Category: Gun Rights

SayUncle talks about the importance of Reasoned Discourse^TM, and that 52% of Canadians support a ban on handguns. Truth be told, I’m surprised it’s not higher.

Those two items are certainly related.  As Uncle said, we’re not trying to change the anti-gunners minds, it’s the people who respond to those surveys we’re trying to reach.  It’s also the gun owners, hunters and shooters who have had little exposure to the issue, and don’t realize that their rights are in jeopardy too.

Also not to be underestimated is the value in demoralizing your political opponents.  They may never change their minds, but we can certainly sow the seeds of doubt in regards to the future of their movement.

Ryan talks about the many changes to 4473.  Sometimes I feel like I’ve never filled out the same 4473 twice.   This really caught my eye:

All this is to protect us, the irony is that I still have our hotel register from 1936 which served as our Acquisition/ Disposition book and was filled with notes from Mothers or Fathers letting us know that there child had permission to purchase a rifle.

Times have changed, that’s for sure.

What is the purpose of grading a candidate based on his support or lack of support for your issue? Well, primarily to give voters a guide as to whether someone is worthy of casting a vote for, in terms of that issue. But anyone who doesn’t think politics plays a role in the grading system is naive. NRA’s grading system is most definitely a political animal, in addition to being a way to communicates about candidates to membership.

We’re all aware of apparent mistakes in the grading system, like Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown earning an A rating when it would seem that it is undeserved, but it’s important to remember that all grades are not equal. An A in California, Massachusetts in New Jersey is not necessarily an A, or even a C in states like New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas or Pennsylvania. For an example, take a look at what earns you an A plus an endorsement in Massachusetts.

Those grades reflect the political realities in those states, where most politicians are openly hostile to gun rights. How do you get a politician to care about your issue, and to take your side? Well, electing someone who fundamentally agrees with you is one way. We’re lucky in Pennsylvania to have state politicians like Daryl Metcalfe and Sam Rohrer, who have a genuine belief in the right to keep and bear arms themselves, and who we can genuinely call friends. It’s not like that everywhere. New Jersey politicians try to actively out gun-control their opponents, and it works like that in Massachusetts, parts of New York, and parts of California too. The other way to convince a politician to support you is showing him that your support helps him get elected, and your continued support helps him keep his seat (the converse of that being if you withdrew support, you could threaten his seat). If you can’t help or hurt a politicians chances for re-election, and he has no personal inclination to support your cause, he will ignore your interests.

The rating system also plays in this area as well. When you have no one on your side, you don’t really have much of a choice except to win converts. In the Massachusetts example I showed above, you have a legislator who has shown in the past some willingness to support some of your issues. He may not support all of them, but in cases like this, even know the legislator may not be perfect, it makes sense to offer an endorsement, and maybe a good grade, to try to bring him on board a bit more. If a politician can see that you can bring votes to the table at election time, he will listen to you. You can bet that if NRA/GOAL work to get Jamie Eldridge elected, he’s going to pay attention to their issues in Congress, and having Congressional Representation in Congress from Massachusetts that’s even moderately pro-gun would be good for all of us. Having left-wing groups in Massachusetts getting upset because the NRA is endorsing left-wing progressives is definitely good for us, especially that doesn’t translate into electoral problems.

Sure, a lot of folks who read that article I linked are going to be upset because of all the gun control that Eldridge says he does support, but remember, this is Massachusetts. In Pennsylvania, he’d get a D or an F for those views, but in Pennsylvania, you have other people to choose from, and you can bet that someone in that lot will be pretty pro-gun. When you don’t have much to work with, this is how you build political support for your interests.

As I’ve said before, politics is a dirty game, and to win in politics, you almost have to pretend you don’t have any principles. Politics isn’t a game of principles, it’s a game of interests. We need our principles to guide us over the long term, but in the short term you have to look at interests.

PICS is back online a day early.   It came up at 8AM this morning.  I’m very pleased that the State Police’s IT team managed to get it up sooner than expected, but Ed Rendell is still a turd.

Attention Pennsylvanians!

This is the first day of the Pennsylvania Instant Check Outage.  I encourage everyone within the Commonwealth who cares about gun rights to write your state representatives and make sure they know how hopping mad you are about this.

This goes double if your representative is a Democrat, especially a rural Democrat who normally supports gun rights. I would advise including something along the lines of  “This action by our governor makes me question the Democratic party’s commitment to my right to keep and bear arms.”  Make all the Democrats concerned that you think their party is abadoning your gun rights.  Make them want Rendell’s head on the platter for going ahead with this and damaging their party.  And don’t be afraid to mail the Governor’s office and tell him you won’t vote for his party in the next election.

It’s only by raising a stink about this that we can head off the possibility of these types of outages happening in the future.  Rendell felt safe in screwing us because he doesn’t have to worry about being up for re-election, but if it looks like this could hurt the Democrats, they’ll be sure to keep the next lame duck governor on a short leash.

Over at AR15.com, a guy gets into some trouble in Pennsylvania for a non crime:

Told him my .45 is on my hip and my CCW is with my license. He gets me out of the vehicle and takes the pistol to run it to see if it stolen. I am thinking no problem I have had this pistol since 88. Bought it in CA from a buddy in the Marines. The weapon comes back with no history in fact after a four hours search ATF can not find any weapons in my name. They want to know why it is not registered in PA. Told him when I moved to PA, I asked Chester County Sheriff if I had to register my pistols in PA since I bought them in CA. He said no they are in the system.

This wasn’t a lawful seizure.  The course of action here would be to retain an attorney, and file suit to get the firearm returned.  Under Pennsylvania law, the state is required to pay attorneys fees for a gun owner who has to file suit to get an unlawfully held firearm returned to him.

Under Pennsylvania law, there also isn’t supposed to be a registry of firearms, but the State Police has been maintaining one “illegally”, well, it used to be illegally, until the PA Supreme Court essentially read the registration prohibition right out of the Uniform Firearms Act and said the registry was a “record of sale” rather than what it actually is.

So it would appear because this officer wasn’t able to find the gun in the registry, he presumed it was illegal, and seized it.   We need a legislative fix for this in Pennsylvania, and it needs to come soon.  Unfortunately, there’s no chance that we’ll be able to get this through our current Governor.

Ryan doesn’t think so.   I don’t think so either.  I also think Bush needs to replace Gonzalez with someone who will be a friend of the second amendment.