When you can’t get to shoot others there’s no freedom, right?
Gil G
February 2, 2018
Comment to Gun Rights Advocates Score Victory With Latest Illinois Supreme Court Ruling
[This is what some anti-gun people think of you.—Joe]
Category Archives: Gun Rights
Quote of the day—Chief Justice Karmeier
Innocent behavior could swiftly be transformed into culpable conduct if an individual unknowingly crosses into a firearm restriction zone. The result could create a chilling effect on the second amendment when an otherwise law-abiding individual may inadvertently violate the 1000-foot firearm-restricted zones by just turning a street corner.
Chief Justice Karmeier
February 1, 2018
Ban on Carrying Guns Within 1,000 Feet of Park Struck Down
Complete decision: The People of the state of Illinois, Appellant, v. Julio Chairez, Appelle
[Chilling effect!!!!
I’ve been wanting to hear those words in a court decision in regards to the Second Amendment since before the Heller decision. I wish it was in a U.S. Supreme Court decision but I’ll take it as a first step.
Apply the legal concept of a chilling effect applied to the laws of New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, and California. This is one of the lanes on the road to victory.—Joe]
Anti-gun people say the strangest things
Via the FPC:
One might think this sort of thing was a “brain fart” or some slip of the tongue that occurs when under the stress of an interview or public speaking event. But I’ve seen these sort of things happen in written communication. They simply do not have the mental processes to handle rational thought. This happens so frequently we have a name for it. It is called Peterson Syndrome.
Quote of the day—TurtleDude
I oppose stupid laws that are almost guaranteed not to apply to people causing problems.The people who push this crap … don’t even believe it will do squat about criminals. They want to pander to the slow witted sheeple and harass honest citizens whose voting patterns vex anti gun liberals.
TurtleDude
January 30, 2018
Post in the forum If gun control worked Mexico would be crime free.
[Well, those aren’t the only reason they do it, but it’s a couple of the reasons.—Joe]
How’s that going to work out?
I have to laugh at this:
Until recently, sheriff’s deputies notified offenders they weren’t allowed to possess firearms but gave them 24 hours to turn them in.
There was no mechanism, however, to make sure that the gun was actually turned in. Local law enforcement and state law enforcement officials would go house to house to enforce the laws as resources allowed, but the
process was expensive, slow and potentially dangerous.…
The sheriff’s office is now working with the Office on the Status of Woman and others to develop a comprehensive plan for making sure everyone required to surrender their guns does so in a manner that’s safe for officers, according to Suzy Loftus, assistant chief legal counsel for the sheriff’s office.
So, going house to house and confiscating is considered dangerous? Who would have guessed?
So, now, they are going to “develop a comprehensive plan” where people surrender their guns “in a manner that’s safe for officers”.
Wow! These people are really stupid.
Apparently they are unable to conceive of the response, “No. Your move.”
How gun control works
From Rolf:
How long does it take the average high school dropout to find a way around the ban? Yeah, that’s right, Einstein. The average high school dropout can get all the recreational drugs they want within an hour anytime of the day, any day of the week. So just how effective you think a background check would be in reducing the abuse of recreational drugs?
Now apply what you know about the recreational drug issue to firearms. A background check is totally pointless.
A similar argument can be made for nearly all gun control. Nearly all politicians know this. They have to have some objective other than reducing violent crime because it just doesn’t work and the data supports this conclusion.
Most people who have studied this believe the real objective is to increased the dependency on government and increase the political power of government officials. This line of reasoning can be extrapolated to “so they can implement a socialist state”. YMMV.
Operation Safe Store
Seems like a reasonable idea:
“No one wants to prevent the theft of firearms more than the licensed retailers that sell them,” said Stephen L. Sanetti, NSSF president and chief executive officer. “There is no one-size fits all solution to helping prevent thefts from firearms retailers, which is why Operation Safe Store will provide access to information and training to allow retailers to make the decisions that are right for them.”
I strongly suspect there is more to the story than what we see here.
A bit of background with something slightly off the topic at hand.
At one point there was talk of “safe storage” laws at the Federal level and states were passing such laws with alarming regularity. They were poorly written at best and frequently obvious attempts to make it prohibitively expensive, increase the hassle of owning a gun, and make it difficult or impossible to use a gun for home self-defense.
“The industry” responded by including a lock of some sort with every new gun sold. Gun friendly legislators, lobbyists, and gun owners could then use this to convince undecided legislators, “Gun owners already have ‘safe storage’ available to them.” The “safe storage” drive was stalled and in some states even turned against the anti-gun activists.Washington, for example, passed a law removing the state taxes from gun safes.
I suspect the NSSF is politically astute enough to see some writing on the walls and is “getting ahead” of legislation aimed at making life very difficult for gun stores.
Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder
As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. A federal law along the lines of the Florida statute — overriding all contradictory state and local laws and acknowledging that the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a privilege and immunity of citizenship — is needed to correct the outrageous conduct of state and local officials operating under discretionary licensing systems.
Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards page 30
[This essay was originally published in 1993 by The Public Interest.
What he says we needed 25 years ago, while closer than ever before, is still not a reality. Let’s keep pushing and get this item checked off our list.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Firearms Policy @gunpolicy
The anti-gun media has decided that it is more important to push their agenda than to tell the truth.
Firearms Policy @gunpolicy
Tweeted on January 29, 2018
[The graph is a little difficult to understand so here is a bit of help. The shaded background colors are the CCW population coverage (units are on the right side of the graph), the maroon line with the 49% reduction label is the Violent Crime rate (presumably in per 100K people) with the units on the left side of the graph. The other crime types follow in a similar format.
We have the principles, the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and the data. All of them supporting the pro-rights side. The anti-gun media, cannot innocently claim ignorance or even stupidity. It has to be maliciousness. You have to ask, “What’s the real reason they continue to push their anti-gun agenda? They are pro-criminal, probably always have been and always will be and for a “good” reason.—Joe]
Exercise of rights at a minimum
Wide-open policies on gun laws do not reflect the mood or makeup of most New Jerseyans. While they are not always successful, New Jersey gun laws are written to help keep the number of guns at a minimum. Fewer guns will make our law enforcement officers’ jobs that much easier, and make our streets that much safer.
What if the same principle was applied to other specific enumerated rights:
- Keep books at a minimum (and ban the exceptionally dangerous ones such as The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book, and all religious books)
- Keep political speech at a minimum (and ban the most dangerous speech—that which advocates the policies of the political left (see the books above)
- Keep the right to a lawyer present while being questioned at a minimum
- Keep people of color from voting at a minimum
There are no second class rights. All these rights must respected and preserved. Essentially all New Jersey politicians need to be either prosecuted and/or be declared varmints with no bag limits and a decent bounty paid.
Quote of the day—Divemedic
I became a teacher after I retired from over 20 years as a firefighter and paramedic, where I spent part of my career working with the SWAT team. I spent years as an IDPA competitor, and I am a military veteran. I have carried a concealed weapon for more than 25 years. A permit that has allowed me to carry a weapon into McDonald’s, Disney, public parks, streets and sidewalks. Not once have I used that weapon in a threatening or illegal manner.
…
I would, if necessary, lay down my life in defense of the children that have been placed in my care. Even in Kindergarten. Possibly YOUR children, if you are reading this.
Except the politicians have declared that I am not permitted to do so, because they don’t trust me with a firearm once I cross an imaginary line and enter school property, even though they trust me to carry one everywhere else. So instead, I must sit in the dark, unarmed, unable to protect those children, hiding and waiting for help that may not come, wait with your children to die at the hands of a madman who didn’t obey your laws or your signs.
Divemedic
January 8, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—James Comer
[The foolishness of the “gun free zone” laws is so obvious one must conclude the politicians are incredible ignorant, stupid, and/or evil. As the data and bodies stack up I’m more and more inclined to place my bet on “they are evil”. More bodies gives them more opportunities to accumulate power.—Joe]
Representative Adam Smith on reciprocity
Almost a year ago I wrote my U.S. representative in Congress encouraging him to support concealed carry reciprocity. Here is his response:
A couple of things stand out. The first is that he says:
The responsibility of carrying a concealed handgun is massive, and ensuring the safety of the public at large by requiring background checks and training should be an absolute minimum.
People who have a Washington State concealed pistol license, CPL as it is called in Washington, should see something jump out at them over this.
Washington State doesn’t have a training requirement. Hence, if this were a problem, Smith should be able to show that Washington State CPL holders have more firearm accidents or engage in more illegal shootings than people from other states with a training requirement. No such data exists. Probably because it is so rare that such a thing happens.
I have to conclude that Smith was just rationalizing the decision he had already made.
Next, a twofer:
I will continue to advocate for putting policies in place that protect our children and communities while maintaining the rights granted by the Second Amendment.
His opposition to reciprocity is for “the children”! How many children in this country are shot each year by people with concealed carry licenses? My guess it is very close to zero. I’ve never heard of it happening. And I’m pretty sure the anti-gun people would make sure the mainstream media know about it. The same goes for someone with a concealed carry license shooting up a community. It has to be very rare. The data shows that, in Texas, compared to the police they are 10 times less likely to commit a misdemeanor or felon and over seven times less likely to commit a firearms violation of some sort. Other states show similar low rates.
Again, this has to be rationalization for his decision rather than rational thought to arrive at a decision.
“Granted by the Second Amendment”? This is a common “misunderstanding” but I expect my representatives in Congress to be informed. My guess is that there is a good chance this was deliberate rather than ignorance. It should be clear if you actually read the Second Amendment that it references a preexisting right rather than granting a right. This was made all the more clear in U S v Cruikshank:
The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…
It is long past time for me to start educating my representative.
Update: I sent him an email:
In a letter you sent me on March 17th of last year you made claims which are not supported by, and/or are contrary to, the available evidence regarding people with licenses to carry concealed firearms and the Second Amendment. The full details are in my blog post here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/01/28/representative-adam-smith-on-reciprocity. The short version is that since Washington State does not require training for a concealed pistol license those opposed to reciprocity between states regarding licenses and claiming training “should be an absolute minimum” should also be able to point to evidence showing Washington State concealed pistol license holders are more prone to misuse of their firearms. To my knowledge no such evidence exists.
Furthermore using this criteria to oppose the law adversely affects the civil rights of residents of Washington State when they travel to states that will not issue licenses to Washington residents. Blocking reciprocity has a lesser impact on the rights of people of other states who can easily obtain Washington licenses for their travels to Washington State. You are acting against the interest of your own constituents by taking this stand.
Please read my blog post and reconsider your stance on this important civil rights issue.
Thank you.
Regards,
Joe Huffman
Random thought of the day
Progressives who demand gun control sometimes tell me they want to prevent crimes rather than rely on punishment of the perpetrators.
If crime prevention is their preferred approach to these sort of things then why don’t they advocate for building “The Wall”?
Quote of the day—Bernie Sanders 2020 @Bernie2020X
You are literally promoting anti Semitism and white supremacy. Guns do not belong in the hands of private citizens. Shame on you.
Bernie Sanders 2020 @Bernie2020X
Tweeted on January 7, 2018
[This was in response to Maj Toure @MAJTOURE tweeting the four rules of firearm safety.
Many anti-gun people literally do not have the ability to think logically. This is an example of that.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Jeff Cooper
Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.
Jeff Cooper
1997
The Art of the Rifle Page 1.
[A “monarch of all he surveys” must cause a tremendous amount of anger in the authoritarian and collectivist. The possession of, and skill to use, a rifle makes an individual something much more than a peasant to be controlled. It gives them an opportunity to protect themselves, their loved ones, their property, and to have a say in their own destiny. This is part of Why Boomershoot.
Furthermore, the existence of Boomershoot gives people justification to acquire a rifle and skills to realize “the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt”.—Joe]
Quote of the day—James Comer
Anytime there’s a tragedy like that you hear gun control advocates spin their liberal beliefs, At the end of the day, it’s illegal to carry a gun in a school and it’s illegal to shoot at anybody. And yet this 15-year-old broke those laws. You can’t legislate against evil.
I don’t think there’s a way to pass a bill to prevent something like that. We need better security in our schools. We have a lot of security at our courthouses. How do we increase security at schools? That’s what I’m going to be talking about.
James Comer
U.S. Representative from Kentucky
January 24, 2018
Rep. Comer advocates Goodlatte bill as DACA solution
[A bit of clarification.
You can legislate punishment for evil doers. But you can’t legislate a prevention for evil deeds.
In the case at hand the best solution is probably to legislate the removal of laws. Get rid of the laws that punish teachers and parents who bring guns to school for the purpose of protecting innocent life.—Joe]
Quote of the day—TonyKojima
To hell with your gun “rights”.
TonyKojima
January 24, 2018
[This is typical of what anti-gun people think of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Rights and principles are denied and/or derided.
Quote of the day—Kristin Brown
We’re allowing it to exist.
Kristin Brown
Co-president of the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence
January 23, 2018
Regarding SHOT Show.
Gun industry converges near site of Las Vegas mass shooting
[Brown has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our government. As I said on Twitter a while back:
I think I see the problem here. You believe the government LETS people do things. It’s the other way around. The U.S. Constitution, written by “We the people”, granted the government certain powers. It didn’t grant them powers to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.
And perhaps even more frightening to her is that the government is ignoring the law in allowing her organization to exist. It appears to me they could all be arrested and charged with conspiracy to infringe upon the rights of gun owners. This is a felony.—Joe]
Quote of the day—James A. Garfield
If there be one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire better than another, it is a brave man,—it is the man who dares to look the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil.
James A. Garfield
Found in The book of courage;: A little book of brave thoughts by Edwin Osgood Grover, page 55.
Copyright 1924.
[I was pulling a different book of quotes off a shelf in my library when this little book fell onto the floor. I didn’t recognize it. I don’t remember seeing it before, but I must have. Inside it had my grandmother’s name on it. She died in the early 1980’s.
This quote struck me as applicable to present day politics regarding gun ownership. For decades we have tried to “play nice” and just get them to leave us alone. Read The Gun Rights War (strongly recommended for anyone who considers themselves a gun rights advocate). There are numerous examples such as this, and this. we can conclude Knox is right when he says,
There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.
…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.
These people will say whatever it takes, no matter how deceptive, and suppress factual data to achieve their goals. These are evil people and it is time we stand up to politicians who advocate for infringements upon our rights. We must tell them they have no business being a public servant. They belong in prison.
When we are soft and wishy-washy people lose interest and forget that you even said anything. Be firm. Be strong. Have courage and dare to win. Remember that one of President Trump’s most memorable lines from the debates with Hillary Clinton was, “Because you’d be in jail”. And he won. We can win too. —Joe]
Quote of the day—Paul Koning
The standard statement by police commissioners and other politicians in high crime cities is “there are too many guns on the street”… I have never heard any of these idiots say “there are too many criminals on the street”.
This is why those are high crime cities.
Paul Koning
January 21, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Adam Smith
[As I have said before:
Problem statements drive the solution. Incorrect and unarticulated problem statements limit the range of solutions.
Defining the problem is sometimes the most difficult. And if you let your enemies define the problem you cannot win. The best you can hope for is that you don’t lose.—Joe]