Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

If resistance to gun-control laws is based on guns, or the enjoyment of guns, rather than our inalienable right to life and the sovereignty of the people, if we are consistently perceived as concerned only that we be left undisturbed to enjoy target shooting, hunting or collecting fine firearms, if, in fact, that is all that we do care about the resistance by an angry few will likely prove futile, and we will lose — not secure — the right to keep and bear arms.

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards, The Line in the Sand, page 161
[This book should be required reading in school. And since it is not every gun owner must be strongly encouraged to read it.

I can open the book to any page and easily find something worthy of a QOTD. Sometimes there three or four QOTD are clearly available on a single page and even the titles of the essays alone can qualify as a QOTD. It is an amazing book.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ralph Fascitelli

The major gun safety groups like Brady have done very little to promote a technology approach. … This we “believe” is because of a small group of naïve well-heeled idealists on the left don’t want a safer gun to be the solution to gun violence. The idealists on the left, who supported the New Jersey mandate, and right have prevented a pragmatic solution for a long time.

Ralph Fascitelli
October 31, 2018
A Former Remington Exec Takes On A Challenge: Building A Smart Gun That Can’t Be Hacked
[I don’t think I would be likely to purchase a “smart gun”. I don’t think they will be an good solution to most, or even many, firearms needs and should never be mandated. But I do have a sense of loss that the technology has been indirectly prevented because of crazy politics.

Fascitelli has been president of Washington Ceasefire and I don’t think I have ever said anything nice about him in public before. And that goes back at least nine years.

But recently I listened to a podcast where he was interviewed and claimed that murder of a gun control advocate was unlikely to have been committed by a gun rights advocate. Paraphrasing, he said, “They have a code. They respect and obey the law. I don’t think this was done by one of them.” This is a recognition of what we have been saying for decades, “If gun owners were as bad as the political left claims anti-gun activists would have all been shot years ago.”

And now, here, we have Fascitelli saying “smart gun technology” has been prevented, in part, by anti-gun activists. That is an insightful and almost certainly correct observation about a failure of “his people”. I think I could almost sit down with him over lunch and chat without either of us feeling the other was evil incarnate.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thomas J. McAvoy

When Defendants’ statements and alleged conduct is examined in its totality, there are sufficient allegations to state plausible freedom-of-speech claims.

Thomas J. McAvoy
Senior United States District Judge
United States District Court Northern District of New York
November 6, 2018
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Plaintiff

-against- 1:18-CV-0566

ANDREW CUOMO, both individually and in his official capacity;  MARIA T. VULLO, both individually and in her official capacity;  and THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendants.
[The case is about the defendants putting pressure on the insurance and banking industry to not do business with the NRA. Reading the entire ruling it’s interesting to see how it boiled down to, so far, mostly, a freedom of speech issue. It is also an example of Ayn Rand’s observation about laws being needed to create criminals. It turns out that the insurance companies violated a law which was only enforced in the case where the NRA was their customer.

See also Jacob Sullum blog post:

Federal Judge Says It’s Plausible That Andrew Cuomo Violated the First Amendment by Pressuring Banks and Insurers to Shun the NRA

The organization’s lawsuit against New York’s governor survives a motion to dismiss.

As I explained in my column today, and as McAvoy describes in his decision, there is strong evidence that Cuomo and Maria Vullo, superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), are in fact threatening banks and insurers that dare to do business with organizations that oppose the governor’s gun control agenda.

The bottom line is that case survived a motion to dismiss and will proceed. I wish the NRA the best of luck and I have pleasant fantasies of Governor Cuomo having to pay the damages out of his own pocket.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

It’s written in a way that puts a chilling effect on gun ownership, but quite frankly, it’s unenforceable. There’s a giant loophole in this law. If they go to Oregon or Idaho, they can bring [a rifle] back. It’s totally legal. They just can’t buy it in Washington state.

Alan Gottlieb
Founder, Second Amendment Foundation
November 7, 2018
Second Amendment Foundation: Loopholes aplenty with I-1639
[There are other loopholes as well. I was at a gun store recently and suggested a loophole they might use. The clerk behind the counter said, paraphrasing, “That should work. But most of the time I expect we will just do it like….” and he explained a simpler approach. I had considered his suggestion weeks ago but figured it was clearly violating the spirit of the law even though it was complying with the letter of the law and that might be too risky. But, he didn’t seem bothered by it so I’m not going to worry about it. I make so many trips to Idaho I will just buy my guns there and not subject myself to the risk.

I’m a bit torn between keeping loopholes like this quiet and openly mocking the ignorance and stupidity of the people that write these laws. On the one hand we get more time to get more guns into the hands of more people. On the other we embarrass the anti-gun activists and cause them to lose face and status in the eyes of those who donate millions of dollars.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeffrey Guterman @JeffreyGuterman

Anyone who is paranoid that their guns will be taken away should have their guns taken away.

Jeffrey Guterman @JeffreyGuterman
Tweeted on November 8, 2018
[Implementing a Catch-22 scenario. Nice try.

Apply this to other specific enumerated rights such as the right to trial by jury, right to representation by a lawyer, free speech, free association, freedom of religion, and in Mr. Guterman’s case I would like the local National Guard unit to knock on his door every day and his Third Amendment rights treated in such a manner.—Joe]

Quote of the day—On licensing a right

I was going to make the content of this image my quote of the day because of the application to I-1639:

LicensingLiberty

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

(Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”

(Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama 373 U.S. 262)

Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, neither ruling contains the word “convert”. There are some phrases that one might extrapolate to what is seen above, but they are extrapolations.

Here is the phrase in MURDOCK v. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE) which I found to be the best fit:

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

And in SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, (1969) No. 42:

“It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.” Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322 . And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.

Hence, I would like to suggest people not use the “quote” which has been circulating for some time now. Use an exact quote from the actual cases so you won’t get drawn into a debate over the meaning of the words you used versus what the courts actually said.

The actual words should be strong enough to make the case for our rights to be free of licensing restrictions. This practice should actually be far more effective since it avoids the deflection made possible by using words not actually found in case law.

Quote of the day—Kris Brown

Just getting a vote in the House on background checks, which hasn’t happened in more than a decade, would be “monumental.”

We’ll know by Nov. 7 whether it really has changed or not and I think we’ll wake up and find that it has.

Kris Brown
October 25, 2018
Co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Gun control, once a third rail, now a key issue as Democrats seek to control House
[See also this QOTD by Brown as well.

I queued up this post on October 26th for publication on November 8th. So… how well did Ms. Brown predict the future? Did she get it right or, as usually is the case, are the anti-gun people routinely waking up in an alternate reality?—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Schussler

No, the difference is that the Republicans controlled the Senate in both cases and thus could both prevent Garland from getting a hearing and force a hearing and vote for Kavanaugh, forcing the Democrats to get as dirty as possible to have any chance at influence.

And the assertion that these are empty accusations is just wishful thinking on the part of Republicans. There’s no conspiracy here, the guy’s pretty clearly an infantile little douchebag — and hanging on to him was a big mistake. Women in both parties are now incandescent with rage and will make what was a likely moderate turnover of Congress into a landslide. After which point they’ll impeach Kavanaugh for perjury (his lies are now well documented…that testimony the other day will be the rope they hang him with) and the Republicans will have both lost Congress and the SOTUS seat they want so badly.

John Schussler
September 29, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Matt Walsh‏ @MattWalshBlog
[My response in the comments:

It’s interesting to read your viewpoint on the situation. It is quite different from some others. I talked to a big Trump supporter (best president EVER!!) last week who saw the fallout from the Kavanaugh confirmation process to be a huge win for Republicans in the elections next month.

As Scott Adams puts it (paraphrasing), “People are watching the same screen and seeing different movies.” My QOTD post for tomorrow has a lot more related information but I think you probably get the idea.

To determine who is “watching” the movie which most closely matches reality we only have to wait a month until the elections and see which is the better match. I’m going to make your comment my QOTD post for the day after the elections to remind us to review the predictions. This will also allow us to explore the predictions made by the book “When Prophecy Fails“. Either my Trump supporter will have their “prophecy” fail or you will have your prophecy fail. It will be a great test! I’m really looking forward to it.

Today is the day we evaluate the test results.

So…. which person has the better grasp on reality?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Vote Blue November 6‏ @AlvardoMitchell

The answer is simple.

Ban civilian firearms and make illegal possession a capital crime.

The public execution of a few hundred thousand illegal gun owners and dealers will curtail the problem quite nicely.

Vote Blue November 6‏ @AlvardoMitchell
Tweeted October 6, 2018.
[See what Miguel has to say about this guy and Say Uncle as well.

Vote like your life depends on the right to keep and bear arms. Because it does.—Joe]

Quote of the day—L. Mac from Melmac‏ @SlaveToTheAxe

It says you support the 2nd Amendment….

Can you please explain why you don’t support the other 26?

It’s almost as if you are a full of shit or something….You must have an awfully small penis to require an extension like a gun.

L. Mac from Melmac‏ @SlaveToTheAxe
Tweeted on October 30, 2018
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Matthew Knott

Gun control is now a winning issue for US Democrats – in the key swing state of Florida it’s shaping up to be critical. Could it be the “Gunshine State” that helps end America’s love affair with firearms?

Matthew Knott
November 4, 2018
How gun control went from a vote loser to a vote winner these midterms
[In Washington state the anti-gun people have the mindshare they need but they may not have the passion to vote in sufficient numbers to win. I suspect it is also the case in many other states.

Gun people need to vote and get others of a similar mind to vote.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jordan B. Peterson

No political experiment has ever been tried so widely, with so many disparate people, in so many different countries (with such different histories) and failed so absolutely and so catastrophically. Is it mere ignorance (albeit of the most inexcusable kind) that allows today’s Marxists to flaunt their continued allegiance—to present it as compassion and care? Or is it, instead, envy of the successful, in near-infinite proportions? Or something akin to hatred for mankind itself? How much proof do we need? Why do we still avert our eyes from the truth?

Jordan B. Peterson
November 1, 2018
The Gulag Archipelago: A New Foreword by Jordan B. Peterson
[Via a text message from daughter Jaime.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Shelba Herring

Black, white or pea green with purple polka dots, a responsible gun owner has the right to own and possess a firearm under the second amendment of the constitution, and all three should scream bloody murder if that right has someone trying to take it away from you.

Shelba Herring
November 1, 2018
Comment to Banning guns is a white privileged idea
[Minor correction: The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right. See US v. Cruikshank.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Joshua Prince, Esq.

You quickly learn that the Government is seeking to preclude ATF FATD (Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division) determinations from being used in any way during trial. These determinations appear to have been part of a discovery dispute, which is also sealed and is evidenced by the Government’s statement that “[t]he Government produced the letters under the protection of a protective order that the Court authorized on August 1, 2018.”. For the reasons that follow, I find it extremely comical that the Government actually contended that “ATF FATD letters at trial creates a grave risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury,” but I digress…for now.

Mr. Wright has likely incurred tens of thousands of dollars of attorney fees and costs fighting for his freedom – all because ATF decided that it would invent a new interpretation of the law and it did so without notifying the Industry or the public. Let that sink in for a couple minutes…

Joshua Prince, Esq.
October 28, 2018
ATF Unhinged: Prosecutions Made Up Out of Whole Cloth – You Might Be Next…
[Think about that for a bit. The government thinks interpretation of firearm law by the ATF and distributed to the public is too confusing for a jury to understand when explained to them by two or more lawyers. And they will prosecute individuals who violate the privately held interpretation of the prosecutor and suppress any interpretation publicly distributed by the ATF.

I think it’s time for some firearms law reform. The new law must be easy to understand by a person of ordinary ability. I would like to suggest:

No government entity shall pass or enforce, directly or indirectly, any arms specific law of any type. Every attempt to violate this shall be punishable by up to 10 years in prison and fined up to three fourths of the net worth of every individual associated with each attempt.

Even the most stupid and/or devious politician should be able to understand that.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Richard Emanuel

While some whites were lynched for murder or stealing cattle, there is another important reason many were lynched. Many whites were lynched for helping blacks or being anti-lynching. According to David Barton’s extensively well-documented book, “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” the original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white. The Klan terrorized both black and white Americans not to vote for Republican tickets. “Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective.” Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. “Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.”

Richard Emanuel
September 25, 2017
Many whites were lynched for fighting racism
[The original purpose of the gun control in the U.S. was to protect the Klan from their victims. It should not be a surprise that the primary opposition to private gun owners comes from Democrats.

Extrapolating just a bit we arrive at the following conclusion: Then, as is the case now, one of the primary reason to vigorously hold on to our Second Amendment rights is to protect ourselves from Democrats.—Joe

Update: Barton’s book, Setting the Record Straight is available on Amazon.]

Quote of the day—Kris Brown

You are seeing more candidates at the margin like Fitzpatrick who will come out and be champions of the cause. I think this election cycle is a proof point that more will be doing that in the future.

Kris Brown
October 25, 2018
Co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Gun control, once a third rail, now a key issue as Democrats seek to control House
[I find it interesting how anti-gun people talk about the future versus how pro-gun people do. This is Chris Cox of NRA-ILA on September 5th:

The fate of our freedom hangs in the balance in this November’s elections for the U.S. Senate. The good news is that gun owners can once again make the difference in the fight for our rights. The bad news is that if we don’t—if we just sit on the sidelines and leave the battle to others—we will lose our rights for generations to come.

Chris Cox on September 20th:

There is no question that our liberties are at stake on November 6th.

The Democrat leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives has become completely radicalized when it comes to the Second Amendment. Our constitutional freedoms are standing in the way of the extreme big government control that these anti-gun politicians want to impose.

Add that to the unbridled hatred that many on the left have for President Donald Trump, and it could not be clearer for NRA members and gun owners that we have to do everything we can to protect our pro-gun majority in Congress.

The threat is stark. Current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is an outspoken opponent of the Second Amendment. If Democrats take control of the House, Pelosi would return as Speaker. Her key lieutenants, Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and James Clyburn (D-S.C.), stand shoulder-to-shoulder with her in their support of gun control.

This difference isn’t just for this election cycle. This is typical.

The anti-gun people always say, paraphrasing, “This election is going to be the turning point and we will win.”

The NRA always say, paraphrasing, “This sky is falling! Give us money! Vote for your gun rights!”

I suspect part of the difference is that the NRA is far more experienced in politics. But more importantly the anti-gun people, for all intents and purposes, don’t have any grassroots members to talk to. They are talking to the media. The NRA has millions of members and they are talking to their members telling them what they can do to make a difference.

This year, do your part to make that difference.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sackeshi

I am a 2A repeal-ist total gun confiscationist, gun prohibitionist.

My end goal would be all of the fire arm factories taken down, the guns melted down, the second amendment overturned, life sentence for just having a gun, and total disarming of everyone including the military!

How ever that is clearly not going to happen so I will start with what is reasonable…

Sackeshi
October 24, 2018
Posted in This is what the gun control law should be in the US.
[Never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns or that those that don’t openly say it aren’t working toward that goal with their “common sense”/”reasonable” gun control.

I’m in full support of a common sense gun law. We actually already have it but its been corrupted so badly that in many political jurisdictions its completely lost its effectiveness. It’s called “The Second Amendment”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Matt Gohd

None of us had a grasp of how difficult this would be. We needed more resources, more people.

I would say it was idealistic of us to think that we could get something through at this point.

Matt Gohd
Executive director of Families vs. Assault Rifles
October 23, 2018
‘None of us had a grasp of how difficult this would be:’ Parkland PAC scales back
[From a different article:

At its launch, Gohd, a long-time Democratic donor who has worked at numerous investment firms, told the Miami Herald it had an ambitious goal: to raise $10 million and act as a counterweight to the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful and successful political activist groups in the country. It planned to target politicians who opposed gun safety regulations. So far, it’s only raised $230,000 – much of which came soon after the group was first launched. From July through the end of September, the group took in less than $30,000 and had only $13,000 left in the bank.

The group spent roughly half of its money on consulting services, with the biggest chunk going to Empire Global Ventures, a New York based firm primarily focused on corporate clients but whose founders boast political campaign experience.

The group created digital fundraising ads featuring Kasky, but didn’t have enough money to create ads targeting candidates, as had been the initial goal.

I suspect a big part of the problem is they are not able to understand there are people who don’t see the problem, and hence the solution, in the same way as others. They see the problem in terms of “Families vs. Assault Rifles” and, of course, the obvious solution is to get rid of “assault rifles”. The better problem statement is, “Mass shootings must be stopped.” This allows for a much greater range of solutions. Including, in addition to the obvious, things like “Don’t create large groups of people unable to defend themselves.”

Because of the poor problem statements by so many politicians I’m pretty firmly convinced they have an agenda in search of a problem to use as cover for their agenda. This is sad and frustrating because so many lives have been and will be lost because of all these people with their evil agenda.—Joe]