Snowflakes in Hell

The Rome News-Tribune is covering the HB89, HB 915 controversy, and stumbles across the reason NRA is probably not backing HB 915:

Now for the meat in the coconut. Bearden’s bill - prefiled last week as HB 915 - contains this language: “Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, unless such private property has been leased to a government entity, and nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.”

I didn’t see this section of HB 915 upon my first reading of the bill, or rather, what it did exactly didn’t quite sink in:

(c) This Nothing in this Code section shall not apply to competitors participating in organized sport shooting events. Law enforcement officers, peace officers retired from state or federal law enforcement agencies, judges, magistrates, solicitors-general, and district attorneys may carry pistols in publicly owned or operated buildings be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, unless such private property has been leased to a government entity, and nothing in this Code section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private tenant, private employer, or private business entity

So basically HB 915, GeorgiaCarry’s preferred bill, scuttles HB 89, the NRA bill, by design, and you folks are wondering why NRA isn’t getting behind HB 915? Listen, I like the rest of the provisions in HB 915, but this isn’t a way to get things done.

I don’t agree with the NRA bill, but smearing them for not supporting your preferred bill when it undermines their preferred bill strikes me as not only unfair, but underhanded. If we spent half as much time going after the anti-gunners as we spend going after each other, we might get somewhere.

UPDATE:  GeorgiaCarry.org has responded that HB 915 has nothing to do with HB 89, and that they have been working on this bill long before NRA introduced the parking lot bill.  I do apologize for the insinuation that this was deliberate, but I’m still not sure I agree that this section doesn’t interfere with the main purpose of HB 89.  I will have more on this, but be sure to follow the link to hear their side of this issue.

Both Conservative Scalawag and this guy are unhappy about NRA’s lack of support for Georgia HB 915, which improves Georgia’s carry laws by removing off limits places, and also includes a number of other pro-gun provisions:

Yep, the NRA, in my opinion has completely alienated the Georgia citizens and gun owners. This begs the question, are they even relevant as a pro-2nd Amendment organization any longer, or just another DC lobbyist group with its own interest at heart.

I wouldn’t go that far, but I agree that we should be asking for answers here, and I’m going to try to get one.  This could be a matter of NRA believing that HB 89 is a more important legislative priority for them, which I think would be a mistake, but I also think it would be a mistake to pick up our toys and go home because we disagree on priority, or in my case, whether HB 89 is desirable at all.

If NRA were ignoring fighting an anti-gun bill in favor of pushing HB 89, then I would agree with a high level of outrage, but that’s not the case here.  The fact is, HB 89, which prevents employers from firing employees for having a firearm in their vehicle, is important to a lot of gun owners, and I doubt the folks who support that bill feel like NRA is ignoring their concerns.   We all have to be a little patient here.

As I have said before, I don’t agree with the NRA on pushing the parking lot stuff, but I’m not going to agree with the NRA on a lot of things over the course of years.   Nonetheless, they’ve staked a lot of political capital on this particular issue, so from their perspective, it’s necessary for them to follow through.  Before we get out the torches and pitchforks, let me see if I can find out what’s going on.

Apparently Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp are being evil and refusing to allow credit card transactions between federally licensed dealers.  NSSF provides contact info in the link above if you’d like to call them to tell them (politely) how much they suck.

Here’s a good CenterDaily article about the primary system in Pennsylvania.  Originally my opinion on open primaries was negative.  I felt that it was a freedom of association issue, and that the parties should be able to control who votes in their primaries.

I’ve since changed my mind, and decided that if the political parties wish to hijack the election apparatus of the state in order to choose delegates to their convention, then the state gets to set the terms under which its election apparatus gets used.  If the parties don’t like this, they can go back to using a caucus system like they do in Iowa.

So I’ll get on board with making Pennsylvania primaries open, and while we’re at it, how about joining Super Duper Tuesday so that candidates will actually pay attention to us.

And more importantly, where were they when I was 14?  Geez.  I guess kids today who are hot for the teacher can thank Al Gore for his Internets.

Politicians in New Jersey are doubling their efforts to save its citizens from themselves.

From Robinson Arms XCR Wikipedia Entry:

On January 1, 2008, Alex Robinson, CEO of Robinson Armament Co., announced his endorsement of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on the Robinson Armament Co. website. This has led to considerable controversy in the firearms enthusiast community, as Romney indicated on a December 16, 2007 interview on Meet the Press that he would sign a reauthorization of the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. This endorsement is seen as peculiar because reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban would make sale of the XCR to civilians in the United States illegal. The endorsement has led to calls for a boycott of Robinson Armament Co. in the firearms community.^[2]

Robinson Armament has released a statement about this.

Many of you are supporting one of the very pro-gun candidates. That’s great. The question is: What if Mitt, Rudi, or John get the nomination? I think this is fair question.

If one of the solid gun stance candidates do not win and we totally alienate the other candidates, where are we?

If we were all really smart and working together to make sure all the bases are covered, we would make sure that we have some people working with the candidates who have less than stellar pro-gun records. Just in case they make it.

The reason I’ve been working with Romney is that I knew early on that he would be a contender. He’s got a lot going for him that a lot of people like. Though gun control issues are the biggest issues for you and I, many Americans feel there are bigger and more important issues. I completely disagree. A candidate’s stand on the Second Amendment is a litmus test. Candidates who want gun control are typically for big government, want to tax us out of existence, and support lots of other liberal ideas.

Read the whole thing. I don’t know if I’ll be willing to join the call for a boycott over this, but it’s some pretty bad political reasoning. Alex Robinson should have a talk with Bitter, who worked in this issue in Massachusetts under Romney. He’s unreliable, and will throw anyone under the bus if the political winds change, and he thinks it’s politically expedient for him to do so. It would be one thing if Romney already had the nomination locked up, but he doesn’t. It’s still time to fight for pro-gun rights candidates.

UPDATE: One guy even wants to go so far as to cut up and destroy his SBR XCR.  I’d be happy to take it off his hands if it makes him feel dirty.  I might be convinced to join a boycott, but I won’t go so far as suggesting people destroy a perfectly good rifle!

It’s been a while since I updated on events with our Second Amendment Blog Bash planning for the NRA Annual Meeting this May 16-18 in Louisville, KY.  We discovered this weekend that Glenn Beck will be the speaker at the Annual Banquet.  There have been a few more registrants, which brings us up to thirty blogs represented.  We have verbally heard that a few more blogs are probably going to be coming too, so we’ll keep you updated.

According to Scalawag.  It makes sense, since a lot of southern and western states are gaining population lost from the Northeast.  Massachusetts is probably going to lose one congressional seat when the next census is taken.

Pennsylvania isn’t experiencing population loss, but we’re growing at about 1/4th the rate of the rest of the country, and, most importantly, the state is having difficulty keeping young people from leaving.  In the long term, Pennsylvania will probably also begin to lose population, unless we can improve the business climate in the state.  Our governor, who has never seen a tax he wouldn’t like to raise, certainly isn’t helping in this regard.

I agree that Congressman Paul got the shaft from Fox by not being invited to the debates.  War on Guns is wondering why too.  Drudge is reporting that Hillary may drop out of the race.  That would leave the race a scrap between Breck Boy and Obama.

… less crime. Who would have thought?

UPDATE: Seems to work out alright in Memphis too.

Hat Tip to Ride Fast & Shoot Straight

Bitter and I attended part of the Board of Directors meeting for the NRA this weekend, since we were in Virginia this weekend.  Chris Cox’s report before the Board stressed the dire need for ATF reform, speaking about how far back this problem goes, and their strategy to fix it through congressional action.  Also stressed were all the upcoming challenges we will be facing in 2008, which are numerous.  I was also quite happy that he thought highly enough of our meeting with NRA folks at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous to mention that specifically in his report before the directors, given that we were a tough crowd.

The NRA isn’t a closed society.  Any member can attend the Board of Directors meeting, though some items do tend to be discussed in executive session, with only board members and officers present.  Of course, I’d be a liar if I told you it was exciting and riveting.  Think of your local gun club meeting, only a lot longer, and with a lot more items to discuss and report on.  More speeches too.

Armed and Safe doesn’t like the legislation either, but mentioned one thing I wanted to talk about:

The amendments also remove language specifying that the legal owner of a lost or stolen firearm who complied with the reporting requirements would not be civilly liable for any damages resulting from a crime.

Yep–the bill initially contained language that would protect the owner from liability stemming from his being the victim of a crime, but the legislators, in their infinite wisdom, removed that provision.

That’s actually a bit we wanted them to remove. Currently there is no tort that exists for a person being held responsible for the criminal misuse of property that was stolen from them. By removing liability on the part of a gun owner who reported a lost or stolen firearm, the legislature would have been implying a tort did exist for those gun owners who failed to report a lost of stolen firearm under this statue. Therefore a gun owner in violation could not have only been fined, but also could be sued by the victims.

The vote is today.  Call your senators and ask them to oppose this legislation.

Joe is right that it’s old news, but I hadn’t seen it in the media for a while.  Now it’s back just in time for the elections.

The families say they want to make sure guns are not allowed on college campuses. And they want lawmakers to require that everyone who purchases a gun in Virginia first go through the FBI’s instant background check system that blocks felons and the mentally disturbed. Although federal law requires background checks, it applies only to federally licensed firearms dealers. No checks are required when a private dealer sells weapons at a gun show. Fifteen states have closed what gun safety advocates call the “gun show loophole.”

Emphasis mine.  Can you get any more biased than that?  At least they were kind enough to call us gun-rights advocates rather than the “gun lobby”.

I don’t doubt that these folks are undergoing a serious grieving process over the loss of their loved ones, but none of the bills they are proposing would have stopped Cho from being a murderous asswipe.  We have already fixed that problem.  I feel for these people, but once they choose to enter a political scuffle, the laws they are advocating should not be beyond debate, nor should their position be given absolute moral authority.  We should not decide public policy based on grief and emotions.  The family members of Virginia Tech victims are advocating removing liberty from their fellow citizens, and that should create the utmost burden for them in terms of defending that position in the public sphere.  A pity the Washington Post doesn’t seem to feel that way.