Quote of the day—Goodwin Liu

Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature’s intent, not an invalidation of the statute.

Goodwin Liu
California State Supreme Court Justice
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,  v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
S239397
Ct.App. 5 F072310
Fresno County
Super. Ct. No. 14CECG00068
[See also California Supreme Court Upholds Bullet Micro-Stamping Law and Laws That Are ‘Impossible’ to Follow Can Still Be Constitutional, Says California Court

Background:

The Legislature amended the definition of unsafe handguns to include “all semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015 [if] not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.

The manufactures said this requirement was impossible to comply with. The State Supreme court just said that doesn’t invalidate the law. You may not have to comply with the law, but the law still stands.

What I didn’t see in a quick scan through the ruling was whether the California DOJ will be required to ignore that part of the law when the test new guns in regards to whether the guns are safe or not and will people be able to purchase new guns which do not meet the microstamping requirements.

My thought is this is crazy talk. Just get out of there. These people are nuts.—Joe]

Wireless devices for home protection

As an electrical engineer specializing in communications I have a certain bias when I hear the word “wireless”. The “Internet of Things” and the involvement of those sort of things in home security is a big thing these days. Because of the surprise of context switch with this image I received from Rolf a while back I thought it was very funny:

HighSpeedWireless

Quote of the day—Josh Horwitz

Anthony Kennedy is retiring. Those four words could set the gun violence prevention movement back forty years.

In the past week, we’ve seen how devastatingly influential the Supreme Court can be to social justice in this country. With the news yesterday, it could get a whole lot worse.

A “guns everywhere” society.

Josh Horwitz
Executive Director
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
June 28, 2018
[Via email.

A “guns everywhere society”? Like everywhere someone might need to defend themselves or other innocent people from predators? Sure, what’s the problem with that?

And since Horwitz wants to prevent gun violence instead of punish people who commit crimes with guns I hope his movement is set back, not just 40 years but, to sometime approaching the beginning of time. I know that is a bit too much to hope for. I’d settle for something like 10,000 years. That’s a reasonable compromise, right?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greg Abbott @GregAbbott_TX

The gun control debate was settled…in 1791.

Greg Abbott @GregAbbott_TX
Governor of Texas
Tweeted on June 25, 2018
GregAbbottGunControlDebateSettled
[It may have been settled then but that didn’t mean it wouldn’t became an issue years later. And with the return of the debate we, of course, now have massive infringements of our natural and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Still, it’s a decent response to gun controls advocates. Tell them the issue is settled and, “Your move. Are you volunteering to take them away from anyone?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Emily Witt

Despite the Parkland students’ insistence on taking a back seat, I was still surprised when Emma González did not speak at the event. Instead, the other Parkland students came out arm in arm, led by a Stoneman Douglas student named Kyrah Simon, and gave an expression of support that rivalled the speeches by will.i.am and Chance the Rapper in its lack of substance. “Everyone from Parkland is so grateful to be here with you tonight,” Simon said. “Our voices and your voices united are stronger than anything else!” When this short speech ended, the audience seemed confused—that was all? Father Pfleger had to hype the crowd as the Parkland visitors left the stage. This was either a magnanimous gesture or a cop-out. What example did it set if the Parkland students, with all of their radical empathy, treated Chicago’s violence as unknowable? The night had been a moving testament by young people trying to overcome a long history of inertia, and the visitors had chosen not to specify their commonalities. These thoughts, however, seemed ungenerous.

Emily Witt
June 26, 2018
Launching a National Gun-Control Coalition, the Parkland Teens Meet Chicago’s Young Activists
[I’ve attended many anti-gun events and pro-gun owner events with protestors. I’m always somewhat startled by the the poor quality of their presentation. I keep thinking, “Is this all they’ve got?” Here we have an article in the New Yorker also pointing out “The Emperor has no clothes.”

It’s a start.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Keith

The true diversity test

Liberals love to talk about diversity.

Churches in Seattle are festooned with “love your Muslim neighbor” signs.

But the real test of diversity isn’t whether you can break bread with someone who worships differently than you.

The real test is if you can be civil, be courteous, be inviting… to gun owners.

Consider this: all gun owners, in the minds of liberals, are responsible for all mass shootings.

Remember, a bombing or knife attack is the responsibility of the person, but attacks with guns are the responsibility of the inanimate object and all people who have those inanimate objects are at risk of engaging in the same criminal behavior.

This is the liberal mentality of, “I wouldn’t trust myself with a gun because I might go shoot someone the first time I got angry!”

To most readers here who concealed carry on a regular basis that sounds absurd, but I promise you it is a devout belief among Seattle liberals.

They believe that having a gun makes you into a crazy person who murders people.
Which book your worship out of, or if you pray with your hands in front of you or on the ground- that is small potatoes compared to having a device that instantly makes you a murderous psychopath.

And so the true diversity test is not whether you would shake a Muslim’s hand, or eat dinner with someone of a different skin color, or even a different sexuality. These kinds of diversity are officially encouraged, condoned, and safe.

The true diversity test is- would you have coffee with a gun owner?

With someone who lives on the responsibility plane of “I keep myself, my family, and my community safe from violence” and relies on police as the second line of defense?

My experience among liberals tells me, mostly not.

And I think it’s not just the gun- it’s the self-reliance that’s to blame.

Apart from my neighbors, I don’t accept that violence just happens randomly and I can do nothing to stop it.

I don’t wait meekly while evil people do evil things.

And in Seattle, that separates me from my community.

That stigmatizes me.

If I ever let it be known.

Check out the Pink Pistols experience in the Pride Parade. Flagrantly gay? Two thumbs up. Want to talk about defending yourself? We’ll follow you around and shout you down so everyone knows you aren’t welcome here.

I imagine inviting my more liberal friends to coffee and letting them know I’ll be armed. Or revealing during coffee that I’m carrying.

I don’t have the courage.

I don’t want the scene.

I can’t bear to lose yet more friends because I believe life is worth defending and I actually prepare to live that belief.

But you, dear reader of Joe’s blog- perhaps your liberal friends are different?

Perhaps you could invite them to a social situation where they explicitly know you’ll be armed?

I’ll love to hear the results of your True Diversity Test in the comments below.

Brian Keith
June 25, 2018
Via email. Slightly edited with permission.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tiffany Johnson

One: I really wish my pro-gun friends would stop calling people “libtards.” Two: I really wish my gun-averse friends would stop calling people “Nazis.” #NotHelping. That is all.

Tiffany Johnson
June 24, 2018
Please Just Stop
[I have a strong inclination to agree with this. I used to call certain groups derogatory names and probably still do at times. But I try to avoid the name calling and talk about factual stuff and tendency instead. I still use insulting terms, such as having “crap for brains” for individuals if I think they deserve it on a particular issue or point.

The reason I think it doesn’t help is because it alienates people who might be aligned with you on one or more topics. For example, someone might identify as a liberal because of their strong support for equal rights and access to legal abortion. They might also think gun ownership is important but is not what they mostly identify with. Getting them to help teach an introductory gun class is going to be a lot easier if you haven’t, even indirectly, called them a “libtard”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—ACLU

The ACLU generally will not represent protesters who seek to march while armed.  It is important that this content-neutral rule be applied without regard to a speaker’s political views.  It should also apply whether or not state law permits or prohibits the carrying of weapons in a protest.  To this end, and consistent with time and resource constraints (including assistance from the national office to affiliates and vice versa), we should exercise due diligence in assessing whether the potential client seeks to march while armed.  If there is reason to believe that the clients do so intend, and we are unable to satisfy ourselves that they will not do so, we should be reluctant to accept representation.

ACLU Case Selection Guidelines: Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities
2018
[H/T to Chet in the comments.

See also: Memo: ACLU Will Weigh ‘Effect on Marginalized Communities’ in Free-Speech Cases

Apparently some speakers are more protected than others. Neo Nazis marching down the streets of Jewish residents should be protected. Gun owners advocating for the right of Jewish residents to have the ability to defend themselves should not be protected.

Okay, that makes things perfectly clear for me. Whatever “principles” the ACLU claims to have do not have a significant overlap with mine.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Phil Watson

After further examining and scrutiny of printed text on an official I-1639 petition it is apparent that language designated to be changed or removed is not “lined out,” nor are proposed new statutory additions underlined as they appear in the version submitted to the state and published on the Secretary of State’s website.

If petitions being circulated are not “true and correct” it is agreed that we must challenge these petitions and have them legally invalidated.

Since the outset of I-1639, our campaign has raised questions about not just the unethical nature of the initiative and its backers, but also the unethical gamesmanship of the public policy process.

Phil Watson
Committee Chairman
Save Our Security | NO on I-1639
https://saveoursecurity.net
[Regarding a petition intended to be put before Washington State voters this fall.

Via email June 22, 2018.

And from here:

I-1639Deception0

I-1639Deception1

They have to lie to win. Lying has become a part of their nature. I suspect they literally cannot resist the urge to lie. These are evil people committing evil against the people of this state. The signature gathers, the signers of the initiative, and especially the people financing this fraud are conspiring to infringe the rights of Washington State citizens and should be prosecuted.

And via email from Brian Keith:

I-1639Deception2

Keith also said:

The sign on the right says “protect kids from guns.”

This is at Trader Joe’s in Seattle.

So we have a few lies here:

A 20 year old is a “kid”

A law can protect a kid from violence

A 18 year old would only be hurt by owning a gun, and wouldn’t be defending themselves

18-20 year olds are actually attacked with “assault weapons” to a significantly significant degree

People who serve in the military aren’t competent to possess firearms in their daily life

The list goes on…

So, crap for brains, or knows they are lying and just wants power at any cost?

Does it matter?

Brian Keith

Don’t sign this petition.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greg Bates

If we want to end the carnage, we must advocate for the solution that is required, not one designed to be politically palatable. Instead of shying away from the NRA’s accusation that gun control advocates want to take away their guns, we should embrace it as a mantra.

Let’s clear the air and call for total civilian disarmament. Period.

Greg Bates
February 25, 2018
Maine Voices: It’s time for a gun abolition movement
[I find it interesting there is no thought given to how, or who will take away all the guns. And does Mr. Bates have any clue what the cost will be? I don’t think so. I think he has crap for brains.

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

Quote of the day—BestFeeds

A law should be made to ban freelance freight and ban on running open arms. But this law has not passed due to the effect of the influence of the owners and arms lobby in congress of arms manufacturing factories.

BestFeeds
June 20, 2018
No Gun Control Legislation -70 People died in 3 days in United States
[This author could be replaced with a relatively simple computer program. Or, quite possibly, he already has been. With these anti-gun people it’s sometimes so hard to tell.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jim N. Taylor

If we wiped out the ATF agency tomorrow, we would all sleep more soundly the next night, and our tax burden would decrease a bit. If we limited our fears to what is rational, most of government would disappear.

Jim N. Taylor
June 19, 2018
COMMENTARY: Flat sales taxes fail to discriminate
[It is irrational to expect people to be rational.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

And as to the solution to the problem you think you see: That has to be social and cultural, just as it was with the “problem” of liquor leading up to and during Prohibition, and as it is for marijuana and other recreational and potentially pharmaceutical drugs.

Which, as you might recall, also became “epidemics” because ignorant idiots insisted they knew the answers, until experts finally talked some sense into them.

Now please be quiet, the adults are talking.

Michael Z. Williamson
February 16, 2016
So You Want To Have A Conversation About Gun Control?
[If you think about it just a little bit you probably will find it odd that ant-gun people can’t see the similarities between prohibition of alcohol, recreational drugs, and guns. Prohibition of the first two did not work and the prohibition of the last isn’t and won’t work. But the anti-gun people somehow belief things will be different with guns. But, they can’t be that stupid, can they?

Some, of course, are. Others have no ability to think rationally. But the higher up the food chain you go the more you realize that can’t explain things. Leland Yee is a special case all his own. But there are numerous others that don’t fit any good model. There is one hypothesis that does seem to work in nearly all the remaining cases and has historical support in other countries.

They want a compliant citizenry.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Salisbury

Hone in on our intention. This tragedy of rampant gun violence, murder, mass killings – all these terrible, painful things that we are seeking to stop, to put an end to this night . . . . We curse you, merchants of mayhem, profiteers of pain, dealers of death, you who fatten on the blood of innocents and feast like demons on their corpses! May your thoughts and prayers turn to poison in your mouths. May every mother’s cry be a bullet to your heart. May the weeping of children rend your flesh like shrapnel

If there is anything I can do at all that’s even remotely effective, that might be magic,

David Salisbury
June 2018
Documentary film depicts binding ritual on Trump, NRA
[H/T NRA-ILA who offer this perspective:

It kind of makes sense.

We all know that gun control is based mainly on magical thinking.

Salisbury believes himself to be a witch and is using his supposed powers against the the NRA.

At first I wondered, if he believes in his magical powers, why didn’t he use them to stop evil people from murdering others in the future. But then I realized that, of course, a witch aligns against the good people of the NRA. He is on the side of evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tony Asaro‏ @TGaucho

I know what I want, thank you. Buy back & incinerate every civilian firearm. Every single one.

Tony Asaro‏ @TGaucho
Tweeted on February 25, 2018
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

And then this genius came up with a plan to fund it:

Charge registration on legal guns. Use $$ to run buyback program.

Robyn K? @RobynK12

These people have crap for brains.—Joe]

Don’t think it can’t happen where you live

I used to live a five minute walk from here. My kids daycare was a block away. I have filled up my car at this station many times:

Redmond Police officers shot and killed a man outside a busy Safeway gas station in Kirkland Thursday evening.

The shooting happened just before 5:00 p.m. outside the Kingsgate station near 124th Ave. NE and NE 144th St.

According to police, the officers recognized the man, who they say was considered armed and dangerous.

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

No one in mass media is talking about murder and murderers. Watch. They’re only talking about shooting and shooters. By itself, shooters and shooting is not anything bad—and they know that. Being a shooter and shooting is what good Americans do all the time.

Murder is ugly, too ugly to bear. Murderers are horrible, to be rejected outright by society. No glory in being a murderer. Especially no prize for being a mass murderer. So the media avoids it, and in their conspicuous campaign against private arms, they avoid dealing with the murder angle.

The media are leading the nation down a path of perdition, turning shooters and shooting—people and activities with wonderful, excellent attributes—into targets for fear, loathing and legislative assault. And they’re good at it.

Alan Korwin
February 26, 2018
The Problem Isn’t the Shootings. It’s the murders.
[Interesting point.—Joe]

Quote of the day—K. Sennholz MD‏ @MtnMD

Your children will be tormented every day of their adult life, because of the evil you spread. They will be called vicious names everywhere and will have to change their names because of the SHAME you brought upon them. This is just a fact.

K. Sennholz MD‏ @MtnMD
Tweeted on June 11, 2018
[This was in response to the following Tweet from Dana Loesch‏ @DLoesch regarding the money the NRA received from Russia:

$2,500 over a three year period in expat dues and magazine subscriptions can totally buy an election but $145m paid to the Clinton Foundation after the Uranium One (and $500k for Bill’s speech) sale cannot, apparently. #AntiGunLogic #ButMuhRussia

This is what they think of you.

These people have mental health issues. Never believe that they can be bargained with. Never believe that you can have a rational discussion with someone like this. Never believe they wouldn’t celebrate the creation of death camps for gun owners.

And most importantly you should never register or willingly give up your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Cunningham

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

In that one paragraph, Scalia kills any argument that individuals have the right to carry weapons similar to those used in the military. Not only does he address military-style weapons, he anticipates the argument that every “pro-gun” advocate makes in declaring the militia equivalent to the military, and rips its heart out.

Bob Cunningham
June 12, 2018
Why There Is No Constitutional Argument Against Gun Control
[Interesting.

Reality is extremely difficult thing to observe and you don’t have to go to the subatomic or cosmic scales to be convinced of that. Here, Cunningham and I can read the same exact words, written by an experienced writer, and arrive at completely different unambiguous conclusions.

I wonder what color the sky is in his universe.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Don Brown

Frigus manus a mortuis

Don Brown
June 10, 2018
Comment to Group approves wording for proposed gun control measure in Oregon
[I suspected what this might mean, but I had to get it translated to make sure.

I’m not particularly fond of this sentiment in its original form but saying it in Latin gives it a bit of new life. I have been using a reversal of this phrase (see the third paragraph) for more than a decade now and think it is far more appropriate.—Joe]