Lt. Governor – Democratic Nomination
It’s still a nail biter – and there will likely be ballot challenges in some ares – but early results show that State Rep. Scott Conklin has come out of no where as a late entry to the race to possibly topple the state party endorsed candidate out of Philadelphia, Jonathan Saidel. In his last election to the state House, Rep. Conklin had an A rating from NRA and earned their endorsement. With 99.2% of precincts reporting at about 9am, Conklin leads by 4,654 votes. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that the lead grows as the final votes come in.

Senate District 14 – Democratic Nomination
NRA endorsed State Rep. John Yudichak had a commanding victory over anti-gun mayor Tom Leighton. This seat is likely to remain in Democratic hands, as it has been for decades, so the Democratic primary was essentially the election to watch. Leighton is a member of Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun coalition calling for an end to gun shows in Pennsylvania. We congratulate Senator-elect Yudichak for his decisive victory.

Governor – Republican Nomination
Either of the candidates in the Republican primary would have been great for gun owners. They both had strong records of defending the Second Amendment, and we’re very proud to see Attorney General Tom Corbett carrying the banner into November. Of course, we also regret that the State Rep. Sam Rohrer will be departing the State House since he opted not to run for his local seat during the primary. Hopefully his replacement in the seat will be as worthy of the support of gun owners as Rep. Rohrer has been over the years.

Senate District 22 – Democratic Nomination
This is a mixed bag election for gun owners. On one hand, the NRA backed candidate – State Rep. Jim Wansacz – did not make the final cut for November. On the other hand, the extreme anti-gun Mayor of Scranton did not survive either. A dark horse candidate won the race, and we hope to find out more about his position on guns rights in the future. This is his first elected office, and he was backed by the retiring pro-gun Senator for this open seat. For anti-gun Chris Doherty, this is his second setback in a few months after his campaign for governor floundered. Calling in the big guns, the anti-gun leader brought in Bill Clinton to record phone calls for him, though it did no good.

Overall, we’re sending a great message to Harrisburg: Your anti-gun candidates will not survive the electoral games this year. It doesn’t matter if you have the backing of Michael Bloomberg and his ally Bill Clinton, NRA members will make sure your race goes down in defeat.

Now comes the harder part where we step in for the final months to turn out the vote in November. We need your help to make sure Harrisburg and Washington are filled with pro-rights supporters.

Cam Edwards of NRA News has a great rundown of this ridiculous legislation that every gun owner must see:

Bloomberg plans to spend well into the six figures to lobby for this effective ban on gun shows. As gun owners, we must not only stop the legislation, but also stop the local mayors who are behind this push.

Two of the leaders behind the Pennsylvania movement to end gun shows are state Senate candidate Tom Leighton and Congressional candidate John Callahan. By signing on to this extreme legislation, they want to make it a crime to talk about the things many gun owners talk about while they visit a gun show. They want to create regulations so onerous that the small business owners who run and promote gun shows are forced to close up shop. Fortunately, by turning out at the voting booth, you can send both men packing.

From Roll Call:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (D), is expected today to unveil a lobbying blitz to prod Congress to approve legislation that would require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.

The group will launch a six-figure media campaign that includes both national cable and selected state advertising spots as well as an online petition drive.

“The truth is the conventional wisdom is just wrong that you can’t do a gun issue,” said John Feinblatt, Bloomberg’s chief adviser for policy and strategic planning.

Six figures isn’t a huge sum for a national campaign, but it is a threat. The ads are targeted against senators in Virginia, Ohio, and Colorado. It shows that Bloomberg is willing to dump serious money into the issue in order to move the ball forward. NRA is very very good at playing the lobby and electioneering game. They are much less adept at media campaigns to shape public opinion. That’s always been the other side’s core strength against us.

In Pennsylvania, his allies are looking to take his campaign to a bigger stage. Bethlehem’s John Callahan is running for Congress on his record of trying to bring New York-style gun control to Pennsylvania. Here at home, he has worked closely with the Brady Campaign to try and end preemption across the Commonwealth. In the Northeast corner of the state, Bloomberg & Brady buddy Tom Leighton of Wilkes-Barre has joined their efforts that will shut down gun shows around the state and is trying to take that support to the state Senate.

In addition, there was a story last week about MAIG looking to hire an Ohio coalition coordinator with a $75,000 grant, much like Max Nacheman here in Pennsylvania. This is not good news for Ohio activists.

This time we had some grassroots action ready to meet them. First in Radnor, which has tabled the bill until April. On the same day CeaseFire Pennsylvania was tying us up in Radnor, Mayors Against Illegal Guns pushed the same ordinance to Hatboro. Hatboro has rejected the ordinance route in favor of a resolution, which they will be hearing Monday March 22nd. We still oppose the resolution, which urges the General Assembly to pass a state L&S law, but we’ve made progress. Ambler Borough has decided not to pursue an ordinance a few weeks ago. Now word has it that Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, a bastion of liberalism even back when Delaware County was solidly Republican, has decided to table its Lost and Stolen ordinance.

This has to be huge embarrassment for Joe Grace, EVP of CeaseFire PA, and it’s a slap in the face to MAIG too. It’s no accident. It’s the work of gun owners getting involved, showing up, and making effective arguments to their elected representatives. We succeeded against a strategy that was designed to spread us thin and wear us out. It has, so far, failed to work. I know many readers were involved in these efforts, and we all owe them some thanks, especially to the people who were residents of these municipalities that showed up and spoke. Let’s hope we can keep pouring molasses over Bloomberg and Grace’s agenda. Let them have nothing without a fight.

Here are a few tips for organizing and delivering a message at city council meetings based on recent observations of local activists at work:

• Organize with other gun owners as much as possible before the event. First, it increases likely turnout when gun owners know there will be others there to back them up and they are part of a team. Second, you can divide the arguments. Finally, there is power in numbers. Whether you can recruit from your gun club, an email to friends and family, or on online forums (such as the state-specific Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association), try to convince folks to come out even if they sit silently in support of our rights. Don’t forget about relevant non-residents who might have standing to speak – business owners, employees in town, and those who also visit and spend money in the area.
• Dress accordingly. Not every speaker needs to dressed to the nines, but double check that your clothes are clean and appropriate. Remember that the underlying message you’re trying to send is that you’re an average resident and taxpayer who is concerned about the direction of city government getting into areas where they are not legally allowed to legislate. Just look neighborly.
• For those willing to speak, divide your arguments by topic. Assign one speaker to tackle each of your primary arguments to the fullest extent possible in only a few minutes. This means each topic can be discussed at a deeper level in the limited time allotted for each speaker in many government meetings. It also minimizes redundancy which could make leaders tune out remarks. Consider working to review each other’s prepared remarks to make sure each point is tackled.
• If you do have help from out-of-towners, try to keep the core arguments limited to residents. If the anti-gun leaders want to shut down debate, they will aim to limit it to residents only. They may not realize how many gun owners actually live in town.
• If you’re not used to speaking in public, write out your statement and print it in an easy-to-read format. It’s better to read well crafted remarks and stay on point than risk rambling on about other topics off the cuff. If you want to improve your presentation skills, practice at home in front of a video camera. Watching yourself speak on video is a harsh lesson, but it is the most honest assessment of both bad and good habits.
• Don’t forget to identify yourself and how you are related to the community. Sometimes it’s hard to remember to introduce yourself, but it is often required in town meetings and it serves to advance the argument that there are gun owners all around who want their rights respected.
• If you have several arguments to make on a topic, number them in your remarks. It will let councillors know that you have a well-developed argument that should be easier to follow. If time begins to run out, it also gives them a polite way to ask you to quickly make the rest of your points.
• Don’t fight with city leaders. If gun control is brought up at all, it is likely because there is at least one anti-gun leader on the board. Understand that they are likely to try and defend their legislation. At best, you may want to politely rebut any stinging arguments, but do not try to pick a fight with them. Choose your battles wisely.
• Don’t fight with the anti-gun leaders in the audience. We know 99% of what they will say in advance. There’s a very good chance that in your efforts to divide arguments, gun owners will have made the factual arguments that defeat their emotional pleas. Unless a new argument is made, don’t worry about getting up to argue again and again.
• Stick with the relevant facts. As inspiring as it may feel to talk about the importance of the Second Amendment, most local leaders don’t really think about their responsibility to respect the federal Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, until we end up with a favorable result in McDonald, the argument doesn’t hold much legal weight, either. While a lofty reference or two for inspiration won’t derail your argument, keep the focus on immediate concerns they – and other residents – can identify with.
• Look to other city issues that can supplement your arguments. For example, with a major pothole problem, is it really in the city’s best interest to spend money on a gun control measure that’s likely to be struck down? Remind them that as much as gun control might “feel good” to them, there are bigger local issues that must be dealt with at the moment. Whether it comes in the form of potholes, schools, or taxes, most towns have more pressing needs on their agenda than gun control.

Perhaps the most important tip in all of this is to stay in touch with those who turn out and help. Connect online again – use Facebook, PAFOA, or even just have business cards with your email address to share. Maybe grab some coffee or hit the range with your new fellow activists. Don’t forget that while we’re always trying to defend our rights, most of us were attracted to this issue because we truly enjoy the sports and the other people in the movement.

Judicial Battles
In 2010, we will find out whether the Supreme Court is willing to expand the landmark Heller decision to apply to states. In the current state, there is an acknowledged individual right to arms by the federal government. However, states and municipalities do not currently have to honor that right. The case to change that is McDonald v. Chicago, a challenge brought by the same attorney who won Heller to the city of Chicago’s handgun ban.

For Pennsylvania residents, McDonald is likely to bring very little tangible change to the state of our gun rights. Our state constitution has a strong individual right to arms, so we have not had to wait on the federal courts to tell our state and local governments to honor our rights. This case will most directly impact states without state protections for the right to bear arms or states whose judicial systems have effectively eroded those that may have existed.

The majority of briefs for the pro-gun side have already been filed and can be found on Alan Gura’s website. Chicago asked for an extension of their deadline, originally scheduled for mid-December. It was partially granted and they submitted their brief just before New Year’s Eve. This means that Gura will file a response near the end of January before the hearing occurs on March 2. If the timing of the Heller case is any indication – and the possible scope of the decision to stem beyond gun rights – then we may not see an opinion handed down until the end of June. Landmark cases tend to be held the longest, and Heller was the last case released during the Supreme Court’s term in 2008.

Local Battles
We have covered Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun group extensively on PAGunRights.com. So far, these mayors have called Pennsylvania’s ~600,000 concealed carry holders criminals, violated state laws on passing local gun control, and called on Congress to turn down all pro-gun bills. But shortly after Christmas, a document the mayors sent to President Obama & various agencies was released online. Bloomberg & his mayoral buddies in Pennsylvania have been trying to keep this blueprint for gun control under wraps by refusing to release it anywhere that gun owners could easily find it. Through a FOIA request & a cooperative agency, their real plan has been revealed and it is not at all good for gun owners.

Mayors working with Bloomberg have demanded the Obama Administration enact the following changes, as summarized at the link above:

• Require REAL ID compliant identification for all gun purchasers. Those in non-complying states, which are many, will no longer be permitted to buy firearms.
• Recommends a ban on the importation of all “non-sporting” firearms and ammunition, and specifically calls for banning the FN Five-Seven. Cheap imported rounds of military caliber may become a thing of the past.  Since MAIG isn’t all that specific on what would be sporting or non-sporting, Glocks could even be at risk.
• Calls for keeping records for people who get a NICS default proceed, which means your background check has not “cleared” but you went through the required three day waiting period. These records can be kept for up to 20 years, in the case of someone who’s name matches someone on the “terror watch” list and six months ordinarily. Default proceeds can happen if NICS has incomplete records, or the system is down for a protracted period of time.
• Calls for more enforcement of gun shows using the Richmond model. The techniques used at the Richmond gun shows were bad enough that Congress held hearings about the methods, and demanding ATF put a stop to them. They actually recommend rescinding a number of the changes made to prevent these abuses.
• Recommends ways for the administration to exploit loopholes in Tiahrt to publish information on “problematic” gun dealers (so they can be sued by New York City, no doubt). Having a lot of traces doesn’t necessarily mean a dealer is breaking the law.
• Lots of recommendations for new record keeping requirements on the part of FFLs
• Requiring placement of alternate serial numbers of every newly manufactured gun, and requiring serial numbers to be deeper and larger. Also require that a consistent serial numbering scheme be adopted across all manufacturers and importers which would be a default ban on many commemorative guns.
• Asks ATF to promote MAIG’s Responsible Dealer Partnership Program that they foisted on Wal-Mart, much like they do with NSSF’s “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy.” They imply NSSF’s program does not go far enough.
• Asks the Consumer Product Safety Commission to mandate gun safety lock standards. Gun dealers are required to provide these, but many gun owners are older, or younger, and do not have children. This would be a way to add substantially to the cost of a firearm, if a 30 dollar lock needed to be included with each sale.
• Extend the multiple purchase reporting requirement to long guns, especially ARs, 50 caliber firearms, and Kalashnikov variants. MAIG is not very clear on this, and I think it would be difficult for dealers to keep track of the current state of regulation.

This document reveals that this group and all of its member mayors are calling for outright gun bans. What’s more telling is that the document specifically outlines how to enact these proposals without going through the accountability of Congress.

We will be tackling these mayors one-by-one in 2010. Gun owners haven’t seen the actual tangible threat by this group yet, but hopefully with this plan to ban guns, add unreasonable restrictions on gun owners, and hike the prices of guns artificially will help shine the light on why this group cannot be ignored.

Elections – Federal
Most eyes will be on federal elections in 2010, especially following the results of November 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia. Candidates are lining up on both sides of the aisle, and we will be providing more specific coverage as more news breaks in 2010.

Gun owners who are registered to vote with a major party need to turn out and vote in the primary election on May 18, 2010. We cannot afford to have anti-gun representatives of any party running on the ballot in November. For those gun owners who are not registered with a party having a primary election, the last day to switch your registration is April 19 if you want to pull a party ballot.

In November, we will likely see some changes in Congress. It is likely some incumbents will lose, leaving the Republican with a few more seats in both chambers. Pennsylvania will obviously be part of these likely changes based on current polls that indicate a likely race between Pat Toomey (R) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) is exceptionally close. In the rest of the Senate, we may lose a pro-gun Democratic leader with Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). If he is beaten by a likely anti-gun Republican challenger, in addition to losing a pro-gun Majority Leader, we will have another anti-gun vote and a new anti-gun leader in Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). This means that without radical changes of other seats into pro-gun hands, we could be looking at a Senate that is just as hostile to gun rights as Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Elections – State
In Pennsylvania, we will also have major state elections in November (with the primary races in May). The Governor’s seat will capture most of the attention, but we cannot afford to ignore the state legislature. Not only does it put us at a risk for anti-gun legislation, but these representatives will be shaping our Congressional districts. A current review of Census data shows that Pennsylvania is slated to lose a seat in Congress. State lawmakers will determine which district will be erased and how the other districts will be distributed to likely voters. Gerrymandering is rarely a pleasant affair to watch, but it is real and does impact our gun rights.

Recruiting for the Cause
2010 will be a year of changes for gun rights. It’s up to us as to whether those changes are good or bad. While we can’t easily directly influence the decision of McDonald, we can influence elections which influence who is on the Court to hear cases like Heller and McDonald. While we cannot control changing demographics that mean Pennsylvania will lose a Congressional seat, we do control who holds the power to change the districts so that anti-gun forces aren’t given more influence.

Make sure you’re on our email list by sending your name, email, and Congressional district to admin (at) pagunrights (dot) com. Stop by a table at the Valley Forge Gun Show and make sure you’re getting the updates on when we need a hand in advancing freedom.

View Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors in Pennsylvania in a larger map

Recently, Homestead Borough did the same thing, becoming the 10th city in Pennsylvania to violate the state preemption laws and the state Supreme Court’s Ortiz v. Commonwealth decision. Last night, Clairton became the 11th, though the first non-MAIG-mayor-lead city to do so. However, the proposal was pushed by extremely anti-gun Rep. David Levdansky who has recently taken up the charge of CeaseFirePA.

These mayors have justified their participation in the group by claiming that Mayor Bloomberg is not working with gun control forces. Here in Pennsylvania, that is absolutely not true, and we uncovered the evidence here on PAGunRights.com. Mayors Against Illegal Guns is hiring Brady Campaign representative Max Nacheman to lobby cities to pass these illegal ordinances, regardless of the legal battles their taxpayers will be forced to fund. If you know gun owners in these towns, tell them to stand up to City Hall in defense of their rights and tax dollars.

A solid 56% of Pennsylvania voters agreed with the Ortiz v. Commonwealth decision that has stood for 13 years declaring that the state legislature is the only body that may create gun laws. Of those, 39% strongly agreed that local leaders should stay out of these debates.

Interestingly, there is only a 5 point difference between gun-owning households and non-gun-owning households. Among gun owning homes, 59% believe the state should be the only body to make gun laws. That leaves a solid majority – 54% – of non-gun-owning homes who agree.

What some may find to be unexpected, there were few party differences on these views as well. Among Democrats, 56% support state preemption. The approval remains strong with others with 54% of Independents and 57% of Republicans agreeing with state preemption.

The survey was conducted in advance of the judicial elections on November 3.

In the letter, Colonel Pawlowski actually takes the opposite position of other law enforcement associations. Gov. Ed Rendell’s appointee advocated for releasing sensitive trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to politicians and lawyers seeking to shut down gun manufacturers and local firearms dealers. The criminal trace data is widely available to law enforcement who are actively investigating weapons crimes. The BATFE has spent years arguing to keep the database confidential in order to protect the sensitive details of ongoing investigations and the lives of officers involved in criminal stings. Colonel Pawlowski would rather sacrifice these investigations and put federal officers at risk to serve Michael Bloomberg’s New York City agenda. In addition, the Fraternal Order of Police has condemned the release of such information.

But the officers in the field who are actually working illegal gun cases know that releasing sensitive information about pending cases can jeopardize the integrity of an investigation or even place the lives of undercover officers in danger. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) has always supported language protecting firearm trace data, now known as the Tiahrt Amendment. For the men and women in uniform who are fighting illegal guns, it is a matter of officer safety and good police work.

The Pennsylvania State Police are already under fire for their own firearms policies. In August, photos and details were leaked from a private shooting session with NFL players with participants using evidence guns, potentially jeopardizing investigations and law enforcement. Making the situation even more controversial was the use of highly restricted police ammunition for this leisurely day at the range. Pennsylvania gun owners may be outraged by Colonel Pawlowski’s politicized actions on gun control, but as taxpayers, it would seem there are other questions we should be asking about the actions of the State Police.

The State Police Commissioner also praises the work of Bloomberg’s coalition in promoting local anti-gun ordinances. However, he does not note that these so-called “lost-and-stolen” ordinances are actually illegal in Pennsylvania, in violation of state preemption that even the state’s Supreme Court has upheld against municipalities that have tried to pass local gun control. It remains unclear why the state’s chief law enforcement officer would promote the violation of state laws by local politicians.

Perhaps one of the most interesting discoveries in the investigation of Colonel Pawlowski’s work with Bloomberg’s staff is just who is assigned to recruit Pennsylvania mayors into the coalition and defend the anti-gun leaders in the Commonwealth. Max Nacheman is cited as the Pennsylvania Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coordinator, and his background is of interest to gun owners across the Keystone State and the nation.

Nacheman touts the standard argument that MAIG is not actually a gun control group. However, this analysis by pro-gun blogger Sebastian and his reader Carl indicates otherwise.

Let me show for you a graphic originally presented to me by our friend Carl in Chicago. It’s undisputed that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violent is a group that advocates for more gun control and advocates for gun bans. Let us take a look at MAIG’s positions versus the Brady Campaign positions:

Position on Federal Legislation	MAIG	Brady
Prohibit National Carry Reciprocity	x	x
Repeal Tiahrt Amendment	x	x
Criminalize private gun transfers	x	x
Prohibit gun sales to those on terrorist watch list	x	x
Prohibit gun dealers to liquidate inventory	x	x
Oppose BATFE modernization	x	x
Position on State Legislation
Require lost or stolen reporting	x	x
Support regional data-sharing on gun owners	x	x
Support microstamping requirements	x	x
Prohibit carry on city-owned public property	x	x

Click on the links on the “x” for attribution of the organizations respective positions. There is no doubt folks, MAIG is a gun control group trying to hide behind the shield of only advocating getting rid of illegal guns. They just fail to mention to their prospective mayors that they favor making a lot more things illegal when it comes to guns.

That seems awfully coincidental that the entire Bloomberg mayor’s group agenda is also supported by the anti-gun Brady Campaign. What is absolutely not coincidental is the connection that Max Nacheman brings between the two groups.

As Bloomberg’s representative for Pennsylvania, Nacheman is responsible for visiting towns and promoting the idea that they should pass illegal local gun ordinances. In May 2009, Max Nacheman spoke at the Lancaster City Council meeting in support of “lost-and-stolen” legislation and revealed the connection between Bloomberg’s group and the established gun control movement.

Max Nacheman, Philadelphia, stated that he represents a National Coalition of Mayors, of which Mayor Gray is a leader, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence.

That’s right, Nacheman admitted that in his position with MAIG, he is also representing Sarah Brady’s long established gun control group and that they both seek to accomplish the same agenda.

Before Nacheman began serving as a spokesman and organizer for both Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign, he came to Pennsylvania as a student and eventually started working with the Hillary Clinton campaign for the Democratic nomination for President. Senator Clinton’s support of gun control is long established, though it is unclear if he ever worked specifically on the issue for her campaign. However, once Barack Obama secured the nomination, Nacheman appears to have stuck around the area to support anti-gun State Representative candidate Steve Rovner based on reported campaign expenditures. Rovner stuck out to Bucks County gun owners as one of the only candidates to embrace gun control group endorsements which he lined up after Max Nacheman started working with his campaign. Fortunately, not even Nacheman could save Rovner’s challenge to the incumbent.

Nacheman, interestingly, cites his address in the campaign reports as Bashing Ridge, New Jersey. Max would hardly be the first gun control advocate to cross the Delaware in order to blame Pennsylvania’s pro-gun culture for the crime and corruption of New Jersey and New York. Many gun owners in Eastern Pennsylvania have grown used to seeing CeaseFire New Jersey’s Bryan Miller in Philadelphia calling for more gun control. Perhaps the next time Max Nacheman comes over to advocate for illegal gun control ordinances, he can hitch a ride with Bryan Miller and offer to pick up the bridge tolls with Brady Campaign funds.

So with all of the changes that Bloomberg is so desperate to hide, here is a survey of where we stand in the effort to oust mayors from anti-gun coalition:

NRA’s Postcard Mailing
NRA sent a postcard to members in select cities of MAIG coalition members in Pennsylvania and around the country. They set up a corresponding website an interactive map inspired by our use of the same type of map for Pennsylvania. As EVCs, we did directly contribute to quite a bit of research on mayors nationwide, but especially on Pennsylvania mayors based on information uncovered while doing the initial Bloomberg posts.

NRA’s mailing has generated many media hits and direct pressure on mayors around the state. Reports range from anecdotal stories of small town mayors swamped by angry residents wondering what they have been doing to small town mayors facing censure votes for making their town look anti-gun to NRA members simply giving up and not even picking up the phone. Some good, some amazing, and some sad.

PAFOA’s Educational Outreach
Shortly after the Bloomberg posts, Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association wrote to 15 mayors the organization thought they might be able to influence informing them of positions taken in their name and politely asking the mayors to resign from Bloomberg’s coalition. This morning PAFOA decided to turn up the pressure and asked their local members to call their mayors and again ask for their resignation. While the organization is not as large as NRA, it is full of activists who are likely to be inspired to act quickly on the hells of success in other towns.

So where to do we stand as we head into this next round of taking out Bloomberg’s power structure in Pennsylvania?

• We reported there were 103 mayors in Pennsylvania who were members of MAIG.  We’re now down to 87.  Fifteen of those mayors left by resigning from the organization and one passed away while in office.
• In the same post, we asked: “How many of the 684 residents of Ulysses know that Mayor Jane Haskins was campaigning against concealed carry and has supported lawsuits that put gun shops out of business?”  Mayor Haskins was among the first to leave the organization after the NRA postcards landed in her town.
• We also noted a geographical surprise: “It might surprise people to see that most of the mayors who support Michael Bloomberg are not in the Philadelphia suburbs. In fact, 32% of the mayors are in far western Congressional districts.”  The statistical breakdown runs just about the same.  Only 25% of the mayors who have departed the organization were from those far west Congressional districts.  If they convince more mayors to leave, then we’ll have a more expected spread.
• In August, the number of residents reached by Mayor Bloomberg’s message was 2,899,142.  We’ve cut that down more than 33,000.  (Half of that number is Philadelphia alone.  The other big contributer is Pittsburgh.  It would be tough to convince either mayor to leave.  So a drastic change won’t likely happen with this statistic.)
• We also mentioned that Pennsylvania is the largest source of mayors for the anti-gun crusade.  ”If he has at least 450 mayors, that means 23% of them are from Pennsylvania!”  Even reduced to 87, with all of the other mayors flocking to leave the coalition, we still have 22% here in Pennsylvania.  That’s disappointing, but it is a very small dent that we’ll keep working to make bigger.
• We discussed how nine mayors have pushed illegal preemption-violating local gun ordinances have been members of MAIG.  Unfortunately, there is no great news to report on this front.  The York mayor who is proudly standing by Bloomberg pushed through a resolution supporting one gun a month in Pennsylvania after this campaign started.  However, this does reiterate that we need to reduce Bloomberg’s numbers to keep his influence minimal.

So overall, we’re not doing too badly.  However, there is still a lot of room for improvement.  By far, Pennsylvania has more mayors than any other state.  And if gun owners here don’t get active, they will lose their rights.  This is just one move, but it’s disabling what Bloomberg has envisioned as the future of the gun control movement.  We might as well make him a political liability and cut this thing off at the knees, so-to-speak.

For those who wonder about the PA mayors who have left, here is the latest list:

• Akron Mayor John McBeth
• Beech Creek Mayor David Orr
• Bowmanstown Mayor Keith Billig
• Brackenridge Mayor Jeffrey Cowan
• East Berlin Mayor Keith Hoffman
• Gettysburg Mayor William Troxell
• Harmony Mayor Cathryn Rape
• Midway Mayor Karen Bartosh
• Mt. Penn Mayor Josh Nowotarski
• North Irwin Mayor Leonard Santimyer
• Slatington Mayor Walter Niedermeyer
• Summit Hill Mayor Paul McArdle
• Tower City Mayor Dale Deiter
• Ulysses Mayor Jane Haskins
• West Reading Mayor Shane Keller

If your town or boro is on this list, please take a moment to call your mayor and say thank you.

The York City Council voted 4-1 Tuesday to send a resolution to the state legislature recommending the adoption of a state law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen guns, ending nearly a year of debate on the controversial subject.

Last November, York City Councilwoman Toni Smith introduced a proposal, backed by the city administration, for a city law that would require lost and stolen firearms to be reported.

Supporters said a law would help crack down on straw purchasers and keep illegal guns off the street. Opponents said it would not be effective and would punish the innocent.

Throughout the debate, some council members said they were concerned about the proposal, since state law prohibits municipalities from making their own gun laws.

On Tuesday, Smith introduced a resolution urging the state to take up the matter. Her proposed law, tabled at an earlier meeting, was left to die at the end of the year.

Fortunately, gun owners did find they had one clear thinking friend on the Council. Council President Joe Musso cast the single vote against the resolution. According to the local papaer, Musso reported that supporters could not explain exactly how the law would help solve gun crimes or how it would be more effective than existing straw purchase laws. He was quoted as saying, “I’m not in a position where I’m going to start pursuing the good guys instead of getting the bad guys.”

Our fellow EVC from the 19th district attended the meeting and tweeted after the vote:

City of York, PA passes lost/stolen resolution. Call it a draw, we defeated the ordinance but didn’t stop the whole momentum.

If they state were to pass a law as advocated by York leaders, gun owners who have guns stolen may be prosecuted if they do not notice the theft as quickly as an overzealous prosecutor would like. The legal system will be turned upside down for gun owners, as they would have to prove to the courts that they are innocent instead of the state showing proving their guilt.

One report from a mayor claimed that she was called by nearly a dozen gun owners during her lunch hour on the day NRA notifications reached mailboxes. She quickly called to resign from the group, leading the still-rising wave of resignations of Pennsylvania mayors.

View Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors in Pennsylvania in a larger map

As you can see, mayors who have recently left the group include:

• Akron Mayor John McBeth
• Beech Creek Mayor David E. Orr
• Bowmanstown Mayor Keith G. Billig
• Harmony Mayor Cathryn H. Rape
• Mount Penn Mayor Josh Nowotarski
• North Irwin Mayor Leonard L. Santimyer
• Summit Hill Mayor Paul R. McArdle
• Tower City Mayor Dale Deiter
• Ulysses Mayor Jane Haskins
• West Reading Mayor Shane Keller

Unfortunately, some mayors are making their position against lawful gun owners clear and standing by Mayor Bloomberg’s efforts to restrict concealed carry licenses and sue gun stores out of business. York’s John Brenner says he plans to continue his membership and proudly cites his support for eradication of statewide preemption by passing illegal local gun control ordinances. Sadly, the only NRA members featured in the story said they were not willing to make the phone call to demand their mayor stand up for the Second Amendment.

In addition to Mayor Brenner, these local mayors have refused to resign from the group:

• Ambler Mayor Charles T. “Bud” Wahl
• Carlisle Mayor Kirk R. Wilson
• Doylestown Mayor Libby White
• East Berlin Mayor Keith E. Hoffman
• Gettysburg Mayor William E. Troxell
• Hatboro Mayor Norm Hawkes
• Mount Wolf Mayor James F. Kinder
• Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter
• Telford Mayor Jay Stover
• Windsor Mayor Larry Markel

Let’s make sure that NRA members, gun owners, and hunters in these towns are willing to pick up the phone or even send an email in defense of their rights.

Since our update last week, NRA-ILA has launched a detailed webpage to keep gun owners updated on the status of mayors in the anti-gun coalition. The site is a tool to compliment the recent postcard mailings sent to gun owners around the country. You can find not only the current list of mayors, but also mayors who have quit the organization, MAIG members who are not actually mayors as advertised, mayors who recently lost elections, and MAIG members who are currently facing charges or have been convicted of various crimes ranging from assault to corruption.

As of September 9, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website started to feature a few disappearing names in several states. Two of the names removed are Mayor Jane Haskins of Ulysses, Pennsylvania and Mayor Paul McArdle of Summit Hill, Pennsylvania. They both resigned from the group following pressure from local NRA members.

Another Pennsylvania-centric change for the coalition (though not one reflected on Bloomberg’s website) is the death of State College mayor Bill Welch from complications from surgery. We certainly send regrets to family and hate to see the list of mayors reduced through tragedy. We prefer to inform mayors about the importance of the Second Amendment rights of their citizens, leading to a resignation.

As changes are made to the Pennsylvania anti-gun landscape at the local level, we will update the map with mayors who have resigned or left their office.

View Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors in Pennsylvania in a larger map

In the meantime, if your city is on the map, contact your mayor and ask them to stand up for your rights!

In 2005, city leaders in Columbus, Ohio passed a ban semi-automatic firearms even after years of data showed that such bans only impact lawful owners, not criminals who roam the streets. NRA members in the region had been preparing for at least two years to welcome their fellow gun owners from around the country in 2007. (NRA schedules annual meetings approximately five years in advance.) However, the assault on gun rights could not be tolerated, and many supported the move by NRA to take its economic might to another city. There was no need to reward anti-rights politicians who were directly thumbing their noses at NRA members with millions of dollars in tax revenue and local spending.

Soon, pro-gun governors lined up to request the NRA convention with open arms. The organization ultimately chose St. Louis, Missouri for the new location of their 2007 meeting. Based on the numbers from the convention held just weeks earlier in May of 2005, NRA told Columbus leaders what they were missing out on.

NRA’s 2005 convention brought $20 million in revenue for Houston, TX, and an overall $50 million impact for the local economy. The 450 exhibitors and 60,000 attendees sold out a total of eight hotels.

For Pittsburgh, the decision to put politics above Second Amendment rights would be a huge pain for the local economy. The last time the Steel City hosted the organization’s annual meeting, they brought in $15 million to local coffers. The NRA was the first major convention to visit the city’s new convention center in 2004 and has remained one of the largest events Pittsburgh has ever hosted. Predictions for 2011 show that gun owners would fill approximate 9,000 room nights and draw just as many visitors to the region as the record breaking 2004 event.

Beyond the direct costs to the city, NRA’s conventions also bring indirect benefits to a region that could be lost should they decide to relocate. Due to the size of the convention (60,000+ attendees), the exhibit hall needs (4-6 acres of space), banquet services (serving 5,000+ in one meal), and other major meeting hall needs, a city that successfully hosts an NRA convention can receive great publicity in the convention industry. As noted by Pittsburgh officials, for a convention the size of NRA’s to visit the city a second time in such a short span is nearly unheard of in the industry. In addition, as a major national media event, cities often get free positive promotion for absolutely no cost in thousands of stories filed from the NRA press office.

All-in-all, Pittsburgh loses not just on principle with the passage of an illegal gun ban, but the city leaders will cost the area business owners tens of millions of dollars in lost sales. Pennsylvania’s gun owners will also lose easy access to a great event.

Perhaps Ohio would like the business again since the state promptly responded to the Columbus gun ban with state preemption!

Tyler State Park is a 1,711-acre park in Newtown Township and Northampton, and the current proposal looks to expand what is now a one day shotgun hunt in order to keep deer populations at more manageable levels. According to reports, regional park managers have said that “biologists, foresters and other experts do frequent checks at Tyler and other state parks and have found that deer are causing extensive plant damage at Tyler, a situation that throws off the ecological balance at the park.” Wildlife professionals believe opening the park to limited archery hunts to supplement the one day of shotgun hunting will help reduce the populations to a level the park can sustain.

As it stands, the proposal would open 400 acres of the park north of Dairy Hill Trail to a maximum of 10 hunters during archery season. Hunting would be allowed from 30 minutes before sunrise to sunset. Officials are also debating whether to open a more limited hunt for only a few days or weeks during archery season.

State parks have long accommodated by hunters and non-hunters recreational users alike. Officials say that archery hunts occur in more than 90% of state parks, including another Bucks County location in Bensalem. Safety has never been a problem at area parks, even when the hunting area is limited to a smaller plot of the park, as is the case in Neshaminy State Park.

At Neshaminy State Park, archery deer hunting has been allowed for the last five years in a 130-acre portion of the 340-acre park. The hunting area is located entirely within Bensalem, said park Manager Josh Swartley.

A maximum of five hunters are allowed into the park every day but Sunday during archery season, he said. Signs are posted, but non-hunters also are allowed into the hunting area, he said.

There have been no hunting accidents at the park, said Swartley, who added he does get complaints from non-hunters who feel they shouldn’t have to see dead deer being taken out of the park.

Since the hunts started five years ago, only 53 deer have been killed at Neshaminy, including only five last year, Swartley said. But it’s been enough to help reduce plant damage, he said.

Hunters can express their support for the proposed archery hunt by calling or writing stat park officials:

Mike Crowley, Tyler State Park Manager
Email: mcrowley@state.pa.us
Phone: (215) 968-2021

Ken Lewis, Asst. Regional Park Manager
Email: kelewis@state.pa.us
Phone: (215) 453-5000

In addition, hunters who have organized online have started their own petition. However, given the head start anti-hunters have on the process, and the fact that the park’s staff have said they have overwhelmingly heard by the region’s anti-hunting forces, it is important that you contact park staff directly.

For example, in 2008, gun owners could claim that the election was the most important election for their cause.  In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court kept their opinion very narrow to the question at hand.  In fact, the question posed to the Court was kept deliberately narrow to the issue of handgun ownership in the District of Columbia because the Court had not yet ruled on the matter of individual Second Amendment rights.  Because of the opinion, the next cases will determine the practical scope of the Second Amendment.  In fact, we’re already facing cases that will determine whether or not the rights extend to the states.

With the presidential election, appointments to the Supreme Court are absolutely vital for the future of the Second Amendment.  Unfortunately, with a President who has the most hostile record on Second Amendment rights in history, the first Court appointment is a Justice who has already ruled that states may ban guns, and Heller only applies to the federal government.  Her judicial philosophy on gun ownership is one that would allow local and state governments to ban guns with no accountability to the people or the courts.  In fact, 2008 was one of the most important elections that gun owners have ever faced.

It’s easy to assume that elections in 2009 (NJ & VA) and 2010 are not nearly as important as presidential elections.  However, that is simply not true – though you might not realize why.  Most people would say that the Congressional elections of 2010 will be important for many other issues – health care, cap and trade, and other Obama Administration priorities.  But state elections may well have the most long-lasting impact on the political fights for gun rights.

A Democratic political organizer recently posted this explanation for why mobilizing for state elections may lead to a decade or more of political power or being left in the political wilderness.

But if you really want to see a shift in power in Washington for the next decade or longer, pay attention to who wins the STATE legislatures next November. The state representatives and state senators elected 15 months from now will preside over the rawest political act in America: the redrawing of congressional and legislative district lines based on the results of the decennial census. Redistricting is legislative sausage-making at its finest, with members jockeying to preserve or extend their own power-bases at the expense of enemies.

Most people don’t consider a Census to be terribly political.  However, the power of the Census can cost entire Congressional districts, or even move current politicians into brand new districts away from constituents they have represented for decades.   Following the 2000 Census, Pennsylvania lost two members of Congress.  It has been predicted that Pennsylvania will lose another Congressional seat following the 2010 count.  In the redistricting process, we could lose a pro-gun voice in Congress.

Redistricting can be ugly regardless of which party is in charge, but it’s also going to happen, regardless of which party is in charge. So if you really want to influence the political course of this country over the next decade (at least), you have the chance — if you work to elect state legislators whose views align with yours, and if you get started NOW.

Early support for state candidates can make a huge difference in the success of their campaign.  If you would like to learn how you can help your local pro-gun voices or those in districts near you, just submit a request.

As has been discussed in the past, this proposed ordinance has several issues:

1. It violates the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s preemption laws. (In other words, it is illegal.)
2. It essentially creates a situation in which one is guilty until proven innocent.  An overzealous prosecutor could financially ruin gun owners as they try to prove themselves innocent.
3. The ordinance is redundant to present state and federal laws and penalties for straw purchasers which are far more strict for purchasers with no record who supply guns to criminals.

My understanding from talking to Councilman Joe Musso is that Councilwoman Toni Smith may just push for a “resolution” rather than the passing of the ordinance.  As has been stated before by the proponents of this ordinance, the real purpose is to send a message to Harrisburg.  Because of this, I believe it affects everyone in York County and not just the residents of York city proper.

Depending on this meeting, and anything that comes out of it, will likely be address at the following York City Council Meeting on September 15th, next at 7pm.

–

York City Council Meetings are held on at 1 Marketway West, 3rd Floor, York, PA.

[NOTE: This address is not found in Google Maps. It is located at the intersection of Market St & George St.]

City Council Members Contact Info:

Joseph R. Musso
(717) 309-2079
jrmusso@comcast.net

Toni Smith
(717) 848-6388
tonismith825@hotmail.com

Genevieve Ray
(717) 848-3320
genray@comcast.net

Carol Hill-Evans
(717) 848-4788
cdh129@comcast.net

Cameron Texter
(717) 495-1252
ctexter@yahoo.com

However, one thing you’ll rarely find in politics is a true believer. That doesn’t mean hope is lost. There are arguments to be made that Bloomberg brings baggage.

1. Make the mayor aware that Bloomberg signed his/her name to an ad that was run in both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Philadelphia Inquirer opposing a bipartisan federal concealed carry amendment that carried 58 votes in the Senate. Ask if the mayor approved the ad and gave permission for their name to be attached. Also ask the mayor if he/she gave approval for the USA Today ad that says law-abiding concealed carry permit holders “threaten the safety of our police officers.” The ad also says that allowing such permit holders the cross state borders will “undoubtedly result in the deaths of more innocent Americans.”
2. If challenged, politely point out that his/her name is specifically included on ads. Perhaps offer to fax a copy of the ads or email a copy to the mayor. Highlight or circle the name for good measure.
3. In fact, you might want to ask if any local tax dollars contributed toward paying for the ads. You might also ask if any tax dollars or city services are contributed toward the other programs Bloomberg is running within the coalition. Ask if local money has funded any trips to meet with him or federal officials in regards to Second Amendment issues. With more than half a million of us, it’s a reasonable question to which other gun owners in the town would love to know the answer.
4. Also inquire about the letters sent to Congress on concealed carry and other federal issues. If they mayor doesn’t know what you’re talking about, point out that all of the coalition mayors signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi condemning concealed carry across the country. Ask why he/she personally believes that the existence of your concealed carry permit makes you a gun trafficker, as the letter implies. Find out if your mayor endorses the position of revoking Constitutional rights without due process via the terror watch list. Take your favorite quotes and ask if he/she endorses them. Ask about current activities the mayor is involved in at the federal level, and if he/she plans to keep the town’s residents informed of these activities. If they don’t support these actions, suggest that rather than having the Mayor of NYC attribute these statements, they might consider leaving the organization.
5. Politely let the mayor know that a decision to leave is not one that will hurt him/her. First, gun control supporters don’t vote on that issue, but gun owners do. Second, they will join a list of mayors, include recent dropouts from Ohio and Texas (Houston, no less!). Previous Pennsylvania mayors have also dropped out, arguing that the coalition was not as presented, “I have learned that the coalition may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership, and that some actions on your behalf are dubious.” Even New Jersey mayors have removed themselves after find out what Bloomberg was doing in their name, “Regrettably, it has become abundantly clear to me that you are using this coalition of mayors to advance a hidden agenda of bringing lawsuits against members of the firearms industry and spreading anti-gun propaganda.”

If the mayor doesn’t make any promises, have family members or shooting buddies call in the next few days. Spread the word around the local range. Start with phone calls and/or emails asking pointed (and polite!) questions about their involvement. Do it as a concerned citizen, not simply a gun owner.

The next step before the ballot box might be letters to the editor, particularly if you have a town newspaper. The smaller, the better in many cases. The small papers eat stuff like this up! A letter to the editor may inspire questions from the paper. A little local controversy is always good for readership. (One angle would be to press the tax dollar/time contributed line of questions first. In this economy, there’s no room for wasting time or money on these issues at the local level of government.)

Remember, the goal is to reduce Bloomberg’s sphere of influence. If the mayor is willing to leave the group, say thank you! Ask for verification, or if they might be willing to share the notification letter with you so you can pass it along to other gun owners. Be willing to accept that some people really didn’t understand what they were signing on to with this group. While it can legitimately be argued they should have done their homework, there’s more peer pressure in Pennsylvania than anywhere else in the country. Let’s make sure they remember that constituents are more important than government peers.

According to Bloomberg’s website, there are 103 mayors in Pennsylvania in the group that make up almost one-quarter of his entire coalition. When the federal concealed carry amendment was up for debate and the Pennsylvania coalition of mayors sent a letter to Senators Casey and Specter, we posted a list of mayors in the 8th & 13th Congressional districts. It’s been one of the most popular pages on the site. More than a few folks had no idea their mayor was spending part of his/her July campaigning against concealed carry rights.

Who are Bloomberg’s Mayors?

Some of Pennsylvania’s Bloomberg mayors were found in unexpected places. Check out this list of all 103 mayors listed on the site as of August 15. That’s 103 mayors too many, but there are some surprises.

View Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Mayors in Pennsylvania in a larger map

It might surprise people to see that most of the mayors who support Michael Bloomberg are not in the Philadelphia suburbs. In fact, 32% of the mayors are in far western Congressional districts. Of all of the Congressional districts with more than half a dozen mayors, half of them are in or border Allegheny County. It would appear as though Mayor Bloomberg or a Pennsylvania surrogate has been on a serious recruiting spree in the Pittsburgh region.

Mayor Mike’s coalition here in Pennsylvania represents less than 3 million residents of more than 12 million in the state. In fact, the average population of the town with a Bloomberg mayor is 28,643. If you remove the cities with more than 100,000 residents (the top 4), that average drops to only 9,856. In fact, 18 mayors represent towns and boroughs with less than 1,000 people. More than 50 represent towns of less than 5,000. A full 70% of the mayors in Bloomberg’s army lead towns of less than 10,000 people. That’s hardly a big city mayor coalition. This is a winnable fight to take back our towns.

Turning Up the Heat on Election Day

One huge benefit to municipal races is that voter turnout is extremely low. Looking at Bucks County (most of the 8th Congressional District), we find that the county-wide 2007 municipal races had turnout of only 29% compared to 76% in November’s presidential race or even 57% in the last off-year Congressional election. In Montgomery County (most of the 13th Congressional District), voter turnout for municipal races in 2007 was at 30% as compared to the November general at 73% and 2006 Congressional (off-year) race at 55%.

Typically, only the most active partisans turn out for local elections if they are not held alongside major statewide or national races. This makes the prospect of giving the boot to local mayors even easier – and sometimes the threat of a challenge is even more useful than an actual get out the vote effort.

If you live in one of the towns governed by a Bloomberg mayor or know a gun owner who does, it may not be hard to turn an election. Get the rest of the family to vote, and tell friends about the other candidates who may be more friendly to Second Amendment rights. One active resident may single-handedly turn it into a landslide. Imagine the impact putting a flier in the local gun shop where all the local sportsmen hang out. In an election when many of them aren’t likely turning out to the polls, they might suddenly become a local voting bloc worthy of some campaign time.

Knowing Your Neighborhood Issues

Finally, one of the biggest benefits to local races is the fact that you are closer to most of the other voters. As a resident, you know what frustrates your neighbors, encourage them to get out to the polls on that issue. Don’t restrict yourself to talking about gun rights. Change begins at home, and you know better than some worker down in Fairfax what’s really got the non-gun owners on your block upset. Remember, just like you probably don’t vote in municipal elections, they probably don’t, either. That means your whole neighborhood just put itself on the map for better treatment and more attention from local officials. (Remember, party officials and leaders can tell who turned out to vote through the voter rolls. To the winners go the spoils, so get yourself some spoils by simply showing up.)

Why Wait until Election Day?

Of course, the other benefit to local government is that it may not even require defeating the mayor in an election. The candidates and parties know turnout is consistently a problem. Angering residents for absolutely no reason is something they cannot afford to do. One or two phone calls from upset residents may be enough to convince them to leave. A handful of phone calls in the mayor’s office will really shake things up in mid-sized town.

If the town has a gun club or range, the opportunities are even greater. Members can call regardless of where they live. They can still claim to be involved with the town, and more importantly, they would be happy to spread word about such anti-gun views come campaign time. There’s a good chance that local mayors have no idea what Mayor Bloomberg has signed them onto, and reason will likely prevail.

Consider the situation with former Williamsport, PA mayor Mary Wolf who publicly left the group in 2007. This New York Sun article quotes a local gun dealer who found out about her membership and made some phone calls about it. Imagine a few signs up at the gun range, getting staff or club officers to let all the residents who come in know about a mayor’s involvement.

Outreach is Key

How many of the 684 residents of Ulysses know that Mayor Jane Haskins was campaigning against concealed carry and has supported lawsuits that put gun shops out of business?

Or how about the 290 residents of Laporte with Mayor Robert Carpenter and 153 residents of Eagles Mere with Mayor Betty Hays?

Are the gun owners among the 626 residents of Marianna aware that Mayor Russell LaRew signed on to support such initiatives?

With only 1,921 people in all of Industry, would it really take much pressure to convince Mayor Nicholas Yanosich that he should stand up for the Constitution instead of against it?

Isn’t it possible to get word out to Mayor Jay Stover in Telford that he shouldn’t be working against the rights of his 4,680 citizens?

Keep in mind, these numbers are a matter of population, registered voters are far fewer.

Making a Difference Locally…

As one of the largest gun blogs and generally having the ear of the major political blogger Instapundit on the issues, SayUncle was able to successfully make membership in Bloomberg’s group a liability for Knoxville, Tennessee’s Bill Haslam. Unfortunately, targeting most of these mayors won’t be as easy as writing a few blog posts about them.

Some of the mayors legitimately share Bloomberg’s view on gun rights and would like to see them curtailed. Others don’t really know what they signed up for – accounts by some former Bloomberg mayors suggest that it is sold as a group that really does focus on crime issues rather than taking positions against concealed carry and leading lawsuits for third party actions against gun store owners. These mayors simply need to be educated.

…Thinking Nationally

Michael Bloomberg’s mayoral coalition has particular relevance for Pennsylvania’s gun owners. This coalition is one of Bloomberg’s favorite public relations tools, so it would be nice to disable it. He pulled it out to run ads in national newspapers and in letters to Congress asking for more restrictions on our rights.

One of his favorite claims to both the media and other politicians is that the coalition is not just a big city groups since he has pulled more than 450 mayors from across the country to stand with him in his attacks on gun rights. If he has 450 mayors, that means 23% of them are from Pennsylvania! Bloomberg has invested heavily in Pennsylvania’s mayors, and we should be concerned by that fact. What is he hoping to get from that investment? More importantly, what has he already received and what is on the immediate horizon?

Consider the attacks on preemption we’re seeing across Pennsylvania. When cities and towns pass legislation requiring you to report lost or stolen guns in a manner they arbitrarily consider reasonable, it makes gun owners potential victims to abusive prosecutors. Those nine cities are: Erie, Allentown, Reading, Pottsville, Pittsburgh, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Wilkinsburg. Guess how many of those cities have mayors in the coalition? Nine.

Some of these mayors also have their eye on higher offices. Consider Mayor John Callahan of Bethlehem (population 71,329) who is challenging Congressman Charlie Dent for his seat. Should he be successful (reports indicate he will be a very strong challenger), that seat will go from an A rating to Bloomberg-controlled anti-gun overnight.

While we can’t stop Mayor Callahan until next November, we could see to it that other mayors find the New York-based coalition to be a political liability for future office and convince them to denounce his positions. If they continue to stand by Bloomberg, we can show up at the ballot box and try to put a stop to their political futures by ousting them from the office.

What I hope is that the citizens of Birdsboro convince Mayor Robert Myers to leave Bloomberg’s anti-gun agenda behind (or send him packing if he refuses) so that the 5,064 residents don’t have to fear a patchwork of local laws.

I don’t want the gun owners among the 2,812 residents of Wind Gap to stand confused should Mayor Mitchell Mogilski try to implement Bloomberg’s ideal gun controls in their town.

Find out if your mayor is opposing our rights with this list of area mayors who joined NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. These are the mayors from Bucks, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties who joined Michael Bloomberg’s calls for more restrictive gun laws:

• Ambler – Bud Wahl (215) 628-2654
• Doylestown – Libby White (215) 345-4140
• Hatboro – Norm Hawkes (215) 443-9100
• Philadelphia – Michael Nutter (215) 686-1776
• Telford – Jay Stover (215) 723-3008

If you live in one of these towns, please contact your mayor and ask why they are actively opposing gun rights.  We often overlook the local politicians, believing that they do not make a significant difference in the debate.  However, these mayors banded together to send letters to Pennsylvania’s senators asking for their opposition to concealed carry.  These mayors support the efforts of Michael Bloomberg to put lawful gun stores out of business by filing lawsuits blaming them for the crimes of others.

If they claim they did not support these actions, demand that they remove themselves from Michael Bloomberg’s group of mayors.  They will join many mayors from across the country who realized the error of their ways, that Michael Bloomberg was taking policy positions in their name that they did not support.  If they do support it, mobilize gun owners in your town to change up your local government.  A handful of votes will make a difference in local elections due to low turnout.