2010 Election – Page 18 – Shall Not Be Questioned

I Do Love Politicians

Only a politician can call for a gun ban on Friday night and then sign on to speak at a pro-liberty shooting event hosted at a gun club on Tuesday and not see the hypocrisy.

As we’ve mentioned, Jack Wagner said he supported a ban on semi-automatic rifles on Friday night at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit. This afternoon, the Commonwealth Foundation posted a Facebook listing for their annual LiveFreePA fundraiser. Guess who confirmed his attendance? Jack Wagner. To his credit, he’s the only Democrat who is on their confirmed speakers list. To his discredit, he’d ban the guns that the members of the host club use regularly.

Real Life Politics

In case it’s not obvious from the last serious post, it’s time for real life politics to start in high gear. Here in the Keystone State, 10 of our 19 Congressional districts have been rated by Cook as reasonably competitive. Surprisingly, even our own home base district is more competitive even though the county GOP is seemingly trying to destroy any goodwill with voters it might have left.

I’ve managed to organize a meeting of upper level activists from across Eastern PA (plus NUGUN who is technically closer to the middle) in a couple of weeks to lay down ideas/tips/strategy for the upcoming election season.

Candidates are still declaring and still dropping out. We’re now up to 10 known pro-gun retirements in Harrisburg with fewer than half that for anti-gunners. Gun owners in Pennsylvania are even losing one of their most powerful allies – the Speaker of the House.

Contrary to the hype and buzz online, there’s not going to be one iota of change in our favor this year if people don’t step up. Talking about on the internet does not actually make it happen at the ballot box.

On the other hand, I am also in the process of trying to track down every candidate on Twitter and Facebook. I try to keep an eye on them in case they say anything stupid or anti-gun, but I suppose I’m being redundant.

Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gubernatorial Candidates Target Gun Owners

Most voters don’t spend Friday night tuned into PCN – Pennsylvania’s version of C-SPAN – to watch coverage of small political events. Perhaps that’s what the Democratic gubernatorial candidates were counting on when they debated at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit. Hoping gun owners, especially those registered as Democrats, wouldn’t find out, each of the candidates pledged to support more restrictions on your rights.

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato started the series of gun control promises by calling for a statewide so-called “lost and stolen” law. He apparently doesn’t mind that the legislation would change the justice system into one in which gun owners are guilty until proven innocent. Prosecutors could financially ruin gun owners as they try to prove themselves innocent. Onorato continued by pledging to support “child safety locks,” though he declined to explain whether his version of the legislation would mandate the sale of locks to increase gun prices or challenge the ruling of Heller by forcing gun owners to lock their guns at home. Finally, Onorato unveiled his most controversial plan for gun control – ending state preemption in Pennsylvania.

Under Onorato’s dismantling of state authority on gun laws, concealed carry permit holders could be arrested if they visit Philadelphia. Hunters heading to their favorite tree stand in the next county may find that their favorite hunting rifles are banned. Every time a gun owner crosses a city limit, he or she may be in violation of a local ordinance that could lead to arrest and cost them their rights.

Of course, Onorato told reporters at his campaign launch that any perception of a pro-rights record was a “mischaracterization.” I don’t think most gun owners would have realized how much of mischaracterization that really was!

Next, Auditor General Jack Wagner dodged most state policy issues on gun rights – save one. Unfortunately for gun owners, it was a very, very big issue. Wagner, while claiming to support the Second Amendment, stated his support for a ban on semi-automatic rifles. These are not machine guns, but average rifles that gun owners often take into the field for hunting or to the range for competition. He did not explain whether his support for such a ban would include confiscation for those already owned.

Third in line, Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty joined Onorato in his support of ending state preemption. In fact, this was actually the priority pledge in his debate response. Clearly, he hasn’t heard that a recent poll showed 56% of Pennsylvanians support preemption of gun laws. His other priority, should he take office, is to restrict sales of guns to only one per month. Collectors would no longer be allowed to by matching sets. The only way to track such sales would also mean the formal creation of a gun owner registry in Pennsylvania.

Finally, Joe Hoeffel, the candidate running farther left than most of the others kept his answer as essentially all of the above. Specifically, he named these priorities: gun sales limits (and presumably the registry needed to track such sales), lost and stolen legislation, mandatory locks (though again without clarification on whether this applies to sales or storage), and the end of state preemption. In addition to the previously discussed issues, Hoeffel also supports a ban on private sales of firearms in Pennsylvania. Selling the rifle that collects dust in the back of the safe to a trusted family member will become a criminal act in Pennsylvania if Joe Hoeffel has his way.

Gun owners, particularly those who are registered as Democrats, need to speak out to these candidates. The primary race is close, and there is no clear winner. Make sure these candidates know that their support of gun control will cost them votes at the ballot box.

Cross posted from PAGunRights.com.

He Better Hope He Doesn’t Get Browned

Chuckie Schumer is dropping in the polls. I’m sure Chuck can count on the anti-gun vote to save him. All he has to do is ask his buddies Jon and Martha. I don’t want to be too optimistic, but it would be awfully nice to run the Scott Brown treatment on Schumer. I’d love to send one of the major architects of gun control legislation for the past two decades packing.

Practical Translation of Yesterday’s Supreme Court Decision

I’m not going to bore you with the complexity of campaign finance laws. Really, it’s tedious. But my prediction is that the end result voters will actually see will be an increase in attack ads.

The Morning Call‘s John Micek has rounded up some insights, one in particular stands out:

Larry Ceisler, a Democratic consultant from Philly, said he thinks that while corporations might hesitate, unions will jump in with both feet. He also said that there’s a risk that unfettered corporate speech might drown out candidates’ own ads, which could cost them control of their own messages.

“For instance, if an entity is supporting a candidate and doesn’t think the message is tough or sharp enough, they can go in and do it themselves,” he told the newspaper. “That could be good for a campaign – or disastrous.”

I would be willing to put money on the fact that groups will now go more negative earlier than any candidate will. It’s unfortunate, but it is the likely result. In the Brown-Coakley race, her campaign worked alongside national groups to bombard the airwaves in the last week with nothing but negative ads against Scott Brown. Yes he was elected, but you can’t really argue they didn’t work. Rasmussen found on election day that voters who made up their minds in the last few days before the election broke for Coakley at a higher rate. He also found that more of Coakley’s supporters were really going to vote against Brown rather than for Coakley than vice versa. Unfortunately for Coakley, she just didn’t get the ads on the air early enough.

After that loss, I would say to expect more and expect them earlier. Though hopefully they will stay off of the Weather Channel this time around.

UPDATE: Marginal Revolution has posted word clouds from both the majority and dissenting opinions to give you a better idea of what each side was focused on.

Game Changing

A few weeks ago I would have said a candidate like this, running on a platform of getting rid of gun registration in Texas, even though there is no gun registration in Texas, wouldn’t stand a chance. Of course, I don’t think she means ending gun registration in Texas because she’s speaking of non-existent Texas law. Given her platform of claiming state nullification of federal laws that interfere with what she thinks of as Texas’ prerogative, I’m thinking she means to do away with 4473s. We have a similar candidate here in Pennsylvania, a laid off biologist who cashed in his retirement and mortgaged his house for a shot at the top job.

Normally this kind of outside the box thinking is punished at the polls, but we just elected a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, and while Scott Brown may not win social conservative of the year award, on fiscal matters he’s not exactly a soft Republican. Anything is possible now. Run your cat. Maybe he’ll win. Can he meow softly on tax policy?

The Boxer Rebellion

Now we have heard theÂ Scott Heard Round the World, next up, the Boxer Rebellion:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0CprVYsG0k[/youtube]

Babs, you are SO next!

Brown in the Black

It’s looking increasingly like the Massachusetts race is coming out in favor of Brown. With a majority of precincts reporting, it’s looking like Coakley is conceding. You’d think I’d be jumping for joy, but you know, I think I’m still in shock. We just turned Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts over to the GOP, and with an NRA A rated candidate. It’s like any minute things are going to get fuzzy and I’m going to find myself naked at school, and then hear the alarm go off.

I can’t even really speculate on the political implication of this for the Democrats. This is an upset of epic proportions for them. It’s like Bill Gates beating Mike Tyson. At the least, I would imagine we’re not done hearing about Democratic retirements. How’s this going to affect the health care monstrosity? I suspect it’s done. At the very least, the Democrats now have to know Obama cannot save them.Â I can’t imagine the Democrats are going to be in the mood to do anything controversial at this point. But if there’s one thing I’m amazed at, it’s the self-destructive tendency the Democrats have been exhibiting, so I wouldn’t write anything off.

UPDATE: Blog post title of the day on this “Hell. Ice. Some Assembly Required“

Pro-Gun Candidates Need Help

Just a friendly reminder that if you’re not in Massachusetts today, you can at least send an email or pick up the phone to find out how to help out other pro-gun candidates. If you’re in Pennsylvania, you don’t even have to write your own email, just fill out the form.

Vote, Vote, Vote

If you’re in Massachusetts, go vote today. I know, you’re hearing it from everyone.

Better yet, when you go vote, grab or make a pro-Brown sign and spend half an hour holding it up outside the polling station before you go vote. Then, if you’re excited by all of the thumbs up and honks of support, hold it up for another half hour after you vote.

Sign holding in Massachusetts is fun. Those planning to vote for the more conservative candidates tend to get the most visible support. The Democrat sign holders, even if their candidate is slated to win, usually get taken down a notch or two when they find their voters just don’t care as much. Part of that is due to the divide among left-leaning voters in the Bay State.

Michael Barone has a good look today at some polling in bellweather towns in the Bay State, and if I may, I would like to steal a line from him. He says those towns are “emblematic of blue-collar Massachusetts…despite the prominence of the stateâ€™s university communities”.

This is a great point, especially how it relates to this election battle between Brown and Coakley. Massachusetts is known as a Democratic stronghold, and most people vote Dem because for a long time, there really weren’t other viable alternatives, and ‘despite the prominence of the stateâ€™s university communities’ that doesn’t mean it is a liberal stronghold. In fact most of Massachusetts comes from ‘hearty stock’, or in other words a Catholic, blue-collar background. And while perhaps not as conservative as other places in the country, as a voting block it is certainly more mainstream than the liberal crowd pulled in and retained by the magnet of Harvard/Radcliffe/Brandeis/Tufts.

If you ever find yourself in Western Mass, go spend a day in Amherst. It’s a town that has its own foreign policy and a weekly anti-war protest that was happening years before I ever arrived and we were years away from Iraq & Afghanistan. But if you spend part of that day at a bar on the outskirts of town, you’ll see the transition first hand. Go in around 4:30 and you’ll see blue collar workers coming in to have a drink after a hard day of work. They clear out by 7 and then the college kids come in and the hip hop comes on. Talking to some of the students, you’ll find they have no clue about who was sitting in their seat an hour before, nor do they have any interest. You could argue it’s that way with all kids, but the difference is that in Massachusetts, those kids stick around as part of elite liberal crowd and they never learn to care about the guy who was sitting in their seat an hour before.