Anti-Gun People Got Their Media On

According to Bitter the anti-gun folks outside are passing law professors around to the media [Apparently I misinterpreted what Bitter told me.  She said our activists were passing law professors around, changing the entire premise of the post].  NRA is apparently nowhere to be found.

UPDATE: Apparently Ginny Simone of NRANews has arrived on the scene.  But she’s media, really.  They need people there talking to the media and getting our point of view across.

UPDATE: Bitter says the media frenzy and crowd is fairly large, so it’s possible there’s activity going on that she’s not seeing.

UPDATE: NRA is reporting they have people both inside and outside.  Quite possible Bitter just hasn’t run into them yet.

UPDATE: Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, and Steve Halbrook are among the people inside.   Bitter is outside with Bob Cottrol and Clayton Cramer.

UPDATE: For those of you who don’t know Bob Cottrol, he’s a law professor at GW.  So we at least have one law professor of our own on the scene!

UPDATE: Bitter is pitching Clayton and Bob to the media.  This is what Bitter does for a living, and she’s good at it.  She says she’s gotten a few bites, so hopefully we’ll get some eyeballs on some folks who can intelligently advocate for our side.

Violence Policy Center Renewed FFL

Looks like they renewed it.  Someone call Sugarmann and ask him how much he charges to do a transfer?  Maybe Sugarmann could make some more money being the first FFL to open for business in DC, rather than continuing to preside over the failing enterprise that is the VPC.

IACP Pissing on Due Process

The Joyce Funded pet of the anti-gun lobby, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, has signed onto Senator Lautenberg’s bill to deprive Americans of their civil rights, without due process, in the name of fighting terrorism.

If Bush were doing this, and not doing it to gun owners, the left would be outraged.

The Myth Continues

Hot on the heels of blaming Pennsylvania for New Jersey’s violence problems, Bryan Miller has decided to turn his attention back to more comfortable pursuits of sticking it to gun owners in his home state.

He continues to peddle the myth that some semi-automatic firearms are more dangerous than other semi-automatic firearms, and pushing to increase penalties for possession in The Garden State:

The enactment of NJ’s Assault Weapons Ban was the subject of enormous public attention, as the gun lobby fought it tooth and nail and subsequently sought to repeal it (remember Governor Florio blowing a watermelon apart?). Claiming ignorance of the illegality of possession of an assault weapon is disingenuous and dangerous.

In fact, any “otherwise law-abiding” assault weapon owner would either have had to obtained his/her gun prior to 1991, purposely avoided the grace period and kept it illegally for 16 years or purchased it out-of-state since 1991 and illegally brought it here. Yet, Bach and his organization believe such illegal, cavalier and menacing behavior merits the equivalent of a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card.

Ridiculous.

Remember what an assault weapons in New Jersey can look like.  If you had one of these in your closet for the past 30 years, would you think you were in possession of an illegal weapon that could get you 10 years in the pokey?  You’d almost think Bryan thought it audacious that residents of The Garden State were under this mistaken notion they lived in a free country with a right to bear arms provision in its constitution.  This isn’t gun nut fantasy.  People in New Jersey can and [UPDATE 7/22/2010: What follows was a link that has been removed, due to the anti-blogger frivolous lawsuits prosecuted by Las Vegas Review-Yellow-Journal] have been arrested and jailed for possessing of of these:

[Below is an brief quote that appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Yellow-Journal about the NJ Supreme Court statement that, ‘When it comes to firearms, the citizen acts at his own peril.’ when a New Jersey citizen went to jail for possessing a Marlin Model 60, a common .22 caliber rifle. I have removed the passage because I do not link to or promote rat weasels like the Las Vegas Review-Journal.]

I have to assume that’s just fine by Mr. Miller.  One more gun owner in jail where they belong, right?  If that’s not really what his sentiment, then he wouldn’t have any problem passing a rimfire exception to the New Jersey ban now would he?  Don’t think so?  I don’t either.

Outdoor Writers Assocation of America

Bitter has a must read about how left-wing hippies have taken over OWAA:

I think the Outdoor Writers Association is done. It’s about environmental writers now instead of your hook and bullet crowd. Certainly, enough people thought this a few years ago when POMA was launched following OWAA’s attack on NRA. But I think we have a new sign the whole damn thing is up.

I’m particularly interested in the kinds of people they are associating with.

Hunting For A Solution

Wayne Pacelle (Humane Society of the United States), Bart Semcer (Sierra Club) and Paul Helmke (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) will host a panel discussion on the merits and intrinsic worth of hunting. These provocative speakers likely will provide ample story material while giving OWAA members a front-lines, front-row seat to an age-old debate that will affect hunters for years to come. Don’t miss this timely and exciting exchange of ideas.

The Humane Society of the United States, which is an anti-hunting group, working with The Brady Campaign, an anti-gun group, could be the thing that helps drive more hunters into the hands of NRA.  It’s going to be tough to argue there isn’t an active movement to end hunting in this country, using the one/two punch of hunting restrictions and gun restrictions.  Hunters need to wake up, and fight both these groups, or they are going to be facing the destruction of their sport.

There Will Always Be a Bridge

Bryan Miller is once again blaming Pennsylvania for crime in New Jersey:

This one-way traffic in illegal guns is even clearer and more damaging in Camden, connected to Philadelphia by two major bridges, as a greater portion of its crime guns come from PA than is the case for the rest of NJ. According to Camden County Acting Prosecutor Joshua Ottenberg, 25% of crime guns recovered in Camden in 2006 came from PA. He said: “Any town that has a bridge is obviously going to feel more of an impact…” So, Delaware River towns, Camden and Trenton, each only a bridge ride away from PA and its vibrant illegal gun market, suffer disproportionately.

New Jersey has effectively extinguished lawful gun ownership.  Only about 12% of households owned guns in The Garden State.  Only Hawaii, which never had much of a shooting tradition, has a lower percentage of household firearms ownership.  Pennsylvania’s household firearms ownership rate is much higher, at 35%.  A fairly sizable portion of shooters at my gun club are from New Jersey.  They come here, because there just aren’t many places to shoot over on their side of the river anymore.  The past several decades has seen range after range, club after club, and gun shop after gun shop, close its doors and fold up, and more and more people chose to either leave the state, or give up gun ownership, rather than face the sea of regulations, and the risk that screwing up could land you very serious time in prison.

There’s very little doubt that criminals will follow the path of least resistance when it comes to acquiring firearms, and it’s easier to smuggle them from other jurisdictions than it is to start making firearms in garages and basements.  I don’t dispute this.  What I do dispute is that creating restrictive laws elsewhere is going to have an effect on anything other than trafficking patterns.  Even if you outlawed them nationwide, there will always be a bridge, and it’s not hard to manufacture firearms to begin with, even in a war zone like Chechnya.  The real question isn’t whether gun control affects trafficking patterns, but whether it effects crime, and there’s never been any conclusive evidence that it does.  Let’s take a look at crime rates between New Jersey and Pennsylvania:


(click to embiggen)

Traditionally, New Jersey has had a much higher violent crime rate than Pennsylvania, and it’s only been since New York’s revival that New Jersey’s crime rate has dropped significantly.  This makes sense, because as much as criminals cross borders to commit the crime of smuggling firearms, they also cross borders to commit violent crimes.  New Jersey’s crime would no doubt be even lower if Philadelphia could get its act together, since New Jersey has no large cities of its own.  Many of its smaller cities are among the most violent in the nation.  Far worse than Philadelphia itself.  Bryan can argue all he wants that Pennsylvania needs to “destroy the village in order to save it” in regards to our shooting heritage, but there will always be a bridge.  Criminals will find ways to get guns, and it’s not going to do much to lower crime.

Clearly What We Need is More Guns!

I’m giving into a stereotype a bit here.  But I’ve heard this type of accusation enough that I grow tired of it.  From the comments of my post about CeaseFire PA board member Jennifer W. Stein:

You’re an idiot, gun nut, paranoid wacko. Need more guns? Yeah, sure we do.

Comment by JML on March 5th, 2008

As it turns out, JML is a local gun control activist who organizes gun control meetups in our local Philadelphia metro area.  He probably knows Jennifer Stein personally, so I won’t take it too personally that he’s steamed I embarrassed her.  I’d probably be a little pissed too if someone google ruined one of my friends’ reputations.

But I do mean to address the assertion that we think society “needs more guns.”  Go back to my original arguments in that post about tolerance in a free society.   That seems to have been completely lost on our gun controlling friend here.  We’re arguing that people should be free to have effective means to defend themselves and their families. We’re arguing that the Bill of Rights and the constitution mean something. We’re arguing that we have a right to preserve and defend our shooting sports.  This has nothing to do with some simple belief in “more guns” and everything to do with freedom.

In truth this line of arguments belies something in the mindset of people passionate about gun control; that we’d be a safer society with fewer guns, and therefore we have to pass laws that will ensure that.  I reject this dogma, so therefore they assume what I want is more guns, rather than more freedom.  Their assumption is mistaken.