Somehow, I don’t know how really, because no other company in the area, or that I’ve ever worked for has gotten President’s Day off, I have off from work today. At the end of the day I’ll be traveling back to Philadelphia from my undisclosed location.
Do you need more proof than this?
OK folks. Take a look at this, it’s the second Brady comment down:
Most non-hunters view scopes as automatic-hit devices that make shooting at any range a piece of cake. Why do you need a scope Mr. Zumbo? Your gentrified fore-bearers undoubtedly hunted without one. Perhaps you are too lazy or unskilled to stalk closer to your game. That statement has as much validity (I hope) as your comments about “terrorist” rifles and those who use them. Try to be a little more open minded and tolerant of your fellow hunters and shooters.
And Brady’s repsonse?
I certainly agree with your sentiments. There is no pressing need for optics that allow shooters to make sniper shots from over one hundred meters.
Posted by Brady Campaign on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 2:11 PM
No, this is not about scary looking rifles. This is about much, much more. Jim, you have totally screwed us! I hope you realize now who the people are you’ve just empowered.
UPDATE: A lot of folks seem to think this might be an impostor, and not associated with the Bradys. I’m willing to accept that possibility. If the Bradys want to disavow themselves of this position, and the poster, I’ll happily print another update saying as much. Until then, you can assess for yourself the veracity of the poster and statement.
UPDATE 2: In the comments, you will note a Brady spokesperson state that this person is not speaking on behalf of their organization.
Zumbo Apologizes
Jim Zumbo has apologized for his blog entry. I’m inclined to let bygones be bygones, but dude, you suggested we were terrorists! I exepct shit like that from the Brady’s and VPC, but not one of our own.
I’m willing to forgive, but I won’t forget. Once stuff like that gets out there, there’s really no calling it back. I have to agree with Michael Bane:
And how are you going to feel, Jim, when your words are read into the Congressional Record or used by Brady or the Violence Policy Center to continue to destroy our right to keep and bear arms?
Seriously. You think the Brady’s and VPC will care about the apology? No, they’ll happily quote the original blog post and make sure it gets in front of policy makers. You really can’t undo damage like this, and that’s why we have to be exceedingly careful about the things we say.
UPDATE:Â Bitter reminds us that we have to remember we’re all responsible for getting the message out there.
Do You Subscribe to Outdoor Life?
I’m calling on everyone who has read the Zumbo article and has a subscription to Outdoor Life to cancel your subscription. At the least, make sure they know you’re really unhappy with the article.
We need hunters on our side, but hunters also need us. The hunting community has been shrinking, while the shooting community is growing. Neither of our communities will survive long term if we don’t stand together, and we have to make sure we don’t let people like Zumbo contribute to our downfall.
UPDATE: Outdoor life is distancing themselves from Zumbo’s statements. I’ll declare Mission Accomplished and call off the attack dogs on this matter.
UPDATE2: I noticed we’ve been linked by a lefty blog! Welcome. A lot has happened since I posted this, and I encourage everyone coming here from SeaJane to take a look around and see what else I’m saying about the issue. Decide for yourself whether I’m a nutty extremist being programmed by the NRA to destroy a man’s career.
Also, the NRA had nothing to do with the whole Zumbo thing. They didn’t even get involved until after it was all over.
When They Come For Your “Sniper Rifle”…
… if they already have my “assault weapon”, I’m not going to lift a god damned finger to help you.
[UPDATE (5:42): Looks like Unc basically said the same thing, but I didn’t look at his site until 2 minutes ago :)]
That’s my statement to hunters and outdoor writers like Jim Zumbo, who apparently have no issues with throwing people like me under the bus. Kevin Baker has a good fisking of Zumbo’s article here.
One thing Mr. Zumbo needs to understand is that this issue is not about banning scary looking rifles. Everyone who thinks that needs to read this.
The goal of the assault weapons ban is to weaken our community, reduce our numbers, reduce our political power, and eventually get our numbers down to the point where further restrictions on firearms are legally viable. Anyone who believes this is about public safety haven’t been paying close enough attention to the issue.
So, Mr. Zumbo, if you want to keep your highly accurate sniper rifle, I would suggest we stick together, or we’re all going to lose. You do us no favors by your willingness to throw other gun owners under the bus, because you think we make you look bad. We all look bad to the gun banners, and they won’t stop until you don’t have a gun to hunt with.
UPDATE: Bitter has some useful thoughts on the subject as well
“Can you get that dear?”
I couldn’t resist dropping the Monty Python quote in relation to this story coming out of Western Pennsylvania:
CONNELLSVILLE, Pa. – A woman gave birth to a boy outside a western Pennsylvania hospital – a delivery that happened so quickly that the newborn wound up in his mother’s sweatpants.
Having visited that part of the state a few times (Southeast of Pittsburgh), I can believe the local hospital didn’t have a maternity ward.
This is the 24 year old’s fourth child. No word yet on whether she’s Catholic, or has any plans to subject her kids to medical experiments.
An Open Request to Ruth Ann Minner
Dear Governor,
If you’re going to charge $2.00 to drive through the 20 miles of I95 that span the State of Delaware, it would be nice to ensure the road is clear of ice, and the Delaware Service Station has an ample supply of gasoline and has walkways mostly clear of ice.
Thanks,
An Annoying Pennsylvanian
A Suggestion for Merriam-Webster
A new verb for the English language:
Fopaing [fohpahing] verb
1. The act of driving through a state, possibly at excessive speeds, while transporting firearms in a vehicle that are not otherwise legal in that state, and thus relying on § 926A of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 to keep you out of prison.
FOPA Oddities
I’m going to be relying on FOPA this evening to keep me out of trouble with the State of Maryland. I was reviewing § 926A, when I noticed something:
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
Emphasis mine. So by this definition, if you can’t also lawfully carry the firearm at the source and destination, does that render FOPA protections null and void? It doesn’t seem to say possess or carry, it says possess and carry. Now, as it stands, I can lawfully carry in both Pennsylvania and my destination, but if I were going to say, West Virginia, where I cannot legally carry on my foreign licenses, could I be in trouble?
Also, I’ve wondered if I was going through CT on the way to NH, and had a licensed loaded pistol on my person, but was carrying an “assault weapon” (illegal in CT) in the trunk in compliance with FOPA, would the possession of the loaded pistol, outside of FOPA compliance, but in compliance with CT law, render FOPA protection for the assault weapon null and void?
I can see a lot of room in this law for an anti-gun prosecutor to drive a truck in order to attempt to run over an otherwise lawful gun owner. If anyone out there reads and is a lawyer, I’d certainly like to know if any of the scenarios I just threw out there would be a plausible reading of this law.
Meanwhile, I’ll keep the needle on 65/55 the whole time I’m in Maryland.
Blog Promotion – Crime and Federalism
There’s a lot of good stuff up over at Crime and Federalism:
Norm talks about his Unusual Day, where he has to convince the court he did not sleep with it.
Mike puts Plea Bargaining into Perspective:
Do you now see the problem with plea bargaining? It has turned our system into one that is supposed to convict the guilty and free the innocent into a risk-management system.  It has turned lawyers into actuaries . “Is going to trial worth the risk?” is what lawyers ask clients. Innocence has little to do with the decision to take a deal.
Back to Norm, who writes a fantastic argument against Soverign Immunity:
The state is our greatest legal fiction. I have never touched it, seen it, spoken to it or sensed its presence in any but a contrived way. Oh, I am aware that I live on a piece of Earth government by an entity known as the state of Connecticut. I have tussled with people representing it in court. I pay taxes to it. There is something we all recognize as the state of Connecticut. It is an expensive ghost we honor.
But it lacks the corporeal reality of James Tillman. It never weeps over injustice. It neither eats, nor sleeps, nor feels pangs of desire and despair. The state, you see, is a mirage of convenience. We need it to make life together possible.
Question: Why would a people who call themselves sovereign create a government that declares itself immune from the consequences of its own errors? The simple answer: We would not. But judges make it so.
And finally today, on the Vagaries of Federalism:
It is elementary that concurrent jurisdiction permits a state court to hear claims arising under state and federal law. But no principle of law permits a state to opt out of federal law under the common law bugbear of sovereign immunity.
If you don’t read regularly, you should. Norm and Mike offer something very different than your traditional conservative approach to the issue of federalism. It’s important, as members of the shooting community, to keep in mind that the state wields tremendous power, and we should think carefully when we talk about “enforcing the laws on the books”. Many of the laws that are on the books are unjust, and are enforced arbitrarily and capricously. It’s important to get a perspective of the law from people who are defense attorneys, and regularly deal with these matters. I don’t always agree with everything I read on Crime and Federalism, but their take on issues is far closer to my own beliefs than many law and order conservatives. Remember that in our community, it’s easy to run afoul of the law without realizing it, and when the heavy hand of the state comes down on you, it’ll be people like Norm and Mike we’ll suddenly find are our best friends.