Hope and Change comes to Massachusetts

Oh, oh. Massachusetts, that bluest of blue states, has elected its first Republican senator since 1972:

In a victory few thought possible just a month ago, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley Tuesday in the race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy -- a win that could grind President Obama's agenda to a halt and portend huge losses for Democrats in the November midterms.

(Photo: Fox News)

With 97 percent of precincts reporting, returns show Brown leading Coakley 52-47 percent, by a margin of 120,000 votes. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy was pulling 1 percent.

The victory marks a stunning upset in a race thought to be safe for Democrats until Brown's campaign began to surge just weeks ago. And it has powerful ramifications for Obama's agenda.

The GOP state senator, once sworn in, will break the Democrats' 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in Washington. This creates problems for proposed legislation ranging from financial regulatory reform to cap-and-trade, but most immediately Brown's win sends Democrats into a scramble to pass health care reform before he arrives in Washington. Democrats were already weighing options for how to fast-track the bill before polls closed Tuesday. ...

Read it here. We'll see what games the Dems play to delay seating Mr. Brown, and whether they’ll try to push through their increasingly unpopular healthcare bill currently pending in Congress anyway. The Dems are already weighing options:

A top Senate Democrat for the first time Tuesday acknowledged that the party is prepared to deal with health care reform by using a controversial legislative tactic known as the "nuclear option."

With Republican Scott Brown seizing victory in the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate, Democrats are under pressure to quickly pass health care reform before he arrives -- since Brown will break the party's 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority.

Even before polls closed, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said "there are options to still pursue health care."

Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, outlined a combination of tactics to get what his party wants out of health care reform. ...

During Mr. Brown's victory speech, the crowd started spontaneously chanting "Yes we can! Yes we can!" at one point. Ouch -- I'm sure that smarts to all the committed lefties in the White House. Looks like a small spark of Hope and Change comes to the Bay State. Of course, a Republican from Massachusetts would probably be considered a bleeding-heart liberal Democrat in say, rural Georgia or Texas, or most other parts of the country outside the Northeast or West coast, for that matter.

Nevada U.S. senate candidates on gun control

From David Codrea:

Regular readers are familiar with the gun rights questionnaire, designed to elicit unequivocal answers from candidates about exactly where they stand on the right to keep and bear arms. It's proven a useful tool at separating those with the political courage to be leaders from those who would instead rely on meaningless platitudes, and those who think they deserve power without having to make an account of themselves to gun owners.

We've used the questionnaire in a number of races throughout the Republic so far, but have given special focus to the 2010 Nevada contest for U.S. Senate.

Why?

Because polls show incumbent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is vulnerable to challenge. It would be a major victory to demonstrate that one of the most powerful political figures in the country can be defeated by an unequivocal gun rights supporter. ...

Read it here, with links to the candidate responses of those who have answered the questionnaire.

Kennedy: The Senator of Sleaze

From the UK Daily Mail, a differing view on the life of Ted Kennedy, offered as a counterpoint to all the fawning remembrances in our own Leftist mainstream media [Hat tip: Dave M. for the link]:

Ted Kennedy: The Senator of Sleaze who was a drunk sexual bully... and left a young woman to die
By Charlie Laurence
Last updated at 3:31 PM on 27th August 2009

Senator Edward 'Ted' Kennedy stood for sleaze. Bloated and drunken, he used his standing in the Kennedy clan to chase vulnerable women - which brought his dream of reaching the White House to a shameful end.

He was the youngest of the four Kennedy brothers, and by far the longest lived.

Incredibly, he was in line to inherit his brother John F. Kennedy's legendary presidency, but his chances were dashed following the drowning of the pretty, young campaign assistant Mary Jo Kopechne.

Forever known as the Chappaquiddick Incident after the Massachusetts island where it took place, the scandal in 1969 broke the Kennedy grip on the White House.

A drunk Ted had been driving back from a party to the family 'compound' on Martha's Vineyard when he veered off a bridge and into a deep tidal dyke.

Drowned: Mary Jo Kopechne was killed after Ted Kennedy drove his car off a bridge with her inside

Mary Jo was in the back seat and, while he claimed he was just giving her a lift back to her hotel, it was widely thought that he had picked her up for sex. Kennedy swam ashore to save himself, but left Mary Jo to drown - in fact, it was even worse than that.

It was nine hours before he reported the accident. In the meantime, he walked back to his motel, complained to the manager about a noisy party, took a shower, went to sleep, ordered newspapers when he woke up and spoke to a friend and two lawyers before finally calling the police.

Divers later estimated that if he had called them immediately, they would have had time to pull out Mary Jo. She had not drowned, but had survived in an air pocket inside the car - she was asphyxiated only when the oxygen ran out several hours later.

As always, Ted used the family name to save his neck. In any other state but Massachusetts, the Kennedys' home turf, and with any other name, he would have been charged with homicide.

Instead, he escaped with a slap on the wrist: a two-year suspended sentence and the loss of his driving licence for a year. He had been allowed to plead guilty to no more than the charge of leaving the scene of an accident.

Kennedy lawyers arranged for him to pay £55,000 to the Kopechne family from his own pocket with a further £30,000 from his insurance. Mary Jo's mother later said: 'I don't think he ever said he was sorry.' ...

Read the rest here. The man who left Mary Jo Kopechne to die a slow, horrible death in the submerged car he drove off a bridge, has finally gone to meet his Maker.

As the old latin adage goes, de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est (let nothing be said of the dead but what is good). Thus, I will remain silent, as I have nothing kind to say about the man.

Others, however, are not so inhibited. Please see:

The Other McCain: Kopechne Day: A Solemn Tribute, with links to a whole passel of folks with their thoughts on the subject.

And Joe Huffman has a link roundup of gun bloggers on the death of Ted Kennedy here.

Senate to vote on interstate right-to-carry reciprocity amendment

From NRA-ILA:

U.S. Senate To Vote On National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Amendment Early This Week

Monday, July 20, 2009

Contact Your U.S. Senators TODAY And Urge Them To Support Your Right To Self-Defense by voting YES on the Thune-Vitter Amendment!

The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment this week to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform between now and Wednesday.

Now is the time for Congress to recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.

Contrary to "states' rights" claims from opponents who usually favor sweeping federal gun control, the amendment is a legitimate exercise of Congress's constitutional power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens (including the right to keep and bear arms and the right of personal mobility). States would still have the authority to regulate the time, place and manner in which handguns are carried.

Expanding Right-to-Carry will enhance public safety, and certainly poses no threat to the public. Criminals are deterred from attempting crimes when they know or suspect that their prospective victims are armed. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed. The Thune-Vitter amendment recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines. Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation will help further reduce crime by deterring criminals, and -- most important of all -- will protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves if deterrence fails.

The Thune-Vitter Amendment represents a giant step forward in the protection of the basic right to self-defense. Its passage will recognize that the rights of law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders should be respected, even when they travel outside their home state.

Gun control groups, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" are running ads trying to scare your lawmakers and the American people into opposing this crucial Right-to-Carry reform. It is critical that your U.S. Senators hear from you immediately.

Please be sure to contact both of your U.S. Senators today, and urge them to cosponsor and support the Thune-Vitter interstate right to carry reciprocity amendment. E-mail and call them immediately!

To find contact information for your U.S. Senators, please click here, or call (202) 224-3121.

Please consider contacting your elected Senate servants today to have them support this amendment. You can use the link above, or go to the Senate website here (click on the "Senators" tab in the upper left corner) to contact your senators by email.

NRA will score Sotomayor vote

So reports Jennifer Rubin in Commentary Magazine:

As I noted in the last round of questioning of Sonia Sotomayor yesterday, Republican senators seemed increasingly focused on the Second Amendment. Sotomayor’s evasiveness did not help her cause. Shortly after her questioning ended, the NRA announced it would officially oppose her confirmation. Some question then arose in conservative circles as to whether the vote would be “scored” — that is, count for the score which the NRA uses to rate incumbents on Second Amendment issues. In a close race it can make the difference, particularly in a Red state. I contacted the NRA last night. A spokesman promptly replied by email: “It’s an important vote and it will count.”

What does that mean in practical terms? It may influence a shaky Republican or two who might think twice about “deferring” to the president’s nominee. But the real impact is not with regard to Sotomayor, but in the 2010 senate races. For each Democrat who votes for her, there will be at least a small price — a ding from the NRA. Might it be significant in races in Arkansas (Blanche Lincoln), Colorado (Michael Bennet), North Dakota (Byron Dorgan), and elsewhere? ...

This is a positive step. NRA ratings are an important data point for voters in gun-friendly districts, and politicians hoping to get reelected know this. It probably won't change the final outcome given the large Democrat majority in the Senate, but may at least cause a few of those Dems (and some faux Republicans) to vote against her.

Sotomayor: No constituional right to self-defense?

From the Los Angeles Times:

In a prickly exchange over gun control, Sen. Tom Coburn tried hard to get Sonia Sotomayor to explain what she actually thinks about the right to bear arms. “As a citizen of this country do you believe ... I have a right to personal self-defense?” he asked her.

Sotomayor said she couldn’t think of a Supreme Court case that had addressed the issue in that language. “Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?” she asked. “ I can’t think of one. I could be wrong.”

The Oklahoma Republican said he didn’t want to know if there was a legal precedent that would answer his question -- he wanted to know Sotomayor’s personal opinion.

She paused. “That is sort of an abstract question,” she said. “I don’t --"

“Well that’s what the American people want to hear,” Coburn said. Americans don’t want legalese from “bright legal minds,” he said. “They want to know if they can defend themselves in their homes.” ...

Article here.

National Review's Jim Geraghty weighs in on the Sotomayor credibility gap:

But if you were a Republican senator, and wanted to vote in good faith to confirm Sotomayor, you would have to believe:

· That her “wise Latina” argument was just a bad “rhetorical flourish” that accidently left listeners believing she disagreed with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, when she actually agreed with her.

· That the misperception of the “wise Latina” argument remained uncorrected through six separate uses of it.

· That Sotomayor genuinely has “no idea” why George Pavia, a senior partner in the law firm that hired her as a corporate litigator, would say, “I can guarantee she’ll be for abortion rights.”

· That she did not read the legal briefs filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while she was on that organization’s board.

· That she genuinely does not have an opinion on whether citizens have a right to self-defense, and could not think of “a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question,” despite the fact that the Heller case decided last year declared, “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

· That she “actually agrees” with Justices Scalia and Thomas that judges have to be “very cautious” about using foreign law, despite a speech earlier this year in which she said, “Suggest[ing] to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding.”

· That she really believes that “we don’t make policy choices in the court,” even though she said in a 2005 appearance at Duke University that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

· That she genuinely believes that “the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind,” when she said in a 1999 speech that there is “no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. . . . Aspiration to impartiality is just that, an aspiration.”

· That she thinks the man who nominated her has a fundamentally flawed perspective on the role of judges, and that she will not “approach the issue of judging in the way the president does.”

That’s a lot to swallow. Essentially, the poised and affable judge who appeared before the cameras this week came across as almost completely unobjectionable — almost a photo negative of the judge portrayed in Sotomayor’s past speeches. “We’re left guessing as to what kind of judge she would be,” Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) said during a committee break. “We don’t know if we’re going to get Sonia Sotomayor the speech-giver or Sonia Sotomayor the judge. Once she’s on the Supreme Court, she can say anything she wants with no chance of reversal. The lack of clarity is creating some problems.” ...

Actions speak louder than words; don't listen to what a nominee says, look at what they've done. This is especially true for politicians.

Senator minority leader Mitch McConnell says he will oppose Sotomayor nomination.

Finally, David Codrea has a roundup of Gun Rights Examiner articles on the Sotomayor nomination here.

Key questions for Sotomayor

From the Heritage Foundation, a list of ten questions for Judge Sotomayor as the Senate confirmation process gets underway:

Question #6: Second Amendment Rights

In Maloney v. Cuomo, you joined a three-judge panel concluding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. You also argued that the right to bear arms is not a "fundamental right."

In your incredibly short opinion, your panel cites Presser v. Illinois as the basis for its claim that "it is settled law ... that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on [the right to bear arms]." Your panel neglects to mention, however, that Presser was decided before the courts began incorporating the Bill of Rights through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller describes as "the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases."[14]

More disturbingly, your panel summarily stated in a scant 11-word conclusion that statutes restricting possession of weapons do not implicate a fundamental right--something that no court has done since the Supreme Court affirmed an individual Second Amendment right in Heller.

Why did you fail to even consider the sort of inquiry that the Supreme Court said is required by the Fourteenth Amendment in your decision stripping Second Amendment protection from citizens in the Second Circuit? Do you believe that statutes restricting possession of weapons do not even implicate fundamental rights? How does that view comport with the text of the Second Amendment?

Read the others here.

Gun rights advocates call for "No" vote on Sotomayor

Via the Committee for Justice blog:

In a letter released today and attached below, more than two dozen leaders of the Second Amendment community from across the nation urged senators "not to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court," citing their "grave concern" over her Second Amendment record.

The individual signers include 14 members of the National Rifle Association's Board of Directors and Executive Council, including two past presidents of the NRA. Another five signers head the NRA state affiliate in their respective states - Pennsylvania, New York, Arizona, New Jersey and Massachusetts. The signers also include the heads of other leading national Second Amendment organizations, including the Second Amendment Foundation, the Gun Owners' Action League, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. ...

Read the whole post here, which includes the text of the letter.

GOA: Eight Republicans Help Confirm Hard-Core Gun Banner

From Gunowners of America:

"Too much work [was] left undone. After a few sleepless nights, I wrote for myself a list of issues on which I needed to do more in the years ahead. One of those issues was global regulation of small arms." -- Harold Hongju Koh (2001)

Friday, June 26, 2009

Imagine that. The Senate confirmed this week, by a vote of 62-35, a gun banner who stays up at night thinking of ways to impose more gun control upon American citizens.

Harold Koh is that gun grabber, and he was confirmed yesterday to be the Legal Adviser at the State Department.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans attempted to kill the Koh nomination with a filibuster -- until eight of them crossed the aisle to help Democrats confirm Koh.

The back-stabbing Senators are: Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and George Voinovich (R-OH). [emphasis added]

Once the filibuster was thwarted, Koh's nomination passed easily. The vote on final passage can be viewed here.

Koh is eager to assume his post at the State Department, having lamented that there is only so much that can be done from the outside to push gun control treaties, and that ultimately we need people like him in positions of power. The chief lawyer for the State Department is just the position someone like him needs to push more gun control through international treaties. ...

More here. Remember those names come election time.

How to stop Sotomayor confirmation

From a World Net Daily op-ed:

Democrats and the liberal media are playing psychological mind games with Republicans. They're saying it is useless to try and stop leftist judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court because she is a shoe-in.

Listening to these pundits, you would think that Sotomayor is as guaranteed to be confirmed to the Supreme Court as Albert Pujols is to be on the National League's All Star Team. AP summed it up this way, "strategists in both parties agree that Republicans will have to tread carefully – and won't likely be able to stop her."
...
Pressure should also focus on Democrat senators from pro gun rights states. A Sotomayor ruling in the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment's protection of citizens' gun rights did not apply to state or local regulations. This reveals her belief that the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to individuals.

Let us purpose a path to victory: Sotomayor can be stopped by the Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Carmouche continues, "Seven Republicans in the Senate – if they have the guts to take the heat – can stop the Sotomayor confirmation dead in its tracks. Senate Judiciary Committee Rule IV states, 'Debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.' This means, if seven senators (Sessions, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Graham, Cornyn and Coburn) stand together, the Sotomayor confirmation is dead."

Republican senators can stop this confirmation if they have the will. Americans must encourage these senators to do the right thing.

Op-ed here. With Sen. Arlen Specter now batting for the other team, the possibility of blocking the confirmation in the Judiciary Committee is less remote that before. Whether the remaining Republicans on the Committee will make a stand for the Second Amendment remains to be seen.

Senator blasts corporate exec on extravagant spending

Today's pot-calling-the-kettle-black commercial spoof:

GOA: Pennsylvania GOP courting gun banning Republican to run for Senate

From Gunowners of America:

Some Republicans still don't understand why mainstream America is so upset with their Party.

Now that Sen. Arlen Specter has defected to the Democrat Party, many prominent Republicans are openly recruiting liberal Republicans to run against Specter.

And at the top of their list is Tom Ridge.

Ridge is the turncoat Republican whose vote was crucial in passing the semi-auto ban in 1994.

After having opposed a similar ban in 1991, then-Rep. Tom Ridge flip-flopped and teamed up with Charles Schumer (D-NY) to pass the semi-auto gun and magazine ban. The gun ban passed narrowly, 216 to 214, thanks to Tom Ridge.

Later, as Governor of Pennsylvania, Ridge signed one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the State's history -- the infamous Act 17 which registered and taxed long gun buyers and placed other restrictions on Keystone State gun owners. [emphasis added]

As the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge opposed arming pilots. He asked, sarcastically, if pilots carry guns, then should we also arm railroad engineers and bus drivers? As DHS Director, Ridge should have led the charge to arm pilots and people in other positions that fell under the agency's purview.

Instead, he just repeated the same tired old anti-gun line that we hear every time a state passes a concealed carry handgun law.

Guess who else opposed the armed pilots program? Pennsylvania's "Benedict" Arlen Specter, who was one of only two Republican Senators to vote against the bill.

The last thing we need is another elitist in Congress who does not trust law-abiding citizens with firearms. And yet, wishy-washy Republican Senators like Utah's Orrin Hatch and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham are touting Ridge over Specter. In other words, let's replace one turncoat with another.

There is a better option. His name is Pat Toomey, a Gun Owners of America "A" rated pro-gunner who served in the U.S. House of Representatives for three terms, before honoring a self-imposed term limit and retiring in 2004. ...

Article here. Pennsylvania gun owners better let the GOP leadership know they won't stand for another anti-gun Republican-In-Name-Only senator.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

From Gunowners of America, on Obama's support for a U.N. gun control treaty:

Remember CANDIDATE Barack Obama? The guy who “wasn’t going to take away our guns”?

Well, guess what?

Less than 100 days into his administration, he’s never met a gun he didn’t hate.

A week ago, Obama went to Mexico, whined about the United States, and bemoaned (before the whole world) the fact that he didn’t have the political power to take away our semi-automatics. Nevertheless, that didn’t keep him from pushing additional restrictions on American gun owners.

It’s called the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials. To be sure, this imponderable title masks a really nasty piece of work.

First of all, when the treaty purports to ban the “illicit” manufacture of firearms, what does that mean?

1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition ... without a license....”

Hence, reloading ammunition -- or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit -- is clearly “illicit manufacturing.” ...

Comment: Gunowners of America has a link to send a message to the Senate regarding opposition to ratification of this treaty here.


New Jersey Senator Lautenberg pushing to close gun show "loophole":

Several high-ranking senators led by Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) on Tuesday relaunched their push to require gun sellers to conduct background checks on purchases of all types of guns at state gun shows.

On the heels of the 10-year anniversary of the Columbine shootings the lawmakers pushed to close the gun show “loophole” that exists in more than 30 states.

These states do not require personal gun sellers, who are authorized to hawk their own firearms at gun shows, to conduct a background check on buyers of the guns. This allows people with criminal histories to easily obtain weapons like those used in the Columbine killings, according to lawmakers.

Measures similar to Lautenberg’s bill have passed the Senate twice before but have failed to pass the House because of pressure from gun lobbying organizations like the National Rifle Association, said Lautenberg, who was joined Tuesday by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.). ...

Dave Workman discusses the Nordkye decision:

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday handed down a long-awaited ruling in the epic case of Nordyke v. King, which started as a lawsuit by gun show operators Russell and Sallie Nordyke against California’s Alameda County, and became something considerably larger.

The court panel, with Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain writing the opinion and Judge Ronald M. Gould offering a concurring opinion, rule that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states; that is, the right to keep and bear arms that is affirmed by the Amendment now becomes a limit on state and local governments, same as it is a limit on the federal government. ...

Another article on Nordyke:

As my colleague, David Codrea, has already reported, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that state and local governments are bound by the Second Amendment. Since the advent of the Fourteenth Amendment, most provisions of the Bill of Rights have gained power over not only the federal government, as originally intended, but over state and local governments, as well. The Second Amendment was one of the few exceptions--and that has never made sense (and was clearly not intended by the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment).

In Nordyke v. King, however we may very well be seeing the beginning of the end of that very unsatisfactory set of circumstances, wherein state and local governments need not so much as pay lip service to the Second Amendment. In the 9th Circuit, in fact, that end has indeed arrived. Granted, the 9th is but one circuit court, and unless and until the Supreme Court rules similarly, the other federal circuit courts are free to ignore the Nordyke ruling. Still, this development is very significant, because the 9th is the largest, and thus one of the most important, federal circuit courts. It is also considered the most "liberal," and thus perhaps the most resistant to protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

That perception, actually, was borne out to some degree by the decision, which despite ruling that the Second Amendment applied to state and local governments, also ruled that such governments could ban gun shows on public property. The judges of the 9th Circuit, apparently, attach a different meaning to shall not be infringed than one might expect, based on the . . . actual meaning of those words. In that, the decision resembles some of the more regrettable aspects of the Heller decision. ...

Howard Nemerov on New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand turn towards the Dark Side:

Once again, anti-rights forces in Congress are attacking the Tiahrt Amendment as restricting law enforcement from doing its job, using their pretty new face: Kirsten Gillibrand. But examination of Gillibrand’s campaign finance, and comparing rhetoric to reality, are in order before trusting her as a disinterested public servant trying to protect us.
...
NBC New York reports:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is calling for the repeal of a federal policy on record keeping for gun background checks, a law she originally co-sponsored in Congress.

Sen. Gillibrand and fellow New York Senator Chuck Schumer want to change the Tiahrt Amendment, which requires records of gun background checks be destroyed after 24 hours. The amendment restricts cities, state and members of law enforcement from using so-called "trace data" to track how guns are trafficked across state lines.

Gillibrand, a supporter of the National Rifle Association, had originally co-sponsored the bill, which was added on to a appropriations bill, as an upstate Congresswoman. [Emphasis added]

Maintaining background check records creates a registration database, a key goal for gun banners because it enables them to know what guns you own and sets the stage for confiscation. ...

[West Virginia] Win some, lose some: Permit privacy bill loses, reciprocity provision wins:

CHARLESTON — When the smoke cleared away on the final night of the legislative session, the West Virginia Press Association held the winning hand in a duel over guns and the public’s right to know who is toting concealed firearms.

For two years, the battle has raged between the press association and the National Rifle Association in a bill initially offered to allow West Virginia to enter into and honor reciprocal pacts so that states recognized each other’s concealed weapon permits.

But the NRA amended the measure so that no citizen could access permits under the Freedom of Information Act, a move the press association viewed as poor policy in regard to the public’s right to know and scrutinize government records.

“The logic behind it was contrived,” Phil Reale, a Charleston attorney and lobbyist for the press association, said of the NRA’s opposition to public access on grounds it might expose someone in a domestic rift to danger if his or her concealed weapon permit were publicized.

The NRA did score on getting the reciprocal agreements approved.

“They got something out of it, which we didn’t object to,” Reale said. ...

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[Wisconsin] Lawsuit filed against West Milwaukee for open carry arrest:

Today civil rights attorney John Monroe filed a federal lawsuit against West Milwaukee and it's police force for gross abuses of power against a man solely because the man was legally carrying a holstered gun. A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.

The complaint alleges that police illegally detained, harassed, and arrested Jesus Gonzales without cause in violation of the federal constitution. Further, the complaint alleges that police unlawfully demanded Gonzales' social security number in violation of Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act, arguably a felony under the Social Security Act at 42 USC 408.

Mr. Gonzales was never actually tried in court, but the complaint alleges that the police have refused to return the property confiscated from Mr. Gonzales. OpenCarry.org's co-founder John Pierce, a law student at nearby Hamline University in Minneapolis, MN where open carry is also legal, says that "the police have no more power to confiscate openly carried handguns that they do to confiscate openly carried cell phones."

In Wisconsin, like most states, citizens can openly carry handguns in public without any permit. Recently a Wisconsin judge ruled that mere open carry of holstered handguns is not "disorderly conduct" in Wisconsin. ...

Firearm sales surge:

Since November, more than seven million people applied for criminal background checks in order to buy guns, according to the FBI. That figure excludes anyone buying a weapon at the thousands of gun shows in states such as Virginia, without facing any checks.

The sudden run on weapons has also stripped gun shops in some parts of the country almost bare and led to a national ammunition shortage, the Guardian reports.

Gun-shop owners and the National Rifle Association claim the surge is driven by concerns that Mr Obama is planning to ban many types of firearms and that the deepening economic crisis will fuel a crime wave. ...

Obama to Mexican president: "I have not backed off at all" on gun control:

Gun control was among the chief topics to emerge from President Obama's meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Obama said the talks were "productive and wide ranging" and Calderon characterized them as an "open, frank discussion."

Obama said while he still supports an assault weapons ban, the lapsed law isn't likely to be renewed anytime soon.



"None of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy, so what we focused on was enforcing our existing laws," Obama said.

"I have not backed off at all," he said, from his position during the campaign. [emphasis added] ...

Washington Post reports that Obama favors "assault weapons" ban, wants Senate to ratify international gun-control treaty:

... On his first presidential visit to Mexico, Obama praised Calderón for taking on the drug cartels, whose potent arsenals and economic power are threatening the integrity of the Mexican state. Obama announced that he will push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms-trafficking treaty.

But Obama indicated that while he favors reinstating the U.S. ban on assault weapons, which Congress allowed to expire five years ago, the move would face too much political opposition to happen soon. He said better enforcing existing laws to prevent arms smuggling would have a more immediate effect on keeping U.S. weapons from Mexican cartels.

"I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence," he said in a news conference with Calderón at Los Pinos, the presidential compound. "Now, having said that, I think none of us are under the illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy." ...

Retired Navy captain says arm merchant seamen [audio of Capt. Nash's comments available at link]:

A retired Navy captain who now serves as an analyst says arming the civilians who run freight ships through the waters offshore from Somalia would allow them to defend themselves and fix much of the pirate problem.

Crew members from the recently attacked Maersk Alabama returned today to the United States and told reporters, "All we had was knives. They had AK-47s."

But retired U.S. Navy Capt. Chuck Nash, who also has served as an analyst for Fox News, said the right of the crew members to defend themselves – even with force – needs to be established firmly.
...
Nash suggested the shipping companies need to "get out from under the nebulous conditions that exist today, where they are afraid from a legal perspective to arm their crews."

"It comes down to the inherent right to self-defense," he said. "We have to arm these merchant marines."

He explained the U.S. Navy, and ships from other nations, simply cannot patrol the millions of square miles in the ocean.

He said a second significant move would be to "start imposing limitations on where these pirates operate."

The pirates initially worked within a few miles of the coast because they were in open-hulled fishing boats. Then they moved into large trawlers, he said, and that greatly expanded their coverage.

"Therefore what we need to do is roll up that process, starting with getting the rules of engagement for our Navy to take out those mother ships, squeeze them back up against the coastline, which automatically makes the job of the military easier," he said. ...

Oliver North says he's an "extremist":

WASHINGTON -- According to the U.S. government, I am an extremist. I am a Christian and meet regularly with other Christians to study God's word. My faith convinces me the prophecies in the Holy Bible are true. I believe in the sanctity of human life, oppose abortion, and want to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I am a veteran with skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. I own several firearms, and I frequently shoot them, buy ammunition, and consider efforts to infringe on my Second Amendment rights to be wrong and unconstitutional. I fervently support the sovereignty of the United States, and I am deeply concerned about our economy, increasingly higher taxes, illegal immigration, soaring unemployment, and actions by our government that will bury my children beneath a mountain of debt.

Apparently, all this makes me a "rightwing extremist." At least, that's what it says in the April 7 "Assessment" issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The nine-page report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," is full of warnings about American citizens who share any part of my background or subscribe to the beliefs above. It is one of the most alarming documents produced by our government that I ever have read. ...

[Idaho] Senate panel narrowly approves guns in parking lots bill:

A Senate committee narrowly approved a bill that would encourage companies to adopt policies that let workers keep guns in their cars.

The Senate State Affairs Committee voted 4-3 on April 16 to pass a measure that would provide legal protections to companies that “allow or (do) not prohibit” employees to store firearms in their vehicles. Those businesses could not face civil damages for such policies.

Rep. Jeff Thompson, R-Idaho Falls, said prohibitions on guns in employee vehicles infringe on the rights of hunters and people who carry guns for self-defense. But he said businesses that have such policies wouldn’t have to change their procedures because of the bill.

“We’re just trying to encourage employers to help employees practice their Second Amendment rights,” Thompson said.

Julie Pipal, a lobbyist for the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce, also spoke in support of the bill. She said chamber members support any measure that provides protections for “those things beyond an employer’s control.” ...

[Texas] Campus carry bill sparks debate, opponents vow to walk out of classes:

Legislation allowing concealed handguns on state campuses has incited passionate debate at UT. This battle has been ongoing since the founding fathers guaranteed “the right to bear arms” in the Bill of Rights.

In protest of a new bill, UT students and faculty, will walk out of classes today at 11:30 a.m. and march to the steps of the Texas Capitol against guns on college campuses.

Today marks the second anniversary of the shooting at Virginia Tech.

Several constitutional law professors across the country, however, are debating this issue in light of the rights listed in the U.S. Constitution. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia, but the question remains whether or not this right applies to the states.
...
Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Texas Constitution gives power to lawmakers to prevent crime but that the question remains whether the Legislature should restrict carrying guns in certain places and certain ways.

“The constitutional matter is not imperative, but at the same time it’s a matter of good policy,” Volokh said. “Protecting the right to self-defense is an important moral right. My sense is that allowing concealed carry is, generally speaking, a good idea.” ...

[California] Politician visits guns hops to promote "shall-issue" CCW bill:

VICTORVILLE - Assemblyman Steve Knight spent Thursday afternoon visiting local gun shops to promote his proposed legislation to streamline the concealed weapons permitting process.

“It’s an equality issue...” said Knight, R-Palmdale. “If you go through the process fully and you complete your firearm training class, complete the paperwork, pay the fees and pass your background checks, you should be allowed to carry a (concealed carry weapon) — clean and simple.”

Currently, law enforcement agencies “may issue” concealed weapons permits at their discretion.

But Knight’s proposal, Assembly Bill 357, changes the law to state that law enforcement agencies “shall issue” concealed weapons permits to residents who meet certain criteria. ...

Comment: Those readers in California may want to contact their elected servants to have them support this "shall-issue" bill.


[Oregon] Lawmakers push for permit privacy protections:

A bill to limit public release of information about concealed handgun permit holders is headed for a vote in the Oregon House.

The measure endorsed Wednesday by a House committee was sought by Oregon sheriffs who want to prevent newspapers and others from getting lists of people with concealed handgun permits.

The sheriffs and gun rights groups say that releasing the information would jeopardize permit holders' personal security. ...

Columnist: Senate must reject international gun-control treaty:

Having backed off--for now--from the politically difficult push for a ban of so-called "assault weapons," President Obama hopes to assuage Mexican President Felipe Calderón's disappointment with a promise to push the Senate to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Materials, a treaty signed in 1997, but never ratified in the U.S.

President Obama announced in a visit here today that he will push the U.S. Senate to ratify an inter-American arms trafficking treaty designed to curb the flow of guns and ammunition to drug cartels and other armed groups in the hemisphere.

Obama no doubt believes that ratification of this treaty is much more feasible than passage of a renewed AWB, and in that assessment he is almost certainly correct. There is, for example, no indication to this point of any organized resistance to ratification of the treaty. Although the NRA contests the Washington Post article's contention that it participated in the meeting at which the treaty was drafted, the NRA has not made clear that it has determined the treaty to be a threat to gun rights in the U.S., and thus something to be forcefully opposed.

Even a cursory glance at the text should convince any gun rights advocacy group (or individual) that this agreement is indeed dangerous to the rights of American gun owners. This section stands out (emphasis added): ...

Obama administration says it won't contest judge's injunction against National Parks concealed carry rule:

The Obama administration says it will not appeal a federal court ruling that prohibits carrying loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

Instead, the Interior Department says it will conduct a full environmental review of an earlier policy that allowed concealed, loaded guns in parks and refuges. ...

Comment: Not surprising. Anyone want to bet how the "environmental review" of the concealed carry rule will turn out?


[Washington] Gun, ammo sales booming:

SEATTLE—More people have bought concealed pistol permits, guns and ammunition in the Seattle area since November, apparently because of fear that the Obama administration could impose new restrictions on gun ownership.

The state Department of Licensing has handled more than 27,000 concealed pistol permits so far in 2009, about 2,000 more than the first four months of last year and 3,700 more than the same period in 2007. ...

[Canada] Want a gun permit? Tell us about your sex life:

... Pierre Lemieux is an economist whose most recent book, Comprendre l’économie, just won the prestigious Prix Turgot in Paris. When it comes to guns, he’s a hobbyist, not a lobbyist, but in his spare time he has been trying to make the authorities comprehend something about the relationship between public safety and his love life. Not because he thinks there’s a nexus, but because the government does.

Before renewing his gun permit in 2007, the authorities decided to inquire into Lemieux’s bedroom history. Did he divorce anyone in the last two years? Did he break up with a girlfriend? If yes, use a separate sheet to explain.

Pardon me? Explain?

Well, it was nothing personal. Apparently, Canada’s government feels it ought to know the romantic status of all firearm owners. Hmm. Didn’t someone say the state had no business in the nation’s bedrooms? Who would say something so fuddy-duddy? Oh, the same fellow who actually said fuddy-duddy: Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Well, that was before the Flood.

It could be worse, I suppose. Canada’s gun clerks could ask applicants if they suffer from erectile dysfunction. Perhaps clerks don’t ask because they worry about a human rights tribunal finding the question discriminatory. Or maybe they haven’t thought of it yet. ...

Notes from the underground

Via UPI, here's an amusing anecdote:

WASHINGTON, April 3 (UPI) -- A spokesman for Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said Transportation Security Administration employees slipped an encouraging note into an Ensign staffer's luggage.

Ensign spokesman Tory Mazzola said a staffer flying into Washington discovered a note in his suitcase that was signed by six TSA employees and thanked the senator for his efforts to lift the gun ban in the nation's capital, Politico reported Friday.

"To Senator Ensign: Please continue to defend our conservative values with all your vigor, particularly our Second Amendment! Thank you," the note read.

Mazzola said it was the first time someone had used that method to contact the senator. ...

Article here. TSA government employees supporting the Second Amendment? That's probably a firing offense in the new Hope and Chains employee manual.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[Illinois] Senate panel says no to concealed carry:

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - A committee of the Illinois Senate has rejected a proposal to give Illinoisans the right to carry concealed weapons.

Senate Bill 1976 would allow county sheriff's to issue concealed carry permits to qualified gun owners. The idea was voted down by members of the Senate Public Health Committee, which is dominated by Chicago-area lawmakers. ... [emphasis added]

[D.C.] Las Vegas Sun laments Sen. Ensign's pro-gun amendment to the bill to give D.C. a House vote:

Washington — Republican Sen. John Ensign has engineered a major political coup that could leave the District of Columbia with weaker gun laws than those of Las Vegas and thwart a long-sought effort to give residents of the capital voting rights in Congress.

In a victory for gun rights advocates, the Nevada lawmaker led Senate efforts to strike down a gun control law in the capital by adding an amendment to a long-fought bill to give the district a voting representative in Congress.

The amendment stripping out gun restrictions in the capital drew widespread support as moderate Democratic lawmakers were hesitant to confront the powerful gun lobby. Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader, joined Ensign and 60 other senators in voting for its passage.

Ensign won praise from guns rights advocates, but he is now facing pushback from members of the District of Columbia City Council as well as complaints that he is creating a more lax environment for guns in the nation’s capital than in his home state. ...

[D.C] House Democratic leaders looking for way to weasel out of pro-gun amendments to D.C. vote bill:

House Democratic leaders are offering the National Rifle Association (NRA) a separate vote on legislation that would weaken the District of Columbia’s gun laws, trying to wriggle out of a conundrum created by their centrist members.

An amendment supported by the powerful gun-rights lobbying organization is holding up a bill that would give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress. That legislation is a priority for Democratic leaders.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the chief advocate among leadership for D.C. Voting Rights Act, confirmed Tuesday that a standalone bill on the gun provisions has been discussed.
...
If Democrats had a separate vote on the D.C. gun language, sponsored by Rep. Travis Childers (D-Miss.), it would probably pass with the support of Republicans and centrist Democrats.

But there would be nothing to compel the Senate to take it up. Gun-rights lawmakers and the NRA still remember last year, when the NRA negotiated a House vote on a similar bill, only to have the Senate ignore it. The Senate this year voted to amend the gun provisions to its version of the voting rights bill, allowing centrists in that chamber to show their support. But the upper chamber would likely take up the House version without the amendment, or strip out the language in a conference.

Hoyer said there is also discussion of trying to get centrist Democrats to stick with leadership on a procedural vote that excludes the gun amendment. But the NRA has threatened to “score” that procedural vote, meaning the NRA would tell its members that those who support leadership have opposed gun rights. That’s not a popular position in many rural, conservative districts.

Comment: Having a separate bill would be a way for squirrelly dems (and republicans) to vote in favor of a pro-gun bill, while knowing that there's very little chance that such a bill would actually become law. Let's hope the Republicans don't fall for this sleight of hand, although the cynic in me is not that hopeful.


Montana senators tell AG Holder to back off:

WASHINGTON — Democratic Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester have a message for the Obama administration: they will oppose any gun restrictions the new administration may be considering.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the two Montana senators said the Justice Department should enforce existing laws rather than propose additional laws they said could infringe on Second Amendment rights.

"We oppose reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons, and we call on the Department of Justice to enforce existing laws before it considers imposing any new restrictions on gun ownership," Baucus and Tester wrote.

The senators said their letter was prompted by Holder's recent comment that reinstating a ban on the sale of assault weapons could help reduce bloodshed in Mexico, where 6,000 people were killed last year in drug-related violence.

A spokesman for Holder declined comment.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she plans to push legislation to reinstate a federal ban on some assault weapons that became law during the Clinton administration in 1994 but expired in 2004 under President Bush. Feinstein also has backed a plan to require gun shows to conduct background checks before selling firearms.

Barrett Kaiser, a spokesman for Baucus, said the senators sent the letter as a "pre-emptive strike" to warn the Obama administration that any effort to push new gun control will meet with resistance.

"If it even smells like gun control, rest assured that Max Baucus will be standing in the way," Kaiser said Wednesday.

Patrick Devlin, a spokesman for Tester, said Tester's opposition to gun control in "part of who he is as a Montana Democrat."

During last year's presidential campaign, Tester said that he had no qualms about backing Barack Obama for president, calling him an "ordinary person" who is no threat to gun owners.

"He told me flat out, 'I'm not taking your guns away and don't let anybody tell you that I will," Tester said last August, referring to Obama. "This guy is not going to take away your guns."

Devlin said Tester still believes that, but wanted to make it clear that he and Baucus oppose any new gun control efforts. ...

[Chicago] Article: How can a city that bans handguns lead the nation in murders?:

You cannot legally buy a handgun in Chicago, the nation’s most murderous city.

You can own one, but only if you’ve owned it since before 1982 and you register it every year with the Chicago Police Department.

Gun-control advocates and gun-rights advocates don’t – or can’t – agree on how a city with a handgun ban can lead the nation in murders.

To proponents of owning guns it means the ban doesn’t work.

“Laws are only for law-abiding citizens anyway,” said John Riggio, owner of Chuck’s Gun Shop and Pistol Range in Riverdale. “Criminals by definition don’t follow the law.”

To proponents of regulating guns it means the ban isn’t big enough. ...

Columnist: Are college professors "trigger angry?":

... Leftists love to use the phrase “trigger happy” when they are justifying fascistic gun control policies that would curtail the rights of ordinary citizens. When leftists use the term “trigger happy” they get a mental image of a person who is just itching to kill a fellow citizen. I use a similar term, “trigger angry.” And when I use it I get a mental image of Professor Paula Anderson.

John Wahlberg gave a speech in Professor Anderson’s communications class at Central Connecticut State University (CCSU). The topic was a general one on relevant issues in the media. John decided to argue that concealed weapons permits would reduce violence and, more specifically, would have saved lives during the Virginia Tech massacre of 2007.

After John’s speech, his trigger angry professor decided to call the police. As a result, John was hauled down to the station and interrogated. To date, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has failed to provide John with the support he needs as his professor seeks to undermine his First Amendment rights en route to undermining the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

The 23-year old Wahlberg was greeted by campus police officers who read off a list of all his registered firearms. When the campus police reminded Wahlberg that guns were prohibited in campus, they apparently were not aware that he lives off campus. In fact, he lives twenty miles off campus. He also keeps the guns in a safe.

Professor Anderson’s actions were outrageous, partly because the questions police asked were so invasive. Imagine police presenting a gay professor with a list of his sex partners and then reminding him that sodomy is against the law. But, wait, sodomy is a constitutional right. Wahlberg was talking about gun ownership. ...

[New Hampshire] Guns, ammo sales soaring:

DERRY – AL BACON is explaining to one of his regular customers why the ammo he wants is out of stock. Meanwhile, three more people enter the tiny gun shop, doing an awkward two-step around other customers patiently waiting for a word with Bacon.

It will be nearly an hour before Bacon catches his breath.

"It's been like this all day, every day," he said of the constant traffic to his store, Al's Gun and Reel Shop, on Linwood Avenue. "It's difficult to keep up. In all my years here, it's never been like this." ...

[Florida] Guns, ammo sales soaring:

PORT RICHEY - The November election produced an unintended stimulus package for one industry: gun sales.

About as soon as Democrats took control of both the White House and Congress last fall, people began lining up to buy guns at local shops. Ammunition has been flying off store shelves, merchants say. ...

[Arizona] Ammo shortages in Tucson:

After November's election, gun shops across the country saw a spike in sales, presumably because customers worried a new administration would make it tougher and more expensive to get a gun.

Since then people are also buying ammo and now there's a shortage of it.

Rich Eldert went shopping for bullets but instead is finding bare shelves.

"The shelves are empty. If they do get a shipment, people just buy it up like that," he says. ...

[West Virginia] Guns, ammo sales soaring:

HUNTINGTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- If you're a hunter or gun owner, you already know how hard it's become to find guns or even basic accessories like ammunition or parts.

Todd Borders is the Vice President of Borders Sporting Goods in Summit, Kentucky. He says finding guns these days isn't easy, even for shops like his.

"Most all the other dealers I know are having a difficult time," Borders said. "The distributors even the manufactures are running full staff and they just can't keep up with the demand right now." ...

Senate ties D.C. vote to gun issue

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Senate approved a bill on Thursday to provide the nation’s capital with a voting representative in the House, but it came with a hitch. A controversial amendment was added that would repeal most of the city’s gun-control regulations.

Approved by a 61-to-37 vote, the D.C. House Voting Rights Act would expand the House for the first time since 1913, providing a vote for Washington and an additional seat for Utah, which narrowly missed getting one after the last census.

The measure is likely to end up in the courts, however, even if a similar bill passes the House, as is expected next week. President Obama has said he will sign the legislation.

The gun amendment makes the Senate measure significantly different from the bill in the House, which could slow passage. However, some members of Congress said the amendment was unlikely to survive the negotiations between the House and Senate over a final version of the bill. ...

Article here. As the article notes, expect the pro-gun measure to be stripped from the final conference report. D.C. gets is vote in the House of Representatives, and gets to keep its onerous gun controls in place. It's a "win-win", as the saying goes, for everyone except those who believe in the Constitution.

Well, that didn't take long

From Newsday:

WASHINGTON - Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made her turnaround on a key gun-control issue official this week: She signed a letter seeking repeal of the NRA-backed Tiahrt Amendments, even though she sought to make them permanent just last June.

The letter, made public yesterday, asks Attorney General Eric Holder for his support for the repeal of Tiahrt, an appropriations bill amendment that since 2003 has restricted use of federal gun-trace data.

The letter was written and circulated by Gillibrand's most outspoken critic: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), a gun-control activist whose husband was killed in 1993 by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road.

Gillibrand acknowledged backing Tiahrt's repeal by signing the letter, an aide said, but denied making a 180-degree turn on the measure. Gillibrand said instead that Tiahrt needs to be "fixed.

Article here. Looks like Ms. Gillibrand is just another spineless politician.

Alaska Senator Begich co-sponsors national reciprocity bill

From Alaska:

From a Senator Mark Begich press release:

In an effort to secure the rights of individuals to lawfully carry concealed firearms across state lines, Sen. Mark Begich is co-sponsoring the Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

Currently, Sen. Begich is the only Democrat of the 19 senators co-sponsoring the legislation that allows an individual to lawfully carry a concealed firearm across state lines if they have a valid permit or, if under their state of residence, they are allowed to do so.

"This bill will allow Alaskans who are able to carry a concealed weapon legally in our state, to do so when they travel to other states that have a system of concealed carry laws," Sen. Begich said. "The Second Amendment is of utmost importance to Alaskans, and this is just one step in my ongoing commitment to protect our right to bear arms."

Article / press release here. Given anti-gun Democrat control of Congress and the White House, don't expect this bill to go anywhere.

The "evolution" of Kirsten Gillibrand

From the New York Times:

SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. — Now that Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand represents all of New York rather than one conservative swath outside Albany, she has described her shift on hot-button issues like illegal immigration and gay marriage as a broadening of her position.

But in the 20th Congressional District, which first sent Ms. Gillibrand to Washington in 2006, many are taking it as an abandonment of the principles that persuaded them to support a Democrat in this predominantly Republican area.

“I don’t think it’s right when you say one thing and do something else,” said Michelle Boyea, 44, as she sat in her car after running errands around town. If you have a position, and this is what you feel, why would you change it just because you got a new job?”

Ms. Boyea was unhappy with Ms. Gillibrand’s sudden change of heart, after being appointed to the Senate, on issues that had won her re-election in November. She liked the voting record that had earned Ms. Gillibrand a 100 percent rating by the National Rifle Association (Ms. Boyea’s husband owns several firearms). She approved of Ms. Gillibrand’s hard line against illegal immigration and her opposition to gay marriage. “I’m Catholic,” Ms. Boyea said.

But Ms. Gillibrand has softened some of her positions in the weeks since her appointment. She declared her support for gay marriage, not merely civil unions. She assured Latinos and Asians in New York City that she would work to enact a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And she let Senator Charles E. Schumer, who had enthusiastically supported her selection, reassure downstate voters that she would “evolve” on gun control, too.
...
“I respected the fact that she came out and said she was going to back up the guns, and hunting,” said Keith Disbrow, 53, a retired correction officer. “I’m an avid hunter and fisherman. But as soon as Schumer and Silver got to her, I watched her change her tune. She was doing a decent job, but now that she’s going to be a statewide senator, I think they’re going to make her fold. She’s not going to have the Democratic Party’s backing if she doesn’t.”

Article here. Sadly, she's starting to look like just another spineless politician.