CRPA's Line in the Sand

There is none.

Yeah, I know--Phil Angelides will really really ban guns.

And yeah, I know, Arnold did refuse to sign some gun bills.

All of those bills collectively did not have the significance of his signing into law the ban on .50 caliber rifles, or his approving a law that disarms citizens who have not been convicted of any crime--but have merely been accused by someone with a motive to hurt them.



And here's the thing. He warned us.

He told us "Gun control should be stiffer," that he supported the Brady Bill, favored the "assault weapons" ban and "closing the loophole of the gun shows." He endorsed "trigger lock laws," and pledged to sign legislation requiring gun owners to pass a state-defined test in order to purchase a handgun, requiring load indicators or magazine safety disconnects on semiauto handguns manufactured after 2006, and banning .50 caliber rifles.

Some of us (OK, me) watched in frustration as warnings went unheeded and most major gun groups stayed silent during the recall that resulted in Arnold's elevation to power, one even claiming that he was secretly pro-gun and had given some groups money. "Good size chunks" of it.

The truth is, Californians have no candidate who is pro-rkba who has a chance of winning. To suggest otherwise, to endorse a known gungrabber, is an insult to gun owners.

Why not just tell us the truth?

I wouldn't have a problem with CRPA telling its members that Angelides will be more active and hostile against us than Arnold, and to weigh that fact in their decision making. That would be an honest assessment, and if people chose to vote defensively, that would at least be an informed choice.

But to endorse him?

The best we can hope for this election is to put Tom McClintock within a heartbeat of the post, and I wonder how many of you California gun owners reading this have sent a contribution to his campaign. I have. He really needs it. That's the endorsement message we should be hearing from our "leaders."

But it looks like CRPA will end up having it both ways. Their "recommended" candidate can ban the guns, and their lawyer can provide the escort service to turn 'em in.

[Thanks to Dave L for sending me the brochure, and to John S for sending me a picture of the endorsement page.]

Consider it Considered

The Clarke County School District is considering allowing high school security supervisors to carry guns on campus.

How magnanimous of them.

If a school shooter shows up, which member of the Board of Education Policy Committee is prepared to let him know he's not on the "approved" list?

[Via Cousin G]

A Leopard Never Changes Its Spots

Americans will not even talk about the possibility of gun control, despite the high number of killings, writes Michael Gawenda.

Demonstrably false, absurdly so. Michael Gawenda is still a liar.

[Via Cousin G]

A Spooky Halloween Tale

The Spread of small arms creates a serious global problem and requires an equally urgent response because the lives and future of children are at stake. These weapons have extinguished more young lives than they have protected.” Carol Bellamy, Executive Director, UNICEF

Tonight, of course, is Halloween. If any young goblins show up on your doorstep trick or treating for UNICEF, patiently explain that you don't contribute to organizations that endanger children and enable genocide by leading in the demand for global citizen disarmament. Go ahead and give them a piece of candy if you're inclined to observe tonight's tradition, but don't forget that every coin the UN gets is a piece of metal that can be used to forge chains.

This Day in History: October 31

On this day in 1776, in his first speech before British Parliament since the leaders of the American Revolution came together to sign of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, King George III acknowledges that all was not going well for Britain in the war with the United States.