Why This is Serious

How well we fare is going to depend on a lot of factors, but one of those is how serious the White House is, and this is not a good sign:

The White House is working with its allies on a well-financed campaign in Washington and around the country to shift public opinion toward stricter gun laws and provide political cover to lawmakers who end up voting for an assault-weapons ban or other restrictions on firearms.

One reason they’ve struggled over the past 12 years is that they haven’t had someone in the White House willing to push gun control. You have a President who is very popular with a segment of American society now pushing it in a big, big way.

A lot of people seem to think I’m overreacting, maybe because I live in a blue state. I think even people in deep red states with solid representation need to be heard from, because we might need their courage if the GOP leadership starts to look weak. I might also need your legislator twisting the arm of my legislator, to hold the Republican caucus together. If your letters focused on general anxiety about the Republican Party, and an expectation that your representative will be a leader in fighting gun control, that would be very helpful to those of us in blue states in Republican-held districts.

You know everything we’ve laughed at the gun control movement about? No money? No supporters? All that has changed:

Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, and Ron Conway, a leading Silicon Valley angel investor, are helping finance the Giffords group and will co-host a fundraiser in San Francisco this week, an organizer said. Two wealthy Texas lawyers, Steve and Amber Mostyn, told news outlets Wednesday that they had given $1 million to the organization. Giffords was shot in the head two years ago in a mass shooting outside a supermarket in Tucson.

It’s a different world. Welcome back to the 90s. Now you know why they were so desperate to get leadership from the White House. Because leadership from the White House is, to quote our Vice President, “a big f**king deal.” A lot of folks don’t know how much we’ve benefitted by having no PAC money in gun control for the past 12 years.

If you know someone sitting this one out because they think the anti-gun groups don’t matter, slap them silly. We’re not facing the anti-gun groups, we’re facing the White House and the whole Obama coalition, and if you think that doesn’t matter, just ask Mitt Romney whether he agrees with you.

Long Night

My apologies for being offline most of the day, but today was an in-office day where I had stuff that needed to get done while I was there. Tonight was a club meeting, and I had Bitter spending the day printing letter templates she pre-wrote. As legislative chair, I had to give my report. I had felt my report was getting kind of dry and uninteresting. What a difference a month makes. I got what I needed from the Board for further action, partly thanks to the vote of confidence from the previous occupant of my offices (both of them) vote of confidence.

My idea was to give people a bit of a helping hand in communicating with lawmakers. The response was quite a bit more than I expected. Usually it’s hard to get people to take that next step, but they did at my club tonight. This is where the hope meets the change, I think, only not in the way the Administration likely wants. People are scared. They should be. Everything we’ve achieved in the past 12 years is on the line now. I will crawl over broken glass to do whatever I can to beat this back, and if we do, I don’t want to stop there. There have to be consequences to our opponents for raising the stakes.

New York Gun Control Proposals

Reading the gun control measures specifically cited in NY Governor Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State report, it reminds me so much of what happened to Massachusetts gun owners in the late `90s. If you were a legal gun owner who had your state-issued firearms identification card, it was good for life unless you were convicted of a disqualifying offense and it was revoked. Then, one day, the legislature told gun owners that “valid for life” really meant “valid until we want more money from you.”

In New York’s case, it’s the same for grandfathering. One day, gun owners were told that they could keep the regular capacity magazines they already owned for their guns. Now, they are being told that those magazines will no longer be legal:

Because magazines are not generally stamped with a serial number or other mark that would identify the date of manufacture, it is virtually impossible for law enforcement to determine whether a large capacity magazine was manufactured prior to 1994, and, as aresult, we effectively have no ban in New York State. In order to fix this problem, Governor Cuomo will propose tightening our assault weapons ban and eliminating large capacity magazines regardless of date of manufacture.

The same is being said for pistol licenses. “Good for life” will no longer mean what you think it means. It means constant renewal, even when you’re not convicted, arrested, or even accused of any disqualifying offense, which presumably also means more money for the government.

Currently, licenses for handguns are issued by the county in which the gun owner lives. With few exceptions, licenses are valid for life. As a result, while certain checks—for example, checks against criminal convictions, involuntary commitment records,convictions for crimes of domestic violence, open orders of protection—are run at the time a license is issued, once a license is obtained, there is no subsequent check to determine whether the holder is still eligible to own a gun. Governor Cuomo will propose a single standard across the state to ensure that appropriate checks can be run to bar convicted felons and other prohibited people from possessing firearms.

There are other issues mentioned, but none in quite as much detail as the two above. I’ll let the folks who specialize in NY gun laws break down what the rest of the big push from the Governor will mean in practical terms.

Oh, and I should mention as a warning to New York gun owners: When Massachusetts converted their firearms identification cards from “good for life” to renewable, the state admits that they didn’t bother to tell thousands of gun owners. Even years after it changed, the state pro-gun group would get phone calls from guys who were just stopped with rounds of shotgun ammunition in the car or coming in from a day of hunting, and they were promptly charged with having an expired FID card – even though the card they held said it was good for life. Oh yes, innocent people who think they are following the law will be hurt by these changes if they go through.

So, New Yorkers, get involved with your state groups and try to get a repeat of Illinois.

Don’t Be Like I Was

On November 17, 1993, I was not yet 20 years old. That was the day the federal assault weapons ban was voted on (See my History of the Assault Weapons Ban). I had a lot going on in my life then. My mother’s cancer had just been deemed terminal, and she would die shortly after the ban went into effect. I was also a sophomore in college. While I was aware of the debate, and definitely opposed to any ban, I did not think anything like that could pass in this country.

“How could they pass that? It’s clearly a violation of the Second Amendment,” I thought.

I knew enough about guns to know the difference between a semi-auto rifle and a machine gun. I had attended gun shows with an uncle in the late 80s, and was corrected when asked about the machine guns.

“No, those aren’t machine guns. They are civilianized. They only fire semi-automatically.”

“You should get one.”

“No, that’s a commie rifle, boy.”

It was a Chinese Norinco, which can’t be imported anymore. He was looking for M1 Carbines, which I recall were a cheap and plentiful back then. My Uncle got a few M1 Carbines during the last hellish period gun owners went through, and he wasn’t buying them strictly for defense against criminals, if you know what I mean. The supposed “insurrectionist” theory of the Second Amendment is always how I understood it growing up, even though I came from a house that did not have firearms.

I spent most of that time believing it just couldn’t be passed, and even if it was passed, surely it has to be unconstitutional. I had no idea that it could be, and that it was a reality in California already. I was wrong. When the Assault Weapons Ban passed, and went into effect, that was the point that I became concerned about this issue to start paying attention to it, and the more I learned, the more angry I got. This culminated in my first purchase of a semi-auto Romanian AK-47 variant in 2000 for about $300. I bought 1000 rounds of ammo with it for 80 bucks. I joined the NRA for the first time. After that, I learned there were people who did not believe the Second Amendment was any individual right at all. Then I learned of the lies and deceptions on the part of gun control advocates. I read a lot of papers and publications by Dave Kopel, Dave Hardy, Steve Halbrook, and Don Kates, all of whom I have subsequently met since I took up blogging. Their scholarship was instrumental in bringing me to where I am now.

My journey from concerned citizen to activist took from 1994 to 2006 or so. We’re not going to have that kind of time today. It took a serious loss in 1994 to wake me up to the fact that the Second Amendment was actually controversial, and that there were forces at work who wanted to see it redacted from the Constitution, and it’s true intent ignored. The threat we’re facing today is more severe than in 1994. Confiscation is being openly discussed. Don’t think it can’t happen, and spend twelve years to really get involved. If gun owners today, especially people who like black rifles, are as complacent as I was, we could be facing a meltdown, and one which will take decades to fix, if it can be fixed at all. Don’t be like I was.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention Clayton’s scholarship, which I didn’t find until I was already pretty deep in the rabbit hole. Probably somewhere around the 2003-2004 timeframe.

Wal-Mart Switches Gears

The store chain initially said it would not attend White House meetings on gun control, but now they have changed their tune and plan to sit down with the Obama Administration to discuss these policies.

UPDATE: Thanks to UTLaw, we learn that Wal-Mart is taking calls on this issue. You will speak with a live customer service agent, and they claim that they are listening to customer input.

The phone number to call is: (479) 273-4000. Tell them you would like to offer input on their decision to meet with the White House on gun control. You will be passed off the some kind of priority customer service.

The Conservative Media Catches Up

It’s tough to know what to post about today since the big headlines that general rightwing folks are pushing are the upcoming announcement later today about what gun controls New York will push and the Iowa lawmaker who is advocating for confiscation of firearms. That’s the problem with following the issue pretty closely. We covered Rep. Dan Muhlbauer’s comments a week ago, and we already knew to look for extreme proposals out of New York.

In fact, right now I’m trying to put myself in the mindset of someone who is reading today’s Drudge headlines and tweets from conservatives as big “new” news. I’m helping Sebastian with his legislative report to his gun club meeting to make sure that all the relevant bases are covered. When lawmakers are just piling on, it’s hard to remember everything. Obviously, it won’t be about issues in New York or Iowa, but we’ve had our share of bad things promised in the last month here in Pennsylvania or from our federal representatives. Many of these folks will be hearing about these issues for the very first time tonight.

The Administration’s Plan

I think this is probably correct, in response to Biden suggesting video games are on the table:

Of course, I’m wondering if getting the entertainment industry involved isn’t really about drumming up some friendly PR for whatever gun-control measures the White House does come up with more than anything else — rationale probably pretty similar to their reasoning for making these particular phone calls.

Yes. And Wayne LaPierre opened the door to this idea with the disastrous notion that gamers were a faction we needn’t worry about offending when School Shield was introduced. This is typical divide and conquer tactics that are so representative of the Chicago Way. Many people enjoy video games, and it’s quite possible I was not the only person who realized what a disastrous remark that was. The White House may have noticed too.

I Hope He’s Exaggerating

According to this article, freshman Rep. Tom Cotton from Arkansas’s 4th district is getting phone calls in about a 9-to-1 ratio calling for him to stand up against gun control.

You might wonder why I say that I hope he’s exaggerating since that sounds like winning. I hope he’s exaggerating downward. If you click through and look at that district, this guy should be seeing pro-Second Amendment phone calls and letters from constituents outnumber anti-gun supporters by at least 15-to-1.

For those who say we don’t need to worry because the GOP has the House of Representatives, well, the fact that any House office could be hearing from us in ratios that are lower than 9-to-1, that makes me nervous. If every person who walked into a gun show since the middle of December wrote to their Congressman, we’d be in a much better position.

Illinois Attorney General Files En Banc Appeal in 7th Circuit

In the case of Shepherd/Moore v. Madigan, Madigan has decided to appeal to the entire 7th Circuit Court to review the case. I don’t know enough about how this works with the 180 day deadline the three judge panel imposed on the Illinois legislature to pass carry laws that are constitutional.

Thanks to Gene Hoffman of CalGuns Foundation for linking the petition. I particularly like this one, so far:

Second, the panel majority held that defendants failed to offer “extensive empirical evidence” sufficient to make a “strong showing that a gun ban was vital to public safety.” Slip op. 13-14. This heightened showing, which approaches strict scrutiny, likewise conflicts with Kachalsky, Masciandaro, and this Court’s en banc decision in Skoien. Thus, if the en banc Court concludes that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home, this appeal asks the Court to decide whether less rigorous scrutiny, and traditional rules of legislative deference, apply in this context.

Let me translate that out of legal talk for you “We just want to be able to say it’s critical for public safety without presenting any real evidence that it is, and have you believe us.” That’s not any kind of heightened scrutiny at all. It’s basically rational basis. I don’t really have time to read the rest right now, but have it.

Biden to Meet With NRA

I’m sure folks are probably going to spin this as the sellout in progress, but Biden has been meeting with the gun control advocates for days now and having discussions. It’s helpful to see what they say. Same reason we listened in on what the Brady’s had to say. It can reveal their thinking, and reveal information that can be useful. You don’t go into battle blind, and political battle is no different.