Category: Anti-Gun Folks

The Brady Campaign reacts in a predictable fashion:

“The Chicago case is unlikely to have much practical impact on most gun laws regardless of how the Court rules.   Even if the Court were to hold the Second Amendment applicable to states and localities, such a ruling is unlikely to change the crucial holding by the Supreme Court in Heller that a wide range of reasonable gun laws are presumptively constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right is narrowly limited to guns in the home for self-defense. Since the Heller decision, the gun lobby and criminals have brought at least 170 challenges to gun laws or to block criminal gun prosecutions. With only a handful of exceptions, those challenges have failed.”

You keep right on reading Heller the way you want to. If all you manage to get is that the government can keep guns out of the hands of criminals, I’m OK with that. The other amusing thing, and you can bet Helmke knows this, it doesn’t matter if desperate defense attorneys with criminal clients and Hail Mary Second Amendment claims fail 100% of the time. All that matters is that we win the right cases. This case the Supreme Court has agreed to take is one of those cases.

The stakes are high. The Brady Campaign is pretending the stakes are low. No reasonable observer can really believe that. By downplaying the significance, it gives you a pretty good idea of what they think their chances are. They are already acting like they lost.

The Joyce foundation has funded a study showing that you’re stupid if you carry a gun.  You can see the PDF here, but just giving it a cursory look, it has flaws. Let me outline. From the “Methods” section:

Gunshot assault cases caused by powder charge firearms were identified as they oc- curred, from October 15, 2003, to April 16, 2006. The final 6 months of this period were limited to only fatal cases. We excluded self- inflicted, unintentional, and police-related shootings (an officer shooting someone or being shot), and gun injuries of undetermined intent.

Why limit to only fatal cases in the final six months? It’s legitimate to exclude accidental and self-inflicted wounds. But why is it legitimate to exclude police from this? Police carry firearms for self-defense, the same as ordinary citizens. If your premise is that carrying a firearm makes you more likely to be assaulted, it’s not legitimate to exclude police use.

We excluded individuals younger than 21 years because it was not legal for them to possess a firearm in Philadelphia and, as such, the relationship we sought to investigate was functionally different enough to prompt separate study of this age group. We excluded individuals who were not residents of Phila- delphia as they were outside our target pop- ulation and individuals not described as Black or White as they were a very small percentage of shootings (<2%).

It’s legitimate to exclude people under 21 who carry guns, but why is it assumed that anyone over the age of 21 was a legal gun owner? It’s illegal to carry a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia without a License to Carry firearms. Why did the study not exclude people who were carrying firearms illegally? Could it be because you needed people involved in dangerous illegal activity to get the results you wanted? Why exclude people who are not residents of Philadelphia? They are more likely to carry a legal firearm. Why the racial exclusion?

This study is comparing apples and oranges, which is interesting, but not really that useful, and can’t be used to come to the conclusion that an ordinary, law abiding person, who is not involved in the illegal drug trade or involved in gangs, is taking a risk by carrying a gun to defend himself.

There’s been more than a few MAIG mayors who were surprised to discover they were a member of the group.

Over the past decade, we’ve seen a lot of lame and mostly lame attempts by gun control advocates to try to repackage their failed agenda into a form that would advance in an public opinion environment that’s not been in any mood for more gun control. We’ve seen the Million Mom March come and go. We’ve seen Andrew McKelvey’s Americans for Gun Safety pop onto the scene, and effectively disappear. American Hunters and Shooters Association, started by gun control advocates, tried and failed to attempt to capitalize on a divide that they felt existed within our community, and could be exploited. We’ve seen a lot of these organizations come and go.

I don’t think Mayors Against Illegal Guns is in the same category, and is already a more active threat than any of these other groups managed to make themselves. This is especially true if you live in Pennsylvania, where MAIG has paid staff dedicated to recruiting and keeping mayors, and has been very successful in doing so. Let me outline why MAIG ought to be taken seriously.

• They are the first gun control group to embrace a post-Heller mentality. They’ve wisely jettisoned much of the baggage of previous gun control efforts, particularly in advocating for gun bans. They’ve readily embraced the post-Heller realities. This doesn’t mean they like the result in Heller, but their mission and messaging are all in line with pushing a gun control agenda in a post-Heller world. In contrast, I think, with the Brady Campaign and other groups that are having a difficult time coming to terms with what doors Heller closes to them, making it hard for them to continue forward.
• Their messaging is slick. The trick in getting the public to accept a more radical agenda is to wrap it up in something that’s non-controversial. That illegal guns, what the public thinks of as guns in the hands of criminals, are bad isn’t something there’s much disagreement on. On the surface, they package largely the same agenda as the Brady Campaign, as a policy package to combat guns in criminal hands. Anyone willing to look at the specifics can clearly see it as hogwash, but most people don’t bother to look at specifics.
• Their strategy is novel. In recruiting Mayors, they are essentially borrowing the credibility that mayors have within their own communities in order to provide cover for their agenda. This also represents a novel attack on NRA. NRA is very adept at working state houses and Congress, but NRA hasn’t had to do much work at this local a level. It’s not clear NRA is weak here, but it’s an unknown. No one ever thought to attack us this way until MAIG. It is a novel strategy, and if I may say so, a brilliant strategy. I’m not sure whether it will work or not, but they deserve credit for trying something truly new. MAIG is probing what could be a weakness.
• They understand the traditional strengths of the gun control movement, and are adept at playing to those strengths. Once NRA counter-attacked MAIG, they opened up with a broad and intensive media blitz in order to give the mayors political cover for their continuing membership. The media is traditionally very fertile ground for anti-gun groups, and not very good ground for NRA. In the past week MAIG has demonstrated they have as much of a command of this as Brady does, and have very adeptly been working the media.
• They’ve shown they understand the politics of the issue. Whether it’s true or not, MAIG takes credit for defeating federal reciprocity for the bearing of arms. They understood the position Specter was in and knew how to exploit it. They’ve shown they know how to play the game in Congress, and managed to come up with enough votes for the amendment to fail.
• They are realistic about where they fight. A lot of people regard Pennsylvania as a pro-gun state, and for the most part, it is. But it’s not as pro-gun as a lot of people think it is. We are, essentially, a pro-gun state under siege. The vast majority of our state is bordered by states who’s laws demonstrate little or no respect for the Second Amendment. Gun control activists in those states have long wanted to turn this state to their side, and have been willing to put a lot of work into changing the political landscape in their favor. MAIG, so far, is the most successful anti-gun group I’ve seen in that regard. Every single illegal “Lost and Stolen” ordinance or resolution that’s been passed in Pennsylvania has happened in a city or town with a MAIG mayor. MAIG didn’t choose to go after preemption in its entirety, but chose to try to change the landscape so they could take one little piece, and weaken it just a little, and presumably open the door to a wider discussion about preemption.

I could probably come up with more reasons why I think MAIG is a lot more dangerous than anything we’ve seen in the past decade, and why gun owners shouldn’t brush them off as just another joke of a group funded by Joyce, not to be taken seriously, or to be mocked. It might be a while before MAIG tries pushing a major piece of legislation through a state house or through Congress, but in terms of laying the groundwork for a more ambitious future agenda, they’ve been very successful. Dangerously successful. The only thing that’s going to stop threat in its infancy is coordinated grassroots action against the Mayors who are lending their credibility to Bloomberg. NRA has sounded the bugle call, but will the troops muster? I hope so, but we must be relentless in going after MAIG if we’re going to stop Bloomberg before it’s too late.

Richard Ward, the Mayor of Hurst, Texas, wants everyone to know that he’s an NRA member, and a proud member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. In it, we see familiar language:

Unfortunately, the NRA has spent the past month attempting to bully mayors, including me, to drop out of this effort to have a consensus discussion about guns. They have sent hundreds of thousands of misleading postcards stating this coalition is “anti-gun” and is seeking to “regulate gun shows out of existence,” along with several other untruths and misleading statements.

Where have we heard that before? Unfortunately, not all these mayors are going to see the light and bow out gracefully. Many of them will need to be forced to leave MAIG by forcing them to leave office. I wouldn’t worry too much about getting a pro-gun activist mayor to replace your MIAG loving incumbent — really all we need is someone who agrees to leave the issue alone. Because of preemption in most states, guns are not generally a local issue. In fact, I would consider using that against the mayor. Find local issues people care about, and question why the mayor is spending time and energy on an issue that’s more of a state and federal issue, rather than what’s important to your town. Back to Mayor Ward:

I fully support the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment. What I don’t support is criminals getting their hands on guns. The coalition is for enforcing existing gun laws, increasing penalties for gun criminals and closing gaps in the gun background check system.

No one supports criminals getting guns. We have a system of laws in place that make criminals obtaining guns unlawful already. MAIG isn’t just recommending closing gaps in the background check system, they are supporting a bill that will effectively shut down gun shows.  Have you read it, Mayor Ward? Are you aware MAIG supports rationing guns to law abiding citizens? Is that the kind of measure Texans will support? Are you aware that ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police are against the measure MAIG supports to open up trace data? Are you aware that Mayor Bloomberg has interfered in the prosecution of actual criminal gun traffickers because it served his political purposes.

Mayor Ward includes an e-mail address at the bottom of the article.  Perhaps some of my Texan readers can respectfully ask him whether he’s really thought about this issue.

This is a PDF of an e-mail that was circulated by CeaseFire PA earlier in the week. It comes from a source I know to be reliable.  It’s titled “Standing Up and Fighting Back Against the NRA.”  Let’s take a look:

There’s only one way to confront a bully – stand up to him and speak the truth. That’s what CeaseFirePA and its allies are doing across Pennsylvania in response to a smear and misinformation campaign engineered by the NRA.

So here we have Joe Grace, Executive Director of the gun control group, CeaseFire PA, admitting to MAIG as an ally.  Yet we’re constantly told by the media and the Mayors themselves that MAIG is not a gun control group!

I think it’s abundantly clear by this point that the emperor has no clothes. Now we’ve established a relationship between not one, but two gun control groups operating in Pennsylvania in conjunction with Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  Do Pennsylvania MAIG Mayors want to continue arguing that they are not standing along side a group promoting gun control?  Is this what defending the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution is in their book?

What this blogger is reporting would certainly seem to indicate that:

Through the Brady Center I have learned about an organization of over 450 mayor’s who are trying to rid their cities of illegal guns. Amazingly, the NRA is targeting many of these mayor’s and spreading lies about the organization. All of the mayor’s of Ohio’s major cities belong to this group.

Except, as we’ve well established both here, and at our other grass roots site, it’s not a lie. They are  gun control group, and we’re discovering new connections to the Bradys regularly these past few days. How is it irresponsible for NRA to point out to their membership that their mayor is a member of a group that promotes just about every issue the Brady organization does?

The Mayor of Stroudsburg is standing by Bloomberg, with some helpful cover by the Pocono Record. Bitter and I have been working closely with Dan of PAFOA on this project, and we’re happy to see our results get noticed by the media, but the rest is going to be up to the grassroots. Let’s see what The Pocono Record is saying:

Founded in 2006 by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and funded primarily by Bloomberg, MAIG works with law enforcement agencies and advocacy groups and operates by the following principles:

• Target and hold accountable irresponsible gun dealers who break the law by knowingly selling guns to straw purchasers.
• Oppose all federal efforts to restrict cities’ right to access, use and share trace data essential to effective enforcement, or interfere with the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to combat illegal gun trafficking.
• Develop and use technologies that aid in the detection and tracing of illegal guns.
• Support all local state and federal legislation that targets illegal guns; coordinate legislative, enforcement and litigation strategies; and share information and best practices.
• Invite other cities to join in this new national effort.

As we’ve pointed out on the blog here, and in the latest bombshell on MAIG’s associations with other gun control groups, this is a complete snow job on the part of Bloomberg’s coalition. They support going after illegal guns by making more guns illegal, and more of the types of transactions law abiding people do illegal. They are a gun control group. There can be no doubting that at this point.  That’s why this assertion by MAIG has no credibility at this point:

MAIG on its Web site corrects some misperceptions others have of the coalition:

• MAIG is not against all guns and supports the Second Amendment, as well as practical, constitutional policies to keep guns away from criminals.
• MAIG does not oppose concealed-carry permits allowing people to carry guns on their persons or in their vehicles.

The Record then goes on to say that they just don’t support reciprocity, which would allow us to carry guns on their person and in their vehicles in other states which allow some form of concealed carry. If MAIG is so in favor of concealed and vehicle carry, is Mayor Bloomberg going to pass a law allowing me to do so in New York City? How is opposing legislation that expands my right to carry supporting the Second Amendment?  Bloomberg is opposing efforts relating to being able to transport guns on Amtrak so hunters and shooters could consider travel by rail to go to competitions and on hunting trips. How is that supporting the Second Amendment?

“If you’re asking whether I’m considering quitting my membership with MAIG, the answer is no,” Baughman said. “But, if I’m ever presented with factual, convincing information that the coalition truly doesn’t support the best interests of those protected under the Second Amendment, then I would think differently. So far, I haven’t come across or been presented with any such information.”

I just presented you with such information.  The question is does Mayor Baughman want to listen? Not if gun owners don’t make him listen. Regardless of what Mayor Baughman wants to believe, he’s standing along side gun control advocates, and we will remember that come election day. We’ll make sure of that.

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, notices the Calguns Foundation wants access to information on the type of gun used in a crime that resulted in the death of four police officers in Oakland, and wonders why we can’t all just get along and agree that ATF should be allowed to share trace data.  Only problem is, ATF doesn’t want to share trace data.  I would also argue there’s a big difference between wanting to know what kind of gun is used in a specific crime, and wanting access to an entire database of law enforcement sensitive information so that you can read the tea leaves, and postulate.

Calguns is fighting for this information because the shooting is being used as the impetus for even more restrictions on the Second Amendment in California, and the types of weapons used is a key component to the political fight. I wouldn’t blame the Brady’s, if the situation were reversed, from trying to get a hold of relevant information. I might still oppose it just because they are the opposition, but they would at least have a point if they called foul on us trying to stop it after we did the same thing. But I don’t think it’s a good analogy to trace data. That’s an animal of a different stripe.