Category Archives: Current News

This is about stuff in the mass media that generally has a short interest life span. Speculation about an election outcome a few days before the election is an example.

Politicians Respond to Wa State ‘Assault ban’

Posted on by

Writing to one’s state or U.S. representatives is quite easy, thanks in part to Algore’s internets/tubes, and it is often an important thing to do.  They need to know what we’re thinking, whether or not they agree.  More importantly, they need to be reminded of their duties in upholding the state and/or U.S. constitution, as they are so prone to (eh-hem) forget.  Soon after writing my WA state senators, cc-ing the house, thusly;

—–Original Message—–
From: Lyle
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 4:29 PM
To: Schoesler, Sen. Mark
Cc: Fagan, Rep. Susan; Schmick, Rep. Joe
Subject: Stop This Nonsense

HOUSE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE
SENATE INTERNET E-MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE

TO:  Senator Mark Schoesler

CC:  Representative Susan Fagan
     Representative Joe Schmick

FROM: Lyle

BILL:  6396 (Against)

SUBJECT:  Stop This Nonsense

MESSAGE:

Senate Bill 6396, the “assault weapon” bill is not only an affront to the Washington state and federal constitutions, it cannot possibly do anything to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals”.  Criminals by definition don’t obey such laws, and if certain guns are outlawed, criminals will be the only ones using them.

Further, it is well known that the federal “assault weapon ban” of 1994 (expired in 2004) did nothing to reduce or prevent crimes.

This new state bill can only be described as gun owner harassment, and an attack on the very concepts of liberty and self defense.

I point out that the AR-15 style rifle has recently become the most popular rifle platform in the U.S., and it would be outlawed by SB6396.  Millions of handguns carried for defense would become illegal under this bill also.  Is this how we are to fight crime– by disarming or harassing the potential victims?

I urge you and your colleagues to stop this in its tracks, by any means necessary.  Further, I expect you to take decisive action within both the House and Senate against any law-maker who so brazenly attacks our personal liberties.  We will be watching.

Thank You.

I received the following response;

From: Schmick, Rep. Joe [mailto:Schmick.Joe@leg.wa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Lyle
Subject: RE: Stop This Nonsense

Thank you for your comments.  I have heard an overwhelming objection to this bill from others in the 9th legislative district.

I oppose any gun regulation.  I fully support your second amendment rights to bear and keep arms and rest assured, I will vote accordingly.

Sincerely,

Joe Schmick
State Representative

Good for Joe Schmick.  Just one little bone to pick; he makes no mention of going after law makers “who so brazenly attack our personal liberties”.  No big surprise there.  This is a new concept.  Even pro-liberty politicians (or is that an oxymoron?) are accustomed to playing defensive holding actions 99 to 100% of the time.  We’ll let that one go for now, though at some point this will have to change.  Your team will never make it to the SuperBowl with the greatest defense and no offense.  I replied;

Thank you very much for your response.  If it helps to convince others who may be on the fence, I invite you to recall that state initiative 676 back in the 1990s, which was a sweeping weapon restriction scheme, failed overall by a margin of about 69 to 31.  Washington citizens may be evenly split on some issues, but [this] is certainly not one of them.

Best Regards,

Lyle

No one else responded for about a week.  Then came this bit from state rep Susan Fagan (oh boy);

Lyle,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns and comments.  I appreciate your taking the time and effort to share your views with me.

I am humbled and honored to represent our constituents in the 9th District.  As legislators, we have hundreds of issues to consider.  We need to be fiscally responsible and work towards stimulating the economy.  We also need to help protect our most vulnerable citizens and maintain individual rights and freedoms.

Please know that I am working hard to make the best decisions possible towards responsive and efficient state government.  Your input alerts me to issues of major concern and helps me to effectively serve our district.

Best regards,

Susan Fagan
State Representative
9th Legislative District

439 John L. O’Brien Building
P.O. Box 40600
Olympia, WA  98504-0600
(360) 786-7942
Fagan.susan@leg.wa.gov

It’s a form letter, designed as a blanket response, no matter the issue, no matter the position.  The only clue in there as to any sort of a position is that the term “individual rights and freedoms” appears.  A hard-core communist revolutionary probably wouldn’t say that, but then again a hard-core communist revolutionary is also a chameleon, or a liar, by definition.  Not much to go on as part of a universal “I don’t have the time to respond to you directly so here’s some crap for you to chew on.  Now go away and don’t bother me” letter.  A bit insulting.  She could have at least hired a junior high school delinquent to send a form letter addressing this particular issue as part of his public service requirement.  Such is life.  Very few politicians have the courage to actually say things.  No one else responded, but they did get my letter and that must count for something (so I tell myself).  If nothing else, the sheer volume can tell them a lot, and volume they have been getting.

WA AWB is likely DOA

Posted on by

People are still saying the proposed AWB will be stillborn at best:

After 2009 ended in a hail of high-profile gun violence, Washington state’s gun-control advocates are frustrated by an apparent lack of political support for an assault weapons ban, warning that the state will likely face more deadly shootings without it.

The bill comes just weeks after a spate of deadly police shootings, and proponents of the ban say those killings should force politicians to confront gun violence.

“There’s more guns, a repressed economy and a lot of angry people,” said Ralph Fascitelli, board chairman for state gun control group Washington Ceasefire. “You can’t sweep this problem under a rug. Apparently the shooting of eight police isn’t enough to confront gun violence in the state.”

The bill was named in honor of 18-year-old Aaron Sullivan, who was shot and killed by a SKS 7.62-caliber rifle in Seattle in July. The legislation focuses on “military-style” assault weapons, which can fire rapidly and carry large magazines of ammunition.

Similar bans have not fared well in the state Legislature in the past, and in an election year, supporters face a battle to even get the bill out of committee.

They did manage to avoid Fascitelli embarrassing himself with more talk of “animal assassins”.

See also my posts here, here, and here on the topic.

Proposed ‘assault weapon’ ban in Washington state

Posted on by

I posted a little something on it yesterday and last month I told you why it is DOA. But I’ve been getting email (thanks Carl and Barron) and I decided to dig into it a little bit more.

From the bill itself (emphasis mine):

(20) “Assault weapon” means:

8 (a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle

9 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a

10 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also

11 possesses any of the following:

12 (i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located

13 rear of the trigger;

14 (ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any

15 configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a

16 folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the

17 firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of

18 the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below

19 the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;

20 (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or

21 configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a

22 telescoping stock;

23 (iv) A barrel shroud;

24 (v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

25 (vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that

26 can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;

27 (b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine

28 at any location outside of the pistol grip;

29 (c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,

30 or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept

31 more than ten rounds of ammunition;

32 (d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;

33 (e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;

34 (f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an

35 assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or

36 under the control of any person.

37 (21) “Detachable magazine” means a magazine, the function of which

is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing

2 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any

3 tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.

4 (22) “Barrel shroud” means a covering, other than a slide, that is

5 attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel

6 of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the

7 barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without

8 burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension

9 of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially

10 or completely encircle the barrel.

11 (23) “Muzzle brake” means a device attached to the muzzle of a

12 weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.

13 (24) “Muzzle compensator” means a device attached to the muzzle of

14 a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.

15 (25) “Conversion kit” means any part or combination of parts

16 designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault

17 weapon.

Notice that some pump action guns are considered “assault weapons” by these bigots.

Notice that the firearm has to have a detachable magazine and any of the evil characteristics. In the 1994 Federal AWB it had to have two of the additional characterisitics.

Notice that muzzle breaks and compensators are considered evil enough to make a firearm an AW. That would appear to make all Glock “C” models outlawed under this proposal.

And people like Dennis Henigan (Lethal Logic chapter 3) claim there is no slippery slope.

The line about “any tool, including a bullet or cartridge” appears to be in severe need of rewriting. I can’t make sense of it as it stands. I’m sure the Seattle bigots heard the California bigots whining about the manufactures making “California legal” firearms with a receiver that allows the magazine can be removed with a cartrige used as tool and hence complies with the law. I guess they didn’t hear about the ring worn on your finger than does the same thing.

Also of note is that the grandfathering of existing ownership is more than little harsh:

16 (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was

17 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person

18 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

19 (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of

20 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to

21 ensure compliance with this subsection;

22 (b) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or

23 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use

24 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while

25 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of

26 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the

27 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container

28 during transport.

So in order to exercise your specific enumerate right to keep bear firearms in common use (most of my firearms would be illegal by this definition) you have to allow the sheriff to annually inspect your firearm storage–with no guidance on what is considered “safely and securely”.

A person would not be allowed to transport the firearm under any number of important situations such as to the gunsmith, a hunting trip, out of state for sale or as a gift. Let alone carry one on a daily basis as I do.

And what is it with “duly licensed firing range”? A search of the Washington State Department of Licensing website turned up nothing.

Also note that a couple of the bigots who proposed the law wrote an error filled opinion piece in the Everett Herald.

As other have said–we win because the other side is stupid. They are apparently nearly completely blinded by their own bigotry. But isn’t that nearly always the case with bigots?

NRA; What’s up?

Posted on by

I’ve been seeing ads for the new NRA on-line national firearms museum, and I’ve also been working on building a period rifle.  I therefore thought it would be great to go and see if I could find some original examples of said period rifle at this new-fangled on-line museum, rather than having to, say, drive to Wyoming and visit the Cody Museum or pay 5 to 10 thousand dollars for an original rifle.  I tried it from home using my Mac G4 to no avail.  OK, I can forgive that.  The old G4 still has an old version of OS-X and Safari, and I sometimes have problems using other web sites.  Here at work I use XP Pro, IE 8, and a 700+ KBps ADSL connection.  I patiently try nationalfirearmsmuseum.org a few times from work and I’m redirected to nramuseum.org which displays a black screen, this tiny little sentence in the middle, and a heap big helping of nothing else;

The full NRA experience requires a broadband connection.  Click here to go directly to the standard NRA.org website.

From the standard NRA.org website you can eventually find a link to the museum, which then gives you said black screen.  Repeat as needed to become convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you’re not going to see any museum, no matter what, in spite of the fact that said non-viewable museum is currently being advertized all over the NRA publications.  Denied.  I then tried “compatibility view” in IE 8, which made quite a difference– it put that sentence at the bottom of the black screen instead of the middle.  Double denied.

If my setup can’t work, who’s does?  I thought DSL was about as broad as broadband gets, while the only clue to the denial is a note telling me my connection speed is too low, with no indication of what they consider to be “broadband”.  Have I missed some new and wonderful breakthrough in IT that everyone else knows about and uses already?  Do I need a cable ISP?  Do I need to get Win 7 or what?  In any case I think that if your web site doesn’t work with the vast majority of existing computer setups, you’re doing something wrong.  That is, if you want the majority of people to see it, and you’re not just interested in being cutting-edge for the sake of it, being satisfied with catering to an exclusive audience.

Then again, maybe I’m doing something wrong that makes it impossible to see this web site, though all the others I visit seem to work OK.

Dear NRA; I’d write you directly about this, but a black screen with nothing on it includes, as an accompanying feature, the non existence of a “if you can’t view this page, please notify our web designer by clicking here” or anything like that.

Update Jan. 10; Without my having contected them directly, NRA Tech Support wrote me this morning and fixed my problem.  Wow.  That’s service.  More in comments.

Details on the Lakewood shooting

Posted on by

From the WA-CCW email list:

Coffee shop was owned by a retired Tacoma pd officer. It was considered a “safe” hangout for cops waiting to go on duty, or to stop by for a break.

Lakewood Pd (officers that were killed) was a new department recently formed.  Almost all of the deputies were hired from Peirce co Sheriffs office.  The deputies were hired from the jail. Most were sworn deputies, but had primarily worked the jail. Sounds like they had little time on road.

The four deputies were drinking coffee before shift and working on laptops with heads down. Table was approximately 15 feet from counter/check out register.

Shooter came in and smiles and acknowledges the two deputies facing the door way/entrance. They return greeting. Shooter goes up to counter like he is going to order. After stepping up to counter, he pulls semi-automatic pistol from under his coat. Shooter takes a couple of steps toward table, where the deputies are seated. Distance is now approximately 12 feet.

Shooter shoots first deputy, who is facing him across table. He is shot in head. He is killed instantly. Shooter then shoots nearest deputy, that is seated away from him, in the back of the head. He is killed instantly.  Shooter then shoots across table at third deputy, who is facing him, and misses. Fourth shot is fired and strikes third deputy in face, killing him instantly.

Last deputy is a Sgt. He stands, while drawing weapon, and charges shooter.  Table knocked over in attempt to stand. Sgt grabs shooter by coat and engages shooter. First round strikes shooter in mid-section and goes through and through. Second round is fired and strikes shooter in front pocket. Round hits keys, but penetrates about 1.5 inches into shooters thigh. Deputies carry 180 grain gold dot ammunition (unknown at this time what kind of pistol).

Shooter raises gun and shoots Sgt in face. Sgt falls to ground. Shooter kneels/bends over Sgt and does a CONTACT shot to the right eye.  Shooter then shoots Sgt in the other eye, once again a CONTACT shot.

Shooter takes Sgt’s wallet and steals credit cards and Sgt’s duty weapon.
Shooter does not rob the store or hurt or threaten anyone else.

The shooting lasted approximately 3-5 seconds for the first three deputies.
The Sgt’s encounter lasted another 5-7 seconds.

Accomplice waiting outside and gets into car. They leave the area.  Accomplice is a former cell mate he did time with in Arkansas prison.

Federal agents track shooter by cellphone “pinging” to locate phone/area.  Five more additional accomplices help shooter with medical issues, food, money ect. Feds find driver and get the name of shooter.  All accomplices are arrested and general area where shooter is headed is found out.

Tuesday approximately 3:00 a.m. shooter turns off phone and takes battery out, so that Feds can no longer track phone.

Short time later, Peirce county deputy checks 10-46 abandoned car. Car running with lights on and drivers door open.

As Deputy was walking back to squad he sees movement from behind squad.  Once he clears his headlights, which were blinding him, he sees shooter recognizes him. Shooter is crouching behind squad now. Deputy orders him to ground and other commands. Shooter attempts to draw weapon and to run.  Deputy fires five rounds. Three strike the shooter. Shooter falls to ground.  Deputy covers shooter until back up arrives. Unknown how long this took.  Once back up on scene, shooter is cuffed. He is dead at this point.

Deputies find slain Sgt’s duty weapon on shooter. The round recovered from the shooters body is traced to the Sgt’s weapon, confirming the Sgt shot the shooter.

Some lessons to learn from our fallen brothers.

1. Just because you are “off duty” or in a “safe” restaurant, keep your head up and your eyes and ears open.
2. Do not sit close to the register or other focal point (entrance doors, bathrooms, hallways ect). Try to sit where you can scan the area.

3. Leave devices that distract you, like laptops,ect in the car. Do your reports and other things that take your mind off your safety, at post or far away from the public.
4. Even at lunch or break, don’t let your guard down. You should always be in condition yellow.
5. Keep your distance. Take those lateral steps or diagonal steps and move. It is a lot harder for the bad guy to shoot a moving target, let alone alot of distance.
6. Each time you train, train as if your life depends on it.

When the time comes, you will not arise to the occasion and be a hero, you will fall to you level of your training effort and perform at that level.  I do not think they could have done anything different after the contact, do your best at whatever training you attend. Lose the mentality of “It will never happen to me” and train as you wish to fight, fight like you train.

There also is speculation that the “abandoned car” was a trap enable another police killing.

People get all wound up about the guy using a gun to kill. I think fewer lives were taken and he was caught because he did use a gun. In this situation walking in with a lite road flare in your hip pocket and a five gallon bucket of gasoline to soak them down with would have been just as effective and probably less risky for the murderer.

Even with all the shooting I have done and being able to put aimed shots in a stationary man sized target 10 feet away at the rate of about five per second I wouldn’t take on four people, all armed, in a situation like that. It’s just too risky. Had they been in the middle of an empty parking lot and I was concealed 500 yards away with a scoped rifle then maybe the risk would be acceptable to use a gun.

Health care bill constitutionally flawed

Posted on by

Of course the entire concept of the bill is unconstitutional. But it’s going to be tough to find someone with standing and get any serious court attention that could scrap the entire thing. But the attorney generals of 13 states might slow things down some:

Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska’s political deal from the federal health care overhaul bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

“We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed,” South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision,” they wrote.

Those signing on are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. I’m proud to say both of my states of Idaho and Washington are attempting to stop this abomination.

I just “love” how they point out they are all Republicans. Other sources make an even bigger deal out of that point:

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said the letter was a political ploy.

“This threat stinks of partisan politics,” he said in a statement. “If Henry McMaster wants to write federal law he should run for Congress not governor.”

Meanwhile, Nelson is taking his message on health care reform directly to his constituents. In a television ad beginning during Wednesday night’s Nebraska-Arizona Holiday Bowl football game, the Democrat says he stuck by his principles throughout the debate and doesn’t want Nebraskans to be confused on his position.

While it’s not uncommon for states to challenge federal laws in court, one legal expert said political bluster was likely behind the letter.

“I do think that it is some combination of the losers just complaining about the officiating, or complaining about how the game was played, in combination with trying to make the bill look as seedy and inappropriate as possible, for political purposes,” says Andy Siegel, a former University of South Carolina School of Law professor now teaching at Seattle University School of Law.

“It is smart politics to try to tarnish it and make it look less like an achievement and more like some sort of corrupted bargain,” he said.

Principles? Democrats have principles? I didn’t know Democrats had principles. Can anyone tell me any principles the Democrats will admit to? The Republicans claim some principles but treat them as guidelines or just half-hearted suggestions.

Increased restrictions didn’t prevent mass shooting

Posted on by

Finland had a mass shooting this morning:

Four people were killed when a gunman opened fire at a Finnish shopping mall on Thursday, police said, in the country’s third multiple shooting incident in as many years.

My sympathy is for the victims, their friends, and their families.

I have no sympathy for the politicians and their supporters who did precisely the wrong thing when they got a couple hints they had problems:

Finland was rocked by two school shootings in 2007 and 2008, after which it tightened gun control regulations.

This is despite what they apparently know is the proper solution to someone shooting up innocent people:

That’s right, men and women who have the will, training, and tools to stop the perpetrator. In the mall shootings that I am familar with in this country the shooter was stopped by a private citizen in the mall with a gun. How many more people have to die before the rest of the world learns that lesson?

Quote of the day–Bruce Schneier

Posted on by

Only one carry on? No electronics for the first hour of flight? I wish that, just once, some terrorist would try something that you can only foil by upgrading the passengers to first class and giving them free drinks.

Bruce Schneier
December 26, 2009
Separating Explosives from the Detonator
[I think the problem is that people don’t feel an increased level of security unless restrictions are increased. Sort of like a child’s blanket or a parents arms. When the child is wrapped up and held tightly they feel the most secure. The problem is that people don’t seem to realize government is not a parent. It is force, like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.–Joe]

It was over before it started

Posted on by

As I said a couple weeks ago they were going to lose on this one. It appears they are admitting defeat already:

You would think that if ever there was a political climate favorable for gun control legislation, it would be here. With the state reeling from the third police killing in two months, legislators surely feel the need to do something. A proposed assault weapons ban, to be introduced in the coming legislative session, would seem like a place to start.

Yet only one week after Washington CeaseFire held a press conference to announce the planned bill, its prospects look dim. “Frustrating, that would be the word,” CeaseFire president Ralph Fascitelli says, speaking of the reaction he’s getting from key politicians as he lobbies for the proposal.

“We don’t have the votes,” he recalls House Speaker Frank Chopp telling him recently. Fascitelli says the powerful Seattle Democrat alluded to a bloc of approximately 20 representatives in his party who are opposed to gun control legislation. In any case, Chopp told Fascitelli, he was preoccupied by the budget and upcoming elections.

…

Contrary to a report last week in the Seattle Times, the Seattle Police Department has not officially come out in favor of an assault weapons ban although it is “supportive of the work CeaseFire is doing,” according to spokesperson Mark Jamieson. “We understand that discussion of gun rights legislation is polarizing,” he says.

While the bill has yet to be introduced and debated, Fascitelli already sounds bitter. When it comes to gun control, he says, “there is no leadership in this state.”

A frustrated, bitter bigot. Sounds like we are doing something right in this state.

Interesting question

Posted on by

I wonder what made them think to ask this question?

Domain Name   totbb.net ? (Network)
IP Address   125.25.190.# (TOT ADSL IP Address Pool)
ISP   TOT public company limited
Location  
Continent  :  Asia
Country  :  Thailand  (Facts)
State/Region  :  Krung Thep
City  :  Bangkok
Lat/Long  :  13.75, 100.5167 (Map)
Distance  :  7,651 miles
Language   English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinNT
Browser   Internet Explorer 8.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; InfoPath.2; OfficeLiveConnector.1.3; OfficeLivePatch.0.0; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; yie8)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  

Resolution  :  1120 x 700
Color Depth  :  32 bits

Time of Visit   Dec 28 2009 11:09:04 pm
Last Page View   Dec 28 2009 11:09:04 pm
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.ask.com/w…onated with a bullet
Search Engine ask.com
Search Words can petn be detonated with a bullet
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm…ee-087128014bb5.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm…ee-087128014bb5.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC+7:00
Visitor’s Time   Dec 29 2009 2:09:04 pm
Visit Number   673,261
 

Oh, in case you didn’t know–it was PETN that the guy tried to take down the plane in Detroit a couple days ago.

They want this to be illegal

Posted on by

The TSA document I mentioned yesterday has raised quite a stir (via an IM from son James). They want to make it illegal to post the document.

This reminds me of a story about a psychology professor who asked his students to write down on a slip of paper and put in an box short phrases marketers had used that made the students one to buy a product. He then drew them out of the box to discuss them. The first one out of the box was “Under 17 not admitted without parent or guardian.”

They don’t want people to post it and they don’t want you to have it. What do you think that is going to accomplish?

Yeah, I thought so too.

Get it here if you don’t already have a copy.

Brady brief in McDonald v. Chicago

Posted on by

I just finished a quick reading of the Brady brief in McDonald v. Chicago. The short answer as to the question, “What are they up to?” is:

This Court should conclude that regulations of firearms are not subject to strict scrutiny, but instead are subject to a deferential, reasonableness standard of review.

They have apparently concluded McDonald et. al. will win and are trying to minimize the damage to their goals.

What I find most interesting is this:

The policy implications of such a ruling could be devastating, given the demonstrated success of reasonable state and federal gun laws in reducing the use of guns in crime and saving lives. Reasonable gun laws such as licensing for gun dealers and owners, registration, background checks, and safe storage laws have been associated with reduced risk of gun deaths and criminal access to guns.

Contrast that with this:

I am not arguing here that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of crime, violent crime, or homicide. Such causation is difficult to show because so many other factors bear on the incidence of crime. For instance, simple cross-national comparisons of gun availability and crime do not control for the degree to which various countries impose legal restrictions on firearms. It also is difficult to sort out whether high levels of gun ownership lead to high crime rates or whether high crime rates lead to high levels of gun ownership.

Dennis A. Henigan
Vice President for Law and Policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Founder of its Legal Action Project.
Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy, page 107.

On one hand the Brady Campaign claims the thousands of restrictions on gun ownership have “demonstrated success” but they also claim they don’t, or perhaps can’t, know if high gun ownership rates cause crime. And of course their “demonstrated success” stories are highly contested. Even the CDC says, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws.”

As usual, it’s half truths that give them traction.

Update: Sebastian points out more half-truths that are far more substantive than my find.

Dr. Strangelove is alive!

Posted on by

As Sebastian reported yesterday it appears we may have another major attack on our gun rights coming up. I’m of the opinion our allies in D.C. should suggest amendments to the bill to include terrorist list checks before people are allowed to become members of a religion, or maybe in a different political climate before being allowed to not have a religion. And of course, since ideas are more powerful than guns they should take the advice of Joseph Stalin and check their lists before allowing people to express their ideas as well. 

Given that Stalin and the former Soviet Union are now drawn into this I can point out that Dr. Strangelove is apparently alive and is now contributing to the war on the other side. The enemies of freedom are now claiming the U.S. government needs to Close the Terror Gap.

I think Strangelove’s “mine shaft gap” made more sense.

Nice headline

Posted on by

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“?

Supreme Court Brief in McDonald v. Chicago filed today

Posted on by

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

We are on a train to victory here.

Ohio is considering Firearms Freedom Act

Posted on by

Montana and Tennessee passed it. Ohio is now considering it:

Reps. Seth Morgan, R-Huber Heights, and Jarrod Martin, R-Beavercreek, have introduced legislation that would allow for firearms made and sold within Ohio to be exempt from federal firearms regulations.

Morgan said that House Bill 315 is mainly a preemptive effort to protect the state in the event President Barack Obama’s administration tries to push any new federal regulations.

My opinion is here.

More on the Practical Application of Principles

Posted on by

It’s time to restate this.  I posted it last year, and I wonder if anyone really “got it”.  It cannot be overstated.  Reading Joe’s recent post about the open carry debate among the pro gun rights camp reminded me of it, once again.  That debate can be said to be between people with the same basic principles.  We’ll see how Rand’s “rules of engagement” as I call them, apply.  Last year I noted;

In the essay, Rand defines three rules “…about the working of principles in practice and about the relationship of principles to goals.” 

Wait.  What?  “the working of principles in practice”?  What’s that?  “The relationship of principles to goals”?  Sounds pretty juicy if there’s anything to it.  Well, there is.

 Leaving out her extensive lead-in:

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

Open carry verses keeping it hidden so as not to scare or offend anyone.  Which position is more consistent with the basic principles of RKBA?

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

It applies to any situation, but the idea of government “taking care of” the American people, shared by Republicans and Democrats, comes to mind.  Democrats win here.  Every time.  Republicans will never understand this.  It’s not in their DNA to understand this rule.  It’s in their DNA to deny it.  The NRA had a similar problem about 15 years ago, but they seem to be getting over it, like getting over a very long-lasting flu.  You cannot collaborate with someone who holds different basic principles and expect a nice outcome.  It’s better to do your own thing, unless you want to be the more evil and irrational one.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side;

Gun control debate.  Practicing rule 3, without fully understanding it, is the one and only source of our recent successes.  Understand it, Little Grasshopper, and you will go far.  Some of us think that we’ve been trying to appear rational as a selling point, or trying to get the opposition to think that we aren’t bad people after all, but it is by simply being rational, and by being rational in a public way, and sometimes in an in-your-face way, that we win.  There’s a fine distinction here, but a very important one.  Selling ourselves as people is what Republicans do.  That argument says, “I’m a nice, decent person, so you should agree with me.”  Blech.  Selling our ideas, on their own merits, and damn the torpedoes because we know we’re right and we can prove it, we know our opposition is wrong, disastrously wrong, and we can prove that, is what rational people do.

when they (principles) are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

Taking RKBA in light of that last bit; hiding your (our) position (that guns in public are a good thing) or evading it, tends to work in favor of the irrational side (gun restrictions).  We’re trying to coddle those who are wrong, trying to sell ourselves in a way tailored so as to appeal to their stupidity and bad behavior.  In so doing we lend them an appearance of credibility or legitimacy that they do not deserve.  Like it or not, that’s how it works.  We have to understand that there are some people who have no credibility, have no legitimacy and deserve no accommodation (anti gunners in this case, or people who are offended or “scared” by visible guns [I think most or all of the “fear” is a cheap act perpetrated for maximum drama]) and we have to be ready to point out why.

I believe there are enough examples in most people’s day-to-day lives that these basic axioms, Rand’s rules of engagement, will be seen as not only valid but very useful once you look at things with them in mind.  Working with institutions installing and troublshooting PA systems (I have an appointment tomorrow) I’ve run into all these situations.  They’re political events as much as anything else.

I remember when

Posted on by

Back in the 1990’s the NRA couldn’t pay to get ads in many major publications. The ads would not be accepted even when offering to pay above the existing ad rates (and most ads are discounted from the published rates). Just like a black person trying to eat a meal at a whites only restaurant in the deep south fifty years ago–their money wasn’t any good with the bigots in control.

New York, with it’s extremely repressive gun laws, is the home of much of the U.S. print media and hence management had an inherent bias against gun ownership. But it appears times are changing:

I wonder how much of it is because the print media is a lot hungrier now or if it is because of the Heller decision and the fact that guns are more accepted now.

Knife rights victory

Posted on by

Via a Tweet from Sebastian I discovered Knife Rights just announced an important victory:

WE STOPPED CUSTOMS Pocket Knife Grab! The Senate has passed the conference report for the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill with our amendment to the Federal Switchblade Act intact. The bill will now be sent to the President for signature. There is no indication that he would veto the bill.

This is the culmination of an incredible effort on the part of Knife Rights, American Knife and Tool Institute, NRA, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and many other organizations who contributed. Each organization made key contributions to the effort, without which the end result might not have turned out so well. Not many folks gave us much hope of succeeding when Customs first proposed revoking their rulings and redefining what is a switchblade back in May. At a time when bipartisanship is rare as hen’s teeth in Washington, we garnered support from both sides of the aisle.

We succeeded because the coalition of groups that came together to fight Customs represented a broad swath of American industry and grassroots. We succeeded in large part because of YOUR contributions, letters and calls in support of our efforts. You can give yourself a pat on the back for your effort and a job well done against all odds. It is time to pop the cork on that bottle of champagne and celebrate a victory for your knife rights and for all America.

To help you celebrate and commemorate this incredible victory, please purchase one of our collectible “WE STOPPED Customs Pocket Knife Grab” coffee mugs, t-shirts or sweatshirts, available for a limited time only: www.cafepress.com/KnifeRights Proceeds will help pay off the incredibly high cost of accomplishing this victory.

Knife Rights has quickly grown to become America’s largest grassroots knife owners organization. This latest fight against Customs Pocket Knife Grab has validated the power and importance of a dedicated grass roots organization in defending your knife rights. Now we have to finish paying pay for this effort. It took a great deal of money to accomplish all this. Carrying a fight like this to Washington cannot be done without lots of cash. The victory isn’t complete until we pay the bills. PLEASE CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO SUPPORT THIS SUCCESSFUL FIGHT FOR YOUR KNIFE RIGHTS!

Also of interest on that same page:

Knife Rights News Slice Vol. 2 Number 19 – October 13, 2009

Knife Rights Changing Perceptions

Ritter (left), Gottleib (right)The weekend before last I was invited to speak at the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference put on by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. While I was there, I took the opportunity at their annual awards luncheon to make a special presentation to CCRKBA President, Alan Gottleib.

When this issue with Customs first reared its ugly head, Alan and the Citizens Committee were the first to step up in support of our efforts to achieve a legislative solution when it became clear that nothing else would work. CCRKBA helped to the tune of $30,000. Lest you think that covered all the expenses, let me assure you that it DID NOT, but it was a HUGE help. Alan also offered his wise counsel at critical junctures. In recognition of this major commitment, I was very pleased to present Alan with a custom Mini Eros Gentleman’s Tactical Folder generously donated by renowned knifemaker, and Knife Rights Cornerstone member, Ken Onion.

My remarks later in the day, which focused on the fact that the Second Amendment doesn’t say “firearms,” it says “arms,” apparently struck a chord with the nearly 700 participants. When it came time for resolutions, which guide the two organizations in terms of policy, my points were reflected in a historic change to one recurring resolution and the introduction and acceptance of a second.

The “Farmer” resolution was originally passed at the first GRPC twenty four years ago. This year it was amended to say that “an attack on any class of arms is an attack on all classes of arms,” in recognition that knives, as well as other arms, are due equal protection. This represents something of a watershed event for Second Amendment policy which heretofore has focused almost exclusively on firearms.

Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition was inspired to introduce a new resolution, which was adopted, that reads, “Whereas: The banning of any personal tool or weapon has never resulted in increased public safety,…We support the repeal of the Federal Switchblade Act and any other federal, state or local laws and regulations banning tools and weapons rather than addressing behavior.” Jeff’s heart is in the right place, we all know the Federal Switchblade Act was simply political theater and a sham, but the reality is that after 50 years as law of the land a legislative solution eliminating it is unlikely. However, it’s the thought that counts and it once again is indicative of a historic change in attitude. Jeff’s resolution is a strong statement of support for the concept that tools and weapons should not be blamed for social ills or criminal behavior and neither should they be regulated or banned for those reasons.

You can read the complete text of the two resolutions at: www.KnifeRights.org/grpc2009resolutions.pdf

Notice that The Second Amendment Foundation donated $30K as well as advice? I’m doubling my twice monthly paycheck deduction (matched by Microsoft) to SAF.

Also notice that Jeff Knox introduced a resolution similar to Just One Question? Although Jeff is aware of Just One Question his dad had something similar before I came up with it.

Why aren’t they screaming about this illegal act?

Posted on by

So even though I don’t pay much attention to them it was hard to avoid hearing about “the criminals in the White house” and all the “criminal acts” and the charges of treason against the Bush administration. But what I don’t get is why I don’t hear anything about Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels when he does stuff like this:

A new city of Seattle gun ban takes effect this week – prohibiting firearms in places like city parks and community centers.

But the law is already generating controversy with many asking is this new rule truly enforceable? Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna and some community gun advocates say, no.

“What this does is put Seattle on a collision course with state law,” says Dan Sytman, the Attorney General’s office spokesperson.

The questionable deeds that Bush administration did at least had prior approval from the U.S. Attorney General’s office. Nickels is doing something that all legal advisers, except the city lawyer who found a contorted rational, say is illegal.

So where is the outcry from the left?

Apparently they don’t really care about politicians engaged in illegal acts. They just wanted to remove their political opponents by whatever means possible. Having their own politicians commit illegal acts on their behalf is just fine.

See also what Ry has to say on the topic.