Category Archives: Gun Rights

Where are Bloomberg, Brady, etc. now?

Posted on by

After all the Ferguson shooting “protests”, property damage, injuries, and general mayhem from all the people coast to coast why aren’t Bloomberg, Moms Demand, The Brady Campaign, and the other violence prevention groups speaking out? They usually are dancing in the blood before it has even had time to cool. If they were as interested in preventing violence in general as they are with preventing “gun violence” they would be demanding the repeal of the First Amendment and an end to open government.

If we had a government truly doing it’s job in violence prevention when Wilson shot his attacker they would have brought in a sanitation crew that would have cleaned up the mess and confiscated any video that showed up. Then, as needed, they would have brought in for “questioning” anyone that said anything about the incident. That’s what the Gulags are for. It should be a police matter and not a citizen concern. Those common sense, reasonable changes to our laws would prevent almost all violence of this nature.

That these groups aren’t demanding that sort of infringement on the First Amendment tells you something about them. It tells you they are hypocrites and/or they know they need to destroy the Second Amendment before they can move on to the First Amendment.

I am inclined to believe it is a matter of destruction of the Second before the First Amendment. This is because they aren’t demanding changes in the law with regard to the police shooting someone. They apparently don’t have a problem with the police possession of guns. They just don’t want private citizens to have guns. Guns in the possession of police will come in handy when they move on to infringing the First Amendment.

Quote of the day—Rep. Dan Muhlbauer

Posted on by

We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them. We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons. We should ban those in Iowa.

…

The state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.

Rep. Dan Muhlbauer
(D-Manilla)
January 7, 2013
Iowa Lawmaker on ‘Semi-Automatic’ Firearms: ‘I Think We Need to Start Taking Them’
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.

He may incoherent and possibly even hallucinating about guns with legs running down the streets. But his vote in the state legislature is worth thousands of times more than yours is in the ballot box.—Joe]

Legally shooting people

Posted on by

The anti-Second Amendment people will frequently claim that all you have to do is say, “I felt threatened” and you can get away with murder in “Stand Your Ground” states. Of course this isn’t true. But they believe it and of course, in their world view, their beliefs trump facts.

Larry Correia used to teach self-defense classes professionally and wrote up in great detail the legal criteria for legally shooting someone in self-defense. It should go in your list of links to send to those who think a license to carry is a license to murder.

The short version is someone must have the Ability, Opportunity, and Immediacy to inflict great bodily harm or death upon an innocent person before you can use lethal force to defend against them. I used teach Means, Opportunity, and Intent. But it amounts to the same thing.

Quote of the day—Steve Dowson

Posted on by

We are keen to raise awareness of the devastating impact of knife crime and to reduce the number of families affected so we have decided to keep the knife bins indefinitely.

While projects encouraging the surrender of knives are not a single solution to violence, they have an important role to play in inspiring communities to get behind education and preventative measures.

Such campaigns show a desire to address local concerns and Lancashire Police is keen to throw our weight behind them in support.

We’ve been delighted with the response so far, but our communities have told us that they want an end to knife crime and that they want to work with us to make that happen.

Steve Dowson
Detective Chief Inspector
Lancashire, England
August 10, 2014
Save a Life – Surrender Your Knife
SurrenderYourKnife1SurrenderYourKnife2
[Via a Tweet from Chris Knox.

No. This is not satire. Here is another link to marvel at.

Read carefully. Notice how they measure success in terms of symbolism and good intentions? Measuring success in terms of crime rates is not even hinted at. No mention of the futility.

This is a culture that has some serious mental problems. They apparently cannot distinguish between their fantasy of good intentions and the reality of criminal behavior. Do they also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Great Pumpkin?

This would be our future if we were to surrender to the anti-Second Amendment people.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Soyer

Posted on by

Criminals and gang bangers throughout the Washington State are also planning to return their stolen or purchased-with-drugs guns to comply with the new law.

Jeff Soyer
November 20, 2014
WA: Another Example of Why “Universal Gun Background Checks” Laws are Foolish
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Not an I-594 consideration

Posted on by

Yesterday I received an email from someone concerned about leaving someone alone in the car with a gun. Could that be construed as requiring a background check?

I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure the answer is no. “Transfer” is defined (Sec 2. (25)) as:

“Transfer” means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.

So I think leaving someone alone in the car with a gun should be exempt.

Also, on Facebook this morning Joe Waldron (former(?) CCRKBA lobbyist) commented in regards to the flare and nail guns post:

The definition of “firearm” in I-594 is the same definition that has been law in Washington since 1994. They didn’t come after your flare and nail guns (or projectile fireworks) then and they’re not going to come after them now. Let’s not get distracted.

Let’s not jump the shark too many times, okay?

Today is a high traffic day

Posted on by

Say Uncle, Bitter, and The Gun Feed all linked to my post I-594 covers flare and nail guns. The Gun Feed did so with a top of the page headliner:

GunFeedFlareGun

Blog traffic is higher than normal.

Quote of the day—Gerald Ensley

Posted on by

I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks.

I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

…

Those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns.

One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will:

We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.

Gerald Ensley
Senior writer/columnist Tallahassee Democrat
850-599-2310 or gensley@tallahassee.com
November 23, 2014
Stop the insanity: Ban guns
[Via email from Carl Stevenson.

Never let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.

And to Mr. Ensley, I would like to suggest you take point when you take those guns.—Joe]

I-594 covers flare and nail guns

Posted on by

Via email from Kirk Parker we find still more absurdity in I-594:

The definition of firearm contained in state law and in I-594 reads, “… A weapon or device from which a projectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder.”

Notice the key words “or device” in the definition.

Walmart and many sporting goods stores sell 12-gauge flare guns used for signaling straight off the shelves.

These flare guns have previously been determined to be firearms by the WSP Crime Lab in Tacoma because they fire a projectile by an explosive.

I-594 requires background checks for these sales, loans and transfers.

Home Depot, Lowe’s and other hardware stores sell Ramset nail guns, which use a gunpowder charge to fire nails, usually into concrete or steel.

These nail guns have actually been used in the past to murder people. I-594 requires background checks on these sales, loans and transfers.

I keep wondering about how the severability clause (Sec. 12) in I-594 is going to handle these things when the courts start stomping on this piece of trash. It says:

If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

The courts can’t rewrite the definitions of “firearm”, “gun”, and “transfer”, can they? Isn’t it limited to just striking certain portions of it? If so then how can the transfer restrictions, or even background checks, be retained? Doesn’t this increase the chances the entire thing must be thrown out? If the legislature wants to try and rewrite it with a 2/3 majority do we have enough votes to block the rewrite so the entire thing must be thrown out?

Quote of the day—formerChild

Posted on by

Guns are just viagra for these guys. They’re incapable of sustaining an erection without one in their hand (a gun, I mean).

formerChild
October 13, 2014
Comment to NRA Warns Men: If You Let Your Wife Do Gun Control, Your Peen May Fall Off
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

The article and most of the comments are Markley’s law material. It’s as if they are obsessed with genitalia. I never spent much time around hard-core racists, but didn’t/don’t they have some obsession with the size of black men’s penis’s too? I wonder if there is some sort of feeling of inadequacy in the mind of the bigot which they need to project onto their victims.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ray Carter

Posted on by

The police (and paramedics) are dandy when they arrive. But in the immediate moment of attempted felonious or otherwise violent action being committed upon ones self, persons one is responsible for or the imminent threat thereof a more immediate tool is both appropriate and desirable even in this day and age. It is my observation that a .45acp JHP placed center of mass at approximately 900fps will, more often than not, bring such unpleasantry to a swift halt, though on occasion repeated application of the lesson is required.

Ray Carter
November 21, 2014
Comment on Facebook.
[Or as John Fogh once said:

Nothing says, “Please don’t rape me.” like multiple jacketed hollowpoints.

—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lyle

Posted on by

Something we should all understand, and the sooner the better; the anti WANTS to be stopped. Believe it. Just like the errant little child, testing his parents’ strengths and weaknesses by misbehaving, the leftist is testing you, wanting more than anything to find the good, principled, rock solid father figure that he never had, so he’ll be loved and corrected like he never has been. Every time you cave or compromise like a shitty, girlish, drunken Republican on anything, the leftist is disgusted with you, and will ramp up the volume and rattle the cage even harder. It’s a search, you see, for even one good, principled individual.

Lyle
November 21, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—Anthony W. Ishii
[It is true that our anti-freedom opponents have a nearly unending demand for the government to force us to do things. So why not give them what they want by government forcing freedom upon them?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anthony W. Ishii

Posted on by

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

  1. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days and who are in lawful possession of an additional firearm as confirmed by the AFS system;a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;
  2. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days and who possess a valid CCW license issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26150 or § 26155;a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;
  3. The 10-day waiting periods of California Penal Code § 26815(a) and § 27540(a) violate the Second Amendment as applied to those individuals who successfully pass the BFEC/standard background check prior to 10 days and who possess both a valid COE issued pursuant to California Penal Code § 26710 and a firearm as confirmed by the AFS system.a. If the BFEC/standard background check for such an individual is completed and approved before 10-days, Defendant shall immediately release the firearm for delivery to such individual and shall not wait the full 10-days;

Anthony W. Ishii
Senior United States District Judge
August 22, 2014
Jeff Silvester, et al. v. Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California
[This ruling in Federal court may impact the five day waiting period on handguns in Washington State which appears to be extended to ten days under I-594. California intends to appeal this ruling but the stay on enforcing this order is about to expire and it appears California will have to drop the waiting period for certain categories of people during the appeal.

SAF was one of the plaintiffs in this case and with their strong presence in Washington State perhaps before the end of the year we will see another lawsuit over the waiting period there. It would be nice to get a quick slap down on I-594 even if it were a just minor part of the injustice inflicted upon us.—Joe]

Hunting with an AR

Posted on by

Via Hunter-Ed.com:

AR_Infographic_Rd3-1

Don’t let anyone ever get away with saying these guns are not for hunting.

I-594 vagueness

Posted on by

I-594 has a number of issues that are not clear. Perhaps the most vague is section 3. (4)(f)(ii) which is an exception to the requirement that background checks need not be done prior to a transfer:

if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;

Emphasis added.

The question is what does “kept at all times” mean? Does this mean for the duration of the transfer or does it mean the gun stays at the range until the end of time? Well, we might be able to rule out “until the end of time”. But it could easily be interpreted as the gun belongs to the range such as a rental gun.

I think we can get a clue as to what was meant by this by the counter example in section 3. (4)(f)(iii):

if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm,

Emphasis added.

Notice the different language used. Had they intended for the first exemption to mean “the gun must not leave the range while in use by your friend” or something similar they would (should?) have used language such as:

if the temporary transfer occurs, and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located;

While one could argue that I am giving them too much credit for deliberate and clear use of the language I wonder what the courts will think. And keep in mind this is the age of Gruber and admitted deliberate deception by the authors of the law. The authors of I-594 have close philosophical ties to the authors of Obamacare. I strongly suspect they intended for it to be ambiguous so they could claim one thing before the election and another when it was being enforced.

Quote of the day—Sean Davis

Posted on by

Baseless gun control laws don’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Instead, those laws keep lawful, innocent Americans from being able to protect themselves from the very same criminals who regularly violate the nation’s gun laws. Thankfully, that’s a fact that more and more Americans understand.

Sean Davis
November 11, 2014
Time for Knife Control?
[Setbacks like I-594 blunt the enthusiasm but we are making progress. It’s extremely easy to see the progress when I look back 20 years to 1994. The Heller and McDonald decisions were such huge wins that I don’t think the anti-gun side will ever recover.

The war may never be won to my satisfaction but we are making steady progress on the culture war. Of the three fronts we do battle on, legislative (including initiatives), judicial, and culture we are clearly winning more than losing on two of them. It’s only the legislative that we have lost some important battles recently. Even if they have another few wins of I-594 magnitude in the next few years we will bury them with the cultural and judicial wins.—Joe]

First 594 casualty

Posted on by

I-594 has claimed its first casualty, even though it doesn’t go into effect until December. A museum in Lynden, WA, is returning some WW II rifles it was loaned, loans which would become problematic once the law is in effect. So, people going to the museum will not be able to see the parts of history they once could. I’m sure you feel much safer now.

The push to marginalize guns and gun owners, to make them seem “other,” different, freakish, and strange continues.

Quote of the day—James

Posted on by

The problem with applying risk factor analysis to the law is that the law gains it’s moral authority from its disposition against what is wrong and in favor of what is right. Not every risk factor for a bad event is, independently, morally wrong. For example, littering is wrong, but carrying objects is not wrong, even though it makes littering more likely. Lying in court is wrong, but speaking in court is often necessary, although it makes perjury more likely.

Simply proving that an action or state of affairs carries risk does not say anything for or against its moral justification. Laws regarding the ability of the people to arm themselves need to make sense as a model of individualized justice, not just as a risk-management strategy for those making the decisions.

James
January 20, 2013
Comment to Please Take Away My Right to a Gun
[It’s a little dense but I really liked the comparisons to littering and perjury.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rob Morse

Posted on by

Let’s not mince words. People who punish and restrict innocent people are bigots. Much of the language, and many of the actions, by the anti-rights gun-control groups is designed to alienate gun owners from the rest of society. The reason is simple. It is easier for politicians to oppress an alienated minority. Yes, this is government sponsored bigotry.

Rob Morse
November 10, 2014
Government Approved Bigotry Against Firearms Owner
[H/T JPFO.

As I have been saying for years.—Joe]

Quote of the day—GOP @GroverOwnedPawn

Posted on by

@Brettsko ihave small testicles and a huge amount of paranoid delusion. Check out my GUN!

GOP @GroverOwnedPawn
Tweeted on October 10, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a Tweet from Cal A. Feit ‏@tazcat2011.

As I have been telling people of his ilk recently, “Actually, I have the Bill of Rights supported by SCOTUS and you have grade school insults.”—Joe]

Update: A short while after this post went live the following conversation occurred on Twitter:

 Joe Huffman @JoeHuffman

Quote of the day—GOP @GroverOwnedPawn wp.me/p2Yf1R-G3WN – 17 Nov

 GOP @GroverOwnedPawn

@JoeHuffman nobody reads your blog Joe.
02:37 PM – 17 Nov 14

 Joe Huffman @JoeHuffman

@GroverOwnedPawn You should do some research in that. Apparently you have problems distinguishing reality from your wistful thinking. – 17 Nov

 GOP @GroverOwnedPawn

@JoeHuffman ok Joe good luck with that wistful thinking!
02:51 PM – 17 Nov 14

Then sometime before noon he deleted all his Tweets associated with this topic.

My best guess is that the recreational drugs he was using wore off sufficiently such that he caught a glimpse of reality but it’s hard to know for sure. And as Barb and I frequently tell each other, “You are trying to make sense of crazy. You shouldn’t be attempting that. It’s not healthy.”