Looks like the kit is going to cost about $2600. Really? If I’m going to shell out that kind of money I’d really prefer a finished product, and I’m not sure I’d pay $2600 for a completed semi-auto SA-80 clone either. It should be perfectly legal to make a semi-auto SA-80 domestically in the US, but I wonder if they are concerned about the possibility of lawsuits.
Month: February 2010
Thanks to All Who Showed Up
Many thanks to all the activists and concerned citizens who showed up, and stayed until nearly midnight, at the Radnor Township Board of Commissioners meeting, where the Board introduced a “Lost and Stolen” ordinance in violation of state law. It’s not often you go to something like this and feel the issue was literally about as hashed out as you could really get it. I think out people there successfully made every point that needed to be made, and we had some very good speakers on behalf of the issue.
I will have more to say tomorrow, but for tonight I just wanted to thank everyone who showed up. While I think the Township Commissioners are intent on passing this ordinance, it will at least give some pause, and the opposition at least knows they aren’t going to waltz into these things unopposed. We were up against paid professionals, like Joe Grace, the well connected, like former Radnor Township Commissioner James Higgins, and also up against folks who have have had the advantage of alien enlightenment.
We win because our people are dedicated, and even in the heart of CeaseFirePA’s center of gravity, we were fairly able to match them in numbers, and in passion. We need to keep turning out, and if not outright beating them, at least making them fight for it.
John Murtha Dead at 77
PA2010 is reporting on Twitter. No matter what you might have thought of the man on other issues, Murtha was a consistent and reliable vote in favor of the Second Amendment.
UPDATE: Fox has coverage now. Murtha first took office in 1974. He’s been in office for as long as I’ve been walking this earth. Also the AP is covering it now too.
UPDATE: And, naturally, the Demon Sheep weighs in.
“Not Hatred for People With Guns”
One wonders if the Brady Campaign would find this a great example about how there are no cultural or intolerance overtones in the gun debate. Quoting from the Oakland East Palo Alto officer:
Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night! Should’ve pulled out the AR and prone them all out! And if one of them made a furtive movement… 2 weeks off!!!
The last thing being code for “shoot the bastard.” I don’t care what you think about open carry, this is not an appropriate response to citizens engaging in a perfectly lawful form of protest over California’s unreasonable and discretionary carry laws. Is an attitude like this, as the Brady’s say, “not hatred for people with guns?” Is this just concern “calling for a gun violence prevention safety net.”
I have no problem with an officer exercising reasonable care when approaching armed persons, but I’m fairly certain in most other states, officers are trained in how to do this without having to prone and threaten every armed person they come across. In most other states, this would, in fact, rise to the level of a civil rights lawsuit.
Looks like North Carolina is living up to it’s reputation …
More on Gun Control as a Cultural Issue
Thanks to Joe Huffman for this one, from a friend of his who is a convert from the other side:
Back in the days when I was very anti-gun, I tended to think of “gun nuts†as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh? Etc., etc., etc. It was an image that came instantly to mind. I would talk about “gun nuts†that same way with friends of like mind. It all made such perfect sense to us.
But if ever I came across a “gun nut†in person I would be silent — especially if it was someone dressed in, say, hunting cammos. Or I might see “gun nuts†on TV and make a snide comment about them, but seeing them made me feel a bit afraid (something I didn’t reveal to other people). It wasn’t rational, but it wasn’t surprising considering how I’d been raised. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized what I’d been doing: trying to make the “gun nuts†almost into sub-humans in my mind, and paint them as ridiculous and stupid so that they shrank in stature and were less scary to me. (But as I said, this doesn’t work. No amount of sneering made me feel less afraid.)
I have no doubt that some small percentage of “gun people†(those few who are outright fascistically-minded) “deserve†every bit of fear I had for them — then and now. But for crying out loud . . . what a stupid, prejudicial way to think about an entire group of people, with no distinctions made. It took some years to realize what a big lie there was in imagining myself enlightened and non-bigoted — all the while that I’d been thinking like a garden-variety bigot. That was one of the fun things about the ’60s and ’70s: You could fantasize that you were on a higher plane of consciousness than “those†people — and be every bit as bigoted and vicious as you thought they were. You didn’t have to hold yourself accountable, nor wonder if you weren’t being two-faced about it. By definition, as a more “enlightened†person, you didn’t have any of those problems. Only other people had such problems. It was all so convenient . . .
Yet we’re told this has nothing to do with “bigotry” or “culture.” Nothing at all you see. Both Joe and I have insisted that it does. Then you have stories like this in the comments:
In many ways the bigotry in Chicago is malevolent. Many gun owners I have met keep silent in fear. Not simply fear of arrest, but fear of being stigmatized, ostracized, fired from their jobs.
And their fears are not unfounded. Attempts have been made to get people fired for airing their views. CAGE (Chicago gun enforcement team) has used Chicago’s registration scheme to confiscate otherwise legal firearms in the past.
Not the first time I’ve heard people getting in trouble at work for being gun owners. Not carrying a gun to work, or some other behavioral issue, merely talking about their interests to coworkers. The Brady’s almost seem to be saying “nothing personal, you know.” but most of our experiences bear this out, as well as a number of commenters who insist that yes, they are as bad as the KKK. Even if I don’t agree with that, the anger is real, deep seeded, and completely justified. Americans shouldn’t have to hide in shame because they choose to exercise their constitutional rights. Because many feel they need to, thanks in part to our wonderful gun control groups, there’s plenty of anger out there, and it shouldn’t be surprising that we’re willing to channel that into beating back this cultural condescension.
Rising Trends
We’re seeing some rising trends in Pennsylvania, in regards to Licenses to Carry, especially in Erie, apparently. But this mysterious spokesperson for PAFOA says it’s not just about Licenses to Carry:
But blaming the rise in permits on political changes in Washington does not account for increased shooting sports participation that the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association has witnessed over the past year, said Christie Caywood, the association’s media relations coordinator.
“The trend of rising interest in the shooting sports and firearms ownership we’ve seen since 2008 is by no means limited to Erie, or even Pennsylvania. Concealed carry permit applications are one way to measure interest by those who may be most interested in self-defense, or who simply want to make sure they have their legal bases covered when traveling,” Caywood said. “We’ve also seen indications of a nationwide rise in hunting license sales, and there is ample anecdotal evidence from PAFOA members that participation in other shooting sports is on the rise.”
I agree, it’s about a lot more than just permits. We were told by the anti-gun folks that none of the people buying guns during the Great Obama Gun Rush were newbies, but it’s becoming increasingly apparent that’s not the case.
Radnor Township “Lost and Stolen” Considered Tonight
A reminder for folks who might live in or near Radnor Township, that the Township Board of Commissioners will be considering passing a “Lost and Stolen” ordinance in clear violation of statewide preemption. See this alert from NRA listing the contact information for all the Radnor Township Commissioners.
The commissioners are being played by radical anti-gun activists, in the form of CeaseFire PA and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. This is part of a long term agenda to destroy preemption in the Commonwealth. These ordinances are illegal and ineffective, as there has not been a single criminal charge under any of these. I would urge anyone who lives nearby to show up at tonight’s meeting in support of the opposition to this proposed ordinance. There are activists who are planning to be there, but every warm body counts for something, even if you don’t want to get up and speak. You can download the ordinances here.
Another Response from the Brady Folks
Again, I think they are misunderstanding what I’m saying. First, one must understand what a bigot is:
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
This might typically have racial connotations, but it doesn’t have to. Bigot successfully describes anyone who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, toward any group, not just toward racial minorities or ethnic groups. But let’s go back to the Brady folks:
In fact, the notion of “bigotry†is perhaps the pillar upon which the National Rifle Association itself has built its whole bogus empire. That is: “Aren’t you mad at those coastal elites who look down their noses at you and your ‘way of life’? You should be mad as hell. GET MAD AS HELL AT THOSE ELITES! Donate to us today.â€
I think the funny thing is, by most people’s definition I’m one of those “coastal elites” that NRA warned you about, but even I can understand why this this rallying cry works. Because it resonates with people. It’s something that most gun owners can relate to. Why? Because we’ve all experienced that attitude at one time or another. How many times have you told people you enjoy hunting or shooting and had someone look at you as if you just told them you enjoy molesting children? How many of you have had people express shock that you were a gun owner, because you don’t seem like “that kind of person?” NRA uses that rallying cry because it works, and shouldn’t that tend to lend some credence that maybe a lot of “costal elites” carry around with them a lot of, dare I say, bigotry and prejudices about what kind of people gun owners, hunters, and shooters are?
Some adherents of this mantra have taken it to bizarre extremes, in fact, likening their position to African-Americans in the Civil Rights movement. No, not kidding. Look at this latest stemwinder by Joe from Idaho.
Well, both dealt with restoring or guaranteeing fundamental constitutional rights to Americans. Both are inherently part of the continuing argument over the Fourteenth Amendment, and how we apply fundamental rights in our society. They might not be struggling against evils of equal magnitude, but it’s still a civil rights struggle. It’s worth noting that even the Chicago Tribune, in it’s excellent article about Otis McDonald reports on parallels between the two:
The strategy was partly inspired by the civil rights-era work of the NAACP and Thurgood Marshall, who challenged racial segregation in the 1940s and 1950s by searching for compelling plaintiffs and using the press to build public sympathy and support.
The NAACP’s approach became the template for other reform movements, such as women’s rights in the 1970s, and was taken up by a spectrum of activists, including conservative groups that have used it to challenge affirmative action, with moderate success.
In the Chicago case, constitutional law experts say McDonald likely was chosen for another important reason. Arguments in the case center on the 14th Amendment, which says that a state may not “abridge the privileges or immunities” of citizens.
The amendment was adopted after the Civil War to protect former slaves in states that were passing laws restricting their rights and prohibiting them from owning guns. In the Heller decision, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, referred to that chapter in history, arguing that those who had opposed the disarmament of freedmen did so with the understanding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.
That interpretation is central to the plaintiffs’ arguments in the Chicago case.
The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s wrote the book on how to do this, and we’re just following in their footsteps using the lessons they learned. Every gun owner should read “The NAACP’s Legal Strategy against Segregated Education, 1925-1950” as it contains quite a lot of valuable lessons in the challenges of building a successful litigation strategy for civil rights. One can’t help but to realize how those lessons can be applied to our struggle. Is it fair to compare the magnitude of this country’s past racial sins with the fight on the part of some to eradicate the Second Amendment? I don’t think so. Racism has been far more damaging to this country and its institutions than gun control has ever been, and one could even argue that gun control has been a subset of that sin. Back to the Bradys:
Yet regardless of what NRA propaganda might have us believe, Americans are not born with guns in our hands, and the regulation of where guns can be carried; what kinds of guns should be out of civilian hands; how guns should be stored; and whether suspected terrorists, felons, fugitives, wife-beaters or the dangerously mentally ill should be screened out of the gun-buying process by the strongest possible background check, have absolutely nothing to do with “culture†or “bigotry.â€
It doesn’t have to be “culture” or “bigotry,” but it often can be, and often is, and I think it would be wise for the Bradys to distance themselves from the folks, like Morford, who fit the definition to a T, just as I have, at great expense to some of my relationships in this community, spoken out against extreme and provocative positions of many of the stone throwers in the pro-gun movement. It’s one thing to argue in favor of your position. It’s quite another to strongly imply that you’re better and more enlightened than those who oppose your position. Maybe it doesn’t rise to the level of refusing to serve blacks at a coffee counter, but that doesn’t make it any more right, and it doesn’t make it any less bigoted, by the precise definition of the word.
Switch to Decaf? It’s a Lot Worse for Them Than That!
Even the NRA is joining in the “Make fun of the Brady Campaign” fun.
The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable.  It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit†for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon†ban between 1994 and 2004.
But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history.  The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system.  The 1994 gun ban has expired.  The number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise.  The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level.  And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.
I actually feel bad for them. Not so much because I’m sorry they are on their way toward political irrelevance — that’s been what this struggle has been about. It was going to be one side or the other, and obviously I’d rather it be them. But I can’t help but feel at least some empathy based on how I would feel if the roles were reversed, and it was us in their place.
I think the Brady Campaign are in a real pickle. It’s pretty obvious that the MAIG model, pushing gun control bills under the guise of anti-trafficking, and using novel methods to build political legitimacy and capital, is the likely future of gun control. The problem for the Bradys is they could never fundraise with the MAIG model, and if you can’t fundraise on it, you either need a wealthy patron (which Bloomberg and the City of New York are for MAIG), or a lot of foundation money, and foundation money for gun control is drying up.
I suspect what Dave Hardy said right after we won Heller is true; that it essentially removed from the table the primary reason Brady’s patrons supported gun control in the first place — the elimination of guns from society. Now that’s off the table. It was one thing to support an incrementalist approach when prohibition was still a possibility, it’s another thing when that’s no longer on the table.
That’s not to say gun control is going to go away as an issue, but the Brady model is fast receding into the sunset unless they come up with something new an innovative, and that allows them to raise money. What will that be? I don’t know. I’m not sure I want to find out either.