Three counties in Idaho make the list

According to this article three of the top thirty counties in the country for homes that have guns are in Idaho. Nez Perce County (Lewiston is the county seat) is number three with 59.0% of the households having guns. They were edged out by Fairbanks borough, AK and Tooele County, UT both with 59.1% (I want a recount!). I don’t consider it home but I do own a little land in that county and drive through parts of the county whenever I go to the Boomershoot site.

Nez Perce County is home to CCI and Speer which are some of the area’s largest employers so those workers probably contributed a far amount to the gun ownership in the area. Another thing that probably influences the ownership in the area is the good hunting. Hunting is a very popular activity there.

Quote of the day—bwakfat

There is NO LEGITIMATE REASON to open carry in any Target Store anywhere at anytime. Anyone doing so should be arrested and slapped into handcuffs for disturbing the peace–or better yet–indecent exposure. If enough people insisted on that, these malevolent dolts might keep their substitute penises in their pants and away from children, the elderly, and decent people everywhere. Enough! You whip your penis–substitute or real–in a public shopping area, you go to jail, like the lowlife you are.

bwakfat
July 3, 2014
Comment to Big Win For Gun Control Groups: Target Bans Guns In Its Stores
[It's another Markley’s Law Monday!–Joe]

Quote of the day—Ira F.

The ‘gun rights’ advocates are on the wrong side of science and the wrong side of history. Societies that take away all but true hunting rifles have proven the point of those who say that hand guns and anything that approaches an automatic weapon are inherently dangerous and should be banned. Making the case for self-defense when a person’s handgun is many times more likely to kill someone that person knows than protect him/her from a felon is like making the case for creationism by citing the Bible. Those who opposed gay rights are learning their lesson. Those who opposed the decriminalization of marijuana are learning their lesson. And we’re coming for the guns. They are absolutely correct. WE ARE COMING FOR THEIR GUNS.

Ira F.
May 26, 2014
Comment to Senate Democrat Calls For Bringing Back Gun Control Bills
[Aside from the obvious disconnects from the facts Ira is another example to use when someone tries to tell you the lie, “No one wants to take your guns.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rick McGinnis

There’s an article of faith on the left that the world would be a kinder, more humane place if it were run by women. Based on the leftist women I knew, the world they ruled would be a place you’d navigate by the mountains of skulls.

Rick McGinnis
August 29, 2014
Comment to Three Essential Films About Terrorism
[There is some evidence to support this hypotheses. For example the Weather Underground had many women it.

On a more personal note an admitted Marxist woman I used know was also heavily involved in the ecology movement. To the best of my knowledge she didn’t actually do it but she didn’t see problem in spiking trees even though it presented a life threatening danger to loggers and sawmill employees.

Another way to look at this is the differences in the behavior of females versus males of most mammals. The female is a much more vicious defender of their young than the male. Could those who view a strong government of their making as a “child” and transfer that same instinct of a vicious defense to defending their political creations?

And how about women who are strong advocates for gun control? Does this hypothesized trait explain why anti-gun women are so violent?—Joe]

Cheaters

From David Hardy in regards to how the FBI, in the Uniform Crime Report instructions, requires the local law enforcement define justified homicide in their own particular manner. Their definition significantly undercounts justified homicide as it is defined by conventional definitions:

The FBI count is artificially defined in a way that far undercounts defensive uses. The usual definition of self-defense with a deadly weapon is use of force immediately necessary in light of a reasonable belief that the perp is likely to inflict death or serious bodily injury.

But the FBI UCR Reporting Handbook at pp. 17-18 uses a completely different definition. Reporting officials are instructed, in the case of use of force by a non-LEO, to include under justifiable homicide only killings “The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.”

The illustration given (do NOT list as justifiable a situation where a citizen shoots a fellow attacking him, in a crime of passion, with a broken bottle — the author must have watched too many 1950s movies about street fights) makes it apparent that the assault itself does not count as “commission of a felony.”

The FBI explicitly states in the UCR Handbook:

Reporting agencies should take care to ensure that they do not classify a killing as justifiable or excusable solely on the claims of self-defense or on the action of a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court.

The coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, and court could unanimously agree it was a justified homicide and the FBI would still insist it not be included in the justified homicide stats.

I call that cheating.

Website ranking

A couple years ago the Brady Campaign created a website called wearebetterthanthis.org. As you might expect it was anti-gun and very misleading if not outright lying about the issue. I decided I would “compete” with them in that information space and I purchased wearebetterthanthis.info. I never did anything with it beyond linking to that category on this blog.

Today I was looking at the websites I was hosting and wondered if I should do something with that domain. My impression is the Brady Campaign has been neglecting it after that meme failed. But is there analytic data to support that?

Of course there is. Website popularity is an important part of ecommerce and there are many people trying to quantify this sort of information. Hence I used the free data available from pagerankchecker.com and alexa.com to get my answer. But then I wanted to know more. I ended up building tables of various pro and anti gun websites then sorting them by various measures.

Continue reading

Quote of the day—Malcolm Wallop

The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us ad our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake.

Malcolm Wallop
Speech
March 8, 1997
1997 Conservative Political action Conference
Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, DC.
[Via Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Philip Mulivor.

Agreed, it is not an honest mistake. However, I’m not convinced that, in most cases, it is a deliberate act to enslave us or even increase our dependence upon the state. I believe that many of these people have various degrees of mental illness. Their own lives and thoughts are chaotic and they, probably unconsciously, seek out outside control/guidance. They view freedom as risky, unpredictable, and uncontrolled. They want the comforts of a strong, gentle, loving mother not realizing that government cannot be a mother substitute. As George Washington said:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

In times mostly past many of these people got their comfort and strong guidance from the church. That authority, when it reaches the level of a theocracy, has its own extreme hazards. The U.S. Constitutional principle of separation of church and state neutralized that particular threat in this country. But today many people have a faith based belief in the power of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and all loving government. This results in all the hazards of a theocracy because, for all intents and purposes, theirs is a religion based upon the worship of government.

For individuals to say they want the power, via the right to keep and bear arms, to defend against the government is akin to saying you want to challenge the gods. This is an unthinkable heresy to them and they want you punished.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Vladimir Lenin

An oppressed class which did not aspire to possess arms and learn how to handle them deserve only to be treated as slaves.

Vladimir Lenin
Via Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume Three)
[The natural extension of this is, “Those who do not possess arms and know how to handle them are at risk of becoming slaves.”

That is how many oppressors view those they oppress. If they cannot overthrow or defend against their oppressors then they deserve to be oppressed. It’s the natural order of things.

These people have different principles than I. In their world view there are no natural rights. There is only power. And as Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

These are the same people who say the Bill of Rights grants us rights. It does not. It guarantees them. This concept is apparently too subtle or too alien for some people. If you attempt to have a discussion with such a person you will end up talking past each other. It is better to get this point settled before moving on to other issues. If they cannot accept this fundamental principle then simply move on. There is nothing more for you to discuss with them.—Joe]

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.

 

Quote of the day—Anthony W. Ishii

One cannot exercise the right to keep and bear arms without actually possessing a firearm… The purchased firearm cannot be used by the purchaser for any purpose for at least 10 days. Also, in some cases, due to additional costs and disruptions to schedules, the 10 day waiting period may cause individuals to forego the opportunity to purchase a firearm, and thereby forego the exercise of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, the 10-day waiting period burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Anthony W. Ishii
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
August 22, 2014
JEFF SILVESTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. KAMALA HARRIS, Attorney General of California, and  DOES 1 to 20, Defendants CASE NO. 1:11-CV-2137 AWI SAB
[As I said in email to the gun alias at work and as Say Uncle said, “A right delayed is a right denied.”

As near as I can tell the “A right delayed…” quote is the original work of Martin Luther King Jr., in a different, but just as valid, context.—Joe]

Quote of the day—William Saletan

Yes, the facts will surprise you. That’s why you should embrace them.

William Saletan
August 24, 2014
Rethinking Gun Control Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.
[It’s a fairly decent article but I think he was stretching for something clever to say for those last two sentences. You don’t embrace the facts because they “surprise you”. You embrace the facts because that is reality. To reject the facts is to reject reality.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Markel

You see folks, gun control absolutely does work. Gun control laws turn those who may have been strong and independent citizens into weak and subservient members of the collective. Gun control laws give legal standing to the notion that the armed state is superior to the disarmed populace. In the end that was the unspoken goal of gun control all along.

Paul Markel
August 21, 2014
Gun Control Works
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Refusing to enforce gun laws

Nullification, as it should be. It isn’t generally discussed (such discussion would ruin the anti-rights, i.e. Progressive, narrative) but taking that oath not only allows an individual in law enforcement to judge the constitutionality or legality of an order or a law, it requires it.

That is its whole and only purpose. They don’t take an oath to blindly follow orders, or to obey the Dear Leader or any such nonsense as happens in more backward societies. They take an oath to uphold the constitution. That is not a trivial distinction. Those are functionally opposite concepts, so long as the constitution in question supports human rights. I’d rather they take an oath to uphold human rights (and prove that they understand the meaning of same) being as the constitution is valid only to the extent that it recognizes and protects human rights.

Know which side your sheriff serves!

Calling it ‘Ignorance’ is being generous

I had thought it was well understood that one of the tactics of the anti rights movement has been to blur the distinction between fully automatic and semi automatic firearms (the former being ultra-restricted and therefore ultra-expensive and prohibitive and the latter being widely available and affordable). Apparently I’ve been very wrong.

Coyness apparently remains one of the most successful ruses for the anti liberty movement, even today when we have so much information at our fingertips that ANYONE who cares enough to jiggle his fingers over a keyboard for a few seconds can learn just about anything that is known by anyone.

That proves that most of us in the pro-liberty camp still fail to understand what we’re up against.

KNOW THY ENEMY!

It has been well-documented that anti-rights activists have spoken about, and organized efforts aimed at, confusing the issue of full verses semi auto, and yet we still would rather have fun pointing out the “stupidity” of people like Don Lemon. Well the joke’s on us, people.

More to the point though; if we were standing on principle, the distinction between full and semi wouldn’t matter. The Progressives have had most of us cowed for generations into accepting the NFA, and “defending” ourselves by accepting THEIR premise that, “Oh, well yeah– NO one wants machineguns ‘on the streets’! No-no-no-no!”

And so it’s an interesting play we’re in. The antis are using our own faults against us, by fooling people into making a distinction (which they’re trying to blur now) that only matters because they’ve been successful in fooling or intimidating us.

It’s the very definition of Progressivism. Get us comfortable with one outrage (in this case the NFA) and use that as a stepping stone to the next outrage (conflating semis with the already successfully demonized autos).

Far from calling Don Lemon an idiot or an ignoramus then, I’d say he’s pretty damned clever. So far he appears to have fooled 100% of the commenters on that Beck article.

Quote of the day—Joseph Stalin

Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?

Joseph Stalin
[It seems obvious (because “common sense”!) that our anti-gun political opponents must have an even greater distrust of people with “the wrong ideas” than people with guns. And with a little bit of conjecture one might even say the ultimate goal is the destruction of the First Amendment.

Most of us celebrated this SCOTUS decision which contains this paragraph:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. 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.

If ideas really are far more powerful than guns then wouldn’t it be just “common sense” to have a SCOTUS decision which said:

Like most rights, the First Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and read any book or religion or engage in any speech whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, child pornography and religions with human sacrifice, or riot inciting speech  prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of books or practice of religion by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the advocating of religion in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of books. Previous holding that the sorts of books and religion protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the practicing of dangerous and unusual religions and owning or reading dangerous and unusual or speech which is dangerous or unusual books.

The political campaign donation “reforms” they are so fond of advocating are just the tip of the iceberg.

Because they want to ban your guns you are reasonable to suspect they want to ban your speech as well.—Joe]

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.

Quote of the day—labman​57

Whenever these gun-toting knuckleheads see the Target logo, they get all moist in the loins and have an uncontrollable desire to whip out their weaponry for all the world to see.

labman​57
July 2, 2014
Comment to Big Win For Gun Control Groups: Target Bans Guns In Its Stores
[Emphasis in the original.

It's another Markley’s Law Monday!–Joe]