Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Mathew Nosanchuk

Posted on by

When Solicitor General Theodore Olson filed briefs in the Supreme Court embracing the expansive individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, we warned that the primary beneficiaries of the Ashcroft Justice Department’s novel interpretation would be criminal defendants. An expansive individual right under the Second Amendment simply is not supported by history of the Constitution or binding Supreme Court precedent and threatens to undermine the Justice Department’s enforcement of existing gun laws.

“Now, the chickens have come home to roost. As the Washington Post today reported, the defendants are charged in separate cases with unlawful possession of a handgun and ammunition respectively. They both rely explicitly on the Justice Department’s briefs “and a memorandum from Attorney General Ashcroft to all 93 U.S. Attorneys in which he directs them to follow his interpretation of the Second Amendment” to support their Second Amendment challenges to the District’s gun laws. According to the brief in one of the cases: “As made clear by the various government representations, the United States now understands and represents before tribunals that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual and personal right, not a collective right of the state to form a militia.’ On this basis, the defendants seek to have the District’s laws, which impose a virtual ban on the private possession of handguns and ammunition, struck down.

Mathew Nosanchuk
Violence Policy Center’s litigation director and legislative counsel
May 30, 2002
Statement of Violence Policy Center in Response to D.C. Gun Crime Defendants Using U.S. Department of Justice Second Amendment Policy Shift to Strike Down Gun Laws
[I’m sure there were similar complaints when challenges were made against whites only drinking fountains and restrooms, and prohibitions against mix race marriages.

Undermining existing unconstitutional and discriminatory laws are a good thing.

That the VPC put itself on a parallel track headed into the same dustbin in history, nearly nine years ago, as the KKK is icing on the cake.—Joe]

Bill Clinton

Posted on by

In an interview discussing his support for arming the Libyan rebels, Bill Clinton was quoted:

“We’re trying to build a world in which people resolve their differences
in nonviolent ways,” he said. “And we’re trying to build a world where
no ruler can cavalierly kill its unarmed civilians.”

I think we’re working for the same goal.

Using their own data against them

Posted on by

For those that regard facts, correlation, truth, and falsity important (i.e. people unlike MikeB302000 and other anti freedom people) this is an awesome article.

Here are some of the graphs to give you a hint of the content:

UNDataOnGuns1-6
Obviously as gun ownership increases there is more freedom.

UNDataOnGuns1-7
Gun ownership goes up when the economy of the nation is better.

UNDataOnGuns1-312
Homicide has a slight negative correlation with gun ownership. But this graph doesn’t tell the complete story because it doesn’t include the murder of citizens by their governments. Nearly 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th Century. All the major genocides were enabled by strict gun control. These numbers are not included in the above graph and if included they would give the above graph a huge negative correlation.

UNDataOnGunsCorruption
As gun ownership goes up the corruption goes down. I find this one of the most interesting graphs. I wonder about the causation. Do corrupt government restrict gun ownership out of fear or is corruption lower because people own guns? Both? Neither?

No clue

Posted on by

Sometimes you just have to shake your head at the lack of a rational thought process. This particular instance is brought to you by Elizabeth Guernsey, 26, a graduate of Trinity College who is pursuing a master’s degree in “urban studies”. “Urban studies” probably explains everything:

In fact, the federal government has passed only three major pieces of gun legislation over the past century. Two of these bills followed the assassination and attempted assassination of public officials. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it illegal to carry hand grenades and machine guns. The Firearms Act of 1968, passed after the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, regulates the firearm industry and prevents interstate firearm transfers. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, named for James Brady, who was shot during the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, requires background checks for those purchasing firearms.

These pieces of federal law are critical to keeping illegal guns out of our communities. Perhaps we should applaud politicians for using the moment after a president or congresswoman is shot to push for improved gun regulations. But why have public officials been unable to pass laws in light of the 9,484 ordinary people killed each year by gun violence?

First off, these three laws are far from all the Federal laws on the books. Alan Korwin has an entire book on just Federal Gun Laws—all 271 of them.

Next, the laws she describes as “critical to keeping illegal guns out of our communities” actually created “illegal guns”. Machine guns, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors weren’t “illegal” until it was required that an exorbitant tax (at the time) was placed on them with NFA 1934. Without registering the gun and paying the tax the guns were illegal to be privately owned. Again, GCA 1968 prohibiting the private transfers of firearms across state lines created “illegal guns”. And finally the background check mandated by the Brady Act in 1993 has nothing to do with guns. It only has to do with people. Her statement about the criticality of the laws in “keeping illegal guns out of our community” is a total disconnect from reality.

Finally, as pointed out by the CDC and others there is no evidence that any of the gun laws on the books has made communities safer. I find it very telling that neither the issue of effectiveness of laws infringing upon a specific enumerated right, or the issue that such a right even exists was mentioned by Ms. Guernsey. But what do you expect from someone who has crap for brains and the best they can do to establish self-esteem is attempt to acquire a degree in “urban studies”?

H222 (Idaho Campus Carry) Senate Hearing

Posted on by

During the hearing on H222 one senator suggested that campus carry was an “intellectual exercise”.


This bill was not an intellectual exercise for any of the people who supported it. I do not believe that I can explain our motivations better than the following excerpt from the case of State v. Payne, 146 Idaho 548, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008) (emphasis added):



I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND


The district court sentenced Payne to death for the murder of Samantha Maher after a jury found him guilty of kidnapping, raping, robbing, and murdering Maher.


On July 6, 2000, Payne abducted Maher from Julia Davis Park in Boise. That morning, he left his home as if to go to work, even kissing his wife goodbye, but instead drove to the park. Payne had with him a loaded .22 Ruger and several recent purchases: handcuffs, latex gloves, detailed maps and atlases of Oregon, and camping gear. Payne approached Maher around 10:15 that morning as she was arriving for her class at Boise State University. Carrying the handgun, Payne forced Maher into the front seat of her car. He then handcuffed her wrists and drove her car to an unknown location. After sexually assaulting her, Payne raped Maher, leaving bruises, cuts and scrapes on her face, back, and buttocks. After the rape, Payne placed the handgun at the back of Maher’s head and shot her. Payne then placed Maher’s body in the back seat of her car and drove to his rented home, a former dairy farm, near Nampa. He disposed of her body by dumping it in a concrete drainage tank containing water and debris near one of the barns on the property. He went into his home, ate some left-over pizza, and left a note under a bed pillow for his wife. He took Maher’s keys and purse containing her credit cards and drove to the Oregon coast and then on to Eugene, Oregon the next day.

Prosecutors Must Produce Witness Testimony to Prove Firearm Registration

Posted on by

Via email from Michel & Associates, P.C. Attorneys at Law:

The California Court of Appeals has ruled that handgun registration information cannot be admitted into evidence at trial without accompanying witness testimony and an opportunity for a defense attorney to cross-examine that witness. People v. Sanchez (2011 DJ DAR 4269; DJ, 3/24/11; C/A 6th). This is good news for firearm owners.
 
Mr. Sanchez was charged with carrying a concealed handgun in a vehicle without a permit. The handgun was loaded, and was allegedly not registered. Under Penal Code section 12025(a)(1)/(b)(6), if an illegally concealed or loaded firearm is not registered then the criminal offense, which is usually a misdemeanor, can be charged as a much more serious felony. In the Sanchez case the District Attorney sought to prove that Sanchez’ firearm was not registered by trying to admit into evidence a certified document from the California Department of Justice stating the custodian of records had conducted “a diligent search of the Automated Firearms System… for the Firearm Ownership History of Jose Gonzalez Sanchez…” and that the “search revealed no record.” 2011 DJ DAR 4269; p. 11, 12. But the document was determined to be “testimonial” (i.e. ‘[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact’). And testimonial evidence requires an actual witness to take the stand, provide the evidence to the court and jury and, most importantly, be cross-examined by the defendant’s attorney. 2011 DJ DAR 4269; p. 23.
 
What does all this mean for firearm owners?
 
Registration and permitting databases kept by the State are not always accurate. In fact, errors are common. A defendant should never accept a written declaration or document as evidence that a firearm was not properly registered, or that the defendant lacked the correct permit. Prosecutors should be held to their burden of proof and compelled to offer sworn witness testimony to the court and jury that the defendant did not properly register and/or possess the correct permit. Because the firearm registration system is subject to much criticism for inaccuracy,  prior to trial all government reports on the accuracy of the database should be subpoenaed, a database expert should be consulted, and a careful cross-examination should be prepared.
 
The offenses where this rule applies include carrying an unregistered loaded handgun (Penal Code section 12031(a)(1)/(2)(F)); possession of an unregistered concealed handgun (12025(a)(1)/(b)(6)); importation, sales, and/or possession of an “assault weapon” or “.50 BMG rifle” (12280(a), (b) and (c)); possession of a “destructive device” (12303); possession of one of the dangerous weapons listed in Penal Code section 12020(a)(1); importation and/or sales of large capacity magazines (12020(a)(2)); and possession of a “machinegun” (12220). There are other situations where the testimonial rule would apply as well.
 
Historically, registration and permitting documents like these had been allowed into evidence in court without the testimony of the preparer under the “business records” exception to the hearsay exclusion rule. The “business records” exception to the hearsay rule allowed out of court statements, in this case documents, if they were prepared in the ordinary course of one’s business. But the Supreme Court determined even if these were “business records” they were prepared for the purpose of trial, were testimonial, and therefore required the presence of a witness to testify. 129 S.Ct. at pp. 2538-2540.
 
The Sanchez decision follows two Supreme Court decisions establishing the law on the topic. In 2004, the United States Supreme Court declared that under the Sixth Amendment testimonial statements must be subject to cross examination at trial. Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36. So if a statement is obtained outside of the courtroom for purposes of prosecution, the person who made the statement must be subject to cross-examination by the defense or the statement cannot be used as evidence. This holding was expanded in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts ( (2009) 129 S.Ct. 2527). Under a Massachusetts state law, prosecutors were allowed to enter “certificates of analysis” to prove that an item was a “controlled substance” instead of having an actual person testify at trial. 129 S.Ct. at pp. 2530, 2531. The Supreme Court determined that this was unconstitutional according to the analysis in Crawford. In order to enter the information as evidence a witness would need to be present to testify to establish the illegality of the substance. 129 S.Ct. at p. 2532.
 
If facing charges for one or more of the previously mentioned offenses, gun owners should be sure that their attorney is aware of these Supreme Court rulings, as well as the Sanchez decision, and forces the prosecution to be held to their burden of proof and provide sworn witness testimony regarding registration and permitting documents.

Quote of the day—Christopher Burg

Posted on by

Carry laws are in place in every state except Wisconsin and Illinois. To this day no evidence can be brought forth demonstrating these laws have lead to an increase in violent crime but much evidence exists demonstrating these laws correlate with a lowering in violent crime. Yet the Brady Campaign continues to warn about the “blood in the streets” that’s inevitable when carry laws are passed. Why are these people still clinging to their failed belief that guns are the problem? Because not doing so will cause them to lose their Joyce Foundation funding and then they would have to go find real jobs.

…

The bottom line is carry permits have been nothing but beneficial. There hasn’t been a single valid argument made against passing liberalized (in the classical sense of the word) carry laws. So far no “blood in the streets” instance have occurred and frankly the laws have been on the books in some states for decades. You would think the anti-gunners would wake up and realize nothing they’ve said has come true and thus their argument has no weight. Then again for most anti-gunners their argument is emotional and logic can go take a flying fuck and a rolling doughnut.

Christopher Burg
March 31, 2011
Brady Campaign Whining About Illinois Possibly Lifting Their Carry Ban
[Yup!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan

Posted on by

We must, once again, confine military firepower to the battlefield, by reinstating a ban on high-capacity ammo clips.  Why hasn’t such legislation long ago been enacted?

Usually such a question prompts a discussion of the NRA’s outsized political power – its resources, its tactics of threats and intimidation, and the commitment of its cadre of true believers.  Indeed, in recent years, the gun control issue has become so dominated by the question of whether stronger gun laws can be enacted, that it has left little room to address the real issue – whether stronger gun laws should be enacted.

Dennis Henigan
Brady Center Vice President
March 29, 2011
Jim and Sarah Brady: Beyond Politics to Idealism
[To answer the first question, because it is pointless. I have demonstrated that with my video. Furthermore the U.S. Department of Justice sponsored study said, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

What is he implying with the statement “outsized political power”? Does this mean he thinks there should be some regulation of political power in this country? Perhaps when blacks/Jews/homosexuals get a little too uppity they should be silenced or at least put in their place. Or is it just those people that exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms that should be put down when their numbers get a little too big for the politicians to ignore?

As to whether stronger gun laws should be enacted. I think that discussion was settled with the Heller and McDonald U.S. Supreme Court decisions. But like the KKK that didn’t really accept the results of the Civil War and the freeing of the slaves Henigan and Brady Campaign can’t seem to get past the fact that they lost.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chuck Norris

Posted on by

One thing he definitely got wrong, however, was his arrogant statement that he “expanded” the rights of gun owners. The Bill of Rights is guaranteed and can’t be “expanded” by government, as it contains fundamental natural rights. Those rights can, however, be restricted by illegitimate government fiat, which is why the clear language of the Second Amendment prohibits even “infringement” upon it. But infringement is clearly on the agenda despite Obama’s rhetorical vacillations.

Chuck Norris
March 28, 2011
Obama triangulates on gun control
[Although I agree with the point that fundamental natural rights can’t be “expanded” it’s generally not a good idea to “look a gift horse in the mouth”. The time to use the point about rights cannot be expanded, only infringed, is during debates with those wishing to continue restricting our rights. I think this meme can be used to great effect in many circumstances. I think it is an important mindset shift that we need to adopt now that we are on the offensive. But I don’t think it is appropriate in this context.

We won minor victories on the guns on trains and in National Parks issues under the Obama administration. To the best of my knowledge they didn’t even put up a fight. For this President Obama deserves some cautious praise and perhaps a gentle, private, reminder on the nature of rights, not a public slap in the face.—Joe]

Some people are more equal than others

Posted on by

As near as I can determine these people believe that if you can convince your state legislators to assert rights guaranteed to the individual states by the Tenth Amendment you are not a legitimate part of the political process. Apparently only those people that advocate for the infringement of states rights are legitimate.

They haven’t publically proposed a punishment yet but I suspect they have thought about it.

Here is a sample:

The UA researchers identified what they termed the “Commerce Battering Ram Strategy,” a legal-political apparatus that “private lawmakers” – unelected individuals who thrust themselves into the political process – have developed to harness states’ legal powers in an attempt to break open federal laws.

“Using the Tenth Amendment as its core log, a Commerce Battering Ram mobilizes states to challenge the federal government,” Orbach said, adding that legislation and litigation are key to such mobilization.

In effect, individuals within the movement attempt to propel as many state laws as possible toward weakening the government’s control of guns, the research team said. 

…

While it would appear that individuals within the movement are merely exercising their legal rights as citizens of the United States and participating in the democratic process, Orbach, Callahan and Lindemenn all argue that that use of battering rams “is not equivalent to legitimate participation in the democratic process.”

“Commerce Battering Ram”? That sounds like a phrase straight from Josh Sugarmann’s playbook like “assault weapon”.

Quote of the day—Ken

Posted on by

As a former peace marcher, head shop owner, member of the Brady Campaign, and gun store protester, I see no reason why we shouldn’t have constitutional carry in all 50 states, eliminate the National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act, and Brady Bill, overrule all state gun laws as violations of the 2nd Amendment, and make Samuel Colt’s birthday a national holiday.

Ken
March 25, 2011
Comment to You know the whole “I’m a gun owner BUT” thing?
[Nice mockery!

I love it.—Joe]

More to the Idaho campus carry story

Posted on by

We lost on bill H222 in the senate committee but there is still a lawsuit in progress.

I received the following email from Michael C. Brown of ISSA this morning which gives us a little more info as to what was said at the hearing. I find it exceedingly interesting stuff:

The Senate state affairs committee voted 6-3 to kill H222. Several senators who had answered surveys saying they would support the bill voted to kill it. I have attached the testimony that I gave since you won’t hear a word about it in the media. More later:

—-

I would like to clarify a couple of points about H222 where there apparently is some confusion:

This bill does not “allow” guns on college campuses. This bill does not change current law about where someone may carry a firearm. The colleges and universities have chosen to implement policies banning firearms on their campuses that purport to regulate members of the university community as well as members of the public with no connection to the institution. They are merely policies and as such have no force of law.

These campuses are public property owned by the people of Idaho not by the regents or trustees and not by the state board. The people, in Article 1 Section 11 of the state constitution have described how and by whom they want carry on their property regulated. That provision states, “The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged…” The only exception to the guarantee which is pertinent here is a grant of power to the legislature: “this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person;…”.The Idaho courts have not construed this provision since it was amended in 1978 but in 1902 the Idaho Supreme Court found that a statute that broadly prohibited carrying firearms violated both the previous (weaker) language of art 1 sec 11  and also the second amendment to the United States constitution  (it took the US Supreme Court another 106 years to reach a similar conclusion). To quote from that opinion: “Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages. The legislature may, as expressly provided in our state constitution, regulate the exercise of this right, but may not prohibit it.” In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, 70 P. 609 (1902).

The purpose of this bill is to clarify exactly what authority public colleges and universities in Idaho have to regulate firearms on their campuses. This legislation represents the first specific grant of authority to an institution of higher education to regulate firearms (in dorms only) since 1889. While the regents of the University of Idaho have been granted general authority to operate the university under article 9 section 10 of the constitution and the various state colleges and universities’ boards have been granted similar general authority by statute, the question remains: if a general grant of authority to run a college authorizes a state institution to abrogate the enumerated constitutional right contained in art 1 sec 11 , then, by that logic, can they also deny the other rights guaranteed by the Idaho constitution on their campuses?

This bill does not “allow” open carry on college and university campuses. In 1978 the people of Idaho voted to amend Article 1 Section 11 of the state constitution to take away the authority of the legislature to regulate the open carry of firearms.  Here is the old language:

“ The people have the right to bear  arms  for their  security and

  defense; but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.”

And, again,  here is the relevant current language:

“The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person…”(emphasis added).

By the plain language of this provision, the legislature can only regulate concealed weapons and it has chosen to do so by passing a law of general application which requires that a license be obtained before a concealed weapon may be carried in public. In a couple of instances the legislature has enacted laws that prohibit all firearms in certain discrete locations (airports and K-12 schools). The courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of these provisions. Note, however,  that all of these are very narrow exceptions to the general rule. Likewise the grant of authority to the institutions to regulate all firearms possession in dorms is a very narrow exception and is much more likely to be upheld by the courts  than the kind of absolute ban which the Supreme Court struck down in Brickey.

There have been concerns raised about which rules will apply in facilities that house both graduate and undergraduate students. The simple answer is : the institutions all employ attorneys (some of whom are here today) who know how to draft a housing contract. Please note that the bill allows the institutions to regulate as well as to ban. If this is a real concern the institutions can choose to regulate by allowing all residents of a mixed undergraduate/ graduate housing building to have firearms in their apartments.

I do not know if Elton John realizes that he has become a cause célèbre in the Idaho legislature but the concern has been raised that this bill would affect the ability of colleges and universities to lease their facilities to promoters for concerts and other events where the promoter requires that firearms be banned. If we look at what happens in a couple of neighboring states I think this concern disappears. While the courts in Idaho have never addressed the issue of whether a lessee can impose restrictions more stringent than a state actor would be able to, the Oregon courts have. In Starrett v. City of Portland 196 Ore. App. 534; 102 P.3d 728; 2004 , the court held that a promoter who had leased a publicly owned venue could ban guns during the duration of their lease even though the public entity that owned the property would not be able to do the same thing under Oregon’s preemption law (which is similar to Idaho’s). Likewise, in Washington a state statute, RCW 9.41.300, prohibits cities from barring holders of Washington concealed weapons permits from municipally owned stadiums and auditoriums. Despite this statute, Elton John plays the Spokane Arena, a municipally owned facility, on April 8th, the night before he plays Taco Bell Arena here in Boise.

This bill is completely unnecessary. The colleges and universities, as I have pointed out above, do not have authority to ban firearms on their campuses as they purport to do. If they would stop infringing on the constitutional rights of faculty, staff, students, and the public and conform their policies to the existing law, there would be no need for this legislation. Instead they have chosen, in this time of straitened institutional finances, to require individuals and groups to engage in litigation, costly to both sides, in order to vindicate their rights.

Quote of the day—Joe Waldron

Posted on by

The Washington State Patrol is back-pedaling swiftly after firearms dealers, the gun owning public — and nearly three dozen state legislators, led by Rep. Matt Shea (R-4) — raised the alarm over the WSP letter to firearms dealers seeking broad information about the sale or acquisition of AR-15s (and clones) and AR-15 lower receivers a week ago. It seems there may be ONE RIFLE missing, possibly from the State Patrol inventory. Rather than work with the BATFE, who has jurisdiction over federal firearm licensees, they decided to keep it in-house — except for their clumsy outreach to more than 1,000 licensed Washington firearm dealers! The Patrol still seeks cooperation and information from dealers (legitimately so, in my opinion), but acknowledges it has no authority to ask for the records.

As I opined last week, it’s more a case of overzealousness on the part of the WSP’s investigative division and a lack of understanding of federal laws regulating firearm dealers and insensitivity to the privacy concerns of gun owners. No nefarious schemes to create an AR-15 registry in the Evergreen State — for now.

Joe Waldron
March 25, 2011
GOAL Post 2011-12
[This is in regard to the letter to all the gun dealers in the state of Washington that I told you about earlier.

I agree with Waldron. Sometimes people do stupid insensitive stuff without realizing it. Give the WSP a break this time but watch for signs they are unrepentant.—Joe]

The police lost the gun

Posted on by

As pointed out by Say Uncle (I also got an email from him) the letter that went out to all the gun dealers in Washington State earlier this month was because the Washington State Patrol lost a gun:

The state patrol won’t say how the gun disappeared — only that it was missing from the state patrol’s inventory in Tacoma last summer.

This is mostly reiteration of what nearly everyone else has said but poor handling on the part of the police is no reason for concern by anyone else. I’d use the letter for target practice.

Quote of the day—RB

Posted on by

Everyone needs moral support when they’re lying their faces off.

RB
March 22, 2011
Media Matters Pundit Boot Camp
[I think this explain why the anti-gun people, such as Joan Peterson, get so bent out of shape and whine about everyone being mean to them when we bring facts to the discussion. They need a lot of moral support in order to maintain their belief system.

I’m sure I got the link from some other blog but I can’t find it right now. Sorry for not giving credit where it’s due.—Joe]

Quote of the day—BL

Posted on by

LOL the wingnuts havent one soon they will kill eachother with all there guns adn then all the peaceful people of the world can live a peaceful life without the neanderthals.

BL
March 19, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—Paul Helmke.
[The first few times I read this I had no clue what was being said. I suspected comment spam but there was no link to cheap prescription meds. I finally asked Barb, who was in bed with me at the time, “What is this supposed to mean?” She pointed out that “one” should be “won”. Oh! Now I get it.

I have a difficult time interpreting thing other than literally and I wasn’t able to make that translation on my own. Had it been “their” instead of “there” or “no” instead of “know” I would have been able to do it. I believe this was my first encounter with this particular homonym and since I didn’t attempt to read it out loud I was baffled.

Since BL is so much smarter than I am that I needed assistance in reading just a single sentence of this enlightened commenter I guess this proves them correct.—Joe]

University of Idaho students who support concealed carry on campus

Posted on by

Via Nick:

Wife Barbara, son James, and I all graduated from the U of I. Daughters Kim and Xenia are about 3/4 of the way through. Numerous other family members have attend (and are attending) and graduated here. When my brother and I attended we could have guns in the dorms. It’s time for the University to stop infringing upon the rights our children.

H222 (Campus Carry) Senate Hearing Friday

Posted on by

The following is via an email alert from the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance. I have added the counties for the various district in red.

Shooters:
 
This Friday the 25th the Senate State Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the campus carry bill. The anti-gun college administrators are pulling out all the stops to try to kill this bill. We need those of you who live in one of the districts below  ( whose Senator is on the state affairs committee )  to call your senator and let them know that you support the right of faculty, staff, students, and members of the public to defend themselves on college campuses and that violent predators do not respect gun-free zones.
 
You may also have heard that the Governor has not expressed support for this bill. Everyone: please contact his office ASAP and politely ask Governor Otter to support this bill.
 
Governor Butch Otter
(208) 334-2100
  
Senator Curt McKenzie (R-12), Chairman (A co-sponsor: Thank him for his support!) (part of Canyon County)
 
Senator Russell Fulcher (R-21), Vice Chairman (part of Ada County)
 
Senator Bart Davis (R-23) (Owyhee County)
 
Senator Brent Hill (R-34) (Fremont and Madison County)
 
Senator John McGee (R-10) (part of Canyon County)
 
Senator Patti Anne Lodge (R-13) (part of Canyon County)
 
Senator Chuck Winder (R-14) (part of Ada County)
 
Senator Michelle Stennett (D-25) (Blaine, Camas, Gooding, and Lincoln County)
 
Senator Edgar Malepeai (D-30) (part of Power County)

Today daughter Kim sent me images from the University of Idaho school newspaper. There were several editorials telling everyone how terrible this bill is. How it removes choices from the students and the administration. Choices they would and have made to make the campus safer. And how dangerous it will be if people with permits are allowed to carry firearms on campus.

“Choices”? What about the choices of the students that will be expelled if they choose to carry everyday self-defense tools which they carry off campus on a regular basis? Would they use the same argument if the bill were to allow mixed race couples on campus? Or allowing Jews and Muslims on campus? Or how about forbidding the university administration to expel students who obtained abortions? Would those be “choices” the administration should be allowed to make?

The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right protected by both the U.S. and Idaho State Constitutions. The University does not and should not have an exemption to infringe upon the Bill of Rights.

Quote of the day—Rabbi Dovid Bendory

Posted on by

Friends, as a Jew, I have a deeply ingrained distrust of any government that promises it will “protect me.” The history of the Twentieth Century teaches us that “gun control” registration schemes lead to political decisions to allow some populations to protect themselves while others are disarmed. Gun control is inexorably tied to malevolent citizen disarmament. See: “INNOCENTS BETRAYED“

Rabbi Dovid Bendory
Rabbinic Director
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
JPFO Launches “High Cap Freedom”
[Via Musing of a Vast Right-Winger.

Innocents Betrayed has some very powerful content. But then so did the Twentieth Century. I just find it sad and frustrating that so much of the world insists on relearning those lessons.—Joe]

University of Idaho gun case

Posted on by

Via Nick in the comments.


There are some updates in the University of Idaho gun case here.


If you are in the Moscow area this Wednesday it would help if you could attend the hearing at 9:30 AM at the Latah County Courthouse.


In other news the defendants have filed a response to the plaintiffs motion for judgment and the plaintiff responded to it. Basically the defendants say, “The state is prohibited from banning guns but we can do what we want because we aren’t the state and besides that, you gave up any right to complain when you became a student and signed the lease which said no guns allowed.”


That defense goes over with me about as well if they were prohibiting mix-race marriages. It’s a good thing my blood pressure is naturally low because it spiked a few points when I read their response.