Snowflakes in Hell

Tom King, President of New York State Rifle and Pistol Assocation, has a post up debunking Microstamping, which is in real danger of passing in New York State.  They’ve been able to hold off new gun control in New York thanks to a Republican controlled senate, but after 2008, there’s a real danger of the state sinking into the gun control abyss if the Democrats regain control.  We briefly interviewed Tom at the Annual Meeting after Governor Patterson announced his “screw gun owners” legislative agenda:

Doug Pennington is an employee of the Brady Campaign, and I’m pretty sure the guy who does the Brady Campaign blog on Paul’s behalf.  As Thirdpower points out, he’s been commenting at The Huffington Post.  Here’s what he says in one of his comments:

One thing: I’ve read comments off and on over the months on the blog, and one reason I (and I suspect others) choose not to get between the warring sides here is that nobody listens to anybody. Commenters here seem to be good at the schoolyard taunts and calling each other “liars,” etc, though. A few do seem to have arguments at the ready and numbers to go along with them - on both sides. (If I can make it through the drek, I can actually learn things.) Almost nobody, though, shows a sense that they may not actually have all the answers. Get in the middle of a bunch of know-it-alls convinced of their correctness? Disagree and be called a liar? Spend hours going tit-for-tat in a pointless spiral? Uh, no thanks….

Welcome to the Internet, Doug.  I agree that once you get beyond the first couple of iterations of comment-reply-comment, it goes downhill pretty quickly.  So I’ll extend an open invitation to Doug to have a public discussion with him on this blog regarding any gun control related topic he may want to talk about.  The discussion could happen over a series of e-mails, with the end result being published here.  No Kelli, no Macca, No Thirdpower, no Kaveman.  Just Doug and myself.

Think they’ll take me up on it?

Thanks to Paul Helmke for pointing out a new, or at least new to me, anti-gun blog.  Since the good reverend is clinging to God, but not guns, one wonders whether she’s still one of Obama’s “bitter” ones.  But regardless, it appears that the blog allows comments.  I haven’t tried to place one yet, but I’m going to guess “heavily moderated.”  Just a hunch.  Can’t have too much reasoned discourse now, can we?  But proceed respectually and factually, as I know our commenters are wont to do.  Engage the good reverend, and let the reasoned discourse flow.

Actual text of the bill is here.  Basically it allows you to verbally announce you’re armed to an attacker, allows a transition from concealed to open carry when under threat of physical force (not necessarily deadly physical force).  It also would appear to allow you to draw into the ready position under threat of physical force.  Based on a quick review of Arizona’s criminal statutes, it doesn’t appear to be unlawful to draw a gun on someone as long as you’re justified in using deadly force, even if you don’t have to shoot.  Arizona’s self-defense statute would appear to remove self-defense as a justification if you are responsible for escalating the confrontation.  So a question I would have is, if you draw one someone threatening physical force (not deadly physical force), and they don’t back down, then what?  They are threatening physical force, you’re threatening deadly physical force.  If you end up shooting him, do you lose justification?

First I’ve heard of this is from Dustin’s blog.  If he had succeeded in carrying out his mass shooting, any doubt this would have made national headlines?  Also of note that in most states, bars are gun free zones.  In Nevada, they are not.  Yet somehow, someone managed to think clearly and take action, at a place where we’re told that people won’t act responsibly.

And it doesn’t register as a blip on the national news.

… some sharp objects to be allowed back on planes.  Some experts agree with the move, arguing they should be concentrating on finding explosives.  Like coffee creamer?

According to Dave Hardy, Napolitano has vetoed two gun bills.  The first:

Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed legislation Tuesday which would have allowed individuals to draw their weapons in cases where a reasonable person would believe it is necessary to protect against the use or attempted use of physical force.

I have to say, I agree with the governor on this one.  Unless you’re justified in using deadly force, your gun should stay in its holster.  For situations like the one described here:

“You wait ’til the big 6-foot-5, 280-pound guy knocks you on the ground and incapacitates you before you can tell him, ‘I’ve got a gun,’ ” he said.

“If that big guy threatens you, the next thing is he’s going to hit you,” Pearce explained, at which point “it’s too late to say anything.” He said Napolitano missed the whole point of the bill.

There’s already force disparity defenses to deal with that situation if you have to use deadly force on someone much larger than you, even if the offending party doesn’t have a weapon.  Fists can be considered deadly weapons under some circumstances.  One reason I think carrying OC [self-defense spray] is a good idea is because it’s useful for getting out of a physical altercation where deadly force wouldn’t be justified.  While I agree with eliminating duties to retreat, allowing people to bring deadly force into a situation that has not yet escalating into that grave a situation seems like a bad idea.

The other bill Nepolitano vetoed was this:

Napolitano separately vetoed another measure Tuesday which would have made state-issued permits to carry a concealed weapon valid for the owner’s lifetime.

Little reason to veto this, since most state law enforcement agencies are monitoring criminal records of license holders and will revoke if you do something that makes you unqualified.  The renewal is just a hoop to jump through so everyone can feel better.

UPDATE: It seems I may be misunderstanding Arizona law here.  In Pennsylvania, we have no law against brandishing a firearm.  If you pull a gun on someone, and don’t use it, you’re not liable if the bad guy beats a retreat or backs down, as long as the circumstances that caused you to draw was a deadly force situation.  Folks are suggesting that’s not the case in Arizona.  If Arizona law does punish for drawing, but not shooting, then that would seem to be something that should be fixed.

UPDATE: After looking at Arizona Revised Statutes on Justification, I’m not sure I was misunderstanding it.  I have more information and questions here.

The opening up of a new ATF field office is such the headliner event that Frank Lautenberg feels the need to keep his party crashing opponent away from all the glory.  I hate New Jersey politics, and fail to understand why people there tolerate it.  Truth be told, I don’t like Rob Andrews politically, but I like people who don’t play by the rules, especially in New Jersey, where the rules are rigged to favor the powerful.

If I were a special interest in New Jersey, and party hacks told me not to donate to Andrew’s campaign, or there’d be hell to pay, I’d max out on him just as a fuck you for such arrogance and presumption.

SayUncle covers the machinations of Tom Eblen, who apparently wants to believe AHSA is not a sham, no matter what the facts say.  Bob Ricker recently came back on Bitter’s site to remind us that NRA’s endorsement isn’t worth crap, and that their organization helped Claire McCaskill beat Jim Talent in Missouri, so take that you self-defense wackos.  Of course, they also endorsed Obama, who then proceeded to lose in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, and Kentucky — states with a lot of gun owning Democrats.  So I think it’s fair to question whether AHSA’s endorsement is really worth anything.

I first became aquainted with the knife rights movement at the annual meeting last year in St. Louis, and took one of their buttons.  I don’t see any reason why knives shouldn’t be considered personal arms, protected by the second amendment, and Pennsylvania’s right to bear arms provision.  Joe Huffman has a pretty good post up about this here.

Pennsylvania’s knife laws are, for the most part, fairly lax, but our state law prohibits switchblades:

Pa. C.S.A. 18.908. Prohibited offensive weapons.

(a) Offense defined.–A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes, repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon.

(b) Exception.– It is a defense under this section for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he possessed of dealt with the weapon solely as a curio or in a dramatic performance, or that he possessed it briefly in consequence of having found it or taken it from an aggressor, or under circumstances similarly negativing any intent or likelihood that the would be used unlawfully.

(c) Definition.–As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

“Firearm.” — Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
“Offensive weapons.” — Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

There’s an exception for law enforcement, and for people who have complied with the requirements of the National Firearms Act for the firearms provisions.  State law allows for carriage of a knife as big as you want, as long as it’s not a switchblade.  The only problem is, there’s no preemption for knives, so local ordinances can apply.

It’s a silly law.  A knife is no more dangerous because it is actuated by a button or spring mechanism than if I can open it with one hand, but case law in Pennsylvania has ruled that a knife that can be flicked open by wrist action after releasing a lock is not covered by this law.

Looks like Clayton Cramer didn’t manage to unseat his opponent in the primary.  Looking at the results, looks like it was within about 750 votes, out of 3100 or so total.  It’s very difficult to unseat an incumbent.  Still, if you want to have an impact on politics in your area, primaries are a place where a lot of difference can be made with little effort, since turnout is often pretty low.  As we demonstrated in Pennsylvania in our 2007 primary, you can affect considerable turnover in the primary if voters are properly motivated.  Sometimes, your side doesn’t win, but you get back on the horse and try again.  Eventually, you’ll win a few.