First, for recognizing their first web site was deficient, and two for using twitter to tell us about their site redesign. Brownells new web site looks pretty good!
Month: June 2009
What Did It Get You Kirsten?
Carolyn Maloney is looking increasingly likely to primary Kirsten Gillibrand. What’s she thinking about running on?
“Character,” Maloney said.
The brief comment marked an escalation of the upper East Side congresswoman’s attacks on Gillibrand.
Maloney has hit her for “evolving” stances on guns, immigration and the economic crisis since Gov. Paterson plucked Gillibrand from a largely rural, conservative upstate House district and made her Hillary Clinton’s Senate replacement.
Gillibrand the flip flopper would appear to be the narrative:
At The News’ Editorial Board meeting, Maloney took Gillibrand to task on guns.
“I am for gun control. I don’t have guns under my bed – guns kill,” she said, referring to Gillibrand famously saying she kept guns underneath her bed and earning a perfect record from the National Rifle Association.
Perhaps I am being a bit too nagging a voice eminating from under the Gillibrand bus, but wasn’t switching positions on guns meant to avert a primary challenger? Well, it looks like you got one. Don’t expect any help from us. Time will tell whether Gillibrand’s flip flopping will be her undoing.
Global Week of Gun Violence Prevention
IANSA is promoting this week to celebrate international disarmament in the protection of women. I kid you not. There’s even a documentary that will be screened today on saving women from the scourge of guns. Even the otherwise gun loving Kiwis are joining the fun. Let me ask you this, who do you think is more prepared to deal with an domestic abusing piece of scum, this woman:
Or this woman:
Which one looks more like a victim to you? I think credit goes to Oleg Volk for the photo above, but I’m not sure the origin, to be honest.
Slitting Their Own Wrists
It has to mystify Wayne Pacelle why hunters are so eagar to allow themselves to be divided and conquered, but that’s what often happens. Take a look at this:
The in-your-face animal rights group – which all too often gets confused for the American Humane Society, a genuine animal-welfare organization – suddenly wants hunters to join forces with them.
You read that right. One of the nation’s most stridently anti-hunting animal rights groups wants hunters to join them in a “friend of the court” action designed to influence an upcoming Supreme Court decision.
That upcoming Supreme Court decision is US vs. Stevens, which Eugene Volokh is looking at briefing, on the opposite side of the issue from HSUS. Pacelle wouldn’t waste his time with asking if he didn’t know he might be able to find a few suckers. But imagine getting a federal felony indictment for buying a dove hunting video in Michigan, because your buddy in Texas invited you come down for a hunt, and suggested you buy a certain video for some pointers.  That’s what this law could potentially do.
I hope hunters will start wising up, and realize there’s no standing apart. If they want their sport to survive, they need to treat HSUS as a mortal enemy. Anything they do that touches any aspect of hunting must be resolutely opposed.
Whale Wars Captain Responds to Critics
As an activist in a completely different issue, I just had to giggle a little when I read the Captain of the Sea Shepherd’s screed. Oh my how familiar this sounds. To be fair, I have no doubt that Paul Watson’s seamanship skills are greater than my own, in that if he has any seamanship skills, he’s got a leg up on me. But I also didn’t take an non-ice-rated ship to Antarctica, sail through an ice field, and try to ram a Japanese ship. That’s my real problem with what he’s doing.
When it comes to the sea, there is no shortage of know-it-alls and self-appointed experts. It’s easy to sit in judgment from the comfort of a couch with a remote in one’s hand. It’s easy to fire off ad hominem attacks to make up for the fact that those who do, actually do and those who can’t sit back and whine and bitch about those who do.
I don’t know much about the sea, but I have some idea what ice cold water does to human physiology, and I know enough of engineering to know that ramming ships into each other on the high seas has a high likelihood of sinking said ships. The Sea Shepherd has sank ships before.
Any accusations that Sea Shepherd is a violent organization cannot be backed by real evidence. Does Sea Shepherd destroy equipment used in illegal activities to kill whales and to poach fish? The answer is yes. Is this illegal or violent? The answer is no. If it were illegal we would be arrested. If it were violent someone would be hurt.
Just because someone has robbed twenty people without anyone getting hurt doesn’t make the act any less violent, which is why it is properly classified as a violent crime. It is only through the Grace of God that no one has been seriously injured or killed by this man’s egotistical attention whoring nonsense. Putting seamen into ice cold water can kill them. End of story. There’s no debating that point. It was the Japanese who were attacked, engaging in an activity that though internationally condemned, is considered legal by the Japanese government. Your beef is with the folks who make the decisions in Tokyo, not the sailors. The sailors are entitled to defend themselves, legally and morally, with deadly force if necessary, to prevent these pirates from sinking their vessel and endangering their crew.
Paul Watson’s ego is going to get someone killed. It’s only a matter of time. When that does happen, hopefully someone will have the fortutude to put the man in jail where he belongs.
ASHA: Still Shillin’
Thirdpower notices that Ray Schoenke of the the false flag American Hunters and Shooters Association comes out of hiding to defend President Obama against the big, mean, NRA. Notice there’s no talk about what AHSA is doing to preserve our rights. No talk about what shooting programs they are planning to run.
AHSA is a false flag operation meant to give anti-gun Democratic politicians cover on the gun issue. I might give Ray a better grade for recent efforts to reform the organization’s image, if, for instance, he could explain what he’s doing in regards to Claire McCaskill’s “no” vote on the Coburn Amendment in regards to National Park Carry. I mean, they endorsed her, and all. That’s right, I totally forgot. They are against “self-defense whakos.”
Ask a Legislator – The Beer Edition
Completely by chance, a state lawmaker here in Pennsylvania had a tele-townhall tonight. We got a call and I opted to listen in even though I was on the cell with Sebastian as he was driving home. I asked Sebastian if he had suggestions for me for our representative. There’s not much going on at the state level in regards to guns, so I suggested possibly something about reform of the beer/wine/liquor sales given today’s news.
In getting the queue, they only ask for the general nature of your question. I gave an overview and said I would simply like to ask if there is any real chance of legislative relief of any kind. I pointed out that if you’ve ever tried to buy just enough beer for a small cookout or perhaps a bottle of wine, it’s a real pain under the system. When the staffer chuckles and agrees, you know that’s generally a good sign.
Of course, as Sebastian says, “Everyone hates it, but no one is willing to get angry enough to do anything about it.” I figured with the Supreme Court case as cover, there was a door open to get the conversation started about a legislative remedy.
Unfortunately, there were too many questions and mine didn’t make it to the rep during the course of the call. However, he did pledge that anyone with a policy question will get a personal phone call back from him this week.
Given that, what proposals should I lay out as reasonable reforms to make. I know I’d ideally like a completely free market system on sales, but I realize that when dealing with a massive monopoly force (the beer distributors) and a government patronage service (the state liquor stores), it won’t be a realistic solution. So, what kind of system would you suggest for Pennsylvania’s sales of beer and wine, and possibly of liquor? I’m particularly interested in hearing from other Pennsylvania residents. What kind of compromise reform would you be happy with as a starting point?
Arizona Restaurant Carry Passes
Just got word that it passed the Senate 18-10-2.  NRA informs us that Senator Jack Harper voted against his own bill in order to save it from being killed, which allowed it to be brought back up for consideration today. Sorry I didn’t mention that before, but I don’t follow Arizona politics that closely.
We’re the Byzantium of Beer
Hat tip to Capitol Ideas for pointing out a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling today that is a window into our state’s ridiculous liquor control laws. Beer in Pennsylvania is restricted to retail sale only by distributors, which means if you want something less than a case, which is usually the case for me, you need to find an establishment with take out, were you can buy up to two six packs. The type of licensee that’s allowed to sell beer for take out are typically licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on-premises.
It’s not uncommon in the Keystone State for stores to be set up, which technically serve some food. The local one near me makes rather lousy cheesesteaks, for instance, which you can, if you want, eat in the two or three booths they have (state law says you have to be able to seat up to 30). But the store is basically a take out beer store. The food is just a way to comply with the licensing requirements.
Apparently Sheetz, which is the “rest of Pennsylvania” version of Wawa, applied for what is essentially a restaurant liquor license, to sell beer in one of its stores for take out. But in the Sheetz scheme, you couldn’t consume it there, you had to take it out of the store. The evil villains in this whole sorry story, the The Malt Beverages Distributors Association of Pennsylvania, who jealously guard their state sanctioned monopoly, intervened in the case after the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board agreed to allow the transfer of the license.
Note I said transfer. You see, Pennsylvania fixes the number of licenses available, so if you want one, you have to “transfer” a liquor license from an establishment that’s going under, or has lost or surrendered it’s license to sell alcohol. They won’t issue you a new one.
But moving back to the original topic, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed, if you’re seeking a license to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption, then you better allow the beer to be consumed on-premises. As Capitol Ideas said:
We have said it before, and we will say it again, this ruling strikes us as massively counterintuitive. Because, instead of allowing people to buy take-away beer, the high court is effectively requiring people to buy their suds at the gas station, guzzle it there, and then get back behind the wheel and (in some cases) drive on interstate highways. But we’re not legal scholars or anything.
I think as a matter of law, the court made the right decision. The problem is that the law is wrong. You can’t blame the courts because the legislature passes things that are counterintuitive and stupid. As a Pennsylvanian, I’m tired of being forced to buy beer by the case, or have to find a bar or restaurant with take out, and more often than not very poor selection.
Lessons Learned from Mumbai
There’s been a RAND study on the issue. It would be harder to pull off here, and having more people running around who know how to handle guns is part of the reason why. I include police in that. Even in New York City, I would expect the police to do a lot better than the police did in Mumbai, who often had little to no weapons training.
The United States indulges in security theater quite often too, but in general, we have a healthy “gun culture” and we expect our police, and armed citizens, to know how to handle a firearm.