Category Archives: Gun Rights

Help stop I-1639

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

Via a tweet from less fat Dave.

Quote of the day—Joshua Browder

Posted on by

These processes are so bureaucratic that if you have no resources at all, it really is impossible to get the help you need.

Joshua Browder
September 20, 2018
Meet the Robot Lawyer Fighting Fines, Fees, and Red Tape
DoNotPay is launching a “denial of service attack on the legal system to make it better.”
[I could see this being useful in places like New York City where gun ownership is, technically, legal but is out of the reach of anyone except those who have the money for a lawyer.

Of course I could also see government entities getting their own “robot lawyers” and you end up in a proxy war with the outcome out of human hands.

Interesting times…—Joe]

Quote of the day—Reggie Reg Davis

Posted on by

The bullets, they do the killing, they kill. It’s up to us to figure out a way to wrap laws around the purchasing of ammunition.

Reggie Reg Davis
Wayne County Commissioner (Detroit)
September 16, 2018
Wayne County leader wants to make it harder to buy bullets
[No.

Just as “wrapping laws” around the purchase of alcohol and other recreational drugs didn’t improve society the restriction of a specific enumerated right not only won’t improve society it will be an infringement upon the natural right to defend ourselves.

People can make ammunition from scrap metal a few relatively simple tools. Just as with recreational drugs, it won’t be of the highest quality but it will be good enough to get the job done. And it this case the job will be restoring our rights.

Reggie Reg Davis, Molṑn labé.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bill de Blasio

Posted on by

What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.

Bill de Blasio
New York City Mayor
August 2017
[That explains a lot. He has more in common with Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin than John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

Expect similar differences in outcomes as well.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Douglas Fullpint

Posted on by

There’s no such thing as a responsible gun owner. A responsible person wouldn’t own a gun unless they were a police officer. These are little boys with tiny little members who just can’t get over the fact that they’ll never measure up.

Douglas Fullpint
2017
Facebook comment
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Via email from Steve O.

In order to make this claim Fullpint must have access to the mental evaluations and physical measurements of all gun owners in the world. That’s quite a data collection he must have. Or not.

Keep it up Fullpint. You almost had me convinced until I looked in the mirror.—Joe]

No on 1639 phone bank

Posted on by

Via a private post on Facebook (with permission to post here):

RKBA friends: no on 1639 Bellevue Phone Bank.

This Wednesday (9/19) a bunch of us are getting together at Liberty Park for an NRA phone bank at 6pm. If you support the cause please pass this notice to others and -join- -us-!

PM me for address and more details.

I presume what we will be doing is calling gun owners and others likely to be opposed to I-1639 to encourage them to vote and perhaps ask them to distribute yard signs and flyers.

Contact me if you want the exact address and/or details.

Quote of the day—Pat McKenzie‏ @PatMcKe44660885

Posted on by

The NRA should be blown off the face of the earth. Without that radical group firearms control could be a real possibility.

Pat McKenzie‏ @PatMcKe44660885
Tweeted on September 13, 2018
[This is what they think of the nations’ oldest civil rights organization.

McKenzie’s Twitter profile blows the irony meter off the face of the earth:

Volunteer, artist, aspiring writer, activist and ACLU Guardian of Liberty

Don’t ever forget–these people want millions of civil rights advocates dead.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cam Edwards @CamEdwards

Posted on by

[As we all should.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Graham

Posted on by

Democrats are caught on the horns of their own dilemma. They can either propose useless laws that would have virtually no impact on potential mass shooters; or gun confiscation which has very little support among the electorate and would be a massive turnout magnet for Republican voters.

Michael Graham
May 21, 2018
Commentary: The problem with “common-sense” gun laws
[And many Democrats know this. Yet the Democrat platform for the election this year is heavy with gun control.

There is a reason for this. It’s not their intent to reduce violent crime. Most of them know better than that. Increases in violent crime serve their purposes better. When society around people has a high percentage of violent predators a common instinct is to demand more government intervention of private life. This gives more power and money to those in government. It’s a rare and principled person who would advocate against their own personal interest even when it is to the benefit of society as a whole. Those sort of people are seldom drawn to political life.—Joe]

I made QOTD!

Posted on by

Quote of the Day: 12 September 2018

QotdJoeHuffmanMeme

See also this tweet.

The idea is certainly not mine. And similar expression of it is not unique. It may be a little bit more succinct than most. So, “Standing on the shoulders of giants…” is applicable here. I wish I could find the quote from Tam who said something along the lines of, “I don’t care if every gun owner on the planet killed someone yesterday. I didn’t. So you don’t get to take my guns from me.”

Update: NJDave found the Tam quote I was thinking of:

Where the hell do you get off thinking you can tell me I can’t own a gun? I don’t care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night. I didn’t. So piss off.

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

A state cannot legislate political correctness at the expense of a fundamental, constitutionally-delineated civil right.

Alan Gottlieb
Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President
September 11, 2018
FED. COURT ENJOINS PART OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE IN SAF-SUPPORTED CASE
[Additional context:

A federal district court has ruled that a section of the California Penal Code is unconstitutional and has issued an injunction against enforcement of a prohibition on the display of handguns or handgun placards that may be seen from the outside of a store in a case supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and two California gun rights groups.

The state of California is expected to appeal the decision. They don’t want us to be able to exercise our First Amendment rights either. The state of California mindset appears to be the same as that of Stalin.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Menendez

Posted on by

If Brett Kavanaugh joins the Supreme Court, the gun industry will have new ammunition in their war to overturn common sense gun safety laws aimed at protecting our children, keeping our streets safe, and stopping deadly firearms from falling into the wrong hands.

Bob Menendez
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
September 3, 2018
Senator Bob Menendez Speaks in Paterson Against Appointment of Supreme Court Nominee Based on ‘Dangerous Views on the Second Amendment’
[All freedoms are “dangerous”. And that is why some of the most important ones are specific enumerated rights.

And you notice, as frequently is the case, this anti-gun person speaks in terms of “the gun industry” being the driving force rather than there being a market for common sense defensive tools. They pretend to believe that only evil capitalists and criminals could possible want or need to own guns. The truth is that only political tyrants and criminals could possibly want or need to restrict gun ownership.

I would like to suggest Senator Menendez and his ilk get on the winning side soon or risk prosecution in the future.—Joe]