Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Handgun Control, Inc.

Posted on by

Again, the grades reflect the ability of a CCW law to maintain public safety. Seven states (Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin) have decided the safest way to protect citizens is to not allow carrying concealed weapons at all. The other 43 states have implemented laws that vary in their ability to protect public safety. The seven states which do not permit any carrying of concealed weapons received “A” grades. While a state-licensing system, with all the proper safeguards, could receive an “A” rating, no state permitting system presently meets those requirements. But a few state licensing systems like Iowa, New Jersey and Minnesota, receive relatively high marks because they give local law enforcement officials discretion in issuing a license and require both safety training and an adequate background check.

At the other extreme, Vermont allows anyone to carry without any criminal background check or any type of safety training. Major pro-gun organizations, including the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, point to Vermont as the ideal system that they would like to see replicated in the other 49 states.

Commonsense, and the growing number of intentional and unintentional shootings involving licensees, dictate that more guns on the street put everyone at risk.

Handgun Control, Inc.
December 18, 1997
Concealed Carry, Concealed Risk Year-End Report on U.S. Concealed Weapons Laws
Emphasis in the original.
[Commonsense would dictate that they have evidence to support their assertions. But no matter how often and how long these people attempt to prove by vigorous assertion that “more guns on the street put everyone at risk” they don’t make any progress. We now have more Constitutional (Vermont) carry states, more reciprocity, and more shall issue states than we did in 1997. And the facts are that there is no evidence of increased crime. The Brady Campaign apparently agrees with this data as they say on their own website (September 2008):

The National Research Council carried out its own review and analysis of peer-reviewed literature and concluded that there is “no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime.

If there is no credible evidence right to carry laws increase violent crime then it should be “commonsense” there is no justification for restricting the carrying of self-defense tools in public. Right?

Perhaps the most telling of the facts is that the Brady Campaign (forming Handgun Control, Inc.) no longer issues reports on concealed weapons laws. I guess they realize that battle has been lost and it was just commonsense to drop the silly grading since it was unrelated to public safety.

Perhaps someone should tell, Joan, Peterson, Brady Campaign board member, the flesh has putrefied on that horse.—Joe]

Everybody knows

Posted on by

If I had finished up the other things I was working on this weekend I would have written a post on how many times Joan Peterson uses “common sense” as the sole basis for her assertions of the righteousness of gun control.


Linoge does the equivalent (or better) than I would have done with Peterson’s use of “everybody knows”. Reading this excellent post reminded me of this quote by Robert Heinlein.

Quote of the day—Robert K. Corbin

Posted on by

The gun debate isn’t just about waiting periods, semi-automatic bans, licensing, registration, handgun bans or the Second Amendment; it’s about liberty, and the fundamental beliefs that make democracy possible.

Robert K. Corbin
From My Cold Dead Fingers–Why America Needs Guns, Third Edition (“Final Chapter”), page 116.

Quote of the day—Say Uncle

Posted on by

There simply cannot be peace between our people and it’s entirely because of different mentalities, world views and ways of thinking.

Say Uncle
Same planet, different worlds
October 15, 2010
[As I said in the comments to his post:

In another time these people would have been reading entrails or doing trials by fire to make decisions. Some people actually believe evidence and reason are counter productive to good decision making. They are NOT stupid. Some of them sit on the SCOTUS and you don’t get there riding on the short bus.

As further evidence look at Joan Peterson “rest her case” defending against people informing her that she is ignorant and a bigot. This is why Peterson Syndrome was named after her. She simply does not know how to determine truth from falsity. She makes “reasoning noises” (thanks to MJM for that phrase) but she totally lacks the mental processes to follow a path to defendable conclusions.

Frequently the biggest obstacle to problem solving is in understanding and defining the problem. I think I have now done that. But now that we know the problem I think we still have a huge obstacle. I don’t know how, or if, these mental defects can be cured or prevented. But I do know that if we don’t find a solution soon Darwin is currently implementing a solution which is extremely painful for everyone.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frank R. Lautenberg

Posted on by

I remain focused on common-sense reforms that everyone, regardless of party, should be able to agree on. My legislation to close the Terror Gap and the gun show loophole would keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and strengthen our homeland security. These are safety measures that even NRA members overwhelmingly support, and they should move through Congress with bipartisan support.

Frank R. Lautenberg
October 12, 2010
‘Gun Ban Obama?’ Not So Much, Say Gun Control Advocates
[As much as anti-rights advocates claim there is no viable threat to our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms they still have powerful supporters.

The only way they can “close the gun show loophole” is by enabling gun owner registration. This would be done by requiring every firearm transaction to go through NICS. NICS could be modified with incredible ease, if it hasn’t already been enabled, to keep a permanent record of all people who purchase a firearm and the number of firearms purchased. This is just as unacceptable as the registration of all homosexuals, Jews, or people in interracial marriages.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sean D. Sorrentino

Posted on by

You heard it here first folks, Peterson Syndrome.

Sean D. Sorrentino
October 13, 2010
Comment to Why ignorant people should never make law
[This was in response to a comment of mine in the same thread about Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and her mental defect.—Joe]

500 per year?!

Posted on by

Via Sebastian we have this bit of nonsense:

Justice Department legal adviser Amid Torres told lawmakers during a public hearing last week that the agency would submit amendments to the weapons law to La Fortaleza that reflect the jurisprudence established by the nation’s top court in McDonald vs City of Chicago this summer. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the U.S. Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges.

Puerto Rico will have to ease its stringent firearms code in relation to the acquisition and possession of guns for self-defense.

Torres said the measures will include a requirement that shooting ranges keep logs of how much ammunition their members use and cap the number of bullets each client can fire in target practice at 500 per year.

I’ve gone through this many rounds in an hour of practice. There are very few firearms classes that I have taken which used this few of rounds. This is like telling a journalist they may only publish five articles a year.

A specific enumerated right that is limited to, at best, exercise only one weekend per year cannot stand.

I’ve got a better idea. How about governments can repeal as many laws as they want but they can only enact five laws per year?

Dino Rossi for US Senate

Posted on by

Last Wednesday Senate Candidate Dino Rossi came to Microsoft and I went to listen to him talk and answer questions. I thought he did quite well. The Microsoft crowd has a strong tendency to be liberal. And his incumbent opponent has been considered the most liberal in the U.S. Senate. And as Rossi pointed out that when she has admitted socialists and people like Nancy Pelosi for competition in that contest that says a lot about her. The crowd was polite and listened. Almost his entire point was the financial crisis our country is in. His credentials are a degree in business with successful business ventures as proof. Then he took the lead in getting Washington state’s budget balanced several years ago.

When someone asked what he would do about the tax penalty that the questioner and his partner (it was worded such that it was pretty clear they were a homosexual couple) suffer that married couple don’t. Rossi had what seemed to be a satisfactory answer. He said he hadn’t really thought about it but he certainly would if it came up. And that it is rare that he would turn down an opportunity to reduce taxes so the chances are probably good that he would support something like that.

He didn’t mention guns at all. It’s probably just as well—particularly in that venue. He should let others tell that story. Here is an example of what his opponent says about guns. No one has ever accused her of being smart.

Here is what the NRA has to say about Rossi:

Update: I just heard a survey result on the radio. Rossi leads by 1%. In a state where King County (the Seattle area which is very liberal) sometimes reports more votes than registered voters this isn’t a big enough lead. Even in a fair election this margin is in the noise. We need to increase the margin. People will start voting in a few days (everyone votes by mail in Washington State) and the time is now to help Dino Rossi. See also the comment here from Boyd.

Quote of the day—Kevin Baker

Posted on by

I think it might behoove you to get some psychiatric help. Work on your bigotry, your fear of firearms, your self-control issues, and your curious fixation on things penile. Also your hatred of your fellow man. If you don’t, you might end up strapping on a firearm and calling out an 80-year-old a**hole who might blow your penis off with his .45 in self-defense.


Trust me, I know some old guys who can SHOOT.


Kevin Baker
October 11, 2010
Proprietor, http://smallestminority.blogspot.com
[It was almost exactly four years ago in Reno when I articulated my assertion to a collection of bloggers that we needed to change our attitude in regards to our status as gun owners. Kevin was there when I gave my little speech. I didn’t get any disagreement but I’m not sure that many people agreed with me either. I said some things that I think were a little alien to them:



When you post on a gun rights issues, when you write your letter to the editor, your congressman, or your senator you have to have the proper state of mind. Never forget that the anti-gun bigots are the KKK of the 21st Century. Look for opportunities to make that point. Make belonging to the Brady Campaign the equivalent of a membership in the KKK because it’s true.


Today this one bigot got not only the attention of my blog and several gun forums but the attention of other bloggers in addition to Kevin who explained to this guy that he was being a bigot far better than I did. I would also like to give special attention Linoge for properly pointing out that this particular bigot is another example of Markley’s law.


It all brings a smile to my face.


Update: More bloggers piling on the bigot meme with this guy:



Social pressure and shame is what it is going to take to push the gun control agenda completely off the table and into the dustbin of history. Let’s keep it up.—Joe]

Reasoned Discourse

Posted on by

Via Ry we find more Reasoned Discourse:



They pretty much confirmed my attitudes about gun-toters.
My OS postings rarely get feedback, so I wondered why so many comments showed up in just a day or two.
That’s when Google found this thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?81683-Blog-post-from-an-AZ-anti
Yikes.
My personal blog is mirrored here at OS, and I don’t allow comments there, so they actually tracked me down here.
It looks like they cruise the web, trying to pick fights.
So I’ve closed the comments here at Open Salon.
It’s sad, but I certainly don’t want to engage with people like them.


“People like them”? If I didn’t know better from that line I would think he was talking about people with different colored skin or homosexuals.


I guess he doesn’t understand the failure of censorship in an Internet world; but then bigots are seldom bright.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Whenever some anti-gun advocate says something to the effect that people carrying their personal defensive tools are trying to live out a fantasy and they would never be able to use them in a real situation anyway we should invite them to play a game of laser tag to confirm their claims in regards to a mass shooting situation.

Arm about 10% of the potential victims and then let the anti-gun bad guy see how far they can make it as they try to play “postman” in the mall, schoolroom, or crowded health club. Repeat without the potential victims being armed. Compare the results and then discuss which scenario played out better for the potential victims.

If they refuse to play then tell them they are living a fantasy and are unwilling to gather and process factual data.

Helping them blow a fuse

Posted on by

I would just like to point out that the anti-gun bigots get all fired up, sputter, and generally blow a fuse and end up changing the subject when confronted with the most innocent of things. A case in point is this picture (available for sale here):

GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns

It reminds me of the racists who get all bent out of shape if they see a black man holding hands or expressing affection with a white woman.

What’s the problem with these people? Oh yeah, I remember now. They are bigots.

Japete IS lying about this

Posted on by

If you recall a few days ago I defended Joan Peterson (aka japete) against a charge of lying. I still believe I was correct; the best explanation for the available data on that topic was that it was a mental defect rather than a willful lie.

Today I present evidence that she is willingly and knowingly lying about something else.

If you read her blog you will find many instances where she claims or implies she and her organizations don’t wish to ban firearms. Here are  some examples:

Also note that Ms. Peterson acknowledges she is on the Brady Campaign board of directors.

I have often given the Brady Campaign a pass in regards to errors and old material on their website. I know I have lots of out of date material on my websites and I have changed my mind about things but not bother to take down the old position. With all the material from the Brady Campaign saying “total bans are off the table” you might take that to mean they are interested in banning firearms anymore. This is not true.

You need to watch their wording very carefully to notice that since the Heller decision they say they are not advocating a “total ban on handguns”. One must presume that a partial ban would be quite agreeable with them. And one can be certain they are still in favor of an “assault weapon” ban:

Boxer supports California’s ban on assault weapons and the revival of a similar law at the federal level. Fiorina has criticized the federal law’s definition of assault weapons as “extremely arbitrary” and emphasizes other ways of combating gun crimes, none of which is a substitute for a ban. She also believes that travelers on the federal government’s no-fly list should be allowed to own firearms.

We couldn’t agree more with the Times on this one.

Learn more about assault weapons and terror gap, and visit our elections page.

And from their position web page on “assault weapons” linked to in the previous quote:

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts.

PROBLEM: The federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in the fall of 2004.

THE THREAT: Allowing easy access to highly lethal, military-style weapons by dangerous people, like terrorists and felons, threatens the safety of our police officers, families and communities.

URGENCY: Since the ban expired, police chiefs across the country report increases in assault weapons used in crime and used against them.

SOLUTION: Congress must pass strong, effective legislation to ban all military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high capacity ammunition magazines. In the short-term, more states must pass their own laws to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

As a board member Ms. Peterson had to know of the Brady Campaign position on “assault weapons”. I therefore have to apologize for being critical of all the bloggers and commenters who said Joan Peterson was lying.

Quote of the day—George Mason

Posted on by

That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the People, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.


George Mason
June 12, 1776
Virginia Declaration of Rights
[The U.S. Constitution was heavily influenced by the Virginia Constitution. Remember, James Madison, the main architect of the U.S. Constitution was from Virginia. And Mason had his share of input to the Constitution as well.


The entire political philosophy of our country is based on government deriving it’s powers from the consent of the people. Hence I always find it a little irritating when someone refers to a politician as a ‘leader’ when they are actually servants.


It is more than a little irritating when the servants tell the People they are the only ones allowed to own and carry certain types of personal weapons.


And when the servants use the People’s credit to run up a massive debt giving money to people and organizations which they had no constitutional authority to give it it too it’s time to fire them and perhaps prosecute them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justice Antonin Scalia

Posted on by

hope I have made it clear that my belief that the use of foreign law in our constitutional decisions is the wave of the future does not at all suggest that I think it’s a good idea. I do not. The men who founded our republic did not aspire to emulating Europeans, much less the rest of the world.

I wrote an opinion for the Court a few terms back [Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004)], overruling an earlier case [Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)], which had held that the confrontation clause is satisfied so long as the unconfronted testimony – that is to say, hearsay testimony – has “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” The opinion pointed out that that the confrontation clause was designed precisely to prevent a procedure considered trustworthy by continental European nations, and others that followed the civil law tradition. “Examinations of witnesses upon interrogatories,” wrote John Adams, “are only by the civil law; interrogatories are unknown at common law, and Englishment and common lawyers have an aversion to them, if not an abhorrence of them.” As recently as 1993, for example, France was still defending its use of ex parte testimony before the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the defendant’s accuser in a drug trafficking case had a “legitimate interest in remaining anonymous,” and that the defendant’s rights were adequately protected so long as “the judge held hearings which enabled him to satisfy himself” that the witnesses stood by their statements. Should we have loosened up our confrontation clause, in deference to foreign opinion on this subject?

France permits suits against the executive branch only in an executive branch court called the conseil d’etat, whose members are appointed and promoted by the executive, and who regularly alternate between performing executive functions and adjudicating the lawfulness of other people’s performance of executive functions. Other European countries have somewhat similar systems, although the extent of their participating in executive functions may be more limited. This is a practice that Tocqueville contrasted unfavorably with our own, as long ago as 1835. Should we change our mind?

In No. 46 of The Federalist, James Madison speaks contemptuously of the governments of Europe who are “afraid to trust their people with arms.” Should we revise the Second Amendment because of what these other countries think?

In November of 2002, the Council of Europe approved what was called “an additional protocol to the convention on cybercrime,” which would make it illegal to distribute anything online which “advocates, promotes or incites hatred.” A spokesman for the United States Department of Justice said – quite correctly – that this country could not be a party to such a treaty because of the First Amendment. If all of Europe thinks that such a provision does not unduly limit speech, should we reconsider? And I could go on.

If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the founders of our country, surely it was the notion that we Americans should be governed the way that Europeans are – and nothing has changed. I dare say that few of us here would like our life or liberty subject to the disposition of French or Italian criminal justice, not because those systems are unjust, but because we think ours is better. What reason is there to believe that other dispositions of a foreign country are so obviously suitable to the morals and beliefs of our people that they can be judicially imposed through constitutional adjudication? And is it really an appropriate function of judges to say which are and which aren’t? I think not.

Justice Antonin Scalia
February 21, 2006
Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute.
Emphasis added.
[If the founders of our country wanted the supreme law of our land to emulate Europe they could have done so. If people today want our laws to emulate Europe they can push through the constitutional amendments to make those changes. And if in the process they infringe on fundamental human rights they can deal with the consequences.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph

Posted on by

Magnificent…will terrify and appall jackbooted stormtroopers everywhere, and even more so the whimpering media geeks who squat to lick those boots.

Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph
1996
From the back cover of Unintended Consequences by John Ross.
[If you haven’t read Unintended Consequences then you don’t really understand the gun culture.—Joe]

MAIG mimics Brady Campaign errors

Posted on by

Mayors Against Illegal Guns did not make an innocent mistake when they released their recent report. They deliberated misused the data to arrive at a conclusion they wanted. It’s been explained to them many times before but the truth doesn’t matter to them. NRA-ILA explains once again:

MAIG’s conclusions, like Brady’s, are based entirely upon BATFE firearm tracing statistics, which BATFE and the Congressional Research Service have repeatedly said should not be used to reach broad conclusions about criminal activity with guns.

BATFE says, for example, “Not all firearms used in crimes are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime. Firearms selected for tracing aren’t chosen for purposes of determining which types, makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected don’t constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. . . .[S]ources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime.”

Of course, for many years on many issues — “assault weapons,” “Saturday Night Specials,” lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers, and the list goes on — anti-gun groups have resorted to tracing data because crime and other reliable data have not supported their arguments. In this instance, for example, MAIG contends that illegal acquisition of firearms is associated with 10 specific state-level gun laws. But, the 10 laws — some of which are already in effect at the federal level — don’t correlate to state total violent crime rates. And, the 10 states with the highest violent crime rates, and the 10 states with the lowest rates, both have an average of two of the 10 gun laws.

Update: James has more very interesting stuff to share on the topic.

Firearms Freedom Act news

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign has very little to feel good about these days so they are doing a lot of crowing about the Federal district court judge who dismissed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act case.

While most observers agree that we will not win this case that doesn’t mean it is a losing action. As I said in the comments over at Say Uncle’s place:

From the Missoulian

“We’ve believed all along that the federal District Court cannot grant the relief we request. We seek to overturn a half-century of bad precedent,” Gary Marbut, MSSA president, said in a statement. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. In that light, the pending dismissal by the District Court means little except that we are now free to move to the next step of the process.”

The Brady Campaign may ultimately be able to claim victory but not without more work. They are crowing now because it will be a while before they can crow for a real victory.

…

I don’t think “restrictions are defeated before they start” via lots of guns is a workable strategy. As an example look at machine guns. There were lots of them in private hands prior to 1934 and now there aren’t. Also consider legislative attacks such as trigger locks, “safe storage” laws, restrictions on carry that start with schools and public buildings then progresses to banks, parks, churches, vehicles, and “public spaces”.

While the Firearms Freedom Act has a low chance of ultimate success it is an integrated part of the SAF firearms civil rights judicial strategy.

I used to play a lot of chess which gives us a way to view this. Suppose you have a slight material advantage say 15 pieces to their 12 pieces. You increase your odds of winning by trading down an equal number/quality of their pieces for yours. When the odds are 3 to 1 in your favor you are far better off than when you were at 15 to 12.

Think of it this way–we have far more money than the anti-gun side. Suppose we have 10 x as much money and resources as they do. Suppose they need to spend half as much as we do on each front as we do in order to defeat us. The more fronts we attack on the less they have to spend on any one front. Even if we attack on a front they can easily win they must spend resources on it. This makes it easier to win on more fronts.

By forcing them to divide their resources we can create much better odds for success on each of the individual attacks because we have sufficient resources that our multiple attacks do not suffer from division.

There are other reasons as well but discussion of those in public would not be in our best interests.

Please add to that what Idaho Governor Butch Otter said about the ruling:

Governor Otter said that decision is consistent with Molloy’s wolf ruling, and together they highlight the lack of regard that the judge has for states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.
“We’re hopeful that we’ll find some relief from the appellate court,” he said. “But if not, we’ll keep fighting to protect our right to self-determination.”

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Remember how the Feds needed to find a new job for the “Revenuers” after the repeal of prohibition and they were given the regulation of firearms with NFA34?

We should do the same thing with the ATF by retasking them with the regulation legal sale of marijuana as we go through the process of reducing Federal regulation of firearms.

The DEA? Those that can’t get a real job can just go beg on the street corner with a sign around their neck that says “Former DEA Agent”.

Quote of the day—John Lott

Posted on by

Bill Landes and I have examined all the multiple-victim public shootings with two or more victims in the United States from 1977 to 1999. We found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by an astounding 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent. And to the extent that these attacks still occur in states with right-to-carry laws, they overwhelming occur in those few places where concealed handguns are not allowed. Gun free zones served as magnets for these attacks.

The desire to ban guns is understandable, but it is dangerous, too.  If we won’t hang “Gun-Free Zone” signs around our homes, let’s not hang them around our schools or other places we care about either.

John Lott
September 29, 2010
Why Gun Bans Still Don’t Work
[“Gun free” zones are victim disarmament zones. Let’s get rid of as many of these death traps as we can.—Joe]