Snowflakes in Hell

Jeff Soyer brings us a piece from the Baltimore Sun that highlights a mailing done by JPFO. JPFO denies distributing them, but admits to putting them on the Internet for other people to distribute. For reference, the flyers Jeff talks about are here, and here.

This is why JPFO will never see a dime of my money. Now, the charge of anti-semitism is rather silly when this material is produced by someone who is Jewish. But what do you think someone not part of the pro-gun community is going to think upon seeing one of these flyers? I can assure you the folks in this Sun article’s reaction is not going to be atypical.

I stick to donating my money to NRA and SAF. Many of the other groups out there aren’t doing any favors for the movement. JPFO has lately been one of them. This is a shame, I think, because JPFO can often have a powerful message about the importance of gun rights for the Jewish community, but Zelman can’t seem to help going over the top with ridiculous crap like this. I agree with Jeff wholeheartedly on this one.

I’ve gotten a steady stream of questions in for our board candidates. Most of them quite good. However a number of them are on legislative topics, and legislative priorities, which the NRA Board is only tangentially involved in. Those decisions get made by ILA. For those that asked questions of this nature, I will see if I can get an interview with a decision maker at ILA after we’re finished with all the board stuff.

Good for us, bad for the Administration. Maybe it’s time for him to come around a full 180 and help push a major piece of pro-2A legislation through Congress. Maybe then we can lend President Obama some of NRA’s popularity with voters. Unfortunately, I give the odds on that somewhere south of having Rahm Emanuel showing up naked and screaming obscenities on Chris Cox’s lawn one morning.

Looks like Thirdpower will be at Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day (IGOLD), but if you want to track the happenings live, check out Illinois State Rifle Association’s Twitter Feed.

Same as last year, we will be conducting interviews with selected candidates for NRA Board. Also the same as last year, I’ve set up a form so that people can submit topics they’d like to see covered or submit questions.

In the interest of respecting the candidates’ time, I won’t be able to ask every question, but I will try to cover the best ones submitted. Questions will be kept entirely anonymous to the interviewee, and will not be revealed, so don’t be shy about asking anything. The interviewee will have no idea whether it’s a reader question or one of mine.

I’ve included every candidate we’ve endorsed in the question list, but I won’t be interviewing all of them. Though, I will make a special effort to get an interview with a candidate if there are a lot of questions for them.

Carol Bambery
As everyone who reads Dave Hardy knows, Carol Bambery is one of the hardest working Board members at NRA. For us, her skills and background with the National Firearms Law Seminar stand out because she works hard on this program to help keep other attorneys up-to-date on the latest issues in the gun legal world. Carol also serves as Vice Chair of the Women’s Policies Committee and also worked to make sure that women’s voices were heard in both McDonald and Heller with special briefs. Carol is the kind of hard worker who can often be overlooked by those who don’t pay close attention, but that should indicate she’s not doing this for any glory. She’s in it because she’s clearly passionate about our rights.

Graham Hill
Graham would make a great addition to the Board based on his background working the Hill for sportsmen and gun owners. His addition to the Board would be a great infusion of fresh energy and perspective. He knows how to make things happen, and I believe he’ll serve gun owners of all stripes particularly well. You can read his bio in the magazine that shows he’s got experience with the favorite EBRs while being selected as Hunter of the Year for SCI and promoting access to the shooting sports for the disabled. This guy is truly well rounded – a shooter and hunter who also knows how to work with Washington.

Ken Hanson
Ken Hanson is an accomplished Second Amendment attorney with a long record of pro bono work on gun rights. He hold the legal chair of the Buckeye Firearms Association, and the author of “Ohio Guide to Firearms Law” now in its Third Edition. Ken was also Counsel of Record for briefs filed in both D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago for both the Buckeye Firearms Association and the US Concealed Carry Association. In addition to that he fought a number of cases in Ohio State Courts, including the Ohio Supreme Court, fighting to preserve Ohioans right to carry and upholding state preemption. Ken’s record of accomplishment on the legal front is highly impressive, and I think he’d make a great addition to the NRA Board.

Cleta Mitchell
Anyone who has met Cleta remembers Cleta. To say she knows her stuff is an understatement. As an attorney in DC, she specializes in political law – an area that is never easy to practice given the many shades of gray purposefully added to so many laws and regulations dealing with those issues. We know her involvement in the efforts to overturn McCain-Feingold, and Bitter picked up details on non-profit/advocacy law during a lecture from her a couple of years ago. In her bio, she reports that she was part of the effort to defund ACORN. For that alone, she deserves to be the top vote getter this election.

Bob Sanders
Bob brings a very useful background and specialty to the Board – two decades with the Department of Treasury. As an attorney who represents gun owners and folks in the industry, his specialized knowledge is worthwhile for many of the issues that NRA deals with in its various divisions from ILA to reviewing court cases. We consider this an asset worthy of your vote, as do other Board members who cite him as a great candidate.

Pete Brownell
Pretty much anyone who knows guns knows the Brownell name.  In addition to being a great company, Brownell’s is also an unwavering supporter of the Second Amendment, and does quite a lot with the community. We’re very pleased with Brownell’s efforts with new media outreach, and believe Pete can bring some of that knowledge and expertise to the NRA Board. Pete already serves on a number of related board, including Knife Rights, POMA, USA Shooting, and Pheasants Forever.

Tom King
Tom has been an early supporter of NRA’s outreach efforts to leaders in New Media. In addition to that, he’s a successful blogger in his own right, being one of the few members of the NRA Board to have a blog hosted with a mainstream media outlet. Tom is President of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, and is a seasoned fighter for gun rights in New York State, which as you can imagine, is not an easy state for gun owners. Regardless, his record speaks for itself. New York State has not passed any anti-gun or anti-hunting legislation for a decade, and gun owners have managed to make some progress in the other direction. New York is an important state for gun owners, and it’s important to keep Tom on the NRA Board.

Sandra Froman
Bitter did a very long post about Sandy’s endorsement-worthy background during her last campaign. Much of that still holds true today. Froman is one of the most feisty advocates you’ll meet at NRA. She is out raising money to endow the programs side of the organization and testifying before the Senate against Sotomayor. She is a wildebeest hunter who got into the issue due to self-defense after a man tried to break down her door. As a Harvard Law & Stanford graduate female from the Bay Area, her activism is the kind that makes the folks at PETA, HSUS, and the Brady Campaign cry at night. Keep them shedding tears and vote for Sandy.

Governor Matt Blunt
We decided to endorse Gov. Blunt as a fresh political voice on the board. There are a handful of lawmakers on the Board of Directors with varying levels of involvement and sway in the world of politics. We believe that Gov. Blunt would bring a youthful new energy as a politician, provided he participates on the Board. Learn more about Gov. Blunt’s biography here.

I don’t really want to tell folks who to vote for, and who not to vote for, but since the Nominating Committee has decided to keep him on the ballot, I thought I’d remind everyone of this:

Joaquin Jackson is hardly anti-gun. I’d classify him as having varied beliefs on the topic much like many Americans do, and as Cam so thoroughly documents each night on NRA News. He’s also rendered good service to NRA up until that incident, and for that I want to thank him. The problem with what he said is, Jackson isn’t just an ordinary American, he’s a candidate for the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association, and with that comes certain expectations. One of those expectations, at least in my opinion, is you don’t throw high-power shooters and collectors under the bus. I’ll let you all decide for yourself, but for you I present this evidence.

We’ve traditionally done yearly NRA Board endorsements here on this blog, where we’ve promoted board members we either know or like, and encouraged readers to mark them on their ballots which should be in this month’s copy of your NRA magazine. We’re still planning on doing that this year, but are running kind of behind because of how little time I have with my current work load. Last year we did some interviews with candidates, and I would like to do that again this year. So stay tuned.

Wayne LaPierre has an editorial on Opposing Views:

Brady gave California its best grade, for having the most gun control, even though California’s murder and total violent crime rates are 10 percent and 13 percent higher, respectively, than the rates for the rest of the country.

Utah got Brady’s lowest grade because it has the fewest gun control laws, a fact lamented with all the feigned sorrow and indignation that gun control supporters in the Beehive State can muster. Fortunately, every cloud has a silver lining. Though certainly disillusioned with their low standing among the nation’s anti-gun fringe, the good people of Utah can take at least some comfort in the fact that their murder and violent crime rates are 76 percent and 56 percent lower, respectively, than California’s.

Is it our imagination, or are Brady’s state grades getting worse as the nation’s crime rates go down?

As a matter of side hilarity, if you don’t pick your graphic for the article, Opposing Views staff will do it for you. In this case they picked an NRA logo, but it’s not the right NRA. Dave Hardy told a story once of how both NRAs once shared the same building, which created quite a bit of confusion for the mail, with the National Recovery Administration getting packets full of targets people had mailed in. More than 60 years later, with the National Recovery Administration thankfully part of the past, people are still getting them confused. Of course, today there is still another NRA, but it has nothing to do with economic recovery. Of course, neither did the old other NRA :)

It’s interesting that NRA had to go on the warpath against…. Bill Clinton at CPAC. The fact of the matter is there just hasn’t been all that much Obama has done to us, save nominating Sotomayor and Holder:

“If you think that’s all ancient history, I’m going to tell you it’s still going on today,” LaPierre said, before cutting to a clip not of President Barack Obama but of Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell.

I hate to say it, but at this point, I think even I’d suggest that Rendell is a bigger threat to gun rights than Obama, though Obama remains a larger potential threat. Rendell has been actively undermining the lock we have on Pennsylvania, and if that lock is broken it won’t bode well for the rest of the country. Pennsylvania has one of the highest percentages of NRA membership of any state. If they can break us, none of you are safe.

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.

We typically attend a couple of Friends of the NRA dinners a year, but last year we missed them all. The family in Bucks County that always organizes it (and complains about how much work it is while turning away volunteer help), seems to have dropped the event last year. The New Jersey dinner we have attended in the past was held the same night as another event we planned to attend, so that was just a planning issue.

This year, I’d like to get back into the habit of attending them. We’re by no means high bidders in auctions, but we’ll usually spend some dough on games and a silent auction item. Lucky for us, we learned in a conversation with the Field Rep in 2008 that there’s usually a Philadelphia dinner in the spring.

Unfortunately, when I went to check out the list of dinners scheduled for the next few months, it would seem that the Philadelphia dinner is not mentioned. I presume that if there is going to be a spring event, it would already be well into the planning stages. Hopefully they just bumped it back to later in the year. I’d hate to think that the shooting sports, youth programs, women’s outreach, and range support programs have no friends left in Philadelphia. (We won’t know whether there are friends left in Bucks County until later this year since that dinner was regularly held in the fall.)

I’m a bit surprised, because I thought it was a long shot. But it looks like the Court granted NRA’s motion in today’s orders. But they also denied the State Attorneys General’s motion:

McDONALD, OTIS, ET AL. V. CHICAGO, IL, ET AL. The motion of Texas, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument is denied. The motion of respondents National Rifle Association, Inc., et al. for divided argument is granted. The motion of Law Professor and Students for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted.

Does it mean anything that the Court denied the AG’s motion and accepted NRA? I have no idea. But I welcome other people who are familiar with the Supreme Court to comment.

The case is Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Looks like a bit of a judicial trainwreck, much like McConnell v. FEC was, but the good news is we’re rid of many of the restrictions, including restrictions on independent corporate expenditures, which would apply to groups like the National Rifle Association. So this is a positive development for us in the Second Amendment community.

For some expert opinion on the matter, see SCOTUSBlog, Volokh, and the Election Law Blog.

I spent about ten minutes talking with Chris Cox, Chief Lobbyist for NRA-ILA, about this Motion for Divided Time that was filed with the Supreme Court in McDonald, asking for ten minutes of the Petitioner’s time during oral arguments. Needless to say, it’s not often I raise a concern with NRA that I’m in a phone call with the head of ILA a few hours later, so NRA is taking the issue seriously, and taking blogger concerns about the motion seriously enough to give us that consideration. I will share with you what Chris did clarify with me, quoting:

NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to ensure that that our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, regardless of the state in which they live. To that end, we fully support the Court incorporating the Second Amendment through either the Privileges or Immunities or Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The brief NRA filed last November presents a clear roadmap to the Court for incorporation under both a Due Process and Privileges or Immunities analysis.

We believe the Court should reach the same conclusion — that the Framers of the 14th Amendment clearly intended to apply the Second Amendment to the States — under either provision of the 14th Amendment. NRA, as a party to the case, has asked for the opportunity to participate in oral argument to ensure that all options for incorporating the Second Amendment are fully considered.

Again, NRA’s solitary goal in McDonald is to see the Second Amendment incorporated against the States, whether through the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

I did convey to him that while I understood and could appreciate NRA’s core concern, that I did not think this motion was the appropriate vehicle for expressing that concern. I still stand by that. But this gives you some insight into NRA’s reasoning straight from the top. For the reasons I’ve already outlined, I’m not going to stand on NRA’s side in regards to this motion, but nor am I going to accuse ILA leadership of trying to ruin the case, sabotaging the Second Amendment, or other such nefarious motives people like to attribute to them. I believe their concern is real, but the manner they chose to raise it was inappropriate. I’m also cognizant of the fact that if it wasn’t for the groundwork laid by NRA and the people close to it over the past several decades, we never would’ve won Heller.

Over the three years I’ve been blogging, I’ve gotten to know a number of people at NRA. A few of them well enough that they’d be folks I’d be comfortable inviting out for a drink if I were in town, or inviting them to my house if they were in town. Meet a dozen people at NRA, you’ll get a dozen different perspectives, a dozen different sets of skills, strengths and weaknesses. I no longer think of NRA as a monolithic entity — some giant brain in Fairfax of singular thought and mind — either to be loved or hated, promoted or resisted. It’s an organization made up of people as distinctive and individual as you see on the many gun blogs around the Internet.

But most importantly, NRA is made up of us, the membership, volunteers, and donors, in addition to the staff and board members. If you’re going to set out to be a voice cheering NRA when you think they do right, and to try to convince and influence them when they do wrong, you have to first start with a realistic view of what NRA is, and what NRA is not. Next, you need to get involved, and for that there are many paths one could take. Get to know any board members in your area if you can. Get to know some staff. Become an EVC, or help out your EVC. Run a few local matches at your club. Get involved with a local club. Keep your membership current, become a voting member, and for God’s sake, vote in Board elections, and encourage your friends to vote too.

Every once in a while, NRA is going to do something we don’t agree with, which is inevitable, and understandable. The question is whether that disagreement is going to be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, or whether you will have a real voice. NRA is a membership driven organization, ultimately, but in order for that to work, members have to be involved to a greater degree than just receiving the magazine, and paying their 35 dollars every year.

There’s been a few things I’ve seen floating around that probably could use some clarifying, about the NRA’s Motion for Divided Time that I spoke about here and here. Some folks in the comments were wondering why NRA can’t ask for some of Chicago’s time. The short answer is that they can’t. They are Respondents in Support of the Petitioner in this suit, meaning they are arguing against Chicago and in favor of McDonald’s position. Obviously the Court doesn’t allow the opposing sides in a case to divide each other’s time. If NRA wants time before the Court, they have to motion to divide Alan Gura’s time, not Chicago’s.

Second argument I’ve heard, reported on by Christopher Burg, is that there’s some other nefarious conservative concern at work here in regards to gay marriage. I can assure you that NRA is pretty singularly focused on the Second Amendment, and aren’t going to waste their time and resources with these kinds of ancillary concerns. As I’ve said, I think the motion is a mistake, but I do believe the NRA doing is what they think is the right thing.

Today Alan Gura filed an Opposition to NRA’s Motion for Divided Argument, as is reported by SCOTUSBlog. A few things to clarify from the previous post. NRA is asking for 10 minutes out of the 30 allotted to the Petitioners, not for half the time. But also keep in mind that the State Attorneys General have also filed a Motion for Divided Argument, asking for ten minutes themselves. It is exceedingly unlikely that the Court will grant two motions of this type, and also unlikely they will expand oral arguments.

I don’t think NRA filed this motion out of any foul intention, or with the idea in mind to throw a monkey wrench in anything. That said, while I understand and recognize the legitimacy of NRA’s likely concerns, I do not agree that filing this Motion for Divided Time was an appropriate outlet. Let me briefly explaining my reasoning.

• The Motion itself is very unlikely to succeed. The Court typically only grants these types of motions under pretty limited circumstances, and after reading NRA’s Motion and the Petitioners opposition to the motion, I think that NRA is on shaky legal ground. The long odds on the success of the motion make its use as any kind of vehicle suspect.
• Even if the Hail Mary tactic works, what does it really get you in relation to your core concern? So the National Rifle Association gets Clement 10 minutes of time before the Court. It’s not like Clement gets to make a ten minute speech on the merits of due process. He’ll pretty much be answering questions posed by the justices just like anyone else who would occupy that hot seat.
• At this point in the case, Alan Gura really needs to be spending his time and energy responding to Chicago and all the briefs filed in support of the respondents. I don’t think spending time and energy writing oppositions to motions that he did not invite into his case is really the best use of his time.

Ultimately my concern is that this jeopardizes relationships that are going to be important for NRA going forward after McDonald, and without much to show for it when all is said and done. I might reconsider my opinion if the Court, against all odds, grants the motion (because of what that might hint at), but I don’t think that’s likely at this point. There’s been a lot of speculation about what the court was hinting at when it granted cert for McDonald and kept NRA on hold. You can see some of that here. On what strategy would be best for McDonald, I think reasonable people can disagree on, but the Supreme Court granted cert on this case. Our rights are now in Alan Gura’s hands, which I think are quite capable. I think NRA has already brought much to this case in terms of laying a strong political basis for gun rights, getting the right people elected who put the right people on the Court, and in terms of bringing resources to bear to aid Heller and McDonald. These are commendable and worthwhile contributions. I don’t think this Motion for Divided Time fits within that, and seems to me to be not be very well thought out.

Dave Hardy talks about an upcoming article of his that reviews the NRA’s role in saving American soldiers during World War I. It sounds very interesting, and I can’t wait to read it.

One of the drawbacks of gun owners being a generally helpful bunch is that some try to offer up advice even when they shouldn’t. Yes, shockingly, some gun owners hold themselves out as experts when they don’t know squat. I know this is news to you, especially those of you who regularly chat others up at the range or those of you have spent more than 5 minutes at a gun club.

Snark aside, there are times when it can do serious financial damage. And it makes it worse when such bad advice is found in an official newsletter of an organization that, unjustly, may be seen as an authoritative source.

Yesterday’s mail included the Pennsylvania Rifle & Pistol Association newsletter, the source of the offending advice. One of their directors wrote an article on guns and insurance based on his experience with a devastating home fire. Filing a claim does not make one an expert in insurance. In fact, in Pennsylvania, I couldn’t even get past “Hello” and “please hold” when I got the receptionist at one insurance agency. She said their rules about even discussing insurance when it comes to quotes and advice are crazy strict, so she was not allowed to do anything more than transfer calls, take messages, and assist with non-insurance business needs since she was not licensed.

What follows is when someone who doesn’t seemingly have a background in insurance starts giving advice. (Reproduced as is, including grammatical errors.)

Last January we had a house fire resulting in 15 guns damaged by fire and smoke. I had very good Homeowners Insurance (Allstate “Deluxe” Policy) , and also the supplemental NRA sponsored (Arms Care) Firearms Insurance against fire and theft loss. I hope what follows may be useful information should any fellow members have the same misfortune.

I contacted NRA and told them I was submitting a claim. Their response was that my Homeowners Policy was the first resort and that my NRA policy was residual or secondary coverage in the event that Allstate failed to cover the loss.

Let’s stop here. I don’t have the insurance offered to NRA members for their guns, but my understanding is that the policy is secondary – that it covers above and beyond what your homeowners insurance covers depending on the policy you have with them. I never bothered getting it because my small collection was always under the amount that my renter’s policy covered. So why he would call the insurance company that NRA works with first is beyond me. (At least I’m hoping he called the actual insurance company and not NRA proper. Lord help him if he got caught in that phone menu.)

Allstate, like most other insurance companies, has limited firearms coverage for theft, but will cover all losses due to fire, flood, etc.

Hold up here! What?

All of my life, I have heard that if you live in a flood zone or want flood damage protection, you had to buy separate flood insurance. Google tells me this. More importantly, Allstate even verifies it with this statement:

A flood can be one of the worst disasters that can devastate your neighborhood. It’s such a big deal that the Federal Government runs a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). That’s why Home and Property Insurance typically doesn’t cover flooding. (emphasis added)

Now, this guy’s so-called “‘Deluxe’ Policy” may include flood insurance that was recommended because of his community or because he had a salesman who talked him into it. That does not mean that most policies cover damage to your guns from floods. In fact, it means the exact opposite. Fire, yes, but not floods.

Over the course of the next few months I found that Allstate was much more reasonable to deal with, relative to proof of firearms ownership, valuation, etc. than NRA and it’s Insurance carrier.

I’m guessing this guy has a bone to pick with NRA to have thrown that statement in there. At this point, he has already established that

• the supplemental insurance is just that – supplemental to what the home & property insurance does not cover;
• the primary insurance provider is going to cover the guns fully so he will not need to tap into the supplemental plan; and
• hopefully by now he has figured out to call the insurance company and not general NRA staffers.

So beyond just a shot across the bow at NRA, I can’t really figure out why he would be complaining about an insurance policy that he didn’t need to cash in on. Sebastian said that he thought he had heard that the insurance offered to NRA members was a bit of a pain, but that’s not really relevant for this article since the policy didn’t apply in this case.

After advice about safes and suggesting that members go through ADT for all of their home security monitoring needs, he then jumps into the area that just made me want to cringe – handing out insurance purchase advice.

Last but not least, and information well worth repeating, get out your Home Owners Insurance policy, call your agent, and get the maximum coverage, especially on personal contents, temporary housing, structure coverage, that is allowed. If you add up your total cash outlay for Home Owner Insurance coverage over however many years, you will find that it is a fraction of the cost of just one “catastrophic loss” due to fire, flood, or other natural disasters.

If he hadn’t had the absolutely horribly wrong comment about most home policies covering flood damage, then I would believe that he was an insurance agent deliberately trying to oversell folks for things they don’t need.

Now, I am not an insurance expert, but I have purchased enough to know that most people simply do not need a platinum-coated policy for most things covered. I’m also humble enough to admit that I don’t know enough about insurance to say much more.

I will add that if this has made you think about what your gun coverage really is for different types of losses, call your agent. Or, even better, call around until you find an agent who owns guns. I bought my car insurance from an agent who is not only a gun owner who shoots at our club, but his family is full of competitive shooters who hold state records. I know if I had questions, I could call him up and pick his brain to get an honest assessment.

Apparently it’s rubbing one Inquirer reporter the wrong way, which is reason enough to keep doing it.

Bitter and I are checked into our hotel in Chantilly, Virginia. Tomorrow we’re hoping to meet up with Bitter’s friend from college, who lives in these parts. Stopped by the NRA Headquarters building to meet with some folks we’ve gotten to know over the course of the whole blogging outreach. I can assure you that rumors that occasionally circulate around the Internet about NRA HQ being a gun free zone are completely unfounded.

Headed over to NRA News Studios next to see Cam and Crew next. The show is airing in 40 minutes, but we’ll at least get some chance to talk to Cam on break.

Need to burn up some vacation before the end of the year. We’re headed to Fairfax County to meet up with some friends who work in areas that would horrify Nancy Pelosi. We’re also going to be stopping by Triangle of Death World Headquarters to visit with the Lairds of Fairfax. Blogging will be via iPhone, so bear with me.

If anyone missed Ashley last night, you can download the MP3 here. She brought up a couple of good points toward the end in regards to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, who are currently infecting Pennsylvania mayors like the swine flu. There’s a rule in politics that perception of power matters just as much, and probably more, than actual power. When MAIG goes into a state legislators office to lobby their position, it’s quite powerful to be able to say

“You know Mr. Representative, we have four mayors in your district who support our position on this bill. This is something the mayors and people in your district want.”

Even if the reality is that NRA members have the power to unseat the Representative, we really want to avoid having to teach that lesson. What MAIG is doing is creating the perception of power. The perception that voting their way may have some tangible benefit for a state level politician. And an implication of cost or embarrassment for going against local mayors.

MAIG is bringing the culture war over guns to our towns, cities, and local communities, and we have to meet them with strong resistance. Ashley has worked to make MAIG membership a political liability in her states. But that’s something NRA can’t really do without us.

Ashley Varner from NRA will be on Gun Nuts Radio tonight at 9PM to talk about the Chicago case, and various happenings in Caleb’s home state of Indiana. Ashley previously worked in NRA-ILA Public Affairs, and handled the outreach for the bloggers, so we know her fairly well. She has since moved up as State Liaison for Oklahoma, Indiana, and her home state of Missouri. State Liaison is essentially the NRA representative to the states, and NRA’s presence in the State Capitol. She is a lobbyist, but that’s not all a State Liaison is involved with. Ashley has been involved with the fight against MAIG in the states she’s responsible for, and with Pennsylvania being the front lines in that battle, I feel good knowing she’s guarding our flanks in Indiana, Oklahoma and Missouri. So tune in tonight at 9 if you can, and feel free to call in if you want to ask her some questions about liaising, or other gun rights topics.

Landslide. For the record, I probably went a little easy on the Bradys in agreement that the election wasn’t about guns. That’s not entirely true. A reader pointed out that guns were most definitely an issue in the Virginia Attorney General’s race, with Democrats running ads like this against Ken Cuccinelli, in addition to a TV spot showing here:

If this race wasn’t about guns, it wasn’t for the Democrat’s lack of trying. Ken Cuccinelli won the Attorney General race by a 15 point margin over Democrat Steve Shannon. While we can’t take credit for all that margin, we are no doubt a nice chunk of it. This shows that Democrats can’t make a winning issue out of guns. Corzine also beat on the gun control drum, and it didn’t save him either.  If that’s the case, why do they bother? Increasingly they don’t, and that has to scare the Brady folks, no matter what their public rhetoric says.