Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—John Walsh

Posted on by

I’ve suggested to the NRA that if they continue to terrorize Congress and they want everyone to have an AR-15 or an AK-47, that in the stock of that gun you should implant a GPS chip. It has nothing to do with civil liberties — just put in them what I have in my cellphone and what you and everyone has. When I lost my iPad they activated it and tracked it down and I went, ‘This works.’ So if you put this GPS in that AK-47 and a responsible owner gets robbed, now you can catch the dirt bag selling it to the illegal gang-banger, the guy who committed those 11 murders in Chicago. Forget about civil liberties — if you use a credit card, you’re already in Big Brother’s computer.

John Walsh
July 11, 2014
10 things John Walsh said about gun control, the NRA and more
[GPS chip? And then what? It also needs the cellphone modem, the battery, the antennas, and the account with the cell phone provider. This is so easy to defeat that a fourth grader could do it. And that assumes the battery wasn’t already dead when the gun was stolen.

Which is it “It has nothing to do with civil liberties?” Or is it “Forget about civil liberties?”

The government having your credit card history is small potatoes compared to the government being able to track the movement of your guns in real time. And who says it’s okay for Big Brother to have your credit card history?

The other nine things Walsh said were just as stupid as this one.—Joe]

A step toward common sense gun laws

Posted on by

I’m all for common sense gun laws. The current laws restricting the exercise of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms are nonsensical.

Here is just a small sample of the stupidity of some of them:

  • Short barreled rifles are restricted. You are allowed to own a handgun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches but if you cut the barrel and/or stock of a rifle down approaching the size of a handgun you go to jail.
  • Noise suppressors are required on cars but restricted on firearms. Then the neighbors of ranges complain about the noise.
  • Most states don’t have laws against openly carrying a firearm. But if you carry it concealed they have a problem. Even though some ignorant and/or malicious people threaten to, or do, call the police if someone openly carries a gun.
  • Some guns are illegal to be imported into the U.S. But the same exact gun is perfectly legal if “enough” of its parts are made in the U.S. “Enough” is subject to the whims of regulators at the ATF.
  • You are required to have a FFL to be “in the business” of selling firearms. It is okay if you occasionally sell or trade guns from your own collection. But if you sell or trade “too many” guns the ATF will charge you with “being in the business” without a license. They refuse to tell us how many is “too many”.

All of these are weak links that I think are should be challenged in court before some of the more difficult issues like “high capacity” magazines, “right to carry”, “Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale”, “micro-stamping”, etc.

This doesn’t mean that I think anything other than “shall not be infringed” should be the final objective. It’s just that I’m a big proponent of picking the low hanging fruit first.

To that effect today we have the CCRKBA announcing they are attempting to pick some of that low hanging fruit:

CCRKBA FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING FEDERAL LAW ON HANDGUN PURCHASES

Tuesday, July 15th, 2014

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has filed a lawsuit today in federal court in Texas against Attorney General Eric Holder and B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, challenging the current federal law prohibiting cross-state handgun purchases.

CCRKBA brings this lawsuit on behalf of its members throughout the country, who would legally buy and sell handguns outside of their home states, just as they currently do with long guns. Joining CCRKBA as plaintiffs in the case are Texas resident Fredric Russell Mance, Jr., and Tracey Ambeau Hanson and Andrew Hanson, both of Washington, D.C. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth division. Financial assistance for the lawsuit is provided by the Second Amendment Foundation.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, noting that his organization rarely pursues a legal action of such magnitude, said today’s lawsuit is necessary to advance the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens. He said current law essentially criminalizes the interstate handgun market, which does not apply to the sale of rifles or shotguns.

“It is overreaching, if not downright silly, in today’s environment with the federal instant background check system to perpetuate a prohibition on interstate handgun purchases that has outlived its usefulness,” Gottlieb observed. “If a law-abiding citizen can clear a background check and legally purchase a handgun in his own state, he would pass the same background check just across the border in another state.”

This is very important to District of Columbia residents, who can now legally purchase rifles and shotguns from federally-licensed gun dealers in neighboring states, but they still may not purchase handguns. Plaintiff Mance is a federally licensed firearms dealer who would sell handguns directly to consumers in other states, but under current law, he is prohibited from doing so. The Hansons are fully qualified under federal law, and laws in Texas and the District of Columbia, to purchase and possess handguns.

“Federal law allows for interstate long gun sales,” Gottlieb noted, “as long as the dealer follows the law, so what’s the logic of the federal government banning interstate handgun sales? Some states allow for, or even welcome, interstate handgun sales, so what’s the federal government doing?”

Quote of the day—Rolf

Posted on by

They do not care about productive contributions. They are about marginalizing, hatred, bigotry, and challenging any threat to their worldview. They are like a teenager who KNOWS!!1! they are right. They have their stereotypes, and will cling to them tightly, because like a vampire fears sunlight these sorts of minds fear reality; they know outside their temporary bubble, where they imagine they are safe because the illusion has been going on for so long, they wouldn’t stand a chance, and that thought terrifies them. SO, rather than face their fears, they retreat further into their imaginary world, where the law IS the effect, where the average person is bad but government people are good, where real independence is bad and dependence is good, where things are good or evil, and where facts and ethics are all relative.

Rolf
July 14, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—Qrys Bin Thynkn (@QrysBinThynkn)
[In this particular case I agree completely with Rolf but perhaps not in more general instances. This particular immature, name calling, bigot read my blog post about him and continued with the penis insults on Twitter here, here, and here:

The fact that you felt the need to single out my quote tells everyone that you do, in fact, have a small penis. 😉

And you still comment. LOL!! Must be really small. 😉

Do you think these small penis gun advocates realize by ripping into my post they are basically admitting they have a small penis?

Logic and facts are beyond the capability of this guy. There is no such thing as debate using facts, benefits versus hazards, or rights versus reasonable regulation. It about delivering the last lame insult.

I guess you have to play the hand you were dealt. And if that is all that you have you do the best you can with it. But it’s still a losing hand.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Qrys Bin Thynkn (@QrysBinThynkn)

Posted on by

[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via Mark (‏@tazcat2011).

It’s mind boggling how stupid some people are. In what universe does this even begin to make sense or have any hope of making a productive contribution to a discussion about gun ownership?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Bloomberg

Posted on by

In Colorado, we got a law passed. The NRA went after two or three state Senators in a part of Colorado where I don’t think there’s roads.

Michael Bloomberg
July 8, 2014
Michael Bloomberg Isn’t Afraid of the NRA
[The comment by Luvs2Brew addresses the facts better than anyone else I have seen so far:

First off the NRA did not initiate or even engage in these recalls until the very end. Many of us complained they were actually way late to the game. This was a grass roots recall by Coloradans who did not like the idea of our elected officials selling our rights out to out of state interests like Bloomberg.

Second, these recaps were not in rural areas where there were no roads. One was in Colorado Springs, home to the US Olympic Training Center, Cheyenne Mountain, the US Air Force Academy, Peterson Air Force Base and Fort Carson. The other was in Pueblo which is just south of us on I-25. And yes we have roads, and airports and indoor plumbing. So Bloomberg is either completely out of touch, or just a flat out liar.

I’m going with “completely out of touch” and mind boggling arrogance by someone who is unable to stop himself from lying.—Joe]

The science isn’t settled

Posted on by

While it’s true many environmentalists take a dim view of lead bullets and are sloppy with the facts regarding them this report is certainly subject to debate even though there is some truth to it:

Highlighting increasingly dangerous conditions within the city, a new study published Monday by Northwestern University’s Department of Environmental Studies revealed that approximately 75 percent of the air in Chicago is now composed of bullets.

The authors of the study suggest “that Chicago’s 2.7 million residents stay indoors whenever possible in order to minimize their exposure”. But I am of the opinion they should prosecute their politicians, legalize recreational drugs, prosecute and jail gang members, let the disarmed victims shoot back, and the air would clear up naturally over the course of a year or two.

Quote of the day—John Prager

Posted on by

With conservatives’ obsession with guns there is no more surefire way to make oneself a god amongst the Teabilly crowd than to lure them in with a smile and an AR-15. On Thursday, Clint Didier, a Tea Party Republican, announced that he will be giving away two Ruger 2300 LC9 pistols and a DB-15 S rifle in an effort to gain support in his bid for retiring Washington Rep. Doc Hastings. Hastings is just the latest to prey upon conservatives’ paranoid ‘Yer not gonna git mah guns’ attitude. Who else has joined in this new tradition of winning over stupid people with weaponry?

John Prager
June 21, 2014
Death Dealers: Pathetic GOP Candidates Are Giving Away Assault Rifles to Buy Votes
[If the title of the article were actually true then wouldn’t they have to give a select fire rifle to everyone who agreed to vote for them? Or would it be one for each community and they would share it?

The entire article is filled with logical and factual errors. Did you catch the error above where he says “bid for retiring Washington Rep. Doc Hastings”? I didn’t know you could bid on people. Is Hasting going to be Didier’s slave if he has the winning bid?

Yet he thinks we are the stupid ones. Mr. Prager, Have you ever heard of projection?—Joe]

They think they are special

Posted on by

Dr. Grier is a former professor of mine. I took Philosophy 101 from him as a freshman. I never imagined he would be my political adversary attempting to make my daughter defenseless when she was at school:

At the University of Idaho, Dr. Nicholas Grier has distributed a legal opinion by attorney Benjamin Onosko to faculty that explains how the university may just choose to not enforce the dangerous law, or challenge it in court.

The University of Idaho holds a special place in Idaho law as compared to every other university in the state,” wrote Onosko. The university, he explains, was founded through the state constitution while other public colleges and universities were established through the state legislature. “By choosing to include the University of Idaho in its constitution, Idaho gave the university inherent powers that most other universities do not enjoy,” he wrote. He added that, “while I have not had time to conduct a full investigation of relevant case law from surrounding jurisdictions, I believe that the University of Idaho has a strong argument that this new law is unconstitutional as applied to it, and that it cannot be enforced against the University of Idaho.”

Grier is a proponent of Gandhi and non-violence. I get that. But perhaps he was selective when he studied Gandhi’s work. These quotes in particular would seem to be something he overlooked or ignored:

I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.  Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have used his physical force which could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.

And:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

The people at the University of Idaho think they are special? Do they think they are so special they can override Article 1, Sections 1 and 11 of the Idaho State Constitution?

SECTION 1. INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

…

SECTION 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

And if they think they can override that there is still the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights which is supposed to keep people like this in check.

People like this who openly acknowledge they are “Seeking Ways to Circumvent Laws” should be prosecuted for conspiracy to infringe the rights of others.

Quote of the day—Ana Marie Cox

Posted on by

Activists such as those at Everytown need to redraw focus away from the infrequent horror of mass shootings and get voters to recognize the daily tragedies of gun violence. A taller order, but just as necessary: make clear that the gun violence is not about violent people with guns – it’s about guns, period.

…

There is no such thing as a neutral position on guns, because there is no such thing as a neutral gun. Guns have one purpose: to kill things. They are no more neutral than a poison. They can be used for good or ill, but the reason they exist is to hurt someone. In the “bad guy with a gun” versus a “good guy with a gun” scenario, the problem isn’t who’s bad and who’s good, it’s that there is a gun involved, period.

Ana Marie Cox
July 8, 2014
This Is The Real Reason Gun Control Is Failing
[By this logic the police shouldn’t have guns either then because it doesn’t matter if they are a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. I have to conclude Cox has some sort of mental disorder to have their thinking this messed up.

In any case don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns away. As well as not letting clearly crazy people possess guns we shouldn’t let crazy people take our guns.—Joe]

A dystopian advocate

Posted on by

Amazing: Let’s nationalize Amazon and Google: Publicly funded technology built Big Tech

It’s mind boggling to read this crap. One of the arguments is that they are spying on people, which he doesn’t like. So putting them under government control is a good idea? Hasn’t this idiot heard of the NSA in the last few months?

It should come as no surprise he wants to destroy the “pioneer fantasy” of gun ownership.

Either he thinks of The Gulag Archipelago as a utopia instead of a dystopia or he is so naïve and/or stupid that he doesn’t realize what he advocates would create those conditions.

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.