Category: Anti-Gun Folks

I normally don’t default to the “fisking” format, but some news articles just shout out for it, because they are just filed with garbage. This Philadelphia Weekly article by Joel Mathis is one of those. Let’s get started.

Attorney General Tom Corbett is the top law enforcement officer in the state, and he wants to be your next governor. But he doesn’t necessarily care about life and death in Philadelphia.

Really? Because, you see, Philadelphia wasn’t doing crap about straw buyers until Tom Corbett went in and formed a task force to tackle the problem. He mentions that later in the article, but why not start out on a sensationalist note just in case people stop reading.

That’s the only conclusion to draw from the Republican’s decision to add his name to a list of 33 state attorneys general who are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down municipal handgun restrictions across the country—depriving Philly and other big cities of a potential tool to clamp down on the gun violence that plagues them.

The brief General Corbett signed on to urged the US Supreme Court to take the case. It was not an amicus brief favoring a particular outcome. I have little doubt that Tom Corbett supports incorporation, because outside of Philadelphia newsrooms and City Hall, this is simply not controversial.

This case also will not “strike down municipal handgun restrictions around the country,” the question at hand is Chicago’s ban on handguns, and whether the Second Amendment applied to the states like most of our other rights in the Bill of Rights. It will take further lawsuits to strike down any other municipal ordinances.

Even so, in June, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down Philadelphia’s bans on assault weapons and the “straw purchase” of handguns, asserting that only the legislature—and not the cities—has the authority to pass gun laws. The court left several other provisions in place, however, allowing Philly to require that lost handguns be reported to police and prohibit gun ownership by people subject to “protections from abuse” orders.

The court didn’t really “leave them in place,” it said NRA did not have standing to bring suits on these ordinances because they lacked standing. Philadelphia can pass whatever bogus ordinance it wants, but until someone is prosecuted under it, it’s not a matter for the courts. Since Philadelphia was going to enforce it’s assault weapons ban and gun rationing scheme against NRA members, so they had standing on that.

Though the case focuses on Chicago’s laws, the ruling will affect every city dealing with gun violence—and potentially put an end to Philly’s hopes that the General Assembly might one day allow us to properly deal with the situation here. The brief bearing Corbett’s signature is full of references to the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers and the underpinnings of Anglo-American political philosophy—but it completely ignores the problems faced by 21st century Americans.

21st Century Americans don’t have a need to defend themselves and their homes from violent criminals? That’s a rather bold statement, don’t you think? Wait, no, that’s a rather extreme position, don’t you think? In the recent Rassmussen poll, 69% of Americans don’t believe local governments have the power to ban handguns. 71% Believe the Second Amendment is an individual right. 63% agreed with the Heller ruling. Perhaps it is because print media has taken such extremist positions on these topics that circulation numbers are falling so rapidly.

That sounds right, but Tom Corbett disagrees. Philadelphians shouldn’t be surprised by his stance. We should, however, be disappointed and offended that he so easily disregards the violence that affects our city. And we should remember it next year when we vote for a new governor.

I am disappointed and offended that Joel Mathis would write such an unapologetic hit piece on a guy who’s actually done quite a bit to lock up people who supply criminals with guns in Philadelphia, because he does not support an extremist position held by only a minority of Americans.

Indiana has been pretty successful at cutting down MAIG’s numbers. Now the mayor of Goshen, Indiana is feeling the heat. We should all be a bit concerned we haven’t cut down MAIG’s numbers more. No doubt a lot of mayors have taken heat, and aren’t budging, so they will likely have to be punished at the ballot box.

It’s a small world in gun control advocacy. So small, the groups even write each other’s press releases. Or is Virginians for Public Safety an astroturfing operation on the part of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? Maybe. Bob Ricker, formerly of AHSA, used to head up VPS. Amazing what a small incestuous world the gun control issue is.

Protest Easy Guns is already touting a new poll that shows Virginians want to close the so called gun show loophole, and don’t want licensees carrying firearms into places that serve alcohol. But like many polls, the answers are reached by how the question is asked. Let’s take a look:

Under Virginia law, in order for an individual to be able to purchase a firearm at a gun show from a licensed firearm dealer, that individual must first pass a criminal background check. However that same individual could purchase a firearm at the same gun show from an unlicensed seller without first having to pass a criminal background check. This is known as the gun show loophole. Do you support changing the law to close the loophole?

This is loaded with charged language. Loophole implies that it’s something wrong, rather than something legal. Saying “unlicensed seller” implies that the seller is somehow unscrupulous, or doing something wrong. Nothing in this question is, per se, inaccurate, but it leaves the listener with the impression that the activity is shady and borderline illegal. I’m surprised 16.7% of Virginians knew the issue well enough to say no. To an ordinary person who does not understand, of course shady activity should be stopped, right? Just like guns that are used to assault people should be banned. Let’s look at the next one:

Do you think people with concealed weapons permits should be able to bring their weapons into restaurants that sell alcohol?

Note that there’s no mention of what the actual law says, which is that they may not consume alcohol? The implication is that you’ll have people with guns drinking, which most people are understandably opposed to. I think if you asked this question right, they might have difficulty getting a bare majority.

No doubt the anti-gunners will continue beating on this poll, but it’s a great example of how to ask loaded questions in a poll to get the answer you want.

Verne Gay of Newsday, which serves Long Island, is pretty upset with a Colorado gun shop owner for showing gun owners are normal, every day people, rather than living up to their prejudices of gun owners:

Yeah, the first thought that comes to mind is “Bowling for Columbine.” Right state, same general idea – a sort of candid look into the heart and mind of people who like the feel of hard, cold steel in their hands. Michael Moore, of course, wanted to expose the horrors of gun ownership. Ryan apparently wants to expose the bores. And dull these heat-packers are – rattling on about their favorite Glock, or piece with the best kick, or weaponry that might scare off intruders by sight or sound alone. Oh, for just one wild-eyed, heavily inked, badly scarred, deeply disturbed maniac to wander in off the street, and thereby instantly confirm all our worst fears. Instead, we get some slightly bent soccer moms and dads debriefed by an impossibly cheery, cheesy, chummy game-show host. Showtime must have thought there would be great humor and irony in the mundane exchanges recorded here. But it miscalculated. Badly.

I’m sorry we don’t live up to your stereotypes, and feed your prejudices and irrational fears, Mr. Gay. I really am. I do have one promise for you, though. We’re going to do everything we can to make sure the same type of people you see in “Lock and Load” can live in Long Island, as your friends and neighbors, and still enjoy the same Second Amendment rights. Maybe then you’ll give up the hate when you can no longer count on the unconstitutional gun laws of the City and State of New York to insulate you from people who have a different ideas about how to live.

Can there be any doubt that the Brady Campaign has never met a gun control law that’s not eminently reasonable, and common sensical, no matter what effect we may tell you it will have on legitimate hunters and shooters? Try finding odd calibers or match grade ammunition at your local corner gun shop. For a lot of competitive shooters, especially cowboy shooters, mail order is really your only option, and now Governor Arnold just told those people they don’t matter.

I can tell you, without my regular mail order houses, there’s no way I could find everything I need easily. The local gun shops are often poorly stocked with reloading supplies, and the nearest Cabela’s is 100 miles away. Even if you think it makes sense to regulate loaded ammunition, it makes zero sense to regulate components, because criminals are not going to hand load their ammunition. That was purely a fuck you to law abiding gun owners from the Brady Campaign and Governor Schwarzenegger.  Seriously guys, you might as well have elected Bustamante at this rate.

And guys like MikeB still want to insist there’s no hidden agenda here? Hell, it’s not even really that hidden!

UPDATE: Arizona is reporting that NRA is going to try for a repeal of this ammunition law.

UPDATE: Attractive Nuisance is reporting that the situation in California is even worse, because many areas in California are not serviced by gun shops at all. It’s a similar situation to most other highly restrictive states. You get a few restrictions in place, and gun owners either leave or give up the sport, which makes less demand for shooting related products, so shops close. Now you have the gun owners left in a precarious political situation, so you squeeze them more, then more, then more, until you’ve eradicated the right. You don’t have to make guns illegal to convince people to give up owning and using them. The other side is well aware of that.