Quote of the day—happy48

The NRA officer board needs to be put in prison. They’re bad people. If I ever found it necessary to own a gun, I’d never support that organization. They don’t represent me, a responsible person. They represent the people that shouldn’t have guns. That’s why we have such a problem. They’re the devil. You’re safer without a gun in hostile situations then with one. How is a cop going to tell the difference in a shoot out. What are you going to do put out a sign that says I’m a good guy.? Guns are a big business. And money is their God. The devil supports the Republican party. Their policies support abortions and murder.

happy48
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[And if an organization such as the NRA did not exist and he found it necessary to own a gun it would not be possible for him to legally purchase one.

“You’re safer without a gun in hostile situations then with one.” I didn’t know that! I guess that is why when cops go into hostile situations they always leave their guns behind, right? Yeah. Right. And stealing the words of Roberta, “What color is the sky up his ass?”

This is what these people think of you. Imagine what they would do to you and the Second Amendment if they wrote the laws. Oh, that’s right. You don’t have to imagine. Just read the laws of Washington D.C, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, and Chicago. It is people like this that we need the Second as well as the 13th Amendment. And it is people like this that should be put on trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lee Viola

Essentially, gun advocates in 2014 are of the same mindset as cigarette smokers in 1964—just deny, blow some smoke in a rationalist’s face, and toss a butt on the street as though you own it.

Reasonable gun control will happen in the US, but it will require about fifty years of education, needlessly lost lives, price increases, lawsuits, and the same social/sexual shunning that have made smokers a powerless minority.

In the future, gun ownership will be rare and expensive.

Lee Viola
March 28, 2014
Comment to The Gun-Control Conversation Happened—and the NRA Won Again
[Apparently he hasn’t been paying attention in his gun political history class. He has it exactly backward and the time frame wrong. Rational arguments, taking new shooters to the range, court decisions, and political action is driving anti-gun people into political oblivion. At the present rate of advance we can expect that in 25 years we will have constitutional carry in all 50 states and “full auto” will be a selector switch option on nearly all new detachable magazine and belt fed firearms. Gun ownership will be as common as cellphone ownership today. More so if you count the number of guns owned per capita. The average gun owners has more guns than the average cell phone owner has cell phones.

He does have one thing right. Fifty years of mandatory government education could have the effect he desires.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert Riversong

There are no “natural rights” any more than “God-given rights”. All rights are created by social consensus and protected by law.

Robert Riversong
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[It’s true this is merely the ranting of someone ignorant of history and legal precedent but he has a lot of people on his side. At one time our government did not recognize the right to be free of bondage and people like him perpetuated that condition. There have been many times throughout history when “the law” demanded that “certain types” of people be murdered by the thousands or millions. People who thought like Mr. Riversong enabled that. That makes him and his kind extremely dangerous.

People who believe in natural rights put Riversong’s historical compatriots on trial for crimes against humanity. I look forward to him being on trial.—Joe]

Too good to be true

I haven’t said anything, except privately and on Twitter, about Leland Yee. I’ve been extremely tempted but it falls into the category of “too good to be true”.

Ry also has a valid point:

New shooter report

A month ago I went to the range with two new shooters. These are my tweets from then:

Shijing:

Sharon:

They are friends of Gang who I took to the range a few years ago. He contacted me and told me some friends wanted to learn to shoot. We met up at Wades and after they got the paperwork done I spent about 15 minutes going through safety rules, sight alignment, and grip with a plastic gun. Once inside the range we did some dry fire before going to live fire.

I started them out on a Ruger Mark III/45 followed by a S&W .22LR revolver. Then I offered them my STI Eagle in .40 S&W with the caution there was going to be a lot more recoil. They did just fine with the recoil on the .40 but the large grip of the double stack STI was a challenge for their small hands. All the targets were at about eight feet away.

I was surprised they liked the S&W revolver and STI Eagle better than the Ruger Mark III/45. In any case they did very well. I was particularly impressed with Shijing who is cross eye dominate. I suggested she try shooting left handed as well as right handed and she then stayed with left handed to produce awesome groups for a new shooter.

WP_20140227_016CroppedWP_20140227_011Cropped
Sharon shooting the STI.
WP_20140227_003CroppedWP_20140227_014Cropped
Shijing with the revolver and then the STI.
WP_20140227_009Cropped20140326_022325000_iOSCropped
Shijing had the better groups and the bigger smile.

Afterward they took me to dinner at a place Gang described as the Chinese equivalent of Hooters. I have never been to Hooters before so I can’t confirm that assessment but the waitresses were very nice looking and somewhat scantly dressed. The food was good and I plan to take Barb there sometime soon.

We talked quite a bit about gun laws and why I carry a gun. They seemed to get it and expressed interest in getting their own guns.

Winning the cultural war one (or two) new shooter(s) at a time.

U of I response to campus carry

Via daughter Kim who is attending the University of Idaho we have this letter from the President:

March 27, 2014

To the University of Idaho Community,

As you may be aware, Senate Bill 1254 (commonly referred to as the “guns on campus bill”) was introduced in the Idaho Legislature in January. The University, our sister institutions, and the State Board of Education and Regents, opposed the bill; however, it passed and has been signed into law. The new law will allow citizens with an enhanced concealed-carry permit to carry a concealed weapon on university grounds and in buildings, except in university housing and in certain large public venues, such as events at the ASUI Kibbie Activity Center. The law does not take effect until July 1, 2014. Current University policies regarding weapons on campus remain in full force and effect until then.

The University of Idaho is fully committed to providing a safe, nurturing environment for living, learning, and teaching. As such, the continued safety of our university community remains paramount. In order to fully understand the implications of and implementation of this new law, I will name a task force made up of faculty, staff, students and law enforcement representatives who will assess the law, consult experts, and propose a comprehensive university policy regarding possession of weapons on University property. The end product of this process will be a comprehensive recommendation that will inform decision-making and ensure compliance with applicable law and policy in a manner that continues to promote a safe living, learning and teaching environment at University locations statewide.

If you would like to provide input into this process, please contact Matt Dorschel, Executive Director, Public Safety and Security at 885-7209 or by email at mdorschel@uidaho.edu.

Sincerely,

Chuck Staben
President

I find it odd that they are going to “propose a comprehensive university policy regarding possession of weapons on University property”. The state of Idaho has preemption on firearms law. The state legislature just told the University what the policy is. And now this guy says he is going to come up with some other policy?

These people just don’t get it. They lost. Now they need to get over it.

Quote of the day—jaxas4

… essentially a useless right that simply clutters up our Constitution and confuses people to no end because all it does is give violent right wing zealots a constitutional basis for inciting their emotional hyped up masses to form insurrections against enemies that do not exist, to promote idiotic gun laws that defy rational thinking and to quite literally turn our country into a seething cauldron of squabbling factions who have neither the intellect nor the patience for a civil discussion of the pros and cons of gun ownership. The most odious of these factions are the ones who hold to the lunacy that the right to own guns has the ultimate purpose of arming citizens against a tyrannical government, as if we do not have a professional military and law enforcement system to enforce the laws and keep order. What these factions want is what we had under the Articles of Confederation–mindless, lawless, anarchy in the streets.

jaxas4
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[“Squabbling” is something to be suppressed in the name of law and order?

This is what they think of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment in particular. —Joe]

You probably thought Nagant was the first…

…but here’s a revolver (a carbine in this case) patented in 1852, that wedged the cylinder against the barrel, to eliminate the cylinder gap while firing;

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rP3zZ4dK0Ks
It was also a lever action of sorts.

It came to my attention in comments here.

Previously, the Colt’s “Root” model of 1855 was the earliest true revolving carbine I’d known. Although there were repeating flintlock rifles and carbines from much earlier which used a revolving cylinder, the cylinder in those was advanced by grabbing it with the hand and rotating it manually. The flint versions that I’ve seen had multiple priming pans and frizzens, so they would have been a bit dainty in handling.

Another interesting bit of trivia is that Colt’s had a fully enclosed frame revolver (meaning it had a solid top-strap) long before the Remington/Beals, but Colt’s didn’t bother using the idea for their famous Navy and Army models, and they continued making “open top” revolvers right up into the 1870s. To put it another way; there wasn’t really all that much difference in the open top design compared to the enclosed frame designs when using the relatively low pressure black powder charges typical in a handgun of the time.

And let it not be said that the American founders could not have foreseen the repeating rifle or pistol as a fighting weapon. Many veterans of the American Revolution survived well into the 1840s, ’50s and even ’60s, and they didn’t suddenly cry out, “Waaait a minute!– We never expected anything like THIS!!! We’d better re-write that there second amendment thingy, and right now too…!!!” The Colt Patterson revolver came out in 1836 (an “assault weapon” of its day if there ever was one) and I don’t believe anyone in the Supreme Court suddenly re-thought the whole thing about the right to keep and bear arms now that we had concealable, practical, multi-shot firearms. The Colt “Walker” which was far more powerful and fired a bigger and heavier bullet came out in 1847.

Don’t do it just because it feels good

As both Lyle and I posted recently Idaho passed a law that “nullifies all future federal gun laws”. It passed 68-0 in the house and 34-0 in the senate.

Unanimous. Think about that a bit.

It took our lobbyists in Idaho at least seven years to get the right to keep and bear arms respected on college campuses. And the vote was far from unanimous. There were legislators yelling bloody murder about this. So what is going on with a unanimous vote that “nullifies all future federal gun laws”?

There has to be something else to this than what it is billed as.

The reality is the law has no practical meaning. It has political meaning. It means that legislators that are, for all practical purposes, anti-gun can use it as defense against opponents who confront them on their anti-gun votes. “Look what I voted FOR! You can’t get any more pro-gun that this!”

This does not prevent the locals from going on raids with the Feds and it doesn’t stop them from sharing in the proceeds of civil forfeitures generated by federal enforcement actions. And what do you think would happen if the local sheriff arrested some ATF agent enforcing a federal gun control law?

Do you remember what happened when Lon Horiuchi was charged with manslaughter for the death of Vicki Weaver? After years of legal battles he walked. That was in a case where the Federal Government admitted Vicki Weaver was wrongfully shot paid the Weaver family millions of dollars in compensation.

This law is all for show. It feels good but it doesn’t do any good and if cannot do any good there can only be a downside to it.

Cars should be treated like guns

Gun owners are hostile to having guns registered and requiring a license to own them. The fear of having that data in the hands of the government is justifiable. Not just stories like the Belgian Corporal from 75 years ago on another continent but the stories in present day from Connecticut, New York, and California.

Now we have conclusive evidence that car licenses are also subject to abuse.

It’s time to treat cars like guns. No more registration.

H/T To Tamara K. for the retweet of Kirk Freeman.

Quote of the day—Mike Maharrey

This is an important first step for Idaho. Getting this law passed will ensure that any new plans or executive orders that might be coming our way will not be enforced in Idaho. Then, once this method is established and shown to be effective, legislators can circle back and start doing the same for federal gun control already on the books. SB1332 is an important building block for protecting the 2nd Amendment in Idaho.

Mike Maharrey
March 21, 2014
BREAKING: Idaho governor signs emergency legislation nullifying all future federal gun laws
[Lyle also posted on this last week.

Also of extreme interest was that “S1332 passed the house by a vote of 68-0 and the senate by a vote of 34-0.”

Interesting times.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anthony P. Colandro

Have you guys seen what is happening in Connecticut right now? One million gun owners in New Jersey are also gonna say, like our brothers and sisters in the north, that we will not comply. And I can tell you here and now, I will not comply.

Anthony P. Colandro
March 13, 2014
New Jersey CEO Takes a Stand Over Proposed Gun Control Bill, Warns Lawmakers ‘We Will Not Comply’ Just Like Connecticut
[It appears a line in the sand may have been drawn which a critical mass of people are willing to stand upon.—Joe]

Quote of the day–THE EDITORIAL BOARD of the New York Times

The N.R.A. objected to the letter’s support for a federal ban on the sale of assault weapons and ammunition, a buyback program to reduce the number of guns in circulation, limits on the purchase of ammunition, mandatory safety training for gun owners, and mandatory waiting periods before completing a purchase.

These sane, mainstream proposals will not prevent law-abiding citizens from acquiring and keeping firearms.

THE EDITORIAL BOARD of the New York Times
March 17, 2014
The Gun Lobby’s Latest Bizarre Crusade
[And as long as it is possible for law-abiding citizens to acquire and keep firearms the NYT editorial board will insist further infringement is “sane and mainstream”. What they don’t address is that such infringement does not accomplish any worthwhile goal and is clearly unconstitutional. They want bans on guns and ammunition in common use.

Don’t ever let anyone get away telling you that “no one wants to take your guns”. The Editorial Board of the New York Times is just one of many that have repeatedly said they do want to take them.—Joe]

Update: A comment from Mark Alger:

John Lott’s scholarship demonstrates clearly that restrictions on gun ownership do not have a positive effect on violent crime. That is to say, reality does not comport with the writer’s claim that infringements on the RKBA is sane, as they ignore the facts — reality. And, given that the overwhelming majority of We the People support RKBA, the outlook is NOT mainstream; it’s fringe, extremist, backwater. But, what’s dispositive is that RKBA **is** a right, long recognized in common law, infringed or abridged only by tyrants, and (almost an aside) recognized and protected as such by our Constitution. I therefor urge you to add this post to the crap for brains category.

Done. “Crap for Brains” category has been added.

9th slaps Hawaii, now shall-issue

The 9th Curcuit Court, crazy as it is, decided it was time to piss in someone’s oatmeal. Specifically, Hawaii. Short version: because of Peruta, Hawaii is now a “shall-issue” concealed carry state.

Totally tubular!

ATF gets slapped down

The ATF has a long history of making up the rules as it goes along and not telling anyone what the rules are until it decides you have stepped over the line. A judge has now slapped them down for this:

Uncle Sam arbitrarily classified a new device as a firearm silencer without sufficient review or a decent explanation why, a federal judge’s somewhat scathing opinion states.
     “In any agency review case, a reviewing court is generally obligated to uphold a reasonable agency decision that is the product of a rational agency process,” U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote Wednesday. “This is not a high bar. But in this case, ATF fails to clear it.”

There is a lot more where that came from followed by this:

“Hypotheticals further illustrate the weakness of this methodology,” he wrote. “A mouse is not an ‘elephant’ solely because it has three characteristics that are common to known elephants: a tail, gray skin and four legs. A child’s bike is not a ‘motorcycle’ solely because it has three characteristics common to known motorcycles: two rubber tires, handlebars, and a leather seat. And a Bud Light is not ‘Single-Malt Scotch,’ just because it is frequently served in a glass container, contains alcohol, and is available for purchase at a tavern. To close with a firearm-related example a hockey puck us not a ‘rubber bullet,’ just because it has rounded sides, is made of vulcanized rubber, and is capable of causing injury when launched at high speeds. Learning that one object has three characteristics in common with some category may not be very helpful in determining whether the object in question belongs in that category.
     “To make matters worse, other agency guidance uses a different set of characteristics – the six characteristics in the Classification letter appear not to be an exhaustive definitive list.”

And my favorite part:

     He also granted Innovator summary judgment on its claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, holding that the agency’s action must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious because of the agency’s failure to “articulate a satisfactory explanation” and “examine the relevant data” in classifying Innovator’s Stabilizer Brake as a “firearm silencer.”

“Arbitrary and capricious”! Yes! There are going to be a lot of people agreeing with that conclusion.

Feinstein keeps trying

Via the Daily Caller we have this letter from Diane Feinstein to President Obama:

The President
The White House
Washington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. President:

During your State of the Union address, you stated that you want to make 2014 a “year of action.”  We write to urge you to take immediate action to address the significant number of assault weapons that are being imported into the United States in contravention of federal law.  We respectfully request that you take steps to ensure that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) fully enforces the ban on the importation of these military-style firearms.    

A provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3), prohibits the importation of firearms that are not “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”  In recent years, however, importers of firearms have taken advantage of ATF’s interpretation of the “sporting purposes” test to evade the import ban.  In 1998, the Department of the Treasury — which then housed ATF — issued guidance that interpreted the import ban to prohibit only semiautomatic rifles that use magazines originally designed for a military rifle.  Many semiautomatic firearms on the market today do not have a military origin but are modeled closely after military firearms.  These military-style firearms are not prohibited under the current import ban, even though they are functionally equivalent to prohibited rifles with a military origin.  In addition, the Treasury Department’s 1998 guidance allows foreign-made firearms to be imported into the United States without military features, even though these firearms have the capacity to fire multiple times in quick succession without the need to reload and can easily have military features attached.

As a result of the Treasury Department’s unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the sporting purposes test, imports of military-style weapons have increased dramatically in recent years, helping to fuel deadly gun violence along the Southwest border and in neighboring Mexico.  According to data obtained from the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission and analyzed by The Center for Public Integrity, 2.96 million rifles and handguns were imported into the United States in 2009, more than double the 1.32 million firearms imported in 2005.  In January of this year, Russia’s Kalashnikov gun maker announced that it plans to sell in the United States up to 200,000 rifles and shotguns, many of which are designed after the Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle.  An analysis by the Violence Policy Center found that more than 700 Romanian AK-47 variant rifles were identified in 134 federal gun trafficking prosecutions involving illegal smuggling from the United States to Mexico and other Latin American countries.

For example, one imported Romanian AK firearm, the WASR-10, was carefully designed to exploit the sporting purposes test and has become a favorite of the gun traffickers that profit by arming Mexican drug trafficking organizations.  The importer of the WASR-10, Century International Arms, circumvents the import ban by taking the following steps:  First, the company imports the inexpensive weapon without any military features, to avoid contravening the ban.  Next, the weapon is disassembled, and American-made parts are added, to make the weapon “American-made,” not “foreign-made.”  The magazine well is also modified to accept higher capacity ammunition magazines.  Finally, assault features — which would be illegal if added to a foreign-made weapon — are added to the now-American-made weapon, rendering the weapon an assault rifle for all practical purposes.  The resulting firearm is then sold on the civilian market, either to be used in violent acts here at home or smuggled across the border into Mexico.

WASR-10s have repeatedly been found in the arsenals of top drug kingpins and their associates.  For example, at least one WASR-10 was used in May 2008 to kill eight police officers in Culiacan, Mexico, a city in the northwestern part of the country.  An analysis conducted by The Center for Public Integrity found that, over the last four years, WASR-10 rifles comprised more than 17% of the firearms recovered at Mexican crime scenes and successfully traced back to the United States.  In all, according to a memorandum by the Council on Foreign Relations published in July 2013, over 70% of the 99,000 weapons recovered by Mexican law enforcement since 2007 were traced to U.S. manufacturers and importers.

We urge ATF to close the loopholes that allow the importation of military-style weapons into the United States.  Such an approach should, at a minimum:

  • Prohibit importation of all semiautomatic rifles that can accept, or be readily converted to accept, a large capacity ammunition magazine of more than 10 rounds, regardless of the military pedigree of the firearm or the configuration of the firearm’s magazine well;
  • Prohibit semiautomatic rifles with fixed magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds;
  • Prohibit the importation of the frame or receiver of any prohibited rifle, regardless of whether it is incorporated into a fully manufactured firearm;
  • Prohibit the practice of importing assault rifles in parts and then constructing the rifles once they are in the United States by adding the requisite number of American-made parts;
  • Prohibit the use of a “thumbhole” stock as a means to avoid classification of a rifle as an assault rifle; and
  • Prohibit the importation of assault pistols, in addition to assault rifles.

We urge you to review enforcement of the sporting purposes test and take the necessary regulatory steps to stop the importation of all military-style, non-sporting firearms, and the assembly of those firearms from imported parts.  We have endured too many funerals and mourned the loss of too many innocent lives to accept less than full enforcement of the import ban.  Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Don’t let anyone tell you no that one wants to take your guns. Diane Feinstein does.

We really need to get rid of the “sporting purpose” clause of GCA68. It shouldn’t be that hard, should it? It’s more crazy talk to insist that a gun can be built and sold in the U.S. without issue but that same gun is somehow inappropriate to import.

Quote of the day—Bruce Newcomb

The Second Amendment does not apply to schools.

Bruce Newcomb
Director Of Government Relations at Boise State University
February 28, 2014
Testimony before Idaho House State Affairs Committee
[That’s odd. My copy of the Bill of Rights doesn’t have an exclusion for schools. If Mr. Newcomb’s does then that must mean he shouldn’t have a problem with him being convicted without a trial as long as it is done on school property.

H/T to Mike for the email.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Barry Snell

An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV — or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree — and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives, replying to our objections to their onslaught by throwing pictures of dead kids in our faces and commanding us to shut up, because we’re just a bunch of stupid radicals and liberals alone know what’s best for America.

Barry Snell
May 3, 2013
Snell: Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned
[An even larger point is that liberals believe in a planned/controlled society and I don’t. I believe in free association and exercising free will as long as you don’t infringe upon the rights of others to do the same. I want government out of not just my bedroom, my body, and gun safe but out of my house, my bank, and my contracts with others. The job of government is to protect rights and enforce contracts, not infringe rights and invalidate contracts.

See also my comments from when I first quoted from this same article.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Janaye Ingram

The second amendment is clear and has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, but we cannot sit on our hands while innocent people are shot and while the gun lobby finds more ways for people to have access to guns.

Janaye Ingram
March 14, 2014
Fighting Fire With Fire Isn’t A Solution For Gun Control
[So… her belief is that the Second Amendment guarantees people the right to keep and bear arms but we should just ignore that and find ways to restrict access to guns. If the Bill of Rights is just a smorgasbord to be selected from as public opinion changes then it doesn’t mean anything at all. We could just as well find ways to restrict access to religion, free speech, and a fair trial.

Ms. Ingram should be careful what she asks for. She may get it.—Joe]

Overheard

I was buying the last of the chemicals needed for Boomershoot 2014 when the following occurred. This was in Bellevue Washington just across the lake from Seattle. This is in the belly of the anti-gun beast.

Lady in line at Walmart: Nice coat.
Joe: Thank you!
Lady: That’s a good organization, right? They teach how to use guns safely don’t they?
Joe: Yes they do. In fact, I’m a firearms instructor.

She apparently saw this patch on the sleeve of my jacket:

WP_20140317_001