Snowflakes in Hell

… and spend the evening reading Kevin’s long but good tome on the history that’s lead us forward to Heller.

Rep. Norm Dicks may derail the National Parks rule change:

Dicks vows to block bid to lift ban on loaded weapons in national parks WASHINGTON – With a showdown looming, U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks says he’s prepared to block any effort by the administration to lift the current ban on carrying loaded weapons in national parks.

It’s not an idle threat.

As chairman of the House Appropriations interior subcommittee, Dicks oversees the National Parks Service’s annual budget and is in a position to prevent the administration from dropping the Reagan-era ban. While the Washington Democrat is usually reluctant to add legislative provisions to his spending bill, he is ready to make an exception in this case even if it prompts a presidential veto.

Remember this when the Democrats try to tell you how much they support the second amendment this fall. I have a great deal of respect for our staunch pro-gun Democrats like Dan Boren, John Tester, Rich Boucher, and many others, but the fact is they are part of a party who promotes leadership that are actively hostile to the rights of gun owners.  We are not talking about arming people in National Parks here, simply making National Parks compliant follow whatever rules the states want to put in place on the matter of firearms.  Right now, I can be arrested if I travel through a National Park on the way to shoot somewhere else.  That’s not right.  It should be changed.

I’m guessing, based on this article, that AHSA is done acting like a pro-gun group, and has actively decided to come out as an attack dog of the anti-gun faction of the Democratic Party.

NRA’s right wing attack dogs have been having quite a time this past week trying to weave a web of deception designed to discredit me and the leadership of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). In my recent diaries at Daily Kos (here and here), I have carefully laid out how AHSA, a new progressive gun rights organization, tapped into the concern of rural hunters and shooters over NRA’s failure to address access to public land and environmental issues resulting in a stunning NRA defeat in the hotly contested 2006 Missouri US Senate race. I’m sure many Kos readers were as surprised as I was that NRA, once again, acknowledged AHSA’s campaign made the difference for Claire McCaskill in that key 2006 Senate race.

Apparently we bloggers are now not only on the take, but also NRA’s “right wing attack dogs”.  Forgive me for a minute while I check myself for fleas.  They are correct that AHSA’s campaign was recognized in that link, but if you follow it, NRA basically calls them liars:

AHSA’s political activities are predictable when you consider its primary goals are to discredit the NRA and advance the interests of anti-gun politicians. AHSA`s first effort was in the 2006 Missouri Senate race. AHSA used direct mail to mislead sportsmen and distort the landmark work NRA was doing to protect millions of acres of wetlands in Missouri. While NRA was working with legislators to protect the 100-year flood plain in Missouri from development and ensure that land would be available to hunters, AHSA produced direct mail falsely claiming the NRA had “sold out hunters” so that they could mislead sportsmen into voting for anti-gun candidate Claire McCaskill (See Who Needs Another Alternative To NRA for more information.) Unfortunately, AHSA’s lies were at least partly to blame for McCaskill’s election and the loss of Sen. Jim Talent, a valuable friend of gun owners and sportsmen.

Read the whole thing.  Pretty clearly AHSA is attempting to get progressive street creds by pitting their “progressive” yin to NRA’s “right wing” yang.  I would note that there’s another group that uses this exact tactic, known as Gun Owners of America, and AHSA would fall all over themselves if they were half as good at playing this card from the left as GOA is at playing it from the right.

Their leaders call our first responders “jack booted thugs”; they fight efforts to restrict armor piercing handgun ammunition that threaten cops; they oppose background checks on all sales at gun shows; they opposed voluntary industry efforts to provide free child safety locks with all new guns sold; they oppose efforts to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists; they want to repeal restrictions on keeping guns out of bars and restaurants when liquor is served; they want to force employers to allow guns in the work place; they oppose efforts of our nation’s big city mayor’s to stop illegal gun traffickers ;and, incredibly, they want to criminalize efforts by law enforcement to share crime gun trace information. This is just a short list that more than justifies labels like “right wing whackos”.

Wait, am I reading something by AHSA or the Brady Campaign?  You guys aren’t even pretending anymore.   Face it Schoenke, the gig is up.  You’re another gun control group, and it couldn’t be more obvious.  Everyone should read the whole sorry thing.

I see some folks seem to be confused about how NRA elections work.  I’ve noticed questions in comments on other blogs too.  NRA has some internal protections in place to prevent exactly this type of scenario:

“I had this grand plan — if they had four million members, I’d get five million Americans to join [NRA], vote for me, and then I’d dismantle the organization,” - Michael Moore

Fancy plan, but it won’t easily work.  NRA has voter eligibility requirements, and seventy six board seats, none of which are ever up for election at the same time. The board does not direct day to day activities of NRA, but they do hire Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre.  They also oversee various activities of the Association through various committees. Seventy five of the board members are elected to three year terms.  The seventy sixth board member is only elected to a one year term every year at the annual meeting.  Who ends up on the ballot is determined by the Nominating Committee, which is largely composed of existing board members.   NRA membership can run petition candidates on the ballot to bypass the Nominating Committee process.  Driving change within NRA is a slow process, and would require a prolonged desire by membership to move in a certain direction.

But back to voter eligibility.  All life members are eligible to vote in NRA yearly elections. People with continuing memberships are eligible to vote after five unbroken years.  If you have let your membership lapse at any period of time in the past five years, you’re not eligible to vote in NRA elections.  When you are eligible to vote, you will get a ballot included in your issue of National Rifleman, America’s First Freedom, or whichever NRA publication your subscribe to.  Your existing publication for this month probably contains bios, but may not contain a ballot if you’re a new member.  If you’re pretty sure you’ve had five unbroken years of membership, and your issue doesn’t have a ballot in it, call NRA’s membership number and see about getting one if you want to vote.  I have heard of people failing to get ballots when they were eligible to vote.

An article from the Philadelphia Inquirer on Students for Concealed Carry.  It’s contains a pretty good contrast between how both sides try to frame the debate.  First, the Inky’s statement:

 The idea of loaded guns in beer-soaked frat houses isn’t as farfetched as it seems. At least 13 states are considering some form of legislation allowing concealed-carry on campus, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures.

No bias there, no sir.  But what do they mention earlier in the article?

Along with books, laptop and cell phone, there is something else that Jeremy Clark thinks is essential to bring to class: his gun.

The Villanova University law student said the sickening spate of campus shootings, from Virginia Tech to Northern Illinois University, left him feeling vulnerable without his Glock 9mm semiautomatic handgun.

“If I’m in a classroom where a shooting is taking place, I’d like a chance to be able to defend myself,” said the 29-year-old Army veteran from Bethlehem, Pa., who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Call me crazy here, but I’m willing to go out on a limb here and make an a few assumptions.

• A 29 year old veteran knows how to handle a firearm safety
• Knows how to shoot straight
• Isn’t the type of guy who’s going to be attending drunken frat boozers while armed
• Is probably pretty typical among students who have concealed carry licenses.

A lot of the activism in this particular issue seems to be coming from veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.  And why not?  The army trusted them to lug a fully automatic M4 assault rifle around, why do people in civilian life insist on treating them like irresponsible children?

Just noticed the following update on the Heller case:

Feb 28 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Wisconsin. (Distributed)

This Wisconsin Attorney General had to seek permission from the Wisconsin legislature to join the amicus brief for state Attorneys General.  Needless to say this took time, and the Wisconsin legislature didn’t get around to acting until it was past the deadline.  Here’s hoping the Supreme Court grants the motion, and we can get Wisconsin on board.

Bitter has her endorsements up over at her site.  They are also my endorsements as well, so go read.   I would note we have two Pennsylvania guys on the ballot, but I can’t say I know either one well enough to offer an endorsement.  I do feel that Pennsylvania is underrepresented on NRA’s Board of Directors, but I’m looking for the right kind of board representation.  Being from Pennsylvania will not automatically get my endorsement.

I’ve heard that Tim Powol is a good guy, I talked to him very briefly at the September board meeting, and I think Pennsylvania NRA members can feel good about casting a ballot for him.  Let’s keep him on the board.

Leo Holt, from Newtown, PA is the other Pennsylvanian on the ballot.  I know nothing about him.  Given that he’s a member of my club, which recently had an attempted revolt by anti-NRA factions within it, that seems rather surprising to me.  That’s not to say that I know everyone involved in gun rights in this area, far from that.  Bitter is really the one who is the social networker, but she’s never heard of him either.

Dave Hardy also has a list of endorsements.  Dave is no stranger to NRA board meetings, so I’d give some weight to his choices as well.

We must prevent the anti-gunners from creating a time paradox.