(Weird news from the Yellowstone Rifle Club, trying to purge non-NRA members from its ranks -- or trying to compel non-NRA members to join the NRA. Why is it folks confuse the NRA with the Second Amendment? The past couple of elections have made it clear the NRA is pretty much a Republican fundraising group... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Hot on the heels of Gary Marbut's debutperformance on Glenn Beck we have more masterstroke maneuvers in Wingnuttia.
In this case, the YRC membership will be voting on a bylaw change at its meeting Tuesday night that would divide club members into two classes - National Rifle Association members and non-NRA members.
If you're an NRA member, you'd pay $70 for the annual YRC membership. If you're not a NRA member, you'd pay $100. But beyond that is where it really gets interesting.
YRC members in the NRA would get to vote in club matters. Non-NRA club members would get no vote.
Well it's Tuesday night and the vote went down 70 to 29 in favor of increasing membership dues for non-NRA members while stripping them of the right to vote on future issues.
Fantastic strategy, seek and destroy all those who lack the ideological purity to support 100% of your world view 100% of the time. It's called Building a Winning Coalition 101 and they are probably taking cues from the party of backwards.
As a partisan I couldn't be happier with Republicans cutting off noses to spite faces (See: Sam Kitzenberg and Arlen Specter) and though minuscule by comparison the same mentality is at play in tonight's YRC vote.
Now I happen to know folks in Billings who are pissed about this because it's a nice gun range close to town with excellent facilities. They shoot - a lot - and want nothing to do with bullshit segregation of voting rights. But apparently a 501(c)4 nonprofit can legally revoke the vote from paying members.
Presumably these folks changed their bylaws because they are scared of everything the NRA tells them to be scared of and they fervently believe that all 500 among them must help swell the ranks of the NRA.
However it doesn't work like that. In tonight's vote they completely missed the fact that paying members at YRC are avid gun owners who likely share a commitment to the 2nd Amendment but may not lie in bed awake at night in fear of Democrat legislators storming the house to take their hunting rifles and aren't members of NRA as a result.
This is a really fascinating clip, where the full range of crazy conservatism is on display. Glenn Beck sounds like a voice of reason (you can't make this up).
While Gary Marbut disclaims any regulation of guns whatsoever, Glenn Beck has the audacity to say that a background check may not be such a terrible idea.
He then moves on, either because he had been playing devil's advocate or because he realized his viewers don't tune in for sanity.
Interestingly, the march rightward then continues with Judge Napolitano suggesting that Montana should have a statewide law prohibiting local and state law enforcement from enforcing federal law. It is an interesting idea, but runs counter to the other right-wing demand that local law enforcement act as border patrol agents (a terrible idea in its own right).
What most people (including conservative lawmakers) find when they start seriously considering this is that threatening to kick the federal government out of a state makes some sense, except for the sheer size of federal aid to states.
Now, there's a separate argument here, that we should truly devolve power and have higher local and state taxes, lower federal taxes, and have states pick up more of the tab themselves for things like Medicaid, Interstate Highways, etc. That might have been possible at an earlier time and in a less complicated nation. The tenets of a hard-and-fast federalist system are hard to embrace in practice for the human mind, is my best guess. Americans identify mostly as Americans first and are highly surprised at the wild variation in laws between states.
So. A 23-year-old kid opens fire on Pittsburg police and kills three. He donned a bulletproof vest and ambushed the officers with an "assault rifle." But the big news on the 'tubes is that the shooter -- Richard Poplawski -- had a thing for far-right conspiracy theories, and recently expressed a fear that Obama was going to take his guns. And the shooting took place three days after a screed on gun shows appeared in the Pittsburg Tribune.
Dave Niewert is all over this story, writing, "We've been reporting for a while on the surge in gun sales, and how the paranoia around guns is making the more unstable elements of the right particularly edgy. Inevitably, that edginess is going to break out into actual violence -- as it appears to have done today."
Of course, it's not ju st extremist rhetoric on firearms -- it's all over the place lately, even extending to calls to arms over sparkly dishes and embodied by the weird rantings that Glenn Beck has engaged in since getting his Fox News gig. But Poplawski obviously had mental issues. Kicked out of the Marine Corps. Arguing with neighbors. Shooting cops in the head. Is it fair to blame talking heads for this incident?
...when you point out that certain individuals with all their talk about "revolution" and "armed insurrection" are inciting this kind of behavior in unstable people, you will get howls of protest about the 1st Amendment and what not. Sure, crazy people do crazy things. But that doesn't make it responsible to encourage them, which is what a lot of really foolish people are doing right now for purely political reasons.
And that's a legitimate point, I think. This kind of insane chatter used to be reserved for late-night AM shows and obscure online forums, but mainstream media has abetted, even encouraged this kind of rabble-rousing. Just think of Dan McGee's recent rant over abortion:
McGee said Republicans attempted to work with Democrats on these issues but it did not seem to take. He also compared abortion with slavery and predicted an upheaval comparable to the Civil War. "You bet there will be," McGee said.
Certainly (I hope) this was overheated rhetoric -- start a war over abortion? -- but if a Montanan lays waste to a health-care clinic that provides abortions to women who want them, how responsible is McGee? Wouldn't the senator deserve some censure?
And yet...there is no reprimand for McGee from anyone, neither his fellow legislators, nor the newspapers that are supposedly serving our communities. Shouldn't someone -- besides a partisan hack blogger, I mean -- step forward and let McGee know that a violent solution to a political problem won't be tolerated and demand that he recant his statement? Shouldn't we let these people know that extremism won't be tolerated in a democratic society?
In this piece from The Hill, which focuses on the tough vote that faces appointed NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on a possible assault weapon ban, Jon Tester had this to say about the proposal:
"It's baloney."
Tester and Mark Warner's opposition to the bill (and one assumes Baucus' as well?) means that there would have to be crossover Republican votes for the ban to pass.
Today, the Billings Gazette came out with a strong statement against HB 228. According to the editorial, the bill would:
-- Allow "anybody" to carry concealed weapons in cities and towns, regardless of local statutes.
-- Allow anybody to "brandish firearms 'with no justification for the display' and be immune from prosecution."
-- Allow "convicted felons" to "carry concealed weapons" -- including violent and sexual offenders, who are prohibited under current state law from doing so.
-- Change concealed carry law from preventative to punitive. That is, the regulation wouldn't prohibit those likely to use weapons illegally from carrying concealed weapons, only allow law enforcement to punish those who use concealed weapons in a crime after the crime has been committed.
-- Make it easier for domestic abusers to justify shooting their partners.
According to the editorial, the bill is opposed by Montana Sherriff's and Peace Officers Association, the Montana Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Montana County Attorneys Association.
The Gazette:
Perhaps some of the House members who voted for HB228 wanted to show their support for gun rights. In doing so, they missed or ignored the threats to public safety that this ill-conceived bill poses.
The Montana Senate must stop it. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ought to reject HB228 because it would increase risks of deadly domestic violence and put concealed weapons in the hands of convicted felons. We call on Montana state senators to stand up for law and order by killing HB228.
The editorial also endorses SB92 - Larry Jent's bill - that establishes the castle doctrine for Montanans in "occupied structures."
One thing's for sure, the Gazette was spot-on in criticizing those members of the legislature who voted for the bill, not because it'd make good law, but because of political expediency. Yes, guns are part of Montana culture, but that's no reason to get weak-kneed when faced with bad legislation.
Here's to hoping that state Senators show a little more courage when they contemplate this bill.
So some time ago I wrote a piece for the Guardian about how Obama's proposed gun control policies on change.gov might rattle his newly won Western support, and this was one of the comments:
Rustic, outdoorsy Montanans and moose-hunting Alaskans love their guns.
Urban areas blighted by drugs and gangs are, in the main, keener on a measure of gun control.
It's always seemed bizarre to me that the same (usually Republican) political forces in the US which prefer no government to big government, and when they have to have it, prefer local government to state, and state to Federal, should nevertheless battle to the political death to impose universal, Constitutionally-guaranteed, Federal diktats on two big issues: the protection of gun ownership, and the outlawing of non-traditional forms of marriage.
Seems to me these are two issues just crying out for the application of a little federalism....The US is a huge and geographically diverse country, made up of densely-populated urban areas that tend to be more liberal, and a vast, often untamed rural hinterland where more conservative values hold sway.
[snip]
Red and Blue State America are not going to agree on these issues anytime soon. But why is the US trying to decide them Federally? There's no real need for Big Government to get involved - unlike for example broad economic policy, or military expenditure. Gun control (or lack of it) and gay marriage (or lack of it) are the States' business. So why not let the state governments decide the right policy for their own (very diverse) circumstances?
The commenter suggests that the Second Amendment be rewritten to support states setting their own gun control laws, which isn't necessary, because it's already happening. Just ask any gun owner, and they'll tell you the difference between, say, California and Montana law when it comes to storing guns, say. And the SCOTUS' Heller decision, which affirmed that the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to bear arms but left the degree and kind of controls up to future rulings, essentially makes gun control not just a states' rights issue, but a local issue, as municipal and county bodies create their own rules for gun use and ownership.
Still, the comment did lay bare the hypocracy of conservatives' states' rights rhetoric. Not that the conservative movement natually came to states' rights; it was picked up and thrown onto the GOP wagon by Nixon (yes, I just read Nixonland!) to woo Southern Democrats to his side by promising, in code, that his administration wouldn't do much to speed along desegregation in Dixie.
But then states' rights has always been less an ideology and more a useful tool to preserve traditional power structures or to hurry along reforms. In the antebellum South, states' rights was an ideological pretext to preserve slavery. After all, it was the Southern states that wrote and supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which gave the federal government the broadest and most intrusive powers over states up to that date. And today, progressives clamor for states' rights -- grumbling that the federal government is standing in the way of, say, California's strict emissions standards. After all, it's easier to institute reforms in a state that's more inclined toward your ideology than at the federal level, where government is banally corrupt, pro-corporate, and gutless.
Whatever. Back to gun control. Obama's awkward gun control proclamation on change.gov seemed to belie his election promises, in which he tried to explain his views on gun control in context of a states' rights issue. During the election, Obama defended his draconian gun control proposals made in the Illinois state house by saying that the problems of inner-city Chicago are vastly different than Montana's, and that he wouldn't propose any law that would strip Montanans of their guns.
But then, who cares? Any talk of gun control from the Obama administration has to be just that: talk. There's no way he gets it done. As I wrote in the Guardian piece, Obama "would have to spend enormous political capital to get the gun control laws passed - capital he needs for healthcare reform, a new energy policy and economic stimulus packages."
(...and speaking of state races... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
OK, Tim Fox, we heard you - you like your guns. But how about all of the other issues that the AG deals with? The AG's office has a great deal of power to create positive change in Montana, even outside of the legislative process. For example, last year McGrath released the first Montana Hospitals Report that included information on hospital pricing, debt collection practices, and compared the amount of charity care to their tax benefits received due to their tax-exempt status (which is provided because of the provision of charity care and other community benefits).
http://www.doj.mt.gov/consumer...
This report led to many hospitals revising their debt collection practices and actually publishing their cost information! Imagine knowing how much a procedure is going to cost before going to the doctor. My sister is a doctor in Bozeman, and even she has trouble getting hospitals to give her price information for her patients! Imagine not being referred to a debt collection agency within a month because the bill turned out to be $1,000 more than you expected. But Yosemite Sam isn't concerned about health care or protecting consumers. Tim Fox only cares about guns.
Another example is the restoration funds that are paying for the restoration of the Upper Clark Fork River Basin. The AG is also in charge of the litigation that required business to pay for the environmental damage that they had profited on in the past. Montana must enforce its environmental laws in order to protect our environment. The AG is also in charge of the oversight and disbursement of these funds. What would Yosemite Sam spend these funds on?
New West's Bill Schneider writes a solid regular column on the outdoors. It's recently jumped into the controversy sparked by Jim Zumbo's comments on guns. This week, it looks at gun control and the Democrats.
Schneider is worried about a bill that has been introduced by a NY Democrat that is rallying the NRA crowd to hate Dems again. The bill is an assault weapons ban. Schneider writes about it more out of fear that it will bring back an anti-outdoor party than that it is bad policy. I have no real idea on the policy, share Schneider's fear, and just really don't identify much with the gun control movement.
All that said, the folks making this bill into a big deal seem to have missed the fact that it probably has no chance of passage. I'd be surprised if it even comes up for a vote.
That said, there's a way to avoid these problems. That's for hunters and other sportsmen and women to start a PAC that, unlike the Leagues of Conservation Voters, makes 2nd Amendment rights a key test and that, unlike the NRA, makes protecting the environment a key test.
The problem for sportsmen and women is that the NRA doesn't really have their back because it only cares about half of the real needs of hunters. Slowly, the people who most ardently defend gun rights have come to do it not out of a love of hunting, but out of a paranoia over the need to fend off government. For these folks, protecting public land isn't really a priority.
A sportsmen organization, structured properly (even as a separate political party if this state had embraced fusion), could make a huge impact on elections and could effectively fight anything like this New York bill that would threaten that work.
