Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation.
Milton Friedman
[We are likely to get a lot of this in the near future.
But the main reason I was reminded of this was because of gun control without legislation being contemplated.
I wonder if there is a special name for that like “inflation” for taxation without legislation? Other than “unelectable” of course.—Joe]
Sometimes I would almost agree there should be common sense limits, including background checks and licensing, on the First Amendment. This is one the reasons:
For an American, that means the person working beside you or sitting beside you on the bus or at the bar or the stadium or the movies or in class, or in the same traffic jam ready to explode with road rage, could well be carrying one of those formidable multiple-firing Glocks, the kind Mr. Loughner wielded.
But this guy is from Canada where censorship is already part of the political landscape. Maybe they should implement mandatory training and testing on a topic by topic basis for all journalists. The number of distortions and amount of ignorance and bigotry this guy spews is truly impressive.
Via email from Ry:
This is an interesting way to have your guns registered—the police just ask. What would the public response be if they were asking about Koran, “Heather Has Two Mommies”, or “Earth in the Balance” sales?
Update: Via Joe Waldron’s GOAL Post 2011-11:
Earlier this week most, if not all, firearms dealers in Washington received a letter from the Washington State Patrol asking for data on ALL AR-15s (and clones) and AR-15 lower receivers sold or purchased by the dealers over the past nine months. The information sought was reportedly requested pursuant to an investigation of a stolen AR-15.
Apparently the ATF (who has jurisdiction over tracing stolen firearms) was not consulted by the WSP before they initiated their query. It would appear the WSP request FAR EXCEEDED their authority to seek such information. It typically would take a subpoena to gain access to such a broad sweep of transaction records. And that would have to be signed by a judge, after presentation of sufficient probable cause.
It is my understanding most dealers politely declined to comply, as was their right. The Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation jumped right into this issue. Meanwhile, in addition to ATF asking questions (of the WSP), several state legislators want to know what’s going on.
BATFE has broad legal authority to examine firearm dealers’ records.
Local law enforcement has much more limited authority in cases like this. I suspect this was simple overreach by an over-zealous and perhaps inexperienced WSP detective. At least I hope that’s what it was. Eternal vigilance remains the price of liberty!
We’ve lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means. Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it’s an individual right.
Paul Helmke
June 12, 2008
Brady Campaign President
Gun Control Group Braces for Court Loss
[And 100% of the U.S. Supreme Court thinks that as well.
Nice try guys. You came close.
In an alternate history with the Internet lagging just a little bit the bad guys would have won and the 21st Century could have been a dystopia.
Now we get to condemn them to the dustbin of history like the Berlin Wall, the U.S. Confederacy, and the KKK.—Joe]
There’s no middle ground on this issue that will make our opponents surrender and give up. That’s why I’m interested in giving up as little as possible, and taking everything from them that I can. I’m not in this fight to keep people worried. I’m in this fight to win, and to make what my opponents advocate about as publicly acceptable as someone who thinks we ought to ban newspapers.
Sebastian
March 17, 2011
On Obama’s Bully Pulpit
[The most important point here is that we need to change society attitudes not just get the politicians to vote our way. If we change society the votes will be there and other good things will follow. Just having votes without a change in society means we will have the same fights over and over.
I generally use the phrase, “Make belonging to the Brady Campaign the social equivalent of a membership in the KKK.” But Sebastian’s choice of words is probably better than mine for most audiences.—Joe]
We’re not interested in curtailing the rights of gun owners…
Chuck Schumer
U.S. Senator from New York
March 16, 2011
Mayor Bloomberg scolds nation for not standing up to gun lobby
[I choked when I read that even though I wasn’t drinking anything.
To get a better idea of Schumer’s interest you need a little background. Here is a good example:
We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!. We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!
U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer
November 30, 1993
NBC Nightly News
I’m reminded of how you can tell when a politician is lying—his lips are moving.—Joe]
Now that there is proven resolve to keep military-style weapons off of America’s streets, we hope Congress and the President will get behind a truly effective assault weapons ban – one that includes ‘copycat’ weapons just as deadly as those already banned.
Joshua Horwitz
March 2, 2004
Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
CSGV Claims Victory in Defeating Gun Immunity Bill
[As is typical with anti-gun people, their claims are usually worthless. The “Gun Immunity Bill” later passed and the “assault weapon” ban expired a few months later.
Also I would like to point out that the AWB was created and passed on the basis of “menacing looks”. Then they turned around and wanted to ban guns that matched the “assault weapons” in terms of “deadliness”.
So anything with a menacing look should be banned. And then 10 years later anything that is the functional equivalent of something that looks menacing should be banned as well.
Does that mean Michelle Obama should be banned because she is the functional equivalent of Hillary Clinton 15 years ago?—Joe]
Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners – it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They’re our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that’s something that gun-safety advocates need to accept.
Barack Obama
March 13, 2011
We must seek agreement on gun reforms
[All the gun safety advocates that I know (most are NRA firearms safety instructors) do accept this. It’s the anti-gun activists that don’t accept it.
Other than that minor point I don’t have anything to disagree with in those two paragraphs. He could have suggested grief counseling for Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center supporters but my read of the tone is that he wouldn’t have really meant it.—Joe]
Via the Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance:
Shooters:
H222 (the campus carry bill) will be on the House floor tomorrow for a final vote. Please contact your representatives ASAP and ask them to vote for the right of faculty, staff, students, and the public to have the means to defend themselves in the current gun-free university zones.
Find your representative here.
Contact info here.
Executive Director/General Counsel
Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance
www.idahossa.org
Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
Charles Krauthammer
April 5, 1996
Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet
Originally in The Washington Post on April 5. The above link is in the Seattle Times from April 8, 1996.
[Via email from Ry who said, “Lots of qotd material here”. This was like saying, “Nukes make lots of dust.”
This was part of the overreaching the anti-gun people did in the mid and late 1990s. They were on a roll in September 1994 and thought they were unstoppable and openly announced their intentions. They thought there were no obstacles. They thought at most there were just speed bumps causing them to slow down on their way to total domination. And they were wrong.—Joe]
There has been a fair amount of discussion recently about the Illinois attorney general ruling that the names of people with Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) cards can be made public.
Some people are saying the release increases the risk a gun owner will have their home broken into by a criminal wanting a gun. Others say it gives a different type of criminal knowledge that they are unlikely to be shot at if they break in while the resident are home. Still others point out less obvious risks and concerns:
“There is some prejudice against gun owners and a perspective employer says, ‘This guy who shows up is on a list, I’m not going to hire him, I don’t want a gun nut,’” he said.
“It kind of resembles the sex offender registry in many ways,” he said. “To create this list feels like the same thing.”
I think those are all valid arguments. But I have not seen anyone make the argument that I would like made.
What if the state required all active homosexuals to be registered and there were HID cards issued? What would the reaction be if someone wanted those people’s names released? I can just hear the Brady Campaign screaming now (they did it before—check out the update), “It’s not the same thing!” Perhaps being a homosexual isn’t something under an individuals control but actually engaging is homosexual acts arguably is something under individual control. If you want to be active as a homosexual sign up for your card and then be outed by the state. After all, don’t your neighbors have a right to know? And don’t parents have a right to know those sort of things about their children’s teachers?
Okay, they are probably right. Being a homosexual isn’t a very good analogy to being a gun owner—because being an active homosexual isn’t specific enumerated right protected by the U.S. Constitution. It’s more like being Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim since exercising the religion of your choice is also a specific enumerated right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Shall we have a little discussion about requiring Jews to get their ID cards from the state and then being outed to people who claim “a need to know who their neighbors are”?
I’m beginning to think that pushing for gun control is a good idea, if only because there’s nothing else that will nauseate and terrify Tea Partiers more. To me, the right-wing fascination with guns is such an obviously Freudian phenomenon that it’s almost embarrassing; real and very justified fears of creeping political impotence, idiotically and self-defeatingly expressed in passionate defense of their right to shoot themselves in tragic domestic accidents. Going after Republicans’ gun rights has always seemed to me needlessly provocative and cruel, sort of like removing the tinfoil helmet your local schizophrenic thinks is protecting him from space rays.
But now the paranoia has now gone so far, it’s just too tempting not to tweak. There’s got to be some way to pursue a new gun-control law that would maximally freak out this growing population of people who literally sleep with their guns at night.
How about a new law requiring all registered handgun owners to wear white Kevlar Clockwork Orange-style jockstraps? Or how about a new campaign – and this one I actually like – in which all of us who do not have guns voluntarily send in letters to the ATF, cheerfully informing them of our unarmed status (“Dear Government Agent: In case you were keeping a database of such information…”).
Matt Taibbi
March 10, 2011
Time For Gun Control — If Only to Tweak the Tea Party
[I wonder what Taibbi would think of laws requiring journalist to be licensed and registered?
Gun owners need to know what these people think of them and Taibbi comes through. Not only is Taibbi adhering to Markley’s law he is willingly exposing his bigotry.—Joe]
According to CBS the ATF Chief Public Affairs officer sent out a memo early on the week of February 28th to all their “Public Information Officers” with the instructions:
Please make every effort for the next two weeks to maximize coverage of ATF operations/enforcement actions/arrests at the local and regional level. Given the negative coverage by CBS Evening News last week and upcoming events this week, the bureau should look for every opportunity to push coverage of good stories
It just so happens I have an subscription to some of the ATF news updates. For the entire month of February I received seven updates. During the three days of February 28, March 1, and March 2 I received eight updates. Here is a typical update.
So it appears they have Public Information Officers that can deliver when asked to. It’s good to know our government has quality people in their employee even if it is in the spin department. If they could only engage the “wash” cycle before the “spin” we would all be much better off.
CBS is reporting that the ATF has been deliberately letting gun runners take guns into Mexico since 2008! I find that very interesting.
If I were a paranoid person I would be tempted to say it was all an elaborate plan to justify making U.S. gun laws more restrictive to “solve” the problem the U.S. government created.
Yesterday Say Uncle posted about a cable network post for “Gun Control Campaigners” all over.
We can add, to no ones surprise, Boston to the list of places they are advertising.
I thought the phrase “Gun Control Campaigners” was a little odd. In our country those people would typically be called “Gun Control Activists”.
A little bit of Bing searching hints that phrase is common in the U.K.
Handgun Control is pleased to announce its participation in FreedomChannel.com, a new nonpartisan political internet website. FreedomChannel.com, which launches on November 8, features the first-ever video-on-demand issue statements from presidential candidates and representatives of advocacy groups.
Handgun Control President Bob Walker is featured in the FreedomChannel.com’s “Views-on-the-News” video-on-demand program, speaking about the need for common-sense measures to reduce gun violence in this country.
Handgun Control Inc.
November 4, 1999
HANDGUN CONTROL PARTICIPATES IN LAUNCH OF NEW POLITICAL INTERNET SITE, FREEDOMCHANNEL.COM
[With Handgun Control, now The Brady Campaign, being featured on “Freedom Channel” it is no surprise FreedomChannel.com no longer exists. They either had crap for brains attempting to associate freedom with an anti-freedom organization or it collapsed from the weight of the irony.—Joe]
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released The Endgame, a report detailing three areas that must be reformed within the gun industry in order for a settlement of lawsuits filed by major cities against the industry to have any significant effect in reducing firearms violence. Public statements by some involved in ongoing talks with the gun industry indicate a growing desire to quickly reach a settlement.
…
A meaningful settlement must include:
Violence Policy Center
December 21, 1999
New VPC Report Lays Out Minimal Terms for Settlement of Litigation Against Gun Industry
[In 1999 they still had fair amount of power. Probably not as much as they thought they had but still they had inflicted a fair amount of damage in the recent past and wanted to get another whack in before Clinton left office. The problem was that they overreached and struck out. We won that fight as a result of their grasping for something beyond their reach.
This was the same problem the Brady Campaign had with initiative 676 in Washington State in 1997. The local Washington Ceasefire anti-gun organization wanted to put a much more limited and realizable initiative on the ballot. But the Brady Campaign said they would provide support only if was made much broader. They bit off more than they could chew and lost 29% to 71%.
I remember the concealed carry fights of 15+ years ago. There were a lot of people that wanted “Vermont Carry” rather than licensing. It was believed there was no path to “Vermont Carry” once we had “Shall Issue” carry. It was believed that we were giving up too much by allowing the government to license a right. That we now appear to be on a roll to “Constitutional Carry” in many states proves that fear was unfounded. We are winning because we were willing to accept what we could get rather than what we believed was due to us.
There is something I learned in chess a long time ago which holds true in the gun games I play and it’s true in politics as well . It’s more important to not lose than it is win. Let the other guy take the chances and you win when they screw up.—Joe]
Handguns are a menace to society and whenever sanity returns to our courts, we will ban them.
rfkolbe
March 6, 2011
Comment to Gun rights groups to test political strength–Concealed carry debate picks up steam with testimony before Illinois House committee this week
[Do not think for a second that our opponents merely want “reasonable regulation”. For them “common sense” is a code phrase with a very clear meaning.—Joe]
The “gun nuts” don’t think anything is going to happen really. They haven’t thought about anything. They are just wackos and conspiracy theorists who need a cause to latch onto. They need a justification for their paranoia. It’s like a religion to them.
Melissa Me
March 5, 2011
Comment to What do American gun nuts think will happen if the government takes the guns away?
[I think the more correct answer to the question is that there would soon be a new government in town.
But getting back to Melissa Me’s answer. I think I’m okay with her position. Religion is protected under the First Amendment. So that means she thinks the specific enumerated right to keep and bear gun is doubly protected by the Bill of Rights. I think I can live with that regardless of what her personal opinion of me is.—Joe]
I love exploring questions like this. “Common sense” laws that nearly everyone agrees with end up being in conflict with each other:
The Oregon Supreme Court Thursday debated whether a state statute is at odds with federal law in a case involving a Medford marijuana patient who was denied a concealed weapons permit.
Appearing before nearly 200 law school students, the seven justices convened at Willamette University College of Law in Salem and focused on whether the statute conflicts with the intent of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.