Category Archives: Gun Rights

Seattle’s gun "buyback"

Posted on by

As I mentioned Saturday morning on Twitter I went to the Seattle gun “buyback” (how can you buy back something you didn’t own to begin with?

I went with a fair amount of cash to buy things that were of historical value or something I might be interested in owning. I had fantasies of buying an AR-15 for $250. No such luck. The sidewalk in front of the site was packed with other private buyers:

IMG_3878

The sidewalks approaching the site from every direction had people on them too:

IMG_3880
IMG_3881
IMG_3882
IMG_3883
IMG_3885
IMG_3888

I did get a chance to look a few guns being brought in. I was only interested in one, a semi-auto 30-06 with a Leupold scope on it. Someone else quickly made an offer and got it for $125.

One of the guns, an old shotgun, literally fell apart as the owner tried to hand it to someone to evaluate. Another gun I saw was an old .22 revolver with the muzzle all covered in rust. The guy I was sort of hanging out with told the owner, “You couldn’t get $5.00 at a pawn shop for it.” The owner agreed and said that is why he brought it. A $100 gift card for something that probably wasn’t safe to shoot was a good deal.

I talked to another guy that said he got rid of a junker for $100 as well. It was literally, a “Saturday Night Special” an old Bryco of some sort. He had a great big smile on his face about getting a $100 for that.

I talked to quite a few of the guys there. You could tell who the gun guys were. They were all happy, talking, and smiling. I didn’t take any pictures of them but there were people turning in guns who looked like timid “grass eaters”. Many of them wouldn’t sell to the private sellers. One told the guy I was with, “I won’t sell to anyone without a background check.” The would-be buyer told him that he had a concealed pistol permit (background check required) but that didn’t faze the seller. So apparently it wasn’t about background checks.

I asked several buyers if the police gave them any problems. Only one guy had some problems. He was told he was parked on private property and had his table on private property. Even after he was told he had permission of the property owner the cop continued to harass him and told him he didn’t have a business license and that he was going to give him a “Ticket that will cost you $1000”. The buyer held his ground (before showing up he had asked the Seattle police, the ATF, and a lawyer if it was okay and got the go ahead from all of them) and the cop eventually went away without writing a ticket.

One guy I talked to categorized the sellers into two groups. 1) People getting rid of junk and 2) People who want to save the world. I didn’t have a good sample but it sure looked to me like there were a lot more in the first category than in the second.

There were a few guns of value that made it to through to the police so the politicians, and news media declared success when they ran out of money about 11:45. I have to wonder how many more guns were purchased by private buyers after the police closed up shop. I really need to make a bunch of very cheap single shot guns out of tubing, a piece of wood, a nail, and rubber band or make the rounds at the pawnshops before the next “buyback”.

I hung around for probably 45 minutes before leaving. With all the competition I figured I wouldn’t get my hands on anything of interest and I had other things I wanted to do.

Just as I was leaving the guy I was hanging out with jokingly asked if I had anything I wanted to sell before I left. I told him the only gun I had was the $2000 STI on my hip. He “offered” me $10.00 for it. I told him, “Screw you!” He told me, “I appreciated the offer but prostitution is illegal in Seattle.” We both laughed and I left.

Quote of the day—Bobby

Posted on by

If it ever comes to the point where they’re using GPR, we have long passed the point of having needed to be using .gov penetrating lead.

Bobby
January 21, 2013
Comment to Not intended for underground use.
[GPR is ground penetrating radar.

I have nothing further to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Root ’83

Posted on by

Shall Not Be Infringed. Period. End of discussion.

Look, every Politician KNOWS this.
Leon Panetta KNOWS this.
So does Obama, Bloomberg, Cumo and everyone in the NY State Legislature as well as every Supreme Court Justice living and dead.

Ginsburg, Stomayor, all of them.
They KNOW this is what the Second Amendment MEANS, what its intended to DO…
And they DESPISE IT WITH A PASSION because it gets in their WAY.

These people are EVIL, not stupid.
And its long past time we just said it, and moved on.
Let THEM do the “catching up” for a change.

ALL of the guns are OURS.
None of the guns are YOURS, capice’

You want them?
Come and GET THEM.
Cause we’re DONE talking about it.

The Root ’83
January 18, 2013
Comment to Does ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Actually Result in Gun Crime?–Statistics do not point to criminals using this tactic.
[Clayton E. Cramer responds with, “You are giving the left credit for intelligence that just isn’t deserved.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Senator Dianne Feinstein

Posted on by

It will not effect hunting or sporting firearms, instead the bill will protect hunters and sportsman.

Senator Dianne Feinstein
January 24, 2013
Feinstein: Goal is to Dry Up the Supply Of Weapons Over Time
[Ignore the “effect” instead of “affect” error. That could have been the reporter not Feinstein. Instead concentrate on “the bill will protect hunters and sportsman”.

Thank you Senator Feinstein, that line should go down in history with other memorably phrases such as the following:

I am of the opinion that Senator Feinstein has fully mastered doublethink. What she did here demonstrates her contempt for the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

This quote should be used as evidence at her trial.—Joe]

Another quote of the day – Me

Posted on by

If it’s the best thing I’ve read all day, why after all should I be prevented from posting it here just because I happen to be the one who wrote it?

Seen in comments at Uncle;

“Machineguns are in common use by military, and AS SUCH they are protected by the second amendment. Actually, if it is or can be considered an “arm” it is protected by the second amendment (the second amendment doesn’t have any qualifiers, exceptions or modifiers in it).

One might be able to make the case that strategic weapons like nukes and other WMDs are not, but even then you may be running afoul of the balance-of-power concept embodied in the second amendment.

In the American Revolution there were private owned war ships, were there not? Those would be analogs of our modern aircraft carriers and destroyers.

And don’t give me court precedent bullshit. If precedent defines (redefines) our rights, it means that any and all rights degrade and evaporate over time. No thanks. I’ll stick to original principles.”

There is a common error committed by our side. It is the use of arguments along the lines of, “Machineguns are ALREADY banned [and so leave our semiautomatics alone].” That’s a bit like saying to the alligator, “You already ate my buddy (and I didn’t like him a lot anyway) and so you should therefore leave me alone (I guess because your appetite should already be satisfied, or something…)”

In fact, if they can ban the most common small arms used by military and police, and get away with it, they can certainly ban everything else, just as the alligator can eat you some time after it ate your buddy. The fact of the matter has been established, so at best you’re only arguing over the details of the infringements at that point.

The Hughes Amendment to FOPA of 1986 should be rendered null and void, followed by GCA ’68 and NFA ’34.

Quote of the day—David E. Young

Posted on by

The gun control advocate view of the Second Amendment is a house of cards – nay, a rather extensive castle of cards. Removing the foundation, which consists of factual errors, causes the whole to crumble.

David E. Young
January 13, 2013
Second Amendment Intent / Right to Keep and Bear Arms Explained
[Of course this depends on having an originalist view of Constitutional law. People who prefer to redefine words and intent as the “need” suits them don’t really care. But it is interesting that the anti-gun people, even in SCOTUS legal briefs will pretend to be originalists and make catastrophic errors or believe others won’t notice their deliberate attempts at deception.—Joe]

Fox News poll on guns

Posted on by

There are some fascinating results in this poll (my cached copy is here, H/T to Brennan from work). Keep in mind all of these results are post Newtown. I have selected the poll results I find the most interesting:

Q: Do you think tougher gun laws can help stop things like the Newtown school shooting, or do you think the people who commit these kinds of acts will always find the guns to commit violent acts?

A1: Tougher laws can help stop acts—22%
A2: People will always find guns—71%
A3: Laws help, but still find ways—5%
A4: Don’t know—1%

Q: Would there be less violent crime in the United States if:

A1: Guns were banned—28%
A2: More law-abiding people had guns—58%
A3: Don’t know—15%

Q: Does anyone in your household own a gun?

A1: Yes—52%
A2: Now—44%
A3: Don’t know/refused—5%

Q: If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?

A1: Give up—22%
A2: Defy law—65%
A3: Don’t know—13%

All of the numbers have profound implications but look at that last one.

65% say they would defy the law! And my guess is that a fair number of the people in the “Don’t know” category said something of the equivalent of “None of your business.”

Hmmm…. there are about 315 million people in the U.S. 52% (households, not people, but still…) have guns so that is about 150 million people with guns of whom 65%, ~100 million, say they would defy the law. As of 2006 there were about 800,000 police officers of all jurisdictions. That means that if all the police sided with the government they would still be outnumbered by about 125 to 1.

Don’t bury you guns. Tell them Molon labe!

Not intended for underground use

Posted on by

Via email:

 MetalShilhouettes

Greetings,

SPC introduces it’s line of full size metal wall silhouettes. Shown is a Remington 870 that looks great on the wall of any gun room, den or shop.

The Plasma cut steel units are available rough as well as finished and painted.

SPC has heard of individuals burying full size silhouettes as decoys to throw off ground penetrating radar or imaging metal detectors that might be used by criminals to locate weapons, however SPC silhouettes are designed to be enjoyed on the wall, and SPC will not warranty silhouettes that have been buried.

SPC also has wall silhouettes of magazines, handguns and can do custom work as well.

For more info go to http://minisentryalarm.wordpress.com/

Regards,

Dennis Evers
dennis@thepocketpartner.com

I am of the opinion if you bury most or all of your guns to keep them safe from confiscation it is mostly a victory of the mind rather than something particularly useful. Putting out a few decoys might be useful though. And if you put them on the property of an anti-gunner it might even be entertaining.

Quote of the day—MY

Posted on by

I can easily buy a hand gun or a rifle without restriction. It is absurd that someone like me could ever have access to such dangerous weapons.

MY
Sonoma
January 19, 2013
Comment to Please Take Away My Right to a Gun
[Many people have said something to the effect, “They want to take other’s people’s guns away because they believe other people are the same as they are.” I never really expected to find someone who admitted that.—Joe]

There were slaves that didn’t want freedom too

Posted on by

Wendy Button almost begs Please Take Away My Right to a Gun.

After the civil war there were slaves that didn’t want their freedom either.

Just because a few people want their rights taken away from them doesn’t mean the rest of us do, that it is the right thing to do, or that we won’t fight to keep them.

Quote of the day—Mark Ridley Thomas

Posted on by

Let’s stop mincing words; Let progressives — not all but certainly many — stop feigning tolerance for a gun culture we abhor and rampant gun ownership we cannot comprehend.

Mark Ridley Thomas
January 17, 2013
Supervisor for the Second District in Los Angeles County
The National Rifle Association Is Correct: I Do Want Your Guns
[First off, his admission should be used as evidence at his trial.

Second, if he has that tough of a problem with comprehension why isn’t he in an institution of some sort instead of public office?

Third, H/T to Say Uncle.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Doesn’t it seem more than a little messed up when Pravda is urging us to never give up our guns, telling us we are wrong to go down the Marxist path while the New York Times is urging us to give up the constitution?

Ammunition Capacity Limits – the “why” of the matter

Posted on by

Trying to cut to the chase; there are two possible reasons that I can see, why a rogue government (and let’s be honest– that’s what we’ve had for some time now) would want to limit ammunition capacity. One would be simply to irritate and harass their political opposition, putting a few innocent people in jail now and then as a bonus. The other would be to limit the ability of the citizenry to fight against mass attacks (two or more assailants).i.e. to promote the ease of government attacking citizens. A possible third reason, going along in part with the first, would be to generally degrade society with more complex laws, more bureaucracy and more violent crime (criminals will have 30 round mags, but law-abiders won’t).

Any or all of those motivations would appeal naturally to any authoritarian, and to anyone who sees the founding of the U.S. as a problem (unfair, unjust, etc.)

If anyone can think of another reason, I’d like to know it.

ETA, 1-18-13; I’d thought of another, hoping maybe someone would chime in with it, and Publius pretty much, sort of did in comments here, though it’s not the way I would have put it. That motivation being to control the framework of the conflict (between liberty and authoritarianism), to keep us fighting THEIR fight and not ours. On that they have done a most excellent job– I bet you can find a million words, just today, about details of this or that proposed restriction and how it will not “work”. Well, it is working– they’re keeping us talking about THEIR ideas. As I’ve said before and elsewhere; it is a subtle yet crucial tactic, though most every little kid understands it. You see that bratty kid fussing loudly at his mother in the supermarket? He knows how to keep his mom off balance, off kilter, off her game, distracted, irritated, embarrassed, until he gets something from her (recently I noticed one such brat pause in his “tantrum” to look around and make sure he was getting a reaction from bystanders, then resume his fake tantrum, thus demonstrating that he understood exactly what he was doing). HE set the agenda, the framework of the conflict, not his mom. That one should have occurred to me foremost. It goes along with number one, but the distinction is between simply wanting to irritate your opposition on one hand, because you dislike them, and maintaining control of the whole discussion’s very framework on the other. The communists are experts at this.

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

Posted on by

Governor “Common Sense” Cuomo is a stumbling, bumbling example of the kind of person emotionally unsuited for high office, a fact the flaws in the draconian SAFE Act will show over time as unintended consequences catch up to bad legislation.

Bob Owens
January 17, 2013
Oops. Were there not LEO magazine exemptions in the rushed NY SAFE Act?
[H/T to Chris Knox who retweeted thegunwire.

The only thing I can add is that anyone who advocates for gun control is emotional, logically, and philosophically unsuited for any public job above toilet scrubber.—Joe]

The stupid—it burns!

Posted on by

H/T to Jon H. from the gun email list at work.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. After all he is a politician and he is from Chicago:

A South Side alderman is asking for City Council hearings on an unorthodox gun control measure that would allow for GPS tracking of firearms.

WBBM Newsradio Political Editor Craig Dellimore reports Ald. Willie Cochran (20th), a former police officer, has suggested that global positioning system chips be embedded in new guns, and retrofitted on existing firearms, so they could be located if they go missing.

“Just like if your car gets stolen, OnStar can tell you where your car is. If your gun gets stolen, and you report it, we should be able to find that gun,” he said.

Your car has a battery that weighs 40 pounds and is recharged every time you use the car.

You cellphone is a better analogy but doesn’t make his case any better. A cellphone has a standby time of, at most, a few days and requires a service provider such as AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, or Verizon in order to report it’s position.

That doesn’t even take into account that a criminal who steals one with a GPS will remove the battery or destroy the electronics.

One of the better comments I read on the site:

The difference between stupidity and genius: Genius has it’s limits, stupidity doesn’t, case proven by Willie Cochran.

Stupidity this strong should cause him to burst into flames hot enough to melt tungsten. The reporters that didn’t call him out on the stupid should smolder.

Prior restraint

Posted on by

Gun control is prior restraint. Since prior restraint for the First Amendment is unconstitutional it is also unconstitutional when applied to the Second Amendment.

The classic example of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater can be extended to illustrate.

Prior restraint would be requiring a gag on everyone as they enter the theater because someone might falsely yell fire.

The solution we have is to punish those that do, not gag everyone who enters the building.

“Gun free zones” are the same sort of thing. You must leave your gun behind because it is feared that you might use it in a criminal manner.

The solution must be that we punish those that injure innocent people and we must not attempt to prevent all people from using their gun at all.

One might claim that the risks are so high that prior restraint is justified as in drunk driving laws. There are two counters to that. 1) Driving is a privilege, not a specific enumerated right; and 2) Only in extremely rare cases does driving drunk have any benefit to society.

And even if we were to accept crime prevention is a valid means to protect innocent life we have problems. Does that mean to prevent rape we should castrate all the men? How about sewing all vaginas shut so women can’t engage in prostitution? Or removing eyes so people can’t engage in voyeurism? And to prove I’m not stuck on sex crimes, we can prevent fights by shackling the hands and feet of everyone. We can prevent drunk driving and public drunkenness by banning alcohol. Slander can be prevented by removing people’s vocal cords. Libel can be prevented by banning publication of, well, everything. And while we are at it we can prevent theft by abolishing private property.

Crime “prevention” is a very hot button for me.  There is no limit to the evil that can be justified and/or enabled once you accept the premise that it is acceptable to prevent crime by restricting liberty.

The very name of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence demonstrates they are a very misguided and dangerous organization.

We are better than this.

Somebody picked the wrong girl

Posted on by

Via a Tweet by Chris Knox who says, “I do so love a happy ending”:

A comment by celticwarrior916:

That locked door you opened… was for your protection. Not mine.

The answer is no

Posted on by

Sebastian wonders about the executive order “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”:

Does this mean that we can just get the check without the 4473?

I was informed by the ATF of the letter (here is my private copy) at 12:03 this afternoon.

The answer is no.

Quote of the day—Adrian Bogdan

Posted on by

I cannot begin to tell you how many memories, flash-back and déjà vu moments I’ve had…

Youth brigades with full indoctrination programs and training to rat on all non-conformists, including their own families, mandatory service of up to 2 years in some sort of “service corps” for “mandatory national service” (which ultimately will turn out to be work brigades needed for cheap slave labor), nationwide police force with full military capabilities and numbers surpassing it and all the “patriotic” work they will be doing like income verification (making sure you’re not living above your means), suppression of free speech and all other basic rights, midnight roundups and arrests, impromptu inspections of homes/businesses/vehicles with no need of any kind of search warrant, unlimited detention at the slightest suspicion of illegal activities (guess how many things will still be legal by then) and so on, so forth. 

Just a recommendation: start showing these proposals to the people you know from the old communist block and then take notes.  Most of them can tell you from memory what the road map will look like. 

Adrian Bogdan
January 15, 2013
From the gun email list at work.
[While the context was the anticipated attack this morning on gun rights by the President Adrian was actually referring to a different article. Still, the road map could be similar.

Other people don’t exactly have a “warm and fuzzy” feeling over the current activities of our public servants either.

It’s interesting to hypothesize parallels to the Palmer Raids which could be used in our current situation:

The Justice Department launched a series of raids on January 2, 1920 with follow up operations over the next few days. Smaller raids extended over the next 6 weeks. At least 3000 were arrested, and many others were held for various lengths of time. The entire enterprise replicated the November action on a larger scale, including arrests and seizures without search warrants, as well as detention in overcrowded and unsanitary holding facilities. Hoover later admitted “clear cases of brutality.” The raids covered more than 30 cities and towns in 23 states, but those west of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio were “publicity gestures” designed to make the effort appear nationwide in scope. Because the raids targeted entire organizations, agents arrested everyone found in organization meeting halls, not only arresting non-radical organization members but also visitors who did not belong to a target organization, and sometimes American citizens not eligible for arrest and deportation.

The Department of Justice at one point claimed to have taken possession of several bombs, but after a few iron balls were displayed to the press they were never mentioned again.

About 10,000 were eventually arrested.

Also the Japanese (and lesser known Italian and German) internment camps are also examples worthy of using for potential parallels.

And, of course, it was a liberal/progressive administration in charge at the time of both the Palmer Raids and the internment camps.

The way it could come about is as follows. There will be widespread noncompliance and heated talk about the “common sense” legislation when the next tragedy occur. Then, particularly if it involves a government entity, those most vocal will be targeted even when they had nothing to do with the violence.

Our Federal government hasn’t passed a budget in, what, three years now? There is significant political tension over the debt and debt ceiling

In times of discontent the government needs scapegoats. Gun owners are now the designated scapegoats. It’s could turn into an extremely rapid escalation of events. The more we complain and the more we resist the more valid the claims that “we can’t be trusted with weapons of war” may appear. They then “have to” confiscate them to preserve our “democracy” (I know it’s a republic but they won’t admit that).

I can see the sound bites now:

  • Those most hostile to our way of life must not be allowed to spread their hate.
  • They do not represent true American values and respect for our form of government.
  • While still respecting the 2nd Amendment we must restrict the rights of a few gun owners in order to respect the rights of the population as a whole to be free from fear.

    Sure, virtually no one is talking about stuffing people in cattle cars right now. But five weeks ago we didn’t, and most probably couldn’t, imagine we would be seeing seven round magazine limits being law, or a full-court press for a more restrictive “assault weapon” ban at the Federal level.

    Things sometimes happen extremely quick. The Rwandan genocide went from moderate tension to mass murder in 30 minutes. Many other events of historical significance went from moderate tension to massive human rights violations over the course of a just a few weeks or months. And, of course, it will be for the children.—Joe]

    • Gun cartoon of the day

    Posted on by

    ExecutiveOrder2ndAmendment

    From The Patriot Post.

    What if the president were to publically announce they were going to sign an executive order to “research” the detrimental effects of free speech or Christianity? Or how about the prohibiting the reading of material from international sources that had no “sporting or scientific purpose”?

    Why can’t people see how disturbing it is that a single person has the power to place restrictions on a specific enumerated right? It’s a really bad precedent to allow.