Category Archives: Gun Rights

Another year of amnesty for Canadian gun owners

Posted on by

Canada said they wanted all the guns in the country registered. The gun owners said, “Μολὼν λαβέ“. Canada said, “Okay, how about we waive the license fee and you get another year to register them?” The gun owners said, “Μολὼν λαβέ“. The registration law was passed in 1995. It’s now 14 years later and what is the story? See for yourself:



The Honourable Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board, on behalf of the Honourable Peter Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety, today announced the re-extension of an amnesty and other measures that helps firearms owners comply with the law.


“This Government has, once again, extended the amnesty to continue to bring law-abiding citizens into our licensing system,” said Minister Toews. “We are preventing the pointless criminalization of non-restricted gun owners, who are working to come into compliance with our firearms laws.”


“Make no mistake. This amnesty actually serves to enhance public safety. When previously extended, the amnesty encouraged an increase of gun owners registering as licensed firearms owners, as did the other measures we are renewing today,” said Minister Van Loan.


The following three measures, which will encourage compliance and reduce the administrative burden on lawful firearms owners, are now in effect until May 16, 2010:


– Extending by one year an amnesty which allows individuals in possession of unregistered non-restricted firearms to take steps to bring themselves into compliance;


– Extending by one year the current fee waiver for firearms licence renewals or upgrades; and,


– Allowing eligible holders of expired Possession-Only Licences to apply for a new one within a year.


“Our effort to combat criminal gun crimes remains strong. We have introduced mandatory prison sentences for those who commit gun crimes and tougher bail rules for serious weapon-related offences,” added Minister Van Loan.


All together now, everyone!  Μολὼν λαβέ

Akins appeals to the Supreme Court

Posted on by

The short story is:



A Florida inventor who created a device to increase the rate of semiautomatic rifle fire has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which ruled the apparatus constituted an illegal machine gun.


William Akins, of Hudson, near Tampa, says the ATF at first approved his Akins Accelerator, then reneged after he went into production. A federal judge ruled for the ATF; the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling Feb. 4.


A great starting point for the background story is here.


My expectation is the SC will decline to hear the case.

Quote of the day–Oscar van den Boogaard

Posted on by

I am not a warrior, but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.

 

Oscar van den Boogaard
April 2009
From an interview with the Belgian paper De Standaard.
[I learned that lesson when the Feds were killing women and children a few miles from my home when I lived in Sandpoint Idaho. I bought my first gun a few months later when Bill Clinton was elected President. Things have changed since then.

 

H/T to Kevin for the pointer.–Joe]

The Brady Campaign and media bias

Posted on by

Can you name one time where the press has published a NRA letter or media release as if it were there own? I can’t think of one. In fact it’s hard to find instances where the media has published more than a few sentences of what NRA has to say on a topic.


Yet here is what appears to be a complete story written by the Brady Campaign and published if it were a story from the newspaper. Notice that the bottom line of the story says:



# # #


SENT AS A COURTESY OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE


What media bias?

Nuke ’em from orbit

Posted on by

A few weeks ago I piled on James Kelly with Kevin over the usual topic of gun control. I left the debate when Kelly admitted facts were irrelevant to his beliefs.

Yesterday Kevin dropped a nuke on him and Kelly responded, in part, with:

Secondly, if as Kevin earnestly believes, he has ‘statistically proved’ that more liberal gun laws actually make people safer, why can’t he show that the level of violence has not just fallen, but fallen to a lower level than in a comparable country that has had stringent gun laws for a prolonged period? As I’ve said repeatedly, that’s the kind of ‘statistical proof’ that would impress me, and it’s distinct absence is one of the reasons why most people in this country are secure in the knowledge that, at least on this one issue, we’ve got it right and countries like the US have got it disastrously wrong.

But Kevin showed that the U.K. violent crime rate dramatically increased after stringent gun laws were passed while U.S. gun laws remained “lax” and the supply increased while the violent crime rate went down. And if current trends continue it will only be a couple years before the official reports will show U.K. has more violent crime than the U.S. I say “official reports” because the U.K. government recently admitted they have been under reporting the numbers for years.

And furthermore Kevin pointed out numerous studies, including ones done in the U.K. that showed gun control laws, at best, did no good.

And what does Kelly say about Kevin’s post?

I will obviously never convince Kevin that those benefits exist, and he will doubtless continue to try to disprove their existence by resorting to a barrage of voodoo statistics, but I remain more than content that I am on the right side of this argument.

…the vast bulk of Kevin’s dissertation genuinely makes no sense to me at all.

He claims something would “impress me” then when given just that he says it is “voodoo statistics” and “makes no sense to me at all”.

He also takes the time to say that he didn’t read one of my posts because he didn’t like the title of the post:

I was also concerned at Joe Huffman’s semi-abusive blog post title, directed toward me personally. (Joe, incidentally, seemed astonished that I didn’t bother reading the contents of that post – did he seriously expect me to consciously choose to read a post entitled ‘What Was It That James Said That ****** Me Off’?) No-one with an ounce of self-respect would persevere with a ‘debate’ that had descended to that level.

That was “semi-abusive”? That was the reason he didn’t bother to read it? And he got the title wrong! It was actually “What did James say that pissed you off so much?”. Typical. He hears/reads what he expects/wants to hear/read rather than what was actually said.

And of course he refused to answer Just One Question with anything other than numbers that were easily demonstrated as wrong at which point he ignored it.

Kevin’s nuke from orbit was overkill for the pointy sticks and stones defense Kelly put up but it’s a great to have that post in the arsenal for next time.

Quote of the day–DJMoore

Posted on by

Ah, yes, gun control: the debate where reciting facts and analysis actually counts against you since it proves you are a rabid fanatic.

Reasonable people just know that guns are bad, and gun owners are dangerous lunatics.


DJMoore
May 14, 2009
Comment to Cultures: Compare and Contrast
[Ain’t it the truth?–Joe]

How’s that gun licensing working out for you?

Posted on by

Most people know that massive numbers of gun owners in Canada ignored the licensing requirements for long guns. And after spending about $2 Billion the Feds have been giving serious thought to scrapping the registry. Similar results are occurring in New Zealand:



Thousands of firearms remain potentially unaccounted for despite a police campaign for lifetime gun licence owners to renew or hand weapons in.


Police national manager operations Tony McLeod said nearly 50,000 people had not responded by the end of a campaign targeting lifetime gun licence holders to renew or surrender their weapons in 2002.


The Government scrapped the lifetime licences in 1992 for 10-year licences after David Gray killed 13 people in Aramoana in 1990.


Mr McLeod, who said there were about 225,000 licensed firearm owners with about 1.2 million guns in New Zealand, could not confirm how many weapons had since been retrieved.


He said police still actively pursued expired lifetime gun licence holders, but there was “also a process of natural attrition in relation to these”.


50K people who had originally registered with the state as gun owners are now openly defying the law. That is about 22% of the known gun owners defying the law. I wonder how many originally defied the law to register.


Μολὼν λαβέ

Due process? Who needs it?

Posted on by

H. R. 2159 would allow the U.S. Attorney General deny people an ATF license for firearms or explosives without due process:

The Attorney General may deny a license application if the Attorney General determines that the applicant (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

“Appropriately suspected”? Yeah, right. Like I donated money to his bosses opponent in the last election? Or he read Why Boomershoot?

Surely it there must be some sort of hearing and you are given a chance to see or respond to the evidence they used to arrive at the decision, right?

by striking ‘The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke’ and insert ‘(2)’;
…
(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting ‘, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period;
…
‘(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.’.

No crime need be committed. The AG just has to have a bad feeling about you and you don’t get to see or respond to the evidence being used against you.

What Henry Kissinger said comes to mind.

Paintball and laser tag are next

Posted on by

You can be pretty sure no one has been killed or injured with a gun used for laser tag and permanent injuries with paintball guns are exceedingly rare. But that isn’t really relevant is it? It’s the thought that counts:



The Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democrat Party agreed on Tuesday evening to reforms to Germany’s gun laws, which include a controversial ban on war games like paintball or laser-tag.


…


The draft law would also bar youths under the age of 18 from shooting high-caliber firearms at target practice.


…


The plan also contains provisions to impose hefty fines on the operators of war games like paintball, a game in which players use air-guns to shoot paint-filled ammunition at opponents. Lawmakers say the sport “simulates killing” and should be outlawed.

Progress at the Federal level–amazing

Posted on by

This afternoon I watched with fascination on my cell phone as I got Twitter updates from bitterb on the amendment to a Senate bill that would allow guns in National Parks. It was debated and passed 67-29.


Can it pass in the House? Will Obama veto it if it reaches his desk?


Last November I could not have imagined any pro-gun bill passing by a 2/3s majority in either house at the Federal level.

Quote of the day–Alex Levine

Posted on by

If President Obama has ruled out a revival of the Assault Weapons Ban, he should at least use his political capital to redefine the issue of gun control. As a Chicago resident, he must be acutely aware of the toll of reckless gun use. As a party leader, Obama may be keen to renew an old party tenet through an electorally important lens. Perhaps even the term, “gun control,” should be overhauled. Democracies and, ultimately, the people, thrive on adversarial conversations on public policy. Despite disagreements on the efficacy or constitutionality of such restrictions, the nation is being done a disservice if at least one party doesn’t question the role of non-sporting guns in our society and their limited state of regulation. At the very least, the families of the thousands of dead due to gun violence deserve an honest debate.

Alex Levine
May 12, 2009
The gun control debate must be re-framed as a pro-security issue
[There are at least three things which Mr. Levine fails to recognize. 1) The anti-gun people lose big time from that view point as well; 2) The anti-gun people lose big time in any honest debate; and 3) The anti-gun people have been renaming their objectives, their names, and “reframing” the debate for decades and each time they were identified for what they were–wolves in sheep’s clothing and anti-gun bigots.

In my comment I asked Just One Question, but I don’t expect an honest answer.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Steven M. Simpson

Posted on by

The nature of the right as understood and incorporated by the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment also affects the type of protection implied by that right. Being an individual right against all levels of government, the degree of scrutiny should be heightened and governmental justifications viewed with skepticism. Furthermore, given the self-defense justifications of the right, any competing claim that seeks to deny the right of or need for self defense would be inconsistent with the embedded purpose and assumptions of the right to bear arms and hence invalid on its face. Finally, while there certainly are some restrictions on arms that even the Framers understood to be permissible — use only for lawful purpose, for example — any restrictions supposedly advancing permissible interests cannot be allowed to prevent ordinary citizens from exercising the core of the right and owning a weapon capable of protecting themselves, their families, and their communities if necessary, in the very circumstances where such protection would be necessary.


Steven M. Simpson
D.C. versus Heller, Brief for the Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae in support of respondent.
[Basically, if the government is going to claim a restriction on weapons they cannot do so in a manner which would restrict self-defense. Hence prohibitions on weapons in certain cities, such as Chicago, should be considered unconstitutional.–Joe]

Is that what you call it?

Posted on by

From the New York Times:



Two weeks ago, Mr. Schumer, a prominent gun control advocate, invited Ms. Gillibrand to a news conference in Manhattan to unveil a gun control plan.


When it was her turn to speak, Ms. Gillibrand faced skepticism, given her past support for gun owners’ rights. “How much of this is political expediency?” one reporter asked.


Eventually, Mr. Schumer, stepped in, saying he, too, made adjustments when he went from a House seat to the Senate. “When you start representing a new area, you learn, you meet other people and you grow,” he explained.


Then the news conference came to an end and the two senators strolled off to lunch.


Would you call it “growth” if a defender of equal rights for blacks started praising George Wallace’s segregation policies? For Gillibrand to support a gun control plan and “stroll off to lunch” with Schumer is like a NAACP supporter going to lunch with David Duke. Gillibrand is just another politician without principles.

Blogging rewards

Posted on by

I get a number of rewards from and it’s hard to enumerate them all or say which is at the top of the list but things like this have rank right up there:




























































































Domain Name   (Unknown) 
IP Address   204.97.104.# (New York State Assembly/NYSERNET)
ISP   Sprint
Location  

























Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  New York
City  :  Albany
Lat/Long  :  42.6706, -73.7791 (Map)
Distance  :  2,113 miles
Language   English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  









Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   May 7 2009 11:38:42 am
Last Page View   May 7 2009 11:38:42 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co…born five point plan
Search Engine google.com
Search Words richard aborn five point plan
Visit Entry Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/05/04/platform-of-a-bigot/
Visit Exit Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/05/04/platform-of-a-bigot/
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time   May 7 2009 2:38:42 pm
Visit Number   499,572


Someone at the New York State Assembly in Albany did a Google search for “richard aborn five point plan” and found my post explaining why Richard Aborn, candidate for District Attorney in Manhattan, is a bigot.


What were the odds of me getting that viewpoint to that person or persons in a position of power and hundreds (or more–I get about visits from about 45K unique IPs per month) of others with so little effort prior to the Internet and the existence of blogs?

Quote of the day–Clayton Cramer

Posted on by

It is astonishing how poorly researched this brief is–perhaps competent gun control advocate lawyers realized how hopeless the task was, and decided to put their energies into briefs for cases easier to win, such as repealing the law of gravity.


Clayton Cramer
May 5, 2009
Embarrassingly Bad Amicus Brief in the Chicago Case
[See also Dave Hardy’s take on it.–Joe]

Attack! Attack! Attack!

Posted on by

I’ve said this before but it doesn’t hurt to mention it again with a fresh example. Never give your enemy an opportunity to regroup. If they are on the run keep them on the run. When you are attacking you are choosing the time, place, and terms of the engagement. Sure, defenders have some advantages. But I’d much rather be on the outside laying siege to the castle than on the inside wondering if we can hold out long enough for help to arrive.

And so it is in politics. We won Heller less than a year ago. We won a bunch of cities in Illinois in the weeks and months that followed. We got a partial victory with Nordyke two weeks ago. Now we are attacking again in California. From The Second Amendment Foundation last week:

The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.
California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.

And, again from SAF, today:

The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and three California residents today filed a lawsuit seeking to vindicate the right to bear arms against arbitrary state infringement.

Nearly all states allow qualified law-abiding citizens to carry guns for self-defense, but a few states allow local officials to arbitrarily decide who may exercise this core Second Amendment right. In the action filed today, Plaintiffs challenge the policies of two California Sheriffs, in Sacramento and Yolo counties, who reject the basic human right of self defense by refusing to issue ordinary people gun carry permits. Of course, violent criminals in the impacted counties continue to carry guns without police permission.
State scientist Deanna Sykes believes her sexual orientation and small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals, particularly as she often transports firearms as a competitive shooter and firearms instructor.
“I am highly qualified to defend myself against the sort of crime that the Sheriff cannot, despite his best efforts, completely eradicate,” Sykes said. “Violent crime is a real risk in our society, but happily, we enjoy the right to defend ourselves from it.”
Andrew Witham has over 15 years experience as a police officer in Britain, and is licensed to carry a firearm while working as a private investigator and campus public safety officer. But despite having been the target of death threats stemming from his work in security, Sheriff John McGinness saw to it that Witham’s license to carry a gun while away from work was revoked upon Witham’s relocation to Sacramento.
“I’m allowed to defend other people,” said Witham, “so why can’t I defend myself, where the Bill of Rights guarantees me that right?”
Adam Richards, a Northern California attorney, would also exercise his right to bear arms in self- defense. But the Yolo County Sheriff’s policy on gun permit applications is: don’t bother. “How can the Sheriff tell whether I am capable of responsibly exercising my Second Amendment rights, when he doesn’t even acknowledge that these rights exist?”

I’m donating money with every paycheck to SAF which is matched by Microsoft. You can also donate money directly to Calguns to help keep our forces on the attack. Don’t let a lack of money be the reason they have to slow down. The only thing I want holding them back is the flood of tears from our enemies.

Quote of the day–Matt Groom

Posted on by

I think a “Cache” is two, an “Arsenal” is 2-4, a “Stockpile” is 3-5, and an “Armory” is more than 4. The confusion stems from the fact that there is an overlap, for example, a “Stockpile” can also be an “Armory” OR an “Arsenal”. As for me, I’m going for the much heralded status of “Third World Military Power”, which is 20 or more and includes reloading equipment or at the very least “Warlord” status, which is more than 10.


Matt Groom
Comment to More than a cache?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
[This reminds me of about 10 or 12 years ago when a bunch of us gun nuts at Microsoft started referring to each others homes as “compounds” and buying a few bricks of .22 rim-fire ammo as “resupplying our arsenal”. This was because of the way the press treated gun owners. Times have not changed much.–Joe]

Platform of a bigot

Posted on by

Keep in mind that laws aren’t written or enforced which punish inanimate objects or violent crime. Laws only punish people who possess those objects or commit those crimes. Hence what District Attorney candidate Richard M. Aborn says he plans to do is actually attack people who own guns–people exercising a specific enumerated right:




He has received endorsements from a former police commissioner, William J. Bratton, and from several elected officials, and on Monday, he released his first detailed policy paper, a five-point plan for combating gun violence in Manhattan.


The plan calls for a regional interdiction approach to gun trafficking; more gun buyback programs and a program in which parents could give the police permission to search homes for guns; a requirement that pistols sold in New York include micro-stamping technology; a five-year renewal process for handgun permits; and support for a national gun-control strategy.


What would be the public response if he announced his “five-point plan” for combating Jewish vermin in Manhattan? Or putting uppity blacks in their place? And what of the people that endorsed such a person? They would, and rightly so, have a tough time getting a job as a janitor in Manhattan. A job as an elected official? The only thing they could get elected to would be a prison cell by a jury.


But this isn’t the way things are supposed to be. This is New York and an article in the New York Times. Where such bigotry is the norm and bigots such as Aborn are not only tolerated but praised. Just like some deep south sheriff who roughs up blacks for entertainment on Saturday nights Aborn is praised and endorsed by many. He should be prosecuted under 18 USC 241 and/or 242.

It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you

Posted on by

Senator Crapo via Joe Durnbaugh on the Lewiston Pistol Club email list. Emphasis in the letter body is mine:



From: senator_crapo@crapo.senate.gov
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 2:37 PM
Subject: Correspondence from Senator Crapo


April 27, 2009



Mr. Joe Durnbaugh
Lewiston, Idaho 83501


Dear Joe:


Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (referred to by its Spanish acronym CIFTA). I agree with you and welcome the opportunity to respond.


On November 14, 1997, the Organization of American States (OAS) adopted the CIFTA treaty, which among other things, aimed to curtail the small arms trading of deadly weapons often used during the traffic of illegal drugs. Although President Clinton signed the CIFTA treaty, it received less than the requisite two-thirds majority vote in the U.S. Senate. As a result, it was never ratified.


As you may know, President Barack Obama is now urging its ratification in order to combat the Mexican drug cartel. The CIFTA treaty would ban any firearm that falls under a misleading classification of “illicit” manufacturing. For example, the treaty would make illegal the assimilation of a lawful firearm from a kit. Further, it would criminalize any modifications made to a firearm. Additionally, this treaty would prohibit pro-gun organizations. Most alarming is that a broad interpretation of this treaty would call for the extradition of U.S. gun dealers.


The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I firmly believe this provision prohibits the federal government from denying citizens this right.
Let me reassure you that I do not support gun control. We must protect and preserve our constitutional right to bear arms. I will not support any legislation that requires a waiting period for the purchase of a firearm, bans the ownership of firearms, promotes or requires the rationing or taxation of firearms, or the taxation of ammunition.


As you may know, gun control advocates continue to seek creative methods of advancing their agenda, both through legislation and litigation. You may be assured that I will continue to oppose all efforts to weaken Second Amendment rights.


Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov.


Sincerely,     
   
Mike Crapo
United States Senator


MDC:js


If U.S. Senators are saying this does that mean I’m not really paranoid after all?

Quote of the day–Saul Cornell

Posted on by

Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea recasts the gun debate by showing its importance to the future of democracy and the modern regulatory state. Until now, gun rights advocates had effectively co-opted the language of liberty and democracy and made it their own. This book is an important first step in demonstrating how reasonable gun control is essential to the survival of democracy and ordered liberty.


Saul Cornell
Ohio State University
From the publishers web site.
[Ahhh, yes. We’ve heard this party slogan before only with slightly different wording: Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength.–Joe]