Quote of the day—Justice Gorsuch

The executive branch and affected citizens asked the court to do what courts usually do in statutory interpretation disputes: supply its best independent judgment about what the law means. But, instead of deciding the case the old-fashioned way, the court placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government.

That was mistaken.

Despite these concerns, I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review. The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before final judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the same problems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.

Justice Gorsuch
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DAMIEN GUEDES, ET AL. v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 19–296. Decided March 2, 2020
[I have never owned a bump stock and almost for certain never will. For long distance work a bolt gun serves my needs best. For close up work aimed fire from a semi-auto appears to be optimal.

As near as I can tell a bump stock is best suited for converting money into noise. While I can understand that could be a reasonable use of someone else’s money it’s generally not something I want to do with my money.

That said, just because I don’t anticipate the use of one for myself I regard the ban on bump stocks to be extremely concerning. The law quite clearly does not forbid the ownership or use of a bump stock. Yet the administration insisted the law means something entirely different from what it says. This sort of behavior is not acceptable.

While there is still a decent chance SCOTUS will correct the mistake it is important to note that a right delayed is a right denied.

If it were up to me the court will slap the administration down so hard their ears ring as if they had a dozen bump stock equipped rifles emptying 100 round magazines simultaneously near their unprotected ears. Then I would recommended them for prosecution under 18 USC 242 and tell them, Enjoy. Your. Trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tana Senn

I’ve never thought about it.

Tana Senn
Washington State Representative, 41st District
February 22, 2020
This was in response to the question, “What sort of gun law do you think would violate the Washington State constitution?”
[The Washington State constitution says:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

My guess is that she has never read it. Another guy at the town hall meeting asked a related question and she went off with something about the militia. Which, of course, might have been relevant if we didn’t have the Washington State constitution protection for the right to keep and bear arms clause and the Heller decision. The Heller decision, of course, making it very clear the militia clause does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to the militia.

I got the last question of the meeting and I decided to directly ask her to address the Washington State constitution clause. The QOTD above was the beginning of her response.

The rest of her response was about hunters, she has “no problem” with hunters—as long as they don’t use “military type guns” which are only for hunting humans. She was a bit more hesitant but also said she didn’t have a problem with people who wanted to have a gun to defend themselves.

But, of course, the Washington State constitution does not give lawmakers a “military type gun” loophole to write laws restricting individual possession and use of firearms.

I find her response very telling.

If she has never concerned herself with the limits to the power she has under the constitution this isn’t going to stop. Whatever restriction she and her type can get passed this year or next, or the year after is just another step toward the practical, if not literal, elimination of the right.

I was telling someone else about what Senn said and I got a surprising response:

Crazy must run in the family.

It turns out that Senn is is a first cousin, once-removed of former Washington state Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn. Deborah Senn had a reputation such that many people suspected she was a sociopath and perhaps had other psychology issues.

My live tweeting of the meeting:

This should be good evidence. I hope she enjoys her trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

When it comes down to it, the gun-ban cheerleaders won’t be happy until guns, “go away.” But there is no “go away.” They are guaranteed to remain dissatisfied, while we refuse to cooperate. Have the government take guns? You’re only giving them to Mr. Trump, who gun grabbers think is a Nazi personified, so that’s hopelessly irrational. Irrational. And even a wave-a-magic-wand disappearance method (or 100% effective bill) is nonsense, communist China would start imports worse than cocaine trafficking. South America too. All we face from the left on guns is mythology and Utopianism that interferes with life.

Alan Korwin
January 23, 2020
Why Background Checks Are A Lie: Stopping Psychos and Gun Checks Are Unrelated
[There is no negotiating or even discussion with irrational people. There is only ignoring, avoiding, and controlling them. The ignoring and avoiding haven’t been working so well lately. It’s time to start prosecuting those in power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Erik Simonsen

The same people who feel it’s necessary to give driver’s licenses to defiant law-breakers are the same ones trying to pass this nonsense. When did we become a state that put lawbreakers first, while attacking the rights of hard-working, law-abiding citizens?

Erik Simonsen
New Jersey Assemblymen-elect.
December 20, 2019
Proposed N.J. gun law would mandate $50k insurance policies for all gun owners
[Answering the rhetorical question, evidence would indicate it was shortly after getting a socialist/communist majority in the state.

If you read the article you also find this interesting bit:

Governor Murphy signed an executive order in September making it practically impossible for a legal gun owner to obtain a firearms insurance policy. Attacking gun insurance as a gun ownership “enabling” concept has become a popular trend in blue states as of late.

So, the governor, through executive action has essentially banned people from obtaining firearm liability insurance (the NRA Carry Guard insurance). And:

A-6003 sponsored by Patricia Egan Jones (D-5) mandates that each New Jersey gun owner obtain a minimum of $50,000 in liability insurance at the time of purchase.

New Jersey is the one state that I refuse to visit until their oppressive gun laws are repealed or I can get a varmint hunting license for the politicians who created and/or perpetuate this tyranny.

These people need to prosecuted. I look forward to their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mike Elgan

An increasing number of societal “privileges” related to transportation, accommodations, communications, and the rates we pay for services (like insurance) are either controlled by technology companies or affected by how we use technology services. And Silicon Valley’s rules for being allowed to use their services are getting stricter.

If current trends hold, it’s possible that in the future a majority of misdemeanors and even some felonies will be punished not by Washington, D.C., but by Silicon Valley. It’s a slippery slope away from democracy and toward corporatocracy.

In other words, in the future, law enforcement may be determined less by the Constitution and legal code, and more by end-user license agreements.

Mike Elgan
August 6, 2019
Uh-oh: Silicon Valley is building a Chinese-style social credit system
[Via email from Chet.

I had a incident with the Boomershoot website and Google that lasted weeks (they claimed it was a phishing website) before I finally got them to stop showing a red screen when people visited using Chrome. The security certificate (https) is still suspended because of this and I need to get that fixed soon. It cost them virtually nothing to do that and it cost me many hours and who knows how much loss of traffic and reputation.

As further evidence of this line of thinking, people have made suggestions that banks should cut off credit card processing and other financial services from stores that sell certain types (as a prelude to all types) of firearms:

…assault weapons would be eliminated from virtually every firearms store in America because otherwise the sellers would be cut off from the credit card system.

Of course PayPal, Square, Stripe and Apple Pay already completely ban the sale of firearms via their services.

I’m not sure what the proper response to this sort of thing is. In principle, I’m against government telling how to run their businesses. Let the free market decide. But sometimes the outcome doesn’t seem just. Restaurants, apartment owners, and hotels refusing to do business with people with black skin is one such example. The free market response seemed inadequate to remedy the problem.

I’m in the process of moving to a different credit card processor for Boomershoot even though PayPal was much easier and cheaper. But even with many people reducing or ceasing their use of PayPal because of their anti-gun policies it doesn’t appear to be suffering any.

It’s wasn’t exactly a legal restrictions so it’s tempting to say this type of thing is an appropriate response:

Top Louisiana officials have blocked two large bank corporations from participating in a road financing plan due to their gun control regulations.

Perhaps. But it hasn’t seemed to been effective, it is a form of government telling a business how they should operate, and the banks could probably easily retaliate with greater effect against those states.

What would seem to me to be the best approach is for the corporate officers to be prosecuted via 18 UCS 241. It’s not telling them how to do business. It’s prosecution for attempting to deny people their specific enumerated rights. Yes, it’s walking a very narrow, perhaps imaginary, line. It wouldn’t take very long for banks to revise their business practices if a few banks lost all of their upper management to life sentences in prison.

That’s not going to happen in the next few years so what should be done in the mean time? Is there anything more we can do than attempt boycotts and document their crimes?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Shannon Watts @shannonrwatts

“Come and take it” is also a death threat. Given our gun violence crisis, law enforcement must stop giving pundits and politicians who say these things a pass.

Shannon Watts @shannonrwatts
ShannonWatts
Tweeted on October 11, 2019
[Watts doesn’t just want to ban guns. She is also opposed to freedom of speech.

No one should give her a pass on this. I hope she enjoys her trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lyle

Saying we’re “rebelling” against the elite is to assume that they’re the authority. No; they’re the rebels, see. One does not “rebel against” robbers, rapists, arsonists and vandals. One upholds the law. Upholding the Law of Liberty is not “rebellion”. Violating it is.

Lyle
September 16, 2019
Comment to Quote of the day—A. R. G. @AdamRobGoCop
[I look forward to their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Giffords @GiffordsCourage

The NRA has no place in the White House.

Watch 2020 Democrats—@JoeBiden, @CoryBooker, @PeteButtigieg, @KamalaHarris, @AmyKlobuchar, @BetoORourke, @BernieSanders, & @EWarren—take on gun lobby corruption in our second #GunSafetyPresident video.

Giffords @GiffordsCourage
Tweeted on September 16, 2019
[Via a tweet from Chris Knox.

By saying the nation’s oldest civil rights organization “has no place in the White House” they tell us they have no respect for the 1st and 2nd Amendments. They are advocates for, and participants in, the destruction of the Bill of Rights. Such people belong in prison.

I find it telling there is no evidence of corruption presented and they tell a deliberate lie. The NRA does not represent the gun industry. It represents its five million+ members.

Remember this for their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Proposals for reform are often dismissed because they have no “realistic” chance of being adopted. But none of the major reforms of the past had any realistic chance of being adopted when they were first proposed.

Thomas Sowell
March 6, 1999
THOMAS SOWELL: Back again – random thoughts
[This is my justification for reiterating that those who attempt to deny people their right to keep and bear arms should be prosecuted. To that end I have created these links for quick and easy access for everyone to use: http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 and http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Malte

We used to fall into this trap as advocates when reporters would ask, ‘What would have stopped this shooting?’ We’d be trying our very best to say, ‘This policy would have.’ And that was the wrong answer because it’s not true. There’s no one policy that’s going to stop any shooting—it takes a multitude of solutions. Many times our movement would play into the NRA’s defeatist…attitude.

Brian Malte
August 21, 2019
Trump Thinks Background Checks Won’t Stop Shootings. He’s Wrong.
[Although isn’t not in the form of a direct quote Malte is also credited with:

For their part, gun control activists have learned that it’s better to steer clear of the debate over what caused a particularly horrific shooting, explains Brian Malte, who was a senior official at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—now known as Brady United—in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre.

What I conclude from this article is significantly different from what the author and those interviewed conclude.

What I conclude is that they admit to knowing that the “solutions” they push in response to a mass shooting could not possibly have prevented those deaths. They push for them anyway.

They are admitting they are not stupid. They are admitting they are not ignorant. They are admitting that it is a deliberate infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with no possibility of reducing the harm they claim to be so concerned about. They are admitting they are evil.

This can and should be used at their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jim Poland @JimPolandcom

Swat’em! They’re dead. Now come and arrest me. My defense? I was protecting my children and 500 innocent children & their families. Threaten my kids?! There will be YUGE consequences for open carry. We will ensure it!

Jim Poland @JimPolandcom
Tweeted on August 8, 2019
[This can and should be used at his trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frederica Wilson

Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace, and there is no need for anyone think that is unacceptable [sic]. We’re gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted. You cannot intimidate members of Congress, threaten members of Congress. It is against the law and it’s a shame in this United States of America.

Frederica Wilson
U.S. Representative to Congress (D)
July 2, 2019
[Via a tweet from Ali Alexander.

She goes on to blame President Trump for the general disrespect of Congress and the media.

I would like to suggest that if Rep Wilson didn’t have such crap for brains as to not realize people have the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to make fun of members of congress then she might enjoy a little more respect. But since you can’t fix stupid it looks like she is going to have to suffer being mocked and disrespected as long as she continues to open her mouth in public.—Joe]

Update: Others have expressed similar opinions but Michael Z. Williamson wins the Internet so far. This is just part of one of the first paragraphs of Challenge Accepted, Congresswhore

Per the First Amendment, Common Law, and in fact, Common Sense, I have the right to mock you however I wish. If I think you have the manners of a Denebian Slime Devil, then that’s what I’ll say. If I think you’re a textbook Demorrhoid–ignorant, retarded, bigoted, stupid and humorless–I’ll say so.

That’s the warm up.

Quote of the day—Julie Morrison

Maybe we’ll just have a confiscation and you won’t have to worry about paying a fine.

Julie Morrison
Illinois State Senator

June 11, 2019
MOLON LABE, BABY!
smug
[Maybe she will be arrested and prosecuted for violation of 18 USC 242 and she won’t have to worry about an mob of angry gun owners hunting her.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence

…hopes that Glocester will oppose this measure if it comes up again in June. Although the resolution is symbolic, it is undoubtedly harmful because it advances the false narrative that the very rights and livelihoods of Second Amendment supporters are at risk. Law-abiding gun owners though should have no reason to feel threatened by the gun safety measures that community organizers advocate for, and in fact, all regulations–from banning guns in schools to banning military style assault weapons are constitutional.

Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence
May 18, 2019
Political Divide Splitting Communities Across RI — Is It a Trump Factor?
[You should not feel threatened because “all regulations … are constitutional.”

Wow! That’s so reassuring.

They must be attempting to exercise the The Big Lie propaganda technique. What will they tell us next, “work sets you free”?

I hope they enjoy their trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Horwitz

Today, we are standing up to our leaders to let them know that it is time to drain the swamp. It is time to dissolve the National Rifle Association.

Josh Horwitz
Executive Director of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
May 17, 2019
Email with the subject “The NRA has got to go”.
[I find it very telling that Horwitz is eager to destroy the nations oldest civil rights organization.

It tells people everything they need to know about him and his organization. He is opposed to civil rights and should he succeed in this endeavor it will make it that much easier to attack and destroy other civil rights organizations and the rights they are attempting to protect.

It is his organization that “has got to go”. They are in violation of 18 USC 241 and should be prosecuted. I look forward to his trial and hope Horwitz enjoys his trial as much as I will.—Joe]

They want you dead

Yesterday Mike Bash (actor, producer, writer) tweeted at me:

Lol read up about Waco. Y’all will never win, but its cute you think you could! That would help rid the country of gun nuts faster though…

This is what anti-gun people think of you, the country needs to be rid of “gun nuts” and their families. Burning gun owners and their families alive is entirely appropriate to him.

Good to know.

What he apparently doesn’t realize is that among the lessons we learned from Waco and numerous other incidents throughout history is to never give up your guns.

Mike, I hope you http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1.

image

Quote of the day—Sharon Wehrly

As sheriff of Nye County, I agree with Sheriff Watts: I will not participate in the enforcement of this new law and certainly won’t stand silent, while my citizens are turned into criminals due to the unconstitutional actions of misguided politicians who, for the most part, are trying to do the right thing.

Sharon Wehrly
March 7, 2019
Sheriff of Nye County, Nevada
Letter to Governor Sisolak
[I think she is being generous with the “misguided politicians”. But I can understand why saying, “You are a bunch of evil, communists, SOBs!” would not be helpful at this point in time so I give her a pass on that.

We’ve known, and have been saying, for a long time now that the law enforcement will ignore these stupid and unconstitutional gun laws. We now have proof, not just anonymous polling data, in several states, that much of law enforcement is on our side on this issue. And this one is about simple background checks! This isn’t about something as extreme as banning most semi-automatic guns.

If the political left does not, or cannot, pull themselves out of this downward spiral into a confrontation we could see their first trials in a few years or perhaps even months. Give them fair warning. Tell them to enjoy their trials. Give them these links http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 for private citizens and http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2 for government employees.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Richard Hudson

It’s a shame that in their rush to “do something”– anything – Democrats have made this critical debate a partisan show. Last week, my Democrat colleagues rushed to pass two partisan pieces of legislation that would have done nothing to stop some of the most prominent mass shootings in recent memory. H.R. 8 would not have stopped Newtown. H.R. 8 would not have stopped Parkland. It would not have stopped Las Vegas, or Sutherland Springs, or San Bernardino or many other tragedies. But the proponents of gun control don’t want you to judge them based on outcomes; they want you to judge them based on intentions.

Richard Hudson
United States Representative for North Carolina
March 2, 2019
H.R. 8 won’t stop school shootings
[I thank Representative Hudson for standing up for our rights and pointing out the deliberate deception of many anti-gun people.

While I agree that what Hudson says in that last sentence is true for many people and it’s a relatively safe thing to say to avoid a lot of controversy it’s not entirely true.

I believe that some gun control proponents, particularly, but not exclusively the politicians, know the proposed gun legislation cannot make people safer and that is their intention. They want something that will fail to make people safer and, in fact prefer, that it will make people less safe. This gives the politician more power because it makes people more dependent upon government.

That said, the common person doesn’t realize they have been duped and believe the implied intention. I said “implied” because it is very rare that politician will come out and explicitly state that a law making access to guns more difficult will make people safer. They will say, “Its just common sense.” They will say, “No one should have these guns.” They will say, “80% of the people want background checks.” But they don’t say, “Criminologist predict this will reduce violent crime by 20%.” Or, “This will cut mass shootings deaths in half.” That they don’t make the claim that gun regulations will improve public safety strongly implies to me that they know it will not improve public safety.

I can give someone a temporary pass on not knowing something and making an overstated claim about their unproven hypothesis being true. But when they almost for certain know the truth and deliberately word things to deceive people that is an extremely strong indicator they are evil people. That these people deliberately deceive others to infringe a specific enumerated right make them criminals punishable by law.

I hope they enjoy their trials (http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2).—Joe

Quote of the day—The Common Sense Gun Regulation Act

(1 )(a) “Assault weapon” means any:

(A) Semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:

(i) Any grip of the weapon, including a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;

(B) Semiautomatic pistol, or any semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

The Common Sense Gun Regulation Act
Oregon, February 26, 2019
[There is a lot more but the above is all you need to know. Their intent is to ban nearly all semiautomatic rifles and pistols.

This is despite the Heller decision which specifically protected a semi-auto pistol and almost explicitly protected rifles of the type targeted by this law. These people, such as Greg Wasson, are criminals. I hope they enjoy their trials: http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial1 and http://bit.ly/EnjoyYourTrial2.—Joe]