Very well done:
Via email from Stephanie.
A sober assessment of the Second Amendment’s present status must precede any attempt at predicting a “conservative” Supreme Court nominee’s impact on the Second Amendment’s future. Well before Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing, judges figured out that District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago are optional precedents. For all their powerful content, these decisions have in practice proven meaningless in the face of near-total resistance throughout the federal courts, in combination with the transparent lack of interest at One First Street in defending the Supreme Court’s eponymous position atop the judicial hierarchy. To be sure, some judges seek to apply Heller and McDonald in resolving Second Amendment disputes. But most treat the Supreme Court’s precedent as a hassle to surmount before rubber-stamping any legislative restriction on the right to bear arms. If not today, then very soon, it shouldn’t be too hard for any sufficiently dedicated and creative legislature to effectively ban firearms or just about any firearm-related activity, without worrying much about Heller. Appointing one “conservative” Justice to replace Antonin Scalia won’t improve matters. Indeed, “conservative” judges are part of the problem.
Alan Gura
September 6th, 2016
The Court after Scalia: The next “conservative” Justice may not save the Second Amendment
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
There are so many details in the gun and ammo industry it might be easy to overlook some little decision and the side effects of it. Some mistakes are minor. Some are a little larger.
The ATF accidentally banned ammunition manufacturing.
Well, not exactly, but sort of. The changed the regs and reclassified nitrocellulose as a high explosive. You know, nitrocellulose. The stuff that is used to manufacture virtually ALL smokeless powder? All the facilities that made or handled powder would have to be totally redesigned, and frequently relocated, and shut down in the meantime. Yeah, just a minor change. So, the ATF, having been informed of the effect of this minor update, issued a “it’s still on the books, but never mind for the moment” notice.
Joe, I know you say you’ve had nothing but positive interactions with the ATF field agents and personnel, but you must live in a odd location in the time-space continuum.
Yeah…. Top. Men.
A majority of the public (58%) says that gun ownership in this country does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime, compared with 37% who believe it does more to put people’s safety at risk.
Pew Research Center
August 26, 2016
Opinions on Gun Policy and the 2016 Campaign
[That’s the good news.
The bad news is there doesn’t seem to be any anti-gun laws being proposed in any of the major legislative bodies that the majority of people are opposed to. I don’t have an explanation for this dichotomy other than what I have said many times before:
It’s irrational to expect people to be rational.
I guess it just means we have more work to do in changing the culture.—Joe]
In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal violence shows contempt of God’s gift of life (or, in modern parlance, does not properly value himself), does not live up to his responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to behave responsibly. In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.
Jeffrey R. Snyder
1993
A Nation of Cowards
[It’s probably been 20 years since I read this. I linked to it on a very old web page of mine here. The link there, and nearly all the others as well, are dead. I was somewhat surprised that many of the things I have said in more recent years had been said, more eloquently, in Snyder’s essay in 1993. I should reread that powerful essay more frequently and use his words instead of substituting my resuscitation of the dusty, vague, memories of decades old enlightenment.
H/T to Kirk Parker and Sean for bringing this to my attention again.—Joe]
@Trunthepaige
Ed S. @SnowdenEd
Tweeted on September 15, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
This guy is particularly dim-witted because @Trunthepaige is a woman.
Via a tweet from QuackHead/PotterHead @Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]
So, Hillary now is the Reset Button?
John Hardin
August 26, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Liz Crokin
[I think this might be better rewritten as, “Hillary is the Reset Button.”
Back in the late 90’s, in the dark days of the Clinton presidency, I knew gun people who said we should vote for the most totalitarian administration imaginable, Hillary, for the next president. The thought was that the “water” would heat up so rapidly that “the frogs” would take action rather than die from the slow increase in temperature. There are people today saying similar things.
I don’t know whether that would have been the correct choice then or it is the correct choice now, but it might very well be the choice will be made for us. And if the election goes worst case for us it will be ugly. Not only are the anti-gun people openly talking of an “assault weapon ban”, and “the Australian example”, but also “a ban on semi-automatic firearms, which are often described as ‘assault weapons.’” Never mind semi-auto handguns were a significant component of the Heller decision and protected. As it stand the Heller decision is being essentially ignored. With another Clinton presidency it will be nullified in everything but our memories.
I’m preparing for the worst and hoping for an indictment of Hillary.—Joe]
If someone is physically and mentally able to defend themselves, at least to some degree, but is unwilling to expend any time or effort in doing so doesn’t that mean they must not believe their life is worth defending?
Furthermore, suppose someone is willing to defend themselves. But if they are only willing to defend themselves with one hand tied behind their back, are they really serious about self defense? Do they really believe their life is worth defending if they insist on handicapping themselves when they defend themselves?
Why should someone be willing to risk themselves to protect someone else who doesn’t believe their own life is worth defending?
Why should someone defend another person who isn’t willing and able to use tools, and the best type of tools, to defend themselves?
Why should friends, neighbors, and the police provide physical security for people who are anti-gun?
Via Fred’s comment we have this:
Because the feds rely heavily on state and local law enforcement assistance to enforce federal measures, passing a state law banning such assistance will make federal gun control “nearly impossible to enforce.”
Our strategy takes a step-by-step approach, with each step building on the last, until all federal gun control is nullified in practice within the state.
People in the United States of America want it understood that designating arms, ammunition and related accessories, which are currently legal to make, keep or bear in any state, which may later be declared illegal to make, keep or bear, or encumbered in any way by any means and for any reason, constitutes Second Amendment infringement.
Such actions are null and void, amount to prima facie violation of the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and are grounds for removal from office for failure to faithfully execute the duties of the office.
Any action or attempt by any person to enforce such infringement on property possessed in our state will be a class four felony for a first offense, and a class three felony for second and subsequent offenses.
County Sheriffs and law-enforcement agencies in this state will be authorized to enforce this Declaration and to deputize as many residents as may be necessary to enforce this Declaration.
This Declaration, circulated widely by people who support it, is provided as a courtesy and notice of protected civil rights to candidates, politicians and people working in any capacity in government. It will be introduced as state legislation to authorize peaceful enforcement of those civil rights. Model legislation is in the draft stage and will be circulated soon.
…
Consider yourselves notified of impending disaster, if the headlong rush to infringe the public’s right to arms — and all the other blatantly unconstitutional abuses — continues on its current path. Don’t shoot me, I’m only the messenger.
Alan Korwin
August 21, 2016
American Protection of Arms Declaration
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
We were concerned about copycats and that if we tried to be too specific, that these people are very adept at figuring ways to get around (the law).
We wanted the law to be dynamic and evolving but aimed with the purpose to ban assault weapons.
Warren Tolman
Former Massachusetts Democratic state Senator.
Cosponsor of the 1998 law.
August 20, 2016
1994 Massachusetts law at center of assault weapons clash
[I think the title should be “1998…”, not “1994…” but that’s not important.
The important part is that non specific and “dynamic and evolving” are weasel words for “unconstitutionally vague”.
Update: Weer’d gives us the contradictions in the Massachusetts AG “clarification” letter.
And, as pointed out by Archer, don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Terrorists can recognize the difference between actual security and it’s mere appearance. You think they can’t see past a gun free zone sign? It might as well say, “Terrorists welcome! Ready access to undefended scores of innocent children.” Please get over the gun-control distraction. Ask yourself, “What stops four men from going to a school with knives or bombs?” I know that by the time a threat reaches me on an airplane there is no time for hesitation, talk, quarter. I want to win more than I can tolerate losing.
In 2016 federal agencies are training their law enforcement personal to respond to active shooter scenarios. Concealed carry permits for civilians are going up. That’s great!
But we need a more honest discussion. By the time a terrorist or a criminal boards a plane with ill intentions we’re past the time for obfuscating their plans or negotiating them down. Either FAMS personal is on the plane when it takes off or its passengers and crew are marked for death and they better know it. The Federal Air Marshal, the passengers, the flight crew, and pilots are truly the last line of defense. Public spaces and schools need the same approach.
Let’s cut the feel good politics and recognize by the time someone with dangerous plans reaches your doorstep it’s too late to ponder root causes of anti-social behavior. It’s time to act. All of the thinking should have been done beforehand. And the level of commitment to stop grotesque violence in its tracks, stone cold dead, has to exceed theirs if protecting the principal is going to succeed.
Have no misconceptions. Any outcome at that point will be bloody, ugly, and lowdown. It’s like nothing you have seen in any Hollywood movie. It’s going to be bad breath and fingernail close. But it’s a fight that is coming our way whether we get ready for it or not.
Let’s get ready.
Gary J. Byrne
2016
Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate
[I listened to this as an audible book so I probably have some punctuation messed up and maybe some spelling and other minor stuff. But it’s pretty close.
The book, as you can see, isn’t just about his time as a Secret Service Officer for the Clintons. It briefly covers his time in the Air Force, time with the Bush’s before the Clintons, testifying during the investigation by Kenneth Star, and time with the Federal Air Marshals.
There are some quotes I’m going to pull out about the Clintons too. But I thought this was higher priority. I really like it.
It’s a good book. I highly recommend it.—Joe]
IOW – We’re bullies and we want you to see our guns to make up for our other tiny appendage.
Figment @Figment_Imagine
Tweeted on January 16, 2016
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a tweet from QuackHead/PotterHead @Duck_Hunter7.—Joe]
Via Paul Koning we have The Unknown Olympic Champion Kim Rhode has won medals in six games. Cue the non-coverage:
How do you manage to win a medal at six straight Olympics and remain more or less unknown? The answer: win by shooting a gun. American skeet-shooter Kim Rhode last week became the first athlete, male or female, to win a medal at six summer games and the first on five continents, but don’t look for her on a box of Wheaties.
Mrs. Rhode, who won a bronze medal in Rio, has received little media attention despite her historic feat. The 37-year-old also lacks a single major corporate sponsor, though her ammunition and training costs are offset with sponsorship and donations from such firearms companies as Beretta and Otis Technology.
Her agent told Bloomberg he had pitched the sharp-shooter to more than 20 companies, with no luck. Our guess is they don’t want to risk a backlash from the progressive antigun culture. It probably doesn’t help that Mrs. Rhode is an outspoken critic of gun-control laws and a Donald Trump supporter.
What media bias?
From here:
Interesting attitude. There are several ways to interpret this:
It’s a good thing people weren’t allowed to have guns. That would have only increased the violence.
I haven’t heard about this in the U.S. media:
schools are a “top priority” target for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), which delivered a direct threat last December. The terrorist group’s francophone propaganda magazine, Dar al Islam, urged Muslim parents to remove their children from French schools and to kill teachers, who were called “enemies of Allah” for teaching the French principle of secularism.
Don’t think that the French are any more hated that Americans. It’s a good thing that here in the U.S. that we have a lot of staff in our schools armed and trained to deal with active shooters. Right?
Via a comment by Paul Koning we have this commentary in the Wall Street Journal:
Doctor to Patient: Do You Have a Gun?
I cannot understand how my asking this question will help.
From a public-health standpoint, adding this question to the medical history must seem logical to policy gurus far removed from the trenches of primary care. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 60% of the 30,000 Americans who take their own lives every year do so with a firearm. Ninety die every day from shootings—60 are suicide, 30 are murders.
Yet as horrified as I am by these losses, I cannot understand how my asking this question will help. If a patient’s answer is “Yes,” then what I am to say?
Of course, the platitudes: Guns can be a danger around the home, especially one with children. Make sure you use gunlocks or a special safe. Everyone knows this; it’s akin to telling patients that smoking is hazardous to one’s health. And now that my patient has admitted that he owns a firearm, this fact is duly recorded into the—secure, of course!—electronic medical record.
If my patient suffers from mental illness or substance abuse but is not, in my estimation, a danger to himself or others, then what? Report the patient to someone, some agency? Who might that be? Will my patient be harmed more than helped? What will it do to my ongoing relationship with my patient?
The obvious take-away from the article is that the suggestion that doctors ask patients if they own guns was not well thought out.
As Paul points out in his comment the data is required to go into an electronic records system which is susceptible to hacking (ask the DNC if you doubt me).
Another plausible point, as Paul pointed out in his email to me, is it is a “push for doctors asking about guns to be an attempt to spread hoplophobic disinformation”.
And as Paul hinted in his email one can extrapolate even further to see how these electronic records could be use to build databases of gun owners. Sure, the records are supposed to be private from government snooping except under certain conditions:
The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) states that protected health information may be disclosed if it “is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or the public and . . . is to a person or persons reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat including the target of the threat.”
But we have laws in existence, right now, which require medical personal report people with, or had, mental health issues to the government so they can be prevented from purchasing guns. How much of a stretch is it to imagine a one or two line amendment to HIPAA which requires the reporting of self reporting gun owners?
And what does the government care about following original intent of the law? Census data has been abused by the governments throughout history:
The Civil War
Along with the benefits of census information for war planning, the census can be used for methods of destruction as a war tactic. General Sherman used census data to locate targets during the famed Civil War March though Georgia.
World War II and Japanese Internment
A specific example of the privacy risks of the US census can also be found in the 1940s. During World War II, Japanese-American citizens were rounded up and sent to internment camps. The Census Bureau might not have necessarily given out individual Japanese-American names or numbers, but the Bureau did work with US War Department to offer aggregated data about certain localities. Although there is still a lack of consensus concerning specific conclusions, the Census Bureau has issued a formal apology and now reports that the Bureau did not protect Japanese-Americans.
[It has been admitted the census bureau did give detailed info to the Secret Service.—Joe]
It has been recorded that even before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordered the Census Bureau to collect information on “American-born and foreign-born Japanese” from the Census data lists. Information was gathered from the 1930 and 1940 censuses on all Japanese-Americans and then given to the FBI and top military officials. These sources point directly to the census information as one of the reasons that led to the internment of almost 110,000 Japanese-Americans on the West Coast, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens.
United Kingdom
A recent example of abuse from abroad can be found in the United Kingdom. It recently has reached the public view that compulsory transfers were considered in Northern Ireland in 1972. A UK government top-secret memo has surfaced describing a plan to relocate Irish Catholics. The plan was written with census data. Although never implemented, the use of census data for non-statistical purposes has caused great concern in Europe.
Germany
Germany has a contrasting history in census reporting. The most extreme example of census abuse is Hitler’s use of the census to track minorities for extermination during the NAZI regime.
Germany not only used the census data (and gun registration data) of their own country but that of countries which they conquered for evil purposes. My general rule is that if the data exists then it will be abused by a government. Carefully consider the type and persistence of data you disclose to anyone.
