The single bloody thread that runs through these incidents is the easy accessability we allow our citizens to the most lethal categories of firearms, such as handguns. After these shootings a predictable pattern emerges, we quickly look for a loophole to be plugged, a limited law that could be better enforced, or other `common sense’ solutions, while never stepping back to look at the big picture: the freeflow of guns in our nation. America’s gun violence problem will not be solved by licensing and registration, trigger locks, or lamentations over the evil in men’s hearts. These tragic shootings are America’s future until we eliminate handguns, the tools that make such violence possible.

Josh Sugarmann
March 5, 2001
Santana High School Shooting Latest Proof of Need For Handgun Ban
[This quote is from over 10 years ago but we can’t let the world forget this is their goal. It is because of statements like these Sugarmann and friends are probably more of a problem for the Brady Campaign than gun owners these days. This kind of talk make it difficult for Helmke and friends to argue there is no slippery slope.—Joe]

The sad reality is we really don’t do much of anything to prevent the bad guys from getting guns. It is harder to get cigarettes and cough medicine in this country…than it is to get guns.

Paul Helmke
May 19, 2011
Police Chief Dodd says Chattanooga can’t arrest its way out of the gang and gun problem
[Wow! Lying comes so easy to him. Since when do people need to fill out a government form and submit to a background check from the FBI to buy cigarettes or cough medicine?

It appears he has no shame or suspicion that nearly everyone will know he is lying. Could it be the money he earns or is he a sociopath?—Joe]

The first thing I ever thought of when I thought of “Buffy: The Movie” was the little…blonde girl who goes into a dark alley and gets killed, in every horror movie. The idea of “Buffy” was to subvert that idea, that image, and create someone who was a hero where she had always been a victim.

Joss Whedon
Welcome to the Hellmouth DVD Commentary from Wikiquote.
[The idea of the right to bear arms is the same.

About 70% of the people in the firearms classes I have taught have been women. All of them were taking the class so they could get a concealed weapons license. I don’t consider them heroes. They are ordinary individuals exercising their natural rights.

We create people who can and will defend themselves against evil. We create a society of individuals who can, will, and must respect the sanctity of life and the dignity of others.

The Brady Campaign has a vested interest in the “little blonde girl” getting killed in the dark alley because that is how they perpetuate their organization. The more victims the more they can dance in the blood and the more donations they get. They create victims and call them heroes and experts. This has to stop. It has to stop with my generation and I intend to help make it so.—Joe]

The Second Amendment is not about what I need. It’s about what I want — as long as I obey the law with it. If we start restricting everything to what we need, we are going to be a very boring society.

Clark Aposhian
May 27, 2011
Utah market shows a boom in military-style guns
[While correct this is a little bit weak. More forceful would be “The Second Amendment is not about what I need. It is about what the government is forbidden to do. The question of ‘need” is what must be demanded of the government and never the individual. It is a Bill of Rights. It is not a bill of needs.”—Joe]

The facts show the gun grabbers are out to lunch. The entire gun control movement is full of bananas.

A drop in violent crime rates does NOT correlate with a drop in gun purchase rates. It DOES correlate with an increase in firearms purchase rates.

John M. Snyder
Manager
Telum Associates, LLC
Arlington, VA
Crime Rates Drop as Gun Buy Rates Rise, notes Gun Law Expert
[So much for “gun availability” being a contributing factor to crime rates—Joe]

For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on.

Nicolo Machiavelli
The Prince, Chapter XIV, That Which Concerns A Prince On The Subject Of The Art Of War
[The first half that sentence is sometimes attributed to Charlton Heston. It’s possible that Heston borrowed that fragment from Machiavelli or it’s possible that it’s improperly attributed to Heston. I haven’t bothered to track it down but I thought you should know.

It’s also important to point out that we don’t have recognized royalty as rulers in this country. This country was designed with a different model. A model where the ultimate power resides with the people and they grant certain enumerated powers to the government via the various constitutions.

Because of this difference in models between a society which has the ultimate power residing with the royalty and a society where the ultimate power resides with the people the proper analog of Machiavelli’s instruction in our country is that the people should be armed to prevent them from being despised by the government. And so it came to be that we have the Second Amendment to our constitution and similar, if not stronger, provisions in most state constitutions.—Joe]

The licensing debate is not about the right to own a firearm; it’s about responsible gun ownership, about safety, and about law enforcement’s ability to revoke the license of someone who becomes a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, a licensing system will ensure that gunowners understand their own states’ laws, from the regulations governing the carrying of concealed weapons to the responsibility for keeping loaded guns away from children.

Sarah Brady
Brady Campaign
January 28, 2000
STATEMENT OF SARAH BRADY RE: PRESIDENT CLINTON’S LICENSING INITIATIVE
[If a licensing scheme would “ensure that gunowners understand their own states’ laws” and presumably “preventing gun violence” then perhaps the government could license recreational drug (including cigarettes and alcohol) users and “revoke the licenses of someone who becomes a danger to themselves or others”. Or maybe licensing homosexuals, Catholic priests, and/or Muslims. Never mind that the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right and (probably) cannot be subject to a license while recreational drug use is not a specifically enumerated right.

Once the concept of licensing drug users proves its worth then we can talk about how effective licensing might be when applied to firearms. Don’t forget to do the arithmetic before you bring the topic up with me.—Joe]

We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not preempt the state’s concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses.

Paul De Muniz
Oregon State Supreme Court Chief Justice
May 19, 2011
Ore. court rules medical pot users can have guns
[What the article doesn’t say is that, as pointed out by Dave Workman, “A permit to carry is merely a document. Nobody ever got shot with a document. And the Oregon Supreme Court’s ruling takes great pains to explain that issuing a permit does not constitute allowing the recipient of that permit to actually possess a firearm in defiance of federal law.”

One step at a time.—Joe]

There is nothing in the record that supports the conclusion that defendants knew or should have known that sales of guns in their home states were having consequences in New York.

…

A particularly troubling aspect of the jurisdictional analysis conducted below is the reliance on what the district judge termed the defendants’ “cumulative parallel conduct” as a basis for establishing personal jurisdiction. According to the district court’s theory, although the “out-of-state activities of a single defendant alone may not suffice to establish jurisdiction,” because of “knowing parallel conduct, the extent of the combined harm may provide a basis for jurisdiction over each one.” 501 F. Supp. 2d at 422. The New York Court of Appeals has never adopted a theory pursuant to which combined or parallel conduct may be relied upon to establish a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant when jurisdiction does not otherwise exist.

…

The district court determined that an “inflexible application of a traditional jurisdictional analysis that fails to take account of unique practical commercial factors does not effectively insure the fair and orderly administration of the law.” Id. at 419. The court preferred to adopt what it termed a “reality-based pragmatic jurisdictional analysis.” Id. However, the district court was not free to depart from “traditional jurisdictional analysis” in order to hold defendants subject to suit in New York. The “fair and orderly administration of the law” is best achieved by applying the same standards to all litigants and by adherence to well-defined legal principles.

The district court’s jurisdictional analysis undermines the protection afforded to out-of-state defendants by section 302(a)(3)(ii). As both this Court and the New York Court of Appeals have previously explained, this provision “is intended to ensure some link between a defendant and New York State to make it reasonable to require a defendant to come to New York to answer for tortious conduct committed elsewhere.” LaMarca, 95 N.Y.2d at 215 (quoting Ingraham, 90 15 N.Y.2d at 598). The relevant long-arm provision is specifically “designed to . . . preclude the exercise of jurisdiction over nondomiciliaries who might cause direct, foreseeable injury within the State but ‘whose business operations are of a local character.’” Id. (quoting Ingraham, 90 N.Y.2d at 599). Here, it is indisputable that defendants’ businesses are of a local character.

The district court also asserted that “[t]here is no specific dollar threshold at which revenue becomes substantial for purposes of [section] 302(a)(3)(ii).”7 501 F. Supp. 2d at 417. Even if this is so, it was error to excuse the City from making any showing that defendants derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce.

Circuit Judge Richard C. Wesley
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The City of New York, Plaintiff-Appellee, – v – Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC,
May 4, 2011
[What isn’t, but should be, said is that “the district court” is Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein. Weinstein has long used tortuous chains of logic that blatantly violate due process, existing law, and previous decisions to arrive at anti-gun conclusions. This is not the first time Weinstein has been overturned on decisions he has made regarding firearms. His rulings have been so biased and clearly wrong they have frequently been overturned.

Mayor Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun bigots have never had anything but praise for him and take advantage of his bias against gun ownership.

• GUN MAKERS UNDER ATTACK IN COURTROOMS (1999)
• Statement of Dennis Henigan, Brady Center on Judge’s Ruling in Gun Violence Case (2003)
• Federal Judge Dismisses NAACP Lawsuit Against Gun Industry, But in 176-Page Decision Finds That Industry Practices Contribute to Gun Violence in New York (2003)
• BROOKLYN JURY DECISION PROPER, NOW JUDGE NEEDS TO CONCUR, SAYS SAF (2003)
• NEW YORK CITY’S GUN LAWSUIT GETS GREEN LIGHT FOR TRIAL, Judge Rejects Gun Industry’s Motion to Dismiss (2004)
• Federal Judge Finds New Law No Bar To New York City’s Lawsuit Against The Gun Industry (2005)
• SAF CALLS ON JUDGE WEINSTEIN TO STEP DOWN (2007)
• Mayor Bloomberg Notches Another Victory Against Illegal Guns (2008)
• BLOOMBERG OUTRAGE: ASKS JUDGE TO BAN 2ND AMENDMENT REFERENCES! (2008)
• SAF CHEERS FEDERAL COURT REJECTION OF BLOOMBERG LAWSUIT (2008)
• GA GUN DEALER MADE RIGHT MOVE IN QUEST FOR FAIR TRIAL, SAYS SAF (2008)

As Sebastian said, Judge Weinstein’s Game is Hopefully Over. He is now 90 years old and it is time for him to retire into the dustbin of history.—Joe]