I’ll Take the Hysteria, With a Side of Over the Top

Bryan Miller is a funny guy:

There’s even an organization whose raison d’etre is promotion of open carry (see http://opencarry.org/). These are the shock troops of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away. We’re going to see more of them and we’ll be seeing increasing incidents of open carry, not just at big events for publicity, but at grocery stores, at concerts, on the street, in places of worship.

Shock troops?  Hyperbole much?

The most important point, though, is that such open carrying of guns is a logical step in the gun lobby’s campaign to arm everyone everywhere. For, an armed society is one that will make the gun lobby’s patrons in the gun industry rich.

What color is the sky in Bryan’s world?  I mean, this is a controversial issue even among gun people.  A visit to any gun forum will reveal endless back and forth about open carry.  But hey, why tell the truth when you can paint all this as a result of highly orchestrated shock troops marching to the beat of the fat men in the cigar filled room who are really calling all the shots.   What I wonder is whether Bryan actually believes this, or just believes this kind of rhetoric works.

If it’s the former, the fact that the gun control movement doesn’t have real grass roots could not be more apparent.  If they did, they would also have these kinds of internal squabbles.  As much as I might worry that some people are taking things too far, I’d rather have that problem than to have control over the message because no one really gives a shit about my issue.  Hell, even the White House doesn’t want to touch this.  That’s got to hurt if you’re Paul Helmke or Bryan Miller.

Setting Political Sights on Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors, Part IV

Why should we bother trying to reduce the number of mayors in Bloomberg’s group by way of the soapbox or ballot box? Is it just a distraction from other races and issues at the moment?

I would argue it’s important and not a distraction because it’s an off year activity with reduced participation so our potential impact may wield more influence in the direct results. It also has long-term political implications for the Commonwealth.

This coalition is one of Bloomberg’s favorite PR tools, so it would be nice to disable it. He claims that it’s not just a big city issue, that he has pulled more than 450 mayors from across the country to stand with him in his attacks on gun rights. If he has at least 450 mayors, that means 23% of them are from Pennsylvania!

Bloomberg has invested heavily in this state, and we should be concerned by that fact. What is he hoping to get from that investment? More importantly, what has he already received and what is on the immediate horizon?

Consider the attack on preemption we’re seeing across Pennsylvania. When cities and towns are passing legislation requiring you to report lost or stolen guns in a manner they arbitrarily consider reasonable, it makes gun owners potential victims to abusive prosecutors. Those nine cities are: Erie, Allentown, Reading, Pottsville, Pittsburgh, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Wilkinsburg. Guess how many of those cities have mayors in the coalition? Nine.

Not to mention, some of these mayors have their eye on higher offices (hopefully not Mayor Rape). Consider Mayor John Callahan of Bethlehem (population 71,329) who is challenging Congressman Charlie Dent for his seat. Should he be successful (reports indicate he will be a very strong challenger), that seat will go from an A rating to Bloomberg-controlled anti-gun overnight.

While we can’t stop Mayor Callahan until next November, we could see that other mayors find the New York-based coalition to be a political liability for future office and convince them to denounce his positions. If they continue to stand by Bloomberg, we can show up at the ballot box and try to put a stop to their political futures by ousting them from the office.

What I hope is that the citizens of Birdsboro convince Mayor Robert Myers to leave Bloomberg’s anti-gun agenda behind (or send him packing if he refuses) so that the 5,064 residents don’t have to fear a patchwork of local laws.

I don’t want the gun owners among the 2,812 residents of Wind Gap to stand confused should Mayor Mitchell Mogilski try to implement Bloomberg’s ideal gun controls in their town.

The shooting community within the 7,589 residents of Downingtown deserves better if Mayor Heather Ann Bruno refuses to step down from Bloomberg’s comments made in her name against concealed carry holders.

Setting Political Sights on Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors, Part III

One huge benefit to municipal races is that voter turnout is extremely low. Looking at Bucks County (most of the 8th Congressional District), we find that the county-wide 2007 municipal races had turnout of only 29% compared to 76% in November’s presidential race or even 57% in the last off-year Congressional election. In Montgomery County (most of the 13th Congressional District), voter turnout for municipal races in 2007 was at 30% as compared to the November general at 73% and 2006 Congressional (off-year) race at 55%.

Often, only the most active partisans may turn out for local elections if they are not held alongside major national races. This makes the prospect of giving the boot to local mayors even easier – and sometimes the threat of a challenge is even more useful than an actual get out the vote effort.

If you live in one of the towns governed by a Bloomberg mayor or know a gun owner who does, it may not be hard to turn an election. Get the rest of your family to vote, and tell your friends about the other candidates who may be more friendly to your Second Amendment rights. You may single-handedly turn it into a landslide. Imagine the impact putting a flier in the local gun shop where all the local sportsmen hang out. In an election when many of them aren’t likely turning out to the polls, they might suddenly become a local voting bloc worthy of some campaign time.

Of course, the other benefit to local government is that it may not even require defeating the mayor in an election. The candidates and parties know turnout is consistently a problem. Angering residents for no reason is something they cannot afford to do. One or two phone calls from upset residents may be enough to convince them to leave. A handful of phone calls in the mayor’s office will really shake things up in mid-sized town. If the town has a gun club, even better. Have members call regardless of where they live. They can still claim to be involved with the town, and more importantly, they would be happy to spread word about such anti-gun views come campaign time. There’s a good chance that local mayors have no idea what Mayor Bloomberg has signed them onto, and reason will likely prevail.

Consider the situation with former Williamsport, PA mayor Mary Wolf who very publicly left the group in 2007. This New York Sun article talks to a local gun dealer who found out about her membership and made an issue out of it. Imagine a few signs up at the gun range, getting staff or club officers to let all the residents who come in know about a mayor’s involvement. Use some choice quotes from the ads and letters Bloomberg signed their names to during the Thune debate.

Finally, one of the biggest benefits to local races is the fact that you are closer to most of the other voters. If you know what’s pissing your neighbors off, encourage them to get out to the polls on that issue. Don’t restrict yourself to talking about gun rights. Change begins at home, and you know better than some worker down in Fairfax what’s really got the non-gun owners on your block upset. Remember, just like you probably don’t vote in municipal elections, they probably don’t, either. That means your whole neighborhood just put itself on the map for better treatment and more attention from local officials. (Remember, they can tell who voted. To the winners go the spoils, so get yourself some spoils by simply showing up.)

With only 1,921 people in all of Industry, would it really take much pressure to convince Mayor Nicholas Yanosich that he should stand up for the Constitution instead of against it?

Isn’t it possible to get word out to Mayor Jay Stover in Telford that he shouldn’t be working against the rights of his 4,680 citizens?

Keep in mind, these numbers are a matter of population, registered voters are far fewer.

Setting Political Sights on Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors, Part II

I mentioned that some of Pennsylvania’s Bloomberg mayors were found in unexpected places. Check out this list of all 103 mayors listed on the site as of August 15. That’s 103 mayors too many, but there are some surprises.


View Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors in Pennsylvania in a larger map

Do you think the 684 residents of Ulysses know that Mayor Jane Haskins was campaigning against concealed carry and has supported lawsuits that put gun shops out of business? That’s the outlier town in the middle near the NY border.

Or how about the 290 residents of Laporte with Mayor Robert Carpenter and 153 residents of Eagles Mere with Mayor Betty Hays to the southeast of Ulysses?

Are the gun owners among the 626 residents of Marianna aware that Mayor Russell LaRew signed on to support such initiatives? That’s the town in the far southwest corner.

It might surprise people to see that most of the mayors who support Michael Bloomberg are not in the Philadelphia suburbs. In fact, 32% of the mayors are in far western Congressional districts. Of all of the Congressional districts with more than half a dozen mayors, half of them are in or border Allegheny County. It seems like Mayor Bloomberg has been on a serious recruiting spree out near Pittsburgh.

Mayor Mike’s coalition here in Pennsylvania represents less than 3 million residents of more than 12 million in the state. In fact, the average population of the town with Bloomberg mayors is 28,643. If you remove the cities with more than 100,000 residents (the top 4), that average drops to only 9,856. In fact, 18 mayors represent towns and boroughs with less than 1,000 people. More than 50 represent towns of less than 5,000. A full 70% of the mayors in Bloomberg’s army represent towns of less than 10,000 people. That’s hardly a big city mayor coalition.

Setting Political Sights on Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors, Part I

We in Pennsylvania have municipal races coming up this November, and that got Sebastian and I thinking about gun rights at the local level.  With Michael Bloomberg making more noise out of New York about gun control, it made sense to take a close look at his pawns on the ground.

As one of the largest gun blogs and generally having the ear of Glenn on the issues, Uncle was able to successfully make membership in Bloomberg’s group a liability for Knoxville’s Bill Haslam.  Unfortunately, targeting most of these mayors won’t be so easy.  Some of them legitimately share Bloomberg’s view on gun rights and would like to see them curtailed.  Others don’t really know what they signed up for – accounts by some former Bloomberg mayors suggest that it is sold as a group that really does focus on crime issues rather than taking positions against concealed carry and leading lawsuits for third party actions against gun store owners.  These mayors simply need to be educated.

According to Bloomberg’s website, there are 103 mayors in Pennsylvania in the group.  When the federal concealed carry amendment was up for debate and the Pennsylvania coalition of mayors sent a letter to Senators Casey and Specter, we pulled up the local mayors over at PAGunRights.com.  It’s been one of the most popular pages since we brought the site back online last month.  I’m sure more than a few folks had no idea their mayor was spending part of his/her July campaigning against concealed carry rights.

In my next post on the topic, I’ll have a whole bevy of statistics and potentially vulnerable mayors around the state.  (By vulnerable, I mean either a chance at unseating them or simply convincing them to get out of Bloomberg’s group by a few constituent phone calls.)  In Pennsylvania, we found mayors in some unexpected places.

Speaking of unexpected places, do you know with 100% certainty whether your own mayor has ever been involved in the group?  (No peeking at the website!)

[poll id=”16″]

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit Readers.   See Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V here.

You how we all said …

… if they passed one-gun-a-month you’d have people suggesting that it doesn’t go nearly far enough?  Like, next would be one gun a year?  One gun per person?  How about this — no guns?  When we say things like that, we’re told we’re paranoid and delusional.  Well, sorry, no we’re not.

Hat tip to Cemetery

Armed Mobs Threatning Health Care?

That’s the message that Josh Horowitz is spinning:

The nation is transfixed this month on a series of tense, contentious town halls that are taking place in states across the country. Determined to derail President Obama’s health care reform plans, right wing activists have stormed these meetings en masse to shout down speakers (including Democratic members of Congress) and derail all attempts at meaningful dialogue. Reports indicate that “Tea Partiers” are also carrying concealed handguns into these events — yet few in the media have commented on the distorted view of the Second Amendment that is driving this call to arms.

What follows is absolute pant shitting hysterics over the fact that protesters are choosing to carry firearms for personal protection from union thugs who beat people.  Josh doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a person committing an act of political violence, and an American exercising the right to defend themselves from being beaten by a gang of union thugs.

Exhortations to the right wing base to take armed political action against the Obama administration are far from idle talk–but instead reflect a deeply developed ideology that has been actively promoted by the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby groups for the past 30 years.

This is just a lie.  No other way to spin it.  There’s no gun rights out there who promotes political violence.

A Gun Control Anniversary

It’s been ten years, according to this Brady press release, since the Million Mom March popped onto the scene, spured by a mass shooting at a Jewish community center in 1999.  That got me to thinking what some of the missteps the Brady organization had made, mostly under the leadership of former Maryland congressman Michael Barnes.

The first was the name change from Handgun Control Inc to the Brady Campaign. Changing the name from Handgun Control Inc was probably a necessary move for them, given the changing scope of their mission.  But I think it made about as much sense to change the name to the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” as it would for NRA to change their name to the “Charlton Heston Campaign for the Second Amendment.”  Sure, we like Heston, and they like Jim and Sarah.  But no one under 30 remembers the Reagan assassination, and at 35 I barely remember it.  That’s not to say that Jim and Sarah Brady didn’t make major contributions to the gun control movement, they certainly did, considering that the Act of Congress that bears their name enacted a third generation of federal gun controls.  But if you name your organization after a person, your brand really only lasts as long as their celebrity.

That brings up the second mistake I think Barnes made, which was absorbing the failing Million Mom March, which I think succesfully feminized their movement, and lead to awkward emasculating moments like Ladd Everitt wearing a Million Mom’s t-shirt at a rally.  I’m sure Mr. Everitt would argue it was not an emasculating moment, but think about it: what about dads for gun control?  Regardless of how secure someone might be in their sexuality, the implication is that gun control is a woman’s issue.  Some of the great advances we’ve made in the past decade has been breaking out of the good old boy stereotype and getting women involved in the shooting sports.  It puzzles me why Barnes thought it was a good idea to take his movement and run in the opposite direction with it.

I’m always reluctant to publicly discuss the failures and missteps of our opponents, but I’m sure it’s something they’ve likely thought about, and even if they haven’t, there’s not a whole lot they can do to shed that baggage now anyway.  The more I think about it, the more I think Bloomberg is shaping up to be our cheif opponent in the coming decade.  He has an enormous amount of money, the New York City elite and political establishment behind him, and he’s managed to assemble an impressive array of allies, good enough to twist the arm of someone like Arlen Specter.  But I also think Bloomberg’s organization has some fundamental weaknesses too, which I will outline in a later post.

Bloomberg Throwing Down

Mayor Bloomberg is indicating he’s going to dump some of his personal fortune into the anti-gun effort.

“You know, the NRA doesn’t spend that much money,’’ said Bloomberg during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press’’ program yesterday. “If you want to beat the NRA you have to go out and get your message out, and it costs money to do that.”

If he wants a fight, we should give him a fight.  He’s dumped 2.9 million into Mayors Against Illegal Guns so far.  There are 450 mayors on that list, and not all of them are in large cities which would be safe from our political power.  I think if he wants a real fight we should give it to him.  Those of us who are in smaller cities and smaller towns, if you have a mayor on that list, let’s get rid of him.  Doesn’t matter if you use the gun issue or not, but we can impact a local election a lot more readily than a national one if we put our minds to it.  The goal would be to make membership in Bloomberg’s organization political suicide for anyone who’s not a big city mayor.

Does Bloomberg really want our grassroots pissed off and fired up about his group of 450 mayors?  I’d start putting pressure on them now.  Between us and the FBI, I think we could cut that number in half, easily.