Snowflakes in Hell

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.

I found the cure for that pesky case of Optimism you’ve been fighting since Scott Brown’s election. It was on the front page of Politico this morning:

AP Image

An environmental group has come up with a headline-grabbing attention whore scheme innovative new way to address the issues of endangered animals and human overpopulation that will be sure to show tangible results.

The solution to these major problems? Condoms with endangered animal-themed packages.

Because clearly some guy in need of a condom fast is going to take the time to think about the merits of the overpopulation concerns and how humans impact the environment of the endangered Fresno Kangaroo Rat.

In case it’s not obvious from the last serious post, it’s time for real life politics to start in high gear. Here in the Keystone State, 10 of our 19 Congressional districts have been rated by Cook as reasonably competitive. Surprisingly, even our own home base district is more competitive even though the county GOP is seemingly trying to destroy any goodwill with voters it might have left.

I’ve managed to organize a meeting of upper level activists from across Eastern PA (plus NUGUN who is technically closer to the middle) in a couple of weeks to lay down ideas/tips/strategy for the upcoming election season.

Candidates are still declaring and still dropping out. We’re now up to 10 known pro-gun retirements in Harrisburg with fewer than half that for anti-gunners. Gun owners in Pennsylvania are even losing one of their most powerful allies – the Speaker of the House.

Contrary to the hype and buzz online, there’s not going to be one iota of change in our favor this year if people don’t step up. Talking about on the internet does not actually make it happen at the ballot box.

On the other hand, I am also in the process of trying to track down every candidate on Twitter and Facebook. I try to keep an eye on them in case they say anything stupid or anti-gun, but I suppose I’m being redundant.

Obama’s plan to freeze some spending someday in the future sounds like a nice talking point for those voters who don’t really pay attention to the details. Here’s a video to show those folks just how hollow that promise really is:

By the way, I’ll admit that I was a little sad those weren’t jello shots.

Basic gist of it is, a guy gets a domestic restraining order slapped on him. His guns were consigned to a local FFL who was trying to sell them on his behalf. Local authorities went to the FFL, and seized the guns:

Krajenka said he simply was following Judge Paul H. Lawrence’s order out of Goffstown District Court.

“The court ordered the weapons to be taken. The weapons were taken,” Krajenka said.

And while Hillsborough County Attorney Robert Walsh insists Krajenka acted appropriately — especially in light of a domestic murder/suicide in Manchester last fall, in which guns should have been seized but were not — firing-range owner James L. McLoud has filed in court against the chief demanding the guns be immediately returned to him.

No, they were not taken appropriately. Legally they were in the custody of the FFL, and they were in his possession under federal law. I would file a Lost/Theft report with ATF, and let them sort the problem out.

Krajenka threatened to arrest him at his business, McLoud said, adding that he was tempted to get arrested to prove a point.

“(Krajenka) was very rude and disrespectful,” McLoud said. “I said, ‘You’re in my place of business. You need to shut your mouth.’”

McLoud hired Concord attorney Jason Major to argue in Goffstown District Court, in what is known as a writ of replevin, that the weapons should be returned to McLoud immediately.

“(Murphy) has the right to get (85 percent of) the money if they sell, but from a legal point of view, the guns are not leaving the range until someone passes a federal background check,” Major said.

“From our point of view, the guns were in the inventory of the company and under federal law couldn’t be returned Michael Murphy,” he said.

I’ve shot at Manchester Firing Line, actually, and is a very nice range. Kudos to the proprietor for standing up for himself. He’s in the legal right on this one and will win. I wouldn’t be surprised if a federal civil rights suit isn’t filed thereafter, since the seizure would have been a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Krajenka acted under color of law here.

While the rest of the country is busy giving homeowners more leeway, it would seem the Buffalo, New York media is trying to stir a debate about whether home defense with deadly force should be allowed at all:

Cherry, a soft-spoken and polite Army veteran, said he was protecting himself from a home burglary at about 11:20 a.m. Jan. 21, when he fired 15 shots from a military-style assault rifle at the vehicle of a fleeing intruder.

OK, that’s a legitimate prosecutable offense, and the fact that it was his step-daughter probably isn’t going to play well in front of a jury. But this shouldn’t be a debate, and I see no reason to drag other, legitimate home defense cases in with this one:

• Willie J. Carson, 52, shot Parrish C. Spencer Jr., 22, in the chest Jan. 20, after the younger man broke into Carson’s 25th Street home and went upstairs, Niagara Falls police said.

No charges have been filed against Carson, but police have said the case has been turned over to the Niagara County district attorney’s office for further investigation.

• An 82-year-old Niagara Falls man, apparently scared and confused after a group of teens attempted to break into his home Jan. 15, fired one shotgun blast at police after they entered the home and found him hiding behind a closed door.

No one was hit, and the elderly man was not charged.

• Charles E. Gidney Sr., an off-duty Buffalo police officer, shot and killed one intruder, Reno D. Sayles, 36, and seriously wounded another inside his Buffalo home last April 22.

In his statement to police, Gidney said he grabbed his handgun, pointed it at the two men, one wearing a ski mask, and ordered them to “freeze.” Instead, they rushed at him, and he fired several shots, he said.

With the exception of the old man mistakenly shooting at police, all of these look pretty legitimate, even for New York. Fortunately, the Buffalo News goes on to describe the legal distinctions when it comes to using deadly force to defend the home. I think it’s OK for papers to cover this, but it’s not really a “debate” per se. I would find it hard to believe juries even in New York will convict people for shooting home invaders. Shooting at someone fleeing is a different matter.

I’m wondering if the Brady folks are on some new campaign to try to court old people or something, first, channeling Tipper Gore, railing against the music industry, and now complaining about those damned commercials on Television. Perhaps Paul will start a lecture series on how you can make sure those damned kids stay off your lawn without chasing them off by menacing them with a gun (Preferred Brady alternative, a cane, a cane). It’s OK, Paul, we all get old sometime, and it does sure beat the alternative. For the record, here’s what has Bradys panties in a bunch:

The advertisement sort of references a gun chamber!

In the ad, LeBron James and Kobe Bryant give us their best “I’m tough” look and the ad reads “Prepare For Combat.” On Kobe Bryant’s side of the advertisement, Bryant says “I’ll do whatever it takes to win games, I don’t leave anything in the chamber.”

The “chamber” comment references the area of a gun where bullets are stored prior to release.

Next up on the Brady agenda… attacking firearms metaphors. Let’s think of a few that will clearly upset them:

• Hit the nail on the head.
• Go off half cocked.
• Like shooting fish in a barrel.
• He’s a real straight shooter.
• Shooting the breeze?
• Shooting the messenger!

Hot damn, the American vernacular is just full of shooting metaphors. Clearly the Brady Campaign has a lot of important work ahead of them on this matter.

I would have said the chances are slim, but even the Washington Post is covering the possibility of a gun rights movement in India:

When gunmen attacked 10 sites in Mumbai in November 2008, including two five-star hotels and a train station, Mumbai resident Kumar Verma sat at home glued to the television, feeling outraged and unsafe.

Before the end of December, Verma and his friends had applied for gun licenses. He read up on India’sgun laws and joined the Web forum Indians for Guns. When he got his license seven months later, he bought a black, secondhand, snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver with a walnut grip.

It’ll be interesting if India turns out to be a major front in the international battle to get other governments to recognize their people have the right to effective tools needed to defend their lives and liberty against predation, like we saw in the Mumbai attacks.

Most voters don’t spend Friday night tuned into PCN – Pennsylvania’s version of C-SPAN – to watch coverage of small political events. Perhaps that’s what the Democratic gubernatorial candidates were counting on when they debated at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit. Hoping gun owners, especially those registered as Democrats, wouldn’t find out, each of the candidates pledged to support more restrictions on your rights.

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato started the series of gun control promises by calling for a statewide so-called “lost and stolen” law. He apparently doesn’t mind that the legislation would change the justice system into one in which gun owners are guilty until proven innocent. Prosecutors could financially ruin gun owners as they try to prove themselves innocent. Onorato continued by pledging to support “child safety locks,” though he declined to explain whether his version of the legislation would mandate the sale of locks to increase gun prices or challenge the ruling of Heller by forcing gun owners to lock their guns at home. Finally, Onorato unveiled his most controversial plan for gun control – ending state preemption in Pennsylvania.

Under Onorato’s dismantling of state authority on gun laws, concealed carry permit holders could be arrested if they visit Philadelphia. Hunters heading to their favorite tree stand in the next county may find that their favorite hunting rifles are banned. Every time a gun owner crosses a city limit, he or she may be in violation of a local ordinance that could lead to arrest and cost them their rights.

Of course, Onorato told reporters at his campaign launch that any perception of a pro-rights record was a “mischaracterization.” I don’t think most gun owners would have realized how much of mischaracterization that really was!

Next, Auditor General Jack Wagner dodged most state policy issues on gun rights – save one. Unfortunately for gun owners, it was a very, very big issue. Wagner, while claiming to support the Second Amendment, stated his support for a ban on semi-automatic rifles. These are not machine guns, but average rifles that gun owners often take into the field for hunting or to the range for competition. He did not explain whether his support for such a ban would include confiscation for those already owned.

Third in line, Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty joined Onorato in his support of ending state preemption. In fact, this was actually the priority pledge in his debate response. Clearly, he hasn’t heard that a recent poll showed 56% of Pennsylvanians support preemption of gun laws. His other priority, should he take office, is to restrict sales of guns to only one per month. Collectors would no longer be allowed to by matching sets. The only way to track such sales would also mean the formal creation of a gun owner registry in Pennsylvania.

Finally, Joe Hoeffel, the candidate running farther left than most of the others kept his answer as essentially all of the above. Specifically, he named these priorities: gun sales limits (and presumably the registry needed to track such sales), lost and stolen legislation, mandatory locks (though again without clarification on whether this applies to sales or storage), and the end of state preemption. In addition to the previously discussed issues, Hoeffel also supports a ban on private sales of firearms in Pennsylvania. Selling the rifle that collects dust in the back of the safe to a trusted family member will become a criminal act in Pennsylvania if Joe Hoeffel has his way.

Gun owners, particularly those who are registered as Democrats, need to speak out to these candidates. The primary race is close, and there is no clear winner. Make sure these candidates know that their support of gun control will cost them votes at the ballot box.

Cross posted from PAGunRights.com.

This IPSC like stage with submachine guns looks like a hell of a lot of fun. Seems the winning strategy is to have a drum mag of some kind. The folks with .22LR submachine guns seem to do well just mowing down the bowling pins:

Courtesy of Vegas Shooters. Click here if you can’t see the embedded link above.

UPDATE: Sorry folks, I didn’t realize it was set to auto play. Next time that happens let me know. I will never intentionally set up anything to auto play on this blog. If you see it, it’s a mistake.

The Bucks County Courier Times covers the 1 million dollars donation by Barker too, and includes this:

Barker said he believes “the good citizens in Pennsylvania would be embarrassed if they knew in detail just how horrific these pigeon shoots are,” Barker said. “These are not hunters. They’re assassins.”

Assassins kill people. Birds are not people. Whether pigeon shooting is right or wrong, it’s not the moral equivalent to murdering humans, sorry.

For years, Barker said, “I’ve heard the same thing from everyone that is tormenting animals. There are thousands of people who are helping with every disease and the children of Haiti, but there are very few who are giving any money to help animals,” Barker said. “That’s what I do.

“I wonder how much the members of the gun club have given for the children of Haiti,” Barker added.

How many children in Haiti would that cool million have helped Bob? Don’t play that moral card with us, asshole. You’re donating a million to save fucking pigeons. There’s nothing particularly noble about that. If you have a million dollars burning a hole in your pocket, why not donate it to children in Haiti? If it’s because the pigeons are important to you, you have no moral room to disparage others who also feel passionately about the pigeons… err… as targets.

Even if protesters somehow managed to shut down the pigeon shoots, that wouldn’t save the birds, Corr said. “The pigeons in question have been trapped as pests and are in line for extermination,” according to Corr. “The pest control companies usually accomplish this by asphyxiation, more precisely by sealing the trap with plastic and then introducing carbon dioxide gas.”

One could perhaps argue that’s more humane than shooting them, but the point that pigeons are vermin is a valid one. They will be killed one way or the other. What makes Leo Holt particularly more reprehensible than the pest control workers who kill the pigeons by gassing them to death or poisoning them?

Keep in mind that I have no issue with groups putting social pressure on PGC to cease their pigeon shoots, and wouldn’t even have a problem with Bob Barker lending his celebrity to the cause. But that million will go to lobbying — lobbying for a ban that’s going to ban many forms of dog training, among other things as well, including putting pigeon shooters in prison. Social pressure is fine, but I do not advocate the government coming in and forcing one group’s moral preferences on another. Isn’t that what folks get uppity about the religious right for?

I’m not generally one to make calls for unity, probably because I think some degree of debate and disagreement within the community is healthy and understandable. But I have to agree with Dave Hardy on this one:

There are three ways to reach Second Amendment incorporation, at least two of which have present and powerful advocates. I can only say that I’m in correspondence with both, and they really wish there could be an end to to conflict. Bottom line: if the three routes to incorporation each got two votes, it’s still a 6-3 and a win, the other side is left to ponder that “almost” only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades, and the winner who favors one route or another has some votes (for the first time in my lifetime) on which to build. They’re going into the fight of their lives, no OUR lives, and don’t need the distractions. We can all engage in internecine battles after oral argument, or better yet, the decision. For now they need to concentrate.

Hardy is, of course, speaking about the conflict brought about by this, which is one of the reasons I felt it was a poor course of action; that it would promote a conflict at a time when we did not need one. That’s spilled into the blogosphere a bit with statements said here, here, here, and here. However, I agree with Dave, there’s no bad way to win this, the important thing is that we win.

Tonight, Arlen Specter said he would endorse a constitutional amendment limiting corporate spending. Not corporate spending on campaigns. Just corporate spending.

I don’t know where to begin.

Bob Barker is donating a million dollars to an animal rights group to fight for a pigeon shooting ban in Pennsylvania, and suggesting he’s going to join protestors outside of Philadelphia Gun Club. I have not been very supportive of Philadelphia Gun Club on this issue, and I consider to believe they are a liability on this issue, but nor am I a fan of the proposed ban HSUS is floating in Pennsylvania, largely because it will also ban many of the methods used in the training of hunting dogs, as well as other completely legitimate sporting activities in the Commonwealth.

The politics of this issue is difficult, because as the ban currently is must be opposed. But I have other, ancillary concerns with it as well. If a ban comes before the legislature, we have a number of local politicians who will likely part from NRA on this issue, even though on other issues they would be otherwise good. I don’t want them to get in the habit of having to go against NRA, especially when I know doing that isn’t likely to hurt them much considering the suburban makeup of the local gun community (most of whom don’t do pigeon shooting, or even hunting dog training for that matter). The only hope is to keep this bottled up in committee so they don’t have to vote on it. Philadelphia Gun Club is making it more likely there’s going to be a vote.

For the record, Pennsylvania is not the only state that still has pigeon shoots. The animal rights folks are lying in order to embarrass us on that count. But Philadelphia Gun Club is the only club in a suburban area doing them. While I understand the club has been around for a long time, and has been doing live pigeon shoots nearly as long, I think they are doing the shooting sports and hunters a grave disservice by continuing to hold live pigeon shoots in an area where it’s not possible to be discrete about it, and where the surrounding culture is not going to be supportive of the practice.

PAFOA thread on the topic here. Looks like several people are already on top of it. I do offer a bit of cautionary warning about open carrying to the public meeting, but that aside, this thread is only a day old, and it’s great to see people organizing against it in such a short amount of time. There’s a simple message I would suggest folks try to deliver to Radnor Township Supervisors:

• Lost and Stolen ordinances have been passed across the state, but there has not been a single criminal prosecution under any of them.
• It is the opinion of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania that these ordinances are unlawful under state law.
• These laws have not been shown to be effective at reducing crime or reducing straw purchasing. These ordinances are being promoted by gun control proponents with a hidden agenda.

That’s essentially what I would focus on when confronting the Township Supervisors. Keep ancillary issues like open carry out of the equation, and not give the media any reason to focus on them, or to try to sell the pro-gun presence there as “intimidation”. The goal is to convince them that activists on the other side are playing them as fools, and that they would be inserting themselves into a contentious social issue for no good reason. Township level politicians aren’t used to controversy, and don’t typically seek it out. Give them controversy, plant doubt, and they will fold.

Jacob points out that New York Newsday, a Long Island based paper that is very anti-gun, is having some stellar success with their new online subscriber model. A revenue busting thirty five members have subscribed to the paper so far. Hell, I could probably raise more revenue than that for this blog if I put up a tip jar and begged for donations. Maybe they should have just started a blog.

Dave Hardy has an excellent summary of the reply briefs in the McDonald case.  These are the briefs filed by the Petitioners (McDonald et al. represented by Alan Gura) and the Respondents in Support of the Petitioners (NRA represented by Stephen Poss and Stephen Halbrook), an excerpt:

The Steves (Halbrook and Poss), briefing for NRA, put their main weight on this clause. Chicago’s claims are paradoxical — that infringing a right can contribute to “ordered liberty.” Its idea of ordered liberty is that of a police state, order always triumphs over liberty. It claims falsely that the 14th Amendment is all about equality, not only equality of rights but equality of their infringement. Presumably, Chicago thinks the Black Codes would have been no problem if their oppressions applied to everyone. The framers of the 14th Amendment would beg to disagree.

Go read the whole thing. I haven not yet had time to read any of the briefs yet, and I don’t know when I will given my work schedule, but I am going to try to be present in DC for the McDonald case. Still deciding whether I want to camp outside.

I admit it, I love following the Brady Campaign on social media outlets. I don’t pick on every little thing they do, but every once in a while, they just beg for it. Today, Paul put up a post on the blog no one reads on the problems of musicians glorifying violence. The only reason I saw it was because it had a mildly witty title that tweeted out with it.

Now, if Paul was truly serious about violence promoted by musicians, his efforts are laughable. He doesn’t call for any action other than watching more Brady-produced propaganda. There’s no threat to raise hell about what this teaches kids. He just asks people to give him more YouTube views. Woo-freakin’-hoo. Way to stand up for the cause there, Paulie.

“Yo Paul, I’m gonna let you finish, but Heston had one of the best rap-violence condemnations of all time.”

So I ask: Who is more effective? Charlton Heston putting his career on the line to pressure Time Warner to drop Ice-T or Paul putting up a blog post that no one reads asking people to watch a video.

It just goes to show that if the Brady Campaign was truly serious about addressing the problem of violence – and how it is embraced so casually in the entertainment world – they would take a serious stand. But considering how Paul runs to Hollywood for his fundraising dollars, I doubt we’ll ever see such a condemnation.

I did a post a few days ago about the Facebook presences of a few anti-gun groups providing some good reasoned discourse opportunity. As of now Heeding God’s Call has a whopping 96 Facebook Fans, which is better than 62, which is the number for CeaseFire Pennsylvania.

My friend Dan, who runs PAFOA, decided to start a new media initiative in the middle of January, and made it a goal to get to 1000 fans for PAFOA by the end of the month. Currently that number stands at 1900. He’s since had to revise his goal to reach 2000 by the end of the month. Here’s the PAFOA Facebook page, so if you’re on Facebook, go become a fan and help embarrass the Pennsylvania gun control groups.

It doesn’t make a good Michael Moore post unless you can show he’s a hypocrite. Fortunately, Moore gives us plenty of fodder.

Michael Moore’s latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story – which bashes taxpayer bailouts of big Wall Street companies – was itself the recipient of taxpayer subsidies from the state of Michigan, the Mackinac center reports. Moore previously bashed the film tax credit program, calling it a handout for big Hollywood production companies.

I guess it is only objectionable when taxpayers are forced to subsidize other rich fat cats.

The House Speaker, that is.

It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for “in-flight services” – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That’s almost $1,000 per week.

I could use a spare bottle of Grey Goose if she’s got a bottle (or even half!) laying around. I just got our sampler of vanilla beans from around the world in, and now the 2 cups of extract I planned to make aren’t going to be nearly enough.

Dave Hardy points to his original 1974 law review on the Second Amendment. He scanned the whole paper if you want to read it. Pretty interesting.