What if?

What if there were a county in Washington State that publically announced they would not enforce the I-594 provisions (H/T to Say Uncle and Miguel) against people who were not prohibited from gun ownership?
Could people travel to that county, do a private sale, and return to, say, King County and be immune from prosecution by the tyrants in King County because the “crime” occurred in a county out of their jurisdiction?

If that were the case then wouldn’t it mean I-594 is essentially unenforceable everywhere unless there were witnesses or compelling evidence that such travel and sale did not occur?

I asked this question of a lawyer friend who said, in part:

I’m not sure that the King county courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the county borders. Of course, the King county prosecutor could always charge their residents with criminal conspiracy or racketeering (if they somehow discovered that an offense had occurred).

A couple of things I’ve been working on re: 594: I’m trying to get a model ordinance going at the county level that designates areas where shooting occurs (someone’s backyard for instance) as an “approved range” if no other zoning ordinance would be violated.  I’m hoping to get this going in Whitman soon- maybe it will spread. If you know people who live in “good” counties that might be interested in taking this to their commissioners, send them my way.

If you are one of those people that live in a “good county” send me an email and I’ll forward it on to my lawyer friend.

The anti-gun people think they are clever and that we are just “stupid, uneducated rednecks.” I wonder how long they will hold onto that belief as we start “driving trucks” through their stupid law and laughing at them.

Quote of the day—Mike Costanza

Morons with guns are the scourge of this country.

Mike Costanza
December 15, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[This is what they think of you.

And just what do you suppose they think should be done to end the scourge?—Joe]

Why just the gun manufacturer?

I’ve been thinking about the lawsuit against Bushmaster because of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. And the more I think about it the more clear it becomes that our political opponents are not rational.

If the gun manufacturer is responsible then isn’t the magazine manufacturer just as, if not more, responsible? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the custom springs in the gun? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the propellant in the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the bullets? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the shell casing? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the cups, anvils, and explosive compounds in the primers? Why just the gun manufacturer?

And of course we could, and have, asked similar questions about the car the shooter drove to the school, and that leads to the gasoline, tires, oil, and roads he used to get there. And once we go there why not the shoes and clothes of the shooter? Or maybe he wore glasses and would have had trouble hitting his targets if it hadn’t been for the manufacturer of the corrective lenses and the optometrist who prescribed them.

We could carry this on to bizarrely extreme levels but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. So how does the anti-gun mind work such that they think the gun manufacture is responsible but none of the other manufactures of the components involved in the crime are? The point is that there is no clear threshold where it is easy to say the manufacturer of one component is responsible and the next is not.

The only thing I can think of is that they have some mind distorting hatred of GUNS!!! such that they cannot think rationally. They recognize the absurdity of blaming the car and corrective lens manufacturers but it just doesn’t register that since the ownership of a gun is constitutionally protected right that makes the liability of gun manufacturer even more absurd.

The inability to recognize the obvious in defiance of clear and presence evidence is evidence of a mental disorder. We see it with Peterson Syndrome and we see it here.

Quote of the day—westcoast2012

Back ground checks before being allowed to own a gun is just common sense, as is outlawing AK-47’s, but the pro gun movement has always seemed to me to be void of common sense.

December 14, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one want to take your guns.—Joe]

What’s going on here?

This is an elaboration of a comment I posted on Paul Barrett’s article about the inevitable failure of the lawsuit against Bushmaster in regards to the Sandy Hook tragedy. Barrett went to law school and has more than casual acquaintance with firearm law. I share his certainty it will fail.

I would have expected most reputable lawyers would have redirected the parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook to counseling rather than to pursue a hopeless lawsuit against the manufacture of a gun. I can understand the pain and even a need to “do something” but a lawyer who did any research at all, let alone gave it a few minutes of thought, should have concluded such a lawsuit is doomed to failure and deepening anguish for the parents.

I initially hypothesized the lawyer involved was someone desperate for money and at least momentary fame. But it is a law firm with a history that goes back 75+ years (via an article on CNN Money).

It’s possible they are short on money and with nine parents backing the lawsuit they may be able to bill (bilk?) them for perhaps a much as a million dollars. But will losing such a high profile case be to their benefit in the fame department? It’s been said many times that there is no such thing as bad publicity but that is usually in a much different context. When winning is what matters to your customers you don’t want to be well-known as a loser.

Lawyer David Hardy says, “I really can’t see it as filed in good faith.”

So I’m perplexed by this. Are the lawyers in this firm so ignorant of gun law (Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act), proximate causation precedent, and blinded by emotions that they think they have a chance “because GUN!!!”?

Filed for future use

If we get to the point where we are prosecuting politicians and law enforcement for violation of our civil rights questions like this will need to be answered:

I haven’t researched it, but I wonder how this plays out in the setting of a criminal prosecution of a government actor for deprivation of civil rights. Is ignorance of the Constitution no defense, because it’s a criminal case, or is reasonable failure to appreciate there was a constitutional right being violated a defense because of qualified immunity?

Quote of the day—BadExampleMan @BadExampleMan

Being called fetishist by someone preferring random slaughter of children to giving up a penis substitue: priceless.

BadExampleMan @BadExampleMan
Tweeted October 25, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Quote of the day—thambi

I have better things to do with my time than listen to stupid, uneducated rednecks.

December 12, 2014
Comment to A lobbyist resurfaces: The NRA mulls strategies to undermine I-594
[This was in a response to a suggestion they attend a rally against I-594 in Olympia.

This is what they are willing to say about you in public. What they actually think of you is almost for certain more than enough to justify maintaining a firm grip on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms and regular training.—Joe]

#IWillNotComply rally in Olympia

I drove to Olympia today to participate in the rally against law created with I-594. We had a decent turn out. I didn’t stay for the entire thing but it seemed to go very well from what I could tell. People were participating with the speakers and the Washington State Patrol officers present looked bored:


I’m putting the rest of the pictures “below the fold” so that it doesn’t create long load times for the main page for the next week.

Continue reading

Quote of the day—Dave Workman

Just as it is none of the government’s business who peacefully protests in a public setting, First Amendment advocates seem to insist, it is equally none of the government’s business – or anyone else’s – when someone harmlessly exercises the right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment activists might argue. Do they have a legitimate point?

The Stranger habitually sneers at Second Amendment activists and, exercising the First Amendment right of free speech and the press, clearly advocated placing the “universal background check” restriction on gun owners. The Stranger is a popular alternative newspaper among Seattle’s far left, the folks who overwhelmingly voted for I-594. It was not their right being stepped on.

How many of those attorneys and public defenders and newspaper editorialists voted for I-594? If they don’t understand the parallels between restricting peaceful protest and being photographed by the police, and building records on gun owners, then they shouldn’t be practicing law or pounding keyboards for a living.

Dave Workman
December 12, 2014
Is it time to treat the First Amendment just like the Second?
[Lyle has often said the political left understands how rights are supposed to work. But I think we have sufficient evidence now that is not true. Do you think progressives understand how the First Amendment is supposed to work? Really? If so then explain to me why we are nearly 600 days into the IRS scandal with none of the perpetrators in jail or even indicted?

I do not believe progressives have respect for individual rights. They only claim rights when people engage in activities that advance the cause of the collective. As THE Clint Black tweeted a few days ago:

Your government arms dictators.

Your government arms “rebels”.

Your government arms terrorists.

Your government prefers you unarmed.

How else do you explain this?

Here’s another example: There are about 8000 murders each year in the U.S. that are committed using a firearm. Using the most conservative estimates there are about 80 million gun owners. Assuming the worst case, suppose each of the murders was committed by a different person (way wrong, at Newtown there were 26 murders by just one person) you still end up with the odds of some random (and they are certainly NOT random) gun owner being a murderer in a given year at 0.01%. Yet they insist we should be registered and every time a gun changes hands we should request permission from the government and submit paperwork documenting the exchange. And this is even in those cases where the recipient already owns one or more guns. No rational person can believe this will make society safer so their must be another reason. I can only think of two possible explanations for this behavior:

  1. These people have serious mental defects.
  2. These people have evil intent.

In either case we have only unpleasant options available to us.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gavin de Becker

No woman should obtain a restraining order unless she believes it will help her circumstance no mater what police may say. The fact that so many of these murderers also commit suicide tells us something. It tells us that refusing to accept rejection is more important to them than life itself. By the time they reach this point are they really going to be deterred by a court order? A glib response is that the temporary restraining order can’t make things worse.

But here’s the rub. The restraining order does hurt by convincing the woman that she is safe. The bottom line is that there is really only one good reason to get a restraining order in the case of wife abuse. And that is that the woman believes the man will honor it and leave her alone.

If a victim or a professional in the system gets a restraining order to stop someone from committing murder they have probably applied the wrong strategy.

Gavin de Becker
The Gift of Fear and Other Survival Signals that Protect Us From Violence
[This is an excellent book. It was recommended to me by Rolf (and here). Ignore the few times Becker drops some anti-gun nonsense into it. With his personal history I almost give him a pass. Everyone I have convinced to read (or listen to) this book have told me it was awesome.

The last sentence it the money quote. If someone is not deterred by the penalties associated with murder you can be absolutely certain they will not be deterred by the penalties associated with the violation of a restraining order. The only method of prevention is to make it physically impossible to commit the murder. This gives us only three options to save the life of the innocent victim:

  1. The perpetrator is incarcerated or executed prior to assault.
  2. The intended victim cannot be found by the perpetrator.
  3. Physical force is used to defend the innocent victim before the assault has caused permanent injury or death.

We do not have a Department of PreCrime so the first option is off the table.

The second option is extremely difficult, expensive, and requires a very challenging change in lifestyle if you have a smart and determined pursuer. The physical and emotional costs associated with this option may be out of the reach of many people.

The third option requires people with guns. If they cannot afford hiring others to protect them then they will have to protect themselves. There is no substitute for a gun. Embedding multiple jacketed hollow-points in an attacker is not a guarantee that a victim will escape injury, or even survive, but it does dramatically improve the odds.

No anti-gun person can sincerely claim they are concerned about the safety of women who are being pursued by people intent upon violence unless they value the safety of the attacker more than that of the intended victim. These people either have an extraordinarily warped and dysfunctional sense of morality and/or they are incapable of rational thought.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

The essence of the “weapon of choice” argument is that, because criminals and madmen use these guns to commit crimes, the law- abiding must give them up. But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.

By criminalizing an act that is not wrong in itself the purchase and sale of a firearm the ban violates the presumption of innocence, the principle that insures that government honors the liberty of its citizens until their deeds convict them. By completely banning the sale of assault weapons to prevent crime before it occurs, the law effectively and irrebuttably presumes that all who want such a weapon are no better than murderers or madmen, forever ineligible to acquire these firearms.

Obviously, a law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on principle that the conduct of criminals dictates the scope of liberty the law will allow to the rest of society, in no sense “fights” crime. It is, instead, a capitulation to crime, born of a society in full-bore retreat from crime, a society fearful of and desperately accommodating itself to crime.

Jeff Snyder
August 25, 1994
The Washington Times, page A19.
Who’s Under Assault in the Assault Weapon Ban?
[H/T to Craig in the comments.

This same argument can be used against almost any law that presumes to “prevent crime” rather than punish acts which injury others. I’m specifically thinking of I-594 in Washington state but the application is far broader.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dana Loesch

Anti-Second Amendment advocates argue that because violent criminals have black market access to firearms, law abiding innocents should not. They argue that because rapists and murderers may illegally possess firearms the law abiding innocent women and men should not carry them. They don’t defend your Constitutionally protected choice and instead better enable the choice of criminal to make you a statistic.

They want to be able to have a choice as what to do after you’ve been raped. But want to restrict your choices of how to prevent your rape.

Dana Loesch
Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America
[I recently finished listening to this book and was quite impressed. Usually in a book of this type I find little new material and a significant number of errors. That was not true in this case. I seem to recall one minor error but I didn’t write it down and I don’t recall what it was now.

I addition to detailing her personal fights with anti-Second Amendment advocates, such as Piers Morgan and Shannon Watts, she articulated sound arguments and gave insightful analysis to both the principles and factual data regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

I have many more QOTDs in the queue from this great book. Thank you Ms. Loesch.—Joe]


Via Weer’d Beard we have this from Baldr Odinson:


It’s not exactly Markley’s Law but it’s close.

When they have all but given up on concealed carry and resort to insults like this about open carry you know they are getting really desperate to get even temporary attention and have completely lost relevancy.

Quote of the day—Tam

Wow, Mark, that was nearly wrong in every particular! It bordered on fractally wrong, in that every little piece, taken by itself, was as wrong as the whole.

December 7, 2014
[I read Mark Morford’s troll piece and briefly considered blogging about it. But I prefer to blog about things that either no one has noticed yet or that I have a quasi-unique viewpoint on. And this piece has been well covered by many others. This is just a small sample:

I had completely dismissed it as blog material. Morford is just too easy of a target and I have dealt with him at length before. Then I read the last sentence I quoted above of Tam’s. Wow!

I have seen this sort of thing many times before but didn’t have a name for it. Fractally wrong. I like it. I like it a lot.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Travis Dodge‏ @MWTravesty

What about my right to not live in fear of my fellow citizens? Is that moot because you have a boner for guns?

Travis Dodge‏ @MWTravesty
Tweeted on October 16, 2014
[It’s (sort of) another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.

Dodge obviously doesn’t understand rights when he says he has a “right to not live in fear”. There are people afraid of gays, blacks, and Jews as well as gun owners. But that fear doesn’t allow them to infringe upon our rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—AllynF

The cheap and easy availability of guns in any home in America makes it very easy for criminals to get their hands on as many weapons as they choose. All they have to do is break in and steal them and create their free market of stolen guns on the street –quite the active and ongoing enterprise. Shhhhhh…this is a truthful point that upsets Conservatives if you even dare to bring it up and burst their bubble. They like to pretend that there is no cause and effect that results from that.

December 6, 2014
Comment on Gun Control, Real Time with Bill Maher.
[Got that? Criminals “get their hands on as many weapons as the choose” because private citizens possess guns in their homes. The specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is the root of all problems with guns.

If banning the private possession of something would solve the problems associated with it then banning alcohol, cigarettes, and recreational drugs would solve problems too. AllynF has no respect for the Bill of Rights, no concept of guns being useful for the protection of innocent life, and at best a tenuous connection with reality.

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

Remington clarification

Here are some of the headlines from the lamestreet media (phrase stolen from Alan Korwin):

Never trust the media to get things right. Especially in relation to firearms. Here is what Remington says, via a Tweet from greenmeanie:

HOUSTON, Dec. 6, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — On Dec. 5, 2014, papers were filed seeking approval of a proposed settlement of two economic class-action lawsuits of certain Remington bolt-action centerfire firearms that contain either a Walker trigger mechanism, or a trigger mechanism which utilizes a “trigger connector.”

The filings triggered multiple news reports that mistakenly conveyed the proposed agreement in significant fashions that require immediate clarification.

  • These settlements are not recalls.
  • These settlements are not any admission that the products are defective or unsafe.
  • These settlements are an opportunity for any concerned consumers who have the Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722 and 725 rifles with either a Walker trigger mechanism, or a trigger mechanism which utilizes a “trigger connector” to have Remington install a new trigger.
  • The benefits under the settlement, including the trigger replacement program, will not be in place until after court approval of the settlement and full notice will go out at that time.
  • This culminates from extensive mediator-supervised negotiations between lawyers for those concerned about the triggers and Remington, who while denying there is any cause for concern, always desires to ensure that its customers are satisfied with Remington products.

    A joint press release will be issued to better explain details of the proposed settlement.

    For further information, contact: Mark Lanier at wml@LanierLawFirm.com; 800-723-3216

    SOURCE Lanier Law Firm