Snowflakes in Hell

Good article from an outdoor writer for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on the use of AR-15s in hunting.  With a proper hunting legal magazine, there’s no reason I couldn’t hunt deer with my 6.8 SPC AR-15.  It’s a comfortable rifle to carry, and a comfortable rifle to shoot.  Hunting with a semi-auto isn’t legal in Pennsylvania, but in most other states, it’s fine.

I got tied up in this mess for more than two hours yesterday morning.  I saw the accident scene.  I have to say, the fact that there were only a few injuries from such a horrific looking scene is a testament to what automotive engineers have accomplished in terms of vehicle safety.   The cars on the road today are far safer than they’ve ever been, and a lot of people owe their lives to that.

A guy gets pulled over for doing 85 in a 55, charged with reckless driving.  A few weeks later, his License to Carry is revoked by the Delaware County Sheriff.  Reasoning is the old “character and reputation” escape clause.   Is this an abuse of discretion?  Or a proper exercise of it?

My opinion is, if everything was as claimed, it’s not an appropriate use of that clause.  But I think this guy might not get his license back.  The Sheriff will no doubt argue that Reckless Driving is a serious summary offense, and is accompanied by a six months suspension of your license to drive a motor vehicle, and that being convicted of it exhibits a certain poor judgment that makes one a person who’s character makes him unsuitable to carry a firearm.

I think once we’re rid of Fast Eddie, revoking the “character and reputation” clause needs to be a priority.  Pennsylvania is supposed to be a shall issue state, but we’re not technically.  Sheriffs retain, and still use, considerable discretion on when to revoke or not issue licenses in Pennsylvania.  If the guy had a string of non-disqualfiying misdemeanors, I might not complain, but doing 85 in a 55 might technically be reckless driving, but I won’t tell you I’ve never done it.  It may be an indicator of bad judgment, but if it’s so bad that it should be disqualifying, why did the legislature choose to not include it in the list of disqualifying offenses?

Either way, I end up arguing in that thread about carrying Pennsylvania on a foreign reciprocal license if you’re a PA resident who’s had their LTC revoked.  Keep reading if you’re interested in that topic.  Keep in mind I’m no lawyer though, and the only lawyer who responded said he wouldn’t advise it.

…. but John Timoney can seriously go fuck himself. He apparently doesn’t take his oath to uphold the constitution of either his country or his state seriously at all, and he’s been peddling this stuff since he was busy screwing up Philadelphia’s police department and trying to crap on the constitutional rights of Pennsylvanians by arguing that the Pennsylvania constitution was no obstacle to the city of Philadelphia banning guns.

I’m sick of seeing that turd’s name attached to stories like this. Does anyone out there have a MythTV box? If so, do like Uncle said and get the best parts recorded. Preferably in high def. MythTV will encode in a format that can be more easily manipulated on a PC than a TiVO.

Last time Timoney and his buddies were pushing this nonsense we caught their lies red handed. Let’s do it again for ABC this time.

I can’t believe I missed this bit linked off the letters to the editor linked here:

What kind of nonsense is this that a person in Philadelphia can purchase even one gun a month? Police officers and innocent people are being murdered and wounded every day in Philadelphia. Why would civilians need to purchase more than one gun?

Damaris Martinez, Philadelphia

Of course, we’re told, when we suggest that “If they can ration to one a month, what’s to stop them from rationing to one a year? Or just one per person per lifetime?”,  “That’s crazy gun nut talk! No one wants to do that.” Bullshit!

Over at Red’s Trading Post, see some testimony by attorney Richard Gardiner from back when Congress was considering reigning in the ATF. You know, if the Democrats want to earn some good ju ju with gun owners, they could take this up again. Democrats are supposed to be for the little guy right? You don’t get much more “mom and pop” than most gun shops.

That demand for perfection is an impossible burden for anyone, including federal firearms licensees, to meet. If ATF continues to enforce the law in the current manner, few licensees will remain in business. Congress should make clear that licensees should only face serious penalties for serious, material violations that could result in sales to prohibited persons or that could impede legitimate investigations.

Apparently it’s a pretty tough standard for the ATF to meet too.

HB 1966, introduced a few weeks ago in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, would impose a 1% tax on firearms which will be used for a “Violence Reduction Fund”. The sponsors of the bill are the usual suspects. This one goes through the finance committee, and I’m not aware of the composition of that as far as the gun issue goes. It’s nothing to start worrying seriously about yet, but it does illustrate the mentally of the Philadelphia Politicians. Who is responsible for gun violence in Philadelphia? Certainly not the cretins who roam the streets committing crimes. Nope. It’s you and me, and we should have to pay the piper for purchasing evil guns.

Ahab talks about Canada’s attempt to get rid of their registry.  I’m less optimistic than he is about Canada.  Gun control is popular in Ontario and Quebec, which can outvote the western provinces.  I think the passion about gun control laws in Canada stems from a desire to be seen as different from the United States.  That’ll be a tough egg to crack for shooters in Canada.

Ace talks about Japan, which is tightening it’s laws.  I’m not sure how much tighter you can get than pretty much illegal already.

Apparently Australia’s new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is a shooter.

“Likewise, the federal Labor Party under the leadership of Kevin Rudd has signalled a closer, more understanding relationship with shooters.

“Mr Rudd is no stranger to the shooting range and has not shied away from the media about his support for the shooting sport.”

Kevin a gun lover, maybe even a gun toter?

The Howard years were not good for Aussie shooters.  Hopefully Rudd will be better to them.  Kind of strange that in Australia it could end up being Labor that’s friendly toward gun owners.

Jewell Williams tried to apologize for his “the yahoos win again” comment, but I have to agree with this guy that the real yahoos are in Philadelphia.

Days of our Trailers got an interesting Brady fundraising e-mail editorial by a Brady Board member:

We also need to get the message out that sensible gun laws work for all citizens, including those who own guns for hunting or self-protection. These legal gun owners need to join us to insist that the right to own firearms must be countered by sensible ownership protections. Without their support, we will never adequately address this issue, and the killing of our children will continue.

We need to work together, it’s for the children, after all. To me, they are adjusting their messaging in preparation for a likely defeat at the Supreme Court. The post Heller Brady line, assuming we prevail, will be “Of course it’s a right, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have sensible gun regulations.” Sensible gun regulations, like a total ban on functional firearms in cities. So to paraphrase “It’s an individual right, but that doesn’t mean anything!” will be the new Brady line post Heller, and we’ll continue to not take their crap about wanting to work together seriously.

… hit you in the ass on the way out, Senator.

Apparently he’s perusing “other opportunities”.  Like getting a head start on a lobbying career, as the new rules that require waiting two years after leaving office don’t kick in until 2008.  He claims that’s not the case, but I’m not buying it.

He’s the kind of establishment Republican I’ve had quite enough of.

People think we gun nuts are exaggerating when we say that many believe guns are magical devices, capable of rendering people good or evil. We’re not.

UPDATE: Follow Breda’s link to the original source, and you’ll see it resolves to a site called Wounded in America. I checked their domain registration, and it resolved to Chicago, which got me suspicious.

Follow through to their website, and look who they receive their funding from: Physicians for Social Responsibility, Pikes Peak Community Foundation, and The Medical College of Wisconsin. Physicians for Social Responsibility and Medical College of Wisconsin both get funding from…. wait for it… it’ll shock you… The Joyce Foundation.

As I mentioned in Breda’s comments:

They are an incestuous bunch aren’t they? Great grass roots they have going there. You know, we do our advocacy for free. I think we’re getting the short end of the stick!

Or in Bryan Miller’s case, lose big, but say you won. He’s spinning the tabling of HB 29, the lost and stolen gun bill, as an example of progress for his agenda. It’s true that the bill was tabled, but not for the reason Bryan thinks. It was tabled to save the Governor embarrassment, and it was the anti-gun forces that were mostly in favor of tabling it. It was tabled to avoid having it defeated outright, along with the other two bills. Let’s take a look at the votes, shall we? These were the representatives who were willing to go on record with a vote on this bill:

Representative Deberah Kula, D-52
Representative Joseph A. Petrarca, D-55
Representative Ronald S. Marisco, R-105
Representative Thomas C. Creighton, R-37
Representative Craig A. Dally, R-138
Representative John R. Evans, R-5
Representative Glen R. Grell, R-87
Representative Beverly Mackereth, R-196
Representative Carl W. Mantz, R-187
Representative Tina Pickett, R-110
Representative Todd Rock, R-90
Representative Katie True, R-41

Gee, those are all pro-gun Republicans, save two Democrats from districts that don’t look too kindly upon the Governor, or gun control. The Democrats who voted to table this bill, but voted against one gun a month were Pallone, Ramaley, and Walko. Gabig is the only Republican not voting for the other bills who switched sides and voted to table HB 29. I don’t think, given the pro-gun forces wanted this bill voted on, it’s reasonable to conclude this is a sign of progress for Bryan Miller’s legislative agenda for Pennsylvania.

One has to wonder if Mr. Miller were a boxer, he’d declare victory because the other guy only managed to crack a few rips, break a wrist, but failed to break his nose.

UPDATE: Rustmeister has more

… asking Pennsylvania residents whether they appreciate politicians using their tax money to conduct polls.  To me, polling is a political tool, and should be paid for with campaign funds, not public money.  We’re supposed to be a Republic, and our state legislators need to act like it.  I don’t want my legislators leading by poll, which are easily manipulated, and I certainly don’t want my tax dollars paying for it.

Jeff doesn’t think that Republicans will have anything useful to differentiate themselves from the Democrats on the gun issue if they nominate Rudy or Mitt. I agree. With the Supreme Court taking the Heller case, there’s no way gun control isn’t an issue in this campaign, and the issues involving Heller will play much more strongly for the Republicans than the Democrats. What Democratic candidate will want to go on record as favoring a ban on all functional firearms in the home?

Whether it’s Hillary or Obama, they will be forced to take a position on that. If they run on a platform of supporting the DC gun ban, they put themselves outside the majority opinion. It could be a great issue for the Republican candidate, but not if it’s Mitt or Rudy.

UPDATE: Armed and Safe has more.

I have to wonder if Elanor Roosevelt, in her speaking to Hillary Clinton, ever mentioned this whole thing. Of course, I’m not sure I’d say the Roosevelts were champions of gun rights. After all, it was FDR who put his signature on the National Firearms Act.

Apparently the Pasadena man who shot two burglars who were stealing from his neighbor’s house is remorseful about the incident.

Lambright contended that Horn was startled to find the burglars just 15 feet from his front door when he stepped onto his porch. “He was petrified at that point,” the lawyer said. “You hear him say, ‘I’ll shoot. Stop!’ They jumped. Joe thought they were coming for him. It’s a self-defense issue.”

You can hear the complete 911 tape here. I didn’t hear “I’ll shoot. Stop!” I heard “Move, n’yer dead!” followed by shotgun blasts. Syd had a lot more on the event here. John Lott had this to say:

I am however bothered by the advice given by the 911 operator not to go outside to intervene. It appears as if the 911 operator is giving advice that would cover all such cases and I don’t see how that is at all responsible.

Given the circumstances, I’m not sure I disagree with what the dispatcher did. The dispatcher doesn’t know this guy from Adam, and for all you know he might end up causing more problems than he’s fixing, and the dispatcher had reason to believe that was the case.

But he’s a 911 dispatcher, not a family friend offering sage advice. His job is just to keep a lid on everything, and from his point of view, a fella wandering around the scene of a crime with a shotgun is trouble waiting to happen. From my point of view, a residential burglary is a job for the police, but if I’m reasonably confident my neighbors are home, or hear screams or other such, am I going to listen to the 911 guy saying not go outside? We all have to think about what’s right, and keep in mind that agents of the state will act as such, and are more concerned about a good outcome for them, rather than the people directly involved.

I don’t think this guy in Pasadena exercised judgment that was even in the same universe as good, and his lawyer will have quite a job cut out for him. Legally, I believe he’s quite likely a murderer. Whether or not a Texas grand jury will see things that way, we’ll see. I won’t suggest that if they fail to indict it’s a travesty of justice.

One of our state reps seems to understand why Gun Control has a hard time going anywhere these days:

State Rep. Dan Frankel took note of the e-mails he received last week concerning a package of gun control bills emotionally endorsed by Gov. Ed Rendell.

Unofficially, the count was about 1,000 to 10, with the gun-rights lobby winning that grassroots campaign just as it succeeded in rebuffing Mr. Rendell’s efforts to sway the House Judiciary Committee.

Did I ever mention I love Pennsylvania gun owners? We beat them 100 to friggin one! That’s how to get things done. Frankel goes on to say:

“There’s no political penalty for those that don’t support [gun control] measures, but there is a political penalty if they do,” Mr. Frankel said of the impressive political activism that continues on behalf of sportsmen and other gun owners in Pennsylvania.

That’s exactly what Ed Rendell fails to understand. Polls don’t matter. What matters is we’ll turn out to vote for the other guy if you vote to screw us. The people that you polled barely understood the issue, and won’t be pulling a lever based on it anyway.

“We know based on independent polling that most Pennsylvanians support stronger gun control laws,” he said. “The question is where on those persons’ priority list of issues does gun safety rank, as opposed to where on the list of the gun advocates. … The other side are single-issue voters and that carries a lot of weight.”

Yes, it does. I have said before I’m not always a single issue voter, but gun rights ranks very high on my political calculus, because it tells me an awful lot about how a certain politician views his relationship with those that he governs, and his respect for limits being placed on governmental power. The gun issue is a great litmus test for how much a political candidate cares about liberty.

“This is a marathon, not a sprint,” Mr. Rendell said. “We are not going to go away.”

Yes, it is, and we have a lot more endurance than your folks do, Governor. Do you really want to start this political fight? Because I promise you, we’re very interested in finishing it, and not on terms you are going to like.

In addition to the vigilant NRA, which on its national Web site immediately posted information about the House Judiciary Committee’s votes and each committee member’s position on them, a newer coalition of smaller gun-rights organizations adds to the effectiveness of the gun-rights lobby. They banded together two years ago to win legislative compromise on how gun owners would be affected by a new law concerning protection-from-abuse orders, and were also active on last week’s votes.

“We are more organized now than we’ve ever been in Pennsylvania,” said Kim Stolfer, legislative committee chairman of the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League, which is part of the coalition.

I doubt this was the effect the Governor was predicting he would have.

… of guns?  Not all of them, but the media and political cultures of Philadelphia certainly promote it.

Take them too the range.  In my experience, if you can get them to go, you have a good chance of changing their minds.  You might not make a gun rights activist out of them, but they will at least see both sides of the coin.

Jeff Soyer points to a pretty good editorial in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.  I agree with the editorial that one-gun-a-month and weakening preemption are unconstitutional on their face.   I’m not sure the “Lost and Stolen” bill is, even though I think it’s still bad public policy, and shouldn’t be passed into law.  My reasoning is that it’s a regulatory requirement rather than a restraint on anyone’s ability to possess, carry, buy, lend or sell a firearm.  The state conceivably has the power to require reporting of a lost or stolen gun under it’s powers to control it’s militia.  Nonetheless, the point is a good one:

If a majority of Pennsylvanians deem it necessary to enact Rendell-like gun controls, wouldn’t they agree to amend Article I, Section 21? What those of Rendell’s ilk fear — and why such constitutional end-runs are so routinely pressed — is that a majority of Pennsylvanians likely don’t support such schemes.

I don’t see any serious movement in this direction in Pennsylvania.  But then again, if you can just get judges to render the right meaningless, why bother doing it the hard way?

David Codrea has this to say:

If gun owners would get off their lazy, apathetic butts and consistently and proactively devote time, effort and treasure to the cause, we would be invincible. It’s easy to point the finger at politicians for attacking us, or NRA management for compromising, and I’m not saying that should stop, but put in perspective, politicians wouldn’t betray us if they didn’t dare–and compromises wouldn’t be made if they weren’t perceived as advantageous or necessary.

Yep. If every gun owner were active and involved, we could walk into legislatures around the country and dictate terms. This past week in Pennsylvania we were told, by Ed Rendell I believe, that it was calls to the legislators, spawned by certain interest groups, that had legislators scared.

That’s a great result, but if it was more than a few thousand motivated gun owners, I’d be surprised. If every Pennsylvania gun owner, and I don’t just mean someone who has a rifle up in the attic, I mean people who go out to the range or to the woods to shoot, hunt, what have you, on a regular basis, had called or e-mailed, the staffers would have been overwhelmed, and few legislators would have dared vote against us.

It all comes down to numbers, and sadly, there are a lot more people who are interested in enjoying the shooting sports, and enjoying their right to own a firearm for self-protection, than there are people who are interested in preserving those rights.

Thanks to Kevin for pointing me to this excellent Blackfive post on soldiers coming back home.

Over at Of Arms and the Law.

Mostly “linky-no-thinky” until Monday.  I’m busy trying to get all my leaves up this holiday.  They were late falling off this year, and I only have a few collection days left before they stop.

… in Bruce’s neck of the woods.  One thing though:

At Skip’s Gun and Sports store, dubbed “Daycare for Men” on their signature red shirts, the GOP hopeful admired different types of guns and talked about his support for the 2nd Amendment.

Daycare for men?  That’s so 20th century shooting culture.  Get used to it fellas: the times they are a changin.