May 2011 – Page 3 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine News

I’m surprised to see this press release from State Senator Richard Alloway, containing a link to an interview I did.Â Senator Alloway is the sponsor of the Castle Doctrine bill in the Senate, and has been instrumental in trying to get this passed for us, and off to the Governor. On the long road to get this bill passed, there have certainly been a lot of rumors, allegations, and frustrations expressed along the way. Senator Alloway addresses many of these in his release, but I’ve noticed the current delay in passage is creating more rumors.

One of those rumors is that there is a deal in the works to pass Florida Loophole along with Castle Doctrine. I talked to NRA’s PA Lobbyist, John Hohenwarter, and asked if there was a deal to amend the Florida Loophole in exchange for moving Castle Doctrine. He assured me that there is no deal in the works, and Castle Doctrine should be able to pass clean.

I have mentioned previously that the Senate is a tougher landscape for pro-Second Amendment legislation than the House. It’s important that you call your State Senator and tell them you want Castle Doctrine passed. The more they hear from us the faster this can happen. Keep in mind that our opposition’s goal is to drag things out as much as possible, in the hope of exhausting us, and turning us against each other. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, there’s evidence that tactic is working. We can get Castle Doctrine, but only if we keep marching in the same direction.

Concealed Carry Welcome

A South Carolina man has developed a sticker for businesses who are concealed carry-friendly to post to counter those businesses who post against carry. In all likelihood, many business owners just haven’t really thought about the issue one way or another. Most probably realize that if a customer who is lawfully carrying concealed comes in, it doesn’t matter one way or the other since they’ll never know or need a reason a to care. If someone comes in with the intent of using a gun illegally, a sign won’t stop them. I wouldn’t hold it against a business if they simply opted not to put up any signs on the issue.

Monopolies Make My Head Hurt

It’s no secret that I hate Pennsylvania’s liquor sales system. It’s run by a state agency with a mission to make it as miserable as possible to purchase liquor. Now they are pitching pieces to argue that it’s not really any cheaper to buy liquor out-of-state.

The perception in Pennsylvania is that other states have better prices on wine and liquor, so it makes sense to stock up when youâ€™re out of state. Maryland stores near the Pennsylvania line say they get plenty of customers from the Keystone State.

But a survey of liquor stores in four states conducted by The Patriot-News reveals that prices arenâ€™t always better across the state line. In fact, in some cases, Pennsylvania prices are cheaper.

I have no idea how they selected the stores they did to compare prices, because my price comparisons have always saved money in New Jersey. Sometimes, I might only save a buck or two, but if I’m stocking up on several wines, each of those dollars saved will pay for the gas over there. In the meantime, I also have tremendous selection. If I’m lucky (and driving 10 miles out of my way), a state-run store in Pennsylvania will have a <$15 Bordeaux that I find okay. In New Jersey, I know exactly where I can grab a $9 bottle that rates as pretty damn good for a casual dinner wine. Consistency, selection, and prices combine to make the privately run out-of-state retailers a good choice. The PLCB, in defense of their existence, prefers to ignore all of those factors that make shopping everywhere a positive experience.

For the record, the paper really had to have gone to some crappy stores to find prices that are higher than Pennsylvania’s stores. To defend the monopoly, they found two examples of products that are sold $1 cheaper in Pennsylvania. But, on the privatization side, they found a bottle of scotch that sells for $12 less in Delaware. They also interview a woman who cites Massachusetts as the land of the free (liquor & wine) because wines that cost only $3 or $4 there are double those prices here.

The PLCB also likes to tout that they have more buying power than a private entity because they buy for the entire freakin’ state and can pass on the lower prices. In that case, why did the paper only find savings of $1 or $2 over the private stores where they did find a difference in prices? Why didn’t the reporter ask the PLCB to explain why they don’t have significantly lower prices for consumers if this buying power gets them such great deals? We know it can happen – look at Wal-Mart. When you’re a big buyer, you have some room to truly negotiate bigger savings. It would appear that the PLCB doesn’t exactly exert its big buyer status.

Something has gone horribly wrong with liquor & wine sales in this state when we look to states like New Jersey, Massachusetts, and even Hawaii for lower prices.

(h/t to Capitol Ideas & Commonwealth Foundation)

CSGV’s Twitter Account

Still suspended. I would have thought it would be a relatively simple matter to get this restored, but I’m pondering whether Ladd Everitt couldn’t help himself and tried to win an argument with an Internet Administrator again and lost. Perhaps they are surrendering the field here, and concentrating their efforts on Facebook, where they can more easily delete any material that blocks the reverberations in their echo chamber.

Either way, given that losing a major social media account is, to be charitable, a monumental screw-up, Ladd Everitt is probably lucky this isn’t an accurate description of his current employment reality.

UPDATE: It would seem that their Twitter account has been paroled.

Constitutional Carry Clears Committee in WI

Looks like it’s been voted out of judiciary. Says NRA’s lobbyists working WI:

“Our perfect scenario is to have the constitutional carry bill pass, along with a licensing bill,” said LaSorte, shortly before boarding a plane back to Wisconsin late Monday afternoon.

Of course, <sarcasm>since it’s become such a well known fact that NRA is opposed to constitutional carry, clearly the newspaper has to be making this quote from Darren up out of whole cloth.</sarcasm>

I am working on a post regarding the late happenings in New Hampshire in regards to Constitutional Carry, but I want to make sure I have my facts straight first, which takes time, and my time is not a plentiful commodity right now.

Obama Administration Creates HSUS Wet Dream

If you haven’t yet read about the Missouri family being fined $90,643 for selling a few rabbits, then you should go read this story now. They are in no way accused of mistreating animals. In fact, they were recognized by folks in the area for their incredible quality and how well they treat them. That’s why a pet store started buying some off of them. And when they didn’t fill out the right paperwork, well, that brings down the force of the federal government on you.

But what’s telling about this story is that the USDA staff have repeatedly said they are stepping up enforcement of these laws – even if it means fining families $90K for paperwork violations – and that they intend to use these kinds of cases in order to teach a lesson. And where do we get that directive? Directly from the HSUS Change Agenda for Animals presented to the Obama administration at the beginning of his term. Here’s the portion relevant to the Missouri case:

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
3) Enforcement – …increase oversight of key federal laws (…Animal Welfare Act (AWA)…); …impose strong penalties (not suspension of fines, as is so typical now); …resume issuance of press releases on enforcement actions to maximize deterrent impact…

Hunters, you better pay attention. PAGunRights already outlined all of the provisions in the “Change Agenda” that go after your participation in the outdoor sports. They won’t ban it directly, but they’ll make your life hell with the full force of the federal government.

Things That Excite Me about Tim Pawlenty

Even though he’s a reasonably attractive candidate, Tim Pawlenty just isn’t driving a lot of excitement for Republican voters. He comes off as a pretty laid back guy just going in to do the jobs he has previously been elected to do. To be honest, that’s very appealing to me right now. It certainly has a lot more appeal than a leader who thinks he’s a rock star.

But I can tell you one thing that excites me about Pawlenty. I had the chance to meet him & actually talk to him at the Sportsmen for McCain launch in 2008. We had a chance to speak while we were watching the junior shooters who were shooting rounds of trap at the club. I didn’t really expect him to know gun policy. Many pro-gun politicians support the Second Amendment, but they don’t know the details of the actual policies that we either want to see enacted or benefit from in the real world like concealed carry. He and I chatted about concealed carry and other issues, and he actually knew the issues. I wish I could remember more specifics, but I was a little busy picking my jaw up off the ground after he started talking about it. So, yeah, that excites me.

Apologies for the poor video quality since my old digital camcorder was crap, but here is the video of his speech to kick off Sportsmen for McCain:

A Stretch

RedState is trying to paint Harry Reid as against Second Amendment rights, once again, by offering some pretty flimsy evidence. From what I can see, Reid employed a rule in order to lock out amendments on 9/11 extension bill from being offered. One of those bills was a Rand Paul Amendment that would have fixed access by FISA courts to 4473s.

It is not out of the question that Reid is getting softer on the gun issue, but I’d need more convincing evidence than this. To me this just looks like run of the mill partisan bickering, for which one of the amendments being tied up is Rand Paul’s. As far as I know there’s no Senate rule that allows exemptions to be made for singular amendments if you invoke a procedure that disallows amendments generally.

On the California OC Ban

UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, in the LA Times, expresses some of the same sentiment I did about California’s move to further restrict, really eliminate, the “bear” portion of the Second Amendment:

In two recent lower court lawsuits challenging California’s concealed carry laws, the judges upheld the restrictive policies in part because the state allowed open carry. The judges explained that because the state allows people to openly carry unloaded firearms without a permit, any 2nd Amendment right to have a firearm in public was satisfied. If you find yourself in immediate danger, you can load your gun quickly and protect yourself. Absent an open carry policy, however, future courts could have a much harder time upholding concealed carry restrictions.

Looking only at moving this issue through the courts, I’m somewhat glad California is going down this path. I think it would be problematic to force the courts to consider whether unloaded OC satisfies the constitutional requirement. The reason is that I fear the answer would be yes. We’re probably better off with the courts looking at an outright ban, except for a license which is issued at the arbitrary discretion of authorities.

Easy Availability

The Inquirer, probably reeling from the same slow news cycle even I’m lamenting, decides to bring out one of the media’s favorite deceased equines for a good flogging:

The easy availability of handguns, legal or not, poses a serious challenge to public safety. That’s why mayors, including Nutter, in dozens of communities across the state need to keep pushing for tighter controls on the purchase of handguns that end up being resold to criminals.

No policy prescriptions, no serious analysis of how criminals are getting handguns, it’s just too easy. End of debate. That is as far as their intellectual exploration of the topic will go. Because a couple of gang members shot up a night club, the rest of us have to pay the price in sacrificed freedom.