The View From North Central Idaho

I'm sure that wasn't their intent but it's nice of the VPC to put up a website and do the research to prove our point.

Sebastian shows us the VPC is misleading if not outright lying.

Joe Waldron on the WA-CCW email list points out:

85 deaths in 2.5 years, by 5,000,000+ CCW holders. I'd be willing to bet rogue cops have killed far more, per capita (6-8 times as many CCW holders as sworn police officers). 35 deaths/year on average, that's one murder per 142,000 CCW holders.

Contrast that to what the overall murder rate is in this country, 5.4 murders per 100,000. So, the average CCW holder is (5.4/100,000)/(1/142,000) or 7.668 times less likely to murder someone than your average private citizen. And that's not correcting for the exaggerations pointed out by Sebastian and the conservative numbers used by Waldron (it's actually 34/5,000,000+ or 1/147,059+). So the real number is probably on the order of 10 times less likely.

Thank you VPC.

SlaughterHouse’s illegitimacy has long been all but- universally understood. It deserves to be acknowledged by this Court. Because SlaughterHouse rests on language not actually in the Constitution, contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s original textual meaning, defies the Framers’ intent, and supplies a nonsensical definition for Section One’s key protection of civil rights, overruling this error and its progeny remains imperative. No valid reliance interests flow from the wrongful deprivation of constitutional liberties. The reliance interest to be fulfilled remains Americans’ expectation that the constitutional amendment their ancestors ratified to protect their rights from state infringement be given its full effect.

Alan Gura
November 16, 2009
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit
McDonald, et al. v. Chicago
PETITIONERS’ BRIEF, page 8
[In 1873 the SlaughterHouse cases gutted (pun intended) the 14^th Amendment shortly after it was passed. This miscarriage of intent has been a thorn in the side of civil rights activists ever since. Hence, the McDonald case appeals to both conservatives and liberals for different reasons. Expect an overwhelming victory at the Supreme court for this reason.

The slaughter houses north of New Oreans were responsible for terrible pollution and disease and a solution was required. But the solution was inappropriate and should have been struck down. But just like some disgusting violent criminal who gets off because of an improperly worded search warrent or other technicality would be an outrage so it was with the Slaughterhouse case. The decision went the wrong way and, in essence, the 14^th Amendment was nullified.

This sort of thing is why it is very important to have good "poster children" for the cases you take to the Supreme court. Alan Gura, The Second Amendment Foundation and company have put a lot of effort into finding the ideal "poster children" for this case. I've been promised an interview with one of the plaintiffs (they read this blog) and have been lazy in following up on that. I have all of next week off and plan to get it done sometime before I go back to work.--Joe]

I think I detect a hint of bigotry in this headline, "Second Amendment Brief Filed by Bellevue Gun Nuts".

What if the headline had been, "Bus Boycott started by Montgomery ni**ers"?

It's a little hard to tell from the article but it appears a guy was making .223 shell casings into explosive devices:

Robert J. Heintz Jr., 36, of Deep Creek Road, has been charged with risking a catastrophe, unlawful possession or manufacture of weapons of mass destruction and recklessly endangering another person in connection with Friday night's explosion. Heintz, who suffered a serious hand injury during the explosion, was arrested. He had been released from an area hospital on Sunday.

...

When authorities interviewed Heintz at the hospital, he claimed that he purchased .223 rounds off the Internet from Bulgaria and claimed that the tips were loose on the rounds, according to the arrest affidavit. Heintz allegedly claimed that he was attempting to place the tip back in place with a pliers at the time of the blast.

Heintz, according to the arrest affidavit, told police that he researched "some recipes on the Internet" and downloaded them on his computer. Heintz further claimed that he had mixed a batch using the instructions from the Internet and packed the substance into the .223 round, police alleged.

"He continued to explain that he attempted to ignite these rounds in his back yard with no success of detonation," Moyer alleged. "Heintz explained that he went back into the house to do another round at the computer table, packing the recipe into the brass when the bullet exploded."

He is being charged with possession or manufacture of weapons of mass destruction? That seems more than a bit excessive from the information I can glean from the article. I would have given him an honorable mention for a Darwin Award and told him to apologize to his wife for making a mess in the house.

Here is a hint for people that don't want my nomination for Darwin Awards in the Explosives catagory. Don't let metal come in contact with metal in the presence of explosives. Even if you don't use metals that can create sparks the point of contact between the two metal surfaces generates tremendous pressures. Imagine one pound of force applied to a your plies that makes contact with another piece of metal on an area that is 0.010 x 0.010 inches square. That is 10,000 PSI. Those sorts of pressures, even when confined to an exceedingly small piece of material can initiate a chain reaction. This is part of the reason so many pipe bombers end up blowing themselves up. The threads of the steel pipe create extreme pressures and start a reaction resulting in the rapid dissasembly of the bomb builder a few milliseconds later.

It's not what I preferred but it's better than nothing:

Last week, the A.C.L.U. said it dropped its suit after the T.S.A. clarified its policies in late September. The agency told screeners that, while they were encouraged to refer any suspected criminal activity or illegal contraband discovered in a checkpoint search to law enforcement officials, their job was to screen for weapons and verify passenger identities. “Traveling with large amounts of currency is not illegal,” the T.S.A. added in an internal directive on Oct. 29.

I first wrote about it here.

The decision under review, from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, concerns firearms ordinances of two Illinois municipalities, Chicago and Oak Park, that effectively ban the private possession of handguns and unreasonably burden the possession of all firearms. There is no question that, under this Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the categorical ban on handguns, at a minimum, would run afoul of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution were it enacted by the Federal government or the District of Columbia. The question presented by this case is whether the Constitution also prevents State and local governments from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. For the reasons given herein and in the brief submitted by Petitioners, the answer must be yes. The Court should find either that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States.

Stephan P. Halbrook, et. al.
November 16, 2009
Brief for respondents the National Rifle Association of America, Inc. et al. in support of petitioners, page 1.
[The Apex of the Triangle of Death is on the victory train leaving from Chicago.

See also the SAF brief here.--Joe]

Dave Hardy found a piece of history.

That one little piece of paper (as I said once before) cost gun owners billions of dollars, 100's of thousands of hours, and 10's of thousands of lives.

This is the broken link on my STI Eagle 5.1 that I was whining about a few days ago:

It has been replaced and the gun is back on my hip. I'll take it to the range on Wednesday evening.

You can add the U.K. to my list of places I don't want to visit until they start selling hunting tags for politicians and the police.

This is just too outrageous:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty". Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon. In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested. I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden. In his statement, he said:

"I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him. At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours. He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?" To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant. Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added. But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun. He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.

Bigotry against gun ownership gone wild.

Via Kevin.

Some ignorant kids across the lake from me at the University of Washington stepped in it, big time, a week or so ago. A NRA instructor stepped in and has at least partially cleaned up the mess:

When he created a group on Facebook earlier this month with the aim of quelling crime around campus, University of Washington student Stanley Luong talked of forming a "vigilante" group to patrol the area.

The idea quickly drew attention — and criticism. Facebook, a social-networking Web site, removed the group from its site.

A member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) stepped in to offer a free training class on the legal ramifications of using deadly force. And a gun range in Kent supplied a room for the meeting Sunday.

...

Rick Walker, an Olympia-area NRA gun instructor, held a free training session to six members of the group on how to get out of a threatening situation without using a gun, and the legal ramifications of using a gun in self-defense.

"I told them the first thing they should do, if they can do so safely, is call 911," Walker said. "It's the smart thing to do."

Guns are such a politically charged issue that talking to the press without having someone experienced in those matters can be a disaster. The Brady Campaign used this gaffe to further their agenda.

Please be careful out there. In more ways that one.

Brief is here. News release is here. Via blog post at Chicago Gun Case.

We are on a train to victory here.

Pennington blames the Ft. Hood deaths on the lack of a whole laundry list of gun laws--despite the fact that implementing every one of them would not have served to stop the killing.  The only thing that would have stopped it would have been less restrictive gun regulation.

Kurt Hofmann
November 16, 2009
The Brady Campaign for defenseless soldiers

The reason families need two incomes today is not to support themselves but to support the government.

Dick Armey
[You will see this is particularly relevent if you look at our current national debt.--Joe]

I've been pretty quiet on the big open carry debate that has finally cooled down some. I have open carried a few times and had a few things to say over the years but never took a really strong position:

• Coming out of the closet has it's price (December 18, 2004)
• Fish Or Man pulls the plug (December 29, 2004)
• Right to chose (October 20, 2008)
• The media can play nice (June 8, 2009)
• Open carry in Bellevue Washington (June 15, 2009)
• The move to a new bunker (July 1, 2009)
• The rest of the story (July 20, 2009)
• Quote of the day--Brannon P. Denning and Glenn H. Reynolds (August 19, 2009)
• Did we just win? (August 19, 2009)
• Quote of the day--Rick Perlstein (August 20, 2009)
• Hiking on Mount Hood (September 13, 2009)
• Quote of the day--Eugene Volokh (October 2, 2009)
• Open carry being used as a political statement (October 24, 2009)

I have done my blog research* on the topic and am finally ready to take a stand.

On the infighting between pro gun people on the topic I think, for the most part, it was a misunderstanding. If you read the words very literally (it's difficult for me to do otherwise but I'm not normal in a lot of ways) I don't find much disagreement in philosophy between the various camps. One side says it is legal, in most cases, as it should be but it's easy to do something stupid which will make us all look bad and distract from more important matters. Another side says we need to use it or lose it but don't be a dick about it. About the biggest real difference of opinion was that some said gun retention training might be a moral obligation and others said no it's not.**

I didn't read all the comments but I read enough that I'm pretty sure there isn't very much disagreement at the fundamental levels.

My biggest problem with the entire issue is the infighting. We have external enemies that need to be fought and energy is better expended on them than on people who are really our allies. Agreed, we need to make sure we fight productively and that we don't waste resources. And I think that is the crux of the matter.

How do we know what is the most effective expenditure of our resources? We can't really know for certain. We could run a bunch of experiments with different types of political campaigns. But you can't run an experiment in the same town on two different occasions with a different input variable because you changed the state of the population with the first run. If you run the experiment in two different towns you have the problem of the two different cultures and even individuals within those towns. What worked well in Virgina might very well turn out to be a disaster in nearby D.C. or Chicago. For the most part it's going to boil down to educated guesses and opinions as to which is the best.

We see people openly carrying and handling guns in a safe and lawful matter probably a 100 or 1000 times more often than the people we want to influence. That experience differential biases our opinions such that we probably have the least reliable opinion on the topic. The anti-gun people have an experience reference point that is closer to that of the population we wish to influence. They are more aware of potential fears and are in a better position to push the "fear buttons" than we are to assuage those fears.

Robb Allen demanded proof that open carry hurts our cause. Sebastian (in the comments) said he didn't think any focus groups had been done on the topic . That isn't true. I talked to someone that did a focus group study. I don't think the results are going to be released. That sort of data is relatively expensive to obtain and can be used by the anti-gun people to fine tune their attacks against us.

I don't have a lot of information on the study but the basic result was that people see openly carried guns as "deadly force" and threatening/fear-causing which makes it different than gays holding hands, interracial couples, or woman's bare ankles being visible. Sure, some people are fearful of gay cooties, Jews controlling the world, and their daughter dating a black guy. But it's pretty easy to point out the silliness of those types of fears. Openly carried guns are different. If they didn't have at least some real fear inducing properties they wouldn't be useful for self-defense and as a deterrent against attack. Apparently that fear inducing quality persists to some degree in most people even after repeated exposure with non-threatening people carrying the gun. It may not be rational but people are not rational. Expecting or insisting people be rational is irrational.

Obviously focus group studies weren't done in every political jurisdiction in the country. It may be that in some locations that is the best expenditure of resources. Virginia Citizens Defense League has had wonderful results. And it was in Virginia the one time I open carried in a public place with many people around for a couple hours.

So, it comes down to sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

This gets us to the question of how we might determine when it might work or how to best make it work. The following needs to be backed up with focus group studies but I think it probably is a pretty good start.

It is my hypothesis that certain conditions enhance the probability open carry will work as a political statement. Below is an enumeration, elaboration, and enhancement of the "don't be stupid" and "don't be a dick" suggestions put forth by others. Most of the following apply even if you are just carrying as you go about your everyday business. Whether you intend to or not, in the eyes of much of the public, you are representing all gun owners when you open carry.

• Open carry at a public demonstration the main topic should be gun rights. Guns at a health-care/abortion/taxes/etc. demonstration is likely to confuse the issue and allow the other side to spin it as intimidation
• Never allow quick to anger or violence prone people to be associated with your group
• Vulnerable looking women with children who open carry is better than large, scruffy, young men
• Save open carry for the "end game" in locations with well established gun rights rather than your "opening move" in hostile territories
• Small quiet groups with a mix of genders and races are better than large, noisy, homogeneous groups or loners with obscure and/or vaguely threatening signs
• Desensitization of highly sensitive people requires small levels of exposure--the butt of a gun casually exposed in an IWB holster is less fear inducing than a thigh holster or a rifle in hand
• Associate the open carry event with activities that give other people lots of "space"--road side litter pickup is not going to be as threatening as picketing a restaurant that prohibits guns on their premises, walking through an empty parking lot is not as threatening as a doing the same thing at a public meeting on a highly volatile issue
• High quality clothing and gear enhances your image and decreases the fear
• Consult with a lawyer prior to your event
• Never risk a "contempt of cop" charge--your interaction with them should be such they can "save face" during the public event
• You may tell the cops your lawyer is of the opinion the activity is legal but don't repeat it again and again--let your lawyer convince the judge to give the cops the lecture they so richly deserve
• Unless you have the full cooperation of your lawyer (such as if you are trying to get arrested) if the cops suggest it would be best for you to leave then politely collect their identifying information, exact words, and accept their invitation to go home without a pavement tasting party
• Physically cooperate with the police even if you know they are wrong
• As in all politically/media sensitive situations have a few experienced media people designated to represent your group--less experienced people should refer the media to the more experienced spokesmen

Even if you adhere to all of the above and more you still could mess up the politics. As much as I like to think of myself as an expert on gun rights I'm always amazed at how much I don't know when I talk to a true professional in the field. I strongly advise you to at least talk to your local gun rights organization to get their opinion on whatever great idea you have for "making a difference". If they are any good at their job they will be able to explain why something does or doesn't work and improve your approach.

Ultimately we want carry of all types completely legal and a non-issue in all jurisdictions. As long as it is done safely it should be a personal choice. I don't know of any gun rights activists who disagrees with that goal. It's simply a question of how or if we can get to that point.

We can attack the problem in a brute force manner or with a more sophisticated approach that arrives at the solution quicker and with less expenditure of resources. Let's not be so stupid as to think the same solution is appropriate for every situation.

*Some of the blog posts and podcasts relevant to open carry which I have read:

• Say Uncle: Don't scare white people (April 26, 2007)
• Kim duToit: Open Carry (May 5, 2007)
• Jim: Open Carry in Texas (May 8, 2007)
• Sebastian: Pennsylvania Open Carry Blog (January 28, 2008)
• Sebastian: PSH in Virginia? (February 27, 2008)
• Sebastian: We’ll All Be Open Carrying Soon Enough (March 9, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Activism (May 12, 2008)
• Sebastian: VCDL Response (May 12, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Dinner Gone South (May 22, 2008)
• Sebastian: Thoughts on Dickson City (June 2, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Troubles in Wisconsin (June 5, 2008)
• Sebastian: Positive Article in LA Times on Open Carry (June 7, 2008)
• Sebastian: The Root of Reasoned Discourse^TM (June 9, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Juvenile? (June 22, 2008)
• Say Uncle: In your face (June 23, 2008)
• Sebastian: The Open Carry Thing (June 23, 2008)
• Alan: More on Open Carry in Texas (June 23, 2008)
• Caleb: State Activism (July 22, 2008)
• Sebastian: Context Again (September 26, 2008)
• Sebastian: We’re A Political Minority, Not a Racial Minority (September 26, 2008)
• Sebastian: More on Open Carry (September 29, 2008)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Loss in Court (October 7, 2008)
• Sebastian: How to Lose Friends and Influence People (October 10, 2008)
• Sebastian: Context Again (October 19, 2008)
• Sebastian: Something for Us to Avoid (November 14, 2008)
• Alan: It's Time For Open Carry In Texas (December 1, 2008)
• Alan: More on Open Carry in Texas (December 3, 2008)
• Alan: Texas Open Carry Radio Spots (December 4, 2008)
• Lawdog: Texas Open Carry of Handguns (December 7, 2008)
• Alan: Lawdog on Texas open carry (December 8, 2008)
• Caleb & Breda: Open Carry (January 6, 2009)
• Sebastian: Working Together (February 2, 2009)
• Alan: Texas Open Carry Bleg (February 12, 2009)
• Caleb & Breda: More Open Carry (March 10, 2009)
• Sebastian: Take What You Can Get (March 15, 2009)
• Robb Allen: PSH – apparently it comes prepackaged with your welcome to college packet (April 3, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic (Also a very important paper for reasons other than open carry)
• Sebastian: Signaling and Carrying Firearms (April 7, 2009)
• Sebastian: Clarification on Concealed Carry (April 8, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Milwaukee Invites Lawsuits (April 22, 2009)
• Sebastian: Open Carry Issue in Pennsylvania (April 23, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Self defeating (June 5, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Open carry church event? Yup. Just a PR stunt (July 1, 2009)
• Kevin Baker: Open Carry ≠ Public Panic (August 8, 2009)
• Say Uncle: Open Carry (August 10, 2009)
• Robb Allen: As it should be (August 15, 2009)
• Caleb & Breda: Guns and Tea Parties (August 18, 2009)
• Ahab: Gun Nuts Radio: Guns are f***ing cool (August 19, 2009)
• Linoge: first open-carry experience (October 17, 2009)
• Caleb: Man does not break the law (August 17, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Disagreements amongst us (August 19, 2009)
• Breda: Turn off your TV. Do it now. (August 19, 2009)
• Sebastian: Views From Around the Blogosphere (August 19, 2009)
• Tamara: Important Public Service Announcement: (August 20, 2009)
• Alan: On Open Carry and Morality (August 20, 2009)
• Alan, Labrat, Stingray, and TD: Vicious Circle 15 (August 20, 2009)
• Robb Allen: You will respect my AUTHORITAH!!! (Updated) (September 21, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: How To Lose Friends (October 1, 2009)
• Sebastian: Winning Hearts and Minds in Scranton (October 12, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Open carry is fine, so long as you don't do it where people can see you (October 12, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Who needs the Bradys (October 12, 2009)
• Eseell: Open Carry, Part the Whatever (October 12, 2009)
• Alan: Sebastian Zumbos Himself (October 12, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Whenever I Wonder If Anyone Reads My Shotgun News Columns... (October 13, 2009)
• Caleb: Controversy indeed (October 13, 2009)
• Caleb & Breda: Top 5 Rifles (October 13, 2009)
• Tamara: Yay! Controversy! (October 13, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Linoge harms the Second Amendment cause (October 17, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Open Carry in Banks--Not Smart (October 19, 2009)
• Alan, pdb, UJ, Robb and Jason: Vicious Circle 25 – Open Carry (October 23, 2009)
• Alan: Open Carry and Free Riders (October 23, 2009)
• Clayton Cramer: Openly Carrying Guns Can Be Unwise, Even When It's Legal (October 25, 2009)
• Sebastain: Clayton Cramer Clarifies His Position (October 25, 2009)
• Robb Allen: Stupid is as stupid does (October 25, 2009)
• The Duck: Another Open Carry Discussion (October 26, 2009)
• Lyle @ UltiMAK: More on the Practical Application of Principles (October 26, 2009)
• Ride Fast: Open carry. good for the cause (October 26, 2009)
• Sebastian: Quote of the Day (October 27, 2009)
• Sebastian: A Strategy Toward Acceptance (October 27, 2009)
• Brent: The Sheeple Bleat in Fear (October 28, 2009)
• Linoge: self-aggrandizement (October 29, 2009)
• Linoge: quote of the day (October 29, 2009)
• CTONE: Open carry righteousness (October 30, 2009)
• pdb: Open carry fail (November 2, 2009)
• Ride Fast: Open carry normalization (November 3, 2009)

** I have taken Handgun Retention & Disarming and highly recommend it. But as open carry advocates have pointed out data indicating private citizens are at risk of having their gun snatched is non-existent. If nothing else the class will give you the skills to take a gun from someone that is threatening innocent life with it. Good guys seldom threaten in the same way as bad guys. Either you draw and shoot or you draw and the bad guy withdraws. Hence disarming training is probably more important than rentention training.

If you take such a class bring gloves to protect your hands and wrists. Bring lotion to lubricate and soothe roughed up skin.

ATF says E. Washington source of Mexico guns:

Agent Steve Foreman told a forum Thursday in Yakima that gun shows in Eastern Washington are the main problem because unlicensed dealers avoid making background checks on the buyers.

Foreman said the investigation into one drug cartel shootout in Tijuana traced 15 pistols and rifles back to the Tri-Cities.

Notice they didn't say the 15 guns were sold at gun shows. But they worded it in such a way that it leads one to believe that.

And 15 guns? What's your point? Most of the gun owners I know have more guns than that. I know a guy in the Tri-Cities that had that many guns stolen from his home.

Are they attempting to justify a law that will interfere with a specific enumerated right exercised by millions of people yet can be circumvented by stealing the guns found in just one home?

Go away and come back again when someone finds your brain for you.

Update: The complete story is here. I see nothing in the story to change my opinion stated above.

Sebastian points out the Washington Post reported yesterday:

A binational task force on U.S.-Mexico border issues will call Friday on the Obama administration and Congress to reinstate an expired ban on assault weapons and for Mexico to overhaul its frontier police and customs agencies to mirror the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

I just have to shake my head. These people just don't get it.

First off by announcing this they just further cemented the fact that "assault weapons" of the type banned in 1994 will become even more common in the U.S. The sales and backlog had almost returned to normal and now this is going to create a fresh round of buying. If it hadn't happened already the current administration, with their promises (so far unfulfilled) to ban "assault weapons" ensured they can never be banned. Why? Because in D.C. v. Heller the court decided the types of firearms protected are those "common use". See pages 2, 55, and 58 of the decision.

The types of guns in highest demand just after Obama was elected were those most likely to be banned. There are now many millions of those guns in the hands of ordinary people and there will be hundreds of thousands more before the politicians could ever get something through congress. And then the inevitable court challenge will almost have to conclude that the guns are in "common use" and therefore cannot be banned. Not only is Obama the greatest gun salesman this country has ever known but he also may have driven the last "coffin nail" into the pointless "assault weapon" bans making them forever a dead issue--except for repeal of the existing ones in the various states after the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Chicago Gun Case.

And the Brady Campaign endorsed Obama for President. How's that working out for you guys?

My second point is really the main issue. The problem is most people don't really understand the big picture. Mexico is being destroyed by the same type of stupidity. People are trying to interfere with the free market and this can't really be done. The free market can be pushed in different directions but it can't really be fully suppresed.

There is a large market for guns and recreational drugs. Governments can't really "ban" them. They can only raise the price. The price increase may include the risk of spending time in jail but the government passing a law making them illegal does not remove their existence from the planet or even the political jurisdiction of the government. When the price goes up it increases the profits. When the profit potential goes up more people are willing to risk going to jail in the process of getting a share of that profit. In the case of recreational drugs the profit is so great the people profiting from the drug trade has, essentially, brought down the Mexican government. I believe the only way order can be restored in Mexico is for recreational drugs to be made legal in both the U.S. and Mexico.

But people just don't get it. Somehow they believe something that mostly works on the scale of an individual home when you remove medicines from the reach of small children can work at the larger scale of an entire continent or even the planet. It doesn't and it can't. You can only increase the price.

Our country learned this in the 1920s with prohibition and we now raise the price on the dangerous recreational drug ethanol via a tax rather than attempting a ban. If the governments of the U.S. and Mexico really wanted to solve the problem that is bringing down the Mexican government and resulting in the deaths of thousands in the "drug wars" they could turn the drug trade into a huge source of tax revenue. Instead of spending billions on trying to raise the price via jail terms and attempted "interdiction" they could raise the price via a tax and bring in billions of dollars.

But I don't have any hope of a sudden attack of rationality striking people. Unjustified and demonstrably false faith in the power of government to successfully interfere with the free market has existed for hundreds of years and it's not going away anytime soon. Expecting people to be rational is irrational.

Never confuse motion with action.

Ben Franklin
[I believe many of the anti-gun people make this mistake. "We have to do something!" they say. No. We don't.

Even with a system optimally configured it's possible for something bad to happen. There are many, many trade-offs in life. We could reduce traffic fatalities to zero if we banned cars or made the speed limit 5 MPH. But the trade-off just isn't worth it.

And so it is with firearms. Even without a constitutional guarantee it would be wrong to remove the most effective defensive tool ever made from the hands of the people that might need them. Sure, make training easily available and affordable. Punish people who allow their dangerous objects (not just guns but gasoline, matches, and sharp knives) to get into the hands of small children or the mentally incompetent who hurt themselves or others.

But just because something bad happened doesn't mean that doing something won't make the totality of the situation worse or just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic. You have to look at the downside of whatever action you demand to be taken instead of just the potential upside.--Joe]

Another book (here was the first) made mention of me. This time it's a little off topic from what I usually get attention for.

I donate blood frequently. So frequently in fact that in the spring of 2008 they told me for the first time I couldn't donate because my iron was too low. After numerous tests the doctor concluded the only thing wrong was that I was losing too much blood from donating. She recommended iron supplements and after a few months I was back on the couch with a needle in my arm again.

Last spring the Puget Sound Blood Bank announced that if you donated twice during the summer they would give you a free cookbook. Not just any cookbook but a cookbook with all the recipes contributed from staff, volunteers, and donors.

Last night when I donated another pint I picked up my "free" (in many contexts two pints of blood would be a rather high cost to pay) cookbook.

On pages 160 and 161 was the recipe I donated:

As I leaving a couple staff members overheard Barb and me talking finding the recipe and asked which recipe was mine. I told them the Lentil and Chocolate Chip cookie recipe. True to form they used the exact same word that everyone uses when they hear of them. Interesting.

This is in the news today:

Florida police say a man arrested for repeatedly calling 911 looking for sex claimed it was the only number he could dial after running out of cell phone minutes.

Tampa police said 29-year-old Joshua Basso made sexual comments to the 911 dispatcher and asked if he could come to her house. Investigators say she hung up, but he called back four more times.

A couple months ago I met a 911 dispatcher and she told me a similar story. But apparently in her dispatch center if things are a little slow they have fun with it instead arresting the guy. One day all the other dispatchers had spent time listening to one caller and suppressing their laughter while she was busy with a real call. After he called back for the sixth (or some such repeat) time she was given the call. Having been distracted by a real emergency she missed the suppressed laughter and chatter of her co-workers and didn't pick up on the fact that she was being sent some entertainment when they directed the call to her. She heard the heavy breathing and grunts and for a couple minutes thought it was someone unable talk and needed some sort of assistance. She coached him as she had been trained and tried get some sort of meaning from the grunts. He apparently got sufficient assistance from just hearing her voice to get his needs satisfied. This greatly amused her co-workers who silently listened in.

You have to be really desperate to use 911 as your sexual outlet of choice.

Doug Pennington who is the Assistant Director of Communications at the Brady Campaign writes:

[I]sn’t it ironic how some libertarians want government to stay out of their lives, yet have no problem with forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn?  The grocery store; the park; the school; the airport.  Apparently, we have the “freedom” to live with what these so-called libertarians tell us to live with.  After all, they have the guns, right?

I heard sort of argument in the context of concealed carry of guns at least 15 years ago. It was some radio talk show host in San Francisco who asked why she didn't have the right to walk down the street without people having guns hidden. I suspect this sort of argument resonates with a lot of people.

The thing is people use the same sort of argument with free speech and religious freedom. They ask why do we have to tolerate neo-Nazi's parading down the street? Or why do we have to tolerate atheists, Muslims, or Jews in our neighborhoods and schools?

If that doesn't bring my point home try using the argument to support segregation.

Governments don't force freedom on their citizens. Governments can only infringe freedoms of their subjects.

Wednesday night Barb and I had dinner with Mike Brown of the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance and his wife. His wife, a big Ayn Rand fan, encapsulated a point in a very compelling way. She said under a free, capitalist, system people are able to create their own little socialist or communist utopia societies and share according to need and take according to their abilities. Or they can give up all "evil" modern technology such as the Amish communities do. Free societies allow such communities to successfully co-exist just fine. If you can own property you can do pretty much whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else or their property. The government still demands taxes but you don't have to tolerate other religions, free speech, or people with guns on your property. The same isn't true under a communist or totalitarian government.

But despite the clear problems of "government forcing freedom" there have been entire books written on the topic. Last year daughter Kim reported her economics class had The Shock Doctrine as required reading. One of the thesis's of the book is that advocates (such as certain people within the U.S. government) of Milton Friedman are forcing (including using torture) free market economics on people. Kim was pissed and had trouble reading the book because of the anger it invoked. How does a government "force a free market"? A free market is one free of government interference! Force is required to have anything other than a free market.

And so it is with "forcing free speech", "forcing religious tolerance", and "forcing other people to live with loaded, concealed weapons everywhere they turn". Pennington is telling us the true beliefs of his organization and the utopia they would like to create--freedom is slavery.

Update: I apparently got their attention. The post now has this tagged on to the end:

UPDATE: For readers referred from Joe Huffman, guns are not speech.

No one said it was free speech. But both free speech and the right to keep and bear arms are specific enumerated rights protected from infringement by the Bill of Rights. Hence the comparison is valid. For the Brady Campaign to claim a freedom from other people bearing arms is the constitutional equivalent of claiming the freedom from the speech of others. Of course it's not the physical equivalent. But it is the legal equivalent.

Digressing a little bit I will admit that we probably will not ever have a constitutionally guaranteed right to carry concealed guns in public everywhere. If the Brady Campaign were to explicitly state it is only the carrying of concealed guns they get all uptight about but open carry is okay then I would be much more muted in my criticism of them. The carry of firearms in some form is probably going to be eventually upheld by the courts. Either the politicians have to make concealed carry permits "shall issue" and relatively quick and painless to obtain or they will have probably have to allow open carry without a permit. If some sort of carry for self defense in public is not allowed then the "bear" part of keep and bear arms will be infringed. I'm pretty sure the Brady people see that writing on the wall and are just dragging their feet or in denial.

After thinking about it for a long time and reading nearly all the blog posts and podcasts about the big open carry debate in the last few weeks I'm going to have my say on the topic soon. Perhaps as soon as tomorrow. Brady and company just contributed to my post on the topic.

In the Chicago Gun Case (McDonald, et. al. v. City of Chicago) the Brady Campaign has announced they will be filing a brief in support of neither party.

I'm anxious to find out what that means. As much as I like to think of them as spoiled children asking the nanny (government) to make the bad boys to go away (people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms) I don't think they are going to say anything close to "the case is irrelevent because Heller was decided incorrectly".

It appears that whatever their position we will find out sometime on or after November 23^rd.

It's been gnawing at me for days now and the way I figure is, those of you who value your imagined safety so much you'll choose fascism or communism over freedom are the ones who need gnawed at, not me.

...

You can claim Libertarians are "batshit crazy," but it's still better than death-camp pragmatism.

Roberta X.
November 12, 2009
Americanism
[I haven't verified this but I think there was something in the comments to other posts at Roberta's place which inspired the rant.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of quotable material comes about when someone gets fired up about something? Either that or she has the flu again.--Joe]

We've had a very well-plotted-out legal strategy for years, leading up to this.

Alan Gottlieb
November 10, 2009
Barack & Load
Regarding the McDonald gun case out of Chicago that is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
[I recently talked with Alan and he is 100% convinced we are going to win this one.--Joe]

Let the people think they govern and they will be governed.

William Penn
[Some people think our government is by the people and for the people. Recent events should dissuade you from this belief.--Joe]