February 2009 – Page 12 – Shall Not Be Questioned

NRA Board Nominations

Weâ€™ve already covered the composition of the NRA Board of Directors and how members are elected to the board. One of the next frequently misunderstood topics Iâ€™ve observed on the internet is how people get on the ballot in the first place.

There are two types of nominations you will see listed in your NRA magazine if you are a voting member. One is by the Nominating Committee, and the other is by Petition. Some director candidates choose to do both to demonstrate grassroots support, even if they have the support of other board members through the Nominating Committee.

First, Iâ€™ll address those nominated by petition. Candidates for the board may submit the names and personal information of 250 voting-eligible NRA members to be placed on the ballot. No more than five petition candidates from a single state may be on the ballot in the same year. If more than five submit their petitions, the five with the most valid signatures will be included on the ballot.

Next, we have the Nominating Committee candidates. Each year, the full board votes for a smaller committee made up of nine board members to process through nominations and select candidates they feel would best represent members on the board. For obvious reasons, this process has – at times – been controversial when some did not like the slate of endorsed candidates.

Historically speaking, those candidates endorsed by the Nominating Committee are typically the top vote getters. The candidates themselves usually note their support by the Committee in their official bios to show that they have the support of their fellow board members. In addition, the Committee will publish a list of their endorsed nominees in the same issue as the ballot. Regardless, being endorsed by the Committee is by no means a promise of being winning a seat on the board. In most years, the Committee will endorse more than 25 candidates â€“ more than the number who could possibly win. Itâ€™s not unusual to see 30 or more endorsed candidates.

Case Against Lead Ammunition Building

We’re seeing more and more stories like this.Â This one from Wisconsin pointing out birds are dying of lead poisoning, and it’s the fault of ammunition from hunting and lead sinkers.Â Here are some questions I ask when I see these studies:

But, he said, “I think the lead bullets in venison reopened the door again. I do believe that over the past couple of years that a lot of things have changed.”

What studies have shown that lead fragments in venison contribute to lead poisoning in humans?Â Humans have been consuming animals killed by lead shot and lead bullets (musket bullets have a lot more lead in them, in fact) for centuries.Â Why is it only now that it’s a problem?

The DNR study also found lead fishing tackle in all loons that died of lead poisoning.

What’s the overall incidence of lead fishing tackle in loons?Â Have they found loons that had lead fishing tackle in their gizzards that did not have lead poisoning?

Elemental lead is actually not that remarkably toxic.Â Cases have been reported of human ingestion of lead shot with little ill effect.Â Most cases of human lead poisoning come from people (mostly kids) consuming oxides of lead found in chips from leaded paints.Â Hunting groups need to fund their own studies that start asking the right question.Â Right now, the environmentalist are driving the debate, and for them, no amount of lead in the environment is acceptable.

Clarification on Gillibrand

I should have made it clearer that I wasn’t taking the position that Kirsten Gillibrand was changing her position on guns in my post yesterday, and actually meant to use a question mark in the post title.Â I agree with both Bitter and Uncle about what the Times is trying to do here, and that’s she’s given little indication she’s changing her position.

What she is doing is trying to find some cover on the issue as a pro-gun candidate in a very anti-gun media market (Downstate New York).Â Because of the intense media pressure, and pressure from within her own party, to change her position, I think it would be a bit bold to count her as a reliable pro-gun vote, largely because I don’t like how the politics work out for her if she continues to vote with the NRA.

This is why originally Bitter was an advocate of donating to her campaign.Â She has a record on the issue, and while it’s not long, it’s good. Gun owners will wield more influence over her during a critical vote if they are on board already.Â If they are not, her fellow Democrats are going to tell her “Those cousin-humpers upstate will never vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Democrat, so you can forget about them and vote the way we expect you to,” and she will have nothing to fight back with.

Politicians pay considerably more attention to campaign donors than they do ordinary constituents, and the threat she could use that kind of support might be enough to keep her with us.Â My fear, however, is that New York gun owners will take a wait and see approach in regards to Gillibrand, which I think is incorrect.Â The time to influence and help her is now, because she’s politically at her weakest.Â If she keeps voting with us, and wins in 2010, it’s likely she’ll stay with us.Â The New York Times is doing their level best to take advantage of Gillibrand’s weakness, and tie her hands on the gun issue.Â What are gun owners willing to do for her?

AK-47 SKS Swap on Craigslist Causing a Stir

Curt has an interesting story from Philadelphia about someone proposing an AK-47 SKS swap on Craigslist.Â I agree with Curt this is likely someone seeking attention, and quite possibly an anti-gunner looking to raise an issue in the media.Â Whoever is proposing it, pretty clearly knows little or nothing of guns, and nearly nothing about their value.Â That makes me skeptical it’s a gun enthusiast, and a gang member wouldn’t be using craigslist.

But I have to wonder about the mentality of city officials here, especially given that the paper incorrectly suggests that the transaction requires use of an FFL (true for handguns in Pennsylvania, but not for long guns).Â One has to wonder if people can legally buy and transfer guns, even if an FFL is required, what’s the outrage about trading a gun for rims?Â Or does such a transaction make allusions to certain demographics that people don’t want buying guns?

Bump on the Road

The Second Circuit seems to have ignored some important dicta in regards to the Second Amendment and ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states, citing Cruikshank.Â In Heller, The Court said:

With respect to Cruikshankâ€˜s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

I would seem to be that would require some more serious analysis on the part of the circuit court.Â Looks like it was a nunchaku possession case that is less than an ideal case to take forward, but not much is going to stop defense lawyers from hopping in the Hellermobile for a little joyride with their clients.Â Hopefully we can have better luck in other federal circuits before someone wraps it around a telephone pole.

Tax Dollars at Work

Looks like SEPTA designed a pass for Philadelphia’s Beer Week that featured a nice skyline.Â The only problem?Â The skyline was New York City.Â I’ll remember that as I’m driving to work on the turnpike every day with my tolls paying for this crap.Â I guess if you get drunk enough at beer week, the skyline might start to look like Philly’s.

NRA Board Composition

The NRA Board of Directors is comprised of 76 members.Â Why so many?Â Largely because it tends to promote stability.Â This is both good, and bad, but in my opinion mostly good.Â The upside to a large board is that no single board member or faction within NRA’s membership wields a tremendous amount of influence.Â In order to make macroscopic changes at NRA, it really does require a broad and sustaining consensus among the membership.Â The downside to a large board is what I just mentioned.Â Rapid, macroscopic changes are very difficult to affect.

Board elections happen every year.Â Board members are elected to a three year term, and at no time is more than 1/3rd of the board up for election in any one year.Â Board members don’t run against one another directly.Â The top 25 vote getters are the ones who get a seat on the board.Â If you are a life member, or have been a continuous NRA member for five years, when you get your ballot in the mail, you can vote for up to 25 people.Â I typically don’t use all 25 of my votes, as I try to only vote for the candidates I have good information about.

But 25 seats over three years is only 75, and there are 76 board members.Â Well, the 76th board seat is elected only to a period of one year, and the 76th board member is voted on at Annual Meeting (in Phoenix this year).Â If you go to Annual Meeting, you will notice people campaigning for 76th board member.Â It’s common for someone who almost made it in the mail-in ballot election to try for this seat, and then run again the following year for a three year board seat.

Gillibrand Softening on Gun Issue

Kirsten Gillibrand’s ascendancy to the Senate has been a good lesson on how gun control thrives.Â This New York Times piece indicates she’s softening her support of gun rights a bit.

Understand that these articles have a purpose, a political purpose.Â They are intended to cajole Gillibrand out of her previous gun rights positions by limiting her range of action.Â If the New York Times comes out and says Gillibrand is softening her position on guns, with a new state-wide view, well, then she better do it.Â The paper of record now has her on record.

And this, my friends, is how gun control thrives.Â A media willing to guilt politicians out of positions they find unsavory, and a population who doesn’t have enough experience with the issue to know differently.Â Will Kirsten Gillibrand hold strong?Â I hope she does.Â But I would be reluctant to count her as a reliable vote in our favor should something come up.Â Â A lot of that will depend on what gun owners are willing to do for her if she angers the New York Times.

UPDATE: Bitter suggests in the comments that the NYT is trying to characterize her as sofening, but doesn’t believe she’s given any indication that she’s changing her position.Â I should be clear that I think this is the case, but I still think it’s difficult to say whether she’d be a reliable vote at this point.Â I’m honestly just not sure how much gun owners in New York State have to offer her if she votes on a bill in a way that will piss off the New York City political elite.Â Right now she’s under a lot of pressure to cave on this issue, and remember, she has to win a Democratic primary in one of the bluest states in the country.Â What incentive are gun owners going to offer her to stay a favorable vote?

Safety Glasses are Important

The Firearms Blog has some videos of guns blowing up.Â Â My friend Jason had his eyes saved by glasses when his Calico M950 blew up on him, which if I recall was caused by a problem with the delayed blowback roller lock mechanism.

Blue Trail Range In the New York Times

This article is fairly balanced for the Times reporting on a firearms issue, but I notice they fail to mention that DiNatale is a developer looking to develop property around the range.Â My own ballistic analysis of Blue Trail a while ago revaled that DiNatale’s property was in the ballistic shadow of the mountain.Â The only way bullets are hitting his house from that range is by rounds firing up into the air at a steep angle, which I find unlikely.