Keep and bear, not use?

Interesting news story yesterday. The Seattle police had sued over the new “use of force” rules, saying in part that it violated their 2nd Amendment rights.

The judge’s decision came down, and she (judge Marsha Pechman) dismissed the suit. According to the KOMO article :
The judge also dismissed the officers’ constitutional arguments, saying that while the Second Amendment ensures the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t protect the right to use the weapons.

Ummmm…. Excuse me? That’s like saying you have the right to free speech as long as you don’t say anything.

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

Western civilization is at war with the IslamoNazi world.

The problem is that Barack Obama, allegedly, the leader of the free world, does not recognize this simple truth. And that’s because he is a radical leftist who is incapable of recognizing, much less confronting, true evil.

Imperial Japans was defeated by killing lots and lots of Japanese, and incinerating their cities.

Same for the Nazis.

And that’s how we are going to defeat IslamoNazism. By eradicating these human monsters and their sanctuaries. There is no talking to them. There is nothing to negotiate.

They must be hunted down and killed.

Robert J. Avrech
September 3, 2014
How to Defeat IslamoNazism in One Easy Lesson
[Negotiating with them would be like negotiating with someone who wants to murder you. There is no compromise available.

The sooner and more vigorously we get started on this unpleasant task the lower the death toll for everyone.—Joe]

Traumatic hair cuts

Barb was in downtown Seattle today and had an appointment to get her hair cut.

Fortunately it was at a different location and time than this incident:

SeattleFireHairSalon

There were six people injured and the structural integrity of the building was compromised.

Can you imagine laying back with someone shampooing your hair, you are all relaxed, and mellowed out then CRASH! The room explodes with broken glass, flying debris, a car zipping across the room, and the ceiling sags down toward you?

On this day there were advantages to being bald.

A bad free speech decision

Another court case over at Volokh. Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2014). Some true believer bible thumpers went a-preaching at a huge Michigan Arab festival. They got balls, even if they might be shy a few common sense points.

Any-hoo, they carried their signs, wore their shirts, did their preaching. The Muslims assembled took offense, and a lot of their kids (naturally) started getting actively hostile (always use kids, so if the cops crack heads it makes for good propaganda videos). The cops told the Bible Believers to shut up or leave. The Bible believers said they had first amendment rights. The cops said “leave or we’ll arrest you for disorderly.” The court agreed. Reading the decision excerpts, the court has an argument, but I think the defense / dissent (the Bible Believers) has a much stronger argument.

Be a good case to appeal, especially if they win. If they don’t, then the incentive is for the hostile Muslims to get REALLY hostile to shut down opposition.

Incentives are important.

Decisions, decisions

In Taylor v. City of Baton Rouge, the ban on guns in places that sell alcohol — including supermarkets and service stations, and their parking lots — was struck down on Second Amendment grounds.

It’s cool to see the 2nd actually meaning something. Not sure if this is the best case to take the the SCOTUS, but it’s not a bad decision. A strange piece was that it was a default judgement, because the defendant didn’t answer the complaint properly.

In other court news, in Sylvester v Harris California’s 10-day waiting period was struck down with respect to people who already own guns. Not strict scrutiny, not any clear other level of scrutiny, either. In any case, good news.

As always, much more at the links.

 

Random thought of the day

Considering the downside of the The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and various religious based genocides it is extremely clear the risks associated with the First Amendment far outweigh the risks of the Second Amendment.

If anyone wants repeal the Second Amendment because we are “more civilized than that” or some such utopian fantasy point them at the genocide and beheadings going in Iraq right now and suggest we need to repeal the First Amendment as well because freedom of religion obviously leads to barbarism.

If they then wanted to repeal both the First and the Second Amendment and you gave them a swirly in response I would vote not guilty if it made it to trial and I was one of the jurors.

I-594 questions

Text of I-594 here.

Video of testimony here.

I’ve been going over it a bit. I’ve got a few questions that might be good to ask its supporters.

A person wants to take an adult friend to do some casual training and firearms familiarization, planning on loaning her a variety of guns and ammo during the afternoon. They want to go to a nearby parcel of public land that has been legally and safely used for recreational shooting for decades. What specific section or subsection of 594 would exempt them from having to run a background check every time they handed a gun back and forth? Considering a vast amount of training is done this way, it seem important.

A friend discovers her violent ex-husband just got released from jail, and she calls you at 10 PM Saturday night, fearing he might show up at her door any time. She’s a decent shooter, but due to finances she doesn’t already own a gun. What specific section or subsection of 594 would exempt you from having to run a background check to loan her a gun for a month until she can get the money together to buy one?

Sec 3(4)(f) states that [requiring background checks] shall not apply to a list of specific activities, such as”: The temporary transfer of a firearm (i) between spouses or domestic partners;
Why are no other family members included?

(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;
Why is there no section listing such shooting ranges, or providing for how an existing range can become authorized?

(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms as a part of the performance;
Why isn’t training for self defense, hunting, or recreation included?

(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms;
Why only minor children, not other family members or adult children?

or (v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting, provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law;
Can you clarify exactly when it would, or would not, be legal to borrow a gun to hunt with?

More generally, what section allows for temporary transfers for training for recreation, self defense, or hunting with privately owned guns without requiring a background check every time a gun changes hands?

MAIG bribery

To be more specific, Mayors Against Illegal Guns member Gordon Jenkins, a New York, Democratic Mayor, was arrested on bribery charges. Not just ““bribe receiving” but also “endangering the public health” and “intimidating a witness in connection with an incident in Fallsburg.”

A fine, upstanding bunch of folks those gun controllers mayor Bloomberg hangs with are.

End of times?

The situation with Ebola appears to be far short of the conditions such that retreating to your remote hidden bunker are warranted. Ebola is currently only transmitted by direct contact with infected body fluids. This makes it fairly easy to contain if you have good hygiene procedures when dealing with infected people. Currently what makes it so scary is its 60 to 90 percent fatality rate that runs it’s course in a few days.

The U.S. is probably more vigilant about the disease being brought into the country that you might think it is. A little over a month ago some friends of ours came back from East Africa where there hadn’t been any known cases. Their teenaged son got sick on the plane. Vomiting, fever, etc. The entire plane was quarantined for a couple hours. No one but the kid and mom were allowed off the plane until he went on an ambulance ride and was thoroughly checked out at a hospital. It didn’t turn out to be anything contagious and all is well but it should give you a clue as to how serious the potential for infectious diseases being brought into the country are being treated.

The big concern I have for Ebola is the potential for mutation into something airborne. The more people that currently have it the greater opportunity for such a mutation. If such a mutation does occur then it could be an end of times scenario. Does your deep woods bunker have the resources to keep you and yours alive for several months while 50% or more of the of the worlds population dies off? Probably not. I certainly don’t have anything like that available to me. And when you come out of hiding what is the world going to be like? It will be a much different place and as bad as I see our current situation I don’t see such a scenario being any better.

This potential, aside from the humanitarian aspect, is reason enough for people not directly affected to assist in containing the epidemic.

Update: I should know better than to trust “the most transparent administration in history”. The CDC says something completely different from the Public Health Agency of Canada:

In the laboratory, infection through small-particle aerosols has been demonstrated in primates, and airborne spread among humans is strongly suspected, although it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated.

H/T to Rolf in the comments who gave me a link that lead to the quote above. He has other links to the studies concluding air transmission does occur in primates.

Alan Korwin on James Brady

The post on James Brady that I wish I had the knowledge and skill to write:

Attacks on the Civil Right to Arms to Continue Unabated

Criminal acts still cleverly used as leverage to disarm the innocent

Sarah, not Jim, the real force behind the anti-rights movement

by Alan Korwin

“There’s no way to tell if you’re on the Brady rights-denied list, (the “NICS Index”) and attempting to buy a firearm if you’re on the government list is a felony. Attempting to find out if you’re on the list is a crime.”

James Brady, the White House Press Secretary under President Ronald Reagan has died. He was 73. He is being credited with “stunning successes” in the “gun-control” efforts in America.

Brady had been shot in the head with a .22 caliber revolver during an assassination attempt on president Reagan in 1981, and was severely incapacitated by the injury. Confined to a wheel chair for the balance of his life, in constant pain and speaking only with extreme difficulty, his ambitious and attractive young wife Sarah was understandably horrified and reportedly turned bitter by the life-changing tragedy. Their world had turned upside down.

Continuing a long tradition of spinning gun-related news to fit a set of beliefs instead of conformance with the facts, the “news” media is portraying James Brady as the moving force behind what is now the Brady Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence, formerly the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence Allied with The Million Moms March, formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, Inc., formerly the National Council to Ban Handguns.

Read the whole thing.

Progress on Fast and Furious

This just now in the news via Katie Pavlich. BREAKING: Judge Orders DOJ to Release Fast and Furious Documents Withheld From Congress Under Obama Executive Privilege Claim:

This order forces the Obama DOJ, for the first time, to provide a detailed listing of all documents that it has withheld from Congress and the American people for years about the deadly Fast and Furious gun running scandal,” Judicial Watch released in a statement.

It doesn’t mean the DOJ has to turn over the documents being requested. It just means they have to give a list of all the documents and the reasons they were withheld. The judge and the FOIA requester can then evaluate the justification for withholding them. It’s a step in the right direction. It’s still a long and difficult trail before anyone in the DOJ or Whitehouse goes to jail over this.

Interesting Mideast development

From CNN:

“Israel’s ongoing battle against Hamas is part of a wider regional war on the Muslim Brotherhood,” says the Soufan Group, which tracks global security. “Most Arab states share Israel’s determination to finish the movement off once and for all, but they are unlikely to be successful.”

“From the perspective of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE and some other Arab states, what the Israeli Prime Minister is doing is fighting this war against Hamas on their behalf so they can finish the last stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Younes says.

“Arab governments and official Arab media have all but adopted the Israeli view of who is a terrorist and who is not. Egyptian and Saudi-owned media are liberal in labeling the Muslim Brotherhood as ‘terrorists’ and describing Hamas as a ‘terrorist organization.’ It’s a complete turnabout from the past, when Arab states fought Israel and the U.S. in the international organizations on the definition of terrorism, and who is a terrorist or a ‘freedom fighter.'”

So most Arabs states would regard the people I took pictures of the other day as on the same side as terrorists? That gives me some comfort. Or at least not as much discomfort.

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are threats to nearly all peaceful societies. I’m all for Israeli finishing the job this time and if the other Arab states contribute to the extermination of their culture of terror then more power to them.

I cannot comprehend these people

Here is some of what I saw at Westlake Park in downtown Seattle today:

WP_20140728_003WP_20140728_002

What are these people thinking? Where were they for the last several years as the Hamas fired hundreds, if not thousands, of rockets into Israel?

How could they not get the message that Israel has been trying to resolve this as humanely as possible and the Hamas continues to attack?

IdfCeaseFires

This is not an attempt by Israel to commit genocide. This is an attempt by Israel to defend against genocide. I find it hard to believe these people are that ignorant and that stupid or even that evil. What can they possible be thinking? They are incomprehensible to me.

This really, really irritates me. I have my gripes about Israel but on this issue I just want them to finish the job with Hamas. Show us how it’s done because it won’t be that much longer before we will have to do something similar to defend against scum like this.

Washington D.C. is now Constitutional Carry!

Via Alan Gura who says, “Justice never sleeps…. not even on a Saturday afternoon, when this opinion was just handed down.”:

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.4 Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District.

20 years ago when I started becoming very involved in the gun owner rights movement I could not have imagined I would be talking about the day when Washington D.C. became “Constitutional Carry” (well, even “Vermont Carry” which what we called it then).

The anti gun people will be crying themselves to sleep tonight. But I’ll be cleaning and lubricating my guns with Liberal Tears:

LiberalTears

Halbig vs Burwell

The DC Court of Appeals handed down it’s decision in Halbig vs Burwell, an ObamaCare challenge. The crux of the challenge is that the law, as written, says that people on exchanges established by a state can get the subsidies, people using the Federal exchange established by Uncle Sam cannot. This was done (they said at the time) as an incentive to encourage states to set up their own exchanges, and it was estimated that only a small number of knuckledragging states would fail to do so (so screw them)… (OK, so the last part was my words for their actions).

But when 34 states failed to set up their own exchange, it caused a problem. Millions of people don’t want to have their promised subsidies “taken away.” So, the HHS said “well, it really means any exchange, including the Federal one.” The DC Court of Appeals just said “No, state means state.” And, as an added bonus, just a few days ago the HHS itself said that in the ACA, “State” means “State,” not “state and/or territories.” A bit more than a week ago, Obama’s law professor said it would likely turn out this way.

This is potentially a nuclear bomb in the heart of the law. Next stop, en banc review on the (packed?) court, or the Supreme Court. Only downside is finding out how the Rs will manage to shoot themselves in the foot with this news (with the media’s willing help, of course.)

UPDATE: the 4th Circuit just ruled the other way on the same thing. Wow, that was timely.

Another good analysis.

Another one from Forbes. If upheld, it would cancel the subsidies, AND the tax for not buying insurance (i.e., kill the mandate).

Electronic Marques

Interesting idea. The US Constitution authorizes operations against pirates. Article 1,Section 8, Clause 10 “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”

It also covers issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

Why not do the suddenly obvious and issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private corporations to go after international electronic pirates, foreign agents who are attacking our corporations and infrastructure electronically? Makes sense to me.

Sadly perfect gun case?

In order to advance gun law in the right direction, it is often (sadly)  necessary for bad things to happen to good people in order to create the “correct” circumstances for a compelling court case that can overturn stupid laws. There may be one in New Jersey now. Short version: a Pennsylvania nurse with a concealed carry permit drove into NJ, got busted during a traffic stop, charged with second degree handgun possession, faces three to ten years if convicted. She has no criminal history, a good job, and two kids, and prosecutors are passing up every opportunity to lighten the charges or penalty. If the facts of the case are as presented in this article, this would be a case to take to the supreme court to strike down such idiot laws. For her sake, I hope the Governor steps in and slaps some sense into the prosecutor and she gets off with a warning- but it shouldn’t have to need that. Anti-gun people like to compare concealed carry permits to driver’s licenses. Well, here’s their chance to see how well that works.

A step toward common sense gun laws

I’m all for common sense gun laws. The current laws restricting the exercise of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms are nonsensical.

Here is just a small sample of the stupidity of some of them:

  • Short barreled rifles are restricted. You are allowed to own a handgun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches but if you cut the barrel and/or stock of a rifle down approaching the size of a handgun you go to jail.
  • Noise suppressors are required on cars but restricted on firearms. Then the neighbors of ranges complain about the noise.
  • Most states don’t have laws against openly carrying a firearm. But if you carry it concealed they have a problem. Even though some ignorant and/or malicious people threaten to, or do, call the police if someone openly carries a gun.
  • Some guns are illegal to be imported into the U.S. But the same exact gun is perfectly legal if “enough” of its parts are made in the U.S. “Enough” is subject to the whims of regulators at the ATF.
  • You are required to have a FFL to be “in the business” of selling firearms. It is okay if you occasionally sell or trade guns from your own collection. But if you sell or trade “too many” guns the ATF will charge you with “being in the business” without a license. They refuse to tell us how many is “too many”.

All of these are weak links that I think are should be challenged in court before some of the more difficult issues like “high capacity” magazines, “right to carry”, “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale”, “micro-stamping”, etc.

This doesn’t mean that I think anything other than “shall not be infringed” should be the final objective. It’s just that I’m a big proponent of picking the low hanging fruit first.

To that effect today we have the CCRKBA announcing they are attempting to pick some of that low hanging fruit:

CCRKBA FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING FEDERAL LAW ON HANDGUN PURCHASES

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed a lawsuit today in federal court in Texas against Attorney General Eric Holder and B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, challenging the current federal law prohibiting cross-state handgun purchases.

CCRKBA brings this lawsuit on behalf of its members throughout the country, who would legally buy and sell handguns outside of their home states, just as they currently do with long guns. Joining CCRKBA as plaintiffs in the case are Texas resident Fredric Russell Mance, Jr., and Tracey Ambeau Hanson and Andrew Hanson, both of Washington, D.C. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth division. Financial assistance for the lawsuit is provided by the Second Amendment Foundation.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, noting that his organization rarely pursues a legal action of such magnitude, said today’s lawsuit is necessary to advance the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens. He said current law essentially criminalizes the interstate handgun market, which does not apply to the sale of rifles or shotguns.

“It is overreaching, if not downright silly, in today’s environment with the federal instant background check system to perpetuate a prohibition on interstate handgun purchases that has outlived its usefulness,” Gottlieb observed. “If a law-abiding citizen can clear a background check and legally purchase a handgun in his own state, he would pass the same background check just across the border in another state.”

This is very important to District of Columbia residents, who can now legally purchase rifles and shotguns from federally-licensed gun dealers in neighboring states, but they still may not purchase handguns. Plaintiff Mance is a federally licensed firearms dealer who would sell handguns directly to consumers in other states, but under current law, he is prohibited from doing so. The Hansons are fully qualified under federal law, and laws in Texas and the District of Columbia, to purchase and possess handguns.

“Federal law allows for interstate long gun sales,” Gottlieb noted, “as long as the dealer follows the law, so what’s the logic of the federal government banning interstate handgun sales? Some states allow for, or even welcome, interstate handgun sales, so what’s the federal government doing?”

Remington 700 trigger settlement

As you probably already heard (via Say Uncle) Remington has reached a settlement regarding millions of their Remington 700 rifles sold since the 1960s. If that involves a recall or even a visit to your local gunsmith it could be a long time before you get your rifle(s) fixed and back in your hands.

I would like to suggest you do what I did (now that my trigger was shipped a few minutes ago) and that is order a Timney Remington 700 replacement trigger.

I have their triggers on two other types of rifles. They are amazing. There is zero perceptible take up or creep. It’s like breaking glass. Seriously. It’s what you think happened. A small glass rod must have just broken.

I have the instructions from Timney on how to replace the trigger in a Remington. It looks to be easy and straightforward. I’m going to replace the trigger on my rifle before I fire another shot. Get yours on order before the backlog gets too long.

Clarification: I should have also said that I have no firm opinion on whether the Remington trigger is in fact defective. But if you do not have your gun “repaired” (whether you think it needed it or not) and have an accident involving the trigger it might increase your liability. Why risk it? Yes, the Remington trigger has a crisp break and had a great reputation for decades. But you can get a better trigger and install it for less than $150.