Firearms Friday: Executive Orders

This past week was an interesting one to say the least as the President postured in front of the media looking to continue to falsehoods of a decades old failed policy. In a press conference filled with a flood of forced tears, the President announced a series of executive actions regarding gun control. And that last word is key to this whole equation as the posturing and proclamations are all about control which was again driven home by the “Guns in America” town hall that was held last night two days after his speech.

While the discussion that night was more evenly distributed between those on both sides of the issue… the highlight for many was the statements made and questions asked by Taya Kyle, widow of Chris Kyle, who, in part, said, “The laws that we create don't stop these horrific things from happening. That is a very tough pill to swallow," This was in addition to her additional statements stating that criminals would not be stopped from getting guns even if background checks were expanded. 

However, the moment when she truly shined, far brighter than the president, was when she posted her response to the town hall event the following day on CNN. The paragraphs that stood out to me are as follows:

Cars are tools that is involved in about as many deaths as guns. If you are a driver prone to drinking and driving, should we only allow you to drive an ultracompact car? Not an SUV which could kill more people? No, we take away the drunk driver's access to legally drive any car. This is about freedom to do as you like until you prove incapable of showing good moral judgment.

In this country, we give freedom and take it away once you prove to be unworthy of the freedom we have given you. Nobody suggests taking away cars or going through a battery of tests to determine whether or not you might be a drunk driver one day.

My congressman, Representative Joe Pitts, also made his thoughts known at the end of the week following the President’s statements and actions. A portion of his weekly email newsletter read as follows:

On Tuesday, President Obama announced a series of executive actions he would take, as well as proposals for Congress to consider, on the regulation of gun ownership. The President is proposing to spend more money on mental health, though he has not said where that money will come from. From now on, the background check system will be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, rather than normal business hours. Doctors will be allowed to tell law enforcement about mentally ill individuals, but only until they have completed treatment.

The largest change will be expanding the scope of federal background check requirements. Federal law requires a federal firearms license for firearms dealers.  Under the President’s new rule, you would need a license and must conduct background checks if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit, even if that’s not your livelihood.

I am a strong supporter of background checks, and I have voted that way. Two years ago, I voted to increase funding for the background check system by 20 million dollars. But I have also sworn an oath to support the Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment. It is also important to note that these actions would not have actually stopped any of the most horrific mass shootings that have occurred in recent years.

The last paragraph is or particular note in this who smoke show by the White House. Funds to improve background checks in general and the NICS system in particular have been voted upon and passed many times over in Congress. This is a non-issue. The focus should actually be on two parts of the actions that the President would like to take… patient confidentiality should not be something that is breached. While I can see the need to know those who are mentally unstable this should also be seen in the same way that it is in the legal system… sane until proven otherwise.

However, here is the most troubling aspect of the announcements made on Tuesday night… restricting gun sales and requiring a FFL for those who sell firearms for a profit. In the end, the FFL requirement through the ATF can potentially be used as a means to restrict sales well beyond the broad brushstrokes that the president likes to paint. There is nothing happy about these trees:

Thanks to a carefully drafted statute enacted in 1986, the president had relatively little room to maneuver in this regard. Those reforms were part of the NRA-supported Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. They were enacted specifically in response to abusive practices by the ATF, which included treating occasional sales of personal firearms as unlicensed “dealing” or seizing private firearm collections, on the pretext that they were the “inventory” of illegal “dealers.” 

At the end of the day, the administration’s big move on background checks was, instead, a 15-page brochure or “guidance” which explains the relevant federal statutes and regulations concerning firearms dealing and summarizing its view of the controlling case law.  Even though the president cannot unilaterally expand the law, he can still instill fear in gun owners and intimidate them into believing that private transfers are now illegal.  ATF can take his directive push the envelope with marginal cases that would be ignored in a less agenda-driven administration. They may well be looking to “make an example” of somebody, especially in the realm of sales advertised online. 

Obviously, chilling otherwise lawful firearms transfers could be just as effective as restricting such activity with passage of a new law or regulation.  There can be little doubt the president knows this and why he and administration officials have repeatedly said, “even 1 or 2 sales” can make one a dealer.

Based on evidence from past practices, the administration will likely try to have it both ways – revoke licenses for “dealers” who don’t sell a “sufficient” number of firearms, but prosecute those who sell a small number of firearms without a license.  In the 1980’s for example, there was evidence of ATF revoking the FFL of a person because he only sold three guns during the year, while simultaneously prosecuting another person for selling three guns that year without a license. And during the Clinton administration, after ATF had forced low-volume private sellers to become FFLs, the agency then aggressively reduced the number of FFLs for lack of business activity. 

There is a lot of posturing by the President as he concludes his second term in office. It is almost as if he really doesn’t care about the facts or what is right, he just wants to feel the warmth of the spotlight for as long as possible and try to grab as much power and control as he can before heading out the door. Sadly, the events this week are only the beginning to a very long year… hopefully we can get things back on track by the time November comes around.

Firearms Friday: PEW Research Shows Increased Support Of Gun Rights

While it may not occur every week, I am starting a series of posts called “Firearms Friday”. This is where I will do my best to keep all of the firearms related posts (unless there is a more pressing topic that week). This is when I will discuss different topics in the industry, review products, and share any other information that may be of interest. I will also be seeking guest posts for this series so if you are interested in writing on a topic or contributing a review please email me at timetokeepitsimple@gmail.com!

It has been an interesting week in firearms news especially with regard to public perception and support of the right to own firearms. While there have been many instances when I have be, let us say, displeased with the results of PEW Research surveys, it looks as though they are finally tracking a trend that many of us have seen progressing over the past few years. Overall, the survey concluded that “52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.” Again, many of us have seen and experienced this over the last few years despite the reports that keep flooding the news.

However, the results become much more interesting when you really delve into the numbers. Let us first look at the concept of guns as a means of protection:

“The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Dec. 3-7 among 1,507 adults, also finds a shift in attitudes about whether gun ownership in this country does more to protect people or put people’s safety at risk. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say gun ownership does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime, while 38% say it does more to endanger personal safety. In the days after Newtown, 48% said guns do more to protect people and 37% said they placed people at risk.”

Looking even deeper into the figures there is nearly an across the board rise in support for gun rights over the past two years with the only outliers being those who consider themselves to be liberal democrats.

Even more recently, the support has increased over the past year regardless of age, gender, political affiliation, and level of education with only a couple of exceptions where we see a minor decrease.

The important aspect that one must look at in this poll is that this is increased support for the individual right to own firearms. People, regardless of the background of the individual, seem to be coming around the realization that there is a limit to what you want the government to control. It is a constant struggle, especially with regard to the topic of firearms ownership, to maintain that right. However, people are beginning to see how misguided and downright combative the antigun groups really are and the nanny state mentality that they all promote. Many people may not be gun owners, but they understand that the right isn’t reliant upon them personally exercising it. Who knows, maybe they will become a responsible gun owner in the future… if they support the right now they will still have that freedom in the future.

And You Thought Wal-Mart Was Crowded!

There were a lot of 4473's filled out on Friday
which means we will soon be accused of killing trees. 

Black Friday Facebook posts seemed to be the norm this past week especially for the local shops in the area that don’t put the money into fancy commercials or newspaper inserts. This was especially true for the small shops around the region. Even the local gun shops took to Facebook to promote the discounts that they were offering this weekend (Tanner’s Sports Center is a perfect example of this). And, as it turns out, my local mom and pop shops were not the only ones cutting prices.

While I kept reading about the lines at various retailers across the country, it didn’t quite click that the same thing would be happening at the local gun shops and big chain stores. Just like last year, I didn’t have the need to go wait in those lines and none of those stores are along my usual commute so I was fairly oblivious to the rampant sales that were happening across the nation. Those thoughts were soon chipped away when I started reading through some of the comments left on the Facebook sale posts.

These demonstrated that there was a higher than normal pace to the sales but the volume was still something that I didn’t fully grasp until additional posts were made by a few of these stores. As it turns out, the PICS system was completely overloaded (no back door gun control theories here just the pointing out of a crappy antiquated system). Something that I cannot remember happening for some time and not this bad since the first few months of 2013. That is when I really began to wonder how many firearms were being sold on Black (Rifle) Friday.

And then I came across a CNN article (via The Blaze) that summarized the mass buying that was taking place across the country and why the system was unable to handle the load. Here is a little bit from the article:

The busiest shopping day of the year also saw a major boom for gun sales, with the federal background check system setting a record of more than 175,000 background checks Friday, according to the FBI.

The staggering number of checks -- an average of almost three per second, nearly three times the daily average -- falls on the shoulders of 600 FBI and contract call center employees who will endure 17-hour workdays in an attempt to complete the background reviews in three business days, as required by law, FBI spokesman Stephen Fischer said.

"Traditionally, Black Friday is one of our busiest days for transaction volume," Fischer said.

Indeed, Friday saw the highest number of background checks ever for a Black Friday, and second in history. The highest day on record was December 21, 2012, with more than 177,000 background checks.

Without any major controversies or political maneuvering currently being considered, it really came down to price this year. While there may not have been great Black Friday deals to be had overall, it seems as though the firearms industry is doing well and the real deals were in the gun shops. Like it or not, firearms are part of our culture and the ownership thereof is our right. Thankfully, there are many people out there who choose to exercise that right and Black Friday was there opportunity to embrace that right… and at a discount.

Bringing Equality To The Courtroom

Pennsylvania House of Representatives

I have been keeping an eye on the state legislature for the past couple of weeks in the hope that actions would be taken to uphold previously passed legislation designed to curb the plethora of firearms regulations that are constantly being debated across the state under the public and media radar. While firearms preemption has long since been enacted, these state measures have largely been ignored by those who refuse to understand firearms and insist on restricting our rights. This week the Pennsylvania legislature took a step forward by providing additional means for citizens of the commonwealth to protect their second amendment rights. You can imagine my relief when I received the following email from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action:

After four years of effort, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives finally passed critical firearms preemption legislation. Yesterday, the state House voted to concur on the Senate amendments to House Bill 80 by an overwhelming 138 to 56 vote. HB 80, when signed into law, will strengthen the state firearms preemption statute to further ensure that firearm and ammunition laws are consistent throughout Pennsylvania.

State firearms preemption was originally enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature to avoid the possibility of 2,639 separate firearm laws across the Commonwealth. However, over recent years, more than fifty localities have enacted gun control ordinances in violation of the current state firearms preemption law, creating a myriad of local gun laws that make compliance difficult for responsible gun owners. HB 80 will provide a way for responsible gun owners to hold these municipalities responsible for infringing on our Second Amendment rights.

Contrary to reports from the Philadelphia Inquirer and statement made by other politicians, this is NOT a means of weakening the laws that we all agree must be enforced against straw purchasers. That is NOT what this legislation is designed to do and this is not how it should be applied. We all agree that those who break the law should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Additionally, the vast majority of firearms owners support stiffer penalties for those who are found guilty of breaking those laws especially those found guilty of illegally purchasing firearms.

The problem lies in that those who support “common sense firearms legislation” don’t have any common sense when it comes to firearms or the second amendment. Law abiding gun owners are constantly going out of their way to accommodate state, local, and federal laws no matter how absurd they really are but this is not enough for the Bloomberg devotees. There are already enough laws on the books that we abide by, many of which we disagree with but follow, and we should not face further regulation and restrictions of our rights.

So, ignoring the liberal hype and media mongers, what is the real purpose of this legislation? Essentially, the law allows citizens of the commonwealth to bring suit against local and state agencies with the assistance of national organizations such as the NRA, 2^nd Amendment Foundation, National Association for Gun Rights, etc. Laws and regulations are ever changing in the commonwealth thanks to the actions of irrational hoplophobes and this strengthening legislation is a means to even the legal playing field as many of us do not have the means to defend our rights in the courtroom. After all, we are only looking for equality, the ability to exercise our rights without fear of the repercussions and a means of support if we are refused those rights and we are forced to fight for them. Of course, there is also this little piece of legislation in Pennsylvania law 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.”

Politics Coloring Perception

In case you are wondering, this little 'rainbow gun' is the Sig Sauer P238.

This past weekend my wife and I were able to spend some time with her sister and her wife. It was actually the first time that I had ever spent time with the two of them and, not surprisingly, we had a few moments of sharing thoughts. While many will see the two completely different lifestyles and the polar party affiliations there weren’t any times of severe disagreement. While this may be surprising to some it really shouldn’t be if you take into consideration the fact that we are all human with different perspectives but the same desires.

In fact, there was one moment in particular which seemed to make the two of them step back for a second. My sister-in-law made a comment which was something to the effect of ‘we would more back but we would have to worry about being accepted as a married couple.’ Of course, I am paraphrasing but the general sentiment is pretty clear.

What had the two of them a bit speechless was when I told them that, frankly, I could care less. I am not going to tell you what you can or can’t do, who you can marry, etc. At the same time, don’t tell me what I can and can’t do. As has been a common phrase that I have read and heard over and over (I am certain that many of you are reading this for the first time)… you don’t want me in your bedroom and I don’t want you in my gun room. It is that simple. My political beliefs are anchored in personal freedom, responsibility, self-reliance, and independence. Who am I to tell you who you can be with, who you can love?

It shouldn’t be a surprise that the vast majority of people I know with the same affiliation with the Republican Party feel the same way. In fact, I personally know more Democrats opposed to such unions. With that said, we are not going to lobby for your ability to marry but we will not stand in your way either. It is this fact that may have made them think the most (of course, I am basing this on observation as they did not disclose their thought process to me).

However, this whole situation just goes to show that too many of us fail to communicate. We make assumptions of each other based on politics without ever discussing the issues. Because of this, we lose sight of the things that we have in common and interests that we share (firearms in this particular instance). Of course, there will be differences but when you think about it as individuals we have differences with everyone it is just a matter of degrees. Most things that really get people going, that are the basis of personal passion, don’t fall along political lines. Those differences lie within the individual.

Do You Really Want Me As A Juror?

 
Today is the date that I was told to report and like any other day during the work week I woke up early, grabbed my stuff and got in the car. Last month I went to pick up the mail and as I flipped through the envelopes one stood out to me. Crap! I got called for jury duty. While many might try to feed you the lines of ‘serving the community’ or ‘supporting the legal system’ I firmly believe that it is a complete waste of time and I shouldn’t be required to burn one of my vacation days to simply fill a seat. Plus I have to drive to Norristown and supposedly park in a temporary lot while the juror parking garage is under construction. This is sounding like it is going to be so much fun!

 

Hopefully some of my displeasure came across in my answers to the questionnaire that I filled out last week (they should pay me for the time it took to fill out that list of crap). And that was even after I waited and had accepted my fate before filling it out. The interesting thing about most of the questions that they ask is that if you think about them long enough you can honestly answer them yes or no. Here are just a couple of the yes or no questions that can be found on the form:

 

Do you have any religious, moral, or ethical beliefs that might prevent you from serving as a juror?

 

When you first read it you think that as a moral, ethical, and grounded person you should check yes but if you put some thought into your response, as I did, I had no choice but to honestly answer no. As a proud Jew (Israeli actually), if someone were to go on trial who is proven to have any kind of tenuous affiliation with a terrorist organization (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) or white supremacist group, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the crime, I would immediately assume them to be guilty. Right or wrong that is honestly how I would react. Plus I have a huge gripe with the extreme liberals and hippies in this country so the same type of scenario could play out that way too. Don’t be offended regular non hippie liberals that is not directed at all of you.

 

In general, would you have any problem following and applying the judge’s instruction on the law?

 

Well… in general, using the Supreme Court as a means of measurement, I am certain that I would completely disagree with a judge’s instruction on the law about half the time in a number of different kinds of cases. If this were specified as a means of applying the letter of the law to a case I would say no. However, this is specifying the generality of the situation so that I have no other option than to respond with yes. While I am obviously by no means a legal scholar, I have my views and there are numerous laws that I disagree with which could, albeit not guaranteed, influence my ability to serve and follow said instruction. Therefore, in general, I might take issue with certain instructions. Also see the previous question and response because there is the potential that one of the instructions could be to ignore such affiliations that are not pertinent to the case at hand.

 

While it could have been simply a lack of cases there is a good possibility that my honesty on the questionnaire is why I was not required to report. Instead, I got to go to work and earn the money that gets taxed to hell so that we can have these overburdened and sometimes broken systems in place. But at least I didn’t have to burn a vacation day!

 

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.

‘Unbiased’ Coverage Of The Safe Carry Protection Act

This past week there was a huge decision made in Georgia that didn’t ripple across the national news… it swept across all media channels like a tsunami. When the southern state came to the realization that more common sense needed to be injected into the national firearms debate, there wasn’t a single silent voice on the subject. However, there was a clear difference in how the new law was reported in a variety of ‘unbiased’ media sources. While it may not be as clear to some, it is rather obvious when you take a second look at the language that is used.

Time Magazine can be balanced on a rare occasion and this was definitely not one of those instances as the first word in the article colored the remaining prose. Here is the title and tag line for the story:

Georgia Passes Sweeping Expansion of Gun Carry Laws

Radical new gun legislation signed into law on Wednesday allows licensed owners to carry guns in more public locations than ever before, as places like churches can opt in to permit the weapons and bars can opt out if they want them banned

The Washington Post offered a little more balance to what is written as they accurate described the expansion of the rights afforded to law abiding citizens:

Law expands rights on carrying guns

Gov. Nathan Deal (R) signed a broad expansion of gun-carry rights into law Wednesday, allowing legal gun owners to take weapons into bars, churches and government buildings under certain conditions.

The measure, which will take effect July 1, also permits hunters to use silencers and authorizes schools to allow staff members to carry weapons on campus.

What you don’t see in this second example is the photo that was selected and prominently displayed at the top of the page before a single word is read. The caption to the photo of a grieving family standing over a casket reads, “Judith Skinner, mother of Indianapolis police officer Kim Carmack, and Dustin Carmack, son of Kim Carmack, take one last look at the casket after the burial services at Crown Hill Cemetery in Indianapolis on Wednesday. Carmack was slain by her ex-husband and fellow officer who then killed himself.” The story itself was a great piece of reporting but during the process that took place between the writing of the article by and the posting of the story was skewed by someone who clearly disagrees with the new law.

The law (House Bill 60 or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014), supported by politicians from both sides of the isle in the Georgia legislature (including President Jimmy Carter’s grandson) “specifies where Georgia residents can carry weapons. Included are provisions that allow residents who have concealed carry permits to take guns into some bars, churches, school zones, government buildings and certain parts of airports.” Essentially, those with carry permits (having no criminal background and are familiar with and accept the responsibility of carrying a firearm) will have greater freedom to carry in a variety of previously restricted places.

Is it a perfect bill? No, there are a few flaws in my view namely with the inability of law enforcement to question those carrying. However, if you are driving a car down the road a police officer needs just cause to pull you over and ask you for your license so, in that regard, I understand and accept this aspect. Honestly, I would rather lean on the side of individual rights and freedoms rather than control and fear mongering that seem to be so prevalent in the vocal views of the minority.

What do you expect from a group of people who have their priorities confused? While they teach children to fear firearms they teach them to respect and even revere an overbearing government. It should be the exact opposite… teach the next generation to respect firearms, treat them responsibility, and revere life. Fear those who strip you of your rights and freedom. Maybe if this fundamental formula was embraced by all we wouldn’t be having this debate and objects wouldn’t be feared because of the actions of criminals, law abiding people wouldn’t be punished for the monstrous acts of the insane. Maybe people should be our focus and the next generation should be our passion.

Thank You Huffington Post For Bastardizing The Word ‘Safety’

I came across an article today that really got me thinking about word selection. If you think about it, even the use of a term or sometimes a word in a title can frame the entire subject matter of the story. There are also the rare occurrences when the use of punctuation can achieve the same end but in this instance it is all about the words. Thanks to Matt over at The Bang Switch for bringing the following piece of fine media bias to my attention.

Usually when my eyes scan by an article from the Huffington Post, an Eloi favorite, I just keep moving and focus my attention on actual news. However, the title of this article happened to stop my glance. When I read “Man Accidentally Kills Self With Gun During Demonstration On Gun Safety” I was honestly a bit perplexed. If he was following the Four Rules of Gun Safety as created by Colonel Jeff Cooper this would be an impossibility. So, really, how could he possibly kill himself if he was honestly trying to demonstrate gun safety? The answer, you can’t kill yourself if you are following the simple rules outlined above.

So, what the heck is this ‘reporter’ talking about? Well, here is what the article said:

The 36-year-old, whose name has not been released, was showing his girlfriend how his three handguns are safe when they aren’t loaded, according to the Detroit Free Press. He was attempting to demonstrate the safety of the handguns by holding them to his head and pulling the trigger.

The third gun fired, and the man was struck in the head. He was pronounced dead at the scene.  

Three children ages 7, 10, and 12 were in the home but did not witness the shooting, according to reports.  The man’s girlfriend told authorities he had been drinking most of the day before the incident took place. 

This isn’t the first time a gun safety demonstration has gone wrong. In January 2013, 18-year-old Florida resident Alexander Xavier Shaw died doing a similar demonstration. Richard M. McLean, a 22-year-old from Michigan, died in a similar fashion in June 2012. Missouri resident James Looney, 40, was also teaching his girlfriend about gun safety when he shot himself in the head in September 2009.

Notice something? That’s right, this really wasn’t a demonstration on gun safety. This was an act of stupidity by someone who was not following the rules that any responsible gun owner follows. We have rules for a reason. Unfortunately, as was unnecessarily cited, similar acts have taken place in the recent past. None of them were demonstrations of ‘gun safety’ as the article would like the reader to believe. Put it this way, this incident is on par with the movie The Deer Hunter when it comes to demonstrating gun safety.

The sad part, beyond the confines of the story itself, is that this article has a purpose unrelated to the acts described. This is a piece motivated by politics and the Eloi agenda. Thankfully he wasn’t doing a demonstration on wood shop safety or we would have to consider legislation to outlaw or, at the very least, heavily regulate the sale and use of power tools. Think about how ridiculous that headline would sound, “Man Accidentally Kills Self With Power Tool During Demonstration On Shop Safety”.

You know you will never read that headline even though I am certain that it has happened before because power tools don’t look scary (unless you paint them black and put on a collapsible stock). But here we are debating a Constitutionally protected right because people are scared by the way something looks, they don’t understand how it works, and they refuse to place the blame on people for their actions. Remember, the gun didn’t load itself, it didn’t jump on the table and point at the guy, and the gun didn’t pull the trigger. This was a tragedy caused by man NOT a collection of polymer and steel.

The Truth Behind The Sarcasm

We are all familiar with sarcasm and most of us understand how to use it. However, there are some people that when faced with certain circumstances that demonstrate true mastery of this form of speech. Recently, I came across an article and video of one such master.

In light of recent gun control legislation being considered in a local resident of Ashland, Oregon who identified himself as ‘Johnny Bolton’ attended stated meeting of the Ashland City Council’s on February 4^th. In the beginning, it wasn’t entirely clear what the resident’s objectives were in his statement to the council but soon it was quite obvious what his true intentions were in introducing a new public safety concern group: Citizens for a Really Safe Ashland.

The presentation was made in response to proposed legislation concocted by the local organization Citizens for a Safe Ashland which would further infringe upon the rights of gun owners. It went on to answer the simple question which has been previously addressed in this blog: Why stop there when there are so many other things we can regulate to ensure public safety? He starts his speech in the following manner:

“Representing well over 30 resident citizens, and given the current vogue for citizen introduced reasonable and common sense ordinances, ‘Citizens for a REALLY safe Ashland’ want to capitalize on the desire to act in a “timely manner” (or even in a knee-jerk expedited manner) to introduce a comprehensive public safety ordinance that – whilst perhaps not actually addressing any genuine or legitimate issues – does serve to promote a divisive partisan agenda!”

Thankfully, he also points out our caveman-like place in the civilized world just like a true American like Piers Morgan would by stating, “European countries are light years ahead, indeed a recent study by the esteemed British Medical Journal proposes banning all kitchen knives over 4” long – because the people would be safer.”

At this point, the full color of the citizen’s sarcasm began to shine through to the point that your name would have to be Sheldon Cooper to not understand the message that was being eloquently presented. Specifically, the Citizens for a Really Safe Ashland, proposes the following ordinance:

1.  Regulate the public visibility of, and

2.  Seek to punish those that allow minors access to, the following potentially dangerous, often unfamiliar, and in some instances outright scary items:

(i) Knives
(ii) Chainsaws
(iii) Power-tools
(iv) Hammers
(v) Ladders
(vi) Bath tubs

(vii) Swimming Pools
(viii) Car keys
(ix) Alcohol
(x) Prescription and non prescription medication

See, common sense safety. It should be known that Ashland is a hotbed from criminal activity where children frequently play with keys, swim in swimming pools, and take baths regularly (many times forced into this vicious cycle of addiction to cleanliness by their own parents). It is for this reason that this proposed ordinance is so important. Also it should also be seriously considered by the Ashland City Council because…  

“That this proposed ordinance will be ineffective, and a solution to a problem that does not exist is not of great importance.  What matters is making a statement about “community values”….We can’t ever be too safe, can we.  It’s for the sake of the children, and we – and they – have to be protected from ourselves.”

Unfortunately, even with such sarcasm, one of the final points made during Johnny Bolton’s presentation held some truly scary truth. While seen as a humorous over exaggeration by some, when you really look at what is going on in this country there is a little too much truth to the following statement: “Evidently concepts such as absolute inalienable rights, liberty, and personal responsibility are old-fashioned, outmoded, and frankly quite scary!”

Take some time to think about what is really being presented in the video below and consider all that has been proposed in this country (both on the local and federal level). This is not just with regard to the overabundance of gun legislation that has wasted countless taxpayer dollars but the elimination of trans fats, the socialization of medicine, and numerous other initiative that have been forced upon us in the spirit of “we know what is best for you.”

 

“The economy, stupid”

You may have noticed yesterday that when I spoke about the State of the Union address I glossed over a huge topic. That was not a mistake, I chose to focus on the other items that came to my attention rather than having economic issues dominating the post. And that is exactly what it would have done. With all that is happening (and, more accurately, not happening) with the economy it would have overwhelmed the post.

If you have never watched the documentary “TheWar Room” I encourage you to do so as soon as possible. If you have seen it but it has been a while I think it is time for you to watch it again. Regardless of your political affiliation, it offers fascinating insight into the daily operations of a presidential campaign and shows just how effective a simplified message can be and how much power can be harnessed by hammering home a single, unified message that resonates with people.

I have written on this topic before but, now, when looking back and applying that messaging to the current political climate it is interesting to see how much things haven’t changed. In 1992, a long shot candidate won the democratic nomination for the Presidency. Facing an incumbent President with an unmatched war chest, Bill Clinton had to find a strategy that would turn the election tables. While Clinton is known for his speaking ability, it was a simple trilogy of tenets that served as the backbone of his campaign.

1. Change vs. more of the same.
2. The economy, stupid.
3. Don’t forget health care.

James Carville scrawled these three principals on a white board in the Little Rock, Arkansas campaign headquarters known as “The War Room.” These points kept the staff and the candidate focused. By hammering these basic points both in supporting Clinton and criticizing Bush, Carville was able to bring the rain that would lead to the electoral landslide in November.

Over two decades have passed since that stunning election and yet the same three points resonate today. However, this time the tables have turned, a Democrat is in the White House (can we still say white house or is that now deemed racist), and the Republican party is in need of a lesson in messaging. So, why don’t we take a page from history, from the radically changed opposition, and use their own three points against them? I find myself asking that very question on a daily basis.

All of the problems that the country is currently facing can be distilled into these three principles. We are facing more of the same policies and tactics that have shut out the press, dictated policies, and questions regarding the Constitutionality of many decisions. All of this while we face an increasing healthcare crisis that is crippling the ability of doctors to offer the service and attention that was once a source of pride in their practice. And questions have come to the surface as to the negligence that may be caused by the forced reporting of certain medical records so as to limit the freedom of people seeking assistance.

Of course, there is the economy. Most of our problems are rooted in the heinous economic policies currently running rampant. The debt ceiling has been treated with such disregard that inflation is becoming more of a probability rather than a farfetched possibility. Unemployment and underemployment has become a matter of false facts with fewer jobs being created than the number of people coming off unemployment while reports state that the unemployment rate continues to fall. Yes, like many financial decisions made in Washington, 1 + 1 = 3.

Even many of the economic policies that seem like great ideas the first time we hear them are nothing more than utopian fantasy. A prime example would be raising the minimum wage. Of course people want to get paid more but what happens when the other dominos fall. When the person making $8 per hour gets bumped up to an hourly rate of $10, what do you think the person who was originally getting paid $10 per hour is going to want? That’s right, they are going to want a bump in salary to at least $12. The dominos continue to fall and while some businesses may be able to support the radically increased overhead costs, many if not most small businesses will either have to decrease staff or close their doors completely. This is not the path to economic growth and a stronger middle class.

Some of the issues that don’t seem related to the economy are actually a part of the crisis as well. People today are polarized by one of the rights that the majority of the country exercises, firearms ownership. While not the determining factor in the debate (by a long shot), the limitation of gun rights has had a detrimental effect on many states. In addition to the hours spent by politicians and law enforcement (salaries paid by the people), many manufacturers have moved factories, offices, and other resources from one state to another because of limitations placed on the people (Magpul moving out of Colorado exemplified this issue). Also to be considered is the increased costs faced by government and law enforcement agencies due to the refusal to sell to certain states and departments which is their right as privately owned companies (see Ruger, STI, Barrett, Smith & Wesson, and others).

There are many issues that this country faces and it is going to be a painful recovery when we are finally able to right the ship. Can it be done? Yes! Change may be difficult but it is not impossible and as long as we have hope there is nothing that can keep us from returning to prosperity. While the times have changed the challenges remain the same and while we have not been able to prevent the repetition it is never too late to learn from the past.