Americans are purchasing firearms and ammunition in record numbers, not because they believe 2009 will offer unusually good duck hunting, but because they fear the fallout from the coming economic storm and the state’s reaction to that fallout.
Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008
[H/T to Say Uncle for the pointer. There will be more QOTDs from this piece over the next few weeks and months.–Joe]
Robb posted about being irked that he can’t legally carry his firearm into a Post Office. He can carry at the hospital, shopping malls, his kids soccer games and virtually all public places. What is so special about a Post Office that he is disallowed from carrying their? Of course the answer is there is nothing special about the Post Office that should be grounds for disallowing the carrying defensive tools while picking up your mail. Just as prohibiting blacks from public swimming pools and using the same water fountains as others had no basis other than the bigotry of those making the rules. Still, spending time in a Federal prison isn’t my favorite way of standing by my principles.
That said I had looked into the guns in Post Offices before and had heard others talk of the law being somewhat ambigous. With that background I was going to point out to Robb that according to 18 USC 930, which I’m fairly certain is what I have seen posted on Post Office doors, there are exemptions to the part about fines and imprisonment for “whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility”. These exemptions are never posted on the wall of the post office:
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
Notice the last three words of (d)(3), “other lawful purpose”. Self defense–isn’t that a lawful purpose?
But as I was doing my research on the topic, just to make sure, I ran across this post from a lawyer which says that 18 USC 930 isn’t the controlling law. 39 USC 410 says (emphasis added):
(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in this title or insofar as such laws remain in force as rules or regulations of the Postal Service, no Federal law dealing with public or Federal contracts, property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds, including the provisions of chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, shall apply to the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service.
(b) The following provisions shall apply to the Postal Service:
(1) section 552 (public information), section 552a (records about individuals), section 552b (open meetings), section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees), section 3110 (restrictions on employment of relatives), section 3333 and chapters 72 (antidiscrimination; right to petition Congress) and 73 (suitability, security, and conduct of employees), section 5520 (withholding city income or employment taxes), and section 5532 (!1) (dual pay) of title 5, except that no regulation issued under such chapters or section shall apply to the Postal Service unless expressly made applicable;
In the Postal rules I found that bringing a firearm onto the property is a rule violation but apparently it is not a felony:
(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
…
(p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved.
(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both.
Further reading of the rules revealed you give up your Fourth Amendment rights once you set foot on U.S. Postal Property (232.1 (b)):
(b) Inspection, recording presence. (1) Purses, briefcases, and other containers brought into, while on, or being removed from the property are subject to inspection. However, items brought directly to a postal facility’s customer mailing acceptance area and deposited in the mail are not subject to inspection, except as provided by section 274 of the Administrative Support Manual. A person arrested for violation of this section may be searched incident to that arrest.
I am not a lawyer. You are receiving this legal review for free and my own personal entertainment. It’s probably worth every penny you paid for it.
Barb and I just finished watching Valkyrie. It was a good movie. Barb buried her head in my shoulder for a few scenes but it was interesting and to the best of my knowledge historically accurate.
More historical details and information on numerous other plots to kill Hitler can be found in the book Plotting Hitler’s Death which I highly recommend.
See also this post for more information on the content of this great book.
The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
Milton Friedman
[As opposed to a government run market where exchanges take place at the point of a gun.–Joe]
I know people who don’t understand why anyone would have a gun. They don’t have guns, they didn’t grow up with them, and they assume people who did must be some sort of primitive barbarians.
Tom Palmer
Page 30, Gun Control On Trial by Brian Doherty
[Just like gays in the 80’s Silence = Death. We need to come out of the closet if we want to survive as a free people.–Joe]
Look at their literature. About all they say is ‘guns are bad, they kill children and other living things.’ Look at their website. It clearly posits gun ownership as a social evil. He can say what he wants; I like Dennis, and I’ve never had a negative interaction with anybody with his group, but sorry, that’s a bunch of crap. His dream is dead; the idea of prohibition is dead. They need to tell their constituents to find something else to do with their lives, go be productive members of society, stop attacking our individual rights.
Alan Gura
From Gun Control On Trial, page 114.
[First off I would like to +1 Gura’s experience with the gun grabbers. All of the paid and even volunteer staff of the gun-grabber organizations that I have talked to have been nice people. I believe they were sincere and truly had no wish for anything other than the well-being of innocent people. They may not have been very smart or very well informed but their intentions, however misguided, always seemed to be congruent with mine–the protection of innocent life. They just had a problem with data collection and processing.
But on to my main reason for the quote.
I love the last sentence of Gura’s. Gura was referring to the Brady Campaign (and Dennis Henigan) but it could just as well apply to 98% of our politicians. Especially this year–the year of the coronation of the Light Bringer. It’s going to be rough times ahead for freedom and individual rights. We don’t have enough Alan Gura’s and friendly courts to protect us. If only we could enforce a declaration such as Gura’s.–Joe]
I’m spending New Years Eve reading Gun Control On Trial by Brian Doherty. I previously mentioned a direct reference to me in the book from a quick scan I made. A few minutes ago I found another reference on page 53 which almost for certain is about me (and others) and Boomershoot:
I talked to lots of people in the “pro-gun” community, from those who enjoy detonating explosives with semiautomatic rife fire to dealers in highly regulated states like California.
I find it interesting that I am placed on the extreme end of the spectrum. I suppose it is fitting. And it reminds me of two quotes:
Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.
Thomas Paine
And:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater
Update (23:15): I finished the book a few minutes ago. I found my name in the index too.
Also of possible interest to some is that my friend and Boomershoot promoter Stephanie Sailor was mentioned in the acknowledgments. It was via her encouragement that Doherty contacted me.
I’ll have more on the book tomorrow. And I have a great quote for the first day of the new year from the book.
One has to wonder why someone wants the answer to the search query posed below (“best ammunition for penetrating body armor”).
| Domain Name | verizon.net ? (Network) | |||||||||||||||||||
| IP Address | 68.160.179.# (Verizon Internet Services) | |||||||||||||||||||
| ISP | Verizon Internet Services | |||||||||||||||||||
| Location |
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Language | English (U.S.) en-us | |||||||||||||||||||
| Operating System | Microsoft WinXP | |||||||||||||||||||
| Browser | Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Javascript | version 1.3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Monitor |
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Time of Visit | Dec 29 2008 10:27:49 am | |||||||||||||||||||
| Last Page View | Dec 29 2008 10:29:43 am | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Length | 1 minute 54 seconds | |||||||||||||||||||
| Page Views | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Referring URL | http://www.google.co… body armor&aq=f&oq= | |||||||||||||||||||
| Search Engine | google.com | |||||||||||||||||||
| Search Words | best ammunition for penetrating body armor | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Entry Page | https://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/10/07/educating-the-media-on-body-armor-and-rifles/ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Exit Page | https://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/10/07/educating-the-media-on-body-armor-and-rifles/ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Out Click | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Time Zone | UTC-8:00 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visitor’s Time | Dec 29 2008 10:27:49 am | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Number | 408,429 |
It is from within the People Republic of Massachusetts so I can see why it might be a legitimate question.
It is salutary to train oneself to be no more affected by censure than by praise.
W. Somerset Maugham
[While I agree it appears to me that most people don’t have the philosophical background and/or brain power to make decisions on their own. Sometimes I wish we could just let Darwin settle the issues.–Joe]
A handgun is a gun that police use, that the military use but ordinary people do not use unless they’re out to kill somebody. There’s no reason to have a handgun.
…
The police should be able to, they see this guy standing in the street and they you know, looking at whatever, they should be able to frisk them and if they have a gun, that gun should be removed and they should go to jail.
Susan Martin
December 26, 2008
A conversation on gun control with Susan Martin, Mario Elia, Karen Ellis-Elia and Sean Daly
[Ignorant of the millions of incidents each year in the U.S. where handguns were used to protect innocent life Ms. Martin imagines a police state as being a better place to live. She lives in Canada where they already have censorship and a (never mind it has failed) gun registry. With those already in place she may get her wish sooner than she thinks. I think she should be careful what she wishes for.–Joe]
Update: They let my comment go through (comments were moderated):
I have a great deal of sympathy for those who have suffered such losses but there is Just One Question (https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question/) that needs to be asked before advocating more restrictions on firearms. That question is: “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”
Until that question can be answered in the affirmative those that advocate for more restrictions on firearms are actually advocating for an unjustified taking of freedom.
Update2: I left another comment (12/30/2008):
I find it very telling that those advocating for more gun control claim it will reduce “gun violence”. This claim is doubtful (the counter example of the U.K. experience is just one reason to doubt it) but furthermore they do not claim it will reduce violent crime. But by carefully choosing their words they lump praiseworthy violence in defense of innocent live in the same category as criminal acts. Those same carefully chosen words also overlook that the total violent crime rate can (and frequently does) increase when people are prevented from using firearms for self defense.
And also telling is the same advocates for gun control repeatedly refuse to answer Just One Question, “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”
Because they cannot answer this one question it shows that safety is not the objective of their advocating for increased restrictions on firearms. They have some other agenda which they are not sharing.
In the U.K. they have banned handguns, some long guns, have heavy restrictions on all long guns, and restrictions on knives. There should be no surprise there are now calls for the banning of air guns:
A POLICE chief has backed stricter controls on selling BB guns after a teenager was shot in the eye at close range with one of the replica firearms.
Angry mum Lynn Colley called for a ban on the weapons after her daughter Paige, 14, was left temporarily blind by a ball bearing fired at her face.
This reading of the Bill of Rights is potentially a very dangerous thing.
The government is not likely to take kindly to direct threats to its powers — which the Bill of Rights specifically represents — especially as it is held in hand by an angered people. The very idea that the people would take it upon themselves to examine government’s abuses, usurpations of powers, abuses of authority, and contraventions of the very Bill that is meant to constrain government actions, is inflammatory.
At what point do the people, oppressed and incensed by the abuses of government, act directly to limit and yes punish those responsible? When are “public servants,” feigning to guard us against infringements, brought to justice?
Alan Korwin
December 23, 2008
Bill of Rights Day
[Read the whole thing. Especially the part about heads on pikes.–Joe]
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Communism, it’s just the opposite.
John Kenneth Galbraith
[While true this overlooks the net result of the people living under the two different systems. Under capitalism there exists a wider disparity between the richest and the poorest. But the poorest of the poor is no worse off than if they were living under a communist regime. And the average person is far, far better off living in a capitalist system. But many people don’t make it this far in the logic chain. Their is a strong tendency to stop after reaching the point about there being a wide disparity between the richest and poorest. As near as I can determine their is a belief that this is “not fair”. Pointing out to them that “life is not fair” does not remedy the situation. Apparently there is some deep seated belief that things can be made to be “fair”. I think the problem must be attacked at a lower level–that is the definition of “fair”. It is not “fair” that the government should take (at the point of a gun) the property and/or services of one and give it to another. That “unfairness” can only be reduced by reducing the size of government and the taxes paid.
I’m reminded of this quote by Phil who posted about Arianna Huffington saying Capitalism should be as dead as Communism. I’m tempted to say something comparing the status the brains of both Huffington and Marx but most people should be able to draw the obvious conclusion without me leading them there.–Joe]
The conclusion is not: ‘Gosh isn’t this a horrible commentary on human nature,’ or ‘these people were so sadistic. It shows the opposite — that there are situational forces that have a much greater impact on our behavior than most people recognize.
Jerry M. Burger
December 20, 2008
Shocking revelation: Santa Clara University professor mirrors famous torture study
[This is a reproduction of the infamous Milgram Experiments. I must conclude that this is either a facet of human psychology or at least a facet of multiple cultures. These results have tremendous impact on everything from the Holocaust, Jonestown, and civil rights to gun confiscation. Do not count on people to “do the right thing” if they are given the option of using the excuse “I was just following orders”.–Joe]
Why be rational, when you can stoke fear instead?
Bruce Schneier
December 16, 2008
Buying Fake Nintendo Consoles Helps Terrorists
[This applies to so many things.–Joe]
That has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? I say five people in black robes should declare it a part of the U.S. Constitution. In his piece entitled, “Ignorance Reigns Supreme” Walter E. Williams gives us the reasons why separation of education and state should be an important goal, though he never actually comes to that conclusion. That’s my own inference, and I hold it up as a self-evident truth.
With limited thinking abilities and knowledge of our heritage, we Americans set ourselves up as easy prey for charlatans, hustlers and quacks. If we don’t know the constitutional limits placed on Congress and the White House, politicians can do just about anything they wish to control our lives, from deciding what kind of light bulbs we can use to whether the government can take over our health care system or bailout failing businesses. We just think Congress can do anything upon which they can get a majority vote.
Yup. That would seem to explain pretty much everything happening in government today.
I’ve often (OK, virtually always) had to go back to the very, very basics of the meaning of liberty, so as to have any hope of a meaningful conversation on the subject. Hardly anyone knows what it means. Most people think it means you can do whatever you want, and, “Oh, but we couldn’t have that now, could we?”
Basically, the default (i.e. massively ignorant) argument can be summarized in one sentence; “Because you can’t fraudulently yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre (or because the Earth’s climate has been in a state of constant change for billions of years, or because someone didn’t pay their mortgage on time, et al) the government has the authority to run every aspect of your life. QED.”
That’s what wholesale ignorance, nurtured at the state level, has done to us. That is why we need a constitutional separation of education and state– so as to prevent the establishment of a state education system; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It should have been written right there in Amendment the First, as equally important to freedom of religion, of the press, and of free assembly, and for exactly the same reasons.
Becky Ackers has the TSA’s number:
But none of these facts seem to matter to the TSA. It needs something to justify its existence: Despite six years of patting down passengers, it hasn’t reported uncovering a single terrorist. No wonder it latched onto the nonsense about liquid bombs. Ferreting out and confiscating everyday substances not only makes work for 43,000 screeners, it also fools us into thinking this protects us.
The TSA has always been a political, not practical, response to 9/11. It hassles us at checkpoints not because of penetrating insights on security or some brilliant breakthrough, but because politicians handed it power. Specialists in security didn’t invent the TSA; the Bush administration imposed it on us. So we might hope the incoming president would abolish this absurd agency.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama wants to improve the TSA rather than send it packing. His suggestions for that improvement? Passengers still aren’t screened against a comprehensive terrorist watch list, his website proclaims. Such a list must be developed.
Why? The watch list has already kept Rep. John Lewis (D) of Georgia and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts off planes: Will a comprehensive list bar Republican congressmen, too? That’ll protect us about as well as unionizing screeners will – another change the campaigning Obama said he favors.
And the best part:
Becky Akers, a freelance writer and historian, is finishing a book about the TSA.
Remember what TSA stands for.
I had an email exchange today:
From: “Disobey”
To: Joe
Hi Joe,
I am at that point. I am looking for ideas on how I as an individual can stage a peaceful, non-violent, but dramatic protest. I am willing to go to jail to make my point, but not unnecessarily or with unnecessary punishment if it can be avoided. I bet somebody has a laundry list of really good ideas with the legal implications well thought out. I was hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction?
Thanks,
“Disobey”
From: Joe
To: “Disobey”
Hmmm… I don’t have any such list or know of any. But if you want I will be glad to post the request on my blog and see what others have in mind.,
What aspects of our society do you want to protest against? It makes a big difference…,
-joe-
From: “Disobey”
To: Joe
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the reply. Please put it out on your blog, maybe it’s time to create such a list. In a nutshell, I want to raise public discourse on our disfunctional local school district and the elected officials who do nothing. I suppose that if I mention that I am in California you will just say I am screwed. I am still willing to keep fighting for justice and fairness.
“Disobey”
I keep thinking of Gandhi’s march to the sea to make salt. But I can’t seem to translate it into our time and situation except with respect to making machine guns or something–which has already been tried.
Any ideas?
Update: I don’t have anything for the disfunctional school situation but it seems to me that publicly putting flash hiders or folding stocks on your rifles making them “assault weapons” might be something worthwhile. It’s not nearly as scary as making machine guns.
No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.
Abraham Lincoln
[Additional justification for Roberta X’s position in the first line of the second paragraph that I quoted from yesterday.–Joe]
As far as I’m concerned, all governments cross my “line” on Day One. But governments are not like a single baddie confronting one in an alley; you cannot simply shoot them when they try to do you harm. Life can become very inconvenient for you if you even try.
Roberta X
December 10, 2008
Governments, Sandlines And Me
[Roberta hasn’t said anything previously in the “Three Percenter” vs. “Pragmatist” debate and I have said very little. She explains why for both of us.–Joe]
