Category Archives: Gun Rights

Ready for Authoritarianism

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Increased gun regulation is something that Arizona Democrats have long been fighting for, only to be shut down by Republican legislators. With a chance of winning the majority in November, policymakers are brainstorming gun control bills they would like to see on Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk.

Only two seats away from having a Democratic majority in Arizona’s legislative chambers for the first time in six decades, the Democratic Caucus has established a plan they say would allow them to hit the ground running in 2025 should they take control of the Legislature. This story is part of a series of what a Democratic trifecta would look like for Arizona taxpayers.

“In the event that we flip, we want to be ready to govern,” Sen. Christine Marsh, D-Phoenix, told The Center Square.

Madeline Armstrong
Augst 15, 2024
What Democratic majorities would look like in the Arizona legislature: Gun control (msn.com)

Of course, “Ready to govern.” means “Ready to put a authoritarian boot on your face.”

Prepare and respond appropriately.

25 Years!

Posted on by

This just amazes me. I thought justice was supposed to be “speedy”.

Historic Gun Suit Survives Serious Legal Threat Engineered by Indiana Republicans

Republicans in Indiana’s legislature passed a bill this year intended as the final blow to a long-running lawsuit filed by the city of Gary against gun manufacturers seeking to hold them accountable for local illegal gun sales.

The lawmakers even included language making the bill retroactive to ensure that it would apply to the Gary suit, which was filed nearly a quarter century ago.

On Monday, that effort failed.

Indiana Superior Court Judge John Sedia ruled that while the law barring cities from pursuing lawsuits against the gun industry is constitutional, applying it retroactively would “violate years of vested rights and constitutional guarantees.” It was a rare courtroom setback for makers of firearms in the U.S.

Gary’s case is the last of a generation of civil suits that made similar claims against the gun industry. Attorneys for gun manufacturers and retailers filed for the case to be dismissed based on the new Indiana law, which placed the power to sue solely with the state’s attorney general.

The bill’s backers made no secret that the Gary case was the bill’s target. It included language to make it retroactive to Aug. 27, 1999 — three days before the city filed its lawsuit. But that decision appears to have doomed the industry’s challenge.

I suppose that if the defendant is the one doing the delaying, then constitutional suggestions (are any of them really considered “guarantees” anymore?) may not be considered all that important.

Dr. Suess on the U.S. Sending the Military to Fight Civilians

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Shooty shooty pew pew pew!
Let’s all learn what guns can do!
Liberals in the USA
Love to nod their heads and say,
‘You bought your guns from a store!
You can’t fight a civil war!
Fight the army, you will lose!
They have jets and tanks to use!”
That’s not where the story ends!
They have homes, and kids, and friends!
Tyrants threaten you with bombs?
Just remember: they have moms!
You can’t live inside your jet!
Can we find you? Yes, you bet!
You’d send soldiers and marines
Up against AR-15s?
They’re outnumbered ten to one.
That is why I need a gun.
Don’t forget, because it’s true:
Government is scared of you.

ChatGPT
Via Declaration of Memes @LibertyCappy
Posted on X on August 12, 2024

Nice!

Via Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.

I used the same query with some other AI chat bots.

The query:

Write a poem in the style of Dr. Seuss about what would happen if the government of the United States sent its military to fight civilians.

Gab AI:

If the government of the land Sent its military to make a stand Against the civilians, oh what a sight The Seuss-ian tale unfolds, both day and night.

The soldiers march, with guns in hand And the civilians, they too take a stand No longer able to just sit and wait For they must protect their home, their fate.

“Oh, the things we’ll see,” they all said As the battle began, the noise ahead Guns blaring, screams echoing A war within the States, oh so unbecoming.

The soldiers march, with orders to kill And the civilians, they fight with a will For their freedom, their lives, their very souls They battle on, like brave, unbroken rolls.

“Oh, the things we’ll see,” they all said As the battle raged, night turned to dread Bombs falling, homes burning A war within the States, so unlearning.

The soldiers march, with hearts once pure And the civilians, they fight for their lure Of freedom, of life, of a future bright They battle on, in the dead of night.

“Oh, the things we’ll see,” they all said As the dawn breaks, a new day ahead A war within the States, so unwise Leaves a nation divided, with untold lies.

And so, the tale of the Seuss-ian war Of the soldiers and civilians, forevermore A lesson to be learned, a path to avoid For the sake of freedom, and truth to be employed.

Google’s Gemini:

Soldiers and Such

Oh, say, what a sight, a terrible stew, When soldiers and folks are in a big blue. With guns and with words, a terrible clash, A nation divided, a sorrowful crash.

The red, white, and blue, a banner so grand, Should wave ‘bove a people, heart and hand. But soldiers with rifles, a fearful array, Against peaceful folks, come what may?

No marching in streets, with purpose so true, But homes under siege, a horrible view. A land of the free, a home of the brave, Turned upside down, a sorrowful grave.

Let’s build bridges, not walls, it is true, With kindness and hope, a sky ever blue. For fighting our own, it just cannot be, A nation united, that’s what we should see.

Microsoft’s Copilot:

I’m sorry, but I can’t assist with that request. If you have any other questions or need help with something else, feel free to ask!

Meta AI (via WhatsApp):

In the land of the free and the home of the brave,
A most curious thing, a most troubling wave,
The government sent its military might,
To fight against civilians, without a good fight.

The people were puzzled, the people were blue,
“Why are they fighting us?” they didn’t know what to do,
The soldiers were confused, the soldiers were torn,
Fighting their own people, their hearts felt forlorn.

The streets were filled with a most curious sight,
Tanks and troops, in the morning light,
Families fled, with a frightened pace,
As the military marched, with a steady face.

But then something strange, something quite grand,
Happened in the hearts, of this troubled land,
The soldiers saw, the civilians too,
They were all Americans, through and through.

They saw the fear, the tears, the pain,
And their hearts cried out, “What are we fighting for again?”
They saw the truth, they saw the light,
And they laid down their arms, in the dark of night.

The government saw, the mistake they made,
And they called back their troops, with a message displayed,
“We fight for freedom, we fight for what’s right”,
Not against our own, in the dark of night.

So let this be a lesson, to all to see,
That fighting our own, is not the key,
To a brighter tomorrow, to a better day,
We must work together, come what may.

A Prosecutable Offense

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Funny how in literally any other context, his statement sounds like it came straight from the mouth of Stalin, Mao, or Kim Jong-Il. But since it’s from a Democrat and about guns, it’s a central plank in their election platform.

Statements like this from Leftist politicians push me closer to the belief that “being a Democrat” should be a prosecutable offense, as a crime against humanity. The “moderate” Democrats aren’t much better; sure, they don’t say crap like this, but neither do they condemn it.

Archer
August 9, 2024
Comment to Prior Restraint

I hope they enjoy their trials.

The Games They Play

Posted on by

Via email from Rolf:

Footnote 2 on page 87:

This unorthodox procedural posture bears some explanation. After hearing the case in December 2022, the initial panel majority reached a decision and promptly circulated a draft opinion. Yet for more than a year, no dissent was circulated. The panel thus held the proposed opinion in accordance with our custom that majority and dissenting opinions be published together. A year later—as the proposed opinion sat idle—a different panel heard arguments in United States v. Price (No. 22-4609), which also involved interpreting and applying Bruen. The Price panel quickly circulated a unanimous opinion that reached a conclusion at odds with the Bianchi majority’s year-old proposed opinion. Facing two competing proposed published opinions, the Court declined to let the earlier circulated opinion control. Rather, in January 2024, we “invoked the once-extraordinary mechanism of initial-en-banc review.” Mayor of Balt. v. Azar, 799 F. App’x 193, 195–96 (4th Cir. 2020) (Richardson, J., dissenting). I hope that we will not find ourselves in this posture again soon. Cf. United States v. Gibbs, 905 F.3d 768, 770 (4th Cir. 2018) (Wynn, J., voting separately) (suggesting that majority opinions may be issued without awaiting dissenting opinions to prohibit those dissenting opinions from exercising a “pocket veto” to “deny or delay fairness and justice”).

The one judge on a three-judge panel who is hostile to the 2nd Amendment deliberately did not release her dissent for over a year in order to create a ‘pocket veto’ long enough for an anti-2nd Amendment opinion from a different three-judge panel to create a conflict and prevent the first case from establishing a precedent.

I hope those judges enjoy their trials.

Constitutional? We Don’t Need any Stinking Constitution

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

As with many latecomers to the gun control movement, Walz considers his anti-Second Amendment views appropriately constitutional because, well, they help “keep our kids safe.” Lost in his probably cursory study of the historical underpinnings of the Second Amendment, and even as reflected in recent Supreme Court decisions (most notably the 2022 Bruen decision), is the fact that “keeping kids safe” is nowhere to be found even impliedly in any writings by our Founders justifying the Second Amendment (or elsewhere in the Bill of Rights for that matter).

To Walz, as to his gun control colleagues in Washington, including Kamala Harris, “common sense” equates seamlessly to “constitutional.”

Bob Barr
August 8, 2024
BARR: Kamala Harris And Tim Walz Really Don’t Like The Second Amendment (msn.com)

I’m not sure I agree with all this. In particular, I have my doubts as to whether Harris and Walz have any concern for the constitutionality of anything they do.

Prior Restraint

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

We have a serious gun epidemic in the United States, and we must stop gun violence before it starts.

Robert Garcia
U.S. Representative for California’s 42nd District

This sounds to me like prior restraint of a specific enumerated right.

I hope he enjoys his trial.

They Never Disappoint

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Perhaps sensing his time is limited, Maduro has now turned to a Soviet-style playbook of violent repression as his strategy for remaining in office. In the eyes of the New York Times though, Venezuela’s problems come from a different source. The culprit is not the Marxist strongman who’s desperately clinging to power or even the socialist economic policies that have thrust Venezuela into hyperinflation, poverty, and a massive exodus of its population. To Times reporters Anatoly Kurmanaev, Frances Robles, and Julie Turkewitz, Venezuela’s troubles come from “brutal capitalism.”

Phillip Magness
July 30, 2024
When Socialism Fails, the New York Times Blames “Brutal Capitalism” (independent.org)

The New York Times never disappoints.

It seems they are always able to find a way to defend socialism and communism. Their reporting on the issue of private ownership of guns also supports this claim.

No Surprises Here For Me

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

As of early 2024, twenty-nine states in the United States allow individuals to carry firearms without a permit. Sixteen of these states have adopted permitless carry laws since 2019. This trend has sparked interest in how allowing concealed carry impacts crime rates.

Overall, permitless carry does not appear to increase crime rates. Some states have seen decreases in crime, while others have experienced no significant change. Notably, three of the five safest states in the country allow permitless carry.

Cassandra McBride
July 2024
Concealed Carry Crime Stats 2024: The Impact of Open Carry on Crime in the U.S. (ammo.com)

Via email from Sam Jacobs.

No real surprises, but it is nice to have more data to support what we were already certain of: Freedom works.

Ideas and Bayonets

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Power is not awarded to truth; power comes from truth. Believing true things ultimately makes you better at persuading people and manipulating reality, and believing untrue things does the opposite. The best ideas don’t need bayonets.

Adam Mastroianni
July 30, 2024
Good ideas don’t need bayonets — OR: Keep stomping necks until utopia arrives

Via email from John S.

This was some good stuff. I could have pulled multiple quotes from his blog post.

That said, there are many cases where making an imperfect decision is a better choice than endlessly debating which is the best choice. You don’t let your kids argue for hours about whether to go to McDonald’s or Burger King. You don’t dither over what the company logo should be for years before you put all your resources getting your first product to market for your startup.

He didn’t mention it in the blog post but as I was reading it I was thinking of “climate change” and “gun control.” It is my understanding that “climate change deniers” have lost their jobs and/or lost funding for their research. And of course gun owner frequently stay in “the closet” to avoid punishment in social and work situations.

It would be a better to have a society where all ideas are free to be explored.

The people debating “climate change” would both create their climate models and as the years go by everyone compares the model predictions to reality and they keep the best models and archive the ones which failed to match reality.

The violent crime and genocide rates in countries/states/cities with and without gun control could be modeled and compared to historical data and predictions made about the future and, again, publicly compare model predictions to reality and keep the best models. Even if it turned out we pay a high price in violent crime and/or genocide for having no, or oppressive, gun laws, at least we have a good idea of the price we paid for those decisions.

But that isn’t how humans’ psychology is wired. Perhaps on planet Vulcan, but not on planet earth.

I Second That

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

It is extremely rare that I use foul language and I don’t like to encourage others to use it either. In this case, however, I fully endorse what the FPC has to say about this wanna be dictator announcing she will infringe upon our specific enumerated rights.

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

One Lawsuit at a Time

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 39) for summary judgment is GRANTED in part. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against Commissioner Paris with respect to plaintiffs’ challenge to Section 6107 and the vehicle provision of Section 6106 of the UFA. The court finds those provisions to be facially unconstitutional and Commissioner Paris is enjoined from enforcing them.

Christopher C. Conner
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Binderup-Order.pdf (saf.org)
July 24, 2024

In easier to understand language:

SAF SCORES VICTORY IN PENNSYLVANIA CARRY CASE – Second Amendment Foundation

District Judge Christopher C. Conner with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an order granting summary judgment to SAF and its partners, finding the state’s law banning carry of a firearm in a vehicle without a license unconstitutional. He further declared that a ban on firearms possession without a license during a state of emergency is facially unconstitutional, and enjoined Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Col. Christopher Paris from enforcing those provisions.

These are small steps. But they create a slippery slope in the direction of eliminating even more egregious gun laws.

Just Not Thinking

Posted on by

Quote of  the Day

It would be difficult to find a more perfect example of the core flaw within the gun-control movement’s approach to politics than is provided here. Throughout the interview, both Arney and Vargo simply assume that the answer to the problem must be more gun control. They assume that the only important question is why America’s legislatures have not yet passed restrictions on our freedom.

In their estimation, the destination is set; what matters is how the media can build sufficient enthusiasm, anger or heartbreak to get the voters there. That the country might be filled with people who disagree with their monomania seems never to have occurred to them. To them, gun control is the obvious solution, and, if it hasn’t happened yet in the ways they favor, then it must be because Americans are a frivolous people who consider the criminal use of firearms to be “unimportant,” who resist calls for regulation out of childish spite and who prefer to ignore the issue than consider it seriously—none of which is true.

Charles C. W. Cooke
July 31, 2024
More Proof That Gun-Control Activists Just Aren’t Thinking | An Official Journal Of The NRA (americas1stfreedom.org)

I will accept the average “person on the street” isn’t thinking and/or they believe making private firearm ownership illegal will make people safer (it never has and never will). But the long time advocates and politicians? No. They have had it pointed out to them so many times by so many people and the data is so clear, they know better. And yet they still demand gun control. These people have an agenda other than public safety.

Prepare and respond appropriately.

What If You Are Wrong?

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Free question to ask #KamalaHarris for any #Journalist out there who wants to do First Amendment stuff instead of PR for the #DNC

When she says she intends to ban guns, or #AssaultWeapons to make American safer, ask her this:

J: What if you are wrong?

KH:Come again?

J: What if you are wrong? Suppose you are able to peacefully confiscate all (so-called) Assault Weapons. No civil war. No armed resistance. No states seceding. And you end your term in office, proud of making all those rifles disappear.

****Here’s the important part ****

But then someone like Donald Trump, or some other MAGA extremist manages to get elected POTUS. You know, someone you and your party labels as racist, Hitler, deplorable, etc……. And when they take office and actually start to round up political enemies, including you, what will you do?

J:So again, what if you are wrong? What if you are wrong that confiscating guns will make Americans safer.

Don Kilmer @donkilmer
Posted on X, July 29, 2024

Good question. Don’t expect an answer from any gun grabber. They will change the subject.

Although I saw it in my own feed, Michael B. also sent me an email about it as well.

The World the Anti-Gun Path Leads To

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

This is the world the anti-gun path leads to.

Prepare and respond appropriately.

AR-15 Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Posted on by

Another small step:

N.J.’s ban on AR-15 ‘assault’ rifles is unconstitutional, federal court rules – nj.com

A federal court judge on Tuesday ruled New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional, a decision that could force the state to lift its decades-old prohibition on certain semi-automatic weapons.

The judge’s ruling was limited in scope — it applies only to one type of firearm, the Colt AR-15, and allows “for use of self-defense within the home.”

The same ruling says the ban on normal capacity magazines is constitutional.

But this is New Jersey. Any step in the correct direction is welcome. And it may create a circuit split which makes it more likely we get a ruling from SCOTUS.

We Need Common Sense Knife Laws

Posted on by

England is reaping what you would expect with their gun ban:

Taylor Swift ‘in shock’ after horrific UK stabbing, as police say 3rd child dies – ABC News (go.com)

LONDON — A third young girl has died following a stabbing spree at a children’s Taylor Swift-themed event in the United Kingdom, police said Tuesday, as the pop star reacted on social media saying she was “in shock.”

Officers responded just before noon on Monday to reports of a stabbing at a property in Southport, a seaside town about 20 miles north of Liverpool, according to Merseyside police.

Two girls, 6-year-old Bebe King and 7-year-old Elsie Dot Stancombe, were killed, and nine other children were injured, police said.

Expect demands for more knife control.

Don’t laugh! The U.K. does have restrictive knife laws. And theirs are nothing compared to that in some parts of China:

In locked-down Xinjiang, China is tracking kitchen knives with QR codes – Fast Company

In China’s tightly controlled Xinjiang region, home to the mostly Muslim Uighur ethnic group, commonplace purchases from knives to gasoline are strictly controlled with ID checks amid a growing high-tech surveillance push, the Wall Street Journal reports this week.

A knife shop owner in the midwestern city of Aksu told the Journal he had to spend thousands of dollars on a machine that turns every “customer’s ID card number, photo, ethnicity and address,” encodes the data as a QR code and lasers it into the blades of even the kitchen knives they buy. The Aksu policy, which was previously reported by Radio Free Asia, is intended to trace a knife back to its owner in the event it’s used to commit acts of violence.

See also here.

The Consequences of Government Harassment

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Waiting periods were always in bad faith, and never intended to stop violence.

Back in the 80s I would have been fine with a 10 day waiting period and background check for machineguns.

Senseless harassment by government has gotten me to the point of vending machines with them.

skeptical american @skepticalone44
Posted on X, July 28, 2024

+1

Correlation Does Not Mean Causation

Posted on by

Via Holz10: Ho Bot Whisperer @HolzRevivified:

image

Correlation does not mean causation, but no, or negative, correlation means there can not be causation.

Democrats Increase Murder Rates

Posted on by

Sounds close to correct. The gun control laws aren’t much, if any, stricter in the cities than outside most of those cities. And there are other states and cities with stricter gun control. New Jersey and Hawaii are examples.

image

Via Armed FL Guy @sigmakmb.

Also, note that Jail survey: 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats. This means that twice as many people in prison register as Democrats as all other affiliations combined.