Category Archives: Gun Rights

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]

Competency tests for gun owners

Posted on by

In South Africa you must apply for a license to own a gun:

…one must pass a written “competency test.” The South African constitution recognizes 11 official languages, but the test is only given in two of them, Afrikaans and English. Imagine if your gun ownership rights depended on passing a written test in a language you could not read!

And people wonder why we resist such things in this country.

It gets worse:

Applicants are not issued licenses if they are deemed to be at risk of becoming violent. As enforced in South Africa, this could simply mean that a person was divorced, separated or fired within the past two years.

Processing of applications is very slow. For example, of the applications submitted in 2006, only about a quarter have been fully processed.

Licenses are valid for two, five or 10 years, depending on the legal category of the license, so keeping a gun can mean staying on a near-constant treadmill of paperwork, fees and uncertainty. The majority of the 2005 applicants, who are supposed to renew in 2010, are still waiting for a decision on their 2005 applications.

Women are particularly hard hit (pun intended):

Married women who want guns for protection are told that their husbands will protect them—as if South African woman should behave like Taliban wives, and never leave the home except with their husbands. People who live in high crime areas are told that the police will protect them—except that the police obviously don’t, as South Africa is one of the most crime-ridden countries in the world.

Of course such high restrictions has created a black market with the attendant crime and corruption. It’s no different than the prohibitions in this country against recreational drugs and alcohol in the last century.

Once we have our rights well secured in this country we should start putting pressure on other countries to recognize the natural right to keep and bear arms.

Search engine ranking for blogs on Brady Campaign

Posted on by

If you do a search of blogs for “Brady Campaign” you get progun posts. Nice!

One of my posts is number one with Bing. Say Uncle has a post with the top honors via Google.

No wonder the Bradys think they are fighting the NRA when it’s really reduced to fighting a bunch of guys in their pajamas. Actually, I don’t have any pajamas. I’m wearing a robe at the moment.

Quote of the day–William B. Hershner

Posted on by

Very few persons qualify for the permit issued by a police chief. The only ones who qualify are persons who carry valuables. We refuse all we can.

William B. Hershner
Lancaster Pennsylvania Police Chief
Feb. 23, 1960
Flashback Lancaster
[A woman that carries cash from her shop to the bank may qualify because of the cash. But the woman with a stalking ex-boyfriend doesn’t qualify. I guess human life doesn’t qualify as “valuable”.

Sort of like 50 years ago when there were literacy tests for voting and blacks were ask to read a newspaper aloud then given newspapers written in Chinese. Things are different now. The literacy tests were abolished but the “May Issue” concealed carry laws with nearly impossible to meet requirements to exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms still exist and are abused by small minded law enforcement officers. We’ve made progress but there is still a lot more to be done. And we have people in D.C. working on securing the right to carry being recognized as inalienable (H/T to Jeff). We will get there. It is just taking us a little longer than it did for “people of color”.–Joe]

Quote of the day–New York Times

Posted on by

Open Carry, which last year invited its members to holster up outside President Obama’s speaking sites, said it would not be deterred. Unfortunately, more than two dozen states also have allowed themselves to be bullied by the gun lobby into adopting similarly dangerous law.

New York Times
February 19, 2010
Who Can Relax This Way?
[The ignorance of these bigots is showing. Or else they consider the Founding Fathers of the nation and the individual states to be “the gun lobby” who bullied the states. Open carry has been legal in most states since before there was a United States. And there is good reason to believe the U.S. Supreme court will someday soon find that the right to carry a gun in public is a specific enumerated right protected by the Second Amendment.

Today is Starbucks Appreciation Day. Have a cup of joe with Joe.

If you are like me and don’t like coffee have a cup of hot chocolate and a pastry or buy a gift card for someone else who does like their products.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Dennis A. Henigan

Posted on by

Opponents of gun control spend an inordinate amount of time and energy in pursuit of the “smoking gun” evidence that advocates of gun restrictions really want to ban all guns, or at least all handguns. With respect to handguns, some gun control organizations are quite open about their goal of ending the sale of handguns to the civilian market entirely.

For the gun control advocate seeking to overcome the slippery slope argument, these groups present a problem. They can be effectively cited as evidence that the ultimate goal of gun restrictions is to ban all guns. But the size and influence of these groups pales in comparison to the largest organization advocating stricter guns laws–the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and, before that, as the National Council to Control Handguns. The Brady Campaign does not support banning all guns, or even all handguns, and says so publicly every time it is asked and often when not asked. I know because I have worked in the Brady organization for most of my professional career. Our position on gun banning was explained to me on my first day on the job, and it has remained the same ever since.

Dennis A. Henigan
Lethal Logic, pages 79 and 80.
[We spend too much time search for the “smoking gun”? And they do not support banning handguns? And their position on gun banning has not changed since his first day on the job (in 1989)?

Okay. We can put an end to that right now. Either Henigan forgot about the brief he signed in support of the D.C. ban in D.C. v. Heller or he doesn’t think the brief is public. And he forgot about this document still on the Brady website where it says on page 57:

The Brady Center is supporting the District of Columbia in defending its longstanding handgun ban…

Or as a final alternative, I suppose it’s possible, Henigan is lying.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Justice Richard B. Sanders

Posted on by

The Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Richard B. Sanders
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
State of Washington v. Christopher William Sieyes
February 18, 2010
[This probably should be the quote of the year. But I’ll I expect similar words will be used in the Chicago gun case.

Still nothing from the Brady Campaign. They must be off in a corner someplace sobbing, drinking Tequila or contemplating that bottle of whiskey and sleeping pills. I’ll give them another slap by adding another chapter to my review of Lethal Logic tomorrow.–Joe]

What is best in life?

Posted on by

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women.

Original version here.

The wall is crumbling and falling

Posted on by

I view this sort of like the Berlin Wall coming down. A friend that visited Berlin a few months after it came down said that 24 x 7 if you were within a 1/4 mile of the wall you could here the “dink, dink, dink” of hammers pounding away at the wall. As you approached you saw hundreds of people of people either with hammers or waiting to pick up one after the person ahead of him or her finished. Everyone was getting a piece of the wall.

In this case Dave Hardy put it as follows:

Defendant was charged with possession of a handgun by a minor. The court, in an extremely thoughtful ruling (citing Joyce Malcolm, Eugene Volokh, William van Alstyne and others) rules that the 14th Amendment due process clause incorporates the right to arms and makes it binding on the States, then remands for a determination as to whether the law passes muster (which was barely briefed). The dissent argues there is no need for remand, because strict scrutiny applies and the law fails that test. The dissent has interesting references to teenager possessing arms, and serving in the military, throughout American history.

The D.C. laws against firearms ownership were struck down and with that crack in the wall more and more of the wall is falling. When McDonald v. Chicago is decided the ground is going to start shaking as that wall of 20,000 oppressive gun laws collapses into a pile of rubble.

Carol Bambery for NRA Board of Directors

Posted on by

I got an email from Dave Hardy:

I just got my ballot issue of the Amer. Rifleman. I’d greatly appreciate if you could mention the candidacy of Carol Bambery, of Michigan, and her webpage at http://www.carolbamberynra.com/. I know you like to quote from her brief in Heller (she filed another in Chicago). There is much to be said for a director who carries twice the committee assignments of the average director, hunts whenever she can, and loves to shoot NFA weapons!

I knew that I had quoted her a few times. I didn’t realize how many until I went looking (10 times).

Quote of the day–Jason Davis

Posted on by

This, at its simplest, is political hate speech towards the community to which Detective Tuason is duty-bound to protect. It is an abhorrent and vile insight into the mindset of one East Palo Alto’s own detectives regarding on-duty activities. It is chilling to contemplate what could happen if Detective Tuason encountered citizens exercising their fundamental civil rights to openly carry in a lawful manner within the City of East Palo Alto, as one Redwood City man did on January 28th. Like the allegations of comrption that left the East Palo Alto Police Department with a tarnished reputation just a few months ago, this vivid and graphic imagery of police misconduct will be hard to dispel.

Jason Davis
The Law Offices of DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
February 12, 2010
Letter to Ronald L. Davis Chief of Police City of East Palo Alto on behalf of The Calguns Foundation, Inc. This was in response to a detective saying “Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night! Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them made a furtive movement…2 weeks off!!”
[Ahhhh … yes. Reminds me of the kind of stuff we used to hear about happening to blacks in the deep south 50 to 100 years ago.

Gun owners are the ni**ers of the 21st Century.

H/T to Rob for the email pointer. I had seen the original quote but not the response of CGF.–Joe]