Category: Anti-Gun Folks

The Brady Campaign has officially declared itself to be a radical gun banning organization. There’s no other way to view them after reviewing their latest state rankings of gun laws released this morning.

The rankings are conducted on a 100-point scale. Their “best” state is California which comes in at 79 points – a C+. The second spot is secured by New Jersey with 73 points – a C-. However, I consider the most telling grade to be Massachusetts. Brady said they only scored a 54 out of 100 – or have an F in the gun control grade book.

Massachusetts is a state with discretionary license to own. If you walk into a police station and offend the police chief by wearing his least favorite color, he has the authority to deny you a license to even own a rifle or handgun in your home. Massachusetts is a state where the gun laws go so far that pepper spray requires its own firearms permit. If a new shooter wants to take empty shell casing home after a successful day at the range, they risk criminal charges for inert cases if they do not have a gun license.

This is what the Brady Campaign considers to be a failing grade?

There is no right to own arms in Massachusetts. That is still not good enough for the Paul Helmke. What is good enough? Confiscation? Would that get them up to maybe a B? What is an A for the Brady Campaign?

Josh Sugarmann gets hysterical about an upcoming change that will take place in a few weeks allowing us to carry in National Parks, consistent with state law. I’d be hard pressed to say a single reason is responsible for the decline in the fortunes of the anti-gun movement, but I think the histrionics over the danger of concealed carry been a big factor. With the help of their allies in the media, the anti-gun groups have, at every step, consistently predicted dire consequences and consistently been wrong every time. We’ve managed to substantially reduce crime in this country while simultaneously liberalizing our gun laws. February 22nd will be a total non-event. People will come and visit the parks as usual, and, like before, most of them will not be carrying guns. A few of us will, but chances are, no one will notice.

You’d think after a while they’d stop beating the same drum, continuing to lose credibility. Lost in the argument Sugarmann and the Bradys make, trying to scare people with the prospect of open carry, is why you don’t see people open carrying rifles and handguns in the multitude of other venues, including state parks in most states, where people may legally do all those things now. Open carry is a total non-issue. It’s not that widely practiced. After February 22nd, people will be no more likely to see an openly carried firearm in a National Park than they will anywhere else. That’s not to say you’ll never see it. Even I’ve practiced open carry while hiking, and one other time I’ve run into someone else on the trail open carrying. But it’s never been a big deal. If the sight of a gun that bothers you that much, I recommend counseling to help you get over your irrational fears.

At first I wasn’t going to respond to the latest Brady screed, where I think they are trying to read way more into a figure of speech than was probably meant. But aside from that issue, I have no real disagreement there’s a difference between race, sexual orientation, and carrying a firearm. I’ve rejected in the past that discrimination against gun owners is on par with racial discrimination. But that’s missing the forest for the trees. What Brady suggests here not consistent with how we treat rights in society. Let’s look at the crux of their argument:

Why?  Among other reasons, they are all impossible to comply with.  All of those traits areimmutable characteristics of individuals and cannot be separated from the person.  It is impossible to comply with those statements because if you exclude one, you exclude both.

The sixth and last statement, however, obviously does not fall into that category, because guns can be separated from people.  A gun is a thing outside human identity.

But we protect many non-immutable characteristics in our society as well as immutable ones, don’t we? Especially when those characteristics are are expressions and behaviors protected in our constitutional structure. Religion, for instances, is non-immutable, yet we generally protect religious minorities in society in the same way we protect racial minorities. Would it not be outrageous if, say, conservative-christian-owned Chik-Fil-A decided to ban people wearing Wiccan symbols, yarmulkes, or hijabs, or refused to make reasonable accommodation for its employees who were religious minorities? These are things that can easily be left outside as well, and proponents could no doubt argue that it’s just the symbols, not the person they have a problem with. But I think most people who valued individual liberty would be appropriately appalled by a practice like this, and we would expect victims of this kind of discrimination to call it such, and to dress their arguments in civil rights language. That would be completely within the American experience when it comes to debating civil rights.

But it’s not just religion. While I would argue that homosexuality itself is an immutable characteristic, homosexual behavior certainly is not. What if Regal Cinemas, largely owned by christian conservative Philip Anschutz, decided that it would allow gays into its theaters, but you have to leave the gay behavior at home. No holding hands, snuggling next to each other in the theater seats, and for God’s sake, no kissing! Would we not expect gay right’s activist to complain of discrimination? Would we do a double take at them dressing themselves up in civil rights language? No, we’d expect it, and I suspect many of the Brady folks would join me in condemning it.

Oh, I’m sure the Brady’s will argue that “religious symbols and gay behavior can’t kill anybody,” but that’s really not that point. Whether they want to accept it or not, it’s very difficult to escape the language in Heller that strongly suggests that carrying a firearm, or bearing of arms, for personal protection is an individual civil right — recognizing the longstanding notion in common law that the right to protect ones own life is indeed fundamental. Why should we be any less outraged than other groups in my examples above, that a group like the Brady Campaign is essentially undertaking a campaign to use private rather than government coercion to frustrate the exercise of this right? A campaign that if successful will essentially mean that people who choose to exercise that right are essentially ostracized from society? It’s not about whether guns are dangerous or not, we all know they are, but the Bradys have lost the debate on keeping guns out of society because they are dangerous.

All our argument has been, all along, is that the Second Amendment deserves to be treated as seriously as other rights, and while I would not advocate government coercion to force private property owners to accept guns, that doesn’t translate into believing that public shame is outrageous, or out of place, as the Brady Campaign suggests. Discrimination against guns, in a society where the right to keep and bear a gun is a constitutional right, is discrimination against people — the people who choose to exercise their fundamental human rights.

See here. If it’s a true number, it’s a pretty good tally. Better than I would have imagined it would do. Be warned, if this works they will try this template again. Be sure to contact Starbucks and thank them for standing up against this nonsense, if you haven’t already.

The Bradys just won’t let up, will they. But I have to admit, as much as I loathe Ted Rall, that comic is pretty funny.

Looks like Heeding God’s Call is pushing back their planned protest of the Shooter Shop:

Hi,  I wanted to give you a heads up. It seems Heeding gods call doesnt like the cold, they postponed the protest until the 20th. Not sure if this is a trick or not. Thanks for spreading the word.

It’s looking like the Brady folks are angry that Starbucks isn’t reacting the way they expected, and are upping the ante by taking it over to the HuffPo.

Such a policy is disturbing to law enforcement officials as well as Starbucks patrons. As a San Mateo County Sheriff’s Lieutenant put it, “Open carry advocates create a potentially very dangerous situation,” because when police respond to a “man with a gun” call, they have no idea what the intentions of the gun carrier are and “the result could be deadly.”

Don’t exercise your constitutional rights, or we’ll shoot you! What a rousing message of freedom coming from California. Heller endorsed a right-to-carry, even if the state will have the power to regulate how firearm may be worn (openly vs. concealed, etc). Pick one or the other. We can make this issue fizzle in California really quick if the politicians want to issue concealed carry licenses on a non-discretionary basis. The Bradys might not want to accept it, but that’s the current state of affairs. Open or concealed — pick one — you may not prohibit both.

Couldn’t help but notice at last night’s Radnor Township Board meeting:

• Diane Edbril, former Executive Director of CeaseFirePA, shows up late to meeting, and sits on the side that had all the gun owners, rather than sitting with her fellow CeaseFirePA activists.
• Diane Edbril looked agitated when another board member pulled her away from a question to let it be fielded by Joe Grace when the floor was opened to non-residents.
• Diane Edbril leaves abruptly thereafter.

Maybe she’s a little upset that they put her out to pasture and hired Joe? I couldn’t blame her, but I couldn’t blame them either. When Edbril was running CeaseFirePA I thought they were a joke. Grace actually has me worried. Not so much because I think he’s going to get major gun control legislation passed, but because he’s serious about his issue, is using novel tactics, and probing for weaknesses in our armor. Joe Grace is sharp, serious, and committed to moving his issue forward. He is a dangerous opponent in this struggle.

Again, I think they are misunderstanding what I’m saying. First, one must understand what a bigot is:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

This might typically have racial connotations, but it doesn’t have to. Bigot successfully describes anyone who is intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, toward any group, not just toward racial minorities or ethnic groups. But let’s go back to the Brady folks:

In fact, the notion of “bigotry” is perhaps the pillar upon which the National Rifle Association itself has built its whole bogus empire.  That is: “Aren’t you mad at those coastal elites who look down their noses at you and your ‘way of life’?  You should be mad as hell.  GET MAD AS HELL AT THOSE ELITES!  Donate to us today.”

I think the funny thing is, by most people’s definition I’m one of those “coastal elites” that NRA warned you about, but even I can understand why this this rallying cry works. Because it resonates with people. It’s something that most gun owners can relate to. Why? Because we’ve all experienced that attitude at one time or another. How many times have you told people you enjoy hunting or shooting and had someone look at you as if you just told them you enjoy molesting children? How many of you have had people express shock that you were a gun owner, because you don’t seem like “that kind of person?” NRA uses that rallying cry because it works, and shouldn’t that tend to lend some credence that maybe a lot of “costal elites” carry around with them a lot of, dare I say, bigotry and prejudices about what kind of people gun owners, hunters, and shooters are?

Some adherents of this mantra have taken it to bizarre extremes, in fact, likening their position to African-Americans in the Civil Rights movement.  No, not kidding.  Look at this latest stemwinder by Joe from Idaho.

Well, both dealt with restoring or guaranteeing fundamental constitutional rights to Americans. Both are inherently part of the continuing argument over the Fourteenth Amendment, and how we apply fundamental rights in our society. They might not be struggling against evils of equal magnitude, but it’s still a civil rights struggle. It’s worth noting that even the Chicago Tribune, in it’s excellent article about Otis McDonald reports on parallels between the two:

The strategy was partly inspired by the civil rights-era work of the NAACP and Thurgood Marshall, who challenged racial segregation in the 1940s and 1950s by searching for compelling plaintiffs and using the press to build public sympathy and support.

The NAACP’s approach became the template for other reform movements, such as women’s rights in the 1970s, and was taken up by a spectrum of activists, including conservative groups that have used it to challenge affirmative action, with moderate success.

In the Chicago case, constitutional law experts say McDonald likely was chosen for another important reason. Arguments in the case center on the 14th Amendment, which says that a state may not “abridge the privileges or immunities” of citizens.

The amendment was adopted after the Civil War to protect former slaves in states that were passing laws restricting their rights and prohibiting them from owning guns. In the Heller decision, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, referred to that chapter in history, arguing that those who had opposed the disarmament of freedmen did so with the understanding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.

That interpretation is central to the plaintiffs’ arguments in the Chicago case.

The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s wrote the book on how to do this, and we’re just following in their footsteps using the lessons they learned. Every gun owner should read “The NAACP’s Legal Strategy against Segregated Education, 1925-1950” as it contains quite a lot of valuable lessons in the challenges of building a successful litigation strategy for civil rights. One can’t help but to realize how those lessons can be applied to our struggle. Is it fair to compare the magnitude of this country’s past racial sins with the fight on the part of some to eradicate the Second Amendment? I don’t think so. Racism has been far more damaging to this country and its institutions than gun control has ever been, and one could even argue that gun control has been a subset of that sin. Back to the Bradys:

Yet regardless of what NRA propaganda might have us believe, Americans are not born with guns in our hands, and the regulation of where guns can be carried; what kinds of guns should be out of civilian hands; how guns should be stored; and whether suspected terrorists, felons, fugitives, wife-beaters or the dangerously mentally ill should be screened out of the gun-buying process by the strongest possible background check, have absolutely nothing to do with “culture” or “bigotry.”

It doesn’t have to be “culture” or “bigotry,” but it often can be, and often is, and I think it would be wise for the Bradys to distance themselves from the folks, like Morford, who fit the definition to a T, just as I have, at great expense to some of my relationships in this community, spoken out against extreme and provocative positions of many of the stone throwers in the pro-gun movement. It’s one thing to argue in favor of your position. It’s quite another to strongly imply that you’re better and more enlightened than those who oppose your position. Maybe it doesn’t rise to the level of refusing to serve blacks at a coffee counter, but that doesn’t make it any more right, and it doesn’t make it any less bigoted, by the precise definition of the word.

Even the NRA is joining in the “Make fun of the Brady Campaign” fun.

The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable.  It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit” for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon” ban between 1994 and 2004.

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history.  The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system.  The 1994 gun ban has expired.  The number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise.  The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level.  And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

I actually feel bad for them. Not so much because I’m sorry they are on their way toward political irrelevance — that’s been what this struggle has been about. It was going to be one side or the other, and obviously I’d rather it be them. But I can’t help but feel at least some empathy based on how I would feel if the roles were reversed, and it was us in their place.

I think the Brady Campaign are in a real pickle. It’s pretty obvious that the MAIG model, pushing gun control bills under the guise of anti-trafficking, and using novel methods to build political legitimacy and capital, is the likely future of gun control. The problem for the Bradys is they could never fundraise with the MAIG model, and if you can’t fundraise on it, you either need a wealthy patron (which Bloomberg and the City of New York are for MAIG), or a lot of foundation money, and foundation money for gun control is drying up.

I suspect what Dave Hardy said right after we won Heller is true; that it essentially removed from the table the primary reason Brady’s patrons supported gun control in the first place — the elimination of guns from society. Now that’s off the table. It was one thing to support an incrementalist approach when prohibition was still a possibility, it’s another thing when that’s no longer on the table.

That’s not to say gun control is going to go away as an issue, but the Brady model is fast receding into the sunset unless they come up with something new an innovative, and that allows them to raise money. What will that be? I don’t know. I’m not sure I want to find out either.