Justice Kavanaugh

While there are civil rights rulings Judge Brett Kavanaugh made which are concerning, from the Second Amendment standpoint it would have been difficult to find someone better.

Two years ago I was not hopeful for a future which included the free exercise of our right to keep and bear arms. The 2016 presidential election gave me a glimmer of hope. The Trump administration has not been nearly as good on this issue as some people hoped. One could even make the case from a legislative and regulatory view point it has been rather dismal. President Hillary Clinton would have been a catastrophe so by comparison so there is that. Our rights under Trump were being sous-vide. Under Clinton they would have been put in the crematorium.

Now Justice Kavanaugh is in a position to help say the final words on this vital issue. I hope those words will make a violent response to the infringement of our rights avoidable.

Via Davidwhitewolf:

“Kavanaugh” (a parody of Van Halen’s “Panama”) from r/The_Donald

Vote No on #I1639

Via a tweet:

DoeGU85VsAAHKVV

Quote of the day—Teresa Taylor

WACOPS believe that Initiative 1639 contains provision that are in clear violation of both state and federal individual constitutional rights, which, as law enforcement, officers, WACOPS members are sworn to uphold. In addition to the constitutional issues, this 30-page initiative, if passed, would impose significant restrictions on a citizen’s ability to possess and access commonly owned firearms for lawful self-defense. The measure is complicated and confusing, and we don’t believe it will result in good public policy or improved public safety.

Teresa Taylor
Executive Director Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs
Email to National Rifle Association of America
October 1, 2018
[H/T to NRA-ILA for the above quote and this image:

LawEnforcementOpposes

Vote NO on I-1639.—Joe]

Vote No on #I1639

Via a tweet:

Donn6j3U8AAuPWk

Quote of the day—Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association

Initiative 1639 is being promoted as a public safety measure; those actually working law enforcement know that IT WILL DO NOTHING TO STOP A SINGLE CRIME. This initiative has nothing to do with “assault weapons” and is directed only at our good citizens who already pass multiple background checks before owning a firearm.

The Washington State Law Enforcement Association (WSLEFIA) opposes Initiative 1639. I-1639 harms law enforcement officers and all citizens of Washington.

The WSLEFIA finds that I-1639 is an attack on civil rights and is an attempt to marginalize all firearm owners, including law enforcement officers. I-1639 will impair public safety, embolden criminals and impose burdensome restrictions on our most law-abiding citizens.

Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association
[H/T to NRA-ILA for link to WSLEFIA and this image:

LawEnforcementOpposes

WSLEFIA also says:

I-1639 creates a new crime of “Community Endangerment” and there is NO law enforcement exemption. If a law enforcement officer should fail to secure either a personal or duty firearm as prescribed by I-1639 then that officer may be subject to felony criminal charges. Even a department-issued firearm must be secured with a trigger lock or in “secure storage.” The trunk of a patrol car is not specified as secure storage.

I-1639 requires a 10 day wait for law enforcement officers who wish to buy a semiautomatic rifle, whether for personal or duty purposes. There is no exemption for either a commissioned officer or a Concealed Pistol License.

I-1639 requires that law enforcement officers attend a “safety” training class before purchasing any semiauto rifle. There is no exemption for law enforcement commissioned personnel and no recognition of either department or BLEA academy training.

I-1639 would require that a law enforcement officer who sells a semiauto rifle to another officer go to a firearm dealer and pay fees. The purchasing officer must wait 10 days, pass additional background checks, and show proof of “safety” training.

I-1639 targets law-abiding citizens–not criminals–by creating a new law that would make the innocent victim subject to CRIMINAL charges if his firearm is accessed by a prohibited person. The ugliness of shaming and blaming the victim of a crime should never be made law. I-1639 ignores the criminals while attacking the victims of theft.

Law enforcement officers will be made to investigate the victims of crime rather than pursuing the perpetrators of crimes.

I-1639 falsely demonizes all semiautomatic sporting rifles as “assault rifles”–the rifles they wish to deny to the public are the most common sporting and hunting firearms–the type of firearms LEAST likely to be used in crimes–this fact is supported by both FBI and Washington State crime statistics.

Youth rifles, plinkers, collector firearms, hunting and self-defense rifles–if they are semiautomatic, I-1639 will re-classify them as “assault rifles.”

I-1639 strips adults under age 21 of their right to self-defense. Law-abiding young adults will no longer be able to possess any modern defensive firearm, neither handgun nor rifle.

I-1639 attacks our safest and best-trained firearm users–licensed and safety trained hunters–by prohibiting the use of modern sporting rifles by those age 18-20.

I-1639 would unlawfully seize semiauto rifles already owned by those under age 21 by prohibiting any possession or use of these rifles at target ranges and for hunting.

I-1639 creates both a literacy test and the equivalent of a poll tax–they call it a fee–to exercise a right guaranteed by both State and Federal Constitutions. You wouldn’t accept this for voting or any other right and neither have the courts.

I-1639 delays the LAWFUL purchase of a rifle by 10 days–even after all background checks are passed! A right delayed is a right denied.

I-1639 impairs a citizen’s defense their home by requiring that the most effective defensive firearms be locked and inaccessible by the homeowner.

I-1639 creates an unnecessary, costly and ill-considered requirement for government-mandated training that is already adequately addressed by Washington Arms Collectors-provided training, National Rifle Association safety instructors, WDFW Hunter Safety training and private clubs and ranges.

I-1639 creates yet another huge unfunded bureaucracy that will only duplicate the background checks already Federally required. Don’t be fooled–the background check system already exists and all semiauto rifle buyers already are required to pass background checks.

I-1639 will prohibit legitimate sales of rifles to fully background checked and Federally-approved purchasers from other states, thus harming all State and Federally licensed firearm dealers.

I-1639 will not stop a single crime or shooting. Criminals are not subject to any of the requirements; only law-abiding citizens go through background checks and they already do so.

I-1639 wrongly burdens our most law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Vote NO on I-1639.—Joe]

Hornady 180 grain HAP review

I mentioned the other day that I tried out some 180 grain Hornady Action Pistol (HAP) bullets. In one test of a 20 shot group they gave me better accuracy that any pistol bullet I can recall. I usually shoot a six shot group and “on a good day” get about a 1.5 inch group with the same load with 180 grain Montana JHPs. Using the group calculation feature of Modern Ballistics I converting the 20 shot group into the equivalent six shot group and got 1.26 inches. Hence HAP does appear to be have significantly better accuracy. I’ll shoot some more groups just for fun sometime, but the accuracy criterion for switching bullets, all other things being equal is “nearly as good” as the Montana Gold JHP. It more than meets this criterion.

I also measured the weight variation of the bullets. This is rather important because it can affect whether your ammo will “make major” power factor at USPSA matches. If the chrono man pulls a light bullet or two to compute your power factor you could end up shooting minor power factor.

Here are the results:

Mean 180.1
Std Deviation 0.224
Min 179.5
Max 180.4
ES 0.9
Bullet 1 180.2
Bullet 2 179.5
Bullet 3 179.8
Bullet 4 180.0
Bullet 5 180.0
Bullet 6 180.0
Bullet 7 180.4
Bullet 8 180.2
Bullet 9 180.0
Bullet 10 180.3
Bullet 11 180.2
Bullet 12 179.8
Bullet 13 180.1
Bullet 14 180.3
Bullet 15 180.2
Bullet 16 180.0
Bullet 17 180.2
Bullet 18 180.3
Bullet 19 180.4
Bullet 20 180.0

The extreme spread on the weight distribution would make a different of about +/- 0.44. This isn’t a big deal.

180 grain Montana Gold JHP have a tighter weight distribution but this is much better than what I measured with 180 grain .401 bullets from Black Bullet International.

The weight distribution is acceptable to me.

I loaded all 500 bullets and found something a little irritating:

20181003_074958Cropped

Five (only four shown here) of the bullets had the hollow point clogged with what looked like cleaning media, perhaps ground corn cobs. It was easy to remove the foreign material from the bullets but I have never seen this in the 120K+ rounds I have reloaded. It’s not a big deal but I was surprised they would have a process which would allow this to be possible.

Overall their bullets meet my criteria even though they are a little more expensive than the Montana Gold I am currently using. I am switching bullets because they told New York they would not knowingly sell products to them.

Vote No on #I1639

Via a tweet:

DoDKELuUYAAMTu4

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Disarming the public is not even remotely a solution to the actions of criminals or insane people. In fact, it only makes matters worse, by leaving the innocent helpless in the face of miscreants and sociopaths. Failure to see this is a sign of untreated hoplophobia.

One way of fighting this, untested at the current time, is creed discrimination. It is illegal to discriminate based upon creed. Though creed is often viewed in a religious context, it is also equally valid in a socio-political context. The fierce attachment with which many Americans cling to their right to arms is indeed a creed, dating back to Colonial times. Singling citizens out for special legal action is creed discrimination and illegal under civil-rights statutes. Where are the creative and ambitious civil-rights attorneys looking to break new ground and make a name for themselves…

Alan Korwin
Infringement is Constitutionally Banned
September 22, 2018
[Interesting idea. It’s worth a try. Toss it into the same lawsuit with the 2nd Amendment claim.

But if the courts won’t recognize the 2nd Amendment then why would one anyone think they would recognize your gun-owner creed?—Joe]

Vote No on #I1639

Via a tweet:

DnrPMAAV4AA1jgc

You can’t be forced to give up one right to exercise another.

League of Women Voters Annual Forum on Ballot Measures (#I1639)

Tonight, October 4th, the Seattle/King-County League of Women Voters is having a debate on Washington State ballot initiatives. This will include I-1639. It will be at The Collective (I’m not kidding!). The following is via a Facebook friend who works for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:

There will be a ballot initiative Forum organized by the League of Women Voters on Thursday, 4 Oct. Please plan to attend; 1639 is on the agenda. See below for details.

DETAILS
Location: The Collective
Address: 400 Dexter Ave N, Seattle, WA 98109
Neighborhood: South Lake Union
Parking: There’s a pay garage and street parking
Walk into lobby, you may have to check in with security. Tell them you’re there for the League of Women Voters event and proceed to the elevator. Go to the second floor and check in with either Chelsea or myself. This is where our event will be taking place. There will also be signage directing you on where to go. If you get lost or confused give me a ring at (206) 697-2698.

SCHEDULE
Before 6:00 PM, informal networking in the Collective’s bar HighTide (this will also be open after the event for similar use)
6:00 PM – 6:55 PM Tabling outside of forum room on second floor, please feel free to bring whatever literature, hand outs, etc. you’d like. The venue should have an area set up for you to do this.
7:00 PM Forum starts
940 Pro (Jack Sorenson) and Con (Mike Sloan) MIKE PLEASE CONFIRM
1631 Pro (Mo McBroom) and Con (Christian Gobel)
1634 Pro (Jim Desler) and Con (Jim Krieger)
1639 Pro (Stephen Paolini) and Con (Keely Hopkins) KEELY PLEASE CONFIRM
Seattle Preschool Promise Levy (LWV Education Committee)
9:00 PM Forum ends
9:00 – 10 PM HighTide is open for informal networking and discussion among speakers and participants

FORUM FORMAT
3 minute opening statements Pro
3 minute opening statements Con
15 minutes of questions (campaigns get 1 minute to answer questions, this should be like five questions per side with time to ask questions; we’ll make sure each side gets the same amount of questions)
2 minute closing statements Pro
2 minute closing statement Con

AV will be minimal, we’ll get you all mic’d up but there’s not going to be time for any visual presentations/slides. The current plan is to have chairs available for you to sit, and you can choose to either stand or sit while you talk. We want you to be as comfortable as possible.

Questions will be solicited from our members before the event and during the event from participants. If you need to arrive late/duck out early that is totally fine, but please let me know in case it impacts our schedule.

Our moderator will be either Dan Beakman or Jim Brunner from the Seattle Times. TVW has tentatively agreed to film and broadcast this for us.

Lastly, please feel free to broadcast this far and wide to your networks. We have a large space and want everyone to feel included and heard at this forum.

All the best,
Alyssa


Alyssa Weed
LWVSKC Second Vice President, Program Chair

My oldest daughter and I will be there. Please attend and show your support for stopping this terrible infringement upon our right to keep and bear arms.

Vote No on #I1639

This evening I went to the NRA phone bank event and made calls to encourage people to vote against I-1639.

I’m an introvert. It’s uncomfortable for me to make calls to friends. It’s tough to make calls to businesses to ask if they have a particular product or to make an appointment to get my car repaired.

Making calls to people I don’t know, some of whom are openly hostile to what I have to say, puts my stomach in knots. I did this for about an hour two weeks ago before I had to stop. I went back last week but the office we had used the previous week was locked (they moved to a different office when someone forget the key or something, and I didn’t see them). I went back this evening hoping I could handle it better. Nope. It was worse.

I left after about 35 minutes of making calls. I decided my time could be better spent doing something else. I decided to gather up all the memes I could find and post them here (and Twitter, Facebook, and Gab).

In a little over an hour I have collected enough that I have one for every day between now and election day. There is a lot of repetition in the text of the message even though they have a different images so I’ll continue looking for new material (hint to Oleg, Stephanie, and Brian) and will boost the count per day as needed.

You are able to find all my posts on I-1639 by clicking on this link (the category link for “I-1639” at the bottom of this post). Share with people for whom you think will be receptive.

You can donate money (as I have done) here to support video ads like this:

You can also donate here to fund NRA efforts (as I have also done) to defeat I-1639.

Here is the first meme from my collection. Via a tweet:

DnqzAXQV4AEEkxw

Quote of the day—Hanna Scott

McDermott says if the state legislature is not going to pass stricter gun safety measures on its own it needs to get out of the way of cities and counties that want to do it on their own by repealing the state preemption law.

If that happens, the county’s gun safety action plan calls for immediately moving on to enact stricter gun laws, such as banning semi-automatic, high velocity weapons, banning high capacity magazines, raising the age to buy all guns to 21, establishing a waiting period, and requiring a firearm safety course in order to buy a gun.

The council voted through the controversial gun storage initiative on Monday afternoon by a 6-3 margin, with the three other initiatives passing unanimously.

Hanna Scott
October 2, 2018
King County Council approves wide-scoping Gun Safety Action Plan
[This is King County Washington which includes Seattle and many of the surrounding cities.

It appears to me that our best hope, and almost only hope, is to get a friendly SCOTUS. This crap has to stop.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Help stop I-1639

Via email from the NRA.

I’ll be at the Bellevue event.


Come join us at two NRA events happening this week in Northwest Washington. Connect with your NRA and do your part in opposing Initiative 1639.

On Wednesday, we’ll be calling our neighbors and supporters to inform them about I-1639, and rally their support to VOTE NO. Join us for two phone banks, in Bellevue and in Custer, Wednesday evening from 6:00pm to 9:00pm. The NRA will supply snacks, phones, and soda – just bring your voice and your dedication to defeat I-1639.

What: Custer “No on 1639” Phone Bank
When: Wednesday, October 3, 6pm
Where: Custer Sportsmen’s Club, 3000 Birch Bay Lynden Rd, Custer, WA 98240

What: Bellevue “No on 1639” Phone Bank
When: Wednesday, October 3, 6pm
Where:  Lower Level, 12500 NE 10th St, Bellevue, WA 98005

If you have any questions, or would like to know more about opportunities and ways you can get involved in opposing Initiative 1639, please contact me by phone at (310) 853-9419 or by email at julian@nrailafrontlines.com

Yours in freedom,

Julian Markowitz
Northwest Washington Campaign Field Representative
(310) 853-9419
julian@nrailafrontlines.com
http://www.nrailafrontlines.com/

Paid for by Washingtonians and the National Rifle Association for Freedom, 11250 Waples Mill Raod, Fairfax, VA 20030 Pursuant to WA 390-18-025(1), the top five contributors are: National Rifle Association of America, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Henry Harbert.

Quote of the day—Jane C. Hu

Staunch conservatives who reported feeling highly anxious after the Pulse shooting were more likely than less anxious conservatives to favor gun laws by around 40 percentage points. Highly anxious conservatives were 20 percentage points more likely than low-anxiety conservatives to think the government can prevent shootings. Liberals, on the other hand, were already likely to support gun control and to believe that the government could be effective in preventing shootings, so anxiety was less likely to change their beliefs.

Overall, the University of Kansas researchers conclude, anxiety leads to “a marked decline in ideological division.” In other words: post-shooting anxiety seemed to close the gap between liberal and conservative beliefs on gun regulation.

It’s not clear how long this effect would last after the initial shooting, but it suggests that the days immediately following a shooting might be the time people feel most compelled to act on gun legislation.

Jane C. Hu
September 21, 2018
The best time to talk about gun control is right after a shooting
[The study paper is here.

I find this very telling.

Hu regards achieving a particular end is more important than means. She is advocating people take advantage of people in a highly emotional state rather than let cooler heads and time arrive at a more reasoned plan.

This is evil and it should be treated as such.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Basedgreaser

Cancer does tend to spread if untreated. Growing into every nook in our society to impose their world view because their success in politics falls short of their over ambitious and impatient expectations. What’s the treatment for people like that?

Two can’t play their game as doing so would not align with many of our principles

Seeing the state of many states gun laws in the US, our “game” isn’t working either.

Basedgreaser
Comment posted in Northwest Firearms on the topic Gun Control: An Issue for Policymakers or Investors?
September 27, 2018
[I don’t have any good answers beyond voting for the best candidates, contacting your political representatives, and taking new shooters to the range.

My best hope lies with an originalist majority on SCOTUS. And I’m only moderately hopeful of that working.—Joe]

Actions have consequences

Via email from last week (with permission, and a minor typo fixed):

Just wanted to pass on that I received a reference request from a past student (16 years ago). I really could not remember her, so I did a Google search. The first thing that popped up was that she was a Quote of the Day on your blog a few months ago. Her short rant was about gun lovers having small penises and wanting us all dead! She obviously did not remember, from all those years ago, that I am a Life Member of the N.R.A. Not likely to get a reference from me.

This really made my day. I still have a bit of a “glow” from this.

Quote of the day—BlueWaveResister @libresister

Haha we’re gonna take your guns soon. Lol get ready

BlueWaveResister @libresister
Tweeted on September 24, 2018
[There were some good responses to this. My favorite was:

Only a fool wishes for a war with 150,000,000 armed citizens against people who don’t know what bathroom to use.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Courts have never required plaintiffs to demonstrate that the government directly attempted to suppress their protected expression in order to establish First Amendment retaliation, and they have often upheld First Amendment retaliation claims involving adverse economic action designed to chill speech indirectly.

Were it otherwise, the First Amendment would prohibit the government from pressuring a newspaper to remove a speaker’s advertisement, but it would allow the government to bankrupt the speaker by pressuring its business partners to terminate their contracts. That absurd result has no foundation in the law.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
August 24, 2018
BRIEF OF [PROPOSED] AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
[A short version of the context is:

A campaign by New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo to crack down on the National Rifle Association and similar groups is facing its first big legal test, with a federal judge expected to decide soon whether to allow a challenge to go forward.

Cuomo’s administration has asked Judge Thomas McAvoy of the U.S. Northern District of New York to throw out a First Amendment lawsuit by the NRA that claims the policy restricting financial activity with pro-gun organizations amounts to viewpoint discrimination.

The judge heard arguments on the motion to dismiss on Sept. 10. The decision, whatever it may be, will have far-reaching ramifications for free-speech and gun rights, the limits of financial regulation and possibly even the 2020 presidential contest.

The case has prompted an unusual alliance. The liberal American Civil Liberties Union, despite its support for gun control, filed a friend of the court brief in defense of the free-speech rights of the NRA.

According to the ACLU what the state of New York is claiming is that since the state didn’t tell the NRA they couldn’t exercise their right to speech the NRA does not have a First Amendment claim to push in court. Nevermind that the state told banks and insurance companies they should “consider the risk to their reputations” if they did business with the NRA. Shortly after that they were slapped with fines costing them millions of dollars.

Governor Cuomo is exceedingly dimwitted if he believes the argument he is making. I’m wondering if his comprehension would improve if the banks and insurance companies were to refuse to do business with any entity which sold food or water which found its way to the governor or his family.—Joe]

Criminologist debates a criminal

Gary Kleck,a criminologist from Florida State University, and Paul Helmke, the former president and CEO of the Brady Center/Brady debate the claim:

While laws that prohibit gun ownership would reduce crimes perpetrated by criminals, that benefit would be more than offset by the foregone opportunities for defensive gun use by victims of crime.

It was an Oxford-style debate in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Kleck, arguing the affirmative, prevailed by convincing about six percent of audience members to change their minds.

Therefore, what we have here is a criminologist debating a criminal. And, as is usually the case in a fair intellectual fight, the truth wins.

I would like to suggest a series of debates with a similar theme leading up to a debate about the criminal penalties those who infringe, or advocate for the infringing of, the right to keep and bear arms. Something like:

Since the infringing upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms by numerous government officials has resulted in reduced ability to defend against violent predators, including the government itself, and this resulted in countless unnecessary deaths, rapes, injuries, and property loss, is the death penalty sufficient? Should the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment be lifted?

I am inclined to hold that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment should remain in place. But I’m willing to listen if someone wishes to convince me otherwise.

Quote of the day—Tom Gresham

It is my firm belief that Fast and Furious was created to advance the gun-ban agenda of the Obama administration. Those in charge of it created a government-funded program to deliver thousands of guns to murderers with the sole goal of using the resulting crimes as leverage to reduce gun rights. Part of the plan was to guarantee that people were killed, and if that had to be law enforcement officers, “you have to break some eggs.” Individuals and companies would be destroyed as an integral part of the plan. 

Remember the story. Share this frightening tale of government agencies being used to advance political agendas. Consider that many of the same people are still in power, operating on their own to effect elections or push agendas. 

Imagine what the “It’s impossible to fire a federal employee” activists inside government will do under a Democratic-party controlled Congress or White House. Actually, there’s no need to imagine.  We’ve seen the depths of depravity they sink to.

Tom Gresham
September 20, 2018
TRIGGERED!
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]