Activism

The short version is, Manchin-Toomey is going to be close.  If Manchin-Toomey is going to be close, Schumer's legislation did not have a chance and Toomey should not have been suckered into playing the compromise game.

Read the whole thing if you want to know where things stand.

Write your Senators.  Tell them  VOTE NO on Manchin-Toomey.  Tell them VOTE NO on all gun control.

Then write your Representative, because we can't trust the Senate.

Send email first, because it's easy and it gets your opinion through.  Follow it up with a phone call, because that demonstrates that you really mean it.

Once you have contacted your own reps, Arma Borealis has a list of additional Senators to contact.  Don't be shy about calling outside your own state, you can be sure the other side is doing it.

We can stop gun control in its tracks. 

But we have to make it clear to our Senators that no compromises are acceptable.

Talking points to hit on every communication:

1. Oppose all gun control
2. Oppose Manchin-Toomey specifically
3. Oppose Schumer's legislation S.649 specifically

I would caution against statements supporting anything at this time.  

If you're not convinced that Manchin-Toomey-Schumer is bad for gun rights, this post will help you.

UPDATE: No vote yet, but they are promising today or tomorrow.  This means that Reid does NOT have the votes to pass Manchin-Toomey.   KEEP CALLING!

UPDATE: No vote Tuesday.  They promise a vote Wedsnesday at 4pm.

This is it, folks.  This is the pressure point.  Obama is flying Sandy Hook families to Washington to cry on command in front of Senators.  We have to make sure that the Senate's phone banks and email servers melt down into a puddle that reads  "VOTE NO ON GUN CONTROL". 

Contact your Senators.

Get your friends and family to contact their Senators.

Do it every day until ALL the gun control legislation is voted down.

Sample Letter:

Senator,

I know you support the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and which the Supreme Court has affirmed in the Heller and McDonald cases. 

As an elected official, you will occasionally be called upon to protect our Constitution with your vote as well as your voice.  This week is one of those times.

Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he will bring Senator Schumer's gun control legislation (S 649) to the Senate floor for a vote.  I urge you to vote NO on that legislation, and to vote NO on any other gun control legislation offered. 

In fact, I urge you to filibuster any and ALL gun control legislation, including -- but not limited to -- a magazine ban, a semi-auto ban, a private transfer ban, and anything else related to gun control.

The Constitution demands a filibuster. 

As your constituent and an American citizen, I demand a filibuster and a NO vote on ANY and ALL proposed gun control legislation.

Some Senators may approach you and suggest that they have negotiated a deal.  Vote NO.

The president may pressure you and point to biased polls and the astroturf of paid "volunteers".  Don't be fooled.  Vote NO.

Vote NO on gun control.  Period.

Sincerely,

UPDATE: Reports are that the vote is scheduled for Thursday.  Toomey and Manchin are supposed to announce some sort of deal they have worked out between the two of them at 10am Wednesday.  We'll see what comes out of that, but generally I'm not willing to accept any more "compromise" of my fundamental rights.

UPDATE: The first filibuster vote is likely to be today at 11am.  There have been enough Republican defections that the vote will likely be very close.  We'll see how it goes, but if the vote today succeeds it won't be the final vote. 

On the Toomey-Manchin compromise.  I don't support it.  It trades significantly expanded background check requirements -- banning almost all private transfers, with a "family and hunting trip" exemption -- for a bunch of minor improvements that are mostly present in existing law, and often already ignored in blue states that are hostile to gun rights.  In particular, the prohibition on creating a firearms registration system is existing law.  (The penalty for doing so might be new, I'm not sure, but what prosecutor would bring that case against the FBI or BATFE?)

So, it's still vote NO on everything, including the Toomey-Manchin compromise.

UPDATE: We lost the first vote, 68 votes to proceed.  As I understand it, amendments will be offered, and at least one final majority vote will take place.  I do not know at this time whether we will get a second filibuster vote before the final vote can occur.

In other words, some of the Connecticut Republicans betrayed their constituents. 

Connecticut lawmakers reached a bipartisan deal Monday on what they consider some of the toughest gun laws in the country and hope will be a model for other capitals, pushing to expand the state's assault-weapons ban and impose new restrictions on high-capacity magazines. 

Remember, Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban in place before Newtown.  It didn't stop anyone.

The new law sets a 10 round maximum on new magazines in addition to banning a hundred new weapons within the state by name and moving to a "one-feature" test for assault weapons, presumably banning a lot more than the specific list.  It does appear to grandfather existing magazines, though they must be registered (using what serial numbers?!) as must grandfathered weapons within the state.  And, of course, you can't buy or sell a grandfathered weapon, and they ban private firearm and magazine transfers as well.

Note: They ban transfers, not just sales, so letting a friend borrow your magazine at the range becomes a felony.

The law also requires an eligibility certificate to purchase a rifle or shotgun.  To get the certificate, you have to take a training course, be fingerprinted, and have your mental health background checked for admissions... including voluntary ones. 

Buying ammunition also requires a certificate and a background check at each purchase.  (Go to the range and run out of ammo?  Wait an hour for NICS).

The Democrats are calling it "the strongest... and the most comprehensive bill in the country".  (Stronger than New York's SAFE Act?  That's pretty strong, but they did take a lot longer to think about it...)

Discussion happens Wednesday.  That's today.  If you're in Connecticut, do your best to show up.  If you can't show up, email or call.  Preferably both.

I'll leave you with one final note.  Remember how compromise works.  They compromise with you now, to leave you half of your pie, then a quarter of your pie, then a single piece of your pie, and before you know it, you are staring at the crumbs you have left and they are coming back for more:

Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said his group will live with the lawmakers' decision not to ban them as other states have done. He said the leaders made their decision based on what was politically feasible.

"We have to be satisfied. There are still other things that we want, we'll be back for in later sessions," he said. "But for now, it's a good thing."

They get all that -- assuming the vote passes, in a Democrat-controlled legislature -- and they admit they will be back for more!

Six relatives of Newtown victims visited the Capitol on Monday, asking lawmakers to ban existing high-capacity magazines. Some handed out cards with photographs of their slain children.

That is a vile, despicable thing to do to your dead children.

The NRA has the details on how to oppose the bill.

Pull out all the stops, people.  The vote is TODAY (April 3, 2013).

Yesterday, House Bill 35 passed in the House by a 24-17 vote.  Sponsored by state Representative Valerie Longhurst (D-15), HB 35 would criminalize virtually all private transfers of firearms by requiring that a criminal history background check be performed in connection with the sale or transfer of all firearms.  Background checks (subject to fees) would be performed by licensed firearms dealers, who would be required to maintain records of such background checks in accordance with state and federal law.

House Bill 35 now goes to the state Senate.  It is critical that you contact your state Senator now and strongly urge him or her to OPPOSE HB 35.

While there might be limited exceptions -- make no mistake -- HB 35 is the first step toward the criminalization of all private firearm transfers.  This system can only be enforced with gun registration.  And, as we know from experiences in California, Australia and Great Britain, gun registration enables gun confiscation -- only from honest citizens -- since criminals don't register their guns or submit to criminal investigations for firearms acquisition or transfers.

Please contact your Senator and urge him or her to OPPOSE House Bill 35.

Contact information for your state legislators can be found here.

Sebastian has more details.

Today, the state House of Representatives undermined your inherent right to self-defense by passing House Bill 135 by a 189-184 vote.  Introduced by state Representative Stephen Shurtleff (D- Merrimack 11), HB 135 will render law-abiding citizens defenseless victims by removing consequences for criminal activity.

HB 135 would repeal important self-defense provisions enacted in 2011, making the following changes to New Hampshire's current self-defense laws:

1. Eliminates the provision that allows a person to use deadly force anywhere he or she has a legal right to be.  This limits an individual's ability to defend themselves or a third party from assault to their own place of residence.
2. Amends the definition of non-deadly force by removing the provision that specifies the act of producing or displaying a weapon is considered non-deadly force.  Thus, drawing or exhibiting your firearm to intimidate a perpetrator could be considered deadly force.
3. Repeals the provision granting civil immunity for the use of force in certain circumstances.  The elimination of this provision removes legal protections for law-abiding citizens acting in self-defense.

Given the alarming passage of this bill in the state House, it is imperative that you contact your state Senator TODAY.  Let your state Senator know that HB 135 is a step in the wrong direction for New Hampshire, and will put you and your loved ones at risk.  Ask your state Senator whether they plan to vote for the rights of law-abiding citizens or criminals when this bill is considered by the state Senate.

Click here for contact information and help identifying your state Senator in Concord.

Hat tip to Sebastian.

Gun control will be the first order of business in the Senate when lawmakers return in April from their two-week holiday break.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) formally moved a package of gun-related bills onto the legislative calendar Thursday night, setting up the most serious debate on gun control in Congress in more than a decade.

"After the break" may well mean that your Senator will be coming back to their home state to pretend to listen to their constituents.  Make sure you fill their ears with the words "Vote NO on gun control" and especially "Vote NO on any ban on private transfers".  We have time to make our message clear, and we need to use it.  The assault weapons ban is bad law, but it's short of even 40 votes according to Reid.  We can stop the ban on private transfers too, but we have to make it clear that we oppose that legislation too.

We need to flip three Senators, and we've got two expressing doubts.  There's one persuadable.   Even if you're not in Colorado, a polite letter opposing gun control might make a difference.

On Feb. 25 & 26, make Five Phone Calls for Freedom

Friday, February 22, will witness an unprecedented attack on your rights as Obama mobilizes his army of left-wing activists to push for federal gun bans. "Roll Call" recently ran a piece entitled, "Organizing for America Plans 'National Day of Action' to Mobilize Grass Roots on Guns." It went on to say:

"Organizing for Action is planning its first official mobilization in support of President Barack Obama's proposals to curtail gun violence. The nonprofit that inherited Obama's campaign infrastructure and 2 million strong volunteer army will hold a "national day of action" on Feb. 22, officials said Tuesday."

If that doesn't scare you, it should

What you are seeing is "Barry the Community Organizer" doing what he does best: Attacking your rights using millions of rabid radicals who will stoop to any level of deceit in order to control you. The grass roots initiative began with his State of the Union address, in which he packed the house with families of victims of mass killings. Next, Obama went on the road to sell his plan at schools in Atlanta and elsewhere.

Now MoveOn.org is joining the fray by running TV ads that proclaim, "The NRA doesn't speak for me." In case you didn't know it, these are the same folks that you brought you "ACORN"; MoveOn.org is funded by the left wing "Tides Foundation" which is itself funded by none other than freedom-hating billionaire George Soros.

Your voice needed now more than ever

You have politicians scared. As a founding member of the Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban, which now comprises 38 state and national organizations, GRNC members have been blasting Congress with a coordinated message that we will punish any legislator who supports gun control. So to counter your influence, "Barry" plans to "out-grassroots" you. Will you let him?

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

Make Five Phone Calls for Freedom

To fight back against this left wing attack, we are asking millions of Second Amendment supporters, represented by the Coalition and others, to deliver a loud and clear message to Congress by making 5 phone calls on Monday and Tuesday (Feb. 25 & 26). Please note that we said CALL, not email. We want millions of voices to ring through the congressional switchboard, so please note that you might have to try several times to get through.

Specifically, we are asking you to call:

1. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell at 202-224-2541
2. House Speaker John Boehner at 202-225-0600
3. Senator Richard Burr at 202-224-3154
4. Senator Kay Hagan at 202-224-6342
5. Your representative to the U.S. House. To identify your US House representative, go to: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and then enter your zip code in the upper right corner of the page.

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

Give congressional staff 3 simple talking points:

1. Nothing about the federal proposals is acceptable -- not banning semi-automatic firearms and magazines, not expanding the list of people prohibited from owning guns, and not registering private gun sales via the National Instant Check System;
2. Because "compromise" means losing freedom, you will not "compromise" on this issue, including any "lite" version of registering private sales through the National Instant Check System; and
3. As a member of one of the organizations comprising the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban, you will support coordinated Coalition action against any legislator who supports gun control.

Hat tip to No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money.

Chris at Armaborealis has a contact tool for Maryland legislators and a sample letter.

Sebastian has a status update on the Senate gun control fight.  It doesn't look good:

Every gun owner's voice must be heard -- STARTING WITH YOURS!!!

Call the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your Senators by name. Or, email your Senators by going to NRA-ILA's "Let Your Voice Be Heard" webpage.

Whether you call or email, make sure you tell your Senators to vote NO on any gun ban - NO on any magazine ban - NO on criminalizing private firearms transfers - and NO on any gun registration scheme.

Folks, whatever they pass this time around won't have an expiration date.  When the NRA asks people to write, it's serious; they don't like to cry wolf.  Write your representatives. 

I am an NRA life member.  I vote in general elections and in primaries.  I vote on my right to keep and bear arms, and I vote for freedom.

I urge you to vote NO on magazine bans.  I urge you to vote NO on firearm bans.  I urge you to vote NO on gun registration.  I urge you to vote NO on criminalizing private firearms transfers.

VOTE NO ON GUN CONTROL.

There are a lot of people out there, probably writing to you, who get all worked up about whatever the media storm of the day is.  Yesterday they were writing about global warming.  Today they are writing to demand gun control.  Tomorrow they will be writing about windmills, or saving snails, or the avian flu. 

I am not one of those people.

I was paying attention, and writing to Congress, when the so-called assault weapons ban expired in 2004.  My firearms and politics blog followed that issue closely.  My contribution to that debate, however small, helped block the renewal of that law.

I am paying attention today, when a gun-hating president calls upon Congress to ignore the 2nd Amendment and punish law abiding gun owners.  I will publicly name and shame those who vote to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.  I will praise those who vote to preserve it. 

I will be paying attention tomorrow, when you are up for election again.  I will remember then how you vote now, and I will make sure that my friends, neighbors, coworkers, customers, employers, service providers, aerial survey pilots, fellow gun show attendees, google earth users viewing satellite pictures of the sign on my roof, and anyone close enough to read my bumper stickers knows how you voted on this issue.

Vote the right way.

VOTE NO ON GUN CONTROL.

One from Smith and Wesson, another from Ruger.

Two companies that have learned not to collaborate with the enemy.  It's my understanding that both companies have come under new management and significantly improved their posture since those learning experiences.  I mention them not to attack either company at this point, but to remind others who may be thinking of making deals with the administration that there is a price to pay for doing so.

And, of course, to remind you, gentle reader, to contact your representatives today.  A personal note is best, but using either of the above tools will be better than nothing.

If you're in North Dakota, or just have a few minutes, you might want to offer some encouragement for a Democrat willing to call the various gun control proposals being floated "way in the extreme".

It's up to you to figure out how to reach your Representative and Senators (Ruger has stepped up with contact forms if you are lazy), but I will tell you what they need to hear about.

It's more effective to write for yourself, without using a form letter.  Don't suggest compromises, even if you believe there are compromises you would be willing to make: lawmakers need to hear that we don't want these laws to keep their spines stiff.  They will compromise if they think they have to, our job is to convince them that they don't have to.

First and foremost, BE POLITE!  You can be firm, but don't be threatening or talk about how you won't comply.  You are just telling your legislator how you want them to represent you.  You want to be a rational, literate constituent whose letter represents thousands of other people who didn't take the time to write themselves, not the crazy homeless guy who talks like Rambo.

Second, tell them you OPPOSE all forms of gun control.  Make that point straight off before you get to specifics.  If something new comes up you may not get a chance to write before it is voted on.

Third, tell them your position on specific legislation that you know about.

For the House of Representatives, via A Keyboard and a .45:

• HR 137: I OPPOSE this bill.  This is effectively a national firearms registry.
• HR 138: I OPPOSE this bill.  It bans standard capacity magazines used in modern sporting rifles and self-defense weapons by millions of law abiding (and voting) Americans. 
• HR 141: I OPPOSE this bill.  It requires background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows, which is nothing more than another registration scheme.  All dealers at gun shows are required to perform their usual background checks on sales.
  
• HR 142: I OPPOSE this bill.  It bans mail-order purchase of ammunition, requires licensing of ammunition dealers, and requires reporting of ammunition purchases in quantities that I use up in a single trip to a shooting range and would cost less than a good dinner on the way home. 
  
• HR 34: I OPPOSE this bill.  We do not license fundamental rights, and we do not register firearms.
  
• HR 117: I OPPOSE this bill.  We do not license fundamental rights, and we do not register firearms.  This applies to handguns as well as rifles and shotguns. 
  
• HR 65: I OPPOSE this bill.  It raises the age requirement for handguns to 21.  If 18 is old enough to join the military and serve our country honorably by driving tanks or flying bombers, it's old enough to defend your own life.
  
• HR 21: I OPPOSE this bill.  It is NOT supported by the NRA.  It criminalizes the private sale of firearms, creates an effective firearms registration system, makes it a crime to have your own firearm stolen, and places inappropriate and unconstitutional requirements on states.

Our best bet to stop legislation is the House.  Start with the  Speaker of the House, then the Judiciary Committee, and then your own representative just in case.

Once you have demonstrated that you are paying attention (by listing the specific legislation) remind them that you have friends and you will be keeping your friends informed as well.  Remember, you are just one person, but every one person who writes represents thousands more who did not.

Sebastian is reporting on an effort in your state to ban "inherently dangerous firearms".   As he says, you only get one chance to stop things like this, it's very hard to repeal a law once passed.

The JPFO are asking for donations to help them boot the BATFE. 

It seems that USA 3000 Airline has banned guns in baggage, according to David Hardy at Of Arms and the Law.  That's fairly silly; transport of firearms that way is extensively regulated and quite safe when those regulations are followed.  The biggest risk is probably theft by a baggage handler. 

I'm not sure what the airline thinks it has to gain from this, aside from scoring political points with people flying on the airline, who may not realize that transporting firearms that way is quite legal and reasonably common.  But in deciding to forbid the practice, it has certainly made itself a target for a boycott from supporters of gun rights.

I would be interested to know the economic outcome of the decision; does it cost them more to ban the practice and suffer the boycott, or do their other customers appreciate it enough to make up for the business?

We probably won't ever find out.

David's post, linked above, has contact info if you want to give them a piece of your mind.

Jerry the Geek questions another Geek (with a .45) about the injuries allegedly sustained by Patricia Konie when she was recently jackbooted, noting that the woman on the video is able to lift her dog into a vehicle, and questioning whether she could have been injured as badly as claimed in the lawsuit.

I don't have any more information than what's in the lawsuit, but I do understand a little bit about the nature of lawsuits.  First, the text quoted in my own post on the story is from the complaint in the lawsuit; that's important, because it means the account therein was written by Konie's lawyer, and it was written to establish two things: the legal basis for Konie's claim for damages, and the extent of those damages. 

Generally, courts do not issue awards randomly.  They are usually based some combination of actual damages (eg, costs incurred in healing the injury, medical care, repairing or replacing property, etc), punitive damages (awarded without a showing of cost, to discourage violations), and legal fees (because the injured party should not have to pay their lawyer if the other party is clearly in the wrong -- the lawyer's fees are another cost to repair the original injury, except that they are not always awarded). 

So when you file your initial complaint, you are looking to establish from the beginning the extent of the damages your client suffered, if not necessarily a precise accounting at that stage.  You're going to have a hard time convincing the court to order damages for injuries that magically appear later on in the case, so you include everything you think you might claim eventually.  Most likely that's all that's going on here.  If the complaint says the injuries "may" require surgery, what he's really saying is that they haven't required surgery yet, but that they might. 

Since the complaint was filed towards the end of November, and the press release is datelined mid-December, I'd say that the injuries did in fact require surgery between the time the complaint was filed and the press released issued.  Since the press release is considerably more detailed about those injuries than the complaint, I'd say there are good odds that the medical care obtained in the meantime helped to diagnose the injuries that had been inflicted.

I don't know anything about dislocated shoulders, never having had one, but hypothetically, if I was being "evacuated" and one of my shoulders was dislocated, I would be lifting animals with the other arm.  Just something to bear in mind.

The Gun Owners of America are urging us to support Kaloogian's campaign for Congress, by way of a district in California.  He's got good qualifications:

As a California Assemblyman from 1994-2000, Mr. Kaloogian fought tenaciously against the most radical anti-gun agenda in the country.  Working with Gun Owners of America, Kaloogian lead the fight against SB 23, the expansion of the ban on "so-called" Assault Weapons, and SB 15, the Safe Handgun laws that were really meant to ban small affordable handguns.

The seat is currently open, and will be filled by special election within the next few months.  Since it's a special election with no incumbent, there will likely be relatively small turnout, which means that Kaloogian has a chance at winning if he can mobilize enough people who care about the gun issue.

In any case, GOA says he's worth supporting, and that's good enough for me.

The Gun Owners of America are urging you to contact Congress regarding the Patriot Act renewal legislation.  Here's why:

Capitol Hill sources have told GOA there is a provision in this bill (Section 215) which would allow the FBI to get a secret court order to seize ANY business records it believes would be relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation... without having to make the case that the gun records they're confiscating have any connection to a suspected terrorist.

Section 215 is the same provision that allows for seizure of library records (what you're reading about) and similar privacy threats.  While passing the Patriot Act in the wake of 9-11 could possibly be excused as an emergency situation, it has now been over 4 years since that event.  How many terrorists -- real terrorists, not prostitutes or drug users -- have been captured and convicted because of evidence obtained through section 215?

The answer seems clear: not enough to justify abrogating our Constitutional rights.

Sometimes, it's hard to give the proper response ("That's none of your business!") to a doctor who wants to abuse his position of authority to inquire about guns in your home.  Doctors do have a lot of status as an authority figure, and pediatricians in particular tap into the parental instinct to protect their children.  In order to make it easier to make your point, without getting into an argument that might distress your kids and offend your doctor, KeepAndBearArms.com brings us the Firearms Safety Counseling Representation form.  Good work, guys.  Hat tip to The War on Guns for pointing it out.UPDATE: Fixed the link to War on Guns.  No idea how that got messed up; sorry.

The Gun Owners of America are calling for your help in pressuring the public officials and military officers in charge of investigating and prosecuting the confiscatory criminals of Katrina and their cronies:

In light of this overwhelming evidence, GOA urged General Fine to "investigate who are the guilty parties who need to be held accountable for perpetrating these harmful acts against innocent Americans."

General Fine has the authority to investigate the criminal acts of federal officials and to refer them for prosecution. 

So far, it appears that General Fine has been dragging his feet on this request -- which is why he may need to hear from folks all around the country.

Get your letters out, folks.  If they can get away with confiscating firearms, they'll do it, whether it's "legal" or not.

... has passed the House.   Alphecca has a good description of what it does (and what it doesn't).  It's already passed the Senate.  There shouldn't be a problem with Bush signing it, after which many of the lawsuits against firearms manufacturers will be dismissed.   The case that I have been following, DC v Beretta, should be one of them.

UPDATE: Looks like the trigger lock requirement was included in this version.  That's disappointing, since the version without that requirement could also have passed.  The problem would have been time; reconciling the bills between the House and the Senate would have required more time, and more time means more legal costs defending the suits already in motion.

While I think the trigger lock and "armor-piercing ammunition" provisions are both silly and bad precedent, as a practical matter their effect is small.  The real risk is later laws requiring the use of trigger locks, or lawsuits that make not using them subject to significant risk of liability.

... by banning .50 rifles and ammunition, confiscating them from their citizens immediately (which prevents the citizens from selling them to someone who could legally own them).  For some reason they are also banning "cop killer" handguns, whatever those are.  

Thanks to Techno Gypsy for spotting it.  If you're in Massachussetts, you might want to contact your legislature.  It probably won't stop them, but it's worth a try.

Mr. Completely has the scoop on a proposed hunting ban on Whidbey Island.  He's also got email addresses you can send your comments to.   

Click the link above and show your support for the Libertarian candidate.