If I had a list of engineering “accomplishments” that were projects that failed to achieve their goals I wouldn’t be in the engineering profession for very long. But somehow the Brady Campaign doesn’t see it that way (or at least publically doesn’t want to admit it) when it comes to the failures of Paul Helmke. Their list of “accomplishments” strike me as failures or irrelevancies:

• responding to the decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald in a way that makes legislation implementing common sense restrictions on guns more likely in the future; [FAIL! It’s now three years post Heller and no significant gun control legislation has passed Heller or McDonald addressed.]
• helping pass the NICS Improvement Act in 2007, which law has already helped spur the addition of another million records to the Brady background check system; [IRRELEVANT! The NRA supported this legislation.]
• engaging a new generation of victim advocates, such as Virginia Tech survivor Colin Goddard, in the fight for sensible gun laws; [IRRELEVANT! How many are of the “new generation” are voting anti-gun?]
• supporting the filming, release and distribution of two new documentaries on the gun issue — Living for 32 and Gunfight; [IRRELEVANT! How many people have watched it and changed their position? The numbers are statistically insignificant.]
• pursuing an aggressive media strategy, including national television and radio, as well as local, newspapers, magazines, and web outlets; [FAIL!  My pathetic YouTube videos get more traffic than the Brady Campaign videos do.]
• the Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence initiative; [FAIL! I have never heard of it. If I haven’t heard of it then almost for certain the number of people who have heard of it and acted upon it is vanishingly small.]
• beginning relationships with professional athletes such as Plaxico Burress; [FAIL! I can’t see this as an accomplishment for either party in the relationship. It’s a suspect and very odd relationship that will go nowhere.]
• advancing Brady’s “assault clips” campaign and targeted district strategy; [FAIL! This campaign has achieved zero legislatively and even if it were to get passed by some legislature it probably will not pass the “in common use” test of the Heller decision.]
• enlisting 100+ sponsors for bills to close the gun show loophole and ban assault clips; [FAIL! This legislation didn’t even come up for a vote let alone get lip service from the President.]
• implementing successful defensive efforts in the states to stop “guns on campus” as well as helping pass strong pro-active legislation in places like California; [FAIL! We made several steps forward and zero backward.The right to self-defense on campus was passed in several states. It was not repealed in any.]
• leading the Starbucks “open carry” campaign; [FAIL! Starbucks told them to mind their own business.]
• steering the organization through the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression; [FAIL! Income is down by how much? It’s so much that Helmke barely has enough to pay his salary and keep the lights on in his office.]
• supporting the writing and promotion of a new book on the gun issue, Lethal Logic by Dennis Henigan; [FAIL! The book is full of half-truths from the front cover on and everyone knows it. And in the book Henigan admits it is difficult to determine whether the presence of guns leads to high crime rates.]
• getting more attention from the White House, Administration, as well as many leaders on the Hill than in the past decade; [FAIL! And what has the attention gain the Brady Campaign in terms of getting their legislative agenda passed? Zip.]
• budgeting for new investment in donors that resulted in thousands of new donors and supporters. [FAIL! Where’s the money?]

As reported by AntiTango, LInoge, and Sebastian Joan Peterson has outlined what facts she will and will not allow in the comments to her blog. She would do well to remember what Gandhi had to say on the topic.

In a letter to the editor in The Columbus Dispatch Greg Ward whines:

Thursday’s Dispatch carried the news that state lawmakers have passed legislation allowing concealed-carry permit holders to carry guns in bars, restaurants and some stadiums, as well as making it easier for weapons to be carried in a vehicle.

As if that weren’t, in itself, troubling news to the police, restaurant owners and employees and other people with common sense, there appears to be far worse news on the horizon: A Republican legislator has introduced a bill that would eliminate the need for gun permits “and allow anyone who ‘qualifies for a permit’ — but doesn’t have one — to carry a concealed weapon.”

The wording begs the question: How will our law-enforcement officials know if a person “qualifies” to carry a gun unless that person has had to submit his qualifications to be judged?

It’s really very, very simple. But apparently Ward has the mindset of “Unless specifically allowed it is forbidden.” I thought this mindset went out the door with the collapse of the USSR but apparently there are still people stuck in the past.

The individual does not have to get permission from a LEO and being “judged” before being “allowed” to carry a concealed firearm. It is probably beyond the capacity of Ward to view things from the constitutionally mandated view of “innocent until proven guilty” and “that which is not prohibited is allowed” but I’ll explain it for him anyway.

Law enforcement cannot search people to see if they have a concealed weapon unless there is probable cause to search them or there are special circumstances that require a search for the safety of the officer. Hence the LEO will do the background check after having doing a legal search and finding a concealed weapon. At that time the individual will provide their identity and the LEO will do the background check.

There. That wasn’t so hard, was it? I’m betting Ward still won’t be able to grasp it. It’s an alien mindset for far too many people.