Category Archives: Gun Rights

Air gun control

Posted on by

Registration then confiscation. She barely conceals her agenda:

She added she would like to see a step-by-step programme involving all sales and transfers of air guns to be registered initially.

“After that there should be an amnesty when people can hand in air weapons that are not registered. After that we need to carry out universal registration with campaigns making it clear that air guns are not toys, they are lethal weapons that can kill.”

Don’t just laugh and poke fun at “where Great Britain used to be”. Remember that in Seattle you can go to jail for having a slingshot in your pocket even though you are legally carrying a .45 on your hip. The bigots will encroach on our rights in any way they can.

Quote of the day–Marko Kloos

Posted on by

Once again we see that a “no” tends to be far more effective against rapists, thieves, and other freelance thugs when it is spoken over the sights of a firearm.

Marko Kloos
you go, girl.
September 29, 2009
[Which, of course, reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by John Fogh.

H/T to Say Uncle.–Joe]

Mom logic isn’t

Posted on by

Do they think we won’t catch them and rub their noses in their attempted deception? Or are they so stupid that they can’t read the actual numbers? And they have the tag line “Real Stories. Real Honest. Real Moms”.

The lady doth insist too much, methinks.

Here are the scare quotes:

More than 500 children die annually from accidental gunshots. Some shoot themselves, while others kill friends or siblings after discovering a gun.

Here are more scary stats: Americans own 200 million firearms, and 35 percent of homes contain at least one gun. Last year, a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found more than 1.7 million children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns.

The problem is that according to the CDC we have this data (2006 is the most recent I found–see table 10):

Cause of death (based on ICD, 2004) All ages Under 1 year 1-4 years 5-14 years 15-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65-74 years 75-84 years 85 years and over
Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34) 642 – 13 41 193 113 74 84 49 33 34 8

So in order to arrive at “more than 500 children die annually” you would have to include “children” as old as 54 years old. Sure a lot of people want the government to treat people as children even at this age but it’s lying to actually include them in your children totals.

The real number is 54 children per year instead of “more than 500”. They are only off by a factor of 10.

So, assuming their 1.7 million number is right then the odds of one of those children in homes with loaded and unlocked guns accidentally being killed with a firearm is 54/1,700,000 or 1 in 31,481 (0.0032%) per year.

Gee… I wonder if they have an agenda. If they don’t then why do they inflate the numbers by a factor of 10? Crap for brains and/or the truth is just too inconvenient for them? You decide.

Quote of the day–Danville Editorial Board

Posted on by

While the president hasn’t proposed any specific gun control legislation, it’s also true that if every statement he’s ever made, every bill he’s ever supported and every position he’s ever taken during his entire political career were taken as a whole and proposed as legislation — which is not being done — then the gun owners would have something to fear.

But that’s not happening, for a couple of reasons. The Democrats have focused their attention on the economy. Also, Obama has moderated his views on these issues over the years. As a lawyer by training, he appears to understand the Second Amendment’s place in law, not as something to pay lip service to, but as one of the fundamental rights all Americans enjoy.

Danville Editorial Board
September 28, 2009
Worst kind of economic stimulus
[I agree President Obama has not been on the offense against gun owners since he took office. But before believing he has moderated his views on these issues I’m going to need some proof. Directing the DOJ to arrest and prosecute Federal, State, and local officials for violation of 18 USC 242 in regards to infringement of the 2nd Amendment would be a good start. Instead his cabinet is filled with people opposed to allowing citizens to exercise a specific enumerated right. I keep expecting him to “turn the dogs loose” on us.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Wayne LaPierre

Posted on by

The Second Amendment is a constitutional right, not a carnival ride. How could the right to keep and bear arms ever be exercised in Rachel Maddow’s world, a world in which “keeping” arms wouldn’t be allowed? Would Ms. Maddow also like to see a world in which the First Amendment could only be exercised under the bright lights of a television studio? I suppose since she has her own show, she might not object to that either.

Wayne LaPierre
NRA Executive Director
September 24, 2009
[This tends to be an all too common theme–the constitution only applies if it doesn’t get in the way what someone wants the government to do. That’s not the way it is supposed to work and in fact things get really screwed up when this is the mode of operation.–Joe]

I wonder what tomorrow will bring

Posted on by

Bitter and Sebastian are teasing us on Twitter:

bitterb Oh wow. I just did a little Googling and found a pretty sizeable story on MAIG. Wait until tomorrow kiddies…

SebastianSH Sometimes in politics, the prairie dog sticks his head out of the hole and presents an easy shot. Tomorrow we eat prairie dog stew!

I’m looking forward to it. I expect it will appear here.

Update: It’s out, “That’s right, Nacheman admitted that in his position with MAIG, he also represents the Brady Bunch and that they both seek to accomplish the same agenda.”

Nordyke v. King en banc went well

Posted on by

Reports are coming in that it went well in California this morning.

David Hardy has some news but the good stuff is here (I cherry picked the mini-posts):

Why can’t we assume without deciding that the second amendment is incorporated? What would change? Alameda still floundering.

Why isn’t this a summary judgement case? Apparently since guns aren’t posessed at a gun show for self defense then Heller doesn’t apply… Weird.

Alameda has serious foot in mouth. Just agreed that only dimwitted judges would not accept incorporation arguments.

Alameda says Heller does not guarantee guns! Judge is dragging her through the mud.

What if fairground isn’t a sensitive place? Then we would have to declare ordinance null (judge question and statement) What is sensitive about a fairgrounds? Is every government property a sensitive place? Schools and govt buildings. Invitees who don’t know eachother, thus it is a sensitive place. Gun shows cause liability problems, look at fairground shooting that caused 11 liability lawsuits.

Oh no, we had one shooting at the fairgrounds! 11 people, 4 of them children! What about shootings in office buildings? Gun show was not in place when the shooting happened. Gun shows in conjunction with other events did not cause problems. Open carry us allowed! Metal detectors to detect illegal concealed firearms. County has no problem with firearms carried for self defense. Alameda is screwed!

Alameda GETTING HAMMERED! Legislature can ban guns tomorrow based on her antiquated case law.

Update: Via Dave Hardy I find we now have audio of the proceedings.

Update2: Also via Dave Hardy we have a decision (sort of).

Nine billion rounds isn’t that much

Posted on by

I’m trying to do my part to stimulate the economy by upping the number of rounds I’m putting down range each month and getting new shooters to the range. I figure we just about have to do it. The ammo factories hired new people and if we don’t keep buying the ammo they will get laid off, right?

Here’s the background story:

Bullet-makers are working around the clock, seven days a week, and still can’t keep up with the nation’s demand for ammunition.

…

“We are working overtime and still can’t keep up with the demand,” said Al Russo, spokesman for North Carolina-based Remington Arms Company, which makes bullets for rifles, handguns and shotguns. “We’ve had to add a fourth shift and go 24-7. It’s a phenomenon that I have not seen before in my 30 years in the business.”

Americans usually buy about 7 billion rounds of ammunition a year, according to the National Rifle Association. In the past year, that figure has jumped to about 9 billion rounds, said NRA spokeswoman Vickie Cieplak.

Nine billion rounds in one year with about 80 million gun owners in the U.S. works out to about only about 112 rounds per gun owner. I went through that many rounds both last night and the night before. I’ll go through probably another 200 rounds tonight and then another 150 on Sunday. What the heck is going on here? I’m figure I’m just doing my civic duty here and it turns out I’m doing the job of about 100 other people as well.

If every gun owner were going through just 100 rounds a month that would be nearly 100 billion rounds a year. That is a way to stimulate the economy and have something to show for it afterward–an armed and well practiced citizenry and respectful politicians.

Benefits of gun registration

Posted on by

Two views.

A sheriff:

Many gun owners spend a lot of time polishing their weapons, stocking ammunition – whether for hunting or home protection – and logging target practice hours.

But if their guns were lost or stolen, many of those people would have a hard time getting them back for one minor reason: They have no record of the weapons’ serial numbers.

Lincoln County Sheriff Steve Rushing said registering a weapon with the county can be a good way to log the gun’s identification for future reference.

“It’s a great way to keep up with the serial number,” Rushing said. “When people get them stolen or lost and don’t have them, we can enter them on (the National Crime Information Center) and everywhere else as stolen. It’s a good proactive way to keep up with your guns.”

I prefer an encrypted file on a CD buried somewhere in Idaho to accomplish the same task. But that’s just me.

Robb Allen has another demonstration of the benefits.

New shooter report

Posted on by

As I said yesterday I had arranged to take a new shooter to the range this evening.

She was a little nervous and at first you could even see her hands shake when she loaded the magazine of the Ruger Mark II. When she did some dry fire exercises I could see the gun shake as well. It wasn’t all nervousness though. She has very slender arms and the longer she held the gun out at arms length the more it shook and the more she bent her elbows.

Still, when she fired her first shots at about 10 feet away they were all “in the black”:

After several ordinary targets I put up a slightly used USPSA target and said, “This is a bad guy.” Here is the A-zone. Keep all your shots in the A-zone while shooting as fast as you can.

She had some problems. Many of the shots were going way low. I moved the target in very close about two feet from the muzzle and told her to point and shoot as fast as she could–the bad guy was very close. She shot fast and all the bullets were A-zone hits.

She wanted the target further away so gave her another slightly used USPSA target and she moved it to about 15 feet away and opened fire:

This time nearly all the shots were solid A-zone hits and she had a big smile on her face (Update: she didn’t like any of the pictures of her face so that photo has been removed).

I showed her my Gun Blog 45, hollow point bullets, FMJ bullets, and emptied a couple magazines. One at slow speed with maximum accuracy and one as fast as I could shoot and keep them on target. She declined to shoot the .45.

I showed her a S&W .22 revolver and let her shoot that. She much preferred the semi-auto pistol.

We had a long talk about self-defense and “who needs a gun”. She explained that in India it is very difficult to get a gun and very few people have them. Here many people have them and people use them to hurt other people. Why is it that people can get a gun so easily here?

I told her it was a choice everyone needs to make for themselves. She lives across the street from work and goes to work and gets off during daylight hours. It is in a nice part of town. She has no abusive ex-boyfriends. Other people may go to work or get off work very late at night in a very bad part of town. Everyone needs to make their own decisions. I told her of one of my first students who was a very petite middle-aged woman who told me she was a judge and some of her “customers” were very unhappy with her decisions. She had seen some of these people watch her as she left the courthouse. She had never considered owning a gun before let alone carry one when she went to/from work or when she went to the store. She sometimes traveled on her job and would spend the night alone in a motel many miles from home. She and her husband decided she needed to have a concealed carry permit, a gun, and training. She bought a gun and I taught her to use it defensively. The sheriff issued her a permit and she now carries the gun. I think she made the right decision. I told her of the person searching for “what means of self defence will you use as a woman when you are been raped by a man” who found my blog. And I told her of John Fogh’s advice for such a situation.

I told her of my Just One Question and what the numbers were on criminal use, defensive use, and suicide. I told her how a gun made it possible for a weak 85 year-old woman to defend herself against a large young man.

She said she had a wonderful time and I dropped her off at her apartment–she took all the targets with her.

Quote of the day–Priyanka

Posted on by

I never imagined I would even just hold a gun in my hands.

Priyanka
September 22, 2009
[Priyanka is from India. She is my mentee at work and now at the range.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Michael Beard

Posted on by

On the evening of September 9, President Barack Obama was at the U.S. Capitol preparing to address a joint session of Congress on the subject of health care reform. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Joshua Bowman, 28, of Falls Church, Virginia, attempted to drive his Honda Civic into a secure area near the Capitol. U.S. Capitol Police stopped him and, searching his car, found a rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition. Bowman was arrested on the spot and charged with two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. An Associated Press article noted that “Bowman’s intentions were unclear.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has stated that they have decided against prosecuting Bowman on more serious charges. It is difficult to imagine, however, what legitimate reason there might have been for bringing that kind of firepower to the Capitol when so many important elected officials were gathered in one place.

…

How many other individuals carrying guns at political events (either openly or concealed) have disturbing criminal histories? And why is the media already losing interest in what should be headline news?

Michael Beard
September 12, 2009
Gunning for the President
[First of all there wasn’t anyone “gunning for the President”. The guy accidentally drove across a political boundary which made his firearm possession a crime. Law enforcement investigated and decided not to prosecute. It’s no different than if a black person had stepped into a “whites only” restaurant in the deep south 60 years ago and quickly apologized and tried to leave. Prosecutors gave him a pass because he was trying to play by the rules and got tripped up by a law that shouldn’t have existed to begin with and through no intentional fault of his own.

“Disturbing criminal histories”? If the legislature had wanted to make drunk driving, disorderly conduct, or urination in public grounds to loose your right to keep and bear arms they should have gotten the votes to pass such a law and defend it in court. Until they do Mr. Beard can be as “disturbed” as he wants to be and I don’t care. We are a supposedly a nation of laws not beholding to how “disturbed” he is.

I suspect the thing that disturbs Mr. Beard the most is the media is losing interest in making headlines of someone obeying the law. That’s not “news”. And I have to say, it’s about fricking time.–Joe]

Cell phones versus guns

Posted on by

On my last trip to Idaho from the Seattle area got caught up on the Gun Nuts Radio podcasts. I think it was Breda that said in one of them that she didn’t see what the big deal was with carrying a gun. She asked (IIRC), “Why should it be any different than carrying a cell phone or flashlight on your belt?”

Good question. I shoot probably 10,000 rounds a year but I don’t participate in anywhere near that many phone calls or turn on the flashlight (I carry all three on my belt most of the time). By some measures it could be said that I use my gun far more than my cell phone.

Americans buy between five and nine billion rounds of ammunition each year yet there are only about 10,000 murders and 700 accidental deaths by gunshot each year. Something on the order of 0.0002% of those rounds of ammo result in the illegal death of someone. I wonder what the percentage of telephone calls are involved in illegal activity? My bet is that even if you were to use “criminal use of ammunition” the rate of phone call crime is much higher than for ammunition as well. And the ammunition death rate versus the involvement of cars in accidental deaths makes cars look like a guaranteed death sentence. Yet there are very few people trying to ban cars.

And another thing… why do we have enhanced sentencing for crimes involving a gun but not enhanced sentencing for crimes involving cell phones or cars? Isn’t it unconstitutional to have enhanced sentences for blacks and Jews? So why enhanced sentences for gun owners?

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

This must be Greg Nickels’ desperate parting shot at gun owners who worked hard to make sure that he not survive the primary election last month. The proposal is blatantly illegal.

Alan Gottlieb
September 18, 2009
Mayor proposes gun ban at city-park facilities
[I would like to remind, soon to be, ex-mayor Greg Nickels of this post. I wish that Federal prosecutors would file charges for violation of 18 USC 242 the day after the signs go up.

See also Ry’s post and the Second Amendment Foundation news release.

I’m doubling the amount of money I donate to SAF each month through payroll deductions. That money is matched by Microsoft.–Joe]

A change in tactics?

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign Blog has a post up about a gun rights activist and concealed carry permit holder. Basically it outlines what a slimy guy he is.

This is new territory for the Brady Campaign.

With so many of us and so few of them simply by the sheer number of people in the “tails of the bell curve” that we don’t to be our “poster children” this could be somewhat painful for us. It turns out they have a few “skeletons in the closet” as well but there isn’t going to be nearly as many of them.

I don’t think that is an appropriate way to play the game. The political battle should be fought over ideas and data rather than the criminal convictions and/or drinking problems of the messengers. But politics is almost never a clean fight.

For us the lesson to be learned is to make sure people that are going to be getting the attention of the press and/or police are people that can stand up to public scrutiny because the Brady people may now have a policy of making sure our activists get more attention than they expected in manner that is less than endearing to the public.

Another dropout

Posted on by

Bitter and Sebastian (along with the Apex of the Triangle of Death) have been kicking ass and keeping score while going after Bloomberg’s collection of bigots against gun owners.

Here is a letter from another mayor (from Vancouver Washington) to drop out of the group once they realized they had been duped (via WA-CCW email list–Thanks to Dr. Brown for doing the all the work):

Subject: RE: Royce, say it ain’t so!
To: rkba2001@comcast.net

Dr. Brown,

Please see below my letter of resignation from the Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns coalition that I sent last Friday:

Thank you!

I became a member of Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns based on my belief that this group would help in the fight against criminal gun use. After all, who isn’t for making our communities safer by getting illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of the wrong people? After careful consideration and after listening to the concerns of many of my constituents I have come to the conclusion that some of your organization’s statements and actions can be construed as infringing on the rights of legitimate gun owners. Because of this, I request that you remove my name from your web site and from your membership lists.

As a lifetime gun owner and user and as a 27-year veteran of the U.S. Army, I strongly value our constitutional right to bear arms and would never support anything that restricts that right. Please know that while I am withdrawing my membership from your organization, I will continue to work with our local law enforcement officials on the problem of criminals illegally obtaining and using guns to commit crimes.

Sincerely,

ROYCE E. POLLARD
Mayor
America’s Vancouver

I love the headline

Posted on by

The headline reads, “Sen. Murray`s Anti-Gun Bigotry Shows in Amtrak Debate, Says CCRKBA.” The news release goes on to say:

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) is once again demonstrating her disdain for gun
owners and their rights by opposing an amendment to her Amtrak funding
legislation that would allow firearms to be carried in baggage aboard trains,
the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“Patty Murray evidently has a short memory span,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan
Gottlieb. “Has she already forgotten what happened to her friend, Seattle Mayor
Greg Nickels, in the primary because of his extremist anti-gun philosophy?
Surely she knows about Tuesday`s primary election results in New York City,
where anti-gunner Richard Aborn came in last in a three-way race for Manhattan
prosecutor by running on his gun control record.”

Murray is opposing an amendment, added to her Amtrak bill by Sen. Roger Wicker
(R-MS), that would allow train travelers to transport firearms in their luggage,
provided the guns are declared at check-in and they are locked up for transport.
This is no different than flying with firearms, Gottlieb noted, “and people do
that every day.”

“The amendment passed 68-30,” Gottlieb noted, “and Murray`s opposition shows she
is way out of the mainstream on this issue. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid supports the measure. People used to take firearms on trains all the time.
Someone should tell the senator that constitutional rights don`t end at the
Amtrak boarding platform.”

Murray argues that the amendment would be too costly and time-consuming, because
Amtrak would have to create a process for checking and tracking guns.

“That`s a bogus argument,” Gottlieb countered, “and she knows it. The
Transportation Security Administration already has that process down pat. There
is no need to reinvent the wheel. That option has apparently not occurred to
her, or maybe it has and she just can`t get beyond her narrow gun prohibitionist
viewpoint.

“Amtrak has been losing money for years,” Gottlieb concluded. “Maybe it`s
because American gun owners won`t travel with a carrier that treats them like
outcasts. Maybe gun owners will return that sentiment when Murray runs for
re-election next year.”

Although she is considered the one of the “dullest knives in the drawer” (see also here for possible euphemisms) she hasn’t had much trouble getting relected and this vote against gun owners probably won’t be all that detrimental either. But it’s nice to remind her and others that we are not happy with her and if someone else were to be a little more tolerant of diversity we would probably give them our support.

Quote of the day–Milton Friedman

Posted on by

The power to do good is also the power to do harm.

Milton Friedman
[There is also a variation of this attributed to Barry Goldwater (probably false), Thomas Jefferson (probably false), and Gerald Ford (probably correct), “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Regardless of who should get the credit the idea is correct and people advocating for health care involvement by the government need to realize the terrible risk they are advocating we all take by giving the government control of our health. They can “give” but they can, and will, take it away as well.

Similar cases can be made for government involvement in weapons ownership, the banking industry, and just about anything the government was not given specific enumerated powers in the constitution.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Salvor Hardin

Posted on by

An atomic blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways.

Salvor Hardin
[This is as true today as it was in the future. Something both tyrants and “Threepers” should keep in mind.–Joe]

Appeasement?

Posted on by

Dennis Henigan apparently thinks of President Obama as the Neville Chamberlain of the gun issue:

Appeasement.” What word better describes the current attitude of the Obama administration, and many in the Democratic Party, toward the gun lobby?

The word recently was invoked by syndicated columnist Marie Cocco referring to the approach of the White House to the gun issue. “Obama and the Democrats haven’t stared down the gun lobby,” she wrote. “They’ve enabled it.”

Is it a stretch to envision President Obama as the Neville Chamberlain of the gun issue?

There is a major problem with this mindset–It’s total projection.

The people of this country had a “treaty” with the government. On the issue of guns that “treaty” says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It was people like Henigan in the early part of the last century that began violating that treaty in a manner similar to the way Hitler did the Treaty of Versailles. It was the pro-gun people that did the appeasing and playing the role of Chamberlain for the last 70 years. Obama? He’s neither Chamberlain or Churchill. Even though he is politically aligned with Hitler on this issue he isn’t even playing in the game. Perhaps he wishes to avoid Hitler’s fate or that he is more astute than Hitler and realizes the risk of fighting a multi-front war.

Henigan realizes his hoped for “Final Solution” isn’t visible in the political future and is concerned. He goes on to say:

The real problem, of course, is that there is no end to the gun lobby’s demands. The more you feed the beast, the more it will want.

Henigan is also wrong on this point. All we want is for the “treaty” to be honored. “Shall not be infringed” should be clear enough and probably is even to Henigan. But, of course, the plain wording of the “treaty” is unacceptable to Henigan and his ilk just as it was to Hitler.

Let’s just hope President Obama continues to avoid getting draw into war against gun owners. If war breaks out it could get very ugly and we gun owners, as did the Allies in WW II, might not settle for a negoiated peace and demand an unconditional surrender. And if we have to drop a couple “nukes” to win the war the fallout will be unheathy for everyone.

Sebastian and David Hardy have a few thoughts on Henigan’s whine as well.