Category Archives: Gun Rights

Waiting periods fail scrutiny

Posted on by

Via Calguns Foundation.

Calguns is challenging the law requiring a waiting period before taking possession of a firearm you have just purchased. The California AG, Harris, moved for a summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit. The judge slapped her down. A waiting period for someone who already owns a gun just doesn’t making any sense. The only reason for such a requirement must be to place a burden on the exercise of a specific enumerated right. If that is the only reason then the law is unconstitutional.

The complete decision is here.

The conclusion which makes me smile is:

Harris moves for summary judgment on each of the claims alleged by Plaintiffs. With respect to the Second Amendment claims, Harris has not sufficiently met her burden. Harris has not presented sufficient evidence to show that the WPL passes either intermediate or strict scrutiny for either the “background check” rationale or the “cooling off period” rationale. With respect to the Equal Protection claims, Harris has focused exclusively on rational basis scrutiny. However, Harris has not adequately demonstrated that rational basis scrutiny is appropriate. Therefore, Harris’s motion for summary judgment will be denied in its entirety.

The lawsuit challenging the waiting period will now go forward. It doesn’t means that the waiting period has been struck down, yet.

Sebastian has his own comments.

Quote of the day—rich roberts ‏@boris3324

Posted on by

@linoge_wotc Keep projecting #NRAdicklesswonder

rich roberts ‏@boris3324
Tweeted on May 16, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via a Tweet from Linoge!

This was in response to:

Linoge@linoge_wotc

It’s intriguing how fascinated #guncontrol #extremists like @boris3324 are with other men’s genitalia. Not terribly polite, that.

—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

The Bill of Rights isn’t about protecting rights the government has no interest in infringing. It’s about protecting those rights which are in danger of being repressed by government.

For about the first 150 years of this country there wasn’t a serious effort to disarm the citizens. Starting in about 1934 and continuing until the present day there has been.

The Second Amendment isn’t outdated. It was ahead of it’s time.

Quote of the day—Dennis Levinson

Posted on by

Our politicians are unwilling to stand up to the terrorist organization using the name the National Rifle Association (NRA).

…

It is now time to overturn the Second Amendment, which no longer has any more validity than slavery or suppression of women’s rights, all supported by our founding fathers in our original Constitution.

We now live in the 21st century and need to become a “civilized” society. No one should be allowed to own a gun of any kind.

…

The time has come for all of the intelligent, sane citizens to demand an end to all guns in our society. It can be done when we have finally had enough of going to the funerals of innocent little children.

Dennis Levinson
December 26, 2012
Time to ban all guns
[I wonder what he thinks should be done with those non-intelligent, insane, supporters of the “terrorist organization using the name the National Rifle Association”. Jail perhaps? Or maybe psych wards? Progressives in the Soviet Union utilized psychiatric medical institutions to suppress political dissent. With his attitude toward gun owners it’s not hard to imagine he would think it appropriate.

I always find it baffling that people conflate some repugnant anti-rights government support for something, like slavery, with government recognition of a right like the right to keep and bear arms or freedom of speech. Do they think other people can’t tell the difference? Or are they so lacking in the understanding of principles that they cannot distinguish the difference?

I suspect in this case it’s a matter of lack of understanding. If he thinks all it would take is having “enough of going to the funerals of innocent little children” then that demonstrates he has no clue as to the issues involved. Gun in the hands of private citizens save lives. That includes the lives of innocent children. Gun Control Kills Kids! It doesn’t save them.

We have the right to defend innocent life with the best tools available and no government has the authority to disallow that.—Joe]

Interview with Jeff Cooper of Gunsite

Posted on by

From the 1970s

Nothing new to those who’ve read his work, but it is interesting. He certainly never minced words.

When I heard the militaristic sort of music they used, I couldn’t help thinking that it would be taken as sarcasm today. Back then? I’m not sure.

Quote of the day—Ken White

Posted on by

As long as you ignore the fact that the shooting victims were innocent bystanders, hitting two people with three shots represents unusual excellence in marksmanship for the NYPD, matching another recent incident in which skilled NYPD officers were able to hit their target and nine bystanders with only 16 bullets.

Ken White
December 5, 2013
NYPD: Baby, You Know We Love You. Why Do You Make Us Angry Like That?
[See also some of the experiments done by Barron and I with our shooting club.

One should not make the assumption that because the police have such a terrible problem with shooting the wrong people that private citizens are worse. The last I heard innocent people were accidently hit by private citizens at a rate of about 2% of the time.

H/T to Sebastian.—Joe]

No one wants to confiscate your guns…

Posted on by

Except when they do. Even things like a tube-magazine bolt-action 22, because it can hold more than 5 rounds. NYC at it’s stupidest. The 113 year old 1911 .45 ACP has a standard seven round magazine, so you need to get rid of your old magazines and buy… er, I don’t know of any makers of 5-round 1911 magazines. Maybe they exist, but I’ve never seen one.

Leave a comment for the ATF

Posted on by

Robb requested we comment to the ATF on the proposed rule change in regards to trusts for Title II firearm transfers. This includes safety equipment like noise suppressors. The NRA made a similar request, BATFE Solicits Comments on Poorly-Conceived NFA Transfer Proposal.

Both sources had some good points to make with the ATF so I combined them and added some material of my own. The result which I filed, via this link (then click the “Comment Now!” button near the top right), is as follows:

I oppose the ATF proposal to require CLEO sign off approval for all Title II firearm transfers, including Trusts and other legal entities.

1. The requirement for permission from a government official to exercise a constitutionally protected right is wrong on principle and should not continue let alone be expanded.

2. All appearances are there is not a problem with the existing system. I am unable to find any documented cases where a crime has been committed via a Title II firearm transferred in this manner. Hence this rule change must have as its sole purpose the increasing of the burden of those wishing to exercise a specific enumerated right. It cannot be about protecting the life or property of innocent people.

3. The proposed change would make it much more difficult to set up a means to transfer property to heirs without net benefit to anyone.

4. ATF was petitioned by the petitioner, NFATCA to eliminate the clumsy “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” (CLEO) sign off replacing it with a notification to the CLEO of the pending transfer, and supplanting the sign off with the NICS check used for thousands of firearm purchases daily.  ATF vaguely states it agrees, at least in part with the justification for the petitioner’s request, however without any justification it proposes expanding that process to all transfers.

5. ATF admits in the proposal that it has access to several databases, including NICS, which could be used to accomplish what the petitioner requested and ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.

6. The CLEO sign off is clumsy and outdated.  It is also far more expensive for the industry, firearms owners and the government to maintain – or expand in this proposal, than to use the NICS check procedures to verify transfers of title II firearms are not transferred to prohibited persons.

7. The CLEO sign off enables corrupt persons in CLEO positions to politically coerce money out of transferees in the guise of campaign donations.

8. As the petitioner requested, a NICS check on the principal officers of an individual, principle officers of a trust or other legal entity would be faster, more efficient, and would reduce the chances for human error.  This would allow the NFA transfer process to be streamlined, it would be safer for the public and would be a less burdensome regulatory change.

Once again, I oppose any expansion of the ‘Chief Law Enforcement Officer’ sign off requirements for NFA transfers.

My comment tracking number: 1jx-894g-nxy5.

Quote of the day—Pete Shields

Posted on by

It is important to understand that our organization, Handgun Control, Inc., does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable.

Pete Shields
Chairman of Handgun Control
In his 1981 book “Guns Don’t Die People Do: The Pros, the Cons, the Facts” (chapter 3, pages 47-48).
[Via email from Jay F.

I find it interesting that the book is available for $0.01 on Amazon. A penny for his thoughts is apparently the going rate.

Handgun Control is now The Brady Campaign.

Even before the name change the organization pushed for more restrictive background checks on rifles and shotguns. And they pushed hard for the “assault weapon” ban that ultimate became law in 1994 which banned many rifles and shotguns in common use.

Do not ever think they will be content with just some class of guns being banned.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

The Federal government has laws against marijuana use, possession, and sales. Although heavily regulated in Washington state you can soon buy pot in stores and people currently openly admit to using it in private. To the best of my knowledge the Feds have not and do not plan to prosecute anyone for violation of their marijuana laws but continue to do so in other states.

But the Feds aggressively fight the Firearms Freedom Act in the states which have passed such laws. And I’m certain that if I started manufacturing guns and selling them in Montana, Idaho or any of the other FFA states without a license or complying with the hundreds if not thousands of Federal laws and regulations on firearms I would soon get an unpleasant visit from the Feds.

What does this mean? Doesn’t it mean that laws are enforced by the whim of the politicians in power? How is this different than having laws against assault and battery but not enforcing them if the victim is of the “wrong” color, religion, or sexual-orientation?

You have to “just know” the law does or doesn’t apply to you this week/month/election-cycle. I firmly believe it would be better that all laws be vigorously and equally enforced. The outrage would result in the stupid laws being repealed.

The existence of a multitude of unenforced laws is a huge risk. How you ask? With so many things being illegal it means our government has the power to arbitrarily imprison anyone at any time. We have fully equipped our government with tyrannical powers just waiting for the “right person” to use them.

Quote of the day—Edgar Chavez

Posted on by

Guns are a big problem in our country. They have made us more violent. Basically, guns have taken control of us.

…

This country would be a lot safer if we could, in some way, get rid of all the guns. One way this could happen is by making the government intervene and take them away from every person. I think that would be the best.

Edgar Chavez
December 2, 2013
Taking guns out of society
[We sometimes say that the anti-gun people must believe guns control people. Here is someone who explicitly says that.

Further evidence of his delusions is that he imagines the government could take all the guns from every person and that would make people safer.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anonymous Reader

Posted on by

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the flagship organization of the gun crazies. It claims to be an organization of law-abiding Americans who are doing more than defending their Second Amendment right to keep and bear firearms. However, the truth about the NRA is far from benign; the truth is frightening. They are a group of sociopaths with a clear agenda: unlimited gun proliferation at all costs, human and otherwise. They have not one iota of human compassion or feeling; their devotion to their implements of death knows no bounds.

Anonymous Reader
July 26, 2001
The Terrible Truth About Gun Owners
[Imagine what they think “the government should do” about “a group of sociopaths” with “not one iota of human compassion or feeling”.

These are very dangerous people.—Joe]

A changed mind

Posted on by

Via email from Lou Gagliardi I received links to the following Tweets of theirs with the comment, “There, go ahead and have a field day”.

I’m having a difficult time imagining how or why anyone would transform them into a “field day” but here they are:

 

 

 

 

For more background see these posts of mine about the same person:

Quote of the day—rich roberts ‏@boris3324

Posted on by

@linoge_wotc keep telling yourself that. #NRAdicklesswonders

rich roberts ‏@boris3324
Tweeted on May 16, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via a Tweet from Linoge!

This was in response to:

Linoge @linoge_wotc

I see your mind is fabricating delusions for you to comfort yourself in. Good, considering #guncontrol‘s history of failure. @boris3324

—Joe]

Quote of the day—Anonymous

Posted on by

A gun has no other purpose than to kill. It appear to me that the right to bear arms transcends the right of school children’s right to live. As long as the public are allowed to own weapons of local destruction children’s lives will be in danger. Make ALL ownership of guns a capital offence.

Anonymous
Comment to Would a ban on guns reduce crime in the U.S.?
[Simple solutions from simple minds.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Responsive Communitarian Platform

Posted on by

There is, however, one measure sure to gain monumental benefits in the short run. It is politically nearly impossible to take, otherwise low-cost and very effective.

…

What is needed is domestic disarmament. This is the policy of practically all other Western democracies, from Canada to Britain to Germany, from France to Scandinavia. Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands and, ultimately, from much of the police force.

The Responsive Communitarian Platform
November 18, 1991
THE CASE FOR DOMESTIC DISARMAMENT
[From the dark ages of gun ownership.

Low cost? The cost would be incalculable.

Effective? At what? The only thing I can see it being effective at is mobilizing people to “recall” (one way or another) all the politicians foolish enough to support it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rabbi Michael Lerner

Posted on by

Banning all guns is necessary but NOT sufficient in light of the increasing violence in our society.

Rabbi Michael Lerner
December 15, 2012
Banning Guns Is Necessary But Not Sufficient
[The Rabbi should check his numbers on the “increasing violence”. Then he should talk to the good folks at JPFO.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ed Koch

Posted on by

When Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.

Ed Koch
Former New York City Mayor
January 13, 2013
Ex-NYC mayor: Ban all guns
[ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.—Joe]

Ignorance and bias

Posted on by

The headline is “Police find 5 guns, large ammo stash in George Zimmerman’s home.” The text of the article says, “police found five guns and more than 100 rounds of ammunition in the house.”

“Large ammo stash”?

When I buy either components for reloading ammo or completed ammo I consider 100 “sample size”. When reloading, unless I’m doing load development, the smallest batch of anything is 100.

100 rounds isn’t enough for an ordinary morning pistol match. When at a match I carry close to that many (typically about 85) rounds in the magazines on my belt. I could easily burn through that in a two minutes of practice. A single ammo can holds about 1000 rounds of .40 S&W and I have several cans in my gun room. A year ago I bought 4000 rounds of .22 LR (yeah, great timing!) which I could probably have stored in my coat pockets.

If I’m down to 100 units of any type of ammo I consider that “out” and time to restock.

Ignorance or bias by the reporter? Ignorance and bias?

Quote of the day—Richard C Suquer

Posted on by

As you can see, any reasonable person would support the banning of all guns. It is time we put these gun-toting extremists in jail where they belong!

Richard C Suquer
November 7, 2001
Ban All Guns Now!
[I could almost believe this post was satire but not quite. Here are some more choice quotes from the same post:

It all goes back to an obscure centuries-old document called the “Constitution of the United States of America.”

…

Many right-wing members of today’s United States have interpreted this amendment to mean that every citizen has the right to “keep and bear arms.” Absurd? Perhaps. But uneducated people in our society (such as members of Congress) can still be fooled into believing this absurdity.

…

Suppose a person breaks into your house at night and attacks you with a knife. Now, according to the right-wing point of view, you would be justified in shooting him with the gun you keep hidden under your pillow.

However, it is impossible to truly understand the circumstances leading up to this person’s breaking into your house. Perhaps he is a minority. Maybe he was made fun of in school for being a homosexual. He is probably poor. Knowing these facts, how can you, an upper middle class exploiter, be justified in ending this man’s life? The answer is: you can’t.

In fact this man is homeless and was merely looking for some food to feed his starving family. By killing him in so-called self-defense you are no better than a common murderer.

…

Imagine the typical day of the white male hunter:

The hunter gets up early, before daybreak. While shaving, he cuts his face. He tastes the blood and it is good. His desire for the prey has become sexual.

Later that morning, the hunter enters the forest with his phallic firearm, and stalks the great horned beast. He sees one innocently drinking water from a stream, and raises his phallus-gun to his shoulder. Pulling the trigger he releases his sperm-bullet into the innocent mammal. But rather than life, his sperm-bullet spreads death.

I have to conclude people like this have a mental illness.–Joe]