(2010-02-19) Starting this year recreational fishermen who wet their line in the Chesapeake must first register with the National Saltwater Angler Registry, in addition to the usual assortment of licenses. Anglers thus join the ranks of domestic violence offenders, pedophiles, sex offenders, hunters of migratory birds and (in Baltimore) gun criminals as people whose names must appear in a government database so their actions can be monitored, measured and controlled.
That doesn’t place sportsmen in great company, but if a space alien studied the species from afar, it would conclude those groups are the same because of uniform treatment: in each case someone has an obligation to divulge private information to a government that will use it to regulate the person’s future. We ask: Why do sportsmen put up with this? What makes politicians think sportsmen are fierce champions of self-flagellation? You don’t hear business lobbyists telling politicians: We helped elect you, now go increase penalties for business violations, so prosecutors have more incentive to target our members! But sportsman groups that accumulate political capital only seem to end up leaving it on a politician’s dresser saying: Come on, baby, punish me some more – egulate me harder!
SB44 is a hardy perennial introduced by Senator Haines (R, Carroll County); it would expand the scope of firearm definitions in order to levy 5-year mandatory minimum jail time on even more crimes involving guns. Senator Astle (regular leader of the Sportsman’s Caucus in legislature) promotes SB362, which expands and increases the power of the state to suspend the “privilege” of hunting. These bills, and more, only turn the lens back on our community.
Aren’t there things these communities want that don’t involve self-abuse? Probably, but until groups learn not to let politicians tell them what sportsmen want – commonly cheap ideas that coincidentally serve a pol’s needs – they’ll remain exploited, a convenient prop for campaign photos every few years but then tossed aside like a used Trojan.
Some officials opine that promoting hard punishment for misuse of firearms somehow gives them moral authority to protect the appropriate sporting uses of firearms. That’s never been true. What do gun grabbers understand of moral authority? They just say thanks, then let gun groups establish precedent and pass half the regulation so they have an easier time enacting the rest. Once you concede government’s role is to designate “an appropriate sporting use”, you’re lost, as others are free to adjust details suited to their agenda. Political self-abuse only underscores the wrong advocacy message to the public, that figures: Well, the left wants to ban them and the right wants to punish their misuse with a million years in jail. Guns must be bad. Each new restriction then comes more easily than the last.
The calculus is very simple. If you try to soften the image of firearm ownership by dressing it as a sportsman issue, and if sportsmen meekly accept restrictions dictated by their ostensible friends in Annapolis, then liberty will ultimately shoulder the same yoke. We say: never let politicians or the public confuse the two!
Of course, liberty groups have other challenges besides being misportrayed as sports advocates. We may have a far bigger base, but we’re not immune from games politicians play. It costs them nothing to offer a bill but it hurts our Cause when a good idea arrives with no groundwork laid for it to pass. Bills appearing year after year, often ones the adults can’t even let get a vote (because of the potential for antigun chicanery via amendment) shout to everyone inside State Circle: these are just for milking rubes. The resulting circus at hearings might be an opportunity for self-important patriots to grab a bit of spotlight – or at least look important to their friends – and may give others a venue for lecturing agents of big government. None of this should, however, be confused with mature advocacy.
Everyone has a right to petition government, but reinforcing a liberal’s stereotype of our community only reassures them that their position is sound, and we certainly won’t win right to carry by creeping out educable officials to the point that they wonder if maybe some people really ought not possess a gun in the first place. Naturally this circus is enabled by anti-gun bills too. A case could be made that some are submitted just to drain our resources and invite a fringe to moon officials again. (Turn it around: If we could bait gun grabbers to exhaust their resources on useless efforts and alienate legislators via a cheap act on our part, don’t you think we’d do that every day of the week and twice on Sunday?) Surely some of this year’s anti-gun bills are just election-year pandering to their base too. But you can bet that bill sponsors on both sides already have fund raising letters drafted and ready to mail after session.
If legislators know the impact, then why submit pro-gun bills that are DOA? Because they don’t want to risk doing something real for the Cause. Pandering to small fringe groups rewards their split from established organizations that understand real advocacy and have the resources to do it. They know a Balkanized community will never speak with one voice, which leaves them free to pick and choose what they want to do on the issue. This means they get to pick cheap gestures – business as usual. We don’t want “usual.” Usual sucks. We envision a day when pro-gun officials who value real stewardship will exercise discipline by fostering and working with a united community on long-term plans, instead of dictating their narrow view of what we need and cheapening our issue with circus. To get there we must elect more candidates having integrity, who recognize the role all gunowners play along the way.
Ahh, that feels better. Sometimes it just backs up inside and must be vented. :-)
There’s something to annoy any one of a number of people in that screed (not that I haven’t ever annoyed anyone in the past) but being delicate was never my strength, and it wasn’t working anyway. The truth is, I wouldn’t do justice to Tripwire’s role as a ‘consumer reports’ of liberty issues if now and then I didn’t point out when the Emperor has no clothes. I feel anger at setbacks, frustration at missed opportunities, and contempt at exploitation of our issue for others’ needs. I rarely feel satisfaction in our gains, not because we don’t have them but because there is no time – a win is my signal to pick up the kit and march out to scout the next battle. Nobody in this state is more impatient than me, which is why nothing agitates me more than failures of our side to not just fight hard, but to fight smart.
One definition of insanity is doing exactly the same thing over and over expecting a different result. By this criteria, the way our overall community promotes gun reforms has been insane. Only a person or group who benefits from status quo is happy with this arrangement. I’d like to see resources – your resources – deployed for most efficient gains in advocacy, whether in the statehouse, a court room or out in the districts where the real heavy lifting occurs.
Okay, enough busting on politicians who develop Jedi-like mastery of issues just by being elected to office. On to the good news. I’m happy to report our issue is blessed with some true public servants. Not nearly as many as we need (that’s foreshadowing to the election pep talk) but it is clear that they ‘get it.’ They understand the economics of political capital, and don’t squander ours making selfish statements. They come from both parties, and, yes, some are members of leadership. There’s no glamor in some of the things they do behind the scenes on behalf of this community, but they know the real measure of success is not passing a bill but solving a problem. In this session alone, friends have abandoned bills they might have put in, lest the matter pose a tactical problem on a core firearm issue, and others have adjusted bill language before submission so as not to have unintended policy impact on us. It puts pressure on them later, especially in a primary, where voters want to know what they did, not what they didn’t do. But they nevertheless do the right thing for us. They deserve our thanks, our votes and, sometimes, a little space.
They also deserve more like-minded colleagues.
Which brings us to the pep talk. Our ability to defend friends and defeat foes remains the number one reason we can influence policy debate going on today. How much we can influence affairs in the next term will depend on how many more team players we can send to Annapolis in the coming election. The good news is that together we have enough cash to make a real difference next term, changing business as usual. The bad news is this cash is still out in your pockets. Tripwire will report so you have the best intel on how to proceed; MPFO will muster our voters; and you will make that difference. Now is a tremendous time to make your most generous donation to our war chest.