PA Gun Rights Haters Show Their Intolerance

A few liberty activists dropped in on a gun rights haters' rally. On a nice Sunday afternoon, March 9, 2014, they had the Team 26 bicycle riders stop at Buckingham, PA near Philadelphia. Here is the reception I received: 

They were angry because the high school where they originally were going to do their rights hating rally at ran them out. They relocated to an out of the way church with no sidewalk on either side of the road. This made a counter-rally impossible. Strangely, they then claimed this constituted our backing down. (See my rebuttal The “Pacifist” Advocates of Violence Lie Again.)

There was no excuse for these people's behavior at the rally. If they had any regard for freedom of speech they wouldn't have interfered with our respectful outreach. Notice how at 0:42 a woman laughs delightedly at the verbal abuse the activist in the red coat is dishing out. It is obvious from the video that many in the crowd agreed with her abusive behavior. Contrast this to the behavior of members of the Brandywine Peace Community when on Good Friday 2011 a libertarian brought a gun to their civil disobedience at Lockheed Martin in King of Prussia, PA. They were outraged but remained civil. Their nonviolence discipline specifically states, "We will observe with co-actors, police, Lockheed Martin employees, and passers-by, the rules of human courtesy. We will exhibit no violence or hostility - physical or verbal - toward anyone." [emphasis added] The people running the rally can learn from the good folks at the Brandywine Peace Community.

In fairness as I started handing out fliers one woman did say that even though I was on the other side she was glad I was there. She even thanked me for attending. The woman at 2:02 in the video seems puzzled by the spectacle of the red coat insulting me and taking my fliers. Perhaps she wondered, why the intolerance? I ask those of you who oppose gun rights to think about the kind of people you're following. Can you really trust them? Is the behavior you see in the video something you approve of? Don't you think that free speech should be defended rather than attacked? Please don't support these rights destroying groups anymore.

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.”

-- Judge Louis D. Brandeis

A comment on a recurring theme at these kinds of rallies. We hear speakers say over and over that they respect gun rights and don't want to take away good people's guns. Yet we see signs like the one at the top of this article. Isn't a ban taking away people's guns? It is truly amazing that gun rights haters can't see the hypocrisy.

Police cars at the gun haters rally

Speaking of hypocrisy, notice how the red coat in the video threatens to call security. To my mind this was threatening me with force. (I'm sure there wasn't any security she was just making a pathetic attempt to intimidate.) Off camera she said "the police know you're here". Again, the threat of using force against peaceful outreach. Strange that these gun rights haters claim to be the peaceful ones. They claim to be against guns and violence yet they didn't ask the gun toting police to leave. I'm sure the opposite is true, the police were there at their request. Remember that the police are the ones whose job it is to use force and more often to threaten to do so. It isn't consistent with pacifist principles to want armed men who are legally empowered to use force around.

Sometimes law enforcers come up with a good idea. Such is the case with Law Enforcement Against prohibition (LEAP), a group concerned with the war on drugs and neutral on guns. The text of the flier I was handing out is from a page that was, but is no longer, on LEAP's website. Link to text of the flier: http://bit.ly/1njNedS

On a humorous note I can now add "parasite" to "disgusting creepy crawly thing" on my activist resume. Keep the insults coming, haters.

The above hate mail was a reaction to this presentation: There Is No Case for Gun Control (video and hate mail)

In closing, I once again repeat my challenge to debate the gun rights issue. If the gun rights haters are confident that they're right they'll jump at the chance to do so.

The “Pacifist” Advocates of Violence Lie Again

Do the anti-gun rights zealots really think that people are so stupid they'll fall for these lies? Given what Shira Goodman wrote in “Gun Bullies Back Down and Plan to Stay Away from Peaceful Gun Violence Prevention Event” they must. Let's take her article apart piece by piece. (Items in bold are quotes from the article linked above.)

Concerned Gun Owners of Pennsylvania made clear in their press release that “CGOPA has canceled their counter-rallying on Sunday out of respect for private property rights and the sanctity of God's church.” They did this after CeasefirePA and their collaborators were run out of Doylestown, PA and had to relocate to a church in a nearby town.

“...CeaseFirePA, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and local groups like Bucks Safe are hosting a peaceful event to greet the Sandy Hook Riders Team 26,...” Quite true, the event is peaceful, but what violence are they calling for? Read on.

“... a group of cyclists riding in memory of the victims of gun violence prevention...” Interesting that they published this. We're the ones advocating gun rights, they're the ones whose “gun violence prevention” is disarming decent people preventing them from defending themselves. I guess that makes their mourning appropriate. (Since they will no doubt correct this typo a screen shot is included below as proof of their sloppiness.)

“...and calling for stronger gun laws.” Last I checked laws are enforced by armed people with jails to confine other people in. An interesting position for alleged pacifists to take. They seem to be all for non-violence until is is time to disarm peaceful people like us activist gun owners. Then the violence and bullying become OK. Here's how I put it in my coverage of their two state May 11, 2013 event:

There is a reason we stayed in Pennsylvania. We knew we couldn't go into Trenton, New Jersey (where their rally started) with our guns. The police would have arrested us. Even in Morrisville the township threatened to arrest open carriers. We ignored those threats and they backed down. Yet somehow the gun haters saw themselves as being threatened. The fear was totally irrational. The open carriers would have protected them had a criminal tried to harm them. Meanwhile, it is they, the gun haters, that want to send armed law enforcement officers after gun owners. Go figure.

“For the last week, pro-gun organization Concerned Gun Owners of America had been planning a counter-protest and blatantly trying to intimidate supporters to avoid this event.” No, it was the Concerned Gun Owners of Pennsylvania that was holding the counter-protest. Obviously accuracy isn't Ms. Goodman's forte.

“Members of the group took to social media posting plans to carry firearms and shout through megaphones at the peaceful gathering, but [we] were not intimidated.” Intimidated? Please, Ms. Goodman, post any threats of violence that were made against your group. I know you won't because there were none. As opposed to your group which advocates legal violence against us. Regardless, please don't lie, the counter-protest was going to be empty holster since guns aren't allowed in or near schools. (They originally were going to rally at Central Bucks West High School.) We already know that these gun rights haters have an irrational fear of guns. Are they now afraid of empty holsters too?

“...bullies try to intimidate people because they’re insecure.” I couldn't agree more. We libertarians live by the non-aggression principle. The idea is that it is immoral to initiate the use of force or threaten the use of force against others. We have the confidence to say we will not use violence or threats nor will we tolerate that kind of behavior against ourselves or others. I call on all gun rights haters to renounce their advocacy of violence and join with us in calling for a world in which no one aggresses against anyone else.

Lastly, I issue a challenge to Ms. Goodman and the others standing with her to debate the issue with me. If you really think you know what you're talking about we'll be debating soon.

Stopping Illegally Funded Gun Buy-Backs

In the video below Mayor Joseph DiGirolamo and Director of Public Safety Fred Harran of Bensalem, PA state that their two day gun buy-back of February 6 and 16 was the first in the nation financed with federal funds seized from drug dealers. 

They refer to the fact that the shared funds must be used for law enforcement purposes and that they are the first jurisdiction to get approval to use such funds for a gun buy-back. Mr. Harran mentions a flier that was sent out to law enforcement agencies across the country informing them that federal shared funds are now available to them for gun buy-backs. A little Internet searching found the February 1, 2013 edition of the Equitable Sharing Wire, the Equitable Sharing Program’s newsletter published by the US Department of Justice. The Equitable Sharing Program is run by the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section.
 
The article “Gun Buy-Back Programs” outlines how this is to be done. The relevant part is the one sentence third paragraph, “If your agency uses equitably shared funds to run a gun buy-back program, the funds used should be reported on Line C, Informant and Buy Money, of the Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification form.” However, when one hovers their cursor over the boxes on Line C to report expenditures a bubble appears that reads in part “Miscellaneous petty cash purchases should not be reported in this category. Justice Guide VIII.A.1.a”. Buying unwanted guns from the public would certainly seem to be “Miscellaneous petty cash purchases”.

The above referenced Justice Guide is the “Guide to Equitable Sharing for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies”. It gives us further guidance. Section VIII.A.1.a (page 16) reads:

Law enforcement investigations—the support of investigations and operations that may result in furthering the law enforcement goals and mission, e.g., payment of overtime for officers and investigators; payments to informants; “buy,” “flash,” or reward money; and the purchase of evidence.

On the same page we read “Except as noted in this Guide, equitably shared funds shall be used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes only.” Gun buy-backs enforce no laws nor do they involve payments to informants, rewards, or the purchase of evidence.

The Guide goes on to list other permissible, pre-approved uses for equitably shared funds. Gun buy-backs aren’t on the list.

The bottom line here is that Bensalem is, in this layman’s opinion, improperly using these funds. I would also bring up the question of whether state funded gun buy-backs are being illegally financed. A quick search at the legal website FindLaw found no rulings by the courts on this issue. Hopefully, the attorneys employed by gun rights groups will follow up on the research presented here and can end the practice.