Second Amendment Democrats Respond

to this:

Your article on Amendment II Democrats
by Daniel Barnett
Webmaster, Amendment II Democrats

Over the past few days, I've read quite a bit in the RKBA blogosphere in response to the call for a "Save the Second Amendment Rally" in Dallas by Amendment II Democrats. Much of that response, including those from David on the War on Guns blog, had more to do with our policy on Democratic candidates than on the rally itself. I decided to take a critical but fair look at both our current policy on Democratic candidates and at David's response, especially with some in the blogosphere declaring prima facie that Amendment II Democrats is somehow "anti-gun" or "anti-RKBA."

The statement on our website, under the "Who We Are" section, reads as follows:

Do you actively oppose Democrats who support sensible gun measures if they run for public office?

We are Democrats, and as such we will support our party's nominees for local, state, and federal office. During the primaries, however, if any Democratic candidate supports gun control measures that Amendment II Democrats oppose (such as reauthorizing the national ban on semi-automatics), that primary candidate is fair game, and we will encourage voters to support Democratic candidates who are in greater harmony with our outlook on Second Amendment rights. But once the primaries are over and the candidates for the general election have been chosen, it is important that all Democrats pull together and support our party's candidates as best as we are able. Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats.

David has brought up a few points in his earlier post that I'd like to address one at a time, starting with this:

Nu-uh, guys. It doesn't work that way, and don't think that bit about "sensible gun measures" went unnoticed--what the hell are those?

My point exactly. The term "sensible gun measures" is one that is frequently thrown around by the Brady Campaign and its Million Mom March satellites to denote the well-worn gun-control of paradigm of banning semi-automatics, banning handguns, and otherwise regulating gun ownership to the point where you're left with only a Lyman Great Plains Hunter - and that's for your hunting, shooting, and self-defense needs. Not that there's anything wrong with blackpower arms, mind you, but my own interpretation of the term "sensible gun measures" means not keeping the Tantal where the darned cat can turn the handguards into a chew toy. I only used the phrase in an attempt to challenge the frame that the Brady Campaign et al try to push, namely, that their approach to gun legislation is the only approach that could be called "sensible." I think most readers of the blog are intelligent and informed enough to know the score on this issue.

Next on the docket:

If you would pick an "F" over an "A" simply because of blind party loyalty, you have made yourselves part of the problem.

What this indicates is, ultimately, the Second Amendment is expendable to you, not as much of a priority as re-electing Carolyn McCarthy or Chuck Schumer, or electing Hillary Clinton.

If that were indeed the case with Amendment II Democrats, you'd be absolutely right. And part of that, I fear, is because the policy on Democratic candidates may not have been explicit enough. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Although we do keep the focus on Democratic candidates, we have not and will not provide support to anti-RKBA Democrats who run for office, even if they win the primaries.

I refer the reader to the now-defunct Democrats for the Second Amendment, another pro-RKBA Democratic organization that predated Amendment II Democrats. Don Baldwin, founder of Democrats for the Second Amendment, once stated: "We will not endorse anti-gun Democrats or non-Democrats. We welcome friendly non-Democrats to join as supporters but require Democratic registration for full membership."

Amendment II Democrats has yet to issue any endorsements in local, state, or Federal races of any kind - we haven't quite reached that point, yet. We have invited Democratic candidates for Federal office to share with us their perspectives on firearms legislation, and we're still doing it today. And we thank those who have responded in the past. We have presented their responses in what we hope is a fair, impartial manner without further commentary or critique. It is our policy that a candidate's words speak for themselves, and you can read them for yourself on the Amendment II Democrats website and make your own decisions.

But even a cursory look at our issues papers and the posts on our MySpace blog should serve as an indicator of how we feel about HR 1022, S 1237, and other anti-RKBA legisation that is being proposed by our legislators. So if we try to solicit answers from anti-RKBA Democrats such as Carolyn McCarthy or Barack Obama, it's mainly for two purposes: first, to be as fair as possible to all Democratic candidates, and second, to leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of the pro-RKBA Democratic voter as to which candidates are most in harmony with their own views.

And finally:

It means you consider other social and economic issues more important than my elemental right to defend my life and freedom, and will aid and abet those trying to strip me of the means to do so.

This is only an assumption on David's part, and one that I challenge most strenuously. It is true that many issues are important to me, including civil rights, environmental pollution and global climate change, the occupation of Iraq, and so on. But to insinuate that I am willing to sacrifice our Second Amendment rights just to score points on other issues - well, that just isn't going to happen. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is of paramount importance both to myself and to Amendment II Democrats as a whole.

I am a Democratic precinct chair and state convention delegate. I participate in our county party's semi-annual committee meetings - sometimes loudly. And if I hear anyone else at the meeting put forth a resolution that even hints at fostering anti-RKBA sentiment among my fellow Democrats, I will descend upon that resolution like a rock on an eggshell. And that means I'll have to take a lot of flak from anti-RKBA Democrats. I'm used to it. Bring it the hell on, already.

But on the other hand, take a good look at the makeup of the Senate in the 110th Congress. Of the Democratic majority in the Senate, there are no less than eight Democratic Senators - Max Baucus (MT), Bob Casey (PA), Russ Feingold (WI), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV), Jon Tester (MT), and Jim Webb (VA) - who will form a block against any attempt to resurrect a Federal ban on semi-automatics. Judging by the current makeup of the Senate, when it comes to gun legislation, these eight Democratic Senators may prove to be the gatekeepers, much to the constant frustration of Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer. My pro-RKBA stance may technically be the minority within the Democratic Party, but it is gaining in strength. And while Obama and Hillary Clinton may try their best to ignore us, other Democratic candidates do so strictly at their own peril.

So, if there is anyone reading this who is still upset that we will only throw our support behind Democrats, take a good look at our name - we are Amendment II Democrats. We have our own goals for transforming the Democratic Party from the group up. It will not happen overnight. And it will not be easy. But I think the majority of you who read this will agree that it will be a fine day indeed when you show up at the polls and realize that your choices for the White House are a pro-RKBA Republican, a pro-RKBA Libertarian, and a pro-RKBA Democrat. It's something to aim for.

In a way, David seems to have beaten me to the punch in one regard, for which I salute him. I've been mulling over creating another issue paper for our website under the working title And Now For Plan B which would cover how to deal with anti-RKBA Democratic primary winners while still nurturing the growth of pro-RKBA sentiment among the party's rank-and-file as well as other candidates. Like I said earlier, the goals we seek will not be easy to attain, but I am convinced that it is doable if enough people get on board. Within our own ranks, Amendment II Democrats currently boast military veterans, NRA members, gay rights activists, and other diverse sorts within its informal membership ranks. In other words, it looks a bit like a microcosm of the Democratic Party at large. Which means - well, you get the idea.

I'll try to field whatever questions you might have. Thanks in advance for your patience.

Molon labe!

Daniel Barnett
Webmaster, Amendment II Democrats

2A Dems to Hold 8/28 Rally

Your humble Webmaster for Amendment II Democrats is planning a Save the Second Amendment Rally to be held on Tuesday, August 28, 2007, 12:00 noon CDT in Dallas, Texas. We will be gathering outside the Warren United Methodist Church at 3028 Malcolm X Boulevard, where the North Texas Brady Campaign and Rainbow PUSH members are scheduled to hold their own anti-gun rally. It's time for Democrats who support the Second Amendment to take a stand against those who seek to undermine our Constitutional rights.

I agree. I support and applaud this effort. But one thing troubles me greatly:

Do you actively oppose Democrats who support sensible gun measures if they run for public office?

We are Democrats, and as such we will support our party's nominees for local, state, and federal office. During the primaries, however, if any Democratic candidate supports gun control measures that Amendment II Democrats oppose (such as reauthorizing the national ban on semi-automatics), that primary candidate is fair game, and we will encourage voters to support Democratic candidates who are in greater harmony with our outlook on Second Amendment rights. But once the primaries are over and the candidates for the general election have been chosen, it is important that all Democrats pull together and support our party's candidates as best as we are able. Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats.

Nu-uh, guys. It doesn't work that way, and don't think that bit about "sensible gun measures" went unnoticed--what the hell are those?
I like your strategy for the primaries, but the general election is where power over lives is awarded. If you would pick an "F" over an "A" simply because of blind party loyalty, you have made yourselves part of the problem.

What this indicates is, ultimately, the Second Amendment is expendable to you, not as much of a priority as re-electing Carolyn McCarthy or Chuck Schumer, or electing Hillary Clinton. It means you consider other social and economic issues more important than my elemental right to defend my life and freedom, and will aid and abet those trying to strip me of the means to do so.

I take that personally. A friend wouldn't do that to me.
If an authorized representative from your group would like to respond on this blog and entertain questions and comments from WarOnGuns readers, I'll give you the space.

[Via A Keyboard and a .45]

UPDATE: See response here.

Questions and Answers III

Before proceeding, it would probably be a good idea to read Part I and Part II if you haven't already.

Mr. Licht continues:

I am asking sincerely as a newly minted (though not born yesterday) attorney that wants to make the second amendment (and the constitution) the law of the land for my children (and yours). Everywhere I look I don’t see it as a practical reality. As much as I want to believe in the second, it seems like a mass delusion (or worse) a cynical use of the concept for pure fund raising hype with no expectation (by the professional promoters) that there is any argument to win.

We should all be familiar with the letter John Ashcroft wrote to the NRA proclaiming "[L]et me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms."

That was bold language for a sitting attorney general. It filled the "pro-gun" community with hope. It evidently aligned their interests with those of the Republican party, especially when the treasonous record of Democrats in general on the Second Amendment is considered.

Often overlooked is the footnote Ashcroft added, a seemingly innocuous "*Your actual mileage may vary" kind of statement that, on the surface, would not create too much concern with conservative "law and order" gun-owning voters:

Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests, such as prohibiting firearms ownership by convicted felons, just as the First Amendment does not prohibit shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater. As Samuel Adams explained at the Massachusetts ratifying convention, the proposed Constitution should”never [be] construed . . .to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

With all due respect to Mr. Ashcroft, he's describing a prior restraint on the Second Amendment and a response to an act for his First Amendment example. So he's talking apples and oranges, but most people never noticed. Besides--you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

What this does is justify the feds being in the "gun crime" business, even though there is no enumerated Constitutional authority delegated to them in this area by We the People. Further, it reflects a belief that the unambiguous "shall not be infringed" from the Bill of Rights is trumped by the open-ended and amorphous standard of "compelling state interest," a term found nowhere in the Constitution, and which can be twisted and contorted as much as, say, the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Republican Kool-Aid vendor Hugh Hewitt--a man with an awesome understanding of Constitutional law as practiced by "the establishment"--practically admitted as much when blogger Publicola called in to his program. "Intermediate scrutiny," Hewitt pronounced, is the best gun owners can hope for on the Second Amendment.

From a political "pragmatism" perspective, and as much as this may infuriate us, he's probably right. If we rely on "the system," with the current state of gun owner awareness, involvement and commitment, we'll be left with the Second (Class) Amendment from the Bill of Rights (Lite).

This means practically every "gun control" edict will find justification for being upheld. What judge won't find a "compelling state interest" to license gun owners, or register them, or subject citizens to the prior restraint of background checks, or permitting (and prohibiting!) the acceptable manner, places and conditions for bearing arms, concealed or otherwise. Certainly a "compelling state interest" can be found to keep "weapons of war off our streets," thus securing the National Firearms Act and FOPA '86, and blocking further inroads against GCA '68...

This is the door Ashcroft left open--one that would allow his boss and his successor to both proclaim support for renewing the "assault weapon" ban. But it was not his footnote that got the attention, was it? Gun owners almost had an orgy over the "sea change" in attitude-- without asking what in practice had really changed.

We tested Mr. Ashcroft's sincerity with a petition you may have seen circulating a few years back. Without going into a lot of detail, which you can catch up on here, we stated grievances of California gun owners who have had their rights unlawfully abridged, specifying the violations in detail. The theory was, had any other right been abused by local or state governments, such as the rights of minorities to vote, or to enjoy full lawful use of public accommodations, etc., the Justice Department would be quick to send a team down to enforce "the supreme law of the land" by which all subordinate political entities are supposedly bound.

Did we think this was really going to happen? We'd have been floored, but we thought it important to separate rhetoric from (lack of) deeds--if we were being sold a bill of goods, that is, Ashcroft mouthing support for 2A with no action offered or taken, we'd at least be able to point out that we were being played.

Over the course of the year the "Ashcroft Petition" was promoted, we managed to get over 30,000 gun owners to sign on from every state of the union. Understand we did this with no budget or donation requests, strictly as part time volunteers--and this was not an Internet petition, but one that required actual signatures. Over the course of the year we mailed several large boxes of signed petitions to the AG, along with cover letters summarizing our project and reminding him of our previous correspondences. The only acknowledgment we ever received was a non-responsive reply from the chief of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section--a curious and chilling person to assign such a project to, we thought...

There's more to this story, of course, including professional representatives of the most prominent "gun lobby" group discouraging members from signing the petition because we who promoted it were "wild-eyed extremists." The bottom line is, we were small fries. Bush support for the AWB notwithstanding (hell it was touted as a clever ploy to appeal to "moderates"), gun owners danced to the Lee Atwater tune--who else were they gonna vote for?

While paying for the privilege?

"Fund raising hype" ? I guess a cynical person would start to have some questions...

You'll note I haven't come up with any solutions yet. I'm still working on defining the problem, and have the rest of Mr. Licht's email to address.

More to come...

Open Letter to Amendment II Democrats

WarOnGuns regulars know we've been discussing the group "Amendment II Democrats." I received the following from correspondent "Peter," and received permission to share it:

Dear Sirs/Madams,

As someone who generally agrees with the Democratic side of things, at least to the point of being registered as one, I was interested in hearing about you from David Codrea.

It's lonely being a gun positive Democrat, and it gets lonelier as time goes on. I was hoping that I had been directed to a group of like-minded folks.

I was wrong. You refer glancingly to the Second Amendment, but you're really interested in electing Democrats, no matter what.

Let me explain where I'm coming from:

The American Revolution did not start on 19Apr 1775 at Concord.

Nor on 5 Dec 1773, the Boston Massacre.

Nor during the French and Indian War.

It started in January of 1629 when Charles I of England dissolved Parliament and commenced the eleven-year period of Personal Rule. At this moment in time, William Penn was an unknown landowner in the English countryside, although events would force him to emigrate and eventually found Pennsylvania, as a "for instance".

Over the next century and a half it was realized that certain things belong inalienably to the individual, no matter the government, and no matter what any government might assert.

Those items are pretty well enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A possibly heretical (to you) thought: the Bill of Rights is eternal and timeless, and would obtain even if America never existed. That means you and I have the right to worship (or not), assemble, speak our minds, and bear arms, no matter what. Period. No 'reasonable' restrictions without overarching societal need, hence the prohibition against yelling Fire In A Crowded Theatre, as one example.

You cite on your website the fact that you're not on the NRA's Blacklist. Rather than use that to establish your bona fides, I would suggest that you haven't made enough of a public splash for them to notice you. I expect that to be remedied as soon as someone over there tries to wade through the morass of nonsense you have posted.

You are partisan hacks who are trying to exploit one of the national conversations for your own benefit and the benefit of your Democratic candidates. I hold Free Speech to be sacred, so by all means continue with what you're trying to do. It won't work, and you'll be doing it without my support, and when I hear that your partisan side overrides your Constitutional side, I will work against you. Please note that I said 'when'; I have no doubt you'll toss my Second Amendment Rights over the side when it becomes convenient for you to do so.

It's not my intention to attack this group, as I've said before I believe their spokesman Daniel Barnett is sincere, but I disagree with the underlying philosophy of not supporting pro-RKBA candidates because of party loyalty. So Peter's blunt observations need to be heard and understood by them, as they reflect a sentiment we've heard before in comments on previous posts, and one they will certainly continue to hear by gun owners rightfully distrusting of the abominable record of the modern Democrat party as a whole on gun rights.

It's my hope that this is a catalyst for a more profound reexamination than the "tweaking" we got the other day. My hope is to see them come around to a more profound and vigorous defense of their namesake amendment, one that is transparent to party lines. As always, dialog is the order of the day, and Mr. Barnett is welcome to respond in "Comments," below, or by sending me a standalone post, which I will publish unedited and in full.

Related Posts:
2A Dems to Hold 8/28 Rally
Second Amendment Democrats Respond
2A Dems "Tweak" Position

Trump Donations to Clinton Foundation Add to Gun Owner Concerns

First we need to make sure the fingers behind his back aren't crossed.

I see Pat Buchanan and Ilana Mercer just came out with approving columns on Donald Trump that do not mention the following concerns I raised in my May 15 Gun Rights Examiner column (and previous columns). Because so few seem to be aware of these concerns, I am reposting that article with minor corrective edits here:

Potential GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and his daughter have donated “at least $105,000 to the Clinton Foundation,” The Hill reported Thursday. Contributions, per the Foundation website, “advance the work of any part of the Clinton Foundation, including the Clinton Global Initiative.”

That would be the same group behind the Clinton Global Citizen Award, presented to anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg by Vice President Joe Biden for being the “most fierce and most effective advocate that we have on the matter of gun sanity.”

Trump has come across as effectively bipolar on guns.

“I love the NRA, I love the Second Amendment, so you have to know that,” Trump proclaimed at April’s National Rifle Association Leadership Forum in Nashville. “I promise you one thing, if I run for president, and if I win, the Second Amendment will be totally protected, that I can tell you.”

That doesn't exactly square with past statements -- by a long shot. True, he’s not against the concept of guns in private hands, under controlled circumstances, as Trump is one of the few elite recipients of a New York City concealed carry permit. But where does he stand on other aspects of the right to keep and bear arms that will interest gun owners looking for candidates worthy of their support?

Trump has a record on the issue from a prior time he was thinking about tossing his hat into the ring.

“Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns,” he declared in 2000, offering what he presumed to be an acceptable middle ground. “Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.

“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,” he elaborated.

Add to that a troubling history of not just generous financial support for the Clinton Foundation, but to a host of anti-gun Democrats, enabling them to retain their ability to attack the right to keep and bear arms.

“Over the past decade, Trump has given massive amounts of money not only to Democrats but the most liberal and most corrupt Democrats, such as Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Charlie Rangel,” former Rep. Tom Tancredo noted in 2011. He has given $116,000 in recent years to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He supported John Kerry in 2004…”

Asking if he's a "secret liberal," Business Insider noted "Donald Trump Has Given Much More Money To New York Democrats Than Republicans."

Still, Trump found another issue that resonates with NRA members who are seemingly unaware that their association intentionally ignores it (when not promoting those enabling it): Illegal immigration leading to a "pathway to citizenship."

“You look at what’s happening with Mexico, the border is a sieve,” Trump continued, broaching an issue NRA has thus far been deliberately indifferent to under a “single issue” excuse that does not withstand close scrutiny. “Everybody’s coming in illegally, millions of people coming in illegally, we've got to stop it at the border, and we have to stop it fast.”

The room ate it up, along with his "American jobs first" theme, and ended up giving Trump a standing ovation. Perhaps their enthusiastic reaction would have been tempered had his inspiring sentiments been compared to his record.

Again, Trump appears to have learned the right words. He recognizes Republicans are on a “suicide mission” in which “11 million people will be voting Democratic," that “anchor babies” becoming citizens “was never the intention behind the 14th Amendment,” and that even “legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily ... we must take care of our own people first.”

With that being the case, Trump’s “D-“ grade from Numbers USA in 2011 (including an "Abysmal" rating on "limiting unfair foreign worker competition") points to a serious disconnect between rhetoric and substance on immigration. Likewise, his donations to the Clinton Foundation and to vehemently anti-gun Democrats raise serious doubts over what he told cheering NRA members and what he actually would enable if they entrusted him with political power.

As this column observed in 2012, Trump could be a great friend if his seeming enthusiasm for the Second Amendment is real. How we could go about determining that, aside from doing things backwards -- trusting him and then seeing if he ends up earning it -- is unclear.

The bottom line: The guy has some serious explaining, disavowing and apologizing to do, and that includes outlining unequivocal ways to prove he is being sincere, as opposed to self-serving and manipulative.

Open Secrets

[T]he battle over the Second Amendment will be won by progressives in the coming years, thanks to a secret weapon. [More]

That's some secret. Some of us have been screaming as loud as we can about this for years, doing everything we can to get the gun groups to acknowledge the danger to the "single issue" and to take proactive steps to educate their members and pressure politicians with grade adjustments. It's not our fault if those warnings have been ignored and marginalized so as not to rock the access boat.

The funny thing is, it should hardly be a new "secret" revelation for WND. Two-and-a-half years ago, their columnist Albert Thompson wrote:

If the NRA, GOA, hunters, range owners, the tea party, churches and gun/ammo manufacturers don’t fight amnesty efforts, the Democrat elite will get their wish. In a few years, the Democrats will win legislative majorities in the states.

You know what the Democrat elite want to do. Amnesty gives them the power.

The Second Amendment will not be safe.

CPAC can’t support amnesty and the Second Amendment.

The RNC can’t support amnesty and the Second Amendment.

The conservative-libertarian movement can’t support amnesty and the Second Amendment.

What's particularly disappointing are many of the comments that focus exclusively on blaming "liberals" while still apparently oblivious to Republican culpability. And "Molon Labe" comments would have a lot more credibility if there was some indication that such "efforts" were not the extent of the committed "activism" of those posting them.

Ah well, maybe now that this is getting wider notice, a light bulb will go on about the troops-rousing (and fundraising) potential, just like we saw when Fast and Furious was finally acknowledged after our "leaders" emerged from hiding.

The Fruits of "Pragmatism"

Self-Proclaimed "Pro-Gun" Candidate Endorses Gun Grabber

Walter Moore ran for mayor of Los Angeles. Among his claims in an email to me: “I fully support our Second Amendment rights.”

He even addressed the Westside NRA Members’ Council to recruit gun owner support. I’ve spoken to some members who gave it.

I didn’t involve myself with his campaign because Moore refused to go on record answering specific questions about how he would support the right to keep and bear arms.

“Publicizing my stand on the Second Amendment to people who hate guns before the election would be counter-productive,” he told me. “It's fine for people WITHIN the Second Amendment community to know my stand, but if we start trumpeting it to the world, well, we risk losing a lot of votes unnecessarily.”

I pressed him on that, and his reply was “I've stated my position. Anyone who disagrees with my position can instead vote for one of the liberal Democrats against whom I'm running.”

Mr. Moore’s strategy of hiding from his claimed principles in order to glean votes resulted in a sixth-place finish, with 2.8 % of the vote.

And now, Mr. Moore, who had a problem “publicizing [his] stand on the Second Amendment” has no problem publicizing his support for a gun-grabbing rival.

The Los Angeles Times reports “Walter Moore, a Republican lawyer from Westchester…endorsed [incumbent mayor James] Hahn.”

That’s the same James Hahn who, according to The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence joined other big city mayors and “called on the Senate not to support legislation to give gunmakers, distributors and vendors immunity from civil liability.”

“As the city’s chief prosecutor,” Hahn’s website advertises, “he used innovative approaches to curbing gang violence, sued gun manufacturers to stop the illegal distribution of guns…”

In his Candidate Statement, Hahn brags that he “Joined members of the Million Mom March and other local organizations in calling for the renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. As City Attorney, Hahn wrote the law banning assault weapons in Los Angeles, the first major city in California to do so,” and “Signed into law an ordinance that prohibits the sale or transfer of large caliber handguns and rifles in the city."

I'm sure Mr. Moore will have plenty of justifications for voting "for one of the liberal Democrats against whom [he was] running." And we can all see how well his political "pragmatism" works to advance and secure freedom.

"Jim Hahn is straight with you," Moore told The Times, "and he follows through on what he says he's going to do."

Yeah, we know.

If you’re a gun owner who supported Walter Moore, this is what you got for your time, money and efforts. This is what you'll always get when a candidate won't proudly champion all of the Bill of Rights and makes excuses to avoid doing so.

BREAKING: CCRKBA pulls support for Manchin-Toomey

Huge news from Dave Workman. [Read]

UPDATE: The following press release just came in from Alan Gottlieb via email:

CCRKBA PULLS SUPPORT OF MANCHIN-TOOMEY ALTERNATIVE OVER RIGHTS RESTORATION

For Immediate Release: ​​

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has withdrawn its support for the Manchin-Toomey alternative background check measure because a key amendment for restoration of firearms rights is not being considered.

“Our support for this measure was contingent on several key provisions, the cornerstone of which was a rights restoration provision that is not on the schedule for consideration,” said a frustrated CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “This is not a reflection against Senators Joe Manchin or Pat Toomey, who are staunch Second Amendment advocates, and I want to thank them for all of their efforts to include as many protections for our gun rights as possible.

“But it appears the Democratic leadership in the Senate was opposed to letting this important consideration come up for a vote,” he said. “We told everyone including a number of senators, that while there are many pro-gun rights provisions added to the main body of the bill, our support was contingent on this additional amendment coming to the floor. When we say something, we mean it.”

Rights restoration has been withheld from American citizens for more than two decades, ever since Sen. Charles Schumer – when he was still in the House of Representatives – successfully strong-armed a provision to withdraw funding for rights restoration investigations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“Senators Manchin and Toomey are not to blame for this,” Gottlieb stated, “as they have been negotiating in good faith throughout this process. But Schumer and other anti-gun Democrats are continuing their campaign of demagoguery in order to permanently disqualify as many Americans as possible from being able to exercise their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment.

“If the Manchin-Toomey alternative now goes down to defeat,” he continued, “Democrats in the Senate, led by Harry Reid, have only themselves to blame. While the Manchin-Toomey alternative has a significant number of gains for gun owners, it will not include this key provision, upon which our support was dependent.

“We cannot, in clear conscience, continue to support a measure that will not include this critical relief component,” Gottlieb concluded. “If Democrats like Schumer thought we could be flim flammed on this, they were wrong.”

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

No Net Loss for the Second Amendment?

In a very tough election climate for Republicans, the good news is that the gun issue is increasingly non-partisan...

There are a lot of races were pro-gun Republican incumbents are being challenged by pro-gun Democrats — no net loss for the Second Amendment.

Yeah, if you believe they really are "pro-gun Democrats." I thought everybody was making a big to-do about how Obama, in spite of telling us what a great 2A pal he is, really isn't.

Sorry if I don't buy into the assertion that these democrats, who almost to a man have endorsed the guy we're told "would be the most anti-gun president in American history," and some with problematic RKBA records themselves, are going to buck their party leadership and jeopardize assignments, relationships, key support, future electability...

I simply don't believe that principle and fidelity to 2A will trump carrot and stick, especially among Beltway democrats.

And while I hope you will be proven spectacularly right and I spectacularly wrong on this, Mr. Kopel, I just ain't buyin' it.

Anti-Gun Deception On The Senate Floor

Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive?

What--you mean they'll still give an A-rating to someone who votes for Eric Holder?

I want you to take a few minutes and read what NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox has to say about Holder, naturally under the "Vote Freedom First" header. Among other things:

...Holder's history of aggressive anti-gun activism is even worse than Emanuel's record of media-focused PR stunts.

Holder has always been among the first in front of the cameras to exploit tragedy for political gain. From Columbine to the September 11 attacks, there was no event in which Holder couldn't find some inspiration for gun bans, gun registration, gun rationing and more. Just weeks after terrorists used box cutters to turn airplanes into guided missiles, Holder wrote in the Washington Post, "One measure that is an essential part of any plan is the need to tighten our nation's gun laws, which allow the easy and legal sale of firearms to terrorists and criminals."

Holder claimed, mistakenly, "No court has ever said that the Second Amendment actually says that. I think, if you look at it, it talks about bearing guns in a well-regulated militia. And I don't think anywhere it talks about an individual." Holder most recently signed a brief...in the Heller case that "The Second Amendment does not protect firearm possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia."

But if senators don't "Vote Freedom First," well, anybody who has a problem with that just doesn't understand how politics works.

And forget talking filibuster. With the betrayal by all those A-rated republicans on the Judiciary Committee, we're told we just don't have the numbers. And why did they feel comfortable with betrayal again? Where was the NRA-ILA Alert leading a concerted effort to oppose Holder from Day One, to write, call and email senators, to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it known that "Vote Tyranny First" would not be cost-free?

Right. After what Cox just told us, we're supposed to turn around and accept that this is just not important enough to expend political capital on? Besides, activist gun owners would be so worn out from making a few phone calls and sending a few letters that they'd just be totally spent when AWB2 comes around. What, you think we can walk now and chew gun six months later?

Which I guess means a vote for cloture if someone does strap 'em on to filibuster won't be held against them, either. Or against any of those A-rated and endorsed "pro-gun" democrats:

If the assumption is "all the current Democratic senators," what can we expect from our new shining "pro-gun Democrat" star? Or we might ask where our "true champion of Second Amendment freedoms" Max Baucus stands...or Tim Johnson...or...

There is one point where I agree with the Lairds of Fairfax. There is anti-gun deception on the Senate floor. And it is deliberate.

Staunch Supporters of the Second Amendment

Congressional Republicans are jeopardizing the Second Amendment rights of 4.2 million senior citizens. At the same time, they have voted to funnel tens of millions of dollars to gun control organizations and support other actions that Democrats will love. 

For whatever reason Fox News denies access to links from Blogger, so you'll need to copy and paste the url into your browser:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/03/22/second-amendment-rights-more-than-4-million-americans-are-at-risk-thanks-to-republicans-in-congress.html

Turn In Your Deer Rifle And Your 12-gauge Shotgun To The Texas Department Of Gun Control

That is an order that will never be given by a Democratic government. Democrats will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

And when the democrat government issues that order, how many men like me are you willing to kill in order to implement your ban on semiautos and other disarmament schemes Barbara Hudson, you genius? Because I won't obey them.

Get this straight. I don't care about your damned grilled bacon-wrapped dove breasts, which actually sounds like something that ought to be kept private between you and whoever will have you. Do you think Liberty was purchased with blood, powder, lead and steel so that you damn treasonous Fudds could eat venison backstrap smothered in gravy around a campfire, and then crap it out on Rights that were once paid for in human lives?

You stupid woman.

W-3, who sent me this story, wanted to share his thoughts:

I can’t believe the ramblings of this poor brainwashed rabid b****. The majority of the her so-called “gun crimes” are innocent actions that left wing democrats have over the past few years converted into criminal acts. These people have created the crises they now want to fix by throwing more and more legal citizen gun owners into jail. Barbara Hudson may not have any intention of attempting to get legislation passed by the Texas Legislature but her statements make it pretty obvious that her agenda includes action against our inalienable rights allegedly protected by the 2nd Amendment on the federal level, and the feds don’t give a Big Rat’s Ass about our state and local laws. You will be declared a criminal and/or terrorist by federal legislation regardless of Texas statute. And, when you are killed or arrested by the unconstitutional standing acronym army of federal agents your firearms will be confiscated, never to be seen again, and you will become a statistic in their democratic war against gun criminals and terrorists.

It's really hard to believe that crap like Hudson wrote actually came out of a Texas woman's brain. It’s hard to believe that otherwise right thinking Texas Democrats are buying into this agenda out of party loyalty. I refuse to be a member of the flock - Democrat or Republican. When it becomes obvious that the group with which I identify is traipsing off in a direction that is detrimental to the Republic and is threatening the inalienable rights of American citizens, I will “jump ship”.

Henry David Thoreau is quoted as having said, “Any fool can make a rule and all the fools will follow it.” In that vein, any fool can establish an agenda and all the fools will follow it.

Barbara Hudson along with other poor misguided democrats must spend the majority of their time seated in the lotus position, humming, "Obamamamamama Obamamamamama Obamamamamama ........"

Even though I live a few hundred miles from Blanco County I'm actually ashamed to share air with someone who so obviously appears to be a descendant of some damnyankee carpetbagger. [ Yeah, Add hominy and grits]

If it proves out that the media is correct, and they probably are as the media usually determines the results of so-called democratic elections, the Obama messiah and the rest of his brainwashed minions will manage to achieve control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the united States government. And, you will more than probably lose more by “due process” than just your rights ?protected? by the 2nd amendment.

You are aware, aren’t you, that the government can take anything it wants from you by using “due process”? If your government wants you dead, you will die and the standing acronym army won’t look back or hesitate, except to add your ears to its coup along with Ms Weaver’s, those of the 80 Waco folks’, the Wounded Knee victims’, Sherman’s civilian victims’, and a multitude of others’.

NOW is the time to purchase a handgun, a shotgun, an AR-15 (or similar rifle), and plenty of ammunition. BEFORE the unthinkable occurs.

Appear Set to TRY

 

The End of The Second Amendment? Democrats Appear Set to End Public Gun Ownership If They Gain Power in November [More]

That's certainly the longterm impossible dream, as misguided as the notion that the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bears arms are synonymous is. 

And as someone once said, wishing and doing are two different things.

Question Seven

Question Seven: This one was a surprise. "How would you protect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners?" McMurrey said, The Second Amendment is a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. Noriega said he was a lifetime member of the Texas State Rifle Association. He is concerned about assault weapons, worried that police are outgunned by narcotraffickers.

No surprise there that Noriega's an "Only One" and McMurrey isn't, is it?

I wonder if TSRA is going to issue a statement repudiating their errant life member?

[Via Amendment II Democrats]

Leaders in the Fight

The Tillis/Lankford amnesty is dubbed the SUCCEED Act, and it would offer a 15-year path to the voting booth to roughly 2 million illegals, plus their chain-migration relatives ... Tillis’ amnesty was also backed by retiring Sen. Orrin Hatch, another long-standing advocate for H-1B outsourcing.[More]

And it's still not enough for the Democrats. No amount of ...uh... quislinging ever will be.

"NRA groups" poured $4.5M into Tillis "independent expenditures." Chris Cox calls Lankford "a leader in the fight to protect our Second Amendment Rights." And, of course, "Orrin Hatch has demonstrated leadership in defending our Second Amendment freedoms and hunting heritage."

GOA gives Tillis and Hatch a "B" and Lankford an "A." Doesn't seem like much of a markdown considering this grand pledge.

Good thing none of this has anything to do with that "single issue." That must be why nobody has even attempted to come up with an unequivocal and fact-based response to my challenge.

There's a Difference Between Confusion and Ignorance

Some commentators who oppose what they see as unconstitutional limits on gun ownership said they feared gun control advocates would successfully use the Virginia tragedy to bolster their position, especially with Democrats’ new power in Washington. 'We see calls for gun control but we may not see as much empathy for calls for armed self-defense,' said David Codrea, a blogger and a columnist for Guns Magazine.

What confuses me is why these same people that will not budge on the defense of their second amendment rights, seem to be able to sleep through the suspension of habeus corpus included in the Military Commissions Act and the dilution of the Bill of Rights by the PATRIOT Act and continue to support the politicians that recommend, pass, and enact into law such legislation. Of what possible use is a basement full of assault weapons without the right to peaceable assembly or freedom from warrantless searches? Where is their righteous indignation when rights cherished by all Americans are infinged.

You obviously don't know anything about me, or the countless gun owners I identify with who celebrate a "Bill of Rights Culture."

Here's another example of self-imposed ignorance:

It also never seems to occur to these second amendment supporters that it's very difficult to find anyone who has been victimized by someone using a firearm that is equally as adamant in their support for gun-rights.

Really?

Tell that to Suzanna Gratia-Hupp.

Pal, if I were you, I'd shut up and start learning. Right now, you're only making a fool of yourself.

The Dean of "Pro-Gun Democrats"

He said he was supported by the NRA for many years until he refused to vote on a bill that would allow guns into bars, something he said flew in the face of common sense. “I had friends I grew up with who would forget they had a gun and then they had about six drinks and then they remembered they had one,” he said. “It doesn't make common sense — alcohol and firearms. They say it’s Second Amendment rights, I don’t think that’s what the Second Amendment is about. But they have the right to feel that way.” [More]

What can one say but "Good riddance"?

I suppose I could say a  hell of a lot more, but most here can probably come up with the same observations on their own.

Blind Leading the Purposefully Blind

“I had no idea that those things (bump stocks) even existed. So that’s when I knew that I needed to take a stand. I believe that I was saved for a reason, and I need to make a difference.” Carroll, a mother of two, comes from a family of Republicans who enjoy hunting and support Second Amendment rights. “I grew up in a household with hunters. My boyfriend’s a hunter." [More]

So the six Democrats and five "Republicans" who voted for this infringement took their lead from someone who admits complete ignorance on what they want to ban and demonstrates complete ignorance on what the Second Amendment is about.

Call it idiocracy, call it legislative malpractice... I call it tyranny, cowardice and treason.

[Via Mack H]

Courting Catastrophe

A federal appeals court this week sided with California Attorney General Kamala Harris and declined to rehear a combined case that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm for self-defense in public ... the groups involved, the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation in Richards and the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association in Peruta... [More]

Yet none of the Grover-lovin' groups have even acknowledged (let alone included it in their grading criteria) the one issue that will guarantee Democrat supermajority control, allowing them to enact legislation and appoint judges who will uphold their Intolerable Acts.

None of them will directly and responsively answer my challenge:

Produce credible data – something that can be independently validated – that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and even legally, with current culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners.

Because they know they can't. So all we get instead are red herring anecdotes and platitudes.

Oppose the McCarthy/Dingell/NRA Gun Control Axis

On Friday, The Washington Post reported on the strange coalition. "With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls," the Post said, "the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system."

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), who was once on the NRA Board of Directors but resigned when he supported and voted for the Clinton semi-auto ban in 1994, is reported to be "leading talks with the powerful gun lobby in hopes of producing a deal [soon]," Democratic aides and lawmakers told the newspaper.

Rep. McCarthy admitted to the Post that her "crusades" for more gun control have made her voice "toxic" in gun circles. "So Dingell is handling negotiations with the NRA," the newspaper reported. "Dingell is also in talks with Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee."

I was on my way out the door on Friday when I first heard about the "mental health background check" proposal. All I really had time to post was this:

Four days after the fact--when the whole country is furiously debating the impact of the Virginia tech shootings on the Second Amendment--there's still no leadership from our self-proclaimed leaders? All we get are plausibly deniable signals sent through seconds that they'd endorse an expansion of NICS if only there were some way to work around privacy protections?

It's hard to argue with the general public about background checks, particularly where mental health questions are involved. Deep-rooted prejudice and an inclination to discriminate is tough to overcome, and people are skeptical when you tell them the mentally ill are no more inclined toward violence than the general population.

Likewise, most of our countrymen are oblivious to the concept of enumerated Constitutional powers for the federal government. Perhaps National Rifle Control, Inc./The LaPierre Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence would be kind enough to show us the section of this document that authorizes their bright new idea for applying prior restraint.

So what am I arguing? Crazy people and psychopaths should be able to walk into the hardware store and walk out with a grenade launcher? Look, I've said this before, many times: Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian.

Here's something else I've pointed out numerous times: If we are to believe official reports, the single biggest act of mass murder in our nation's history was committed with mail room tools. The second largest death toll was created with gardening chemicals. The third utilized about a buck's worth of gasoline.

And here's another concern that has been left unsaid in this bill, but you can bet your guns (and you will be if this thing passes) that those behind it will be back with Phase 2. After all, if it makes sense to keep people with questionable mental health backgrounds from buying guns, wouldn't it make even more sense to remove existing guns from their homes? And how will the government know who has guns, unless NICS has the capability to keep records if only the political will existed to do so?

And why stop with your mental health, or make allowances that we all have periods of tragedy and trauma in our lives that tax--and sometimes overcome--our ability to cope? How about if your spouse is being treated for depression, or your child has been diagnosed with "ADHD" by a school with a government grant money incentive to get him on Ritalin? How can we possibly allow dangerous guns to be brought into such households, and it follows, how can we allow existing guns to remain?

Also, will there be an "Only Ones" loophole? That may be a way to help stifle enthusiasm for this bill--start insisting on an amendment that gores their ox.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of cynical posturing I've come to expect from current NRA management. I don't know if a campaign to call or write them will make any difference--perhaps it will if you include a copy of a donation check made out to GOA.

The other thing to do is contact the Republicans named in the GOA release. I agree with activist Andy Barniskis, who suggests adding the following text to GOA's pre-written letter:

[Insert after 1st paragraph] I DO NOT AGREE WITH NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, WHICH HAS GIVEN ITS APPROVAL TO THIS TERRIBLE LEGISLATION.

[Insert as last paragraph] PLEASE DON'T BELIEVE THAT SUPPORT BY THE NRA WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT COVER FOR YOU IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS LEGISLATION. GUN OWNERS WILL NOT FORGET HOW YOU VOTE.