Snowflakes in Hell

Dave Hardy points out something about the NFA and shotguns over at CleanupATF.org that I think might be incorrect. Dave says:

ATF has consistently taken the position that a shotgun that leaves the factory with a pistol grip and no buttstock, and is kept in that condition, is a pistol rather than a shotgun.

Except I don’t think that’s the case that they consider it a pistol. A pistol grip shotgun is still a shotgun [UPDATE: It's not a shotgun either] as long as its overall length is greater than 26 inches. The National Firearms Act’s definitions are highly convoluted. If you check the ATF NFA Handbook a few of their footnotes on page eight explain their view of the law. It rests in the definition in 26 USC 5845 of firearms and shotguns. See here:

(a) Firearm The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length [...]

(d) Shotgun The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

So I believe ATF still considers a pistol group shotgun to be a shotgun [See UPDATE below, they consider it to be a 'pistol grip weapon'], provided its overall length is greater than 26 inches. It is considered to be a weapon made from a shotgun, but because of its overall length, not subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act. I believe if you were to saw off a shotgun with a pistol grip, it would fall under the definition of “Any Other Weapon” or “AOW” rather than a short barreled shotgun.

The interesting thing about shotguns is they would be subject to the NFA provision that regulates destructive device, except for language in the definition thereof which reads:

any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes

In 1994, this definition was used to reclassify the “Street Sweeper” shotgun as a destructive device under the National Firearms Act, since it was deemed by the Clinton Administration to have no sporting use. The same thing could be done with pistol grip shotguns, if the Obama Administration were so inclined. Definitions in the NFA are screwy, and there’s a lot of room to stick it to gun owners with nuance. This is something we should look at cleaning up at some point if we ever have the political opportunity.

UPDATE: A commenter points out this bit from ATF:

Pistol Grips and Shotguns Firearms with pistol grips attached: The definition of a shotgun under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(5), is “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosives to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or single projectile for each single pull of the trigger. Under the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29)(A), handgun means “a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.” Federal law provides under 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), that if the firearm to be transferred is “other than a rifle or shotgun,” the purchaser must be 21 years of age or older. Certain commercially produced firearms do not fall within the definition of shotgun under the GCA even though they utilize a shotgun shell for ammunition. For example, firearms that come equipped with a pistol grip in place of the butt stock are not shotguns as defined by the GCA. A firearm with a pistol grip in lieu of the shoulder stock is not designed to be fired from the shoulder and, therefore, is not a shotgun. Since it is a firearm “other than a rifle or shotgun,” the purchaser must be 21 years of age or older. Additionally, interstate controls apply. The licensee and transferee must be residents of the same State. Other questions raised pertain to entries made in the licensee’s required records with respect to firearm “type.” These entries should indicate the firearm type as “pistol grip firearm.”

Clear as a bell. Remember that next time Brady or some other group says firearms are unregulated. So they don’t mention that that it’s a “handgun” but they also don’t mention that it’s a “shotgun” either. It’s some other weird category called “pistol grip firearm” even though it’s treated the same way as a handgun for purposes of 922, since it’s not a rifle or a shotgun. Got that? I think my brain is going to explode.

As I’ve mentioned before, Daryl Metcalfe is a great supporter of the Second Amendment. But he’s also, we believe, a bit off his rocker. First the a house resolution on domestic violence turns into part of the gay conspiracy. Then soliders who exercise their rights as citizens are traitors? Not wanting to give anyone the impression that Rep. Metcalfe might be coming back into the mainstream of Pennsylvania politics, now he’s finding the gay agenda in teaching high schoolers about dating violence:

Specifically, they wanted dating relationships defined as relations between heterosexual couples. Right now, the bill — reflecting the real world that kids actually live in — makes no distinction as to gender.

During floor debate, Metcalfe warned his colleagues — and we swear we’re not making this up — that “a rogue teacher could introduce homosexual relationships into the conversation. And a lot of students could be offended.”

Rep. Metcalfe is curiously concerned about the gay agenda above and beyond your average citizen. While I know that many gun owners are socially conservative, as a lot we’re very tolerant people. For instance, Larry Craig still managed to get approved by the NRA Board Nominating Committee despite his wide stance. I think Rep. Metcalfe would do better to focus on restoring fiscal sanity to Pennsylvania, and continuing to protect the liberties of residents of this Commonwealth, whether they are gay, straight, or otherwise. Give up the witch hunt. That crap is killing the Republican brand with younger voters, and it’s time to move on. This country and State have far bigger problems than this.

Jim Geraghty makes some excellent points about the dynamic between parties when it comes to gun rights:

But there’s a catch. For even the best, most pro-Second Amendment House Democrat, the first vote they cast in the House is to make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House, ensuring the floor schedule is controlled by a woman who is scored an “F” by the organization. And her speakership ensures that F-rated John Conyers of Michigan chairs the Judiciary Committee, and that liberals, often but not always anti-gun, control the important committees.

Meanwhile, if that A-rated House Democrat were beaten by some squishy C or B-rated Republican, his first vote be would make A-rated John Boehner (or perhaps some other Republican) the Speaker.

It’s a very good point, but I’m not sure how you really get around it unless you score the vote on the Speaker and leadership. We don’t want to hitch the gun rights wagon to a particular party, but we do want to hold individual politicians accountable for their positions on our issue, and many Democrats on the issue are quite good. If we refuse to back Democrats who support our issue, we essentially offer the Democrats nothing for their support, in which case, right now, we’d be getting steamrollered in Congress.

So why not score the vote on the Speaker? Because, not surprisingly, politicians are political animals. If the Republicans and pro-gun Democrats can get together to get together and form a majority for the purposes of gun bills, they can’t necessarily get together on other matters, such as the selection of Speaker. The problem is, while the Democratic Party is divided between Progressives and moderate-to-conservative Blue Dogs, the Progressives are the ones in the safest districts, and the ones with the most seniority.

They also represent a voting majority within the party itself. The only way you could get a different Speaker than Pelosi would be if the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats got together and elected a different Speaker. That’s not going to happen. Why? Because the party is in charge of committee assignments according to House rules, and any Democrat crossing the ailes for that kind of thing is going to find himself with the worst assignments. There’s also many many things the party apparatus can do to a Blue Dog to make him cooperate, or punish him for lack of cooperation. The system makes it very difficult for a minority faction within a party to have a whole lot of sway, so it’s very difficult for them to buck their party on a vote like Speaker. Sure, you can grade the vote, but it’s not going to make you popular on the Hill, and you’re not going to win anyway. There’s no easy answer to the Pelosi problem.

What surprises me, is that in a year like this one, you don’t see more Blue Dogs threatening to switch parties if the progressive leadership keeps twisting their arms. Maybe there’s a good reason that move is very hard to pull off in DC, but if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t hesitate to play that card. This is going to be a bad year to be a Democratic. Even worse if you voted for the health care bill.

Obama says he’ll withdraw his support of wavering Democrats on Health Care, and not campaign for them. It would seem to me that this isn’t exactly a threat. In fact, if I were one of those wavering Blue Dogs, I think my inclination would be to ask the White House if they would put it in writing. Perhaps Obama could twist more arms by threatening to show up at key campaign events. You can’t say “no” to the President, after all.

Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Center is misrepresenting Barr and Gottlieb’s, and by proxy all concerns about open carry:

Implicitly, Barr and Gottlieb are advising gun owners who want to carry guns in public to keep them concealed from view; that is, make sure the danger is hidden. Perhaps this exposes their real concern about the open carry movement – that it eventually will cause a surge in public concern about the far more prevalent concealed carrying of guns made possible by the gun lobby-supported “shall-issue” laws passed in most states during the last two decades making it far easier to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons. They also likely fear that open carry may intensify public opposition to recent efforts to gradually expand the locations in which concealed carry may occur -such as parks, bars, college campuses, even airports. After all, it’s not the “openness” of open carry that scares people – it’s the presence of the guns themselves and the inherent danger they entail. The only reason there is not an equivalent reaction to concealed carry is that the danger is, by definition, hidden from view.

He seems to believe that Barr and Gottlieb are somehow tacitly acknowledging the danger. There is no significant public danger from the open carry movement. The “danger” is the Brady Campaign doing exactly what they are doing now: trying to use the issue to push their agenda and to divide our movement.

Concealed carry laws don’t exactly have low levels of support. Even in Iowa, the latest battleground for concealed carry reform, opposition doesn’t beat 50%. But what Dennis understands is that public policy isn’t made by poll, but by determined minorities. If the 43% of Iowans that want to reform the concealed carry laws are motivated to do so, while the opposition is passive, reform wins. What they are looking for is getting some of that passive opposition to turn active.

The concern Gottlieb and Barr have is not that the public will suddenly realize the danger, and the gig will be up. The concern is that, much like the public is willing to acquiesce or support equal rights for homosexuals, they might not be so keen on the idea if they believe that means they’ll see gay sex everywhere in public. The analogy to guns may not be perfect, but many people who generally don’t care about or are soft supporters of people being able to carry firearms for self-defense might have a second thought if that means they think society will turned into an armed camp.

That shouldn’t really be our goal. Our goal should be that people who want to or need to carry a firearm for self-defense be able to do so, following their own judgments about their individual circumstances and situation. Whether that right is exercised through open carry or concealed carry I could care less about. What I do care about, however, are activism methods that have the potential to create a public backlash. The fact that the Brady folks have suddenly jumped on this issue, after its been gaining traction for years, makes me wonder if someone on their side of the issue has paid for a focus group, and we’re now seeing Brady attempt to exploit the opportunity.

From Sanford Levinson, Professor of Law of the University of Texas, on interpreting the Constitution:

“It really is open to interpretation by anybody, in what I sometimes call the lawyerhood of all citizens. Anybody in a bar can get into a shouting argument over what equal protection means, or the right to free speech.”

He must hang out in very different bars than the ones I’ve known, but the assertion is interesting. The article goes on to say:

Those arguments can and should have consequences, according to scholars who endorse what they call “popular constitutionalism.” “Basically, it’s the idea that final authority to control the interpretation and implementation of constitutional law resides at all times in the community in an active sense,” Larry D. Kramer, the dean of Stanford Law School, wrote in The Valparaiso University Law Review in 2006.

This is versus originalism, which essentially argues the meaning of the constitution doesn’t change over time, and its meaning is divined either through original public meaning or original intent (of the founders). I’m probably a bit more of a pragmatic originalist. I think you have to be rooted in the text of the document, and when its meaning is apparent and has a clear meaning, you interpret along textual lines. But I also tend to agree with Jefferson, who once wrote:

The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living.

My big problem with doctrinaire originalism is precisely what Jefferson speaks of here, of previous generations imposing their “burdens on future generations.” So when Alan Gura, in the the oral arguments of McDonald says the court should be originalists in its identification of a right, but take a modern view of that right, I can relate to what he’s saying.

How much of a role should originalism play in constitutional interpretation versus such a “Popular Constitutionalism” method? Keep in mind you will generally arrive at an individualist Second Amendment either way. But originalism and popular constitutionalism probably yield different results when it comes to interpreting the boundaries of that right. The founders’ concern, which prompted the inclusion of the Second Amendment, had very much to do with the distribution of military power in society and keeping military power be in the hands of the people. It’s not that they didn’t believe in individual self-defense, but that wasn’t the primary intent. From the founding up to the civil war, the public understanding became centered around individual self-defense. This is largely the popular understanding today, and what The Court went with in Heller. It’s always seemed to me that original public meaning originalism (as supposed to original intent) is actually a form of popular constitutionalism, though one that looks back at the meaning at the time the text was adopted, instead of how people view it today. A Second Amendment right centered on the original intent distribution of military power probably looks very different from one centered on self-defense in an original public meaning context, which looks different yet from one in a modern popular constitutionalism context.

I’m not sure that any method has to necessarily disparage the other when it comes to the right to bear arms, but which one is most legitimate? Which one is most rooted in the real world? Which one best preserves liberty?

I don’t know if y’all have noticed, but Obama really enjoys coming to the Philadelphia area. He’s here often enough that when Sebastian complains about all the cops out when he drives to or from work, we can safely assume that Obama is here.

I think I just figured out why that is. It’s not because the City of Brotherly Love is showed him so much love in the last election (in the form of men armed with batons blocking polling places). It’s because the stench of Democratic corruption must remind him of Chicago.

For those who have forgotten, Obama won his first campaign unopposed. Which is interesting considering there was a sitting Democratic incumbent who did not retire. He challenged all of her signatures to get her thrown off the ballot – along with any other competitors.

The intriguing campaign I mentioned yesterday is facing a similar problem. Only instead of her being an incumbent, she’s a political newbie who has no shot of winning the overwhelmingly Democratic district represented by the head of the Philadelphia Democratic Party. But he wants her off the ballot anyway. There’s no room for anyone else once you factor in his ego, I suppose.

There’s been some more activity today on the issue of whether the Slaughter Rule for passing Health Care would be constitutional.  Michael McConnell says it’s not constitutional in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, via Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy. Based on this reading, which would indicate the House and Senate never actually plan to pass the same bill, I would agree it’s unconstitutional. I would think there has to be limits to House and Senate rules in so far as they aren’t delegating their role to the other body. For instance, if they create a rule that deems two bills to be passed with one vote, why not three? Four? Twelve? Certainly they can consolidate twelve bills into one bill, but can the House or Senate really have a rule that just deems any number of bills as “passed” even if there’s never been a vote? I think the answer to that has to be no, at least if the Constitutional role each body plays isn’t considered to be unconstitutionally delegated.

The Washington Post is doing a bang up job of trying to push the idea of banning private sales of handguns. I think there’s a solution to this kind of problem, but it’s not liable to please the gun control groups. We could have background checks for private transfers, without banning them. But it would require a lot of changes to the current system to deal with our concerns, including opening the system up for everyone to use, full transparency, and anonymized transactions. I don’t see any of the anti-gun groups agreeing to negotiate from that as a starting point. Come to think of it, I don’t see the government agreeing to that level of transparency either.

While researching my list of federal candidates on social media sites, I came across a longshot campaign for Congress against Rep. Bob Brady in Philly. Brady heads the Philadelphia Democratic machine. At the big Democratic shindig/nominating party, he was right up on stage with Nancy Pelosi – the only non-statewide office holder or candidate I saw up there with her. The head of Pittsburgh’s Democratic Party wasn’t around, just Philly. I don’t think the dead girl/live boy rule even applies to this former union organizer.

But this 27-year-old girl not only has a great website, she has a message that could disconnect some of the younger voters from the entrenched Philly politicians. (That won’t win races, but it’s just interesting.) Here’s what I like:

• Focusing on where the incumbent leadership has failed: “Today, the First District has the distinction of being the second hungriest district in the nation. It has some of the worst schools, the highest crimes rates, the most strangling taxes and the greatest pension problems. For too many years, this district has been abused by those who have ravaged this birthplace of the American dream under the guise of brotherly love.”
• Specific example of broken promises/wasted resources that tangibly makes district life worse: “In an attempt to revitalize the city by bringing a green real estate project to the district (without grants or government aid), I came head to head with the inner politics that go on here every day behind the scenes. The Industrial Empowerment Zone, a nation-wide government program started by President Clinton, was meant to bring industry back to Philadelphia but we know industry is not coming back. Philadelphia has been given millions of dollars in federal funds to essentially blight neighborhoods causing homeowners and landlords to drastically lose property value. These properties are being purchased by well connected insiders at bargain-basement prices at the expense of the residents of the First District. Our project was rejected by the zoning board the day after Michael Nutter promised to make Philadelphia the greenest city in the nation in his inaugural address. Today, the land still sits vacant.”
• Confidence in style. Take a look at her website. She at least knows how to make you to stop and take a look.
• According to her site, she wants to use this opportunity to create a PR plan for free markets that others can use around the country. I like the attitude of experimentation here. It’s beyond an uphill battle, but sometimes those are the best opportunities to try radical ideas to see if anything sticks. It may not win this race, but maybe something useful will come out of it.
• I think her campaign video has a few issues, the first of which is a little too hard hitting for most voters who aren’t that comfortable taking a leap to something new in rough times. But, I do think it’s a great example for others to follow in support of candidates to specific constituencies (i.e. rallying the base). I love the ending – a real call to action to not let them get away with this anymore. It’s not enough to bitch, action has to be taken.
• Contrast her message with Bob Brady’s campaign site which is nothing but why you should give him money and how you should give him money. He’s not interested in telling you about himself or really giving a damn about what you want to hear.

I have no illusions about how this campaign will turn out in November. But sometimes losing can teach us lessons about how to approach other battles. What I like about her web presence isn’t so much a “sexy/MTV” vibe, but how real issues are addressed and not just talking points. Even when she does rely on talking points, she remembers to put in the request for you the viewer to help take back the country and make it a better place.

I can respect those who actually take a stand to try something new. It is the spirit of America, and I hope that Pia does find a few elements that stick, even in solid blue Philadelphia.

Why? Because I’m fascinated by this stuff.  And I spent two days studying district maps, Googling unknown candidates, and otherwise trying to find every bit of information on these elections that I could in order to make a more useful resource for gun owners this year.

• Of the 6 Senate races in the area, 4 incumbents were A rated in their last election cycle. One was a B rating, and the other F.
• There are 30 House races in the area. Only 8 of these races are (so far) uncontested. Six of those are districts in Philadelphia.
• Of the 8 unchallenged incumbents, 2 had Fs, 2 had Ds, 1 had a C, 1 had a B, and 2 have maintained A ratings.
• Looking at the full list of races with incumbents running (28), we have: 3 ?s, 3 Fs, 10 Ds, 3 Cs, 4 Bs, and 5 As.
• The two open seats were previously represented by lawmakers with A and F ratings.

I think our pro-gun Senate seats are safer than the pro-gun House seats on the whole. One of our B rated guys in Philadelphia is actually facing charges, though to be honest, that doesn’t turn many Philly voters off. So I maintain that even though he has challengers from his own party and the other, it might not be much of a race for the new entrants to the race.

The House races are especially important for those who fall on the right side of the political aisle. Right now the Democrats control the House by just a handful of seats. The Senate is safely Republican, and is likely to become even more so after this year’s elections. This will be legislature that redraws all of the district lines and erases at least one Congressional district from the state.

Chicago area gun stores are preparing for a huge surge in sales. I think they may be underestimating how many obstacles Daley is going to throw in the way of residents who want handguns. Technically it’s legal in DC to get a handgun if you jump through all the hoops, but my understanding is that very few people have. Even if McDonald is a win, it’s not going to be like Chicago residents will be able to head out to the gun shop and pick up a heater. There will still be a process, and it’s probably not going to be easy.

We probably stand a good chance of getting many of those obstacles removed in later cases, but it’s going to take a while.

I spent the better part of two days examining every single state race going on in our districts – PA-8 & PA-13. If you live in Bucks, Montgomery, or North Philly and own guns, you should go find your local races and get an idea of what’s going on.

For those of you not in the area, here are a few interesting observations:

• For the federal races, both districts will have competitive Republican primaries with no Democrats on the ballot other than incumbents. In PA-13, it won’t really matter since the chances of unseating Schwartz run at about 1 in a million if you’re feeling generous to the challenger. Other than the more sparsely populated northern tier of her district, that area is solidly Democratic – and pretty far left Democratic at that. In PA-8, I have my doubts about all of the GOP candidates against Murphy in the fall. However, professional political observers in DC say that if Fitzpatrick can pull out a win in May, he’ll have a good shot at beating Murphy. I’m on the ground and am far more skeptical.
• Out of the 6 state senate districts in the area, only one is held by an incumbent with less than an A or B from NRA. Granted, she’s got an F, but she represents primarily Philly. In smaller races with less direct influence from Philadelphia, we can still do reasonably well. Regardless of whether you live in this area or even another state, that’s something to keep in mind if you have a safe anti-gun Congressman. There may be local races where your help can make the difference.
• Bad news: A lot of poorly rated Philadelphia politicians have no challengers this year from either side. In theory, a write-in campaign could change this. In reality, it’s not likely to make a difference without serious planning and the incumbent over a dead body.
• Good news: A handful of friendly (or at least not hostile & willing to listen) lawmakers – even some from Philly! – also have no challengers from either side. Again, this could change with an effective write-in campaign. While that makes it an uphill battle, gun owners should still keep an eye out.
• Of all of the races that are re-matches from 2008, the GOP looks like it could pick up seats in all but one. One re-match was decided for the Democrat by less than 900 votes in a record-setting Democratic year. While the Republican candidate still has to beat the incumbency factor, this is a great year to pick up this battle again.

If you are in the area and have a favorite already, get in touch and I’ll let you know how you can get involved.

You really couldn’t come up with a better name for the latest scheme the Democrats have come up with to pass health care. Absent the votes to actually pass this monstrosity, we’ll just slaughter the Republic and the Constitution and ram it through! But there seems to be some debate as to whether this mess is constitutional. Here are some thoughts on the matter, keeping in mind I’m far from an expert on these topics.

It would seems to me to be perfectly constitutional for the House to amend the Senate version, then send it back to the Senate, which the Senate will then pass and go on to the President. This path, however is closed by rule, since it would require 60 votes in the Senate to shut off debate on the bill, which the Democrats no longer have (thank you Massachusetts!). There’s also the political problem that Pelosi would no longer appear to have the votes necessary to pass anything called “Health Care” in the House.

My understanding of the Slaughter Solution is that they pass a reconciliation bill, along with a rule change that deems the Senate version to have been passed (even though it has not). The reconciliation bill then goes to the Senate under reconciliation rules, under which the terms of debate do not allow for the filibuster. The reconciliation bill, being signed by the President, then becomes the Health Care law. Now, there seems to be some question on whether, after the reconciliation bill passes the Senate, the House will then actually have a vote on the Senate bill, and if passed, both bills will be presented to the President for his signature or veto.

It would seem to me any law which is presented to Obama, not having passed both houses of Congress, would be pretty clearly unconstitutional. But is it judicable? In other words, can someone file suit. I think that yes, a minority of members of Congress could sue because they were denied their constitutional power to request a roll call vote. This is pretty explicitly in the constitution, and it would seem to be to be fairly unambiguous that this path would be unconstitutional, and the minority would have a means for invalidating the bill. The only counter argument I could see here is that, effectively, the House combined several questions into one vote, which is should be permitted to do if the House rules allow it. But how far would this be allowed to go? What if the House changed its rules to say any bill which the Senate passes in a given session will be “deemed” to have pass? It would seem to me there also might be questions that could be raised under the Non-Delegation Doctrine as well.

The latter case, where the House moves a reconciliation bill forward, under a rule that deems the Senate version to have passed the House, but with the Senate version later being actually voted on by the House and both bills being presented to the President simultaneously is a bit more constitutionally ambiguous. There’s a better case that this is constitutional., since the House and Senate will have, effectively, passed two bills, and presented both to the President. The “deeming” of the Senate bill being passed, in this instance, would merely be a procedural maneuver that would allow the Senate to use the reconciliation rules to get the fixes some House members are demanding before they’ll flip their vote. It’s my opinion that if this is the plan, it’s likely constitutional. The question is whether it violates the reconciliation rules. Reconciliation rules require that you change a budgetary matter that is actually existing law. It would seem to me that this Slaughter rule wouldn’t really get around that. They’d essentially be changing budgetary issues that don’t effectively exist. The House passing a rule that “deems” a bill to be passed does not actually make it so.

Either way you go, this tactic is a disgusting abuse of procedure and an affront to the democratic process. It’s hard for me to understand how it’s legal under either path. I definitely don’t see how the House gets around having to vote for the Senate bill. It would seem to me you can’t pass two bills with one vote because of the Article 1 Section 5 requirements in the constitution. If anyone out there has any specific expertise on this topic (and after reading the actual rules, if you do, I have a huge amount of respect for you, these rules are complicated) feel free to chime in with comments.

I think any American, no matter how they feel about health care, ought to be outraged by this tactic. Dave Kopel asks whether it’s even Constitutional.

Dan Thomasson of The Reporter says of gun ownership:

Then there are those who are nuts about guns, who collect them and seem almost to consider them affectionate, even sexual objects.

Yes, the sexual objects again. Next thing you know, he’ll say we’re all paranoids:

Present in all three classifications is an element of paranoia, a strong belief that without these weapons one is not likely to survive the truly crazy (like maybe one’s testy neighbor or a disaffected co-worker or student seeking revenge from bullies) or the ubiquitous criminals that use guns as necessary tools in their business.

Maybe we just want to pursue the hobbies that make us happy, and just be left alone rather than being blamed for all the ills of society, or looked down upon by our supposed betters who say we have mental or sexual deficiencies. A lot of gun owners and gun hobbyists are angry people. It’s crap like this that makes them angry people. Everyone is someone else’s weirdo. Time to accept that and move on. Kind of makes you wonder about Mr. Thomasson’s hobbies, doesn’t it?

Jacob has some coverage, including a return of Doug Hoffman, and Kirsten Gillibrand attracting yet another challenger. Before too long it seems like half the State of New York will have announced they are primarying Gillibrand. Apparently even Bloomberg’s girlfriend wants a piece of that action.

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 have in my possession an e-mail from a reader that would appear to be from Insight Firearms Training Development, which asks folks to express to their elected representatives to oppose removing the requirement to have a permit to carry a concealed firearm. That’s right, it would seem a prominent training house is selling out the Second Amendment for their own financial gain. Click on the link to see the header for yourself. Here’s the letter they suggest people send:

RE: Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108

Dear Representatives:

I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.  Nevertheless, I strongly OPPOSE House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108 which would authorize Arizonans to carry a concealed weapon without the permit that is currently required by Arizona law.  I have recently taken the 8-hour CCW course required by  current law and I can tell you first-hand that it is invaluable and necessary for anyone who plans to carry a concealed weapon. I realized when I took the CCW course offered by Insight Firearms Training Development in Prescott Arizona that there was much that I did not know (or remember as the case may be) about the safe handling of firearms and, importantly, the law applicable to their use for purposes of personal protection in real life (and death) situations.  Persons who carry concealed weapons who are not properly trained and educated will be hazardous to you, me and all of the residents of this state.

The argument often offered in support of allowing a person to carry without proper training is that “criminals do not worry about CCW permits, so why should we require it of good, law-abiding citizens”.  That may be true, but the argument is disingenuous.  Our laws apply to all people – good and bad.  The fact that some choose to violate the laws of our society does not constitute good reason to modify them in a manner that will be injurious to the safety of our communities.  Should we modify every law in our society because the criminals don’t follow them? Should we base all laws of our society on the behavior of the criminals?

The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, does not proscribe reasonable governmental restrictions on an individual’s rights with respect to firearms.  To restrict individuals from carrying a handgun in a concealed manner under any circumstance would be unreasonable.  It is not unreasonable, however, to require that person to demonstrate that he has obtained the proper training and education in the use of that concealed weapon.  With every right comes a corresponding duty an responsibility!  We need to retain that requirement.

Vote NO on House Bill 2347 & Senate Bill 1108

I agree with Insight that training is a good idea, but coming from a state that doesn’t require it, I don’t think it needs to be a legal requirement. I also fail to see how we have a right to “bear” arms if we have to get state permission before we can exercise that right.

I don’t appreciate members of the community crapping on our rights so they can continue to use force of law to extract money us. Has anyone else gotten this e-mail? If so, and you are an alumni of Insight, I would be sure to express your displeasure.

UPDATE: Please don’t confuse Insight Firearms Training Development with InSights Firearms Training of Seattle, Washington. They are separate companies. InSights has nothing to do with this controversy.

I think it’s quite ironic that it would seem that the gun rights movement is particularly strong in Southeastern Pennsylvania. CeaseFire Pennsylvania, in cooperation with Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have brought their preemption violating “Lost and Stolen” ordinances to my neck of Pennsylvania.

This time we had some grassroots action ready to meet them. First in Radnor, which has tabled the bill until April. On the same day CeaseFire Pennsylvania was tying us up in Radnor, Mayors Against Illegal Guns pushed the same ordinance to Hatboro. Hatboro has rejected the ordinance route in favor of a resolution, which they will be hearing Monday March 22nd. We still oppose the resolution, which urges the General Assembly to pass a state L&S law, but we’ve made progress. Ambler Borough has decided not to pursue an ordinance a few weeks ago. Now word has it that Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, a bastion of liberalism even back when Delaware County was solidly Republican, has decided to table its Lost and Stolen ordinance.

This has to be huge embarrassment for Joe Grace, EVP of CeaseFire PA, and it’s a slap in the face to MAIG too. It’s no accident. It’s the work of gun owners getting involved, showing up, and making effective arguments to their elected representatives. We succeeded against a strategy that was designed to spread us thin and wear us out. It has, so far, failed to work. I know many of my readers here were involved in these efforts, and we all owe them some thanks, especially to the people who were residents of these municipalities that showed up and spoke. Let’s hope we can keep pouring molasses over Bloomberg and Grace’s agenda. Let them have nothing without a fight.

UPDATE: PAFOA gives some of its members their due as well.

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.

This time I’m harassing Josh Sugarmann. You can see the original article he wrote that I’m responding to here.

Ultimately, the Albion Borough Council which previously banned guns on city property rescinded their ban after they realized it would cost a pretty penny to defend against lawsuits that they could very likely lose.

The financial cost to taxpayers is a talking point that non-gun owners can identify with, and a major source of contention in Pennsylvania after last year’s state budget fiasco and the simple fact that the Governor has been simply unable to deliver a budget on time since he’s been in office. Local budgets can’t afford partisan political games from Harrisburg, so they definitely don’t have the spare cash to fight lawsuits. It doesn’t have to be your only argument against local gun control, but make sure it gets made.

That’s the attitude of the reverend of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Richmond. He offers up the church which sits across from the Capitol for political use by lobbyists for all sorts of favored causes – unions, healthcare, and gun control. Rev. Wallace Adams-Riley claims that the church is available for just about any lobbyist to use as a headquarters – as long as they aren’t supportive of the Second Amendment. He points out that the one group he would actively turn away is the NRA. One might wonder if he has the same belief about turning away NRA members from his church.

Everyone says we should look to Pennsylvania as a bellwether of 2010 politics. We have the most number of competitive Congressional races, and we’ve got major statewide elections that will drive people out to the polls more so than other states in this year’s non-presidential cycle. We also have a very good shot at turning the Pennsylvania House over to GOP – a strictly partisan move I would not have cared much for until the very centrist Democrat House Speaker announced his retirement. I do not trust who might move up to that top spot if the Democrats remain in control. (Here is an effort to draw attention to states with closely split legislative houses that can be flipped by pushing just a handful of candidates.)

Last night was the local GOP vote for John Murtha’s former seat. Due to the timing of his death, this election cycle is pretty complicated with two different elections with some of the same and some different candidates held for the same seat on the same day. The shorter story you need to know is that both parties have selected candidates for their races who are political unknowns. The Democrats chose Murtha’s former district director who clearly has political experience, but isn’t on the record with his own views. We don’t know if he shares Murtha’s dedication to gun rights. On the GOP side, there’s a businessman who brings new energy to the grassroots and who the Democrats have resorted to calling mean because he once built a successful business, sold it, and the other owners laid people off. (I expect PA-12 to turn into a children’s playground at the rate the campaign is going because of outside candidates who didn’t have local support. Expect spitballs and screams of “I’m gonna tell on you!” any day now.) As a political newbie, GOP candidate Tim Burns also doesn’t have a record on gun rights yet. So this should be interesting. The district has always been reliable for guns, but we don’t know if it will remain that way.

Depending on how things go, we can see it as a blessing or a curse that we’ll be losing that district anyway. Given that the candidate will have only served a term and a half, it is likely that both parties will agree to do away with PA-12 when we have to give up a seat following the Census.

Depending on how much you like politics, this is either a political junkie’s dream world or a cynic’s worst nightmare. For me, it relies on my mood. Since the political attitude is more anti-incumbent than pro-Republican, I’m really not sure how this will play out. Given that uncertainty, and the fact that the local GOP is trying to actively drive voters into the arms of Democrats, I’m leaning more toward a nightmare mood.

If you’re a Pennsylvania politico, or just a politics watcher who generally has a feel for what’s going on, take the PoliticsPA poll (on the left, about halfway down) on which will be the most interesting May 18 race. Also leave your answer as a comment if you’re so inclined. I’d like to know which races you guys are interested in.