Caucus Results: Thinning the Hurd

Regardless of your party affiliation, it is always entertaining to watch the first votes cast of the year. Of course, having both tickets up for grabs makes for a much more interesting few weeks. As the results are tabulated in Iowa and then New Hampshire the following week, you can see the energy shift from one candidate to another. Sometimes the results are expected as they essentially meet the predicted percentages that the polling reflected days or weeks prior. However, sometimes there are little twists that basically throw the nomination back up in the air.

This year, Iowa gave us the first culling of the heard on both sides with O’Malley, Huckabee, Santorum, and, unfortunately, Rand Paul, suspending their campaigns following disappointing support. At the same time, there were a few candidates that got a surprising level of support in the first round with the socialist Sanders nearly edging out Clinton, Cruz winning by a surprising margin over Trump, and Rubio nearly taking second place from the lewd Billionaire. However, when all the votes were tallied and the concessions faded into the campaign records, Rubio seemed to be the most presidential both in the support that he received and the gracious yet substantive speech that he made. 

The Iowa Caucus made for some intriguing foreshadowing for what was to transpire in New Hampshire Primary where the outsider candidates, Trump and Sanders, claimed victory. Not surprisingly, following a poor debate performance over the weekend, Rubio fell a couple of spots. However, in the end, the primary did just what it was designed to do… it narrowed the field as both Christie and Fiorina suspended their campaigns following single digit turnouts.

If you want to know what role these initial dry runs have on the process, this is exactly it. We can’t head into November with a dozen candidates on the ballot. In a matter of two weeks a half dozen campaigns came to an abrupt halt. However, it seems as though the vote is still quite divided, more so than it has been in some time, and this whole process could drag on into the summer when Pennsylvania has a darn good chance of determining who will represent their party in the Presidential election. This is clearly case on the Republican side but is also a possibility on the Democrat side as the FBI may finally catch up to Clinton and the vacuum could draw a few more late entries into the fray… makes you wonder why Clinton’s campaign slogan isn’t “Catch me if you can!”

Anyway, it should continue to be an interesting race throughout the year especially if Trump keeps putting his foot in his mouth and Cruz keeps hiring actresses that will put anything in their mouths. Maybe we get lucky and both happen opening the door for Rubio. Of course, this is only half of the ticket and I am curious to see the candidates that have been bandied about as running mates. Could Rand Paul still be in the mix? I guess we will have to wait and see.

Firearms Friday: Talk To And With The People

The politics we percolating this week as the President delivered the State of the Union on Tuesday and the first Republican Presidential Debate of the year was held last night. There were a lot of words bandied about and a heck of a lot of rhetoric disguised as unity earlier in the week. However, there were some moments and some lines that caught my attention last night when common sense prevailed as the topic of the second amendment was brought to the forefront of the debate (note that the full transcript can be found at The Washington Post).  

Bush: “…I have an A plus rating in the NRA and we also have a reduction in gun violence because in Florida, if you commit a crime with a gun, you're going away. You're going away for a long, long while…And that's what we should focus on is the violence in our communities. Target the efforts for people that are committing crimes with guns, and if you do that, and get it right, you're going to be much better off...”

Trump: “If we had guns in California on the other side where the bullets went in the different direction, you wouldn't have 14 or 15 people dead right now. If even in Paris, if they had guns on the other side, going in the opposite direction, you wouldn't have 130 people plus dead. So the answer is no and what Jeb said is absolutely correct. We have a huge mental health problem in this country… The guns don't pull the trigger. It's the people that pull the trigger and we have to find out what is going on.

Rubio: “Look, the Second Amendment is not an option. It is not a suggestion. It is a constitutional right of every American to be able to protect themselves and their families… criminals don't buy their guns from a gun show. They don't buy their guns from a collector. And they don't buy their guns from a gun store. They get -- they steal them. They get them on the black market. And let me tell you, ISIS and terrorists do not get their guns from a gun show.”

Christie: “I don't think the founders put the Second Amendment as number two by accident. I don't think they dropped all the amendments into a hat and picked them out of a hat. I think they made the Second Amendment the second amendment because they thought it was just that important.

Cruz (When asked “So what is the answer, Senator Cruz, to stop mass shootings and violent crime, up in 30 cities across the country?”): “The answer is simple. Your prosecute criminals. You target the bad guys… Listen, in any Republican primary, everyone is going to say they support the Second Amendment. Unless you are clinically insane that's what you say in a primary... I've got a proven record fighting to defend the Second Amendment. There's a reason Gun Owners of America has endorsed me in this race. There's a reason the NRA gave me their Carter Knight Freedom Fund award and there's a reason, when Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer came after our right to keep and bear arms that I led the opposition, along with millions of Americans -- we defeated that gun control legislation.”

The other candidates on stage did not contribute to this part of the debate. And while I was satisfied with many of the answers I think I was most impressed with those coming from Senators Cruz and Rubio. When taking into account their track records on the subject, Cruz would be the one that I cast my vote for in the primary. When taking all other issues into account, the divide becomes more pronounced and I, once again, vote for Cruz. With that said, that statement pertains to those on the main broadcast.

Of course I still believe that Rand Paul is the best candidate still in the race (and not just because of his ardent support of the Second Amendment) but there is clearly a lack of support for his campaign which was evident in his absence from the stage. However, his presence was still felt last night as the crowd chanted “We want Rand!” during the broadcast and, throughout the evening, Paul was answering questions coming directly from the voters via Twitter with the hashtag “#RandRally”. So, while the punches were being thrown (and dodged) on stage, a unique dialogue was taking place between a Presidential candidate and the people. What a novel concept.

Firearms Friday: Taking Over The NRA?

It really isn’t a surprise, especially with the campaigns in high gear, that following another incident of evil there are numerous politicians taking aim at gun owners and the NRA. This has been a potent topic for years and was particularly prominent during the first Democratic debate this week with Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continuing to be a vocal proponent of gun control. Oddly enough, this was in direct contrast with Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders who has a long record of voting against such legislation. Of course, that kind of stance never lasts with a socialist leader so I don’t give much credence to his past performance. Basically it doesn’t matter who ends up being the nominee for the Communist party, the rights of ALL law abiding citizens will be a particular point of contention between the parties.

While all of this back and forth was happening on the national debate stage, there were also a few headlines being grabbed by a New York State Senator, Liz Kreuger, who is advocating her fellow rights abolitionists to join the NRA and force a change in stance on the issue of gun control from the inside. As was reported by the New York Daily News, “Krueger first raised the issue at a roundtable on gun violence issues hosted by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) after someone suggested meeting with the NRA to try to find common ground on a gun control law, the New York Observer reported.” Yes, this is how far and how demented their ideas have become.

First of all, as was noted in the same article, Thomas King, president of the state Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA board member, “the NRA has more than five million members and scoffed at the suggestion there are enough "anti-gunners" to make an impact on the organization.” This is true, and those of us who are proud members would not stand for that kind of drastic “change” in policy… that is not why we donate our hard earned money. We choose to support and strengthen our rights be fighting those who wish to continue limiting our freedom.

Secondly, keep in mind that the same people who support this kind of radical action are the ones that would be filing suit if every Republican in this country were to register as a Democrat in order to change the party and support candidates that would oppose those policies that they currently hold so close to their empty hearts. Either action should be seen simply as perpetuating a fraud against those who support the basic principles of the organization. And what they are underestimating is that by proposing such actions they are actually galvanizing support for the NRA by the current membership (especially those of us who are life members), including me, which is why I have decided to join the NRA Golden Eagles. 

Will This Debate Start Clearing The Field?

Well, it is safe to say that high school is back in session. Of course, we didn’t need to look at the calendar to figure it out, all you had to do was watch the first 45 minutes of the Republican Presidential Debate last night on CNN. Thanks largely to comments carelessly caste by the bombastic Donald Trump, the first part of the over saturated debate consisted primarily of name calling, quips, and generalized statements rather than substantive discussions which should have been the primary focus throughout the evening. Thankfully, once the back and forth between the candidates took on a serious tone, Trump faded into the background having little input on the points being made.

I continue to be dumbfounded by the polling numbers which have shown significant support for the former Apprentice host and after last night those figures are even more confusing. Fortunately, there were a number of people on the stage that treated the event the way it should be, as an exchange of ideas and challenging the ideas of others. And while there were many that neither helped nor hurt themselves last night, there were a couple of candidates that showed some real promise. Of course, we will have to wait and see if it has any impact on their respective polling numbers.

Honestly, I haven’t paid too much attention to Carly Fiorina during these early stages of the campaign season. However, her performance in the secondary debate last month and on the main stage last night demonstrate that she is a viable choice. I have actually been quite surprised by how quickly she has developed her political persona and impressed by her ability to educate herself on the various topics that will surely shape the political landscape over the next year. The only thing that she really lacks is political experience but that can also be a good thing. We will just have to wait and see how she handles the additional pressure as she gains more of the spotlight.

While not my preferred candidate and having previously been hesitant to back him, I have always been a supporter of Marco Rubio. He delivered succinct well informed responses to the questions put on the table displaying a broad but deep knowledge both of foreign and domestic policy. In addition to the intelligence he has shown, I agree with many of his positions and respect his combination of tact and straightforwardness. He has also been willing to forge his own political path at times but never too far from the main road. These are the things that make this Senator, at least in my mind, the front runner for the presidency regardless of what might be reflected in the polling numbers.

Sadly, Rand Paul’s performance last night didn’t help his campaign. While he got a couple of good lines in he didn’t clearly convey the knowledge, passion, or eloquence that many of us know that he possesses. Barring a tremendous comeback (see Reagan in 1984) there seems to be a marginal chance that he will make it to the stretch run. I still support his campaign but I am also a realist. Besides, maybe he can be more effective as a cabinet member and run again in the future.

The other candidates didn’t really stand out, at least for any good reason, to me with many of their words falling into the category of generality throughout the debate. However, at least there were the performances of note, Fiorina and Rubio, and hard hits, Trump, which will hopefully realign the field in the coming weeks and months. It would also be nice to have a smaller field moving forward as having a crowded field is not helping anyone.  

Debates And Big Brother

Flipping through the channels on Thursday night I couldn’t help but watch the debates, backstabbing, manipulation, empty words, and downright stupidity that some people feel is the right thing to say to get them ahead in the game. It didn’t matter if I was watching Big Brother or the Republican primary debate, the same observation holds true. With that said, the roster of candidates would also make for quite the interesting season of Big Brother. While there are a few good people in each that have the right mindset and perception to make a positive difference, there are also the ones on the media stage that are just there for the few minutes of fame.

I don’t hide the fact that I am an ardent Republican but I can’t help but look at some of the unqualified, inexperienced, and downright liberal politicians on the stage and wonder what they have against this party that makes them want to handicap the process so badly. I had this perspective long before the debates began and I feel proven correct now that this first round has concluded. But what still baffles me is the support that is still on display even after the last question is posed.

Do you really think that Trump would do anything else besides declare bankruptcy as soon as he takes office? Do you really believe Christie is a conservative given his liberal track record? Can you really see a third Bush being anything but a disappointing shell of Republican? Does the brilliance of Carson translate to politics?

It is because of these questions that I can’t support any of those candidates. While not the most effective, the loudest, or even the most eloquent, I still stand with Rand. As I previously wrote, I would like to see a Paul/Rubio ticket and after this past week I feel that is still the right choice. Paul continues to supports the rights of the people, defending against the infringements of the government while Rubio brings the eloquence and personal experience to which many can relate. It is an interesting combination and one that is far more genuine than any of the others on stage.

It will be intriguing to see how this all plays out and how the remaining debates continue to shape the campaigns. I doubt that my opinions will change before the time the election comes around and I am just hoping that the right candidates make it to the final ballot. Of course, anyone is better than what is being offered from the other side of the aisle… even Donald Trump. And since they are already such supports of big brother, it would be interesting to see the liberals locked in that house.

Firearms Friday: The Virtues Of The 1911

No matter what range you go to, forum you visit, or magazine you read there is always the debate going back and forth between those who see the 1911 as the be all end all of firearms and those who are of the striker fired persuasion. This has been especially true with the new Army sidearm trials to replace the Beretta M9 (which replaced the 1911 in 1985 at the Army’s service pistol). There are those caught in the middle but there are always people that you can find on either side of the spectrum. It makes you wonder what John Browning would think of these exchanges.

Personally, I like to enjoy a variety of firearms so I was never one to participate in the back and forth. However, it was more due to my lack of experience with the platform. It was basically for the same reasons that you may have heard over and over… limited magazine capacity and a caliber that didn’t have a tremendous appeal to me. I have always been a proponent of accuracy over power.

Over the last couple of months I have come to appreciate the 1911 platform. I have become more familiar with the caliber (largely due to the recent drop in ammunition prices that have been seeing) and I have seen the prices of the firearms come down as well. While there is certainly a big difference between the entry level 1911’s (under $1000), mid-range ($1000-1500), and high end (well over $1500) there have been great deals from quality manufacturers. This was particularly true when Para Ordinance was offering a $100 rebate at the same time that my local shop, Tanner’s Sports Center, was running a special on all stainless steel expert models for just under $450. This is a firearm that is easily on the upper end of the entry level category with an MSRP north of $700.

Once I had gotten a handle on the manual of arms and really started enjoying the firearm itself I started looking at the other options out there. While I did have some familiarity with the market and I was aware that the 1911 is currently manufactured in a variety of calibers, I didn’t realize how much the capacity had increased on some models. I knew that the round count was higher but I wasn’t aware of the fact that it was 14+1 of .45ACP, 16+1 of .40S&W, or 18+1 of 9mm.

Weight and size have also been noted as downsides to the Browning design but even that is changing with barrel lengths ranging from 3-5 inches and frames being made from various materials other than steel including polymer, titanium, and aluminum. While still not light it is perfectly manageable for many who prefer carrying the classic. Weight and size shouldn’t be more of a factor beyond any consideration they are given with regard to any other type of firearm.

In the end, with my experience, many of the arguments against the 1911 have been made moot in recent years. There is a choice in caliber, capacity, and weight as well as a variety of manufacturers across the entire pricing spectrum offering a wide array of options to the shooter. It really has become a truly customizable firearm beyond the confines of the serious competitive shooting market. If you just want something for the range I highly recommend picking one up and if you are comfortable with carry cocked and locked there really isn’t a better concealed carry option available.

Continuing The Debate: Genealogy Roadshow Returns

A couple of months ago I posted a blog about the preferences that many of us have for Finding Your Roots or Who Do You Think You Are? This lead to a tremendous discussion on LinkedIn (in a few groups) about the pros and cons of each and, in many instances, what is missing from each show. Keep in in mind that all of those who participated in this back and forth have been researching their own family history and so many of the sticking points surrounded the lack of process demonstrated in each program.

Another prevalent point made was of the disconnect from those of us actually doing the work. Many of the participants in each of these shows are, for the most part, along for the ride without actually doing the work themselves. We all know the hours, days, weeks, years that this journey takes to make the kind of progress depicted in a 60 minute program. So the back and forth continued regarding these two current programs with a few references made to other shows that were no longer on the air.

One show that was brought up for both its positive qualities and because of the things that it lacks was Genealogy Roadshow. Many of us had seen the program when it was on but many others completely missed it and wondered what it was about. We didn’t discuss it much further than that because, at the time, it was not currently showing and none of us expected to see it return to PBS. Honestly, the conversation continued and I once again completely forgot about the short lived series until a few weeks ago when I got a press release in my email.

Simply put, Genealogy Roadshow is back! New episodes will be airing on PBS beginning on Tuesday, January 13 at 8:00pm ET. In the end, all genealogy shows are going to have faults but the important thing is that they are on the television and people are slowly becoming exposed to the importance of knowing who they are and where they come from. While I am sure there will be continued debate on this subject, for now I will simply leave you with the episode descriptions for each of the six episodes that will air this winter:

New Orleans – Cabildo (January 13^th) – A team of genealogists uncovers fascinating family stories at the famous Cabildo, home of the Louisiana State Museum. A couple whose ancestors hail from the same small Italian town explore the chance they may be related; a woman is desperate to find out who committed a gruesome murder in her ancestor’s past; a home held by one family for more than a century renders a fascinating story; and a woman discovers the difficult journey her ancestor took on the path to freedom from slavery.

St. Louis – Central Library (January 20^th) – At Saint Louis’ historic central library, a team of genealogists uncovers fascinating family stories from Missouri’s famous gateway city. A mystery writer discovers her mother has hidden a life-changing secret; a woman finds out if she is descended from the infamous pirate Blackbeard; a mother and daughter seek connections to a famous author; and a young man seeks connection to the Mali tribe in Africa.

Philadelphia – Franklin Institute (January 27^th) – At Philadelphia’s Franklin Institute, a team of genealogists uncovers fascinating family histories. A man learns that the event that drove his family to the City of Brotherly Love changed the course of history; a man may be a Viking descendant; another’s family could have part of one of history’s biggest scams; a young man hopes to confirm his relation to a signer of the Declaration of Independence; and two sisters learn their ancestors were part of the great Irish migration.

New Orleans – Board of Trade (February 3^rd) – A team of genealogists uncovers fascinating family stories at the New Orleans Board of Trade. A local man seeks to recover essential history washed away in Hurricane Katrina; a woman discovers she has links to both sides of the Civil War; another unravels the mystery behind her grandfather’s adoption; and one man explores a link to the famous New Orleans Voodoo Queen, Marie Laveau.

St. Louis – Union Station (February 10^th) – At St. Louis’ historic Union Station, a team of genealogists uncovers fascinating family stories from Missouri. A musician hopes to find connections to a famous St. Louis jazz composer; two sisters explore links to a survivor of the legendary Donner party; an Italian-American woman finds out if she is related to Italian royalty; and a schoolteacher who has all the answers for her students has very few about her own past.

Philadelphia – Historical Society of Pennsylvania (February 17^th) – A team of genealogists uncovers fascinating family histories at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. One woman’s ancestor may have sparked historic labor laws; a pastor may have an outlaw in her family tree; a woman learns about slave genealogy and, with the help of DNA testing, gets the answer she has waited for; and another woman learns her ancestor may have helped others escape the Holocaust.

Unhealthy Political Practices

Obamacare has a new poster child... Jonathan Gruber!

It seemed appropriate to follow up my post yesterday with this one. One of the big national stories that finally made its way around the media was the comments made by one of the “Obamacare architects” regarding the construction and passage of this useless piece of legislation. Note that the ‘main stream media’ was much later in picking this up than the “conservative” outlets.

On numerous occasions, Jonathan Gruber has spoken at great length to the deception that was built into the ‘Affordable’ Care Act. He also specifically noted that much of the strategy that was required to gain support for the bill required the left to leverage the stupidity of the American people. As was reported in Politico: “In the three videos that surfaced in the last few days, Gruber says parts of the law, including its insurance subsidies and so-called Cadillac tax on expensive plans, wouldn’t have passed back in 2009-10 if voters weren’t “stupid.””

While few have denied that Gruber was an economic consultant on the bill, there has been frequent and repeated efforts to backpedal and characterize Gruber as someone with limited influence on the legislation. However, this ignores the gross misconduct at hand. While we don’t know how much influence he had on the polishing of the turd, he was at the very least in the room and was privy to the construction thereof. He knew of the shell game that was being perpetuated and this is where his comments come into play.

Equally disturbing are the outright lies that have been told to the media this week specifically those from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who is quoted as saying “I don’t know who he is… He didn’t help write our bill.” She made this adamant statement despite the fact that she has referred to his work in the past. Of course, what do you expect from someone whose infamous pitch when pushing the bill was “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

In addition to the lies, misrepresentations, and insults that have surfaced lately (although many of us knew that they were there all along) we now find ourselves at a point in time when healthcare premiums have gone through the roof, few new people have been insured, and financial limits have been placed on hourly workers who cannot go over 30 hours per week. We are getting taxes taken out of each paycheck to cover the program, we are required to take on benefits in our plans that we don’t want or need, and the total cost of the legislative cluster is far beyond any of the projections used to pass the law. Now I am ready to say to all those who questioned my opposition to this bill, I told you so!

Open Carry Debate: Your Message Is Lost When People Stop Listening

Last week there was a rather raucous debate regarding open carry laws in Texas. Rallies organized by Open Carry Texas have been held on numerous occasions to amend a state law that only allows for the open carry of shotguns and rifles but bars the open carrying of handguns without a concealed handgun license. Currently, Texas is only one of 10 states that specifically blocks the open carry of handguns, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Last week, participants took things a step further and rather than keeping to one area, they entered local businesses with long guns handing from their shoulders and laying across their backs.

This week, the debate continued with the NRA leaning in on the discussion initiated by local carry advocate groups. It’s not the rallies or the advocacy for change that the NRA opposes, it is the recent change in the methods that these people have deployed by going in to public places and private businesses to ‘make their point.’ While the people and the protest are nonviolent, it still crossed a line that has resulted in rather significant backlash. The comments made by the NRA have caused quite a stir among those ardent open carry supporters which didn’t take kindly to the following statement (as part of a larger piece) published on the NRA website on Friday:

The second example comes to us from the Lone Star State, which is second to none for its robust gun culture.  We applaud Texans for that, but a small number have recently crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness.

Now we love AR-15s and AKs as much as anybody, and we know that these sorts of semiautomatic carbines are among the most popular, fastest selling firearms in America today.  Texas, independent-minded and liberty-loving place that it is, doesn't ban the carrying of loaded long guns in public, nor does it require a permit for this activity.  Yet some so-called firearm advocates seem determined to change this.

Recently, demonstrators have been showing up in various public places, including coffee shops and fast food restaurants, openly toting a variety of tactical long guns. Unlicensed open carry of handguns is legal in about half the U.S. states, and it is relatively common and uncontroversial in some places. 

Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms. 

Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it's downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one's cause, it can be downright scary.  It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.

As a result of these hijinx, two popular fast food outlets have recently requested patrons to keep guns off the premises (more information can be found here and here).  In other words, the freedom and goodwill these businesses had previously extended to gun owners has been curtailed because of the actions of an attention-hungry few who thought only of themselves and not of those who might be affected by their behavior. To state the obvious, that's counterproductive for the gun owning community.

More to the point, it's just not neighborly, which is out of character for the big-hearted residents of Texas. Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners.  That's not the Texas way.  And that's certainly not the NRA way.

In summary, NRA certainly does not support bans on personalized guns or on carrying firearms in public, including in restaurants.  We think people are intelligent enough to resolve these issues in a reasonable way for themselves. But when people act without thinking, or without consideration for others – especially when it comes to firearms – they set the stage for further restrictions on our rights. Firearm owners face enough challenges these days; we don't need to be victims of friendly fire.

Some people within the firearms community may not agree with this statement. However, I am not one of those people. I firmly stand behind these words and encourage common sense to return to the open carry and overall Second Amendment debate. While I believe that the legal ownership of firearms should not be limited and that most local, state, and federal laws should be repealed, we also need to respect those around us and stray away from such boisterous statements as those recently seen in Texas.

Yes, it is there right to legally carry in such a manner but that doesn’t make it a good idea. While this is a form of peaceful protest, we still live in a culture of fear which must be taken into account when making such a statement. People are uneducated with regard to firearms and, therefore, they are afraid of them. This lack of understanding is not going to be addresses when those same people are griped by their fears and are offended by these kinds of displays. Just like the heinous acts by individuals that have been promoted in the media has swayed views to one side, such aggressive means of protest will have the same effect.

This is not to say that I am against open carry rallies. When similar firearms are on display in one location, I agree that those are a great way to make your voice heard. It allows us to show our support for our rights but also does it in a specific area that people with any trepidation can avoid. I also support those who chose to openly carry a handgun. I don’t necessarily think that it is the best idea and believe you are asking for more trouble than its worth but I support the right and those who decide to carry in such a way. I much prefer concealed carry which is the generally preferred personal carry option for more people than you think.   

Some of you may not be familiar with some aspects of this debate and some of the differences that exist between states so I will take a moment to relay some information regarding Pennsylvania law as it pertains to open carry and concealed carry, the foundation of which can be found in Article I, Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which states the following:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

Essentially, the carry laws in Pennsylvania can be boiled down to the following summaries from the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association website:

Concealed Carry:

Pennsylvania, like most states requires people to have permit to carry a concealed firearm as regulated by the following statute:

18Pa.C.S. § 6106: Firearms not to be carried without a license

·         (a) Offense defined.--Any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.  

This license can be in the form of Pennsylvania's "License To Carry Firearms" (LTCF) or a permit issued by another state that Pennsylvania recognizes as valid through a reciprocity agreement.

Open Carry:

While Pennsylvania has a specific law that requires a License To Carry Firearms for the concealed carry of a firearm, and the carry of firearms in vehicles, the law is silent on the legality of openly carrying a firearm in other situations, making it de-facto legal.

There is however a law that requires a License To Carry Firearms to carry either way in "cities of the first class", which as defined by law is only the city of Philadelphia.

18Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia

·         No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:

o    (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or

o    (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

To summarize, open carry is legal in Pennsylvania without a License To Carry Firearms except in "cities of the first class" (Philadelphia) and vehicles where a License To Carry Firearms is required to do so.

With that said, we would like to point out that there is much debate among firearm owners about whether openly carrying firearms is really a good idea. While we will leave that choice to the individual we will state that in many urban areas (namely Philadelphia) doing so will draw unwanted attention from law enforcement that may include (but not be limited to) the following repercussions:

 

1.      Being stopped and questioned by law enforcement.

2.      Having your License To Carry Firearms seized and sent back for revocation.

3.      Being arrested either improperly or for other charges like disturbing the peace or creating a public nuisance.

While this may not happen should you choose to carry openly, many urban law enforcement officers we have talked to have expressed a very negative opinion towards the idea. Some have suggested that law enforcement will do everything in their power to make your life difficult should you choose to.

As a “shall issue” state, Pennsylvania is rather unique with regard to the northeast region of the country and, so far, has kept the laws of the Commonwealth in line with both the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the United States Constitution. Firearms owners, should not be tempting public ire unnecessarily and should take the responsible step of getting their concealed carry permit. Even those who currently chose not to carry on their person, it is something that should be obtained. So while the debate will surely continue in states across this nation, we should be cognizant of both our message AND the audience to which we are speaking. If our actions prevent people from listening then our message will be lost. Keep fighting for your rights just make sure that you do so in a manner that promotes education and understanding.

Don’t Assume The Translation Lost In The Debate

Recently a bill in Arizona was vetoed by the Governor, Jan Brewer. That bill, which would have made it legal for businesses to refuse service to same sex couples for religious reasons, grabbed national headlines and was a topic that was heavily debated. In this instance, the Governor was right to quash this bill in the state legislature.

However, as I have written about in previous posts, I would have like to have seen people look at all angles. Not in such a way as to change their views but as a means to try and see all of the ramifications in the passing of such a law but also how it was able to get so far in the process that it was up to one woman to take a stand and kill the bill. The above cartoon, while admittedly stretching the purview, is one of those things that does make you think about the aspects surrounding such a topic. While many would agree with the individual right to refuse service, however, that act is against the law as it would be discriminating against those whose views, while vile and hate filled, are protected.

It really does make you think about the rights of the individual business owner. So, with this topic in mind, I began looking through the law against discrimination on legalzoom.com. True, this is not the most detailed source but it did provide an interesting high altitude overview. The site summarizes the subject matter in the following way:

“Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.”

The angle that was applied in the Arizona bill sought to invoke the ideal of religious freedom. However, that really is a difficult argument to make. Basically, they were trying to assume protection not granted by the first amendment. The portion of the first amendment to which they attempted to leverage states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The amendment prohibits the establishment of laws limiting religion. In fact, many can apply this law against the proposed legislation as the passage of such a bill would, in essence, legally support the imposition of religious beliefs on others. It is an interesting aspect to think about.

What is going to be a more interesting debate is the one that has yet to come to the forefront in Illinois. In summary, the bill states that “no religious organization, including a school, is required to provide religious facilities for a marriage solemnization ceremony or celebration associated with [that ceremony if it] is in violation of its religious beliefs.” This is where there very well could be a much stronger constitutional agreement as it could be stated that the enforcement of laws supporting same sex marriage could be interpreted as violating the first amendment in this instance. It will be interesting if the state would be willing to give a definitive answer in this particular debate.

That dichotomy between the government and religious institutions is an interesting one. While the specific applications within religious institutions is one that has become highly partisan when it comes to the Arizona bill, as was reported in the New York Times, this debate is not one of partisanship. This is a subject that addresses individual views beyond the scope of party lines. It may be a fine line between what is of political and personal view but there are definitely topics of public policy that just go too far such as the aforementioned bill. The New York Times piece summed up that political line of demarcation in the following paragraphs:  

Frank Keating, a former governor of Oklahoma, said that while he opposed same-sex marriage, issues of public accommodation had long ago been settled. He said that he, too, would have vetoed a bill like the Arizona one.

“This isn’t 1964 anymore,” he said. “We’ve moved beyond that. If you open up your doors to the general public, you can’t pick and choose who you are going to deal with.”

Basically, the whole point of this post is simple. We all react one way or another to many different topics, especially one such as the bill that is being discussed above. Unfortunately, with this reaction many people make assumptions and start to generalize different groups of people. We are not all the same. There may have similarities from one person or group to another but there are limits to generalizations when the individual is responsible for their decisions, their views, and their motivations.

We have lost our desire, our drive to understand both subjects and people. Life is not that simple and even when a subject seems clear cut we need to make a better effort to try and look at all sides (many, many, many more sides and aspects then that which is discussed above). Sometimes learning about a subject is not about arguing for or against, it is about trying to see the whole gray picture that gives life its color.

Politics 101: The Doody Head Assertion

Sometimes it’s not work which tires you out is all the stuff that surrounds the working hours. Even a family dinner out can be a bit draining. However, many times it is the things at the end of the day that can turn things around. That same family dinner can have that impact on others.

However, the one thing that can provide the greatest mood swing in your day is the voice booming through the speakers of your car as you listen to the news, talk radio, or some random “music” station. Sometimes all it takes is one piece of news, one detour, one commentary, one horrendous song that can turn a really good day into one that can’t end soon enough.

Maybe I am putting too much thought into this or maybe I am too easily riled. Of course, I could be increasingly temperamental due to the idiots around me that can drive worth a darn, don’t know how to merge, and think a blinker is optional. I blame them.

Listening to talk radio for much of my ride home at night it is astounding the people that call into these programs that are just blind followers without a single neuron working toward the goal of original thought. And I say this as something that applies to both sides of the aisle because on too many occasions the basis of some of these arguments comes down to the fact that they think a certain politician (or a group of politicians) is a doody head.  

Idiocracy reigns and all the people live in blissful ignorance. It seems as though we are living in a H.G. Wells novella waiting to be summoned to the dark recesses of the earth and sacrificed “for the greater good”. While the goal is to do whatever they can to save a single life keep in mind that they didn’t mean you. We are responsible for ourselves not everyone around us. While we are, in many respects, our brother’s keeper we are not going to let our brother be responsible for our death.

See, the above may sound good and I may say something in the same manner on occasion but there really isn’t any substance to what was just said. The above boils down to the fact that I don’t like whomever I am speaking about and frankly I think they are a bunch of doody heads. Much of the public debate is not red or blue; it’s a deep shade of brown.