Category Archives: Gun Rights

What to expect at GRPC

Posted on by

Last night in the chat room for the Gun Nuts Top of the Chain said that he would like to know what to expect at the Gun Rights Policy Conference that he is attending this year. I was a speaker there in 1999 and 2000 and it is quite reasonable to ask that sort of question. The hosts of the show didn’t bring it up on the show and I didn’t have the CPU bandwidth to respond in chat while keeping up with the voice processing at the same time. I intended to address it in my post late last night but I forgot about it. So, better late than never…

The two GRPC events that I went to were about 500 and 700 gun rights activists listening to and networking with other gun rights activists. There were speakers nearly all day long who talked about a variety of subjects (see the links above to the 1999 and 2000 events). Some of the speakers were absolutely awesome. Others were merely good. There were lots and lots of “war stories”. A lot of it could be thought of as After Action Reviews for all the major and many of the minor skirmishes in our battles with the media, legislatures, and the anti-gun organizations.

There were lots of gun books available and many of them were free. Many were scholarly journals on the sociological and legal aspects of gun control. There was some really awesome stuff.

I got to meet and talk with people like Alan Korwin, Neal Knox, a U.S. Congressman (he and I ate lunch alone together), a candidate for U.S. Congress (and became good friends with her), and many lesser known but still incredibly talented people.

Top of the Chain also asked, in my comment section about coming out as a blogger. That’s a little more difficult question because in 1999 and 2000 was before I even knew what a blog was. I didn’t start blogging until February of 2004. I do know the people that put the event on. When I talked to Alan Gottlieb at the NRA Convention last year he said he read my blog and I know they keep a very close watch on what is being said in the major media outlets as well as many of the Internet forums and email lists. I’m certain coming out as a blogger will not be a bad thing in any way. The only thing that could be bad about it would be if the content was offensive in some manner. If the content was racist, homophobic, or advocated illegal violence it would be heavily frowned upon.

What could this mean?

Posted on by

Someone in the U.S. Senate is looking for information on a particular Federal Judge:

Domain Name   senate.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address   156.33.142.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP   U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location  
Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  District of Columbia
City  :  Washington
Lat/Long  :  38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Distance  :  2,071 miles
Language   English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinNT
Browser   Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript   version 1.5
Monitor  

Resolution  :  1680 x 1050
Color Depth  :  32 bits

Time of Visit   Sep 2 2009 12:51:43 pm
Last Page View   Sep 2 2009 12:51:43 pm
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co…nnlain&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Search Engine google.com
Search Words judge oscannlain
Visit Entry Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/04/20/quote-of-the-day-judge-o-scannlain/
Visit Exit Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/04/20/quote-of-the-day-judge-o-scannlain/
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time   Sep 2 2009 3:51:43 pm
Visit Number   585,616

That could mean a number of different things. I really have to wonder on the specific meaning of it on this instance. And did my blog post about Judge O’Scannlain make things better or worse for him?

And it’s a sobering reminder that we sometimes may have a greater influence than we realize.

They’re so PC they are un-PC

Posted on by

Via email from daughter Xenia I found out the University of Idaho where our entire family (and Senator Larry [Wide Stance] Craig and Sarah Palin) went to school won the dubious honor of Speech code of the month:

In the University of Idaho’s residence halls, “Actions and/or communication that are discriminatory, harassing or insensitive are not permitted.” (Emphasis added.) This policy prohibits a staggering amount of constitutionally protected speech. In fact, this policy prohibits precisely the speech that the First Amendment exists to protect, since people typically do not seek to censor sensitive, respectful expression. Moving beyond the legal issues, speech codes like this one infantilize college students by assuming they cannot cope with any sort of offense. Do we really want to teach our students that they are entitled to seek punishment for others’ insensitivity? Perhaps in a small city like Moscow, Idaho, students don’t have to deal with much insensitivity on a daily basis, but should they choose to expand their horizons (say, to Philadelphia, for example), they would encounter plenty. And I think it’s safe to say a Philly cop would have a good, long laugh if you asked him or her to arrest a fellow Philadelphian for hurting your feelings.

They also ban carry of firearms on campus which is a big concern of mine because my daughters (and niece) frequently walk to and from class from home. This means they can’t have the best means of personal protection with them should they need it even though they may legally do so off campus.

Quote of the day–Lyle @ UltiMAK

Posted on by

Mikeb, this is how I read your words; “Aren’t Jews often associated with societal corruption? Wouldn’t that be the thing a judge and jury have to consider? Isn’t that why Jews are prohibited from certain areas in the first place?”

There is no convincing people who have this sort of attitude, or at least it is extremely rare. Our best hope is to demonstrate to them that expressing their bigoted views is going to make them more and more unpopular. They acquired their bigotry through group think, repetition, and associations (the desire to ‘fit in’) and they’ll usually have to be pried away from their bigotry by the same mechanisms. Some will always hold on to their bigotry, but tend more and more to keep it to themselves. If that’s the best we can accomplish in some cases, so be it. I’d rather they respect human rights in all cases, but if that’s impossible, the next best thing is that they be afraid to act on their hatred.

Lyle @UltiMAK
September 1, 2009
Comment to 57 months for a victimless crime.
[I was going to say something similar in the comment thread but Lyle beat me to it and with better depth than I would have given to the troll.–Joe]

I can now carry a concealed handgun in Nebraska

Posted on by

Via email to the WA-CCW and WA-guns lists from Joe Waldron I discovered the Nebraska now recognizes concealed carry permits from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota (class one permit), Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. Does D.C. even have carry permits?

They go on to say that if the holder is 21 or older California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, North Dakota (class 2 permit), and Texas permits are acceptable.

The Apex of the Triangle of Death (NRA-ILA) needs to update their website for Nebraska and D.C.

I don’t think I have ever been in Nebraska and I don’t have any plans to visit in the foreseeable future but if I did I could carry when I went there. I’ll sleep a little better tonight. Not so much because I can now carry in Nebraska but because thousand of other people can and will. That makes them a little bit safer and the anti-gun bigots a little bit more demoralized.

Quote of the day–Robb Allen

Posted on by

Remember, sheep have two speeds – Grazing and stampede.

Robb Allen
September 1, 2009
Having one’s cake and eating it too
[Grass eaters. We are surrounded by them so we have to be careful not to excessively frighten them and cause us to get run over in the stampede. That doesn’t mean we can’t use a little bit of fear to herd them in the proper direction though. In our society the tricky part is coordinating the herding and even finding a suitable direction to herd them.–Joe]

57 months for a victimless crime.

Posted on by

As I’ve said for many years “crime prevention” is a hot button for me.

This type of crap is rather annoying to me:

A Lincoln man will spend close to five years in federal prison for possessing a homemade gun silencer.

On Monday, United States District Judge Richard Kopf sentenced Douglas West to 57 months in prison following his conviction for unlawful possession of a silencer.

West, 50, admitted guilt in May 2009 after being arrested in Lincoln in 2006 with the homemade silencer.

The U.S. Attorney says tests conducted by the ATF laboratories confirmed that the device functioned as a silencer and that it had been used as gunpowder residue was detected inside the device.

A pillow or any number of household items also functions as a sound suppressor. And furthermore in some countries you are required to use a suppressor. Here you are punished if you don’t pay the $200 tax or you try to make your own.

And even using the criteria listed in the article, that it functions as a suppressor and that it had gunpowder residue inside the device, I’ll bet they could meet that standard using my coat sleeve even though I have never fired a gun through it.

Quote of the day–Alan Gura

Posted on by

As Petitioners note, preambles are examined only “[i]f words happen to still be dubious.” Pet. Br. 17 (quotation and citation omitted). “[B]ut when the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, 1 COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 516 (9th ed. 1858). “The preamble can neither limit nor extend the meaning of a statute which is clear. Similarly, it cannot be used to create doubt or uncertainty.” Norman Singer, 2A SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 47.04, at 295 (7th ed. 2007).

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 24, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
[Just a reminder to those bigots that keep insisting the 2nd Amendment only applies to the government having a right to own guns when they want to ignore the 9-0 decision in favor of an individual right in Heller.–Joe]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Posted on by

This post was inspired by this post by Rachel Lucas (H/T to David).

From her post:

The first thing that surprised me about Auschwitz is that it is not as secluded these days as I expected; it is just right there in what seems like the middle of this average small town. It’s just…right there. It is jarring. There’s a busy parking lot about 50 yards from the “front door,” a lot that is filled with buses and cars and noisy tourists. Again. Very jarring.

…

It was the most surreal moment of my life so far. There I was, facing this object I’ve seen in a thousand photographs, something that is attached in my mind to pure abject despair and massive human suffering…and it’s surrounded by happy tourists. It was almost like a Disneyland version of hell, just because of all the serene camera-toting tourists. Of which I was one, I know that, but still. It was nothing short of the worst case of cognitive dissonance I think I’ll ever experience.

…

There was such natural beauty visible to any human standing in the middle of Birkenau that day. It was as if nature was asserting herself over all the despair and ugliness. Look how green I can be, feel this perfect air, listen to this thunder, there is always something good that will come out of something awful.

How will you know when the plane, train or bus you are told by the government to board is headed to “the camp”? The sun will look no different on that day. The clouds won’t have your eulogy written in them. And the nearby buildings will look the same as it did the day and the week before. Will you fuss about your children’s clothes that just got dirty because they rubbed up against the lamp post? Will you worry if you packed enough underwear for your trip? Will you curse under your breath because you forgot to bring sunscreen or an extra jacket?

I will know when it is the government telling me I must get on a plane, train, or bus or report to a particular location. I won’t be worrying about dirt on anyone’s clothes or what I didn’t bring. I’ll be worrying about getting a good sight picture and alternate exit routes.

How will you know whether the medicine the government doctor gives you to ease your pain is in your best interests or the governments best interest? Will the treatment prescribed be for the good of society as a whole or will it be for the good of the individual?

I will know when the doctor gets his paycheck from the government and cannot get a job with similar compensation in the private sector.

How will you know when gays, blacks, Japanese, Muslims, or Jews are in danger of being sent to the camps?

I will know when the government demands that information be put in lists–whether that list is in the form of an ID card or a census. But census data can’t be legally used for 70 years, right? I’ve got news for you. U.S. census data was used to find Japanese citizens and send them them to the “War Relocation Camps” in 1942.

Just because you have never broken the law or injured another doesn’t mean those in power won’t think of you as a terrorist. Are you a gun owner? To some that means you are a potential threat to society. They may think 10% of gun owners “shouldn’t have guns”. But how can they determine which 10%? Just to be safe they have to send them all to the camps, just for a little while until they can sort them out, right? It is for the good of society. The world will be a better place soon. It’s will hurt for just a little bit. Sort of like an inoculation, a little jab and it stings for a few seconds and then everything will be better. It’s only 10%.

How will gun owners know when it’s time to start shooting? The sun will look no different on that day. The clouds won’t have their eulogy written in them…

Quote of the day–Joe Waldron

Posted on by

Most of their money comes from a single source, like Soros, the Joyce Foundation or the Tides Foundation (Maria Theresa Simoes Ferrara Heinz Kerry). Their “membership” is a joke.

Sad as the pro-gun lobby is in terms of membership — maybe six million nationwide out of 70-80 MILLION gun owners (and that double-counts many of us who belong to multiple organizations), we’re way more committed, individually, than the other side. That’s why the Brady Bunch “captured” (actually, co-opted) the name “and the Million Mom March” to give the impression of numbers that don’t exist.

Ditto Seattle’s “crime gun person,” whose huge salary is paid for by a grant from the anti-gun lobby.

Just more elitist SOBs who know better than you do how to run your life. You’re too stupid, so just shut up and do what you’re told, it’s for your own good. You see a lot of that mentality in the current health care debate, as well. The nanny-state crowd.

Joe Waldron
August 30, 2009
Washington CCW email list Subversive Gun Groups Question (membership required)
[How many members does the Brady Campaign have? Oh, that’s right. There isn’t even a way to become a member on their website.

This is reflected in the number of gun blogs as well. I only know of one active anti-gun blog that isn’t a paid position. There are 127 pro gun blogs listed at GunBloggers and that is just a partial listing as I know of some gun blogs that aren’t on that list (although I know there are some inactive blogs on that list as well).

I’ve attended numerous public hearings (such as this one) and public demonstrations. We outnumbered them at least 10 to one each time. Sometimes 100 to one. The rallies for I-676 a while back–we outnumbered them 1000 to one.

If the big money of the special interest anti-gun groups with the cooperation of the mainstream media wasn’t in play it would be game over for them.–Joe]

More information needed

Posted on by

The North Carolina Supreme Court threw out a ban on a convicted felon having a gun.

I’ve read this from two different news outlets and two blogs (Say Uncle and the Confederate Yankee which he links to) but I think it all boils down to a single source which gives me insufficient information to answer the questions I want answered. Therefore I will speculate.

My speculation is that this felon, Barney Britt, had his gun rights restored under Federal law in 1987. North Carolina had no law banning convicted felons from gun ownership so he was able to own guns. Then in 2004 North Carolina passed a law that said convicted felons could not own a gun even if their rights had been restored under Federal law. Now he suddenly, after up to 17 years of legal gun ownership, he was prohibited from owning guns due to no recent fault of his own.

What I want to know is the reasoning of the court. Was it an ex post facto issue? Or was it in someway based on Heller and/or the Second Amendment and/or the North Carolina Constitution provision (in many ways nearly identical to the 2nd Amendment).

If it is an ex post facto issue then it’s not all that newsworthy. If it’s because of a right to keep and bear arms issue then it could much more interesting.

Update: Via Xrlq I have the ruling. The ruling was based on the NC Constitution. Very interesting.

As pointed out by the dissent “the majority has crafted an individualized exception for a sympathetic plaintiff.” But my quick scan of the ruling did not reveal guidelines/tests for other plaintiffs to determine their status other than “his uncontested lifelong nonviolence towards other citizens, his thirty years of lawabiding conduct since his crime, his seventeen years of responsible, lawful firearm possession between 1987 and 2004, and his assiduous and proactive compliance with the 2004 amendment, has affirmatively demonstrated that he is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to public peace and safety.”

I expect the legislature will be amending the law to carve out exceptions or a process by which some felons can have their gun rights restored.

It’s about time

Posted on by

The bigots in New York and New Jersey routinely violate Federal law and arrest gun owners that attempt to check their guns in as baggage on commercial flights.

David Hardy has links to briefs in the lawsuit against them. The facts of the case will probably enrage you:

However, Torraco testified that Sgt. Goldberg’s first question was “Where is your New York license?”. Goldberg testified that he asked if Torraco had a New York permit, to which Torraco explained that under 18 U.S.C. § 926A, he did not need one.

Torraco urged Goldberg to call the state prosecutor or other person who would know about § 926A. Goldberg “told me federal law does not apply in the State of New York. He told me very condescendingly that he ain’t calling nobody and that I was in his jurisdiction.”

…

Defendant Officer Robert Paulsen arrived at the scene and requested, and was shown, Winstanley’s permits for the firearms and driver’s license. He asked Winstanley if he had an Arizona permit. Winstanley responded that he did not need a permit to carry a weapon openly in Arizona, but that he did have a Florida permit, which permitted him to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona. Paulsen disagreed, although he later testified that he was only trained in New York and New Jersey state law. Winstanley asked to speak to Paulsen’s supervisor. Paulsen told Winstanley that if he persisted in asking to speak to a supervisor, he would place him under arrest.

“Federal law does not apply in the State of New York” and “I was his jurisdiction”. What if this was some big-bellied sheriff in Mississippi or Alabama saying that to a black guy and his wife peacefully going about their business?

I did note with some satisfaction the lawsuit “seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of the laws, statute, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the State of New York, of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and by Acts of Congress.” And that it is against the following organizations and individuals:

PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; KENNETH J. RINGLER, JR., Executive Director, Port Authority of NY & NJ; PORT AUTHORITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; SAMUEL J. PLUMERI, JR., Director of Public Safety/Superintendent of Police, Port Authority Police Department; CHRISTOPHER TRUCILLO, Chief, Port Authority Police Department; Port Authority Police SERGEANT GOLDBERG; Port Authority Police Officer ANTHONY ESPINAL (shield # 2134); Port Authority Police Officer PAULSEN (shield # 2306); Port Authority Police Officer, unknown at present (shield #1400); Port Authority Police LIEUTENANT, unknown at present (Lieutenant John Doe IV); Port Authority Police SERGEANT, unknown at present (Jane Doe I); Port Authority Police Officer, unknown at present (John Doe I); Port Authority Police Officer, unknown at present (John Doe II); and Port Authority Police Officer, unknown at present (John Doe III)

Until the individual bigots involved start having to pay a price this sort of thing will not stop. Maybe this time they will get slapped down by the courts rather than merely having the charges against the gun owners dropped as is usual in these cases.

Even so, it is my intent to not set foot in New Jersey unless I can buy hunting tags for New Jersey law enforcement and politicians.

Senator Kennedy is dead

Posted on by

Senator Ted Kennedy died yesterday.

Posts from gun bloggers on this topic:

Kennedy was a vehement foe of gun owners. I gave him a little slack because two of his brothers were murdered by people with guns. But he used that all up, and more, with his treatment of women in general and Kopechne in particular.

Update: More gun bloggers have something to say:

Quote of the day–Jim Kessler

Posted on by

There is no constitutional right to carry a firearm. This is not even close on the constitutional scale — I have a right to carry a firearm wherever I go — it’s just not.

Jim Kessler
Of Third Way
August 25, 2009
Guns near Obama fuel ‘open-carry’ debate
[This is what I (and others, I forget where I originally saw it) call “Proof by vigorous assertion”. It is most frequently used by two-year olds and in most cases is out-grown by age four. Mr. Kessler’s development was apparently retarded.

The article claims Third Way is “the successor organization to the gun-control group Americans for Gun Safety” (see also the Wikipedia entry). It’s nice that someone in the MSM (in this case MSNBC) is finally admitting AGS was anti-gun rather than an organization that intended to “promote responsible gun ownership”. It’s also interesting that if you go to the AGS Foundation website (http://www.agsfoundation.com/) you are redirected to Third Way and a pop-up informs you:

For current gun safety data and other information, we recommend the American Hunters and Shooters Association, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

For someone to simultaneously recommended AHSA with the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations tells you all you need to know about AHSA–unless you wanted to know how many members this “national grassroots organization has”. According to their Wikipedia entry, in 2005, it was less than 150.–Joe]

More evidence of gene sharing

Posted on by

A couple weeks ago I wrote about evidence that niece Lisa shared genes with me.

Today she applied for a concealed weapons permit.

Which reminds me. I never mentioned that at the last Boomershoot daughter Kim was stopped by the police while driving to Orofino. I think it was a headlight that was out…

Anyway, the police officer said nice things to Kim about having a concealed weapons permit.

I’m so proud of both of them.

Quote of the day–Mary King

Posted on by

[The County should not] provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.

Mary King
July 20, 1999
Attributed to an Alameda County Press Release in plaintiff’s brief.
[Reading the brief was enlighting to me. The case isn’t really about a misguided attempt in “preventing crime” or accidental shootings. The county even admits that isn’t the reason. It’s about bigotry and deliberate repression of free expression. This gives me hope that the 9th circuit giving the case another look might not be about throwing out the 2nd Amendment incorporation finding.–Joe]

How many guns are there in this country?

Posted on by

You’ve heard the 200 million guns in this country before, right? The anti-gun people fainted and after they woke up they told anyone that would listen there was approaching almost one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. We of course were concerned as well because that meant some of us weren’t doing our part and buying enough guns to arm all the neighbors in case of a Zombie attack.

Alan points out that maybe the numbers were actually understated:

The lamestream media has been claiming for years and years there are about 200 million guns in America. With about 100 million sold in just the past decade, even the brain dead can tell the media is just parroting a number without doing any research. At the very least, they should up the numbers from time to time, no?

If I recall correctly the 200 million number is an estimate at least partially based on survey results. If so then people are going to under report the number of guns in their homes.

That would explain 100 million sold in the past decade when the destruction, loss, confiscation rate is certainly going to be far, far below that.

I’m feeling better now. When the Zombies attack I want a gun and a back up gun with lots of ammo available for everyone. It appears we have almost enough guns now and we can start stocking up on the ammo now.

Black man with a gun

Posted on by

Alan Korwin has a really good post about the guy with the AR-15 in Arizona. As Alan lives in the area he knows a little more about the guy than the rest of us.

I just love the media interactions Alan had after the event:

Chicago’s WGN couldn’t believe we have the right to keep and bear arms out here. I had to tell them most places have RKBA, a surprise to them in their little cloister. “Do people shoot each other on the streets a lot?” They actually asked that. These folks aren’t in a bubble, they’re in a vacuum, they get nothing. “With your new guns-in-bars law, which has created quite a commotion here in Chicago, are there shootouts in bars?” I’m not making this up.

…

A Chicago caller to the show asks, “Well do you carry your golf clubs or exercise equipment into a restaurant?” This imbecile actually thinks he’s making sense. Gun ignorance has so blinded him, this is how he uses his 30 seconds of fame. I tell him of course I don’t. So he concludes, “See, you’re full of baloney,” and hangs up. He’s not even thinking rationally, and is convinced he’s right. Does he even know what the shooting sports are? I don’t think so.

WGN mentions that in Chicago, NYC, and DC, where the major news orgs are based, this black-man-with-a-black-gun thing strikes them as stunning. Coincidentally these three cities are among the most repressive civil rights deniers in the nation — and they have the gun-crime records to show for it. Guns are virtually banned for the innocent, yet armed criminals run around at will. But they cannot connect the dots.

So let me ask them. “Why aren’t the people who stole your rights arrested?”

Don’t mess with gunnies

Posted on by

Seattle Mayor Nickels is not only one of Bloomberg’s mayors against guns but is very active on his own. He believes he is above the state preemption law on firearms. He even hinted he believe his city should be considered as a state it in the meeting with him at work that I attended. After he answered my question he went on to say the population of Seattle was just as large as entire states were at the time the colonies became a nation and as such justification to be able to make laws just as freely as a state made sense. And beyond that he said he would ban guns from city property, including parks and other public areas, by executive order. When gun rights groups referred to him as wanting to be a king they were right.

His Majesty got a taste of reality in the primary election last week with some help from Seattle gun owners:

Seattle gun owners can take much credit for the ouster of anti-gun Mayor Greg Nickels in this week’s primary election, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said this morning following what amounted to a concession speech at his press conference.

Nickels came in third in the city’s “Top Two” primary, signaling that voters in Seattle were fed up with his bully pulpit style, and perhaps more than anything, his arrogance, said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. No single episode has better underscored that haughtiness than the mayor’s open defiance of Washington State law that denied him the authority to set up the city’s own restrictive gun laws.

“When the mayor announced last year that he would ban legally-carried firearms from city property when he knew it would be contrary to the state’s preemption statute,” Gottlieb recalled, “it made tens of thousands of Seattle gun owners furious. Nickels insulted their intelligence by promising to ban guns by executive order, which is the height of municipal contempt for the rights of citizens under the state Constitution. He literally threw away their votes.”

CCRKBA Projects Director Thomas McKiddie, a West Seattle resident, said he and his gun-owning fellow Seattleites had simply had enough of the mayor’s condescension toward their rights to be safe on city streets, in parks and on other public property.

“I don’t know a single gun owner in Seattle who voted for Nickels,” McKiddie said. “After he threatened an executive order, he lost the nerve to actually issue one because he knew he would lose that fight in court. Instead, he included gun prohibitions in use contracts for the Seattle Center and other venues. He knew a citywide ban would be unenforceable, and his ouster demonstrates that Seattle gun owners were having none of it.”

“We hope this sends a signal to Nickels’ successor,” Gottlieb observed, “that stirring the wrath of gun owners is a mistake. This week’s primary result in Seattle should stand as a warning to other mayors who signed on with New York’s Michael Bloomberg to trample the firearms rights of their constituents.

“Mayors are not monarchs,” Gottlieb concluded. “They are not above the law. Greg Nickels is going to have a long time to think about that, as he watches this election season from the sidelines.”

As near as I can tell from the other candidates websites here and here guns weren’t an issue in the campaign. My guess is they don’t want them to be an issue either. If they say nothing more about them that would be fine with me.

SAF joins Firearms Freedom Act lawsuit

Posted on by

The Second Amendment Foundation announced today they have joined the Montana Shooting Sports Association in suing the Federal government to stop enforcing gun laws against guns and ammo that stays entirely within the state of Montana.

The article in the Missoulian elaborates:

That the guns and ammo not be used outside Montana is important, Gottlieb said. So far, the federal government has justified federal control over guns by citing the “interstate commerce clause,” which states that the federal government can regulate commerce between the states.

But if a gun will not be leaving Montana, there is no “interstate commerce” and the federal government has no standing to enforce its laws, Gottlieb said.

Marbut said he’ll planning to file suit in Montana federal court the day the law goes into effect. He said he’s received letters from Montanans interested in making their own guns, but who aren’t sure the new law will protect them from federal prison time.

This makes perfect sense to anyone that hasn’t read the Federal case law that came out of the 1930s (and since). But after hearing about the case law in which a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own use was found to be engaging in Interstate commerce you realize we have a much higher hurdle to clear with this sort of lawsuit. That one case was just the beginning. There have been thousands of cases and laws built upon that one finding. How can a gun rights case find a niche in that “wall”?

Everyone I have talked to about this thinks the Firearms Freedom Acts (Montana and Tennessee so far) are only good for entertainment value. But SAF throwing it’s weight behind this causes me some doubt. Sure, it makes great copy for fundraising. But so would a lot of other gun lawsuits that are lost causes. I’ve had a lot of “behind the scenes” conversations with the SAF people over the years and while I acknowledge fundraising is one of their objectives I know they are smart enough to not back a completely lost cause. Winning lawsuits is far better for fundraising than losing a case no matter how noble a cause.

Perhaps my email to Gottlieb’s and my Senator, Patty Murray, convinced her to pull a few strings on her end in Washington as well.