By announcing last night that they were changing the date of their “Guns Save Lives Day” to coincide with Bill of Rights Day, gun rights groups issued a challenge to gun prohibitionist that they may not be able to accept: don’t exploit the Sandy Hook anniversary to further their extremist agenda.
So far, there has been no promise to not use Dec. 14 for grandstanding against guns, but there might have been a hint from the Brady Campaign the other day when it said California Gov. Jerry Brown could have “done more” on gun control legislation. As this column noted, he vetoed a ban on so-called “assault weapons” last Friday, and that did not make gun prohibitionists happy.
When SAF founder Alan Gottlieb told Piers Morgan Monday night that the gun prohibition lobby had been exploiting the Sandy Hook tragedy for months, he was telling a truth Morgan evidently did not wish to hear.
This year’s push of gun legislation was precipitated by Newtown, and to a lesser degree the Aurora movie shooting, and for anyone in the gun control movement to say otherwise would be a canard. Anti-gun California Sen. Dianne Feinstein was one of the first out of the gate with a renewed attack on guns.
The Denver Post reported back on Dec. 19 that Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette and other anti-gun Democrats began pushing legislation immediately that had been introduced in January 2011 to ban magazines “similar to the ones used in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting…and last summer’s shooting in an Aurora movie theater.”
The Business Insider reported in September that California Assemblyman Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer, Sr., argued for that state’s semi-auto ban legislation by pointing to “a gruesome list of recent gun massacres” that included Sandy Hook and the Colorado movie attack.
There will be no surprises if anti-gunners ignore Gottlieb’s challenge and instead use the somber anniversary as a launch pad for even more restrictive gun control measures. Expect backers of a 15-page gun control initiative in Washington state to use the observance to drum up support for their measure.
MEANWHILE, the Associated Press is reporting this morning that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a SAF appeal in its challenge of the Maryland carry permit structure that requires an applicant to demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” for wanting to carry a firearm for personal protection.
The case involved a man named Raymond Woollard, who had a permit to carry following a 2002 home invasion. However, authorities refused to renew the permit in 2009. According to the story, “state officials said Woollard failed to demonstrate any ongoing danger seven years after the home invasion.”
What the Associated Press didn’t tell readers is that the man at the center of this case, Kris Lee Abbott, in September demonstrated what Woollard could not. Abbott is the man who invaded Woollard’s home that night more than ten years ago. He did time behind bars.
Last month, according to the Baltimore Sun, he assaulted his estranged wife and beat his own parents with a metal pipe before shooting himself fatally. Of course, with his criminal record, Abbott could not legally possess a firearm, something else the AP story overlooked.
Perhaps the reason these details were not mentioned is that they cannot be exploited by gun prohibitionists or an anti-gun media, while Newtown and Aurora can be.
However, by rejecting the Woollard case for a hearing, it is almost as though the high court does not wish to hear a right-to-carry case.