Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Posted on by

As anyone who has gone through the process to legally obtain a firearm in Massachusetts knows, there is no dearth of existing laws that regulate the sale, purchase and transfer of firearms. The question should be what gun control laws should be repealed, NOT enacted.

NRA-ILA
May 30, 2014
Massachusetts: House Speaker Introduces Sweeping Gun Control Legislation
[Emphasis in the original.

“The question that should be” asked is applicable to all the states as well as the Federal Government.

Of the simple answers the most correct one is, “All of them.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Scott Martelle

Posted on by

As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture. They exist for one purpose: to kill.

Scott Martelle
May 28, 2014
You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.
[H/T to Sebastian.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns. This is from the Los Angles Times’ Opinion Staff.

He dismisses the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms with:

One can hope that the court will someday go further than its recognition that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right and determine that rampant gun ownership is a public safety threat. And that Congress will push legislation that recognizes that the heavy societal costs of gun ownership outweigh any 2nd Amendment pretense to the right to own guns.

He dismisses self-defense with:

Impossible to measure because of a lack of trustworthy data.

This is even though his cited source, Paul Barrett, says the lower limit on estimated defensive gun use in the U.S. is about 100,000/year which exceeds the murders by a factor of ten.

It is apparently beyond his ability to accept the realities of the Supreme Court ruling that firearm in common use, and handguns in particular are protected. This is in the ruling he linked to! Then after realizing numbers and simple arithmetic are apparently beyond his grasp we could suggest he look to the “success” of banning things which have far less benefit and probably more harm, such as recreational drugs. How did the prohibition of alcohol work out? And the continuing ban of hardcore recreational drugs? Maybe he would like to extend the bans of those things harmful to other things such as tobacco? How does he think that would turn out? We already have a large black market in cigarettes because of the high taxes on them.

But we shouldn’t bother speculating. He obviously has crap for brains and is incapable of extrapolating past the end of his nose.—Joe]

This could be interesting

Posted on by

Seattle police are suing the DOJ, The City of Seattle, Seattle Mayor, Seattle Chief of Police, and others about restrictions on their use of force and the right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment:

When a police officer is confronted with threatening behavior, he or she has the fundamental, individual right of self-defense under the Second Amendment, consistent with every other citizen, to protect himself or herself, and others, from apparent and immediate harm. As the Court has long recognized, the rules that define and determine self-defense are of universal application and are not affected by the character of a person’s employment.

This could be far more interesting than one might first guess. If the courts accept this argument then not only is the right to carry in public by private citizens bolstered but the rights of people to carry while at work is given support as well.

H/T to Dave Workman. See also the Seattle PI article.

Quote of the day—Janey Rountree

Posted on by

There is no question it will be the smartest, toughest regulation on gun stores in the country. It’s designed to prevent gun trafficking and illegal sales in these stores.

Janey Rountree
Chicago mayor’s deputy chief of staff for public safety
May 28, 2014
Chicago mayor pushes plan requiring all gun sales to be videotaped
[I don’t care what it is “designed to prevent”. I care about results. The city of Chicago could pass a law requiring chastity belts for all women which was “designed to prevent” prostitution and unwanted pregnancy but that doesn’t mean it would achieve the desired goal or be constitutional.

For decades the city banned handguns and yet the cops confiscated about 7,000 guns a year. So how is the plan for videotaping the sales, limiting sales to about 0.5% of the city’s geographic area, and limiting sales to one per month per buyer going to be measurably better than the way gun stores are regulated in the more free states?

If they think it will be so successful then why don’t they place the same restrictions on alcohol and tobacco sales to prevent them from getting in the hands of minors. Or the sales of illegal recreational drugs? Oh, yeah. Those are even more tightly regulated yet any high school dropout can get anything they want within a few minutes, 24/7, from all the “unlicensed” drug dealers.

This law is not “smart”. It’s crap for brains stupid. It’s unconstitutional. And those that voted for it should be prosecuted.—Joe]

Quote of the day—reality

Posted on by

The NRA is primarily in it for money and profit, and have demonstrated that they don’t give a SH about you and your family. They are not protecting your gun rights to have a gun (because no one is trying to ban all guns) – they are protecting THEIR PROFITS. Keep being ignorant and voting with them, and see how far it gets you . . .

reality
May 26, 2014
Comment to Shooter’s rage at women too familiar in America
[“reality” appears to be living in an alternate reality because in my universe the NRA is a nonprofit organization, does a lot to protect our right to keep and bear arms, and there are a lot of people who want to ban all guns.

I wonder what color the sky is in their world.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brandon Watson

Posted on by

It seems the hot shots of Come and Take It Austin took umbrage to a SXSW panel about social media and gun control. With toddlers in tow, they marched down Sixth Street last Saturday waving flags and revolvers.

…

Still, those of you who were actually invited to our city’s annual party should know that this isn’t exactly everyday behavior. It is true that Texans do enjoy firepower. It is de rigueur for GOP politicians to be photographed at firing ranges, and even our bright liberal beacon Sen. Wendy Davis supports open-carry laws. But in Austin, most of us are content to keep our phallic symbols in our pants.

Without wading into the larger gun-control debate, these kinds of protests are not about the concept of “liberty” that Infowars slings around like a short-order cook. They are about display and braggadocio.

Brandon Watson
March 12, 2014
No, Armed Protests Are Not Normal in Austin
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to TriggerFinger for the email.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The_One_Pc

Posted on by

The type of gun control we have now doesn’t work. We need to outright repeal the 2nd Amendment.

The_One_Pc
May 24, 2014
Comment to Sheriff: Gunman killed 3 people at home before going on rampage
[If laws aren’t working then those laws need to be repealed. You don’t double down on something you admit isn’t working.

The drug control laws aren’t working either. What does he advise to remedy that problem?

Or how about the laws against people under 21 drinking alcohol? What does he recommend for that?

Even though the guy has crap for brains, don’t let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark O’Mara

Posted on by

Our Constitution is a resilient force, and our Bill of Rights has survived countless modifications and restrictions without the erosion of fundamental freedoms. Our Second Amendment right is no different: It can survive modification and restriction without the fear that it will vanish altogether.

Mark O’Mara
May 2, 2014
I’m a gun owner and I want gun control
[“…without fear that it will vanish altogether”! That’s his criteria for the preservation of a specific enumerated right? So as long as you get permission from the government to checkout your single shot .22 rifle once a month at the gun range and use it under close supervision before checking it back your right to keep and bear arms hasn’t been infringed, right?

Let’s test this concept with some other rights:

  • Your right to freedom of speech hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you are given a “free speech zone” a mile from the nearest person that might be offended.
  • Your right freedom of religion hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you tithe 10% to the one government approved church regardless of which of the other two approved religions you more closely align with.
  • Your right to not have government agents quartered in your home hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you get one day a month without them.
  • Your right to be free from involuntary servitude hasn’t vanished altogether as long as you get one day a week to yourself.

I would like to suggest that O’Mara review the concept of “strict scrutiny” in regards to constitutionally protected rights. But I fear his ability to think rationally has vanished altogether.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bryan Miller

Posted on by

No law abiding citizen needs 15-round magazines.

In mass shootings, the shooter is overwhelmed at the point he has to re-load. That provides the rest of us opportunities to stop the carnage.

Bryan Miller
Executive director of the anti-violence group Heeding God’s Call.
May 23, 2014
New Jersey gun control bill passes Assembly, heads to governor’s desk
[First off, it’s a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.

Second, magazines of 15, 20, and 30 rounds are “in common use” and hence protected under the Heller decisions.

Third,  in mass shootings the shooter should be overwhelmed by incoming lead by about the second or third shot, not the 10th.

Fourth, think about trying to overwhelm this old fart during magazine changes or even during the malfunction clearance:

It’s not going to go well for anyone that tries. The only thing that is stopping someone with even a moderate amount of training is a good guy with a gun or the exhaustion of his ammo supply.

This law is only useful for handicapping those who obey it. Those will overwhelmingly be people protecting innocent lives.

I look forward to the eventual prosecution of Miller and all those who voted for this law which will do nothing but protect criminals.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Zack Beauchamp

Posted on by

There is no longer any defensible argument for a constitutional right to own a firearm, if there ever was.

Zack Beauchamp
February 20, 2014
Ban the Second Amendment: Imagine the Second Amendment didn’t exist, and try arguing for a constitutional right to gun ownership. You will fail.
[H/T to Kurt Hofmann.

Self defense, one of the easiest ways to argue it to most people is dismissed with:

The second argument in favor of untrammeled gun ownership, a right to self-defense, is equally incoherent. For starters, there’s no reason that, in a civil society, the right to defend yourself implies the right to defend yourself however you’d like. A basic part of government’s job is to limit our ability to hurt others; assuming the absolute right to self-defense constitutes, in Alan Jacobs’ evocative phrasing, “the absolute abandonment of civil society.”

Here you can see some of his incredibly scary mindset. “A basic part of government’s job is to limit our ability to hurt others”. Wow!

It’s that same old prevention instead of punishment argument. In my mind one of the characteristics of a free society is that you are free to make mistake, or be evil, it’s just that you will suffer the consequences of your actions if you do. Except in extreme outlier cases, such as true weapons of mass destruction, the government should not ever be granted the power to prevent ordinary people from doing whatever it is they want to do. In terms of citizen/citizen interaction government power is only granted to punish those that infringe upon the rights of others.

Beauchamp’s mindset is that of one who yearns for an all powerful, all seeing, all protective government. A government with widespread informants which interrogates and tortures people in response to anonymous or torture induced testimony. That is the only way you can even hope to approach a preventive model for citizens hurting others.

Beauchamp should study history rather than yearn for an utopia who’s quest has resulted in the murder of 10’s of millions by their own government in the 20th Century.—Joe]

It’s only a matter of degree

Posted on by

I had a interesting face to face discussion with an anti-gun person yesterday. The details aren’t particularly important but it set me to thinking—a lot. They were very new to the topic, had zero factual basis, and yet thought up quasi-rational arguments on the fly. They were entirely novel and amazingly good for having been formulated in the previous few seconds.

I have been doing this for 20 years and they only spent about 30 seconds working themselves up before attempting to tear into me. The outcome was as one-sided as you might expect it to be.

It took me a long time to go to sleep last night and I spent a lot of time thinking about our debate. Going over it caused me to come up with a new approach to anti-gun people or people that haven’t given much thought to the topic.

We have frequently talked about offering to put “This home is gun free” signs up for our opponents. But I think this is too subtle for most people. The implications just aren’t obvious enough.

If someone is going to advocate for no guns or restricted access then they should be willing to carry a sign, take pledges, etc. that says, “If attacked I won’t resist”. When they drop their kids off to play at a friends place they will ask them to renew their pledges to not actively resist if some animal  (either two or four legged) tries to attack their child.

The absurdity of the idea is now apparent. They will protest. And you are now in a much stronger position to point out that restricting access to the best self-defense tools available is also absurd. It’s only matter of degree.

Quote of the day—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Posted on by

To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions.

Macbeth’s self-justifications were feeble—and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare’s evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology.

Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others’ eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilizations; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.

Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One) pages 173 and 174.
[Those that believe in the power of the state to do good have and will use the state to enforce their ideology upon the unbelievers. They believe “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” The twentieth century saw 60 to 100 million people murdered by their governments to make the world a better place. Governments which believed the welfare of the nation took precedence over that of individuals. That is what their ideology enabled. The ideology of the U.S. Constitution is that government has a very limited role, must be given only a small set of enumerated powers, and must respect the rights of the individual. That is why the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The oppressed individuals in the great massacres of the 20th Century always vastly outnumbered their active oppressors. This is why the ideologies of those who believe in the power of the state always include the disarming of the individual. The armed individual is too dangerous to their ideology.

Let’s not let the 21st Century ideologies that succeed be those that enable the murder of 10s or 100s of millions.—Joe]

Delusional

Posted on by

I stumbled across “Cracks in the NRA armor?” recently:

For more than 30 years, the NRA and its lobbyists have controlled the debate on gun reform with both money and media. Since the Sandy Hook massacre on Dec. 14, 2012, that has changed. That event woke Americans to the hold that the gun manufacturers and the NRA had on our country.

…

The NRA is no longer your “Grandfather’s Association” for hunters and sports shooters, but a more militaristic organization spreading fear of government tyranny.

We learned that we will not rest until our families and communities are safe from gun violence.

Yes. She is delusional if she thinks the NRA has “controlled the debate on gun reform with both money and media”. And there are a lot of other signs of her delusions there as well.

While in general a delusional opponent is probably less of a threat that a reality based one they are still an opponent. And when allowed to have power they can be an extremely deadly threat. Do not dismiss them. Keep them from the levers of power.

Think Stalin, Mussolini, and Michael Bloomberg.

Alan Gura may not be our savior

Posted on by

Alan Gura did some awesome work by winning the Heller and McDonald cases. But some people are not certain his approach is the best in some other cases. They are very satisfying to the “true believers” like me but that doesn’t necessary generate the best results. Think, no compromise and losing versus getting incremental results.

The Drake case is a case in point. Peruta may be the better horse to bet on.

From CalGunsLaws.com:

Drake had some baggage. It might have forced the justices to rule on whether concealed-carry permits are unconstitutional. That would be a huge jump for the justices, and there is a good chance that there are less than five votes among the Court’s current membership to rule for gun owners on that issue.

Once the Supreme Court settles an issue it is rare for them to ever revisit it, and traditionally the justices like at least 20 years to pass before reconsidering a matter (though there are exceptions). For those who want to advance gun rights, it’s much better to have no precedent at all than to have bad precedent.

The other problem with Drake is what is called prior-restraints doctrine, which is when the government requires you to get a permit before engaging in speech-type activity, such as a license before showing a movie. Any government system requiring citizens to get government permission before speaking faces a strong legal presumption that it is unconstitutional, and the government must show that the license is narrowly focused on achieving a compelling public interest.

Applying that legal doctrine to guns is considered far-fetched by many Second Amendment lawyers. The courts will likely never adopt such a demanding standard. Speech is by nature spontaneous and fluid. Many of the most important things to be said are said in the moment.

Firearms, in contrast, are tangible, heavy, and expensive. You have to think about obtaining a firearm, plan for it, budget for it, and then go to specific locations to obtain one. And words can rarely kill people, but guns can.

Yet these are the arguments Drake’s lawyers chose to make, so the biggest problem withDrake may have been the legal team. Lead counsel in that case is Virginia-based lawyer Alan Gura, who was one of the lawyers who argued both of the Supreme Court’s famous Second Amendment cases, Heller and McDonald.

…

In contrast to Drake, Breitbart News has already explained why Peruta is a perfect case for the Supreme Court to take. California law forbids openly carrying firearms outside the home and provides that no one is entitled to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. It empowers local sheriffs with the discretion to decide who gets permits, and the sheriff inPeruta requires applicants to give some special reason aside from a desire for self-defense.

Peruta was extensively discussed in the Drake legal briefs filed as part of the petitioning process, more thoroughly than any other case except Heller itself. So the justices had ample opportunity to compare both cases and determine which one they would prefer. AndPeruta was argued by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, regarded by many as the best Supreme Court lawyer in America, who would also argue the case at the High Court.

That’s not the way it works

Posted on by

As you might have gathered from reading Prince Law Office’s blog or what Sebastian had to say the ATF recently ruled that non-incorporated trusts are not considered a “person”. A careful reading of the law regarding machine guns then becomes very interesting:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to–
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

Because it is only unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a machinegun and a trust is not a person then your trust can now purchase machine guns. If the law means what it says.

But that isn’t the way thing work in our country anymore. The way things work is that many or most of the politicians and judges dispense “justice” which means not what the law says but what they want it to mean at this particular time and place. We are long past the time when the law really means what it says. You don’t believe me? Review the history on Obamacare in the last few months. Or try getting a prosecutor to bring charges against someone using 18 USC 241 or 18 USC 242 for infringing upon the rights of people exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

And they are proud of the way they dispense “justice” so don’t expect anything to change anytime soon.

Quote of the day—Eric Bates

Posted on by

If we want to stop gun violence, the 2nd Amendment has to be reworked and we must pass bills that restrict access to all types of weapons. The rest of the civilized world has figured this out already – but Americans are always late to the party when it comes to doing smart and sensible things.

The big problem is that the 2nd amendment won’t be reworked.

Eric Bates
May 15, 2014
The “Guns Everywhere Law” Keeps Us Safe Nowhere
[Bate doesn’t realize that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment nor “is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence”.

I think Bates should move to one of those “civilized world” places he think is “smart and sensible” where they infringe upon the right of people to defend themselves. He should choose wisely because I’m of the opinion we should push such countries to stop their human rights violations and respect the right to keep and bear arms.

Bates is one of those who Alan Dershowitz would call a foolish liberal.

If we want to stop slander and libel we need to rework the 1st Amendment. If we want to get more convictions for criminal activity we need to rework the 5th Amendment. And if we want to stop people with dark colored skin from committing a disproportionate amount of crime we need to rework the 13th Amendment.

We won’t be going there in my lifetime.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Anderson

Posted on by

Besides the Constitutional issues with gun control, the thing that bothers me the most is that the anti-gunners just don’t know what the hell they are talking about. They say they want to have a “conversation” about gun control, but they aren’t even armed with the basic knowledge of how firearms work, let alone stats and facts to back up their attempts to disarm the American populace.

Brian Anderson
April 28, 2014
Anti-Gun NJ Politician Confused About Guns
[H/T to JPFO.

They don’t have basic knowledge about how firearms work, stats, and facts because they are irrelevant to them. Their “reasons” for wanting to disarm us are independent of such things or the facts that do matter to them must be carefully hidden from us in order for their plans to succeed.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

If you listen to and read their propaganda closely you will notice gun control groups don’t say they seek lower violent crime rates. They seek things like:

  • “Common sense” gun regulation
  • Keeping guns away from people that should not have them
  • Protecting peoples “right” to feel safe

It should be clear from the things they don’t say that they know increased gun regulation does not make the world a safer place. And because of this you must conclude that whatever their agenda is it depends on the public at large being less safe from violent crime.

Such people should be prosecuted.

Quote of the day—Ed Suspicious

Posted on by

The only constant in gun deaths is the presence of guns. Remove the guns you remove the gun deaths. Sounds great to me.

Ed Suspicious
May 11, 2014
Comment to John Oliver nails it on gun control
[Ahhh yes, the great “gun death” argument. As if everyone that dies from a gunshot wound is a tragedy and there is no benefit to gun ownership.

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