumably, Chicago thinks the Black Codes would have been no problem if their oppressions applied to everyone. The framers of the 14th Amendment would beg to disagree.

Go read the whole thing. I haven not yet had time to read any of the briefs yet, and I don’t know when I will given my work schedule, but I am going to try to be present in DC for the McDonald case. Still deciding whether I want to camp outside.