August 2013 – Page 5 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Firearm Owners and Mental Health

Don’t go seeking help. We don’t have that luxury:

A.B., an honorably discharged combat vet, called a veteranâ€™s assistance hotline for someone to talk to. While the VA hotline worker did the right thing by having the police come out and check the situation, the police went too far.Â After he was taken in to custody and separated from his firearms, the police officers searched his home without a warrant or any exigent circumstance and illegally seized $20,000 worth of his firearms, bows, arrows, ammo, and first aid and protective equipment. Included was the Japanese Arisaka rifle that his grandfather brought back from WWII and the medical shears that this patriot used to cut two fellow Infantrymen from a HMMWV during an IED attack.

It’s not paranoia when they really are out to get you. The law be damned.

Gabby Giffords PAC Caught Accepting Illegal Donations

The Center for Public Integrity took at peek at donations flowing into the Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly gun control PAC, and they found several thousand dollars in donations from at least two private foundations and a church that cannot legally donate to political action committees.

The PAC’s defense is that they aren’t doing wrong to take the money, but that they are issuing refunds since they have suddenly learned that these illegal donations are “not appropriate” for the donors to make.

The highest profile non-profit to violate these donations laws is Bette Midler’s family foundation. Her publicist says that it was an accounting error, and the Center’s conversation with an accountant at the firm handling the foundation account merely said they needed to research the laws themselves. (Seriously? They handle this stuff for a living, and the staff don’t even know the basic laws on non-profit giving?)

The other non-profit to violate the donor laws is the Rupa and Bharat B. Bhatt Foundation, but neither one is willing to answer questions from the Center about their donations. The New England Congregational Church in New York also submitted an illegal donation, and the office manager merely confirmed that it was returned. It would seem from the article that she didn’t provide any information on why a church was trying to make political donations in the first place.

What’s the Point of Trying to Split the Baby?

Jeff Soyer at Alphecca points out that the anti-gun folks are going ape shit over Christie’s vetoes. But Christie signed a few of the bills. Why? How much middle ground is there really to be had on this issue? It looks like all Christie accomplished was pissing off his base in order to fail to please people who would never vote for you even if personally went around confiscating guns from every single New Jerseyan. So why sign a few bad bills and veto some other worse bills? Why not just veto everything?

This is where I have to detach myself from the fact that I would like Christie to have just vetoed their whole agenda, and try to look at this from the point of view of someone who doesn’t have a pet cause. It’s often thought that politicians are not rational creatures, and often they aren’t when it comes to most things. But most of them are very good at one thing if they have the chops to make a career out of politics: not losing elections. You can say a lot of things about Chris Christie, but not that he lacks political talent. I think he’s an enormously talented politician (which is probably the biggest mixed compliment I think you can ever offer).

So why split the baby? What does Christie gain? I have a theory. To verify my theory, the key thing to watch is what Bloomberg does. If my theory is correct, Bloomberg won’t say much, or anything about Christie’s veto, because he still signed one of their signature pieces of legislation: the “terror watch list” ban. Christie may made that move to keep Bloomberg’s money out of his reelection bid. The risk Bloomberg could spoil Christie’s re-election seems absurd, but generally speaking, when it comes to not losing elections, politicians can be pretty risk averse. Mitt Romney was so risk averse it cost him the election!

It’s often said in politics that the only people who vote in large numbers on the gun issue are us. Even looking objectively, and not as an activist, I think that’s true. If everything just depended on pure grassroots energy, organization, and turnout at the polls, we’d never lose. But this isn’t strictly a battle of grassroots. What Bloomberg (or more specifically his money) can do in a race is not so much get people to vote on his pet issues, but help paint Chris Christie as a right-wing extremist and out of touch with New Jersey voters. That might make you laugh, and it makes me laugh too, but who won’t laugh are the people who don’t pay attention to anything until the week before the election. If all you have is money, your best strategy is to ruin your opponent’s brand with low-information voters.

Cash is powerful in politics, and it’s powerful because it’s the chief tool for swaying the undecideds in the final push before the election. Those undecideds don’t know much more about the candidate they choose to vote for, or the issues the candidates stands for. They vote more on gut feel. Elections do involve grassroots organization, but they also involve political elites (and that would include you all, for the purposes of this discussion) convincing a lot of other less involved people to vote for your guy. I think Bloomberg’s ability to do that prospect is what Christie fears. Otherwise his best course of action, especially given his designs on national office, was to veto everything.

CeaseFire New Jersey Upping the Silly

They’ll remember in November!

.@GovChristie We aren't going to forget your lack of #gunsense over the weekend. And #NJ won't forget in November. #NJGunSafety matters.

— Ceasefire NJ (@CeasefireNJ) August 17, 2013

Generally, if you’re going to issue a threat like this, you should probably take into consideration whether you have a game that can, in some feasible universe, actually beat the person you’re threatening. No one expects Chris Christie to do much else other than sailing to re-election. But fear! You’ve just lost the vote of CeaseFire New Jersey! What’s that? Three people on a good day?

Christie Vetoes Remaining Gun Bills

I have to admit to being surprised. I did not have high hopes for a veto. From ANJRPC:

In a huge blow to anti-gun politicians and the gun ban lobby, today Governor Christie flat-out vetoed the fifty caliber ban (A3659) and conditionally vetoed two other bills – Senate President Stephen Sweeney’s “kitchen sink” F.I.D. card bill (S2723), and a bill that that would have forced theÂ State Police to breach confidentiality of protected gun trace data in violation of federal law (A3797).Â A fourth bill creating a task force to study school security issues was signed by the Governor (A3583).

AÂ “conditional veto” means that the legislation is dead, unless the legislature reconvenes to resurrect it throughÂ amendments that meet strict conditions imposed by the Governor. Whether anti-gun Democrats have the stomach to swallow those conditions (see details below) remains to be seen. Alternatively, the legislature could try to override any veto (conditional or otherwise) by a 2/3 vote of both houses, which is highly unlikely given the current composition of the legislature.

“After 7 months of intense battle over misguided legislation that won’t stop another crime or prevent another tragedy, we are grateful that Governor Christie has finally ended the discussion on the worst of the bills by tossing them onto the scrap heap where they belong,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “These vetoes put gun-banning politicians on notice that exploiting tragedy to advance an agenda against legal gun owners, instead of punishing violent criminals, will not be entertained.”

Today’s actions come in the wake of last week’s signing of ten gun bills by Governor Christie (two helped gun owners, two were opposed by gun owners, and six were neutralized based on gun owner input but are appropriately very tough on violent criminals). New Jersey already has some of the strictest and most extreme gun laws in the nation.

The bill flat-out vetoed by Governor Christie today was:

A3659Â – the fifty caliber gun ban that would have: prohibited high muzzle-energy guns of any caliber; blocked heirlooms from family members; held grandfathered owners civilly liable for damages if their firearms were ever used in a crime; and forfeited the pending purchase orders of licensed gun owners for these $10,000+ firearms.

The notion that banning any particular tool makes society safer is demonstrably false, and ignores the obvious reality that someone intent on doing evil will not be stopped or deterred if one particular tool becomes unavailable. “If box cutters could take down the World Trade Center, does anyone really believe that banning box cutters will stop the next terrorist?” commented Bach. “The same is true of firearms – banning the fifty caliber or any other firearm will not stop someone bent on doing evil.”

The Governor’s statement on A3659 criticizes the scope of the ban, notes drafting errors that would defeat grandfathering, and observes that rather than combating crime and terror, the bill only serves to threaten law-abiding gun owners with imprisonment for lawful recreation.

The two bills conditionally vetoed by Governor Christie today are:

S2723Â – Senate President Stephen Sweeney’s “kitchen sink” FID card bill, a 42-page monstrosity universally despised by gun owners and sportsmen. The bill, touted by Democrats as the “centerpiece” of their gun bill package and a “national model,” would have: thrown out existing FID cards and replaced them with a privacy-invading driver license endorsement or other form of ID; suspended Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training; ended firearms sales directly between background-checked licensed gun owners; and had numerous other impacts.

Under Governor Christie’s conditional veto, S2723 could only be resurrected if both houses of the legislature agreed to the following conditions:

Remove all provisions that would have created a new electronic FID cardÂ (keeps the existing permitting system in place);

Remove all provisions that would have suspended Second Amendment rights without proof of firearms training;

Remove all provisions that would have ended firearms sales directly between background-checked licensed gun owners; and

Add a provision requiring the State Police to develop and promulgate literature regarding safe firearms storage and ownership.

It is unknown whether Democratic legislative leadership would accept these conditions. While doing so would salvage what is left of their “centerpiece,” the final bill would be a gutted version, stripped of the most blatant attacks on legal gun owners, and very likely an embarrassment to Democrats.

Â If Democrats decided to swallow that bitter pill, other key provisions of the Sweeney bill that would be retained would include: requiring an FID card or other permit for all ammunition purchases; limiting shipment of online ammunition purchases to the address on the FID card; making it a 4^thÂ degree crime if injury or death results from the failure to properly secure firearms; making it a 4^thdegree crime for someone prohibited from possessing firearms to possess ammunition; requiring mental health screeners to inquire about firearms ownership of those being considered for involuntary commitment for mental health reasons; and revocation of NJ concealed carry permits upon conviction of a crime of the 4^thÂ degree or higher.

The Governor’s statement accompanying his conditional veto expressed support in principle for some of these provisions, yet also criticized the legislature as “shortsighted” for focusing on gun control instead of comprehensive violence solutions. The statement also noted the bill’s failure “to directly combat violence,” and the current unavailability of the technology that would be required to implement the digitized FID card.

A3797Â – conditionally vetoed because of one section that required theÂ State Police to breach confidentiality of federal gun trace data in direct violation of federal law that limits the data to law enforcement only. This was an attempt by frustrated gun banners to circumvent that federal law, so that idiosyncrasies of the ATF’s trace system could be exploited and manipulated to falsely suggest that law abiding citizens are a source of “crime guns.” ATF has opposed similar efforts to circumvent confidentiality, which could compromise ongoing investigations.Â If the legislature amends the bill to remove this illegal provision, the amended bill would then return to the Governor’s desk.

PLEASE THANK GOVERNOR CHRISTIE TODAY!Â

Please thank Governor Christie today for his actions on the fifty caliber ban, the Sweeney bill, and the trace data confidentiality bill. You can call the Governor’s office atÂ 609-292-6000, write him atÂ P.O. Box 001, Trenton, N.J. 08625, orÂ send an emailÂ using the online contact form (select “law and public safety” from the drop-down menu, then pick any sub-topic).

And thank YOU for weathering this 7-month-long storm of the worst attacks on gun owners in state history along with us. It is because of YOUR actions, YOUR calls and letters, YOUR attendance at hearings, and YOUR refusal to give up no matter what the odds, that today’s outcome was possible.

Although today’s action marks the end of a long and very arduous battle, the fight is far from over. The most oft-repeated statement by anti-gun legislators at hearings over the past 7 months was “these bills are only the beginning.” They will be back after the November elections, and will continue their relentless attacks on legal gun ownership – and it will be up to gun owners to continue to defend freedom.

Please watch for future alerts and updates!

UPDATE: Bryan Miller would seem to be a Sad Panda.

Criminals & Cops Sue

Here’s a case of dueling cops and robbers, only they are duking it out in the court of law – and not against one another. Instead, they are each targeting law-abiding citizens.

In New Mexico, the wife of an armed robber is suing the man who shot her husband because she claims that her husband, after pulling a gun on the victim, didn’t really intend to kill him. The innocent victim was apparently supposed to somehow know this and just turn over the cash he had and assume all would be well. The widow’s attorney claims that regardless of the fact there were two robbers against one victim, and robbers pulled a gun first, the victim has no right to assume his life might be in jeopardy.

The widow is not only suing the victim who had the nerve to defend himself, she’s also suing the victim’s boss because he apparently never should have allowed the victim to work since he owned a gun. She is also suing the city, claiming that she was held against her will for the act of being questioned the crimes her husband committed. The city has taxpayers to pay legal fees to get the lawsuit thrown out. The man whose life was threatened has to pay his own legal fees against this baseless lawsuit.

Meanwhile, in Texas, a deputy is suing the family of a man he shot and killed because they called 911 for help. He believes the widow owes him $200,000 because he suffered minor injuries in the scuffle and mental anguish for doing his job.

So, in New Mexico, you’ll be sued for not calling the police fast enough when a gun is being held to your head, and the cops in Texas will sue you for calling the police to help deal with a perceived threat. I guess that just being a law-abiding citizen is the only way to lose these days.

Is He Really Off Base?

In an interview with Talking Points Memo, a top-tier NYC mayoral candidate says that his vision for gun possession policy is this: “We want to see gun use eliminated.”

We may want to chuckle and assume that’s just silly in light of Heller and McDonald, but is it so absurd?

Think about the fact that he only has to wait out any single one of only 5 justices on the Supreme Court, and it’s really not so absurd. The fact that candidates for mayor are still campaigning on the concept that they can eliminate all firearms use is proof that we still have quite a ways to go on even the fundamentals recognizing a right to gun ownership by law-abiding people.

Is Your Town a MAIG Town?

Bloomberg has been digging in Uncle’s backyard. I know the feeling. I don’t live in a borough with a mayor, but the town I share a post office with has a MAIG mayor. Targeting mayoral races that have MAIG mayors is something we’ve wanted to do for a while, but gun owners just aren’t used to thinking on the local level. There’s also the issue whether it’s best to expend energy going after individual mayors, or just take a whack-a-mole approach and crush them when they run for higher offices where they could have some impact on gun policy. Nonetheless if you have a MAIG mayor in your town, I’d contact them and complain.

Thursday News

Thursdays and Fridays are proving to be quite busy for me lately, so I’m essentially doing something work related most of my waking hours on those days. So I just don’t have as much time for the blog those days. Today I need to go pick up an arcade cabinet for a project we’re working on for the office (we work hard, and play hard). So here’s the news:

Pennsylvania Democrats use an image of Corbett in the crosshairs. Remember, it’s only OK when they do it.

Hickenlooper is on the defensive when it comes to defending his gun control laws. He needs to stay on the defensive. This issue needs to keep dogging him. I can only hope the GOP can get their act together and float a candidate that can take Hick down, but I’m not holding my breath.

White House responds to gun free zone petition.

How a comma probably didn’t give Americans the right to keep and bear arms.

Sometimes the courts get it right.

Rob Portman strikes back at the gun control crowd.

If you’re teaching a class on gun safety, please don’t shoot your students.

More on Rifle OC

BothÂ CalebÂ andÂ TamÂ have had more to say on the whole Starbucks thing. Someone also left a comment this morning pointingÂ there’s a lot of local variation when it comes to acceptability of seeing firearms in publicÂ (though, I would suggest we’re being far tooÂ suburban, in that I doubt rifle OC is common in suburban or urban Atlanta, Nashville, Little Rock or Houston, even during hunting season).Â I get that. I have an old post that speaks of having toÂ pay attention to the contextÂ around you before deciding what the wise course of action is regarding OC. If rifle OC is normal and accepted in your area, knock yourself out. That’s not most places in America.

A useful analogy might be to put this in a fire awareness scheme. People die in fires. A fire can strike anywhere, unexpectedly. But you don’t see people carrying big fire extinguishers around with them everywhere they go. You don’t even see firefighters doing, and if you saw a firefighter doing it, you’d probably assume there was a fire somewhere in the area. You might even become a bit alarmed. Don’t get me wrong, I like fire extinguishers. I keep a big CO2 fire extinguisher in my house, and I keep a smaller extinguisher in my car. But it’s too much of a burden to carry one around on my person for the rare chance I might need one to put out a fire.

A rifle is about as burdensome to carry as a fire extinguisher (assuming you could make a sling for one). I’d dare say someone carrying a fire extinguisher slung over his back, just in case there is a fire, would be seen as a little weird. If you asked and that person told you “I’m carrying this to make people more aware of the risk of fire, and to show people that carrying a fire extinguishers is normal, and could save your life,” you’d probably still think the person was a bit of a whack job. Why? Because everyone can see that carrying that thing is a huge pain in the ass, and most people understand the risk of fire in most public places is pretty low.

And going back to firearms, most of us don’t carry because we’re all that worried we’re going to be victims of crime. If you’re an average middle class suburbanite, the chance of you being a victim of violent crime is pretty small. You may actually be more likely to die in a fire. I think if we’re honest with ourselves, most of us are carrying out a sense that it’s better to be responsible for yourself. It is a statement of rugged individualism in a society increasingly composed of people who are just fine with dependance on the state for the basics of life. What brings someone to decide to carry a firearm is a rather complex thing, and I don’t think there’s an easy or quick way to communicate it to people who haven’t arrived at that place yet, or perhaps never could get there.

I do think if people see rifle OC enough, they do get somewhat used to it, but I think the best you can hope for is to take people from “That person is dangerous!,” to “Peh, what a tool.” Maybe that’s progress, but I think the desirability of the result is questionable enough to make me wonder whether the energy people put into activism via OCing rifles might be better spent on other endeavors within the gun rights movement.