Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Brian Keith

Posted on by

I am a walking no-violent-crime zone.

When I carry a handgun, I ensure the safety of all of those around me.

I don’t replace the police- far from it. I’m the guy you want around when evil strikes so that everyone can stay alive long enough for the police to arrive.

Brian Keith
December 13, 2014

[This was part of his speech at the #IWillNotComply rally in Olympia.

Brian sent me an email a couple days after the event. Part of the email said:

Maybe I’ll get to meet you at the next gun rally. I know my Dad and I would have liked to shake your hand, as we read you almost every day.

I thought about using your bigotry meme as the main theme for my speech.

I went instead for the “I own guns” theme as it is accessible without much thinking.

I did add the bit on at the end about two guys holding hands or an interracial kiss. That definitely comes from reading you.

I almost had tears rolling down my checks from reading that. I can’t begin to say how rewarding it is to make an influence like that on people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Donnie Brasco ‏@D0NNIE_BRASC0

Posted on by

Take your skinny limp impudent dick & get on now. You’ve got kinfolk to fuck & butt a plugs to make.

Donnie Brasco ‏@D0NNIE_BRASC0
Tweeted on December 19, 2014
[Via a tweet from BFD ‏@BigFatDave.

It’s very telling that we have SCOTUS decisions on our side and they resort to grade-school insults.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charles___Darwin

Posted on by

Some of these hunters should get Viagra instead of bigger guns. Take away some of the “envy” if you know what I mean.

Charles___Darwin
December 4, 2014
Comment to 3 challenge Florida decision to lift ban on gun silencers for hunting
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

What is most interesting to me about this particular example of Markley’s Law is that the article this guy commented on didn’t even mention “bigger guns”. It was all about suppressors.

These people have mental health issues. They literally “hear” things that were not said. I’ve dealt with people like this before. You can repeat your words and they still hear something completely different from what was said. You can literally have them read the words you wrote and they insist there are words there that do not exist. You can push them hard enough to read carefully and agree that those words do not exist then, literally, ten seconds later they insist those words are there again.

I’m reminded of a story where, after visiting a mental health ward, a person asked a health provider, “Why do so many of the patients insist they hear the voice of God?” The response was, “Because it’s one of the few socially acceptable delusions.”

It is my hypothesis there are so many mentally unfit people in the anti-gun movement because it’s one of the few socially acceptable areas where total government control is somewhat accepted. Their lives are chaotic, they feel out of control, and they seek stability even though they make the very decisions that created much of the chaos. Individuality, and gun ownership in particular, represents unpredictability and chaos to them. Government control of their lives and the lives of others represents, however delusional a belief this actually is, the ultimate stability and security.—Joe]

Very telling

Posted on by

I find it very telling this anti-gun “Public Service Video” appears to advocate an activity similar to those practiced by youth organizations in countries like the USSR and Nazi Germany—spying on and turning your parents in to the authorities.

And that doesn’t even include all the crimes committed both in the making of the video and those enacted.

This is the model they envision for the path to their utopia.

Other viewpoints include:

Update: Another way to demonstrate how this is wrong is to replace the gun with a religious book. Do you turn steal constitutionally protected objects from people to give to authority figures?

Quote of the day—Mike Lupica

Posted on by

This isn’t about responsible gun owners. This is about all the slow thinkers, starting with the mouth breathers from the National Rifle Association — the ones who have pimped themselves out to gun manufacturers and prostituted the Second Amendment at the same time — who actually believe that assault-weapons bans and tougher background checks and limits on ammunition are somehow a threat to everything good and decent.

Mike Lupica
December 14, 2015
America continues to protect gun nuts, even though Newtown remains wounded two years after Sandy Hook shooting
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

That is what some people think of us. “Gun nuts”, “slow thinking … mouth breathers from the National Rifle Association.”

I’ll beat he believes we would give up before we could sound out all the words and get to the point where we read, but still not understand, that if he could he would ban the most popular guns in the country. But it is he that is the slow thinker.

He apparently doesn’t care that more people are murdered with hands and feet than are with the type of rifle used to murder children at Sandy Hook. He apparently doesn’t understand that criminals substitute one weapon for another depending upon availability at the time. He apparently doesn’t understand that when some madman is slaughtering first grade children a machete would work just as well as a rifle, doesn’t need to be reloaded, and can be fabricated in your garage from a piece of scrap metal, a piece of wood and a couple of screws.

Mr. Lupica is such a slow thinker that he believes tougher background checks would prevent “the wrong people” from gaining access to firearms yet the evidence shows any high school dropout has easy access to whatever illegal recreational drug they want as well as alcohol.

Mr. Lupica is such a slow thinker that he thinks a ban on America’s most popular gun and limiting ammunition would not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

If Mr. Lupica thinks we are such slow thinkers then why doesn’t he offer to take point when they decide to go house-to-house enforcing the “assault-weapons” bans he is advocating? If he did then we could get some real world data as to who is the slower thinker as to the practicality of such an endeavor.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mr Wiseguy

Posted on by

Sometimes – as sad as it is – only violence stops violence. The next middle-class white kid that wants to go postal should do a service to his country and do it at the NRA headquarters.

Mr Wiseguy
December 16, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[There are two ways to interpret this. One is that Mr. Wiseguy wants such a person to be quickly stopped with a minimal loss of life. The other is Mr. Wiseguy wants the people at NRA headquarters murdered.

I’m inclined to believe the latter interpretation is correct. Otherwise he might have avoided the ambiguity by suggesting the event occur at a police station or a military gun range where the good guys are more likely to be in armor, relatively well trained, and with loaded guns.

Hence, I have to tentatively conclude Mr. Wiseguy is advocating for the murder of NRA employees. You shouldn’t be surprised by this. It’s an inherent part of their nature.—Joe]

A chink created in GCA68

Posted on by

Via Dave Hardy and WSJ. This is a really big deal:

This case presents an important issue of first impression in the federal courts: whether a prohibition on the possession of firearms by a person “who has been committed to a mental institution,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), violates the Second Amendment. Twenty-eight years ago, Clifford Charles Tyler was involuntarily committed for less than one month after allegedly undergoing an emotionally devastating divorce. Consequently, he can never possess a firearm. Tyler filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court dismissed Tyler’s suit for failure to state a claim. Because Tyler’s complaint validly states a violation of the Second Amendment, we reverse and remand.

This creates a significant chink in GCA68:

In this case of first impression, we consider not the what, where, when, or why of the Second Amendment’s limitations—but the who.6 Specifically, does the Second Amendment forbid Congress from prohibiting firearm possession by all individuals previously committed to a mental institution?

It also reviews the level of scrutiny being applied by other courts, expends several pages on it, and:

We conclude our explanation of choosing strict scrutiny with a reminder of intermediate scrutiny’s shaky foundation in Second Amendment law.

Strict scrutiny it is!

With strict scrutiny the law must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. The fact that someone was once confined to a mental institution does not mean they should necessarily be prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the rest of their life.

The same could easily be said of those who have committed non-violent felonies.

This ruling could help end the “sporting purpose” test and the Lautenberg Amendment.

Although this was in the sixth circuit and not the ninth which covers Washington State you can see how strict scrutiny would mean the end of the most onerous portions of I-594. How can a law preventing students in a classroom from passing a an unloaded firearm to another student be considered “narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest”? The only way that can be true is if the state interest is that there not be a right to keep and bear arms.

Quote of the day—kglnyc

Posted on by

Our society is at fault for allowing people like you and the NRA for creating a national epidemic of gun violence, and one day we will be able to take reasonable legislative actions to control you murderous, greedy, insensitive elements and live freer and more safely.

kglnyc
December 16, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[I’m going to ignore all the factual and logical errors and focus on the really important issue here…

And just what “legislative actions” would normally be taken to control those who are “murderous”?

As I have said before, one might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from people like him.—Joe]

What if?

Posted on by

What if there were a county in Washington State that publically announced they would not enforce the I-594 provisions (H/T to Say Uncle and Miguel) against people who were not prohibited from gun ownership?
 
Could people travel to that county, do a private sale, and return to, say, King County and be immune from prosecution by the tyrants in King County because the “crime” occurred in a county out of their jurisdiction?

If that were the case then wouldn’t it mean I-594 is essentially unenforceable everywhere unless there were witnesses or compelling evidence that such travel and sale did not occur?

I asked this question of a lawyer friend who said, in part:

I’m not sure that the King county courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed outside the county borders. Of course, the King county prosecutor could always charge their residents with criminal conspiracy or racketeering (if they somehow discovered that an offense had occurred).

A couple of things I’ve been working on re: 594: I’m trying to get a model ordinance going at the county level that designates areas where shooting occurs (someone’s backyard for instance) as an “approved range” if no other zoning ordinance would be violated.  I’m hoping to get this going in Whitman soon- maybe it will spread. If you know people who live in “good” counties that might be interested in taking this to their commissioners, send them my way.

If you are one of those people that live in a “good county” send me an email and I’ll forward it on to my lawyer friend.

The anti-gun people think they are clever and that we are just “stupid, uneducated rednecks.” I wonder how long they will hold onto that belief as we start “driving trucks” through their stupid law and laughing at them.

Quote of the day—Mike Costanza

Posted on by

Morons with guns are the scourge of this country.

Mike Costanza
December 15, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[This is what they think of you.

And just what do you suppose they think should be done to end the scourge?—Joe]

Why just the gun manufacturer?

Posted on by

I’ve been thinking about the lawsuit against Bushmaster because of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting. And the more I think about it the more clear it becomes that our political opponents are not rational.

If the gun manufacturer is responsible then isn’t the magazine manufacturer just as, if not more, responsible? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the custom springs in the gun? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the propellant in the ammunition? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the bullets? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the shell casing? Why just the gun manufacturer?

What about the manufacturer of the cups, anvils, and explosive compounds in the primers? Why just the gun manufacturer?

And of course we could, and have, asked similar questions about the car the shooter drove to the school, and that leads to the gasoline, tires, oil, and roads he used to get there. And once we go there why not the shoes and clothes of the shooter? Or maybe he wore glasses and would have had trouble hitting his targets if it hadn’t been for the manufacturer of the corrective lenses and the optometrist who prescribed them.

We could carry this on to bizarrely extreme levels but I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. So how does the anti-gun mind work such that they think the gun manufacture is responsible but none of the other manufactures of the components involved in the crime are? The point is that there is no clear threshold where it is easy to say the manufacturer of one component is responsible and the next is not.

The only thing I can think of is that they have some mind distorting hatred of GUNS!!! such that they cannot think rationally. They recognize the absurdity of blaming the car and corrective lens manufacturers but it just doesn’t register that since the ownership of a gun is constitutionally protected right that makes the liability of gun manufacturer even more absurd.

The inability to recognize the obvious in defiance of clear and presence evidence is evidence of a mental disorder. We see it with Peterson Syndrome and we see it here.

Speaker at I-594 Rally for Your Rights

Posted on by

Yesterday I was asked if I would be a speaker at the rally against I-594 on January 15th. I agreed and today they announced it.

Don’t let this stop you from showing up and supporting the movement to rid our state of this unconstitutional law. Confirm your attendance here.

Quote of the day—westcoast2012

Posted on by

Back ground checks before being allowed to own a gun is just common sense, as is outlawing AK-47’s, but the pro gun movement has always seemed to me to be void of common sense.

westcoast2012
December 14, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one want to take your guns.—Joe]

What’s going on here?

Posted on by

This is an elaboration of a comment I posted on Paul Barrett’s article about the inevitable failure of the lawsuit against Bushmaster in regards to the Sandy Hook tragedy. Barrett went to law school and has more than casual acquaintance with firearm law. I share his certainty it will fail.

I would have expected most reputable lawyers would have redirected the parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook to counseling rather than to pursue a hopeless lawsuit against the manufacture of a gun. I can understand the pain and even a need to “do something” but a lawyer who did any research at all, let alone gave it a few minutes of thought, should have concluded such a lawsuit is doomed to failure and deepening anguish for the parents.

I initially hypothesized the lawyer involved was someone desperate for money and at least momentary fame. But it is a law firm with a history that goes back 75+ years (via an article on CNN Money).

It’s possible they are short on money and with nine parents backing the lawsuit they may be able to bill (bilk?) them for perhaps a much as a million dollars. But will losing such a high profile case be to their benefit in the fame department? It’s been said many times that there is no such thing as bad publicity but that is usually in a much different context. When winning is what matters to your customers you don’t want to be well-known as a loser.

Lawyer David Hardy says, “I really can’t see it as filed in good faith.”

So I’m perplexed by this. Are the lawyers in this firm so ignorant of gun law (Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act), proximate causation precedent, and blinded by emotions that they think they have a chance “because GUN!!!”?

Filed for future use

Posted on by

If we get to the point where we are prosecuting politicians and law enforcement for violation of our civil rights questions like this will need to be answered:

I haven’t researched it, but I wonder how this plays out in the setting of a criminal prosecution of a government actor for deprivation of civil rights. Is ignorance of the Constitution no defense, because it’s a criminal case, or is reasonable failure to appreciate there was a constitutional right being violated a defense because of qualified immunity?

Quote of the day—TeeJaw

Posted on by

There is no way to understand the mentality of people who want to disarm decent citizens while criminals keep all their guns. It’s a sickness that defies description or comprehension.

TeeJaw
December 14, 2014
Comment to #IWillNotComply rally in Olympia
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—BadExampleMan @BadExampleMan

Posted on by

Being called fetishist by someone preferring random slaughter of children to giving up a penis substitue: priceless.

BadExampleMan @BadExampleMan
Tweeted October 25, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]

Quote of the day—thambi

Posted on by

I have better things to do with my time than listen to stupid, uneducated rednecks.

thambi
December 12, 2014
Comment to A lobbyist resurfaces: The NRA mulls strategies to undermine I-594
[This was in a response to a suggestion they attend a rally against I-594 in Olympia.

This is what they are willing to say about you in public. What they actually think of you is almost for certain more than enough to justify maintaining a firm grip on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms and regular training.—Joe]

#IWillNotComply rally in Olympia

Posted on by

I drove to Olympia today to participate in the rally against law created with I-594. We had a decent turn out. I didn’t stay for the entire thing but it seemed to go very well from what I could tell. People were participating with the speakers and the Washington State Patrol officers present looked bored:

IMG_1969IMG_1974Adjusted

I’m putting the rest of the pictures “below the fold” so that it doesn’t create long load times for the main page for the next week.

Continue reading →

Quote of the day—Dave Workman

Posted on by

Just as it is none of the government’s business who peacefully protests in a public setting, First Amendment advocates seem to insist, it is equally none of the government’s business – or anyone else’s – when someone harmlessly exercises the right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment activists might argue. Do they have a legitimate point?

The Stranger habitually sneers at Second Amendment activists and, exercising the First Amendment right of free speech and the press, clearly advocated placing the “universal background check” restriction on gun owners. The Stranger is a popular alternative newspaper among Seattle’s far left, the folks who overwhelmingly voted for I-594. It was not their right being stepped on.

How many of those attorneys and public defenders and newspaper editorialists voted for I-594? If they don’t understand the parallels between restricting peaceful protest and being photographed by the police, and building records on gun owners, then they shouldn’t be practicing law or pounding keyboards for a living.

Dave Workman
December 12, 2014
Is it time to treat the First Amendment just like the Second?
[Lyle has often said the political left understands how rights are supposed to work. But I think we have sufficient evidence now that is not true. Do you think progressives understand how the First Amendment is supposed to work? Really? If so then explain to me why we are nearly 600 days into the IRS scandal with none of the perpetrators in jail or even indicted?

I do not believe progressives have respect for individual rights. They only claim rights when people engage in activities that advance the cause of the collective. As THE Clint Black tweeted a few days ago:

Your government arms dictators.

Your government arms “rebels”.

Your government arms terrorists.

Your government prefers you unarmed.

How else do you explain this?

Here’s another example: There are about 8000 murders each year in the U.S. that are committed using a firearm. Using the most conservative estimates there are about 80 million gun owners. Assuming the worst case, suppose each of the murders was committed by a different person (way wrong, at Newtown there were 26 murders by just one person) you still end up with the odds of some random (and they are certainly NOT random) gun owner being a murderer in a given year at 0.01%. Yet they insist we should be registered and every time a gun changes hands we should request permission from the government and submit paperwork documenting the exchange. And this is even in those cases where the recipient already owns one or more guns. No rational person can believe this will make society safer so their must be another reason. I can only think of two possible explanations for this behavior:

  1. These people have serious mental defects.
  2. These people have evil intent.

In either case we have only unpleasant options available to us.—Joe]