Quote of the day—Chad Prather‏ @WatchChad

Help me understand why you want a guy you’ve been calling Hitler for over a year to collect all your guns.

Chad Prather‏ @WatchChad
Tweeted on February 17, 2018
[That is a reasonable ask. But I’m pretty certain Prather knows the answer. The people calling Trump “Hitler” are projecting. They know they wouldn’t be at risk if gun were confiscated. But they know they are at risk when attempting to implement their political goals. They are planning for the future when they regain political power and implement their “(final) solution”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ronald Reagan

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

Ronald Reagan
January 20, 1981
Inaugural Address
[It was true then and it is true now.

Government create the victim disarmament zones. The solution to the problem is to remove government from the problem.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Maj Toure‏ @MAJTOURE

Because for govt to do so, it acknowledges firearms as a legit tool for defense from tyranny. In doing so on practical levels it empowers the populace. If I want dominance, I can’t have young minds that aware. Gun control, is about PEOPLE CONTROL. #StayWoke #BlackGunsMatter

Maj Toure‏ @MAJTOURE
Tweeted on February 15, 2017
In response to Valerie @swannoir27 who said, “It’s always seemed obvious to me, we could protect our schools. Why aren’t we?”
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Viscount Halifax

He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.

Viscount Halifax
Referring Winston Churchill’s speech in the movie The Darkest Hour.
[For Valentine’s Day Barb and went to this movie (she chose it). It is a very good movie.

Mobilize the English language and send it into battle. This what gun owners need to do. It is either that or face our own darkest hour and/or a bloody war.

I have often thought something like that is what I was doing. I try look at things, change the point of view, and articulate a vision which makes obvious we have the high moral high ground, we should always attack, and we must always make our enemies defend.

But I had never articulated it even one tenth as clearly and succinctly as Halifax did in the movie. The movie inspired me. Henceforth, I will make better use of words. If these words are properly crafted into powerful weapons of war we can win the battles needed to defeat the forces of evil in this country and avoid a war of bullets and blood.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Phil Murphy

Good news, we have among the smartest, most progressive gun laws in the nation. That’s a fact. It’s also a fact that they can be stronger. There’s no reason why we can’t strengthen them.

There’s a myth out there that if you strengthen gun safety laws you somehow chip away the Second Amendment. I don’t believe that … This is not a zero sum game.

Phil Murphy
Governor of New Jersey
February 13, 2018
Gov. Phil Murphy talks gun safety at South Jersey roundtable
[From the perspective of wondering what color the sky is in his universe I would like to hear him answer the question, “What sort of law do you believe would ‘chip away the Second Amendment?’”

I am of the firm belief that the only thing which will stop the New Jersey slide down the gun control slippery slope is hitting bottom with a complete ban on all firearms and/or the arrest and prosecution of their politicians.—Joe]

Reining in the Washington Governor’s Emergency Powers

Washington State emergency powers need to be respectful of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Firearms Policy Coalition has a form letter to sign and send to your state Senator:

Proposed floor amendment 545 to SSB 6006 repealing the unconstitutional power to arbitrarily ban firearms possession during a declared state of emergency would bring state law into compliance with current case law on the matter. Laws and declarations similar to Washington State law concerning citizen possession of firearms during a declared state of emergency have been found to be unconstitutional.

The fact our state has never acted on this emergency “power” to restrict the lawful possession of legally owned firearms has left it on the books, unchallenged, as a litigant would lack standing on this unused law.

A relic of the 1960’s, laws of this nature were enacted to empower the government against those that may choose to exercise their freedoms clearly outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Washington State Constitution.

In addition, in upwards of 600,000 Washingtonians are extensively background checked and legally certified to carry firearms by the State of Washington. Is it to be assumed that this imagined “emergency power” also extends to these individuals? If so, it would be a stunning reversal for the state to summarily revoke these licenses in such an action. There would surely be both legal and political consequences for elected officials and the state if such an action were to ever occur.

During a declared emergency when 911 response resources would surely be stretched thin, citizens would likely be on their own to defend themselves and others. As recent geological research has outlined, Western Washington is one of the world’s most dangerous earthquake zones. A large earthquake could separate citizens for days or even weeks from vital emergency services.

Tell your representative support SSB 6006 if it is amended by calling at 1-800-562-6000 and then send them an email today!

Click on the link above, fill in a few items, then click the submit button to send a very quick email.

Quote of the day—Patricia Eddington

Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device.

So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.

Patricia Eddington
Assembly Woman D-NY
July 2007
[Via a tweet from Firearms Policy Coalition.

See also:

I can be pretty creative if I try. But even if I was given weeks to try I don’t think I could come up with some of the crazy things the anti-gun people say.

I used to listen to a morning D.J. on the radio which regularly featured stupid stuff that people said and did. It had a soundbite of something like, “Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.”* The things these people come up with illustrate the truth of that statement.

At times it’s mind boggling that our enemies are this stupid and yet after the fifty years I have been aware of the battle they still haven’t been defeated.

But does does explain why they push for “smart guns”? Do they recognize they are too stupid to use them without technological assistance?—Joe]

* Mark Twain said something similar.

Quote of the day—Andrea Stewart-Cousins

There are things that are very, very good and have worked, and we can’t just stop,

Andrea Stewart-Cousins
New York State Senate Minority Leader
February 6, 2018
New York Democrats renew call for gun control laws
[These sound like the words of a drug addict.

I guess it shouldn’t be surprising. Power is a very potent drug. And like other recreational drugs it tends to be destructive to both the user and innocent people near the addict.

The people of New York should intervene and remove her from power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frank Jackson

We are reminded, through senseless tragedies, of the need to remove and keep weapons from the hands of those who should not have them.

Frank Jackson
Cleveland Mayor
January 31, 2018
Ohio Supreme Court rules against Cleveland’s efforts at local gun control
[Perhaps Jackson had a preconceived solution and, at best, a poorly defined problem statement when he started on this ill fate journey down the gun control path.

A better problem statement is:

Violent criminals with weapons are murdering innocent people.

This lends itself to a much larger solution set. Many of those possible solutions will get support from pro-gun people. For example:

  • Teach well behaved people how to defend themselves and other innocent people.
  • Increase police and prosecution resources to make criminal activity more certain of incarceration.
  • If, through due process of law, it can be determined that someone is a near certain violent threat to others keep them incarcerated and/or treat them until they are no longer a threat.

It bugs me that people say convicted felons, domestic abusers, or people on the terror watch list are too dangerous to be allowed possession of a firearm. Yet, they are allowed to be in public and purchase knives, baseball bates, gasoline, matches, drive cars and fly airplanes. People should be categorized as one of the following:

  • Low risk and have a right to be in public unsupervised
  • Moderate risk in need to be under some level of supervision while in public
  • High risk in need of incarceration
  • Extreme, permanent, risk and should be put to death (Ted Bundy who escaped several times, and was a committed serial killer when in public, would qualify)

Criminal control, not object control.—Joe]

Quote of the day—TurtleDude

I oppose stupid laws that are almost guaranteed not to apply to people causing problems.The people who push this crap … don’t even believe it will do squat about criminals. They want to pander to the slow witted sheeple and harass honest citizens whose voting patterns vex anti gun liberals.

January 30, 2018
Post in the forum If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free.
[Well, those aren’t the only reason they do it, but it’s a couple of the reasons.—Joe]

Operation Safe Store

Seems like a reasonable idea:

“No one wants to prevent the theft of firearms more than the licensed retailers that sell them,” said Stephen L. Sanetti, NSSF president and chief executive officer. “There is no one-size fits all solution to helping prevent thefts from firearms retailers, which is why Operation Safe Store will provide access to information and training to allow retailers to make the decisions that are right for them.”

I strongly suspect there is more to the story than what we see here.

A bit of background with something slightly off the topic at hand.

At one point there was talk of “safe storage” laws at the Federal level and states were passing such laws with alarming regularity. They were poorly written at best and frequently obvious attempts to make it prohibitively expensive, increase the hassle of owning a gun, and make it difficult or impossible to use a gun for home self-defense.

“The industry” responded by including a lock of some sort with every new gun sold. Gun friendly legislators, lobbyists, and gun owners  could then use this to convince undecided legislators, “Gun owners already have ‘safe storage’ available to them.” The “safe storage” drive was stalled and in some states even turned against the anti-gun activists.Washington, for example, passed a law removing the state taxes from gun safes.

I suspect the NSSF is politically astute enough to see some writing on the walls and is “getting ahead” of legislation aimed at making life very difficult for gun stores.

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. A federal law along the lines of the Florida statute — overriding all contradictory state and local laws and acknowledging that the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a privilege and immunity of citizenship — is needed to correct the outrageous conduct of state and local officials operating under discretionary licensing systems.

Jeff Snyder
Nation of Cowards page 30
[This essay was originally published in 1993 by The Public Interest.

What he says we needed 25 years ago, while closer than ever before, is still not a reality. Let’s keep pushing and get this item checked off our list.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Firearms Policy @gunpolicy

The anti-gun media has decided that it is more important to push their agenda than to tell the truth.


Firearms Policy @gunpolicy
Tweeted on January 29, 2018
[The graph is a little difficult to understand so here is a bit of help. The shaded background colors are the CCW population coverage (units are on the right side of the graph), the maroon line with the 49% reduction label is the Violent Crime rate (presumably in per 100K people) with the units on the left side of the graph. The other crime types follow in a similar format.

We have the principles, the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and the data. All of them supporting the pro-rights side. The anti-gun media, cannot innocently claim ignorance or even stupidity. It has to be maliciousness. You have to ask, “What’s the real reason they continue to push their anti-gun agenda? They are pro-criminal, probably always have been and always will be and for a “good” reason.—Joe]

Exercise of rights at a minimum

This is very telling:

Wide-open policies on gun laws do not reflect the mood or makeup of most New Jerseyans. While they are not always successful, New Jersey gun laws are written to help keep the number of guns at a minimum. Fewer guns will make our law enforcement officers’ jobs that much easier, and make our streets that much safer.

What if the same principle was applied to other specific enumerated rights:

  • Keep books at a minimum (and ban the exceptionally dangerous ones such as The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book, and all religious books)
  • Keep political speech at a minimum (and ban the most dangerous speech—that which advocates the policies of the political left (see the books above)
  • Keep the right to a lawyer present while being questioned at a minimum
  • Keep people of color from voting at a minimum

There are no second class rights. All these rights must respected and preserved. Essentially all New Jersey politicians need to be either prosecuted and/or be declared varmints with no bag limits and a decent bounty paid.

Quote of the day—Divemedic

I became a teacher after I retired from over 20 years as a firefighter and paramedic, where I spent part of my career working with the SWAT team. I spent years as an IDPA competitor, and I am a military veteran. I have carried a concealed weapon for more than 25 years. A permit that has allowed me to carry a weapon into McDonald’s, Disney, public parks, streets and sidewalks. Not once have I used that weapon in a threatening or illegal manner.

I would, if necessary, lay down my life in defense of the children that have been placed in my care. Even in Kindergarten. Possibly YOUR children, if you are reading this.

Except the politicians have declared that I am not permitted to do so, because they don’t trust me with a firearm once I cross an imaginary line and enter school property, even though they trust me to carry one everywhere else. So instead, I must sit in the dark, unarmed, unable to protect those children, hiding and waiting for help that may not come, wait with your children to die at the hands of a madman who didn’t obey your laws or your signs.

January 8, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—James Comer
[The foolishness of the “gun free zone” laws is so obvious one must conclude the politicians are incredible ignorant, stupid, and/or evil. As the data and bodies stack up I’m more and more inclined to place my bet on “they are evil”. More bodies gives them more opportunities to accumulate power.—Joe]

Representative Adam Smith on reciprocity

Almost a year ago I wrote my U.S. representative in Congress encouraging him to support concealed carry reciprocity. Here is his response:



A couple of things stand out. The first is that he says:

The responsibility of carrying a concealed handgun is massive, and ensuring the safety of the public at large by requiring background checks and training should be an absolute minimum.

People who have a Washington State concealed pistol license, CPL as it is called in Washington, should see something jump out at them over this.

Washington State doesn’t have a training requirement. Hence, if this were a problem, Smith should be able to show that Washington State CPL holders have more firearm accidents or engage in more illegal shootings than people from other states with a training requirement. No such data exists. Probably because it is so rare that such a thing happens.

I have to conclude that Smith was just rationalizing the decision he had already made.

Next, a twofer:

I will continue to advocate for putting policies in place that protect our children and communities while maintaining the rights granted by the Second Amendment.

His opposition to reciprocity is for “the children”! How many children in this country are shot each year by people with concealed carry licenses? My guess it is very close to zero. I’ve never heard of it happening. And I’m pretty sure the anti-gun people would make sure the mainstream media know about it. The same goes for someone with a concealed carry license shooting up a community. It has to be very rare. The data shows that, in Texas, compared to the police they are 10 times less likely to commit a misdemeanor or felon and over seven times less likely to commit a firearms violation of some sort. Other states show similar low rates.

Again, this has to be rationalization for his decision rather than rational thought to arrive at a decision.

“Granted by the Second Amendment”? This is a common “misunderstanding” but I expect my representatives in Congress to be informed. My guess is that there is a good chance this was deliberate rather than ignorance. It should be clear if you actually read the Second Amendment that it references a preexisting right rather than granting a right. This was made all the more clear in U S v Cruikshank:

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…

It is long past time for me to start educating my representative.

Update: I sent him an email:

In a letter you sent me on March 17th of last year you made claims which are not supported by, and/or are contrary to, the available evidence regarding people with licenses to carry concealed firearms and the Second Amendment. The full details are in my blog post here: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/01/28/representative-adam-smith-on-reciprocity. The short version is that since Washington State does not require training for a concealed pistol license those opposed to reciprocity between states regarding licenses and claiming training “should be an absolute minimum” should also be able to point to evidence showing Washington State concealed pistol license holders are more prone to misuse of their firearms. To my knowledge no such evidence exists.

Furthermore using this criteria to oppose the law adversely affects the civil rights of residents of Washington State when they travel to states that will not issue licenses to Washington residents. Blocking reciprocity has a lesser impact on the rights of people of other states who can easily obtain Washington licenses for their travels to Washington State. You are acting against the interest of your own constituents by taking this stand.

Please read my blog post and reconsider your stance on this important civil rights issue.

Thank you.


Joe Huffman

Quote of the day—James Comer

Anytime there’s a tragedy like that you hear gun control advocates spin their liberal beliefs, At the end of the day, it’s illegal to carry a gun in a school and it’s illegal to shoot at anybody. And yet this 15-year-old broke those laws. You can’t legislate against evil.

I don’t think there’s a way to pass a bill to prevent something like that. We need better security in our schools. We have a lot of security at our courthouses. How do we increase security at schools? That’s what I’m going to be talking about.

James Comer
U.S. Representative from Kentucky
January 24, 2018
Rep. Comer advocates Goodlatte bill as DACA solution
[A bit of clarification.

You can legislate punishment for evil doers. But you can’t legislate a prevention for evil deeds.

In the case at hand the best solution is probably to legislate the removal of laws. Get rid of the laws that punish teachers and parents who bring guns to school for the purpose of protecting innocent life.—Joe]