This speech, describing some of the policies put in place during the Great Depression as part of Roosevelt's New Deal, is very instructive about what policies don't work during tough economic times.

Speaking of results, I've got 4 new members to my credit.  And I need to make up my mind whether I will try to attend this.

The governor of New York has named Hillary's Senate replacement... and the NRA has endorsed his pick.  She's still a democrat, and talks about gun rights in the terminology of hunting, but she's a lot better than Hillary on guns.  As a plus, she voted against the bailout. 

At the moment, gun owners need every friend they can get.

An ACORN activist is now pushing to require background checks on ammunition sales.  Make no mistake, this isn't about stopping crime; it's already illegal for criminals to possess firearms.  It's about making the hobby of shooting more expensive in time and money.  Think about the trouble involved in purchasing a firearm even under the NICS instant-check system: a multiple-page form must be filled out, the dealer must check identification and make a phone call to the FBI, and then wait for an answer to come back.  Sometimes, the answer comes back quickly.. but sometimes it takes hours, or days, or the system is just plain down and the buyer gives up.

Now imagine applying that to every ammunition purchase.  Plus, undoubtedly, this proposed law would come with a fee attached.  In some cases the fee will undoubtedly be more than the cost of ammunition itself -- imagine a box of .22LR with a $25 fee for the background check.

And realize that these requirements will almost certainly eliminate the ability to purchase ammunition online, leaving gun owners at the mercy of whatever their local firearms dealer is able to keep in stock.  That's a formula for greatly reduced choice in ammunition, and that will harm the firearms industry by reducing the variety of firearms available on the market.  If you can't get ammunition for your fancy new rifle, will you really buy the rifle?  Probably not.

This is nothing less than a tax on political opposition to gun control.

Hat tip to Alphecca.

David Codrea has a few articles about how we can get the Senate to slow down, and possibly even stop, the confirmation of Eric Holder as Obama's Attorney General.  Why would we want to do that?  Reason explains just a few of the reasons to be wary of Holder's record on guns.  If you're convinced, A Keyboard and a .45 has contact information for you to mail those letters.  This is an urgent request -- the confirmation hearings start this week.

The Democrats now in power aren't wasting any time in moving forward with their anti-gun agenda.  There has been a bill introduced in the House which would establish national registration and licensing requirements for firearms possession (not merely purchase!); and almost as a by-the-way includes criminal penalties for failing to report a stolen firearm within 72 hours, failing to store a firearm in such a way that it can't be stolen, fingerprinting of firearms owners, a written test before the firearms license is issued, and god only knows what else.

The only good news in this picture is that the bill has only no co-sponsors.  That means support for it is low... at least for now.  These things can pick up momentum in a hurry.

Make no mistake, this is the 11:59 bill.  If this one passes, the next one will be "Mr-and-Mrs-America, turn them all in." 

... honestly, this isn't really news.  It's obvious that many local police agencies overreached dramatically following 9/11 and in the increasingly paranoid security climate over the next few years.  Maryland isn't exactly brimming with terrorists looking for targets, but all that juicy anti-terror funding can surely induce police to label activists and protesters as security threats.

Police have acknowledged that the monitoring, which took place during the administration of then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), spiraled out of control, with an undercover trooper spending 14 months infiltrating peaceful protest groups. Troopers have said they inappropriately labeled 53 individuals as terrorists in their database, information that was shared with federal authorities. But the new documents reveal a far more expansive set of police targets and indicate that police did not close some files until late 2007.

The surveillance ended with no arrests and no evidence of violent sedition. Instead, troopers are preparing to purge files and say they are expecting lawsuits.

The key thing to remember here is that the Fourth Amendment's protections require probable cause of a crime and a warrant in order to search someone's person or property.  But attending a public meeting?  Fair game, according to the law.  Nonetheless, most people expect the police to exercise more discretion, and not actually send out undercover officers to spy on peaceful activists without something actually illegal to investigate.  

The War On Guns has a link to a debate forum where the candidates for chairman of the Republican National Committee will be debating.  Users can post questions and vote for questions to be asked of the candidates.  This is a chance to get some significant input into the Republican Party's direction over the next few years.  David's a little peeved that no one seems to be helping out on the political end, so this is me doing my part.  Now, you go do yours.  The deadline is tomorrow (Monday, Jan 5th) so I really do mean NOW.

UPDATE: Here are some of the questions you might want to vote for.

My question:

Lately the Republican party has ignored three major elements of the coalition: gun owners, small-government proponents, and fiscal conservatives. The response to Sarah Palin's selection as VP by an otherwise miserable top-ticket presidential candidate should make it obvious to the party where the passion is. I would like each candidate for RNC chair to name three things: 1) Name one federal gun control law which violates the 2nd Amendment (DC's restrictions do not count) and explain how you will work to remove this unConstitutional law. 2) Name one federal beaurocracy which is not Constitutionally authorized, and explain how you will work to remove it. 3) Name one significant position the party has taken in the past that you feel is incorrect, explain why, and how you will act to correct the situation.

Michael Bane's question:

Are you willing to unequivocally support the Second Amendment, including: 1) Unequivocal opposition to any so-called "Assault Weapons Ban." 2) Opposition to any ban on magazine capacity, types of ammunition, etc. 3) Opposition to any attempt to subvert at a federal level state-approved concealed carry laws. 4) Support for concealed carry rights on a national level. 5) RELENTLESS opposition to any federal registration schemes, whether on firearms, ammunition, etc. The GOP has treated those of us "under the tent" because of Second Amendment issues as the "crazy uncles in the closet" for far too long! The GOP must embrace the Second Amendment if we are to embrace the GOP. Michael Bane Host & Producer SHOOTING GALLERY THE BEST DEFENSE