Category Archives: Gun Rights

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]

Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan

Posted on by

It is true that D.C.’s gun laws are, to some extent, undercut by weaker gun laws of surrounding jurisdictions, particularly Virginia. But that is hardly the fault of D.C.’s gun laws.

What we’re talking about here is possession of a lethal weapon. The fact that D.C. criminals have to import their guns from other jurisdictions demonstrates that D.C.’s strict gun laws actually work.

Dennis Henigan
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
July 11, 2011
MPD Says D.C. Gun Laws Have No Impact On City Crime
[What he says is true only if by “work” he means the intent of the law is to make it difficult to exercise your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. If the intent is to reduce violent crime then the gun laws clearly do not work. But then almost everyone knows Henigan intent is not to increase public safety when he advocates for more restrictive gun laws.

See also this QOTD where Half-Truth Henigan says it is difficult to sort out whether high gun ownership rates cause violent crime.

As I have said before, I want to know the real reason why they continue to advocate for restrictions on guns. I want them asked that question every time they open their mouth.—Joe]

End of the road for the Bradys

Posted on by

I was looking at one of the photo albums at the Brady Campaign Facebook page and found this:

BradySponsoredByHoustonGunForum

Notice (click to get a larger version if needed) that in the bottom right corner the ad displayed is for the Houston Gun Forum.

When Sarah and Jim Brady look like this and they have gun forums advertising on their pictures you have to know the end of their road is near. It is time to slap a “do not resuscitate” sign on their door and put their organization in hospice care.

Thanks

Posted on by

As the anti-gun organizations implode and fade into nothingness I’m expanded Boomershoot production facilities.

Today the BoomershootBabe (daughter Kim) and Barron will be unloading materials for the Mecca for long range shooters. Thanks guys. I’m sorry I couldn’t be there to help. I’m 350 miles away working on improving the entry software for Boomershoot 2012.

Give it up

Posted on by

As reported by Linoge, Say Uncle, and Sebastian the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence let their domain registration lapse.

It’s time for these guys to give it up. In any other business when times get really rough and the market for your product is shrinking there is a lot of consolidation and some organizations just close up shop. I’ve been there and done that and so have a lot of other people I know. There comes a time when there just aren’t enough people buying your product and you need to move on. How many buggy whip manufactures are there in existence today?

Remember the Bell Campaign? The “Million Mom March” took over that. Then the MMM merged with the Brady Campaign. Now the Brady Campaign race horse is about ready for the glue factory.

The CSGV? They were long past their prime before their senility went public. It’s time for them to give it up. If they think they must continue to sell their unwanted product they should go talk to the Brady Campaign and see if they have any job openings. Maybe the Brady’s still have a horse or two that will respond to the CSGV buggy whip.

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

First the NRA’s leadership murdered its parents. Now it’s eating its children. The extremist positions staked out by the NRA’s leadership are taking their toll in dollars and cents. It is clear that even the NRA’s own members can’t stomach the leadership’s extremist anti-public safety, anti-law enforcement rhetoric and actions.

Josh Sugarmann
Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center
March 19, 1997
National Rifle Association Has Been “Technically Insolvent For Several Years” New Internal Document Reveals
[And 14 years later how do the balance sheets and membership numbers of the NRA and the VPC look now? I guess Sugarmann was wrong—as is nearly always the case.—Joe]

No guns for Negros

Posted on by

This is a JPFO video via Full-Scale Tactics:

The JPFO almost always puts out good stuff.

Quote of the day—John Lott

Posted on by

This case can almost be viewed as if the Obama administration wanted to increase the number of American guns used in crimes in Mexico.

The timing of the “Gunwalker” case is even more troubling since the program got going at about the same time that the Obama administration was trying to claim (falsely) that American guns were showing up in a significant number of Mexican crime scenes.

Is it possible that the Obama administration pushed this program to help gin up more support for gun control in the United States?

John Lott
July 8, 2011
|he Puzzle of ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ — When Will Team Obama Come Clean About Failed Gun Program?
[Is it possible? Of course. The people in this administration are the most anti-gun set of people in the history of our country. But they could also be classified as some of the most incompetent.

I’m still undecided on whether “Gunwalker” was a method to justify support for more gun control or massive incompetence. If it wasn’t intended to justify more gun control then it was a mighty strange coincidence that we had all the “Mexican gunrunner” noise for years at the same time. Can we determine which came first? If Gunwalker started before the “OMG drug cartels have guns” meme started then I’m convinced it was a deliberate attempt to advance gun control. But if the other way around it’s still possible but less likely.

In any case I fully support the Mexicans request that we extradite the ATF, FBI, DOJ, DEA, and any other (BoomershootWife is hoping Obama was involved) criminals to Mexico for trial there on one condition. That condition is that once they get a fair trail and have served their sentences they must ship the bodies back so we can mount their heads on poles on the Whitehouse lawn as a reminder and a warning for others.—Joe]

I thought he already was sidelined

Posted on by

Brady Campaign President, for another two days, Paul Helmke says:

Despite many successes, our work is not done. I will take some time off after helping Brady make the transition to new leadership, but I will never be on the sidelines.

As near as I can tell he has been on the sidelines for quite some time now and his only success was keeping his $250K/year job until his contract ran out. His organization is the equivalent of a 30 year-old lame nag watching the races from the pasture. They were unable to get a single Federal law passed without the support of the NRA during Helmke’s tenure. During that same time we had the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions go our way in direct opposition to the Brady briefs and now only one state does not allow some sort of concealed carry. Helmke and company have fought concealed carry for decades and now the fate of that battle has been completely sealed. All we have left to do is clean up all the horse manure the likes of Helmke has left for gun owners to step in.

So what will Helmke do now? On the gun control front the only direction he can go is down and out. After riding the Brady Campaign into the ground I can’t imagine MAIG being interested in him. The VPC and CSGV don’t have the money and are so far on the sidelines that they need a deep space telescope to see the action.

I think the only thing Helmke is good for now is to be shipped off to the glue factory.

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

Yesterday’s win was a wake-up call to Chicago. Today’s motion is a signal to the Illinois Legislature that the state’s total ban on carrying of firearms for personal protection is counter to both Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, and yesterday’s ruling by the Seventh Circuit appeals panel that shredded Chicago’s gun ordinance. Our victory Wednesday and today’s motion are key components of SAF’s overall mission to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.

Alan Gottlieb
SAF Executive Vice President
July 7, 2011
SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN
[They are winning and winning big. Don’t let money be a bottleneck for SAF. Donate and help them win everywhere and every time.

I’m a Life (Defenders Club) member and donate addition money monthly. And remember that donations to SAF are tax deductible.—Joe]