Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—jason

Posted on by

Now on the topic of guns, we must ban them. Plain and simple.

…

Ban them all.

jason
July 26, 2011
Comment to Even Democrats Oppose Obama On Gun Control Treaty.
[No mention is made of that little speed bump known as The Bill of Rights. The rest of the comment is just as disconnected from reality. I thought it was an interesting mix with a rant about the 14th Amendment causing us to become subjects of an elected monarch with a demand that all guns be banned.

As is probably the case with most fervent believers in the utility of gun bans he hasn’t been taking his anti-psychotic mediations recently.—Joe]

Quote of the day—PT

Posted on by

Joe Huffman, somebody to take on the “E” in “BATFE.”

PT
July 27, 2011
Comment to Time for a St. Louis Revolt?
[This is in regard to, somewhat tongue in check, nominations for the NRA board of directors. While I haven’t really brought it up before I think it should be fairly obvious that explosives should be covered in “the right to keep and bear arms”. It just not quite the right time politically to bring that up. Although if there were a serious move to abolish the ATF I have a story or two that would fuel that fire.—Joe]

Applying commonsense to gun laws

Posted on by

Alan doesn’t spell it quite as clearly as I would like but he does explain what President Obama and the ATF want to do “is strictly forbidden under federal law”.

What should have been said is that in order to know if “multiple rifle sales are made to the same buyer within a five-day period” there needs to be central records kept of firearms sales. If such a central record store does not exist then it is trivial to defeat the reporting requirement. The multiple firearm buyer merely goes down the street and purchases a single firearm from every dealer. As far as each of the dealers is concerned it was a single firearm sale. The only way to block this “loophole” is a firearm owner registry maintained by a single entity. It is illegal for any Federal agency to create such a registry.

Even if the individual states were to do this long guns may be purchased in states other than your home state so the loophole would exist even if implemented by the states. Instead of going down the street the buyers would have to cross the state lines but in many locations that wouldn’t be that big of a issue.

In addition to such a registry being illegal a firearms owners registry in this country would be a huge failure with massive disobedience on a scale much larger than that experienced by Canada’s boondoggle.

Commonsense says that if it is illegal and it wouldn’t work even if it were legal any effort expended on the plan is wasted. Surely we can all agree that government waste is something to avoid.

Quote of the day—Fabio Periera

Posted on by

This is a tragedy, both that 80 lives were lost & that right-wing gun nuts exist worldwide.

Fabio Periera
July 23, 2011
Saved from the memory hole by Linoge.
[One has to wonder how Periera would like to remedy the problem of that existence. Certainly others had and implemented effective government programs for that sort of problem. And it is because of the existence of people like Periera that I have Boomershoot.—Joe]

Quote of the day—William Van Alstyne

Posted on by

The essential claim (certainly not every claim–but the essential claim) advanced by the NRA with respect to the Second Amendment is extremely strong. Indeed, one may fairly declare, it is at least as well anchored in the Constitution in its own way as were the essential claims with respect to the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech as first advanced on the Supreme Court by Holmes and Brandeis, seventy years ago. And until the Supreme Court manages to express the central premise of the Second Amendment more fully and far more appropriately than it has done thus far, the constructive role of the NRA today, like the role of the ACLU in the 1920s with respect to the First Amendment (as it then was), ought itself not lightly to be dismissed. Indeed, it is largely by the “unreasonable” persistence of just such organizations in this country that the Bill of Rights has endured.

William Van Alstyne
1994
THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE PERSONAL RIGHT TO ARMS
[I’m reminded of the adage that “all progress depends on the unreasonable man”. Keep that in mind when the anti-gun people demand “reasonable gun laws”. They are anti-progress.

But beyond that there can little doubt that the “unreasonableness” of the ACLU has shaped the legal contours of the First and Fifth Amendments. Many could claim the protections carved out by the courts under pressure from the ACLU extend well beyond “reasonable” limits. We certainly have those that claim the limits of the Second Amendment are too broad now with essentially just one win under our belt. Extending the elimination of gun bans to non-Federal jurisdictions expands the domain but not the shape of the protection. What I’m curious about is if perhaps the ACLU blazed a trail for SAF, NRA, et. al. such that Second Amendment protections will advance to boundaries comparable to the First Amendment at a much more rapid pace than it took for the ACLU to get us where we are today. Will there ever come a time somewhere along the way where the majority of people will concede that the limits on the Second should be similar to the limits on the First and the mass of repressive anti-gun laws all across the land will suddenly topple over like dominos. Will our fight take 70 years? Forever? Or will it only be 10?

I don’t know the answer. But I am certain that the more we push that meme the greater chance it has of becoming reality.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

I won’t pretend to say I know what they really think, if they think at all, but what many of the anti-gun people express is they fear the things gun owners might do. We might commit a violent crime. We might accidently shoot someone. We might try to overthrow the government. And they want laws in place to prevent such things.

How is this different than those that expressed fear about what people with dark colored skin might do if they were given their freedom, or allowed to vote, or mingle with your white skinned daughters?

It is time they moved past their imaginary fears. People must be judged on what they actually do and not on what they might do. Prevention is prior restraint and that cannot be allowed for a specific enumerated right.

Certainly judgment can and should be passed on the results of what actually happens. And if mixed race marriages occur or even a government is overthrown occasionally the possibility of that being a good thing should be considered in the light of the actuality rather than in the potentiality.

Quote of the day—Paul Brinkley

Posted on by

The point of citizen resistance isn’t to be able to kick your own government’s ass; it’s to make clear that it would spend more to oppress you than it would by leaving you free. (Granted, some governments take more convincing than others. But that’s an education problem.)

Paul Brinkley
July 18th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Comment to the post Brin on Heinlein on guns is dead wrong.
[Via email from Rich R.

And what better way to educate a government on the costs of oppression than by shooting back and/or shooting the tax collectors?—Joe]

Enhanced Penalties

Posted on by

Over the years, mostly in the 1990s IIRC, there has been a lot of talk about certain enhanced penalties for “gun crimes”.  Even some supposedly on the pro rights side have advocated them, presumably as a compromise to prevent some other, more egregious infringement.


I thought we had dispatched the whole concept years ago, but it came up again in comments here, so I figure it’s time to update some folks who might be new to this game of official, wholesale coercion and persecution of different groups, verses liberty.  Besides that, we all know by now that the leftist playbook is very short, and so they have to recycle the old ideas and find a way to make them new again every few years or so.


What you’re saying when you advocate special punishments for “gun crime” is that the same, or very similar, crime committed without a gun is somehow less criminal.  What you’re saying is that gun owners are to be treated the way black people were treated before civil rights.


Do you really want to go there?


My sister and her approximately three year old daughter were murdered in their own home by an invader.  The killer used a kitchen knife to brutally stab and slash my sister to death, in the presence of her daughter, and then the daughter was strangled to death with a shoestring as the murder weapon.


So you’re saying; “Oh, well thank goodness they were killed with a knife and shoestring, because being shot with a gun would be…just terrible!”  And you’re saying to the murderer; “Thank you, my good man, for using a knife and a shoestring instead of a gun.  That’s the way we like to see it. Now you’ll get off a little easier.”


WTF..Really?


One of our music store customers in his early teens was minding his own business one night when a carload of other kids stopped, got out, and clubbed him with a baseball bat.  He dragged himself some blocks to the steps of a nearby business, and died from the massive head injuries.


“His parents should count their lucky stars their boy wasn’t shot, ’cause that would have been bad news!”


Really?


That’s just as stupid and bigoted as saying that, as an alternative to slavery, we should just have enhanced penalties for black people who commit crimes, and referring to that as “pro civil rights advocacy”.  With friends like that I don’t need enemies.  I know the enhanced-penalty-for-the-presence-of-guns concept has been bandied about by supposedly pro gun legisladiots, and that you might have been fooled for a moment, but don’t let it happen again.  Now you know– such ideas come either from the anti rights movement or from people who can’t think straight and don’t understand what the words “rights” and “justice” mean.  We can all do much better without them mucking up the waters.


ETA; Maybe the slavery reference wasn’t the best one.  Maybe it should be, “…as stupid and bigoted as saying that, as an alternative to outright lynchings, we should have enhanced penalties for blacks who commit crimes…”  Makes everybody happy, right?  Everyone gets a little something.


In any case, when we stick to the basic truths, we win.  When you compromise the basic principles, you’ve relegated the concept of rights to the back of the bus.  You’ve just lost.  Creating enhanced penalties for one group verses another is outright dumb, and evil, regardless of the political/tactical environment.  If you can’t stand on the principle of basic rights, equality, liberty and justice, well thank you for applying but no– we just can’t use you at this time.  Coward.

Quote of the day—Otis Rolley

Posted on by

It is undeniable that we have to do more to reduce the devastating impact gun violence is having on our community. While the courts have consistently ruled against significant gun control legislation, there is still a way to decrease crime: substantially increase the cost of its’ commission.


Increasing the cost of guns won’t work because many criminals don’t purchase new guns and they can be borrowed or even rented in some areas. Therefore, as Mayor, Otis will move to impose a $1 per bullet tax (or about $50 per pack). That will increase substantially the financial cost of committing a crime and, unlike guns, bullets cannot be shared after their initial use. This will also dramatically cut back on the random firings that too often happen around holidays and celebrations.


Otis Rolley
Candidate for Mayor of Baltimore
July 19, 2011
THE ROLLEY PLAN TO MAKE EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN BALTIMORE SAFER
[It would appear that Rolley is arithmetically and logically impaired. There would be constitutional challenges to this which almost for certain he would lose because he openly admits, “This is not a revenue enhancement tool”.


But ignoring the constitutional issue with high taxes you would get smuggling with this proposal. Just think about it a bit. What is the tax on recreational drugs in this country or the tax on bullets and guns in the U.K.? Oh yeah! It’s a few years in prison and those items are still readily available. And with the tax on ammunition purchased inside the city limits all he will accomplish is to create a virtual ban on the legal sale of ammunition within the city. This will create a new black market. In other words a Mayor Rolley would increase crime instead of decrease it.


Now the arithmetic part. I don’t have the numbers for just Baltimore but I do have them for the U.S. as a whole. Each year private citizens purchase, and presumably consume, something on the order of 9 billions rounds of ammunition. There are approximately 70,000 injuries or deaths each year due to criminal use of firearms. Suppose that on the average, each of these injuries and deaths were the result of two shots fired. This would mean that his proposed tax would cost people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms nearly $9,000,000,000 while costing the criminals only about $140,000. Or a ratio of about 64,000 to 1. This is not a “tax” on criminal use of firearms. It is a “tool” for infringing on people exercising a guaranteed right.


Furthermore looking at it from the standpoint of per criminal use his proposal would increase the cost of the crime, assuming the criminals actually purchased the ammo instead of stealing it or smuggling it in from outside the city, by about $2.00 per crime. When the “cost” of the crime is already many months or years in jail how can anyone think that increasing the cost another $2.00 is going to make a difference?


This guy has crap for brains. No wonder he is running for mayor. He isn’t qualified for a real job.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Orrin G. Hatch

Posted on by

When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I hoped that I would be able to assist in the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, rights which have too often been eroded in the belief that government could be relied upon for quick solutions to difficult problems.

Both as an American citizen and as a United States Senator I repudiate this view. I likewise repudiate the approach of those who believe to solve American problems you simply become something other than American. To my mind, the uniqueness of our free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land “conceived in liberty”, they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against government interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.

Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
FEBRUARY 1982
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, R E P O R T OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES SENATE, NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
[And those that do not value this right have no desire to be free. May their chains set lightly upon them, and may posterity forget that they were our countrymen.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeffrey R. Snyder

Posted on by

Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people.

At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that the right confirmed by the Second Amendment “is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern.

This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning that America’s gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian night: “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.” While liberals take this statement as evidence of the retrograde, violent nature of gun owners, we gun owners hope that liberals hold equally strong sentiments about their printing presses, word processors, and television cameras. The republic depends upon fervent devotion to all our fundamental rights.

Jeffrey R. Snyder
1993
A Nation of Cowards
[What of the “moral right to govern” when it commits crimes to justify imposing illegal restrictions on gun dealers? It should be no different than a fireman sets fires so they can put them out. It goes beyond losing “the moral right to govern”. They should go to jail or it means those that wish to be our masters, instead of our public servants, have nothing to lose when they attempt to change the relationship. If they get caught and told not to do that they just try something else. There must be a punishment for those that violate their oath of office because otherwise the erosion of our rights will only stop when there are no more rights to be eroded.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

When it comes to gun control, the American public is way ahead of our elected officials. Americans overwhelmingly want health and safety regulation of the gun industry. A significant percentage, in some areas a majority, favor a handgun ban and, in virtually every part of the country, more Americans favor a handgun ban than own handguns.

Josh Sugarmann
March 15, 2000
New Survey Reveals More Americans Favor Handgun Ban Than Own Handguns
[The actual number, according to Sugarmann’s own numbers is that 36.6% of the people in the U.S. asked said they support a handgun ban while 24.8% own handguns. I’m not sure why the number of people who own handguns is relevant here other than for Sugarmann to pretend to have something to crow about. Does he think that the 36.6% of the people wanting to ban handguns would be able to take them away from the 24.8% that own them? Let’s explore that a little bit.

Assuming one shot is required per person that attempts to take a handgun away. That means on the average each handgun owner needs to have about 1.5 rounds of ammo to not even need to set their beer down and get up out of the easy chair when dealing with those criminals. Of course if it were me and I had to defend my property against criminals attempting to take it from me by force I would sue the survivors and/or their estate for the cleaning service for both my home and my gun, the time lost, and the ammo I used. It’s a lot more effort that just pulling the trigger a few times and calling the cops but I think it sends a message when they have to pay for the dispatch as well as disposal costs.

In a more serious frame of mind the number of real interest that Sugarmann avoided reporting is that 63.4% did not support banning handguns. And unless you are talking about a Constitutional Amendment what does the number people wanting to infringe a specific enumerated right matter at all? If there were more people that wanted to enslave people with black skin than there were people who had black skin does it really matter on any scale you want to measure it by? In either case if someone tries to implement something that clearly over the line it’s “game on”.

Keep in mind this was over 11 years ago so it’s possible that Sugarmann has raised his estimation of the I.Q. of those that read his garbage and this now longer represents the quality of his work. But I wouldn’t count on it. He’s been in the business of deceiving the public for so long I doubt that he even knows how to be ethical.—Joe]

I recognize that gun!

Posted on by

I recognize the gun, the shooter, the time, and the place.

Quote of the day—Wayne LaPierre

Posted on by

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen – not for the government.

…

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Wayne LaPierre
July 14, 2011
NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty
[The rest of the remarks are of a similar tone. It’s not that long and it’s worth reading the whole thing.

Although it would take two thirds of the Senate and an anti-gun president to get it through I have often considered a version of this treaty as the biggest threat we are facing. An anti-gun president isn’t that hard to come by and in the long term thirds of the Senate might be feasible under some circumstances.

MAIG also deserves a high ranking but their agenda is more susceptible to local political action and court challenges. A ratified treaty is a much different and more difficult beast to deal with.—Joe]

Ten years and $1,000,000 fine

Posted on by

I wonder if this is why President Obama is ramping up his fundraising machine (H/T to Cam Edwards).

I still think BoomershootWife has the better idea about what to do with him.

Following the letter of the law

Posted on by

I find this rather funny. As explained by Brennan B. on the gun.mail discussion from work yesterday:

For anyone who’s been lusting after a handgun that’s not on California’s “safe” list, a new workaround for that infernal list has recently surfaced.

…

Basically it involves converting the handgun into a single-shot with overall length >10″ in order to qualify for the target pistol exception to the handgun list.  Then it can be legally sold to you.  Once you’ve completed the paperwork and waiting period it’s your gun, at which point you can legally hire a gunsmith to change out the clowny-looking ~8″ barrel back out for a standard one, and un-pin the 0-round magazine from the frame.  Then you can sell those parts back to the shop that did the single-shot conversion.

Note that this work can be done in-state which means the gunsmith hired to do the conversion, the FFL from which you buy the gun, and the gunsmith that converts it back can all be the same guy.

Prohibition of things doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter what you are trying to prohibit. You can only punish actions.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. thinks he lives in a dictatorship

Posted on by

Sometimes you just have to shake your head and suggest people like Ruben Navarrette, Jr.  should go live in North Korea or something:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has decided to try to clean up Dodge City by requiring gun dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to report bulk sales of semi-automatic weapons. That requirement already exists for handgun purchases. If an individual walks into a gun shop on the border and buys two or more guns within a five-day period, the agency wants to know about it.

That makes sense. Some of those are likely headed to Mexico. And if you want to go after drug traffickers, start by taking their guns. If you can seize the drugs, fine. But without guns, the bad guys can’t protect themselves or defend their product. So they’re out of business.

Who could find fault with this approach by law enforcement? The National Rifle Association, which claims the reporting requirement infringes on the Second Amendment and the right of individuals to bear arms.

Do you remember the part of the Constitution where it says that people have the right to buy two or more automatic weapons within five days without law enforcement knowing anything about it?

Someone should remind Ruben Navarrette Jr. that there is nothing in the constitution that says the ATF or even President Obama get to make law all by themselves. The existing law explicitly says the reporting requirement the ATF and Navarrette desire is not allowed. Little things like changing Federal law require the change be voted on by both the House and the Senate.

But then it’s pretty easy to tell that Navarrette isn’t a big fan of the constitution and probably not even the existence of the House and the Senate. North Korea should suit him well.

Quote of the day—Charles Heller

Posted on by

Follow their criminal and bloody escapades from the Ken Ballew raid debacle in 1971, to the deceit that triggered the Randy Weaver travesty in Idaho, to the incitement of violence in the horror at Waco,Texas, to the despicable acts in the John Lawmaster Raid.

The ATF, and later the BATFE, has now distinguished itself as the least disciplined, least accomplished, least effective, and most unethical “law enforcement” agency in U.S. law enforcement history.

Charles Heller
Executive Director of Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership
Gun Control – And Now For Something Completely Different
July 13, 2011
[I could see a solid case for that claim being made and defended.—Joe]

Firearms Law Canada

Posted on by

If you follow Canada’s firearms law and policy, as I do, then this blog by criminal lawyer Solomon Friedman appears to be a very good source of additional insight from the pro-gun side rather than just the anti-gun media.

I have added it to my RSS reader.

Quote of the day—Chris Cox

Posted on by

They don’t have the statutory authority to do it and we’ll file a lawsuit as soon as the first letters are sent.

…

Because the American people don’t approve of his gun-control agenda, he’s trying to circumvent Congress. The whole thing is a distraction away from the gross incompetence that we’ve seen in this Fast & Furious scandal…The truth is a $40 billion criminal enterprise is not going to be worried about paperwork violations. This is not a serious attempt at controlling the drug cartels.

Chris Cox
NRA Legislative Director
July 11, 2011
NRA: New Gun Control? We’ll Sue
[What isn’t explicitly stated is that the requiring the reporting of gun sales cannot be done by executive order. A change of this type requires legislative action.

It’s as if President Obama believes he is Dictator Obama and can go around fighting wars and creating laws without regard to the existence of the legislative branch. Oh, yeah. He might actually believe it and is doing that.—Joe]