Quote of the day—Larry Correia

To pull off confiscation now you’d have to be willing to kill millions of people. The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once.  In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.

Larry Correia
November 19, 2018
The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete, Says Congressman Who Wants To Nuke Omaha
[The quote above is the conclusion to his post. The post is basically a confirmation of my Boots on the Ground analysis.

The political left doesn’t understand numbers and they don’t understand the psychology of gun owners. Correia gives them some insight:

A friend of mine who is a political activist said something interesting the other day, and that was for most people on the left political violence is a knob, and they can turn the heat up and down, with things like protests, and riots, all the way up to destruction of property, and sometimes murder… But for the vast majority of folks on the right, it’s an off and on switch. And the settings are Vote or Shoot Fucking Everybody.  And believe me, you really don’t want that switch to get flipped, because Civil War 2.0 would make Bosnia look like a trip to Disneyworld.

Don’t expect the political left to let facts get in the way of their beliefs.

We live in interesting times.—Joe]

Quote of the day—City Council of the City of Republic, Washington State

A. The Republic City Council declares that all federal and state acts, laws, orders, rules and regulations past, present or future, in violation of the U.S. and/or State Constitutions are not authorized by the said Constitutions and violate the true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers and are hereby declared to be invalid in the City of Republic, shall not be recognized by the City of Republic, are specifically rejected by the City of Republic and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in the City of Republic.
B. No agent, employee, or official of the City of Republic, or any corporation providing services to the City of Republic shall provide material support or participate in any way with the implementation of federal or state acts, orders, rules, laws or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1 Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.

City Council of the City of Republic, Washington State
From Facebook on November 9, 2018
[This is very much like the contemporary Firearms Freedom Act at the state level and the Personal liberty laws just prior to the Civil War:

Because most of the abolitionists and supporters of the Personal Liberty Laws resided in the northern states, the controversy added to the already growing rift between the two halves of the country.[1] The northern states refused to repeal the laws and the southern states were not willing to give up slavery. The end result was the bloodiest war of American history; the Civil War.

See also what the Spokesman Review has to say about the proposed ordinance.

I wonder how this will work out if an 18-year old were to travel there to purchase a “semiautomatic assault rifle” after I-1639 goes into effect. Would the gun shop owner sell to them knowing it was against state law but the local police had orders not to enforce the law?

We live in interesting times.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Vote Blue November 6‏ @AlvardoMitchell

Unless you ban civilian firearms and make illegal possession a capital crime, you will never stop the paranoid cowardly delusional gun trash. Stop pretending gun owners are in any way decent and human.

Vote Blue November 6‏ @AlvardoMitchell
Tweeted September 30, 2018.
[This is what they think of you. Take appropriate action.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Knox

We’re all in favor of Pelosi pushing for votes on gun control. As we’ve often said, guns win, and we like having record votes. There is some valid concern that this president has demonstrated a willingness to “work with” the Democrats on a variety of issues, and his commitment to the Second Amendment has wobbled upon occasion. There are also a number of Republicans in both the House and Senate, who have proven to be unreliable on rights issues, and who are likely to break ranks with their party, providing cover for Democrats from conservative states who want to avoid going on record with an anti-rights vote.

Jeff Knox
November 17, 2018
Lame Ducks: WWDD – What Would Democrats Do?
[If we don’t know who they are we can’t vote them out of office.

Find them. Fix them. Finish them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rep. Eric Swalwell‏ @RepSwalwell

The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

Rep. Eric Swalwell‏ @RepSwalwell
U.S. Representative to Congress (D)
Tweeted on November 16, 2018
[This was in response to this tweet by Joe Biggs:

So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

And this was in response to Rep. Swalwell writing an editorial containing:

We should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

I like Scott Adams’ response to Rep. Swalwell:

Remind me which side the military would be on in this imaginary war?

Yup. Think carefully before you start a war in your own territory.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Norbert Michel

For those unfamiliar, Choke Point consisted of bureaucrats in several independent federal agencies taking it upon themselves to shut legal businesses – such as payday lenders and firearms dealers – out of the banking system. Given the nature of the U.S. regulatory framework, this operation was easy to pull off.

Officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for instance, simply had to inform the banks they were overseeing that the government considered certain types of their customers “high risk.” The mere implication of a threat was enough to pressure banks into closing accounts, because no U.S. bank wants anything to do with extra audits or investigations from their regulator, much less additional operating restrictions or civil and criminal charges.

It is now clear that these unelected government officials set out to harm law-abiding citizens. Yet many of the government officials named in these documents are still employed by the same government agency. Most of these folks work at the FDIC, and one has even moved up from a regional director position to FDIC Ombudsman.

Norbert Michel
November 5, 2018
Newly Unsealed Documents Show Top FDIC Officials Running Operation Choke Point
[That these people aren’t currently in prison making little rocks out of big rocks shows you “the swamp” still needs to be drained.—Joe]

SAF, NRA FILE FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING INITIATIVE 1639

It’s nice to see the NRA and SAF working together.

From the Second Amendment Foundation web site:

SAF, NRA FILE FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING INITIATIVE 1639

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging gun control Initiative 1639 in Washington State, on several grounds.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In addition to SAF and NRA, plaintiffs include gun dealers and young adults in the affected age group.

The lawsuit challenges the measure on the grounds that it violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State constitution by preventing the sale to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles.

“We are also considering additional legal challenges,” SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb confirmed. “We are disappointed that too many Evergreen State voters were fooled into supporting this 30-page gun control scheme, despite overwhelming law enforcement opposition. This initiative is an affront to the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the Washington state constitution, especially for young adults.

“We’re determined to fight this egregious measure because constitutionally-protected rights should never be subject to a popularity vote,” he stated. “The wealthy elitists behind I-1639 want to turn a right into a regulated privilege. This measure was only designed to have a chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutional right by honest citizens while having no impact at all on criminals, and we cannot let it go unchallenged.”

“The NRA is committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding Washingtonian,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “I-1639 violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and puts people at risk. This lawsuit is the first step in the fight to ensure that Washingtonians are free to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense.

“The NRA will fight to overturn this unconstitutional initiative. We will not sit idly by while elitist anti-gun activists attempt to deny everyday Americans their fundamental right to self-defense,” concluded Cox.

“While a handful of billionaires spending millions of dollars were able to buy votes, it is our hope they can’t buy the judges,” Gottlieb said.

I find this very interesting. I don’t think anyone has challenged it on the grounds of the initiative violating Washington state law such things as being limited to only one subject, the font was too small to read, the strikeout and other formatting of deleted versus new text was incorrect. It’s possible this was deliberate and we won’t be seeing such a lawsuit for many years and only if this lawsuit fails.

If they can defeat it in Federal court on constitutional grounds it is gone for good so we won’t have to fight it at the ballot or legislature again and it protects other states. But if it is defeated on the basis of ballot procedures and formatting then we won’t be able to fight it on a constitutional until it is passed again. The biggest downside to this is that we will have to live with it until the Federal Courts rule on it. If the district court doesn’t rule in our favor it probably will have to go all the way to SCOTUS because it is unlikely the Ninth Circuit court of appeals is going to rule our in our favor on all the aspects of this law.

Quote of the day—Jen Zamzow

Anyone serious about building consensus on gun policy needs to be slower to judge and quicker to listen to those who disagree. I understand why gun-safety advocates might not want to listen to those who are skeptical of gun-safety laws. People are being killed in their places of worship and kids gunned down at school; this kind of crisis can make people feel they don’t have time for dialogue.

However, listening to those who are resistant to gun-control laws is more than just a sign of respect. Understanding what motivates people can help us come up with better solutions that are more likely to stick. Instead of focusing on what motivates us, we need to ask what motivates them. We don’t all need to take the same path to get to the same destination. We can get more people to the destination if we can find a path they’re willing to take.

Jen Zamzow
November 14, 2018
Why we can’t agree on gun control
[Great advice! The truth cannot be learned if people do not listen. Listen to others on the condition they listen to you and then see where you both end up. To see if both sides are really listening try a role reversal in your second session. If you can’t argue your opponents side then you probably aren’t listening.

Numerous studies have shown that conservatives understand progressives far better than the other way around. So this actually something of a “trap” for progressives. —Joe]

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]