I was looking at the Revised Code of Washington firearm definitions and found some interesting things:

(9) “Firearm” means a weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.

Does this mean that if you, as a non-FFL, sell or give someone something, say the lower receiver of a modern sporting rifle or a handgun without a barrel, that is incapable of firing a projectile they don’t have to go through the NICS check and fill out a 4473 as required by I-594?

(15) “Machine gun” means any firearm known as a machine gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second.

Emphasis added.

I find two things of interest here.

  1. Some people can pull the trigger on a revolver faster than this.
  2. If someone were to limit the rate of fire on a belt fed gun to no more than 4.9 shots per second it would appear (I am not a lawyer!) to be legal under Washington State law.

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, the towering medieval scholar, writes with refreshing clarity:

“The sword is not the cause of murder, and there is no sin upon him who made it.”

In other words, a weapon, be it a sword or a gun, is neutral. It can be used for good or evil. Thus to label a gun as “bad” makes no sense, for a gun can be used in self-defense which the Torah sees as an obligation.

Robert J. Avrech
September 19, 2016
Jews and Guns
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—YouWildman‏ @youwildman

@JJVP10 @micahsgrrl @DavidRGreen_ @Mimi_ftw @wallsofthecity THE NEED TO IMPREGNATE SOMEONE W/ THAT TINY DICK YOU MEAN? YOU WON’T-NO WORRIES!

YouWildman‏ @youwildman
Tweeted on February 8, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.

Bonus follow up:

@youwildman @JJVP10 @micahsgrrl @DavidRGreen_ @Mimi_ftw @wallsofthecity And 15 MILLION women are compensating for ?


Dan Roberts ‏@DRoberts556
Tweeted on February 8, 2016

@DRoberts556 @JJVP10 @micahsgrrl @DavidRGreen_ @Mimi_ftw @wallsofthecity same thing; tiny white penises

YouWildman ‏@youwildman
Tweeted on February 8, 2016

I find it very telling that we have tens of millions of people exercising their specific, enumerated, right to keep and bear arms, supported by SCOTUS decisions, and our opponents are fixated on their delusions regarding genitalia.—Joe]

Email leaks: Hillary on guns

If you ever had any doubt about Hillary Clintons intentions toward gun ownership the most recent email leaks should remove all doubt:

Of particular note is an October 4, 2015 email written by Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, which detailed the campaign’s intent to share with reporters the types of gun control proposals a President Clinton would support. The email stated:

Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

Note that, in her mind, no legislative action is required. Stroke of the pen, rule of law as was said during the first Clinton presidency.

I also find it “interesting” how the media works with Hillary Clinton in preparation for their encounters. It’s all orchestrated. There are no surprises or challenges to her position. Glenn Reynolds says, “Just think of the MSM as Democratic operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.”

Sandy Hook lawsuit against Bushmaster dismissed

I understand the desire for some sort of justice in the wake of an atrocity like the Sandy Hook massacre. But it’s not justice when people and companies who had nothing to do with the actions of the criminal are punished. That is what the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was to prevent. And that is what it did:

A Connecticut judge has dismissed a lawsuit that families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims had filed against a gun manufacturer.

In her decision granting the company’s motion to strike the case, Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis invoked a federal statute known as PLCAA, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    The law prohibits lawsuits against gun manufacturers and distributors if their firearms were used in the commission of a criminal act.

    The families had sought an exemption through a claim of “negligent entrustment,” arguing the maker knowingly marketed and sold the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle to civilians despite knowing it posed a risk when used outside “highly regulated institutions” such as law enforcement or the military. Remington is the parent company of Bushmaster.

    Bellis said the “criminal misuse of a weapon” by Adam Lanza means the action “falls squarely within the broad immunity provided by PLCAA,” adding that the arguments presented by the families do not fit within the definition of negligent entrustment.

    Joshua Koskoff, an attorney for the families, said in a statement that his clients plan to appeal.

    Hillary Clinton has explicitly said this law should not exist. It is my opinion that Hillary Clinton should not have a political existence.

    Those who need to know already know what the following means. If it’s not crystal clear to you then don’t worry about it. It’s not for you. It’s more fun and games for the NSA:


    Quote of the day—Brian

    The use of the lefts term “gun control” is completely wrong. It infers that guns are somehow out of control and need to be curtailed. Clearly this is not the case, but every time we use that term we subtly reinforce the idea that controlling guns has anything to do with something except a nice tight grouping.

    It’s a restriction of our constitutional right or an infringement of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    Every time you feel the urge to type or say “gun control” replace it with what’s really happening.

    October 2016
    Editor’s Corner: Stop Trying to Make “Gun Control” Happen, It’s Not Going to Happen.
    [I have nothing to add.—Joe]

    The science is settled

    I found this, from the CDC, interesting:

    Unintentional fall deaths
    • Number of deaths: 31,959
    • Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.0
    Motor vehicle traffic deaths
    • Number of deaths: 35,398
    • Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.1
    Unintentional poisoning deaths
    • Number of deaths: 38,851
    • Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.3

    And from another CDC page:

    Firearm homicides
    • Number of deaths: 10,945
    • Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.4

    So, the average resident of the United States is about three times more likely to die from an unintentional fall, motor vehicle traffic accident, or unintentional poisoning than to be killed, including JUSTIFIABLE homicide, by someone with a firearm.

    Hence, the science is settled. If Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, and others were really interested in saving lives they would spend their money and political capital on banning ladders, stairs, cars, and household chemicals instead of guns. And since they are not their real objective is something other than saving lives.

    So, what is the real reason they continue to advocate for infringing upon our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms? And what are we going to do about it?

    Quote of the day—YA GIRL CHILLARY‏@H_Clinton11

    Small penis alert

    YA GIRL CHILLARY‏@H_Clinton11
    Tweeted on January 22, 2016 in response to:

    [It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

    Via a tweet from ScottInSC and  a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

    Black Guns Matter at Boomershoot 2017

    From Stephanie:BGM2017

    Why Black Guns Matter? Because the 2nd Amendment is color blind.

    BGM educates people in urban communities on their 2nd Amendment rights and responsibilities through firearms training and education. @blkgunsmattr

    From the battlefields of North Philly in battleground state of Pennsylvania, Maj Toure started BGM in hopes that conflicts won’t end with someone getting killed. You see, gun education brings peace.

    BGM’s currently fundraising for a 13 city tour to continue informing urban communities – especially youth – about safe and legal firearms knowledge, conflict resolution, and the 2nd Amendment. Next stop on tour: Chicago.

    (Ah, Chicago. The city I once called home. The city where, despite hefty gun bans, I dodged bullets from inner-city shooters. Go, Maj!)

    >>>>>Right now, go here to donate to Toure’s rightous cause.<<<<<

    Shoot alongside Maj and several other BGM members at Boomershoot 2017 by signing up here.

    BGM Chicago training is this Saturday, October 8. Share this message to citizens of Chicago and surrounding communities:


    Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

    A medical marijuana CARD (not use) is now Second Amendment disqualification, according to a decision of the uber-liberal federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a case with no parallels, a woman who obtained the card to show support for the medical-marijuana movement — but who doesn’t use pot — has been disqualified from her constitutional rights, for possession of the plastic card. Wherever you may stand on the drug issue, even the statute itself requires drug use, not government permission-slip possession. In its decision, this Court introduced the idea that you might not be sufficiently mentally OK at times to bear arms, so summarily removing your rights is totally is fine. Whether this applies to beer, over-the-counter medicine that might cause drowsiness and any other mental evaluations was not addressed, but surely can’t be far behind in the minds of those who can come up with a decision like this, would seek any means to control the public.

    Alan Korwin
    September 12, 2016
    Attack On Gun Rights Takes New Shapes
    [The Second Amendment—void where prohibited by law. Or court. Or political whim.—Joe]

    Quote of the day—Phoebe Maltz Bovy

    On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with. 

    Phoebe Maltz Bovy
    December 10, 2015
    It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
    [I have to wonder how much timidity she would have in taking point on those door-to-door raids.

    Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

    Quote of the day—Hillary Clinton

    I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun. I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry.

    Hillary Clinton
    June 2, 2000
    Hillary Clinton offers support for gun licensing bill; Lazio wraps up three-day bus tour
    [See also here and here.

    Keeping Hillary out of the White House is essential to the free exercise of the specific enumerate right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

    Quote of the day—Kimberly Corban

    This November, I refuse to again vote in favor of being controlled. I was once utterly defenseless at the mercy of a person who felt entitled to my life, and I refuse to allow that to ever happen again.

    I am no longer the victim Hillary needs. I am a survivor. And this November, you can be, too.

    Kimberly Corban
    September 27, 2016
    Not The Victim Hillary Needs
    [I have nothing to add.—Joe]

    Quote of the day—Kenneth Walker

    If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges and go dump them in the ocean, nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them. We could save 33,000 people a year if we didn’t have guns in this country.

    They are a scourge of this country and no one should have one as far as I’m concerned. There’s no defense to guns. There’s just absolutely no reason to have them.

    Kenneth Walker
    Multnomah County (Portland, Oregon) Circuit Court Judge
    September 28, 2016
    All guns in U.S. should be dumped in ocean, judge says
    [Why someone with such an astounding lack of understanding of such issues is a judge instead of reaching the peak of his career shoveling pig manure is a mystery to me.

    But the real thing to remember is that you should never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

    Hillary & Trump on gun control

    Hillary espouses the Australia model. Donald espouses the Bloomberg model (specifically upholding it in last night’s debate as the example to follow).

    Oh, you Trump supporters, who once thought yourselves tea partiers. You’re in for such disillusionment. I almost hope he wins, just for that reason. I can envision some of you joining the Stop & Frisk teams with a hearty enthusiasm.