The View From North Central Idaho

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia, et al., petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller, No. 07-290, Page 64
[It's not the role of our legislators or the executive branch either. The only legal way for them to try is through a constitutional amendment and even that has some serious problems because the formation of the union was dependent upon those first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.--Joe]

Yesterday's shooting, like earlier ones, dramatizes the need for tougher federal legislation. We must find a way of stopping the interstate loophole that now exists. Otherwise, would-be killers will continue to take advantage of our federal system.

Bob Walker
Feb 24, 1997
Statement of Bob Walker, Presidnet (sic), Handgun Control, Inc. Re: Shooting at Empire State Building
[Interstate loophole, newspaper loophole, the Terror Gap (and here), and of course the ever popular gun show loophole. Why don't they just come out and say it? It is the federal system known as "The Second Amendment Loophole" that they have their panties all in a twist about.

After closing that they could start working on the First Amendment Loophole. Once they have that closed it should be a cinch to close the Thirteenth Amendment Loophole or at least enage in some "reasonable regulation" in that regard.--Joe]

Lies--there you have the religion of slaves and taskmasters. Truth is the god of the free man.

Maxim Gorky
Russian novelist, playwright.
The Lower Depths (1902)
[From Wikipedia (link above), "The theme of harsh truth versus the comforting lie pervades the play from start to finish, as most of the characters choose to deceive themselves from the bleak reality of their condition."

A passing thought of Half-Truth Henigan and company reminded me of this quote.--Joe]

The design of the abolitionists is this,-- to remove and destroy the institution of slavery. To accomplish this well, two things are needed, ideas and actions. Of the ideas first, and then a word of the actions. What is the idea of the abolitionists? Only this: that all men are created free, endowed with unalienable rights; and in respect of those rights, that all men are equal. This is the idea of Christianity, of human nature. Of course, then, no man has a right to take away another's rights; of course no man may use me for his good, and not my own good also; of course there can be no ownership of man by man; of course no slavery in any form. Such is the idea, and some of the most obvious doctrines that follow from it.

Now, the abolitionists aim to put this idea into the minds of the people, knowing that if it be there, actions will follow fast enough.

...

No "respectable" paper is opposed to slavery; no Whig paper, no Democratic paper. You would as soon expect a Catholic newspaper to oppose the Pope and his church, for the slave power is the pope of America, though not exactly a pious pope.

Theodore Parker
1810-1860
The Slave Power
[It seems to me that in addition to the parallels gun rights activists can draw from the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the gay rights movement of the late 1970s we might be able to get inspiration from the abolitionists of the 1800s as well.

Exceptions might be made for the emulation of John Brown.

It would appear abolitionists had similar problems with the mainstream media and Democrats as we do now.--Joe]

I actually did the outline for this post in January of 2009 but it wasn't until I read something Sebastian posted that I decided to procrastinate on something other than this post.

There are some reasons why gun owners are angry. Let me enumerate a few of them (I actually removed about a third of the items from my outline in the interests of time and space):

Goldilocks guns

I've blogged about this before. The anti-gun people want to outlaw guns that are "small and easily hidden". They want to outlaw guns that are large and powerful. They want to outlaw guns that are "deadly accurate". They want to outlaw guns that can be used for "spray shooting from the hip".

You would think that perhaps a gun that fires an intermediate cartridge and is of medium weight and is not easily hidden would be acceptable to them. Nope. Such a gun was called an "assault rifle" by the Germans during WWII. The anti-gun people, utilizing their talent for twisting words and preying on the ability of the public to be easily confused, banned "assault weapons".

This is why we sometimes talk about Goldilocks Gun Control (more here). It's like the story Goldilocks and the Three Bears with a twist. There are guns the anti-gun people think are too big and too small, but there aren't any guns that are "just right".

What if the government treated religions like that? Are some sects of Catholicism or Judaism too orthodox? Or maybe the Baptists are too fundamentalist. Are their religions too modern or "new age"?

These are specific enumerated rights and our public servants have not been given constitutional power to take guns or religion, in common use, away from the people.

Attempting to take away something that has been guaranteed by the U.S. Government has a tendency to make the victim angry. If they don't want us to be angry they should stop doing things like this.

The SKS is accurate, the "gun show loophole", and other lies

I've blogged about this before. In the article I quoted in that link every statement of fact was wrong yet the press published it as if it were completely true. The anti-gun people tell lie after lie after lie, after lie, after lie. Even when they tell the truth it is only half-truths (see also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). One might reasonable think they are merely ignorant but if that were true you would not find that in each and every case the half-truth benefits their case. And still the press believes them!

Constantly lying about the law, firearms, and gun owners has a tendency to make gun owners angry. If they don't want us to be angry they should stop lying.

1000 round arsenals

To anti-gun people and the press even a hundred rounds of ammunition found in the trunk of a car or in someone's home is cause for concern. If the police decide to search someone's car or home the finding of a few hundred rounds of ammunition it nearly takes the breath away from the talking heads in the media. If it was within a few blocks of a school they make sure the implication is that each one of those rounds could, and should, be translated into the intent of the gun owner was to kill at least that many children.

This fascination with the number of rounds of ammo reached the point that in 1994 the U.S. Congress was contemplating requiring an Arsenal License for people that had more than 1000 or more rounds of ammunition.

I've got news for these clueless bigots. When I shoot in a pistol match I carry about 80 rounds in magazines on my belt. When I go to the local pistol match the minimum number, assuming zero misses, of rounds needed is 150. Typically I would take at least 300 for each gun that I was going to shoot. If I am going to the range for practice it is about 400 rounds per handgun and 100 for a rifle. If I were to go to a regional match I would take at least 1000 per gun. If I were to attend a weekend class the minimum round count is typically about 1500.

The anti-gun proponents might claim that I am somewhat out of the ordinary in my ammunition consumption. They might point out someone that has been hunting every year for a decade and has always brought home their deer and is still working on their first box of twenty rounds. If someone needs 100 rounds to go hunting they shouldn't be hunting they might say.

It's not about hunting. It's about being the best you can be at shooting fast and accurately. And I'm not particularly special in my ammo needs. When the other gun bloggers and I went to Blackwater Todd Jarrett told us he had 250 or 300 thousand rounds of loaded ammo and another 650,000 rounds of components. Nearly a 1,000,000 rounds in the hands of one consumer is unusual. But 1000 rounds is not.

1000 rounds and they want to require a special license? I can put 1000 rounds of .22 LR in my coat pockets. Do I need to license my coat?

If they don't want us to be angry they should stop the talk of requiring expensive and hassle intensive requirements for common everyday activities.

Licenses, regulation, and restrictions

What if the government demanded that all homosexuals be registered with the state? How about all Muslims, Catholics, or Jews? Or how about mixed race couples?

Here's how it might work: If you wanted to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex the state required you to obtain a SSIC (Same Sex Identification Card), get eight hours of training, and pay $50 every three years to renew your license.

Do you think that might make a few people angry? Do you think people might claim that was unconstitutional? If you answered yes to both those questions then congratulations! You have an I.Q. above room temperature!

That is what gun owners have to put up in many states in order exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

It gets worse. Continuing the same analogy you wouldn't be allowed to have a relationship with someone that was too fat or too skinny. And if they were of above average "capacity" they would be banned from having a relationship with anyone but a government employee.

And of course just because you have the license doesn't mean you could actually have any contact with your loved one outside of your home. Assuming the local government where you lived "allowed" you to have the relationship you would have worry about the ever changing laws in the next city and the neighboring states. Your SSIC is valid only in a few states and even then it could change at any time. And it is your responsibility to make sure all your paperwork (if it is even possible to get the proper paperwork) is in order.

And to top it off many simple, victimless activities that of no consequence in one jurisdiction are a felony in another.

Then assuming you have successfully navigated all the government restrictions you still have to worry about which businesses are willing to do take your money when you just want to have a bite to eat or a cup of coffee. And all the people that want people of your kind all killed has to weigh on your mind as well.

If they don't want us to be angry they should give the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms the same respect they give the specific enumerated right to freedom of association.

Registration of guns

I don't think I have ever seen a fictional cop show on television where firearms were not registered. They just assume that is the way it is and that is the way it should be. Fortunately that is not the case except for a handful of states. But the media creates an expectation that it is perfectly normal for all guns to be registered and the owners licensed.

Of what benefit is it for guns to be registered? I've blogged about this many, times before. It is exceedingly costly and contrary to what you see on T.V. and at the movies it has near zero impact on solving crimes. So why do the anti-gun people still insist on gun registration? It turns out it is good for something--Confiscation.

If they don't want us to be angry they should stop trying to register firearms when we all know the only "benefit" of firearm registration is the eventual confiscation of those firearms.

One Gun A month

Who needs to buy more than one Bible a month? Why do Bible owners get all upset about the minor inconvenience of restricting people to just one Bible a month? It would cut down on trafficking of Bibles from states with lax Bible laws to those with strict Bible laws.

Never mind that the only way to make sure someone only buys one Bible a month is if all Bible transactions are recorded and each Bible is registered.

If they don't want us to be angry they should treat firearms ownership like Bible ownership. It's an essential part of exercising a specific enumerated right and the government has no constitutional authority or business in restricting sales any more than they do for the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, or the Communist Manifesto.

Safety isn't the issue

If there were a very clear correlation between highly restrictive gun laws and lower violent crime, suicide, and/or accidental injury or death by gunshot then we could have a meaningful discussion about the merits of firearm regulation. But despite over a 100 years of gun regulation in this country there still isn't any conclusive data any of the gun laws have improved public safety in any of the instances where they have been implemented.

If they don't want us to be angry they should be able to demonstrate a benefit or tell us the real reason for infringing on this specific enumerated right.

Self-defensive--the most basic of human rights

There is no right more universal than the right of self-defense. Every creature for all time has claimed the right of self-defense. It is the most basic and most important of all rights.

Despite the right of self-defense being so universal the anti-gun people want to remove the most effective tools of self-defense from the people that need them the most. Removing the tools of self-defense from the general population completely changes the relationship between government and the individual. It is like the farmer that dehorns his cattle. He does that to prevent them for hurting each other in fights. But then he takes responsibility for their defense from predators. He provides their health care, their food, and manages their reproduction. He also neuters nearly all the males and slaughters them as he sees fit. That is not a functional model for a free society.

If they don't want us to be angry they must stop treating us like cattle.

Prevention

Who could possibly have a problem with an organization with a name like The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Right?

They don't want to take your guns away, they just want to prevent gun violence.

What if their name were "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Slander" and they demanded free expression and speech be restricted to your own home, registration of anyone that wanted to exercise free speech--in their own homes, and you must submit to frequent police inspections of your home?

Oh, but they say, free speech does have restrictions on it. You can't legally falsely shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. True. But you aren't prevented from doing so by having a state approved gag installed prior to entry of the theater. If you cause injury through the irresponsible exercise of your freedom you are punished for the irresponsible actions. The same should be true for firearms.

 If they don't want us to be angry they should stop trying to prevent us from exercising our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Harping on the harm and blind to the benefits

The anti-gun people completely ignore or dismiss the benefits of firearm ownership. They constantly remind us of the harm but that only tells part of the story. It's another half-truth they tell to further their cause.

Comparing to other causes of death: There is one child killed with a gun for every one million+ guns in this country and there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential swimming pools. Similar comparison can be made for car ownership.

Pro-gun people recognize that firearms are sometimes used for evil purposes and that accidents happen as well as the many benefits. The anti-gun people only see solutions while we see trade-offs.

If they don't want us to be angry they need to acknowledge gun ownership brings benefits to society not just hazards.

Penis jokes

Many anti-gun people claim that men who own firearms have small penises and are trying to compensate with a firearm. The examples are almost endless. One could make a strong case that many anti-gun people appear to be developmentally retarded at about age of nine or 10 where children make jokes and insults about bathroom activities, bodily wastes, and penises. There are numerous examples here, here, here, here, and here.

What if women who wanted the right to vote or for equal opportunities in the workplace were laughed at and told they were just experiencing some penis envy? Do you think that would result in some anger?

If they don't want us to get angry they should grow up and discuss the topic seriously.

Conclusion

If other specific enumerated rights were treated like firearms ownership there would likely be riots in the streets. But gun owners haven't rioted. They haven't called for the murders of those that insulted them. Yet similar infringement on rights has or would likely cause a major social disruption. And despite remarkably good behavior under some extremely adverse circumstances the instances of gun owners striking out in anger at these abuses is extremely rare. And what do we get for this good behavior despite substantial reasons for being angry? They use that anger as further justification to infringe upon our rights.

I think of those people who claim our anger as reason for more infringement the say way as I would a child who murders his parents and then asks the judge for leniency in sentencing because he is an orphan. After their conviction under 18 USC 241 or 242 I think their sentences should be doubled because they brought the problem on themselves.

“Honesty” is not a word that comes to mind when one thinks of Michael Bloomberg, nor when one thinks of Frank Lautenberg. “Hypocrisy,” on the other hand, is a perfect fit. Lautenberg once spoke disapprovingly of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of people on the basis of mere allegations during the “McCarthyism” period of the 1950s and “an utterly ruthless enemy . . . who has absolutely no sense of propriety or decency while it wages war against innocent people.” But that was in 2003. If Lautenberg’s reverence for civil liberties were more than pretense, he would never have introduced S. 1317.

Chris Cox
NRA-ILA Executive Director
January 23, 2010
Gun Owners Under Watchful Eyes
[The summary of S. 1317 is "A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists."

The Bloomberg gang, Brady Campaign (and others) call it a "Terror Gap" that people suspected of supporting terrorism be denied the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms without due process. The due process of being able to confront their accusers and defend against the accusations in public court is an extremely important protection. You don't want to live in a society where you can be denied your right to practice your religion, a jury trial, or the right to not incriminate yourself because your neighbor anonymously calls in a tip. It could be that the neighbor is just pissed you are in a mixed race marriage, you are gay, or you didn't mow your lawn last week.

In a sense Bloomberg and The Brady Campaign are correct in their naming of this. Our government is less able to terrorize it's citizens without the secret lists so in that sense the government has a "terror gap" compared to some other countries. I must conclude Bloomberg and The Brady Campaign wish to enhance the terror capabilities of the U.S. government to get it on par with other well known governments with secret lists such as the former USSR, East Germany, and Nazi Germany.

Before anyone is denied their freedom they must given a chance to defend themselves in court or else we don't have freedom.--Joe]

The Hippocratic Oath for doctors is (falsely) reputed to say "Do no harm" and I wish lawyers would take and follow such an oath. Robert Warden didn't help and possibly hurt gun rights with his Federal Lawsuit against former Seattle Mayor Nickels about his ban on guns in city parks. It just got slapped down (dismissed with prejudice). See also the Seattle Times article.

I'm not lawyer but I'm concerned about the precedence this might have created. Yes, after the McDonald ruling most of the basis for the ruling will change but my concern is that portions of that ruling may linger and impede us for a long time.

H/T to Brian K., and Say Uncle for the pointers.

Update: Lawyer AlphaMike says, "Don't worry about it in this case."

Really falling in love with it.

Eric Shelton
March 12, 2010
Magazines
Referring to The View From North Central Idaho
[I've noticed several link to my blog from Handgun Podcast over the last few weeks and finally got around to listening. That he says he is falling in love with my blog is just fine with me. And don't forget that I admire myself for my modesty.

I haven't finished even one episode but anyone that feeds my feelings of self importance is going to get my attention long enough to listen for a couple episodes. I've downloaded all the episodes and put them on my Windows Phone 7 Series and am listening to it as I type this.--Joe]

[J]urisdictions will be forced to allow some form of handgun carry, either open or concealed. Outright bans on concealed carry cited in cases from the mid-1800’s come from a time when it was assumed that only brigands carried handguns concealed, and it was an unquestioned right of the people to carry arms openly wherever they went. States and localities will not be able to delete the right to bear arms from the right to keep and bear arms.

David Rittgers
March 10, 2010
Gun Control After McDonald
[Logically, I think this is inevitable. But logically we would not have had to deal with NFA '34, or GCA '68 or 20,000 other insults and infringements either.

I still think this is a likely outcome but it is far from certain and it will take a minimum of two years if not five or ten to implement in all 50 states.--Joe]

I submit to you a request; that we remove the phrase “gun rights” from our vocabulary and replace it with the more human, and more accurate, “gun-owner rights.”

The First Amendment does not guarantee rights to printing presses as machines; it guarantees the rights of people to use printing presses, radios, televisions and the Internet without restriction.

The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to guns themselves, as they are mere machines. However, it does guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear them.

The psychology behind what may appear as a minor ‘grammatical nit’ should be clear.

It is relatively easy for most people to hate an object. You can make up lies about an object, demonize an object and attempt to regulate and control objects. You can do so without fear of insulting the object, hurting its feelings, being sued by the object or facing any repercussions, it’s just a defenseless, soulless object.

When we replace gun rights with gun-owner rights, however, the issue becomes personal. Where many people and politicians [as opposed to people] find it easy and guilt-free to demonize guns as objects, it is far more difficult to for them to demonize a large segment of the population, gun-owners, as people.

Laws can not control inanimate objects, only what law-abiding persons do with those objects. Therefore, it's technically not gun control, or a war against guns, it's gun owner control, and a war against gun owners.

So let us end this futile battle for so-called, non-existent gun rights and gun control, and renew the charge in support of the very real and very important rights of the people who own defensive and recreational firearms.

The Eggman
March 10, 2010
Enough about "Gun Rights" already!
http://www.the-eggman.com/
[I agree with him but I think that horse has already left the barn. Just like people calling a "magazine" a "clip" and to a less extent "cartridges" "bullets". I still sometimes use the phrase "gun owner rights" but in my old age I'm getting weary of fighting battles I don't believe I can win.--Joe]

The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
March 8, 2010
Why gun-control activists are targeting Starbucks
[Typical half-truth stuff from the anti-gun crowd.

First off, Starbucks does not have a policy to "welcome guns in its restaurants". They have a policy of letting local, State, and Federal law be the determining factor as to whether customers may carry firearms in their restaurant. This is no different than a policy to not discriminate against mixed race couples who enter their restaurant unless the law prohibits mixed race couples from dining in public.

Second, 30,000 people are not killed annually by firearms in this country. The truth is that about 15,000 people kill themselves with firearms. In addition to that huge fraction of misrepresented deaths he is deliberately misleading his readers by including in those 30,000 people who were justifiably killed by police and private citizen defending themselves or other innocent life. Some of those people successfully defending themselves were in restaurants similar to Starbucks.

Third, Mr. Helmke makes a very large unsupported claim here by saying "Guns represent a public health threat..." Food poisoning from public restaurants has no upside. No one that I know of is advocating for more food poisoning. Carrying guns in public restaurants does have a potential if not actual upside and because of this there are people advocating for carrying guns in public in and outside of restaurants. It certainly isn't obvious to everyone, as it is with food poisoning, that guns are "a public health threat". Before making such a claim he should be able to show the studies that agree with him. While there are some studies that agree with him there are also numerous studies that disagree. And even the "Brady State Rankings" on gun restrictions by his own organization show no correlation to violent crime rates. I find it very telling that even when the rule-maker and scorekeeper get to make the rules and compute the score after the game is over they still don't end up with a winning result.

Three sentences, three half-truths. That is a score worth publicizing.--Joe]

It may be self incriminating to say that the next idiot I hear yammer about "common sense" gun control will get my ten-and-a-half up his backside. Minus the cartridge case, which I pulled out and left at the range. The kick in the pants is only a misdemeanor; the rimfire case in the boot is a felony.

Borepatch
Common Sense Gun Control
March 8, 2009
[H/T to Roberta X.

I am of the opinion that we should pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for there to be victimless crimes. Any politician or law enforcement officer who proposes or enforces such a law should be convicted of a felony, heavily fined, forbidden to ever receive any money derived from taxes, and loose their right to vote forever.

Several years ago I was traveling in California and looked up the laws in the local library (this was, essentially, pre-Internet). Among their "common sense" gun laws was a law against having a loaded gun in public. The definition of loaded was ammunition in contact with any part of the gun--regardless of whether it was the correct caliber for the gun. Hence you could have a .22 LR cartridge epoxied to the frame of your .45 caliber 1911 and it was considered "loaded" by the State of California.

One could make a case for the anti-gun people being incredibly stupid for things like this. But another argument could be made that they know exactly what they are doing. It makes firearm ownership so risky that people are discouraged from owning them. I call it Huffman's Rule of Firearms Law.--Joe]

I've been involved in gun rights activism for over 15 years now and I know that I don't know everything there is to know about the law, important court cases, and the history of gun control. It shouldn't be a big surprise to me that others get things wrong but it is.

It wasn't very long ago that I used to still hear people talk about the Brady Act which banned "assault weapons". This is wrong. The Brady Act created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and a five day waiting period. The waiting period provision disappeared in November of 1998 when the "instant" system went online. It was the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which banned certain common firearms because they (mostly) were a default color of black or looked ugly to some people (technically this isn't correct but it has a very high correlation to how it came about).

Many other people believe all guns are registered with the state and/or Federal government. This is a very common misconception in the mainstream media.

Many people believe machine guns and/or suppressors (call "silencers" by most uninformed people) are illegal. This is false. I've had people approach me, all concerned, at Boomershoot to tell me "someone over there has a machine gun". My response is some variant of, "And your point is?" They appear to be shocked that machine guns are legal and that ninjas won't be dropping from black helicopters any second. Similar things happen when people bring suppressors to the event. And that is with people attending a shooting event. You would think they would be relatively well informed.

Still, as inured as I am to the state of affairs the number and magnitude of errors in this editorial shocked me:

Chicago outlawed guns in 1982, but residents challenged the law, saying that it violated their constitutional rights. In 2008, the Supreme Court passed a 5-4 ruling on the issue; Chicago’s law was found to be in violation of the second amendment.

Of course it was the D.C. ban, not Chicago's, that was ruled unconstitutional in 2008.

According to a New York Times article, the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, limited the federal government’s power to regulate gun ownership.

Since the two rulings, Supreme Court judges have been debating whether these decisions should apply nationally, therefore overruling preexisting state and city laws.

There was only one case, Heller, not two that the Supreme Court has ruled on.

Would this ruling overturn all the safety restrictions about where people can carry guns and who can buy them?

Even the Brady Campaign does not believe this or fear monger a slippery slope to this sort of situation.

Guns are everywhere and it’s never the safe, smart people who respect and follow the laws that lose their minds and come barging into post offices or schools to shoot innocent people.

Uhh... duh! Guns are just as common as recreational drugs. Bans on products for which this is a market are never going to be very effective. And the second part of that sentence seems particularly pointless to me. What are they trying to say?

Why should we make it easier for them to carry guns in public? While the argument behind the supporting the second amendment is about preserving our rights, what about our right to safety?

The writer apparently has not done any research on the topic or would have been aware that safety is one of the biggest claims of the pro-gun people. And "right to safety"? While it is a fairly common misconception that there is some sort of "right" to safety to ask the question is just wrong on so many levels. It presumes two facts not in evidence: 1) There exists a "right to safety"; and 2) Gun restrictions enhance safety.

I have to give the writer credit for that last sentence. That was really a piece of work. Even the classic, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" only presumes one fact not in evidence.

Seriously? The guy with the bullet covered gun belt is clearly trying to compensate for being a complete loser in high school. And college (if he even went). And well, now.

Kimberly Johnson
March 4, 2010
Comment about a Brady Campaign Facebook picture.
[I would like to suggest Ms. Johnson do a little research on the topic before arriving at the conclusions she desired. Other people who have done so arrived at conclusions completely different from hers. If that is what she believes then Ms. Johnson is living in an alternate reality. Facts, it's what the world is made of. Check it out Ms. Johnson.

It even more interesting that if you hover your mouse over the pictures you will be able to read the names and labels the Brady folks have given to the gun owners in the picture:

• didn't get laid in high school
• his is small 2.
• suburbian afraid of the world
• compensating for a small weiner

Way to be classy Brady Campaign people.

I think Mike's comments from over 10 years ago in a different situation apply equally well here:

He uses the word “little” as a verbal bludgeon, as in his frequent repetition of the phrase “hypocritical little nitwit.”

The purpose of using the word that way is to belittle: literally, to make little. When someone is depicted as “little,” for a moment he might appear (to the flamer) to have become smaller and less threatening. When the flamer is hooked on such talk, it seems likely to me he has revealed that he’s afraid of something — and he has to make the thing that frightens him into a small, harmless, even ludicrous object. But it doesn’t work; he has to go on doing this kind of thing because he can’t stop being afraid. He’s doing it to you today; he’ll do it to another guy tomorrow. (Each time, he’ll think it is a victory for him; in fact it does nothing for him — he’s just a little slow to realize it <g>)

Back in the days when I was very anti-gun, I tended to think of “gun nuts” as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh? Etc., etc., etc. It was an image that came instantly to mind. I would talk about “gun nuts” that same way with friends of like mind. It all made such perfect sense to us.

But if ever I came across a “gun nut” in person I would be silent — especially if it was someone dressed in, say, hunting cammos. Or I might see “gun nuts” on TV and make a snide comment about them, but seeing them made me feel a bit afraid (something I didn’t reveal to other people). It wasn’t rational, but it wasn’t surprising considering how I’d been raised. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized what I’d been doing: trying to make the “gun nuts” almost into sub-humans in my mind, and paint them as ridiculous and stupid so that they shrank in stature and were less scary to me. (But as I said, this doesn’t work. No amount of sneering made me feel less afraid.)

I have no doubt that some small percentage of “gun people” (those few who are outright fascistically-minded) “deserve” every bit of fear I had for them — then and now. But for crying out loud . . . what a stupid, prejudicial way to think about an entire group of people, with no distinctions made. It took some years to realize what a big lie there was in imagining myself enlightened and non-bigoted — all the while that I’d been thinking like a garden-variety bigot. That was one of the fun things about the ’60s and ’70s: You could fantasize that you were on a higher plane of consciousness than “those” people — and be every bit as bigoted and vicious as you thought they were. You didn’t have to hold yourself accountable, nor wonder if you weren’t being two-faced about it. By definition, as a more “enlightened” person, you didn’t have any of those problems. Only other people had such problems. It was all so convenient . . .

H/T Sebastian.--Joe]

Nice! Free gun training at Front Sight Training Institute for Starbucks employees:

Front Sight Firearms Training Institute is ranked among the best places in the world to receive firearms training and self defense training.

In support of Starbucks for not buckling to the hand-wringing gun-grabbers with the Brady campaign, Washington ceasefire and the million mom march, the Founder of Front Sight, Dr. Ignatius Piazza, has decided to award the employees at Starbucks a $2,000, four day defensive handgun course!

What can the Brady Campaign offer in return?

Gun owners have all the carrots. The Brady Campaign only has a stick.

Slightly off topic is that I have a similar deal (see the link in the right column?) that I need to take cash in on sometime. Any Starbucks employees or blog readers/writers want to attend the same class at the same time?

Sebastian (mostly) and I have been defending civil behavior toward those that disagree with us.

In contrast see how Brady Campaign people treat others when they ask to be left alone. Paul Helmke says Sorry, Starbucks: You Are In This Debate. That is being a jerk and doesn't further your cause any. Just quietly avoid them and you will be viewed far better than picketing their stores.

There is a reason the Brady Campaign is doing this--they don't have many options.

We have enough purchasing power that we can make a major impact on our friends and opponents. The Brady Campaign cannot. They are on a downward spiral into oblivion and they need a win soon in order to have relevancy. They invested a lot into this battle with Starbucks. They were very, very public with it and to have Starbucks tell them "please just leave us alone" is a huge blow to their egos and their status. It affects their influence with legislatures and it affects their income.

The best thing we can at this point is to quietly, unobtrusively, politely buy Starbucks products. Let the Brady Campaign throw their tantrum. Nearly everyone is going to recognize them for what they are. They are jerks no different than those that would insist no blacks, Jews, or mixed race couples be served.

So showing civility to the other side is something I do believe is part of being a good citizen, but I also think it’s a smart strategy for moving the issue forward as well. If upon finding someone is anti-gun your response is never to speak to them again, you’re missing out on an opportunity to break down preconceptions and prejudices. How do you all deal with anti-gunners in your lives?

Sebastian
March 6, 2010
Lots of Anti-Gun Folks In This World
[Another way to think of this is that you respond to their actions and what they say rather than their presence.

Think of carrot and stick. If they say or do something obnoxious you punish them (verbally or perhaps in the courts or legislature). If they do something right you praise them. I just don't see the point in being in a constant state of anger and/or vindictiveness.

If you are constantly a jerk toward them they and others will find justification for treating you poorly in return.--Joe]

Allowing that public support could be partly defined by evidence of membership dues being paid to an organization that claims to promote beneficial public policies. It is telling to note Violence Policy Center’s tax returns as far back as the year 2000 have reported $0 in membership dues.The bulk of their money has ALWAYS come from the Joyce Foundation.

one-eyed fat man
March 1, 2010
VPC, aka Brady, aka HCI, and Joyce Foundation
[Yup. Very, very telling.

See also Bitter's grassroots post.--Joe]

Peter Hamm is here. It's cold out. Maybe I should be a nice guy and get the Brady folks some @starbucks.

Sebastian
March 2, 2010
A post on Twitter.
[That is very funny but just a little bit on the rude side given the current context of Starbucks. And to the best of my knowledge Sebastian did not follow through on this thought.

I know I'm very harsh with them on this blog but that would not extend to my personal interactions with them. My fight with them is over their advocation of anti-gun policies. Not with them personally. This is not to say I would invite them into my house (unless there were some sort of emergency that my failure to do so put them at risk of personal injury or extreme discomfort).--Joe]

There is a lot of statistical disagreement on whether the Miranda rule saves lives or not, whether it results in the release of dangerous people who have confessed to their crime but the confession can't be used. We don't -- we don't resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics, do we?

Well, why would this one be resolved on the basis of statistics? If there is a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States.

Justice Antonin Scalia
March 2, 2010
Regarding the incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Oral arguments in OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., : Petitioners : v. : No. 08-1521 CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
[As expected, he uses a better example than I did yesterday when refuting Half-Truth Henigan's claim that the Second Amendment is the most dangerous right.--Joe]

Brady Campaign Lawyer Dennis Henigan claims:

Of course, it is true that the exercise of free expression, for example, also can create a risk of violence or physical injury. If that risk becomes sufficiently great, the courts will deny the protection of the First Amendment altogether. But the core exercise of freedom of expression is unlikely to pose serious risks of physical harm, particularly lethal harm. The same cannot be said about the Second Amendment right.

...

It is unclear whether the high court will declare the Second Amendment right as "fundamental" as the other rights that have been applied to the states. But even if it does, it should confront the hard reality that this "fundamental" right is also the most dangerous right of all.

I agree that guns can be dangerous. But it is far from the most dangerous right. I would like Mr. Henigan to do the arithmetic on how many people have been murdered based on the following books:

• The Bible
• The Koran
• The Communist Manifesto
• Mein Kampf

And that is just off the top of my head with a couple seconds of thought. And when have U.S. courts denied protection of the First Amendment to these books? If "guns kill" then surely these books can be blamed for the deaths of approximately 100 million people just in the 20^th Century.

If books "responsible" for the deaths of many millions can be afforded protection under the First Amendment the Second Amendment can surely afford protection for firearms in common use.

As is usual Henigan only tells half the story. The half he tells is true. But he wants you to overlook the ugly truth of how dangerous ideas and the free expression of them is. And it is an outright lie that the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is the most dangerous. In fact, had the murder victims of the governments built upon those last two books been armed the body count of the 20th Century would most likely have been much lower.

The "hard reality" is that the right to keep and bear arms protects us from those that exercise their First Amendment rights.

This is a different Brady than who I usually post about.

These are the good guys:

Special Attention Taxpaying Residents of Los Angeles, California

The Fifty Caliber Institute is working closely with the law firm of Michel & Associates, PC in the Los Angeles area to locate possible candidates who have suffered under the restrictive laws of the City of Los Angeles relating to firearm ownership and the possession or transfer of ammunition. If you meet the criteria established here, please take the time to make a phone call to one of these attorneys to see if we can start turning some of these egregious laws around. J Sigler, President-FCI

Call to Action

NRA/CRPA Seek Plaintiffs to Challenge Los Angeles Bans on Sale of .50 Caliber Firearms and Ammunition

Discussions between NRA/CRPA attorneys Michel & Associates, P.C. and the City of Los Angeles, California, regarding repealing that city’s ban on the sale of .50 caliber (and larger) firearms and ammunition have reached an impasse. As a result, NRA/CRPA have no option left but to file suit to invalidate the ordinances.

"Ideal candidates" for the ".50+ Caliber Ban" would be homeowners/taxpayers in Los Angeles who legally own or possess a firearm (handgun or rifle) that uses (or can use) ammunition that is .50 caliber or larger; especially if you would like to have the option of selling, giving or transferring the firearm (or its ammunition) in any way.

An "ideal candidate" would also be a person who would like to purchase/receive such a firearm - especially good children who want to "inherit" such a firearm from a parent; or someone who is receiving one as a gift.

There is no charge or fee to any person who wishes to participate as a plaintiff.

If you or anyone you know fit the above description of an "ideal candidate", please contact Sean Brady, Esq. of Michel & Associates, P.C. as follows:

Sean A. Brady, Esq.
Michel & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Direct dial number: 562- 216-4445
sbrady@michelandassociates.com

If you fit the description of the "ideal candidate" - please contact Sean Brady today!

From Canada:

She says she doesn't want to think about the consequences if the gun registry disappears.

I see no evidence that she did any thinking up until now so I think the risk of her starting now is pretty low.

Sometimes the responses write themselves. The response to this is a case in point:

Guns are useless, especially handguns. But I'm not that ignorant: I know that gun control is a lot like health care--everyone knows it's a good idea, but we really don't want it to cost anyone their "freedom" (or worse, their money!).

Apparently he is that ignorant.

I would like to suggest he ask the next police officer why he or she is carrying a useless handgun and then read up on what "everyone knows".

My previous post was a link to the most clear presentation of McDonald v. Chicago that I have read. This one is the most unclear I have read. It appears they know all the words but don't know how to use them in a complete sentence.

The most clear and succinct presentation of McDonald v. Chicago that I have read.

County counsel will realize he's going to lose if we're forced to file. Let's imagine County Counsel is a moron or San Francisco. We file for a TRO and Permanent Injunction, cite Sykes and get on the calendar in Federal court in the next 3-7 days. The TRO will be granted and off the PI will often be granted as well. Both command the Sheriff to issue you your permit or US Marshalls will come and arrest the Sheriff and take him to a Federal jail on contempt (or in the alternative, fine him personally - Federal judges are not to be messed with.) At that point, the County pays for all legal fees expended by CGF (or you.) Once you have on point controlling case law, these things get done fast and on the County's dime.

County Counsel understands these things, hence they never go there. Today, there is no on point binding Federal Court precedent... Give us a few more months.

Gene Hoffman
February 28, 2010
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners.
[This assumes a win in McDonald v. Chicago (almost a sure thing) and in Sykes/Palmer (California case on hold pending McDonald v. Chicago resolution). Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald are tomorrow. We will get a pretty good hint of how that will go then. I don't have any tea leaves for Sykes/Palmer but I suspect David does and might share his reading of them with us.

It's a little early to start buying care packages of K-Y jelly for the bigoted sheriffs that denied you the CCW license in California who you envision spending quality time with their new boyfriend in a Federal prison. So send a few dollars to Calguns Foundation now to make that dream come true.--Joe]

Guns in bars. No background checks at gun shows. No permits to carry required. No restrictions on how many guns a person may buy (in some cases now it’s one per month).

What Americans don’t seem to understand is how crazy they look to most of the rest of the world. The reason they don’t understand is because of their one-thought tyranny.

Americans are tyrannized by 1776, The Second Amendment, The Bill of Rights, The Constitution and other colonial-era artifacts. They have been brainwashed into believing that those are the only thoughts there are. This is not freedom. Freedom means having a choice. If they could accept that there are other ways of thinking then they would have a choice! That’s what freedom is about and what many, if not most, Americans don’t understand.

Daniel Johnson
February 24, 2010
The Tyranny of the American Mind
[Tyrannized by The Bill of Rights? At first glance I thought it had to be satire. But no. I don't think it is. I think it more closely represents something from Nineteen Eighty-Four:

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

It appears "Reasoned Discourse" has broken out in the comments.

(graphic stolen from Robb Allen)

Numerous comments have been deleted. Ah, yes. Canadian "freedom" where they have official and unofficial censors.

Oh, and if you are interested in that sort of thing there is a picture of a tricked out SKS being held by a women in a bikini in Johnson's article.

H/T to jonjayray.--Joe]

This was a nice couple in their 50’s, fairly conservative, into classic cars, and in the market for a .38 for home protection. They were not loony-tune lefties by any means. They also mentioned a good friend who owns many guns and reloads. The conversation rolled along smoothly until the topic of “Uzi’s and machineguns” came up. As you can imagine, it wasn’t me talking about “Uzi’s and machineguns.”

I explained that there is little difference between an Uzi and any 9mm handgun or carbine and that legal machineguns are virtually never used in crime. That so called “assault weapons” are also rarely used In crime and that millions and millions of them are owned and used every day without hurting anyone. That the Second Amendment isn’t about duck or deer hunting, it is about being able to defend yourself, your family, your community, your state, and your country.

That is when the woman said something really chilling. She said that those crazy people who want all of those military weapons and think they have a right to that kind of capability just infuriate her and scare her to death and even though she doesn’t think people should have machineguns, those crazy people make her wish she had a machinegun to just shoot them all.

What on earth do you do with something like that?

Jeff Knox
February 18, 2010
A Lot of Work to Do
[We sometimes don't realize just how disconnected we are from the mindset of a lot of other people.

I'm probably not the best person to answer Jeff's question. I think they way I would handle it would be to ask if she felt the same way about blacks, Jews, or homosexuals.

Long term what we have to do is "come out of the closet". We have to get people to see us as normal or even better, as human with sheepdog tendencies. Take people to the range, get your shooting events mentioned in the mainstream media, and make it possible for people to think of you as little different than someone who goes to a different church than most of the people in the neighborhood.--Joe]

It's nice to see stuff like this:

An unnamed accused serial rapist demanded tougher gun control laws from his hospital bed in suburban Philadelphia earlier today, just hours after being admitted by police for a gun shot wound incurred while attempting to assault a local woman. Lawyers for the alleged rapist charged their client was “the real victim of this assault,” and warned that easy access to legal firearms was “[Making] committing a rape or other violent crime nearly impossible in many suburban areas.”

“She shot me in the privates,” bemoaned the wounded accused. “I was just trying to hold her down so I could have my way with her without her consent, and she just shoots me in the privates! How and I ever going to commit a rape again?”

In addition to a complete ban on private gun ownership, the accused lawyers demanded an investigation into hate crimes allegations against the shooter who, allegedly, uttered disparaging comments toward her attacker of a racially insensitive nature, and unfairly questioned his sexual orientation during the attempted assault. “Some guy’s trying to rape her, and she attacks his sexual orientation? What more proof do you need that she’s dangerous and insane,” asked the lawyer.

There is quite a bit more. The writer pokes fun at the police and anti-gun activists too.

I find this very odd. The subtitle is, "The Brady Campaign is doing all it can to ensure the safety of restaurant patrons." But the text of the article says things I could have written:

If Peet’s Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen can deny us service for expressing our Second Amendment rights, where does it end? Will they deny us service based on our nationality or sexual preference?

One could get snarky with this one and revive the joke about the anti-gun people thinking guns are living things that kill on their own. Apparently some people think guns have their own DNA:

As a countermeasure, Magnus has proposed a plan to trace every weapon recovered on the street using DNA technology available through state and federal agencies. The county's crime lab does not possess the technology needed for such testing, he said.

Or snark about science hasn't yet sequenced even one Fe based lifeform yet so it will be a great many more years before the crime lab possesses the technology.

But probably it was just a lazy and/or stupid reporter than didn't bother to get the story straight. The ones that could have figured it out were probably fired long ago for "holding on to the notion there is an objective reality".

Sometimes you just have to wonder about their brain functionality. Sure, they are Canadian, but this is really over the top:

While rates of spousal violence and spousal homicide against women have dropped by 15 per cent over the past decade, the report slams the government's determination to scrap the long gun registry, which it credits as "one of the most significant factors" in reducing violence against women.

Registration of long guns reduced the rate of violence against women? Do they actually believe someone that is going to seriously injury or kill their spouse is going to obey the law about registering their rifle?

Daughter Kim already has her Concealed Weapons License for Idaho. Yesterday she called me to verify how to get her State of Washington License to Carry Concealed Pistol.

She called back after applying and told me of their new electronic fingerprint scanner.

She should be legal to carry in Washington within 30 days.

In tough economic times you frequently see mergers of the less healthy organizations with the more healthy. There are other reasons for mergers but when times are tough it's a pretty good bet that one or both of the organizations is about to collapse.

It is with this observation as background I'm pleased see the misnamed Freedom State Alliance (one of the most anti-freedom organizations short of the Democratic party I know of) is merging with States United To Prevent Gun Violence.

In real terms what this means is that Scott Vogel is saving some money by not renewing the domain name for FSA.

Corruption, extortion, child molestation, assault on officers, embezzling from the poor. That's just the job description. After hours, it gets nasty.

Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors
From http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/ as of February 23, 2010.
[Via Dave Hardy. Say Uncle also has a post about them. Linoge does some math comparing them to concealed carry permit holders.--Joe]

In South Africa you must apply for a license to own a gun:

...one must pass a written “competency test.” The South African constitution recognizes 11 official languages, but the test is only given in two of them, Afrikaans and English. Imagine if your gun ownership rights depended on passing a written test in a language you could not read!

And people wonder why we resist such things in this country.

It gets worse:

Applicants are not issued licenses if they are deemed to be at risk of becoming violent. As enforced in South Africa, this could simply mean that a person was divorced, separated or fired within the past two years.

Processing of applications is very slow. For example, of the applications submitted in 2006, only about a quarter have been fully processed.

Licenses are valid for two, five or 10 years, depending on the legal category of the license, so keeping a gun can mean staying on a near-constant treadmill of paperwork, fees and uncertainty. The majority of the 2005 applicants, who are supposed to renew in 2010, are still waiting for a decision on their 2005 applications.

Women are particularly hard hit (pun intended):

Married women who want guns for protection are told that their husbands will protect them—as if South African woman should behave like Taliban wives, and never leave the home except with their husbands. People who live in high crime areas are told that the police will protect them—except that the police obviously don’t, as South Africa is one of the most crime-ridden countries in the world.

Of course such high restrictions has created a black market with the attendant crime and corruption. It's no different than the prohibitions in this country against recreational drugs and alcohol in the last century.

Once we have our rights well secured in this country we should start putting pressure on other countries to recognize the natural right to keep and bear arms.

If you do a search of blogs for "Brady Campaign" you get progun posts. Nice!

One of my posts is number one with Bing. Say Uncle has a post with the top honors via Google.

No wonder the Bradys think they are fighting the NRA when it's really reduced to fighting a bunch of guys in their pajamas. Actually, I don't have any pajamas. I'm wearing a robe at the moment.

Very few persons qualify for the permit issued by a police chief. The only ones who qualify are persons who carry valuables. We refuse all we can.

William B. Hershner
Lancaster Pennsylvania Police Chief
Feb. 23, 1960
Flashback Lancaster
[A woman that carries cash from her shop to the bank may qualify because of the cash. But the woman with a stalking ex-boyfriend doesn't qualify. I guess human life doesn't qualify as "valuable".

Sort of like 50 years ago when there were literacy tests for voting and blacks were ask to read a newspaper aloud then given newspapers written in Chinese. Things are different now. The literacy tests were abolished but the "May Issue" concealed carry laws with nearly impossible to meet requirements to exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms still exist and are abused by small minded law enforcement officers. We've made progress but there is still a lot more to be done. And we have people in D.C. working on securing the right to carry being recognized as inalienable (H/T to Jeff). We will get there. It is just taking us a little longer than it did for "people of color".--Joe]

Open Carry, which last year invited its members to holster up outside President Obama’s speaking sites, said it would not be deterred. Unfortunately, more than two dozen states also have allowed themselves to be bullied by the gun lobby into adopting similarly dangerous law.

New York Times
February 19, 2010
Who Can Relax This Way?
[The ignorance of these bigots is showing. Or else they consider the Founding Fathers of the nation and the individual states to be "the gun lobby" who bullied the states. Open carry has been legal in most states since before there was a United States. And there is good reason to believe the U.S. Supreme court will someday soon find that the right to carry a gun in public is a specific enumerated right protected by the Second Amendment.

Today is Starbucks Appreciation Day. Have a cup of joe with Joe.

If you are like me and don't like coffee have a cup of hot chocolate and a pastry or buy a gift card for someone else who does like their products.--Joe]

Opponents of gun control spend an inordinate amount of time and energy in pursuit of the "smoking gun" evidence that advocates of gun restrictions really want to ban all guns, or at least all handguns. With respect to handguns, some gun control organizations are quite open about their goal of ending the sale of handguns to the civilian market entirely.

For the gun control advocate seeking to overcome the slippery slope argument, these groups present a problem. They can be effectively cited as evidence that the ultimate goal of gun restrictions is to ban all guns. But the size and influence of these groups pales in comparison to the largest organization advocating stricter guns laws--the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and, before that, as the National Council to Control Handguns. The Brady Campaign does not support banning all guns, or even all handguns, and says so publicly every time it is asked and often when not asked. I know because I have worked in the Brady organization for most of my professional career. Our position on gun banning was explained to me on my first day on the job, and it has remained the same ever since.

Dennis A. Henigan
Lethal Logic, pages 79 and 80.
[We spend too much time search for the "smoking gun"? And they do not support banning handguns? And their position on gun banning has not changed since his first day on the job (in 1989)?

Okay. We can put an end to that right now. Either Henigan forgot about the brief he signed in support of the D.C. ban in D.C. v. Heller or he doesn't think the brief is public. And he forgot about this document still on the Brady website where it says on page 57:

The Brady Center is supporting the District of Columbia in defending its longstanding handgun ban...

Or as a final alternative, I suppose it's possible, Henigan is lying.--Joe]

The Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Richard B. Sanders
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
State of Washington v. Christopher William Sieyes
February 18, 2010
[This probably should be the quote of the year. But I'll I expect similar words will be used in the Chicago gun case.

Still nothing from the Brady Campaign. They must be off in a corner someplace sobbing, drinking Tequila or contemplating that bottle of whiskey and sleeping pills. I'll give them another slap by adding another chapter to my review of Lethal Logic tomorrow.--Joe]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women.

Original version here.

I view this sort of like the Berlin Wall coming down. A friend that visited Berlin a few months after it came down said that 24 x 7 if you were within a 1/4 mile of the wall you could here the "dink, dink, dink" of hammers pounding away at the wall. As you approached you saw hundreds of people of people either with hammers or waiting to pick up one after the person ahead of him or her finished. Everyone was getting a piece of the wall.

In this case Dave Hardy put it as follows:

Defendant was charged with possession of a handgun by a minor. The court, in an extremely thoughtful ruling (citing Joyce Malcolm, Eugene Volokh, William van Alstyne and others) rules that the 14th Amendment due process clause incorporates the right to arms and makes it binding on the States, then remands for a determination as to whether the law passes muster (which was barely briefed). The dissent argues there is no need for remand, because strict scrutiny applies and the law fails that test. The dissent has interesting references to teenager possessing arms, and serving in the military, throughout American history.

The D.C. laws against firearms ownership were struck down and with that crack in the wall more and more of the wall is falling. When McDonald v. Chicago is decided the ground is going to start shaking as that wall of 20,000 oppressive gun laws collapses into a pile of rubble.

I got an email from Dave Hardy:

I just got my ballot issue of the Amer. Rifleman. I’d greatly appreciate if you could mention the candidacy of Carol Bambery, of Michigan, and her webpage at http://www.carolbamberynra.com/. I know you like to quote from her brief in Heller (she filed another in Chicago). There is much to be said for a director who carries twice the committee assignments of the average director, hunts whenever she can, and loves to shoot NFA weapons!

I knew that I had quoted her a few times. I didn't realize how many until I went looking (10 times).

This, at its simplest, is political hate speech towards the community to which Detective Tuason is duty-bound to protect. It is an abhorrent and vile insight into the mindset of one East Palo Alto's own detectives regarding on-duty activities. It is chilling to contemplate what could happen if Detective Tuason encountered citizens exercising their fundamental civil rights to openly carry in a lawful manner within the City of East Palo Alto, as one Redwood City man did on January 28th. Like the allegations of comrption that left the East Palo Alto Police Department with a tarnished reputation just a few months ago, this vivid and graphic imagery of police misconduct will be hard to dispel.

Jason Davis
The Law Offices of DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
February 12, 2010
Letter to Ronald L. Davis Chief of Police City of East Palo Alto on behalf of The Calguns Foundation, Inc. This was in response to a detective saying "Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night! Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them made a furtive movement...2 weeks off!!"
[Ahhhh ... yes. Reminds me of the kind of stuff we used to hear about happening to blacks in the deep south 50 to 100 years ago.

Gun owners are the ni**ers of the 21^st Century.

H/T to Rob for the email pointer. I had seen the original quote but not the response of CGF.--Joe]

[I]t's always interesting to see provably secure cryptosystems broken.

Bruce Schneier
December 30, 2009
Quantum Cryptography Cracked
[Security can be a very, very difficult problem. It is like a chain in that it is no stronger than the weakest link. This is the reason TSA is A Security Theater. The same can be said about gun control--only several orders of magnitude greater in strength.

Quantum Cryptography is "provably secure" given a set of assumptions. Those assumptions include both known explicit assumptions and implicit assumptions which the prover may or may not be fully aware of. By making those assumptions invalid the proof falls apart.

No one seriously attempts to formally prove gun control provides benefits to society. The well informed anti-gun people frequently don't even make claims. They just point out all the adverse effects of gun ownership then announce their conclusions that there should be more gun control. This is not science. This is more like a witch doctor chanting around the fire and making pronouncements about the evil spirits.

If someone were attempt make a formal proof about benefits of gun control they would quickly find out that the anti-gun people make many assumptions which are provably false. Typically among these are that guns are "designed to kill" or "all gunshot deaths are illegal/evil/bad", or a prohibition on guns will work better with firearms than it did with alcohol and recreational drugs. With such assumptions so blatantly false the claims of there being benefits to gun control are laughable.--Joe]

As I forwarded from Mike yesterday we need to have a Starbucks Appreciation day. In some back channel communication with other gun bloggers and friends in the gun rights community (Ashley V. suggested some wording for me to use) no one had any objection to Mike's suggestion. Therefore I would like to announce that one week from today on Sunday February 21 gun owners should have a Starbucks Appreciation Day.

I would like to suggest we do this without an overt display of firearms. Our message of Starbucks Appreciation will be overshadowed by the known presence of firearms if we make having a firearm on our person the point of the message. Let's keep it simple and let the barista and manager know why we're making a purchase that day.

You can get the message across just as well by saying something like:

Please know I'm here because firearm owners across the country want to show Starbucks our appreciation for your decision not to ostracize customers who own and carry guns.

I'm going to be consuming Starbucks products on a regular basis now and would like for other gun rights supporters to do the same. But next Sunday we should make a point of telling them why and explicitly telling them thank you.

Update: One supporter (Lorena) says, "Have a cup of joe with Joe!"

That’s sheer insanity.

If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.

M. Kristen Rand
Legislative director for the Violence Policy Center.
January 30, 2010
Seeing Loose Gun Laws as Still Too Tight (NY Times and the AP)
Ms. Rand is referring to a proposed law to remove the requirement for a license in order to carry a concealed weapon.
[Ms. Rand also said almost the same thing in regards to relaxing Washington D.C.'s oppressive gun laws. Complete with the "lunacy" and "writing a death sentence" phrasing. Of course she ignores places like Vermont and Alaska which have low crime rates and no requirement to obtain a license to carry. And, of course, D.C. didn't have an increase in the blood running down the street after the gun ban was overturned. But apparently in Ms. Rand's mind that really doesn't matter so she repeats her previously faulty prediction with just as much conviction as the previous time.

With such blatant disregard for the facts I have to conclude the only insanity involved is that of Ms. Rand. One could disregard the raving of such a lunatic if it were only her talking to parking meters on the street or other inmates in an asylum. But the New York Times and the AP apparently think there is value in sharing some of her delusions.--Joe]

See Notes on Lethal Logic for links to all my posts on Dennis Henigan's book Lethal Logic.

Chapter 2 of Lethal Logic is titled: "When Guns Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Guns."

In response to this "bumper-sticker" Henigan, page 38, claims this:

... seems unresponsive to most proposals for strengthening our guns laws that have dominated the gun debate for at least the last two decades. Instead, the argument often functions as a classic "red herring".

The basis for this claim is there is virtually no support in public polls or the legislatures of the states or the Federal government for a ban on handguns. But notice, pages 37 and 38, how he words this in terms of handguns. Then he goes on to day (page 38), "This is not to say that the proposal to ban handguns, or even all guns, is not worthy of public debate."

What about "assault weapons" Mr. Henigan? Or ".50 caliber sniper rifles?" Or "Saturday Night Specials"? Or the support for banning the future sale of guns which don't met their criteria for safety? Or depriving people of their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms without due process (they call it the "Terror Gap")? And don't forget their support the the "safe handgun lists" of California and Massachusetts. And furthermore he doesn't mention the Brady Campaign supported the D.C. ban on handguns. With all the bans which he and his organization do support it can hardly be considered a "red herring". How many guns types would have to be remaining before it would stop being a "red herring"?

It stops being a red herring the instant he proposes the banning of just one gun. And we are way past that threshold. Yet he words things very carefully to try and make it sound as if his claim is still valid. He says the following in discussing the Heller decision (page 40):

If a handgun ban is "off the table," this may make it more difficult for the pro-gun advocate to change the subject when the issue is reasonable gun laws, like background checks at gun shows, that fall far short of a handgun ban. How can the gun lobby argue as if the issue is whether to allow guns for self-defense, if the issue now cannot be whether to allow guns for self-defense? If the argument is, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," now a new response is possible: "Not only are we not talking about outlawing guns, but guns cannot be outlawed. So let's talk about ways of strengthening our laws to keep guns out of the wrong hands, while abiding by the new Constitutional right created in Heller."

When all the anti-gun organizations give up bans of all types of guns, and making law abiding people jump through oppressive registration, licensing, and training requirements then we can talk about dropping the "When Guns Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Guns" slogan.

And what is this about "the new Constitutional right created in Heller"? We have quotes, papers, and even state constitutions that go back to the founding of this republic all saying it was the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It was just in the last few decades that some people started claiming it was a "collective right". We have been telling them all this time it was an individual right. Now that all nine justices on the Supreme Court agreed with us they act as if it's a surprise to them.

Even ignoring outright bans Henigan acknowledges the slogan has wider application (page 41):

The core of the argument is that because gun control laws, by their very nature, are obeyed only by the law abiding, they cannot possibly be effective in curbing violent behavior by criminals. "Criminals will always break the law and obtain firearms illegally," says NRA President Sandra Froman.

...

The success of gun control laws in curbing access to guns by dangerous people is not at all dependent on the willingness of hardened criminals to obey them.

...

Were it not for gun control laws barring gun possession by certain categories of high-risk people, the police would not have this enforcement tool at their disposal.

What it boils down to is that Henigan is a proponent of creating numerous victim-less crimes that can be used by the police to arrest and prosecute people. Usefulness to the police is not a criteria that should be entertained when we are speaking of a specific enumerated right. Do we want to create categories of "high-risk people" that should be denied access to religious materials? Or certain categories of "high-risk people" who do not enjoy a right to trial by jury, or the right not to incriminate themselves? Wouldn't those too be useful law enforcement tools?

I don't have the time to go through all the half-truths and mistaken conclusions and proposed violations of an inalienable right in this chapter but here is a slightly expanded version of my notes on the chapter

Page 45. Figure 2.1 baseline is not 0.

Time to crime is greater than zero.

By using a baseline very close to the average value changes that small effects appear to be amplified. The effect he exaggerates is the drop in crime rates after passage of the Brady Act. The same Brady Act that the CDC says insufficient evidence exists to credit it with a drop in crime. Furthermore the "time to crime" for a gun is greater than zero but his graph shows a drop nearly exactly coincident with the Brady Act. And even that is misleading because the crime rate actually started dropping in 1992 before the Brady Act was passed. If there was a correlation between the crime rate and the Brady Act any causation must be that the crime rate caused the Brady Act rather than the other way around.

Page 46. Iron Pipeline.
Strong gun law states will probably have their laws thrown out. Strong law argument can be used against cell phones and cars.

The laws against gun ownership/recreational-drugs/alcohol/pornography/whatever create black markets. The just because a black market exists does not mean it is in the best interest of society to expand those bans. There would exist a black market in cars and cell phones if some states made it expensive and/or difficult to acquire those tools. Cars and cell phones are used in crimes all the time too but that doesn't mean they should be banned or heavily restricted.

One gun a month requires some sort of registration.

Page 52. Registration fails The Jews in the Attic Test. People will not register. 100s of millions unregistered in Europe and Canada.

Page 58. Machine guns legal.

Henigan claims the low use of machine guns in violent crime shows that strict registration and licensing work. No. His base assumption that machine guns give "an enormous advantage in a gunfight with police" is wrong. I've fired machine guns, I've seen other people fire machine guns. When it comes to putting rounds on a few targets quickly a semi-auto is a far better tool. Even Jeff Cooper said, "As I have often stated, if someone wants to shoot at me, I sure hope he does it on full-auto." (Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Vol. 1, No. 9 October 1993). If criminals have any gun experience at all they will arrive at the same conclusion and realize that there are no advantages for the types of uses they have for firearms and don't bother to acquire one. Even the police who have legal access to full auto firearms do not carry them on a regular basis and do not have much, if any, training with them. The absence of full auto firearms in crime does not mean the highly restrictive laws reduced violent crime or had any other benefit to society.

Page 63. Suicide reduced by waiting periods.
A right delayed is a right denied. How many lives lost because of waiting periods and storage laws?

Page 65. Accidental shooting data is old.

He does not use data past 2000. The accidental shooting rate continued to drop despite vastly more guns being in circulation.

Page 68. Ten states. Six states.

By "cherry picking" his data (ten states the highest rates of death by gunshot versus the six with the lowest rate of death gunshot) he skews things to support his conclusions. Furthermore this measure "death by gunshot" is of little interest to people like me who care more about "violent crime". By choosing the metric he did he can ignore things like the high violent crime rates in jurisdictions where people do not have ready access to guns to defend themselves. It also lumps justified and praiseworthy homicide where the good guy used a gun in with criminal homicide with a gun. He may be giving accurate numbers but he is very selective in how he present them such that he can conclude "gun restrictions are good".

Regardless of which point Henigan attempts to make he completely fails to "explode the myth". The best that can be said about Henigan in this chapter is that figures don't lie but this liar does know how to figure.

I have been negligent and I've been reminded of this in email from Mike:

Are you aware of any efforts to counter the Brady Starbucks petition? They claim to have 25k signatures. Money talks and bullshit walks, though. I think it would be a lot more effective than an online petition to designate a "Thank Starbucks Day", where people would be encouraged to go into their local Starbucks, buy a coffee, and hand the manager a card thanking the company for their enlightened policies. Or send the CEO a photo of oneself holding a latte. Or ??? This might not be a bad idea to put into practice regularly with other companies. Why complain about bad policies? Let's reward companies with good ones (and make a lot of noise doing it). What do you think?

"I'd like to thank Starbucks for standing up for the safety of its customers and allowing lawfully carried firearms in your retail establishments. Thank you for your wise decision and for helping us keep our families safe. I will be recommending your products to all my coffee drinking friends."

Yes. This must be done.

Sebastian has more on the topic here and here. Send your email by following this link.

It is really, really important for the Brady Campaign to win something. They aren't winning in the legislatures. They aren't winning elections. They aren't winning in the courts. They aren't winning in the polls. They aren't winning in donations. They aren't winning in members. They have sunk to the level of doing battle with a few guys in their pajamas which they can't win either.

Such a major losing streak can become a fatal downward spiral. It demoralizes them and their supporters. As Chris Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, said in regards to politicians, "They don't fear me. They fear you." If the Brady Campaign can only bring a small fraction of the people to the party that gun activists can they will be less influential. The less influence they have the less notice people will give them. The less notice the less influence.

It's sort of like something barely floating on the surface of the ocean. As long as they are less dense than the water they float and are visible. The visibility changes day to day with the density. As long as they are visible they have influence and have hope of becoming more visible and influential the next day. But this is only true while their density is less than water. There is a threshold which cannot be crossed. Very shortly after their density increases just a very small amount above water they start their journey to the very bottom of the ocean. Their visibility while on the surface is a linear function of their density. But as soon as the density of water threshold is crossed it's like a switch was turned off.

We know how dense they are. It won't take much to get them started on their journey to oblivion. Send Starbucks your email and your business. Tell them when you buy your coffee (or pastries, tea, and hot chocolate for people like me) that you are a gun owner and you appreciate them not discriminating against people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

The difference between gun control activists and gun rights activists is simple: gun rights advocates know what they are talking about, because they have depth of knowledge and expertise about firearms and pay attention to the issue. Gun control advocates, for the most part, don't know anything about guns, aren't interested in guns, and only pay attention to gun issues when the latest blood-dancing press release arrives. There's no sustainability.

Matthew
[It's more than just sustainability. It's depth of knowledge, training, and preparation for the conflict.

I thought this for a QOTD was particularly relevant because in a meat space discussion yesterday Sean told me that he sometimes gets into discussions with an anti-gun person who thinks they know what they are talking about. It turns out they have only given the topic a few minutes of thought whereas Sean has spent 20 years thinking about the subject. As expected a battle of wits with an unarmed person is very one sided.--Joe]

Via Instapundit (via Sean):

FIRST THEY IGNORE YOU, then they laugh at you, then they smear you, then you win. An updated version for the 21st Century . . . .

UPDATE: Reader C.J. Burch writes: “And if they had simply stuck with the ignore you part they would have come out so much better. But then stupidity and evil have always been a noxious brew especially when it is topped off by arrogance.” Yeah, imagine how much less powerful Sarah Palin would be if they’d just given her the usual amount of attention received by losing VP candidates. But they just can’t help themselves.

In my scaled down version "they" becomes the Brady Campaign. See further elaboration on this line of thought by Greg.

Brady Campaign week continues here tomorrow with another chapter in Lethal Logic.

Via The Second Amendment Foundation press release:

A King County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association, striking down a ban on guns in city parks because it violates Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute.

Judge Catherine Shaffer ruled from the bench that the gun ban, adopted under former Mayor Greg Nickels, violates Washington’s law, which placed sole authority for regulating firearms in the hands of the State Legislature. That law was adopted in 1983 and amended in 1985, and has served as a model for similar laws across the country.

SAF and NRA were joined in the lawsuit by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Washington Arms Collectors and five individual plaintiffs.

“This is a great victory for the rule of law and Washington citizens,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Greg Nickels was so blinded by his personal hatred for firearms owners and his own arrogance that he imagined the city under his control could simply ignore state law. That arrogance cost Nickels his job last year. We repeatedly warned him not to push a gun ban, but he refused to listen.

“It is also a victory for the Legislature,” he observed, “because this case affirms the intent of lawmakers in 1983 to prevent cities like Seattle from creating a nightmare patchwork of conflicting and confusing firearms regulations. The ruling solidifies the legislature’s authority and sends a message to city and county governments to stop meddling with the rights of Washington citizens.”

Gottlieb suggested a review of local ordinances may now be in order, so that city and county governments can be compelled to remove old gun regulations or face legal consequences.

“This ruling puts anti-gun local officials on notice that legally-armed citizens have rights, too,” Gottlieb stated.

See also:

• Judge's ruling ends Seattle parks gun ban
• Judge: Seattle gun ban is illegal
• Judge in Seattle case: ‘Plaintiffs have right to carry under federal, state constitutions’ (the most and best details are in this article)
• UPDATE: Seattle Parks Gun ban vacated
• West Seattle Blog (includes link to the judges order here)

Gun carrying residents of Washington State are protected from discrimination by the counties and cities yet the Brady Campaign wants businesses to discriminate again them. That is going to be a losing battle too. It's time for them face the music. They should quietly be sending out their resumes and preparing for the end. If they can't find honest work there are probably a few more years left in the global warming hoax.

I just received an email from Michael Bane saying he will be the dinner speaker at Boomershoot this year.

Just an FYI, you don't have to participate in Boomershoot to attend the dinner. Boomershoot spectators, gun enthusiasts, and even Brady Campaign Staff (we don't discriminate) are welcome too. Both concealed and open carry are acceptable (which means we probably won't have Dennis Henigan or Paul Helmke visiting us).

Dinner details are here and if you want to sign up for dinner follow this link.

Update: The Brady Campaign (aka Handgun Control Inc.) received their invitation a few minutes ago:

Domain Name		sct.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address		65.242.56.# (HANDGUN CONTROL)
ISP		Verizon Business
Location		Continent  :  North America Country  :  United States  (Facts) State  :  District of Columbia City  :  Washington Lat/Long  :  38.9042, -77.032 (Map) Distance  :  2,071 miles
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1024 x 768 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Feb 12 2010 12:44:16 pm
Last Page View		Feb 12 2010 12:46:20 pm
Visit Length		2 minutes 4 seconds
Page Views		4
Referring URL		http://blogsearch.go...Henigan%22&scoring=d
Search Engine		blogsearch.google.com
Search Words		"dennis henigan"
Visit Entry Page		http://blog.joehuffm...10DinnerSpeaker.aspx
Visit Exit Page		http://blog.joehuffm...elBaneOnBigotry.aspx
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Feb 12 2010 3:44:16 pm
Visit Number		708,302

The Brady Campaign set up a straw man to knock down again yesterday:

While trying really hard to pose as a “victim of bigotry” with his best Rosa Parks impression (someone who faced genuine discrimination), Mr. Pierce forgot to blur the distinction between gun owners and gun carriers.  Whoops.

They are still pushing on the "immutable characteristics" defense against their bigotry. What I find interesting is that they consider religious affiliation "immutable". And of course they don't even mention interracial couples.

They make a big deal about "guns are things" and claim people with those things cannot be discriminated against.

They are just so incredible smart to have thought of that. They sure got me on that one. I never would have thought of a defense like that.[/sarcasm]

Let see how well that assertion plays out in general:

• “You can come in, but you have to leave your burqa and ḥijāb, outside.”
• “You can come in, but you have to leave your turban outside.”
• “You can come in, but you have to leave your sari outside.”
• “You can come in, but you have to leave your Star of David outside.”
• “You can come in, but you have to leave your cross necklace outside.”
• “You can come in, but you have to leave your NRA/SAF/CCRKBA/JPFO/Brady-Campaign shirt outside.”
• “You can come in, but you have to leave your Bible/Torah/Koran outside.”

Is that still not discrimination?

I can only think of two possible explanations for the Brady Campaign to make the claims they do:

1. They think the general population is so stupid as to believe that gun owners magically materialized a holstered gun on their belt or in their purse just before they walked into the store. And therefore they could just as easily not materialized it just prior to entering the store. That's not the way it works. Many of us put on a gun just like we put on our shoes, pants, and shirt.
2. They are so stupid or blinded by their own bigotry that they were unable to think it through.

[Mostly off topic--Does the Brady Campaign even have apparel for sale? I didn't find anything on their website and none of the Brady Campaign items I found on Cafepress would be endorsed by them. I suppose that makes sense. After all, who would willingly put a "I'm defenseless" sign on themselves while in public? And if I did that I would likely get charged with "hunting over bait" or some such thing.]

Update: Sebastian put up a very well written post on the topic an hour before I started mine.

I've been in situations in other countries working where I'm glad I didn't have a gun. I've not sure I would've controlled myself.

Rep. Pete Jorgensen
D-Jackson
February 12, 2010
Gun bill gains backing
[The real reason comes out. They don't trust themselves so they don't trust other people.

The question I have is if they don't think they can be trusted to have the power of a gun in their hands why should we trust them with the power of government in their hands?--Joe]

Finally, it is important to understand that the Court's decision will not jeopardize other gun laws. The sheriffs' challenge to the Brady Law was based on the Tenth Amendment, not the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents remain clear and unequivocal: there is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to service in a well-organized state militia. The Brady Law was subject to Tenth Amendment challenge -- not the Second Amendment -- because it involved a federal mandate to state officials; such mandates are not found in other federal gun control laws. In no sense did the Court impose general limits on the power of Congress to enact strong gun laws.

Sarah Brady
Jun 27, 1997
SARAH BRADY STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE BRADY LAW
[Times have changed. We have a successful Second Amendment challenge under our belt with another one due this spring. And we have another Tenth Amendment Challenge working it's way through the courts.

Mrs. Brady is going to see a lot more changes in the next couple of years as the effects of Heller and McDonald make ripple across the country. None of them will make her happy.

Although 1994 was probably the high-water mark for the Brady Campaign they did have a few minor victories after that with things like President Clinton's executive order mandating the provision of written warnings with each handgun sale. Since then they have been been essentially stopped on every major front and have been pushed back on numerous others. They things they now count as victories are merely a successful defense against our attempts to liberate those they have oppressed.

And a great deal of that push back has happened because of the Brady Organization. I bought my first guns, a SKS rifle and a Ruger P-89 (with 15 round magazines), and started becoming active in the gun rights movement in early 1994 because of the anticipated infringement being advocated by them. I know several other people with similar stories. In 1994 it was Sarah Brady who took the title of the best gun salesman ever. That record stood until Obama claimed the record last year.

It's ironic that the anti-gun people frequently claim the NRA is only interested in the profits of the gun manufactures and dealers but it's the success of the anti-gun people who do the most for those businesses.

And notice how it only works in one direction? If the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, GOA, JPFO, etc. start pushing legislation and winning people don't start selling their guns or turning them in to be recycled. This effect has to be really discouraging for them.

Given the present data the logical thing for them to do is blindingly obvious. If they really want "fewer guns on the streets" they should completely disband their organizations and take vows of silence. But data and logic isn't their most distinguishing attribute and you should not expect such action from them anytime soon.--Joe]

The "defense walks" that Ohio's gun supporters have staged the past few weekends offer the best proof yet that Ohio's current law banning the carrying of concealed guns works ("Protesters openly carry guns in bid to carry concealed ones,'' Dispatch article, Oct. 13).

Gun proponents are finding that when they strap on their handguns and parade around town, no one bothers them. Isn't that the point of carrying a loaded handgun openly? To prevent others from bothering you? The gun lobby's hope is that these public handgun displays will persuade the General Assembly to pass the stalled bill allowing the concealed carry of handguns.

Supporters of a concealed-carry law claim that their rights to self-protection are compromised by the ban on carrying a hidden gun. But what could be more of a deterrent to violent crime than the sight of a person carrying a gun openly? In case of attack by a violent criminal, an openly carried gun is far more accessible than one that is stuffed in a pocket or purse.

Statements by the gun lobby that carrying openly is uncomfortable or socially unacceptable won't wash. If those in the pro-gun camp genuinely are concerned for their safety, they should be willing to deal with a little disapproval from their fellow citizens.

Any prudent person carrying a loaded handgun should be a little uncomfortable. It represents a risk of instant injury or death. Carrying it concealed doesn't remove that risk; it just hides it from everyone else, which isn't fair to law-abiding citizens who may not want to expose themselves or their children to the potential deadliness of loaded guns. When a gun is carried openly, those around the carrier at least have the choice to remove themselves from the vicinity of the gun. Concealed guns take away that choice.

I hope the gun walks will make concealed-carry proponents more comfortable with their guns, calm their fears of their fellow citizens and finally convince them that they already have a legal way to protect themselves.

Lori A. O'Neill
October 22, 2003
President
Greater Cleveland chapter
Million Mom March
Chagrin Falls
WALKS SHOW CONCEALED CARRY IS UNNEEDED
From the comments here.
[Remember that the MMM is part of the Brady Campaign (http://millionmommarch.com/ takes you to the Brady site) who is vehemently opposed to open carry.

As Jeff in the comments said, "What short memories....here in Ohio first they were for it, now they are against it..."

But O'Neill is not the current contact person for Ohio Chapter of the MMM/Brady Campaign so I suppose it is possible she has been fired or replaced for heresy or some such thing.--Joe]

I'm listening to Down Range Radio where Michael Bane talks about anti-gun bigotry. He gives me a fair amount of credit for bringing the topic up and agrees with me. This blog is listed as a reference link.

He also talks a little bit about Boomershoot.

Thank you Michael.

The open display of firearms in public places is inherently threatening and intimidating, and poses risks to those nearby, to law enforcement and to the community. For example, when open carry has occurred in retail stores, other customers quickly become alarmed and the police often are called to the scene, creating a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. 

Brady Campaign
February 2010
Gun Lobby Backed Efforts Open Carry Guns
Emphasis in the original.
[It is true there are risk with open carry. But it is also true there are benefits. The Brady Campaign, like the bigots they are, refuse to acknowledge the benefits.

It is not true the open display of firearms in public places is inherently threatening and intimidating. Is a police officer at Starbucks and having a cup of coffee and chatting with the store manager inherently threatening and intimidating? Of course not. What the Brady Campaign finds inherently threatening and intimidating is private citizens possessing firearms. They are vehemently opposed to people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They have not been able to get the legislatures to enact laws infringing the 2^nd Amendment so now they are attempting to get businesses to prohibit the exercise of these rights. This is no different than having interracial marriage ban laws struck down or fail to pass such laws in the legislature then starting a campaign advocating restaurants refuse to serve such couples.

As I have pointed out before the response to gun ownership and the carrying of firearms in public is a cultural issue. One 911 dispatcher I know in the Seattle area says they frequently get "man with a gun" calls. But unless the caller can articulate a reasonable cause for alarm they caller is politely told to take a chill pill. The Brady Campaign wishes to inflame public opinion and propagate a culture of distrust and alarm over the exercise of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Yes, that culture exists in parts of the U.S. today but just as with interracial marriage laws of the past that doesn't mean the culture is appropriate or it should be encouraged.

It is time for all Americans to start judging people by the content of the character rather than the color of their skin or the carrying of a self defense tool.

Yeah, I think it's going to be Brady Campaign Week here all week.--Joe]

Still trying to persuade Starbucks into banning people exercising the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign made a blog post on the topic today (the same post is here as well). As is usual he choses his words carefully when he says things like:

Studies show that the more guns there are, the more gun violence there is in that location. In addition, 80 percent of those who don’t own guns say they would feel less safe if more people in their community acquired guns; only eight percent would feel safer. Even among gun owners, roughly equal proportions would feel less safe if more people had guns versus those who would feel more safe.

There are three things to make note of here.

1. He says "the more gun violence there is".
2. The study he cites was published in 2001.
3. The emphasis on feelings.

As is usual Brady supporters seem to only concern themselves with criminal violence rates if a gun was involved. Total criminal violence rates are used by gun rights supporters because we care about people that are injured by criminals no matter the method. When using total crime rates even Brady Campaign staff acknowledge, at best, it is difficult to show more guns means more crime.

In regards to the second item that study is old. When the CDC did their study of dozens of papers in 2002, one year after the study cited by Helmke was published, they concluded, "The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes." Essentially the same conclusion as Helmke's co-worker acknowledges.

By choosing his words carefully Helmke misleads his readers in an attempt to further his agenda to justify his abnormal fear of gun owners lawfully exercising their rights.

If feelings were adequate reasons to exclude people exercising their rights from coffee shops and restaurants we would still have a multitude of Jim Crow laws on the books.

It is clear he doesn't acknowledge or respect those rights. From that same post notice that he says:

Welcome to the “open carry” movement, an effort by “gun rights” extremists to foist their interpretation of the Second Amendment on the rest of us by openly carrying handguns in public places.  While virtually all states have at least some minimal restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons, few states do anything to regulate the “open carry” of firearms.

Did you notice that he puts "gun rights" are in quotes? Apparently in their minds they are still fighting the battle they lost with the Heller decision.

He acknowledges these people are not breaking any laws but that's not good enough for him. I suspect he knows the open carry of firearms was clearly recognized as a fundamental right at the time of the writing of our Bill of Rights. Concealed carry was considered suspect and over time became banned in many locales. But the open carry of weapons, as demonstrated by the near universal lack of laws against it, has always been recognized as a fundamental right. I believe the Brady's are desperate to slow down and/or kill the open carry movement because they know they will loose that battle in the courts. And ultimately open carry will normalize the right to keep and bear arms.

As I said earlier today, respect isn't really in their vocabulary when discussing the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. And the Brady's will use half truths and any other deception needed in their futile attempt to remain relevant in a world where their tactics no longer work. It's time for Helmke and friends to acknowledge the facts and get some counseling for their inappropriate feelings. The world has changed and in todays world they are just as backward as George Wallace in 1970 and just as despicable in their tactics as when Wallace ran ads that showing a white girl surrounded by seven black boys, with the slogan "Wake Up Alabama! Blacks vow to take over Alabama".

There have been some questions as to the origins of the anti-gun people as bigots meme. There have been occasions when I have been given credit for starting it. While I may be the most outspoken blogger of this I cannot claim credit for being the first to make this observation.

The Brady Campaign people seem to think it was the NRA:

In fact, the notion of “bigotry” is perhaps the pillar upon which the National Rifle Association itself has built its whole bogus empire.

This is particularily amusing since they link to the Ammoland website while saying "National Rifle Association". Say Uncle pokes fun at them for this better than I can.

In the comments MikeB302000 also suspects the NRA is behind it.

A Bing search of the NRA and NRA-ILA websites only shows one instance of the term bigot being used (a Google search resulting in zero hits). This was on January 18, 2008.

My somewhat limited research shows that it goes back as far as 1994 with the following speech by Don Kates in Sacramento:

From: MWUEST@alhrg.wpafb.af.mil (System Manager Wuest)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Speech by Don Kates
Date: 3 Aug 1994 10:10:00 -0500

(Text of a speech by Don B. Kates, renouned criminoligist at the Sacramento rally, 2 JUL 1994 MEW).

In this speech I am going to set out unfamiliar concepts and facts. I shall explain and defend the concepts and I entreat anyone who wants citations for the facts to ask for them.

BIGOTRY

The first of my unfamiliar concepts is that the gun control debate is not really about criminology but rather about bigotry and the effort of an influence group to force its morality on everyone by having it adopted as state and federal law. To see this it is necessary only to review some unfamiliar facts: the average gun owner is better educated and has a better job than non-owners; attitude surveys find gun owners neither racist nor sexist; liberals are only somewhat less likely than others to own firearms; liberals who do are no less willing to use them to defend their families; the only violence gun owners endorse is willingness to come to the aid of crime victims. Gun owners do not approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc. Also, good Samaritans who actually come to the aid of crime victims are twice as likely to be gun owners as the general populace.

Though these facts have been uniformly established by numerous sociological studies, they will doubtless surprise you almost as much as they would the anti-gun movement and the media. After all the former (which is actually a gun BAN movement), with the enthusiastic aid of the media, have succeeded in stereotyping gun owners as violence-oriented yahoos -- educationally, intellectually and morally retarded.

There is a word for people who inaccurately, unjustly ascribe negative characteristics to a whole group of others they dislike: that word is BIGOT.

Let me approach the matter from another direction. A couple of years ago right here in Sacramento some nuts who happened to be of some kind of Asian extraction -- I don't recall which and, of course it doesn't matter -- took a bunch of hostages in the course of a robbery and ended up shooting them. Now if I were to attribute that conduct to Asians as a group I would rightly be thought a bigot. But denouncing "gun owners" as a group and attributing such crimes to that group is commonly thought entirely appropriate.

Suppose I were to call gay leaders who oppose banning gay bath houses callous, selfish collaborators in the spreading of AIDS. The same public health leaders who support banning bath houses would nevertheless denounce such bigoted language. Yet such vituperation is commonly aimed at gun owners and gun leaders for opposing gun bans without anyone (except perhaps the targets) seeing anything wrong or even exceptional about it.

ORDINARY GUN OWNER AS MURDERER

Of course the difference is that, as we all know, owning a gun the ordinary average person puts family and friends at risk; as the Coalition Against Gun Violence puts it, most murders "are committed by law-abiding citizens who might have stayed law-abiding if they had not possessed firearms." Except that, as a criminologist I know no such thing. Criminological studies uniformly find that murderers are NOT ordinary citizens, but extreme aberrants with life records of serious crime. The typical murderer has a prior adult criminal history of six years involving at least four documented major felonies -- plus uncounted juvenile felonies. He is also a substance abuser with a history of car and/or gun accidents. Indeed, the life histories of those who cause fatal car and gun accidents resemble the life histories of murderers: in each case they tend to be young MALES with records of felony, violence against those around them, substance abuse and dangerous accidents.

In short, quoting a recent review in the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY: "fewer than 1% of all guns, and fewer than 2% even of handguns will ever be used in a violent crime" and "more people are killed in swimming pool accidents than firearms accidents." In short, blaming all gun owners for the crimes and irresponsibility of a tiny, highly aberrant minority is bigotry. In addition to being criminologically false, it is a false issue, a diversion from the true basis of anti-gun sentiment.

At this point I have to draw a fundamental distinction which is, once again, unfamiliar. That is the distinction between anti-gun and pro-control. CONTROL implies what the great majority of Americans, including most gun owners, believe: that law abiding, responsible people have a right to possess arms to defend their families, but that society has a right to reasonably control arms -- and the issue is working out an accommodation between these two things.

But the so-called gun CONTROL movement is really a gun BAN movement dominated totally by people I call anti-gun. Anti-gunners see no objective need for accommodation because they do not see self-defense as a legitimate desire. Their ultimate objective is first the banning and confiscation of all handguns and then of all guns. Given the state of public opinion there is a subjective, or current, need to soft-pedal this for the present. Thus when they say that the Brady Bill and banning so-called assault rifles (i.e. rifles and shotguns designed primarily for self-defense) are "just the first steps", they go on to say, as Sarah Brady now does, "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes", and to advocate, as Handgun Control, Inc. now does, a nationwide permit requirement to own a gun under which only those desiring guns for sport qualify -- those desiring a gun for self-defense need not apply.

To understand the anti-gun view we must review the origin of the earliest anti-gun group. Founded as NCBH, it now calls itself the Coalition Against Gun Violence. It was and remains an outgrowth of the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church seeking to impose on American society the Board's moral position which is that armed self-defense is immoral. The Board actually teaches that it is a woman's Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything to imperil her rapists' lives. Let me give you the citation for that: It is an article entitled "Is the Robber My Brother" (and, no, robbery may not be resisted either) by the editor of the Board's magazine ENGAGE/SOCIAL ACTION an article which appeared first there and then in a pamphlet available from the Board under the title HANDGUNS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Another member organization of the Coalition Against Gun Violence, the Presbyterian Church, USA advocates, federal banning and confiscation of handguns on the express ground that they are designed for self-defense. The Church's representatives emphasize that its General Assembly "has resolved, in the context of gun control, that it is against the killing of anyone, anywhere FOR ANY REASON." Among other places you will find that testimony is v. I at p. 127 of the Hearings of the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime 1986.

This epitomizes the views and goals of the anti-gun movement, including its non-religious supporters. The distinguished cultural historian Garry Wills reviles "gun fetishists", "gun nuts" as "anti-citizens", "traitors, enemies of their own patriae", who are arming "against their own neighbors." "The need that some homeowners and shopkeepers believe they have for weapons to defend themselves" represents "the worst instincts in the human character" according to the WASHINGTON POST. According to Ramsey Clark, defensive firearms ownership is barbarism, "anarchy, not order under law."

I have already quoted Sarah Brady's view that "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes" and Handgun Control's proposal for a national licensing requirement to exclude anyone who wants a gun for self-defense. An additional "step" is to have Congress pass the law HCI and the Coalition got D.C. to enact: no one may buy any kind of handgun and, while long guns are allowed, they too must be kept unloaded and disassembled so that they may never be used for self-defense. The ultimate goal, once again, is that expressed by Harvard public health professor Deborah Prothrow-Stith: she frankly avows that she "hates guns and sees no reason why anyone should ever own one."

In the few minutes which remain to me I want to discuss what is to be about done all this. One reason gun owners are in such a terrible fix is that they are politically unsophisticated. That is implicit in the fact that they are the targets of a vast campaign of bigotry. Gun owners are not politicians. They are just ordinary people wanting to go about their business. They have been ambushed and are being subjected to a systematic campaign of hatred and lies by an elite cadre of bigots who largely control the media and have disproportionate influence throughout our society. Naturally all too many gun owners react in mindless outrage. They leap to the conclusion that disarmament of the American public is being promoted by "liberals" -- it used to be "communists" -- for some sinister, ulterior reason involving making people helpless against tyranny. NONSENSE. Insofar as liberals support that -- and I must note so do many conservatives -- it is just out of hypocritical bigotry. They cannot see this because they view themselves as fighters against bigotry and so imagine that they are themselves incapable of it and of attempting to impose their morality on others through law.

And I want to briefly list other gun owner errors: First are the people who play into the media's hands by wearing camos when they make presentations against anti-gun proposals. Similar are the gun owners who take pleasure in extreme and intemperate statements -- at terrible cost to the cause in general. And then there are liars and buffoons like Linda Thompson and her "armed march on Washington." Demented is the best one can one say about an "armed march on Washington."

A particular pathology of gun owners is the idea that the bigotry will all go away if some particular lawsuit is brought or a strident manifesto screamed out. The simple fact is that the bigots are not going to go away. Gun owners are going to have to settle in to politics for the foreseeable future, smarten up, learn how to make politically sensible statements.

Most important, gun owners must learn the necessity and art of horse trading. By that I do NOT mean giving important things away in the absurd hope that it will satisfy the bigots and they will go away and leave us alone. I repeat, they will not go away regardless of what we do! I am not talking about compromises of principle. I am talking about things about which reasonable people can agree or disagree. For instance, raise the fee for a concealed carry license to $150.00 and the duration of the license to five years. Require that anyone who wants such a license show that they have the same legal knowledge and competence about shooting as a police officer -- but issue licenses as in Oregon and Florida to every responsible law abiding applicant.

The fact is that there are rational, non-bigoted people in the middle who can be compromised with. They cannot be convinced by the yahoo approach of "just say no to gun control." But, even as they are open to new control approaches and initiatives, they are also willing to recognize that old approaches may be unsound, or have unsound aspects, which need to be abandoned. We are in the pickle we are now in because the "just say no" attitude has allowed the bigots to paint us as mindless obstructionists who are blind to compassion and common sense. These people in the middle are open to arguments that many control proposals don't make sense in terms of crime control and to arguments based on the right and need to defend of self and property. The future of gun ownership will depend on whether we are willing and able to reach out to these middle people and convince them that the misnamed gun control movement is under the control of moralistic bigots.

-end-

===========================================================================
Bypassing the bias of broadcast media with the "narrowcast" function
of the telephone line's information SuperHiway!
The Paul Revere Network Multi-Line BBS (408) 947-7800, 279-0872, 947-7678
===========================================================================

What in the world is the reasoning behind this?

Authorities lifted curfew and alcohol restrictions in King on Sunday, but said a state of emergency declaration remained in effect until Monday.

Authorities said the state of emergency declaration would continue until Monday 9 a.m., barring any unforeseen circumstances or severe changes.

Effective Sunday afternoon, alcohol restrictions and a curfew were lifted. All other remaining restrictions would continue until Monday, said Paula May, King police chief.

Other restrictions included a ban on the sale or purchase of any type of firearm, ammunition, explosive or any possession of such items off a person's own premises.

...

The state of emergency was declared Friday due to severe weather.

Emphasis is mine.

Via email from Rob.

L.A. Police Chief designate Charlie Beck presented the James S. Brady Law Enforcement Award to the Police Department's Gun Unit.  The Gun Unit's achievements are outstanding.  Through careful monitoring, it has kept the number of legal firearms dealers in L.A. at 17 for a population of 4,000,000 and has restricted the number of CCW permits to 23!

Ellen Boneparth
President, California Brady Chapters
November 10, 2009
California Chapters Celebrate
[If this is how the Brady people go about "respecting the Supreme Court’s reading of the Second Amendment" I would like to translate that into First Amendment language and see how it reads:

... The Jew Unit's achievements are outstanding. Through careful monitoring, it has kept the number of legal synagogues in L.A. at 17 for a population of 4,000,000 and has restricted the number of Rabbi permits to 23!

Yeah, it is just as I thought. Respect isn't really in their vocabulary when discussing the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.--Joe]

The Brady Campaign has now directly engaged us on the bigotry meme I started pushing several years ago.

Sebastian has addressed most of their points but I would like to pile on as well.

They say:

The truth, of course, is that guns and gun carrying are obviously not immutable characteristics of people, and that the whole cultural framework around the issue of gun violence prevention is a sham. (Brady Center Vice-President Dennis Henigan has exposed this most recently here and here.)

"Immutable characteristics" is a straw man argument I addressed in an update to the post that got their attention as follows:

By that logic banning interracial couples, Catholics or Muslims from Starbucks or Woolworths wouldn't be bigotry either. I've got news for the Brady Campaign Staff--they're wrong and I think they know it.

As long as they held on to the falsehood that the 2nd Amendment did not protect an individual right they might have made a thin case for that. But as soon as the right to keep and bear arms was on the same level as the freedom of association and freedom of religion they lost that crutch. Via D.C. v. Heller we have, and the Brady Campaign acknowledges, a specific, constitutionally protected, right to keep and bear arms. With that decision they became a gentler version of the KKK. No white sheets or burning crosses in our yards but they still attempt to segregate us and ban us from parks, buildings, and businesses. The only difference between them and the KKK is the KKK was sometimes willing to take the law into their own hands. The Brady Campaign attempts to get the government, Amtrack, and Starbucks to do the yucky work of infringing on the rights of others for them. They are now on a slippery slope into obscurity and revulsion and they are grasping at straws with their denial of bigotry.

And their advocacy for public bans of us exercising that right is more than just bigotry. It is just a hairs breadth away from a felony:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

I addressed the claim that the cultural framework is a sham here using a paper published in the Journal of Criminal Justice. In that same post I pointed out that Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign admits in his book that causation between higher rates of gun ownership and crime are, at best, "difficult to show". I also pointed out they no longer insist the 2^nd Amendment is not an individual right. 

So if it isn't bigotry just what does the Brady Campaign claim as a basis for their continued insistence that the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms be infringed? From their post they claim, "It has everything to do with public safety, public health and common sense."

Ahh... I see.

But they already admitted that public safety and health correlating negatively with gun ownership rates are at best "difficult to show". So all we have left is "common sense".

So tell me--Is that the same "common sense" used by whites that didn't want their children in the same swimming pool with black children unless it was cleaned afterward? Or maybe the same "common sense" used by some to insist their white daughters not be near black men or enter into interracial marriages. No. I'm sure that's not it--that would be bigotry. How about the "common sense" and documentary films that claim Jews are the vermin of the human race? Oh, that would be bigotry too? Then just what is this "common sense" justification for infringing upon this right and how does it differ from these obvious examples of bigotry?

Perhaps they haven't seen the definition of "bigot" recently. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

I have a challenge for Brady Campaign supporters--What evidence would it take for you to change your mind in regards to gun ownership and the public carry of firearms? Tell me and I'll give serious consideration to dropping the bigotry meme.

For as long as I have been involved in the gun rights movement (over 15 years now) I have wondered "Why do people support gun control?" I figured there were most likely two things working in combination for most people. 1) A disregard for the Bill of Rights and 2) A belief that gun control would decrease violent crime.

That was understandable to me. One can make case for lack of due process and torture of suspects if you believe they have knowledge of a nuclear bomb about to detonate in a major population center. Bill of Rights be damned! Do whatever is necessary to save millions of lives!

It may not work and some people might even say it's not the right thing to do but I see a strong argument being possible. The Constitution is not a suicide pact argument is obviously defensible but it depends on the premise that the adherence to the constitution is tantamount to suicide in the given situation. I concluded that the anti-gun people either had data or believed data existed which demonstrated gun control made for a safer society and hence they were willing to ignore the constitutional issues. Gun control in the U.K. was frequently brought up as an example of the success of those policy decisions. As data from other countries brought in and then crime in the U.K. increased faster as guns were even more tightly restricted it became blindingly clear no reasonable person could believe gun control made society safer.

But the I more argued with anti-gun people and in particular listened to and read the writings of their leaders I realized most of them knew gun control didn't make society safer. This perplexed me a great deal and I asked Alan Gottlieb (founder of the Second Amendment Foundation) "What is the real reason they advocate more gun control?" Aside from the jokes it did seem to come down to a cultural issue as Gottlieb suggested. Although this raised other questions such as "Why don't these people respect the cultural of other people and just leave us alone?" it was the best answer I could find.

As I had more and more interaction with the anti-gun people over the years it became more and more clear people stuck with their anti-gun beliefs no matter how much data they had. Some even flat out told me it just boiled down to them not wanting to be around people with guns so they supported using the force of government to rid them of their discomfort. Mike Arst has more insight into this having been on the anti-gun side of the political aisle for many years before seeing the error of his ways.

Yet we have people like Dennis A. Henigan from the Brady Center saying it's not a culture issue (also here). For a while I wondered it was important to them. I think I understand now. As Mike Arst so eloquently explained in a different set of emails liberals are the enlightened, tolerant and know best what is for society. Cultural differences, in liberal circles, are to celebrated and embraced. Hence, if it is about a cultural difference then, as a liberal, they feel bound to respect different cultures. Since they are opposed to gun rights it cannot be a culture difference. But yet they do little more than try to prove their case via vigorous assertion. They don't answer Just One Question and in fact publicly acknowledge that any causation between gun availability and crime is difficult to prove. And in their recent brief in McDonald v. City of Chicago they have stopped insisting the 2^nd Amendment does not apply to individuals. They acknowledge the individual right to keep and bear arms yet they insist on restricting this right without giving justification beyond, "It has everything to do with public safety, public health and common sense." Ignoring the contradictions between their claims of public safety and health with Henigan own admission that any public safety benefits are so small that they are difficult to prove we are left with "common sense" as their reason for insisting on restrictions on firearms and their owners. "Common sense?" To me "common sense" means having a reason for spending vast amounts of time and money fighting for the elimination of a specific, enumerated, constitutionally protected right.

It was with this background that I was thrilled to see a paper in the Journal of Criminal Justice with the title "Why do people support gun control?: Alternative explanations of support for handgun bans". Wow! This is something I have to read.

Guess what they said? After all the review of previous studies, proposed hypothesizes, study methodology, and the multivariate statistics they arrive at this conclusion (page 503):

Support for gun control derives partly from a belief that gun control is an effective method for reducing violence, but this explanation has only limited power to account for positions on the issue. Many people favor control measures even though they think they will not reduce crime, while others oppose controls despite their beliefs that they will reduce crime. Further, support for gun control does not generally derive from personal experience with crime—robbery and burglary victims are no more likely than non-victims to favor banning handguns, and the experience of being an assault victim reduces support for this policy. The generally null results for victimization variables comport with past research that indicates that fear of crime and exposure to higher crime rates do not, on net, motivate support for gun control (Kleck, 1996). Thus, there is no sound foundation for expecting increased support for bans if gun crime goes up, nor for expecting declines in support if crime goes down. Consistent with this view, levels of support for gun control have remained generally stable in recent decades despite huge fluctuations in gun crime rates (Kleck, 1997, pp. 334-336; Smith, 2000).

Long-term stability in the phenomenon to be explained favors explanations that stress relatively stable causes. While crime rates fluctuate sharply over short periods of time, culture changes only gradually. Cultural cleavages among Americans remain fairly stable over periods of a decade or two; however, much the perceived need for crime-reducing strategies may change. Consequently, positions on gun control continue to be driven by the same cultural conflicts and antipathies that have divided the nation for decades. Those who have faith that police can protect them from criminals support gun control; conversely, those who believe that they cannot rely on the police put their faith in the gun, and oppose the stronger forms of gun control that might disarm them. Further, those who despise the “gun culture” as violent, racist, and backward support handgun bans, while those who reject such stereotypes oppose them. The stability of gun control views may also be due to the fact that most Americans already support moderate controls, so shifting opinion in a pro-control direction requires changing the views of a relatively small group.

These findings have a number of possible implications for the political struggle over gun control policy. First, they suggest that it is difficult to alter levels of support for gun control because support or opposition is partly grounded in relatively inflexible cultural traits. Changes in the level of popular support are more likely to result from relatively glacial, perhaps even intergenerational, cultural shifts. Second, even if solid evidence of the violence-reducing effectiveness of gun control were to be developed, and (perhaps less plausibly) large numbers of Americans were persuaded by the evidence, it is likely to have at best only modest effects on the level of support for these policies. Third, increases in crime are not likely to boost support for strict gun control, because the main effect of such increases is that they raise the number of crime victims who believe they must rely on their own resources for protection against criminals, a view that encourages gun ownership, and thereby reduces support for stricter forms of gun control.

I know I have said, "I guess we don't need to understand them. We just need to defeat them." but knowing the above does make a difference. People do support gun control because of cultural issues. They do support gun control even though they don't believe it will reduce crime. There are people who despise the gun culture and view them as violent racist, and backward. And Henigan is wrong. This study proves it.

What this means to me is that coming out of the closet, taking non-shooting friends to the range, and showing that gun culture is for normal people and not their stereotype of red-necked, knuckle dragging Neanderthals is essential for the long term survival of the right to keep and bear arms. And in the short term we must make it legal for people to come out of the closet and take their rightful place in society. The terrible oppression of gun owners in places like Chicago and New Jersey has to stop and that is where the courts will have to play a role. Just like the forced desegregation of public facilities in the south we must invest the time, money, and effort to give these people the opportunity to take part in the freedom and respect as normal human beings. It is taken for granted by many gun owners but that respect is denied to millions in this country by the cultural elites who, in the words of Mike Arst who once belonged in their ranks, "... tended to think of 'gun nuts' as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh?"

This looks interesting:

Many scholars have suggested that Americans' positions on gun control are the product of culture conflicts. This assertion has been largely based on associations of gun control opinion with membership in social groups believed to be hostile, or favorable, towards gun ownership, rather than with direct measures of the cultural traits thought to mediate the effects of group membership on gun control opinion. Data from a 2005 national telephone survey were analyzed to test competing theories of why people support handgun bans. Instrumental explanations, which stress belief in a policy's likely effectiveness, accounted for less than 25 percent of the variation in support. The results supported the culture conflict perspective. Those who endorsed negative stereotypes about gun owners, and who did not believe in the need to defend their own homes against crime (versus relying on the police) were more likely to support handgun bans.

It's in the Journal of Criminal Justice Volume 37, Issue 5, September-October 2009, Pages 496-504.

I find it particularily intriguing that "Those who endorsed negative stereotypes about gun owners" are more likely to support handgun bans. That sounds like bigotry to me.

I could get it online for $20.00 or I could go to the library. I'm not sure which I should do. I have other things to do this morning. I'll decide this afternoon sometime.

Update: I have two copies sent via email now. Thank you! You can stop emailing them to me now. I've read the article and will make a post on it later today. Busy with something at work right now...

SB 6396, the so-called "assault weapon" ban bill, died in the Senate Judiciary Committee at the policy committee cut-off. Knowing he didn't have the votes to pass it out of committee, he didn't even bring it up for a vote. While in Olympia earlier this week, one Senator showed me two 4" thick binders full of e-mails opposing SB 6396. Several others mentioned similar responses. Along with the overwhelming turn-out for the public hearing last week, it's input like this that demonstrates the strength of the gun lobby in influencing the legislative process. To paraphrase the bumper sticker, we're ALL the gun lobby!

Joe Waldron
February 6, 2010
From GOAL (Washington State Gun Owners Action League) Post 2010-5
[This is great news. And this also backs up what Chrix Cox says.--Joe]

In the past I have had the impression that Sebastian has not wholly bought into my advocacy of portraying anti-gun people as bigots. But this post by him has him landing on the topic with both feet and getting into a word fight with the Brady Campaign.

I can understand people being of the opinion that pushing the bigotry meme is not productive. But I don't think any rational person can defend the claim that the following post by Mark Morford is anything other than the words of a bigot:

Hello and welcome to our store! Please, feel free to look around, make yourself comfortable, enjoy our fine offerings and, oh yes, by the way? Please, no murdering.

Also, no raping, gang-banging, popping off, stabbing, mauling, stealing stuff, or walking around in a confrontational macho huff, ready at a moment's notice to harass any of our normal patrons with a snarl and a vague threat of violence because you feel it is your God-given right, given how you are a card-carrying member of a pro-gun "Open Carry" sect that likes to strap unloaded handguns to your Wranglers, walk around in public places and freak people out. Thank you so much!

I'm sorry, I see you are still wearing your little weapon and strutting about like you are the rather doughy, bad-skinned king of the sand castle. Perhaps we were not clear? Shall we try it again?

Clearly, you are not a police officer. Therefore, the management, our employees and pretty much everyone within a 100-mile radius would very much appreciate it if you would put away that ego-fluffing man-toy that is designed solely to kill other living creatures and induce fear and ignorance as it regresses every hesitant advancement in the human soul back to caveman grunting lunkishness. Thank you again!

Oh, please do not misunderstand! We are all terribly impressed. It is so very patriotic of you to show off your little popper! Are you in a gang? Are you a drug dealer? Are you going to shoot some scary terrorists, Mr. pallid paranoid Constitution-misquoting videogame-addicted guy? Protect all of us here in the casual neighborhood coffee shop from those crazy liberals and their health care reform and organic pretzels? Thank you so much! But really, I think we'll be OK without your little display. Enjoy your frappucino, won't you?

What, no drink? You now wish to order nothing at all and instead plop yourself down in the corner, plug in your laptop and angrily scour Facebook all day for evidence that your ex-girlfriend, the one who left you two years ago at a full, what-the-hell-was-I-thinking sprint, is now dating a liberal or a pacifist or an atheist and is far, far happier than she ever was with you? We understand. We appreciate your desire to partake of our free Wi-Fi, buy nothing and not give a damn that we can't really stay in business that way.

Why, look at you! Refusing to step away from the counter and instead choosing to read aloud from your little card that says how it's completely legal to carry an unconcealed, unloaded firearm in a public space! Way to stand up for your rights! God bless America!

Turns out you are right. It is legal, sort of. Then again, so is eating gravel, wearing a giant hat made of cow manure and squirrel tails, and slapping yourself in the face repeatedly while ranting semicoherently about Jesus, masturbation and Shania Twain. And you don't see anyone doing that, do you? Except Carl over there?

We realize it might seem unfair. Far be it from us here at the neighborhood cafe, where families and small children and book readers come to chat and feel slightly better about their day, to ask you to leave because your energy is so low and repellant and also downright silly.

But nevertheless, I'm afraid that's exactly what we're going to do. We would appreciate it if you would take your business elsewhere. Right now. No? Very well.

We had hoped it wouldn't come to this. We had hoped to find a better resolution. However, in response to your insistence on carrying a firearm into our premises, we have no choice but to change our official policy, right here and now, on the spot.

Again, we mean no offense, you jingoistic lump of mancrazy. You are indeed well within your rights to be a thoroughly paranoid coward who has no real inner strength, confidence or social skills, to a degree that you feel you must carry a deadly weapon around to feel like you even exist. We understand your thinking completely. It's basic psychology. Very, very basic. Childish, even.

So then. Like any business, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. But we realize there are some people for whom this is not specific or clear enough. We realize some people have to have it, you know, spelled out and publicly displayed.

Therefore, we have revised our list. Please note the new sign we have just posted on the front door. We have expanded and clarified a few things. We hope it helps.

Effective immediately on these premises, there will be:

• No murdering
• No raping
• No pillaging
• No gun slinging, pistol-whipping, sucker-punching
• No mauling, jabbing, stabbing, hating or undermining
• No screaming bloody murder
• No morons
• No panicking
• No testing on animals
• No jumping for Joy. While she appreciates your enthusiasm, our cashier is happily married. Thank you
• No live birthing
• No dumping
• No livestock
• No smoking
• No smoking the livestock
• No exit
• No way out
• No diving
• No spitting
• No way!
• No Crusades
• No "Star Trek" re-enactments
• No skinny-dipping in the half-n-half
• No doubt

Thank you so much for understanding. Free sample biscotti on your way out?

And what does Paul Hemke the Brady Staff (correction by the Brady Staff in this post) in a post on the Brady Campaign blog say of this bigotry? "Best. Answer. Ever."

Had this been about interracial or homosexual couples holding hands and kissing the outrage over a such a post would result in demands that the San Francisco Chronicle fire him. Hemke defends Morford and his support of Morford with:

The key reply is that clothing which some find offensive is different from firearms that others — justifiably — find frightening.  That is: pants aren’t guns, and being gay doesn’t kill people.  Not sure if CDC counts how many Americans die by strange-looking pants each year, but if they do, chances are the number will be a lot less than 30,000 (the number shot to death every year in this country).

In the paragraph above let's substitute "ni**er" for "gun" and "firearm", correct the numbers to match, and see how that plays:

The key reply is that clothing which some find offensive is different from ni**ers that others — justifiably — find frightening.  That is: pants aren’t ni**ers, and being gay doesn’t kill people.  Not sure if CDC counts how many Americans die by strange-looking pants each year, but if they do, chances are the number will be a lot less than 6,000 (the number murdered by "ni**ers" every year in this country).

That sounds a lot like an argument I would imagine someone from the KKK or some other white supremist would make in supporting restrictions against non-whites. Yet they appear to be blind to the parallel.

That some people are frightened by others exercising a specific enumerated right is not justification for infringing that right. As one judge said in regards to the First Amendment, "... free speech cannot be limited on the basis of 'undifferentiated fear". It is a severe and unjustified infringement on liberty to engage in prior restraint based on the imagination and paranoid fears people like Helmke and Morford have about gun owners.

It's not just Morford and Helmke that want to put up the equivalent of "No Coloreds Allowed" signs on businesses they frequent. Here is another bigot having his say on the topic:

Many intelligent educated and reasonable people feel that the presence of openly-displayed guns in a coffee shop like Starbucks is disturbing. Some of them may feel the gun owners are not to be trusted. Others may feel that guns in a crowded public place are too easily within reach of kids and criminals. Some may feel a tacit threat from those carrying weapons, which gets back to the trust issue. But, whatever they're thinking, aren't they free to think it? Don't they have a right to feel any way they want? Aren't they entitled to request Starbucks to institute a no-gun policy?

How many "intelligent educated and reasonable people" need to feel the presence of ni**ers in a coffee shop like Starbucks is disturbing before it stops being bigotry? How many people have to feel ni**ers are not to be trusted before it is acceptable to enact regulations and push businesses to ban them?

Certainly they are free to think and feel whatever they want. And they can petition Starbucks to institute a no-gun policy with legal intervention to back them up. No one is advocating otherwise. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't feel the outrage from the public for their bigotry. But should they take that bigotry to the next level where they injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate people for exercising their right to keep and bear arms then they should be prosecuted.

I've taken Paul Helmke to task on this before but he just doesn't seem to get it. But I shouldn't be surprised. Bigots have a tough time learning.

Update: The Brady Campaign has directly responded to this post. They claim that if it is not an immutable characteristic such as skin color then it isn't bigotry or a civil rights issue:

In order to think this way, the key assumption such gun advocates have to make is that their guns and gun use are functionally identical to race, or sexual orientation — such that one’s status as a gun advocate is essentially an immutable characteristic.

By that logic banning interracial couples, Catholics or Muslims from Starbucks or Woolworths wouldn't be bigotry either. I've got news for the Brady Campaign Staff--they're wrong and I think they know it.

As long as they held on to the falsehood that the 2^nd Amendment did not protect an individual right they might have made a thin case for that. But as soon as the right to keep and bear arms was on the same level as the freedom of association and freedom of religion they lost that crutch. Via D.C. v. Heller we have, and the Brady Campaign acknowledges, a specific, constitutionally protected, right to keep and bear arms. With that decision they became a gentler version of the KKK. No white sheets or burning crosses in our yards but they still attempt to segregate us and ban us from parks, buildings, and businesses. The only difference between them and the KKK is the KKK was sometimes willing to take the law into their own hands. The Brady Campaign attempts to get the government, Amtrack, and Starbucks to do the yucky work of infringing on the rights of others for them. They are now on a slippery slope into obscurity and revulsion and they are grasping at straws with their denial of bigotry.

And their advocacy for public bans of us exercising that right is more than just bigotry. It is just a hairs breadth away from a felony:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

See Notes on Lethal Logic for links to all my posts on Dennis Henigan's book Lethal Logic.

Chapter 1 of Lethal Logic is titled: "Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People."

Henigan claims cars are a valid analogy to guns:

Automobiles do not often exceed the speed limit without a driver behind the wheel. Sitting in a driveway, a car seems pretty innocuous indeed. Does this mean that the sum total of our public policy response to reckless driving should be severe punishment of drivers who violate the law? Few would think so.

For example, most of us are quite comfortable with the idea that before anyone is permitted to operate an automobile he must be licensed by the government to do so.

...

It makes sense to have a system in place to prevent potentially high-risk people from driving in the first place.

The first thing wrong with this is that Henigan ignores driving on public roads is considered a privilege and that in D.C. v. Heller all nine supreme court justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right. Rights may not be licensed. You don't have to get a license or even notify the government if you decide to worship zero, one, or a dozen gods. You don't have to get a learners permit from the government to learn speaking in public. You don't have to fill out justification papers in triplicate, pay $100, submit your fingerprints, and wait 90 days before being allowed (or denied on the whim of some bureaucrat) to exercise your right to read Das Kapital, or Mein Kampf although those books and many other books have directly contributed to far, far more deaths, violence, and misery than the private ownership of firearms has. Even abortion, where it can be argued that an innocent life is being taken, no one has to take a class, apply for a permit, give a reason to a government bureaucrat, and have government records on file for exercising that right. Creating expensive, time consuming barriers for those choosing to defend innocent life using the best available tool for the job just somehow "makes sense" and infringment on a specific enumerated right is unworthy of notice.

The second point is that our drivers license system does not "prevent potentially high-risk people from driving in the first place." It only allows for an easier means to identify those that may be lower risk drivers. There are lots of people that drive without a license and data indicates unlicensed drivers are involved in 17% of fatal car crashes. It is misleading for Henigan to use licensing of drivers as a successful model for gun ownership, use, and "prevention of gun violence". And more directly to the point one only needs to check out Chicago and Washington D.C. with their firearms licensing schemes and see how effective they were in "preventing gun violence" compared to the surrounding communities.

Henigan and his organization expects us to believe that it is possible and desirable to prevent bad things from happening. Preventing crime has long been a hot button of mine. And it's not just me. The legal system has ruled on this in specific reference to firearms before and even has a name for it in relation to the First Amendment: Prior Restraint.

The next point Henigan tried to make is that guns are unregulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission or in some similar manner to what the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration does for automobiles. I don't need to give this point much attention in this chapter because Henigan doesn't do anything with it. The Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations have attempted to get magazine disconnectors, loaded chamber indicators, microstamping, and "personalized" firearms (also called "smart" guns) mandated. They have been successful in Maryland, New Jersey, and California but I find it telling they have yet to supply any data showing this has improved public safety. I expect these restrictions will be found by the courts to be unconstitutional within the next few years.

I know of no gun rights activists who believe regulations such as those proposed will satisfy the anti-gun people. I am of the opinion that "everyone" knows the only thing it will do is increase the price of guns with no measurable public safety benefits. Increasing the price in of itself is seen as a good thing by anti-gun people as shown by their frequent mention of "cheap" handguns in a pejorative manner (see page 164 in Lethal Logic, the Brady Campaign website, and the VPC website).

The remainder of the chapter is devoted to explaining that guns are weapons which makes it possible for a single person to take on multiple people from a distance and with reduced risk to the individual with the gun compared to a knife, or baseball bat. This is true. And as Henigan points out this is a bad thing when a violent criminal uses a gun to do evil. But what Half-Truth Henigan doesn't say is those same characteristics make it a useful tool for self-defense. It allows the elderly, the disabled, and the outnumbered to successfully defend themselves.

Regardless of which point Henigan attempts to make he completely fails to "explode the myth". The most that can be said of this chapter is as a lawyer he knows how to distract people from the fact that guns don't kill people--people kill people.

Dennis Henigan from the Brady Campaign wrote the book Lethal Logic--Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy. I would like to point out he claims, "Although this book has its roots in my work with the Brady Center, it is not a book produced by the Brady Center nor does it necessarily reflect the views of the Brady Center." Hence his flaws should not necessarily be attributed directly to the Brady Campaign.

The reason why he wrote the book and what he claims to have accomplished are described inside the front cover:

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

“An armed society is a polite society.”

Who hasn’t heard these engaging assertions, time and time again? Burned into the national consciousness by years of targeted, disciplined messaging by the National Rifle Association and others, they are just a few of the bumper-sticker slogans that have defined the gun control debate in America. Long ridiculed by gun control advocates, they are the first words that come to mind for most Americans when the gun issue is discussed.

This is the first book both to acknowledge the profound and deadly impact of the gun lobby’s bumper-sticker logic on the gun control debate and to systematically expose the misguided thinking at the core of the pro-gun slogans. Indeed, the author contends that the gun lobby’s remarkable success in blocking passage of lifesaving gun laws is the result, in large part, of its relentless and effective use of these simple and resonant messages. Their persuasive power has been a largely ignored influence on the current politics of gun control, in which the gun lobby wields unprecedented power in the Republican Party, while many Democratic Party leaders see the policy benefits of stronger gun laws as not worth the political risk of standing up to the NRA. Lethal Logic contends that the current political stalemate over guns will never be broken until the pro-gun slogans are exposed as the cleverly disguised fallacies that they are.

I read the book and took lots of notes. I'm finally getting around to sharing them.

I planned to just make one post but it would simply be too large and take too long. I have other things to do beside refute the rants of bigots. So I am going to break it up into smaller posts.

Henigan has a chapter for each "fallacy"/"bumper-sticker". I will address them one by one and update this post with links as I finish the post. The chapters are:

1. "Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People."
2. "When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns."
3. "But What You Really Want..."
4. "An Armed Society Is a Polite Society."
5. "We Don't Need New Gun Laws. We Need to Enforce the Laws We Have."
6. "Is Budweiser Responsible for Drunk Drivers?"
7. "From My Cold Dead Hands..."

But first I want to address something I find irritating every time I look at it. That is the cover:

The bullet holes look fake to me. Here are close ups:

The holes aren't round enough. And every paper bullet hole I have seen is more uniform than these. Perhaps a different type of paper causes the difference but I think it is more likely they were faked.

The central policy issue is whether the enactment of specific restrictions on firearms will prevent violence. Whether violence necessarily increases with the number of guns available in a society provides little guidance on that central issue.

Dennis A. Henigan
Vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Lethal Logic, page 108.
[Even after reading the entire book I still have to shake my head at these two sentences. They almost directly contradict each other. If violence doesn't increase with the availability of guns in a society then that does tell us that guns are an independent variable in the search for ways to prevent violence. "Independent variable" means it doesn't make any difference in the outcome. Hence they cannot legitimately claim violent crime as justification for "specific restrictions on firearms".

He does attempt to explain what he means in the following pages. But it boils down him claiming that restricting access and public carrying of firearms does prevent violence and it does not decrease "the number guns available in a society". This is a disingenuous at best and actually is factually false. Even the CDC says there is no evidence that any gun control laws have made people safer. Just One Question has been around for over five years now and still there hasn't been an answer come up that Henigan would be happy with. And anytime you increase the cost (money, time, and risk of innocently breaking a law are including in the definition of "cost" in this context.) the market will respond by lowering consumption. Hence, ANY restriction put on firearms will necessarily decrease the number of guns available.

Throughout the entire book Half-Truth Henigan very carefully words things such they are just barely true or only delve into outright falsehoods long enough to arrive at misleading conclusions. I think I have the time today, so today is going to be the day that I go through my notes on his book and make them into a blog post.--Joe]

Oakland California is trying to more heavily restrict firearms dealers. Never mind that there aren't even any gun shops in the city that sell to the public. When this was pointed out they responded with:

I think he wants to be sure that nobody gets any ideas of opening something. And if they did, they could regulate it under this law.

The very idea of someone contributing to people being able to exercise their rights needs to be repressed. At least they aren't (publicly) advocating killing gun owners as some people advocate.

There's a legal and very practical way to deal with open carry gun advocates that will get rid of some bad genes in CA. Tell the open carry gun advocates you dare them to come to your house with their guns. If they are stupid enough to come into your house with their guns get your loaded gun out and blow them away. Not a court in CA will convict you of any crime. This falls under the use of force (lethal) laws in CA. Whether the gun carrier guns are loaded or not you cannot tell and you have the lethal legal right to protect yourself here. This would be a good way to get rid of these mentally challenged people and will contribute to making the gene pool better in CA. Most of these gun carry advocates are already pretty close to getting a 1st place Darwin award. Help make sure that they do get it.

rectifier
February 3, 2010
Comment to Peet's and CPK tell Open Carry customers: No guns allowed
[Remember, these bigots don't just want you in the closet. They want you dead.--Joe]

Don’t expect the NRA to abandon its reliance on the fear of gun bans – it is not clear that the gun lobby knows any other way of arguing its case. And, admittedly, it may take years before the impact of the Heller decision on the gun debate is fully felt.

Dennis Henigan
February 3, 2010
Frank Luntz: “Culture War” Over Guns Is a Myth
[Half Truth Henigan is at it again. It will take years before we finish clearing the books of all the unconstitutional gun laws. But the "gun lobby" makes lots of arguments without "the fear of gun bans". If Henigan believes what he just said then I guess he didn't notice the some of the things the gun lobby has accomplished recently. Examples include Federal legislation allowing people to check guns with luggage on Amtrak, allowing concealed carry in National Parks, and blocking progress on restrictive gun show legislation. This doesn't include the progress made in the previous 20 years on enabling concealed carry.

Even ignoring those items the entire premise of his post is obviously false. There is a huge cultural war going on. How else can you explain observations like those made in the second half this post?

But what makes this particular half-truth so interesting is that all of those items, which have nothing to do with "gun bans", are in the 2009 Brady Gun Violence Prevention Report Card. I can only think of the following possible explanations:

1. Henigan didn't read the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
2. Henigan forgot the contents of the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
3. Henigan didn't believe the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
4. Henigan thinks no one else remembers the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
5. Henigan does not limit himself to rational thought.

I'm inclined to go with #5.--Joe]

The very fact that there are anti gun rights weasels in Congress is in itself a crime. When will the time come that it isn't considered "balance" to include the bigoted comments of the anti gun rights activists in public discourse, and it is seen for what it is-- a lying, bigoted, anti American movement? The Enemy Within. Would we tolerate the KKK being invited to speak in public forums? Would we tolerate an anti women's suffrage coalition of Mayors?

One thing we should always keep in mind is what victory would look like. One feature of victory would be that any politician who, even under his breath, even caught in a private conversation, suggests an infringement on a constitutional right risks swift impeachment. What could be worse, after all, than someone charged with protecting our rights actually fighting against them? Would you tolerate your nanny abusing your kids? Would you tolerate your security guard stealing from you or attacking you? Would you tolerate your grounds-keeper tearing up your lawn and garden, demanding that you have no right to a nice lawn? Would you tolerate your accountant embezzling from you? Why in the hell should we as a society tolerate any politician who hates the very fact that we have rights? If the term, "enemy of the state" has or ever had any meaning, surely an anti-rights politician is a prime example.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
February 1, 2010
In the comments.
[Wow! I think we should start including the essence of that in our emails to our congress critters.--Joe]

Via Jeff I found out about National Association for Gun Rights India. I immediately forwarded the link to Shobana and Priyanka (and here).

I then read the article and found out, as expected with something highly regulated, there is corruption involved:

Shahid Ahmad, who runs a Web site called the Gun Geek , said the process of getting a gun license in India is so burdensome that it encourages corruption. To hasten the process, he said, many applicants ask politicians to put in a word in their favor, or attempt to bribe officials and police officers.

To illustrate the point, gun advocates refer to a 2008 incident in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The clamor for gun licenses was so high, according to news media, that officials tried to induce men with large families to participate in a vasectomy program by promising a license in return.

If the men have to get a vasectomy to get a gun license I wonder what the women have to do. I wonder if they think this through... if the woman pays too high a price to be able to get the proper tool to defend herself and family there might be an increased potential for some payback when she gets her gun.

Gun Control supporters are in the grips of a long term voter backlash that shows no sign of abating anytime soon, the gun control gains made in the early 1990's planted the seeds, and those seeds, having grown into trees, are bearing fruit now. Every time a politician even mentions any kind of gun control, email servers melt, mail bags multiply, phone lines get red hot, and politicians get the message very quickly.

As long as gun owners perceive a threat, their activism will continue, after all, it is much better to be on the offensive, than the defensive. They are reminded of the threat, regularly, like the push to ban assault rifles in Washington state...Eric Holders comments.."talk" of closing the gun show loophole. Even Brady giving Obama an "F" reminds us, that their are people out there, who are plotting and scheming against the US Bill of Rights.

The talking heads on the news, that talk about "meaningful gun control" and complain about "lack of movement" on it, don't realize that all they are doing is reminding, millions of TV viewers in "rest of the nation", that "they are still trying to ban guns"...They elites just don't get it, so they keep talking, and the people, keep listening, and seeing the threat..

The Brady Campaign's and VPC's successes, almost 20 years ago, has come back to bite them, they kept "poking" the sleeping giant that is several million, peaceful, law abiding, reliably voting, solid block of gun owners... The politicians where quick to learn that gun control did not bring near the votes, Sara and her ilk promised, instead it costed them dearly, when their first votes on Gun Control, became among their very last votes.

Now those gun owners have reached the political strength, to not only stop, most gun control proposals before they even get to the floor for a vote, they have the ability to form their own legislation, and get it passed into law, and that is what we are seeing now...

15 years, of constant, steady political gains, has made it so..

Brady and the VPC should have quit, when they where ahead in 1993....The Hated AW ban of 1994, was the legislation that enraged millions, and most of them are still pissed about it.

If they would have stopped then, gun rights would not have moved so far today, but when they started banning guns, because of cosmetic features, gun owners woke up and said this is pure political BS, and "not one step more".

In a way, Brady, MMM, and the VPC, are their own worst enamy...We are a creation of them, now they can feel our wrath, its not our fault that we outnumber them by 10 to 1 at every meeting, lobby day, or public event..

The sad truth is, if they really want the gun right movement to go away, all they need to do is SHUT THE HELL UP about gun control, and in a few years, many strong gun rights supporters would stop pushing the legislators....BUT, Sara Brady, Paul Helmke, Micheal Blomberg, all republicans, cannot shut their traps that long to let the issue die down...

They keep the wound raw, so we, the great mass that is the Gun Rights movement, will march on...to victory...

Virginia Mountainman
January 31, 2009
Death of the Gun Control movement, birth of the Gun Rights movement
[I think this is a little overstated but the essence is true.--Joe]

At the hearing on the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban" in Olympia last week someone got an education in gun rights:

Prior to the hearing, as several Open Carry activists gathered in the hallway of the John A. Cherberg Senate Office Building, Washington CeaseFire’s Ralph Fascitelli approached a member of the State Patrol’s security team and, after pointing out that there were visibly armed citizens in the building, demanded of the trooper: “Do you know if they’re loaded?”

Sources have confirmed to the Gun Rights Examiner that Fascitelli appeared both irritated and unnerved, and he wanted the State Patrol troopers to check every firearm at the door of the building to see if they were loaded. He was told by the WSP that troopers do not have the authority under state law to do that.

Apparently news of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. constitution, the Washington State Constitution, and Heller decision hasn't reach Mr. Fascitelli yet. This is the same guy that said anyone that uses a semi-automatic gun to hunt is "an animal assassin". Maybe since he is from New York he is just a little "slow". Odd, he doesn't look that stupid:

Maybe he just thinks "those people" should just "learn their place" and he was hoping for some support by the police in teaching them a lesson. Instead he got the lesson.

I wish the WSP had just told him, "I would assume they are all loaded. Why would they carry unloaded guns around? We don't." Of course had he burst a blood vessel in his brain someone might have been charged with manslaughter. Just imagine the headlines--"Gun nuts kill without firing a shot" or "Looking at gun owners proves deadly".

Still, I think that in this case the benefits of open carry proved their worth. The risk of manslaughter charges was worth the pleasure of unnerving Mr. Fascitelli and teaching him that as the board president of the anti-freedom organization Washington Ceasefire he has a long hard battle ahead of him.

In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or it becomes true.

John Lilly
[See also what Paul Simon said on essentially the same topic.

There are lots of examples of this. It helps explain why there are so many religions that have incompatible "immutable truths". It helps explain advocates of socialism even after the deaths of tens of millions and the misery of 100's of millions by those attempting to build a "workers paradise". And in my favorite example it helps explain why Chicago politicians put up such an irrational defense in the McDonald v. Chicago case (via Dave Hardy)--Joe]

When police are called to a 'man with a gun' call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers may have no idea that these people are simply 'exercising their rights.'

Lt. Ray Lunny
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
January 28, 2009
News report inspires man to display gun in E. Palo Alto store
[Sounds a lot like responding to a call about someone "driving while black" in the "wrong" neighborhood.

You have to "love" them putting "exercising their rights" in quotation marks.

Via Say Uncle.--Joe]

Writing to one's state or U.S. representatives is quite easy, thanks in part to Algore's internets/tubes, and it is often an important thing to do.  They need to know what we're thinking, whether or not they agree.  More importantly, they need to be reminded of their duties in upholding the state and/or U.S. constitution, as they are so prone to (eh-hem) forget.  Soon after writing my WA state senators, cc-ing the house, thusly;

-----Original Message-----
From: Lyle
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 4:29 PM
To: Schoesler, Sen. Mark
Cc: Fagan, Rep. Susan; Schmick, Rep. Joe
Subject: Stop This Nonsense

HOUSE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE
SENATE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE

TO:  Senator Mark Schoesler

CC:  Representative Susan Fagan
     Representative Joe Schmick

FROM: Lyle

BILL:  6396 (Against)

SUBJECT:  Stop This Nonsense

MESSAGE:

Senate Bill 6396, the "assault weapon" bill is not only an affront to the Washington state and federal constitutions, it cannot possibly do anything to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals".  Criminals by definition don't obey such laws, and if certain guns are outlawed, criminals will be the only ones using them.

Further, it is well known that the federal "assault weapon ban" of 1994 (expired in 2004) did nothing to reduce or prevent crimes.

This new state bill can only be described as gun owner harassment, and an attack on the very concepts of liberty and self defense.

I point out that the AR-15 style rifle has recently become the most popular rifle platform in the U.S., and it would be outlawed by SB6396.  Millions of handguns carried for defense would become illegal under this bill also.  Is this how we are to fight crime-- by disarming or harassing the potential victims?

I urge you and your colleagues to stop this in its tracks, by any means necessary.  Further, I expect you to take decisive action within both the House and Senate against any law-maker who so brazenly attacks our personal liberties.  We will be watching.

Thank You.

I received the following response;

From: Schmick, Rep. Joe [mailto:Schmick.Joe@leg.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Lyle
Subject: RE: Stop This Nonsense

Thank you for your comments.  I have heard an overwhelming objection to this bill from others in the 9th legislative district.

I oppose any gun regulation.  I fully support your second amendment rights to bear and keep arms and rest assured, I will vote accordingly.

Sincerely,

Joe Schmick
State Representative

Good for Joe Schmick.  Just one little bone to pick; he makes no mention of going after law makers "who so brazenly attack our personal liberties".  No big surprise there.  This is a new concept.  Even pro-liberty politicians (or is that an oxymoron?) are accustomed to playing defensive holding actions 99 to 100% of the time.  We'll let that one go for now, though at some point this will have to change.  Your team will never make it to the SuperBowl with the greatest defense and no offense.  I replied;

Thank you very much for your response.  If it helps to convince others who may be on the fence, I invite you to recall that state initiative 676 back in the 1990s, which was a sweeping weapon restriction scheme, failed overall by a margin of about 69 to 31.  Washington citizens may be evenly split on some issues, but [this] is certainly not one of them.

Best Regards,

Lyle

No one else responded for about a week.  Then came this bit from state rep Susan Fagan (oh boy);

Lyle,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns and comments.  I appreciate your taking the time and effort to share your views with me.

I am humbled and honored to represent our constituents in the 9th District.  As legislators, we have hundreds of issues to consider.  We need to be fiscally responsible and work towards stimulating the economy.  We also need to help protect our most vulnerable citizens and maintain individual rights and freedoms.

Please know that I am working hard to make the best decisions possible towards responsive and efficient state government.  Your input alerts me to issues of major concern and helps me to effectively serve our district.

Best regards,

Susan Fagan
State Representative
9th Legislative District

439 John L. O'Brien Building
P.O. Box 40600
Olympia, WA  98504-0600
(360) 786-7942
Fagan.susan@leg.wa.gov

It's a form letter, designed as a blanket response, no matter the issue, no matter the position.  The only clue in there as to any sort of a position is that the term "individual rights and freedoms" appears.  A hard-core communist revolutionary probably wouldn't say that, but then again a hard-core communist revolutionary is also a chameleon, or a liar, by definition.  Not much to go on as part of a universal "I don't have the time to respond to you directly so here's some crap for you to chew on.  Now go away and don't bother me" letter.  A bit insulting.  She could have at least hired a junior high school delinquent to send a form letter addressing this particular issue as part of his public service requirement.  Such is life.  Very few politicians have the courage to actually say things.  No one else responded, but they did get my letter and that must count for something (so I tell myself).  If nothing else, the sheer volume can tell them a lot, and volume they have been getting.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy
[This doctrine should be universally applied to all infringements of liberty here and abroad. If the president were doing his job he would start arresting the anti-gun and anti-liberty politicians in Washington D.C. then Chicago, New Jersey, California, etc. After the U.S. is cleaned up Canada and Mexico should be encouraged to get in line.

I'm posting this for January 27^th on January 26^th, a day early because I need it for another post. I thought I had already posted it years ago but I can't find it now.--Joe]

Joe Waldron reported the following to the WA-CCW and WA-Guns email lists on the hearing in Olympia on Tuesday:

I just finished scanning the sign-in sheets on the bill.

313 signed in

14 signed "pro" (yes) on the bill
299 signed "con" (no) on the bill.

Actually, it was 11 "yes" and three blank, but they were in a bunch, all from Ceasefire, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Congratulations to Washington gun owners on a fine turnout! It doesn't quite beat the count for the gun show bill three years ago (SB 5197), but it was close!!!

21.4 to 1.

Typical. And probably the reason the MSM didn't mention numbers.

Also in the comments there was mention of people on our side that didn't sign in because they got there a little bit late (parking is hard to find near the capital) and who were directed to the overflow area away from the sign in table.

Good job guys.

Oh, there were some people that open carried. The cops helping with crowd control were just fine with it. They OC, so why should there be a problem if their bosses OC?

I find this very interesting:

To establish the interstate nexus element, the government presented testimony of Special Agent Daniel Meade of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Meade is formally trained in trafficking techniques for firearms in the United States and his job is to determine whether or not a particular firearm traveled in or affected interstate commerce. Meade testified that the RG Industries, Model RG 31, .38 caliber revolver, serial number 019420 was a firearm. He testified that RG Industries is located in Miami, Florida, "where this firearm would have been assembled" and also stated that "[t]his particular firearm, the frame was manufactured in Miami, Florida . . . ." Meade further testified that "[o]ther than the gun] being bought and sold through interstate commerce, I don't know how it particularly got to Texas in this instance, but it would have been bought and sold in commerce."

...

A criminal defendant has a Fifth Amendment right to be "tried only on charges presented in a grand jury indictment." United States v. Chandler, 858 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1988). Only a grand jury has the power to amend an indictment. See id. "A jury charge constructively amends an indictment . . . if it permits the jury `to convict the defendant upon a factual basis that effectively modifies an essential element of the crime charged.'" United States v. Daniels, 252 F.3d 411, 413-14 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Chandler, 858 F.2d at 257). The accepted test is that a "constructive amendment occurs if the jury is permitted to convict on an alternative basis permitted by the statute but not charged in the indictment." Id. at 414 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Section 922(g)(1) provides in relevant part that:

It shall be unlawful for any person . . . who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year . . . to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). "Firearm" is a term of art. It means "any weapon . . . which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive[;] . . . the frame or receiver of any such weapon[;] . . . any firearm muffler or firearm silencer[;] . . . or any destructive device."^{[ 3 ]} 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). "To establish a violation of § 922(g)(1), the government must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant previously had been convicted of a felony; (2) that he possessed a firearm; and (3) that the firearm traveled in or affected interstate commerce." United States v. Guidry, 406 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2005).

So, in order to convict this guy the firearm's violation they had to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the firearm traveled in or affected intersate commerce.

Why isn't this the "Magic Bullet" that the Firearms Freedom Act folks need to win their lawsuit?

Canadians took another step closer to freedom last night:

A decision by MPs in Ottawa to repeal the federal long-gun registry was met with harsh criticism by the Quebec government, and law enforcement groups across the country.

MPs voted 164-137 last evening to repeal the federal long-gun registry, despite police assertions that it saves lives.

...

The proposed legislation now moves to an all-party committee for public hearings before it returns to the House of Commons for a final vote and then heads to the Senate.

If the bill makes it through Parliament, it would mean the dismantling of eight million firearms records, say police.

The article is very negative on the news. The only thing positive in the article about the proposed easing of the infringements on an inalienable right is the following:

Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, the president of the Association des familles de personnes assassinées ou disparues du Québec, said he hopes yesterday’s decision will allow lawmakers to focus on more pressing matters.

“There are fewer and fewer hunting guns being bought, because fewer people are hunting, not because the registry has been a success,” Boisvenu said. “The real problem is caused by knives and handguns. (The long-gun registry) has cost $1 billion, and it’s not up to date. About half the people on that registry have changed addresses by now.”

Boisvenu, whose daughter Julie was kidnapped, raped and strangled to death in June 2002, said the money would be better spent cracking down on the trade of handguns and knives, many of which are funnelled through Native reserves. He said the long-gun registry would not have prevented a tragedy like the Polytéchnique massacre.

“All the mass killers have done their crimes with illegal guns,” he said. “There is nothing in place to stop someone from getting a gun on the black market and going to kill someone.”

If our president was doing his job he would praise the legislations and encourage them to hurry it through to completion--other presidents were advocates of liberty why not all?

Are you out of work and looking for a job. Would something gun related make it more fun to go to work each day?

The Brady Campaign is looking for someone.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and its legislative and grassroots affiliate, the Brady Campaign and its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence. We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities. We are searching for spring interns to assist us in our Research and Messaging and Marketing Departments.

Interns with the Research Department choose a specific research project to complete during the course of the internship in addition to pitching in on administrative tasks related to research, public affairs, or fund-raising.
Examples of research projects include summarizing research for our website and for our monthly Brady Research Update, short reports (2-3 pages) that are part of our Gun Laws Make A Difference series, e. g. explaining the impacts of gun control laws in California, New York City, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada and other projects.

Oh, there is something you should know--it's an unpaid position. I guess working to infringe a specific enumerated right and risking prosecution for violation of 18 USC 241 doesn't pay as well as working toward preserving and enhancing that right.

But you could have some fun with it. Check out the projects you could work on. I have some pointers to help you get started. There is even a picture of a Glasgow Smile you can use.

The list is for Ohio gun owners but substitute your local bigot activist for Toby Hoover and your local bigot politician for Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson and the ranking probably won't even change much.

I was unable to attend but the reports coming in indicate we had a good turnout. The MSM didn't give us any clues (check here, here, and here--do you any hints at all?) as to the ratio but it appears it was fairly typical:

More than 300 Washington gun owners descended on the John A. Cherberg Building in Olympia Tuesday morning for a hearing on SB 6396, the so-called “assault weapons” ban legislation sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Adam Kline.

Opponents of the bill vastly outnumbered its supporters, and for many in the audience who had traveled several hours to reach the capitol, it was disappointing that Kline allowed only 30 minutes for the hearing, and only a handful of speakers – evenly divided between pro and con – were allowed to speak. The crowd spilled out into the hallway, and at least a couple of auxiliary hearing rooms were jammed.

Also typical is the following type of stunt:

Several in the audience, including National Rifle Association lobbyist Brian Judy, were astonished when Pillo claimed to be “here today representing myself and my personal opinions,” yet she was in full uniform, complete with duty belt and sidearm.

This happens a lot at these type of events. It's very frustrating to have people who should be arresting and prosecuting people like the sponsors of these bills actually support them and openly admit they draw a government paycheck. They couldn't openly be a member of the KKK so why can they get away with openly supporting gun control laws? This has to change.

It is almost as difficult to make a man unlearn his errors as his knowledge. Malinformation is more hopeless than noninformation; for error is always more busy than ignorance. Ignorance is a blank sheet, on which we may write; but error is a scribbled one, from which we must first erase. Ignorance is content to stand still, with her back to the truth; but error is more presumptuous, and proceeds in the wrong direction. Ignorance has not light, but error follows a false one.

Charles Caleb Colton
[I was reminded of this by:

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, sponsor of the bill and chairman of the Judiciary Committee that was hearing it, said the bill includes descriptions of features on firearms such as pistol grips on rifles and barrel shrouds that make a gun “more lethal than your average deer rifle.” That prompted laughter in the hearing room...

I also considered the following as QOTD in response but I had already used them. Anti-gun people suck up my supply of ignorance quotes at a prodigious rate:

• Quote of the day--Ben Franklin
• Quote of the day--Mark Philip Alger
• Quote of the day--Robert Burton
• Quote of the day--Lord Acton
• Quote of the day--Peter McArthur
• Quote of the day--James Huffman-Scott
• Quote of the day--Akhenaton

I have news for Mr. Kline. The days of ignorance by the people at large is over. It's not going to work this time.

The sponsors of this bill have, and spread, malinformation. It's sometimes tough to deal with. But public laughter is a far more effective cure than anger and is better for your blood pressure too.--Joe]

They are down 97 points from the NRA who is in the lead. SAF is ahead of them by 95 points. Even GOA and JPFO lead them by 80 points. There is only one stage left in the match. It's a 20 round field course worth 100 points. Both the NRA and SAF have to almost zero the stage and Brady has to almost win the stage to come out ahead. It doesn't look good for the Brady Campaign.

A banjo playing in the background keeps getting louder. The gun nuts are oiling their guns, calling them "My Precious", and smiling that funny smile. They stare at the Brady's squirming and fully expect them to drop their guns and few remaining possessions and bolt for the nearest homeless shelter any second.

So what do the Brady people do? Dennis sends Sarah out for cookies.

[Actually, my understanding is Sarah probably would get distracted by something else she found in the kitchen and wouldn't get to the cookies.]

I would have rathered that Alan Gura had the time all to himself since he really understands the issues better than just about anybody on the planet. But I'm expecting a 7-2 or maybe even 9-0 victory for our side unless someone really, really messes up. So I'm not concerned that the NRA is getting some face time at the Supreme Court.

It is necessary for me to establish a winner image. Therefore, I have to beat somebody.

Richard M. Nixon
[I am reminded of this by the Obama Report Card by the Brady Campaign. On that same day the candidate they endorsed and everyone initially expected would be a shoo-in for the open Massachusetts Senate seat was beaten by a (at least moderately) pro-gun candidate. Now they want to beat on Obama who was considered their savior just a year ago.

The Brady Campaign would do well to remember the conditions under which President Nixon left the political scene. Claiming "necessity" and acting on that without adhering to the universal principles of honesty and integrity can lead to ruin. But then honesty has never been a strong point of the Brady Campaign so my advice is probably going be totally ignored.--Joe]

From Joe Waldron's Washington State Gun Owner Action League post dated January 22, 2010:

A public hearing will be conducted on SB 6396, the so-called “assault weapon” ban bill on Tuesday, 26 January.  The hearing will take place at 10 a.m. in Senate Hearing Room “1” in the John A. Cherberg Senate Office Building on the Capitol Campus in Olympia. 
 
It is imperative that as many individuals as possible attend the hearing and sign in in opposition to the bill.  A sign-in sheet will be available at a side table just inside the hearing room (or if the crowd is large enough, the sign-in sheet may be outside the room in the corridor).  Sign in with your name, address and a position on the bill: “con.”  There is a place on the sign-in sheet to indicate whether or not you would like to testify.  Time is limited, so I anticipate only a few individuals will be called upon on both sides of the issue.  Who gets to testify and who does not is solely up to the committee chair (Senator Adam Kline, sponsor of the bill).
 
Hints on testimony:  public input is limited to three minutes or less.  Begin by stating your name and where you are from.  Personal attacks on the motives of bill supporters are not allowed.  If a point has already been made, do not repeat it.  As with a letter to the editor, short, concise points are best.  While reference to “cold, dead fingers” may be dramatic, this is NOT a drama.  Courtesy is a virtue!
 
Parking in and around the Capitol Campus is extremely limited.  Olympia parking enforcement makes a ton of money enforcing the one-hour limit in the residential areas just south of the Campus!  If the spaces on Campus or overflow parking lots to the east are taken, it’s best to park in the business area in the blocks to the north, using the parking meters.  Car-pooling is the way to go!
 
It is equally imperative that, whether you can attend the hearing or not, you contact your Senator, by e-mail (https://dlr.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/Default.aspx), direct telephone (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/Default.aspx) or Legislative Hotline (1-800-562-6000) to indicate your opposition to the bill.
 
A committee vote on the bill will likely be taken a few days later in executive session.  The Judiciary Committee has eight members, five Democrats and three Republicans (matching the proportion of Democrats to Republicans in the Senate).  The three Republicans and one Democrat lean our way.

People are still saying the proposed AWB will be stillborn at best:

After 2009 ended in a hail of high-profile gun violence, Washington state's gun-control advocates are frustrated by an apparent lack of political support for an assault weapons ban, warning that the state will likely face more deadly shootings without it.

The bill comes just weeks after a spate of deadly police shootings, and proponents of the ban say those killings should force politicians to confront gun violence.

"There's more guns, a repressed economy and a lot of angry people," said Ralph Fascitelli, board chairman for state gun control group Washington Ceasefire. "You can't sweep this problem under a rug. Apparently the shooting of eight police isn't enough to confront gun violence in the state."

The bill was named in honor of 18-year-old Aaron Sullivan, who was shot and killed by a SKS 7.62-caliber rifle in Seattle in July. The legislation focuses on "military-style" assault weapons, which can fire rapidly and carry large magazines of ammunition.

Similar bans have not fared well in the state Legislature in the past, and in an election year, supporters face a battle to even get the bill out of committee.

They did manage to avoid Fascitelli embarrassing himself with more talk of "animal assassins".

See also my posts here, here, and here on the topic.

Looking for temporary Edens is a perpetual lure certainly not confined to writers, who sooner or later discover that the islands of their existence are, in truth, the tops of their desks.

Alastair Reid
Whereabouts--Notes on Being a Foreigner, Page 73.
[The same applies to socialists, progressives, and liberals (but I repeat myself). Anti-gun people also attempt to set sail for their imaginary island oblivious to or deliberately ignoring the fact that so many similar voyages ended in genocide. And those voyages that have not yet ended in genocide did not find Eden or even a better place than the one they left. I wouldn't mind it so much if they didn't insist, at the point of a gun, that others join them on their own version of Voyage of the Damned.--Joe]

...[S]uch ideas have merit in Hillary's world, where even little victories lead ever closer to the big prize: no guns, just government.

Colin Moore
January 21, 2010
Ban by baby steps
[As Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton has influence on the gun ban treaty and will probably do whatever is possible to push us closer to her version of utopia--a world without private ownership of arms.

This part of the reason I push so hard on the bigotry and "specific enumerated right" issue. We need to putting pressure on foreign governments that infringe their citizens rights as well. Canada, England, and Australia would be first on my list. It's a human right and we should be sending the appropriate messages when any government infringes on this right. And part of that message should be Col. Cooper's view on the topic.--Joe]

I had been putting Ian off all week. Last week I told him Monday evening should work. I had forgotten about the previously made plans to have dinner with James and Kelsey.

I didn't even offer Tuesday because that was the evening Barb was showing up from Idaho.

Tentative plans were made for Wednesday but those were scrapped when some tentative plans for dinner with some friends I expected to fall through didn't.

Thursday I loaded up my car with over a thousand rounds of ammo, three handguns, a rifle, and some other gear. I parked off across the street (Microsoft doesn't allow guns on campus) and that evening Ian and I went to Wades where I have a lifetime membership.

I went over the NRA three safety rules and he asked some questions about the NRA. The answers amounted to a brief history of the NRA. and NRA-ILA.

As he filled out the new shooter paperwork I paid the guest fee and purchased a USPSA practice target.

I started him out on a Ruger Mark II at about three yards:

Then an Olympic Arms AR-15 at seven yards:

Then S&W .22 revolver at three yards:

Then my STI Eagle 5.2 chambered in .40 S&W at three yards:

This is his single action revolver results (the double action results were just as good):

But he did well with .40 S&W too (the smaller holes are from the AR-15 at seven yards):

This is at seven yards with the .40 S&W:

We picked up the brass and as we drove to his bus stop I explained the economics and custom load benefits of reloading. It was during the drive he said the words I made my QOTD.

Another day, another oppressed minority from another country liberated (see also representatives from China, Canada, India, and Taiwan).

The headline reads, "Groups rally for, against gun control in Va." I kept looking in the article for how many were on each side. I've commented on this before, but the recap is short. In the past when I have been to protests and rallies the pro-gun people outnumber the anti-gun people up to 1000:1 and always at least 10:1. But the article didn't say what the numbers were. It just said:

Later in the day, far fewer gun control supporters wrote the names of those killed or injured in gun violence on hearts made from construction paper and placed them into a basket before lying on the grass outside the Capitol for three minutes to signify the time it takes to purchase a gun.

A commenter gives us the answer:

2,400 v 24... For every one person against the bill of rights, there was 100 for it...

On a logarithmic scale that was about average.

One has to wonder why the votes in the legislatures don't have similar ratios. The bigots/special interest groups apparently have pull far beyond their representation in the people at large. And it is the MSM failing to report the facts that help them get away with that.

If gun people and libertarians want to reject the benefits of American society and live freely, independently and unfettered on their own, they should look for caves in Montana and, if they’re full up, Afghanistan probably has vacancies. They’ll definitely need their guns there.

Daniel Johnson
January 20, 2010
The Second Amendment Fantasy and How Americans Have Been Taken In
[I find it interesting that Johnson and his ilk cling to their beliefs after all nine of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices found that the right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right. And then they want us to leave when the facts don't suit them. But then, what else can you expect from bigots?--Joe]

If you don't use the proper words in an advertisment for a gun New Jersey you are a "disorderly person".

If I were somehow persuaded to sell guns to the victims of New Jersey it would be on such a scale and for such purposes that it would go much beyond being a "disorderly person". They would think of me as they did those that sold guns to the Indians 150 years ago.

I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

Thomas Carlyle
[Nor do I.

However you will frequently read of the anti-gun people proclaiming with great satisfaction that such and such a poll shows "the people" want "assault weapons" banned or the "gun-show loophole" closed.

So what is it? Do they believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance?

I am quite sure that is not the case. We have direct evidence the anti-gun people deliberately prey on the collective ignorance of people. Like other con-artists their success depends on coming up with new scams with which to fool their victims as their old scams are exposed.--Joe]

I know there's a perception that in Israel, by golly, practically everyone has guns and that makes for great security.  They may have an effective military.  I don't know.  When was the last time it was really tested?

From our friend in Israel, we get a more accurate picture of how the government treats private gun ownership there;

Friends:

Something new has been inserted into the firearms regulations here.

When your rifle (includes all .22 caliber rifles, even Olympic small bore .22s and air-guns) license comes up for renewal, if you are not an active member of the new Israeli Rifleman Association– a new branch of the Israeli Shooting Federation arisen out of the ashes of the Civil Guard Sharpshooters Association in 2009 – you must turn your rifle into the police or get a licensed firearms dealer to carry it on his “books” for you or sell it. 

1. Since no one can obtain a rifle license, you can’t find anyone entitled to buy your rifle. 

2. I know of almost no gun dealer who wants the headache, even for a fee, of having to deal with the Ministry of Interior inspectors about having “your” gun on his book.  Even though it is “kosher.”

3. Turning your rifle(s) into the police, because your license to possess (even exclusively in your home) your private and valuable property is not renewed because of an administrative decision not to renew it, is confiscation.

And they will send the anti-terror unit of the Border Police to knockdown your door and destroy your home in the process of taking your rifle and you will be arrested and carted away – the TV cameras will be rolling and the newspaper photographers will be snapping photos of the event – you can be sure that the police will invite the media.

If you are a member of the new Rifleman Association you must be “active.”  The Ministry of Interior regulations define active as you participating in a minimum of 5 national competitions per year.

GOD BLESS THE SECOND AMMENDMENT and the entire Bill Of Rights!  Things Israel lacks.

Enjoy the Shot Show.

Howard

This resembles the UK more than it does our popular ideas of what Israel is supposed to be.

NRA News video on the U.N. plans for gun control.

The destruction of those firearms I find as, or more, disturbing as I would the burning of books.

As I have said before I regard this as one of the largest threats to our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. And contrary to what some people say I don't think the response by people will involve actively resisting. The first steps, should such a treaty get passed would be registration of firearms. I don't think people would take up arms on a large scale to oppose this. It would be more like Canada where they, in a large part, ignored the law.

This would mean that ammo sales would go down, practice would go down, recruiting of new shooters would go down, and within a generation or two the game would be over. Registration must be vigorously opposed and defeated in the legislatures and in the courts. Should such a treaty passed the enforcement of the treaty must be resisted with all the enthusiasm you would any other law that violates my Jews In The Attic Test.

The anti-gun bigots sometimes accuse us of irrational fears. I can't immediately think of any cases where there isn't at least some truth to the fears expressed but I suppose the accusation could be valid in some cases.

However the anti-gun mind is overflowing with fears that are so numerous and totally lacking in a rational basis they are not only laughable but they are being slapped down in court about it:

When Tarrant County College denied a student the right to stage an empty holster protest in April 2008 at the South Campus, officials feared someone would use the event to bring a weapon on campus.

"There was certainly the expectation that someone was going to show up with a gun in a holster," TCC interim Chancellor Erma Johnson Hadley said under cross examination during a trial in federal court Thursday.

School officials had the concern even though they had no evidence that anyone would, and U.S. District Court Judge Terry Means told her — when she couldn’t provide any proof of why she thought someone planned to do so — that free speech cannot be limited on the basis of an "undifferentiated fear."

"I can’t see any tangible basis for this fear," Means said.

I am sometimes not nearly so gentle with bigots like this. I insist they inhabit the real world and the leave their lunatic ravings at the funny farm. I say something like, "Facts. It's what reality is made of. I suggest you check it out."

People fashion their God after their own understanding. They make their God first and worship him afterwards.

Oscar Wide
From Hesketh Pearson, Oscar Wilde, His Life and Wit (1946) via The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2^nd Edition, mine is the 1^st Edition--1985) compiled by George Seldes.
[Although the list is essentially without limit my favorite examples are socialism, environmentalism, and gun control.--Joe]

The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.

There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.

After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise.

John Bolton
Former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations
Quoted by J.D. Longstreet January 15, 2009 in The UN To Take US Guns?
[I don't know if this is a real threat or not. My initial inclination is that the current Senate would refuse to ratify it. But I just don't know for certain.

Long term I do fear this sort of approach to gun control because it requires fewer people to agree to it. Just the President and 2/3s of the Senate. But how would that work if the treaty said "You must register and track all guns" but the House of Representatives refused to pass a law requiring that? How could a treaty be enforced against individual citizens without U.S. legal code defining the offenses and the punishments?

Would the U.N. send in troops to enforce it? If so I know some people who refer to this sort of situation as having unlimited license to hunt "blue helmeted elk".--Joe]

I posted a little something on it yesterday and last month I told you why it is DOA. But I've been getting email (thanks Carl and Barron) and I decided to dig into it a little bit more.

From the bill itself (emphasis mine):

(20) "Assault weapon" means:

8 (a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle

9 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a

10 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also

11 possesses any of the following:

12 (i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located

13 rear of the trigger;

14 (ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any

15 configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a

16 folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the

17 firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of

18 the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below

19 the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;

20 (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or

21 configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a

22 telescoping stock;

23 (iv) A barrel shroud;

24 (v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

25 (vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that

26 can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;

27 (b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine

28 at any location outside of the pistol grip;

29 (c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,

30 or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept

31 more than ten rounds of ammunition;

32 (d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;

33 (e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;

34 (f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an

35 assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or

36 under the control of any person.

37 (21) "Detachable magazine" means a magazine, the function of which

is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing

2 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any

3 tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.

4 (22) "Barrel shroud" means a covering, other than a slide, that is

5 attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel

6 of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the

7 barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without

8 burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension

9 of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially

10 or completely encircle the barrel.

11 (23) "Muzzle brake" means a device attached to the muzzle of a

12 weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.

13 (24) "Muzzle compensator" means a device attached to the muzzle of

14 a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.

15 (25) "Conversion kit" means any part or combination of parts

16 designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault

17 weapon.

Notice that some pump action guns are considered "assault weapons" by these bigots.

Notice that the firearm has to have a detachable magazine and any of the evil characteristics. In the 1994 Federal AWB it had to have two of the additional characterisitics.

Notice that muzzle breaks and compensators are considered evil enough to make a firearm an AW. That would appear to make all Glock "C" models outlawed under this proposal.

And people like Dennis Henigan (Lethal Logic chapter 3) claim there is no slippery slope.

The line about "any tool, including a bullet or cartridge" appears to be in severe need of rewriting. I can't make sense of it as it stands. I'm sure the Seattle bigots heard the California bigots whining about the manufactures making "California legal" firearms with a receiver that allows the magazine can be removed with a cartrige used as tool and hence complies with the law. I guess they didn't hear about the ring worn on your finger than does the same thing.

Also of note is that the grandfathering of existing ownership is more than little harsh:

16 (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was

17 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person

18 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

19 (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of

20 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to

21 ensure compliance with this subsection;

22 (b) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or

23 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use

24 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while

25 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of

26 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the

27 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container

28 during transport.

So in order to exercise your specific enumerate right to keep bear firearms in common use (most of my firearms would be illegal by this definition) you have to allow the sheriff to annually inspect your firearm storage--with no guidance on what is considered "safely and securely".

A person would not be allowed to transport the firearm under any number of important situations such as to the gunsmith, a hunting trip, out of state for sale or as a gift. Let alone carry one on a daily basis as I do.

And what is it with "duly licensed firing range"? A search of the Washington State Department of Licensing website turned up nothing.

Also note that a couple of the bigots who proposed the law wrote an error filled opinion piece in the Everett Herald.

As other have said--we win because the other side is stupid. They are apparently nearly completely blinded by their own bigotry. But isn't that nearly always the case with bigots?

A sniper rifle, a M16 and an automatic hand gun are only designed to kill people, it cant cut your steak or make a nice stew. There is NO legitimate use for them PERIOD.

Asguard
November 10, 2008
Comment to 8 year old murders father and friend...
[Nice proof by vigorous assertion.--Joe]

Voter frustration has a way of becoming voter fury when lawmakers stick one hand in their wallet and the other hand in their gun cabinet.

Dave Workman
January 13, 2009
Bill introduced to ban so-called ‘assault weapons’ in Washington State
[This bill defines certain pump action rifles and shotguns as "assault weapons" as well as ordinary semi-autos.

Vote the bums out!--Joe]

The only thing a gun is good for is killing and maiming people and animals. It is especially bizarre that several people professing to be Christians are keen to get their hands on the means to kill and maim. Would Jesus have packed an assault rifle?

...

You should also consider that a lot of this weaponry stuff is not about rights or owning arms, but SELLING arms, and making money out of it. Always follow the money.

mikecope
March 3, 2009
[First off, apparently he forgot that Jesus said:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Luke 19:27

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36

Second, it is spoken like a true communist. It's the greedy capitalist that is responsible for everything they think of as evil in the world. It's that unchallenged assumption--"Money is the root of all evil."

I prefer Ayn Rand's claim "Money is the root of all good."--Joe]

I find that people who are so enamored with guns are people who feel powerless in some way and have to prove something to world about how big, important and special they are.

...

Guns are a hideous necessity for law enforcement, but should never be in the hands of anyone else.

Marie
Oct 29, 2009
[Just so you know what some people thing of you and your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.--Joe]

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[I was reminded of this after reading Roberta post The Greater Depression. I snorted in laughter when I read the last line of her post but then it took me several minutes for me to give Barb the context so she could get the joke. She claims it was worth it.--Joe]

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Thomas Jefferson
[This was going to be a response to some gun fearing wussy who had objections to my statement here. But no one took the bait and someone else brought up what Jefferson said in the comments before I did.--Joe]

How could he be in charge of Seattle's gun-prevention programs?

Peter Masundire
January 5, 2009
A Democratic activist in South Seattle.
Gun guy packs heat in message
Referring to Seattle mayor's gun adviser, Mark Pursley.
[It's nice for them to admit that is what the position is intended for. And it's also nice to know the guy in that position has at least some sympathy for our position.

H/T to Mike and Ry for the email pointer.--Joe]

Some anti-gun people get upset and start whining about pro-gun people being "afraid of our government". They try to portray citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms as paranoid. In the general case this is certainly wrong.

It is not a fear of government that motivates us to acquire arms and training. It is the public servants that do not fear their citizens.

More than ninety percent of Americans agree that a waiting period to purchase firearms is sane, sensible policy, and the success of the Brady Law over the last five years proves them right. Why are we fixing what isn't broken? And why will we again be losing innocent people to an enraged spouse, a disturbed employee, or a would-be criminal needing a fast and easy firearm?

Sarah Brady
Press Release from Handgun Control Inc.
November 30, 1998
From http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/nov30-98.htm (as of February 18, 1999) it is still available at http://www.handguncontrol.org/media/press/view/147 which is an alias for http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/147.
[Two things.

First, Brady/HCI measures success in terms of number of people blocked from purchasing a gun. They ignore studies that are unable to show their pet laws are effective. They ignore the people who died who might have lived had they been able to purchase a gun to defend themselves from a serious and immediate threat. This is like being pleased your unmarried teenage daughter wasn't able to purchase contraceptives at the local drug store and ignoring that she is pregnant.

Second, the domain handguncontrol.org is a valid alias for bradycampaign.org. This is true both technically and politically. "Brady Campaign" was an attempt to hide what they really are. Just as they attempted to hide the meaning of the Second Amendment prior to the Heller decision they continue their deceptive ways now and probably will continue to do so as long as they exist.

For the geeks, I have saved you the effort to do the WhoIs query:

Domain ID:D3642098-LROR
Domain Name:HANDGUNCONTROL.ORG
Created On:03-Jun-1997 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:06-Feb-2009 15:09:45 UTC
Expiration Date:02-Jun-2011 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:7529249ef51fd237
Registrant Name:Keith Hall
Registrant Organization:Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Registrant Street1:1225 Eye Street, NW Suite 1100
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:DC
Registrant Postal Code:20005
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2022895784
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:webmaster@bradynetwork.org
Admin ID:84510988aa81f856
Admin Name:Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Admin Organization:Brady Campaign
Admin Street1:1225 Eye Street, NW Suite 1100
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Washington
Admin State/Province:DC
Admin Postal Code:20005
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.2022895784
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:webmaster@bradynetwork.org
Tech ID:C1-RCOM
Tech Name:Domain Registrar
Tech Organization:Register.Com
Tech Street1:575 8th Avenue
Tech Street2:11th Floor
Tech Street3:
Tech City:New York
Tech State/Province:NY
Tech Postal Code:10018
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.9027492701
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.9027495429
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:domain-registrar@register.com

--Joe]

On Saturday I ran across a question:

Gun control why don't you believe in it?.?

If there were a gun control many kids and older people would still be alive, I think i know the reason why there is such a fight against controlling the who has guns, It all falls on macho men or men who think it makes them tough, It starts very early in a boys life playing with toy guns and computer war games or hunting games, They learn very young at how to kill, and they call it fun. Boys don't know how to play a non killing game. Now there older but not smarter they join the services so they can kill real people and get away with it with a pat on the back for great job soldier! if the survive men come home injured They expect a great home coming and that the Veterans or any hospital will treat them free, Well some come home with a missing leg or arm, some come home with a messed up mind and cant fit in with the rest of society, The killing continues Some G I 's kill strangers some kill there family's and some kill themselves either way they were trained to kill. Where are the Peace Makers Why cant young boys be taught a different way of life? Like learning about our world and how to make it more Energy wise Or how to build instead of blowing things up, Or how to love and not hate? How to share not be greedy . I do feel sad for all the young boys, But once they come home from the killing fields i have no feeling for them just disgust they were trained to kill and want to continue killing even if it cost them their lives, I cannot feel sorry for the wounded soldier he or she Asked for it, For the love of the GUN & love of the KILL This is a sick world filled with sick men, Take the guns away what is left? Little men with little minds .For all you out there that say the killing is to keep America safe , That's a joke Other country's say the same thing . I love my country but i love my sons more so i teach them to share and to feel an others pain early in their childhood I did my part for the good of my country and my sons know that a life is to be lived not killed.

I responded:

Your very first sentence presumes facts not in evidence. The fact is there is no evidence that says gun control has ever made society safer. Anyplace, anytime, anywhere--EVER!

The rest of the rant is equally lacking in facts. To be taken seriously opinions and beliefs must be based on facts. Nothing in this "question" is factual based and therefore is only worthy of scorn.

Source(s):

http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

And got this email in response:

It is a fact that guns kill, It is another fact that kids are getting the Guns from home , It is also a fact that the killing of kids in this good old USA is done by the kids that get GUNS from home, You Joe are the example of what i'm talking about, The very firearms you hold dear, will someday kill maybe you'll be the one who will be shot with your own dear firearm, You men cant see past your macho ways. there must be a better world after this life, If not i dont want to be a part of the human race, Even animals dont kill their own, unless he or she is brain damaged.

I responded with this:

People kill. Sometimes they use guns. Sometimes the killings are illegal. Sometimes the killings are justified. Sometimes the killings are praiseworthy.

Sometimes accidental deaths happen when people use guns.

There are two questions at issue.

1) Does restricting firearms make society a safer place? The answer is no. There is no evidence of this.

2) Is it legal for a government to ban firearms? The answer is no. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right that may not be infringed.

Just as freedom of speech and religion can be used for evil so can firearms. The only acceptable mitigations to this is to punish the individual people that abuse their freedoms. To infringe the freedoms of people that have done no wrong is immoral and illegal.

And if you think I'm macho then you haven't spent any time around me, talked to my wife, children, friends, or even read my blog.

Facts. It's what reality is made of. I suggest you check it out.

If you have a Yahoo! ID you can also answer her "question" by going here.

Update: She responded again.

Guns dont kill by themselfs Joe. But i get your drift, it will take God himself to make gun owners see that he gave life and he did not ask "man" to end life. We can disagree all day long, But guns kill, Man needs to become humble and value other lives as he does his own.

She is incoherent enough at this point that I think I will just let it drop at this point.

Update: The question has been deleted. I wonder why...

Joe Huffman is one of the best reasoned, most reasonable gunnie voices out there. This essay is required reading.

George @ http://www.newbieshooter.com/
January 1, 2010
Necessary reading
Referring to http://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/01/01/TalkingPastEachOther.aspx
[It's nice to see others agreeing with and feeding my inflated sense of self-worth.--Joe]

Via David Hardy.

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier:

The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed.  According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.

Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols.  Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern "was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety."

What if this had been a minority of some sort, or someone exercising their right to free speech, or someone exercising their right to have a lawyer present while being questioned? Is this in any way respecting our rights? Or is the right to keep and bear arms special such that the police can ignore it if they want?

When it comes to those who truly think they are elites, who truly condescend when it comes to gun owners, you are basically encountering the anti-gun Klan.

No matter the education, the polish, the social graces they might show, the anti-gun Klan is just as big a stinking dog-crap pile of bigoted, prejudiced rotteness as the other more famous Klan.

In other words, don’t go out of your way to convert the truly condescending ones.

They cannot be reached, because you are merely a silly peasant, and they are just smarter than you are.

Hillbilly
January 2, 2010
Comment to The Big Debate: Godwin?
[As I have been saying, for years, The Brady Campaign is the 21st century equivalent of the KKK.--Joe]

A bill being proposed in New Hampshire would make felons out of Federal Law enforcement officers that attempt to enforce certain Federal anti-gun laws:

II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

See also here and here for more views on the topic.

There are two non-obvious points I find very interesting with this.

1. It has been found, in the ninth circuit anyway that a state may charge a Federal law enforcement officer, performing acts he believed to be valid, is subject to state prosecution for crimes associated with that act.
2. The states, in effect nullified the Real ID act by refusing to comply with the Federal law.

I'm not particularily hopeful that it will get passed and actually come to it but assuming the bill goes into law I wish I had the time, money, and opportunity to sit around taking pictures and eating popcorn when the first Federal LEO gets arrested and tried.

I expect that there will be fireworks elsewhere and the issue will be settled before it come to that in NH.

I find it very telling that sex registries are considered punishment for the people on those lists. And because of that some registries have been declared unconstitutional.

But advocates of registries for gun owners and guns don't see the problem.

But we shouldn't be surprised. Advocates of restrictions on guns don't respect the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution in general.

I've been updating my Brady Center needs money post with each new Tweet that comes in asking for money. They are up to 15 now.

Do you see the pattern? Just like clockwork (all times are Pacific Standard) at just after 8:00, 11:00 and 15:00 they ask for money each day.

This may come as a shock to some, but shootings, murders and crime were all happening during the times the federal and state constitutions were ratified, and their framers still chose to protect our right to possess combat arms. I think they knew exactly what they were doing.

Kevin Schmadeka
January 2, 2010
‘Arms’ are weapons; we have a right to them

I had a nice long chat with shooting buddy Mike B. today. One of the things we talked about was the situation of carrying a firearm near schools. I didn't realize it but just because your CCW license is good in another state doesn't mean it protects you from prosecution for simply carrying concealed in that other state.

Mike supplied the evidence.

Basically the Federal law against carrying within 1000 feet of a school has an exemption if you have a CCW issued by the state in which the school is in. But if, for example, you have a Washington state license which is recognized by Idaho but no Idaho license and you and I, both carrying firearms, go walking past a school here in Moscow you could be charged with a crime and I would be innocent of any wrong doing.

Just another example of Huffman's Rule of Firearms Law.

I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it.

Marshall McLuhan
[This applies to many things. Once you believe the earth is round it is pretty easy to prove it. Once you believe it is possible to defend yourself with a firearm you see how it can be done and is easily a part of your everyday life.

The risk is that once you believe something you may see things that are not there. For example, if you believe everyone is watching you then you can probably find sufficient evidence to maintain that belief. If you believe guns are only useful for murder then you can find evidence to maintain that belief. The same goes for man caused global warming (or cooling) and the benefits of socialism.

The solution to the dilemma is to understand how to distinguish truth from falsity detached from all belief and emotion. I'm saddened to report this appears to be much more difficult than it seems and far, far too rare.--Joe]

A few days ago there was was a pretty big discussion on some blogs about the "Godwin-y" comparison of publication of concealed weapons permit holders to Jews (etc.). The relevant posts are below in chronological order. There was one post prior to this where the Jews in the Attic Test came up in private email but I'm not including it since it was not public.

The comments are where most of the action is:

• The Herald Times fires back (In the comments the first mention is made of "Jews" and my Jews in the Attic Test)
• In Other Gun News (African Americans are drawn in along with Jews)
• Moral cripples with the ethics of syphilitic weasels... (Add residents of battered women's shelters and homosexuals to the mix.)
• Take a deep breath. (Joanna says it's gone a bit over the top.)
• Take (another) breath. (Joanna emphasis her point and protests some of the criticism of her position.)

For the most part it appears to me that many of the participants were talking past each other. Joanna appears to be justified for expressing some irritation with:

I'm gonna say this once, and I'm gonna say it loud and use small words, so everyone understands me.

IT'S NOT OKAY THAT NEWSPAPERS MADE DATABASES WITH INFORMATION ABOUT CONCEALED-CARRY WEAPONS PERMIT HOLDERS

BUT

IT'S NOT KRISTALNACHT.

But then she appears to talk past them because as near as I could tell no one said it was anything like Kristallnacht.

That said I mostly disagree with Joanna saying it is over the top to make the comparison between the list of CCW holders and Jews.

It boils down to three things that need to be addressed.

1. How bad does it have to get before it is okay to say it is acceptable to make the comparison?
2. Just what is the current state of affairs?
3. Gun ownership is a choice. Not something immutable like the color of your skin, your gender, or perhaps (let's not go there, okay?) your sexual preference.

Point 1.

Silence = Death

My claim is that if you wait until the bigotry is so bad that you have events which are the equivalent of Kristallnacht you have waited much too long. At that point the police are looking the other way if not actually participating in the injustice.

A little bit of history (mostly from memory which is probably more than a little bit fuzzy so correct me where I make errors) is in order.

The abuse of Jews in Germany did not spring up out of nothingness when Hitler rose to power in the mid 1930s. Most people know there was a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany after WWI. But there was a strong German dislike for them going back several decades. And in some places in Europe it extended back hundreds of years.

That sentiment and the associated abuse did not include extermination camps until 1941. It sometimes involved unequal treatment under the law, segregation, and even driving them out of the country. But a greater proportion of the time it involved ostracism, boycotts, and public humiliation.

When is the appropriate time to complain about being mistreated as a group? Just what is the threshold before you get vocal and, in no uncertain terms, tell the bigots to back off?

Is it when the other kids in school make fun of your child because of the funny hat he wears sometimes? Is it sufficient if the newspapers attribute most crime and/or disease to "your kind"? Will it be time when the textbooks portray you as inherently evil (see also here)? Or what if the schools and public accommodations are segregated and significantly unequal? Do you wait until you are spat upon nearly every time you are in public? Or maybe you wait until it becomes illegal to have a government job.

I claim the time to get vocal about is as soon as it happens. I don't think it is appropriate to stand secure in your position, unruffled, and get on with your business. It is very rare that you can win a war if you always play defense. You must go on the offense because otherwise your enemy will chose the time and place of his attack such that it maximizes his opportunity for success. If you are always fighting to protect your weakest flank what do you expect the result will be? We must fight on their weakest flank with our strongest "troops".

A somewhat proportional response (Joanna's best point) is appropriate. You don't shoot the school bully after he splashed mud on your daughter's dress (you look the other way while daughter Kim takes him down and rubs his face in the mud). You do shoot the police herding your family into the railroad cattle cars (a few hand grenades into their fully loaded APCs wouldn't hurt either).

In 1987 gay activists came up with the slogan Silence = Death. They used this as the text for a poster composed of a pink triangle on a black background. The pink triangle, of course, was appropriated in the 1970s as a reminder of Nazi Germany where an inverted pink triangle was used to identify known homosexuals.

Silence in the face of injustice is almost certain to result in more injustice. And left uncorrrected long enough it will result in the extermination of the targeted population. The extermination may be the result of conversions to non-targeted groups or it may be through the physical elimination of that population.

Silence is not an option.

Point 2.

We don’t know who discovered water, but we know it wasn’t a fish.--Marshall McLuhan

We are blind.

I think one of the problems the Jews faced in Germany was the "boiling frog" problem. Things moved slowly enough that there was never a big enough change in one day/week/month that they could justify taking a stand over the latest injustice. The cost of putting up a fight versus the possible benefit never looked better than just trying to "keep your head down" and getting through another day. For those familiar with optimization problems--I view it as seeking a local optimum while actively avoiding the search for a global optimum.

I think it is far too easy for gun owners and especially the neutral but non-gun owning population to be unaware of the current state of affairs because it "is just the way it is". The status quo almost always seems perfectly normal.

I will now point out some things that I think most people overlook when they think of gun owners and the situation we face. I do this in a fairly general manner and don't even get into the most extreme situations like in New Jersey where "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril" (New Jersey v. Pelleteri). In order to see how bad it is I use comparison to other specific constitutionally protected rights.

Individual treatment.

There are people advocating that parents ask if their child's friend has guns in their home before allowing them to visit. What if it were a religious or skin color test before they could visit?

There are celebrities who advocate that you be sent to jail if you own a gun.

There are people advocating "snuffing out" gunshop owners and pro-gun legislators--complete with lists.

There are people advocating the killing all gun owners.

The schools.

Of course you know that guns are only allowed near schools in a handful of states under very restricted situations. And you've heard about kids being suspended for possession of "GI-Joe" action figures with "guns" the shorter than your thumbnail. Or a sandwich eaten into the shape of a gun. What sort of message does this send the children about guns and gun ownership?

Are there any school textbooks that portray the shooting sports, self-defense, or the individual right to keep and bear arms in a positive manner? If so I have never seen them.

If it were a First Amendment issue regarding religious symbols or clothes what would be the effect? There would be a law against Jewish/Christian/Muslim symbols within 1000 feet of a school. If you park you car with a bible in it just outside the limit they suspend you anyway. And if you make the sign of the cross in front of another student you get kicked out of school.

Businesses.

Nearly all workplaces forbid you to carry a gun. It doesn't matter that you are a petite female, elderly, wheelchair bound, or unable for any reason to defend yourself yet work the night shift in the bad part of town. Your best tool for defending yourself against death or permanent injury has to remain in your car and parked off the company property or you, almost for certain, will be fired on the spot.

If you park your car with guns in the trunk so you can go hunting when you get off work they will bring dogs in to sniff for them on the first day of hunting season--and then fire you.

Many businesses and shopping malls have signs on their doors forbidding you to carry on their property.

eBay, PayPal, and other commerce sites turn you away when firearms and/or firearm related accessories are involved. And in many cases who can blame them? The ATF has a reputation of  confiscating records, computers, products, and jailing the people involved in legitimate firearm businesses and frequently refusing to even tell them of the allegations against them.

Laws.

You can't carry a gun on a plane, train, or many buses. You can't carry a gun in the post office. There are some places where you cannot carry a gun in hosptials or churches.

Where is the Federal agency charged with enforcing the laws and making regulations restricting the First Amendment? What form do you have to fill out when you purchase a serial numbered Bible, Koran, or Torah? The form that must be kept for 20 years and be available for inspection by law enforcement?

And shouldn't you have to pass a background check before you can purchased a religious book? And wouldn't a 10 day waiting period be a good idea? What could it possibly hurt to wait a few days before getting possession of such powerful words they have been used as justification for the death and oppression of millions of people? It's not like if you you need a copy of the Bible or Koran to defend yourself against an abusive ex who is threatening to kill you. You can get along just fine for a few days (or months) while the police interview your neighbors to see if you really should be allowed to own a book. And don't forget mandated, government approved, training on the responsibilities of religious book ownership.

What if there was a law that enhanced penalties for crimes committed by Jews/Muslims/homosexuals? Suppose if you robbed someone while being a Muslim you automatically had another five years added to your prison term. How does that sit with you? We have that situation for gun owners, right now, in this country.

What if the standards of evidence were different if you were a Jew? Instead of the prosecutor having to prove your guilt you had to prove your innocence? I had one former New York City prosecutor tell me that if you shot someone in NYC the gun owner, and rightly so, had to prove it was self-defense. It was not the job of the prosecutor to prove it wasn't self-defense.

There was a case where failure to pay a $200 tax on a shotgun (a jury eventually acquitted them of all of the alleged crimes and recommended the Federal agents compensate them for shooting the family dog as well) resulted in snipers in camouflage surrounding the house of the alleged perpetrator with the orders, "Deadly force can and should be used against any armed adult outside the house". This order was in effect even without any occupants of the house knowing there was law enforcement outside or that they had orders to shoot on sight. The occupants of the house were exercising a constitutionally protected right when they left the house carrying their guns--as they always did when they went outside. It resulted in two of them being seriously wounded and a mother with a baby in her arms being killed via bullet to her head. What happened to the shooter and the people who gave the order? Even after congressional hearings they didn't even loose their jobs or pay a fine. How much worse does it have to get before one can consider it the equivalent of the treatment of Jews in Germany 75 years ago?

Everyone knows about Nazi Germany treatment of Jews. But what about their treatment of private gun owners? The story of the Belgian Corporal is just one example. Did you know the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 was based on the German Weapons Control Act of 1938? And someone dares to say it's inappropriate to compare gun owners with the plight of the Jews?

Point 3

Chilling Effect Doctrine: In Constitutional Law, any law or practice which has the effect of seriously discouraging the exercise of a Constitutional Right.--Blacks Law Dictionary.

True. There is a something to be said about "having a choice" to be a gun owner. You don't have a choice to be black, racially Jewish, and perhaps homosexual. It is for this reason I frequently mention "interracial marriage" as a comparison. You don't have to date, marry or stay married to someone with a different skin color. You don't have to be openly gay. And you don't have to be Baptist, Catholic, or Muslim.

So if your name and address was published in a list of all the Catholics in a state, right next to the sex offender database, you should just suck it up and not worry about it? Or how about the list of people in interracial marriages? It isn't valid to compare that to a list of Jews because you can get off the list by changing the church you go to, or divorcing your spouse? Are you serious?

In this country we have a specific, constitutionally, protected right to belong to whatever church we want to as long we don't hurt anyone else. And punishment for hurting someone else cannot be in the form of prior restraint. The law may punish someone for falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, but the law may not remove someone's ability to yell while in the theater. Yet we have that in this country for gun owners.

When someone starts publishing lists of "those people" it doesn't really matter whether the list is of racial Jews or people that worship at the church of John Moses Browning. The publishing of that list serves just one purpose. And that purpose is not for the benefit of those on the list. The purpose is to cause a chilling effect on the exercise of that constitutionally protected activity.

Conclusion

The comparison of gun owners to Jews is valid. It currently doesn't compare to the situation of Jews in Germany in 1941 or even Kristallnacht in 1938. But it's not much different from their situation in 1931. The social stigma, the negative stereotyping in the press, schools, and the enhanced harshness of the laws all parallel the plight of the Jews in 1931. We even have politicians talking about the "Gun Problem" just like there were German politicians talking about the "Jewish Problem". There are only a few people that want to kill us and a few more "enlightened ones" who just want us in prison. But you will have no difficulty finding people that want to stigmatize, harass and impose further restrictions on us.

Perhaps when comparing gun owners to Jews it should be qualified with "the Jews in 1931". They didn't have it so bad, did they? They didn't have anything to worry about, did they?

True, our situation has been improving over the last few years. The trend is definitely up compared to the dark days of 1994 and 1995. There were smart, extremely well informed gun rights professionals, who then believed that the fight for gun rights would all be over in ten years. In ten years, they told me, the only people with guns would have a government paycheck or would be criminals. There would not be any young people to carry on the culture and the culture of freedom associated with gun ownership would be essentially extinct within 20 years. They were wrong. But the situation is only marginally improved.

Ten years doesn't sound like a very long time but the changes can be profound. Just because the are no extermination camps for gun owners today doesn't mean we can't run a path parallel to the German Jews of 1931.

I just "love" the careful wording of this article:

Nationwide the ATF tracks some 300,000 guns involved in crimes every year.

In 2008 there were about 9,500 murders and approximately 317,000 robberies and aggravated assaults committed with firearms. Are they saying they found nearly every one of those guns and that virtually no gun was used in more than one crime?

No.

Then what are they saying?

The answer is that it includes recovered stolen guns. The anti-gun people try to use the ATF data in ways that imply the guns were all used in crimes and end up with invalid conclusions. Watch them closely.

Another thing I don't like about the article is the anti-gun ownership tone:

ATF special agent Kelvin Crenshaw says his agency is investigating people related to the weapons involved in all these shootings.

"Every gun has a story to tell," he says.

Investigators are now looking at everyone from the dealers, who first sold those guns, to the killers themselves - and everyone in between.

"If there is one mistake in your agenda," says Crenshaw, "we're gonna catch you and you're gonna go to jail."

ATF investigators also say there is no law in Washington requiring people to report a stolen gun to police. they say such a law would surely provide more leads for their investigations.

One mistake and they are going to send someone to jail? Even if it was an innocent mistake? No intent is required?

And apparently isn't not possible to have too many laws and regulations restricting the exercise of a specific enumerated right. They need to have as many ways as possible to put "those kind of people" in jail.

As Sebastian noted the Brady Center has been almost shrill in it's requests for money. Since that post there have been even more requests. Here is the complete list so far:

• 7:20 AM Dec 17th: Please consider a year-end, tax-deductible gift to the Brady Campaign's sister organization, the Brady Center. Thanks!
• 9:49 AM Dec 28th: Be charitable and donate to the Brady CENTER to save on taxes for this year!
• 11:32 AM Dec 28th: Don't forget to consider a tax-deductible year-end gift to the Brady Center! Now is the time.
• 9:41 AM Dec 29th: December 31 is the end of tax year. Click here to give a tax deductible gift to help make America safer.
• 1:16 PM Dec 29th: Build safer communities and keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Make a tax-deductible gift today.
• 8:03 AM (PST) Dec 30th: Help protect families and communities from gun violence. Click here to make a tax-deductible contribution today.
• 11:02 AM (PST) Dec 30th: Want health care reform? End gun violence today. Make a tax-deductible gift today.
• 2:31 PM (PST) Dec 30th: Ending gun violence begins with you. Click here to make a tax-deductible gift today.
• 8:05 AM (PST) Dec 31st: Help Brady reduce gun violence & reduce the $100 Billion in Tax Dollars spent every year to treat gun victims. Give today.
• 11:02 AM (PST) Dec 31st: We all pay for gun violence in lost lives and higher taxes. Click here to make a tax-deductible gift today.
• 3:02 PM (PST) Dec 31st: It takes just two words to fight gun violence...Give today.
• 8:02 AM (PST) Jan 1st: Once the trigger is pulled, it's too late...Give today and protect tomorrow.
• 11:01 AM (PST) Jan 1st: It takes more than words to fight gun violence. Give today.
• 3:01 PM (PST) Jan 1st: Help us be the example to the world that we should be...Give today to end gun violence.
• 8:01 AM (PST) Jan 2: With great freedom comes great responsibility...Give today to end gun violence.
• 11:01 AM (PST Jan 2: Your support helps us be the centralized information source for news related to gun legislation. Give today.
• 3:00 PM (PST) Jan 2: Donors are the most powerful force to stop gun violence. Give today.

In an effort get even more donations for them I present the following pleas for money for the Brady Campaign:

And if that doesn't convince you of the righteousness of the Brady cause this should provide the final proof:

Of course what it convinced me of is that any money donated would end up buying this kid more drugs.

[H/T to Dave Workman for the videos.]

The guns news out of California has been pretty dismal recently. The latest is:

The Department of Justice's Bureau of Firearms is charged with approving weapons for sale in California each year. From 2002 to 2006, the bureau approved 72 new semi-automatic pistols on average each year.

In 2007, a law took full effect mandating that new center-fire semi-automatic pistols include both a mechanism that prevents firing when the magazine is removed, as well as an indicator showing when a live round is in the gun chamber. Rim-fire semi-automatics must have the magazine disconnect device.

In three years, the Bureau of Firearms has approved only nine new semi-automatic weapons, including only one in 2008.

Starting tomorrow it will go to zero per year:

Beginning Jan. 1, the law requires that new semi-automatic handguns in California include an innovative firing pin that stamps microscopic characters onto cartridge cases.

And zero manufactures have accepted that invitation to be boycotted. I think driving the number to zero was the real intent of the law.

Winter can be a depressing time for some people but spring is coming and things will look much better later in the year.

I expect that by the end of the year the law will be essentially neutered because Californians will be able to buy guns in any state they choose. And following that I expect a lawsuit enforcing the Heller decision against the state to wipe the "approved list" from the law books.

Finland had a mass shooting this morning:

Four people were killed when a gunman opened fire at a Finnish shopping mall on Thursday, police said, in the country's third multiple shooting incident in as many years.

My sympathy is for the victims, their friends, and their families.

I have no sympathy for the politicians and their supporters who did precisely the wrong thing when they got a couple hints they had problems:

Finland was rocked by two school shootings in 2007 and 2008, after which it tightened gun control regulations.

This is despite what they apparently know is the proper solution to someone shooting up innocent people:

That's right, men and women who have the will, training, and tools to stop the perpetrator. In the mall shootings that I am familar with in this country the shooter was stopped by a private citizen in the mall with a gun. How many more people have to die before the rest of the world learns that lesson?

Not that it would surprise anyone who's been seeking facts, but murder is down while gun and ammo sales are way up.  NRA's ILA discusses the latest FBI crime report.  They link to this tidbit also.  Wow-- what happened in 2006?  See that little spike in the last quarter of 2001?  We felt that one, so we already knew about it.  We has recently started selling our ground breaking AK optic mount, and people started buying them up in droves after 9/11, along with high-end optics.  You attack the U.S. and we prepare to respond as individuals, should individual action become necessary.  That is as intended by our nation's founders.

I'd like to have seen some mention of the word "rights" or of the second amendment, and how a right is not contingent upon certain crime rate parameters, but the ILA article will have to do.  I can help them understand things a bit further;

At the expense of undercutting a future post I have planned, here's the danger in these types of arguments; crime will at some point rise.  For one reason or another, these things cycle up and down.  If you place too much stock in the assertion that gun rights should be protected because crime is dropping while gun ownership is rising, you'll eventually lose that argument and have to start over with a different one, in danger of looking like a hypocrite (Republicans? Are you listening?).  Crime will increase and gun buying will at some stage decrease, and they will probably at some other point happen both at the same time.

If violent crime were high and increasing, wouldn't access to the tools of self defense be that much more important?  Hmmm?  And again I ask; Hmmm?

Principles.  It can't be overstated.  Gun rights should be protected because a right is a right.  Violators of rights should be punished because they are criminals and we can’t afford to tolerate criminals.  Principles don’t change with the ebb and flow of statistics just as Rosie would have gotten fat with or without legal access to a spoon.

Why is it that when the gun prohibitionist lobby invites gun owners to sit down and negotiate, they never bring anything to the table other than expectations that gun owners will give up some of their rights?

Dave Workman
December 29, 2009
What is ‘common-sense’ firearm legislation?
[We should just work toward a middle ground.--Joe]

Sebastian posted a very important piece about what MAIG is up to. It's important stuff but that is his domain and I don't have the time to get up to speed on MAIG enough to contribute anything of importance to his analysis. But I do want to outline a thought experiments a point from his post brought up:

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.

If a person is walking down the street with no suspicious behavior or other reasonable cause to detain that person they are not allowed to demand identification, correct? People go jogging without ID all the time right? The police don't stop you and demand, "Papers!" in this country. I'm pretty sure that is unconstitutional.

Most states have no laws against open carry and the Second Amendment may even guarantee that as a specific enumerated right.

Therefore, you must be allowed to openly carry a firearm without carrying identification. The police must presume someone is innocent until they have probable cause to believe you are a suspect in a crime or have intent to commit a crime. Right?

If the police cannot demand identification from a person for engaging in what appears to be a legal activity then a private citizen cannot do that either, correct? And for the legislature to demand a private citizen do that as a proxy for the police would be unconstitutional as well, correct?

So when a person, who appears to be of legal age, walks into a store and buys some ammunition can the store owner be compelled to demand identification? If so, then what is the difference that enables this?

Taking this one step further, change the ammunition purchase to a firearm purchase.

At what point did a threshold get crossed and what is the constitutional principle that allowed the legislature to compel a private citizen to demand ID for someone apparently engaging in a specific enumerated right?

As I said a couple weeks ago they were going to lose on this one. It appears they are admitting defeat already:

You would think that if ever there was a political climate favorable for gun control legislation, it would be here. With the state reeling from the third police killing in two months, legislators surely feel the need to do something. A proposed assault weapons ban, to be introduced in the coming legislative session, would seem like a place to start.

Yet only one week after Washington CeaseFire held a press conference to announce the planned bill, its prospects look dim. "Frustrating, that would be the word," CeaseFire president Ralph Fascitelli says, speaking of the reaction he's getting from key politicians as he lobbies for the proposal.

"We don't have the votes," he recalls House Speaker Frank Chopp telling him recently. Fascitelli says the powerful Seattle Democrat alluded to a bloc of approximately 20 representatives in his party who are opposed to gun control legislation. In any case, Chopp told Fascitelli, he was preoccupied by the budget and upcoming elections.

...

Contrary to a report last week in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Police Department has not officially come out in favor of an assault weapons ban although it is "supportive of the work CeaseFire is doing," according to spokesperson Mark Jamieson. "We understand that discussion of gun rights legislation is polarizing," he says.

While the bill has yet to be introduced and debated, Fascitelli already sounds bitter. When it comes to gun control, he says, "there is no leadership in this state."

A frustrated, bitter bigot. Sounds like we are doing something right in this state.

Kill all gun owners.

Il_Deuce
December 15, 2009
Comment to Gun prohibitionists reveal strategy of upcoming attack.
[Sounds a lot like what people have said about Jews, homosexuals, and blacks over the years. And sometimes people tried to actually do just that--after they took the guns away from them.

A suggestion to Il_Deuce--bring your own body bag when you start that little project of yours.--Joe]

One of the things that’s always been amazing about the left is that they do such an effective job of making people’s paranoid delusions seem to not, in fact, be paranoid delusions.

Sebastian
December 28, 2009
Hope and Change
[It's pretty amazing alright. It's this sort of thing that further encourages me to invest in precious metals such as brass and copper coated lead.--Joe]

When the human race has once acquired a supersitition nothing short of death is ever likely to remove it.

Mark Twain
[How many things does this apply to? Liberalism, gun control, fanatical religions, the list is practically endless.--Joe

Update: Case in point. Via Say Uncle.]

The Brady Campaign currently has 71 sponsors in the U.S. House for a bill to further restrict your right to keep and bear arms and have defacto gun registration.

They say we should have nothing to fear. But in addition to increasing the price of the gun due to the increased paperwork it create a paper trail on gun purchases. This is not acceptable in the exercise of any inalienable right. What would the outcry be if you were required to get a background check before writing a letter to the editor or have a paper trail exist for the purchase of religous books?

If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of selfdefense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that "to bear arms" is not limited to military use.

Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia, et al., petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller
No. 07-290
Pages 15,16
[Words mean what they mean. Not what someone wants them to mean. Hence those that wish to twist the meaning of the Second Amendment deserve our scorn and contempt and were justly slapped down by the Heller decision. Mad Hatters does describe many of the anti-gun people. --Joe]

[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure a well-armed militia. . . . But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms. . . . The clause is analogous to the one securing the freedom of speech and of the press. Freedom, not license, is secured; the fair use, not the libellous abuse, is protected.

J. Pomeroy
An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States 152– 153 (1868)
From District of Columbia v. Heller pages 45 and 46.
[Citizens are enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. It's the law of the land. It is a constitutionally protected, specific enumerated right.--Joe]

The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.

A government of laws and not of men.

John Adams
(1735-1826)
Second President of the United States
The Life and Works of John Adams (1851)
[And by necessity the same applies to the defenders of the tyrant and the thugs who enforce the orders of the tyrant. And to do this the people of the nation need the tools to accomplish this task.--Joe]

The argument that making contraceptives available to young people would prevent teen pregnancies is ridiculous. That's like offering a cookbook as a cure to people who are trying to lose weight.

Rev. Jerry Falwell
[I don't have to point out the parallel to those that don't want children taught gun safety--do I?--Joe]

It’s the immortal truth of Con Law: conservative decisions are provisional while liberal decisions are eternal.

Blue
December 20, 2009
Comment to Justice Ginsburg: Supreme Court may eventually overrule Heller.
[Certainly that is the way the liberals like to think of it and the conservatives fear it is. I'm not so sure that is reality however. Heller, the (soon to be) McDonald victories and many others in the pipeline will make it difficult for liberals to undermine the right to keep and bear arms for a long, long time.--Joe]

So by the same argument that it's no big deal, it would be ok for them to publish a registry database of where all the bloggers live, right?

I mean, you're just exercising your 1st amendment right to free speech, nothing wrong with that, right?

Maybe you'd like to let us know what YOUR street address is, so we can get started on that...

Freddyboomboom
December 20, 2009
Comment to Take a deep breath.
[I really need to jump in on this. Soon, I hope.--Joe]

[W]hat's the Star done to me except list my like in the same section as preverts, bank robbers and marriage licenses?

Beseems every coal mine needs a canary or two; and they are silly, fluttery little birds most of the time. Doesn't mean they're not useful.

Roberta X
December 19, 2009
Comment to Take a deep breath
[There are several other people in the same comment section and on their blogs defending the appropriateness of getting upset about publishing information about concealed carry permit holders. I'll post my own opinions on the topic soon. I've been very, very busy and blogging has been dropping off the end of the priority queue.--Joe]

Two woman were brutally attacked by a nut-case with a knife.

One of the lessons to be learned is that fighting back is an option that should be given serious consideration. But for some reason the plans are to learn bare handed self-defense rather than get training in commonly available tools specifically designed for engaging an attacker from a distance out of range of edged weapons.

As I learned in knife school, if you get in a knife fight you are going to get cut. Unarmed versus knife and your odds are nearly 100% that you are going to be loosing precious bodily fluids.

Make it your gun versus their knife and your odds of requiring stitches or a coffin go way down.

Firearms instructors in the area should be offering their services to these women.

[H/T to Mike for the email pointer.]

The irony of tyrants is correct.

On Bill of Rights Day the city of Sacramento claims, and joins a lawsuit to prevent, the Second Amendment from applying to them.

They are going to lose. 100% guaranteed. It might even be a 9-0 vote but the chutzpah of their effort is amazing.

What next? Announcing segregated water fountains on Martin Luther King's Birthday?

These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute. Anybody that uses a semi-automatic to hunt is an animal assassin. You know, that's someone who would take an M-80 and throw it in a pond of water to kill fish.

Ralph Fascitelli
Board President of Washington Ceasefire
["Weapons of war"? Almost none of the proposed firearms to ban have been used as military issue firearms let alone used in a war zone. They are sporting arms in common use and protected the Second Amendment.

If he can get 200 rounds a minute out of my Ruger P89 (considered an "assault weapon" by his definition) then he is a far, far better shooter than me or anyone I know.

Any firearm can be used to kill something. So how does that bit of information contribute to the discussion?

"Animal assassin"? I have a feeling that phrase is going to be used to mock Fascitelli for quite some time. And why bring up hunting? What has hunting got to do with the right to keep and bear arms?

A M-80 thrown into a pond to kill fish makes someone an "animal assassin"? No wonder their side is losing. They can't make a cogent argument. He just wanders all over the place with his thoughts.

Every single sentence this guy said is either completely false or nonsensical. It's another case of Crap for Brains.--Joe]

As reported by Say Uncle, Dave Hardy, and Sebastian President Obama actually signed a bill into law Wednesday that would require passengers who carry firearms aboard AMTRAK be locked in boxes for their journey.

They claim "no one quite knows the origin of the mistake".

I have absolutely no data to support my suspicion but I would like someone to explore the hypothesis that it was not a mistake. It seems to me that would be a very clever way to defeat legislation you didn't like. Swap a word or ten in a 1000 page bill and who is going to notice until you drive your truck through the loophole you created or your political enemy gets dragged off to the gulag?

Some ignorant lawmakers (I repeat myself) announced they are going to attempt banning "assault weapons" in Washington State:

In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

The lawmakers intend to propose the ban in the state legislative session that begins next month.

The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.

...

The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned

Sorry guys. That horse has already left the barn.

Do you remember that little phrase "in common use" phrased in the Heller decision?

Emphasis in the following is mine.

On page 2:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

...

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

On page 52:

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

On page 55:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

For the clueless bigots in Seattle what that means is that if you managed to get your proposed law passed the U.S. Supreme Court, if not the Washington State courts will overturn it. You know why? Because Obama was elected.

What? Yeah, you read that right.

When Obama won the election the U.S. population went on a gun buying spree the likes of which has never been seen before. The guns they bought were the very guns that those Seattle bigots want to ban. If they weren't already considered "in common use" before Obama's victory they sure are now.

And because of the delay from when a law is first proposed until the time it can become the law of the land anytime some lawmaker starts having the power to ban a particular type of gun the people will have put that gun into "common use" and thus render the law stillborn.

But if those knuckleheads want to waste their time on harassing activities I suppose that is better than some of the other things they might try.

[H/T to Chet at work and Ry for the pointer to the article.]

Update: Another article with video taken at the gun range where I go when in the Seattle area. And still another article which quotes Washington State AG Rob McKenna as saying, "If this bill is not even going to get a hearing, it is not worth a lot of energy".

Dad often remarked the Providence that led him to the only girl on the Abilene Christian College campus who kept a rifle in her dormitory closet.

Chris Knox
Introduction to Neal Knox--The Gun Rights War

[A gun in the woman's dormitory!

In the mid-1970s I knew kids that had guns in their dorm rooms too. But not anymore. We still have a lot of work to do to gain back all the ground we lost in the 20^th Century. And we have to do it without one of our best fighters--Neal Knox.

I'm just starting the book. I hope I can learn lessons applicable to our present date battles. I met and talked to Neal twice and was extremely impressed both times. I wish he were still with us to share both the triumphs he prepared for us (such as Heller and the upcoming victory in McDonald v. Chicago) and to help in our next fights.--Joe]

You knew he wasn't going to let us gun owners get off easy, right? Things have been going more than a little too smoothly.

Here's the scoop on the real plan:

Gun rights supporters have been shocked by the release of an internal campaign memo showing Obama planned to restrict gun access through fear and free market principles. The memo, drawn up in early 2008 with the help of Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, speculated that Obama's election would lead to a hording of guns and ammunition that would raise prices.

...

"The people going out and spending thousands of dollars on guns right now aren't the smartest and will spend beyond their means. We'll see them have to hock their guns and ammo for food and soon we'll be flooded with guns. This short term stimulus will come at a cost our children and grandchildren will have to bear," claims the Brady Campaign, an anti-gun organization.

Sources inside the Obama administration say that a "Cash for Carbines" program was in the works. Unlike the previous "Cash for Clunkers", it would simply use the gun buyback model to pay $40-$100 for guns that cost several times more, without encouraging buying more guns.

"We expect a "gun bubble" where prices crash after the market is saturated and gun owners put themselves deeply in debt. We'll swoop in and offer to buy back the guns. With current credit card interest rates and payment schedules we expect more guns turned in than were bought, making for a net drop in total guns," the source said.

The program would also include a "Cash for Cartridges" option where ammo could be bought cheap and distributed to police to ease the high cost of ammunition.

I have my doubts that Obama knows what the free market is, let alone is capable of using it to his advantage.

There is a conspiracy theorist for every data point--and almost as many satirists.

STI is going to be making a limited (200 pieces) run of one of their pistols for their 20th Anniversary. It will have a finish that many will consider too pretty to actually shoot:

TriTop slide with diamond LPI on top, decorative cuts on the dust cover, new STI 20th Anniversary serrations, STI presentation box, gold Titanium Nitride slide with Ion Bond black PVD frame and gold TiN and PVD'd exterior parts including the barrel.

They are taking orders now.

I shoot a STI gun in competition, I carry a STI gun and you should too.

When I read something like this:

Many experts and laymen consider gun control, which Democrats generally support and Republicans generally oppose, to be an essential component of anti-crime policy.

I just have to wonder what type of "expert" considers gun control to be an essential component of anti-crime policy.

The data doesn't support that claim and the number of criminalogists who advocate gun control is very small.

I keep thinking of this expert (full sized version here and here):

After all, nearly all advocates of gun control are socialists.

Caleb did well on Fox News against Dennis Henigan from the Brady Campaign.

When a young amateur goes up a seasoned professional in his prime you expect the professional to "mop the floor" with the young upstart. That didn't happen.

While it shows Caleb knows his stuff what it shows more than anything is the weakness of the Brady Campaign position.

The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is performing it's intended function and the Supreme Court apparently agrees:

The Supreme Court has turned away a new challenge to a 2005 law that gives gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits by shooting victims.

The justices on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Hector Adames Jr. to revive his lawsuit against the Beretta U.S.A. Corp. over the accidental shooting death of his 13-year-old son.

In testifying and speaking in public, I frequently exposed the misleading references Rachel Carson had cited in her book, presenting her statements from Silent Spring and then reading the truth from the actual publications she was purporting to characterize. This revealed to the audiences just how untruthful and misleading the allegations of Silent Spring really were.

Now, nearly 30 years later, the controversy is still boiling about how truthful Rachel Carson was. I recently learned that a movie honoring Rachel Carson and Silent Spring is being made for television. Because I believe such a movie would further misinform the public, the media, and our legislators, I decided to type up my original rough notes from 1962-1963 and make them available. Here they are, page by page, starting with her dedication.

Dr. J. Gordon Edwards
The Lies of Rachel Carson
[H/T to David for the link.

I remember reading Silent Spring in about 1970. It made quite an impression on me as it did millions of other people. I think the copy of the book I read is still on the bookshelf of my parents house.

Reading Edwards notes I realize her half-truths were the same type of propaganda that the anti-gun people propagate today. What she did was not carelessness, ignorance, or a series of honest mistakes. She pulled tidbits out of references that clearly did not support her conclusions or the impression her book portrayed. She had to be doing that deliberately. The same is true of many of the anti-gun writings. When you check their references you find the source concludes something completely different or (as in the case of Michael A. Bellesiles) does not even exist.

The global warming hoax (H/T to Phil for the link), the ecology hoaxes, the anti-gun material and many others all come from the political left. Why is that? Is their desire for control over people so great they will do nearly anything? Sure we have lots of examples of leftists (Stalin, Pol Pot, China, and Nazi Germany for example) where they will do horrible things to consolidate and keep power political power. But even on a much smaller scale it seems to result in the same sort of thing--total lack of ethics, morality, and respect for human life.

I sometimes can't help but think that "if it saves just one life" then people advocating leftists political beliefs should be imprisoned or exiled. But that would be using the very same warped ethical behavior as they do.--Joe]

Sometimes the anti-gun people are just so "out there" I'm not even sure they can believe the stuff they say. Case in point:

After the attacks of September 11, 2001 and subsequent terrorist attacks on trains, Amtrak took steps to make their trains safer. But the gun lobby still continues to push guns into every corner of our society, even at the expense of public safety.

Nearly everything is wrong about this:

• Guns were not involved, except they were forbidden to the victims, in the September 11 attacks and the following terrorist attacks on trains.
• They may have "took steps to make their trains safer" that doesn't mean they actually did make them safer. TSA makes planes less safe and almost for certain what Amtrak did does too. It's all about Security Theater, not actual security.
• The gun lobby isn't "pushing guns into every corner of our society" any more than the ACLU is pushing free speech, the NAACP is pushing blacks, or the ADL is pushing Jews into every corner of our society. The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the U.S. and most state constitutions. It is an inalienable right recognized by the people that wrote the constitutions and has been a part of our society since long before they wrote those documents.

I find it hard to imagine that even the anti-gun bigots believe the crap they say and write.

Sebastian rolls his eyes, so to speak, over the reaction from the anti-gun people too.

In a grim scenario we've seen all too often in the news, 20 year old college student Jason Hamilton reportedly burst into a classroom on Wednesday and opened fire at a small community college in Virginia. After two shots, however, his rifle jammed. Not only that, he missed both times. Not surprisingly, Hamilton's father is furious.

...

In failing to check the bolt action of his brand new firearm, Jason Hamilton didn't just let himself down, he let his community down.

Local news reporters were also disappointed with Hamilton's performance on Wednesday. The event forced the cadre of journalists into the cold for a boring press conference about a crime that didn't quite happen for a story that would only last a day at best. The story had all the elements of a barn-burner news meme: a stressed and mentally unbalanced college student, a link to the ongoing debate over gun control, and eerie proximity to the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It had everything going for it. Everything but actual victims, that is. If he had managed to pull it off, they would be sitting on a goldmine: weeks worth of easy copy and the warm glow of the national spotlight. But no, it didn't bleed so it didn't lead. As it was, not a single cable news network bothered to send a satellite truck. Perhaps that's why the headline in the local paper read, "Thanks for Nothing, Asshole."

Frank
December 10, 2009
Father Deeply Disappointed in Son's Failed Murder/Suicide
[There is more than a little truth in this satire but he left out references to the Brady Campaign, the VPC, etc. getting all dressed up for the dance in the blood and not finding any blood.--Joe]

The phrase "we (I) (you) simply must -" designates something that need not be done. "That goes without saying" is a red warning. "Of course" means you had best check it yourself. These small-change clichés and others like them when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.

Lazarus Long
A character of Robert Heinlein in his book Time Enough For Love
[Challenging assumptions is sometimes surprisingly easy. It will make you stand out from others as being brilliant, crazy, or both. For practice apply it to global warming, health care "reform", and gun control. Then expand the application of these tests to other political imperatives and even everyday life.

The appropriateness of Heinlein's wisdom is probably endless.--Joe]

Why don't they get it? They can't possible understand the issue if they think this makes sense:

The terrible irony is that where there are more guns, there is more opposition to gun control.

Just change "gun" to "mixed race marriages", "homosexuals", or "Jews". Then tell me again about the irony.

In Canada they spent about $2 Billion dollars for their firearms registry. For that $2 Billion dollars they registered about seven million guns. That is about $285 per gun. And they probably didn't get more than about half of them. There was widespread disobedience.

In the U.S. there are about 300 million guns in circulation. Assuming the cost of registration per gun does not go up (and I have some novel ideas for increasing the cost that we came up with when the issue came in up Washington State back in '97.) The total bill for firearm registration would be over $85 Billion.

Expect that price tab to be very, very conservative. Not only was the Canadian effort implemented nearly 15 years ago U.S. gun owners might not play nearly as nice as the Canadian gun owners did.

I love the possibilities:

You can buy a car from an out-of-state dealer and pick it up there. You can buy a house in another part of the country, as speculators unwisely did during the real estate bubble, sight unseen. But even though the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms -- and presumably to buy them -- you can't purchase a handgun while you're visiting another state.

A gun rights group has sued the Justice Department to overturn this prohibition, which became law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the case is now in front of U.S. District Judge James Robertson in Washington, D.C.

But it should be no surprise that the anti-gun people don't want to discuss the case on the merits:

While this may be an intricate legal question that only lawyers might fully appreciate, it offers a glimpse into how the legal system operates in practice. Courts don't always reach -- they're often hesitant to reach -- broad questions about a law's constitutionality. Procedural rules are hugely important.

In this case, for instance, the Obama administration appears to have taken the position that there's no way for anyone to challenge the 1968 Gun Control Act on Second Amendment grounds unless they're arrested for violating it first. Any volunteers?

I also like it that the American Civil Liberties Union is on our side on this one.

The gun-control law is a monument erected to the memory of our daughters.

Suzanne Laplante-Edward
December 7, 2009
Gun Control Issue Reveals a Changing Canada
Her daughter, Anne-Marie, was killed in the Montreal shooting in 1989.
[That explains so much. I wondered what that law was for.

Her daughter would have been far better off had she had a gun of her own and appropriate training on how to use it to defend innocent life. The $2 billion spend on the registry would have been better spend on arming and training people at risk of being victims instead of attempting to disarm more victims.

Update: And the next time you want to build a $2 Billion monument--use your own money and don't hassle other people in the process.--Joe]

Most of the time the gun blogs and the gun rights community screams "bloody murder" when the ATF is mentioned. Sometimes I believe such claims are literally true.

While I am of the opinion that the ATF should not exist that is not a political reality. But it may be possible their behavior can be changed such that the very worst behavior is reserved for those that are more deserving. True criminals that use firearms and explosives to harm others or destroy property should be punished and the ATF does have that task in it's charter. Changing their behavior can come about by "whacking them about the head and shoulders with a stick" via legislative action and criticism in public opinion. I wholehearted support such action on many occasions.

But there are occasions where the ATF and Federal prosecutors treat a situation appropriately. And if you want someone or an organization to change their behavior it is just as important to use the "carrot" as the "stick". If they know there is nothing they can do to "make us like them" there is no point in trying. And they are our servants so they do have some motivation for pleasing us.

This is one of those cases where they should be given a "carrot":

A Belgrade man was sentenced in federal court in Helena Thursday to two years probation for failing to register a silencer on his rifle with federal authorities, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Brandyn Dean Stanbary, 33, had previously pleaded guilty to the charge of willful failure to supply information, the U.S. attorney’s office said in a prepared statement. Senior U.S. District Judge Charles C. Lovell also ordered Stanbary to pay a $25 fine.

...

Gun owners are required under the National Firearms Act to register silencers with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, providing their name and address, along with the name of the manufacturer and serial number of the silencer, and pay a registration tax.

After they found the gun, Belgrade police contacted ATF, which verified that Stanbary did have a silencer and had not provided ATF with the required information.

Stanbary “later admitted that he willfully failed to supply the required information regarding his shortened rifle and silencer to the ATF,” according to the statement.

While I am of the opinion that firearm should no more be taxed that churches or free speech it is, still, the law as it currently stands. As such the guy did fail to abide by the law but apparently without intent to cause others any harm. He is guilty of a crime where the only victim is the U.S. government which didn't receive it's $200 in taxes for the suppressor. The legal costs, the probation and the $25 fine seem appropriate to me under the circumstances.

Thank you ATF and Federal judicial system for doing the right thing.

Guns have only one purpose, to kill. Opposition to gun control is another participation in death.

Florence Adams
December 5, 2009
Recent church activities reminiscent of Inquisition
[It's possible that in this particular instance this is sarcasm or part of rhetorical question. But it is consistent with a lot of other people and I'm certain nearly all anti-gun people agree with the sentiment.

This means we have a lot of work to do in gaining mind share in some area. The claim above is totally bogus of course but people are not rational and expecting them to be rational is irrational. For the same amount of work it will be far more productive to swing people in the middle to our side. This has the effect of isolating people who believe crap like the above. Isolation will create internal conflicts which will either result in their conversion or further irrational behavior on their part which discredits them. Either way we win.--Joe]

[F]or supporters, the registry remains both a valuable tool and an article of faith - especially in Quebec, where support for it remains the highest in Canada, recent polls show.

[A]nalysts say there is no evidence to link the registry and drops in homicide. Irvin Waller, a criminologist at the University of Ottawa and founder of the school's Institute for the Prevention of Crime, says the government could have invested the billions spent to set up the registry on more effective ways to combat violence against women. He said one method involves programs to educate teenage boys in high school.

The firearms registry, introduced by the Liberals in 1995, took years to get up and running and still doesn't have full compliance, making it impossible to measure its effectiveness, Dr. Waller said. "It's basically not been operational, so there's no logic to assuming it would have any impact on anything," he said, noting that homicides have been dropping in Canada since the 1970s, well before the registry was set up.

The last time I heard numbers for the number of crimes solved in Canada via the firearms registry (including the handgun registry which has been in place since the 1930s) the number was one. Not one per day, per week, or per year. But one in nearly 70 years. With numbers like that just what is it they think the firearms registry is good for? Sure, it will help some with confiscation. But if that is their goal then they should be open and honest about it. If that isn't their goal then just what is the real reason for a firearms registry?--Joe]

I left my copy of Lethal Logic in Idaho this weekend or I would quote chapter and page but in essence one thing Henigan says, "Yes, the NRA is right, 'Guns don’t kill people; people kill people' but guns enable people to kill people." And of course that is justification, in his mind, to restrict access to firearms.

What is overlooked, minimized, or deliberated not mentioned is that guns also enable the protection of innocent life and any roadblocks you put up to reduce access to "people that shouldn't have guns" also reduces access to people that need guns to protect themselves and others. The reduction in access might be not be a complete blockage but any increase in the price of acquisition and ownership reduces the number of people willing to pay that price. Just being put on a government list has a chilling effect on any type of activity. Particularly when that activity has a history of increasing your odds of being put on a death list. Would you be willing to register with the government as a homosexual or Jew?

Another technology that enables both good and evil has been blogged about recently is something I have been working overtime on for The Borg recently. In fact my tester and I were exchanging IM as late as 11:33 tonight and I still have one eye on a build in progress.

Here are some of the blog posts I have recently read about cell phones being used for determining the location of the user:

• Law Enforcement GPS Cell Phone Tracking
• Sprint hands over GPS data
• Surveillance Nation
• It. Does. Not. Work. That. Way. (Roberta is absolutely correct here but she has a minor oversight I'll address below)

I'm extremely busy at work right now on Windows Mobile 7.0. This is an operating system which will be used in millions and millions of cell phones. My team is the location team. We are responsible for determining the location of the phone and getting that information to applications that want it. I know as much about this topic as just about anybody in the company.

There are multiple ways of determining the location of a modern cell phone. In a decent environment (underground, or next to tall buildings are not good environments) the built-in GPS can obtain the device location with an accuracy of 10 meters or better. The other obvious way to determine location is using the cell tower you are connected to. As a rough estimate this can get you about 1000 meter accuracy. There is a third way that isn't quite so obvious and Roberta didn't mention it. High end phones these days have built-in Wi-Fi and by grabbing the BSSIDs* of the visible Wi-Fi access points you have pretty good odds of determining the location to approximately 100 meters.

This is an enabling technology. It can enable good things.

It can help you find your lost phone. 10 meter accuracy can enable turn by turn directions to get you to or from an unfamiliar location. 100 meter accuracy can get you all the pizza shops within walking distances. 1000 meter accuracy can get you a weather forecast or the cheapest gasoline nearby.

It can enable bad things.

That little application your ex boyfriend put on your phone when you were on good terms (or by hiding his own phone in the bumper of your car) might be Roberta's transponder and he is using it to stalk you. It could be that the cell phone operator (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc.) has put the transponder application in all the phones or is able to remotely install one and is selling the service to the secret police tracking down dissidents, homosexuals, and Jews. The technology could be used to give credence to your stalkers alibi that he was 50 miles away when your house was set on fire with you in it.

I can't directly speak to the acceptability of what Sprint did with the location information of their customers. I'm as skeptical of the morality of what happened as anyone but without more data it's hard to say for absolute certainty they were slim-balls. I do know the amount of effort we at Microsoft put into protecting the privacy of our customers.

When I started on this project I had expected to be in fights over making the technology sufficiently "safe" without neutering it so much to make it useless. I figured I would get a reputation as a paranoid nut. I was wrong. There was never a scenario that I proposed as something to be guarded against which people didn't take seriously and address. I don't think I was even the most vocal advocate for privacy safeguards. I was exceptionally pleased when one program manager put his foot down over an issue and said it was because he didn't want to get into the "police nightmare situation". "What is that?", I asked. His answer? "The police are constantly bugging us for location information. If we don't store it we can't give it to them and they won't ask for it more than once or twice."

Some of the solutions we are implementing to protect user privacy are:

• Store the minimum amount of data required to enable valuable customer services.
• Strip out personally identifiable information (PII) at every opportunity.
• Delete the PII data we do store within a few hours (or maybe a few days in the case of "Find My Phone").
• Applications that access location information are required to ask you for permission (if your Windows Mobile Seven phone ever asks you this the dialog you see is one I implemented).
• Except "Find My Phone", which requires a username and password, users can disable all location services with a single switch (again, I implemented the user interface for this).

The biggest problem we see is that all it takes is for the user to download the application called "StalkersHelper" and say "Allow" to the location permission question and all the work (I'm sure we have spent many 10s of thousands of dollars just on meetings to discuss the privacy issues) we have done has been bypassed.

The second biggest problem is that the mobile operators might bypass (intentionally or by neglect) our safeguards. Getting bad publicy like Verizon just did (and perhaps the threat of lawsuits) will motivate them to protect the privacy of their customers so I don't worry about this nearly as much as the customer themselves inviting the wolf in the door.

With those risks is it worth it? How many lives have to be lost to stalkers tracking down their victims before the technology is banned? If it saves just one life isn't it worth it to ban it? In another year or two will Microsoft be regarded as a "merchant of death" like Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Ruger?

My guess is the technology will be accepted and while there will be instances where the technology was used for evil and/or immoral purposes most people will recognize the benefits it enables outweigh the evil it enables. It's really no different than cars, knives, and guns. There are rules to follow which reduce the chances of accidents and deliberate misuse must be dealt with by punishing the offender not by attempting the removal of the technology from society.

Now if only Henigan and company could follow the same line of reasoning.

*The Basic Service Set Identifier identifies each Basic Service Set (BSS). The BSSID is the Medium Access Control (MAC) address of the Access Point (AP) in the Infrastructure BSS networks, and it is generated randomly in Independent BSS or ad hoc networks. This means there are duplicates out there and there is ambiguity to be resolved in some instances.

From various email lists:

Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:39 AM
To: 2ndamendmentrights@yahoogroups.com; wa-guns@yahoogroups.com
Cc: nrainstructorsrkba@yahoogroups.com; rkba@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [wa-guns] become an NRA instructor (nra.idw)

One of the ways that the control nuts advance their agenda is by working the problem from all angles, it's something we could do more of -and- it is tremendously effective. You don't have to be on the streets with signs and OC (although, that's one way to go) to show people the importance of restoring our freedom. One way you can do it in the second amendment arena is to simply go out and teach people about guns.

The safest, most effective and most fun way to do that is as a certified NRA instructor; as part of an instructor team. If you're curious about it I would be glad to answer any questions I can. It's something I've been enjoying for about ten years now. You -may not- discuss politics during class but you don't need to, the people there are seeing you lead by example. Which makes a nice contrast to the folks at Brady campaign in every way imaginable.

If you know any proficient shooters in the NW I'd appreciate you letting them know about this and about the NRA instructor development workshop that will be held at Kenmore range (Wa) January 15th to the 17th. Some details are here: ( http://www.wcwinc.org/club/educ4.htm ) or just email me any questions you have. Information/location of NRA instructor classes nationally can be found at: http://www.nrahq.org/EDUCATION/Training/instructor.asp

-Boyd Kneeland EVC wa-08, NRA TC, EKC Friends of NRA committee etc (working as many angles for freedom as family and work life allows...)

Boyd's email address is "boyd AT seanet.com"

[Y]our generalization in calling your “opponents” stupid is just wrong. That’s a trick that you and other leaders in the pro-gun movement perpetuate. Thousands of your followers then pick up on it and pretty soon you’ve got millions repeating the same nonsense. Pro-gun folks are smart and honest while the gun control people are stupid and dishonest. I think that’s a false message and you should stop preaching it.

mikeb302000
December 3, 2009
Comment to Dumb statement
[How very interesting that mikeb302000 should say this.

This is the same mikeb30200 who is unable or unwilling to explain how he determines truth from falsity. Hence, in reality, his statement above is almost completely devoid of any content. By his own admission he can't determine truth from falsity, right from wrong, or good from evil. Yet here he claims Say Uncle is wrong and is sending "a false message".

As Say Uncle responded, "[Y]ou’re stupid. Go away, the adults are talking."--Joe]

[I]f you’re a moron, you think we gun rights people walk around saying that guns make us ten feet tall and bulletproof, which we don’t. We say that a gun is the most effective tool for active resistance of violent crime, an assertion that has been supported many times in varying studies. If you have a gun and someone walks up and shoots you, you’re dead. With a gun. But most criminals don’t walk up and shoot you. They don’t want to kill you. They want your car, your wallet, to rape your wife or child, or some other various shenanigans. These kinds of things are clear to folks who aren’t delusional. But being reality-based isn’t generally in the repertoire of the anti-gunner.

Say Uncle
December 2, 2009
Dumb statment
[Another way to say it is that a classic strawman argument is being attempted. But somehow that doesn't have as much "punch" as the way Uncle expressed it.--Joe]

Sixteen years after opponents of sensible gun laws argued that the Brady Law would be ineffective because criminals supposedly wouldn't buy guns from licensed dealers, we see almost two million blocked sales.  We need to extend that success in blocking dangerous people from getting guns by requiring Brady checks on all gun sales and ensuring the appropriate records are in place.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
November 30, 2009
Brady Law at 16: A Public Safety Success Story
[Notice Helmke measures "success" in terms of blocked sales. Not in increased public safety. Also note that those 1.6 million attempted sales, if truly attempts by people not allowed to own firearms, were all Federal crimes and those people should be in Federal prisons. But, since the total Federal prison population (Table 2, pim08stt02.csv) is as below we know one or more of the following is true. A) The Federal prosecution rate is extremely low. And/or B) Those blocked sales should not have been blocked.

If those blocked sales were actually crimes then why didn't Helmke call on the Obama administration to prosecute those crimes and increase public safety? Is a person who can't be trusted with a firearm someone you would trust with a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, or a can of gasoline and a book of matches?

Helmke is of the opinion the prevention of gun sales is an achievement to be proud of--even when there is no increase in public safety and convicted felons seeking firearms are not put in prison.

I can only conclude that Helmke's organization is, as many others have already noted, better named the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership".

The Brady Campaign--infringing a specific enumerated right since 1974. It is the 21^st Century equivalent of the KKK.--Joe]

The world is what it is. A planet full of mostly kind and compassionate peoples but unfortunately there are also a minority of sociopathic murderers who walk among us, acting like rabid dogs. They go by different names be it Jihadist, terrorist or just plain psychotic killer ... and they're one of the reasons we carry handguns.

Steve S.
November 30, 2009
wa-ccw · Washington State Concealed Weapons Discussion
In a discussion about the shooting of four police officers in Pierce County Washington yesterday.

In Chicago, only criminals and aldermen are armed. Forgive me for being redundant.

Steve Chapman
November 22, 2009
Above the law--Armed pols: An unfortunate Chicago tradition
[It's worth reading the entire article.--Joe]

From Canada:

It would seem that Canadian opinion on gun control and registration is divided quite clearly between city and country.

Perhaps the solution lies in the old western movies we used to watch as kids.

It was very common for the sheriff to have a rule that when the cowboys came to town, they had to leave their guns at the sheriff's office.

I wonder if some form of that idea would not provide a mutually acceptable solution today? Perhaps municipalities could have the option of requiring that guns be registered and stored at police stations in town while rural folk would be free to keep them in their homes?

The feds would still run the registry which they will be doing for handguns anyway. Municipalities could opt in or out depending on the wishes of the majority of their citizens.

DAVID CADOGAN

I'm all for finding mutually acceptable compromises on divisive issues but this just doesn't make sense to me. Given that this is Canada I'll just ignore the fact that the government doesn't guarantee it's citizens it won't infringe upon this inalienable right.

The only rational reason I can think of for demanding people turn over their guns as they enter town is because of some mistaken belief that it will make people safer. So, apparently Cadogan believes people that would commit criminal acts or have careless accidents with those firearms are going to obey the law to turn their gun over to local law enforcement as they enter the city limits. If they believe a law requiring they leave their guns at the city limits will stop criminals from using guns when they commit crimes they why don't the laws against the criminal acts prevent the acts from being committed to begin with? It's already illegal but somehow making it "more illegal" changes things in their minds. I can only attribute this type of belief to some sort of mental problem.

Don't think for a minute that that Cadogan is an anomaly. Remember what Bill Clinton said:

I’m not at all sure that even a callous, irresponsible drug dealer with a 6-year-old in the house wouldn’t leave a child trigger lock on a stolen gun.

If it's not a mental problem then they must have some other motivation. What is that motivation? Do they believe the average person is so stupid to not notice what they are proposing is nonsensical? I think this might have been the case 20 or more years ago. Communication was not nearly as good and the Internet has made a dramatic improvement in the ability to expose stupidity and maliciousness. These days people like Cadogan, mikeb302000, Sarah Ibarruri (and here), and Maria Cramer are easily and quickly shown to be fools. So after they have been slapped down dozens or even a hundred times why do they keep trying the same type of foolishness?

There is a plausible explanation for politicians who advocate firearms restrictions. It increases their power and/or decreases the risks if they decide to go on a genocidal rampage.

But why do rather ordinary people do this? I keep coming back to mental problems.

Update: elmo_iscariot asks essentially the same question and proposes an answer.

Update2: Don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out why. In the big scheme of things it's not really that important. As I have said before it's just important that we defeat them.

You would think that someone who can spend $200 million of his own money to get elected mayor of New York City three times could afford copies of the U.S. Code and the Constitution. Not only does federal law stipulate the specific grounds for denying a person the right to arms, the Fourteenth Amendment states that no one shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

And while he is at it, he could buy a copy of another well-known publication, Webster’s Dictionary, and look up the word “obsession.”

NRA-ILA
November 26, 2009
Bloomberg Uses Ft. Hood Murders To Push Gun Control
Referring to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his probably illegal acts discriminating against gun owners.
[One does have to wonder about his motivation for attacking gun owners. Surely he knows there is no evidence showing firearm restrictions makes people safer. So what is his real reason? Does it further his political career that much? Is it because he can use the issue to get more new coverage and feed some narcissistic tendency?--Joe]

I received an email with a link to LibertyStickers.com. There are so many good ones it's hard to choose but here are some of my favorites.

Note to family--I don't put bumper stickers on my vehicles so don't buy me any of these as a Christmas gift.

In quasi alphabetic order except for the first one which is so Kevin will be more likely to notice it.

Oh yeah? 100% of those killed with firearms were saved by no one using firearms.

Sarah Ibarruri
November 24, 2009
In comments to Why would any one in their right mind be against strict gun control?
[If she thinks this passes as a rational argument then as I said yesterday--she has mental problems.--Joe]

In an article describing Bloomberg's latest attempts at infringing upon a specific enumerated right they gave the article the headline "Bloomberg Keeps Spotlight on Illegal Gun Control".

I have to wonder if that was just sloppy writing or if it was a deliberate pun to subtly point out what he is proposing is probably unconstitutional.

I'm inclined to think it was just sloppy writing but these are professionals with layers of editorial oversight.

[smirk]

If you found that amusing, you don't need to explain anything else about why you are obsessed with guns. I think you've explained it all.

...

If you didn't, then you wouldn't find guns amusing and fun. You'd admit that being obsessed with contraptions whose purpose is to murder, is not an amusement or a fun activity.

Sarah Ibarruri
November 24, 2009
In comments to Why would any one in their right mind be against strict gun control? (and here).
[And that is what they think of you. They believe the purpose of guns is to murder (I guess that is why the police carry them). They believe anyone who desires to own guns has a desire to murder. And that is why they think it is acceptable to have men with guns (the government) prevent you from possessing a gun.

It is my belief she has mental problems.--Joe]

I just finished a quick reading of the Brady brief in McDonald v. Chicago. The short answer as to the question, "What are they up to?" is:

This Court should conclude that regulations of firearms are not subject to strict scrutiny, but instead are subject to a deferential, reasonableness standard of review.

They have apparently concluded McDonald et. al. will win and are trying to minimize the damage to their goals.

What I find most interesting is this:

The policy implications of such a ruling could be devastating, given the demonstrated success of reasonable state and federal gun laws in reducing the use of guns in crime and saving lives. Reasonable gun laws such as licensing for gun dealers and owners, registration, background checks, and safe storage laws have been associated with reduced risk of gun deaths and criminal access to guns.

Contrast that with this:

I am not arguing here that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of crime, violent crime, or homicide. Such causation is difficult to show because so many other factors bear on the incidence of crime. For instance, simple cross-national comparisons of gun availability and crime do not control for the degree to which various countries impose legal restrictions on firearms. It also is difficult to sort out whether high levels of gun ownership lead to high crime rates or whether high crime rates lead to high levels of gun ownership.

Dennis A. Henigan
Vice President for Law and Policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Founder of its Legal Action Project.
Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy, page 107.

On one hand the Brady Campaign claims the thousands of restrictions on gun ownership have "demonstrated success" but they also claim they don't, or perhaps can't, know if high gun ownership rates cause crime. And of course their "demonstrated success" stories are highly contested. Even the CDC says, "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws."

As usual, it's half truths that give them traction.

Update: Sebastian points out more half-truths that are far more substantive than my find.

As Sebastian reported yesterday it appears we may have another major attack on our gun rights coming up. I'm of the opinion our allies in D.C. should suggest amendments to the bill to include terrorist list checks before people are allowed to become members of a religion, or maybe in a different political climate before being allowed to not have a religion. And of course, since ideas are more powerful than guns they should take the advice of Joseph Stalin and check their lists before allowing people to express their ideas as well. 

Given that Stalin and the former Soviet Union are now drawn into this I can point out that Dr. Strangelove is apparently alive and is now contributing to the war on the other side. The enemies of freedom are now claiming the U.S. government needs to Close the Terror Gap.

I think Strangelove's "mine shaft gap" made more sense.

As reported by Kevin, Say Uncle, Sebastian, Dave Workman, and probably others there was "Another victory for zero tolerance" (as Workman said it) recently. A kid was suspended from school for following the rules. Or just as accurately the principal did not follow the rules and punished a kid.

I could say a whole lot about this but ten years ago Fritz Sands said it sufficiently well in two sentences that ten paragraphs by me would be wasted effort.

I find it interesting that pro-gun people have heated internal debates about the NRA being "too soft" or GOA being ineffective, etc.

It turns out the anti-gun people have similar problems and internal debates. Dennis Henigan from The Brady Campaign, devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 3: "But What You Really Want ...") in his book Lethal Logic. In part he complains the VPC (see pages 79, 80, and note 9) causes them problems because their advocacy of total handgun bans can be effectively cited as evidence that a "slippery slope argument" is valid. Henigan claims the Brady Campaign does not advocate a total ban on handguns. I will give him the point that Pete Shields (chair of the National Council to Control Handguns, which later became Handgun Control, Inc., which later became the Brady Campaign) saying in 1979 that the ultimate goal was banning handguns is insufficient evidence that the present day goal is the same as it was 30 years ago.

This doesn't explain why they supported the ban on guns in Washington D.C. But it may explain why they are filing a brief in support of neither party in the Chicago Gun Case.

But if the Brady Campaign wants to appear as moderates and neutralize the slippery slope argument they need to reign in some of their allies. Case in point is what is being said in California about Jerry Brown filing a brief in the Chicago case arguing the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated:

In July, before the court agreed to take the case, Brown went so far as to file his own friend-of-the-court brief asking that Chicago's gun ban be overturned - arguing that if the court doesn't act, "California citizens could be deprived of the constitutional right to possess handguns in their homes."

His stance has angered a number of gun control proponents.

Julie Leftwich, legal director of Legal Community Against Violence, said this isn't simply about Brown defending the Second Amendment - it also marks a dramatic turnabout from the administration of his Democratic predecessor, Bill Lockyer, a staunch gun control advocate.

"Jerry Brown hasn't shown leadership in the legislative arena related to the issue of gun violence prevention ... and he hasn't sponsored or weighed in on any significant gun bills," Leftwich told The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci.

It's possible Leftwich hasn't read Brown's brief (I haven't either) but if the article cited above is correct then Brown is merely trying to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their homes. Leftwich apparently is opposed to this. Has the Brady Campaign contacted Leftwich and company to asked them to tone it down? She's hurting their cause, right? If they haven't then their silence is very telling.

Even if the Brady Campaign leadership is opposed to the banning of handguns and they only want "reasonable regulations" they risk making themselves obsolete if they were to get everything they want. At that time they would have to either adopt new, more extreme goals, or existing "extremists" such as the VPC and company will rise to power in their place.

This is the reason why the Brady Campaign's claim of the Heller decision will make gun control legislation easier is false.* In essence the "slippery slope argument" was working and if that end goal was unobtainable they believed they could make progress toward something that, only coincidentally, was in the same direction (such as gun registration). But those extremists will always exist. If the Brady's were to fall from power because of near complete success in their present goal either they would change their goals or others would fill the power vacuum. Hence the "slippery slope argument" will always be valid.

If this woman had to wait a week to possess a gun she would likely be dead now--instead of her stalker:

The quotes of most interest to me are from the police dispatcher, "It's only been two minutes." And "They are almost there."

When seconds matter the police are only minute away.

Statists in office are tragically ill personalities. They are control freaks on steroids. Without the delusion that the people are stupid, officials have no personal sense of purpose. Without official recognition of our sovereignty over them, officials have no sense of purpose. Officials are not smarter than the electorate, they're meaner and more cold-blooded than we are, but not smarter. They are not better informed than we are: they ignore liberty truths and are informed of nothing by comparison. The truth is that officials have only that authority which we grant them. We retain all supreme authority in this country, and it is this which they ignore against the interests of the United States herself. Without crisis, manufactured by them or not, there is no sense of purpose for them. The truth is that they are truly unneeded for so many programs.

John Longenecker
November 22, 2009
Safer Streets 101: Saying No to socialism and gun control.
[I'm reminded of something closely related which I said a couple years ago.--Joe]

Those behind the badge don't believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America's men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners.

Jim Fotis
November 19, 2009
Law Enforcement Alliance of America Executive Director

I'm sure that wasn't their intent but it's nice of the VPC to put up a website and do the research to prove our point.

Sebastian shows us the VPC is misleading if not outright lying.

Joe Waldron on the WA-CCW email list points out:

85 deaths in 2.5 years, by 5,000,000+ CCW holders. I'd be willing to bet rogue cops have killed far more, per capita (6-8 times as many CCW holders as sworn police officers). 35 deaths/year on average, that's one murder per 142,000 CCW holders.

Contrast that to what the overall murder rate is in this country, 5.4 murders per 100,000. So, the average CCW holder is (5.4/100,000)/(1/142,000) or 7.668 times less likely to murder someone than your average private citizen. And that's not correcting for the exaggerations pointed out by Sebastian and the conservative numbers used by Waldron (it's actually 34/5,000,000+ or 1/147,059+). So the real number is probably on the order of 10 times less likely.

Thank you VPC.

SlaughterHouse’s illegitimacy has long been all but- universally understood. It deserves to be acknowledged by this Court. Because SlaughterHouse rests on language not actually in the Constitution, contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s original textual meaning, defies the Framers’ intent, and supplies a nonsensical definition for Section One’s key protection of civil rights, overruling this error and its progeny remains imperative. No valid reliance interests flow from the wrongful deprivation of constitutional liberties. The reliance interest to be fulfilled remains Americans’ expectation that the constitutional amendment their ancestors ratified to protect their rights from state infringement be given its full effect.

Alan Gura
November 16, 2009
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit
McDonald, et al. v. Chicago
PETITIONERS’ BRIEF, page 8
[In 1873 the SlaughterHouse cases gutted (pun intended) the 14^th Amendment shortly after it was passed. This miscarriage of intent has been a thorn in the side of civil rights activists ever since. Hence, the McDonald case appeals to both conservatives and liberals for different reasons. Expect an overwhelming victory at the Supreme court for this reason.

The slaughter houses north of New Oreans were responsible for terrible pollution and disease and a solution was required. But the solution was inappropriate and should have been struck down. But just like some disgusting violent criminal who gets off because of an improperly worded search warrent or other technicality would be an outrage so it was with the Slaughterhouse case. The decision went the wrong way and, in essence, the 14^th Amendment was nullified.

This sort of thing is why it is very important to have good "poster children" for the cases you take to the Supreme court. Alan Gura, The Second Amendment Foundation and company have put a lot of effort into finding the ideal "poster children" for this case. I've been promised an interview with one of the plaintiffs (they read this blog) and have been lazy in following up on that. I have all of next week off and plan to get it done sometime before I go back to work.--Joe]

I think I detect a hint of bigotry in this headline, "Second Amendment Brief Filed by Bellevue Gun Nuts".

What if the headline had been, "Bus Boycott started by Montgomery ni**ers"?

The decision under review, from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, concerns firearms ordinances of two Illinois municipalities, Chicago and Oak Park, that effectively ban the private possession of handguns and unreasonably burden the possession of all firearms. There is no question that, under this Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the categorical ban on handguns, at a minimum, would run afoul of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution were it enacted by the Federal government or the District of Columbia. The question presented by this case is whether the Constitution also prevents State and local governments from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. For the reasons given herein and in the brief submitted by Petitioners, the answer must be yes. The Court should find either that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States.

Stephan P. Halbrook, et. al.
November 16, 2009
Brief for respondents the National Rifle Association of America, Inc. et al. in support of petitioners, page 1.
[The Apex of the Triangle of Death is on the victory train leaving from Chicago.

See also the SAF brief here.--Joe]

Dave Hardy found a piece of history.

That one little piece of paper (as I said once before) cost gun owners billions of dollars, 100's of thousands of hours, and 10's of thousands of lives.

You can add the U.K. to my list of places I don't want to visit until they start selling hunting tags for politicians and the police.

This is just too outrageous:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty". Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon. In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested. I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden. In his statement, he said:

"I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him. At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours. He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?" To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant. Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added. But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun. He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.

Bigotry against gun ownership gone wild.

Via Kevin.

Some ignorant kids across the lake from me at the University of Washington stepped in it, big time, a week or so ago. A NRA instructor stepped in and has at least partially cleaned up the mess:

When he created a group on Facebook earlier this month with the aim of quelling crime around campus, University of Washington student Stanley Luong talked of forming a "vigilante" group to patrol the area.

The idea quickly drew attention — and criticism. Facebook, a social-networking Web site, removed the group from its site.

A member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) stepped in to offer a free training class on the legal ramifications of using deadly force. And a gun range in Kent supplied a room for the meeting Sunday.

...

Rick Walker, an Olympia-area NRA gun instructor, held a free training session to six members of the group on how to get out of a threatening situation without using a gun, and the legal ramifications of using a gun in self-defense.

"I told them the first thing they should do, if they can do so safely, is call 911," Walker said. "It's the smart thing to do."

Guns are such a politically charged issue that talking to the press without having someone experienced in those matters can be a disaster. The Brady Campaign used this gaffe to further their agenda.

Please be careful out there. In more ways that one.

Brief is here. News release is here. Via blog post at Chicago Gun Case.

We are on a train to victory here.

Pennington blames the Ft. Hood deaths on the lack of a whole laundry list of gun laws--despite the fact that implementing every one of them would not have served to stop the killing.  The only thing that would have stopped it would have been less restrictive gun regulation.

Kurt Hofmann
November 16, 2009
The Brady Campaign for defenseless soldiers

I've been pretty quiet on the big open carry debate that has finally cooled down some. I have open carried a few times and had a few things to say over the years but never took a really strong position:

• Coming out of the closet has it's price (December 18, 2004)
• Fish Or Man pulls the plug (December 29, 2004)
• Right to chose (October 20, 2008)
• The media can play nice (June 8, 2009)
• Open carry in Bellevue Washington (June 15, 2009)
• The move to a new bunker (July 1, 2009)
• The rest of the story (July 20, 2009)
• Quote of the day--Brannon P. Denning and Glenn H. Reynolds (August 19, 2009)
• Did we just win? (August 19, 2009)
• Quote of the day--Rick Perlstein (August 20, 2009)
• Hiking on Mount Hood (September 13, 2009)
• Quote of the day--Eugene Volokh (October 2, 2009)
• Open carry being used as a political statement (October 24, 2009)

I have done my blog research* on the topic and am finally ready to take a stand.

On the infighting between pro gun people on the topic I think, for the most part, it was a misunderstanding. If you read the words very literally (it's difficult for me to do otherwise but I'm not normal in a lot of ways) I don't find much disagreement in philosophy between the various camps. One side says it is legal, in most cases, as it should be but it's easy to do something stupid which will make us all look bad and distract from more important matters. Another side says we need to use it or lose it but don't be a dick about it. About the biggest real difference of opinion was that some said gun retention training might be a moral obligation and others said no it's not.**

I didn't read all the comments but I read enough that I'm pretty sure there isn't very much disagreement at the fundamental levels.

My biggest problem with the entire issue is the infighting. We have external enemies that need to be fought and energy is better expended on them than on people who are really our allies. Agreed, we need to make sure we fight productively and that we don't waste resources. And I think that is the crux of the matter.

How do we know what is the most effective expenditure of our resources? We can't really know for certain. We could run a bunch of experiments with different types of political campaigns. But you can't run an experiment in the same town on two different occasions with a different input variable because you changed the state of the population with the first run. If you run the experiment in two different towns you have the problem of the two different cultures and even individuals within those towns. What worked well in Virgina might very well turn out to be a disaster in nearby D.C. or Chicago. For the most part it's going to boil down to educated guesses and opinions as to which is the best.

We see people openly carrying and handling guns in a safe and lawful matter probably a 100 or 1000 times more often than the people we want to influence. That experience differential biases our opinions such that we probably have the least reliable opinion on the topic. The anti-gun people have an experience reference point that is closer to that of the population we wish to influence. They are more aware of potential fears and are in a better position to push the "fear buttons" than we are to assuage those fears.

Robb Allen demanded proof that open carry hurts our cause. Sebastian (in the comments) said he didn't think any focus groups had been done on the topic . That isn't true. I talked to someone that did a focus group study. I don't think the results are going to be released. That sort of data is relatively expensive to obtain and can be used by the anti-gun people to fine tune their attacks against us.

I don't have a lot of information on the study but the basic result was that people see openly carried guns as "deadly force" and threatening/fear-causing which makes it different than gays holding hands, interracial couples, or woman's bare ankles being visible. Sure, some people are fearful of gay cooties, Jews controlling the world, and their daughter dating a black guy. But it's pretty easy to point out the silliness of those types of fears. Openly carried guns are different. If they didn't have at least some real fear inducing properties they wouldn't be useful for self-defense and as a deterrent against attack. Apparently that fear inducing quality persists to some degree in most people even after repeated exposure with non-threatening people carrying the gun. It may not be rational but people are not rational. Expecting or insisting people be rational is irrational.

Obviously focus group studies weren't done in every political jurisdiction in the country. It may be that in some locations that is the best expenditure of resources. Virginia Citizens Defense League has had wonderful results. And it was in Virginia the one time I open carried in a public place with many people around for a couple hours.

So, it comes down to sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

This gets us to the question of how we might determine when it might work or how to best make it work. The following needs to be backed up with focus group studies but I think it probably is a pretty good start.

It is my hypothesis that certain conditions enhance the probability open carry will work as a political statement. Below is an enumeration, elaboration, and enhancement of the "don't be stupid" and "don't be a dick" suggestions put forth by others. Most of the following apply even if you are just carrying as you go about your everyday business. Whether you intend to or not, in the eyes of much of the public, you are representing all gun owners when you open carry.

• Open carry at a public demonstration the main topic should be gun rights. Guns at a health-care/abortion/taxes/etc. demonstration is likely to confuse the issue and allow the other side to spin it as intimidation
• Never allow quick to anger or violence prone people to be associated with your group
• Vulnerable looking women with children who open carry is better than large, scruffy, young men
• Save open carry for the "end game" in locations with well established gun rights rather than your "opening move" in hostile territories
• Small quiet groups with a mix of genders and races are better than large, noisy, homogeneous groups or loners with obscure and/or vaguely threatening signs
• Desensitization of highly sensitive people requires small levels of exposure--the butt of a gun casually exposed in an IWB holster is less fear inducing than a thigh holster or a rifle in hand
• Associate the open carry event with activities that give other people lots of "space"--road side litter pickup is not going to be as threatening as picketing a restaurant that prohibits guns on their premises, walking through an empty parking lot is not as threatening as a doing the same thing at a public meeting on a highly volatile issue
• High quality clothing and gear enhances your image and decreases the fear
• Consult with a lawyer prior to your event
• Never risk a "contempt of cop" charge--your interaction with them should be such they can "save face" during the public event
• You may tell the cops your lawyer is of the opinion the activity is legal but don't repeat it again and again--let your lawyer convince the judge to give the cops the lecture they so richly deserve
• Unless you have the full cooperation of your lawyer (such as if you are trying to get arrested) if the cops suggest it would be best for you to leave then politely collect their identifying information, exact words, and accept their invitation to go home without a pavement tasting party
• Physically cooperate with the police even if you know they are wrong
• As in all politically/media sensitive situations have a few experienced media people designated to represent your group--less experienced people should refer the media to the more experienced spokesmen

Even if you adhere to all of the above and more you still could mess up the politics. As much as I like to think of myself as an expert on gun rights I'm always amazed at how much I don't know when I talk to a true professional in the field. I strongly advise you to at least talk to your local gun rights organization to get their opinion on whatever great idea you have for "making a difference". If they are any good at their job they will be able to explain why something does or doesn't work and improve your approach.

Ultimately we want carry of all types completely legal and a non-issue in all jurisdictions. As long as it is done safely it should be a personal choice. I don't know of any gun rights activists who disagrees with that goal. It's simply a question of how or if we can get to that point.

We can attack the problem in a brute force manner or with a more sophisticated approach that arrives at the solution quicker and with less expenditure of resources. Let's not be so stupid as to think the same solution is appropriate for every situation.

*Some of the blog posts and podcasts relevant to open carry which I have read:

• Say Uncle: Don't scare white people (April 26, 2007)
• Kim duToit: Open Carry (May 5, 2007)
• Jim: Open Carry in Texas (May 8, 2007)
• Sebastian: Pennsylvania Open Carry Blog (January 28, 2008)
• Sebastian: PSH in Virginia? (February 27, 2008)
• Sebastian: We’ll All Be Open Carrying Soon Enough (March 9, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Activism (May 12, 2008)
• Sebastian: VCDL Response (May 12, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Dinner Gone South (May 22, 2008)
• Sebastian: Thoughts on Dickson City (June 2, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Troubles in Wisconsin (June 5, 2008)
• Sebastian: Positive Article in LA Times on Open Carry (June 7, 2008)
• Sebastian: The Root of Reasoned Discourse^TM (June 9, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Juvenile? (June 22, 2008)
• Say Uncle: In your face (June 23, 2008)
• Sebastian: The Open Carry Thing (June 23, 2008)
• Alan: More on Open Carry in Texas (June 23, 2008)
• Caleb: State Activism (July 22, 2008)
• Sebastian: Context Again (September 26, 2008)
• Sebastian: We’re A Political Minority, Not a Racial Minority (September 26, 2008)
• Sebastian: More on Open Carry (September 29, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Loss in Court (October 7, 2008)
• Sebastian: How to Lose Friends and Influence People (October 10, 2008)
• Sebastian: Context Again (October 19, 2008)
• Sebastian: Something for Us to Avoid (November 14, 2008)
• Alan: It's Time For Open Carry In Texas (December 1, 2008)
• Alan: More on Open Carry in Texas (December 3, 2008)
• Alan: Texas Open Carry Radio Spots (December 4, 2008)
• Lawdog: Texas Open Carry of Handguns (December 7, 2008)
• Alan: Lawdog on Texas open carry (December 8, 2008)
• Caleb & Breda: Open Carry (January 6, 2009)
• Sebastian: Working Together (February 2, 2009)
• Alan: Texas Open Carry Bleg (February 12, 2009)
• Caleb & Breda: More Open Carry (March 10, 2009)
• Sebastian: Take What You Can Get (March 15, 2009)
• Robb Allen: PSH – apparently it comes prepackaged with your welcome to college packet (April 3, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic (Also a very important paper for reasons other than open carry)
• Sebastian: Signaling and Carrying Firearms (April 7, 2009)
• Sebastian: Clarification on Concealed Carry (April 8, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Milwaukee Invites Lawsuits (April 22, 2009)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Issue in Pennsylvania (April 23, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Self defeating (June 5, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Open carry church event? Yup. Just a PR stunt (July 1, 2009)
• Kevin Baker: Open Carry ≠ Public Panic (August 8, 2009)
• Say Uncle: Open Carry (August 10, 2009)
• Robb Allen: As it should be (August 15, 2009)
• Caleb & Breda: Guns and Tea Parties (August 18, 2009)
• Ahab: Gun Nuts Radio: Guns are f***ing cool (August 19, 2009)
• Linoge: first open-carry experience (October 17, 2009)
• Caleb: Man does not break the law (August 17, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Disagreements amongst us (August 19, 2009)
• Breda: Turn off your TV. Do it now. (August 19, 2009)
• Sebastian: Views From Around the Blogosphere (August 19, 2009)
• Tamara: Important Public Service Announcement: (August 20, 2009)
• Alan: On Open Carry and Morality (August 20, 2009)
• Alan, Labrat, Stingray, and TD: Vicious Circle 15 (August 20, 2009)
• Robb Allen: You will respect my AUTHORITAH!!! (Updated) (September 21, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: How To Lose Friends (October 1, 2009)
• Sebastian: Winning Hearts and Minds in Scranton (October 12, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Open carry is fine, so long as you don't do it where people can see you (October 12, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Who needs the Bradys (October 12, 2009)
• Eseell: Open Carry, Part the Whatever (October 12, 2009)
• Alan: Sebastian Zumbos Himself (October 12, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Whenever I Wonder If Anyone Reads My Shotgun News Columns... (October 13, 2009)
• Caleb: Controversy indeed (October 13, 2009)
• Caleb & Breda: Top 5 Rifles (October 13, 2009)
• Tamara: Yay! Controversy! (October 13, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Linoge harms the Second Amendment cause (October 17, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Open Carry in Banks--Not Smart (October 19, 2009)
• Alan, pdb, UJ, Robb and Jason: Vicious Circle 25 – Open Carry (October 23, 2009)
• Alan: Open Carry and Free Riders (October 23, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Openly Carrying Guns Can Be Unwise, Even When It's Legal (October 25, 2009)
• Sebastain: Clayton Cramer Clarifies His Position (October 25, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Stupid is as stupid does (October 25, 2009)
• The Duck: Another Open Carry Discussion (October 26, 2009)
• Lyle @ UltiMAK: More on the Practical Application of Principles (October 26, 2009)
• Ride Fast: Open carry. good for the cause (October 26, 2009)
• Sebastian: Quote of the Day (October 27, 2009)
• Sebastian: A Strategy Toward Acceptance (October 27, 2009)
• Brent: The Sheeple Bleat in Fear (October 28, 2009)
• Linoge: self-aggrandizement (October 29, 2009)
• Linoge: quote of the day (October 29, 2009)
• CTONE: Open carry righteousness (October 30, 2009)
• pdb: Open carry fail (November 2, 2009)
• Ride Fast: Open carry normalization (November 3, 2009)

** I have taken Handgun Retention & Disarming and highly recommend it. But as open carry advocates have pointed out data indicating private citizens are at risk of having their gun snatched is non-existent. If nothing else the class will give you the skills to take a gun from someone that is threatening innocent life with it. Good guys seldom threaten in the same way as bad guys. Either you draw and shoot or you draw and the bad guy withdraws. Hence disarming training is probably more important than rentention training.

If you take such a class bring gloves to protect your hands and wrists. Bring lotion to lubricate and soothe roughed up skin.

ATF says E. Washington source of Mexico guns:

Agent Steve Foreman told a forum Thursday in Yakima that gun shows in Eastern Washington are the main problem because unlicensed dealers avoid making background checks on the buyers.

Foreman said the investigation into one drug cartel shootout in Tijuana traced 15 pistols and rifles back to the Tri-Cities.

Notice they didn't say the 15 guns were sold at gun shows. But they worded it in such a way that it leads one to believe that.

And 15 guns? What's your point? Most of the gun owners I know have more guns than that. I know a guy in the Tri-Cities that had that many guns stolen from his home.

Are they attempting to justify a law that will interfere with a specific enumerated right exercised by millions of people yet can be circumvented by stealing the guns found in just one home?

Go away and come back again when someone finds your brain for you.

Update: The complete story is here. I see nothing in the story to change my opinion stated above.

Sebastian points out the Washington Post reported yesterday:

A binational task force on U.S.-Mexico border issues will call Friday on the Obama administration and Congress to reinstate an expired ban on assault weapons and for Mexico to overhaul its frontier police and customs agencies to mirror the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

I just have to shake my head. These people just don't get it.

First off by announcing this they just further cemented the fact that "assault weapons" of the type banned in 1994 will become even more common in the U.S. The sales and backlog had almost returned to normal and now this is going to create a fresh round of buying. If it hadn't happened already the current administration, with their promises (so far unfulfilled) to ban "assault weapons" ensured they can never be banned. Why? Because in D.C. v. Heller the court decided the types of firearms protected are those "common use". See pages 2, 55, and 58 of the decision.

The types of guns in highest demand just after Obama was elected were those most likely to be banned. There are now many millions of those guns in the hands of ordinary people and there will be hundreds of thousands more before the politicians could ever get something through congress. And then the inevitable court challenge will almost have to conclude that the guns are in "common use" and therefore cannot be banned. Not only is Obama the greatest gun salesman this country has ever known but he also may have driven the last "coffin nail" into the pointless "assault weapon" bans making them forever a dead issue--except for repeal of the existing ones in the various states after the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Chicago Gun Case.

And the Brady Campaign endorsed Obama for President. How's that working out for you guys?

My second point is really the main issue. The problem is most people don't really understand the big picture. Mexico is being destroyed by the same type of stupidity. People are trying to interfere with the free market and this can't really be done. The free market can be pushed in different directions but it can't really be fully suppresed.

There is a large market for guns and recreational drugs. Governments can't really "ban" them. They can only raise the price. The price increase may include the risk of spending time in jail but the government passing a law making them illegal does not remove their existence from the planet or even the political jurisdiction of the government. When the price goes up it increases the profits. When the profit potential goes up more people are willing to risk going to jail in the process of getting a share of that profit. In the case of recreational drugs the profit is so great the people profiting from the drug trade has, essentially, brought down the Mexican government. I believe the only way order can be restored in Mexico is for recreational drugs to be made legal in both the U.S. and Mexico.

But people just don't get it. Somehow they believe something that mostly works on the scale of an individual home when you remove medicines from the reach of small children can work at the larger scale of an entire continent or even the planet. It doesn't and it can't. You can only increase the price.

Our country learned this in the 1920s with prohibition and we now raise the price on the dangerous recreational drug ethanol via a tax rather than attempting a ban. If the governments of the U.S. and Mexico really wanted to solve the problem that is bringing down the Mexican government and resulting in the deaths of thousands in the "drug wars" they could turn the drug trade into a huge source of tax revenue. Instead of spending billions on trying to raise the price via jail terms and attempted "interdiction" they could raise the price via a tax and bring in billions of dollars.

But I don't have any hope of a sudden attack of rationality striking people. Unjustified and demonstrably false faith in the power of government to successfully interfere with the free market has existed for hundreds of years and it's not going away anytime soon. Expecting people to be rational is irrational.

Never confuse motion with action.

Ben Franklin
[I believe many of the anti-gun people make this mistake. "We have to do something!" they say. No. We don't.

Even with a system optimally configured it's possible for something bad to happen. There are many, many trade-offs in life. We could reduce traffic fatalities to zero if we banned cars or made the speed limit 5 MPH. But the trade-off just isn't worth it.

And so it is with firearms. Even without a constitutional guarantee it would be wrong to remove the most effective defensive tool ever made from the hands of the people that might need them. Sure, make training easily available and affordable. Punish people who allow their dangerous objects (not just guns but gasoline, matches, and sharp knives) to get into the hands of small children or the mentally incompetent who hurt themselves or others.

But just because something bad happened doesn't mean that doing something won't make the totality of the situation worse or just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic. You have to look at the downside of whatever action you demand to be taken instead of just the potential upside.--Joe]

Doug Pennington who is the Assistant Director of Communications at the Brady Campaign writes:

[I]sn’t it ironic how some libertarians want government to stay out of their lives, yet have no problem with forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn?  The grocery store; the park; the school; the airport.  Apparently, we have the “freedom” to live with what these so-called libertarians tell us to live with.  After all, they have the guns, right?

I heard sort of argument in the context of concealed carry of guns at least 15 years ago. It was some radio talk show host in San Francisco who asked why she didn't have the right to walk down the street without people having guns hidden. I suspect this sort of argument resonates with a lot of people.

The thing is people use the same sort of argument with free speech and religious freedom. They ask why do we have to tolerate neo-Nazi's parading down the street? Or why do we have to tolerate atheists, Muslims, or Jews in our neighborhoods and schools?

If that doesn't bring my point home try using the argument to support segregation.

Governments don't force freedom on their citizens. Governments can only infringe freedoms of their subjects.

Wednesday night Barb and I had dinner with Mike Brown of the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance and his wife. His wife, a big Ayn Rand fan, encapsulated a point in a very compelling way. She said under a free, capitalist, system people are able to create their own little socialist or communist utopia societies and share according to need and take according to their abilities. Or they can give up all "evil" modern technology such as the Amish communities do. Free societies allow such communities to successfully co-exist just fine. If you can own property you can do pretty much whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else or their property. The government still demands taxes but you don't have to tolerate other religions, free speech, or people with guns on your property. The same isn't true under a communist or totalitarian government.

But despite the clear problems of "government forcing freedom" there have been entire books written on the topic. Last year daughter Kim reported her economics class had The Shock Doctrine as required reading. One of the thesis's of the book is that advocates (such as certain people within the U.S. government) of Milton Friedman are forcing (including using torture) free market economics on people. Kim was pissed and had trouble reading the book because of the anger it invoked. How does a government "force a free market"? A free market is one free of government interference! Force is required to have anything other than a free market.

And so it is with "forcing free speech", "forcing religious tolerance", and "forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn". Pennington is telling us the true beliefs of his organization and the utopia they would like to create--freedom is slavery.

Update: I apparently got their attention. The post now has this tagged on to the end:

UPDATE: For readers referred from Joe Huffman, guns are not speech.

No one said it was free speech. But both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are specific enumerated rights protected from infringement by the Bill of Rights. Hence the comparison is valid. For the Brady Campaign to claim a freedom from other people bearing arms is the constitutional equivalent of claiming the freedom from the speech of others. Of course it's not the physical equivalent. But it is the legal equivalent.

Digressing a little bit I will admit that we probably will not ever have a constitutionally guaranteed right to carry concealed guns in public everywhere. If the Brady Campaign were to explicitly state it is only the carrying of concealed guns they get all uptight about but open carry is okay then I would be much more muted in my criticism of them. The carry of firearms in some form is probably going to be eventually upheld by the courts. Either the politicians have to make concealed carry permits "shall issue" and relatively quick and painless to obtain or they will have probably have to allow open carry without a permit. If some sort of carry for self defense in public is not allowed then the "bear" part of keep and bear arms will be infringed. I'm pretty sure the Brady people see that writing on the wall and are just dragging their feet or in denial.

After thinking about it for a long time and reading nearly all the blog posts and podcasts about the big open carry debate in the last few weeks I'm going to have my say on the topic soon. Perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Brady and company just contributed to my post on the topic.

In the Chicago Gun Case (McDonald, et. al. v. City of Chicago) the Brady Campaign has announced they will be filing a brief in support of neither party.

I'm anxious to find out what that means. As much as I like to think of them as spoiled children asking the nanny (government) to make the bad boys to go away (people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms) I don't think they are going to say anything close to "the case is irrelevent because Heller was decided incorrectly".

It appears that whatever their position we will find out sometime on or after November 23^rd.

We've had a very well-plotted-out legal strategy for years, leading up to this.

Alan Gottlieb
November 10, 2009
Barack & Load
Regarding the McDonald gun case out of Chicago that is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
[I recently talked with Alan and he is 100% convinced we are going to win this one.--Joe]

What do you call a bunch of people, hated by our enemies, stuck in close quarters with no means of self defense?

Answer; "Fish in a barrel".

"Target Rich Environment" comes to mind also.  This in response to that perpetual blithering idiot, Paul Helmke.  I don't really even like talking about him, because in reality it's probably a complete waste of time.  That and he's getting, right here, far more attention than he deserves.  We should spend more time talking about good or interesting things, or ideas that can solve problems and he's none of the above.  Flies, ants, hornets, and mosquitoes, do tend to get one's attention though, even at the best of picnics.  If he can take credit for something, I suppose that's it-- being the annoying parasite at the gathering of minds.  Where's my fly swatter?

But that’s just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades—so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, “No.“ And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to “draw a line in the sand” for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009
Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act
[My opinion is here on the Firearms Freedom Act as a gun rights tool. But I have to admit it has potential to further freedom on a broader scale. Because the recognition of the individual RKBA is so new case law is not that well developed. Because of that it may be possible to leverage FFA into something greater than what it appears on the face to be. I think it's a long shot but imagine if three fourths of the states passed such laws. At that point a constitutional amendment is within striking distance. Either an interesting Amendment (I'd like to see legislators who voted for a law or the president who signed a law that was later declared unconstitutional to be automatically convicted of treason) or secession.--Joe]

As pro-gun advocates, we have an obligation to lay out our arguments in a calculating and logical manner. To do so isn’t easy. I fail to tolerate the simple minded nature of our anti-gun adversaries on a daily basis. Like most pro-gun advocates it is beyond my ability to comprehend that people still believe in the validity of gun-control after the mounds of evidence that has disproved it over the last thirty years. Even worse is trying to educate the establishment media on how much they don’t understand about guns. Anger is never the answer, however, since it only reinforces the idea that people who own guns can’t be trusted–an ironic twist since it is backward anti-gun ravings that should incur the scorn of every day Americans.

Gerard Valentino
November 7, 2009
The Good Fight Against the Anti Gun MindSet
[I  spent a good part of my day yesterday being anger over a stupid anti-gun comment by someone. I decided to reload a bunch of ammo rather than make a blog post although the rant I had formulated probably would have released the anger more rapidly.--Joe]

This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
November 7, 2009
Rampage forces review of security policies on Army bases worldwide
[Only if you ignore the facts Paul. Only if you ignore the facts.

The fact is the victims were disarmed--just as they have been in nearly every other mass shooting.

But of course Helmke's organization success is dependent on the ignorance of people. That ignorance is rapidly becoming a thing of the past and is probably the primary reason he and his organization of bigots are becoming as irrelevant as the KKK.--Joe]