Category Archives: Gun Rights

Banning the ATF not guns

Posted on by

There are rumors the ATF is about to be thrown under the bus. Although there are people calling this rumor “a bombshell” (via Say Uncle and son-in-law John) it isn’t really all that new (from almost three months ago):

The unfolding scandal over a gunrunning investigation allegedly botched by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives could do what years of criticism of the long-beleaguered agency never quite accomplished — result in its demise.

People on both sides of the issue commented on it:

“I think something like that is likely to happen,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

…

Christopher Cox, legislative director for the NRA, the agency’s longtime nemesis, also said arguments for shuttering or breaking up ATF are building.
 
“Their criminal investigation tactics are going a long way to proving that point,” Cox said. “If they cease to be an effective law enforcement organization, they will cease to be legitimate, and the calls for restructuring or abolishing of ATF are going to become more and more valid.”

Sebastian says, Careful What You Wish For and he has some good points. The concern that the FBI has credibility and respect the ATF doesn’t and we would rather have a money starved easily demonized bunch of screw ups instead of the FBI, the Secret Service, or the U.S. Marshalls enforcing the regulations has been the whisper from behind the scenes since as least the Regan years when the first serious thoughts of disbanding them came up.

Things have changed with the FBI since the 1980’s. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? The ATF created the messes but it was during the FBI “cleanup” that the FBI shot the woman holding the baby and burned down the church with the women and children in it. The FBI has it’s own public relations issues to be concerned about.

I’ll leave making a recommendation on this specific topic at this specific time to others more politically savvy but if we are to make progress trimming down the size and scope of government agencies need to start disappearing. Why is now not as good a time as any to get rid of the ATF? The ATF is heavily involved in a major scandal, the Heller and McDonald decisions imply that many of their duties are constitutionally suspect if not right illegal. Because they are so weak this might be the time to get rid of them simply because it is politically possible.

If now is the time then to “avoid overloading the FBI” with either new tasks and/or the training of large numbers of new personal Congress should simultaneously cut back on a lot of the obsolete laws. Here is my list of gun laws that could be put on the chopping block along with the ATF:

  • The ban on interstate gun sales. We have NICS, run by the FBI already, which covers the concerns put forth for the original proponents of the law.
  • The registration and tax on suppressors. Make a NICS check on them a requirement with 4473 like paperwork shouldn’t be that much of a political sell because all the functionality of the existing system would still exist except for the tax revenue which almost for certain doesn’t pay for itself as well as being constitutionally suspect.
  • The laws against on short barreled rifles and shotguns. This only made sense when there were plans to ban handguns (originally part of NFA 34). That didn’t happen and isn’t going to happen (see Heller).
  • Postal restrictions against mailing of firearms. We can ship them via UPS, FedEx, etc. Why not USPS?
  • The classification of some 12-gauge shotguns as “destructive devices”.
  • The “sporting purpose” tests for firearms. The Heller decision makes it very clear that the Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting. This particularly affects imports. Unless it as part of some trade war it makes no sense that guns and ammo which are perfectly legal to manufacture and own inside the U.S. cannot be imported. Either ban them as part of a coherent (as if trade wars can make sense but that is another topic so please don’t get into it at this time) trade policy or get rid of the bans.
  • The ban of sales of firearms to citizens who have no U.S. residence. Just because someone has been living and working in another country for a few months or even years does not mean they should be prohibited from exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms when they return for a visit.

I’m sure there are lots of other nonsensical laws and regulations that could be cut at the same time which our opponents would be hard pressed to defend. And with all the grief the ATF has had because of their “mistakes” perhaps the agencies that take on the remaining functions will “play nice” compared to the ATF.

If we could ban the ATF and “ease the burden” on the FBI at the same time would it be worth taking the risks associated with having the remaining ATF functions divided up among other agencies? I’m thinking it might be.

Quote of the day—Kaveman

Posted on by

I am willing to perform the duties of CEO for your organization for minimum wage and a few photos of Sarah Brady in a thong and an unlimited supply of Kleenex.

Kaveman
October 1, 2011
I will be the next CEO at Brady
[I considered applying also but (plagiarizing from Joel) I have minimal experience as a male bovine excrement engineer and zero experience as a equine excrement engineer.

Even if I had the requisite experience and even if she promised to never model her thongs in my presence I would need far more than minimum wage to hang out with Sarah Brady.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Handgun Control, Inc.

Posted on by

Both Handgun Control, Inc. and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, the sister organizations sponsoring the symposium, predict a long but ultimately successful battle to reform one of the most dangerous industries in the United States.

Handgun Control, Inc.
October 8, 1997
GUN INDUSTRY EXPERTS PREDICT FAR-REACHING REFORMS; POINT TO TOBACCO AND OTHER INDUSTRIES AS PRECEDENT
[How are those reforms working out for you? It’s been 14 years now. Has it been long enough yet?

Oh, that’s right. It was Handgun Control, Inc. that did the reforming.—Joe]

As easy as access to drugs

Posted on by

As we have said for years and years laws restricting access to firearms can be no more effective than the laws that restrict access to recreational drugs. We now have a report that literally says that about California which, according to the Brady Campaign ranks as the top state in the nation with the “strongest gun laws that help combat the illegal gun market, prevent the sale of guns without background checks and reduce risks to children” (plagiarized from here):

Respondents pointed out that getting a gun is “as easy as access to drugs.” This climate of ready gun availability led a service provider to observe that “it seems harder for adults to get legal access to guns than for kids to get illegal access.” This surprising information regarding the ease of youth access to guns is supported by data from the 2007 California Healthy Kids Survey, in which 4.8 percent of San Mateo County 7th, 9th, and 11th graders reported having brought a gun to school, a rate similar to that for the Bay Area overall (5 percent).

Got that? It is harder for adults to legally exercise a specific enumerated right than it is for children to get illegal access.

What if it were more difficult to lawfully purchase a Bible than it was for kids to get a copy of Hustler magazine? Do you think the laws would change?

It’s time most firearm laws were repealed and politicians who defend them sent to prison.

Sunnyvale gets it right

Posted on by

Bigoted members of the public in Sunnyvale California wanted “special attention” given to “Stand-alone Firearm Sales Businesses”. Sporting goods stores that happen to sell guns were okay but if a store was primarily a gun shop they had a problem with it. Something about children walking by it caused them to think for themselves and put the harmony of the collective at risk or something. I have to wonder if they had the same sort of problem with kids walking by a bookstore.

In any case after some “encouragement” from Michel & Associates on Tuesday the city council stood up to the bigots on the issue.

Quote of the day—dogbreath

Posted on by

I think you are giving them far too much credit – their generally not well endowed with either a brain or a p…Glock. But there is an assload of money involved. Absolutely.

dogbreath
September 27, 2011
Comment to NRA’s “Single Issue” Is Obama, Not Guns
[Nice! Dogbreath invokes Markley’s Law, says we have small brains while saying “their” instead of “they’re”, and attributes the motivation to protect a specific enumerated right to making money all in just two sentences. That is impressive.—Joe]

Pack a sidearm

Posted on by

Via email from Jonathan H.

One of my Idaho Outfitter friends hunted a group of out-of-state elk archery hunters from the Great Lakes region  last week and they called in a pack of 17 wolves by cow calling. None of the hunters had a sidearm or wolf tag and it was a very traumatic experience as the wolves surrounded the hunters!   All hunters went home early very disturbed claiming these wolves are very different from the Great Lakes wolves as they claimed these Idaho wolves actually “Hunt” you and were not afraid!

Note she is wearing gloves!  We saw almost no gloves 2 years ago!

Archers please pack a sidearm where legal!

—–

This wolf came running toward Rene last night to attack her. She had to drop her bow & pull her pistol.  She shot it in the head about 10 feet from her.  She had to shoot it a couple more times to actually kill it.  CRAZY!  This – not even a week after Shane’s dogs were killed by wolves.

WolfTakenByArcherWithPistol

It’s not just archers that should carry a sidearm. Wife Barbara saw one while taking pictures near the Selway river last year.

Quote of the day—John Dewey

Posted on by

You can’t make Socialists out of individualists — children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.

John Dewey
From Accuracy In Media
[Ahhhh… yes. The collective society. The good of the collective is more important than the good of the individual. The individual must not think for themselves. Except of course the dear, enlightened, leaders who decide what is best for the collective and just happen to live lives of luxury.

What the “intellectuals” need to understand, if history has any lessons to be learned on this topic, is that the “intellectuals” are the first to get the bullet in the back of the neck and occupy the mass graves in the woods. Look at what Stalin, Pol Pot, and communist China did.

It may be that it “won’t happen here”. It may be the government of the collective will put the “intellectuals” in positions of power and that when the shooting starts it will be individualists who first occupy the mass graves. But when the shooting stops it will be because the individualists ran out of collectivist “intellectuals” as targets. Not because we ran out of ammo or individuals.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brian Malte

Posted on by

Not only are you stripping the right of the local municipalities to protect safety but you’re also asking them to adhere to gun laws at the state level that don’t even exist.

Brian Malte
Director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
September 27, 2011
Lawyer keeps local gun laws in his sights—Lawsuits against Evansville and Hammond demand communities comply with state measure
[“Protect safety”? “Adhere to gun laws that don’t exit”? What in the world does that even mean?

I suppose it’s possible the reporter had the crap for brains and messed up the quote but I doubt it because the quotes from the other people in the article weren’t just word salads. It could have been deliberate maliciousness by the reporter but usually the bias is against gun owners.

It’s true that we are sometimes our worst enemy but it may be more so for our opponents. We don’t always act as a team and give conflicting messages to the public and the politicians. We have people that sometimes say things that which, while true, can be exploited by our opponents. They have crap for brains and it shows.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Voth

Posted on by

Please accept this letter in lieu of completing an ATF Form 4473 for the purchase of four (4) CAI, Model Draco, 7.62×39 mm pistols, by Special Agent John Dodson. These aforementioned pistols will be used by Special Agent Dodson in furtherance of the performance of his official duties. In addition, Special Agent Dodson has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. If you have any questions, you may contact me at telephone number 602-605-6501.

David Voth
ATF Group Supervisor
June 1, 2010
Letter implicates ATF in committing straw purchases for Gunwalker
ATFDavidVoth20100601
[These guns, purchased with U.S. taxpayer cash without a 4473 so as to be off the books, were given directly to the drug trafficking organizations by an ATF agent. There was no straw buyer.

I’m a pretty creative guy but I’m at a loss at finding a reason why someone would think this was a good idea unless their sole objective was to create justification for more strict firearm laws. I consider this to be on the same ethical plane as someone committing crimes in face paint such that they appeared to have black skin in order to justify laws against blacks.

The people responsible for these misdeeds need to be brought to justice. They probably wouldn’t pass muster in a constitutional challenge because of the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” but I have some very creative potential sentences running through my mind right now. —Joe]

Negotiate from a position of strength

Posted on by

From reading James Higham’s post we get this:

All things being equal, the English [and British] population have not been particularly gun-oriented, compared to the Americans and we like to think we can solve everything by negotiation, relying on the friendly bobby on the beat to take care of the occasional naughty person. “Allo, allo, what’s all this then?”

It occurs to me that the liberals in our society have a strong tendency in the same direction. Many liberal politicians insist we should “talk out our differences” rather than utilizing force on both a personal as well as international scale.

While I agree it is much preferable to have a verbal exchange before exchanging blows, bullets, or ballistic missiles the verbal exchange is doomed to failure unless both parties are in positions of some power. That power does not necessarily need to be a physical threat. It doesn’t even need to be a physical action. It could be something as nebulous as “I won’t like you anymore” or something like the shame of violating someone’s trust.

The less power you have during the negotiation the less favorable your outcome. If you are much weaker physically and unable to bring additional forces to the “negotiation” the psychopath wanting to rob or rape you isn’t going to spend a lot of time “talking out the differences” in your two positions.

In tribes of up to a few hundred people physical force isn’t even needed. The community bonds and dependency are so strong and important that violating the rules of your tribe is very rare. Only in intertribal conflict is force a necessary component in conflicts. Crime in societies where individuals and small groups can be anonymous and autonomous is much much higher. The victims have much less power in the “negotiations”.

Many people apparently do not understand, are unaware, or are unconvinced of this fact. It’s easy to hypothesis why they don’t. Humans and proto-humans spent millions of years in small tribes and only a few thousand years in the much larger groups and only a few hundred years in cities with more than a few hundred thousand people. Many of the people advocating individuals give up their arms are feeling the impulses of very primitive urges that evolved millions of years ago. It feels like the right thing to do because the instincts were correct until the last few thousand years. The phrase “it takes a village” is appealing because of this instinct.

Things have changed. It’s time people realized it. This is Why the Gun is Civilization. It brings equilibrium to the negotiations.

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

If the other side really wants to understand why they continuously lose, they have to understand this: their side can’t get mojo without buying off sympathetic people on the left to shill for their cause. I would not let NRA, or any other gun rights group I believed in, buy words from me. Every penny they spent on that would be money that isn’t going to keep lobbyists on my elected representatives like a pitbull on a poodle. If the gun control extremists want to understand why they can’t get any traction, they need to look no further than the fact that they even need to throw money at people to have a voice at all.

Sebastian
September 23, 2011
What is the Purpose of the Media Matters Tagline?
[It’s also worth noting that traction is difficult to come by when you are nothing but a hot air balloon.—Joe]

Safe storage laws

Posted on by

There are now controls for Internet control of your heating and the government wants to control your air conditioning, refrigerators, lights, and computers so this is really just a logical extension.

It’s for the children.

Via Gus from work.

Quote of the day—Weerd Beard

Posted on by

You see the antis claim that these guns and practices would result in MORE violent crimes. Just the opposite has happened.

But they’re attempting to spin this as a victory…I guess to the legions of the VERY VERY stupid.

We are blessed to have opponents such as these!

Weerd Beard
September 19, 2011
Fails of the Antis
[As near as I can determine we have three types of opponents:

  1. The evil.
  2. The ignorant.
  3. The intellectually challenged.

The evil use the intellectually challenged and the ignorant to further their agenda but fortunately there are not that many evil people currently in positions of power and/or they are keeping a low profile. They have not been a significant threat in recent battles. There probably is no cure for evil except to recognize it and to remove them from positions of power.

The ignorant are less able to remain ignorant with the Internet. They are very quickly informed once they publically show their support for gun control. That they vote without becoming visible or becoming informed is probably the biggest threat they pose to us. Probably our best weapon against these people is for us to come out of the closet and to take these people to the range.

The intellectually challenged can be transformed into gifts to our cause. Every time they say something stupid we can (and do) broadcast it for others to see and point out the stupidity. Who wants to be on the same side as people who say such stupid stuff? So, yes, we are blessed to have opponents such as these!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Charlie Beck

Posted on by

We are a modern civilized community, and we should work on peaceful solutions to end criminal behavior.

Charlie Beck
Los Angeles Police Chief
September 16, 2011
Gun control bill in Gov. Brown’s hands
[Since the people that work for him are on the front lines of the criminal behavior modification efforts Beck should be consistent. He should order all of his police officers to not carry firearms in public.

Other advice for Beck might include having his police officers hold hands with the criminals and sing Kumbaya.

While he is evaluating how that turns out the rest of the country will be packing heat and questioning his sanity.—Joe]

Quote of the day—4moreDubya

Posted on by

Look at it this way, do you think it’s up to the states to set their own rules on slavery? Or search and seizure?

4moreDubya
September 14, 2011
Comment to House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines
[States have powers to set their own tax rates, build (or not build) roads, license businesses, and many other things. States have not been given the power to infringe upon specific enumerated or natural rights. Some people just don’t grasp the difference between exercising powers granted to them and infringing upon rights specifically protected. Some people just aren’t very bright.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gura

Posted on by

Give money to SAF and take people to the range.

Alan Gura
September 10, 2011
Gun Blogger Rendezvous
In response to the question he posed, “What can you do to help?”
[SAF is the main funding source for the lawsuits Gura has been engaged in. Taking people to the range, particularly new shooters, decreases the odds they will vote for an anti-gun politician or donate money to anti-gun organizations. And, most importantly, it makes Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarmann, and Michael Beard cry.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Verini

Posted on by

Let’s start with the obscenely irresponsible laws that cover gun sales in America. For instance, anyone without a criminal record can legally purchase as many rifles and other long guns as they want in the United States. You read that correctly. If you have no criminal record, you can walk into a gun dealer and buy 100 AR-15 rifles, 200 AK-47s, the store’s entire inventory of shotguns, or a .50-caliber sniper rifle that can take down a low-flying aircraft — as long as you have the cash.

James Verini
August 30, 2011
Mexican Roulette
[And anyone, regardless of their criminal record, can purchase as many copies of the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and Korans as they want in the United States. Anyone can also purchase as much gasoline, road flares, and matches as you want. Or you can purchase as many baseball bats, hammers, and knives as you want. What you can’t legally do is deliberate or carelessly harm other people.

As seen in this light that you have to pass a government mandated background check to exercise a specific enumerated right demonstrates that firearms are over regulated.

It’s time for Verini to grow up. The government is not, cannot, and should not be his mother or anyone else’s.

H/T to Col. Milquetoast for the link.—Joe]

If it were teenage drinking instead of guns

Posted on by

Ry and I were talking about operation “Fast and Furious” on the drive back from the range yesterday. The synopsis is, suppose operation “Fast and Furious” were about teenage drinking instead of guns. Law enforcement would have given $70,000 to several underage people and told them to go buy alcohol at particular stores where law enforcement would tell the stores to not check the IDs of the people they gave the money too.

Law enforcement would then find receipts from those purchases at drunk driving accidents. The executive branch would then claim more laws are required to register people who want to buy more than one six pack of beer or one bottle of hard liquor at a time. The news media would enthusiastically support this proposal until it was discovered that a law enforcement officer was killed by one of the drunk teenagers. Then both the news media and the government officials would say they aren’t going to admit any wrong doing and the proposed laws are a good idea even if enforcement of the existing laws would have prevented the problems they used as justification for the new laws.

As Kevin and I discussed last night the entire scandal was only exposed when people who stomp kittens to death as part of their regular job found it too immoral to continue with the operation.

Quote of the day—Ry Jones

Posted on by

Yeah…. And I want to f*** supermodels tomorrow. Both have about an equal chance of success.

Ry Jones
September 10, 2011
This was in response to the Brady Campaign’s search for a new president who will be given the “Programmatic Objective” of “Build the movement to insure that all guns in our nation are childproofed by 2015.”
[Sebastian and Kaveman have more comments.

I also laughed at this one:

Develop strategies to determine and promote evidence-based arguments for public policies, which are grounded in research and support common sense efforts at reducing gun violence.

As a scientist I would be persona non-gratia in most scientific circles if I advocated for something like that. You don’t look for evidence to support your preconceived notions. Furthermore an abundance of evidence exists which supports the conclusion that the Brady Campaign is on the wrong side of the data.

And finally since they are looking for justification to infringe upon a specific enumerated right this goal is like the KKK looking for evidence to justify racial segregation and discrimination. Even if it exists they have no business attempting to use the force of government to achieve their objectives.—Joe]