2013 – Page 36 – Shall Not Be Questioned

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.

Upcoming Action Day for Gun Control

Most folks have heard that President Obama’s Organizing for Action group has declared August 21 to be their gun control day. But have most of you actually looked at the schedule around you to see who they are targeting?

Here in suburban Philly, we have some highlights. They start tonight with a phone bank in Solebury and tomorrow night in Bethlehem targeting the entire area of Southeast PA.

They really want to cause problems for Rep. Jim Gerlach judging by the Trappeand Exton rallies planned. Most gun owners probably assume that Rep. Joe Pitts has no major election concerns, but they are targeting his district with two rallies and a phone bank effort. Even Rep. Charlie Dent who managed to defeat a MAIG mayor in a recent election will be facing pressure.

If Republicans who signed on to co-sponsor a few bills thought that would make the left go away, they were sorely mistaken. Rep. Patrick Meehan will be subject to two rallies attempting to keep gun control the issue alive in his district. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick is also slated for a rally to keep the divisive issue on the front pages.

Gun owners need to make sure that gun control voices aren’t the only ones that these lawmakers hear from next week. Even if some have already signed on to bills we don’t like, don’t give up. If they hear silence from our people, they’ll think it’s okay to sign on to even more extreme gun control.

California Approaches the End Game

The anti-gun bill package advances in the California Assembly. The bill package would:

Ban all semi-automatic rifles that accept any detachable magazine.
Ban possession of any magazine holding more than ten rounds. No grandfathering.
Create ammunition registration, and require background checks for ammunition purchases.
Create a roster of approved long guns in addition to handguns.

I expect this to pass. In truth, I’d feel a lot better going into court arguing against such a broad semi-auto rifle ban than I would even challenging the SAFE act. That’s no reason not to prevent this from passing, because I don’t have high expectations for what federal judges are willing to do, but I’m just saying.

Having lost on the handgun issue in court, those who disapprove of civilian gun possession now are trying to achieve their end game on the only thing they think they can; long guns. We really need the courts to rule you can’t ban semi-automatic rifles in common use any more than you can ban handguns in common use.

And does anyone argue this isn’t part and parcel of their plans for every other state, or federally, if we let them get away with it? I happen to believe Pennsylvania could topple sooner than many in the state today think.

Guns on a Plane

Interesting article in Global Travel Industry News, where they ask people about whether they’d carry a firearm on an aircraft if such a thing were allowed. A surprising number of people responded yes. I would be among the “yes” respondents if asked, and much for the same reason as this person:

For Hawaii-resident Jeff Sumitani, he would carry his gun on a flight not for the reason that one would think. He said: â€œAs with anything, if itâ€™s rare or expensive, I would rather have it with me. [The] same thing with a gun. I [would] rather take care of it on the plane instead of letting the airline handle it without my supervision.â€

When I’ve flown with firearms in checked baggage, I’ve always spent more energy worrying about whether the gun was going to get to the destination along with me, than about terrorists on the plane or anything else. Making it legal to carry guns on planes isn’t honestly on my radar, I think we have bigger fish to fry, but the responses were interesting.

Pressuring Gerlach to Sign on to King-Thompson

King-Thompson is the House version of the Manchin-Toomey compromise. Of the area GOP reps, Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) and Rep. Pat Meehan (PA-07) have already caved to pressure from Bloomberg and CeaseFirePA and signed on as co-sponsors. Â Rep. Jim Gerlach (PA-06), so far, is holding out. Bloomberg is now trying to change that, by using some anti-gun state reps in a “Women’s Roundtable” to discuss gun violence.

It’s worth noting that despite attempts, our ground effort in Fitzpatrick and Meehan’s district is not as strong as it should be for the number of gun owners. It’s much stronger in Gerlach’s district. Politicians respond to incentives, and it’s a lot easier to bring politicians along when “gun rights” is something they see regularly in their districts.