Friday, February 16, 2007

Gun control measures, from the slave gun bans of the 1700s South to the Brady Bill regulations of the 1990s have unfairly targeted black Americans and have worked to curtail a disproportionate number of their constitutional rights. Access to firearms was understood by our founders and many early American jurists as an essential aspect of full US citizenship, and it was for this reason that the Black Codes established after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment -- which constitutionally abolished slavery -- prevented black freemen from owning guns.

Ken Blackwell
Second Amendment Freedoms Aided the Civil Rights Movement

Joe Huffman  Friday, February 16, 2007 9:29:39 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
 Thursday, February 15, 2007

It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist. But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.

Lord Acton

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:16:50 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
 Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The prerequisite, of course, to getting the correct answers is to ask the right questions.  Doing so, of course, will often be extremely difficult, and for a wide variety of reasons.

Regarding the Trolley Square shooting incident: We understand that the perpetrator was stopped by an "off duty policeman".  Said off-duty policeman was also outside of the jurisdiction in which he worked as a policeman and was presumably carrying his own, privately-owned handgun (unless I'm wrong and it is in fact the policy of the Ogden Police Department that officers are allowed to carry their city-owned, issue weapons while off-duty and outside the jurisdiction).

So the questions you wont hear are:

Wouldn't that make him just another, regular, armed citizen?

Wouldn't he in fact have been a concealed carry permit holder, like you and me?

If so, how many concealed carry permit holders have you heard of being recommended for honors by city officials after using their guns to save lives, as has been done in this case by Ogden city officials?

Wouldn't the normal response have been "No charges have been filed as of yet" if the defender had NOT been a policeman?

What might have happened if the perpetrator had done this in NYC, DC, San Francisco, or Chicago, where citizens cannot legally defend themselves with concealed firearms?  In that case, wouldn't we be treated to days or weeks of demands in the media for even more gun restrictions, even though the gun restrictions themselves had resulted in a higher death toll?

How should we, as concerned citizens, treat our public servants when they attempt to undermine our ability to defend ourselves and our families against aggression?

Lyle at UltiMAK  Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:55:08 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 

Amazing. Of all people you would think this guy would get it. Jewish, he fled Nazi Germany as a boy in 1939. Yet John H. Adler says this:

Nowhere in the civilized world are civilians permitted to carry arms unless they have specific reasons to do so. Thanks to the unbelievable political power of the NRA, almost anyone within the USA can obtain a license to purchase a gun.

Yet, the majority of the American public just doesn’t get it!

Is it so hard to understand that our entire nation suffers from the ready availability of arms?

Why, and for what purpose, are we arming ourselves?

...

Surely our forefathers did not intend to create a country filled with potential murderers. When the law to bear arms was enacted, this entire country was the “Wild West.” But we grew up and we like to think of our society as being “civilized”.

...

Is there still hope that the people of our country will come to their senses? Will they ever say,

“We finally got it!”

A little refresher course for Mr. Adler from the preface to Lethal Laws "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide:

A. Genocide: The Down-side of "Gun Control"

"Gun control" advocates cannot see any harm in "gun control".

But "gun control" has a down-side. A very nasty one. "Gun control" victims number in the tens of millions.

The down-side of "gun control" is genocide.

There have been at least seven major genocides in this century, involving 50-60 million victims, using conservative estimates.

In every case, a "gun control" law was in force before the genocide began. In five of these cases, the lethal law - the "gun control" law was in force when the "genocide regime" took control of the government.

B. Personal Safety: The False Promise of "Gun Control"

"Gun control" laws usually enacted in a crisis: before or after a civil war, invasion, economic collapse, upsurge in terrorism, etc. People then put personal safety above all. In the long-run (and sometimes in the short-run) this deal - disarming in exchange for government "protection" - amounts to committing suicide for fear of death.

...

Even if protection actually is given during the crisis, the laws remain after the crisis ends. These laws clear the way for the murder of millions, sometimes decades later. "Gun control" has a fatal flaw. It can promote personal safety. But if - and only if - it is ruthlessly enforced. Government with the power to ruthlessly to enforce "gun control" laws can easily commit genocide. They have done so repeatedly - and increasingly often - in this century.

This flaw - that getting "gun control" to "work" involves giving government the power to commit genocide - is the reason the realizing at most short-term gains in personal security via "gun control" increasingly involves payment of a very high price: genocide. Yet, the link between "gun control" and the mountains of corpses resulting from "gun control" has been overlooked.

And finally, from the German Weapons Control Act of 11 November 1938 (BTW this was the basis, after subtracting the restrictions on Jew's and Gypsies, for the United States Gun Control Act of 1968):

§ 1

Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§ 2

Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§ 3

The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§ 4

Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§ 5

For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§ 6

This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938

Minister of the Interior

Frick

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:30:57 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [3]  | 

Both sides can try to get some political pay out of it. We feel these types of situations actually make the point that a law-abiding citizen should have less controls or it would inhibit lawful self defense.

Clark Aposhian
February 14, 2007
Trolley Square slayings heats up gun-control debate
Chairman of the Utah Concealed Weapons Permit Review Board
Regarding the Trolley Square shooting in Utah.
[It was also Mr. Aposhian that I received my training for a Utah concealed carry permit.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:39:19 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The Second Amendment isn’t about guns or hunting anymore than the First Amendment is about typewriters, Mr. Mayor. It’s about concepts of liberty residing in the authority of the people since the inception of the nation and written to remain that way. The First Amendment is watchdog of government in various ways and is not absolute, and the Second Amendment backs our sovereignty by force and is absolute, which authority cannot legally be taken away.

Taking weapons is breaking the law because it challenges our sovereignty with abuse of process, itself backed by force. This is not leadership or governance: this is an illegal challenge to sovereign authority.

Candidates who oppose personal carrying of handguns lack the understanding to serve and have only the lust to rule. The first step is, of course, to outlaw the honest. It keeps the issue of violent crime alive while people die at the hands of it. Gun control never reduces crime, but endures as an immortal, evergreen issue.

Listening, 2008 Candidates?

They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters – with force, if necessary. It’s how 22,000 gun laws profoundly affect the non-gun owners in America: it challenges their sovereign authority, too.

Repeal gun laws and stop challenging the sovereign authority of the people: protect it and serve it.

John Longenecker
February 13, 2007
2008: Gun Control Candidates Need Not Apply

Joe Huffman  Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:23:19 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

I thought that banks were required by federal law to have the Socialist Security numbers of all account holders.  It turns out not be true, apparently, for illegals.  I'll choose to think of that as good news.  I'll assume I can now open accounts all over the country, including credit card accounts, without my Socialist Security number or any other documentation of my true identity.  Cool.

Lyle at UltiMAK  Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:29:30 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  | 
 Monday, February 12, 2007

I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating.

Boss Tweed
[I keep thinking of this quote as I read about the possible nominees for the next President. Someone who doesn't like my politics must be doing the nominating for the nominations. It seems there will only be bad, worse, and worst options available.--Joe]

Joe Huffman  Monday, February 12, 2007 10:33:09 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Sunday, February 11, 2007

Lots of lessons to be learned here.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:43:34 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

I always regarded it as sort of personal quirk without need of a "fixing" but I found it very "deflating", shall we say, to have one of the kids knock on the door while my wife and I are engaged in certain intimate activities let along for them to actually be in the room. That personal quirk aside, I never understood why some people would regard it as child abuse or endangering of a child's welfare for them to see such activity. After all, animals engage in that sort of activity in front of their young without apparent harm. And what about very primitive human societies without doors that can be locked? Do those children, or animals, that see those sort of activities suffer some sort of harm? I think we can safely predict the results of those studies before someone spends X million dollars of government grant money on the topic.

However such a study might help out this couple who I believe should be convicted of committing an act of stupidity not neglect:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Woonsocket mother and her boyfriend are headed to trial on charges they had intercourse in front of the woman's 9-year-old daughter as a way to teach the girl about sex.

Rebecca Arnold, of Woonsocket, and her boyfriend, David Prata, have pleaded not guilty to felony child-neglect charges. A pre-trial conference is scheduled for next month.

When questioned by an investigator from the state Department of Children, Youth and Families, Prata, 33, said he and Arnold, 36, had sex "all the time" in front of the child and that "we don't believe in hiding anything."

He said the girl would often be on the bed watching as the couple had sex. Though they did not ask her to leave, they also did not force her to remain on the bed, Prata said.

Sex
Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 12:06:28 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

With a title for a book review like Fighting Gun Disease (the actual book is Enter the Babylon System: Unpacking Gun Culture from Samuel Colt to 50 Cent) you know the review and probably the book is going to have some serious problems. I wasn't disappointed:

There are 65 million handguns in the U.S. It's estimated up to 1.8 million of them are stolen every year in the States and as many as 25 per cent of all handguns eventually show up in a crime.

The 65 million number might be close. It seems plausible at least. The 1.8 million stolen each year doesn't. I looked up the U.S. production records on the ATF website and found that after subtracting the exports manufactures entered 1,043,538 handguns into U.S. commerce in 2005. Imports added another 856,259 which adds up to 1,899,797 handguns entering into the U.S. in 2005. This includes those that went to the U.S. military and law enforcement. Some anti-gun bigot apparently figures that annual import and manufacture of handguns just barely covers the number of firearms stolen each year and it gets the number published in book.

As many as 25 per cent of all handguns eventually show up in a crime? Then that would mean that just to keep up with the annual increase in handguns (~1.9 million in 2005) there would have to be at least 474,949 firearm crimes using different handguns.

From the FBI we find there were 139,994 aggravated assaults and 135,444 robberies with firearms in 2005 add that to the 7543 murders committed with handguns in 2005 and we end up with only 282981 crimes committed with handguns. Hence, even if every single crime involved a different gun we come up 191968 short of estimate.

Of course there mght be additional crimes committed with handguns which aren't listed but the vast majority will be covered in those three categories. And the above numbers make the very conservative assumption that each crime involves a different gun. Clearly someone was just making stuff up. It's not an "estimate" by anyone qualified to be making estimates on this topic.

This reminds me of an entry in my quote database:

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:43:38 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Title 18 USC 242 says:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Furthermore the FBI says:

The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority.

...

During Fiscal Year 2005, the FBI investigated more than 1,100 color of law cases.

I think that since the FBI states they are the lead agency for investigating color of law abuses we should be reporting abuses to them. The FBI has a web page telling how to go about it (near the bottom of the page):

To file a color of law complaint, contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:

• all identifying information for the victim(s);
• as much identifying information as possible for the subject(s), including position, rank, and
  agency employed;
• date and time of incident;
• location of incident;
• names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witness(es);
• a complete chronology of events; and
• any report numbers and charges with respect to the incident.

You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district or send a written
complaint to:

Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530

FBI investigations vary in length. Once our investigation is complete, we forward the findings to the U.S. Attorney’s Office within the local jurisdiction and to the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., which decide whether or not to proceed toward prosecution and handle any prosecutions that follow.

Reporting Mayors Daley, Bloomberg, and others involved in the conspiracy to deprive others of their rights to keep and bear arms would seem to be a good starting point. There are those involved in the Katrina incident. That's just the beginning.  There are lots of politicians and law enforcement types all over the country that could benefit from some time in prison for violating our 2nd Amendment rights. Reporting Schumer, Feinstein, and others involved in the "assault weapon" ban would merit my approval as well.

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:15:35 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

Gun control:  Being able to hit a moving target at 500 yards with one shot, one kill, henceforth conserving your ammunition for further skirmishes and engagements.

Howard Hutchinson

Joe Huffman  Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:01:18 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Saturday, February 10, 2007

Basically, IPSC is, and rightly so, about shooting people.  Some people need to be shot.  Get over it.

Joe Huffman
January 15, 1999 12:52 PM
Unofficial IPSC email Discussion List

Joe Huffman  Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:47:38 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

One of the many murder mystery shows on TV these days recently did an episode wherein an assassin shot his victim through the heart at a mile and a half with a single shot from a super-scary sniper rifle, complete with portable weather station, laser range finder and computer, etc. (sounds a bit like my setup).  It reminds me of Henry (nostrilitis) Waxman’s attempt to scare children over the magical capabilities of the .50 BMG cartridge.

 

Knowing this claimed feat to be beyond ridiculous, and for fun I decided to test it using Joe’s exterior ballistics program.  Using all the most generous figures:  Caliber .50 BMG (loaded with the slipperiest small arm bullet, with a Ballistic Coefficient of 1.05) which I gave an impressive standard velocity deviation of only 5 feet per second, and an inherent accuracy of 0.5 minutes of angle (super, ultra special, custom ammo) with a wind estimation error of only 2 MPH over that whole mile and a half, and perfect assessment of temperature, humidity and barometric pressure.  It turns out that the probability of a hit (any hit) on a 15 inch circle at that distance (2,640 yards) is from 1% to 8% (depending on which 100-shot simulation you go with-- i.e. there were 100-shot strings in which only one bullet hit its target) assuming a perfect shooter with nerves of perfect steel, perfect optics and visual conditions that can resolve a 16-inch (a little over ½ MOA) wide target at 2,640 yards.

 

Using the more common, high powered, long-range 300 Winchester Magnum, with the same amazingly good velocity deviation and the same super 0.5 MOA accuracy, the hit probability went to about 0.6% on a 15-inch stationary circle.  Bullet's time of flight: 7.37 seconds.

 

On the TV show, the shooter did another amazing trick by timing his shot (from a mile and a half away) to exactly coincide with some blanks fired in a movie set dual.  The time of flight for his (assumed) .50 BMG bullet at 2,640 yards is nearly 5 seconds, so the shooter would have to anticipate his victim's actions with superb accuracy, five seconds in advance.  Furthermore, he took the shot from an urban area, where the intense muzzle report from a necessarily very powerful rifle would have gotten the attention of people in a wide radius.  The rifle was bolt action, and the ejected cartridge case was depicted as having melted into the outdoor carpet on the balcony that served as the shooting position-- also preposterous, as the case sits in the chamber too long to leave it so hot upon ejection (the relatively cool barrel acts as a tremendous heat sink for the thin brass case).  Only autoloaders spit out hot cases because they extract the case within milliseconds of firing.  Oh and the target, being a human in the process of acting out a mock duel, was moving, making the probability of a hit even less (my simulations were done on a stationary target).

 

Now some would say, "Hey, its just a TV show.  Its entertainment, Dude, lighten up."  I would agree if it were a science fiction series, or fantasy, but this stuff is put forth as serious, hard-hitting drama.  To me its like a serious W.W. II drama in which people fly like superman, battle tanks travel at 200 miles an hour, and animals talk.  It ceases being entertainment and becomes an insult.

Lyle at UltiMAK  Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:52:01 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  | 
 Friday, February 09, 2007

Usually when some state or local political type ignores the law (18 USC 242 as well as the 2nd Amendment) and attacts people exercising their constitutionally protected rights the Feds just look the other way. The impression I get is that they figure it's just some uppity gun nut--so who cares? This time it's a little bit different:

In a stern rebuke to the city's high-profile crusade against illegal guns, the feds warned the Bloomberg administration that it could face "potential legal liabilities" if it continues to conduct sting operations that fall within the jurisdiction of federal agents.

...

According to a letter sent to City Hall, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and various U.S. attorneys' offices have determined the city's findings against the 15 dealers "do not rise to a level that would support a criminal prosecution."

The letter - sent Tuesday by Michael Battle, director of the executive office for United States Attorneys at the Department of Justice - also scolded City Hall for engaging in sting operations involving persons "without proper law enforcement authority," saying that could put the city in legal jeopardy. Battle added that City Hall could "unintentionally interrupt or jeopardize" criminal probes.

But of course, just like the classic deep south sherriff that is a member of the KKK, this politician doesn't get it either:

Asked if the Bloomberg administration plans to stop conducting the sting operations, Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler said, "Not necessarily."

"The city hasn't violated any laws," Skyler said defiantly, adding that the city will continue to pursue its civil lawsuits against the gun dealers.

Via Cam, Jeff, and Uncle.

Joe Huffman  Friday, February 09, 2007 12:14:02 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 

...there's no doubt that the buyers broke the Gun Control Act, and that those who set them to it were liable as aiders and abettors, not to mention on a conspiracy theory. I'd assume that Bloomberg and company (1) figured it was worth it for the publicity and (2) figured that the laws don't apply to the rich and powerful. They may just have been right on both.

David Hardy
February 8, 2007
US Attorneys slap down Bloomberg
Of Arms in the Law

Joe Huffman  Friday, February 09, 2007 12:09:33 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  | 
 Thursday, February 08, 2007

They just keep coming in. I got one last week and another came in yesterday. The one yesterday had an interesting comment.

Please elaborate extensively on any Boomershoot topic. What would you like changed? What was best about Boomershoot 2006? What was the worst about Boomershoot 2006?

A: women in bikinis is a must have.

You realize that women that attend Boomershoot also shoot guns, right? They shoot seven inch square targets at 700 yards. I don't tell them how they must dress and I suggest no one else does either. The extent of my sympathy for someone so stupid as to push the issue will be to nominate them for a Darwin Award if something were to "go horribly wrong".

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:13:46 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]  | 

This is what happens after you give up your right to keep and bear arms. You are reduced to begging to have even a small fraction of them restored:

Dear Home Secretary,

...

As I am sure your officials will tell you, there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that by banning legally-licensed cartridge pistols and closing legally-operating shooting clubs, we would all sleep safer in our beds. Yet today there are more hand guns on our streets than 10 years ago.

...

When London won the bid for the 2012 Olympics, the British Olympic Association and the governing bodies of shooting put forward a case to your department for legislative exemptions which would allow our pistol shooters and a large squad of sporting hopefuls to be granted dispensation under Section Five of the Act so that they could retain their sporting pistols at home without ammunition in order to do their daily 'dry training'. Registered regional shooting clubs would also be designated as a place for weapons to be used.

It looked like a way forward could be agreed. The sports minister, Richard Caborn, assured the BOA that he had written to the Home Office giving his support for exemptions. An Early Day Motion in the Commons attracted significant support from all sides of the house and the public have, I believe, realised that target pistol shooters were victims of rough justice in the 1997 legislation. An e-petition on the No 10 website for the restoration of target pistol shooting under suitable controls is gaining signatures every day.

However, somewhere in your department the paper trail has stopped and the silence is deafening. Time is running out.

...

Target shooters are reliable, trustworthy and an asset to their communities – the kind of people your department want to support. Don't you feel ashamed that most democracies have more faith in their citizens to participate in one of the oldest Olympic sports than we do?

Over to you Home Secretary – we need a decision urgently.

Yours sincerely, Kate Hoey
Labour MP for Vauxhall

Boomershoot 2007 is sold out with a waiting list of eight teams or I would again offer free entry to peasants from the U.K. They need get a glimpse of freedom even if it is just for a weekend.

Joe Huffman  Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:35:25 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]  |