(AP Photo/Elise Amendola)
Related Articles
The national political landscape has been (apparently) shaken by Republican Scott Brown's improbable U.S. Senate victory over Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachussetts. Amidst the cheering and congratulations, we gun owners need to ask ourselves what this means as far as our right to keep and bear arms is concerned.
True, Coakley is a committed enemy of that. Here's what the Bradys had to say:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence today endorsed Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in the special election for the U.S. Senate seat previously held by the late Edward M. Kennedy, calling her election critical because her opponent has become beholden to the National Rifle Association and other gun extremists.
So how beholden and extreme is Scott Brown? From "On the Issues":
* Rep. Brown indicated he supports the following principles concerning gun issues:Allow citizens to carry concealed guns.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns.
* Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.
* Require a license for gun possession.Source: Massachusetts State Legislative Election 2002 NPAT Nov 1, 2002
The last three points are identical to the Brady's "extreme" position. Brown evidently has evolved and come around in the past eight years, but I confess I'm in the dark on this, as I don't know why Gun Owners Action League felt he merited an "A+" rating. Perhaps someone can enlighten us all with documentation that either his former positions were inaccurately stated or he's since repudiated them.
I don't want to rain on everybody's parade, but I think gun owners will be right at this point to breathe sigh of relief but keep their enthusiasm in check. True, we dodged a bullet, no question. But how will Senator Brown now handle our trust? The thing I noticed about his victory speech last night that most raises my concern is this:
I go to Washington as the representative of no faction or interest, answering only to my conscience and to the people.
Only? Answer to the Constitution, Mr. Senator-elect. If you do that, we'll get along just fine.
One last note, tangentially related to all this: Thanks to a heads-up find by "LaRue Tactical" over at AR15.com, we learn the proprietors at Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, makers of firearms accessories and gun sights, donated $1,000 to Coakley in a previous campaign. Those of you attending the SHOT Show, going on right now in Las Vegas, might want to stop by their booth and ask them why.
------------
See you this afternoon...
...on American Trigger Sports Network. Host James B. Towle has asked me back for today's Trigger Sports LIVE! show and we'll be discussing armed defense stories, among other things.
It starts at noon PST and I'll probably come on about half an hour into it.
Click here to watch.
Comments
Neocons love a good con job. When it comes to this criminal government, we MUST assume they are guilty until proven innocent. Is that not how they treat us?
This is great! It destroys the Demoncrats' filibuster-proof majority, and it shows that the people are waking up to the Soviet-style threat our government is becoming.
However, Scott Brown was endorsed by SPAM (State Police Association of Massachusetts--yeah, it's real.) So, we did dodge a bullet, as David said, but as he was endorsed by a state police organization, is Scott going to be a "law & order" type, with no regard for the Bill of Rights?
iraq has better gun rights and freedoms than Americans!
imagine if we could own any gun we wanted full auto or rpg.
I have no expectation that Brown is going to be a crusader for gun owners' rights, but I am quite confident he will be several orders of magnitude better than Coakley and certainly better than Kennedy. If nothing else, I'm pleased that Obama lost his rubber stamp in the Senate; there's been virtually no transparency or substantive debate regarding health care or any other pet topic on the President's "agenda".
I have no expectation that Brown is going to be a crusader for gun owners' rights, but I am quite confident he will be several orders of magnitude better than Coakley and certainly better than Kennedy. If nothing else, I'm pleased that Obama lost his rubber stamp in the Senate; there's been virtually no transparency or substantive debate regarding health care or any other pet topic on the President's "agenda".
* Rep. Brown indicated he supports the following principles concerning gun issues:Allow citizens to carry concealed guns.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns.
* Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.
* Require a license for gun possession.
At the risk of playing the devil's advocate (I'll take some heat for this I'm sure), Brown could not possibly have run as a far right candidate supporting all the issues on the list above and won in Massachusetts. Not with a narrow 5 point spread. From a political perspective I understand why he had to appear right centrist to voters in order to win there against Coakley.
The fact that he feels that we should be spending money on weapons to fight terrorists trying to kill us, instead of on lawyers to defend them in civil trials tells me that his head, and ideologies, are in the right hemisphere.
I wonder if Senator Brown would support requiring the people to obtain a license to exercise their other unalienable rights? Want to speak your mind - get a license. Want to invoke the 5th Amendment - get a license. Want to protest an illegal search and seizure - do you have a license?
If you're about to chide me that the Second Amendment is not an unalienable right, think about this. "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If, therefore, we have an unalienable right to Life it logically follows that we have the right to DEFEND that Life. There - that's the connection to the 2nd Amendment.
For those who don't know about guns in Mass.. This state has THE most oppressive laws in the U.S., in some ways even worse than CA or NY. You need an FID to possess pepper spray! You need an FID for long guns. We have a so-called "Assault Weapon Ban". Hi-cap magazines made before 1998 are banned. The only new handguns that can be sold have to be on both "approved lists" and the approval process is long and expensive. The "authorities" like Attorney General Coakley make sure that as few as possible handguns make the list. A person without and FID can be jailed for as much as 2 1/2 years for the mere possession of a SPENT cartridge! We can't get ammo or even reloading components shipped to us! The Gun Owners Action League is our state NRA affiliate organization (www.goal.org). To get an A+ rating from them is not easy. Scott Brown has voted against all further restrictive proposed laws. He has either sponsored or co-sponsored every attempt to roll back these horrible laws here.
"At the risk of playing the devil's advocate (I'll take some heat for this I'm sure), Brown could not possibly have run as a far right candidate supporting all the issues on the list above and won in Massachusetts."
Exactly. Brown is a rabid conservative extremist FOR MASSACHUSETTS. If every state elects people as conservative as Brown is, for their own political climates, bad legislation will get nowhere fast.
I cannot believe the excuses I'm hearing for giving someone who clearly does not deserve it an A+ rating. Except I can--I've been hearing such weasel-worded excuses for years.
Talk about cheapening what should be the ultimate honor. What incentive does that give anyone for actually having principles and using their bully pulpit to promote and educate constituents about rights? You can't just tell people the truth and give them your opinion that this is the best you think you're going to get? You know, be honest?
Prove the guy has repudiated his attack on basic rights with his demand for gun locks, ending private sales and gun licensing before insulting us with how he voted correctly on peripheral issues so he deserves an A+.
And you wonder why people get sick of the compromising phoniness and manipulation, especially when one of your A-raters turns around and stabs us in the back?
And we wonder why we're in the mess we are with this kind of "leadership."
David,
I have the utmost respect for you and all you have done for gun rights everywhere and I look forward to your columns always , but IMHO you seem to be lacking a little bit of political astuteness. Yes, I know that a right compromised sooner or later is no longer a right. However, the reality of the situation is that this is the Peoples Republik, the Commiewaste, if you will. This guy Scott Brown is as far right on gun rights as is possible to be in Mass.! No kidding.. go to www.goal.org and click "legislation" and see all the bills here both pro and con gun rights, see GOAL's opinions on them and see the bills sponsor and the nayes and yeahs. Scott is only the one or two that get an A+. I know that it's still not good enough for you, but it's a whole lot better than Ted Kennedy or Coakley. We haven't been able to repeal these tyranical laws here, and the only thing we've been able to do is roll some of them back a little at a time. We get no help from SAF or NRA here. Go MA!
Lenny, read what I actually said. I never said you couldn't legitimately bring up all those points, including the realities of the political climate, as reasons for supporting him. By all means do.
I said anyone who supports the gun control edicts he does does not deserve an A+ rating, and we should make our case based on the truth and reality or we will lose credibility and trust as people catch on.
If that's lacking political astuteness on my part, guilty as charged.
"I cannot believe the excuses I'm hearing for giving someone who clearly does not deserve it an A+ rating."
David, I too have the utmost respect for your gun rights advocacy. If Brown tried to run for the U.S. Senate for Florida he would be given thumbs down with his record. Massachusetts, different story. In a fortified bastion of progressive liberalism such as MA I am still shocked that Brown won at all. Even if he ran as a far left Republican the odds were still astronomically opposed to his success in a normal political environment which this certainly is not.
In hindsight, considering all the missteps which Coakley made, yes Brown probably could have run further to the right than he did and still won, but in such an entrenched hive of liberalism as MA, this is a huge win for conservatives everywhere.
Short of Brown selling out the Republican party on the social and fiscal issues, this has put the rabid far left frothing at the mouth liberals on notice.
Joshua--same answer I gave to Lenny. I'm not arguing with what you are saying in terms of understanding why many gun owners supported Brown. I am arguing against giving undeserved A ratings and treating gun owners like they need to be manipulated with phony grades instead of spoken to like adults about political realities.
Besides which, if being seen in bed with gunners can hurt him, why give him an A+? I mean, as long as we're playing political games here...
"[P]olitical astuteness". Right.
So telling a guy who favors mandatory licensing and gun locks, and bans on private sales that he's A+ perfect is politically astute. He's already perfect, so he doesn't have to work to improve. He has a pass.
Fezzini, I do not think that means what you think it means.
Silly me, I would have thought it would be "politically astute" to tell Mr. Brown, "Look, we'll back you this time because Coakley is so much worse. But here's your report card: C-. You need to work on that if you want any support ever again. You don't get a free pass just by be a little less eveil than your opponents. Improve, or we'll field someone else against you next time. Backslide, and we'll start a recall petition. Understood?"
In fact, the real grade I give any pol who wants licensing just to own a gun is F-.
"To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making. " -- Otto von Bismarck
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable - the art of the next best.” -- Otto von Bismarck
I would love to see someone like Alan Gotlieb or Marrion Hammer appointed to the Supreme court. But that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of happening. Ditto for Jeff Knox being elected to the United States Senate from New York. Who wouldn't like to see Alaska style "no permit required" concealed carry nationwide?
The bottom line is that most of the country does not share our beliefs on gun rights. Yet. We need to work on bringing them up to speed without scaring the bejesus out of them in the process. Scott Brown is going to be far and away a better senator for Massachusetts and the rest of the country than Martha Coakley had a prayer of being. Can we just be thankful for the fact that we dodged a bullet, before we start nit picking the guy to death?
Scott Brown's election is of enormous significance in delaying a vote on The Medical Markets Destructive Interference Act. Other than that, he'd do us all a huge favor by voting not present on everything else--including the GOP's variant of the legislation.
Technically I *can't* say that this *isn't* a huge win for conservatives everywhere, because the modern definition of "conservative" includes every ideological flavor except feminism, minarchism and natural rights of self-defense.
I'm not purposely attempting to belittle Brown's victory--he's the right man at the right time--yet in the broad context of the natural right of self-defense, he apparently still subscribes to the theory that whole rights may be diced into many pieces, each subject to revocation by the state under a bait box of pretexts, the total comprehension of which eludes even the agents tasked with enforcement.
Unlike the worm in a junior high biology experiment, a right dies when it's segmented.
DDS, I've been following undeserved A ratings for well over a decade now. It is hardly "nitpicking," and I'm not going to let you dismiss it as such without challenge. The issue is bigger than Scott Brown and affects every race NRA or other rating groups involve themselves in.
If any of you want to say you agree that Scott Brown deserves an A+ and do so with a straight face, let's stop skirting around with the political rationale and just come out and say it.
Who's first?
DDS-does he deserve an A+--yes or no?
Joshua?
Lenny?
DDS, I appreciate your frankness, but I must add to this:
"The bottom line is that most of the country does not share our beliefs on gun rights."
This is because they likewise do not share our knowledge. The prevailing attitude on guns is an odor that wafts from the doors and windows of the state. It feels threatened by the possibility of a populace with free access to arms and a social norm that the people have a right to judge independently when and how they may be used. There's no other explanation for the enormous expenditure of resources combating the problem of "gun deaths", which apparently effect less than one percent of the population.
Sen. Elect Brown does not deserve an A+ rating. Happy now? Ok so we dealt with that. Now find us an A+ rated candidate who can run and win in the bluest of the blue states. Or should we be content to support ideologically pure candidates who always lose? Your turn, David.
Yep. Happy.
But why is it my turn now? The point I was arguing has been resolved. Tell us the truth and let us make up our minds based on that.
TJP:
It's worse than ignorance IMHO. The brave men who fell in on Lexington Common before dawn on April 19, 1775, willing to face the guns of the greatest military power on earth, would weep if they could see today's Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. But the home state of "The Shot Heard 'Round the World" did not fall to the condition it is in today overnight. Nor will it be fixed any time soon.
We need to be calm, reasonable examples to the people who have to put up with the conditions in the blue states. They need to see that there was no "blood bath" in Florida or any of the "shall issue" states. Then they need to be encouraged to ask their politicians "Why do you think we're more violent or lawless than the people of Florida?" They need to come to the knowledge that the Kerrys and Kennedys do not have their best interest at heart and throw the bums out! We need to show them the way yet be accepting of the fact that they need to relearn how to walk before they can run.
David,
Pssst! It's your turn cuz it's your column. ;-)
Brown's positions on gun ownership may not be in line with the NRA, but I think they do reflect the views of many or perhaps most gun owners. Make concealed carry available nationally on a shall issue basis, subject to a clean (no violent felony record) and mental health check. Background checks, including for private sales, make sense as long as they aren't a back door method for delaying and hampering transers. Require minimal mandatory training (NRA sponsored course) and license for CCW but not for ownership of a gun in the home. Those measures would past muster under the Heller standard. Even the Chicago gun case plaintiffs make clear they are not against all gun regulation, as long as it is reasonable, serves a purpose, and not an infringement on the right.
Wow, I'm an extremist for enjoying constitutional rights. Does that make the individual who enjoyed his freedom of speech by calling NRA members names an extremist too? (The word "slander" comes to mind.) I'm a life member of the NRA. If I felt my freedom of speech was being attacked, I join that group too.
I guess gun rights people are grading on a curve now.
"M. Peck says:
Brown's positions on gun ownership may not be in line with the NRA, but I think they do reflect the views of many or perhaps most gun owners."
"Gun Owner" does not imply "Patriot, friend of liberty."
A gun owner could be someone who has a shotgun stuffed away, maybe forgotten in his closet that he inherited and doesn't even like.
No one dedicated to the cause of liberty and who understands the principles of the founding generation of this country supports any of the proposals you mention. And although we consider the affirmation of our natural rights commendable, many of us are appalled that it even needed to be considered by SCOTUS.
Scott Brown is a good shot across the bow of the socialist-in-chief and his co-conspirators in the House and Senate, but let's be honest and not accept an A+ without checking his real record, regardless of the political climate he lives with.
Folks, this ship will not turn on a dime. Our march towards socialist tyranny has been effected over a long span of time. We cannot expect that, suddenly, things will magically revert to a constitutionally-valid order. We must take a long-term view, a variant of the Fabian socialist approach, where slowly (but surely) we bring this country back from the socialist brink and we begin to climb out of the hole into which we have dug the Nation. That will NOT happen within our lifetimes, but we can lay down the foundations so that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will redeem the vision of the Founders.
Scott Brown is not the perfect candidate; he is, however, one of the initial steps in the right direction. He has gummed up the works on ObamaCare and his election has bought us time to stall Obama's socialist experiment. As Churchill noted: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
David; Brown does not deserve an A+ rating at all.
Personally I would give him a D or F+ only because he supports conceal carry. This nonsense to have a license to own a gun is what we have in Illinois and it horrible.
However in the world of the great un-washed The NRA is taking credit for a win so is the SAF and so is the GOP.
If I remember right none of the above were big supporters of Brown financially until it looked good to get on the bandwagon sort of speak.
Personally I wish we could have done better but if we can slow down the Obama machine put the brakes on Cap and Trade and health care then we got to take what we can get.
It stinks sometimes to love freedom and to know far too many of my fellow Americans are fools.
David I didn’t know you were doing TV. Hopefully you can spread a little truth on the subject.
To expand on my response to M. Peck (part 1 of 3):
1) "Make concealed carry available nationally..."
No one who values the natural right to keep and bear arms
acknowledges anyone else's authority to "make" that right
"available" to him.
2) Background checks for private sales (or any sales, for that
matter) make no sense when you consider that one of the main
reasons for inclusion of the RKBA in the Bill of Rights is,
as it states, "...necessary for the security of a free
state...". To remain free from tyranny, our preservation of
our RKBA is essential. Free people won't acknowledge that
the very government they have a right and responsibility to
keep in check has any business deciding if they are
"suitable" to own anything whatsoever.
To expand on my response to M. Peck (part 2 of 3):
3) "Require minimal mandatory training..."
So, what if that government decides at some later point,
under a different administration, that my minimal mandatory
training should include being taught that I should only shoot
after being shot? And that I sign an affidavit stating I
have had such training and, as as such, am bound by what I
was taught. Don't laugh, just look at how bad it's getting
across the pond.
4) "...and license for CCW..."
So are you suggesting we override the constitutial carry
recognition in Alaska and Vermont?
To expand on my response to M. Peck (part 3 of 3):
5) "Those measures would past muster under the Heller standard."
Leaving aside whether or not they would past muster on
Heller, do you really think Heller was the end of the battle
with the tyrrants across our nation? And do you really think
that those who love liberty believe that our founders
intended that our judiciary could eviscerate our natural
rights?
6) "... Chicago gun case plaintiffs ... are not against all gun
regulation ..."
This case, though laudable, is crafted to win a court case.
Any "regulation" of a right is an infringement.
You'll get no argument from me that Brown is unworthy of an "A" rating based on his stated political beliefs. While I cannot compare his stated political beliefs to his privately held beliefs, MA voters could have done a lot worst than Brown. But my mind works in contrasting colors and when I compare Brown to Coakley there's no competition. You're right on that point, he doesn't deserve an "A" rating.
Is there anything you can do about the bug where clicking on the "Next" link at the bottom of a long column of comments results in a page with the same comments you just read, but the link changes to "Previous"? It looks like once a comment rolls off the first page, it belongs to the ages.
Nope--Tech Support has been "working on it" for months now. One of many issue I and others have brought to their attention.
Just an observation:
Brown said in his speech after his opponent conceded, (I paraphrase) "I'm in this for the people of Mass. I'm not going to go to Washington and engage in business as usual. The people are more important than party."
He then, a few seconds later in the same speech, said that as soon as he gets to Washington he will check in with the leaders of both parties, and John McCain in particular. ??? "Business as usual"???
[W-III]
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!