Another Funny bit from the Fox 1/2 Hour News Hour: Gus McAuley of Citizens Against Guns
Click "Read More" to see video.
All posts by Chris Knox
VA Lobby Day 2009
Representing The Firearms Coalition at Lobby Day, January 19, 2009, Richmond, Virginia.
Click "Read More" to watch video.
SCOTUS Takes a Second Look
Supremes Take a Second Look
By Jeff Knox
(October 2, 2009) On September 30, the Supreme Court announced that they were going to review the Second Amendment case McDonald v. City of Chicago and decide whether the Second Amendment applies at the state and local level. Application of the Bill of Rights to the states has been a long and convoluted battle with the Second Amendment being the last major article left out in the cold.
As originally proposed and applied, the Bill of Rights was an expression of universal, natural rights, but was considered directly enforceable only on the federal government – except that it was a statement of principles to which all of the states in the union agreed. Over the years there has been wrangling between states and the federal government regarding recognition of these rights, particularly in the years surrounding the Civil War as debates raged over the definition of a citizen and the rights such citizens enjoyed. Chief Justice Taney presents these rights of citizenship – privileges and immunities – in a clear and unequivocal fashion in his infamous decision in Dredd Scott v. Sanford. Part of the debate was over whether a person recognized as a citizen by one state was automatically a citizen of the United States and fully possessed of the privileges and immunities of such citizenship. Justice Taney described these privileges and immunities to include, “the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
Chris and Jeff’s Excellent GRPC Adventure
Gun Rights Radicals Meet and Greet Again
What a great weekend! It’s always good to see the guys who really get what gun rights, the Second Amendment, and civil rights are all about. I especially enjoyed connecting with the contingents from the Arkansas Concealed Carry Association and from the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association. I was also pleased to see The Appleseed Project with a table and a couple of reps in the room. They were handing out passes to Appleseed shoots. If you haven’t been to one, GO! If you have been to one, GO! They’re planning one in Buckeye near me, but unfortunately my time’s committed for that one. I have my calendar cleared for April 19 in Payson, though.
Joe Tartaro kindly asked me to bring a generous stack of Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War with me to the conference. SAF always sets up a bookstore in the back of the room and I got to see the book moving briskly. I don’t know how many copies I signed, and all of the direct feedback was positive. This year’s GRPC was a bit of a coming-out party for the book, with the first gun press review appearing in the current issue of Gun Week. Thanks to Joe for that.
Next year the GRPC heads directly into the belly of the beast: San Francisco. The Pink Pistols delegation offered to lead a march through the Castro district. Stereotype busting, anyone?
I’ve attached my written speech below. You may need to click the "Read More" button to see it.
Back from GRPC
I got back from GRPC last night and just fell over. The combination of early mornings, long days, and late, late nights really takes its toll, but it is definitely worth it. Nowhere else do I have the opportunity to meet and talk with so many committed activists and leaders of the movement. At the SHOT Show every year I am focused on meeting with members of the industry and some of the "gun media." At the NRA Convention I get to see some of the rights leaders, but there is always so much going on and there are so many demands on all of our time that it is difficult to find a moment to really sit down and discuss the important issues of the day and work out strategies for cooperative efforts. At GRPC though, I get to hear ideas from dozens of the best and the brightest minds in the gun rights movement and am able to follow up on those ideas during breaks and at the evening receptions. Each night there are small groups of people scattered about the conference area quietly scheming, jovially sharing stories, and boisterously arguing into the wee hours. This networking and idea sharing is absolutely invaluable and the discussions, arguments and friendships often continue via the internet and telephone long after the conference ends.
I was a little disappointed with my presentation this year. I served on a panel focused on the expansion of carry rights and chose to discuss the importance of taking the high ground in the language we use to promote our rights. Those who have followed my writing know that I have long advocated that we, as a movement, must be more aware of the words we choose to use in arguing our cause, avoiding saying things like "we should be allowed to carry guns" in this place or that. We need to talk about repealing laws which disarm us in these places rather than conceding the authority and giving our opponents the upper hand with the word allow. Similarly we need to avoid phrases like "arming teachers," and "guns on campus." These are important issues and need to be couched in terms of "disarming" the law-abiding and creating safe working environments for criminals. We have the moral authority and must argue from the position of demanding the recognition of our rights. We should never allow our words to paint us as supplicants begging for permission to exercise our natural rights. The point I is that if we wish to win the fight for recognition of our right to carry arms when we choose, we must argue from our strength, not beg from our knees, and the words we choose are what determines that position.
Chris gave a presentation about the threats to our rights being generated by the drug violence in Mexico and now crossing the border into border states. This was Chris’ first time presenting at GRPC and I think he did a good job.
Now we need to do the follow-up work from the conference; adding all of those who requested it to our email list and mailing list, and making sure that the ideas and discussions started there continue and are turned into productive actions. No time to rest. The ’09 elections are just weeks away and the 2010 campaigns are already starting.
Sky Isn’t Falling!
The Sky Isn’t Falling! The Sky Isn’t Falling!!
There are no serious threats to gun rights imminent in Congress.
Despite repeated attempts to debunk the myths by every major and most minor gun rights organizations, dire warnings about things like S. 2099, H.R.45, assault weapons bans, ammo taxes, and more keep circulation around the internet.
Here are the facts:
While there have been some very ugly bills introduced this session – just as there are every session – introducing a bill and having a bill as a serious threat are miles apart. None of the anti-rights bills introduced this session are showing the slightest signs of life. As we reported and predicted back in January when former Black Panther leader, Bobby Rush (D-IL) introduced H.R.45, a registration and licensing bill, the bill has gone nowhere and is going nowhere. Here is a listing of all congressional actions for H.R. 45:
ALL ACTIONS:
1/6/2009:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2/9/2009:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Cosponsors – None
As for S.2099, the bill to require listing of firearms on individual income tax forms, it is even "deader" than H.R.45. S.2099 has been dead for 8 years! It was introduced by Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) back in 2001. At that time it was sent to committee where it languished with no cosponsors for the entire session and has never been introduced again.
Right now the last thing the President and the Democrat leadership want to do is get GunVoters more riled up. While there is no question that Barack Obama and the majority of the Democrat leadership would jump at the chance to pass the most onerous gun laws imaginable, they would only do so if they thought they could get away with it without serious political repercussions. They know they can’t! GunVoters have made it clear that any new gun laws will meet with serious political repercussions and the Democrats still have nightmares about their devastating losses in 1994. Again, we predicted this back in November (the comments on that post are particularly interesting.)
The bottom line is that there are no serious threats imminent in Congress. When there are, we will let you know. For reliable information about pending legislation and negative regulations, you can rely on The Firearms Coalition. Signing up for our Knox e-Updates and Alerts is an excellent way to stay on top of the issue. You can subscribe by clicking on "Alerts List" in the main menu at www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
Please copy this short article and send it to everyone on your email list to help get people away from worrying about non-threats and focus them on the serious work that needs to be done right now.
Jeff Knox
Director, The Firearms Coalition
Guns on a Train
Senate Tells Amtrak, "No Guns, No Money."
Shenanigans in play!
(Washington, DC, Update September 18, 2009) The US Senate has voted 68-30 in favor of a measure which would deny $1.6 Billion taxpayer dollars for the beleaguered Amtrak passenger train system unless they change their "No Guns" policy.
Since the Madrid commuter train bombing in 2004 Amtrak has maintained a policy of no guns or weapons on their trains – even locked in checked baggage. The amendment passed by the Senate today was sponsored by Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) says that Amtrak must accept checked baggage containing firearms or starter pistols as long as the passenger declares the firearm at the time of check in and the gun is unloaded and locked in a hard-sided case. The measure also provides for the lawful transport of ammunition in checked baggage.
Opponents raised objections based on the cost of implementing the liberalized regulations, but those arguments rang hollow and the measure passed easily.
Now for the shenanigans:
Even though the amendment passed easily – with a few surprising (and suspicious) votes in favor – this is not a done deal. Since the Senate version of the underlying appropriations bill is now different from the version passed in the House, there must be a Reconciliation Conference to bring the two versions into line. For a conference, both houses select a number of representatives who are supposed to go sit down together and hash out their differences, settling on a final bill they believe will be acceptable in both houses. That version of the bill is then sent to the floors of the House and the Senate where it receives an up or down vote. No amendments are accepted for a reconciled bill. While this amendment passed by a vote of 68 to 30, the prospects of it surviving the reconciliation process seem pretty slim. Even though the conference committee is weighted with 13 members who voted for the amendment and 8 who voted against it, + 1, Byrd of WV, who did not vote, those numbers can be deceptive.
Of the 22 members of the committee, 12 are rated "F" by GOA with 3 rated "D," 1 rated "C," 2 rated "B," and only 4 rated "A." Additionally, virtually all of the "F" rated members who voted for the amendment are "bullet proof," hailing from states where liberty is a lost art and there is little likelihood of successfully defeating them at the ballot box.
Given those facts, it is very probable that Senate leadership chose to allow the amendment to pass with the intention of stripping it out in conference. It will be interesting to see whether the House also appoints staunch anti-gunners as the majority of their conference representatives. Stay tuned.
Below is a breakdown of the vote and the Senate representatives to the Conference Committee.
Grading Politicians
The Knox Update
From The Firearms Coalition
Reading – and Rating – Congressional Votes
By Chris Knox
(September 16, 2009) As we reported in our bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, voting records, especially those for final passage, don’t tell the full story of where our elected servants stand on a particular issue. And the fact is that those servants occasionally take pains to conceal their true position from the people who sent them to office. This year’s poster boy for obfuscated voting is Senator Mark Pryor a second-term Democrat from Arkansas.
In the July Senate vote for nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity, Pryor first voted against the measure but then, when Republicans Lugar of Indiana and Voinovich of Ohio cast their votes against their party line, he changed his vote to a nominally pro-gun vote.
Grading Politicians
The Knox Update
From The Firearms Coalition
Reading – and Rating – Congressional Votes
By Chris Knox
(September 16, 2009) As we reported in our bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, voting records, especially those for final passage, don’t tell the full story of where our elected servants stand on a particular issue. And the fact is that those servants occasionally take pains to conceal their true position from the people who sent them to office. This year’s poster boy for obfuscated voting is Senator Mark Pryor a second-term Democrat from Arkansas.
In the July Senate vote for nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity, Pryor first voted against the measure but then, when Republicans Lugar of Indiana and Voinovich of Ohio cast their votes against their party line, he changed his vote to a nominally pro-gun vote.
Posted on Opposing Views
Misleading Headlines
Posted as a comment to a story about Amtrak
The headlines for this story, including the one here ("Amtrack Must Allow Guns") are unanimously misleading. From the heads and the leads, one might reasonably conclude that gun owners will be riding the iron with more iron on their hips. While a few armed good guys might have been a blessing in the case of the 1993 Long Island Railway massacre, that is not what this proposal is about. Amtrak is being forced, under threat of losing its federal funding, to follow federal law regarding transport of declared, unloaded, and cased guns in checked baggage. That’s the policy that airlines routinely follow.
On another point, a "money-in-politics angle" is promised in tomorrow’s coverage followed by a cocktail napkin analysis of who gets funding from what pro- or anti-gun groups, noting that gun rights groups spent over $2M on lobbying while anti-gun groups spent only $80,000. That’s a pretty simplistic analysis. It doesn’t include the non-profit foundation money that drives groups like Freedom (sic) States Alliance, Violence Policy Center, and others. Neither does it count the vast in-kind contribution of Big Media. It doesn’t take long watching a Hollywood blockbuster or a cheesy sit-com to spot the anti-gun and anti-gun owner slant.