In case anyone is suffering those winter blahs, let\u2019s start with some recent good news: The Huffington Post reports \u201cFor the first time in more than 20 years, Americans say it’s more important to protect the right to own guns than it is to control gun ownership.\u201d<\/p>\n
A new Pew Research Poll released Dec. 10 revealed \u201ca substantial shift in attitudes since shortly after the Newtown school shootings.”<\/p>\n
In a poll taken immediately after the December, 2012, school shootings in Connecticut, public opinion had favored gun control by 7 points — 49 percent to 42 percent.<\/p>\n
But while 46 percent still think \u201cgun control\u201d is more important, a 52 percent majority of Americans are now more concerned with protecting the right to own guns — \u201cthe first time a majority has held that position since Pew started asking the question in 1993.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now, even conducting such a poll makes a political statement, implying such rights should somehow depend on majority support. When was the last time \u201cPew Research\u201d or Gallup did a poll on whether Americans think we should retain the freedom of religion or the freedom of the press? So far, none of the media elite seem to want those subjected to the fickle fancy of an impressionable mob. <\/p>\n
It\u2019s the trend that\u2019s interesting. And predictable.<\/p>\n
The 2012 shootings at the New England elementary school, where teachers were all disarmed by law and therefore unable to defend their charges against a single assailant (said victim disarmament being the real cause of the size of the death toll, as usual), were committed by a mentally deranged young man who murdered his mother and stole her legally owned guns (in Connecticut, a state that already blessed with a draconian level of \u201cgun control.\u201d)<\/p>\n
The deaths were gleefully celebrated by the opportunistic gun-banners as an excuse to enact a whole raft of new laws, which they had all ready and waiting to go, and which (equally predictably) would have done nothing to prevent the crime in question. <\/p>\n
It never occurred to them that folks might eventually notice this sleight-of-hand, masked with much cynical mewling about \u201cthe poor chillldren\u201d?
\nThe increasing support for gun rights spans a wide swath of demographics. Compared with January of 2014, support for gun rights increased by 6 points among Republicans and Democrats, 7 points among independents, 8 points among whites and 10 points among African Americans.<\/p>\n
The figure for African-Americans is striking. The statist elite have long believed that to be a core voting bloc for any new program of government taxes and regulations. Could it be the ever wider availability of actual video footage of what happens when police shoot people — especially when they shoot unarmed young black men — is starting to give the lie to this endless, contrived narrative that outgunned, fearful officers are \u201cjust doing what\u2019s necessary to protect us all\u201d? Are even urban, minority Americans finally starting to realize how disarmed minorities are treated when only \u201cthe man\u201d has access to deadly force? <\/p>\n
Americans are also more likely than two years ago to say gun ownership does more to protect against crime than it does to put people’s safety at risk, the researchers found, up from 48 percent in 2012 to 57 percent today.<\/p>\n
Other surveys show similar changes. An October Gallup poll found only 47 percent of Americans wanted stricter gun laws, down from 58 percent after the Newtown shootings.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s important to note here that virtually no one in this debate is in favor of limiting access to firearms for — and thus reducing the number of firearms held and used by — all Americans.<\/p>\n
One side may claim<\/em> that\u2019s they\u2019re goal. It\u2019s not.<\/p>\n This is a debate between those who want to preserve the constitutionally guaranteed, natural, God-given right of every American to own and carry around firearms of sufficient power and military usefulness to remind government agents they had better be polite because they will always be outgunned, versus those who want to see only agents of the state<\/em> — the police, the army, the TSA, employees of virtually every federal agency from the IRS to FDA chicken inspectors \u2013 so armed, while those who are to be disarmed are only the ruled class, the peasant class, the productive class who actually grow and manufacture and distribute things, the net tax payers<\/em>, who don\u2019t live in Washington or the state capital and who are not on the government payroll, which is to say: us. <\/p>\n CHALLENGING INITIATIVE 594<\/strong><\/p>\n Alan Gottlieb\u2019s Second Amendment Foundation, based in Washington state, stirred controversy last year when it took over Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, an admirably absolutist gun-rights outfit founded by the late Aaron Zelman. (David Codrea summarized that controversy last August; his reporting is easily found online at Examiner.com.) <\/p>\n Now SAF has launched a lawsuit against Washington state\u2019s gun control Initiative 594 \u2013 or part of it, at least. <\/p>\n The SAF announced, in a December press release, a lawsuit \u201cseeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of portions of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure that took effect Dec. 4,\u201d alleging that \u201cportions of I-594 . . . are so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand their scope,\u201d and that other parts violate the Second Amendment outright.<\/p>\n \u201cWe took this action due to the confusing and arbitrary language and nature of I-594,\u201d Mr. Gottlieb said in a statement. \u201cThree of our plaintiffs, including my son, are residents of other states and cannot legally borrow handguns for personal protection while traveling in Washington. Under I-594, all transfers must be done through federally-licensed firearms dealers, but under federal law, dealers cannot legally transfer handguns to residents of other states. I-594 also essentially prohibits our non-resident plaintiffs from storing their own firearms here. . . .<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re not trying to stop background checks,\u201d Gottlieb said. \u201cWe\u2019re taking action against a poorly-written and unconstitutionally vague measure that criminalizes activities that are perfectly legal anywhere else in the country, thus striking at the very heart of a constitutionally-protected, fundamental civil right.\u201d<\/p>\n Freedom fighter Claire Wolfe, author of \u201c101 Things To Do \u2018Til the Revolution,\u201d weighed in Dec. 31 at her blog at Backwoods Home magazine: \u201cAs expected, the Second Amendment Foundation (in conjunction with other groups and individuals) has filed suit against Washington state\u2019s ghastly new law, I-594. Grounds: vagueness, etc. That was also expected. A sixth grader could have written a clearer, more specific law.<\/p>\n \u201cThose of us who\u2019ve been watching Gottlieb\u2019s chicanery on \u2018background checks\u2019 for the last few years will also not be the slightest bit surprised at this part of his statement announcing the lawsuit: \u2018We\u2019re not trying to stop background checks,\u2019\u201d Ms. Wolfe noted. <\/p>\n \u201cDamn betcha he\u2019s not. Gottlieb infamously wants background checks; he just wants them on his own terms and for reasons incomprehensible to anyone who believes in individual rights.<\/p>\n \u201cStill, the one thing SAF is good for is lawsuits, so this could be interesting.\u201d<\/p>\n