NRA, Guns On Campus: 0-for-15 in 2008

When a baseball player goes 0-for-15 at the plate, fans call it a slump.

So, what do we call it when the NRA goes 0-for-15 in Statehouses across the country? As the New York Times showed in April, the gun lobby has found itself on defense this year, and its batting average in 2008 is unimpressive.

The best recent example of how things are changing on the gun issue are the gun lobby's efforts to force guns into college campuses across the country. In 2008, these efforts failed across the board.

The gun lobby made "guns-on-campus" bills a big priority across America this year, and what do they have to show for it? A goose egg.

The roll of states that rejected these gun pushing efforts is quite interesting. Many are typically identified as part of the gun lobby's base.

But "guns-on-campus" bills failed this year in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. Only two bills remain in the hopper -- in Michigan and Ohio -- but neither has moved in the last two years.

Forcing school administrators to allow guns on campus against their will is a bad idea that needed to be defeated. The NRA sent alert after alert to their members this year urging them to back "guns-on-campus," but they still got zero bills passed.

Even legislators that previously received the organization's backing rejected these proposals. Two key examples:

• "Guns-on-campus" legislation failed in the South Dakota Senate by a vote of 17-14 last February. Six "A-rated" NRA state senators voted against the bill.

• Similar legislation in the Indiana State Senate fell short of passage by one vote. Ten NRA-endorsed senators voted against the bill.

In many of these states, the bills didn't even come to a vote.

Louisiana is the most recent example. College and university administrators, police officials, student body presidents -- even the LSU football coach -- came out against the idea. The bill's sponsor couldn't even get it to the floor for a vote.

The Police Chief at the University of Cincinnati, Chief Gene Ferrara, recently told CNN, "I don't think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying. My belief is we ought to be focusing on what we do to prevent the shooting from starting."

I couldn't agree more. Arming college students is the wrong lesson to learn from Virginia Tech. What that tragedy should teach us is that we need to strengthen background checks so dangerous people like the mentally ill Virginia Tech shooter can't easily obtain guns in the first place.

Forcing colleges to allow armed students on campus is a terrible idea.

Fifteen of America's State Legislatures agree.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[Thirdpower]

Murders up 12.7% and Robbery up 10.2% in "Gun Free" Chicago.

So much for that concept.

[kaveman1]

If the Brady Campaign were really serious about reducing crime and violence, they should read this article about how to really spend resources to make a difference.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/bia.urban.prep/index.html

[molonlabe]

This poor poor man. Another victim of gun violence. Police certianly didn't have to shoot him. When are we going to seriously start addressing gun violence to stop this epidemic of violent crime.

"A 27-year-old man stopped his truck on a two-lane country road near a dairy ranch on Saturday night. The area is about 10 miles west of downtown Turlock and 20 miles south of Modesto.

The man removed the toddler, who appeared to be one to two years old, from a car seat and threw him on the ground behind his truck. According to the Associated Press the began to brutally beat the little boy by kicking, punching and stomping him to death.

The police officer then shot and killed the suspect. The baby was taken to Emanuel Medical Center in Turlock and was pronounced dead shortly after arrival. "


http://www.suntimes.com/news/blogentries/index.html?bbPostId=Cz7sXeT87w4rGBCfXKodTve1JB79mhW6iTxABB1ABhbwpnc5R&bbParentWidgetId=B8k88rWwXopuz5STgLeVwBLu

[djkrlsn]

Which is why it is legal for a firearm to be used in self defense if there is a clear difference in capability (an athletic 275 pound high school or college age football player or weightlifter threatening a 5'1 100 pound opponent of either sex (deliberately chosen to be extremely clear) or for someone like me (obese on a bad knee) that is facing multiple opponents--one on one against a average sized opponent a heavy walking stick or knobkerry will do reasonably well against anything up to a gun (and I have a chance against a gun if the perp is close and stupid)--but if I am dealing with 6 or a dozen opponents--I need more than a stick)

[kaveman1]

Here's a story about a man Paul Helmke would be proud of...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/24/japan.family.killings.ap/index.html

Thank god this wacko didn't have a gun.

[molonlabe]

Luckily, but it just goes to show how much safer the world would be if people could only buy one hammer per month.

[MMimi]

Why would you say something like that? Paul Helmke would not be proud of anyone who murdered people. That comment shows the kind of person you are.

[djkrlsn]

Mmimi--according to Kelli and Paul , the only violence that counts is GUN violence and the perp here used a hammer

[kaveman1]

Macca, when was the last time you heard Helmke holler about "hammer violence?"

Helmke doesn't care about this family because they were slaughtered by blunt force trauma.

Hammer violence

knife violence

car violence

rope violence

Sounds kinda silly when put in perspective, huh?

[muffinman2]

Another Email from the Brady Campaign (most of it). More proof that they just are out to prevent any gun sales they can:

"URGENT: STOP CRIMINALS FROM GETTING GUNS IN NEW JERSEY!
ASSEMBLY TO VOTE ON MONDAY TO STOP ILLEGAL GUN TRAFFICKING

Dear New Jersey Brady Campaign Member,

On Monday, the New Jersey State Assembly will consider a life-saving bill that keeps illegal guns off our streets and out of the hands of dangerous criminals. It is essential that the New Jersey Assembly pass AB 339, to stop bulk sales of handguns. We need you to call your State Assemblymember TODAY to tell him/her to support this critical bill.

CALL YOUR STATE ASSEMBLYMEMBER TODAY!
Tell him/her: "I Urge You to Support AB 339:

Illegal gun traffickers employ individuals to buy handguns in bulk -- the guns, in turn, are sold on the illegal market, often to juveniles and criminals, and eventually wind up on our streets. By limiting handgun purchases to one per month, a gunrunner is unable to obtain multiple handguns at one time, dramatically reducing the profitability of this practice.

Quite simply, this law puts most gun traffickers out of business.

Here is what you can do to help:


3. Click here to contribute to our efforts in New Jersey and across the country."

Straw purchases are almost zero in NJ. As a matter of fact, it was just a couple of weeks ago that the BC was blaming NJ's illegal guns on Pennsylvania.

[vespasian1]

"it was just a couple of weeks ago that the BC was blaming NJ's illegal guns on Pennsylvania."

Yes, but that's when the 'campaign du jour ' was to try to prevent any gun sale they could in PA. Then, all the crime in NJ was PA's fault.

The BC changes it's angle more often than some people change their socks.

[djkrlsn]

I wonder why we are missing the usual opposition like Kelli, Mmimi and Toodles

[MMimi]

cause some people have lives. some people take vacations. some people get beyond bored with you guys. with you guys it's the same thing over and over and over again. amazing that you don't bore yourselves. YAWN

[Thirdpower]

Translation: Some people only pay lip service to their cause while the rest of us are dedicated.

[djkrlsn]

Mmimi--It is hard to be original when we have to oppose the same lies from the gunban brigade all the time

[kaveman1]

That's odd....

I don't consider standing up for my Constitutional Rights as a boring activity.

I wonder if MLK ever got bored marching in the streets fighting for his rights. My guess is that MLK was willing to fight for his rights until the die that he died.

Macca and Helmke truly do not understand the forces that oppose them. Nor do they appreciate the fact that we're still willing to fight this battle over the internet, in our legislatures and in our courts rather than resorting to the violence they always attribute to us.

Think about that.

[muffinman2]

You sure go out of your way to yawn a lot, and tell us how bored you are.

"with you guys it's the same thing over and over and over again"

Gee Macca, do you think that might be because the BC keeps spewing the same spiel over and over? Let's see, will the next blog be about 'assault rifle's? That's about due again, isn't it? Or maybe it will be the 'gun show loophole' again? It's been a couple of weeks since we heard about that.

We aren't the ones who need new material.

[MorgansRifles]

Minimi:

This is the second time you have used this same excuse for not answering questions. As far as "Yawn", if we are so boring then why do you keep coming back?

Also, I guess you never repeat the same thing? But I guess it is easier for you to repeat than to take the time to really answer a question.

BTW, has your "brother" ever seen a crime gun traced back to a gun show?

Michael

[molonlabe]

Remember folks. It is evil black rifles, .50 cal's, and the ability to purchase more than one handgun per month which is the reason for society's violence problem. Certainly not our inability to address social problems which allow 13 and 15 year olds to commit armed robbery:

"A 15-year-old boy is being charged as an adult with an armed robbery Saturday night in south Bethlehem, which ended with his alleged 13-year old accomplice accidentally shooting himself in the leg.

Drafton Eugene Jones, 15, of 426 Pierce St. is in Northampton County Prison, charged with 12 counts -- five of them felonies -- stemming from the robbery, which took place on the street near his home."


http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b3_4shot.6473482jun24,0,1818850.story

Remember, when you ban weapons, you directly addressing the social issues which motivate 13 and 15 year olds to commit crime.

When you ban weapons, you are also fixing all of the social problems which foster violence.

When you ban weapons, crime and violence will disappear.

[djkrlsn]

Careful Molon--you are starting to channel a BC koolaid drinker--wood, metal and plastic can't put people under the Imperius Curse

[kaveman1]

Molon, I must take exception with your post here. Everyone knows that you must be 18 to posses long guns and 21 to posses a handgun so your two stories there CAN NOT be true.

Since 13 and 15 are both less than 21 and 18, your stories must be false.

Please try and be more responsible in the future.

[Thirdpower]

Well obviously the children were given them by Bad Apple Gun Pushers who handed them out for free from the back of their pickup trucks.

[molonlabe]

kave-

Why didn't I think of that. How simple. Now all we need to do is get the word out that it is illegal to drink and drive, and our DUI problems will be gone.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll start verifying my sources from now on.

[molonlabe]

Interesting situation.

A 13 year old The Children(tm) illegally possessing a handgun accidentally shoots himself in the leg during a botched armed robbery.

Paul, which category are you going to put this the Children(tm) into? The Children(tm) harmed by gun violence, criminal with easy access to handguns, inevitable Gun Violence because the NRA supports Arming school The Children(tm) with Nukes and Bazookas(tm), criminal armed with a gun undoubtedly straw purchased through the Gun Show Loophole(tm)?

I think I'll stick with the whole failure to address societal issues argument.

[kaveman1]

Here's all anyone needs to know about what Helmke is all about. The following quote is from Helmke on the BC's own site in response to the pending legislation about making uniform CCW laws throughout a States' boundaries.

"Why are we putting hikers, campers and families at risk by introducing loaded, hidden handguns into our national parks and refuges? "

First replace the words "hikers, campers and families" with the single word "people".

Now replace "our national parks and refuges" with the geographical location of your choosing.

Helmke is not rallying around a ban in parks, he's rallying a ban on concealed carry in general. If he wasn't, then he would have to admit that he doesn't care about people in shopping malls, movie theaters, or grocery stores being "at risk" since we can lawfully carry there right now.

So Paul is stuck in the impossible position of saying I support carrying hidden guns when you go to buy groceries but not when you spend time in the great out doors, OR this is just a thinly veiled attack on ALL concealed carry.

I know where to bet my money.

[djkrlsn]

Knowing his history that the "will of the people (tm)" only counts when it results in draconian gun control and not when it results in more freedom for people who choose to exercise their RKBA, it is a sucker's bet that he would like to eliminate non discretionary concealed carry pistol (non discretionary meaning the permits must be issued to every adult with a clean record and passes a test designed like the test for a driver's license (meaning that anyone that can graduate from junior high can pass the exam with some study)

[djkrlsn]

I am a bit disappointed that the USSC didn't rule on Heller today, and a big piece of that disappointment is not being able to demonstrate that the 2nd amendment is not about being a state power to Kelli and company

[muffinman2]

I was just thinking how the premise for Paul's latest blog is kind of funny. He would have us believe that the pro-2nd Amendment movement, and the NRA are losing support, with 800 lb. gorillas like Heller, and all of those pro2A briefs filed by the majority of congressfolk in the room.

Does anyone remember 'Bagdad Bob'?

[djkrlsn]

The premise is odd--but then again so were the premises in the blogs in November and December when he was trying to argue that the Second amendment is a collective right

[djkrlsn]

Wasn't Bagdad Bob the foolish Congress critter that claimed that Saddam (that his fellow Iraqis hanged by the neck until dead for war crimes against his fellow citizens) was reformed (despite finding at least a few WMDs)?

[edutilos]

Finally, someone gets it! (from: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9662672)

" Steven Gunn, an attorney and board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, believes it's pure ego.
"We have inconsiderate boors walking around on the street carrying firearms openly," says Gunn. "I don't think they are truly afraid for their safety..."

Overcompensate much?

[muffinman2]

"Overcompensate much?"

Yes. We're compensating for the fact that we can't throw rocks at 1000 feet per second.

Next question?

Just more whining form a biased news media. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Move along.

[edutilos]

But I thought Utah was the bastion for gun rights...a haven for permit/carry laws (second to VT)? Turns out its citizens might disagree.

[fishyjay]

Gasp! A spokesman for a gun control group (probably a just a few people with a Joyce grant) has said something negative about some gunowners? Who could have guessed?

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--although we all know your absolute opposition to civilian carry--any comments on the Isreali experience with guns on campus (and routine carry on the street) and Japan's experience with suicide despite a ban on civilian ownership of firearms--don't worry I will wait (don't have a choice, knowing your blind spot)

[ladyshooter]

I Kelli is afraid civilian shooters might injure the criminals or terrorists.

[djkrlsn]

better the criminals and terrorists get shot than their intended victims

[Wilson333]

Actually, the belief is not "absolute". As I recall, it's OK for public figures to go armed. Somehow, shedances believes that a public figure is not only better and more entitled than the great unwashed (us), but they are more likely to face attack than we 'regular people'.

Oh well. That's what happens when you rely on Crime Magazine.

[djkrlsn]

I am enough of a populist so that in my book, the only justification for the rich and powerful to have the right to armed protection is because the people working swing and grave for blue collar wages have the same right

[Thirdpower]

Seems the Joyce Foundation is confused. They claim that the "Gun Lobby"" argues that the COTUS "grants" rights.

Can anyone tell me which "Gun Lobby" this might be as all the ones I know of recognize the COTUS recognizes fundamental rights and doesn't "grant" anything.

They must have been studying at the Obama School of Constitutional Law.

[djkrlsn]

I always thought that constitutional rights were preexisted and not granted by anyone

[muffinman2]

You thought right.

[kaveman1]

Ah, but the COTUS doesn't "grant" rights. The COTUS "confers" rights according to Obama.

Hint, the word "confer" means to bestow upon as a gift.

[muffinman2]

Hard to believe he's a constitutional law professor. Must be the Chicago Constitution.

[Thirdpower]

Actually the word he used on his website was "creates".

[djkrlsn]

Kelli, I will believe that the Brady Campaign does not support banning guns when they actually start opposing restrictions on firearms. But as of right now, the only thing I see Paul and theBrady Campaign opposing are laws removing restrictions on law abiding gunowners (Kelli--you know as well as I do that actions speak louder than words--since the only briefs that the Brady Campaign filed in the Parker/Heller case support the DC gunban)

[shedances]

Oh, just caught a typo ...

Should've read "by incorrectly..." instead of the word, but.

Just one of those days,

K

[shedances]

Progun crowd ~ despite some claims here, the Brady Campaign has NEVER expressed worries regarding antique firearms collecting, etc. (or hunting, for that matter). They've made this position clear time & time again. Some recent posts are an attempt to undermine what positions they DO take ... but incorrectly stating what they don't.

Also ...

For myself, I'd personally love to see all antique-type guns & firearms & all war devices/weapons in museum collections-only. (Just a joke, fellas).

K

[djkrlsn]

Then Kelli--then why does the Brady campaign have a history of supporting laws that would have banned all centerfire hunting ammunition for rifles (which is a defacto ban on hunting)

[fishyjay]

I know what the Brady Campaign SAYS about hunting guns. Unfortunately, some of their actions belie what they have said. On its web site, the Brady Campaign still says about the assault weapon ban: "the amendment specifically lists 650 sporting rifles that would not be affected by the ban" and " the original Act specifically exempted 661 rifles and shotguns from its reach." Yet the 2003 "renewal" bill by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) would have revoked those exemptions and would have specifically banned hunting guns on the exempted list. The new assault weapons ban HR1022 sponsored by Rep. McCarthy would do the same thing, and the Brady Campaign has supported these efforts.

[muffinman2]

"the Brady Campaign has NEVER expressed worries regarding antique firearms collecting, etc. (or hunting, for that matter). They've made this position clear time & time again. Some recent posts are an attempt to undermine what positions they DO take ... but incorrectly stating what they don't."

I didn't say they "expressed worries". I said they would most likely support this ban in NJ, because these are .50 caliber rifles.

We're not talking about antiques here. This is what we're talking about:

http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/mzModernClosed.php

It's loaded in the same fashion as an antique, by pouring powder down the muzzle, followed by a lead projectile, then a primer (or percussion cap) is placed over a metal nipple at the rear of the breach. Then you get one shot, and have to do it all over again.

[molonlabe]

Here's the actual bill, Kell, (A2116 NJ) which I believe Paul and the BC fully support. Care to comment?

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A2500/2116_I1.HTM

And here's Guscoria blatently misrepresenting it:


http://www.wzbntv25.com/WZBN_News_Video_Player.html?dfile=New_Gun_Laws_6-16-08.flv

The Brady Campaign et al never met a gun they didn't want to ban.....

[muffinman2]

They support the idiotic smart gun laws, which already exists in NJ. They are all high-fiving eachother because a smart gun law passed the state assembly in Kalifornia, and is now headed to the state senate.

What do you call a law that bans every existing handgun on the market?

I don't know. The words 'GUN BAN' come to mind.

Nice catch, ML. I forgot that the BC was already supporting the bill, including the muzzle-loader ban. They were high-fiving eactother over this bill too.

[Sneaky]

Who do you think owns those museums?

Think on that a minute. Lemme know what you come up with.