Sunday’s presentations began with a panel on media bias. Brian Patrick, who teaches communications at the University of Toledo, noted that the concealed carry movement has made more friends for gun owners than any other facet of the firearms world. Malia Zimmerman, editor of the Hawaii Reporter, reminded us, “We’re not all the devil.” She suggests Googling any reporter who wants to interview you to see if they’ve revealed a bias in previous stories. Don Irvine, president of Accuracy In Media, cited a Gallup poll this week which determined that 55% of Americans don’t trust the media. He told of one newspaper story on Florida passing its Stand Your Ground law, which ran under the headline, “Lawless Floridians Shoot First.”
David Hardy, who received the Scholar of the Year award from the host organization, treated us to a legal eagle’s view of the undercurrents in the Supreme Court’s thinking in the odious Dred Scott decision of 1857, and the ambiguous opinion in 1939’s Miller decision. David Kopel, who told me he’s finishing up the first legal textbook on Second Amendment history, discussed the fact that the 2008 Heller decision hinged in part on what guns SCOTUS felt were protected by the Second Amendment. His reading was that fully automatic firearms didn’t make the cut, but the AR15-type rifles, being commonly owned by American citizens, did.
Doug Ritter of kniferights.org explained why anti-knife legislation, notably the current New York City interpretation that almost any folding pocketknife can be interpreted there as an illegal “gravity knife,” is “A back door to gun control.” His organization has been instrumental in creating positive legislation protecting knife owners and users, in states such as New Hampshire.
Nik Clark of Wisconsin Carry, founded in November 2009, told of his state’s hard journey from Illinois-like helplessness to achieving the shall-issue carry law that will go into effect this coming November 1. Some in the gun rights movement were disappointed that Wisconsin didn’t undergo a complete transformation from no concealed carry to permitless carry, and Clark observed wisely, “We’re talking saving lives. Going for Constitutional Carry could have taken another ten years.”
Paula Bratich, Colleen Lawson, Genie Jennings, and Valinda Rowe gave stirring commentary as to the power of women to influence legislators and public opinion on “right to self-defense” issues. From “Women and Guns” magazine to the group Second Amendment Sisters, female advocacy for the right to armed protection of self and others has greatly strengthened our cause.
My two blog entries only touch the surface of a weekend of networking with the best and the brightest in the gun owners’ civil rights movement. Charles Heller, successor to the late, great Aaron Zelman as head of Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership and a co-founder of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, has recorded them all. Stay tuned, and when I know where and when you can download them, I’ll post the link here.
David Hardy, who has fought for our rights for decades, received the scholar of the year award.
From left: Valinda Rowe, spokesperson for Illinois Carry; Genie Jennings of Women & Guns magazine; Colleen Lawson, whom you met in this blog last year; and Dr. Paula Bratich, Illinois Coordinator of Second Amendment Sisters.
Alan Gura, left, the hero of the Heller and McDonald cases, receives an AR-15 from Armalite president Mark Westrom. Gura quipped, “I wonder what the other side gets for awards?”
Charles Heller, the new leader of Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
It is amazing to me how women carrying changes people’s minds on the issue. Somehow, as long as it’s a bunch of rural, middle class white guys who want to own guns, our claims of wanting a weapon to defend ourselves can be dismissed. But when you start having women say the same thing, people take them more seriously.
Mostly, gun rights, which actually are human rights, are abhorred by the MSM and leftists. There was hardly a blip of it when NH just overrode the governors veto of castle doctrine.
“His reading was that fully automatic firearms didn’t make the cut, but the AR15-type rifles, being commonly owned by American citizens, did.”
…and that’s part of the problem. Fully automatic firearms- and all other items covered by the Unconstitutional NFA ’34- ALWAYS deserve to “make the cut.” If it can be used by a person for self-defense and/or defeating a (tyrannical) government, it is protected by our 2nd Amendment rights (and, by association, 1st Amendment rights). Done. End of discussion.
I am sickened by the fact that it takes a series of weak half-measures to gain full recognition of our rights that never should have been restricted in the first place. The Congress directly following the one that fronted the NFA should have immediately repealed it.
Being under an invariably corrupt and incompetant government, though, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised where we are today. Here’re some “half-measures” that ought to at least put us on a clear path to restoring our rights (since repealing the NFA outright seems unlikely anymore), not necessarily in order:
1) Re-opening the machine-gun registry
2) Ending $200 tax stamps for all NFA-designated items
3) Ending finger-printing and local sherriff qualifier requirements
4) Removing all SBR, SBS, and AOW restrictions
See if the NRA will support any of the above. I know the GOA will. I know all freedom-loving, Constitution-upholding gun owners do. I know this is achievable in my lifetime.
@Mike- The double standard kind of sucks, but I honestly don’t care. It furthers gun-rights so I’m happy.
@Jack- Try reading the UN Universal Human Rights. It’s 30 something “universal rights” without one mention of self-defense, let alone owning firearms. The Founding Fathers did a much better job laying out our rights. I just find it ironic that the UN can list all these rights without any mechanism of maintaining them.
@Andy- Got to love those gun laws. A 16 inch barrel is okay but drop it down an inch and it’s an extra deadly SBR!
Mas,
I think the headline might have been “Law LETS Floridians ‘Shoot First'” – not “LawLESS”. Still putting a bit of English on the ball, but not as egregious.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/national/main691124.shtml