Category: Gun Rights

One type of mistake we can never afford to make as a movement is one where we let one group of shooters throw another group of shooters overboard.

Joe’s Crabby Shack has the latest on a bill being introduced in Nebraska that I think must be fought at all costs. They are apparently offering to trade an assault weapons ban for preemption, full reciprocity, and an elimination of the signage provisions.

I wouldn’t make that deal. Chances are, at some point, you’ll be able to get those CCW provisions anyway. It’s happened in a lot of other states that have passed CCW; it’s usually easy once you get the bill passed, and the sky doesn’t fall. You’re never going to repeal an assault weapons ban once it’s on the books. Never. It’s very very hard to get rid of legislation, even when most people would generally agree it’s worthless.

Be wary of these kinds of deals. It would be one thing to cut that if you have no hope of stopping the assault weapons ban, but I think Nebraska is in good enough shape that this ban, if introduced, can be outright defeated. It’s time for shooters in Nebraska to get organized. Make sure your memberships are up to date, and join your state organizations. You guys might be in for a bumpy ride. Just don’t get any ideas that throwing each other overboard is going to make it any smoother.

UPDATE: David highlights this too.   I would also point out that the fact that they are offering this deal up front, without backing gun owners up against a wall first, says they know this provision isn’t going very far without some kind of divide and conqueror strategy.  It speaks to the weakness of the anti-gun position.  If Nebraskans stick to their guns, there’s no reason they can’t defeat the assault weapons ban and get these promised CCW provisions.

Michael Bane says:

The modern antigun movement has been amazingly consistent since Pete Shield outlined the goals of confiscation back in the 1960s — get what it can get and ask for more. Every so-called “compromise” has resulted in us giving ground while the antigun movement asked for more more more. To the best of my knowledge, there has NEVER been a “compromise” as described by Professor Kingsfield…instead, we give ground and the antigunners ask for, or take, more.

Read the whole thing.  I actually think HR2640 was the first compromise the anti-gun movement has been willing to make since they started going on the offensive in the late 60s, and I think it was a compromise that benefited our cause more than theirs.

I suggest that the only sane path in that situation is for Side A to also refuse to compromise. Unilateral actions, like those suggested by Feldman and the “third way” crowd (which is indeed a very small crowd, consisting apparently of Feldman and his right hand), simply lead to Side B asking for more.

I think a distinction needs to be made here.  A compromise that involves us giving up something that’s of little importance to get something of great importance in return is probably one that should be made.   What we disparately want to avoid is appeasement, which is what Feldman advocated.  The difference between compromise and appeasement, is compromise can still allow you to achieve many of your goals.  It may often by the only away to achieve some of your goals.  Appeasement, or giving the anti-gunners something they want in hopes they’ll go away happy, is a recipe for losing.

From Bryan Miller:

Yes, one crazed killer with one assault pistol overwhelmed four trained and armed peace officers. Hmmm. Doesn’t seem to fit the pro-gunners theory at all. No surprise here, as it’s the height of ignorance and irresponsibility to claim that arming more people will somehow make us all safer. If that were true, the US, with more guns in more hands than any other industrialized country, would be the safest from gun violence among our fellows. Instead, we suffer from the highest gun homicide rate, by far, in the industrialized world. Seems there is a relationship between the presence of guns and the prevalence of gun violence. Imagine that.

No one here, or really anywhere else on the blogosphere would reasonably argue that firearms guarantee that the “good guys” always win.  They don’t.  They aren’t magic.  They are a tool.  No amount of training can prepare you for someone shooting at you.  It helps to have it, and any person who carries a firearm ought to have it, but it’s not a guarantee of outcome.

It’s also a bit disingenuous to paint our position as one of wanting to arm everyone in order to make them safer.  I don’t argue, actually, that arming everyone would make us safer.  What I do argue is that the laws Bryan advocates don’t disarm the bad guys.  The cretin who murdered his brother, and then killed himself, did it in a jurisdiction where firearms are totally illegal.  You won’t stop criminals from getting guns, especially the kind of hard core guys that are going to shoot up police stations.  You’ll have about as much luck with that as we do keeping heroin out of the hands of junkies.  I don’t argue that arming everyone makes us safer, I argue that disarming good, honest people, which is what Bryan advocates, definitely won’t make society safer, and it will definitely make those of us who choose to do so less safe.

It’s called “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007”.  Take a look at the alerts if you want to read everything it does.

There will need to be a lot of letter writing to politicians to get any action on this thing.

This takes the cake for form letters from Senators.   I guess this is why the federal government was supposed to be limited.  When you have 30 million constituents, how are you supposed to address all their individual grievances with government?   That’s why senators have staff to articulate their positions to constituents, and make sure the right information gets bubbled up to the decision makers.  Pretty clearly this got dropped into a bin for a form letter response, which is unacceptable.   If you get something like this, don’t be afraid to write your senators back and tell them you’re not happy with the response.

I’m hearing that the bills HR5005 and HR5092 are being combined and reintroduced into The House of Representatives as a single bill. Don’t have details about the new bill just yet. They will be introduced by Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Zack Space (D-Ohio).

This is very good news folks. It means ATF reform is not dead in the water in this democratic controlled Congress. Hopefully we can keep this moving forward and get it passed, because these much needed reforms of the ATF are critical to ensuring the future of your neighborhood gun shop.

UPDATE: Countertop says in the comments:

Politically, we stand a better chance now. in the last one, Republican eyes were largely on other issues and when it came time to throw us a bone, the Dems wouldn’t let them have an easy victory.

Now, in control based largely on the election of rural red state freshman (who are all VERY vulnerable in 2008 and hence make Democratic power vulnerable) and with the gunbigots showing no benfit to Dems at the poll (and likely to lose big in the Supreme Court) this becomes a no brainer.

Read his whole comment.  I hope he’s right.

In a move that’s sure to enrage a lot of other pro-gun groups, The NICS Improvement Act has passed the senate with some good policy improvements over the House version of the bill, HR2640:

• Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.
• Requires agencies to create “relief from disabilities” programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.
• Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year—for any reason, including lack of funds—the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.
• Allows awards of attorney’s fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency’s denial of relief in court.
• Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health “adjudication” or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.
• Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state “relief from disabilities” programs.
• Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans’ mental health. Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.

As I said before in numerous other posts, I think on balance this is a good deal for gun owners. This makes it a better deal. Good.

UPDATE: Had to modify the bullet items. Looks like the link changed on me.

UPDATE: It’s passed the house with the senate amendments. HR2640 is now on Bush’s desk. I would expect a signature.

UPDATE: Carolyn McCarthy says, “Together, we have crafted a bill that will prevent gun violence, but maintain the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” To which Dave Hardy remarks: “Uh … Second Amendment rights of individuals? Law abiding citizens? I didn’t antigunners were allowed to use terms like that.” They are when they are trying to spin what is actually a defeat as a victory. The VPC isn’t afraid to take a look in this horse’s mouth:

Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, states, “This bill was intended to be Congress’ response to the mass shooting at Virginia Tech that left 32 people murdered. But rather than focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list. It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others. Once a solution, the bill is now part of the problem.”

Well, I guess VPC could always convince Bush not to sign it. Good luck with that.

According to Ahab, they are going to restrict them.

Senator David Vitter joins Senator Crapo and Craig and also places a hold on Sullivan’s confirmation. No doubt Sullivan is paying attention now. Write your senators and tell them how you feel about this matter. Also, letting Senator Vitter know you appreciate his support can’t hurt either.

The Attorney General for Washington DC has resigned.  Apparently she’s not happy Fenty is giving all the good work to his cronies.  I wonder if this will have an effect on the Heller case?