Someone emailed me over the weekend with a link to Bob Norman’s website, which lists his Fort Worth gun show dates for this year.  I hadn’t listed his shows on my page before, since I didn’t know he had a website. 

I’ve added those shows to my Gun Show page.  I also updated the page to reflect the latest changes made by the various promoters (i.e. Classic Shows moved or cancelled several shows later in the year and High Caliber Shows has updated their schedule page to include their shows for the rest of the year).  Finally, I added an announcement list so that people who are interested can subscribe to receive an email when I make changes to the page.

As of April 19, 2004 Texas has established concealed carry reciprocity with North Carolina.

This brings the number of states that recognize a Texas CHL to 17.  I’ve heard talk that a couple more may be in the works (possibly including Colorado).

It wouldn’t be an NRA meeting without some protesters.  As I suspected, this turned into a confluence of anti-war, anti-Bush, and anti-American causes.

This one offended me greatly by implying that our military is too stupid to have really volunteered for service.

But the moonbat-of-the-day award has to go to this offensive idiot:

The hatred and frustration of the anti-everything folks is breathtaking.  I think part of their accusations of hatred on the part of the NRA is projection of their own hate and fear.

Of course, given the fact that approximately 60,000 people showed up for the NRA meeting, the number of protesters was kind of pathetic.  One NRA member commented to me that if he couldn’t organize a better protest than that he’d have stayed home.  Here’s a picture of their march as it arrived at the protest venue.

I felt kind of sorry for this kid.  He obviously was dragged into this.  Perhaps we have a future NRA member in the making, when he starts investigating alternative viewpoints to those of his parents.

This display had me puzzled for a while, since it was only visible from inside the protest area.  NRA members would not have been able to see it, since they were using the sidewalk on the other side of it.  Later, I noticed that when you view it from the protest area it is directly under the NRA sign.  I’m not sure if that was intentionally done for contrast or they were just afraid to provoke the NRA that much (although given some of the other signs I saw, this is probably not the case).

I also couldn’t help but notice that the ACLU sent “volunteer observers.”  I was kind of curious as to what they were planning to observe, but questioning one of the nearby observers as to their purpose was unhelpful.  He wouldn’t answer me as to what they were expecting.  But I wouldn’t doubt that they were expecting trouble from NRA members, given their warped view of us.  For the most part any response from NRA members was limited to a few conversations and the occasional yell of a returned slogan.  One of the “observers” made a snarky comment after we photographed them to the effect that we should have asked permission.  Bitter overheard them and had to restrain herself from going over and quoting the appropriate Supreme Court case (which decided that you don’t have to have permission to photograph someone in a public place).  Personally, I think if someone is that touchy about being photographed, then maybe she shouldn’t be associating with moonbats.  Despite their status as “observers,” I couldn’t help but get the vibe that the ACLU was more sympathetic to the protesters than to the NRA.

The members meeting itself was more of an opportunity for the NRA leadership to try to rally the troops than anything else.  There were a couple of resolutions that we voted on, but nothing of earth-shattering importance.  I think in the future that I will be unlikely to travel long distances for meetings, although I’ll likely go to the one next year, since it will be in Houston, which is fairly close (at least in terms of distances in Texas). 

On the other hand, it was good to meet Bitter in person.  I didn’t personally observe a great amount of bitchiness, but then I suppose I was on her good side.    But now I’ve got a face and a voice to put with her posts.

It was brought up in one of the speeches that the upcoming election takes on special significance in that up to four Supreme Court members could be appointed in the next Presidential term.  Further, it is becoming inevitable that the Supreme Court will rule soon on a Second Amendment case (I’ve gotten the impression over the years that the NRA leadership has always been afraid of a 2nd Amendment case getting to the USSC and has been less than helpful with those who have tried to take their cases that far; I think now the leadership knows that it either has to get on the train or be run over by it).  While I have a lot of problems with George W. Bush, I can only imagine the havoc a John Kerry-appointed surpreme court would wreak on the 2nd Amendment (not to mention on a host of other issues).

One of the traditions at these meetings is to recognize the oldest and youngest NRA life members in attendance.  The oldest was a gentleman from Wisconsin who was 98.

He was not only still sharp mentally (he gave a pretty good speech) but he had walked the entire show floor and seen all the exhibits under his own power.

At 8:00pm on Saturday there was a members’ banquet.  Unfortunately, due to security measures taken for Vice President Cheney’s visit, everything was late.  We didn’t get served until approximately 9:30pm.  For entertainment they had a comic (I can’t recall his name right now, although he was OK) and Lee Greenwood.

I think by far the biggest attraction of the NRA Annual Meeting was the exhibit hall.  It was advertised as “Four Acres of Guns & Gear.”  All of the major manufacturers as well as a host of other companies were there.

Here’s a view on the west half of the hall, taken before the exhibits opened on Saturday morning.

Ruger had one of the largest and best exhibits.

I’m not sure what EAA was thinking, but if they were trying to win the award for using drainage pipe in a gun show display, then they would have surely won it.

After the meeting concluded, the exhibits were open.  It was estimated that approximately 60,000 people attended (although I suspect the majority of that number were people who went for the exhibits, since I know the main meeting didn’t have near that many people).

When I saw this little beauty, I couldn’t help but think of Kim du Toit, given his expressed interested in rifles with full stocks.  Of course, he might have to sell a kidney or something to afford this one:

Here’s a link with more info on the Blaser K95 Stutzen.

The banner over the entrance to the convention center advertises “4 Acres of Guns and Gear.”  I’m not going to question the veracity of that statement (FYI—here’s a link to a PDF of the floor layout). 

I wandered around the exhibit hall for a few hours but quickly got to the point where my eyes had glazed over and I couldn’t take in anything else.  I took a couple of pictures to try to get a sense of the size of the hall.  To correlate the pictures with the floor plan, I was standing just inside the door in the middle of the hall.  The first picture is facing left and the second photo is facing right.

As an aside, my hotel room has free wireless internet access, so if there’s time at the end of the day I can get online.

The 1911 market has just gotten a little more crowded with the entry of SIGARMS and their GSR 1911.

The lines of the slide near the muzzle retain the feel of their other pistols despite it being a 1911 clone.  The addition of the picatinny rail is also a handy feature.  MSRP is $1077.

As I mentioned earlier I’m considering going to the NRA’s Annual Meeting in Pittsburg, PA.  Of particular interest are the different laws governing carry of a firearm (specifically a handgun) along the way.  According to Mapquest, the most direct route will take me through Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio before reaching Pennsylvania.

• Arkansas has reciprocity with Texas, which is good.  But they have a couple of interesting restrictions:
  • A restaurant has to seat at least 50 people and derive 40% or less of its revenue from alcoholic beverage sales
  • You can’t carry in “the passenger terminal of any airport”, which might be interpreted to read you can’t carry even in the unsecured area.  Texas law is more clear on this point, banning carry in the secured area of the airport (although it’s possible that Arkansas law addresses the definition of the “passenger terminal” in a section I haven’t seen).
  • You can’t carry at a demonstration or parade (if a permit is required for the parade/demonstration).
  • Any licensee entering a private home shall notify the occupants that he is carrying a concealed handgun.
• Tennessee recognizes Texas CHLs but bans carry “on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes.”  Bummer.  Texas has a preemption statute that bars cities from prohibiting carry on city property, including parks.
• Kentucky recognizes Texas CHLs and allows for carry without a permit in the glove compartment and even prohibits groups from denying the right to carry in the glove compartment.  “No person or organization, public or private, shall prohibit a person from keeping a firearm or ammunition, or both, or other deadly weapon in a glove compartment of a vehicle in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. Any attempt by a person or organization, public or private, to violate the provisions of this subsection may be the subject of an action for appropriate relief or for damages in a Circuit Court or District Court of competent jurisdiction.”  That would come in handy around here, where some private entities (*cough* Grapevine Mills *cough*) want to ban guns even in the parking lot.
• Ohio is a mess.  I’ll deal with it below.
• Pennsylvania doesn’t recognize Texas CHLs, but it has a fairly painless process to get a PA CCW license if you already have one from another state.  You fill out a form and send a copy of your drivers license, current carry license, and a check (which varies based on which county you apply through; $20.00 in Centre County).  PA is a shall-issue state so as long as your background is OK, they’ll issue a license within 45 days.  I particularly liked question 38 on the form: Are you an habitual drunkard?  Definitely not PC.

The situation in Ohio is pretty much hopeless, though, given my research.  While the law was just signed, it may take up to five months before the applications are even available.  Further, the state’s AG has to negotiate reciprocity with other states that have similar requirements.  So while Texas may be eligible for reciprocity with Ohio, it’ll probably be a long time before it’s done.  In the meantime, it appears that any firearms have to be unloaded and in a locked case or carried in the trunk (it appears it can also be carried in plain sight if unloaded, but that might invite too much attention).

But given what I’ve been reading of the law, the CCW law they just got has a huge stinking problem.  Specifically, you can’t carry on or about your person in a “motor vehicle”, even if you have a permit, unless the handgun is “in plain sight on the person’s person or it is securely encased by being stored in a closed, locked glove compartment or in a case that is in plain sight and that is locked.”  Why does this provision sound like it was added by some GFW police chief somewhere?  What’s the damn point of having a concealed handgun if you have to expose it everytime you get into a car (or worse, lock it up)?

Common sense could have told us about this result.

The O’Leary Report /Zogby International poll of Red States (those that voted for George W. Bush in 2000) and Blues (sic) States (those that supported Al Gore) reveals a nation deeply divided by party, ideology, the presidency of George W. Bush, and values.

For example, the answer to whether the 2000 election was “stolen” by George W. Bush depends on where you live.

When respondents were asked whether Bush was legitimately elected president, or whether the 2000 election was stolen, 62% of Red State voters said that Bush is the legitimate president, while 32% said the election was stolen away from the popular vote winner, Al Gore. In the Blue States, half (50%) of the respondents said that the election was legitimate while 44% think it was stolen.

Then there’s party identification.  Of interest is the large number of people in both “Americas” (Zogby’s phrasing) who identify as independent.  Both major parties should note this as an indicator of dissatisfaction with the choice between Socialism (Democrat Party) and Socialism-lite (Republican Party) amongst people like me.

Ideologically, the two Americas are quite distinct. Those who label themselves “progressive” constitute just 5 percent of voters in the Red States, but 11 percent of voters in the Blue States. Meanwhile, conservatives account for 39% of respondents in the Red States and just 29% of those in the Blue States.

Ideological differences are buttressed by considerable discrepancies in party identification. In the Red States, 38% call themselves Democrats while 39% are Republican. In the Blue States, Democrats dominate with 40% of the respondents while Republican identifiers total 31%. The number of independents is higher in the Blue States (29%) than in the Red States (22%).

On the gun issue, it’s easy to want to restrict something that you know nothing about.

There are significant differences in gun ownership. A majority (51%) of those living in the Red States say they own a gun, while 64% in the Blues States do not.

Again on the subject of guns, I came across a reference on Zogby’s site to this article by David Keene in The Hill, which cites the results of the above poll.

Gun issue could cost Democrats the White House again

Liberal Democrats in Congress are getting ready to force their party’s presidential nominee down the same road that led to the defeat of Al Gore and his running mate four years ago.

In the days following the 2000 election, a number of Democrats realized that their fixation on guns and gun owners had cost their candidates millions of votes that year. Even before leaving office, President Bill Clinton warned that the “gun issue” and the efforts of the National Rifle Association (NRA) had cost Gore five states that he might otherwise have won and, thus, the election. Labor leaders began urging the party to “get the gun issue off the table” after watching droves of their own members desert Democrats they were afraid would restrict their right to own firearms.

…

The irony is that as Democrats prepared for the 2000 elections, many of them believed in their bones that if they could get their candidates to focus on the gun issue and “go after” the NRA, they would win millions of new votes. In those days it was an article of liberal and Democratic faith that most Americans loathe guns and live in fear precisely because guns are legal in this country. It followed that their opposition to what they liked to describe as the “gun culture” would be applauded by an appreciative public and would help their candidates win.

Their inability to realize before the votes were counted that they were dead wrong stems from the fact that Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, really do live in different worlds. Recent evidence of this comes in the form of data from a poll conducted by John Zogby for Southern Methodist University’s Tower Center and the O’Leary Report. The poll was unique in that Zogby broke down the results by looking at contrasting attitudes in the states that voted for George W. Bush and for Gore four years ago. The data showed on issue after issue that those who live in the so-called “red states” won by President Bush harbor far different beliefs and attitudes than those who live in the “blue states” carried by Gore.

Surprisingly, however, the data showed that while more people in the blue states favor new and tougher gun laws than those in the red states, most voters in both groups of states are far more supportive of the right to own firearms than the Democrats suspected. Indeed, only the sorts of urban and campus-based liberals who dominate the leadership of the Democratic Party were found to be as hostile to gun ownership as Gore and his running mate had been in 2000.

While the candidates are trying like crazy to distance themselves from the gun control platform that seems core to the Democrat Party, we’re still seeing the party being driven by the shrill, pointy-headed “urban and campus-based” set.  This is part of the reason that I almost never believe a Democrat who says he supports the right to own guns.  If the candidate says that he believes in hunting or makes a point to be seen shooting skeet or hunting ducks, then I give him extra demerits on my internal freedom scale.  As someone once said, “The Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting.”  Of course, GW isn’t winning any points with his silly statements about supporting renewal of the “Assault Weapons” ban. 

It’s almost enough to make me stay home on election day, given the dearth of available candidates that seems likely.  And I’ve heard the arguments about how if I stay home the Democrats will win.  Well, if they do at least we have a pretty good idea where they stand on the issue.  A declared enemy is better than a “friend” who is an enemy in disguise.

During the holidays I took my sister and her kids to the Ft. Worth Zoo.  I was dismayed to find a sign with 30.06 wording (although it wasn’t compliant with the statute) posted at the entrance.  I have come to expect this sort of thing from this kind of institution, given the type of people who run them.  However, recent changes in Texas law make it illegal for a city to post a 30.06 sign on city-owned property.  Given that the sign was only visible once you’d given your ticket and entered the zoo, it caused me a brief moment of consternation until I remembered that the zoo is owned by the city of Ft. Worth (or so I thought; more on this below).

This has been bugging me, so I called the zoo this morning to discuss the matter.  I started with someone in security and got transferred four times until I spoke to someone who had the answers.  The biggest confusion came from a simple question: “Does the city of Ft. Worth own the zoo?”  The short answer is that while the city owns the land and the buildings, the zoo association leases it from the city and (according to their lawyer’s legal opinion) has the authority to post a 30.06 sign.  This seems like an annoying loophole in the new law, but I suppose as a private entity holding claim to the land that the association is within its rights. 

Given that they appear to have the right to post against concealed carry, I pointed out to this gentleman that it would serve everyone’s interest if they’d post the sign at the ticket booth so we’d have a chance to avoid violating their wishes.  As it was, the sign was only visible after you’d entered the zoo, putting you in violation.  Further, the sign did not comply with the statute, which requires a specific message in both English and Spanish in 1-inch high letters.  According to him, there was such a sign, but I never saw one.  These signs are hard to miss, because they have to be huge to accomodate the required wording (which was done on purpose; sort of a scarlet letter approach to identify GFWs at a distance).

Interestingly enough, the person I spoke to told me that he also carried.  I told him that I tended to avoid giving my money to organizations that don’t want me there.  I felt sorry for him as he tried to justify the ban on CHLs from the zoo with something lame about all the schoolkids who come through (i.e. he tried to say it’s not that they don’t want me there, just that they don’t want the guns).  Unfortunately, any argument against concealed carry that uses this approach just boils down to that they don’t trust your judgement.  Whatever.  Barring a legal challenge to their opinion (which I am leaning towards agreement with), I won’t be going back.