Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—NYPD Officer

Posted on by

When I came into this police force I wanted to help people, but the civilian population, they’re being hunted. Instead of being protected by us they’re being hunted and we’re being hated.

NYPD Officer
On the Department’s Feudal “Stop and Frisk” Policy.
From 11:28 in the following video:

[H/T Tyler Durden and Michael Krieger.

Also of interest is, from 2:11, “I had this captain who walked into the precinct and gave a speech about harassing the public. His words were, ‘We’re going to go out there and were going to violate some rights’.”

The police should realize this will not be tolerated for long. If legal recourse fails to get them in compliance then they should expect ‘game on.’ With no rules.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Another data point to indicate we are winning the gun owner rights battle is that in the 2000 election George Bush was saying, apparently reluctantly, he would sign a permanent ban on “assault weapons” if it was put on his desk and his opponent, Al Gore, wanted the AWB as well as restrictions and licensing of ordinary handguns.

In this election President Obama, apparently reluctantly, said he would like to see an AWB passed and his opponent, Mitt Romney says he doesn’t want any more restrictions on firearms.

Hence today we have the more repressive candidate for President of the United States taking the position of the least repressive candidate of 12 years ago.

Yes, I can see an analogy being made to dungeon prisoners celebrating their ration of gruel being increased by 10%. But it is a measurable improvement and the trend for the foreseeable future continues to be favorable.

The importance of judges

Posted on by

Sebastian reported a new gun blog and I poked around some. The author, Nicholas J. Johnson, is a Professor of Law specializing in firearm regulation. I found this post of his fascinating.

The following, in particular, caught my attention:

Both the majority and the dissent acknowledge that the AR-15 is a gun in common use. How they proceed from there is illuminating. The dissent treats common use as a solid liberty-protecting standard. Guns in common use cannot be banned.

For the majority, acknowledging the AR-15 as a gun in common use is just a rhetorical lead-in to the burgeoning two stage standard of review. The court found that the D.C. law did in fact burden a core Second Amendment concern. But at stage two it determined that the ban does not “substantially burden” the right to self-defense (people could still have handguns and many other long guns).

This reasoning is not derived from Heller and it is interesting to speculate what else would pass muster under this approach. Pushed hard, it would seem to allow very broad gun bans as long as some core self-defense guns remained legal.

In Heller it was said that guns “in common use” are protected from prohibition by the 2nd Amendment. But some judges are ignoring that. This is essentially a repeat of what happened in Miller where it was said that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment a gun had to “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Yet many courts ignored that statement and instead substituted a twisted version of the actual wording of the Miller decision and said the individual wanting to own or bear a firearm had to be in a militia.

Mike B., a lawyer friend of mine, once told me engineers make poor lawyers because they believe the law means what the law says and it doesn’t. The law actually means whatever the judges want it to mean. This is another data point supporting that claim. And this is another reason why getting people who follow the law as written as our judges is vital to the preservation of our rights.

Or perhaps expressed better is the comment to the post by Brett Bellmore (Oct 06, 2012 @ 09:13:19):

In the end, there’s no substitute for staffing the judiciary with people who aren’t hostile to this liberty. They have too many ways to destroy liberties they don’t like, to afford enemies there.

Keep that in mind each and every time you vote.

Appeasement versus standing your ground

Posted on by

The buses that I have taken to and from work are generally, but not always, drama free. But at some of the bus stops I walk by in the Seattle area make me uncomfortable even when I’m fully tooled up for defensive action. That I frequently see small groups of cops hanging out at some of the stops only adds to my concerns about the frequency of drama at these locations.


The Seattle Police department reports some drama at a transit center that occurred Monday evening:



The 31-year-old suspect’s bout of bad behavior all started around 7:45 pm when he began harassing a woman sitting at a bus stop.


When another man at the bus stop tried to get the suspect to leave the woman alone, the suspect turned on the man and started following him through the Transit Center. The suspect then grabbed the man from behind, shoved him, and demanded money. The man then handed his wallet over to the suspect.


A second man saw the suspect robbing the first man, and stepped in to confront the suspect. The suspect then turned on the second man, punching him in the face and kicking him in the leg.


Already on quite a roll, the suspect then began harassing two other women at the transit center, offering them a graphic and unsolicited description of his genitalia.


Apparently appeasement doesn’t work all that well. If you are going to confront someone about their anti-social behavior it would appear you need to be able to stand your ground should the behavior escalate instead of subside.


As somewhat of a side note I find it interesting that I frequently get “a nod” from one or more of the cops at the bus stops. Sort of like an acknowledgement of “I recognize you as one of my kind” or “I recognize you as a good guy, carry on”. At least that is the way I interpret it.


On Monday evening a cop even stopped to chat with me while I was waiting at a bus stop. He asked about my Unorganized Militia Propaganda patch and what my opinion on open carry was. I told him I had a gun blog and that in most cases I regarded open carry as a political statement (the context is Washington State where concealed carry license are very easy to get) and it needed to be handled carefully. In some locations it was very helpful. In others it could be detrimental. He said he was all for people carrying guns and being able to defend themselves.

I agree with Joan Peterson

Posted on by

It’s a rare thing but this time I (partially) agree with Joan Peterson on this issue (H/T to Sebastian). She says, “Don’t carve pumpkins with guns”.

I took two almost new shooters to Idaho this weekend to do a little pumpkin “carving” at the Boomershoot site.

First we prepared some chemicals:

IMG_2968_2012Web

Then we mixed them. Yes, she was a little apprehensive at first. This whole Kitchen Aid mixer making Boomerite is a little “different”. Six weeks ago had you told her she was going to be traveling to Idaho, making explosives to “carve” pumpkins, and shooting a rifle before Halloween she would have said, “No way!”

IMG_2964_2012Web

Here are some sample pictures of the pumpkins being “carved” (thanks to Barron for bringing them to the party):

IMG_3167_2012Web

The picture below was taken a fraction of a second after the picture above. Notice that the pumpkin pieces have slowed and are further from the origin. I wonder what the BC of a pumpkin seed is.
IMG_3168_2012Web
IMG_3244_2012Web
IMG_3259_2012Web
IMG_3213_2012Web
IMG_3279_2012Web
The picture above almost duplicates a picture Ry took a few years ago. Here is a cropped version of the same picture:
IMG_3279_2112WebCropped
IMG_3307_2012Web

There are hazards to pumpkin “carving” with Boomerite. Max wasn’t really “entertainingly close” by some peoples standards but it was close enough that he sometimes turned away to avoid getting hit in the face with pieces of pumpkin. I was extremely pleased that his finger came off the trigger and he kept the gun pointed in a safe direction:
IMG_3264_2012Web

I’m sure Ms. Peterson will be pleased to know we didn’t use guns as our primary tool for carving the pumpkins. It was just the remote detonator for the explosives. And these new shooters will share their experience and pictures with friends and family which will add to the set of people who recognize modern sporting rifles in common use are not “assault weapons” which should be banned. But instead many of them will desire their own and to share in the fun of the gun and Boomershoot culture. And what does Ms. Peterson and the Brady Campaign have to counter this?

Quote of the day—Ronald Kirchem

Posted on by

Only people who are inadequate below the waist need guns to make them feel like real men.

RonaldKirchemRonald Kirchem
October 16, 2012
Comment to A new assault weapons ban?
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to Sean Y. for the email!

Apparently Krichem was unable to come up with an intellectually sound response to those that explained why the “assault weapon” ban was bad law so he resorted to a position he was much more comfortable with—the retort of a ten-year old.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Bloomberg

Posted on by

Gun are a plague and I don’t think education is going to keep guns out of the hands of gang members. The solution is to prevent all people who shouldn’t have guns from getting them.

Let’s get serious, these are people who have guns, and the only reason to carry a gun is to use it. To kill people.

Michael Bloomberg
Mayor New York City
October 17, 2012
Bloomberg Opens Fire On Obama And Romney’s Gun Control “Gibberish”
[“Guns are a plague”? The last time I check gun ownership is a specific enumerated right. One could just as well claim books, newspapers, and religious texts are “a plague”.

He cannot be serious in believing the only reason for carrying guns is to kill people. Is that why his body guards and the police in his city carry them? People legally carry guns to protect innocent life. If Bloomberg cannot comprehend that then he has some serious mental issues.

If Bloomberg views a specific enumerated right as a plague then it would appear to me there are only two legitimate paths to take from here. 1) Bloomberg voluntarily enters a mental institution for treatment of his mental disorder(s); or 2) Federal prosecutors charge him with violation of 18 USC 242. In no way is Bloomberg fit for public office.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

If the ATF couldn’t keep track of 2500 guns it required FFL holders to sell to the drug cartels then it would seem that they would have zero moral authority to penalize FFL holders for losing track of a few firearms in the course of their business.


And the same should apply to the anti-gun organizations. Either they should be supporting investigation into and prosecution of those responsible in the ATF selling guns to the cartels as well as FFLs that lose guns or they should not support legal action against either.


Of course I’m expecting far too much from both the ATF and anti-gun organizations. I’m expecting morality, rationality, and consistency. I doubt they even know what those things are.

Quote of the day—Steve Chapman

Posted on by

In the end, criminals will never pay the tax, law-abiding citizens will rarely pay it, and the county will get little revenue. The only purpose it will serve is to let upstanding gun owners know their local government views them with disdain. The feeling, for good reason, is mutual.

Steve Chapman
October 13, 2012
Taxing bullets criminal: Penalizing the blameless for gun violence
[A case can be made that taxing a specific enumerated right such as firearms and ammunition is illegal just as taxing churches is illegal. This has yet to be challenged in court and I look forward to the discussion. It will be another front the anti-gunners have to fight on and one for which the First Amendment gives us strong guidance. And NFA 34 can be brought into discussion in a manner that has a better chance of success than a direct challenge to machine gun restrictions.—Joe]

JPFO special offer: Innocents Betrayed DVD

Posted on by

JPFO has reduced the price of their documentary video Innocents Betrayed. And there is more:

We would like to announce a special offer on this outstanding DVD such that you can now purchase one copy for just $19.95 or two copies for $35.90, postage paid. Along with your order you will also receive bonus items — a copy of the 2A Today for the USA DVD, our award-winning documentary, as well as two Gran’pa Jack booklets — #1 which is “Gun Control” Kills Kids! and #7 – Do Gun Prohibitionists Have a Mental Problem? We’ll also include our “Gun Control is NOT kosher” bumper sticker.

JPFOGunControlNotKosher

Attack while the enemy is retreating

Posted on by

As reported yesterday the Brady Campaign recently lost a long time employee.

Today David Hardy reports a clever challenge to Georgia’s ban on carrying in churches. It now becomes both a First and Second Amendment case. And he also reports that in Springfield Illinois, “a major theme in the election is which candidate is least likely to prosecute someone for unlawful carrying.”

I’ve mentioned this before, but this is further evidence the analogy holds, when the enemy is retreating is the time to press the hardest and you can gain the most ground.

We need to keep up as strong and as fast and broad of attacks as we can while they are weak. They need to be completely overwhelmed and driven into the dustbin of history. We have the potential before us to someday make the anti-gun organizations as weak and irrelevant as the KKK is today.

Do it for the children.

Seen at a stoplight

Posted on by

Strapped and frapped on the left side of the window and a zombie family on the right.

WP_000299

And the car ahead of it has a Mitt Romney sticker on the trunk lid.

It is almost amazing that this was in Bellevue Washington.

Quote of the day—Bill Maher

Posted on by

I’m so tired of hearing about the second amendment and the Constitution. If you love guns just admit it like it’s a vice. It’s like alcohol or drugs or sex addiction or gambling. It’s just a vice. It’s something you like. It’s not good for you or anybody else. You just like it. But stop the bulls–t about the second amendment in the Constitution, because nobody needs a gun that fires 31 rounds.

Bill Maher
January 12, 2011
Bill Maher Heckled by ‘Tonight Show’ Crowd for Saying Conservatives Want to Kill People They Disagree With
[H/T Say Uncle.

Bill, It’s a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. And you don’t need to be bad mouthing the right to keep and bear arms. How about we just put you in prison for what you just said? Because if you can just dismiss and/or ignore it gives someone else free license to dismiss and/or ignore every other specific enumerated right. Life would be considerably less pleasant if the police could legally beat a confession out of you or you could be compelled into slavery as a eunuch and praying to Mecca five times a day. That endangers everyone. Maher, you are a threat to society and the human race.

But I don’t advocate putting Maher in prison or restricting his right to free speech no matter how stupid and dangerous it is in the long run. Because the danger to society is greater if we punish speech we don’t like as long as it doesn’t cause a clear and imminent danger to innocent people. And so it is with the right to keep and bear arms.

At least Maher admits he doesn’t have any respect for the Constitution. I wish he would have said, “It’s just a piece of paper.” Just to make it crystal clear what he is really saying. He’s saying he doesn’t want our form of government. He wants to live under a government that has no formal limits to it’s power. An all powerful government is just as valid as a government which respects our natural rights. He didn’t say it but you can read between the lines that he doesn’t want you to be able to advocate for the right to keep and bear arms. He is tired of hearing that such a right exists. Well, Mr. Maher, why don’t you move so some place where your natural rights to free speech and to defend yourself are not recognized. I’d like to suggest North Korea. I’m sure you will be much happier there.

And the right to keep and bear arms is a vice? Tell that to the people in the picture of this blog post. Oh, that’s right! They are all dead because they didn’t have any guns to defend themselves with. And a gun that fires 30 or more rounds would have come in really handy when trying to defend those people. Is the right to defend yourself or other innocent people a vice? I think letting your mouth run off without knowing what you are talking about is a vice. A protected vice.—Joe]

Half-truth Henigan has moved on

Posted on by

A big rat just jumped the sinking ship: Dennis Henigan has left the Brady Campaign.

Something to remember is that Henigan has long known that high gun ownership rates probably do not cause high violent crime rates. He has been working for a cause that, deep down, he has known was lie.

Thank you for leaving Dennis. This is another clock tick closer to my dream.

Perhaps with a few years of work for a different cause the half-truth Henigan label can be retired. For now I’ll just put it on standby.

Markley’s law Monday—video

Posted on by

It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

As Phil said:

That 3 minutes has the highest concentration of stupid I’ve seen in a video in quite a long time. The female co-host has absolutely no idea of what she is saying. I have more knowledge of how perming solution works than she does about firearms and the laws governing firearms. The male cohost Markley’s himself within just a few sentences.

I love it that they keep doing this sort of thing. It demonstrates they are out of “ammunition” in the fight. They are way beyond bringing a knife to a gun fight like they used to. Now they are just spitting at us.

Quote of the day—Mitt Romney

Posted on by

I believe the next president could indeed have the opportunity to shape the Court for decades to come, and that’s a key reason why the tens of millions of Americans who support the NRA should support my candidacy. My view of the Constitution is straightforward: Its words have meaning. The founders adopted a written constitution for a reason. They intended to limit the powers of government. The job of a judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government and, where the Constitution does not speak, to leave the governance of the nation to its elected representatives. I believe in the rule of law, and I will appoint wise, experienced and restrained judges who take seriously their oath to discharge their duties impartially in accordance with our Constitution and our laws—not their personal policy preferences.

Mitt Romney
September 11, 2012
NRA’s Chris Cox Goes One On One With Governor Mitt Romney
[If you can ever really be reassured by something a politician says what Romney says in this interview is about as reassuring to gun owners as you can get.—Joe]

My dream is coming true

Posted on by

Via Dave Hardy.

In 2010 The Brady Campaign reported they net assets or fund balances of -$768,643. Yes, they had net negative assets of over three quarters of a million dollars.

Their assets have been in the red since 2008 and my guess is 2011 and 2012 have not been any better for them. Total revenues in 2008 were 4.1 million compared to 2.8 million in 2011. They would do better if they went to the gun ranges and picked up just one piece of discarded brass from each gun owner in the country each year.

It’s no wonder the Brady Campaign put Helmke and his $250K/year salary out to pasture.

My dream is coming true.

Quote of the day—Kristophr

Posted on by

Joe is one of the moderates who would give him the choice of being disarmed.

I, on the other hand, would strip him of his right to vote for not meeting his militia duties. And make him get a permit to NOT carry, and put him in a public database to shame him for his moral cowardice.

And make him pay double sales tax to fund the additional police protection he requires.

Kristophr

October 9, 2012

Comment to Quote of the day—JMMII.

[Kristophr is right. I’ve gotten soft in my old age. In the past I have advocated for the Swiss system where you cannot vote unless you periodical qualify on the rifle range. Assuming someone does not point out a constitutionality problem that I have overlooked I have no serious objections to implementing a system such as advocated by Kristophr.

I’m currently reading Lone Star Planet and expect to get some ideas from the book. Perhaps that will help me regain my edge.

Thank you Kristophr for pointing out how soft I am. I’ll try to maintain a sharper edge in the future.—Joe]

The clock is ticking

Posted on by

This is basically rehashing what I already said on Twitter but there is some new material.

Saturday morning I got a call from son James. It was to tell me that his wife, Kelsey, is pregnant. I was sort of expecting something “soon” when I made this post but didn’t officially know anything.

As I replied to Barron on Twitter, “Now the clock is ticking.” We have about 10, maybe 15, years to make full auto firearms readily accessible and to drive the Brady Campaign into bankruptcy and/or total politically oblivion.

I think it’s doable. Won’t you help make my dream come true? It’s for the children.

Quote of the day—JMMII

Posted on by

YOU want to force everyone to HAVE to have one–preferably several with extended clips–everywhere they go. Love the avatar–I’m so impressed. What a hero. Use that for “hunting”, do you? Or only as a “substitute”?

JMMII
September 27, 2012
Comment to The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions. H/T to Sebastian.
This is the avatar being referred to:
avatar32
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

Also notice the change in definition of words. “Force” means people deciding for themselves whether to own a firearm and is a bad thing but the use of the power of government to attempt disarming everyone is apparently beneficial.

Another way to look at this is that in a battle of wits with a gun rights activists armed with facts JMMII was coming up short in the “ammunition” department and had to invoke Markley’s Law.—Joe]