Snowflakes in Hell

NSSF mentioned last night that ACORN is asking to get involved in an appeal of a Jersey City case that twice previously threw out one-gun-a-month laws. But their brief doesn’t answer questions gun owners want to know like why the hell ACORN wants to get involved.

It turns out that ACORN has actually been involved with the case since that last appeal when they joined as intervenors for Jersey City in an effort to uphold the law to limit lawful sales. Why is ACORN involved in gun law litigation? According to their case filings, they believe that efforts to limit lawful gun ownership are relevant to their mission.

Oddly, you won’t find that in their “About” section on their website:

ACORN members across the country work to raise the minimum wage or enact living wage policies; eliminate predatory financial practices by mortgage lenders, payday lenders, and tax preparation companies; win the development of affordable housing and community benefits agreements; improve the quality of and funding for urban public schools; rebuild New Orleans; and pass a federal and state ACORN Working Families Agenda, including paid sick leave for all full time workers.

Nothing about gun control there. But here is what they said in previous case documents:

ACORN has a strong interest in supporting the gun control ordinance at issue in this case, because it can help reduce the number of handguns in Jersey City and therefore reduce the level of gun crime in our neighborhoods.

Anyone who knows anything about New Jersey gun laws already know that the permit-to-purchase system often limits lawful buyers to notably fewer than 12 guns a year. In fact, at the time the ordinance was being debated, City Council President Mariano Vega, Jr. described the law as “feel-good legislation that will probably not reduce crime, but we have to start somewhere, so I am voting yes.”

But why is ACORN covertly targeting guns?

Let’s follow the money first. ACORN, not surprisingly, is popular with known anti-gunners and other names which aren’t know for their direct gun control work, but who fund many of the anti-gun foundations and projects.

• George Soros: Also supports Brady Center, VPC, Physicians for Social Responsibility*, Appleseed Foundation**
• Bauman Family Foundation: Supporters of Physicians for Social Responsibility*
• Annie E. Casey Foundation: Funders of the Appleseed Foundation**
• Bank of America Charitable Foundation: Funders of the Appleseed Foundation**

The list goes on. I could spend a week cross posting all of the organizations that are handing money to each other to try and cover their tracks in support of gun bans and other gun control. You get the idea. ACORN is looking out for all of the pet issues supported by their top donors.

Second, let’s look at their arguments. How much gun control is ACORN really supporting? The case is only about one-gun-a-month, but can we expect them to get involved in future cases? Well, if this statement is reflective of their views, I’d say we can expect more:

This case does not concern an individual right to bear arms, which does not exist in New Jersey.

They rail against strict scrutiny in their brief, claiming that “the trial court’s improper application of strict scrutiny prevented it from reaching the correct conclusion.” In fact, they really fall into a game of name calling in their brief, and it’s targeted at the court that previously shot the ordinance down. They claim the court tried to act as a “super-legislature” by “independently concluding” that the ordinance was wrong because clearly all legally bought guns end up on the street and there are simply not enough hurdles to gun ownership in New Jersey.

ACORN makes the argument that reducing the supply of handguns to law abiding gun owners is clearly a rational step to reducing the number of crimes in the city. To support their view, they don’t look for actual results that have stemmed from previous attempts to ration guns, they just say that other people do it, so we should, too. They make no indication about where a line should be drawn. Do we stop at limiting the number of guns purchased in a month, or do we make other efforts to restrict ownership like, say, a ban? Based on their view that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply, it’s entirely possible they would support a complete ban.

One statement in their brief leads me to believe they would support a “may issue” licensing scheme for ownership, as we see in Massachusetts. (One town will issue a license to own, another will refuse it for any reason or no reason at all.) In trying to overcome the legal argument for state preemption over local gun laws, they say:

Certain aspects of gun control, such as licensing and permitting requirements may arguably benefit from uniform statewide regulation.

That wording leaves an awfully big door open to no longer having any state preemption, possibly having a patchwork of extreme and lax gun laws around a state that leaves the law abiding gun owners at risk. In fact, they close that section of their brief by making a much broader statement of support for patchwork gun laws beyond just licensing, permitting, and purchasing by claiming that the “trial court erred by failing to recognize that gun control is not a subject that requires uniform statewide treatment.”

Ultimately, it’s hard to say exactly where ACORN will go in terms of pushing gun control. From the sounds of it in Jersey, they would look favorably on just about anything, potentially even a ban. They draw no line in the sand for what they determine to be “reasonable” regulation. Given that their financial backers tend to support other gun control groups that also supported the DC ban, it’s reasonable to assume that they might go so far.

From what I hear, ACORN is involved with other gun-related litigation. I haven’t tracked down documents yet, but I’ll update if I find more.

*Lobbied for the DC Gun Ban; Supporters of VPC, Brady, & other anti-gun groups.
**The NJ Branch of Appleseed provided legal services to ACORN in the Jersey City Case.

You ever have that moment when you type up a really good post - or at least one that you’re really feeling - and then your server goes down?

That would be right now for me. It was a fun post, too.

Oh, and did I mention that I just made an offer to host another excellent blogger this morning? Yeah. Good show, Dreamhost. You guys don’t have an outage for months and now even the panel is down so it can’t be reported.

So yes, if you’re wondering why The Bitch Girls, Call Me Ahab, and Countertop Chronicles are all down, now you know.

This is your last chance to vote in the contest between Joe Huffman and Caleb at Blackwater. The odds have gone from 100% in Joe’s favor at the beginning, hovering between 75% and 85% most of the time, now dropping to 70% as we approach the last day.

As soon as I see a post about the results, I’ll remove the poll.

UPDATE: The poll is now closed. Joe Huffman beat Caleb both in the poll and on the range.

So the Obama/Bayh bumper stickers were a leak to distract folks. It looks like it’s Joe Biden. So, like I did with Bayh, let’s look at Biden’s record. We don’t have to go far. Remember the YouTube debates where he said a gun owner was not “mentally qualified” to own guns for simply asking a question.

1. He takes pride in writing gun bans.
2. He’s F-rated with NRA - the worst among almost all of the most talked about candidates.
3. NRA highlights his recent threats to gun owners via his work on his Senate committee:
   

   NRA has been tracking the U.N.`s gun-ban activities for well over a decade, and thanks to the Bush administration`s appointees to the U.N., the U.S. position on any global gun-ban treaty has been consistent and uncompromising: Hands off the Second Amendment rights of American citizens!

   However, all that could change, now that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee–which approves or rejects our U.N. representatives and assesses international treaties for possible ratification–is chaired by anti-gun U.S. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

   Like Schumer, Biden is rated “F” by the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) for his countless votes against firearm freedom. Like Schumer, Biden voted to expose the lawful firearm industry to crippling lawsuits; to extend and expand the Clinton gun bans; to allow a ban on most hunting-rifle ammunition; and to deny the free-speech rights of groups like the NRA during elections.

   Now, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden can use his power to sabotage pro-freedom nominees for U.N. ambassador–as he did with Second Amendment defender John Bolton–and bully fellow senators into accepting whatever gun-ban treaty the U.N. concocts in the name of fighting international terrorism.

4. Needless to say, he didn’t sign on to the Heller brief and doesn’t support efforts to reform DC’s gun laws.

Biden is bad news all around for any gun owner. Pair him with Obama, and it’s a far left gun ban ticket.

Now that Drudge has likely leaked the identity of Obama’s running mate, there are a few things gun owners should know about him.

1. NRA rated him as D- in his last election.
2. One reason is because he’s a liar. Take this example:
   

   Sen. Bayh pledged last year [2004] to support legislation to block frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry, and NRA sent a letter to Indiana members encouraging them to thank him. Sen. Bayh failed to honor his pledge and voted for the Reed amendment to completely gut S.397. When the Reed substitute was soundly defeated 63 to 33, Bayh voted against final passage of the bill.

3. Bayh refused to sign on to legislation that would honor the Second Amendment rights of Washington, DC and would not sign on to an amicus brief in Heller with more than 54 of his colleagues in the Senate. It would seem he considers some to be more equal than others - a theme I’m sure Obama loves.
4. He doesn’t support concealed carry reciprocity across the country, as evidenced by his refusal to sign on to S.388. Nor did he join a majority of his colleagues in supporting honoring state laws on firearms possession in National Parks through letters to the Department of Interior.
5. He beat Paul Helmke’s ass in a landside - the largest a Democrat has ever won in an Indiana statewide election. No word on if that speaks to Paul’s suckitude or Bayh’s appeal. Based on what we see in the gun world, likely the former.

I can’t post photos from the range, but I can post this image:

That dewpoint of 68 can’t be terribly comfortable. Consider what the National Weather Service says about dewpoint numbers:

• less then or equal to 55: dry and comfortable
• between 55 and 65: becoming a bit “sticky” with muggy evenings
• greater then or equal to 65: lots of moisture in the air, becoming oppressive

Hopefully they have lots of water out on the range to keep hydrated.

Oh no!

Rusty has had a little fun at the expense of all of the bloggers training with Todd Jarrett this weekend. Go check out his handy work.

UPDATE: More:

Don’t forget that over at the Second Amendment Blog Bash site, we have a poll up through the end of the weekend at Blackwater on who will win the big shoot-out - Joe Huffman or Caleb.

So far, 86% 78% 81% of voters think Joe will win the bet. If you think Caleb can out-shoot Joe, it’s time to get over there and make your vote count. If you think Joe will top Caleb, make sure you show him your support by voting.

Make this a memorable Battle of the Gun Blogs!

Mr. Completely posted video of Todd Jarrett at the Steel Challenge recently. Alas, you’ll have to click through since his video hosting service doesn’t seem to have any sharing or embed options.

Sebastian and I spoke while he was headed down to the tip of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. He promised me that he would take photos of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge & Tunnel system since I have never seen it, and I was looking forward to it.

He also mentioned that it was apparent he crossed some kind of weather system line since it very suddenly got hot and humid in southern Delaware. I suspect the haze in the photos is evidence of the humidity and not camera quality.

It focuses on Heller as a debate of source materials.

Dellinger considers Heller as a win for Gura and Scalia. Gura for his abilities and arguments, and Scalia for the opportunity to write such a big and important opinion on a subject that hadn’t really been addressed.

Found via Orin Kerr.

A developer in Connecticut is not stopping at anything to try and shut down Blue Trail Gun Range. First, they were sued over bullets supposedly hitting houses. Only they weren’t. But, the range went ahead and addressed some safety concerns and made changes.

Then the complaining party brought in family to use the strong arm of government and force a change.

Democratic Councilor Vincenzo DiNatale has asked local officials to consider whether Blue Trail, a North Branford Road range which abuts part of the reservoir, is posing a lead hazard to the water supply. …
DiNatale is the nephew of Pat DiNatale, a Durham resident who sued the range over alleged safety problems after bullets hit his home earlier this year.

What did they find? Nothing. Not a single bit of lead.

The legal lead limit for raw water is 50 parts per billion, while testing could not find even one part per billion in the water flowing from the Ulbrich, Adair said.

It doesn’t matter that they can’t even find one part per billion, as the headline states:

No lead, but issue isn’t dead

I’ve now got all of the feeds set up and running at the Blog Bash website for those looking for more robust blog coverage of the Para USA blogger training.

Since the site still primarily serves as an event planning site not meant to show a ton of posts, I have set up a category page which will feature all of the posts with excerpts so you can easily peruse the many posts going up any time.

I should add that I’ve included a new poll about whether Joe Huffman will beat Caleb in their shoot-out bet. So go vote!

Featured bloggers include:

SayUncle
A Keyboard and a .45
Of Arms & the Law
GunTruth
The View from North Central Idaho
Call me Ahab
Sharp as a Marble
Smallest Minority
Snowflakes in Hell
View from the Porch

Yes, Mitt, they are.

As you know, Mitt got caught lying about being a “lifelong hunter” and winning the NRA’s endorsement. However, for those of you who are just following the gun news, there are a few new nuggets to add to his collection of stories that the NYT says have showed his talent for being “prone to exaggeration.” Well, when he made his big religion speech, he claimed that he saw his father march with Martin Luther King. A little research proves it never happened, and well, you just have to watch how he pulls a Clinton trick out from his ass.

The NYT even caught him in Iowa, and he now blames journalists for their ignorant reporting on his claims on getting tough on drugs.

On Thursday, for instance, at a campaign stop in Indianola, he ran into trouble when talking about his record on illegal drugs while governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Romney had been airing ads in Iowa attacking his rival, Mike Huckabee, for his record on clemencies while governor of Arkansas and for reducing penalties for methamphetamine-related crimes.

“I’m very proud of the fact that we, my state, when I was governor, we made it tougher for people with meth labs,” he said, echoing his commercial in which he claimed that he “got tough on drugs like meth” in the governor’s office.

“We cracked down on crime and on meth in particular,” Mr. Romney added. “It’s a very important topic. I want to make sure we do everything we can to keep our kids off of this terrible, pernicious, captivating drug.” …

Mr. Romney’s office proposed legislation that would have toughened penalties on those in possession of the drug and chemicals to manufacture it, but the bill stalled in the state legislature.

After The New York Times pointed out Mr. Romney’s misstatement in a posting on its politics blog, he made sure to correct himself before taking questions from reporters at his next campaign stop here.

“If I said this morning that we ‘got tough’ on methamphetamines, I proposed we get tough on methamphetamine and I’ve corrected that right here for all of you,” he said. “You don’t need to make any error of reporting that somehow Governor Romney actually got it done.”

You see, if you interpreted his statement that “when I was governor, we made it tougher for people with meth labs” to mean anything other than “when I was governor, we thought about making it tougher for people with meth labs,” then Mitt wants you to know that it’s an error in your judgment.

You can see that if Romney is elected, we get to go back to the good old days of debating what the word “is” means, along with a very public debate on reasonable interpretations of common phrases. You’ll sleep better at night knowing that your tax dollars are funding some recent college grad to look through every copy of every dictionary in every language to find obscure interpretations of words like “saw” and “endorsement.” Who doesn’t look forward to those important debates?

[ Bitter and I were talking about this last night, and I decided she had a lot more to rant about than I did, so I asked her to put it all down, and I'm thus posting it here.  - Sebastian]

Facts, timeliness, context, facts - those are things best left to others when sending out ALERTS!

Oregon Firearms Federation posted this alert yesterday about an endorsement announcement that’s weeks old. David Keene endorsed Mitt Romney. Woo-freakin-hoo. Who is David Keene, you ask? According to OFF, the major news about Keene is:

That’s bad enough, but now a prominent NRA board member has endorsed an openly anti-gun candidate for president. NRA Board member and second vice president David Keene has endorsed Mitt Romney in spite of Romney’s repeated attacks on gun owners and his promise to do so again if elected.

As Governor of Massachusetts Romney supported and signed a ban on semi-auto firearms. …

David Keene, according to NewsMax, will automatically become president of the NRA in three and a half years.

So, before I dig into every bit of news that’s wrong in this alert, how about we look at who Keene really is in the context of Republican politics:

David A. Keene Has Been The Chairman Of The American Conservative Union Since December 1984. Keene, a major national conservative spokesman since the seventies, has worked in the White House and the Senate, writes a weekly opinion column for The Hill and his articles have appeared in National Review, Human Events and the American Spectator. He has held senior positions in the past presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and former Kansas Senator Bob Dole.

Context of Keene’s background and his role in a Republican primary paints a different picture, now doesn’t it?

Now, factual problems. As you all know from my blog, I hate Mitt. I am the last person who will get up and say something nice about Romney because I actually lived under his rule in Massachusetts and wouldn’t wish it upon anyone in this country - not even the Massachusetts residents I was so happy to leave behind. However, as I’ve beat my head against the wall trying to tell you people for years, Mitt did not sign any assault weapons ban or even a provision to make it permanent. If anyone was in Massachusetts at the time analyzing the current (at the time) law and the bill (as it passed the House and Senate), they would clearly see that the state law had no sunset clause to begin with. (NOTE: His statements at the presser/signing ceremony should still damn him when it comes to gun owners, but the bill he signed should not.)

Perhaps the most important problem that I have with groups like this that look for any reason at all to attack NRA is that they don’t actually know jack about NRA. For example, no one automatically becomes president of NRA. There’s this pesky little thing called an election. The Board of Directors votes for the officers. Tradition dictates that they serve two years in each position and move up. So by traditional standards, Keene will become president. However, tradition has been bucked before and it easily could in the future.

Maybe OFF leaders have an unusually short memory, but there was that whole Charlton Heston dude. You know, the one who did the dead hands thing? Or maybe you remember him as freakin’ Moses? Yeah, he served for an unprecedented number of terms. He even “jumped” in line, so to speak. And there’s always the possibility that the board members decide that Ron Schmeits shouldn’t be trusted in their minds after running to the WaPo with stories about how other forces can further divide the gun movement on outdoor issues to vote Keene straight to the top after Sigler’s reign. (NOTE: I’m not saying this would happen, just throwing out hypothetical based on any number of reasons - real or imagined.) Point being, it’s patently lying to say that the direction of NRA’s leadership is 100% secure. What it all comes down to are who the members vote on to the Board of Directors. As members, people can change the direction and make up of the Board.

However, the root of the problem with this alert that really gets things wrong is that Keene’s personal endorsement means a damn thing regarding current legislation and/or the presidential primary vote for NRA members. NRA volunteer leaders who in no way represent the organization’s stated positions are allowed to make their own endorsements. There are former staffers working for McCain. There are folks volunteering for Giuliani. There are people volunteering for Fred. Sometimes they make these endorsements based on the gun issue, but more often than not, they are already politically active on other issues and sometimes it’s the entire package they look at to select their candidate.

The best part is that if NRA didn’t allow their volunteers this freedom to support whoever they wish based on any number of personal issues important to them, then groups like OFF would continue to bitch. Really, it just goes to show that ALERTS like these are nothing more than mud slinging for the sake of getting dirty.

To close this already insane long post, anyone who is concerned about how Keene’s personal endorsement might be misconstrued by the campaign or mainstream media to constitute an NRA endorsement should note the campaign release. I noticed something immediately. Go take a look. I’ll wait…

Done reading? Good. Did you see what I didn’t? That’s right, Keene did not allow Mitt to even mention his background with the NRA. David Keene is a smart man, and he knows conservative politics. He knows what even a mention of NRA next to Mitt’s name would cause, and that’s why he isn’t letting them talk about it or talking about it himself. For that, I applaud him. And Keene has my endorsement the next time he’s up for the Board.