March 2013 – Page 3 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Anti-Gun Resources Flowing into Pennsylvania

We already know that Mike Bloomberg is spending millions to put his advertisements on tv in Pennsylvania with an actor telling gun owners that they have nothing to worry about in the bill that could make many of them felons.

Bloomberg’s coalition of anti-gun mayors are also hoping on board to promote a grassroots feel with anti-gun rallies in Eastern Pennsylvania.

MAIG isÂ sponsoring a rally for gun control on SaturdayÂ just north of Philadelphia, alongside a local state representative’s new anti-gun advocacy group,Â Bucks Safe, that will coincide with the multi-million dollar television ad purchase. Locally, Concerned Gun Owners of Bucks County are letting gun owners know that they can go oppose it, but advise folks to take a very non-aggressive tone in any signs and to make it a fairly silent protest. (I think it’s great advice. It’s also another example of fantastic use of local organizing to stay on top of events that larger groups can’t really cover in the same way.) Farther north, MAIG’s representative in Easton, PA is partnering with Organizing for Action for an anti-gun rally tomorrow afternoon. Another MAIG mayor, this one from Chester in Delaware County, is advertising a press event for more gun control.

Speaking of OFA, they must have heard that Pennsylvania gun owners have been organizing massive postcard and letter campaigns to lawmakers as of late because now they are trying to do petitions for gun control in Democratic strongholds in and around Philadelphia like Media, Center City, New Hope, Ambler, and North Philadelphia.

On the rally front, OFA has recruited Montgomery County Commissioner Josh Shapiro to lead their gun control drive locally tomorrow. (Everyone in political circles says that Shapiro has eyes on statewide office – Governor or a Senate seat – so make sure to keep this in mind next time local gun owners see his name on a ballot.) In the Lehigh Valley area, OFA is doing a vigil tomorrow night to promote more gun control. (It’s probably wrong to admit this, but I would get a good chuckle out of anyone who brought one of the many fire extinguisher-themed pro-rights messages to stand across from a candlelight vigil.)

Influential Firearms

Perhaps because we’re Americans, we tend to revere Browning’s spawn, and for good reason. What other century plus design is still popular? And what other military has spent millions of dollars to fail to beat a machine gun design that’s nearly 100 years old?

The Germans, I think, are the other greats of gun design. The entire assault rifle, or Sturmgewehr concept is their own invention, and only copied by others. Additionally, I think the Germans are responsible for the most influential maschinengewehr designs of modern times, having had aspects of it borrowed or outright stolen for the variants of the MG42 still in use around the world today. Even the M60, still in limited service with the US Armed Forces is partly derived from the MG42, along with the FG 42. I have great respect for Browning’s designs, but it’s hard not to acknowledge the Germans have made stellar contributions to modern firearms technology.

On Polling and Passing the Buck

Cuomo is blaming Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign for the problems with the SAFE act. Sorry, no dice Guv, you own it. Apparently Bloomberg isn’t happy with this. You’d almost think gun control isn’t popular or something. Shouldn’t they be clamoring to take credit to the cheers of adoring citizens who are thrilled that we have such stalwarts as Cuomo and Bloomberg standing up for everyone’s “right to be safe?”

CBS News notes that polling support for stricter gun control is waning, and National Journal says the Democrats misread the polling on gun control.

The support for gun-control policies then is â€œreally high but shallow,â€ Hatalsky said.Â â€œPeople will support this and they think itâ€™s a good idea, but they donâ€™t feel super deeply about it,â€ Hatalsky said. â€œTheyâ€™re not convinced that it will necessarily work and that it will work to change their own lives.â€

I think that’s a big part of the picture, but I think another part of the picture is what’s known as social desirability bias, or telling pollsters what you think they want to hear. I also would argue there’s likely a consistent problem polling gun owners, because many of them likely will remove themselves from any survey that asks questions about their gun ownership or views on gun issues. We have a lot of evidence in regards to social desirability bias being at play in gun control polling from the times gun control has appeared on ballot measures. One of the early measures was in Massachusetts, where a handgun ban managed to get on the ballot as Question 5 in the 1976 election year. Dave Kopel writes about that here:

The final poll, a few days before, had showed Question 5 with a 10-point lead. Everyone anticipated a long night waiting for the election results. Everyone was wrong.

Handgun confiscation was crushed by a vote of 69 percent to 31 percent. Of the approximately 500 towns in Massachusetts, only about a dozen (including Cambridge, Brookline, Newton and Amherst) voted for the ban. Even Boston rejected the ban by a wide margin.

That’s not the only time. A few years later in 1982, in California, the birth of the modern ban with grandfathering, then called a “handgun freeze” made its way on as Proposition 15. We know from the Violence Policy Center itself, and from this Politico article that the measure had polling support ahead of the election, where it went down to defeat 37-63%. Before anti-gun folks start to claim that, “Well, those were bans, and no one is proposing that,” we accelerate ahead to 1997, with Initiative 676 on the ballot of Washington State, which would have mandated training for handgun possession, licensing, and trigger locks. Again, it was polling way ahead at least a month out from the election, but went down to defeat 29% to 71%.

I believe social desirability bias in polling is real, and is ignored at politician’s expense.

Filibustering Gun Control

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are planning to filibuster any gun control bills that come before the Senate. I’ve heard various stories that the private transfer ban will be part of the bill, and I’ve also heard it’ll be voted on as an amendment. I’m not certain which is true, or even if Harry Reid knows what it’s going to be yet. Even still, the filibuster threat is welcome, and is even being condemned by the White House. If my understanding of Senate Rules is correct, I believe this would prevent the bill from even being brought up for amendments. I’m not sure I agree with Katie Pavlich that this is a “brilliant move,” strategically, because I’d honestly like to get some of these clowns on record, but it’s hard to argue against playing it safe.

The Assault Weapons Ban: Death of Gun Control?

Professor Adam Winkler generally likes some gun control, but he’s one of the few people publishing and writing in this issue who takes our arguments seriously. I was happy to read a few days ago his article in the Daily Beast, pondering if the assault weapons ban killed gun control:

There was one certain impact of proposing to ban the sale of assault weapons: it was guaranteed to stir gun-rights proponents to action. Ever since Obama was elected, theyâ€™ve been claiming that he wanted to ban guns. Gun-control advocates mocked this claimâ€”then proposed to ban a gun. Not only that, the gun they were trying to ban happened to be the most popular rifle in America.

I’m glad someone who is not generally in our camp noticed what I bolded there. I can tell you that the 1994 ban is what started me on this path. Had it not been for that ban, you wouldn’t be reading this right now. Given the number of people I’m seeing my age and close to my age in this current fight, I’m apparently not alone. Many of us wanted the AKs and ARs pretty much because people who thought they were better than us told us we couldn’t have them. The problem with Winkler’s argument is this:

Yet itâ€™s harder for them to make a persuasive public case against background checksâ€”which primarily burden criminals and the mentally ill trying to buy gunsâ€”or magazine restrictions, which, in allowing people to have 10 rounds plus readily available, already-loaded replacement magazines, didnâ€™t interfere with self-defense.

It’s difficult only in the sense that a lot of gun owners are pretty rationally ignorant, and don’t really understand what expanded background checks mean. It is very difficult to define what constitutes a transfer is a way that doesn’t make ordinary behavior among gun owners legally risky or problematic. Also, magazine restrictions fall into the realm of people who think they are better than you telling you what you can and can’t have, and making preemptive self-defense choices on your behalf when they have no expertise or knowledge on self-defense.Â No, I can motivate just as many people to oppose a magazine ban as I can an assault weapons ban. Many more people have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds than have AR-15s or AKs, and don’t see any reason why the government should stack the deck against them in the rare situation they might actually need more than ten rounds. This isn’t the movies. Pistol rounds are poor fight stoppers, and it’s not like civilians have never before had to face multiple opponents.

Casey’s Shift on Gun Rights

Casey sailed into office based on Pennsylvanians tiring of Santorum, name recognition as the son of a former Governor, and a conservative position on guns and abortion. I am ashamed to admit I voted for Bob Casey in 2006, because Santorum’s social conservatism became too much for me to stomach. I appreciated Santorum’s position on guns, and thought he was the better candidate on that issue, but given that Casey answered an A questionnaire, I was willing to vote more on my non-gun issues that had developed with Santorum. If I had known Casey would abandon support for Second Amendment rights, I never would have voted for him.

Casey has turned out to be quite a disappointment. He’s a horrible campaigner, and has difficulty managing campaigns. He won re-election this time largely because of a bad schism within the GOP about who ought to be the leading candidate, a poor eventual choice of candidate, and the general implosion of the 2012 Republican Senatorial Campaign, thanks to the likes of Todd Akin. I believe Casey could be beaten handily by the right Republican candidate. He won by being “Not Rick Santorum” with name recognition, and won again by the sheer stupidity of the GOP. He did not win because he’s a stellar campaigner. He shouldn’t get so cocky in a state that still has considerably more gun owners than most other blue states.

Democrats Making the Right Tough Choice

The Hill notes:

The Senateâ€™s upcoming vote on the assault weapons ban is going to put vulnerable Democrats in a difficult spot.

Democrats facing tough reelection races will either attract the ire of the National Rifle Association or prominent gun control activists such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I). A vote against the ban could spark primary challenges that could weaken Democrats in the general election.

I’m pleased to report another Senate Democrat is standing with us:Â Mark Pryor of Arkansas:

Iâ€™ve gotten a lot of questions about NYC Mayor gun ad. My response? I donâ€™t take gun advice from the Mayor of NYC. I listen to Arkansans.

— Senator Mark Pryor (@SenMarkPryor) March 25, 2013

The votes have not yet been cast, but I’m willing to thank Democrats who stand with the Bill of Rights and thwart Bloomberg and the White House. I think they will find they have made a wise choice, and I just hope they don’t get taken out by the Democrats sullying their brand by embracing gun control. Especially Pryor who is in one of the states targeted by Bloomberg:

The state totals for Bloomy buy so far: AR- $125K,AZ-$950K,GA-$710K,IN-$475K,LA-$133K,NC-$593K,ND-$150K,NV-$487K,OH-$602K,PA-$525K

— maggie haberman (@maggiepolitico) March 26, 2013

Some of those states are kind of laughable, but I think he’s playing the long game. Our response need to be to educate as many people as possible that the billionaire Mayor of New York (or former Mayor, as he will soon become) is behind this, and meddling in their state. States like North Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana don’t take kindly to the meddling Yankees, and I doubt the Mayor of New York City is a popular figure in many of those other states too. People don’t like plutocrats, and plutocrat ought to be the albatross we hang from Bloomberg’s neck.

Is This Thing On?

A bit of writers block this morning. It’s been one of those couple of days when I feel like I’m doing too much. Additionally, today I begin the last year of my 30s. I don’t really like the idea of getting old, but I think it likely beats the alternative. My mom didn’t make it to 44, which back when I was younger I thought was old. Maybe old is what your parents are. When my mom turned 39 she was teaching me how to drive.

Local Group Building

Been a bit out of band this evening, attending an legislative meeting of a local gun rights group that’s popped into existence post-Newtown. They are called Concerned Gun Owners of Bucks County. They are just establishing themselves, and like any group just getting started are experiencing some growing pains, but I hope they will continue to grow and be successful. They are turning out 300+ people to monthly meetings, and local politicians are paying attention. The people we’ve spoken with on the legislative side are sharp, and with good communication skills, who are dedicated to making a local, single-issue grassroots organization.

Bitter and I are offering them help where we can offer it. We’ve long had a lot of ideas and thoughts about things that could work on the local level for years, but haven’t had a whole lot of success with organizing down to the grassroots level, since, to be honest, we’re both more comfortable in front of a computer screen than going forth in the community and making connections. It is our hope that this group can take some of those ideas and put them to work in practice.

Local action is going to be especially important given the resources that Bloomberg is dumping into Pennsylvania and other states. I’ve gotten word that MAIG is currently in a hiring frenzy, putting paid staffers into key states to continuously chip away at our rights while the rest of us are at work or otherwise trying to earn our livings, raise families, etc. There’s also the millions of Bloomberg bucks that are being dumped into advertising, even if it’s obvious that no one involved in these ads knows the first thing about guns or gun safety. No matter how things come out in the next few weeks, this battle is going to continue. Bloomberg is counting on the billions he has at his disposal wearing us down.

I don’t intend to be worn down, and I hope you won’t either. Just beating this guy isn’t enough for me. My goal is to eventually be able to legally carry a firearm of my choice in the City of New York, whether walking in front of City Hall or Gracie Mansion, and for there to be not a damned thing the Mayor or anyone else can do about it. I’m done with the idea of there being two Americas when it comes to guns. The Second Amendment applies to Chicago as much as Cheyenne, and to New York as much as it does Nashville.

This Speaks for Many of Us

I caught this video over at Ace of Spades the other night, and I think this guy channels how many of us feel: