Snowflakes in Hell

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.

Jim Geraghty thinks it’s genius. Tam likes it too, and adds:

I was mildly disappointed that a flaming midget clown on a tricycle never pedaled furiously through the meadow yelling “Verboten!”. Other than that, it was very nearly perfect.

The Hill reports that Demonsheep now even has his own Twitter feed. Thanks Carly. I’m not sure this helps you win, but it’s at least injected some fun into the race.

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.

They tried in Washington State, and met stiff opposition. Now it looks like they aim to try again in Maryland. This is nothing new: they’ve tried to pass an AWB in Old Line State for years, and we’ve managed to bottle it up every time. But we have to fight nonetheless. The other side is desperate for a victory.

You can find more discussion here, but this would actually be the most draconian bans out of any of the states, as it would ban just about all semi-automatic rifles currently on the market, and many competition semi-auto pistols that had their magazine attached somewhere outside the grip. It would ban the Ruger Charger through an over-broad and vague definition of “barrel shroud” (that shoulder thing that goes up, apparently the MD Senate doesn’t know what it is either). It bans any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle with a thumbhole stock.

The bill grandfathers existing firearms, but requires you to register them. In addition, transportation into the state will be unlawful, for those of you who need to travel through or to Maryland to take part in shooting competitions.

So far, things are looking really good for Republicans in 2010. Political watchers even think things look rosy here in our Congressional district where they have moved Patrick Murphy’s seat from Solid Dem to Likely Dem to only Lean Dem. I assume that’s because they believe a former Congressman who Murphy narrowly beat will put up a good campaign. At this point, one could only wish.

I’ve had my concerns about Mike Fitzpatrick ever since I heard he was entering the race. Bucks Right hits the nail on the head with what’s bothering me at the moment:

Mike Fitzpatrick, presumptive Republican nominee in his own mind for the US House Seat representing Pennsylvania’s 8th district, appears to be employing the little seen “gimmick a day” political strategy in his run to regain the seat he lost nearly 4 years ago to Patlosi Murphy.
…
Sweet Jesus. To anyone remotely associated with the campaign who may read this: While you weren’t paying attention, Patlosi turned himself into kind of a big deal to the far-left wing of his party. If you think running a rinky-dink, misspelled, incoherent, gimmicky campaign against the well-oiled Rahm Emanuel digital age machine is going to take Murphy out, you’re wrong. You’re killing me here. Do you need a consultant? How about a proofreader?

Amen.

The fact is that Fitzpatrick already lost when Murphy was a no-name upstart. While I’m open to the idea he may be the best candidate to take on Murphy, that doesn’t mean he’s a good one. The weird gimmicks he’s been touting only go to confirm that.

As Bucks Right points out, Fitzpatrick asked for a spending freeze of $1 million in the campaign.

1. Murphy is a talented fundraiser. Why would he do that since he can far out-raise Fitzpatrick?
2. Murphy has the media adoration that will land him endorsements and free coverage. A spending freeze would only hurt Fitzpatrick who can’t counter the coverage.
3. There are higher priority races for the GOP this year, so Fitzpatrick can’t rely upon outside groups to come in and save him. If Murphy did agree to freeze spending, there are a number of groups that will come in and save him with additional funds because of his leadership on some issues like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the fact that he picked up the tab for the street money for Obama in Philly in 2008.

Fitzpatrick’s “spending freeze” gimmick will only hurt Fitzpatrick. Did no one think that one through? Or are they just hoping that Murphy doesn’t take them up on the offer?

The latest gimmick was the announcement that he’ll honor term limits by not serving more than three additional terms. Great. That means even if Fitzpatrick does win, we will have to go back and fight another uphill battle in six years. If he’s not even going to stick around even if we can manage to elect him, then why should I invest my votes, dollars, and time with Fitzpatrick? At that point, I suspect that my resources are better spent on a candidate like Jeff McGeary or Ira Hoffman. I don’t quite think they are to the point of being able to take on Murphy, but if this gets them started on a path toward name recognition that could serve them well in another run for another office, my investment would still pay off.

Fitzpatrick made the case to PA2010.com that he would be the best candidate because of a serious lead on a campaign infrastructure and experience. If this is the kind of goofy & sloppy campaign we can expect with all of that experience on board, then Fitzpatrick has moved this race closer to the Solid Dem category.

Maybe I shouldn’t feel too bad about not checking a gun when I went to serve today.

I think Carly Fiorina might be channeling Satan. It’s morning in America, morning with really scary glowing red eyed sheep monster!

I don’t know if her ad people are strung out on some of that California legal medical marijuana, or what. But WTF?

Dennis Henigan’s brings the unscientific and loaded Luntz poll up once again, and I think it reveals a lot about what they think about gun owners:

As I have observed elsewhere, talking about guns as a “cultural” issue is a way of framing the issue that is highly beneficial to the NRA. The core of the gun lobby’s strategy is to use fear tactics to keep gun owners in a constant state of agitation so that they can be activated to oppose even modest gun law reforms. The NRA needs gun owners to believe that the debate is not “really about” such reforms as background checks at gun shows, but rather is about a sustained attack on a personal possession that has great practical and symbolic significance for millions of Americans and is, ultimately, about the values of those gun-owning Americans.

In short, the NRA needs the debate to be about banning the guns used by Americans for hunting and self-defense. If, on the other hand, the debate focuses on the pros and cons of specific reforms to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, the NRA is on shaky ground because its own members actually support many of those reforms on the merits. That, of course, is why the NRA is so threatened by the Luntz survey.

What Dennis doesn’t want you to know is they use the same tactics NRA does to raise money. Why? Because it works. If we operate off of fear, they also operate off fear. It may be the opposite face, but it’s still the same coin. But to suggest it’s fear that motivates your average gun owner is disingenuous and insulting. Many join NRA because they are concerned about their Second Amendment rights. They may or may not have a deep understanding of all the intricacies of the issue, or really understand the consequences of certain policies. They are rationally ignorant of much of this, and are fine with joining groups that represent their interests, and not paying close attention to what “gun show loophole” means or what a “terrorist watch list” really is. Explain those things to them, you’ll probably find they don’t support the Brady agenda, and will be angry once they realize someone was trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

Though I still find it interesting that the Brady position continues to, essentially boiled down to “You all are a bunch of paranoids because you won Heller, Obama won’t do anything for us, and you’re kicking our asses in every legislative body in this country. So just shut up and accept gun control already!”

I was not selected for a trial, and they dismissed the remaining jurors this afternoon. I am now $15.80 richer, thanks to the state feeling like they have to pay me, so this doesn’t get misconstrued as slavery, or something like that. The good thing is, it wasn’t a lost day, since they had WiFi in the jury lounge and I was able to VPN into work while I waited for them to tell me they didn’t need me.

I think I can now safely say I have a good luck streak going with jury duty. First time I got called I was in college, and it was the feds calling. They kept deferring me until they finally got me after I graduated. It was two days or one trial. Narrowly missed being selected for one panel the judge said would probably take four days or more. Didn’t get selected in another, and was sent home after just one day. Second time I was called it was Delaware County, and I had just moved to Chester County two weeks ago. Easy out. This time I don’t even end up getting considered, and am sent home after a few hours.

I figure next time my luck will run out, and I’ll get stuck on some complex civil trial for weeks. But for at least the next three years, I don’t have to worry about the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bothering me again.

UPDATE: For those wondering, I did not check a firearm with the Sheriff. By law all courthouses in PA are required to have checking facilities for people who carry firearms. Court houses are one of the few places off limits in PA. Some Courts have a reputation of not dealing with this well, and it would have been a good activist of me to go and check a firearm just so they have to run through the process every once in a while, and remain used to the idea. But I had to be in Doylestown at 8:30, which means I needed to leave at 7:30, there was snow on the ground, and I just didn’t want to deal with getting delayed if they Sheriff wasn’t used to handling it.

From the Caesar Rodney Institute:

A section in the handbook requiring that tenants must “not possess explosives, firearms or flammable material on NHA’s property,” will be removed, Detwiler told the Caesar Rodney Institute Wednesday morning.

Detwiler, who is nearing the end of his six-year term as commissioner, said NHA executive director Marene Jordan is “looking to change the pamphlet a soon as possible.”

Meanwhile, Detwiler said, NHA residents may possess firearms, “as long as they’re legal.”

“It should be an absolute moot issue in the near future,” Detwiler said. “The handbook was misleading. I think the previous executive director made up that policy. I do believe it is my constitutional right [to own firearms]. I support my Constitution.”

Jordan did not immediately return calls seeking comment

Gun bans at the Newark Housing Authority, along with the Delaware State Housing Authority and those in Wilmington and Dover are the subject of an ongoing series by the Caesar Rodney Institute.

After the series was published, the National Rifle Association informed the housing authorities they would take legal action if the unconstitutional gun bans were not immediately withdrawn.

I will continue to laugh at those who say Heller was a loss or didn’t mean anything. Now all it takes to get an unconstitutional gun ban out the door is a sharply worded letter. That wouldn’t have been possible without the Supreme Court ruling.

The New Jersey Coalition for Self-Defense begs to differ.

The Editorial Board of the Philadelphia Inquirer would presumably be against denying suspected terrorists of their fourth amendment rights, fifth amendment rights and sixth amendment rights, without due process of law. But they are absolutely fine with, and even advocate, denying American Citizens their Second Amendment right without due process.

The new episode is on the DVR. There will be no spoilers allowed. Thanks to Sebastian’s new crazy work schedule, our speedy viewing sessions have dropped dramatically. We’re waiting to catch a couple of hours in a row to watch the finale of Season 3. Obviously, that still leaves us with 2 more seasons.

We’re getting to an interesting point in this little viewing exercise. I find the show to be quite predictable by now, and I find myself hoping that more characters die. In fact, I say we just give up and nuke the whole damn island/island chain/whatever. This doesn’t give me much hope for the remaining three seasons. Perhaps those of you who watched last night can give a spoiler-free clue as to whether it is worth it, or I’ll be screaming at the computer to just nuke the whole damn world in order to be free of these characters.

I feel a bit dirty, because I am now a Republican once again. I left the Party back in 2000 and registered Libertarian in frustration over what the GOP had become. Not that I’m any happier with them now, but we have a primary coming up, and I want to have a vote. Plus, it doesn’t do much good to try to influence a Party you’re not a member of.

I had been meaning to do it for some time, but when I got to the Courthouse today, it turns out the County Election Office is right next to the Jury Lounge, so I decided to take advantage of it.

Nevadans aren’t too happy with President Obama right now. They were once polite in asking Obama not to attack their state. Now they are being a little more blunt. Next time, I suspect the request will look something like: “Shut you damn pie hole, you pompous prick! Oh, and how do you like you Senate without a Majority Leader?”

Now they are talking about it in Canada too.

Sebastian was called up for jury duty this morning. Because he was working very late last night, getting up early was less than ideal. Add to the fact that he never leaves enough time to get ready in the morning when his schedule changes, snow, and a rush hour he’s not used to, and you have the makings of a stressed out Sebastian.

But, he’s doing something good for the community – or something. He took his phone and computer. Hopefully he can get some work done or do a bit of blogging. Of course, there’s not much to find out there. Things are pretty slow right now.

Reason asks Alan Gura about positive developments that have happened since Heller, and he names three. There are still people in our movement who think Heller was an abject failure, and I continue to be amazed that reasonable people can continue believing this. We saw suburb after suburb near Chicago give up their local bans under threat of lawsuit, and we saw a the San Francisco housing authority cave in on their gun ban in public housing under threat of lawsuit.

First off we have Massachusetts talking about easing their discretionary licensing scheme, a major paper editorializing in favor of it, and a very good chance this will actually pass. In Massachusetts, you need police permission to even own a handgun, and that permission can be impossible to obtain if you have an anti-gun police chief in your town. Police chiefs have full discretion in regards to handgun ownership. Even New Jersey is at least technically shall-issue when it comes to pistol purchase permits. This measure is being pushed, and has a good chance for passage specifically because lawmakers in Massachusetts know that their licensing scheme won’t pass constitutional muster even under the relatively ill-defined standard of review in Heller.

That brings us again to Delaware, which apparently has a public housing ban. This topic is being covered well by the Caesar Rodney Institute blog, which is reporting that NRA is threatening Delaware state authorities with a lawsuit if they don’t relent on the “no guns” policy. You can see the demand letter written by Robert Dowlut, NRA General Counsel here. Note the following:

Article I, § 20 of the Delaware Constitution guarantees that “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.” Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), held that the right to keep an operable firearm in the home for self-defense is a core right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Consequently, the court struck down a ban on the possession of handguns and a ban on the possession of operable firearms in the home.

Would we even be able to raise this if it wasn’t for Heller? Doubtful. I’d like to think we’re at a dawn of a pretty robust right to keep and bear arms, that will put the kibosh on the worst the states are able to do. I believe this will put our opponents in a pretty tough pickle, and while I’m not convinced gun control will ever really go away, we at least have an opportunity before us to deal its current incarnation a serious blow.

Only a politician can call for a gun ban on Friday night and then sign on to speak at a pro-liberty shooting event hosted at a gun club on Tuesday and not see the hypocrisy.

As we’ve mentioned, Jack Wagner said he supported a ban on semi-automatic rifles on Friday night at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit. This afternoon, the Commonwealth Foundation posted a Facebook listing for their annual LiveFreePA fundraiser. Guess who confirmed his attendance? Jack Wagner. To his credit, he’s the only Democrat who is on their confirmed speakers list. To his discredit, he’d ban the guns that the members of the host club use regularly.

When they do catch people, and prosecute them, under the laws we have against straw purchasing, they don’t get any real punishment. Yet they scream louder and louder every year at Harrisburg that they need more laws they won’t enforce. How are more laws going to help when they aren’t even using the ones they already have?

The Defensive Handgun blog points out there’s still a Senate companion to the bill that was voted down in committee, in addition to one other house bill that would regulate gun shows. Dave Adams, President of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, is rallying the troops to try to defeat SB595, the Senate companion, as well.

As mentioned by Bitter yesterday, none of the Democratic candidates for Pennsylvania Governor support our Second Amendment rights. They are all in favor of radical gun control measures, including semi-auto bans, ending statewide preemption and letting local governments infringe on our rights, rationing gun purchases, and, in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller, requiring child safety locks. But I won’t make you take my word for it, I’ll let them do the talking.

Some things you will miss in this video, is the scant applause gun control receives from even this very progressive crowd. There’s maybe two to four people in the back clapping after every answer, whereas on other topics, like health care, the candidates get rousing and loud applause from the room. What does the Democratic Party think it has to gain in Pennsylvania by continuing to hammer away on this losing issue? Let’s teach them a lesson in November. Eight years is long enough to have a gun grabber in the Governor’s mansion.

Boy, the tears must be flowing over at the Brady headquarters this week. First, they discover that rap and rock musicians sometimes embrace violence. After that, they learn that references to firearms are common in the vernacular. And now they find out that Obama has included the Tiahrt Amendment in his budget.