Category Archives: Gun Rights

They are Getting Off Easy

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Nowadays, it is difficult to be an informed news consumer, especially if you value the right to keep and bear arms. When a story involves guns or the Second Amendment, what passes for news is usually propaganda – finely honed and served up with a purpose.

Many Americans have found alternative news sources. This is the main reason why the Associated Press and other corporate media sources are hemorrhaging readers and viewers. The legacy media’s decline is self-inflicted. Their continued adherence to pushing false narratives did them in.

Lee Williams
July 11, 2024
Associated Press Refuses to Correct Anti-gun Story – Another Symptom of its Decline

If they go bankrupt and every single person involved in this long term conspiracy to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms can’t find work for years, they are still getting off easy. They should be prosecuted.

The VPC Must Want Them Dead

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The firearms industry, looking to expand beyond its shrinking base of white male gun owners, has focused its marketing efforts on Black, Latino, and Asian Americans. If successful, such efforts can only increase gun death and injury in these communities.

Violence Policy Center
July 9, 2024
Nearly 90 Percent of Black Homicide Victims Killed With Guns, Study Finds | Violence Policy Center (vpc.org)

Interesting. The VPC is claiming the “gun death and injury” rates in non-white communities will increase if their gun ownership rates increase. And that most guns are currently owned by white males… who happen to have much lower “gun death and injury” rates than the black males. That doesn’t make any sense. One would expect that since white males have low “gun death and injury” rates we should encourage other to look to them for clues as to how to obtain those same low “gun death and injury” rates. Such as owning guns and learning how to use them to defend yourself.

Logical thinking is not what gun control people are known for. This is just another data point demonstrating they have crap for brains and/or they are evil and deliberately lying because they want those non-whites to continue having high “gun death and injury” rates.

Application to Private Arms Builders?

Posted on by

I am not a lawyer. But it would see this bolsters the case for building your own machine guns, mortar’s, grenades, etc..

Federal court declares federal ban on at-home distilling unconstitutional – Competitive Enterprise Institute (cei.org)

Late last night, after months of litigation, a federal court in Texas decided the federal ban on at-home distillation of beverage spirits is unconstitutional. The district court’s decision is fair; it is correct on the law; and it is historic.

Lawyers at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) represent several amateur home-distilling enthusiasts who want to pursue the essentially harmless hobby of at-home distilling of beverage spirits for personal use without the looming threat of legal sanctions. Under federal law, distilling in one’s home or backyard can result in a $10,000 fine and a five-year imprisonment.

The court found that:

  • The federal ban on home distilling exceeds the scope of the federal government’s limited powers.
  • The Constitution’s tax power does not allow the federal government to ban home distilling, largely because the ban does not add money into the federal treasury or protect federal tax revenue.
  • The Constitution’s power to regulate interstate commerce does not allow the federal government to ban home distilling, largely because the ban neither regulates interstate commerce directly nor is it related to any larger regulatory scheme.

I didn’t read the actual ruling but I suspect what the judge said can be applied to almost anything not involved in Interstate commerce. Hence, when applied to homemade grenades at a Boomershoot side event the courts would be inclined to say the Federal government can’t ban them either.

Gun Registries Are Only Effective for One Thing

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

I think it is a wonderful idea to have a registry of every gun that is owned by a civilian in the United States of America. Because then we could have perhaps less killings in our neighborhoods. Less killings at our supermarkets. Less killings at our concerts. Less killings period in the United States of America.

Bonnie Watson Coleman
US Representative (D-NJ)
July 2024

This is all in response to the ATF spending 10s of millions on digitizing nearly a billion* 4473s from out of business FFLs:

Even if you ignore the fact gun registries are only effective for one thing, a gun registry maintained by the U.S. government is illegal.

Addressing congresswoman Coleman claim: she should do some research. Then, try to answer just one question. Registries are not associated with “less killings” of the type she refers to. The only thing registries are good for is gun confiscation. 

I hope these people enjoy their trial.

* A bit of good news in this is that nearly a billion records means it’s going to take a lot of people a lot of time to find and confiscation the guns referenced by those 900+ million records. The workers will become fewer and time required even longer as I expect they will become lead magnets.

Ammunition Vending Machines

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Supermarkets in gun-friendly red states are now selling ammunition out of vending machines that use artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology to verify the buyers are of legal age.

Eric Mack
July 7, 2024
Oklahoma, Alabama Selling Ammo in AI Vending Machines | Newsmax.com

I’m still looking forward to blister packs of a half dozen Glocks being available at Costco.

Memes

Posted on by

From Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars. (bookey.app):

image

From David Thompson @DBThompsonUS:

image

From Josh Boehm @BaronBoehm:

image

From Planet Of Memes @PlanetOfMemes:image

From Liberty NH @NHpilled · Jul 5 Chad energy:

image

From Planet Of Memes @PlanetOfMemes:

image

That last one has its humor but we all know it is false. After seeing that, they would burn your house down with you in it, destroying the list, and the claim they did it for your children who were in the house with you..

False Ideas of Utility

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, “Be thou a slave;” who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

Cesare Beccaria
An Essay on Crimes & Punishments, translated from the Italian with a commentary, attributed to M. de Voltaire, translated from the French
(New York: Stephen Gould, 1809), 124-25.

Emphasis added.

Via Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…(Spurious Quotation) | Monticello.

This has a lot of truth in it, assuming the legislator actually believes the utility of arms restrictions will make the general population safer. I suspect some do. But I am completely convinced many know this is not true and have evil intent in disarmament of the people. They want subjects to rule rather than be a servant to the public.

Unmoored

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The Seventh Circuit’s contrived ‘non-militaristic’ limitation on the Arms protected by the Second Amendment seems unmoored from both text and history. And, even on its own terms, the Seventh Circuit’s application of its definition is nonsensical.

Clarence Thomas
U.S. Supreme Court Justice
July 2, 2024
Illinois’ gun ban remains in place, but rights advocates say days are numbered – Washington Examiner

I would like to believe he toned down his thoughts before putting them in writing. I am inclined to believe that not only is the Seventh Circuit decision unmoored from text and history, but the judges are unmoored from reality and/or deliberately lying.

Disarm Those Who Are Threat to Democracy

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

German court rules that members of the right-wing Alternative for Germany party are BANNED from owning firearms.

They say it’s because the second largest party in the country is a “suspected threat” to democracy.

PeterSweden @PeterSweden7
Posted on X, July 3, 2024

Wow! Now that resonates through history and to the present.

They have been working on this since at least July of 2022. And of course they succeeded with something very similar in 1938. You would think the socialist would remember what they did last time and how it ended for them. Perhaps they remember very well and expect to get away with their crimes against humanity this time.

And of course, the political left in our country is also pushing as fast and hard as they can to disarm those who they claim is “a threat to democracy.”

Prepare appropriately.

Via a post by Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras

Prosecute Them!

Posted on by

These people need to be prosecuted.:

Charged with possessing his own gun, Purple Heart recipient suing NYPD for discrimination

Purple Heart recipient Raffique Khan still can’t believe he was pulled over while driving his BMW in Brooklyn for no apparent reason — then arrested for carrying a legal gun.

Sadly, he says, he can only conclude he was charged because he’s Black.

Khan, 40, retired from the U.S. Army and now working as an armed federal environment protection specialist assigned to Fort Wadsworth on Staten Island, has filed a federal lawsuit alleging discrimination, wrongful arrest and a denial of his Second Amendment right to carry a firearm.

“There was no probable cause, to stop [Khan] other than he was a person of color operating an expensive late model vehicle…” said the suit, filed in Brooklyn Federal Court by his lawyer, Cory Morris, on May 21. A similar suit was filed by Morris June 14 in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn.

“To be honest, I’m disappointed,” Khan, a native of Trinidad and Tobago, told the Daily News in an interview. “I never thought I would serve and come home to be treated in this manner. I love my country. I wasn’t born here but what better way to pay your country than to serve. i did it honorably.

“I could understand if i was arguing or trying to fight, being belligerent — but it was nothing like that.”

The criminal complaint — filed after Officer Matthew Bessen, who Khan described as white, arrested Khan last Nov. 26 in East New York — clearly indicates that the NYPD’s own database indicates Khan has a license to carry a firearm. The complaint said Khan can only carry the weapon while at work, but Morris said Khan has no such restrictions on his license.

…

Khan said he was not told why he was stopped — and there is nothing in the complaint to indicate it, either.

But Kkan, noting his “great respect” for law enforcement, said he immediately told Bessen he was a licensed gun holder and that the weapon was in his glove compartment.

With that, Khan said he and his passengers were ordered out of the car, with Bessen reviewing Khan’s documents — including his carry permit and military identification — and questioning how he got them.

“Maybe he didn’t expect a minority to have credentials like that,” Khan said. “I did not say that to him, but I was saying that to myself. I wanted to still give him the respect he deserves but even though I’m asking him what is going on he didn’t explain anything to me at all.”

After about a half hour, Khan, his cousin and his friend were handcuffed and taken to the 75th Precinct, with Khan eventually charged and the other two let go.

I hope the officers and prosecutors involved enjoy their trials.

Via a post by Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.

Former Judge has Crap for Brains

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

One problem with the court’s approach is that it is formalist, pedantic—soulless. It wrongly suggests that the court should give the words in a statute a form-over- substance significance that focuses on dictionaries, and historic word usage while ignoring the basic right at stake or the basic evil a law aims at ending. In the abortion case, an anti-abortion court could have turned the decision on weighing a life or potential life protected by the Constitution against the liberty of a woman to control her own body—another right protected by the Constitution. Rather than methodically marching to the foregone conclusion that women had no rights historically, the court could have overturned Roe simply by restriking the balance of rights in favor of a life or potential life that might be lost in abortion. Rather than spending their time fixated on the interior life of a gun, the court in Cargill could have considered what the law was obviously aimed at limiting—guns that mindlessly spew multitudes of bullets and threaten public safety. Laws have values in them—life, liberty, public safety, etc., and when the court ignores them in favor of games with words, it undermines respect for the institution.

Thomas G. Moukawsher
Former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits.
June 25, 2024
Bump-Stock Ruling Reveals a Supreme Court Obsessed With Word Play | Opinion (msn.com)

I dropped my jaw in amazement reading this. He thinks judges should weigh the pros and cons and examine how they feel about the topic to decide the case? Really? That is the job of the legislators when making the laws. If he were to have it his way we would end up with bump stocks being legal or illegal depending upon which judge was assigned to our case. Abortion doctors and the women who employed their services would be sent to jail or on their way, again, depending on what judge they were assigned or perhaps even the mood of the judge that day.

Word mean things and the law depends on the precise meaning of the words used to create those law. If not, then the result will be injustice and chaos. You just won’t know what is an ordinary everyday activity and what a multiple year felony.

This guy is a former judge! Well, maybe this is the reason he is a former judge. He has crap for brains.

Worryingly, People Are Defending Themselves

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

When a large slice of the public believes that crime is out of hand and most offenses go unpunished, some people inevitably take the law into their own hands.

Worryingly, we’re seeing more signs of that phenomenon in Chicago, with three separate episodes over the last weekend in which would-be victims proved to be both armed and willing to fire at their assailants. Four people who police said were attacking these concealed carry holders were shot and wounded, all of them critically.

…

But the majority of Chicagoans, we’re convinced, don’t feel any safer when they read stories of good-guy-with-a-gun responses to street crime. They may feel some satisfaction when street criminals feel the same level of fear their would-be victims do. But overall, it’s not a healthy environment in a city — where by definition people live close together — when gun-packing citizens become more the norm than the exception.

This is not to pass judgment on those who for their own protection go through the steps necessary to get a concealed carry permit and then take advantage of the legal rights that license gives them.

…

Surely, our public officials, no matter what side of the criminal-justice-reform divide they’re on, can agree that the growing risks of more ordinary citizens taking responsibility for their own safety at the point of a gun isn’t a healthy development.

The Editorial Board, Chicago Tribune
June 6, 2024
Editorial: Potential victims are shooting back. This should raise alarms for Chicago public officials. (yahoo.com)

Even ignoring that someone shooting in self-defense is not “taking the law into their own hands”, this is a little warped.

It seems as if they really want to say how bad it is that people can carry guns to defend themselves. And if only public officials would do their job then we could get those icky guns out of the hands of the unclean common people without so much fuss.

Worse Than the NRA

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The National Rifle Association is not what it used to be, and that’s created a gap. And what has gone into the gap are a bunch of further-right organizations that are trying to take the mantle of the NRA by being as extreme as possible. Foremost among them is the Firearms Policy Coalition. Friday was a real moment for them. It’s one of the most extreme groups; it uses extraordinarily violent rhetoric. And it’s putting out material that’s getting blessed by a majority opinion of the Supreme Court. You have to take a step back and look at where we are—I don’t think that’s anything you could imagine happening even 10 years ago.

David Pucino
Legal director of the Giffords Law Center
June 15, 2024
The group rewriting America’s gun laws for the Supreme Court Is Worse Than the NRA. (slate.com)

I was already convinced the FPC deserved my support. You don’t need to oversell them.

I know I shouldn’t be surprised but I was amazed at the projection, lies, and deception presented in this interview. Here is an example:

Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion is rooted in historical misrepresentations and utterly implausible manipulations of the statutory text.

The link leads to these claims:

Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion for the court tortures statutory text beyond all recognition, defying Congress’ clear and (until now) well-established commands.

…

Thomas adopted a highly technical interpretation of the statute that does not align with its text. A “single function of the trigger,” he wrote, does not mean a single pull of the trigger, but rather a complete “cycle” of the spring-loaded hammer inside the gun. Because the hammer (rapidly) resets to its original position between shots, Thomas concluded, “bump firing” involves more than “a single function of the trigger.”

Deception and lies. It what they do because it is the best they have to bring to the debate.

Death Comes For Them All

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Death comes for them all.

image

Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy
Posted on X June 14, 2024

The ATF rules are different than “assault weapon” bans, but I think the odds are good that SCOTUS will eventually kill them too.

I like the FPC. They work on a lot of 2nd Amendment cases, get decent results so I donate a fair amount of money (matched by my employer) to them each year.

Communists Attack the Food Supply

Posted on by

Via Kat@Kataja:

There is probably more truth in this than I would like to admit.

Prepare appropriately.

This evening I spent 2.5 hours on the cat discing my summer fallow in preparation for planting wheat on it this fall. I guess this sort of makes me a farmer.

Things would be “interesting” if the commies in this country attacked the farmers like they did in other countries. I have a rifle and know how to use it. And I know I’m not the only farmer with similar tools and skills.

Guilt by Association

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

It’s interesting how gun ownership is the only thing I can think of where many people feel comfortable blaming you or trying to make you feel guilty for the actions of others. Like yesterday, comments to the effect “kids were shot at a water park because you gun nuts won’t give up your toys!”

We don’t do this with anything else.

When a drunk driver wipes out a family (10,000 drunk driving deaths per year!), nobody guilts you for having a couple beers that day. Because they know the drunk driver’s crime does not mean you are irresponsible or criminal. Between all causes, alcohol kills around 2-3x as many people as die in gun-related causes annually.

STDs kill thousands each year, but aside from the very religious, few try to publicly shame the sexually promiscuous for those deaths.

Heart disease kills…more people than anything else. Nobody is protesting at McDonalds.

And guns, while they can be used for monstrous crimes, also have considerable social utility for sport and self-defense.

[and]

There are probably many more examples. Just an interesting phenomenon.

[and]

I should clarify that I mean human activity.

Obviously, people often blame entire cultural, racial, or religious groups for the crimes of one of their own.

Maybe therein lies the answer though. Gun ownership is made into its own sort of caricatured ideological identity by the people who despise it.

That’s wrong of course. As @davidyamane says in his new book, “guns are normal and normal people use guns”.

Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, June 16, 2024

Grouping people makes it easier to demonize all of them by the characteristics of a few. It is an easy “solution” to a difficult problem. Democrats are communists… give them free helicopter rides. Republicans are ignorant… send them to education camps.

I prefer, but certainly contribute my share of inappropriate group shaming, to judge people as individuals.

Words Mean Things

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

There is something reckless in a Supreme Court that can annihilate gun laws by pulling at words, toying with phrases. There are many reasons to think about reforming the higher court. Decisions like this ought to be high among them.

Dominic Erdozain
June 15, 2024
Opinion: Supreme Court’s bump stock decision is a huge step backward (msn.com)

Reading the opinion piece you realize it is Erdozain who “pulls at words and toys with phrases”. Either that, and/or he is ignorant of the topic he writes about. As usual, these people project what they do onto their political enemies.

It is the ATF that thinks it can “annihilate gun laws.” They tried that by saying the law includes a bump stock when the law actually says a machine gun is a gun that fires more than one bullet with a single function of the trigger. The ATF “annihilated” the law and replaced it with their own “law”, which is unconstitutional. Only congress can create or change law. And last Friday, SCOTUS reminded the ATF and the rest of the country of that.

Words mean things. And the ATF must abide by the words of the law. If the law needs to be changed, then persuade congress to do that.  Apparently Erdozain doesn’t understand that is how things are supposed to work. He wants the president to be able to give an order and change the law at will. His desired political system is more like a monarchy or dictatorship. Lots of people agree with him.

Prepare appropriately.

That Was Quick

Posted on by

The ruling came out on Friday. This came out yesterday:

Error by Anti-Gun SCOTUS Justices

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

#2A TERRIBLE ERROR BY ANTI-GUN SCOTUS JUSTICES. Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake. In today’s Cargill/bump stock opinion, the below statement from Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson will have major implications for AR-15 ban cases. Their dissent reads: “Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of ammunition, the [Vegas] shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to COMMONLY AVAILABLE, SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES.” In my view, this is a devastating legal admission by the left that AR-15s are “in common use” and cannot be banned under Heller/Bruen.

Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar @fourboxesdiner
Posted on X, June 14, 2024

While I think it is an error on their part, I don’t think the legal implications are as clear cut as Smith implies. His claim presumes the justices will be consistent with previous writings. I could easily see Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson saying “in common use” when they see that to their advantage as in the bump stock case. If the guns are in common use and easily simulate fully automatic firearms, then commonly available is a bad thing. In a future case, involving an “assault weapon” ban, claiming they cannot be consider in common use because they are less than 5%* of all guns in the U.S. It is “whatever is needed to justify my conclusions”, not what the word of law says, or what I said yesterday.

But, the important thing is that we should celebrate the elimination of the bump stock ban and the slap down on the ATF claiming they can rewrite the law. This is a great precedent and will be useful in many other cases.

In related news, I received a text message from lawyer friend Mike B.:

I find it charming that Sotomayor explains how to bump fire an AR-15 in her dissent. How far we’ve come.

* I asked Copilot, “What percentage of all firearms in the U.S. are of a type similar to the AR-15?” Copilot responded with:

As of the data available, AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles, often referred to as Modern Sporting Rifles, account for an estimated 19.8 million units1. Considering the total number of firearms in civilian possession in the U.S. is around 434 million, AR-15 style rifles make up approximately 4.6% of all firearms in the country. This percentage is based on the figures indicating that about 30.2% of gun owners, which is about 24.6 million people, reported owning an AR-15 or similarly styled rifle2. It’s important to note that these numbers are estimates and the actual figures may vary. The AR-15 style rifles have seen a significant increase in production over the years, rising from around one percent of all firearms produced in the early 1990s to almost a quarter in 20203.

Never mind that Copilot’s logic is faulty**. I can’t imagine those justices really care anyway.

** if 24.6 million people own AR-15s, the total number of AR-15 should be at something closer (or greater than) 24.6 million, I think it is unlikely there are 4.8 million people sharing ownership of a rifle which is not canceled out by millions of others owning two (or ten) AR-15s.

On Hunter Biden’s Conviction

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

“No single action can solve the entirety of a gun violence epidemic,” he said. “But together, our efforts–your efforts–are saving lives. You can help rally a nation with a sense of urgency and seriousness of purpose. You’re changing the culture. And we’ve proven we can do more than just thoughts and prayers. This is more than thoughts and prayers. You’re changing politics.”

President Biden then departed for his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, where earlier today his son Hunter Biden was found guilty of three gun-related felony charges.

T.J. Muscaro
June 11, 2024
Biden Touts Measures to Curb Gun Violence | The Epoch Times

Oh, the irony… Smile

Some people expect President Biden will pardon his son. If he does, I don’t think it will be until after the election in November. I think a more likely scenario is the appeal will result in some narrow ruling which gives Biden, and only Biden, a pass.

In only the most unlikelist of circumstances will Biden’s appeal result in overturning existing gun law on Second Amendment grounds in such a way that it will benefit the average gun owner.

Also note President Biden claims gun control is saving lives, but they never supply the evidence to back up such claims.