Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day–Robert V. Thompson

Posted on by

According to the research, gun violence is most likely to occur in those places where guns are more accessible—small towns and rural areas. Given the stats, I can’t help but be grateful that I live in an urban rather rural location. Gun violence is a huge problem in some cities, notably Chicago. But to argue more guns equals more security makes no sense. Taken as a whole, however, gun violence is a greater threat in rural settings.

Robert V. Thompson
August 3, 2009
Guns and the dark side–Gail Collins gets it right
[“No sense”? How about that paragraph? He says gun violence (note that he talks about GUN violence, not violence as a whole) is more likely to occur where guns are more accessible but gun violence is a huge problem in Chicago (unmentioned is Washington D.C.) where guns are banned. He can’t remain coherent for three consecutive sentences.

I’d love to see the research showing violence (not just “gun violence”) is a greater threat in rural settings that in urban settings. I doubt that it is a oversight that he doesn’t mention it. I don’t think it exists.

And even in the article he links to (registration required) Thompson apparently overlooked this sentence or read it completely backward, “In general, homicide gun deaths in the United States are more of an urban than a rural problem.”

As for claiming there is no sense in guns enhancing security perhaps he can convince our police and military to turn in their guns. Would he, or anyone else sharing our reality, think that would make the U.S. a more secure place to live?

Thompson is either living in an alternate reality or has some strange version of dyslexia where facts are reversed by the time they are registered in his brain.–Joe]

Quote of the day–T. Peter Pierce

Posted on by

It’s the county’s position that the panel did not need to reach the issue of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to apply to state and local governments. It’s the county’s hope that that’s what attracted the court’s attention.

T. Peter Pierce
Of Richards, Watson & Gershon
July 30, 2009
9th Circuit Giving Gun Case Another Look
[In other words, “We hope the Second Amendment only applies to people residing in Washington D.C.” If he had said a similar sort of thing about the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth or 13th Amendments he would have been, and justifiably so, told he needed to find new employement as a janitor, santitation engineer, or Chinese target stand. But he didn’t. He was talking about the Second Amendment which is somehow “different”. I wonder why…

There are people on our side of the issue that are quite anxious about what this might mean as well. David Hardy, Sebastian, and Eugene Volokh have a few words to say about it. Oral arguments will occur the week of September 21st and we might get a clue as to the outcome.–Joe]

Credit card woes

Posted on by

After the flap about PayPal being anti-gun I decided to put renewed effort into dumping them for doing Boomershoot and Modern Ballistics credit card transactions then tell them why. The problem was finding a good alternative.

I can’t find the email or comment that recommended them but someone suggested I try a particular bank. It didn’t work out. Here is what their policy says:

NO ADULT SITES OR MATERIAL

The Merchant agrees that CartSquare’s services will only be used for lawful purposes. Furthermore, Merchant agrees not use CartSquare products, online shopping carts, or services provided through or in connection with CartSquare to

…

d. sell, distribute, disseminate or link to any sites for marketing, sales or distribution of: adult materials, firearms, explosives, ammunition, liquor, tobacco products, food that is not packaged or does not comply with all applicable laws for sale to consumers by commercial merchants, pharmaceuticals and controlled substances, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods, any goods or services that infringe or otherwise violate a third party’s rights, registered or unregistered securities, goods or services that (i) you cannot legally sell, (ii) are misrepresented, and/or (iii) if sold via CartSquare or Your Web Site would cause CartSquare to violate any law, statute or regulation;

That’s right. I wouldn’t be able to even link to a site that marketed or sold firearms, explosives, or ammunition. In their minds that is in the same as category as “controlled substances, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods, any goods or services that infringe or otherwise violate a third party rights”.

What about the people that want to exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms?

I wrote them an email asking abou their policy:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 8:25 AM
To: ‘support@nmbancard.com’
Subject: Question about agreement terms.

In the terms of agreement (https://www.cartsquare.net/administration/uplinks.php3 ) I found the following:

Furthermore, Merchant agrees not use CartSquare products, online shopping carts, or services provided through or in connection with CartSquare to

…

d. sell, distribute, disseminate or link to any sites for marketing, sales or distribution of: adult materials, firearms, explosives, ammunition, liquor, tobacco products, food that is not packaged or does not comply with all applicable laws for sale to consumers by commercial merchants, pharmaceuticals and controlled substances, counterfeit, pirated or stolen goods, any goods or services that infringe or otherwise violate a third party’s rights, registered or unregistered securities, goods or services that (i) you cannot legally sell, (ii) are misrepresented, and/or (iii) if sold via CartSquare or Your Web Site would cause CartSquare to violate any law, statute or regulation;

My business is a long range precision rifle event with explosives as the targets (http://www.boomershoot.org/). I have an ATF license to manufacture high explosives. I could, but do not, legally sell explosives. I sell people the opportunity to shoot at the explosives I make. I do link to firearms, ammunition, and explosives vendors who legally sell their products. Do you consider this a violation of your agreement?

If so then I will have to find a different bankcard vendor who is more tolerant of people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Please let me know.

Joe Huffman
208-301-4254
—–
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
http://www.boomershoot.org/
http://www.modernballistics.com/

Their reply:

From: Merchant Support
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:28 PM
To: joeh@boomershoot.org
Subject: Your Merchant Account Application

Hello Joe Huffman,

According to Visa/MasterCard, your business is considered a High Risk Business  After reviewing your application we can not continue processing your application through Cardservice International.   However, we have found you another company that can approve your application.  Please click on this link below or copy and paste the link into your browser exactly how you see it to qualify for our special offer.
http://www.durangomerchantservices.com/Applications/apply_for_free.php?agentid=rwolf@ecommercemg.com
The rates are slightly different, however this could be the solution that you are looking for.

Thank you,

Merchant Account Support
support@merchantlane.com
Phone: 1-866-295-5264

Merchant accounts have fees that typically are on the order of $50/month whether you have any business or not. Boomershoot has essentially zero sales 11 months out of the year and Modern Ballistics is shareware and only gets a donation about once every couple of months. Plus the contract terms typically demand third party audits and intrusions rivaling that of a colonoscopy (been there, done that, don’t want to do it again).

Chet, a friend from work, suggested I look at Amazon’s Simple Pay.

It looks as if my businesses just skate by their acceptable use policies but not my friends selling ammunition or a gun raffle for charity (although this might work for charities):

Prohibited Items and Activities:

…

  • Firearms and Weapons – includes ammunition, guns, rifles, shotguns, pistols, other firearms, knives (automatic, spring-loaded knives, throwing, etc.), brass knuckles, or other weapons.
  • Gambling Businesses – includes online gambling (including poker), lotteries (including sale of lottery tickets), games of chance (including sweepstakes and raffles), sports forecasting, or odds-making.

Chet also suggested Yahoo! but from what I could tell they require PayPal, a Merchant account, or $40/month whether you have any sales or not.

I’m going to spend some more time on the Amazon site and maybe convert over to them from PayPal.

Quote of the day–thinkagain2

Posted on by

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

I think that’s a good argument for keeping people away from guns. The two just do not mix well.

thinkagain2
July 31, 2009
Comment to Taking Gun Laws Seriously.
[I’m of the opinion “thinkagain2” is unable of thinking or making a good argument.

His, or her, thesis overlooks the possibility that some people need to be killed. Those men herding the naked women and children to the trenches prior to being shot… they needed to be killed. Right then and there. Keeping guns away from the people that needed them enabled evil.

It also overlooks that guns are used to stop violent attacks on innocent people–most of the time without anyone getting killed.

And just who is going to keep people away from guns? I’m betting it will be other people with guns.

No thanks. In addition to having a serious logic flaw that would violate my Jews in the Attic Test.–Joe]

Data is a good thing

Posted on by

Linoge put a lot of work into showing the data with a pretty picture. I would like to think our opposition is able to read and understand raw numbers but time has shown even though I think they are mentally ill bigots with crap for brains I have far too high of an opinion of their skill set. So if your opposition needs to see a picture to understand what you are saying Linoge has it.

Data is always a good thing. Presenting it so it is understandable on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it is even better.

Fearsome firearms or crap for brains?

Posted on by

I don’t really know where to begin on this mess. They messed their pants so badly even hip waders couldn’t hold it all. This is not reporting. This isn’t even editorializing. They don’t check their facts and I have doubts if they even know how to recognize a fact. It’s the rantings of people with severe mental problems. It starts with the title “Brazen weapon fire chills police“. It doesn’t let up for an instant:

The gang shoot-out that rained gunfire and smoke on a quiet Dorchester street this week disturbed police on many levels: the seemingly new height in disregard for neighborhood safety, the fact that a 12-year-old girl watching TV inside a nearby house was shot through the leg.

Since when do gangs have any regard for “neighborhood safety”? Do they expect them to meet at a gun range to have their shoot-out? Gangs, in the common usage of the word, are criminals. Do they think criminals care about memorizing and following the gun safety rules that the rest of us do?

But even more alarming: At least one of the weapons used in the gunfire was an AK-47 assault rifle, the fourth time in three weeks that one had been found or used in Boston and the seventh time since last July, when a 32-year-old man was shot dead with one.

Police say they are noticing more of the fearsome firearms on Boston streets than last year and, in particular, are concerned that there have been so many in the past three weeks. Tomorrow afternoon, Mayor Thomas M. Menino will meet with ministers in Roxbury to discuss crime in the city and the sudden proliferation of the rifles.

But more alarming than there are criminals among us is that there are “fearsome firearms on Boston streets”. Well then, why doesn’t someone go out there and pick them up and take them home? Oh, that’s right. That’s not what they meant. They meant criminals are using the firearms on the streets. And, I say this having not lost a single bet in the last 35 years, I’m willing to bet than none of those rifles were actually assault rifles. They are intentionally using words to inflame emotions.

“This [weapon] can lay down a lot of fire in an urban area where there is basically no cover from it,’’ Commissioner Edward F. Davis said yesterday. “You can conceal yourself from these weapons, but they’ll rip through a car. They’ll rip through a telephone pole. They can rip through just about anything in an urban environment.’’

What he doesn’t say is that common hunting rifles such as a 30.06 have far greater penetration than these rifles.

“Everybody understands when they read the morning paper that you have to push as much as you can to get these guns off the street,’’ he said.

Only those that believe the morning paper. And this article is a very illustrative example of why more and more people don’t believe the “morning paper”.

Nine assault rifles have been confiscated so far this year, compared with four seized in 2008. Eighteen assault rifles were found in 2007.

Want to bet?

But police worry about the attractiveness of assault rifles to gangs. AK-47s are much more powerful than handguns, capable of firing at least 100 yards, and can be easily converted into automatic weapons.

The range of the AK-47 on human sized targets is much greater than 100 yards. With common ammo it’s about a 4 MOA gun. This makes it capable of first round hits, with a skilled marksman, at about 300 yards. So what? Common hunting rifles chambered .308 Winchester, 30.06, or .300 Win Mag, in skilled hands, can reach out and touch someone at 600 yards and beyond. They can’t be “easily converted into automatic weapons” for two reasons; 1) Assault rifles ARE automatic weapons and these, almost for certain, are not assault rifles; and 2) Firearms that are “easily converted” into automatic weapons are not allowed on the market and haven’t been for decades.

The guns have surfaced as Boston police have pushed to provide more of their own officers with M16s, high powered semiautomatic rifles.

In May, the Globe reported that police had ordered about 200 M16s free of charge from the US military and made plans to train dozens of officers and arm them with the rifles.

M-16s obtained from the military are NOT semi-automatic. They are fully automatic. Facts? What do facts matter to these mentally deranged writers? That’s right, they don’t. (Update: As pointed out in the comments the M16s were converted to semi-auto by the Boston Police Department. The article was written by the same writer. She was careless with the facts in this article even though she knew them.)

Community leaders and gun control advocates yesterday said many of the illegal guns in Massachusetts likely come from states like Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, where private gun owners can sell their weapons to anyone without requiring background checks.

Bruce Wall, the pastor of the Global Ministries Christian Church in Codman Square, said he is planning to hold a prayer summit on the steps of the New Hampshire State Capitol in Concord, N.H., to get the attention of public officials and call on them to tighten their laws.

“We’re going to pray for the trafficking of guns to stop,’’ he said. “Those gun shows in those states are making a lot of money off people in Massachusetts. Now the criminals are using weapons that can outpower what the police have.’’

Let’s see… violent crime rates (FBI stats for 2007 that I just happened to have on my computer):

  • Massachusetts: 431.5/100K
  • Maine: 118.0/100K
  • New Hampshire: 137.3/100K
  • Vermont: 124.3/100K

Blaming the laws in states with low crime rates for the high crime rates in their state proves that logical thinking doesn’t even rate a place holder in their brains. If it was private sales of guns increased crime then why is the crime rate lower, by at least a factor of PI, in those states than in Massachusetts? Massachusetts should look to the laws and policies of states with low crime rates, see what is different, and emulate those other states. NOT insist that those other states adopt their failed polices.

What do you think? Are the authors correct that it’s all about “fearsome firearms”? Or is it that the authors have crap for brains?

Author Maria Cramer can be reached at mcramer@globe.com let her know what you think. I sent her a link to this post and a link to Just One Question.

Update: I received a response from her:

From: MCramer@globe.com
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 7:59 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Re: Brazen weapon fire chills police

Thanks for your note.

 

 

Maria Cramer

Reporter

Boston Globe

w: (617) 929-3169

c:  (617) 291-6008

Motorcycles, guns and zombies! Oh my!

Posted on by

Via email from Ed:

Jul 28, 2009 6:06pm
Eastside Harley and Wades Guns in Bellevue will be starting a promo via the internet. When a customer purchases a new 2009 big twin Harley from now through the end of July (could go into August), they will get a $500 voucher towards a purchase of a firearm or merchandise at Wades Guns. This offer is internet-only promotion, share and pass this audio file along. We are also posting a video to www.eastsideharley.com.

Bellevue Washington, near Seattle.

Quote of the day–Kevin Baker

Posted on by

I’m tired of gun-bigots. PayPal needs to hear from US – the law-abiding gun owners of this country – that we’re no longer willing to just roll over when we’re abused by the companies we “trust” just because we believe in and practice the rights guaranteed to us under the Second Amendment.

Kevin Baker
July 29, 2009
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
[Read it and follow his suggestions. If anyone has a good suggestion for an alternative I’d love to hear it. I reluctantly use PayPal for Boomershoot and Modern Ballistics and would love to have a viable alternative.–Joe] 

Overheard at Costco

Posted on by

Dateline: July 27, 2009.

[There is a man at the register who just swiped his ATM card through the reader. He is wearing a ParaUSA hat and a t-shirt that says, “There are very few personal problems that can’t be solved with a suitable application of high explosives.” Not seen is the STI Eagle 5.1 in a Kramer IWB holster behind his right hip loaded with 19 rounds of high performance .40 S&W hollow point ammunition. Also not seen is on the other hip is a spare loaded 18-round magazine and a Surefire 6P flashlight. There is an Asian woman behind the register who just put a 50 pound sack of Boomerite mystery ingredient #4 into a cart.]

Woman: What are you going to do with 50 pounds of ? Are you a baker?

[Man waits a few seconds for the transaction to go through and the receipt to start printing out.]

Man: No. I’m going to make explosives with it.

[Man grabs the receipt and takes control of the cart with the 50 pound sack in it.]

Woman: How do you do that?

Man: You mix it with Ammonium Nitrate, Potassium Chlorate, and Ethylene Glycol.

Woman: Why do you do that?

Man: For recreational purposes. I make about 2000 pounds of explosives each year.

Woman: What do you do with it?

Man: I put them in targets, place them from 375 to 700 yards away and people from all over the whole world come to shoot at them.

Woman: That sounds really interesting! There must be a website for this, right?

[Man breaks out into a smile.]

Man: Yup. Boomershoot.org.

[Man, pushing cart, leaves the building. No guns were brandished, no cops arrived on the scene, and no shots were fired.]

Update: I forgot about the two Spyderco knives the man was carrying.

Good question

Posted on by

Ry points out:

The April 2009 edition of the NFA Handbook has removed pin & weld from the methods that are allowed to extend barrels to the minimum (16″ rifle, 18″ shotgun) length to avoid paying an SBR/SBS tax.

And asks:

What happens to the millions of barrels out there that were pinned and welded?

It’s possible that 100s of thousands of criminals were just created by a simple regulation change without even a whisper of notice in Congress. Is it tin-foil hat time? Or are they really out to get me?

Ayn Rand indeed.

A little bird told me

Posted on by

We shouldn’t worry about the Thune Amendment failing last week. Soon there will be something better than Thune’s Amendment and more likely to get passed.

Tell your Brady Campaign friends (do they have friends?) it’s their turn to stock up. Gun owners have been emptying the shelves of guns and ammo and now it’s their turn to empty the shelves–of Depends.

Quote of the day–John Longenecker

Posted on by

All gun control seeks to obfuscate your authority over violence against you or another. All gun control seeks to obfuscate the legal authority of a whole community. All gun control challenges our supreme authority over our servants.

John Longenecker
July 1, 2009
BOOK REVIEW: Lethal Logic by Henigan, Part II.
[What kind of person allows their servants to tell them only servants are allowed to own guns? Such servants need to be dismissed.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Don Gwinn

Posted on by

…“Brady PAC Illinois” has just released its first semi-annual report of contributions and expenditures.

Their first fund-raiser was held in Chicago, which makes sense; Chicago is one of only a few pockets of serious anti-gun sentiment in Illinois. 91 out of 102 Illinois counties have now passed a “Pro 2A Resolution” that clearly states their opposition to all future gun control efforts in the state. Obviously Cook County is one of the 11 lagging behind on gun rights; the same fund-raisers held anywhere else in Illinois would likely have lost money. The question is, how well did they do in Chicago?

It can be hard to tell from the minimum information available in such reports, but here are the highlights of the Brady report:

  • Brady PAC Illinois reported that it raised $27,150 in its first six months.
  • Brady PAC Illinois further reported that it paid out $26,517.14 in expenses during the same period.
  • This leaves Brady PAC Illinois with $632.86 to show for its first six months.

Don Gwinn

July 27, 2009
Brady Campaign fund-raising is flat in Chicago
[That figures out to just over $105/month. That means the gun blogger community probably outspend them 10:1 just on ammo. Nice! -Joe]

I am not worthy

Posted on by

I have two reasons for making this post.

1) He’s wrong. Robb is a smart guy and almost always comes up with the correct answer after a few milliseconds of deep thought. I’ve seen him in action and was impressed. But this time he is wrong. And we all know that if someone on the Internet is wrong you have to do something about it.

Sure, I am pretty proud of my letter and post to Senator Murray, but it was simple and easy for me. My brain takes everything literally. It takes effort for me to translate what people say into what they mean. For example; If someone were to say “It’s a piece of cake”, “Drier than a popcorn fart”, or “Finer than frog hair” I have do a little mental translation. I have to think about the image given and try to fit it into the context, find out it fails, then search for alternate meanings before I know what they meant. When Senator Murray wrote, “Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue.” I took that literally and applied it to her known position on gun control and it was like she had written she had walked home from Mars last night or a T-Rex had eaten her brain shortly after she was born. It just didn’t make any sense and it was blindingly obvious she didn’t mean what she wrote.

She had just came up with a justification for doing what she wanted to do. She apparently gives no thought to principals, philosophy, or the Constitution. She just votes the way she feels. Pointing that out to her was fun but it took nearly no effort on my part. I do that sort of thing all the time.

You should see what I do when I’m given a specification to review at work. My co-workers laugh at me when I point things out to them but they also thank me and keep sending me specifications to review. Barb says they shouldn’t encourage me because she has to live with me. Apparently having someone point out all their errors and contradictions starts to get tiresome after a few decades. I can’t imagine why. I figure it is just the price she has to pay to approach perfection. But somehow she doesn’t see it that way.

Robb said it was, “Snark that even Tam should find inspiring”. I’m sorry, but I can’t even come within ranging distance to Tamara. She puts together disparate ideas together in incredibly novel ways. She connects things that I couldn’t imagine connecting and makes the joining totally seamless and completely appropriate. I couldn’t do the stuff she does if my life depended on it. What sort of brain can do that? I can imagine writing a computer program to do what I do. But what sort of algorithm would do things like the following?

When I design my dream home, it’s not going to be visitable by a SEAL team with air support, much less a lone individual in a wheelchair; I’m thinking barbed wire and tiger pits, not ramps and braille on the doorbell. It’s not that I have a problem with visitors gimpier than myself; it’s visitors in general that make me want to release the hounds.

“Avon lady in the wire! Blow your claymores!”

Visita-what?

Or:

In his article, Westen proudly displays his passport from Bizarroland, a place superficially similar to planet Earth, but where drooling idiots with hearts full of hate run amok absent guidance from their spiritual and intellectual betters in politics and academe.

 …

I was waiting for the lizardoids to show up around paragraph seven or so and symbolically rape Gaia while carrying off Al Gore to be a slave on their homeworld, Karlrovia.

*sniff* It’s a thing of beauty.

That just can’t be the result of a mere mortal.

I am not worthy to be in the same plane of existence as Tam let alone be an inspiration for her.

2) I’ll bet you forgot there were two reasons. I didn’t. My brain wouldn’t let me.

There aren’t many things I fear, but being a snark target for Tam is one of those. I rank it worse than a 0300 SWAT team visit but not as bad as being burned alive or The Wrath of Barb.

I just want Tam to know that she doesn’t need to take me down a notch or two just because Sharp as a Marble Robb made a mistake.

Quote of the day–Jon Deitch

Posted on by

Asking the Brady campaign for facts about legal gun ownership is like asking the Communist Party about the merits of owning stock, and both their agendas are un-American.

Jon Deitch
July 24, 2009
Gun rights & local law
[Or asking the Imperial Wizard of the KKK about the merits of mixed race marriages.

The Brady campaign defended the unconstitutional D.C. gun laws in D.C. v. Heller and now defend similar laws in Chicago. What further proof do you need?–Joe]

It’s not about safety

Posted on by

It’s not about safety. They want our culture eradicated. They even say so:

Mr Ahern says the legislation is designed to halt the emergence of a gun culture in Ireland.

Quote of the day–Robb Allen

Posted on by

I have every right to defend my life and the lives of the members of my family. I have the right to use the most effective tools for the job. And I have the right to do so anywhere regardless of some imaginary boundary drawn out by bigots.

Robb Allen
July 20, 2009
Seeing the light
[I love it when people point out the bigotry of gun control. It’s the proper state of mind for dealing with gun control advocates.–Joe]

Response from Senator Murray

Posted on by

At least I had fun. I wonder if she and her staff will enjoy reading my response as much as I did writing it:

From: Senator Murray
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:30 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Response from Senator Murray

Dear Mr. Huffman:

Thank you for writing to me regarding S. Amdt. 1618, Senator Thune (R-SD)’s amendment to provide for uniform reciprocity for concealed weapon possession across the country.  It is good to hear from you.

Senator Thune’s amendment would allow gun owner with a right to carry concealed weapon in one state the right to carry a concealed weapon across the United States.  Like you, I am concerned about the level of violence in this country, and its effect on our families and communities.  Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue.  I believe that our national crime-fighting strategy should include reasonable measures to control firearms that strike a balance between reducing street crime and maintaining individuals’ rights.

As a U.S. Senator, I have supported common-sense measures to reduce or restrict gun violence while posing the least possible inconvenience to law-abiding gun owners.  Please know that as the Senate considers this and other firearms legislation, I will keep your concerns regarding this important issue in mind.  If you would like to know more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my updates at http://murray.senate.gov/updates.  Thank you again for writing, and please keep in touch.

I hope all is well in Kirkland.

 

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:58 PM
To: Senator Murray
Subject: RE: Response from Senator Murray

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this important issue.

Since you are of the opinion that legislation to regulate the use of firearms is, and should remain, primarily a state issue I presume I can count on your support of efforts to remove firearm regulations at the Federal level. I would like to suggest you introduce legislation to undo the continuing infringement of our rights inflicted by the following Federal firearms laws:

• National Firearms Act of 1934
• Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Hughes Amendment
• The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Once those are infringements have been successfully resolved I will be glad to provide you with a list of other Federal firearms laws that need to be eliminated as well.

Since you are opposed to Federal regulation of firearms I cannot help but conclude you are also opposed to any new Federal firearm regulations. I was concerned that you might be considered a supporter of a new ban on “assault weapons” or think there was some utility in restricting both the First and Second Amendments by some law that claims to “close the gun show loophole”. As I’m sure you know there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. All Federal laws that are applicable at a gun shop are also applicable at gun shows.

Thank you for your support. I will be sharing your email and my response on my blog and with my friends at NRA-ILA. This will allow other Washington State gun owners know what a good friend they have in you and for the NRA-ILA people to start a dialog with you to begin getting some relief from the stifling and bewildering array of Federal gun laws.

If you meet any resistance in your efforts to roll back the infringements on the Second Amendment I would like to suggest you ask them Just One Question:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

I’ve been asking that question of gun-control supports for several years now without once getting a defendable answer.

Regards,

Joe Huffman
—–
https://blog.joehuffman.org/
http://www.boomershoot.org/
http://www.modernballistics.com/

For those of you that don’t know the Honorable Senator Patty Murray, I don’t think there has ever been a piece of gun control legislation that she didn’t support.

And just as an FYI, I Bcc’d my contact at NRA-ILA.

I saw another piece of email she sent someone else on the same topic that is even more hilarious. I’m working to get permission to blog about it as well.

Hopeful?

Posted on by

Paul Helmke says he is hopeful:

I am hopeful that our Congress will now start addressing proactive measures to reduce gun violence in this country by doing things like requiring background checks for all gun sales, particularly at gun shows.  We make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America.

Emphasis in the original.

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center, has similar thoughts:

Today’s legislative victory reinvigorates us in the fight for stricter gun control laws. The next target of the gun control community will be passage of national legislation to close the so-called “gun show loophole” by requiring stringent Brady background checks on all gun purchases. Hopefully this victory will give momentum to efforts of the administration, Congress and the gun control advocacy community to enact strong and safe gun control measures, like this one, that will protect the sanctity and value of human life.

Why do “dangerous people” have access to the general population? Shouldn’t they be locked up in prison? Do we also make it too easy for “dangerous people” to get gasoline and matches? How about clubs, knives, and pointy sticks?

They were only able to get 39 votes in the Senate to stop legislation that I wouldn’t have dreamed would even come up for consideration a year ago. Their “gun show loophole” mantra has been going on for at least ten years and they are “hopeful” now is the time for it? They have mental problems. But we already knew that.

Quote of the day–Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox

Posted on by

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of selfdefense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Given the importance of this issue, the vote on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Wayne LaPierre
Chris Cox
July 23, 2009
Letter to the Senate on the Sotomayor confirmation vote.
[It’s no different than a judge who does not agree the 13th amendment guarantees a fundamental right. It’s repugnant and a sign of a great sickness in our society that we even have to debate this.–Joe]