Washington Post/ABC News Poll: Americans Don't Blame Gun Laws for Mass Shootings

The Washington Post reports this morning results of a new Post/ABC News Poll that shows respondants overwhelmingly (63 percent to 23 percent) say mass shootings reflect problems identifying and treating people with mental health problems rather than inadequate gun control laws.  There does seem to be a disconnect between that view and whether new gun laws should be a priority however when that question was asked:

The survey finds that 46 percent say new laws to reduce gun violence should be a bigger priority, while 47 percent say it's more important to protect the right to own firearms. This marks a shift away from gun laws since April 2013, when Democrats' push for increased background checks fell short in the aftermath of the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.; back then, a 52 percent majority said new laws should be a priority.

It will be interesting to see if the views of Virginia voters are similar to those of the people polled on November third.  Bloomberg has invested heavily in two suburban districts (10th and 29th) hoping to turn the State Senate.  While a small majority of people (52 %) in urban areas say new gun laws should be a bigger priority than protecting Second Amendment rights, that number dips to 45 percent in suburban areas. The poll shows women are 13 percentage points more likely to prioritize new gun laws than men.  With that in mind, it is probably a good move on the part of the Glen Sturtevant (10th District) campaign to use women in their response to the Bloomberg ads.  The new Sturtevant ad also mentions mental health.

VSSA urges all gun owners in the 10th District to contact the NRA-ILA campaign field rep, Tim Lagerman (Tim@nrailafrontlines.com or by phone 570-898-3160) to find out how you can help in the final two weeks of the campaign.

Washington Post Says FBI Background Check Failure Provides Good Argument for Expanding Background Checks

The Washington Post web site carried this editorial last night around 6:00 stating that the FBI's admission it failed to stop the Charleston church shooter from getting a gun provides an argument for "tightened" background checks.

Mr. Comey’s admission should also drive home what should be an obvious point: A tightened, functional background-check system and other simple measures would erect real and practical barriers to people attempting to buy guns for nefarious purposes. If the system had worked correctly in this case, Mr. Roof would have been turned away at the gun store counter. If Congress had tightened up the system’s rules years ago, he would have had a harder time looking elsewhere, such as at gun shows. If federal and state lawmakers weren’t so in thrall to the pro-gun fringe, friends, family members and other potential sources would have faced clear and high penalties for giving Mr. Roof a weapon without taking him to a gun store to get checked out first.

It’s entirely appropriate to talk about imposing basic gun laws in the wake of any mass shooting. All of them underline the fact that guns are shockingly efficient killing machines that no responsible government would ignore. Even if better gun laws wouldn’t prevent every rampage or end street crime, they would certainly cut down on gun deaths from all sorts of causes by making it tougher to obtain and use firearms illegally.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has been urging congress to "Fix NICS" for years.

And the U.S. Department of Justice offered grants to states since 2013 so that they can get their records on prohibited persons more up-to-date.  And yet the FBI still can't get it right.  So, it is a little hard to follow the Post's logic on how this paperwork failure is proof that running more background checks through the system will stop incidents like the one in Charleston from occurring.

Dr. John Lott noted on the Daily Caller on Friday that even if the shooter had failed the background check, due to the fact that he had been planning the attack for six months, he would likely have done what most other criminals do, get a firearm through an illegal source.  Lott also noted that the larger problem is the fact that like any database involving names, there will always be incorrect information:

This is the same problem experienced with the “No Fly” list. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy was “initially denied” flights because his name was on the anti-terror “no fly” list? His name was just too similar to someone that we really did want to keep from flying. By Obama’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.

For gun purchases, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of “initial denials” after just the first preliminary review. The annual National Instant Criminal Background Check System report explains that these cases were dropped either because the additional information showed that the wrong people had been stopped or because the covered offenses were so many decades old that the government decided not to prosecute. At least a fifth of the remaining 6 percent were still false positives.

If anything, the FBI's failure in this case is proof why so-called "universal background" checks won't do anything to deter crime.  The only thing it will do is make people who want to sell a firearm from their personal collection a criminal if they don't abide by this registration scheme.

Dr. John Lott Responds to "More Guns, More Crime"

In a November 25 letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Dr. John R. Lott, Lloyd Cohen, professor, George Mason University School of Law, and Carl Moody, professor, College of William and Mary Department of Economics, responded to Christopher Ingraham’s “More Guns, More Crime” Wonkblog post that appeared on the Washington Post web site in mid-November, and discussed here.  In that post Ingraham reported on a "slightly updated paper" by law professor John Donohue and two graduate students that purported to show that by adding additional data to a previous study, their research shows that concealed carry laws actually increased crime on states with such laws.  Lott and his colleagues disagreed by pointing out:

Their revised paper’s “preferred” results supposedly show violent crime rates increase after states pass right-to-carry laws. Among the problems: 

— They rely, without explanation, on estimates Mr. Donohue has previously claimed were unreliable and misleading. Measuring simply the average crime rates before and after the law can miss an upward trend in crime before the law and drops afterwards.

— They focus on the period from 1999 to 2010. But later-adopting states were often reluctantly dragged into passing these laws. Their laws were more restrictive — higher fees, longer training requirements and more gun-free zones. The authors compare the drop in violent crime for these late adopters with other states — primarily earlier adopters who issued many more permits — who experienced larger drops in crime. But smaller drops for more restrictive states is exactly what the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis predicts.

— Even relying on these flawed estimates, Mr. Ingraham ignored that most of the authors’ results still provide no evidence that violent crime increases.

On Monday, Lott spoke in more detail with Cam Edwards on NRANews' Cam and Company where he discussed not only the letter to the editor but the flaws in the Donohue paper.

Washington Post More Guns Equal More Crime Blog Post Misses Important Facts

Last weekend, Christopher Ingraham of the Washington Post's Wonkblog had this post reporting on a September piece by Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues that purports to discredit Dr. John Lott's work More Guns Less Crime. That in and of itself is not new. A number of anti-rights academics have sought to show Lott's work is flawed since it was first published.  According to Wonk Blog, Donohue has added another decade of data to support their thesis:

Now, Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis, extending it through 2010, and have concluded that the opposite of Lott and Mustard's original conclusion is true: more guns equal more crime.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said in an interview with the Stanford Report. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8 percent increase in the incidence of aggravated assault, according to Donohue. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33 percent in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws.

On Sunday, Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center had a post pointing out where Ingraham is wrong. The post notes that Lott had already used the additional data in his most recent updated edition of More Guns Less Crime:

There are many errors in Ingraham’s article.  For example, “Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis.”  Yet, the third edition of “More Guns, Less Crime” has data from 1977 to 2005.  Moody, Marvell, Zimmerman, and Alemante have a new paper earlier this year that looked at data from 1977 to 2006.  Gius (2014) looked at data up through 2009.  Zimmerman (2014) looks at crime data up through 2010.   Previously even in the Washington Post, Emily Badger’s misleading column also discussed an earlier version of Donohue’s paper with data through 2006 (7/29).

And, CPRC even used a graph from the 3rd Edition of More Guns Less Crime that uses the very data that Donohue says should be used, the way they say it should be used.

So you tell me, do more guns equal more crime?

DC Asks Federal Judge to Reinstate Carry Ban

The Washington Post reports that attorneys for the District of Columbia formally asked U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin on Monday to reconsider his July opinion striking down the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public.

In a 21-page legal filing, D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan and aides said that Scullin relied on opinions of “questionable logical and legal foundations” by a minority of courts, and said that no controlling court has found that the right to carry firearms outside the home is at the core of the Second Amendment.

DC officials still have not decided whether they are going to appeal the judge's decision or enact laws to comply with the ruling.

Meet the Real Michael Bloomberg

The Washington Post Politics Blog reports that the NRA has launched a new ad campaign targeting Michael Bloomberg.  The first ad takes derogatory comments Bloomberg made about one of the largest counties in Colorado to show the elitist attitude the former mayor has about areas outside of New York City.

Also part of the campaign is a new web site - MeetBloomberg.com.

The Post notes that USA Today was the first to report the campaign.  From USA Today:

"Michael Bloomberg has declared war on the NRA and our 5 million members," Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in an e-mail. "We will not sit back and let him use his billions of dollars to impose his radical anti-freedom agenda on the American people."

The NRA plans to spend $500,000 on the first round of ads which will run in several states including Colorado.

Bloomberg to Survey Congressional and Senate Candidates on Gun Control

The Washington Post and other news outlets are reporting that Bloomberg plans to put all candidates for Congress and the U.S. Senate on record regarding their position on restricting our firearm freedoms.

The survey intends to make candidates state their positions on the record for the first time. Everytown plans to use their answers — as well as an analysis of any past legislative votes and public statements — to rally voters for or against them in key Senate and House races this fall, similar to how the NRA uses its ratings system to motivate pro-gun-rights voters.

It's basically a ten question survey that asks questions like:

• Under federal law, anyone who buys a gun from a federally licensed dealer must pass a criminal background check, but the same person can end-run this requirement by buying a gun from an unlicensed seller, including from a stranger that the buyer met online or at a gun show. This loophole enables felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited purchasers to buy guns with no questions asked. In the states that require background checks on all handgun sales, there are 38% fewer women shot to death by their intimate partners and 39% fewer law enforcement officers killed with handguns. Do you support requiring background checks for all gun sales (with reasonable exceptions such as for transfers between close family members and temporary transfers for hunting and self-defense)?

Interesting how they word that first question about so-called "universal background checks" because the only "exceptions" that the Manchin/Schumer/Toomey background check amendment made was fore "close" family members. There were no exceptions for "hunting and self-defense."

Here's another interesting question:

• People listed on the federal government’s terror watch lists are prohibited from boarding airplanes—but current federal law does not bar them from buying guns or explosives. Indeed, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, people on terror watch lists bought firearms or explosives from licensed dealers 1,321 times between 2004 and 2010. 4 Do you support legislation—drafted by the George W. Bush administration—that would close this "terror gap" by giving the FBI the discretion to block these people from buying guns?

Note that reference to President Bush as if that makes the proposal okay. Here is what is wrong with that proposal:

It will be interesting to see how Virginia Senator Mark Warner will respond to this survey as Bloomberg promises to make it public.

Armatix Shills for Smart Guns in Washington Post Op/Ed

Yesterday, the Washington Post published this Op/Ed from Ernst Mauch, managing director of Armatix GmbH.  In the piece, he makes a pitch for why so called smart guns, or at least the ones his company manufactures, are in keeping with America's respect for the right to keep and bear arms and believes gun owners should have the ability to purchase them:

Respect for this freedom to protect your family as you see fit is a major reason I believe that gun owners in the United States should have the right to purchase personalized firearms using high-tech safety features. The reality is that firearm safety has not meaningfully advanced in the past century. Nearly every other industry has transformed its safety features — often multiple times — in that same period. Given how tragic the misuse of firearms can be, guns should be no different.

Most of the commentary I have seen from the firearms community on the subject of smart guns believe it should be a market decision too.  The problem is, New Jersey has a law on the books that mandates only "smart guns" may be sold in the state once such technology is available for sale.  It's the mandate that the firearms community opposes and we don't want to see the rights of our brothers and sisters in New Jersey infringed when one manufacturer comes to the market with one caliber of firearm that currently costs two to three times what a similar firearm without the personalized technology would cost.

But, this is also technology that is not ready for prime time.  As Sebastian pointed out last week:

The problem with smart guns are more fundamental than the shock sensitivity of electronics, and have more to do with the limits of biometric identification and radio frequency identification (RFID). The former is unreliable and slow, and the latter is prone to interference and jamming. There’s also inherent mechanical problems with the smart gun that make the technology very easy for a determined individual to defeat. I had a conversation with some of our opponents on this topic, who argued that automobile anti-theft systems became much more sophisticated, but aside from misunderstanding the problem, I thought it was a reasonable point.

Then, we learned yesterday that Armatix has also applied for a patent for a remote "kill switch." And some wonder why the firearms community is not warming up to the idea of "smart guns."

Virginia's Struggle Over Gun Laws

The Washington Post has this article that is as much a profile of pro-rights Delegate Todd Gilbert (and to a lesser extent gun ban lobbyist Andrew Goddard) as it is a report on how pro-rights bills have fared much better than anti-rights bills since the Virginia Tech shooting seven years ago.

After the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, horror and outrage prompted lawmakers in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and a handful of other states to implement tough new gun restrictions. But since its own tragedy seven years ago at Virginia Tech, the commonwealth has gone in the other direction. Over the six full legislative sessions since Seung Hui Cho’s rampage left 32 dead, it is gun rights, not gun restrictions, that have grown stronger. 

Gilbert, a former Shenandoah Valley prosecutor and the deputy majority leader in Virginia’s House of Delegates, is a big reason why.

Delegate Gilbert approaches the issue from the perspective of a former prosecutor who believes you take the guns out of the hands of the bad guys and keep them in the hands of the law abiding.

“All the members of this place try to oversimplify everything all the time. I know it’s a complicated issue,” Gilbert said. “But I’ve just never seen how disarming law-abiding people made anybody safer.”

The Post also touched on an issue that seems to be a favorite of those reporting on Virginia gun laws, and at the same time misreported - online safety courses that qualify applicants for concealed handgun permits (CHPs).

“I think I’ve said this every year since I’ve been here,” Goddard began. “I got a permit. I shouldn’t have a permit. I’ve never held a handgun. I should have had training. I went online and answered some questions that I could have answered if I hadn’t watched the silly little movie in advance. I shouldn’t be allowed to have a permit to carry a handgun in public until I know how to handle it and know about the laws.”

The Post refers to the online course under the requirement that the applicant has a "demonstrated competence with a handgun" from the CHP statute without also listing all of the different courses that qualify. There is no range time requirement in the Code and some of the examples given as acceptable courses do not include instruction on a handgun.  It has been a long time since I took a hunter safety course (which is one of the acceptable courses listed in the Code) but I did not have any handgun instruction in that course.  What no one in the media seems to understand is that Virginia's requirement is a basic safety course.  Anyone serious about carrying concealed should (and likely does) take a lot of different training that includes subjects like situational awareness, drawing a firearm in various senarios, just to name a couple. But to qualify for the permit, you simply have to take a basic firearm safety course.  But Gilbert makes an excellent point:

“While this is couched as a reasonable extension of public policy, it really just nibbles away at that basic proposition that we shouldn’t have to go get the government’s permission to go protect ourselves and our families as we see fit,” Gilbert said. “Free citizens, acting as Mr. Goddard does, will choose to carry a firearm or not carry a firearm. Criminals will choose to do it or not do it — without regard for any of these laws.”

The article ends with a discussion of how we may be entering a period of a stalemate as the Governor's office and the State Senate are now controlled by the Democrats.  If this session is an indication, the Post may be right on that point.

Herring Campaign Manager Claims Gun Control Led To Victory That is Still in Question

State Senator Mark Herring's campaign manager, Kevin O’Holleran, had this Op/Ed in yesterday's Washington Post, claiming that gun control led to his 164 vote victory over State Senator Mark Obenshain in Virginia's AG race. Setting aside for the moment the votes are headed for a recount, let's take a look at his claim.

Like much conventional wisdom, this was wrong — and we not only ignored this advice but did the opposite. There were stark differences between Herring and his Republican opponent, Sen. Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg), on gun safety. Obenshain opposed comprehensive background checks and opposed closing the gun-show loophole. He opposed former governor Douglas Wilder’s landmark “one-gun-a-month” legislation. Obenshain also made a habit of voting for such irresponsible proposals as allowing guns in bars and restaurants where alcohol is served.

While O'Holleran made a short reference to the campaign's focus on the so-called "women's health" meme that Democrats used during the 2013 campaign, he gives credit for his candidate's victory the focus on gun control, and even mentions the late entry of Bloomberg's gun ban group into the race. But, Bloomberg did not focus solely on gun control, choosing instead to also jump on the social issues band wagon. Also, as O'Holleran focuses his thesis on the vote totals on northern Virginia, Bloomberg focused his ads on the region as did the Mark Kelly-Gabby Giffords group Americans for Responsible Solutions. Even with the large vote totals he ran up in Northern Virginia, the final margin is a razor thin 164 votes that is headed to a recount. So, while gun control likely polls well in Northern Virginia, even with increasing the vote total by 124,000 over the total for the AG in 2009, it was barely enough to pull him across the finish line (and still may not depending on what happens in the recount). It's likley the constant barage of negative ads tying Obenshain to Cuccinelli on social issues had more to do with the final outcome than gun control.

And, even if he ends up winning, 164 votes does not make a mandate for anything, including gun control.

Gun Control Becomes Key Issue Late in Governor's Race

The Washington Post had this article over the weekend on how gun control surfaced as a key issue in the final weeks of the Virginia Governor's race:

For once, a Democrat is talking tough about gun control, as if daring the National Rifle Association to take him on. And gun-rights advocates are all too happy to take him up on the challenge.

The article's author, Freddie Kunkle spoke with folks on both side of the issue and not surprising, the gun ban lobby said the NRA doesn't have the power that they want people to think they have.  But if that was the case, why did it take until polls started showing McAuliffe with as much as a double-digit lead before he forcefully starting pitching gun control?

Differences over gun control between Cuccinelli, the state’s attorney general, and McAuliffe, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, were not a secret before that debate. But Democrats rarely brag about their support for gun-control measures in statewide elections in pro-gun Virginia. McAuliffe’s change in strategy suggested a play for his liberal base — but also hinted that he felt comfortable changing the playbook in the still-evolving swing state of Virginia.

Polls has shown some tightening in the race since McAuliffe's change in strategy.  Going from avoiding talk of anything other than background checks to supporting Colorado style gun control. my have backfired or it is possibly that a combination of energizing Second Amendment activists and the disastrous roll out of Obamacare has caused what was already soft support to go even softer.  In the end, turn out is going to be the deciding factor and if those who were not really enthusiastic about McAuliffe in the first place decide they can't stand the thought of having him for Governor after all, could make tomorrow a very tight race.

Washington Post Poll on Possible 2014 Blow Back on Background Check Vote

Chris Cillizza suggests that senators who voted against expanded background checks may pay a price in 2014 if the new Washington Post/ABC-News Poll is correct:

The risk may be significant, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Thirty five percent of registered voters say they could not support a candidate who voted against expanding background checks at gun shows and on the Internet — even if they agreed with him or her on other issues. By comparison, 14 percent of voters would rule out a candidate who voted for expanded checks.

Take a look at the entire poll.  You will note that it is heavily weighted to Democrats, as most Washington Post Polls are, and Democrats are much more disposed to supporting gun control.  Also, Cillizza acknowleges that the big question is whether those who did respond they are less likely to support a candidate that voted against the expanded background checks will actually vote that way in 2014, noting that gun control continues to poll near the bottom of top issues for voters in

Washington Post Gives Advice to Virginia Senate Democrats, Slaps GOP

The Washington Post, repeating the talking points of Democrats in the State Senate, believe that Republicans have over reached by passing legislation like the bills repealing handgun rationing and requiring voters to provide ID at the polls in order to cast a vote.

Virginia Republicans have embarrassed themselves in the unforgiving glare of the national spotlight this winter by muscling through the General Assembly a batch of partisan, incendiary and pointlessly provocative legislation. They’ve enacted bills to thrill the gun lobby (and gun traffickers), delight antiabortion activists and impede voters who lack IDs — mainly Democratic-leaning minority, poor and elderly citizens — based on phony concerns about the nonexistent problem of voting fraud.

Note they also picked up the gun ban lobby's talking points on "gun traffickers" too.  But, while the Post makes it clear they don't like the new Senate leadership, they also make it clear that the Democrats currently holding a new state budget hostage, are on very shaky ground.

The few, flimsy objections Democrats have raised about the budget are a smokescreen. Their real issue is power-sharing: Democrats want it; Republicans won’t give it.

In this instance, the Republicans are right: They have the tie-breaking vote in the person of Mr. Bolling. It’s no surprise that Democrats would like to negate that advantage, but the means to do so are through elections, not the nuclear option of government shutdown. And given Republican overreach, Democrats would be shrewder to stand down and let the GOP continue to lay the groundwork for its own defeat.

Democrats are quick to point out the powersharing agreement they agreed to in 1996.  The difference is they had one member, then Democrat State Senator Virgil Goode, who was ready to caucus with the GOP if the Senate did not agree to share power in an evenly split chamber (Goode later went on to serve in Congress as a Democrat, switched parties after 2000, and was defeated in the Democrat wave of 2008). Before that occurred, the Democrats were ready to let Lt. Governor Don Beyer, a Democrat, cast the tie breaking vote to organize a Senate majority.

I have to give credit to the Post for pointing out the obvious - for now, the Republicans have just enough votes with the Lt. Governor to conduct most of their business.  That could change after 2013, which is why VSSA and NRA pushed hard to repeal handgun rationing.  The iron was only going to be hot for so long.

Washington Post Laments Republican State Senate Majority

In an article that reads more like an editorial, the Washington Post reports that Virginia Republicans took over as the majority in the Virginia Senate yesterday.

By day’s end, the GOP acquired greater power through a raft of rule changes that not only mean they chair all committees but also allows them to have greater say over school funding, transportation and social issues, among others. Republicans now have the votes to approve legislation that would limit abortions and ease gun laws, which have been previously blocked by Senate Democrats.

It should be an interesting 60 days reading the Post's coverage of the General Assembly.

Ammunition Magazines Get Attention in Virginia

On the last day to introduce legislation for this session of the General Assembly, Delegate Betsy Carr introduced HB2524, a ban on "firearms magazine designed to hold 20 or more rounds of ammunition."  On Sunday, the Washington Post ran an article claiming that since the expiration of the Clinton Gun Ban, the number of firearms with high-capacity magazines seized by Virginia police "has rebounded sharply."

Last year in Virginia, guns with high-capacity magazines amounted to 22 percent of the weapons recovered and reported by police. In 2004, when the ban expired, the rate had reached a low of 10 percent. In each year since then, the rate has gone up.

Christopher Koper, head of the anti-gun Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) told the Post:

Maybe the federal ban was finally starting to make a dent in the market by the time it ended.

But Koper, was quoted by the Washington Times in August of 2004 saying something just the opposite.  Koper conducted a study of the law for the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) as a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

"We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence,"

The report was even more definitive:

"It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement." 

All of this "analysis" by the Post was part of the series titled "The Hidden Life of Guns" that the paper ran last October.  With the events of a couple of weeks ago, the data collected by the Washington Post is giving new life to those who wanted to make the link, but had no proof,  that the Clinton Gun Ban reduced crime.

Don't look for HB 2524 to go very far in the Virginia General Assembly.  But don't be surprised to see the national gun ban groups use the Post's propaganda to push President Obama to at least make a push for again banning the sale of large capacity ammunition clips.

It will be interesting to see if Obama continues his "new tone" in his State of the Union address tomorrow night or if he succumbs to pressure from the Brady Campaign and others to use the opportunity to take advantage of the Arizona shootings to push some new gun control measures.

Two Newspapers, Two Totally Different Headlines

What do you get when one reporter writes a story and it runs in the Washington Post then four days later in an abridged version in the Seattle Times? Two totally different editorialized titles. I have never worked for a newspaper so I presume the reporter has no final say in the title of his story.

In the case of the Washington Post story, you see the headline "Gun-toting soccer moms a scary thought in D.C. area, but not out west." In the Seattle Times, the headline of the story was "West's gun advocates fight to uphold region's traditional wildness." The reporter is Freddie Kunkle of the Washington Post and the theme of the story is two fold; part about how western senators John McCain (R-AZ) and John Tester (D-MT) have joined bi-partisan forces to bring D.C. into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court's Heller decision by removing the regulatory burdens the city has placed on those wishing to own firearms; and partly about the "gun culture" of the west. The difference is how it is set up by the Post and the fact that the Post story is much longer. The Seattle Times basically published a very abridged version.

The Post story also has a link the the Pam Gorman ad featured in the NPR story posted about here earlier this morning.

Guns and Democracy

Steven Levingston, the Book World Nonfiction Editor at The Washington Post shot me (and other gun bloggers I presume) an email about a blog post on The Washington Post Book World blog by none other than Joshua Horwitz. The lead to the blog post says:

The intent of the second amendment right to bear arms has come under debate since health reform protesters showed up with guns at town hall meetings last month. We asked Joshua Horwitz, a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, for his interpretation.

Most Second Amendment activists would disagree that debate on the intent of the amendment started only this past summer. But that gave Horiwitz the opening he needed to hawk is book - "Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea," which was published in April by the University of Michigan Press.

Many Americans were disturbed by the sight of protesters carrying guns to town hall meetings across the country. How have we reached the point where individuals feel the need to engage in such shows of force? The truth is that the seeds of armed political activism in the United States were planted years ago by the gun lobby.

Yeah, that's right, it's the NRA's fault. According to Horwitz, because the NRA's natural constituency - hunters and recreational shooters - was dwindling, it and other pro-rights organizations had to reach out to the paranoid fringe - those who don't trust the government. Horwitz repeats his charge that this formula is what created the Oklahoma City Bomber, Timothy McVeigh.

Horwitz says the public rejected the NRA's "caustic" rhetoric after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma so they turned to talking about freedom and "patriotism" - code words for a "radical audience."

Tricky thing is, you go to any gathering of NRA members, whether it's a Friends of NRA Banquet, or the NRA Annual Meeting, and you don't see these "radicals" that Horwitz believes make up the over 4 million NRA members. What you see are business men and women, veterinarians and doctors, housewives, children - families that enjoy the shooting sports just as much as they enjoy watching their kids play soccer, baseball or football. And, they love their freedom that so many have fought for and died to protect.

What we witnessed this summer was a frustration that our elected officials no longer listen to the people they are supposed to represent. Not a single one of the individuals who carried a firearm during a tea party or other public event broke the law - including the Black gentleman carrying the sporting rifle (AR-15) in Phoenix. It should be noted that Horwitz left out the fact that the AR-15 toting gun owner was Black because it likely did not fit the stereotype he was trying to create.

Horwitz says he doesn't wish to marginalize individuals who carry firearms but instead he wants to educate us about the dangers of a "cavalier attitude towards insurrectionism and political violence." But make no mistake, marginalize is exactly what he and his cohorts in the anti-rights crowd want to do with Second Amendment activists. The more they can paint us as a bunch of radicals, the better their chances of restricting our rights.

E. J. Dionne's Snarky Guns in the Capitol Column

On Monday, the E. J. Dionne, Jr had a snarky little column in the Washington Post titled Arm the Senate. In this column the opines about the hypocrisy of the Senate because guns are banned at the Capitol but a bipartisan majority of the members voted for the Thune Amendment on National Concealed Carry Reciprocity allowing individuals who have concealed carry permits to be able to carry across state lines. People carrying concealed from one state to another would have to abide by the laws in the state in which they are carrying regarding where they can carry etc. Many of the Senators including Virginia's Jim Webb stated this is would help deter crime.

Dionne writes:

If they believe that, why don't they live by it?

Why would freedom-loving lawmakers want to hide behind guards and metal detectors? Shouldn't NRA members be outraged that Second Amendment rights mean nothing in the very seat of our democracy?

Dionne's article prompted Martina Leinz, President of the Northern Virginia Chapter of the Million Mom March, to write the usual rant against the NRA and the so-called "gun show loophole" in a letter to the editor published yesterday:

At gun shows in Virginia, and other states, private sellers aren't required to conduct background checks, so anyone can purchase anything, even high-powered assault weapons, no questions asked. Congress has failed to close the gun-show loophole, and pro-gun Republicans and Democrats alike continually try, at the NRA's urging, to repeal sensible measures such as outlawing guns on college campuses, in bars and in national parks.

I did not post about this article on Monday because it was typical Dionne and Washington Post tripe but I ran across the Leinz LTE and a good rebuttal on National Review Online, so I thought I would take a moment to share the rebuttal as well as the Dionne piece for context.

On the Corner blog at NRO, Ramesh Ponnuru wrote:

It is a clever idea for a column, and it took me a little while to think through why I think Dionne's logic is unsound. But unsound I think it is. I think supporters of conceal carry can readily concede that a regime of metal detectors and armed officers trained to protect people and surrounding the workplace is superior to conceal carry as a way of protecting congressmen and their staff. But 1) nobody is proposing to implement such a regime for every 7-11 clerk working the night shift somewhere in this country, 2) doing so would be impractical, and 3) doing so would come with non-monetary costs that we are prepared to pay in the case of Congress but not for society generally.

The hypocrisy of the ant-rights crowd, especially those in the elected class, is to try and disarm people like you and me all the while they have armed guards and security. At least a bipartisan majority in the Senate understand that the rest of us have a right to protect ourselves and our families while the elected elite are protected by security guards.

Washington Post on Interstate Recognition of CHP

The Washington Post opines this morning on the Thune-Vitter Amendment to the defense department authorization bill. Surprise, surprise, they oppose it.

Conservatives usually argue against the federal government telling states what they can and can't do. If approved, the Thune amendment would trample all over the rights of states and cities to enforce reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. There are already enough guns on America's streets. A vote for Mr. Thune's bill would make them that much more dangerous.

I find it particularly amusing that when it suits the Post for the federal government to tell the states what to do, the Post has no problem with it. But when it comes to law abiding citizens carrying firearms - some of the most law abiding citizens in the country I might add - the Post can't believe the government would dare tell the states what to do.

More on Kaine Veto of Self Defense Legislation

I posted on this blog after SB 436 and SB 476 passed that they passed after the window that required the Governor to act before the end of the session. I was mistaken. It has been a while since I have worked in the realm of appointive state Government and my memory is apparently not as good as I thought. Bills that arrive on the Governor's desk more than a week before the session's adjournment fall within a seven-day window of time in which he has sign, amend, or veto them, or they'll become law anyway. Both SB 436 and SB 476 met that requirement.

A number of articles in this morning's papers reported on Kaine's action. This Washington Post report confirmed what I thought; there is a chance the legislature could try and override the Governor's veto of SB 436 and SB 476 before they adjourn on Saturday. I know that Governor Gilmore vetoed a bill during the session in 1998 and the legislature attempted an override during the session and did not wait for the reconvened session (known as the "Veto Session"). With SB 436 standing the best chance for an override, it is possible that Senator Vogel will want to act quickly so as not to give Kaine a month to twist the arms of pro-gun Democrats. The Post reported:

Kaine vetoed his first legislation of the year -- a pair of bills that would have loosened restrictions on where person may carry or place firearms. One measure would have allowed people to keep concealed weapons in cars if the weapons are locked in a compartment or container, even if the owner did not have a permit (SB 436). The other would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol (SB476). Currently, it is legal to carry a weapon into a restaurant
only if it does not serve alcohol.

Kaine said the bills could have endangered law enforcement officers, restaurant employees and patrons.

"I have to make a decision that's best for public safety,'' Kaine said. He said he based his decision on recommendations from the law enforcement community.

Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) called the measures "two very
reasonable bills" and said Kaine showed "disdain for law-abiding gun
owners."

"He is not a strong believer in the Second Amendment," Gilbert said.

Legislators could try to override Kaine's veto this week or when they return for a one-day veto session April 16. Two-thirds of both chambers are needed to override a veto.

This from the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

It was the second time since 2006 that Kaine has refused to sign legislation allowing weapons to be stored in a motor vehicle's locked glove compartment or other vault-like boxes (SB 436). The guns-in-bars proposal had never before made it to the governor's desk.

The Vogel bill (SB 436) stands the best chance of the two of becoming law, despite Kaine's objections. That's because the measure was approved by margins in the House of Delegates and Virginia Senate big enough to override a veto. It cleared the House with 69 votes and the Senate with 31. In the House, that's two better than required for a veto override; in the Senate, four more than the minimum.

A two-thirds vote is required in both chambers for a bill to become law over a governor's veto. The Hanger bill may face tougher going. It passed the House with 62 votes, and the Senate with only 24.

And though both bills generated support among Kaine's fellow Democrats,
particularly those from the countryside, they will likely come under pressure to
sustain his vetoes.

And finally, this from the Winchester Star, Senator Vogel is not please with the Governor either.

"The Governor’s heavy handed approach to kill legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of legislators in his own party demonstrates the power of the anti-2nd Amendment lobby over this governor," she said in the release. "I consider it a sad day for the citizens of Virginia when the governor will side with a small but powerful lobby over the objection of gun owners in Virginia as well as a stunning majority of members of the House and Senate."

VSSA reminded gun owners during the 2005 campaign of Kaine's anti-gun background. He ran saying he supported the Second Amendment and was no threat to the rights of gun owners. His record as Mayor of Richmond said otherwise and we now have proof that those promises of 2005 were empty words. This is a lesson we should remember during this election year.

As for these two bills, gun owners need to put more pressure on the Senators and Delegates than Governor Kaine. Please act now and contact your legislator. You can find out your legislator's contact information by clicking here and completing the form.