Bitter – Page 22 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Pennsylvania Official Firearm

The process of getting an official state firearm designated is moving along after a PA House vote this week. The bill now heads to the Senate for votes, though I didn’t see anything about it on their calendar.

While it’s not exactly priority legislation for gun owners, it is at least of interest to gun owners in the Keystone State for reasons beyond the fact that CeaseFirePA is opposed to it and complaining in the media about it.

The reasons for choosing the Pennsylvania Long Rifle as the state firearm are outlined in the bill:

Pennsylvania’s gunmaking tradition has played an important role in the development of the United States of America. During Pennsylvania’s early history, settlers placed chief reliance on their rifles for sustenance, security and survival. The Pennsylvania Long Rifle, a unique firearm that was different in principle and outline from any other weapon in the world, was developed by skilled gunsmiths in the Moravian communities of Christian’s Spring, Northampton County, as well as by artistic riflemaker Martin Meylin, in Willow Street, Lancaster County.

The Pennsylvania Long Rifle was the first truly American firearm and, due to its exceptional accuracy and range, was considered the greatest achievement in the development of firearms during the 18th century. Playing an important role in the early years of the Industrial Revolution in Pennsylvania and New England, the Pennsylvania Long Rifle was also instrumental in the American fur trade and was carried west and south by frontiersmen as they set out to expand the boundaries of the nation.

The Pennsylvania Long Rifle has been lauded for its beauty and craftsmanship, as well as the ingenuity of the skilled gunsmiths who crafted it. The color combinations, carvings, engravings and graceful slenderness of the Pennsylvania Long Rifle cause it to stand alone and remain unchallenged as a primary example of early American art.

Future generations deserve the right to appreciate the heritage of this long-barreled rifle, born to artistic gunsmiths in the communities of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Perhaps the only interesting “analysis” out of this is that we can compare the votes of 16 lawmakers who were opposed to recognizing a freakin’ muzzleloader that carries the state’s name as the state firearm, but who would get on board with naming a state airplane – the Piper J-3 Cub. These are 16 lawmakers who weren’t opposing wasting time on frivolous votes designating silly “official” recognitions; these were 16 lawmakers so opposed to the idea of a simple muzzleloader being recognized that they voted against it. And yet they wonder why we don’t trust that they’ll stop at seizing our semi-auto rifles?

70th Anniversary of D-Day

There are quite a few neat things that have popped up to honor the 70th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. One that stuck out to Sebastian was this collection of “then and now” photos from the Normandy beaches.

On Twitter, Charles C. W. Cooke has been sharing a fantastic collection of historic photos from the invasion. This is one that stuck out to me.

A plasma transfusion. pic.twitter.com/E1tFIjhM5f

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 6, 2014

From NRA, Life of Duty has a piece where 94-year-old paratrooper John Perozzi visit the invasion site. He was shot during the invasion and still carries that bullet in him today, yet he recovered and went on to fight again, including at the Battle of the Bulge.

I have been interested in the BBC’s posting of current British celebrities reading BBC News scripts from June 6, 7, & 8th.

I know there are many other tributes online today, and I’d love to see any favorites from readers today in the comments.

California Democrats Like Leeland Yee

Charles C. W. Cooke and others note that being indicted for multiple felonies that include accusations of arming mafia members and arms smuggling doesn’t turn off about 10% of California’s Democratic voter base, at least based on the results of yesterday’s election. Nearly 290,000 primary voters thought these accusations made Leeland Yee a great candidate for Secretary of State worthy of their support.

Perhaps what’s more interesting is that Yee was only polling at 8% before he was arrested, so he actually performed better with California Democrats after the charges came to light. In fact, the same polling firm found that even after he was arrested and the charges against him were disclosed, 15% of voters maintained a favorable view of Yee.

Political Carrots

As Sebastian mentioned, he asked me to write a post about examples of using the carrot as opposed to the stick when it comes to leading politicians in your direction. There’s nothing better to use than a real life example, and we happen to have one from just this week.

Our local state representative who carries an A rating from NRA-PVF held a reasonably priced fundraiser – $50/person with open bar and bites to eat at a local joint that was nice and casual. He also has several events that are in the range of $25/person, and these events aren’t a case of going out to rub elbows with elites or something that you need to get on an inner circle list to join. This was an event where almost everyone was in a t-shirt and jeans. I was one of the most “dressed up” in just a light summer dress and flip flops. The next table over was surrounded by mostly volunteer firefighters from our town who are younger than me. This event was the kind where community members came out to show a small bit of support to someone who represents issues important to them.

In fact, we ran into someone we know because he had his NRA shirt on when he arrived. He sat with us for a while, and the bit of “rubbing elbows” we did was more like a handful of politicians stopping by to introducing themselves and then learning that this small group of normal looking folks turned out because of the representative’s support for our Second Amendment rights. It was casual, and the real message that it sent is that we’re a community that stands together, and we’ll stand up for our friends instead of just getting angry when someone crosses us. I even commented to Sebastian that it’s too bad members of the gun clubs around here haven’t shown more interest in this type of political organization on a broader scale because this was actually a nice and fun event for those types of groups.

The interesting element was that these types of community-focused fundraisers also attract a few of the professional political types. It can be kind of amusing in that regard because they do tend to stand out. We met a professional fundraiser who was the only person to show up in something close to a suit, and we chatted for a bit, catching him off guard when we said that we were there because of the representative’s support for gun rights. He was clearly not expecting that response, and it sends a message that there are gun owners willing to put up money and political support for our primary issue.

Here’s the thing to remember in this case, it’s not just about going to one event where we paid to get in the door (or, really up on the outdoor deck) that serves as a reminder that we’ll really stand up for our friends in the legislature. The carrot from the carrot & stick equation in this situation is the entire scope of engagement. This state representative has run into us when we are going to vote (for him), when I’ve been standing outside of a polling place in his district, and when I have showed up to drop off literature in targeted neighborhoods that aren’t mine. He knows us from community events like the Friends of NRA dinner which he stops by every year. He knew about us as activists doing real get out the vote activities before we ever decided to attend a fundraiser.

These kinds of activities are not that hard, folks. Sebastian commiserated with an older public official who admitted that she’s really not a fan of phone banking. She’ll walk neighborhoods all day long knocking on doors, but she really hates making phone calls. Sebastian is the same way, so that sent a message that even though we’ve never helped this woman out (since she doesn’t have anything to do with our issue) that we aren’t just there as donors, but as volunteers with real experience helping out our allies.

If you’re not the social type, offer to do a lit drop where all you have to do is just drop off literature at targeted homes in a neighborhood. If that even runs the risk to much social interaction for your tastes, offer to deliver signs to people who request them through the campaign. See if your gun club property can host a casual hot dog and hamburger fundraiser for a few bucks for your local friends in the legislature. These aren’t about raising big money, and the lawmakers know it. They’ll still come out because the real message you’re sending is that you’re a community willing to help out friends who stand up to Bloomberg & his paid followers.

A handful of gun owners in local districts participating in events like these and helping out a few times during election season while telling politicians that they are doing it because of their record on gun issues will make it far more likely that your voices will be heard when it comes to moving our issue forward rather than just having to be on the defense as we deal with legislative attacks.

Following the Anti-Gun Money

Dave Hardy reminds us that when you see new attacks from different groups that only may recently be jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon, you can usually follow the money back to Joyce, and now back to Bloomberg via Joyce.

On one hand, it’s handy that Bloomberg is responsible for it all because he’s such an easy guy for so many to hate. There’s nothing any normal American enjoys he hasn’t tried to regulate. Even people who applaud the success he has had in business tend to resent his attitude that he can just use his billions to buy public policies/offices he likes. On the other hand, he can spread his billions around to different groups and create different “faces” to his pet issues. It’s frustrating, but these reminders are handy.

The Meaning of Memorial Day

I hope you all enjoy your Memorial Day and take some time out to remember what the day is about – those who have fallen while serving our country.

Here’s a NYT piece that I highly suggest reading today. You might discover you have a little something in your eye that causes them to well up a bit at a few lines, or maybe not.

One of my favorite genealogy blogs puts this in the very real description of her fourth great grand uncle who was one of the first in her family to die for the freedoms we so value today because he died in the Battle of Trenton. He had no wife and no descendants, so he was almost forgotten to history except for a single mention in a pension application by his brother. It’s very touching to see that sometimes these little bits of history do have meaning.

Because Your Blood Pressure is Too Low This Weekend

Read this letter from a DC mom who is fighting charges that she neglected her child because the girl and a friend were safely walking just a few minutes from a home – the same home they could give a phone number for where their parents available to pick them up if someone was truly concerned. But some man decided that the best decision was the call the police so that the parents would be arrested for the “crime” of allowing children to play unsupervised.

If you need to bring your blood pressure back down, there’s also this story about a group of parents who decided to stand up to the extremely anti-fun and anti-kid staff at what one parent called “Worst First Play Centre of Gloom” and encouraged their kids to violate all the rules against running and having fun. The parent report says that the staff hid away in the corners when they realized they were outnumbered by people who wouldn’t be strict rule enforcers. When these most obnoxious nannies are ignored and marginalized, they back down. We need to teach more people to stand up to them.

I realize these aren’t directly “gun rights” stories, and they both come out of areas (DC & Montreal) where the parents themselves might be horribly anti-gun, but these are issues related to freedom to live your life as you choose when you aren’t infringing on anyone else’s rights.

Before the Gun Bans Came the Hatpin Bans

Before women got on board with the right to defend themselves with firearms, they turned to another tool which was widely available to them and could be easily concealed while still easily accessible – the hatpin.

Smithsonian ran a feature in April about the menace of women armed with hatpins. When Leoti Blaker boarded a stage coach in NYC in 1903, an older man was next to her. She noticed that at every bump, he seemed to move closer. Finally, he ended up squeezed next to her and then suddenly moved his arm to wrap around her lower back. Needless to say, this was beyond inappropriate for the time, and the grab was not welcomed at all. So, she pulled out her hatpin and “plunged it into the meat of the manâ€™s arm.” He withdrew his arm, suddenly found plenty of space to move away before he jumped off at the next stop.

Blaker apparently told the local paper, “Iâ€™ve heard about Broadway mashers and â€˜Lâ€™ mashers, but I didnâ€™t know Fifth Avenue had a particular brand of its ownâ€¦. If New York women will tolerate mashing, Kansas girls will not.”

The piece highlights that the press went wild with stories around of women using hatpins for self-defense, and men in government did not react well. The story highlights that the Chicago Vice Commission earned the ire of women when they turned the blame for assaults on the victims and argued “that unchaperoned women should dress as modestly as possibleâ€”no painted cheeks or glimpse of ankleâ€”in order to avoid unwanted attention.” When women objected to being told that they were to blame for attacks and promoted the idea of using self-defense by hatpin, that’s when the men decided that they had enough.

Members of the press helped push a panic on the matter. The magazine spotlights one newspaper’s sarcastic response to women thinking they can defend themselves: “We look for the new and imported Colt’s hatpin or the Smith and Wesson Quick-action Pin.” When I searched for the term in the newspaper archives online, I found plenty of other articles that could have come from today’s anti-gun op-eds. A Chicago Record Herald editorial that also ran in a 1910 copy of the Savannah Tribune (GA) argued:

People take greater risks every day of their lives from other things than hat pins. But that isn’t the point. The hat pin risk is stupid, needless and reckless. It imperils eye, and one single human eye is worth more than all the dagger hat pins in the world.

No woman with any regard for other people’s rights would wear one. No woman who does wear one is entitled to any complaint if the city finds a good legal means of stopping her.

Doesn’t that sound like the argument that you don’t “need” a semi-automatic rifle? And then they add in the public shaming by arguing that only women who don’t respect other people would wear them, and they certainly don’t deserve a voice in opposing any new laws targeting their right to hatpins and self-defense.

Only, in 1910, women didn’t have any means to stand up to these men who wanted them defenseless because women didn’t have a right to vote. Chicago was one of the higher profile cities to target women’s hat pins in 1910 when Alderman Herman J Bauler pushed an ordinance that would declare the pins a “public nuisance.” The Montgomery Advertiser (AL) reported on his comments:

Hidden in a mass of plumage or hair [the hatpin] comes under the designation of concealed weapons.

Bauler got his way. By a vote of 68-2, Chicago classified wearing any hatpin with an exposed length of more than half an inch beyond the hat in public as a misdemeanor where women were subject to arrest and fined $50 ($1231.80 in 2013 dollars, according to an inflation calculator). Women booed and hissed the vote, but what could they do?

In Missouri, lawmakers pulled victims of hatpin “accidents” out of the woodwork to promote their effort to ban the tools. They pushed the stories in the media and used the argument that making their lives easier was more important than women securing their hats or having access to these “concealed weapons.” According to the Smithsonian piece, other cities also opted to regulate hatpin use or size, including Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and New Orleans.

By 1912, the anti-hatpin hysteria in men was making the millinery trade nervous and The Millinery Trade Review ran a piece that was picked up by the Idaho Stateman stating:

The millinery trade has the opportunity of making a concession to the public that will be appreciated and that is the reducing the size of the “deadly hat pin,” as the long hat pin is now termed by the press and men folk in general. …. Importers and manufacturers should produce a shorter pin, or a cap to fit on the end of a long pin, which could be attached to the hat by a light weight chain, so as to extend to the end of the pin wherever it protrudes from the hat. By making such a concession the trade would remove the excuse for the law makers of the country passing foolish laws to regulate the size of the hat pin.

Of course, these added features would only drive the cost of hatpins up so that poor women wouldn’t have access to “legal” hatpins. One reference I found mentioned that these lower income women were forced to use things like small pieces of potato to try and comply with the law. Wow, doesn’t that sound just like the war on cheaper handguns and the effort to mandate “smart” guns that many people can’t afford?

Ultimately, the hatpin fears largely went away when World War I broke out. Afterwards, the next great female to fear wasn’t one armed with a hatpin, but flappers, according to Smithsonian.

For more information on hatpins, here’s a guide on how to wear one (mostly with later style hats, so the pins don’t need to be as long) and there is even The American Hatpin Society for collectors. (h/t to Sarah who I know from the Annual Firearms Law Seminar for linking the Smithsonian piece when it came out and recognizing the same types of comparisons to anti-gun arguments today)

When Crafting Meets Concealed Carry

Did you know that there are more than 1,300 products that show up when you search Etsy for the term “gun holster”?

I guess I should be thrilled at so many entrepreneurs entering the carry market, but I have to admit that some leave me wondering if they understand the word “concealed” or “carry” in their product description.

For example, I checked out this all lace holster wondering just how the hell there could be any retention (it’s only based on how tightly you wrap it around your body) and then noticed the video on the website where the guns were printing horribly. Not to mention, while it’s shown in a way that implies it’s safe to carry your keys alongside the gun, that’s just assuming that you don’t remove the lining of the single pocket and leave the trigger guarded by a thin piece of lace. That seems like quite the negligent discharge waiting to happen. That is certainly not the only flimsy piece of lace billing itself as a method to carry a gun available on Etsy.

Then there’s one product known as the “Rocker Gun Holster” that seems to forget that carry means carrying an actual gun. Well, until I realized the shop owner is from Europe and thought that would make a witty name for a wearable purse. Anyone want to bet that the owner has received inquiries on what size gun the “holster” fits? That would probably be a pretty funny conversation to see.

Another one that stuck out to me was a piece of vinyl-wrapped foam that’s supposed to turn every purse into a carry purse. At least it covers the trigger, but I’ll be honest and say that it doesn’t exactly look like a product that’s great for the draw.

Regardless, you have to wonder what Etsy crafters think about selling alongside the holster entrepreneurs trying to pitch their products to the masses of new gun owners.

Allyson Schwartz’s Bad Night – A PA Primary Round-Up

Yesterday was primary day in Pennsylvania, and the big race to watch was to see how the Democratic primaries shaped up since those were the main contested races. NRA also offered a few endorsements, so we’ll look at how things shaped up.

Governor’s Race
I can report with 100% certainty that Tom will win the gubernatorial election in November. Unfortunately, we don’t know which Tom – Corbett or Wolf – it will be.

The biggest news from last night is just how terribly Rep. Allyson Schwartz did in an all-Democratic election. She was one who many people wondered if she would be a bit too liberal for a pretty purple state, but the Democratic voting base gave her an embarrassingly low second place finish last night – 40 points behind Tom Wolf. Instead, it turns out that she was ripped apart by progressives who were horrified by the fact that she has, at times in her nine year Congressional career, worked with moderate Democrats. Basically, the fact that she had a record to tear through worked against her.

For the gun issue, it’s not really good news or bad news. On one hand, the Democratic candidate with the lowest grade from Ceasefire won the primary. On the other hand, the entire pool of Democratic candidates for 2014 are far more hostile to our rights than the group in 2010.

Tom Wolf, the Democratic candidate now, told Ceasefire that he supports their policy proposal “imposing a ban under Pennsylvania law on the sale and possession of assault weapons.” A ban on possession implies confiscation. That’s a big freaking problem there, beyond the ban on sales which is also a hugely unacceptable response.

Wolf also said he supported their idea to “imposing a limit under Pennsylvania law on magazine capacity” where they did highlight that restrictions on size vary, so that paves the way for a push to something like NY’s SAFE Act coming from a Wolf administration.

On carry, Wolf says he will oppose any form of national reciprocity, and he also added a response to congratulate Attorney General Kathleen Kane for screwing with Pennsylvania’s reciprocity agreements. Oddly enough, he didn’t back the push for an outright ban on all campus carry, and he only stated that he believes colleges must make their carry policies transparent.

Wolf also says that he wants a bill “requiring gun owners to keep firearms and ammunition in separate secure locations.” That box of ammo you keep in your range bag? That’s not secure. The shelf you might keep your ammo sorted on? That’s not secure. Oh, and you can’t just stuff it into your 800 pound gun safe bolted to your floor because your guns are in there and they must be secured separately. That’s fine, you say, because it’s not like they’ll send inspectors around for this stuff. Well, just hope you never have to call 911 for a medical emergency in your home or have a fire where public safety staff will enter your home and report whatever they see that may possibly be a violation. Tell Grandma that her ambulance for the stroke she’s having will have to wait because you need to run out to a gun shop and find a new locking case for that ammunition.

Needless to say, those gun owners are going to be given a pretty stark contrast this year at the polls.

Lt. Governor’s Race
Again, the only race here was on the Democratic side. However, there is some news to report on the gun issue. First, the NRA grades for each of the candidates were rather interesting. In Mark Critz you had a man who had an A+ in 2012 drop to a C for this primary race, but who also refused to respond to the CeasefirePA questionnaire. Then there was Rep. Brandon Neuman who actually has a current A rating who also refused to answer to Ceasefire. But the winner came from the three candidates who did respond to Ceasefire with a 100% rating.

Oddly, the winner, Sen. Mike Stack, made a very bizarre claim to Ceasefire: “ï¿¼The NRA has consistently given me a failing grade. I would be honored to have CeaseFirePAâ€™s
ï¿¼endorsement in this election and will wear it like a badge of honor right next to my NRA ‘F.'” Um, he has always had a C-, not an F, so his statement is an outright lie. That grade is based on a voting record, too. Regardless, it’s clear that he wants gun owners to know that he’s got a giant target set on their backs.

Congressional Races
PA-13
The other negative for Allyson Schwartz last night was that she was so confident in her status as a Democratic front-runner that she said she wouldn’t run again for her Congressional seat, but she would back a close supporter for the seat. That close supporter who also tried running on healthcare, Val Arkoosh, came in dead last in a four-way primary.

Perhaps the most interesting part for this solidly Democratic seat was that the so-called “liberal lion” of Pennsylvania politics came in a very close to last third place. The race really ended up being between Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law who the Clintons campaigned for and the winner, a state lawmaker who was attacked for backing some level of regulation for abortion clinics, especially in light of the Gosnell issues that happened right here in Pennsylvania.

However, it’s not like the winner is a friend of the Second Amendment, either. In his last state house run, he had a D+. One might expect that to drop to an F now that he’s in a solidly Democratic district and in need of a little extra cushion against the progressive wing of the party who has him in their sights.

PA-9
NRA endorsed in this primary because of the incumbent rule, so it’s good to report that Rep. Bill Shuster won. The other two candidates had AQs, so it’s not like it would have gone into anti-gun hands if he hadn’t made it.

PA-8
In our own Congressional district, there was a Democratic primary and the one who many would hope would bring the “War on Women” and “SCIENCE!” message to the race didn’t win. The winner, Kevin Strouse, wants the absolutely terrible Manchin-Toomey bill brought back up, and wants to “ban most ammunitionâ€”whether from handguns or rifles” that he arbitrarily decides defeats body armor. He offers no definitions of the terms he’s using, no context, just simply anything that police would support. The WaPo likes him because he has no record and is willing to speak in vague terms on the issue that leaves open the possibility of supporting quite extreme or complicated legislation that risks landing non-attorney gun owners trying to comply in jail.

PA-12
The Democrats has a competition here between a man whose main hiccup with ethics was on using proper account funds to attend a Friends of the NRA banquet on behalf of his boss, former Rep. John Murtha, and a woman who has backed portions of Obama’s gun control agenda. Unfortunately, the most anti-gun candidate won the primary in this case. I don’t know what her final grade will be, as she has no previous record to run on. She’s challenging Rep. Keith Rothfus who will likely carry the NRA endorsement.

Other Races
NRA endorsed in only a handful of primaries this year, but they won almost all of them.

For voters in the 66th State House district, the new GOP nominee, Cris Dush refused to return a questionnaire based on the ? following the name and the endorsement to an opponent who wasn’t too far behind on votes. Dush claims that he supports the Second Amendment on his website, but voters should probably let him know that he should be willing to sign his name to some policy specifics.

On the bad news front, the most hostile Republican to the Second Amendment in 176th State House district in Monroe County has a 19 vote lead right now. The county claims that all precincts have reported, but I’m not aware if any absentee ballots have been counted yet. Unfortunately, Jack Rader, Jr. returned a questionnaire with a pretty dismal C- rating, and local GOP voters opted for him over a candidate with an A. I don’t know what the Democrat’s grade will look like, but hopefully gun owners in that district will find some kind of friend on the ballot.

In one five-way Republican primary for the 17th State House district, one of the losers was the only GOP candidate to refuse to answer a questionnaire. Unfortunately for voters in that area, both Democrats also refused to answer questionnaires. There was a similar outcome in the four-way GOP contest for 169th State House district with the only GOP candidate refusing a questionnaire losing.