Here’s the kind of reasonable restrictions the Bush justice department apparently think is just fine. Do you think gang members in Chicago are paying these fees?
Year: 2008
NRA Screwed Up In Endorsing Bush
There, I said it. Happy now? Bush was always a lesser of two evils choice. I think NRA needs to reconsider whether endorsing a lesser of two evils candidate is really worthwhile. If Bush is the bar for getting an endorsement, what incentive do other candidate have to work hard for it? The bar for 2008 must be set higher than it was in 2000 and 2004. In other words, don’t even think about endorsing Guiliani or Romney. Even McCain I would be reluctant to endorse at this point.
This part would normally be where I should rant on about how the NRA endorsement system is a total cluster fuck, how NRA doesn’t represent the interest of gun owners, and how Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre are incompetent boobs and have hurt the cause by leading all us useful idiots down this dank dark path, and collecting luxuriant salaries while doing that. Apparently that’s the proper way to disagree with NRA. I must have not gotten the memo.
But you know I’m not going to do that, because I think most of their critics in the same place would also make mistakes; probably a lot more than these guys do. There’s no magic formula for winning in politics.  Let me say that again so it sinks in: There is no magic formula for winning at politics.  People saying they have one (like, if you just never compromise, if you just scream “No!”, you’ll win!) are selling snake oil.
The endorsement system is a political tool. I don’t have to condemn NRA for their endorsement of Bush, because the consequences of that endorsement are built into the system; Bush has lowed the bar of NRA’s endorsement and reduced its value.  Real friends won’t do that to someone who helped get them elected, but while Bush is loyal to his personal friends to a fault, his loyalty to his political constituencies has left a lot to be desired. I’m not sure there’s any constituency left in the Republican Party has hasn’t punched in the face by Bush.
NRA needs to be more careful in its 2008 endorsements. These things do matter, and we’re seeing the result of putting someone in the White House who doesn’t seem to be all that loyal to the people who helped put him there.
Next Moves
I hold out the possibility that someone in the Administration put forward this brief without the President’s knowledge. If that is the case, I want to see people in the Solicitor General’s office, who have their name on this brief, getting sacked. Chief Council for ATF was the person who wrote the brief. Did Michael Sullivan know about it or not? He’s ultimately responsible for what happens at ATF, regardless. Will President Bush withdraw his nomination?
The next few days will show whether Bush has indeed decided to abandon the second amendment, and throw America’s gun owners off his ship of state. If this was done without his knowledge, and if he wishes to repudiate this action, heads must roll now.
Can someone explain to me …
what George W. Bush’s administration has done for gun owners? His administration has filed a brief supporting the DC gun ban. This is nothing more than total an utter betrayal by Bush of gun owners. John Ashcroft was a friend of the second amendment, no doubt on that, but I don’t think Bush ever was.
NRA needs to set a VERY high standard for the next Republican candidate for getting an endorsement, and if he doesn’t meet that standard, he doesn’t get it. John McCain, I’m talking to you. Start kissing ass now buddy, because you have some amends to make. If you’re our friend in the same way Bush said he was, you can go get bent.
George W. Bush is no friend of gun owners. He did not ever deserve NRA’s endorsement. This is a betrayal that cannot be forgiven.
UPDATE: Guess who wrote the brief? Chief Council for ATF. Guess who his boss is?
UPDATE: Joe Huffman has an excerpt of the brief and had this to say:
This is from a brief filed in favor of D.C. in the Heller case. If I read it correctly they are concerned that the ATF could be put out of a job because they might no longer be able to regulated the manufacture and sale of firearms and maintain their registry of machineguns. Hence, they want to be left with some power to regulate firearms. I’m not a friend of the ATF (individuals at the ATF is something different) but D.C. surely cannot consider them much of a friend either.
The basic crux of the brief is that the Administration is arguing for a standard less than strict scrutiny on right to bear arms cases.  They aren’t arguing that the second amendment isn’t an individual right. Nonetheless, this opens the door to the possibility of what I would call a “worst case” individual rights ruling, which would basically make the second amendment the only fundamental right protected by the bill of rights which is subject only to intermediate scrutiny at best, and a rational basis test at worst.
This outcome would not be a complete disaster, but if it leaves the door open for cities to ban the possession of functional firearms, there’s not much that the second amendment could be considered an obstacle to. The second amendment needs to be subject to strict scrutiny, otherwise the lower courts will rule that the Heller precedent doesn’t mean a damned thing, just like they did with Miller.
I think we can ask for more than this out of a supposedly pro-gun president that gun owners helped put in office.
My 2008 Election Coverage
In case you haven’t been able to tell yet, Snowflakes in Hell will have more emphasis on the elections in 2008 than have previously. There is nothing of greater consequence to gun owners than elections. They decide what can and can’t be accomplished, and ultimately decide whether we have our rights protected, or spat upon.
Via Dr. Helen I found an excellent article by Jonah Goldberg I think you all should read.
Huckabee, who once promised to “take back this nation for Christ,” has masterfully blended right-wing identity politics with feel-your-pain populism. “There’s a great need in this country,” Huckabee explained, “to elect someone who reminds them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off.”
He’s largely right — and shame on us for it. I’ve never met an employer who likes cutting jobs. Yet the assumption behind Hucka-Edwardsism is that if we only had a president who understands — feels! — the pain of losing a job, people wouldn’t lose their jobs.
Huckabee is the Jesus loving version of Bill Clinton, which is part of why I find the viability of his candidacy more than a little creepy. He’s striking chords with a very influential part of the Republican base, who I am beginning to conclude cares far less about the principles of limited government than they do about electing themselves a former preacher.
The Republican coalition was beginning to show strain when we nominated George W. Bush. The events of 9/11 temporarily clouded our differences, but with America being eight years removed from the events of that day, and with Iraq looking like it’s settling down, I think the fissures within the Republican coalition are starting to appear again.
I believe 2008 may end up deciding whether that coalition is salvageable, or is irrevocably broken. I fear the consequences of a broken coalition will be progressive Democratic rule for another couple of decades, and I don’t think our country, as we know it, and as our aspirations wish it to be, will survive that.
Classical Values also has some excellent commentary on Jonah’s article as well. Go check out it out.
The Menacing In-Line Muzzle Loader
I am not surprised they are using these tactics, since it’s worked for them before. See, the modern inline muzzle loader looks, well, modern. It looks like a modern rifle, so it must, by default, be a modern rifle, which is more deadly and powerful. The antique and antique replicas look like old guns, and, of course, must be less powerful and deadly. A hunter that presumes that he doesn’t have a dog in the “assault weapons” fight is sadly mistaken. What’s going on in New York right now is a prime example of that.
They are basically taking a page from the Josh Sugarman playbook.
If You Read No Other Post Today …
… read (or watch, rather) this one.
Booze, Drugs, and Guns
SayUncle talks about the pants shitting hysterics the Brady Campaign is using against carry on college campuses. The Brady’s are experts at framing debate. Their rhetoric automatically makes people think of rowdy drunken frat boys shooting guns into the air.
When I was in college, I was too busy studying, and working to pay for it all, to have much time for the whole binge drinking scene. In fact, I probably drink more now than I did in college.  The problem with the Brady rhetoric is that drunken college kids are too busy, well, drinking, to have time and money to spend on a side arm, and all the training that’s required to get a license to carry one.
I didn’t get a carry license until I was in my mid twenties, because in my early twenties I didn’t have the money for it, or the time to become and stay skilled. I think the Brady’s are fooling the public about the kind of person who chooses to get a license to carry a gun. If a 21 or older person in college has the time, money, and dedication to go through what we all did to get a carry license, he’s ot the kind of person I’m worried about having a firearm on campus.
Snowflakes in Baghdad
Well, I guess it’s not hell, but I think some people would probably say it is.
It’s the Wheelbarrows Full of Cash
Sailorcurt offers me some criticism in the comments:
Sebastian, I have a lot of respect for you. You seem to be a very reasonable, wise, and responsible person…but I fail to understand your seemingly vested interest in supporting the NRA no matter what.
I do it because we need a national gun rights movement, and the NRA is the only organization out there that represents that. SAF, JPFO, and even GOA sometimes can have their uses, but if we had to rely on those organizations we’d be finished. I support the NRA even when they make mistakes because I want to win this. For me, and for future generations.
But I’m also not supporting this situation. I’ve said repeatedly I disagree with the NRA’s priorities in Georgia. I have told them the same. But my perspective is one of a concealed carry license holder. An important thing to remember is that people who carry guns are a minority among gun owners. Reforming carry laws may be a priority to you and me, but there is a lot of support for the “Parking Lot” initiative among gun owners in general, especially gun owners who hunt and shoot recreationally after work.  Should NRA abandon those interests in favor of ours? Would the people who support the Parking Lot initiative as their priority also be justified in their anger at NRA for abandoning them?
Maybe I’m wrong for not being more outraged by this. If you think that’s the case don’t be shy in the comments. But I think we need to distinguish between making some interests of gun owners a priority over others, and throwing other groups of gun owners under the bus for the sake of others. Carry reform is not dead in Georgia because of this. If NRA had agreed to, say, add more restrictions on concealed carry to get their parking lot bill, my level of anger would be a a lot higher.  That’s the kind of thing we can’t do.
GeorgiaCarry.org is pissed because their legislation, which seemed likely to pass, got killed when NRA attached their Parking Lot provision to it. I don’t blame GCO for being pissed about it. They represent a certain constituency, and NRA decided another one was more important. Was this a smart thing for NRA to do? From my point of view, no.  But my point of view isn’t the only one that matters.