Category Archives: Gun Rights

No such thing as personal property?

Posted on by

At times the only way I can make sense of some of the things the anti-gun people say is if they are of the belief there is no such thing as personal property:

Although police will run serial-number checks on all firearms submitted, they will not hold residents legally responsible for the guns they return.

All guns will be destroyed and not kept for resale, said O’Keefe, who had his own gun stolen during a burglary in 2006.

“The guns they return“? Do they think the guns were on loan from the police?

And what does “not kept for resale” mean? Does that mean something different from “not resold”? It almost seems like they might mean “reloaned” but didn’t want to come right out and say that.

I have to conclude these people frequently have mental problems.

Quote of the day–Alan Gura

Posted on by

It’s impossible to list every single gun protected by the Second Amendment. We won’t stop until this list is scrapped.

Alan Gura
June 17, 2009
SAF LAWSUIT FORCES CHANGE IN D.C. GUN REGULATIONS
[The bigots in Washington D.C. were banning guns not on California’s list of approved guns–which in some cases banned guns on the bases of being the wrong color. They dropped the California list but still require the guns to be on the lists maintained by Maryland and Massachusetts.

Just as I predicted, “They will scream and yell, and refuse to obey the law of the land as long as they can. It will be little different than when blacks were declared equal citizens and they were still stopped for driving while black, jailed, beaten, and even convicted in kangaroo courts on phony charges.” And (here), “The anti-gun people are bigots just like those that promoted the Jim Crow laws against blacks.” It’s going to take many battles and a long time before the bigots finally learn their place–in the dustbin of history.–Joe]

They sound reasonable to me

Posted on by

Bob does some back of the envelope calculations to see if the Gary Klecks numbers seem reasonable. They seem reasonable to me.

Didn’t turn out like you expected did it?

Posted on by

That’s a pretty good gun control joke. It doesn’t matter which side of the issue you are on, it’s still funny.

Exposed!

Posted on by

I went to the doctor for a minor procedure yesterday. I just had my physical last Thursday and for some stupid reason I didn’t think I would be asked for my weight and other vitals again. Wrong.

I was carrying my usual self-defense tools, utility tools, and a double handful of keys (how can this be? Yet, I can go through them one by one and claim a need for all of them) rather than putting them in a fanny pack I could dump quickly while on the scales. I told the nurse she didn’t want my weight. It would be about 15 pounds more than last week. “17”, she corrected.

Then she wanted my blood pressure. I was wearing a unbuttoned light-weight denim shirt over a t-shirt with my STI Eagle 5.1 (link is to the very similar 5.1) with a spare 18 round magazine on the off side in between. She had some trouble getting the cuff to go over my arm and shirt so I took the denim shirt off and tried to drop it part way down in such a way that it still covered my gun. It went all the way to the exam table and left my gun fully exposed in the Kramer IWB #2 holster. The nurse had to see it. She was working with the cuff just a few inches from the gun but she didn’t comment or stare. She did her business with the vitals and other stuff then left saying the doctor would be in shortly.

After many minutes the doctor was still not there and I became concerned. I thought maybe they were waiting for the police to arrive or something. The doctor has a bit of an accent and I wasn’t sure where it was from. I thought she might be from England and I worried she would refuse to see me. Bitter tried to reassure me but I wasn’t all that reassured. After a few more minutes she came in and there was no indication of concern about the gun on my hip. Whew!

As she prepped for the procedure she made small talk and I had a good opportunity to ask about her accent. South African she said. Ahhh! Much, much more gun friendly than England. Maybe that partially explains it. I didn’t ask.

I’m with Robb, I expected something once I lost concealment. But nothing? I guess that’s good.

Quote of the day–Chris

Posted on by

Sheep have no use for fangs and claws. But they become acquainted with them anyway.

Chris
June 16, 2009
In a comment to Totems.
[I frequently think of sheep when I see and hear of these type of people too. And I feel sad for them.–Joe]

Kalashnikitty shirts for sale

Posted on by

I received the same email that Kevin did abut he got a post up before me so just head over to his place to see how to order this great shirt. Both of my daughters requested one and now proudly wear them.

GRPC registration is open

Posted on by

The Gun Rights Policy Conference is now open for registration. The event is in St. Louis Missouri this year on September 25, 26, & 27.

I attended and was a speaker at GRPC 1999 and 2000. I was very impressed with it and highly recommend it.

Refresher: police contact

Posted on by

Via the Washington CCW email list from Joe Waldron:

This topic hasn’t been discussed in a few years, so a refresher might be in order.

Washington does NOT have a “notify the officer you are carrying” requirement when in contact with the po-leece (usually initiated by them).

A general rule of thumb when dealing with ANY bureaucrat, and cops are bureaucrats, is to never burden them with unnecessary information. Bottom line: why complicate issues?

However (there’s ALWAYS a “however…”)

If the officer asks you to step out of the car, or in some other way might become aware of the fact that you are armed, prudence indicates you inform him/her that you are legally armed (“Officer/trooper, I have a concealed pistol license and I am carrying.”) Then follow whatever directions he/she gives you. They have no real reason to disarm you, but the courts will back him/her up for “officer safety” reasons. (Never mind the fact that most cops only have knowledge of THEIR issue pistol, and no knowledge of how to properly clear yours.)

Cops don’t like surprises, and at the top of that list is surprise guns.

Ditto being the first to call 9-1-1 if an incident occurs. The first one to call the cops is the one with credibility. All too often, a motorist legitimately draws/displays a firearm when another motorist is playing road rage. Incident ends. Gunnie reholsters and goes on about his/her business. Another “save” in the Guns Save Lives category. Followed a few hours later by a knock at the door (or a few minutes later by flashing blue lights), and an arrest for brandishing, or even Assault 2. (Yeah, that’s a felony.) Road rage scumbags ALWAYS feel offended and call the cops.

Rule #1: Never surprise an officer, especially with a gun.

Rule #2: Always be the first to dial 9-1-1.

Yeah, I know, it bothers me sometimes, too. And there IS this thing called the Bill of Rights (which is pretty well protected in Washington, as compared to many other states). But complying with the rules avoids aggravation and headaches. And sometimes worse afflictions.

When in doubt, pony up the $11 or so and get Dave Workman’s “Washington Gun Rights and Responsibilities.” And pay special attention to the “responsibilities” part. It’s the cheapest gun rights insurance policy you can buy.

Joe W former WSP dispatcher
16 year gun lobbyist
legislative chair, CCRKBA, WAC & FLSSA

Open carry in Bellevue Washington

Posted on by

Son James lives in Bellevue. From the sidewalk in front of my office in Redmond I could throw a rock across the street into Bellevue. So how the police deal with guns is an important issue to me. I just ran across this training memo for Bellevue Police on open carry. An excerpt:

It has recently come to our attention that a group calling itself, “Pacific Northwest Open Carry” and with a spokesman named Lonnie Wilson, has an agenda that deals with the peaceable open carrying of a handgun in a holster. He says that while doing his research to write an informational bulletin for the public and for law enforcement, he asked a number of BPD officers if it was legal to carry a handgun in public, in the open, in a holster. He says he received a variety of answers, ranging from, it is legal, to, it is a felony, to, you will be stopped and arrested for brandishing.

As a refresher, the Corporals will go over the following:

1. Washington is an “open carry” state for firearms. This means a person may carry a firearm in an exposed holster unless there is something that makes it specifically illegal. For example, carrying a weapon onto school grounds or other prohibited places or carrying a weapon by most convicted felons or anyone convicted of a domestic violence crime.

2. Unlawful carrying or display. RCW 9.41.270 occurs when the person carries or displays a weapon in a manner under circumstances at a time and place that manifests alarm for the safety of persons or with an intent to intimidate. This is something more than just walking around with an exposed firearm. If there is a dispute for example and one person, while angry, displays the weapon to scare the other person.

3. Carrying without a Concealed Weapons Permit, RCW 9.41.050, occurs when a person carries a CONCEALED pistol on his person and does not have a CWP. A person with a CWP can carry a firearm in a vehicle without having the weapon on his person.

I knew it was legal in Washington but not all the cops are aware and certainly a lot of the general public is going to see open carry as cause for alarm. I don’t like confrontations and being hassled by cops even if I’m in the right is something I avoid. But there have been times when I have left work, gone to James’ place, had dinner with him, put my gun on (IWB holster) and without a coat to cover the gun walked to back my car. I would mostly cover the gun with my arm as I walked, it was usually dark, with virtually no one in the parking lot but I still worried a little bit about alarming someone and getting some police attention.

This memo eases my mind considerably. I’ll start opening carrying more in James’ parking lot and maybe discreetly when in a restaurant booth where it’s inconvenient to conceal it.

Quote of the day–Elaine Brower

Posted on by

We should melt down all weapons and make jewelry out of it. Or better yet, shackles for all you nuts who love your guns!

Elaine Brower
June 11, 2009
A comment to Gun grabbers shift into high gear.
[Bigotry is a terrible thing.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Robert V. Thompson

Posted on by

Gun lovers typically argue that when a perpetrator encounters an armed person–the perpetrator will either back down or get shot. The way to stop gun violence is with guns. We can prevent gun violence so long as sane and rational people are properly armed. So, crazy people care–or even notice?

Robert V. Thompson
June 11, 2009
Holocaust museum shooting–‘just say no’ to the gun lobby
[Actually, Mr. Thompson, the crazy person did notice. Someone with a gun shot him and he stopped his attack. As Greg Hamilton said, “Nothing is as debilitating and disorienting as blowing chunks of heart, spine, and brain out of your opponent.”

I did not leave the above comment for Thompson. Since Thompson quoted Gandhi, I left a couple Gandhi quotes and asked him Just One Question. My guess is either Reasoned Discourse will break out or the comments will be ignored.–Joe]

He must be using a different dictionary

Posted on by

The anti-gun bigots often use words in ways that make no sense. For example “vigilantism” is frequent used to describe self-defense.

Here Paul Helmke demonstrates he is confused about definition of the word “force”:

Congress should think very hard about their responsibilities for public safety before weakening gun laws in our nation’s capital, and should rethink their decision to allow more guns in our national public areas,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

“It is dangerous to force more guns into places that American families expect to be gun-free and safe,” he said.

With the help of George Washington let me explain it to Paul (someone at the Brady Campaign office subscribes to the RSS feed for this blog):

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

George Washington
speech of January 7, 1790

Laws are force. Government enforcing those laws are force. Removing restrictions on people being able to defend themselves is not force. It is freedom.

And another thing, that shooting occurred in a “gun-free zone” already–just like Chicago and D.C.

“Gun-free and safe” is a self-contradictory phrase. Look up the FBI stats for yourself Paul.

I’d buy Paul a new dictionary but I think the problem is much more systemic than merely having a problem with the definition of words. Like many other anti-gun bigots I don’t think he is capable of determining truth from falsity.

Another dilemma for congress

Posted on by

The gun rights people in the U.S. Congress have been giving their anti-gun bigot co-workers some interesting dilemmas recently. There was the elimination of D.C.’s gun laws amendment attached to the bill giving D.C. residents a voting member in the house (on hold). Then there was the removal of guns restrictions in National Parks attached to the “credit card reform” legislation (passed!). And now there is this (via email from Wesley D.):

The Pink Pistols and GOProud are supporting Senator John Thune (R-SD) on an amendment to recently-introduced Federal “so-called hate crime” legislation, Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

…

Conceptually, the amendment would allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry handguns across state lines with reciprocity, while following local concealed carry laws. That makes sense to me. If the original legislation is intended to reactively punish thuggish citizens for “so-called hate crimes,” it only makes sense to also proactively make it easier for all citizens to defend themselves and prevent the “so-called hate crimes” in the first place.

Although I agree with Linoge on a philosophical basis I also am of the opinion that once our enemies violated that principle (Hughes Amendment, Lautenberg Amendment, etc.) it would be unethical for us to defend our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms on an unequal playing field. We are only playing by their rules. So when they start whining just tell them something like, “Karma is a bitch ain’t it?”

See also posts by Phil and Ride Fast.

Quote of the day–Mikee

Posted on by

Because courts have decided that people have an inherent right to use condoms to protect themselves and others during acts of consensual sex (surely an optional activity for both parties), they cannot rule that people do not have an inherent right to use firearms to protect themselves and others during acts of non-consensual violent attack (surely a non-optional activity for the victim of attack).

Mikee
0926, June 11, 2009
Comment to Second Amendment Might Be Back on Its Way to Supreme Court via Say Uncle.
[Contrast to James Kelly saying, “…the right to own a gun as a relatively meaningless, one-dimensional freedom, and thus interpret the banning of handguns as merely a minor disappointment to the minority of people concerned…”.

Which way will the courts ultimately decide?–Joe]

Speaking of irrational

Posted on by

Via Ry and the Seattle PI:


A vehicle drives on top of plastic toy guns to destroy them in Medellin, Colombia. Police exchanged children’s plastic toy guns for food as part of a campaign to diminish the use of toy weapons. (AP Photo/Luis Benavides)
(June 08, 2009)

Quote of the day–Ibn al-Haytham

Posted on by

Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough.

Ibn al-Haytham
A key figure in development of the scientific method.
[I mention this because I suspected an anti-gun person was completely clueless as to how to distinguish truth from falsity. I was right. It is a very, very common problem–especially among anti-gun people. Asking them to explain how they determine what is true from false gets a blank stare and/or indignation without a valid response every single time I have tried it.

I was going to use a couple paragraphs from this article for the QOTD but Jeff bet me to it.–Joe]

Reasoned discourse in 3, 2, 1…?

Posted on by

Apparently I’ve run across another novice trying to run with the big dogs. I posted about him earlier today and he let my comment go through then responded with this:

This is what really gets me about people who believe that the Second Amendment means that we have a constitutional right to own a gun. I provided a whole bunch of statistics in this post about the cost of our love affair with guns in terms both of money and the impact on our lives, but yet, you choose not to address any of that. Instead, you pose a question which is completely unanswerable, as if that’s supposed to render everything else I’ve described as irrelevant, which it doesn’t by any means (and by the way, I have no desire to waste my time trying to find an instance like the one you describe).

As noted here, “in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court departed from over 100 years of judicial precedent and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes unconnected with service in a militia (in the Heller ruling).”

Even the Cruikshank case you cite states that, “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution.”

Individual states and municipalities should be allowed to regulate guns as they see fit, but I will never believe that there’s a Second Amendment right to own a gun (and, in Cruikshank, it sounds like Chief Justice Morrison Waite didn’t think there was either).

I responded with the following which apparently went through without moderation:

What really gets me about people trying to infringe up on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is they only look at the downside of gun ownership. They refuse to look at the benefits. There are between 800,000 and 2,500,000 defensive gun uses in the U.S. each year. Most of those were without a shot being fired resulting in no injuries to anyone.

Another thing that gets me about people trying to infringe on our rights is they include legally and morally justified deaths and injuries from successful defensive uses of guns in their totals of dead and injured. They even include justified police shootings!

If you had read the actual decision you would have found that the question of an individual right was supported 9-0 in Heller. The 5-4 decision was about whether the D.C. law infringed upon that right.

If you had read the very next line in the Cruikshank decision you would have discovered “Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” The right to keep and bear arms is a preexisting right. The Second Amendment is a guarantee that it will not be infringed.

If you “will never believe that there’s a Second Amendment right to own a gun” then I guess there really isn’t any more to discuss. Facts and legal decisions are irrelevant to you. But I just have to ask, are you also of the same opinion in regard to the 13th Amendment as well? Should individual states and municipalities be allowed to regulate slaves as they see fit?

If you carefully read his comment above you will notice he has announced phase one of “Reasoned Discourse” (graphic stolen from Robb Allen):

Also note that he says Just One Question “is completely unanswerable”. Nice of him to admit that right up front.

I will not be surprised if phase two, deleting or blocking of comments, occurs shortly.

Have fun with the new toy I found for you guys. Play nice now. Be sure to share your toy with others.

Update June 10, 0800: More comments are coming in. His inability to pay attention to detail is remarkable.

Scott:

Here’s some statistics on deaths and injuries caused by medical care: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm
(with links to supporting documents)

783,936 total iatrogenic deaths annually; 98,000 specifically from medical errors. From these numbers would you make a case that we should ban doctors?

When you look only at the “cost of our love affair with guns” and not the benefits you’re making a case for banning doctors due to the harm they cause.

Another question for you: are all deaths by gunfire bad?

When armed robbers, muggers, psychotic ex-boyfriends, etc. are shot and killed by their intended victims – is that a bad thing? Those people are counted in the statistics you cite.

The plural of anecdote is not data, but anecdotes are useful in understanding the data. See http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html for defensive gun use anecdotes.

doomsy:

I took a look at the claytoncreamer site you linked to, and you’re right; you’re talking about anecdotes of people who defend themselves with their guns versus the statistics I presented in my post. I don’t know if the number of people in this country using guns to defend themselves matches the number of suicides/accidental shootings, but I have a feeling they don’t (have to leave it up to someone else who has the time to compile those stats, if they can).

I could find stories of accidental victims of gun violence if I had the time or desire, but Bob Herbert already noted them (happens all too often in Philadelphia, for example, followed by the predictable wailing and gnashing of teeth while nothing changes). And concerning the claytoncreamer site, I have no issue at all if the guns the people used to defend themselves were purchased legally.

Oh, and your suggestion that I would be in favor of banning doctors is so silly that it doesn’t deserve a response.

doomsy:

OK, I just saw the comment including the link to the Keszler study citing (allegedly) two million instances of defensive gun use. Good for you – you made your point.

Just make sure you communicate this information to the families and friends of police officers killed in the line of duty because they’re outmanned by thugs, or families and friends of school children killed by stray fire from drug dealers. God forbid that they impugn your right to own any gun you want whenever you want.

doomsy:

Sorry, I meant the Gary Kleck study – and speaking of which, you might want to look at this.

Joe:

That criticism of Kleck’s study was published in 1997. A lot of followup studies have been done to address the concerns expressed there and elsewhere. The results keep coming up very close to the same.

Regardless of the actual number any honest advocacy of restrictions on weapons must take into account the benefits as well as the harm attributed to free access. Hence my Just One Question which you say you have no interest in answering.

I therefore can only conclude public safety is not your real objective. Just what is your objective with advocating restrictions on this specific enumerated right?

Update June 10, 0910: Phase two of Reasoned Discourse has been implemented:

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.

Update June 10, Final: I found his deleted post in the Google Cache for future reference. It doesn’t include the comments however. The above and the comment here are probably all but one or two.

Tingles and tears

Posted on by

This post by David made my back and neck tingly for a good five seconds followed by my eyes welling up with tears.

Quote of the day–Ben Franklin

Posted on by

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.

Ben Franklin
Also attributed to Dale Carnegie.
[I was reminded of this by what The Liberal Doomsayer had to say yesterday on guns. I left a comment which is “awaiting moderation”. In fear of reasoned discourse I am posting it here as well:

The individual right to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court since at least 1875 (U.S. v. Cruikshank).

It was only in the 20th Century that people attempted to rewrite it to prevent blacks from obtaining firearms. See the link above for more details.

And before you advocate for more infringements on this specific enumerated right please answer 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?

–Joe]