Dick’s Will Probably Exit the Gun Business

Dick’s Earnings are interesting, but it shows our boycott is having an effect.

Dick’s earnings weren’t as bad as expected, even thought their gun and hunting business is hurting. My guess is that Dick’s will leave that line of business as sales in that area continues to flounder. I’d note that earnings beat expectations, which were low. Their earnings are the same as they were in Q1 of 2016 on about the same revenue. I’m wondering how much of their surprise has to do with online sales, which grew quickly, and may have prevented a loss. Same store sales being down means our boycott is having an effect, and Dick’s admits that’s a result of a decline in sales of our items.

I’m not sure this is the story their CEO and the media are making it out to be. Certainly I’m not going to spin this as good for us: Dick’s doesn’t have a history of beating Q1 expectations. It’s interesting that analysts lowballed them by 9 cents a share over the previous year. Q1 estimates for Dick’s have, generally speaking, been pretty spot on. Anyone have any idea how these earnings estimates get decided? How many people are involved? How much influence would someone like Bloomberg and his associates have on the process? I’m not ready to put my tin foil hat on yet, but I’m curious. Because setting up low expectations for Dick’s on purpose to achieve a PR coup would be something I’d do if I were Bloomberg and could pull it off. Just sayin’.

If same store sales keeps dropping, that will hurt Dick’s in the long run. So get the word out.

More Radical Proposals from Democrats

Eric Swalwell on Tucker Carlson says he doesn’t want to confiscate your guns, just force you to surrender them in a mandatory buyback, or keep them at your gun club, which no doubt you all belong to, and which no doubt has plenty of secure space to store thousands of guns …

Eric Swalwell on Tucker Carlson:

I’m not calling for a confiscation. What I’m saying is we should invest in buyback, that we should restrict any weapons that aren’t bought back to gun clubs, hunting clubs, shooting ranges. Keep them there, where it’s safe. Not on our streets. And if you were caught, just like you were caught, you know, with drugs, or anything else, or they have probable cause to go in your home and you have one of these weapons, yeah. You’d be prosecuted. I’ve never suggested sending troops out and collecting and confiscating–

If we just call it a buy back, and make it mandatory, it’s not confiscation! Sure, we’ll “criminally prosecute all — criminally prosecute any who refuse — choose to defy it by keeping their weapons,” but you gun nuts are crazy to think anyone here is talking about taking your guns.

And where are all these gun and hunting club that clearly all shooters and hunters must belong to? And clearly they are all set up to store thousands of firearms? He doesn’t have a clue. My club is starting to get inundated with requests from New Jersey members who would like the club to provide storage so that they can keep all their soon to be illegal stuff in Pennsylvania. But we don’t have the resources or security level to provide for on-site storage of firearms. Neither do most other clubs. I’ve heard this from people before who assume it’s practical. They don’t know anything about the culture and even less about guns.

And I trust the American people are law-abiding, that their weapons can be bought back or keep them at a gun club. You don’t have to give them up. Just keep them at a gun club.

No. That won’t work. Even if we were willing, which we are not. Absolutely 100% non-negotiable. This is basically saying you can have guns, but only if you never use them for self-defense.

Good Guy With a Gun

Our opponents have argued and would argue that this guy didn’t stop a mass killing, because it was stopped before it reached the definition of mass killing …

Our opponents have argued and would argue that this guy didn’t stop a mass killing, because it was stopped before it reached the definition of mass killing. But that hardly matters, since the headline is going around, and people know better. The quickest way to stop a mass shooting in progress is well-placed return fire.

Thursday News Dump

All the news that’s fit to link…

I’ve been very busy, so please forgive the light posting. On top of being busy with a project at work, it’s dues time for my club, and I’ve been dealing with banks to get ready for online invoicing and payment by credit cards for the first time. It’s not as bad as closing on a house, but it’s easier to buy a new car. Banks want you to sign over your first born for all this stuff. In fact, if they put that in some of the fine print, I might not notice.

I need to clean my tabs out though, so here goes:

Jimmy Kimmel called out for “White Privilege” on gun control. Make them live up to their own rules. And yes, gun control disadvantages poor minorities more than it disadvantages middle class white people. In the past, and arguably still today, that’s been its primary purpose.

Canada doesn’t have enough gun control, according to the people who advocate for gun control.

Tam: “Misunderstanding Self-Defense: Practical

Clayton Cramer has some video of Bloomberg Bloomberging. Smartest strategic move Everytown has made is pushing him into the background and using him as a wallet rather than a face. What we need to do, conversely, is make sure everyone knows Everytown is Mike Bloomberg. I won’t mention them without his name if I can help it.

Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Liberal Maplewood millennial isn’t your typical gun rights advocate: ‘We’re normal people’” Note: “She left the NRA when it created ads she felt were polarizing, alienating and ‘extreme right wing.'” I’m not convinced that NRA is going to rethink the Angry Dana strategy, as long as their membership keeps growing. I think that has more to do with the shrillness of our opponents, but it’s hard to convince a civic organization to change course when they aren’t hurting for members.

Well, this will certainly harsh some narratives. The FBI: “Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents … Their selfless actions likely saved many lives.”

Boulder passed an assault weapons ban, and are now being sued in federal court. Colorado seems to have preemption, but my understanding is that the courts there have weakened it severely.

Reason has a pretty good article on “Assault Weapons,” most of it old hat to most of us, but some interesting bits I hadn’t heard, but are hardly surprising: “According to a Reason-Rupe survey conducted around the time that Feinstein introduced her 2013 bill, about two-thirds of Americans mistakenly thought ‘assault weapons’ fire faster than other guns, hold more rounds, or use higher-caliber ammunition. The respondents who harbored these misconceptions were especially likely to say such guns should be banned.”

It was disappointing to see a lot of assholes on our side of the issue giving this reporter shit in the comments: “Shooting an ‘assault weapon’ helped me understand the gun debate

The Detroit News: “Dick’s walks risky line on guns.” I’m not big on boycotting as a tactic, but I’ll never set foot in another Dick’s again. I’ll cheer when they finally finish circling the bowl.

The Federalist: “Our rights aren’t contingent on a cost-benefit analysis. Whether guns are risky isn’t the point, but whether guns are a reasonable means of self-defense.

The Swedes are preparing for war, with Ivan getting frisky again: “[W]e will never give up. All information to the effect that resistance is to cease is false.” There’s an old story, maybe it’s true, that during WWII the German Ambassador said to the Swiss Ambassador: “You have half a million men under arms. We could send a million men over the pass into your country, and what would you do then?” The Swiss Ambassador responded: “We’d tell our men to shoot two Germans before going home.”

Professor Pleads Guilty to Vandalism of Chris Cox’s House

I remember reading about the Cox residence getting vandalized, and reading this professor saying “People need to stop treating these predatory, sick people like they’re just a neighbor.” while also state she never did anything illegal. Well, I guess not …

I remember reading about the Cox residence getting vandalized, and reading this professor saying “People need to stop treating these predatory, sick people like they’re just a neighbor.” while also state she never did anything illegal. Well, I guess not. From the Cox’s attorney:

“We are pleased that today Ms. Hill was criminally convicted of vandalism for her January attack on the Cox’s home, that she was charged with a second count of vandalism for an attack on the Cox family home in October 2017, and that a restraining order was entered against her. The Cox family is grateful to the Commonwealth Attorney’s office and the Alexandria Police Department for their role in holding Ms. Hill accountable for her criminal conduct. We look forward a second conviction for Ms. Hill at her next criminal trial.”

What a loon. I think that “red gel-like substance” has gone to her brain.

Taking Back Vermont

Can gun owners take back Vermont? If the answer is yes, the first step is to sink Phil Scott’s political career …

Can Gun Owners Take Back Vermont? Vermonters really really need to make sure Phil Scott is punished:

Dick Wobby, one of Scott’s closest friends and political advisers, recognizes the similarities and concedes that if conservatives revolt and moderates stay home, the governor could lose a primary challenge. But he’s skeptical that gun-rights activists, whom he characterizes as “a bunch of radical, gun-toting individuals,” are as potent a political force as they appear.

“They’ve got a base of what? One hundred people? One hundred fifty people?” Wobby said. “When you really look at it, their rallies and groups are not growing. They’re diminishing rapidly.”

This is utter betrayal. Bloomberg talking points, through and through. This is what Everytown has been trying to convince politicians. And you know what? If we sit on our asses and do nothing; just sit back and lament how awful they all are, Bloomberg will be proven right. It’s vitally important to vote against Scott every chance you get. Help out his opponents. This is one of those situations: “I don’t care how you do it, you must sink the Bismarck.” Phil Scott’s political career is the Bismarck. He can’t win re-election. If Vermonters want to save their state, you need to start here.

I Prefer a Straight Fight to All This Sneaking Around

From Esquire Magazine:

So now I’m angry. Now I’m finished trying to reason with you. So now I, a guy who was ambivalent about guns just a few years ago, want to take your guns away. All of them. I want to take them all and melt them down and shape them into a giant sphere and then push it at you so you have to run away from it like Indiana Jones for the rest of your lives. I want Ted Nugent to roam the halls of his gunless house, sighing wearily until he dies. I want to end this thing once and for all, so that all of you who have prioritized the sale of guns over the lives of children have to sit quietly and think about what you’ve done. God help me, I want to take all of your guns out of your hands, by myself, right now.

Well, what are you waiting for skippy?

Punching Back Twice as Hard

NRA files suit against Cuomo! Not just as Governor, but also personally. They are claiming tens of millions in damages, and attorneys fees. While no lawsuit is slam dunk, there are some clear precedent that Cuomo has violated, so I’d say he’s in some hot water now. I hope this bankrupts him. I really do.

The NRA has filed suit against Cuomo and the head of New York’s Department of Financial Services, Maria Vullo. I was hoping NRA was working on this, because the lawsuit practically writes itself. The 33 page complaint can be found here. The suit is not just against Cuomo and Vullo in their official capacity, but also against them as individuals. This means Cuomo and Vullo will be personally on the hook for part of NRA’s losses, and NRA is claiming that it “… has suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages based on Defendants’ conduct …”

Defendants’ unlawful exhortations to New York insurance companies, banks, and financial institutions that they, among other things, “manag[e] their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA . . ., as well as continued assessment of compliance with their own codes of social responsibility[,]” as well as “review any relationships they have with the NRA[,]” and “take prompt actions to managing these risks and promote public health and safety[,]” constitute a concerted effort to deprive the NRA of its freedom of speech by threatening with government prosecution services critical to the survival of the NRA and its ability to disseminate its message. Defendants’ actions constitute an “implied threat[ ] to employ coercive state power” against entities doing business with the NRA, and they are reasonably interpreted as such.

There’s several things claimed in this complaint that are important. One is that even if DFS was correct in fining Lockton and Chubb, it was wholly inappropriate and beyond the scope of their lawful authority to demand that both companies cease doing business at all with NRA, even outside of New York, even for programs which are compliant with New York Law. When I first read that, my thought was “That’s pretty much slam dunk a First Amendment violation.”

Secondly, NRA argues that the fine was meant as retaliation for NRA’s exercise of its First Amendment rights, because other organizations similarly situated to NRA are apparently violating New York’s claimed regulation and have not faced prosecution. NRA claims Lockton and Chubb were singled out specifically for NRA’s views which Cuomo and Vullo find abhorrent.

Federal judges will still be federal judges, and gun rights and NRA are not popular among that set, especially in New York City. But this is a First Amendment case, and the precedent is much more clear that Cuomo and Vullo are violating NRA’s rights, and as a consequence, our rights as members. I do hope if and when this hits discovery, if other conspirators are found, they are added to the suit.

They wanted to make an example out of us. Now we can turn this around and make an example of them.

NRA Election Participation

Once again, I’ve got the data on member participation in NRA elections. Unlike attendance, these stats aren’t record breaking – not the lowest, not the highest. Just about average.

In terms of total votes cast, 5.67% of eligible voters who received ballots returned them. That’s on par with previous years, as you can see in the chart. The lowest vote participation I’ve ever documented in 2006 was 5.12%, and the highest was the 2016 regular board election at 7.76%.

Of course, there’s also the context to consider of how many ballots went out. As we add more voting members to NRA’s member roster, it becomes harder for any one board member to reach individual voters who may feel inspired to vote after meeting with them or learning more about them. This is the record number of ballots mailed based on my data – 199,245 more than last year. That means more life members and members who have stuck with the organization for at least 5 consecutive years.

Of course, these charts just look at ballots returned. Of the ballots mailed back, 3.98% were invalid for a variety of reasons. This is up a bit from the last few years, but down substantially from 2013. Unfortunately, they stopped separating out my favorite invalid statistic – ballots from previous years. Who has these and remembers to send them in during the exact voting period the next year?? Last year, it was 24 people.

At first glance, I thought that people may be voting for fewer than 25 candidates, as the top vote getter this year (Ronnie Barrett) was only on 71.7% of valid ballots. That’s the lowest percentage I’ve recorded. The previous low was 2015 at 76.52%, so the same cycle of candidates. Most of the other lows I’ve recorded have also been during this same cycle of 3 year terms, so I think it’s just the lack of a really huge celebrity that spreads out votes more. (That’s not a bad thing!)

For the “last winner,” the lowest vote getter to still get a seat on the board, there were some interesting observations. The last winner was on just over half of the ballots – 54.46%. That’s not the lowest percentage I’ve seen, but the 2nd lowest and definitely close. What is more interesting is that those who did not win seats were much farther behind the pack than I’ve ever documented before. In my years of data, the top person who still lost is usually just under 1,000 votes away from the person above. This year, that gap was huge at a difference of more than 3,000 votes. So those who didn’t make it on the board this year were much farther behind as a group than they have been in at least a decade.

Gun Owners Must Carry Liability Insurance

We’ll mandate you carry insurance, then make it illegal!

And if you actually offer that insurance, we’ll make it illegal and fine the companies offering it. Is there anyone out there who is still seriously going to argue that prohibition is a gun nut delusion? This is like Chicago mandating live fire training to own a gun with one hand, and then with the other hand arranging the city’s zoning code so that there could never be any ranges in the City of Chicago. What do you expect me to think? They act like anything short of showing up at my front door with a confiscation order is just nothing at all to worry about. Hey, I know, you can legally have guns, but the Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about bullets now does it? Go to hell. Do you think we’re stupid?