Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day–Sebastian

Posted on by

So showing civility to the other side is something I do believe is part of being a good citizen, but I also think it’s a smart strategy for moving the issue forward as well. If upon finding someone is anti-gun your response is never to speak to them again, you’re missing out on an opportunity to break down preconceptions and prejudices. How do you all deal with anti-gunners in your lives?


Sebastian
March 6, 2010
Lots of Anti-Gun Folks In This World
[Another way to think of this is that you respond to their actions and what they say rather than their presence.


Think of carrot and stick. If they say or do something obnoxious you punish them (verbally or perhaps in the courts or legislature). If they do something right you praise them. I just don’t see the point in being in a constant state of anger and/or vindictiveness.


If you are constantly a jerk toward them they and others will find justification for treating you poorly in return.–Joe]

Quote of the day–one-eyed fat man

Posted on by

Allowing that public support could be partly defined by evidence of membership dues being paid to an organization that claims to promote beneficial public policies. It is telling to note Violence Policy Center’s tax returns as far back as the year 2000 have reported $0 in membership dues.The bulk of their money has ALWAYS come from the Joyce Foundation.


one-eyed fat man
March 1, 2010
VPC, aka Brady, aka HCI, and Joyce Foundation
[Yup. Very, very telling.


See also Bitter’s grassroots post.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Sebastian

Posted on by

Peter Hamm is here. It’s cold out. Maybe I should be a nice guy and get the Brady folks some @starbucks.



Sebastian
March 2, 2010
A post on Twitter.
[That is very funny but just a little bit on the rude side given the current context of Starbucks. And to the best of my knowledge Sebastian did not follow through on this thought.


I know I’m very harsh with them on this blog but that would not extend to my personal interactions with them. My fight with them is over their advocation of anti-gun policies. Not with them personally. This is not to say I would invite them into my house (unless there were some sort of emergency that my failure to do so put them at risk of personal injury or extreme discomfort).–Joe]

Quote of the day–Justice Antonin Scalia

Posted on by

There is a lot of statistical disagreement on whether the Miranda rule saves lives or not, whether it results in the release of dangerous people who have confessed to their crime but the confession can’t be used. We don’t — we don’t resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics, do we?


Well, why would this one be resolved on the basis of statistics? If there is a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States.


Justice Antonin Scalia
March 2, 2010
Regarding the incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Oral arguments in OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., : Petitioners : v. : No. 08-1521 CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
[As expected, he uses a better example than I did yesterday when refuting Half-Truth Henigan’s claim that the Second Amendment is the most dangerous right.–Joe]

Half-truth Henigan is at it again

Posted on by

Brady Campaign Lawyer Dennis Henigan claims:

Of course, it is true that the exercise of free expression, for example, also can create a risk of violence or physical injury. If that risk becomes sufficiently great, the courts will deny the protection of the First Amendment altogether. But the core exercise of freedom of expression is unlikely to pose serious risks of physical harm, particularly lethal harm. The same cannot be said about the Second Amendment right.

…

It is unclear whether the high court will declare the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” as the other rights that have been applied to the states. But even if it does, it should confront the hard reality that this “fundamental” right is also the most dangerous right of all.

I agree that guns can be dangerous. But it is far from the most dangerous right. I would like Mr. Henigan to do the arithmetic on how many people have been murdered based on the following books:

And that is just off the top of my head with a couple seconds of thought. And when have U.S. courts denied protection of the First Amendment to these books? If “guns kill” then surely these books can be blamed for the deaths of approximately 100 million people just in the 20th Century.

If books “responsible” for the deaths of many millions can be afforded protection under the First Amendment the Second Amendment can surely afford protection for firearms in common use.

As is usual Henigan only tells half the story. The half he tells is true. But he wants you to overlook the ugly truth of how dangerous ideas and the free expression of them is. And it is an outright lie that the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is the most dangerous. In fact, had the murder victims of the governments built upon those last two books been armed the body count of the 20th Century would most likely have been much lower.

The “hard reality” is that the right to keep and bear arms protects us from those that exercise their First Amendment rights.

Brady wants your help

Posted on by

This is a different Brady than who I usually post about.


These are the good guys:



Special Attention Taxpaying Residents of Los Angeles, California


The Fifty Caliber Institute is working closely with the law firm of Michel & Associates, PC in the Los Angeles area to locate possible candidates who have suffered under the restrictive laws of the City of Los Angeles relating to firearm ownership and the possession or transfer of ammunition. If you meet the criteria established here, please take the time to make a phone call to one of these attorneys to see if we can start turning some of these egregious laws around. J Sigler, President-FCI


Call to Action


NRA/CRPA Seek Plaintiffs to Challenge Los Angeles Bans on Sale of .50 Caliber Firearms and Ammunition


Discussions between NRA/CRPA attorneys Michel & Associates, P.C. and the City of Los Angeles, California, regarding repealing that city’s ban on the sale of .50 caliber (and larger) firearms and ammunition have reached an impasse. As a result, NRA/CRPA have no option left but to file suit to invalidate the ordinances.


“Ideal candidates” for the “.50+ Caliber Ban” would be homeowners/taxpayers in Los Angeles who legally own or possess a firearm (handgun or rifle) that uses (or can use) ammunition that is .50 caliber or larger; especially if you would like to have the option of selling, giving or transferring the firearm (or its ammunition) in any way.


An “ideal candidate” would also be a person who would like to purchase/receive such a firearm – especially good children who want to “inherit” such a firearm from a parent; or someone who is receiving one as a gift.


There is no charge or fee to any person who wishes to participate as a plaintiff.


If you or anyone you know fit the above description of an “ideal candidate”, please contact Sean Brady, Esq. of Michel & Associates, P.C. as follows:


Sean A. Brady, Esq.
Michel & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Direct dial number: 562- 216-4445
sbrady@michelandassociates.com


If you fit the description of the “ideal candidate” – please contact Sean Brady today!

You got that right

Posted on by

From Canada:



She says she doesn’t want to think about the consequences if the gun registry disappears.


I see no evidence that she did any thinking up until now so I think the risk of her starting now is pretty low.

Methinks the poster doth protest too much

Posted on by

Sometimes the responses write themselves. The response to this is a case in point:



Guns are useless, especially handguns. But I’m not that ignorant: I know that gun control is a lot like health care–everyone knows it’s a good idea, but we really don’t want it to cost anyone their “freedom” (or worse, their money!).


Apparently he is that ignorant.


I would like to suggest he ask the next police officer why he or she is carrying a useless handgun and then read up on what “everyone knows”.

Unclear on the concepts

Posted on by

My previous post was a link to the most clear presentation of McDonald v. Chicago that I have read. This one is the most unclear I have read. It appears they know all the words but don’t know how to use them in a complete sentence.

Chicago Gun Case overview

Posted on by

The most clear and succinct presentation of McDonald v. Chicago that I have read.

Quote of the day–Gene Hoffman

Posted on by

County counsel will realize he’s going to lose if we’re forced to file. Let’s imagine County Counsel is a moron or San Francisco. We file for a TRO and Permanent Injunction, cite Sykes and get on the calendar in Federal court in the next 3-7 days. The TRO will be granted and off the PI will often be granted as well. Both command the Sheriff to issue you your permit or US Marshalls will come and arrest the Sheriff and take him to a Federal jail on contempt (or in the alternative, fine him personally – Federal judges are not to be messed with.) At that point, the County pays for all legal fees expended by CGF (or you.) Once you have on point controlling case law, these things get done fast and on the County’s dime.

County Counsel understands these things, hence they never go there. Today, there is no on point binding Federal Court precedent… Give us a few more months.


Gene Hoffman
February 28, 2010
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners.
[This assumes a win in McDonald v. Chicago (almost a sure thing) and in Sykes/Palmer (California case on hold pending McDonald v. Chicago resolution). Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald are tomorrow. We will get a pretty good hint of how that will go then. I don’t have any tea leaves for Sykes/Palmer but I suspect David does and might share his reading of them with us.


It’s a little early to start buying care packages of K-Y jelly for the bigoted sheriffs that denied you the CCW license in California who you envision spending quality time with their new boyfriend in a Federal prison. So send a few dollars to Calguns Foundation now to make that dream come true.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Daniel Johnson

Posted on by

Guns in bars. No background checks at gun shows. No permits to carry required. No restrictions on how many guns a person may buy (in some cases now it’s one per month).


What Americans don’t seem to understand is how crazy they look to most of the rest of the world. The reason they don’t understand is because of their one-thought tyranny.


Americans are tyrannized by 1776, The Second Amendment, The Bill of Rights, The Constitution and other colonial-era artifacts. They have been brainwashed into believing that those are the only thoughts there are. This is not freedom. Freedom means having a choice. If they could accept that there are other ways of thinking then they would have a choice! That’s what freedom is about and what many, if not most, Americans don’t understand.


Daniel Johnson
February 24, 2010
The Tyranny of the American Mind
[Tyrannized by The Bill of Rights? At first glance I thought it had to be satire. But no. I don’t think it is. I think it more closely represents something from Nineteen Eighty-Four:



WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.


It appears “Reasoned Discourse” has broken out in the comments.



(graphic stolen from Robb Allen)


Numerous comments have been deleted. Ah, yes. Canadian “freedom” where they have official and unofficial censors.


Oh, and if you are interested in that sort of thing there is a picture of a tricked out SKS being held by a women in a bikini in Johnson’s article.


H/T to jonjayray.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Jeff Knox

Posted on by

This was a nice couple in their 50’s, fairly conservative, into classic cars, and in the market for a .38 for home protection. They were not loony-tune lefties by any means. They also mentioned a good friend who owns many guns and reloads. The conversation rolled along smoothly until the topic of “Uzi’s and machineguns” came up. As you can imagine, it wasn’t me talking about “Uzi’s and machineguns.”


I explained that there is little difference between an Uzi and any 9mm handgun or carbine and that legal machineguns are virtually never used in crime. That so called “assault weapons” are also rarely used In crime and that millions and millions of them are owned and used every day without hurting anyone. That the Second Amendment isn’t about duck or deer hunting, it is about being able to defend yourself, your family, your community, your state, and your country.


That is when the woman said something really chilling. She said that those crazy people who want all of those military weapons and think they have a right to that kind of capability just infuriate her and scare her to death and even though she doesn’t think people should have machineguns, those crazy people make her wish she had a machinegun to just shoot them all.


What on earth do you do with something like that?


Jeff Knox
February 18, 2010
A Lot of Work to Do
[We sometimes don’t realize just how disconnected we are from the mindset of a lot of other people.


I’m probably not the best person to answer Jeff’s question. I think they way I would handle it would be to ask if she felt the same way about blacks, Jews, or homosexuals.


Long term what we have to do is “come out of the closet”. We have to get people to see us as normal or even better, as human with sheepdog tendencies. Take people to the range, get your shooting events mentioned in the mainstream media, and make it possible for people to think of you as little different than someone who goes to a different church than most of the people in the neighborhood.–Joe]

Nice satire

Posted on by

It’s nice to see stuff like this:



An unnamed accused serial rapist demanded tougher gun control laws from his hospital bed in suburban Philadelphia earlier today, just hours after being admitted by police for a gun shot wound incurred while attempting to assault a local woman. Lawyers for the alleged rapist charged their client was “the real victim of this assault,” and warned that easy access to legal firearms was “[Making] committing a rape or other violent crime nearly impossible in many suburban areas.”


“She shot me in the privates,” bemoaned the wounded accused. “I was just trying to hold her down so I could have my way with her without her consent, and she just shoots me in the privates! How and I ever going to commit a rape again?”


In addition to a complete ban on private gun ownership, the accused lawyers demanded an investigation into hate crimes allegations against the shooter who, allegedly, uttered disparaging comments toward her attacker of a racially insensitive nature, and unfairly questioned his sexual orientation during the attempted assault. “Some guy’s trying to rape her, and she attacks his sexual orientation? What more proof do you need that she’s dangerous and insane,” asked the lawyer.


There is quite a bit more. The writer pokes fun at the police and anti-gun activists too.

Someone else must have written the subtitle

Posted on by

I find this very odd. The subtitle is, “The Brady Campaign is doing all it can to ensure the safety of restaurant patrons.” But the text of the article says things I could have written:

If Peet’s Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen can deny us service for expressing our Second Amendment rights, where does it end? Will they deny us service based on our nationality or sexual preference?

 

DNA sequencing Fe based life forms

Posted on by

One could get snarky with this one and revive the joke about the anti-gun people thinking guns are living things that kill on their own. Apparently some people think guns have their own DNA:

As a countermeasure, Magnus has proposed a plan to trace every weapon recovered on the street using DNA technology available through state and federal agencies. The county’s crime lab does not possess the technology needed for such testing, he said.

Or snark about science hasn’t yet sequenced even one Fe based lifeform yet so it will be a great many more years before the crime lab possesses the technology.

But probably it was just a lazy and/or stupid reporter than didn’t bother to get the story straight. The ones that could have figured it out were probably fired long ago for “holding on to the notion there is an objective reality”.

One of the most significant factors

Posted on by

Sometimes you just have to wonder about their brain functionality. Sure, they are Canadian, but this is really over the top:

While rates of spousal violence and spousal homicide against women have dropped by 15 per cent over the past decade, the report slams the government’s determination to scrap the long gun registry, which it credits as “one of the most significant factors” in reducing violence against women.

Registration of long guns reduced the rate of violence against women? Do they actually believe someone that is going to seriously injury or kill their spouse is going to obey the law about registering their rifle?

Another armed woman

Posted on by

Daughter Kim already has her Concealed Weapons License for Idaho. Yesterday she called me to verify how to get her State of Washington License to Carry Concealed Pistol.

She called back after applying and told me of their new electronic fingerprint scanner.

She should be legal to carry in Washington within 30 days.

Mergers and acquisitions

Posted on by

In tough economic times you frequently see mergers of the less healthy organizations with the more healthy. There are other reasons for mergers but when times are tough it’s a pretty good bet that one or both of the organizations is about to collapse.

It is with this observation as background I’m pleased see the misnamed Freedom State Alliance (one of the most anti-freedom organizations short of the Democratic party I know of) is merging with States United To Prevent Gun Violence.

In real terms what this means is that Scott Vogel is saving some money by not renewing the domain name for FSA.

Quote of the day–Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors

Posted on by

Corruption, extortion, child molestation, assault on officers, embezzling from the poor. That’s just the job description. After hours, it gets nasty.

Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors
From http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/ as of February 23, 2010.
[Via Dave Hardy. Say Uncle also has a post about them. Linoge does some math comparing them to concealed carry permit holders.–Joe]