Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Rex Haberman

Posted on by

There is no 2nd Amendment issue with making the gun owners register with the government and license their guns. There is no 2nd Amendment issue to completely disarm the country except for fully licensed and controlled guns. To be more specific, the only guns that should be allowed outside of highly controlled gun clubs are ones used for legal hunting and farmers protecting their livelihood. Yes, you can own a gun, but it must be licensed. No one can own an assault gun. No one can own a pistol.

Rex Haberman
July 2, 2014
Gun Control: Saving America From Itself
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Haberman clearly hasn’t read the Heller decision. Pistols are in common use and clearly protected. Firearms for home defense are explicitly protected. This doesn’t even touch the issue of the “chilling effect” associated with registration and licensing.

One has wonder what color the sky is in Haberman’s universe.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Greasy Tony

Posted on by

The NRA are a bunch of thugs that take idiot’s money and laugh all the way to the bank.

Greasy Tony
July 3, 2014
Comment to What do Gun Control people think of NRA saying media should stop calling barbara shooter a shooter?
[“Greasy Tony” needs to do some research on the NRA and their members. It’s extremely clear his prejudice does not match my rather large sample of both NRA representatives (many women smaller than me) and NRA members. But I doubt anything so suspect as facts would change his mind. His mind almost for certain works at “a different level”.

But it’s good to know what people think of you. It helps prepare you for when they make contact with you or advocate for political action. These are not people with anything more than a tenuous connection to reality and they are bent on your destruction.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rose City Rose

Posted on by

What I propose is the following:

  1. An act which creates a new class of organization, defined by violent ideology and/or a history of three or more ideologically-driven acts of violence, the members of which will be presumed to be a danger to the public safety and therefore prohibited from owning a firearm of any sort.
  2. An act which requires all persons promoting unambiguously violent ideologies, whether as members of an organization described above or as individuals, to surrender all firearms.
  3. A rapid, active, and decisive nationwide sweep, employing the military if necessary, to totally disarm all persons known to be hostile to the peaceful process of democracy.
  4. A national hotline to anonymously report firearm possession by persons who advocate ideologically-motivated violence.

Rose City Rose
July 2, 2014
A Completely Different Proposal for Gun Control
[Progressives would qualify. Perhaps even the Democrat Party by name. But I don’t think they are who she had in mind. It’s funny how that works, huh?

Beyond the Second Amendment issues there is the due process (5th and 14th Amendments as well as common law) issue, 1st Amendment (freedom of association if not freedom of expression) and 4th Amendment issues to address. And once she gets past those there is the little problem of finding the millions of guns, taking, and preventing their rearming even if they could disarm them once.

Molṑn labé Rose. Why don’t you take point?—Joe]

Quote of the day—2Bill

Posted on by

Ban all semiautomatic weapons and create a national registry of all gun owners. No need to change the second amendment, even though that would be great. We could reduce the number of guns on the street and at the very least force any would be shooter to reload more often.

Let’s start by banning all guns except revolvers, bolt action rifles and breach action shotguns. Then let’s register every gun and require liability insurance for every owner.

This proposal would pass any second amendment challenge and would even satisfy the scrutiny of the Heller decision.

2Bill
June 27, 2014
Comment to 9 signs America’s gun obsession is getting worse
[They either have not read the Heller decision or have a terrible problem with reading comprehension. The proposals would not pass the “common use” test. And even if it were to pass the confiscation efforts would be “problematic”.

Then there is the problem of registration. It’s unknown whether that would pass Constitutional challenges. You can’t be made to register in order to exercise your First Amendment rights and it seems unlikely you can be made to register in order to exercise your Second Amendment rights. The “chilling effect” would be very “pronounced”. Especially after the government just confiscated all the semi-autos.

And the difficulties in registration would be horrific. Getting “registered” for ObamaCare was and is a big mess. Getting people to register themselves and their guns when they don’t want to be registered and want the system to fail would be far more “interesting.” Canada couldn’t make it work and there would be a lot more resistance in this country.

It’s very clear 2Bill has crap for brains.—Joe]

American Psychiatric Association and firearms

Posted on by

The American Psychiatric Association has an interesting Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services. It contains this:

Because privacy in mental health treatment is
essential to encourage persons in need of
treatment to seek care, laws mandating psychiatrists
and other mental health professionals to
report to law enforcement officials everyone who
appears to be a danger to themselves or others are
likely to be counterproductive and should not be
adopted.

Basically they throw the ball back into the gun control court with this:

Many deaths and injuries from gun violence can be
prevented through national and state legislative and
regulatory action. These actions should include:
a. Limiting access to guns by persons who are
identified as dangerous, whether or not they have
been diagnosed with a mental disorder;
b. Requiring more extensive background checks and
waiting periods on all gun sales or transactions;
c. Requiring safe storage of all firearms in the home,
office or other places of daily assembly; and
d. Limiting access to semi-automatic firearms, high
capacity magazines and high velocity ammunition
to reduce risk of critical injuries and death from
firearms;

I wonder what they mean by “Limiting access”. Probably a complete ban or NFA type paperwork and taxes. “High velocity ammunition?” I think that is the first time I have heard that suggestion. I wonder what their threshold is such that they would consider a bullet “high velocity”.

I would like to suggest the APA confine itself to psychiatric issues and leave the gun restriction suggestions to criminologists.

Exception to preemption?

Posted on by

The Seafair Foundation is putting on a 4th of July celebration at Gasworks Park this Friday.

It takes place at a public park yet they say:

Prohibited Items
-Personal Barbecues
-Marijuana
-Alcohol
-Fireworks, explosives or incendiary materials or devices
-Pets, other than service animals
-Weapons and Firearms
-Glass bottles
-Illegal drugs

Firearm regulation is preempted by the state legislature. The city of Seattle cannot ban firearms in the park (they tried and were slapped down by the courts) but can a 501(c)(3) organization do it? And do they have anything greater than the threat of trespass prosecution if you were to violate their prohibition of the exercise of a specific enumerated right on public property?

Quote of the day—Amanda Porche

Posted on by

The obvious answer would be to do away with readily available fire arms despite who it pisses off.

Amanda Porche
June 10, 2014
Comment to Bullet-Resistant Blanket Could Protect Kids Against School Shootings
[Amanda, are you going to be taking point on the team tasked with going door-to-door “doing away with readily available firearms”? Or do you just demand others do the messy, short life expectancy, jobs?

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

Classy

Posted on by

Progressives are so violent:

— natalie(@heartsinireland) July 1, 2014

I hope Kendall Jones gets mauled by a lion. The evil, disgusting coward pic.twitter.com/kQy2uLm0yK

— Jack (@JackLewBaines) July 1, 2014

I hope #KendallJones gets eaten alive #Facebook http://t.co/IqrQ4GRUyZ

— Wendy Fiore (@wendyfiore) July 1, 2014

It appears to be in their nature.

Quote of the day—People of New Hampshire

Posted on by

And as it is the opinion of this Convention, that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this state, and more effectually guard against an undue administration of the federal government, — The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations and provisions be introduced in the said Constitution: —
. . . . .

XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.

XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

Convention of the Delegates of the People of the State of New Hampshire
June 21, 1788
New Hampshire’s Ratification
[H/T David Hardy.

Emphasis added.

The original intent of the people of New Hampshire in regards to what we now know as the Second Amendment is very clear. And it is also clear that what we have now is very far removed from that original intent.—Joe]

Two legal thoughts

Posted on by

Well, thoughts on legal issues, anyway.

First, the Hobby Lobby decision came in from the SCOTUS. They won, the left-o-sphere melted down because the corporation could choose to not be involved in your sex life. To be more specific, they cannot be compelled to pay for contraception for the company employees. Somehow, the left equates “not required to pay for something they find repugnant” with “denying them basic medical care.” But their logic is that, because you have a right to healthcare, the company can’t deny them any specific birth control methods. Yeah, I know, it’s warped, but that’s sort of the left-wing thinking. Well, couldn’t we apply that to gun rights? I mean, if we have a right to own a firearm, must not a corporation recognize your right to carry them, so all those “gun free zones” are a clear violation, right? It’s amazing how selective some people are. This is just the abbreviated form of the argument, but I’m sure y’all are smart enough to figure out the details.

Secondly, It seems that some SWAT teams in Massachusetts are claiming to be exempt from normal FOIA and open records law requirements, because they have incorporated as 501(c)(3) corporations. Clever. But it seems that *IF* that were the case, they would *ALSO* not be immune from lawsuits via sovereign immunity. They should have the advantages of one or the other, but not both. If this thing doesn’t get shot (ahem) down right promptly, then I think we will see a HUGE wave of incorporation in government “industries.” If it’s upheld, then we can safely assume that another leg of the stool the constitution is standing on just got sawed off to a very short stump. Be fun to see them get sued for doing something stupid, make their argument in court, and be told that they gave away immunity for thirty pieces of paperwork (to mix my metaphors), so suck it up and face the jury.

Quote of the day—Susie Madrak

Posted on by

Do we have the ATF and BLM agents roll up in armored tanks? Do we use drone strikes? I can see the administration’s reluctance to have that confrontation — after all, it’s not as if gun control advocates were flooding the White House switchboard, screaming to ‘take them out!’ And then we do have the militia types all over the country, just waiting for an excuse to start their own local uprising. These assholes want a civil war so bad, they can taste it.

Some days, I wonder: Should we let them, and just get it over with? You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger.

Susie Madrak
June 23, 2014
So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up To The Gun Nuts?
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via Phil.

Molṑn labé Susie.—Joe]

What’s the problem with these people?

Posted on by

I thought this video was funny and made a great point:

What’s the problem with these people? Locking up your gun and ammo is not good enough for them. They don’t want you to have a gun in the house let alone take your kids to the range or teach them gun safety:

This requires ignoring the vast differences between gun culture and dildo culture, because aside from their similarities as surrogate penises, there’s little common ground there. Dildo owners don’t bring their kids along for dildo-using trips, or dildo practice, and you’re not going to rent a dildo at a dildo range and have it jump in your kid’s hand and kill him. Most kids don’t know you have a dildo, and won’t spend every available minute alone looking for it.

These people apparently have a really tough time accepting the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right and to accept diversity in our culture.

Quote of the day—Pangur-Uaine

Posted on by

The more guns the more killing. The gun culture is mass insanity. “Responsible gun-ownership” is an oxymoron. Any implement specifically designed to kill people is intrinsically evil. Total disarmament could save the species. Shoot the Second Amendment. The Fifth Commandment is right. Killing is wrong. Ban all weapons while we still have a shot at it.

Pangur-Uaine
June 22, 2014
Comment to Gun controversy lost on new shooting stars
[Via Jeff.

Simple solutions from simple minds.

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

Quote of the day—Althea Brown

Posted on by

We should do our best to identify possible shooters and if possible, consciously work on not creating new shooters. The only way to do that is to either ban guns or learn as much about shooters as possible.

Althea Brown
June 10, 2014
Comment to Bullet-Resistant Blanket Could Protect Kids Against School Shootings
[Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

U of I announces concealed carry policy

Posted on by

The University of Idaho has announced their new policy on concealed carry (FAQ here). This was forced upon them by the legislature (and Mike contributed a great deal to this) and the administration is obviously still hostile to people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Some school authorities have come right out and said, “The Second Amendment does not apply to schools.”

If someone sees a person with a gun:

…the safest course of action is to call the Police Department by dialing 911. They will respond and make contact with an individual to determine if that person is an authorized permit holder and is carrying a weapon legitimately.

This is the recommended procedure even if all appearances are the individual is legally carrying.

But the issue that bugs me the most is:

Q 14. Are authorized permit holders allowed to possess or store their weapons in married student housing?
A – No. Any building located on or within the campus area owned by the University to house persons residing on campus as students is considered a “student dormitory or residence hall” under the law, and possession or storage of weapons in married student housing is prohibited.

How is this not in direct violation of the Heller decision?

At least daughter Kim, once she gets her enhanced CWL, will be able to carry when she is on campus. That’s a big improvement.

Thank you Mike.

Quote of the day—Neil Chasan

Posted on by

I am for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the right to bear arms….lets have that constitutional convention.

Neil Chasan
June 18, 2014
Comment to Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority
[Sorry Chasan. The Second Amendment only recognizes and protects the preexisting right so even if you could repeal the Second Amendment we would still have that right. And even worse for you is that gun owners would vigorously defend that right in absence of the Second Amendment.

This is no different than if by some great deception and fraud the First or 13th amendment were repealed. Those rights would still exist and those rights would still be exercised if Chasan and/or his ilk did attempt to infringe those rights.

And if Chasan thinks he can take my guns and ammo then he should come on over to my place and try. It turns out he is a “neighbor” (I cross Mercer Island, where he lives, nearly every day on my way to work). But then we all know he doesn’t want to do the dirty work. He wants someone else, with guns, to do it for him.—Joe]

We were right again

Posted on by

For years the anti-gun people talked about terrible it was that people could buy guns even if they were on the terrorism watch list:

The Brady Campaign even coined the phrase “terror gap”. Their web page (http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/terrorgap) has since been taken down and the phrase cannot be found on their website (but you can find it on bradynetwork.org) but it was an issue they tried to get traction on (see also this search result).

And during that entire time we tried to tell them such action by the government would violate due process protections. They ignored us.

We were right. Again. And it is not just on the constitutionality of using such a list to deny someone their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. The present implementation of the “no fly list” itself is a violation of due process:

A federal judge on Tuesday found unconstitutional the methods by which the federal government places U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents on a “no fly” list without letting them see the evidence against them, or letting them contest it.

…

“Accordingly, on this record the court concludes the absence of any meaningful procedures to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to contest their placement on the No-Fly List violates plaintiffs’ rights to procedural due process.”

The right to travel isn’t clearly spelled out like the right to keep and bear arms. A judge could (and may still) find a weasel worded way of saying you don’t have to be to able travel by commercial airplane as long as there exist private airplanes you can hire. Hence due process protections for the right to keep and bear arms should be even greater than for the right to travel.

This also has implications for mental health restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms which is something the anti-gun people are trying to implement.

@ATFHQ words have meaning

Posted on by

Earlier today I saw this Tweet from @ATFHQ:

PHOTO: ATF & local partners take 73 illegal firearms off the streets of Bridgeport and New Haven CT.

GunsOnStreets

The first thing that crossed my mind is that if those guns had been lying around on the streets near where I lived I would have been happy to pick them up without charge.

But that’s not what they meant by “firearms off the streets”. They actually forcibly took them from the people in possession of them.

The deceptive wording of taking them “off the streets” is intentional and serves a political purpose. Imagine the different political implications if were true and they instead said they took the “guns away from gangs.” Or they took the “guns away from violent felons.” Or they took the “guns away from white trash.” Or they took the “guns away from African-Americans.” Or they took the “guns away from Tea Baggers.” Or they took the “guns away from Jews.”

Some of those actions would not get a rise out of me. Others would have me calling for them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Sure, Twitter isn’t an environment where the nuance of the operation can be explained. But even in their press release it is ambiguous how many of those guns were in the possession of violent felons when they took them:

The operation, headed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), resulted in the seizure of more than 73 illegal firearms and is expected to result in the prosecution of 154 individuals on federal or state charges.

By their own words not all of those people could have been illegally in possession of firearms.

And look at the resources invested to get just 73 firearms “off the streets”:

In March 2014, the ATF and the Bridgeport and New Haven Police Departments launched “Operation Samson” a multi-layered initiative targeting violent criminals and illegal firearm possession and firearm trafficking in New Haven and Bridgeport. As part of the initiative, approximately 40 ATF special agents and personnel from Connecticut and across the country were deployed with New Haven and Bridgeport Police to conduct numerous covert operations. The combined law enforcement team brought a range of expertise to the operation, including tactical, technical, analytical, undercover skills and supervisory experience.

Several other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies supported the initiative as investigations expanded into other cities and towns in Connecticut and across state lines.

The initiative employed intelligence-led policing to determine where to place resources in order to have the greatest impact. During Operation Samson, law enforcement personnel conducted approximately 425 operations, which included undercover meetings, controlled purchases of firearms and narcotics, and the execution of search and arrest warrants. As a result, a total of 80 individuals have been charged, or are expected to be charged, with a variety of federal firearms, narcotics and robbery violations.

40 ATF people, plus local cops, executed 425 operations over the course of three months to confiscate 73 guns? Assuming those guns were taken from violent gangs how long do you think it takes for the gangs to replace them? Maybe a week? Or is a day more realistic?

Another thing that pushed a button for me was what the U.S. Prosecutor said:

There is no higher calling in law enforcement than preventing violent crime,” stated U.S. Attorney Deirdre M. Daly.

Perhaps she would understand my concern if the force of government were to be used to prevent her from committing an act of prostitution or adultery by requiring she wear a chastity belt remotely controlled by government morality officers. Government has no business preventing crime through the arrest and prosecution of people when there are no victims. They should only be allowed to punish those who have victimized others.

But most importantly who were those guns really taken from? They don’t really say. The words they use appear to be deliberately ambiguous. Were these firearms taken from people who had not victimized anyone?

Taking guns “off the street” is deliberately deceptive. It makes it easy for everyone to be accepting of what may be totally inappropriate behavior. We shouldn’t let them get away with it. Make them be specific about their actions so people can better judge their actions and hold them accountable.

Chicago politicians need to be educated

Posted on by

From Chicago:

Chicago aldermen on Wednesday unanimously passed what Mayor Rahm Emanuel said is a “tough, smart and enforceable” ordinance that allows gun shops within city limits but regulates where they can exist and mandates that all sales have a video record.

…

firearms dealers will need to pay a $3,800 licensing fee and abide by a 72-hour waiting period for guns and a 12-hour waiting period for rifles and shotguns. A should [sic, perhaps they mean “store”] will also only be able to sell one gun per month per buyer.

Furthermore, retailers would face zoning restrictions would not be permitted to exist within 500 feet of any school or park.

I look forward to them being slapped down even harder by the courts. I suppose the courts have to get prosecutors to file charges and give them a trial for violation of 18 USC 242 and can’t just convict and sentence them on the spot. Although I’m pretty sure they can rule the new law is in violation of the previous court orders and demand they comply or be fined.

It’s time for them to give the Bill of Rights some respect so I’m in favor of all of them getting a felony conviction and spending a few years in prison. Perhaps they would have time to learn about the constitution while there. They could think of it as an educational experience.