Snowflakes in Hell

… only SASS Outlaws will have guns.

Looks like the kit is going to cost about $2600. Really? If I’m going to shell out that kind of money I’d really prefer a finished product, and I’m not sure I’d pay $2600 for a completed semi-auto SA-80 clone either. It should be perfectly legal to make a semi-auto SA-80 domestically in the US, but I wonder if they are concerned about the possibility of lawsuits.

Many thanks to all the activists and concerned citizens who showed up, and stayed until nearly midnight, at the Radnor Township Board of Commissioners meeting, where the Board introduced a “Lost and Stolen” ordinance in violation of state law. It’s not often you go to something like this and feel the issue was literally about as hashed out as you could really get it. I think out people there successfully made every point that needed to be made, and we had some very good speakers on behalf of the issue.

I will have more to say tomorrow, but for tonight I just wanted to thank everyone who showed up. While I think the Township Commissioners are intent on passing this ordinance, it will at least give some pause, and the opposition at least knows they aren’t going to waltz into these things unopposed. We were up against paid professionals, like Joe Grace, the well connected, like former Radnor Township Commissioner James Higgins, and also up against folks who have have had the advantage of alien enlightenment.

We win because our people are dedicated, and even in the heart of CeaseFirePA’s center of gravity, we were fairly able to match them in numbers, and in passion. We need to keep turning out, and if not outright beating them, at least making them fight for it.

One wonders if the Brady Campaign would find this a great example about how there are no cultural or intolerance overtones in the gun debate. Quoting from the Oakland East Palo Alto officer:

Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night! Should’ve pulled out the AR and prone them all out! And if one of them made a furtive movement… 2 weeks off!!!

The last thing being code for “shoot the bastard.” I don’t care what you think about open carry, this is not an appropriate response to citizens engaging in a perfectly lawful form of protest over California’s unreasonable and discretionary carry laws. Is an attitude like this, as the Brady’s say, “not hatred for people with guns?” Is this just concern “calling for a gun violence prevention safety net.”

I have no problem with an officer exercising reasonable care when approaching armed persons, but I’m fairly certain in most other states, officers are trained in how to do this without having to prone and threaten every armed person they come across. In most other states, this would, in fact, rise to the level of a civil rights lawsuit.

… as the California of the South.

Thanks to Joe Huffman for this one, from a friend of his who is a convert from the other side:

Back in the days when I was very anti-gun, I tended to think of “gun nuts” as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh? Etc., etc., etc. It was an image that came instantly to mind. I would talk about “gun nuts” that same way with friends of like mind. It all made such perfect sense to us.

But if ever I came across a “gun nut” in person I would be silent — especially if it was someone dressed in, say, hunting cammos. Or I might see “gun nuts” on TV and make a snide comment about them, but seeing them made me feel a bit afraid (something I didn’t reveal to other people). It wasn’t rational, but it wasn’t surprising considering how I’d been raised. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized what I’d been doing: trying to make the “gun nuts” almost into sub-humans in my mind, and paint them as ridiculous and stupid so that they shrank in stature and were less scary to me. (But as I said, this doesn’t work. No amount of sneering made me feel less afraid.)

I have no doubt that some small percentage of “gun people” (those few who are outright fascistically-minded) “deserve” every bit of fear I had for them — then and now. But for crying out loud . . . what a stupid, prejudicial way to think about an entire group of people, with no distinctions made. It took some years to realize what a big lie there was in imagining myself enlightened and non-bigoted — all the while that I’d been thinking like a garden-variety bigot. That was one of the fun things about the ’60s and ’70s: You could fantasize that you were on a higher plane of consciousness than “those” people — and be every bit as bigoted and vicious as you thought they were. You didn’t have to hold yourself accountable, nor wonder if you weren’t being two-faced about it. By definition, as a more “enlightened” person, you didn’t have any of those problems. Only other people had such problems. It was all so convenient . . .

Yet we’re told this has nothing to do with “bigotry” or “culture.” Nothing at all you see. Both Joe and I have insisted that it does. Then you have stories like this in the comments:

In many ways the bigotry in Chicago is malevolent. Many gun owners I have met keep silent in fear. Not simply fear of arrest, but fear of being stigmatized, ostracized, fired from their jobs.

And their fears are not unfounded. Attempts have been made to get people fired for airing their views. CAGE (Chicago gun enforcement team) has used Chicago’s registration scheme to confiscate otherwise legal firearms in the past.

Not the first time I’ve heard people getting in trouble at work for being gun owners. Not carrying a gun to work, or some other behavioral issue, merely talking about their interests to coworkers. The Brady’s almost seem to be saying “nothing personal, you know.” but most of our experiences bear this out, as well as a number of commenters who insist that yes, they are as bad as the KKK. Even if I don’t agree with that, the anger is real, deep seeded, and completely justified. Americans shouldn’t have to hide in shame because they choose to exercise their constitutional rights. Because many feel they need to, thanks in part to our wonderful gun control groups, there’s plenty of anger out there, and it shouldn’t be surprising that we’re willing to channel that into beating back this cultural condescension.

We’re seeing some rising trends in Pennsylvania, in regards to Licenses to Carry, especially in Erie, apparently. But this mysterious spokesperson for PAFOA says it’s not just about Licenses to Carry:

But blaming the rise in permits on political changes in Washington does not account for increased shooting sports participation that the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association has witnessed over the past year, said Christie Caywood, the association’s media relations coordinator.

“The trend of rising interest in the shooting sports and firearms ownership we’ve seen since 2008 is by no means limited to Erie, or even Pennsylvania. Concealed carry permit applications are one way to measure interest by those who may be most interested in self-defense, or who simply want to make sure they have their legal bases covered when traveling,” Caywood said. “We’ve also seen indications of a nationwide rise in hunting license sales, and there is ample anecdotal evidence from PAFOA members that participation in other shooting sports is on the rise.”

I agree, it’s about a lot more than just permits. We were told by the anti-gun folks that none of the people buying guns during the Great Obama Gun Rush were newbies, but it’s becoming increasingly apparent that’s not the case.

A reminder for folks who might live in or near Radnor Township, that the Township Board of Commissioners will be considering passing a “Lost and Stolen” ordinance in clear violation of statewide preemption. See this alert from NRA listing the contact information for all the Radnor Township Commissioners.

The commissioners are being played by radical anti-gun activists, in the form of CeaseFire PA and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. This is part of a long term agenda to destroy preemption in the Commonwealth. These ordinances are illegal and ineffective, as there has not been a single criminal charge under any of these. I would urge anyone who lives nearby to show up at tonight’s meeting in support of the opposition to this proposed ordinance. There are activists who are planning to be there, but every warm body counts for something, even if you don’t want to get up and speak. You can download the ordinances here.

Again, I think they are misunderstanding what I’m saying. First, one must understand what a bigot is:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

This might typically have racial connotations, but it doesn’t have to. Bigot successfully describes anyone who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, toward any group, not just toward racial minorities or ethnic groups. But let’s go back to the Brady folks:

In fact, the notion of “bigotry” is perhaps the pillar upon which the National Rifle Association itself has built its whole bogus empire.  That is: “Aren’t you mad at those coastal elites who look down their noses at you and your ‘way of life’?  You should be mad as hell.  GET MAD AS HELL AT THOSE ELITES!  Donate to us today.”

I think the funny thing is, by most people’s definition I’m one of those “coastal elites” that NRA warned you about, but even I can understand why this this rallying cry works. Because it resonates with people. It’s something that most gun owners can relate to. Why? Because we’ve all experienced that attitude at one time or another. How many times have you told people you enjoy hunting or shooting and had someone look at you as if you just told them you enjoy molesting children? How many of you have had people express shock that you were a gun owner, because you don’t seem like “that kind of person?” NRA uses that rallying cry because it works, and shouldn’t that tend to lend some credence that maybe a lot of “costal elites” carry around with them a lot of, dare I say, bigotry and prejudices about what kind of people gun owners, hunters, and shooters are?

Some adherents of this mantra have taken it to bizarre extremes, in fact, likening their position to African-Americans in the Civil Rights movement.  No, not kidding.  Look at this latest stemwinder by Joe from Idaho.

Well, both dealt with restoring or guaranteeing fundamental constitutional rights to Americans. Both are inherently part of the continuing argument over the Fourteenth Amendment, and how we apply fundamental rights in our society. They might not be struggling against evils of equal magnitude, but it’s still a civil rights struggle. It’s worth noting that even the Chicago Tribune, in it’s excellent article about Otis McDonald reports on parallels between the two:

The strategy was partly inspired by the civil rights-era work of the NAACP and Thurgood Marshall, who challenged racial segregation in the 1940s and 1950s by searching for compelling plaintiffs and using the press to build public sympathy and support.

The NAACP’s approach became the template for other reform movements, such as women’s rights in the 1970s, and was taken up by a spectrum of activists, including conservative groups that have used it to challenge affirmative action, with moderate success.

In the Chicago case, constitutional law experts say McDonald likely was chosen for another important reason. Arguments in the case center on the 14th Amendment, which says that a state may not “abridge the privileges or immunities” of citizens.

The amendment was adopted after the Civil War to protect former slaves in states that were passing laws restricting their rights and prohibiting them from owning guns. In the Heller decision, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, referred to that chapter in history, arguing that those who had opposed the disarmament of freedmen did so with the understanding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

That interpretation is central to the plaintiffs’ arguments in the Chicago case.

The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s wrote the book on how to do this, and we’re just following in their footsteps using the lessons they learned. Every gun owner should read “The NAACP’s Legal Strategy against Segregated Education, 1925-1950″ as it contains quite a lot of valuable lessons in the challenges of building a successful litigation strategy for civil rights. One can’t help but to realize how those lessons can be applied to our struggle. Is it fair to compare the magnitude of this country’s past racial sins with the fight on the part of some to eradicate the Second Amendment? I don’t think so. Racism has been far more damaging to this country and its institutions than gun control has ever been, and one could even argue that gun control has been a subset of that sin. Back to the Bradys:

Yet regardless of what NRA propaganda might have us believe, Americans are not born with guns in our hands, and the regulation of where guns can be carried; what kinds of guns should be out of civilian hands; how guns should be stored; and whether suspected terrorists, felons, fugitives, wife-beaters or the dangerously mentally ill should be screened out of the gun-buying process by the strongest possible background check, have absolutely nothing to do with “culture” or “bigotry.”

It doesn’t have to be “culture” or “bigotry,” but it often can be, and often is, and I think it would be wise for the Bradys to distance themselves from the folks, like Morford, who fit the definition to a T, just as I have, at great expense to some of my relationships in this community, spoken out against extreme and provocative positions of many of the stone throwers in the pro-gun movement. It’s one thing to argue in favor of your position. It’s quite another to strongly imply that you’re better and more enlightened than those who oppose your position. Maybe it doesn’t rise to the level of refusing to serve blacks at a coffee counter, but that doesn’t make it any more right, and it doesn’t make it any less bigoted, by the precise definition of the word.

Even the NRA is joining in the “Make fun of the Brady Campaign” fun.

The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable.  It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit” for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon” ban between 1994 and 2004.

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history.  The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system.  The 1994 gun ban has expired.  The number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise.  The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level.  And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

I actually feel bad for them. Not so much because I’m sorry they are on their way toward political irrelevance — that’s been what this struggle has been about. It was going to be one side or the other, and obviously I’d rather it be them. But I can’t help but feel at least some empathy based on how I would feel if the roles were reversed, and it was us in their place.

I think the Brady Campaign are in a real pickle. It’s pretty obvious that the MAIG model, pushing gun control bills under the guise of anti-trafficking, and using novel methods to build political legitimacy and capital, is the likely future of gun control. The problem for the Bradys is they could never fundraise with the MAIG model, and if you can’t fundraise on it, you either need a wealthy patron (which Bloomberg and the City of New York are for MAIG), or a lot of foundation money, and foundation money for gun control is drying up.

I suspect what Dave Hardy said right after we won Heller is true; that it essentially removed from the table the primary reason Brady’s patrons supported gun control in the first place — the elimination of guns from society. Now that’s off the table. It was one thing to support an incrementalist approach when prohibition was still a possibility, it’s another thing when that’s no longer on the table.

That’s not to say gun control is going to go away as an issue, but the Brady model is fast receding into the sunset unless they come up with something new an innovative, and that allows them to raise money. What will that be? I don’t know. I’m not sure I want to find out either.

Joe Huffman notices the virtual snowball fight that I engaged with in the Bradys and brought up the issue of bigotry again. I think it’s pretty undeniable, and thinking about it, bigotry was exactly what angered me about Morford’s editorial. A commenter over at Joe’s seems surprised, and asks, “So are you saying that there is a prejudice against gun owners in the same way there was against Jews and Blacks?”

There is, and not really that specifically gun ownership, but in the culture that surrounds, or perhaps in the culture the bigot perceives surrounds it. It’s a form of cultural condescension — a belief that “we’re” better than “those people.” So in that sense it’s not all that different than prejudices against Jews of Blacks, at least in terms of the factors in human nature that drive the attitude. This is probably why I’m interested in this issue to such a degree, because I find that type of attitude revolting. In a free society, we’re all entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to look down on someone else because they think, look, or act differently. That’s the very definition of bigot.

I buy into Joe’s notion to a degree, because you can’t deny someone like Morford is a bigot — he is. The reluctance Joe might sense is real though. I don’t buy the comparisons to the KKK, because the KKK was about a lot more than looking down on black people, and using the political system to deny them their rights. When the anti-gun movement becomes a domestic terrorist operation — when I have anti-gun folks meddling in my personal life, trying to ostracize me from society, or trying to intimidate me into silence, I might change my mind on that. I can deal with the gun control folks looking down on me. Burning a cross on my lawn would be a considerably more serious matter, and they don’t advocate or promote anything of that evil a nature.

The other reluctance I have is that I’m not sure people can really wrap their head around around the concept, both from outside and inside the issue. Morford is an obvious bigot, but not everyone who opposes gun ownership, or favors more gun control, rises to that level or hold deep cultural prejudices. I’ve noticed more than a few times folks on our side labeling as bigots people who simply disagreed with them. I don’t think that adds to the discourse.

But fundamentally, I think Joe is right that many people, like Morford, who hold anti-gun views deeply hate gun owners and the culture that surrounds it. They are bigots by the proper definition of the word. They are better than you, you see. You will be reeducated and brought into their enlightenment. I might not agree that rises to the level of the KKK, but that’s not to say it’s not a dangerous way of thinking. Taken to an extreme, it can end up looking like this. It’s not an attitude I think should exist among reasonable people, which is why I was disappointed to see the Brady Campaign endorsing it, even if I wasn’t all that surprised.

Philadelphia’s local NPR station made absolutely no effort to get our position on the “Florida Loophole.”

Tam on loopholes:

Later on, I will exploit the Carbon Footprint Loophole to take my Mass Transit Loophole to the Starving The Poor People Loophole and get some Unhealthy Food Loophole for dinner.

I wanted this to be the quote of the day yesterday, but yesterday I already had a quote of the day.

They basically told the Brady folks to go eat the yellow snow (of which they should be able to find plenty of today).

“Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue,” Starbucks’ customer relations department said in response to the Brady Campaign’s request.

The head of a local chapter of the Brady Campaign was disappointed by the response.

Horray for Starbucks. I’m more of a tea drinker than coffee drinker, but as soon as I dig myself out from under this mountain of snow, Bitter and I will go get an expresso shot from Starbucks. And yes, I will carry (concealed, however).

Be sure to thank Starbucks, folks, which you can do here.

The Brady Campaign openly endorses this intolerant piece by Mark Morford:

Oh, please do not misunderstand! We are all terribly impressed. It is so very patriotic of you to show off your little popper! Are you in a gang? Are you a drug dealer? Are you going to shoot some scary terrorists, Mr. pallid paranoid Constitution-misquoting videogame-addicted guy? Protect all of us here in the casual neighborhood coffee shop from those crazy liberals and their health care reform and organic pretzels? Thank you so much! But really, I think we’ll be OK without your little display. Enjoy your frappucino, won’t you?

Anyone who’s read this blog has known that I have not been all that supportive of open carry activism, but I find it amazing that a guy like Mark Morford who doesn’t like people shoving their Second Amendment rights in his face, but oh, he has no problems shoving this in the face of San Franciscans (NSFW, don’t say I didn’t warn you), as evidenced by this passage:

That’s right, it’s S&M for charity. It’s S&M for hope and health and progress. Keep your bake sale and your car wash and your telemarketing scams. You want to raise some cash for a cause? Bend over in your buttless leather chaps in a charity spanking booth and let a large hairy sweaty grinning man slap your ass with a leather paddle until it’s the color of a tomato in summer. And sing while he does it. And hand out flowers. And condoms. And smile at the over 300,000 passersby.

Mark Morford would like you to think he’s tolerant, but he’s a piece of intolerant garbage. He’s only tolerant of thinks he believes are enlightened, of things he believes should be tolerated. That’s not tolerance, that’s actually no better than the people he derides as “religious conservatives” trying to “force their morality on everyone else.” Maybe the reason Morford hates them so much is because he has seen the enemy, and it is him.

UPDATE: Apparently my point was lost on the Brady folks, who have updated their post to respond to mine. As someone who supports both gun rights and gay rights, I’m equally sympathetic to both the notion that perhaps we do not advance either respective agenda by shoving guns or assless chaps into anyone’s face who is perhaps less than comfortable wither either. What angers me about people like Morford is they deride and sneer at others for practices that they themselves promote in their own favored cause. Even most open carriers have the consistency to argue that the San Francisco gay rights activists’ flamboyant public displays are equally effective and acceptable. Can’t we expect the same courtesy from someone like Morford to perhaps accept that maybe some gun rights activists are as enthusiastic, and perhaps misguided, as those who would wear assess chaps  for a public flogging at a gay pride fair, believing that they are advancing their cause? If one is OK, so is the other. And one doesn’t have to believe in either banning homosexuality in public or banning guns in public to accept that some people will take it farther than is wise. Morford doesn’t offer us that courtesy, or even accept that we’re honest citizens with legitimate grievances and concerns. Does the Brady Campaign agree with that?

UPDATE2: I guess since we’re both snowed in, it’s a virtual snowball fight with the Brady folk.

Being concerned about lethal weaponry in the hands of people with no law enforcement training inside a coffee shop patronized by families with kids is simply not in the same universe as outlandish behavior at a “gay pride fair”. They aren’t even remotely comparable.

This is really the heart of the pro-carry/anti-carry debate, and where we’ll find no common ground. They defend Morford’s dichotomy by rejecting the comparison to gay rights altogether. I would not argue that the respective causes are precisely similar, but I think most ordinary folks with children would probably not agree that no one is harmed by seeing one man whip another man with assless chaps. Certainly there are many that would rather their child see an openly holstered firearm carried by someone who is not law enforcement. Which act would you rather explain to a young child?

But we’ll find no agreement, because they believe the mere act of carrying a firearm is dangerous, unless you have some magical “law enforcement training” which will naturally make the gun not dangerous. We do not believe the act of carrying a firearm to be inherently dangerous, because a holstered firearm (and unloaded in the case of these California activists) is not a dangerous item. Nearly all other potentially dangerous acts involving firearms in public are crimes which people can be punished for, save for self-defense, and if it comes to that in a public place like Starbucks, you’re probably going to be glad someone was there with a gun, whether they have magical “law enforcement training” or not.

Looks like Alan Gura and Paul Clement will be going up against James Feldman:

A Washington, D.C. solo practitioner with extensive experience before the Supreme Court will argue in defense of the city of Chicago’s strict handgun ordinance in a closely watched Second Amendment case next month.

James Feldman, who argued 45 times before the high court as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, got the nod to argue in what is widely viewed as an uphill battle for gun control advocates. The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago.

He’s going to have a lot of work cut out of him to try to argue such a legally untenable position.

SayUncle says that this isn’t helpful. I have to agree with Tam on this one, “Ten out of ten for enthusiasm, but minus several thousand for Thinking Things All The Fucking Way Through.” What I don’t understand is why folks in the comments, who say they generally support open carry, don’t support this. I have to applaud Packetman for at least being consistent. If there’s no problem with people open carrying a pistol, there’s no problem with people open carrying an AR-15. It’s just a matter of degree. Won’t it get people used to the idea of seeing guns in public? If you say no, then you admit that there’s time, place, and other contextual considerations at play here, in which case it’s fair to say that maybe those who think open carry ought to be legal, but perhaps isn’t effective or appropriate anywhere, anytime might have a point.

This article in the Arizona Republic quotes heavily from NRA Board member Todd Rathner, who speaks about a number of proposed bills to liberalize Arizona’s weapons laws. They are reportedly even seeking legalizing concealed carry bill without a requirement to first obtain a permit or license, which has some D.C. based people in hysterics:

Two bills, one to allow concealed weapons without a permit and the other to exempt guns made and kept in the state from federal regulation, each has more than a dozen legislators backing them. If passed, Arizona would be only the third state in the nation to allow either of the looser restrictions.

Everitt called the proposal to no longer require a concealed-carry permit “crazy.”

“You would have dangerous individuals and criminals carrying weapons in public,” he said.

And presumably Everitt thinks they already aren’t? I don’t know enough about Arizona politics to know whether this has any chance of passing, but if it did, Arizona is a state with a major city. Alaska and Vermont are interesting, in that they don’t require a license to carry firearms concealed or unconcealed, but it’s easy for opponents to dismiss this with “It’ll never work for our state. We’re too urban, too populated. Alaska and Vermont are very rural states that don’t have the same problems we do.”

All it really takes is one state with big cities and sprawling suburbs to pass this, and when the sky doesn’t fall, we can probably start passing it in other states. In the late 80s it was Florida that started the shall-issue licensing trend, and it started a tidal wave that spread across the country. In most states, the votes just aren’t going to be there to pass something like this, but they weren’t with concealed carry either, until suddenly we got the votes in Florida, and the rest is history. I have my doubts that the Arizona Legislature has the votes to pass this, but it they did, it might be the push needed to start the dominoes falling.

As mentioned in the previous post, PAFOA was approached by the Daily News to comment on the “Florida Loophole” article. If you’d like to see the entire statement sent to the Daily News reporter, Dan has posted it on the PAFOA blog.

According to Roll Call, which is unfortunately behind a subscriber wall:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has quietly been preparing a series of gun rights amendments that he intends to offer to must-pass Senate bills this year, hoping to force Democrats to take tough votes and draw clear distinctions between the two parties heading into the midterms.

I managed to get a copy from someone who had a subscription, and I won’t repost what is not publicly readable, but the gist is that it’s part of the GOP 2010 strategy, and that would appear to be to show the Democrats that they are the party of gun rights, by one upping them. I have to admit to liking having both parties fighting over us like we’re some hot date at the prom.

Coburn says one of the Amendments will deal with restoring gun rights to veterans who were declared mentally incompetent, because they weren’t able to handle things like their own finances, but who are recovered currently. Under the Clinton Administration, all these folks were stuffed into NICS as prohibited purchasers, even though current guidelines would not allow this (H.R. 2640, passed under some GOA generated controversy a few years ago, restricted this practice). Also back on the table is the concealed carry reciprocity bill, and ATF reform. Sounds pretty good to me. I look forward to watching the anti-gun minority in Congress have a cow when this stuff hits the floor.

Fait of the World, a new blog to me, has this to say about the Brady folks:

The Brady Bunch are starting to see the writing on the wall and they have grown desperate.  The evidence over the last 10 years have proven their every argument wrong.  Gun control hasn’t worked.  Gun rights have.  States that have the least restrictions tend to also have the least amount of crime.  England banned handguns in 1997.  In 4 years, their gun crime doubled and their overall violent crime went up 118%.  The prophesy, of murder in the streets, given when conceal carry started to be debated in the first states to take it up… never happened.

People are starting to realize the emperor has no clothes, and with the courts hopefully about to take prohibition off the table, I think the gun control movement will find fewer people interested in donating money so we can nickel and dime gun owners with meaningless and useless restrictions. Their folks were about prohibition — making a statement about the kind of country they wanted to live in, and the kind of society they wanted us to be. The sun is rapidly setting on that possibility.

The Philadelphia Daily News has really outdone themselves this time. We’ve seen the abuse of the term “loophole” to describe perfectly lawful activity the anti-gun groups and anti-gun media want to portray as sneaky, and something that obviously ought to be illegal, but this article really takes the cake.

“They could be disapproved here and they could apply in Florida and we are not notified,” said Philadelphia Police Lt. Lisa King, commander of the Gun Permit Unit. “So if we are not giving them a permit to carry, how is Florida allowed to override our decision?”

District Attorney Seth Williams said that the loophole defeats local efforts to keep streets safe.

“We should not allow Florida to pierce the veil of sovereignty of Pennsylvania,” he said. “This is something I’m going to direct my legislation unit to look into. This is a loophole I think it would be best to close.”

It’s not doing anything about Pennsylvania sovereignty. Pennsylvania has a law that recognizes licenses to carry from other states, and that law makes no distinction between residents and non-residents. If you possess a license from that state, you’re good. What the Inquirer also does not mention is that the requirements for a Florida license are more stringent than Pennsylvania’s, a reason that it’s more widely recognized by other states.

Locally, though, it’s become known as the “Florida loophole” because that’s where most of the out-of-state permits are coming from, according to police and prosecutors.

Locally I’ve never heard that term before. You mean locally around the newsroom? Around CeaseFire PA headquarters?

But CeaseFire PA executive director Joe Grace called the loophole “outrageous” and said that the issue is one his group will push in the upcoming governor’s race, in which Attorney General Tom Corbett is a candidate.

Grace said that the reciprocity law is not unusual, but blamed the loophole on Corbett’s translation of the law.

There’s no mistranslation. Corbett has an affirmative duty under Pennsylvania law to seek out reciprocity with states that are willing. Grace may want to smear Corbett in an election year, but Corbett is only exercising his duty under the law with these agreements. The law makes no provision to denying licensing to non-residents.

“People engaged in criminal activity are smart enough that once they are denied here, they are aware of this law and apply in Florida,” he said. “That’s thwarting the ability of Philadelphia police or any department to police Pennsylvania law.”

If gang members in Philadelphia are paying 123 dollars to the Florida Department of Agriculture, going through the training requirements, getting fingerprinted, and submitting to an FBI background check, I’ll eat my hat. They can point to one guy who ended up charged with a crime. One guy.

Grace cited an example of a Philadelphia man who obtained a Florida license to carry. He was subsequently pulled over in a traffic stop, and not only did he have two handguns on him, but he also had a half-pound of marijuana, numerous other drugs and several thousand dollars in cash.

When the case went to court, prosecutors could not charge the man with any gun violations, Grace said, because of his Florida permit.

Funny thing is, I was aware of this case, and was very, very curious as to its outcome, because there had been no precedent in the courts as to whether a Florida license would actually be recognized in the case where a person was not in possession of a PA LTC but was a resident of PA. The law said it should be, but that doesn’t mean a judge will see the law the same way.

“They mention that they’ve been denied a permit in Philadelphia for everything from parking tickets to child-support payments,” he said. “You may not have a criminal record but you owe some tickets or child support and they deny you when the rest of the state doesn’t.

“That’s not to say I’m for the deadbeat dad, but if you’re behind in your bills are you not allowed to protect yourself?”

Christie Caywood, a member of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association, who spoke on the organization’s behalf, said that Philadelphia’s practice of revoking licenses of victims whose guns have been stolen, and the department’s high permit-revocation rate – 505 last year – send residents to other states.

“It is not surprising that some gun owners may opt for more uniform standards of another state license over the discriminatory abuses of the Philadelphia Police Department,” she said.

I don’t know who this Christie Caywood person is, but she’s a great spokeswoman for PAFOA ;) Word has it she’s also a really good cook (you should try her taco ring). But either way, it’s the discriminatory abuses in Philadelphia that drive people to get Florida Licenses. I’m very happy that the city wants to push this issue, because we should have this conversation.

The Brady Campaign is working on a petition to tell Starbucks to ban guns in their stores, and I have to give them an A for creativity with the icon for the campaign.

Do they really want to play the grassroots game with us? I appreciate them telling me that California Pizza Kitchen banned guns. I was not aware. Now I have one more reason not to eat their overpriced, shitty pizza. I’ve never even heard of Peet’s Coffee, is that anything like Tweek’s Coffee?

UPDATE: I notice this only refers to open-carried guns. Does this mean the Brady Campaign is OK with concealed carry now? Or are they trying to scare corporations with the idea if they don’t ban guns people will openly carry them into their establishments?

UPDATE: This campaign would appear to be the result of this article at ABC News, so it would appear indeed that the Brady Campaign is egging corporations to ban guns in their establishments by threatening with the prospect of open carry.

Corporations should understand this: there are a lot more of us than there are people who will sign that petition, and if you want to keep our business, you’ll respect our rights.

Interesting article from Real Clear Politics, about how passing Obamacare won’t save Democrats, but it does have this tidbit:

There were two controversial pieces of legislation that defined the Clinton Administration for Republican-leaning voters: the assault weapons ban and the first Clinton budget (a.k.a. the tax hike). If we look at the fifteen Democrats who voted against both pieces of legislation, only one lost (she represented a district that gave Bush a 15-point win in 1992). In fact, about half of them saw their share of the vote increase or stay roughly the same from 1992!

Let’s move on to Democratic incumbents who represented Republican-leaning districts who voted for only one of these two pieces of legislation. There were thirty-seven such Democrats. The casualty rate here is a little higher; thirteen of them, or thirty-five percent of them, lost. And of the twenty-two Democrats from Republican-leaning districts who voted for both pieces of controversial legislation, ten of them (45%) lost.

In other words, the problem for Democrats in 1994 was not that they didn’t support Clinton’s agenda enough. It was that they got too far out in front of their conservative-leaning districts and supported the President too much.

We can use a more quantitative approach. I constructed a simple regression model to try to measure what factors played a role in Democrats’ downfall in 1994. If you want the nitty gritty of the model, you can click this footnote ^[2]. But the bottom line is that, holding all other things equal, a Democrat in a Republican district who voted for the assault weapons ban lost 4.2 percentage points off of his 1992 numbers. If the same Democrat voted for the Clinton budget, she lost 3.7 points. In other words, these two votes alone could take a Democrat who won a comfortable election with 56 percent of the vote in 1992, and turn her into a loser in 1994.

No doubt our opponents will argue this is just another flak perpetuating the myth that the NRA has any political power, and there’s nothing to lose by voting for gun control. We’re hearing that swan song once again, with the Luntz poll pushed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It would behoove politicians to remember that public polling in the mid 90s showed the same numbers that their agenda shows today. People had no idea what an assault weapon was. When they found out, they were pissed.

I think some politicians really do believe they have inherent qualities, and can compel people to do evil.