Category: Gun Rights

Looks like Sullivan’s confirmation woes are getting some main stream press coverage:

Crapo’s spokesman, Lindsay Nothern, said the senator has heard from a number of gun dealers, gun owners and others in Idaho who “have concerns about ATF policies regarding gun sales and even ownership. Maybe the federal government is getting a little too aggressive with people who haven’t done anything wrong.”

The message is getting out there folks. Ryan has done a great job of raising awareness on this issue.

Looks like the Senators from Idaho are putting Sullivan’s confirmation on hold. Now, if this is enough to make Bush withdraw the nomination, I’ll post an embarrassing picture of myself on here to offer penance for being horribly wrong about the inevitability of his confirmation. My guess though, is that they are doing it to convince him to address a lot of the abuse issues, or at least promise to address them.

This is a really promising development, without a doubt, and a good indication that things could go our way in the end. Fingers crossed.

In a different legal environment, I might be able to get behind Ahab here, but I can’t. Ahab states:

I’ll probably take some heat for supporting this, but the fact is that I’ve never supported violent felons, domestic abusers, or the mentally incompetent owning firearms. I am pleased that California made the decision to actually remove guns from the hands of people who were forbidden from owning them, instead of going after law abiding citizens to take their guns.

I don’t think it’s unconstitutional for certain classes of criminals, who have exhibited a tendency toward violence to have their civil rights taken away from them as part of their conviction. The problem is, The Lautenberg Act didn’t do that. It covered people convicted of a whole host of misdemeanors, that would not have necessarily included any actual domestic abuse, from having firearms retroactively, and without any subsequent due process. A man who pushed his wife aside, because she was blocking his exiting the home in a domestic quarrel twenty years ago (misdemeanor assault), loses his rights just as much as someone who put beat and bruised his wife (felony assault). Does that seem like a just law? Is it fair to prosecute someone for gun possession when many of these people have no idea they are even prohibited, because they were told the crimes were ‘minor’? Also consider someone I ran across on PA Firearms Owners Association forum who had become a prohibited person because he plead guilty to obliterating a VIN number, which is a felony, because he swapped the dash board out on a pair of cars. Dose it seem fair to prosecute him for gun possession?

I understand the public relations value in “Enforce the Laws We Already Have”, because it resonates with a public who doesn’t really understand the complexity of the issue, and gets them out of the mood for more gun control. We can’t deny the value of that. We also can’t deny that the message the Brady’s, and their friends in the media, will put out there if we try to change any of this is “The gun lobby wants to make sure wife beaters are well armed.”

I’ll recognize the value in the rhetoric, but I think it’s a mistake to get too enthusiastic about specific programs like the one California is currently undertaking, that’s sweeping up all manner of people, without any consideration to whether they are truly violent people who perhaps ought not be roaming our streets, or victims of an unjust and overly broad criminal code, that criminalizes nearly everything.

UPDATE: According to War on Guns, The CRPA originally supported this program, not believing it would be used to round up non-violent persons. These programs are a double edged sword, and gun rights organizations support them at their peril, or, more accurately, our peril. Regardless of its public relations value, it’s kind of hard to make a case for how bad some of these laws are if it’s the program you’re supporting that’s causing these people to get reached by the long arm of the law.

Cook County has introduced a bill that would effectively ban all firearms. Thirdpower has the digs. Also Armed and Safe.

Here’s the Illinois State Rifle Assocation web site, which also has details.

UPDATE: More from War on Guns

Over at Red’s Trading Post. I don’t want anyone taking my previous post as meaning I’m giving up on reigning in ATF. I think that’s one of the most important battles to focus on right now. But reality is we’re unlikely to get reform from any Bush nominee at this point.

I’m in favor of seeking Congressional action to either abolish the ATF, or strip it of much of the power it’s been abusing. The former is probably not achievable, but I think the latter is.

I don’t want to discourage anyone from writing their senators and opposing the nomination. They should hear from you. You too can be a proud recipient of Senator Casey’s form letter!

Remember folks, to write your state representatives about the Castle Doctrine Bill coming up.   Here’s mine:

Representative [Find Yours Here],

I am disappointed that HB 641, the Castle Doctrine Bill, did not get a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee as was originally scheduled for today.  I am told that the bill’s sponsor, Representative Cappelli, plans to introduce it as an amendment onto Senate Bill 436, which is currently before the House.

I would very much appreciate your support of Rep. Cappelli’s amendment, and the final bill, when it comes up for a vote.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

Hopefully we can get this bill on Rendell’s desk.

Like a lot of our pro-gun leaders, I definitely don’t have any special affection for Michael Sullivan as director of the ATF. It doesn’t look to me like he’s done much to reform the agency, and I’m not sure he’s the ideal person to have that position. I’d definitely like someone hell bent on reforming the culture there, at all costs, but I doubt you’re ever going to get that out of Bush, who I think has given up on fighting his federal bureaucracies.

In my tradition not hesitating to challenge conventional wisdom on our side, I’m going to stir the pot here a little and suggest that expending time, energy and money in an attempt to defeat Mike Sullivan isn’t really going to accomplish anything. One thing I’ve learned from reading and talking to Dave Hardy, who has a lot of experience working in a federal bureaucracy, is just how little control the political appointees really have over a large agency like ATF. The bureaucracy will do everything it can to conceal facts, and the truth from the people the President appoints to run the agencies, to the point where it’s difficult to even know what needs to be reformed and where there are problems that need addressing.

We could expend a lot of energy, time and money, which are all limited resources, in a mad effort to defeat Mike Sullivan, which will cause Bush to appoint another appointee, who will likely have similar qualities, and also will have little ability or incentive to reform the agency. And that’s if we win. I think our chances of winning on this are virtually zero, because the Republicans aren’t going ot want to deny the president his nominee, and the Democrats aren’t going to scuttle a nominee unless it benefits them politically, which it doesn’t in this case.

So I’m going to put the onus on those of you who are demanding action. Why is this worth pulling out all the stops for? I’m willing to be convinced. But right now I think our energy is best spent making sure pro-gun candidates get elected in the primaries, and in 2008. Getting more pro-gun candidates elected puts us in a better position to push measures through Congress to strip ATF of the powers its been abusing. As much as I think it would be nice to get a real reformer in ATF, I don’t think you’re getting that out of Bush.

UPDATE: Well, it’s not an outright defeat of Sullivan, but I think Senator Craig and Senator Crapo just convinced me that maybe I shouldn’t be too quick to question the value of something that motivates enough grass roots to get this kind of action. Pretty clearly my mistake was not seeing that it could prompt action less than outright defeat of Sullivan, but still something that moved the issue forward. Pretty clearly I was wrong.

“It is time to stand up and be counted, no more ceremonies, no more resolutions, it’s time to put your rear end on the line on behalf of these men and women who put their rear ends on the lines every single day.”Governor Ed Rendell, Gun Control Rally 12/10/2007

Here’s what a former Police Inspector has to say:

Politicians, government officials and editorial boards have no business using the recent spate of shootings of police officers as grounds for their anti-gun position. They have no right to call for tougher gun laws “for the sake of those officers.” Not unless they talk to them first and find out how they feel about the issue. Police chiefs should also spend more time with their own troops before they join the chorus. Of course, that might mean going against the media who’ve decided they know more about fighting crime than the cops do.

Read the whole thing.

h/t Dave Hardy