Snowflakes in Hell

The Brady Campaign reacts in a predictable fashion:

“The Chicago case is unlikely to have much practical impact on most gun laws regardless of how the Court rules.   Even if the Court were to hold the Second Amendment applicable to states and localities, such a ruling is unlikely to change the crucial holding by the Supreme Court in Heller that a wide range of reasonable gun laws are presumptively constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right is narrowly limited to guns in the home for self-defense. Since the Heller decision, the gun lobby and criminals have brought at least 170 challenges to gun laws or to block criminal gun prosecutions. With only a handful of exceptions, those challenges have failed.”

You keep right on reading Heller the way you want to. If all you manage to get is that the government can keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I’m OK with that. The other amusing thing, and you can bet Helmke knows this, it doesn’t matter if desperate defense attorneys with criminal clients and Hail Mary Second Amendment claims fail 100% of the time. All that matters is that we win the right cases. This case the Supreme Court has agreed to take is one of those cases.

The stakes are high. The Brady Campaign is pretending the stakes are low. No reasonable observer can really believe that. By downplaying the significance, it gives you a pretty good idea of what they think their chances are. They are already acting like they lost.

The Joyce foundation has funded a study showing that you’re stupid if you carry a gun.  You can see the PDF here, but just giving it a cursory look, it has flaws. Let me outline. From the “Methods” section:

Gunshot assault cases caused by powder charge firearms were identified as they oc- curred, from October 15, 2003, to April 16, 2006. The final 6 months of this period were limited to only fatal cases. We excluded self- inflicted, unintentional, and police-related shootings (an officer shooting someone or being shot), and gun injuries of undetermined intent.

Why limit to only fatal cases in the final six months? It’s legitimate to exclude accidental and self-inflicted wounds. But why is it legitimate to exclude police from this? Police carry firearms for self-defense, the same as ordinary citizens. If your premise is that carrying a firearm makes you more likely to be assaulted, it’s not legitimate to exclude police use.

We excluded individuals younger than 21 years because it was not legal for them to possess a firearm in Philadelphia and, as such, the relationship we sought to investigate was functionally different enough to prompt separate study of this age group. We excluded individuals who were not residents of Phila- delphia as they were outside our target pop- ulation and individuals not described as Black or White as they were a very small percentage of shootings (<2%).

It’s legitimate to exclude people under 21 who carry guns, but why is it assumed that anyone over the age of 21 was a legal gun owner? It’s illegal to carry a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia without a License to Carry firearms. Why did the study not exclude people who were carrying firearms illegally? Could it be because you needed people involved in dangerous illegal activity to get the results you wanted? Why exclude people who are not residents of Philadelphia? They are more likely to carry a legal firearm. Why the racial exclusion?

This study is comparing apples and oranges, which is interesting, but not really that useful, and can’t be used to come to the conclusion that an ordinary, law abiding person, who is not involved in the illegal drug trade or involved in gangs, is taking a risk by carrying a gun to defend himself.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the incorporation case:

The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment issue — two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New York ban on a martial-arts weapon.  It chose one of the Chicago cases — McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) — a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the Alexandria, VA. lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller).

Congratulations to Alan Gura, who will be going back before the Court. Let’s hope this works out, but I suspect it will. I think the Supreme Court wouldn’t have taken the case if they didn’t have five votes.

A lot of what we’re seeing from the gun control crowd now, with Bloomberg heading up MAIG, is honestly panic. No New York Mayor has been as big of a pit bull in going after the Second Amendment, but no New York Mayor has ever been faced with the prospect of his own citizens being able to sue to get their civil rights back.

MAIG might be attacking in Pennsylvania, on our home territory, but that’s because Bloomberg knows we will likely soon be attacking the New York City gun control regime, and overturning it. The last time Pennsylvania was invaded, it didn’t work out too well to help preserve the institution that was being fought over. Let’s hope Bloomberg’s luck is about as good as Jeff Davis’.

There’s been more than a few MAIG mayors who were surprised to discover they were a member of the group.

This article by my favorite Inky columnist, Monica Yant Kinney, is what you’d expect from her, but also shows we’re having an effect:

NRA members all over Ellport received the same postcard and dutifully followed instructions to harass Cisco. The harshest threats were anonymous; those who left a name got a call back offering a personal visit from the mayor to “tell my side of the story.”

NRA spokeswoman Alexa Fritts would not say how many postcards went out, but she insisted the “education campaign” was not meant to intimidate.

Still, Fritts said that survival-minded mayors did have cause for concern: “They know it’s not smart to be on the wrong side of the gun issue.”

That’s good. They are hearing from us. If they don’t leave, we must be vigilant, and teach them a lesson on election day. This is an interesting claim though:

A funny thing happened amid all the fearmongering: Fourteen Pennsylvania mayors left the group, but 25 joined in spite of the pressure.

Really? We’ve been keeping careful watch on MAIG’s numbers here in Pennsylvania, and if 25 new mayors have joined, it’s news to us. MAIG certainly hasn’t posted 25 new members in Pennsylvania on their site. Does Ms. Kinney have a source for this? Perhaps we should ask her.

With 80% of districts reporting, NRA endorsed candidate Bob Mensch has won the 24th Senatorial seat in a landslide victory. We have kept that seat in pro-gun hands. Bob’s district spans both Bitter and my EVC districts, plus a little bit of PA-15. so we couldn’t be more thrilled by this result.

UPDATE: Final tally 66% to 30%, with 3.5% going to the Libertarian. That’s a 36 point landslide!

MikeB thinks the MAIG mayors are eminently reasonable, and basically only want to do something as modest as ban private party transfers of firearms. Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that the bill MAIG is getting behind goes much farther than necessary to accomplish the stated goal, and actually have a discussion about background checks. If the gun control groups want to expand the use of background checks, and they are serious about it, they ought to be willing to listen to our concerns about the current system. So let’s have a discussion, minus all the usual bullshit. Anti-gun people welcome.

The current system has some deficiencies that we’d like to see addressed. Let’s look at some of the problems with the current NICS system:

• It’s trivially easy to use the background check system to do backdoor registration, which is precisely what’s happened in Pennsylvania, even though we were told it would not. Clinton was illegally keeping NICS records for years, even though we were assured that would not happen. The other side has a poor record of keeping their word, so why should we trust them? Let’s put an argument about registration aside for now, and just say we’re not going to accept more. We already have compromised on this, in the form of dealer record retention requirements (4473).
• If the system goes down, we revert to the Brady waiting period, and we have no guarantees of uptime from the government on the system. Outages on the NICS system are not that uncommon, and interfere with many lawful transfers each year.
• The current system is restricted to use by federally licensed dealers. If you require us to do all transactions through federally licensed dealers, they will reasonably want to be paid for their time. Dealers in states with no restrictions on private transfers typically handle few enough to charge a modest amount for the service as a courtesy. Pennsylvania dealers, where handgun transfers must go through an FFL or Sheriff, charge anywhere from 30-50 dollars per gun.

Gun owners have difficulty trusting government promises, and for good reasons. Promises made by the government that they won’t do this or that almost are never lived up to. Even when you try to force the issue, as we did with PICS and NICS records, they weasel around it, and the courts back them up. Incidents like Katrina, and governmental and anti-gun dismissal of the seriousness of it, only serve to strengthen that distrust. You can’t just dismiss this stuff as paranoia, and act like we can move on. Trust has been destroyed. Your side is responsible for it. It’s not now incumbent on us to take you at your word.

So what of our concerns are anti-gun folks willing to address about the current system? Here’s what I would demand, at a minimum, before I’ll even have a discussion about expansion:

• Creation of a national system that preempts the state systems currently in place. It’s easier to have one entity to watch than dozens.
• All source code for the system is to be made public, down through the user interface, up through its interface with NCIC, and the various state and mental health systems.
• All transactions are to be immediately anonymized. The system may keep anonymized transaction tokens so that dealer and personal records can be validated, but those records make it impossible to identify the parties in the transaction without running through the standard trace process. In short, the token uses a hash to store information about the check. Given a gun’s serial number, authorities can determine whether and when a background check happened for a given gun, and what the result was, but nothing else.
• There will be independent auditors to ensure that the system is running on the software the government is publishing source code for. They will be required to publish a full report, along with methodology used in the audit. There has to be penalties for agencies for not complying with the requirements.
• Everyone has access to the background check system, not just dealers. ATF is required to create a user friendly kiosk which can be placed at any gun show, police station or gun store, paid for fully by the federal government, and with no fee to use, which will allow a seller to run a check on a buyer, the system would pass or fail the transaction, and print out a receipt to be kept (but not required to be kept) by the seller and retained in his records.
• Agency must account for any system downtime, and meet uptime requirements or face penalty. Prolonged outages, or ones due to downstream problems with NCIC, etc, just allow transactions to go through.
• Civil penalty for failing to run the check at most. Law abiding people aren’t going to risk even minor lawbreaking, and the criminals aren’t going to be deterred by the law anyway.

I say that’s the minimum, because I can promise you the gun control folks will never agree to this. They won’t even have a discussion from this as a starting point. Why? Because this issue is not about background checks, or about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It’s about restrictions for restrictions sake. It’s about getting as close to universal gun registration as they can possibly get. It’s about making gun ownership riskier and more costly. My proposal only offers a way to run background checks on prospective buyers, and nothing else. That’s not acceptable to the other side, because that’s not really what they want. So we don’t come to a middle ground on the background check issue, because there’s no middle ground to be had.

We don’t agree to put this issue to the political process, because there’s no guarantee once the political process starts, the bill that comes out the other end looks like anything remotely acceptable. There are people out there, powerful people, both in and out of Congress, who hate the idea of private citizens having guns and will do everything they can to prevent or frustrate it. There’s no denying that without willfully inserting your head into the sand. There is no reasonable way to work out a sensible compromise through the political system. We didn’t get here by having reasonable discussions or by trying to or together to come up with a solution. We got here through struggle, with both sides advancing and retreating at different times, and in different areas. That’s how the political process works, and it can work no other way.

The question for MikeB is whether he’s willing to understand the political process for what it is, and understand that both sides on this issue are actors in what can be accurately compared to an elaborate kabuki. Both sides in this issue behave rationally, when each’s goals are taken into consideration. MikeB’s illusion is that’s not the case. He is dancing in the kabuki, but does not see it for what it is. Or perhaps he does, and is simply feigning ignorance. But in this drama, where the never ending public debate on the topic defines compromises both sides have to live with, it should not surprise anyone that each side takes care to shape the public debate more in its favor through deception and/or hyperbole. But no one can delude themselves about either side’s goal, and remain intellectually honest. I invite MikeB or any other anti-gunner to have a no-BS discussion about this topic. Let’s stop the kabuki for a second and talk for real. Can you?

Campaigning against Jersey City Mayor Healy. So much for law enforcement being on the said of the MAIG mayors eh? Look who paid for the ad.

The media is issuing reports that would seem to indicate that Bulls Eye Shooter Supply is losing its FFL.  Bulls Eye was the shop where John Allen Mohammad shoplifted his rifle from before going on a sniping rampage with it on the DC Beltway.

According to Dave Workman, that’s not the truth, or at least not the whole truth. The FFL of the previous owner of Bulls Eye Shooter Supply has been revoked, and upheld. The business was sold to a new owner, who has cleaned up its act, and has an FFL issued to him.  The new owners still have a valid FFL and are in business.

More evidence the media needs to spend more time trying to understand how the federal licensing system works, so they don’t inadvertently punish or smear someone who’s not even remotely culpable in the original malfeasance.

For those readers who live in Pennsylvania’s 24th Senatorial District, NRA has endorsed Bob Mensch in today’s special election to replace the seat vacated by Senator Rob Wonderling, who resigned to head up the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. Be sure to get out to vote. Bitter is up there now helping his campaign with the get out the vote effort. Hopefully we’ll keep that an A-rated seat moving forward. Bucks Right has some interesting information on his opponent. She’s a lifelong hunter, you know?

Before we were largely speculating.  Now we actually have some facts in the case. It seems Colosimo entered into a plea deal with prosecutors.  We also have this:

The government’s plea memorandum said that on Aug. 4, 2004, a straw purchaser identified only as “Person #1″ received money from “H.B.” and a male known as “Shiz” to purchase four firearms on their behalf at Colosimo’s.

H.B. accompanied Person #1 into Colosimo’s and provided money to Person #1 in the presence of a store employee, who recorded that the purchase had been made by Person #1.

None of the four firearms has been recovered. Assistant U.S. Attorney Tomika Stevens told Savage that prosecutors did not know if the firearms had been used in any crimes.

After that purchase, ATF agents set up controlled buys using informants for the purchases of six firearms between Dec. 8, 2005, and April 18, 2007, the plea memo said.

Those guns were turned over to ATF agents immediately after the purchases, which were set up and monitored by the ATF, court documents said.

On one occasion a cooperating witness, A.P., identified himself as the buyer, but Person #2, the straw purchaser, filled out the paperwork, identifying himself as the buyer. A Colosimo’s employee recorded the transaction in the straw purchaser’s name.

On another occasion, a government informant and Person #3 entered Colosimo’s together. Court papers said that the informant had told a Colosimo’s employee that Person #3, the straw purchaser, was buying a handgun for the informant because the informant could not buy a gun. The Colosimo’s employee recorded the purchase in Person #3’s name, court papers said.

Now those are better facts, but they raise some questions:

• The person who recorded the straw transaction committed a federal crime. Was he or she prosecuted?
• If ATF was conducting these stings since 2005, why was Colosimo’s allowed to remain operating for four more years, despite ATF having evidence that his employees were allowing straw buys?

What’s described here is most definitely a crime committed on the part of the dealer’s agent. At best, he’s not training his employees correctly, and at worst not being careful about hiring scrupulous employees. I’m sorry I ever stood up for this guy. This looks like strong evidence, and I suspect the prosecution is actually going rather easy on the defendant in this case.

It’s come time to replace my carry ammo. I’ve become lax about it. Normally I try to do this every six months, but it’s been more like a year. Faced with about a sixty dollar bill to do the replacement, it’s gotten me wondering about making my own loads. But conventional wisdom says this is a bad idea, because a prosecutor could try to argue in court that you custom made an extra lethal load, and your hand loads won’t be as reliable as factory ammo.

That’s always sounded far fetched to me, but decent ammo was cheap enough I didn’t care to really question this too much. Now that I have some experience with hand loading, I don’t really notice any reliability problems with my loads. What do you folks think? Is hand loading your carry load really a bad idea? What are some tips for doing so if you don’t think it’s a bad idea?

Just got word that Kim and Connie du Toit will be back on the internet and trying their hand at internet radio. The Premier Show is October 3rd. Kim was one of the first gun bloggers, until but he retired last year.

UPDATE: I guess I should say “but he retired last year.” since even in retirement he’s still one of the first gun bloggers.

In the latest Monica Yant Kinney column, we get some idea of what gun shop Heeding God’s Call might be going after next:

Emboldened by the victory, the curbside crusade continues. Heads up, Shooter Shop in Kensington: You’re next.

You don’t get the option of not standing up to these people.

UPDATE: Here’s Shooter Shop’s web site, and it looks like they even have a commercial. I don’t know, that deer head just screams “criminal hangout” to me! Seriously, what’s their beef? Other than this is a family business that has the audacity to try to run a legitimate gun business in Philadelphia? Let’s hope it’s a family that will stand up to these hateful people.

Over the past decade, we’ve seen a lot of lame and mostly lame attempts by gun control advocates to try to repackage their failed agenda into a form that would advance in an public opinion environment that’s not been in any mood for more gun control. We’ve seen the Million Mom March come and go. We’ve seen Andrew McKelvey’s Americans for Gun Safety pop onto the scene, and effectively disappear. American Hunters and Shooters Association, started by gun control advocates, tried and failed to attempt to capitalize on a divide that they felt existed within our community, and could be exploited. We’ve seen a lot of these organizations come and go.

I don’t think Mayors Against Illegal Guns is in the same category, and is already a more active threat than any of these other groups managed to make themselves. This is especially true if you live in Pennsylvania, where MAIG has paid staff dedicated to recruiting and keeping mayors, and has been very successful in doing so. Let me outline why MAIG ought to be taken seriously.

• They are the first gun control group to embrace a post-Heller mentality. They’ve wisely jettisoned much of the baggage of previous gun control efforts, particularly in advocating for gun bans. They’ve readily embraced the post-Heller realities. This doesn’t mean they like the result in Heller, but their mission and messaging are all in line with pushing a gun control agenda in a post-Heller world. In contrast, I think, with the Brady Campaign and other groups that are having a difficult time coming to terms with what doors Heller closes to them, making it hard for them to continue forward.
• Their messaging is slick. The trick in getting the public to accept a more radical agenda is to wrap it up in something that’s non-controversial. That illegal guns, what the public thinks of as guns in the hands of criminals, are bad isn’t something there’s much disagreement on. On the surface, they package largely the same agenda as the Brady Campaign, as a policy package to combat guns in criminal hands. Anyone willing to look at the specifics can clearly see it as hogwash, but most people don’t bother to look at specifics.
• Their strategy is novel. In recruiting Mayors, they are essentially borrowing the credibility that mayors have within their own communities in order to provide cover for their agenda. This also represents a novel attack on NRA. NRA is very adept at working state houses and Congress, but NRA hasn’t had to do much work at this local a level. It’s not clear NRA is weak here, but it’s an unknown. No one ever thought to attack us this way until MAIG. It is a novel strategy, and if I may say so, a brilliant strategy. I’m not sure whether it will work or not, but they deserve credit for trying something truly new. MAIG is probing what could be a weakness.
• They understand the traditional strengths of the gun control movement, and are adept at playing to those strengths. Once NRA counter-attacked MAIG, they opened up with a broad and intensive media blitz in order to give the mayors political cover for their continuing membership. The media is traditionally very fertile ground for anti-gun groups, and not very good ground for NRA. In the past week MAIG has demonstrated they have as much of a command of this as Brady does, and have very adeptly been working the media.
• They’ve shown they understand the politics of the issue. Whether it’s true or not, MAIG takes credit for defeating federal reciprocity for the bearing of arms. They understood the position Specter was in and knew how to exploit it. They’ve shown they know how to play the game in Congress, and managed to come up with enough votes for the amendment to fail.
• They are realistic about where they fight. A lot of people regard Pennsylvania as a pro-gun state, and for the most part, it is. But it’s not as pro-gun as a lot of people think it is. We are, essentially, a pro-gun state under siege. The vast majority of our state is bordered by states who’s laws demonstrate little or no respect for the Second Amendment. Gun control activists in those states have long wanted to turn this state to their side, and have been willing to put a lot of work into changing the political landscape in their favor. MAIG, so far, is the most successful anti-gun group I’ve seen in that regard. Every single illegal “Lost and Stolen” ordinance or resolution that’s been passed in Pennsylvania has happened in a city or town with a MAIG mayor. MAIG didn’t choose to go after preemption in its entirety, but chose to try to change the landscape so they could take one little piece, and weaken it just a little, and presumably open the door to a wider discussion about preemption.

I could probably come up with more reasons why I think MAIG is a lot more dangerous than anything we’ve seen in the past decade, and why gun owners shouldn’t brush them off as just another joke of a group funded by Joyce, not to be taken seriously, or to be mocked. It might be a while before MAIG tries pushing a major piece of legislation through a state house or through Congress, but in terms of laying the groundwork for a more ambitious future agenda, they’ve been very successful. Dangerously successful. The only thing that’s going to stop threat in its infancy is coordinated grassroots action against the Mayors who are lending their credibility to Bloomberg. NRA has sounded the bugle call, but will the troops muster? I hope so, but we must be relentless in going after MAIG if we’re going to stop Bloomberg before it’s too late.

James Colosimo admits in federal court that illegal activity went on in his shop. His FFL has been revoked, and he is selling his inventory to other dealers. His shop will close.

Good riddance, I say. If the charges were true, we don’t need dealers who break the law. If the charges were false, we don’t need dealers who won’t stand up for what’s right.

Because heavens forbid we take the Bill of Rights seriously, and all.  In this case they are complaining because pressure got Mayor Tautznik to leave the organization, on the premise that it’s not really a local issue, and not something he really wanted to focus on. He couldn’t be more right. How would Masslive feel if we were to redo this issue in a First Amendment context rather than a Second Amendment context?

Mayor Against Illegal Speech support the First Amendment rights of Americans, and is only against illegal speech, like libel,child pornography and and spam. To that end, they propose modest restrictions on the number of e-mails people may send in any given month, in order to combat spam.  Background checks on allowing people to buy computers and digital camera equipment at public shows to ensure they don’t fall into the hands of peddlers in child porn. Naturally, we need a code of conduct for vendors who sell internet service, to ensure that they keep records on what their customers are downloading.

What we also need is for the government to keep a secret list of people suspected of being child abusers. Those people should not be able to buy internet service or computers. Too bad for the folks who happen to share a first name with someone who’s suspected to be a child abuser, or got himself on the list for hanging around public parks too much looking “creepy.”

MAIS also supports identifying information being placed in every packet of data transmitted on the internet, so that government agents can easily track information back to the source. MAIS is also very much against laws that make it easy to transport computer equipment across state lines, and sensibly rejects laws that override local laws on obscene materials.

Does the media still want to argue that we need to “lighten up?”  Does it seem clearer now how an issue no one supports, in our case criminals getting guns, and in the First Amendment analogy, spammers and child pornographers, can be used to sell a sinister agenda for weakening an important constitutional right?  If First Amendment advocates were combating our fictional MAIS group, would they need to be told to “lighten up?”

Richard Ward, the Mayor of Hurst, Texas, wants everyone to know that he’s an NRA member, and a proud member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. In it, we see familiar language:

Unfortunately, the NRA has spent the past month attempting to bully mayors, including me, to drop out of this effort to have a consensus discussion about guns. They have sent hundreds of thousands of misleading postcards stating this coalition is “anti-gun” and is seeking to “regulate gun shows out of existence,” along with several other untruths and misleading statements.

Where have we heard that before? Unfortunately, not all these mayors are going to see the light and bow out gracefully. Many of them will need to be forced to leave MAIG by forcing them to leave office. I wouldn’t worry too much about getting a pro-gun activist mayor to replace your MIAG loving incumbent — really all we need is someone who agrees to leave the issue alone. Because of preemption in most states, guns are not generally a local issue. In fact, I would consider using that against the mayor. Find local issues people care about, and question why the mayor is spending time and energy on an issue that’s more of a state and federal issue, rather than what’s important to your town. Back to Mayor Ward:

I fully support the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment. What I don’t support is criminals getting their hands on guns. The coalition is for enforcing existing gun laws, increasing penalties for gun criminals and closing gaps in the gun background check system.

No one supports criminals getting guns. We have a system of laws in place that make criminals obtaining guns unlawful already. MAIG isn’t just recommending closing gaps in the background check system, they are supporting a bill that will effectively shut down gun shows.  Have you read it, Mayor Ward? Are you aware MAIG supports rationing guns to law abiding citizens? Is that the kind of measure Texans will support? Are you aware that ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police are against the measure MAIG supports to open up trace data? Are you aware that Mayor Bloomberg has interfered in the prosecution of actual criminal gun traffickers because it served his political purposes.

Mayor Ward includes an e-mail address at the bottom of the article.  Perhaps some of my Texan readers can respectfully ask him whether he’s really thought about this issue.

Because Nintendo slashed the price of the Wii, Bitter and I decided it was time to get one. Who knew you could blog on it? It’s tedious but doable. Now to play.

UPDATE: I’m a fan of the Wii Play tank game. Bitter and I were also having fun with the boxing game, which gives opportunity to say “I’m going to beat you like I don’t want guns anymore!” Nintendo Wii, making domestic abuse a fun game since 2006!

This is a PDF of an e-mail that was circulated by CeaseFire PA earlier in the week. It comes from a source I know to be reliable.  It’s titled “Standing Up and Fighting Back Against the NRA.”  Let’s take a look:

There’s only one way to confront a bully – stand up to him and speak the truth. That’s what CeaseFirePA and its allies are doing across Pennsylvania in response to a smear and misinformation campaign engineered by the NRA.

So here we have Joe Grace, Executive Director of the gun control group, CeaseFire PA, admitting to MAIG as an ally.  Yet we’re constantly told by the media and the Mayors themselves that MAIG is not a gun control group!

I think it’s abundantly clear by this point that the emperor has no clothes. Now we’ve established a relationship between not one, but two gun control groups operating in Pennsylvania in conjunction with Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  Do Pennsylvania MAIG Mayors want to continue arguing that they are not standing along side a group promoting gun control?  Is this what defending the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution is in their book?

What this blogger is reporting would certainly seem to indicate that:

Through the Brady Center I have learned about an organization of over 450 mayor’s who are trying to rid their cities of illegal guns. Amazingly, the NRA is targeting many of these mayor’s and spreading lies about the organization. All of the mayor’s of Ohio’s major cities belong to this group.

Except, as we’ve well established both here, and at our other grass roots site, it’s not a lie. They are  gun control group, and we’re discovering new connections to the Bradys regularly these past few days. How is it irresponsible for NRA to point out to their membership that their mayor is a member of a group that promotes just about every issue the Brady organization does?

Arizona Rifleman summarizes how it’s going to affect ammunition purchasers in California. It’s not too late to call the Governator to ask him to veto this bill. It’s a good thing they got that ammo shortage in Reno squared away, because I predict there will be more ammunition moving through Donner Pass than was moving on the Ho Chi Minh Trail during the height of the Vietnam War.

From SayUncle, on discovering Qaddafi was allowed to roam around New York City with his heavily armed cadre of women:

So, in NYC, even tinpot dictators are like you and me only better.

But Bloomberg isn’t anti-gun.  Just ask Mayor Baughman. He’s only against illegal guns. As long as it’s just your guns that are illegal. Qaddafi’s S&M guard, not so much.

Don’t talk to strangers. I don’t answer my door for anyone I’m not expecting. It’s not really a safety thing so much as someone showing up at my door unexpectedly usually isn’t someone I want to talk to.

Bitter will be on Cam & Company at 9:20 to talk about our investigative journalism into Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  Tune in at NRANews.com or on Sirius Satellite Radio, Channel 144.

UPDATE: For those who missed Bitter, you can find the segment below. This is her first time appearing on NRA News representing Snowflakes in Hell.  She has been on before representing The Bitch Girls, and using her real name for other interests, but I think she did very well representing my blog. Here’s the segment: