Brady Campaign absolutely giddy

[jsalcedo]

Gun Extremism on the Defensive: In Multiple Races Nationwide, Voters Rejected Gun Lobby Agenda

11/9/2005 12:35:00 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 202-898-0792

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Jerry Kilgore called for allowing loaded guns in bars a week out from Virginia's gubernatorial race. Doug Forrester spent his entire campaign for Governor of New Jersey avoiding the NRA-friendly positions he took in earlier political campaigns.

And in San Francisco, a referendum to outlaw handguns passed by a spectacular margin with pennies spent marketing it. The Brady Campaign took no position on the ban, but the broad margin of victory on the referendum (some 58 percent supported it) speaks volumes about the desire of urban residents to do something about the gun violence plaguing American cities.

In a nutshell, Election Day 2005 was a positive one for supporters of sensible gun laws.

"The National Rifle Association's leaders are loading up on Tylenol this morning - they had a very bad day yesterday," said Michael D. Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "The gun lobby backed the losing side in race after race. Numerous Virginia races, for example, were practically referendums on extreme gun policies. Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore and others told voters they'd put guns in bars, and the voters cut them off."

The San Francisco referendum, Sarah Brady said this morning, "sends a very loud message from American urban voters. They are saying the gun violence problem is not going to go away if we don't do something about it. The extreme gun lobby worked very hard to try to defeat the measure, and they got trounced."

"The NRA says they'll file suit to block the law," Brady continued. "That's certainly their right. But they can't get a court to change the underlying message from America's urban families."

The election results follow an unrelated but severe political defeat for the NRA last week in Illinois, where the organization tried to override three gubernatorial vetoes and went zero for three. The Chicago Tribune called it "a show of strength by gun- control advocates."

http://www.usnewswire.com/

 

[lucky_fool]

Ah, the stupidity of reporters. Kilgore didn't call for allowing loaded guns in bars, he advocated repealing the law that forbids concealed handguns in bars and any restaurant that serves alcohol. I can (and do) open carry in those places already.

That and Kaine didn't win by that big a margin, he mostly got in on the extremely popular Warner's coattails.

 

[ArmedBear]

It is very hard to override a gubernatorial veto anywhere, even in California, where the Legislature is stacked. That's not a big victory.

As far as "urban families", I think the Brady Campaign either hasn't seen the demographics of SF, or they are lying on purpose (normal for them). There aren't a lot of urban families there.

The demographics, to wit:

"There are 329,700 households out of which 16.6% have children under the age of 18 living with them, 31.6% are married couples living together, 8.9% have a female head of household with no husband present, and 56.0% are non-families. 38.6% of all households are made up of individuals and 9.8% have someone living alone who is 65 years of age or older."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Demographics

I'm not a social conservative, but I think it's a HUGE stretch to call the 83.3% of households with no one under 18 in them, "urban families", which is a term used specifically to suggest the presence of children.

San Francisco is the home of individuals and childless or empty-nest couples, gay and straight.

 

[ArmedBear]

Followup--

If that's a "show of strength by gun-control advocates", well, I'd call that GOOD news.

A veto override usually requires a 2/3 vote of two houses, BTW. You usually can't get that vote for a non-binding resolution affirming that puppies are cute.

Also, if you can open-carry in bars, hell, that's not a huge restriction, IMO. It's a silly law, but it's hardly a big victory for the GFWs.

I live in a "restrictive may issue" state and I'd love to have a CCW with only that restriction.

 

[Bubbles]

Kilgore lost by alienating his base. Since Labor Day weekend he dissed gun owners, pro-lifers, and the low-tax/small gov't crowd. He got more votes in 2001 when he won the AG race than he did in the 2005 Gov race.

Look for four years of impasse in Virginia on RKBA issues since the Militia & Police Committee, which remains staunchly pro-gun, won't report out a gun control bill.

 

[lucky_fool]

Also, if you can open-carry in bars, hell, that's not a huge restriction, IMO. But I live in a "restrictive may issue" state.

I'll be the first to admit that we have it pretty good in VA, but it's not perfect. And open carry can be a pain in the posterior. Switching from concealed to open carry in the car before you go into a restaurant makes carrying that much more difficult, and makes some people decide not to carry at all. Which is probably what the law was designed to do in the first place.

 

[benEzra]

One of Kaine's major campaign positions was NO NEW GUN CONTROL. So Kilgore's loss was hardly a victory for the gun grabbers, especially considering Kilgore's arrogant manner and his skill at alienating people...

 

[petrel800]

"The National Rifle Association's leaders are loading up on Tylenol this morning - they had a very bad day yesterday," said Michael D. Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "The gun lobby backed the losing side in race after race. Numerous Virginia races, for example, were practically referendums on extreme gun policies. Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore and others told voters they'd put guns in bars, and the voters cut them off."

I guess the Brady folks are comming off their Oxycotin high after the President signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce bill. Cause lord knows that caused the Brady folks more than a Tylenol headache.

In reality, the Dems won two governor races that they already controlled and big shocker here, the wackos out in San Fran decided to disarm themselves, I'm sure nobody saw that coming. I'll take note of the Brady's as soon as they convince a southern state to do the same.

 

[RavenVT100]

benEzra: It is disheartening to see an apologist for the Democratic Party who owns firearms and expects to be able to keep them. As far as I'm concerned the party at large could not be more incompetent and unqualified to address this issue.

Now that Corzine is going to be our new governor in NJ, I cannot help but wonder how Democrats can actually defend the honesty of "protecting citizens' Second Amendment rights," which is apparently what the claim to be in support of. Democrats in NJ have continually abused the state's registry of gun owners, and our latest governor has promised to make NJ the first "gun free" state. I fail to see how you can possibly state, while keeping a straight face, that the Democratic Party does not wish to end personal firearm ownership in the United States, or that it will not abuse gun registries once they have been enacted. They have a rich track record of doing so, and do not deserve the public's trust.

While it may be entertaining to spin wheels at DU's gun forum with iverglas (apparently "Democratic Party" includes Canadians who have absolutely no stake or say in American politics) and remind people for the billionth time that the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 regulated full auto weapons, I do not think the Democrats at large are interesting in hearing about that or even discussing it. Like creationists and biology/thermodynamics, the more they learn about this issue the less they want to know, due to the cognitive dissonance it creates. "Guns are bad" is taken as an article of faith among Democrats on the national level, just as strongly and as blindly as a fundimentalist clings to his or her faith and literal interpretation of religious doctrine.

I used to be a solid Democratic voter. At this point in time I cannot see myself voting for a Democrat at any point in the future.

 

[M-Rex]

Damn....there is one hell of an opportunity for the NRA and conservatives in general to glom onto the 'sensible gun control' catch phrase and use it against the anti-freedom crowd.

I hope they don't step on their collective genitalia.

 

[RavenVT100]

I would say that the Democrats have tipped their hand enough times now that only the ideological true believers are going to buy into the nonsense about how the party "supports" the Second Amendment.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Oh, yeah?

Let's see...

1. California and New Jersey are ANYTHING but representative of the national mood... on ANYTHING. In fact, it's easy to forsee the '06 and '08 elections will allow Republican candidates to make a big issue out of New Jersey political corruption and fiscally AND constitutionally irresponsible California socio-fruit-cake-ism... as defining what Republicans do NOT stand for.

2. The San Francisco "gun ban" will ultimately be over-turned in court. (See John Lott's article on National Review Online.) It really is nothing but a "public opinion poll" of California Kool-Aid drinkers -- the very same folks who also voted (a) to ban military recruiters from high schools and (b) to "ban" a famous WWII battleship from being permanently docked there as a floating museum (and testiment to traditional American testicular fortitude, fighting spirit, and courage -- all qualities that San Francisco's effete urban-pacifist-libsnot-wussyfolk wish to declare politically-incorrect, cretinous, and antithetical to their Utopian wet-dream).

3. While challenges to their "gun ban" work their way through the court system, its patently impractical enforceability issues willl become a great lesson for ALL gun grabbers re the flip-side of their 2A opposition: the Constitution's 4th and 5th Amendments. You know, the ones that spares ALL U.S. citizens from illegal searches and seizures and self-incrimination?

4. In Virginia, neither candidate made much of an issue over Second Amendment matters. The loser (Republican Kilgore) did get an NRA endorsement, but he was pretty quiet about it. He got exactly the same percentage of votes that VA's losing Republican candidate got 4 years ago. That's far from a political sea-change. Also, the Republicans WON the Lt. Gov. and Att'y Gen. slots in VA and also retained control of the legislature, thus boding well for the future. Further, Kilgore's alienation of hard-core gun rights supporters (i.e., the courageous Virginia Citizens Defense League, etc.) probably cost him significant "energizing" of the Republican Party's base. That's a BIG Lesson-Learned for future Republican candidates, especially those of the RINO persuasion (are you listening, Senator McCain?).

5. If the Brady Bunch/Million Naive Mommies/Gun-Grabbers-For-The-Children movement is truly resurgent, then HOW COME the Director of the vaunted Violence Policy Center (Michael Barnes) recently resigned in a wave of total despair and futility?

The Gun-Grabbers may get a small, desperately-needed short-term money boost from their Move-On/Michael Moore/emotionally-driven fan base out of this week's elections -- but at the cost of waking-up the country's conservative base AND gun rights advocates everywhere.

Big mistake.

 

[RavenVT100]

While challenges to their "gun ban" work their way through the court system, its patently impractical enforceability issues willl become a great lesson for ALL gun grabbers re the flip-side of their 2A opposition: the Constitution's 4th and 5th Amendments. You know, the ones that spares ALL U.S. citizens from illegal searches and seizures and self-incrimination?

The progressive-thinking courts of New Jersey have already ruled that the fourth amendment does not apply in instances where the police wish to remove, at their discretion, privately-owned firearms from private property--even if no criminal complaint has been substantiated.

That's one of the really big reasons why I finally saw the light as to how the Democrats think. There is "moral relativism," and then there is "relativism" as far as how the law is interpreted. These people have taken things so far into left field that instead of going through the trouble of making amendments to existing law and having to put their ideological goals into the open, they would rather "interpret" laws that already exist in such a way that it takes rights away from groups they don't like.

On the flip side, it gives pause to the public at large and demonstrates just how extreme the Dems are willing to become in their slash-and-burn crusade to rid the world of what they believe are evil little talismans.

 

[K-Romulus]

". . . said Michael D. Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence . . .

I thought Barnes quit . . .

 

[K-Romulus]

benEzra: It is disheartening to see an apologist for the Democratic Party who owns firearms and expects to be able to keep them. As far as I'm concerned the party at large could not be more incompetent and unqualified to address this issue.

LOL! Same could be said for "Republicans" and the teaching of science in US public schools, based on the actions of a few crackpots on some obscure school boards . . .

 

[ID_shooting]

"passed by a spectacular margin"

I don't call 58% spectacular.

 

[RavenVT100]

LOL! Same could be said for "Republicans" and the teaching of science in US public schools, based on the actions of a few crackpots on some obscure school boards . .

Yes, and if the poster I was responding to happened to be a Republican voter who was against the teaching of creationism (I lump ID into the same category of non-science as YEC, honestly) in schools and had kids in school, you might have a point. Only not nearly as profound, given that only a small minority of the Republican party takes creationism-in-school seriously. On the other hand, almost all of the Democrats on the national level are anti-gun, sometimes glaringly so.

Try prosyletizing as a teacher in any public school in the country and see how fast the ACLU shows up to sue you. Now, try talking about legal firearms ownership as a teacher in a school and see how fast the ALCU tries to pretend you don't exist. I don't think the two are comparable in the least, and while I detest creationism being taught as "science" and would be the first in line to protest if my kids' school began adopting that policy, the issue is far less serious in my view. If you see innocent people having their property stolen or being sent to jail thanks to overzealous political disinformation relating to the teaching of creationism in school, by all means please tell us. Until then, I will consider gun rights a legislative priority given the sheer amount of abuse the Dems have levied against the general public in this area.

 

[jsalcedo]

When I was in highschool mid 80's There was some gobblelty goop about science classes giving equal time to both creationism and evolution.

It was pretty much ignored except for a little half page glued inside of out textbook stating "there are many ideas about the origin of mankind and this text book explores one of the possibilities"

Of course my social studies book said the 2nd amendment was for arming the national guard.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

I thought Barnes quit . . .

He did quit (resign).

He's probably still got one foot in the door, there... until they can find someone dumb enough to take his place.

They gotta spin this week's elections bigtime just to find such a (naive) person who'll step to the plate.

 

[WvaBill]

If this is a Brady candidate:

Tim Kaine strongly supports the Second Amendment. As the next Governor of Virginia, he will not propose any new gun laws. Instead Tim Kaine will guarantee strict enforcement of our existing criminal laws. He will also expand the use of such enforcement strategies as Project Exile that target criminals who use guns rather than law-abiding gun owners.

Both the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of Virginia guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

http://www.kaine2005.org/issues/guns.php

Then gunowners are better off than I thought.

 

[Gunpacker]

In light of the states adding CCW rights, Brady had to do the Democrat thing, and announce any little defeat of gun rights as the end of the world as RKBA is concerned. As the anti gun lobby is fond of saying, "We'll be back".

 

[Standing Wolf]

In a nutshell, Election Day 2005 was a positive one for supporters of sensible gun laws.

Yes, indeed, San Francisco voted for "sensible gun laws:" no guns for commoners.

 

[dasmi]

And in San Francisco, a referendum to outlaw handguns passed by a spectacular margin with pennies spent marketing it.

In a nutshell, Election Day 2005 was a positive one for supporters of sensible gun laws.

Remember, to the anti-gun biggots, "sensible gun laws" means bans and confiscation.

 

[M-Rex]

Remember, to the anti-gun biggots, "sensible gun laws" means bans and confiscation.

EXACTLY what I'm talking about. This is too good a catch phrase to pass up.

 

[kbheiner7]

Excellent. San Francisco will be next to see its national homocide raking continue to climb to the levels of NYC and Chicago.