Demanding Moms Channel CSGV In Comments About Lobby Day

When Ladd Everitt was the communications director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic), it was a favorite tactic to characterize Second Amendment supporters as “gun extremists”. CSGV’s Executive Director Josh Horwitz took it a step further by calling those who opposed the Obama Administration‘s efforts “insurrectionists“. I was one of those called a “gun extremist” when I challenged the sainted Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) over some of her comments.

In a news release about the VCDL’s Lobby Day next Monday, Moms Demand Action channels CSGV and calls it a “gun extremist rally”.

On January 20th, gun extremists – including out-of-state militia groups – will descend on the Virginia General Assembly, hoping to intimidate lawmakers into rejecting the democratic will of the people who, by wide margins, want (and voted for champions of) common-sense gun safety laws.

The Democrats won control due to court-ordered redistricting. The plan was devised by California-based special master Bernard Grofman of U. California – Irvine and intended to be most favorable to Democrats. It was approved in a 2-1 decision with Obama-appointed Judges Barbara Keenan and Arenda Allen in the majority. Republicans who opposed the new districts called it “legal indefensible” because it was so slanted towards the Democrats.

They portray Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions as “lawless county resolutions”.

Lawless County resolutions, or as gun extremists call them, ‘Second Amendment Sanctuary’ resolutions, which threaten that officials will  disregard their duty to enforce duly enacted and constitutional laws, have no legal force. The resolutions also threaten the safety of communities nationwide by fostering distrust in law enforcement and may deter people from reporting individuals that may hurt themselves or others.

Since when did promoting respect for God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights become a threat to the safety of communities? That is the kind of argument one would have expected from racial segregationists who opposed school integration in the face of Brown v. Board of Education.

Overflow crowd at the Amelia County hearing

The news release continues and throws in “militia”, “white supremacist”, “Charlottesville”, and “Civil War” for good measure. I’m surprised they didn’t include “Boogaloo” as well. Remembering that Everytown and Moms Demand have the best PR flacks that money can buy, it is obvious that they want to scare both African-Americans and suburban “soccer moms” with this rhetoric. This is the sort of thing that Matt Bracken warned about in his comments on Lobby Day characterizing it as a Charlottesville-style setup.

They end this screed with a few words about their ultimate boogeyman – the NRA.

The NRA has yet to make any public statement disavowing the January 20th event or the various militia groups planning on attending. However, the NRA’s people and rhetoric are intertwined with the January 20th rally. The NRA put out a formal statement supporting the Lawless County resolutions, and former NRA TV personalities like Cam Edwards and Antonia Okafor are listed as speakers at the rally. The NRA has taken out billboards throughout Virginia ominously and baselessly warning of coming “confiscation” of firearms.

While the NRA hasn’t “disavowed” the VCDL’s Lobby Day, they haven’t supported it either. Instead, they came up with their own rally being held today. As to “baselessly warning” about confiscation, a magazine ban without grandfathering certainly meets the standard for confiscation.

We know the Demanding Moms don’t respect the Second Amendment. It is increasingly clear that they don’t support the First Amendment rights of their opponents. The First Amendment ends ” the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That is exactly what the many thousands of Virginians and their supporters from other states will be doing on January 20th.

The Anti’s Are Getting Worried About A Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court agreed to hear NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. The City of New York in January. The case involves an absurd New York City regulation that forbids those with handgun permits from taking their legally owned handguns outside the city limits of New York. These permits only allow a person to keep the handgun in their residence or to practice at one of only seven firing ranges within the city limits. They cannot take their handguns to vacation homes, to ranges outside the city limits, or to competitions outside the city regardless of how it is stored.

Yesterday, Ladd Everitt, Director of One Pulse for America and formerly the communications director for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic), had an op-ed in the New York Daily News urging the city to repeal its handgun transport ordinance. This is the same Ladd Everitt who delighted in portraying those of us in the gun culture as “insurrectionists” and leading demonstrations outside NRA headquarters that attracted about a dozen protesters.

From his op-ed:

A ruling in NYSRPA vs. NYC could overturn not only the city’s gun transport reg, but also “may-issue” laws governing concealed carry of firearms in public in New York and seven other states. Carry licenses are more difficult to obtain than premises licenses in NYC. Law enforcement officials have discretion to deny carry licenses to applicants with a history of violence. The NRA spent $1 million to get Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court because they believe he will provide the decisive fifth vote to eliminate such discretion by declaring a new, individual right to carry guns in public.


New York City leaders don’t have to fall into the trap the NRA is baiting for them. It is within the authority of NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill to revise or repeal the regulation at the center of NYSRPA vs. NYC. If he took this step (conceivably with the blessing of Mayor de Blasio) and cleared the way for premises licensees to transport secured firearms to locations outside the city, the plaintiffs’ stated grievance would be remedied. The Supreme Court might decide to drop the case before ruling on it.

Ladd may be an asshole but he isn’t dumb. He realizes the danger to the gun control lobby if the Supreme Court rules against New York City which they probably would in all likelihood. In addition to his concerns about may-issue concealed carry permits, the Supreme Court could finally clarify the standard to be used by lower courts in deciding Second Amendment cases. If they said it must be strict scrutiny and they backed this up by taking cases where courts applied intermediate scrutiny, it would open the door to a large round of 2A litigation.

Mayor Adrian Fenty of the District of Columbia was sure of the rightness of DC’s ban on handguns. He decided that DC would appeal their loss in the Court of Appeals in the Heller case to the Supreme Court. We know that turned into DC v. Heller and a recognition that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

Ladd concludes by saying:

It’s true that allowing New York City residents to transport guns outside the city would entail certain public safety risks, even if the practice was regulated. But with the gun violence epidemic increasing in the United States, our communities simply cannot withstand newfound constitutional protections for violent “good guys with a gun.” Now is the time for the NYPD to step up and protect all Americans by repealing NYC’s gun transport ordinance.

I love Ladd’s hyperbole even when he is way off base. The problem isn’t with honest citizens who own a firearm, perhaps have a carry permit, and who engage in armed self-defense. The problem is with violent criminal actors (to use Dr. William Aprill’s phrase). They view gun laws as something to be ignored just like they ignore the laws dealing with theft, assault, and homicide.

When you see a Michael Bloomberg, a Shannon Watts, or one of the Brady co-presidents calling for New York City to ditch this law and moot the NYSRPA case, then you will know the gun control lobby is really running scared. Coming as this op-ed does from the periphery of the gun control lobby, it is a sign that some are awakening. I just hope the rest continue along with their smug, elitist attitudes thinking that they can’t lose.

That’s Why It’s Called Capitalism, Ladd

The Huffington Post had a post about HR 3799 – the Hearing Protection Act of 2015 – being introduced by Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ). As with most PuffHo articles, it starts well and then goes over the edge. They waited until the 12th paragraph to link suppressors with CIA death squads.

In the past, the NRA had been hesitant to get into bed with manufacturers of silencers, largely due to image problems that have long plagued the devices. In 2013, Mother Jones reported on the history of modern silencers, going back to their creation in the late 1960s by a onetime CIA dark-ops contractor, as well as their early use by CIA death squads in Vietnam. The ASA was formed in 2011, suggesting that the silencer industry has lately taken more of an interest in public relations and political influence.

Supporters of stronger gun regulations regularly point to the potential hazards of making it easier for civilians to get hold of accessories that — as manufacturers readily admit — allow shooters to disguise their location by minimizing the noise and light produced by firing a gun. There’s little evidence to suggest that silencers are used regularly in criminal activity, but there have been a number of cases in which gunmen, or would-be gunmen, were found to have used the devices or at least been in possession of them.

Hiram Percy Maxim, son of Hiram S. Maxim, was awarded a patent for his Maxim Silencer in 1909. That is significantly earlier than the “late 1960s”. Moreover,  High Standard produced an integrally suppressed pistol for the OSS as early as WWII. I guess it is only a “death squad” to PuffHo if you are fighting communists and not Fascists.

More to the point of this post are the comments by Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic).

Ladd Everett, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, says manufacturers are simply making a financial calculation in the current push to make it cheaper and easier for people to get silencers, despite the potential for misuse.

“The NRA and gun industry view accessories like silencers as potential profit areas, with guns themselves so well-saturated throughout their existing customer base. That’s why we’ve seen this multi-state effort to weaken laws in this area, the obvious consequences for safety be damned,” Everett told The Huffington Post. “It’s about profit, nothing else.”

Ladd, dude, profit is what capitalism is all about. Your bio says you worked for US Saudi Arabian Business Council so you of all people should understand that.

And what are these obvious consequences for safety that you speak of? As one of the many Americans with hearing loss issues due to damage from shooting unsuppressed firearms without hearing protection, I would think that making it easier to end noise pollution and protect hearing at the same time would be a win-win for safety. I guess since I live out in the hinterlands I’m just a bit clueless what is obvious to you inside the Beltway sorts.

Ladd Everitt: Noted Ordnance Expert

Modern day journalists have this obsession that borders on compulsion to balance any comment that could be be remotely considered “pro-gun” with one from a gun prohibitionist.

Thus, it isn’t surprising that David Trinko of the Lima (Ohio) News reached out to Ladd Everitt in an article entitled “Few mechanical differences found between AR-15s, hunting rifles.” The article noted that there were few differences between an AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14 given that both use the same .223 Remington cartridge, both are semi-automatic, and both have detachable magazines.

As most readers of this blog would agree, the major difference between the AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14 is in the action. The former uses a direct gas impingement system while the latter uses a gas operated piston. The rest of the differences are just cosmetic. Not so says Everitt.

Those additional features are really at the heart of the debate about gun violence in America, says Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in Washington.

“They’ll tell you these features are pieces of plastic and are merely scary-looking. They’re just cosmetic,” Everitt said. “That’s just nonsense.”

The article goes on to note that Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 would ban firearms with more than one of the following features: folding or telescopic stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or grenade launcher. The article mistakenly says S. 150 hasn’t gotten out of committee yet. It has and is supported by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) because “those additional features on AR-15s” concern them.

“The world’s not affected by scary looks. It’s specific features and
what they do,” Everitt said. “Pistol grips, the specific purpose is to
keep level and steady during repeated fire. A flash suppressor is to
disguise sniper fire at night. A barrel shroud keeps your hand safe
while firing round after round so it doesn’t heat up and burn your
hand.”

While Everitt is correct that the barrel shroud does provide a heat shield, the rest of his statement is full of nonsense. Pistol grips in a variety of shapes and sizes have been on bolt action rifles for many a year. Look at this page of McMillan stocks – every one has a pistol grip and each one is intended for a bolt action rifle. The main purpose of a flash suppressor is to keep the shooter from being blinded at night by the flash – not to disguise “sniper fire”.

Finally, Everitt gets around to discussing semi-auto versus full auto and magazine size.

The speed someone can repeatedly fire a semi-automatic rifle makes it just as dangerous as a fully automatic weapon, Everitt said.

“It’s a nonsense argument that you can’t hold down the trigger so it’s safe,” he said. “You can fire as quickly when you repeatedly press the trigger. It’s highly insulting to those who are victims of gun violence.”

Instead, much of the debate centers on how many rounds should be allowed in a magazine for a semi-automatic weapon. The 1994 law only allowed 10 rounds per magazine. Feinstein’s proposal also used the number 10.

“No one in the world needs more than 10 rounds at a time unless you’re hunting humans,” Everitt said.

Let’s be clear about one thing. All firearms used improperly are dangerous. It doesn’t matter if you have a single shot Cricket or an AR-15 with a standard capacity magazine as either could be used to kill or injure. That said, if I am protecting my loved ones from a pack of home invaders, I’d prefer to have the AR-15 with multiple standard capacity magazines. More and more, home invasions involve multiple invaders. Furthermore, tests of the 5.56 round show less over-penetration than with most pistol calibers.

There are experts and then there are propagandists who like to portray themselves as experts. The first are useful and the second are useless. Ladd Everitt is in the second category.

Those Damned Insurrectionists

Historian Walter Borneman has an article in today’s Wall Street Journal on the War of 1812. Borneman is the author of “1812: The War That Forged a Nation”. He is also the author of “The Admirals: Nimitz, Halsey, Leahy, and King” which I am in the process of reading.

Borneman’s article discusses Congress’ declaration of war on Great Britain and the political fallout from it. Generally, it split along party lines with the Federalists being opposed to war and the Jeffersonian Republicans in favor of it.

While the war issue in 1812 was not rigidly defined along party lines, Federalists generally opposed the war while Jeffersonian Republicans (forerunners of Andrew Jackson’s Democrats) favored it. Two years later, the most antiwar of the Federalists went so far as to convene at Hartford, Conn., and debate constitutional amendments designed to weaken the central government. Some insist that they debated outright secession.

What amuses me about this is that Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) considers himself one of the world’s leading experts on James Madison and his political writings and thoughts. He is also of the firm belief that the Federalists never meant for the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to bear arms.

I wonder what Ladd would have to say about his collective right Federalists being, in his words, “insurrectionists”. That, by the way, is the epithet that he and his boss Josh Horwitz throw at those of us who hold that the Second Amendment is both an individual right to keep and bear arms as well as a bulwark against a tyrannical government.

Consult An Expert!

Sometimes you come across stuff that just makes you laugh because it so outrageous. Here is a case in point.

Jack Dunning is the Phoenix Political Buzz Examiner for Examiner.com. He wanted to know about state requirements for training for gun owners. Being in Phoenix, you might have thought he’d go to Alan Korwin who has published a number of books on gun laws in both the United States and individual states. Indeed, Alan’s website is even called gunlaws.com which should have made it simple.

No, he decided to consult a “real expert”:

This gun show loophole/background checks issue is one area that needs fixing. But another is required education and training before you can own a gun. Arizona has nothing, zip. Most states don’t. I decided to ask an expert so I contacted Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and asked the following question: “Can you tell me the average gun training/education a gun owner is required to have?”

Calling Ladd Everitt an expert on gun laws is such an oxymoron that it borders on incomprehensible.

Mr. Dunning is a bit to the left of Mao and Lenin and is extremely anti-gun rights. His non-Examiner blog, Nasty Jack, makes that pretty clear. If you have been banned by Daily Kos and you’re not a conservative, that says something!

Bar The Troublemakers!

The Chronicle of Philanthropy just ran a short article entitled “How to Face Down Troublemakers” which dealt with public criticism of non-profits on Facebook or other forums. While most of the respondents said airing criticism was good for the organization, there was one person who didn’t think it was worth his time to allow it.

While the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence once allowed debate on its blogs and Facebook page, it became a burden to keep up with comments that crossed the line, says Ladd Everitt, director of communications. He decided to spend his time doing something more effective and barred negative comments. “It doesn’t help our mission, and it doesn’t help the people who support us,” he says.

Why am I not surprised that Ladd Everitt only believes in free speech for himself and not for others?  As for crossing the line, given how he himself distorts the truth on a daily basis I find his comments hilarious – and not in a good way.

UPDATE: Sean Sorrentino left a very well written and well reasoned comment at The Chronicle of Philanthropy website on their story and Ladd Everitt’s comments. Unfortunately, The Chronicle of Philanthropy is evidently from the same school of thought as Ladd Everitt and Sean’s comments disappeared.

In response (and with Sean’s permission), here is the e-mail he sent them.

Dear Chronicle of Philanthropy,

I left a reasoned, polite, and pointed response on your story of how to deal with “Troublemakers,” where I pointed out that Ladd Everitt was a prize troll himself, and taking advice on how to deal with negative feedback in social media from Ladd was more than a little odd. Did you decide that I was a “troublemaker?” Is pointing out the fact that Ladd is so bad about his online behavior that he got the CSGV Twitter account suspended “causing trouble?”

I respectfully request that you restore my comment.
Sean D Sorrentino

Hissy Fit Warning

A certain director of communications for a certain group of gun prohibitionists is about to have a hissy fit. He just doesn’t know it yet.

According to a summary of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

Thanks to a friend of Thirdpower at Days of our Trailers, we have a powerful parody of a poster put out by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Go here to view it.  I must admit I had a little hand in this project but credit must go to Thirdpower and his graphics artist friend for taking some ideas and creating a masterpiece.

Those guys rock!

Quote Of The Day

Kurt Hofmann writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. As such, he has been targeted by Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Kurt’s response is wonderful.

If, as I fervently believe, there is as much nobility in being despised by the despicable as there is in being admired by the admirable, CSGV has honored me indeed.

Let’s face it, if Kurt wasn’t effective he would not have been targeted. I congratulate Kurt on this honor. Unfortunately, it doesn’t come with a certificate suitable for framing but the Complementary Spouse could whip something up if Kurt really wants one.

How Lame Can You Get

The ATF’s proposal to expand reporting of multiple firearm sales to include semi-automatic rifles in calibers greater than .22, while limited to the Southwest border states, is and was a major gun control measure. As such, you would expect gun control groups to submit long proposals in support of the measure. The Brady Campaign even announced their submission with a press release.

Ladd Everitt is the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. He has held this position for five years so it can be assumed that he understands how the game is played.  When ATF is proposing a new gun control regulation, it can be presumed that all gun control groups will submit comments supporting it.

So much for assumptions and presumptions. The picture below is a screen shot from the ATF’s “Comments Regarding Information Collection, Reports of Multiple Sales of Certain Rifles, Published December 17, 2010”. It represents the comments submitted by Mr. Everitt.

That’s right, Mr. Everitt just put his name and address into the form letter generator sponsored by Mayor Bloomberg and his Illegal Mayors. He didn’t bother to even write a comment for CSGV even though so-called assault weapons are one of the items they oppose. How lame is that?

You will notice that I have blacked out Mr. Everitt’s address and email. Unlike Mr. Everitt, I don’t get off on publishing personal data of those with whom I disagree.

I have wondered how a Director of Communications for an organization in D.C. has the time to engage in flame wars on Twitter, character assassination on Facebook, and other childish games involving those opposed to his gun prohibitionist ideals. Now I know.