Category Archives: Gun Rights

Not getting their moneys worth?

Posted on by

Nice:

An Iowa group once active in lobbying for gun control has disbanded after losing a major grant. The November 1st coalition began after the November 1, 1991 shootings on the University of Iowa campus and was later renamed Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence.

…

Honey says most recently the group has relied on volunteers to lobby the legislature. “There was a grant with the Joyce foundation for a period of close to a decade from the mid 90s well into this decade, and that funding did end,” Honey said.

I wonder if the Joyce Foundation is cutting back on all their anti-gun funding or just some of them. Could it be they weren’t getting their moneys worth from the Iowa group? I wonder if they are happy with the results of their grants to the Violence Policy Center, The Gun Guys, and The Brady Campaign. The Heller decision must be quite the “bone in their throat”.

Quote of the day–Steven M. Simpson

Posted on by

The fact that militias were among the primary culprits the Framers identified as violating the right to bear arms renders any continued suggestion of a purely collective right belonging to state governments impossible to square with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Steven M. Simpson
D.C. versus Heller
Brief for the Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae in support of respondent.
[Of course, as pointed out by Workman, many of the anti-gun bigots make no effort to square reality with their beliefs.–Joe]

Live Free or Die?

Posted on by

I’ve wondered for some time what that New Hampshire slogan really meant.  On the surface it seemed to have the wrong people dying.  “Leave me alone or die”, I thought, would make more sense, or “live free or kill”, but the meaning of the slogan is something different, as Walter Williams reports.  He goes through some development before getting to the New Hampshire bit;

[Mark] Steyn points how it might seem bizarre to find the progressive left making common cause with radical Islam. One half of that alliance is pro-gay, pro-feminist secularists and the other half is homophobic, misogynist theocrats. Steyn argues what they have in common overrides their differences, namely, “Both the secular Big Government progressives and the political Islam recoil from the concept of the citizen, of the free individual entrusted to operate within his own societal space, assume his responsibilities, and exploit his potential.”

I never thought it bizarre at all.  I’ve referred to Progressives and radical Islam as somewhat kindred spirits for years.  They both hate capitalism, both hate liberty in general, both want to control the individual, both hate the very fact that the U.S. and Israel exist, and both thrive on chaos and hate prosperity.  I could go on for quite a while, but you get the point.

“Live Free or Die,” which graces New Hampshire’s license plate, are the words of John Stark, New Hampshire’s Revolutionary War hero. He uttered those words decades after the War when he was 81 years old, the complete sentence being: “Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.” Steyn says these words should not be interpreted “as a battle cry: We’ll win this thing or die trying, die an honorable death. But in fact it’s something far less dramatic: It’s a bald statement of the reality of our lives in the prosperous West. You can live as free men, but, if you choose not to, your society will die.”

This weekend as we celebrate the Declaration of Independence and the successful revolution that resulted, lets keep that in mind.  To pledge one’s life, fortune, and sacred honor to the overthrow of an over-reaching government that possesses the most powerful military in the world is as serious as it gets, and many of those who did so faired rather badly during the war.  We owe them a lot of respect, and only way to do that is to keep from throwing away that which they have given us.

How many Americans could even describe this country’s founding principles without getting sarcastic, to say nothing of being able to defend them?  Try asking some of the people you meet this weekend and report back.  I’m curious.  Something like this; “Can you define this country’s founding principles?” and then, “What would you say to defend them if someone told you that those were outdated, inflexible, and dreamed up by some radical, violent, old, paternal, dead, white slave owners?” (use your own words)

Quote of the day–Daniel Vice

Posted on by

There’s certainly nothing wrong with properly trained adults engaging in these activities.

Daniel Vice
June 28, 2009
Senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Referring to a Southern Ohio Machine Gun Shoot.
[Something to remember the next time the Brady people start talking about an “assault weapon” ban.

H/T to Buckeye Firearms Association.–Joe]

New Idaho gun laws go into effect

Posted on by

Via an email from Mike:

Shooters:

The following pro-gun bills which were drafted by IdahoSSA go into effect today (July 1st):

  • House bill 65 which clarified that Idaho residents can buy long guns from dealers in non-contiguous states and vice versa. 
  • House bill 137 which grants State parks the power to regulate discharge of firearms in campgrounds etc. but makes it  clear that they have no authority to ban lawful carry. IdahoSSA is working closely with Parks and Recreation to make sure that their final rule specifically recognizes the right to carry in State Parks. 
  • House bill 194 which grants immunity from liability to shooting ranges, firearms instructors, and match officials.  
  • House bill 287 which grants immunity to employers who allow their employees to store personal firearms in their cars on company property.  Employers in Idaho now have NO LEGITIMATE REASON to ban the storage of firearms in their parking lots. If you or someone you know is affected by this kind of  anti-gun policy at work please send me a copy of the pertinent policy. IdahoSSA will be working to educate employers on this law.

If anyone has any questions about the effect of these bills please feel free to contact me.

 

IdahoSSA is your pro-gun voice. Our mission is to:

RESEARCH the current law and DRAFT proposed improvements.

LOBBY  the legislature and state officials on behalf of gun rights and the shooting sports.  

EDUCATE the public about the responsible use of firearms and RESPOND to media attacks on gun rights.

PROMOTE the shooting sports and ENCOURAGE the development of shooting ranges.

LITIGATE if neccessary on behalf of firearm rights.

 

As always: Thanks for your support!

 

 

Michael C. “Mike” Brown

Executive Director/General Counsel

Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance

208 835-3737

208 835-3744 Fax

www.idahossa.org

Quote of the day–John Longenecker

Posted on by

Gun control does not seek safer streets, it seeks greater dependency on officials by removing the better tools of weapon and wisdom.

John Longenecker
July 1, 2009
BOOK REVIEW: Lethal Logic by Henigan, Part II.
[Hence the results you see in the U.K. and why they haven’t reversed course on their gun control agenda.

Via posts from Say Uncle and Kevin.–Joe]

The move to a new bunker

Posted on by

I’m finally settled into my new hidden, underground, hardened, bunker well enough to make a few blog posts. That doesn’t mean I’m all caught up reading everyone else’s blogs and commenting on all the things I would have liked to comment on.

It was more work than I expected. It’s amazing how much stuff a pack-rat can accumulate in 3.5 years in one place. I did throw a bunch of stuff away–which helps some in the new place.

It turns out it’s a 15 minute walk to work instead of a 10 minute walk but that isn’t bad. It makes it easier for Barb to have lunch with me when she is over here too.

Barb did a lot of the work and has her nest in the corner mostly configured the way she wants it. We still have to buy a few things that we shared in the common kitchen in the old bunker.

One thing that is surprising is how much moisture is in the air of the new bunker. I never needed to use the dehumidifier in the old one. This one started smelling wet after just a couple days. I turned on the dehumidifier and it’s pulling out about two gallons of water from the air each day. The humidity dropped from 60% to, as of this minute, 48%. This is probably acceptable.

After learning that the Bellevue police have been fully informed on open carry I decided to do that a bit on an experimental basis during the move and then extended it into my normal activies in the parking lot of not only the bunker but of banks and the mall. There have been no problems so far. I think a couple of teenage girls in the parking lot noticed as they and (I presume) their mother were moving in nearby. The mother gave me a smile and said, “Hi” as she got into her pickup the next time I made a trip with my arms full of boxes from the Jeep in the parking lot down the stairs to the bunker. But other than that there have not been any reactions that I have noticed.

Tonight another women was moving in and she might have seen the gun as well. She smiled and said hi before she had an opportunity to see it. I didn’t look back after I walked by so I don’t know she did see it or had a reaction. The license plate on her car is from California so she might not think it was so cool to see someone packing in public! If I see her running for cover and/or concealment when I come to the surface I’ll know she has an adverse opinion of gun owners.

That explains a few things

Posted on by

According to some new research those unsure of own ideas more resistant to views of others:

We swim in a sea of information, but filter out most of what we see and hear. A new analysis of data from dozens of studies sheds new light on how we choose what we do and do not hear. The study found that while people tend to avoid information that contradicts what they already think or believe, certain factors can cause them to seek out, or at least consider, other points of view.

Yes, of course. No surprises there.

The analysis, reported this month in Psychological Bulletin, published by the American Psychological Association, was led by researchers at the University of Illinois and the University of Florida, and included data from 91 studies involving nearly 8,000 participants. It puts to rest a longstanding debate over whether people actively avoid information that contradicts what they believe, or whether they are simply exposed more often to ideas that conform to their own because they tend to be surrounded by like-minded people.

Very cool! Excellent hypotheses to explore.

Perhaps more surprisingly, people who have little confidence in their own beliefs are less likely to expose themselves to contrary views than people who are very confident in their own ideas, Albarracín said.

Now that explains a lot of anti-gun bigotry (actually all forms of bigotry).

Certain factors can also induce people to seek out opposing points of view, she said. Those who may have to publicly defend their ideas, such as politicians, for example, are more motivated to learn about the views of those who oppose them. In the process, she said, they sometimes find that their own ideas evolve.

I suspect this is part of why there is more support in the general population for gun control than in politicians. As they get ready to act on their original beliefs they become educated on the topic and change their ideas. That applies to those who believed gun control would increase public safety. Those politicians that push for gun control because they view guns in private hands a threat to their personal ambitions are likely to become even more set in their beliefs.

Women and Guns (and some other stuff)

Posted on by

I’m just wondering aloud here.  When will we decide that women are regular citizens, instead of treating female shooters as though they are a separate class of citizen?  I understand that there is a perception that women need their own, separate training classes and all that, so they feel comfortable.  Is that condescending to women or am I missing something?  At what point, or under what circumstances, will we be treating female shooters the same as we treat male shooters (within the sport I mean)?

Maybe it’s a dumb question.  Maybe men can’t help but see a woman as something special and maybe that attitude is bound to find its way into our chosen sport.  Maybe some women are so accustomed to being treated differently that they expect it without a lot of thought.

Maybe the question is simply premature.  Any female shooters want to comment on that?  Do you believe you need separate training or separate categories in a competition, and if so, why?  Should there be guns made for girls, and others for the boys and if so, why”  Marketing strategies are beyond the scope of the question.  Hell, maybe it’s all about marketing, in which case, never mind.

I could understand if shooting involved some heavy lifting, but even then we’ve all seen some women who can out-lift some men.  So you want different weight classes, like in wrestling?

Here’s another.  How long is it going to be before the various races of humans are treated the same in general, in the media, and in the courts?  I understand personal preferences, but that’s quite different.  I’m talking socially, politically and legally.  When will I be able to tell a black guy he’s being a fool without being accused of racism, or tell a Mexican woman she’s wrong without her getting in my face on some racial or sex-related tangent?  When will we be able to disagree without changing the subject as a form of crutch?  I really am getting sick and damned tired of this, so I am herein putting my foot down.  Knock off the race and sex defenses.  Some people are using it as a tool and I’m not buying it.  Not at all, and I’m getting right back in your face if you try it with me so don’t even start.

When, or under what exact specified circumstances, will the gun-restriction advocates declare their work done, pack up their tents, and get jobs?  Any time you hear one of them guffaw over the assertion that they won’t quit until all guns are banned, your immediate response must be, “OK, then tell me precisely when or under what circumstances you will stop, declare victory, and find something else to do, ’cause what I see is that any time you get a win, you’re right on to calling for another restriction.  This has been happening for over 70 years, so, you know, we have a pretty undeniable track record here.  Go ahead.  Lay out the circumstances.  I have all day.”

Staying on the title subject;
A problem with saying, “this far and no farther” is you’ve already established that a) you’re willing to give ground, and/or that b) you’ve accepted or granted your opponent’s basic premise(s).  Some things are properly subject to compromise (such as where to go for lunch, assuming you want the company) and others are not (such as basic rights).  When it comes to basic rights, the response it not, “this far and no farther”.  Properly, the response is zero tolerance, same as it would be for a robber or a rapist.  If someone violates your basic rights, they are criminal and it is not incumbent upon you to prove your magnanimity by compromising with them.  You fight to win, then you fight for compensation and restitution, then you fight for justice, assuming your opponent is still breathing.  Few if any in Congress, for example, seem to have a clue how that might happen with regard to their violations of our basic rights.

Quote of the day–Gary Kleck

Posted on by

It was ineffective. That is, homicide didn’t go down as was promised following the law’s implementation.

…

Good guys have good effects with guns, bad guys have bad effects with guns.

Gary Kleck
June 29, 2009
Florida State University Criminology Professor
Some wonder if tighter gun control helps
[And I have yet to see a law passed, or even proposed, that didn’t create more of a impediment to gun ownership on the good guys than it did the bad guys. Hence, my Just One Question.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Dave Workman

Posted on by

On this one-year anniversary of the landmark Heller ruling, it is sadly clear that gun prohibitionists are as determined as ever to re-write history and live in denial. Of course, what they really want is to deny gun owners their civil rights.

To paraphrase Barack Obama, these gun prohibitionists have become bitter, clinging to their gun control agenda as if it were a religion.

Dave Workman
June 25, 2009
The Heller ruling one year later; antis still in denial
[Just as many whites clung to their bigoted beliefs about blacks for 100 year after the 13th Amendment was passed it’s going to take a long, long time before the anti-gun bigots are driven into the fringe politics along with the KKK. It should not be a surprise that the bigots of today overwhelmingly are Democrats, just as they were in the heydays of the KKK. Apparently they just can’t help it and have to hate someone.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Tim Naumetz

Posted on by

The number of firearm owners who fail to renew their gun licences has steadily increased since the Harper government tabled legislation to scrap the federal long-gun registry.

Opposition critics and the Coalition for Gun Control in Canada say the problem has increased risk for frontline police officers and undermines public safety.

Despite an amnesty the Conservatives introduced to coax gun owners into licence renewals, the latest RCMP figures show the opposite occurred.

The rate of non-renewals climbed to 25.3 per cent of expired licences in the first three months of this year, compared with 14.1 per cent in 2005.

…

A little-noticed RCMP report for 2007 on the Canada Firearms Centre contains positive information about the registry and its use by police that could surprise even diehard opponents.

The report includes a groundbreaking RCMP survey that found general duty police officers use the online version of the registry at a high rate to check for potential weapons while responding to trouble calls.

On average, 73 per cent of the officers said they log on to check for the presence of firearms en route.

The rate was even higher for officers trained to use the online registry – 81 per cent of that group use it on calls.

Tim Naumetz
June 27, 2009
Declining gun-licence renewals a risk to police: observers
[Would the same concern on the lack of renewals be expressed if instead of gun owners it were Jews, blacks, and gays being registered?–Joe]

Quote of the day–Yemen Times

Posted on by

It is estimated that 60 million pieces of weapons are in the hands of Yemenis, which indicates that on average, each Yemeni carries three pieces of weapons.

Yemen Times
October 2002
Sept. 29 fatal firefight near British Embassy Gun battle ‘normal accident’
[Remember this the next time someone says the U.S. has the most heavily armed private citizens.–Joe]

VPC says gun laws are not about safety

Posted on by

No wonder they can’t answer Just One Question! The laws weren’t intended to “regulate for health and safety”. Kurt explains.

If the regulations were to “regulate for health and safety” Sebastian explains what that would be like.

I would like to point that it seems to me that the VPC is over stating things just a bit with this claim:

President Obama’s signing of a bill granting the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory authority over the tobacco industry now leaves the gun industry as the last American industry not regulated for health and safety.

Let me repeat. Guns are now the only consumer product manufactured in America not regulated by a federal agency for health and safety.

Could someone explain to me what federal agency regulates the following consumer products for health and safety:

  • Software
  • Buckets
  • Jewelry
  • Swimming pools
  • Websites
  • Books
  • Music
  • Entertainment
  • Prostitution (legal in parts of Nevada and the Feds once owned a brothel confisicated for failure to pay taxes but the Feds couldn’t even make money running a whorehouse and they went out of business)
  • Locks and keys
  • Hand tools
  • Cardboard boxes

Also note that the number of accident deaths due to gunshot wounds are at, or near, an all time low in the neighborhood of less than 700 per year (642 in 2006–See table 18).

Finally I would also like to point out that there is a private model for health and safety approval that appears to work quite well for electrical applicances. It’s call the Underwriters Laboratory.

Hence, Federal regulations are not needed because; 1) there isn’t a problem that needs to be fixed, and 2) There are private solutions that would work better if there were a problem.

Myth busting the myth buster

Posted on by

A new book written by anti-gun bigot Dennis Henigan has just been announced. He calls it Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy. If I could borrow a copy rather than have my money go toward his furthering of discrimination against gun owners I’d take the time to read it. I’d love to take it apart in public for him. But since I don’t have a copy in hand right now I’ll just do what I can with what I presume are his best shots as given in the press release:

In Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy, published by Potomac Books, Henigan takes on the highly memorable, but completely unsupportable slogans that for decades have been the staple of the National Rifle Association and other relentless opponents of sensible gun laws, and dismantles them one by one. Lethal Logic also is the first book to assess the impact on the gun control debate of last year’s Heller decision by the Supreme Court and the book’s conclusions about Heller will surprise many on both sides of the issue.

…

Some of Henigan’s observations on the gun lobby’s “bumper sticker” slogans:

  • “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Henigan counters with Ozzy Osbourne’s take on that: “If that’s the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?”
  • “But what you really want [is to ban all guns.]” Henigan explains that for the gun lobby, “the gun debate needs to be a debate about banning all guns. The slippery slope argument is the NRA’s primary means of achieving this goal.”
  • “An armed society is a polite society.” The more guns, the safer we all are, the gun extremists say – and they cite Switzerland as Utopia. But Henigan points out that Switzerland has high gun ownership because of mandatory militia service, and that citizens in mandatory militia service face government inspection of the guns in their homes and must account for all their bullets. “Can you imagine the fury of the NRA’s opposition to any suggestion that guns in the homes of U.S. citizens be subject to government inspection?”

As to “If that’s the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?” Try sending the guns without the people and see how well the war goes. It’s the people that make the difference.

Try this experiment (okay, do the thought experiment if you don’t think you can get the human subjects testing approval):

Suppose you were to drop Dennis Henigan and Sarah Brady in the woods with all the guns and ammo they can carry. And a half mile away you drop in an Army Ranger or Navy Seal completely naked, one hand tied behind their back and a patch over one eye. If you tell them only one side can leave the woods alive I’m betting that by the next morning, despited being outnumbered 2:1 and out armed, the warrior will be walking out of the woods fully clothed, armed, and wearing Sarah and Dennis’s ears as a necklace.

Gun are tools used by people. Without the people the guns don’t kill, with or without guns people can kill. Guns just make violence against people easier. Sometimes that violence is for good and sometimes it is for evil. Most of the time guns are used for good. Reducing the access of guns to good people enables evil.

As to “But what you really want [is to ban all guns.] … the gun debate needs to be a debate about banning all guns.” No, the debate doesn’t have to be about that. Why not answer Just One Question? Justify the existence of any legal restriction on guns with data that conclusively demonstrates the restriction improved public safety. Or if that is something Henigan wants to avoid then explain why a “reasonable restriction” against gun owners wouldn’t be just as constitutionally repugnant as a similar restriction against black slaves who had been freed by the 13th Amendment.

As to government inspection of guns and accounting for all the bullets in the homes of the Swiss Henigan has to heavily distort the truth to make his point.

Here is the part where what Henigan says is mostly true:

Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), which is sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use takes place.[2]

Here is what Henigan completely ignores in order to make his point:

The government subsidizes the production of military ammunition and then sells the ammunition at cost. Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range. Registration consists of entering your name in a log at the time of sale. No serial numbers are present on the individual cartridges of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but according to David Kopel “the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.”[2] Ammunition for long gun hunting is not subsidized by the government and is not subject to any sales control. Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as custom handgun ammunition) is registered at the time of sale.[10]

The article goes on to say:

Purchases from dealers of hunting long guns and of small bore rifles are not even recorded by the dealer. In other words, the dealer would not record the sale of a .30-06 hunting rifle, but would record the sale of a .30-06 M1 Garand rifle.[2] According to chapter 2 article 10 of Swiss law, people over the age of 18 do not need a permit to purchase a rifle for use in hunting, off-duty shooting and sport-shooting events.[10]

So why is it that Henigan didn’t tell us the rest of the story? That’s right, the facts hurt his case. He can’t make his points without cherry picking the data.

If those are the best shots Dennis could come up with the rest must be so poor as to be the equivalent of not getting his shotgun to get on paper with an USPSA target at five feet. Which of course means he must be shooting blanks.

Quote of the day–Robb Allen

Posted on by

Funny how regressives are all about due process and rights so long as it’s for the right people. The Klan is just as progressive, they just hate a different subset of the populace.

Robb Allen
June 22, 2009
Secret lists cannot stop firearm purchases
[Ahhh…. It’s so nice to have “my” meme being adapted, propagated, and utilized so smoothly. Thank you Robb.–Joe]

Crap for brains

Posted on by

As pointed out in a comment by fishyjay:

Herbert concludes his column with this:

” The first step should be to bring additional gun control back into the policy mix.”

So the NRA has been lying about the Obama administration wanting more gun control, and the Obama administration should respond by pushing for…more gun control?

You can’t make this stuff up.

Sometimes you just have to conclude the anti-gun people have mental problems and/or they have crap for brains.

Quote of the day–Neal Knox

Posted on by

The officer displayed a paper describing a Luger pistol, a relic of the Great War, and ordered the father to produce it. That old gun had been lost, stolen, or misplaced sometime after it had been registered, the father explained. He did not know where it was.

The officer told the father that he had exactly fifteen minutes to produce the weapon. The family turned their home upside down. No pistol. They returned to the SS officer empty-handed.

The officer gave an order and soldiers herded the family outside while other troops called the entire town out into the square. There on the town square the SS machine-gunned the entire family-father, mother, Charley’s two friends, their older brother and a baby sister.

I will never forget the moment. We were sitting on the bunk on a Saturday afternoon and Charley was crying, huge tears rolling down his cheeks, making silver dollar size splotches on the dusty barracks floor. That was my conversion from a casual gun owner to one who was determined to prevent such a thing from ever happening in America.

Neal Knox
The Belgium Corporal, prologue to Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War
[I’m proud to have met and talked to Neal Knox on two occasions. He did amazing things for the gun rights movement. He is one of my heros.

Give very careful consideration to a demand to register your guns.

My conversion to gun owner and civil rights activist was Ruby Ridge.–Joe]

Just say no

Posted on by

Advice from the NRA, when the jack-booted thugs ask for the serial numbers of your guns, just say no:

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics.  One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to “report” an NRA member as “refusing to cooperate.”  That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional. 

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply.  Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice.  Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents’ consent.  There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.

Huh?

Posted on by

From an opinion piece:

Still, it’s hard to argue that the easy availability of handguns and assault weapons is good for crime prevention or what the Founding Fathers had in mind in the Second Amendment.

Yes, they are right on the first point. It is hard to argue “easy availability of handguns and assault weapons is good for crime prevention”. If it were easy then people wouldn’t have so much trouble answering Just One Question. But I don’t think that is what they meant.

But on the second point, “shall not be infringed” obviously means availability cannot be restricted by the government.

As usual, the gun banners have trouble thinking straight. He apparently believes words mean what he wants them to mean rather than what they actually say.