Category Archives: Gun Rights

General Wesley Clark is in good company

Posted on by

Via Sebastian I discovered something General Wesley Clark said:



If people want machine guns, let them join the military. We got em! But for public and personal use, absolutely not.


That is eerily close to something else said by a national leader a few decades ago:



If any citizen wants to possess arms, let him join the Party.


Adolf Hitler


That isn’t the only instance either. See also the Council of People’s Commissars a few decades before Hitler.


You can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps.

Quote of the day–Chris Cox

Posted on by

Yesterday afternoon, DoD additionally confirmed the lifting of the suspension to pro-Second Amendment United States Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who sent the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) a joint letter vigorously opposing the suspension, on the grounds that it had “an impact on small businesses who sell reloaded ammunition utilizing these fired casings, and upon individual gun owners who purchase spent military brass at considerable cost savings for their personal use.”


…


DLA also put to rest various theories and rumors that were circulated on the internet, concerning the reason for the suspension. As DLA explained to Senators Baucus and Tester, and to NRA-ILA, DoD officials responsible for the demilitarization of military property temporarily halted the release of the cartridge cases last week, pending review of a policy change issued last year by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which, in the interest of national security, halted the sale of items within a broad category of government property including, but not limited to, surplus small arms cartridge cases.


Chris Cox
March 18, 2009
Military Surplus Cartridge Case Issue Resolved
[I was working on a post comparing the destruction of the brass to destroying used books that were being sold to underfunded schools in black neighborhoods. But I procrastinated long enough to avoid the appearance of jumping on the Obama conspiracy train.


Appearances are not always what they seem.–Joe]

Read your own references

Posted on by

Eric Boehlert goes on a rampage about gun control and cites some references to support his position:



After a mentally ill student, Seung-Hui Cho, had made a mockery of Virginia’s gun laws by falsifying his gun-store background check and killing 32 people with the guns he purchased illegally, CNN presented a debate in which an activist arguing that the United States needed to relax its gun-control laws was given equal time to an activist who urged that the country tighten its gun laws. The pro-gun advocate, who represented a radical minority in America, was put on the same footing as the gun-control advocate, whose views reflected the clear plurality of Americans, who have consistently called for stricter gun laws. That’s how CNN chose to frame the debate in the immediate wake of the Virginia Tech massacre.


…


Left unreported in that kind of gun coverage is the fact that relaxing gun laws in the United States represents a radical, out-there idea that’s supported by just a tiny fraction of Americans. Not even gun owners in America want to make the laws less restrictive. (Just 15 percent back the idea.)


What I find interesting is the first reference he cites says this:



  • Just about 4 in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with gun laws in the country, while half are satisfied.

  • The pressure to make gun laws stricter appears to be mitigated. Just slightly more than half of Americans support making laws covering firearms sales more strict, at its lowest point since 2002.

  • More than two in three Americans oppose the government completely outlawing the right to possess a handgun.

  • Nearly 6 in 10 of Americans now say the government should enforce current gun laws more strictly rather than passing new laws. This percentage is up this year, similar to levels previously measured in 2002.

  • The public has grown slightly more likely to say that having a gun in the home makes it a safer, rather than a less safe, place to be. The opposite was true previously from 2000 to 2004.

    • This has a completely different tone than Boehlert’s rant. Boehlert had to really stretch to use it has justification for his conclusions.


    In the use of his second reference he overlooks the fact that just 51% of the public thinks the laws should be made more strict versus 47% (2% have no opinion). And that 4 point difference is down from 14 points in the previous year and down from 60 points a few years before that! The trend is definitely in our favor.


    And what does this guy think the “other side” of those in favor of more restrictive gun laws would be? Apparently he is of the opinion the two sides are “more gun control” and “no more gun control for a while”. This is like trying to work out a compromise with your would-be rapist by asking him to wear a condom.


    I’m of the opinion even the “pro-gun” position mentioned is not really “the other side”. A public opinion poll, which didn’t even ask the right question to find out how many people are on “the other side”, can’t possibly define it. I’ve explained the middle ground before and so won’t do so again here. But suffice it to say Boehlert should be thrilled “the other side” chosen was as close to his viewpoint as it was. Had it really been “the other side” he would have had an aneurysm.

    Lead in the parks

    Posted on by

    Mike contacted David Barna, chief of Public Affairs for the National Park Service.


    He says the lead ban doesn’t apply to visitors. Just the people who work at the park.


    I’m with Mike. It’s still troubling.

    ATF loses one

    Posted on by

    The ATF started really harassing the model rocketry folks a few years back. Today they got their wrists slapped:



    District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton for the District of Columbia today issued an order finding in favor of the Tripoli Rocketry Association and National Association of Rocketry vs. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The decision followed a status hearing this past Friday in Washington.


    Walton’s order granted a summary judgment motion in favor of the plaintiffs TRA and NAR, denied the summary judgment motion of BATFE, and vacated the classification of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) as an explosive.


    …


    The parties came before the Court on March 13, 2009, for a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the parties’ written submissions, the administrative record presented to the Court, the applicable legal authority, the oral arguments presented by the parties, and for the reasons expressed by the Court at the hearing on the motion, the Court finds that the agency’s decision does not satisfy the standard for evaluating agency rulemaking because it was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Specifically, the defendant did not adequately explain why it came to the decision it did in light of contrary evidence in the administrative record submitted by the plaintiffs, which tended to show that APCP can burn at a rate lower than that which the defendant designated as the threshold, and “which, if true, . . . would require a change in [the] proposed rule.’” La. Fed. Land Bank Ass’n, FLCA v. Farm Credit Admin., 336 F.3d 1075, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2003); see D&F Afonso Realty Trust v. Garvey, 216 F.3d 1191, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Public Citizen, Inc. v. F.A.A., 988 F.2d 186, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (”‘[t]he requirement that agency action not be arbitrary or capricious includes a requirement that the agency adequately explain its result . . . .’”). Here, the agency’s shortcoming was its failure to articulate any rationale for finding that the relevant and significant evidence in the record that conflicted with its position was unpersuasive, which it seemingly out-of-hand dismissed merely because it was contrary to the agency’s ultimate conclusion.


    I hope this is but one of many more to come in regards to both firearms and explosives. It’s long past time they were told in no uncertain terms they must obey the law.

    No boys allowed

    Posted on by

    Girls only. Guns are allowed though.

    Quote of the day–Michael Gaddy

    Posted on by

    Those among us who are afraid to be free will surrender their guns, their families, and their freedom to tyranny. Do not place your freedom or trust in their hands or depend on them to cover your six.

    Michael Gaddy
    January 5, 2008
    Buy, Buy, Buy
    [This reminds me of something Samuel Adams said.–Joe]

    Yes, they are that stupid

    Posted on by

    About a month ago when I posted about how stupid one anti-gun bigot was some people wondered if maybe it was a rhetorical question or a clever tactic.


    There is more evidence to indicate that some of them really are that stupid:



    The Tennessee legislation is about loaded long guns inside of motor vehicles. The Alabama shooter was driving around in a motor vehicle with loaded long guns (plus a handgun). In addition to the five relatives he killed, he killed five innocent bystanders — three of whom were going about their business on the sides of public streets. The shooter shot and killed them from his vehicle. If the guns had not been loaded, he would have had to stop and load them. There is a slight chance that three people might have noticed what he was doing and had time to flee — or as Rep. Fincher suggests, shoot him before he shot anyone else.

    The guys with the guns make the rules

    Posted on by

    Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign again demonstrates he just doesn’t get it or again thinks he can fool most people. Yesterday he blogged about something the NRA said:



    …Wayne LaPierre was over the top.


    He explained to all of us in America that “the guys with the guns make the rules.”


    Most of us believe that in a democracy, the voters make the rules.


    And how is it do you think you maintain your right to vote Paul? You apparently want to overlook The Battle of Athens for example. And then there are the little things like how German Jews, Russian farmers, and millions of others who lost their ability to vote and live in the past few decades when they didn’t hold on to their guns.


    Soap box, ballot box, jury box, and as a last resort the cartridge box.

    Quote of the day–Richard K. Willard

    Posted on by

    The District and its supporters also err in extolling the supposed virtues of a world without guns, and condemning the vices of a world without gun regulations. In doing so, they set up a false set of choices. A world without guns is not an option, because hundreds of millions of guns are already in private hands and readily available across either the Virginia or Maryland borders; and even if all handguns in America magically vanished, criminals could still illegally saw off shotguns and rifles to produce concealable weapons that would be more lethal than most handguns. Thus, the District can only hope to dry up the supply of handguns for the law abiding, while criminal access to handguns remains virtually unlimited. It is against this real-world backdrop, and not against that of a utopian gun-free world, that the District’s position must be assessed.


    Richard K. Willard
    D.C. versus Heller
    Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Heartland Institute in support of respondent
    [In light of the renewed calls for more gun control after the shootings in Alabama and Germany I thought this was appropriate.–Joe]

    Quote of the day–Jim Scoutten

    Posted on by

    I’ve always thought there are some events that shouldn’t get National TV coverage.


    Jim Scoutten
    March 7, 2009
    Producer and host of Shooting USA
    Boomershoot coverage?
    H/T to Ry (via email as well as his blog), followed by Kevin (email and blog), Say Uncle, Robb (email and blog), Phil, and Sebastian.
    [I am a little insulted. Boomershoot got positive coverage from Newsweek, KING 5 Evening Magazine (Seattle television show), Outside Magazine, and numerous other media outlets (that list is just a partial listing). If he doesn’t think we are appropriate for national TV coverage he is mistaken. We can and have handled national media before and done quite well.


    It just so happens another national TV show is planning to attend this year anyway. I also got a request for permission from a participant doing a video with smaller audience. Boomershoot should be well represented in the media this year. The gun blogger list of participants alone is impressive.


    Like I said, I’m a little insulted but Scoutten is missing out more than Boomershoot by his decision.


    Thanks for all the support guys but I don’t really think it’s necessary to do a Zumbo on him. He’s not saying Boomershoot should be banned or anything. He just doesn’t think it is something he wants to present to the public.


    In his followup comment he says he doesn’t want put anything “on TV that could alarm the anti-gunners”. I disagree. I am of the opinion that alarming them over Boomershoot then making fools of them is the more appropriate tactic (ask me sometime in private how we have baited them but they failed to take the bait). But if he doesn’t want to do that I don’t see a reason to attack him over that judgment call.–Joe]

    Another back-door registration scheme

    Posted on by

    Sometimes, as with the “one gun a month” schemes, it is a little difficult to see the sneaky way the anti-gun owner bigots try to get universal gun registration. But with this one they only barely lower the profile:



    Local Law “A” for 2009 would tightly regulate “in the interests of public safety” all ammunition sold in Albany County. Not just ammo for handguns, which already is closely monitored by state law, but all rifle and shotgun ammunition as well. Hunting and target shooting ammo, basically. Anyone buying rounds or shells, even .22s, would have to show identification, declare the gun and have its serial number registered with the ammo seller. The buyer would have to state his intent of use, and could be refused the purchase. The ammo seller, at the same time, would be required to keep records for 10 years.


    Registration of guns and gun owners over the years has cost people billions of dollars (two billion in Canada alone in the last decade or so) and about 100 million innocent lives (in genocides from Africa to the Ukraine). The number of crimes solved through the use of gun and gun owner registries is asymptotically close to zero.


    In Canada if you ask the gun grabbers how many crimes the police have solved through the use of the gun registry they will subtly change the subject and say, “The registry is used thousands of times each day.” or some such thing. Yes, the registry get a thousands of hits each day by the police. But it just part of a standard query on a person. That doesn’t mean it provided any useful data. And it certainly doesn’t mean it helped solve a crime. John Lott spoke at the 2000 Gun Rights Policy Conference and told us that in Hawaii the police estimate they spend 50,000 hours per year of police time involved in registration efforts. Most of which is paperwork. Yet when you talk to the police they can’t identify even one crime where this has helped. Guns are virtually never left at that crime scene. It’s not in my notes but I recall Lott telling us that when pressed hard enough Canada can support the claim that there was one crime solved through the use the registry which has been, in one form or another, in use for decades.


    So if a gun registration scheme has literally only a one in a million (or less) chance of solving a crime what do you think the real reason the gun grabbers keep pushing for registration? I can only think of four possible reasons:




    1. They are ignorant


    2. They are stupid


    3. They are insane


    4. They want to confiscate the guns

    In regard to #1, they have been told again and again. Any ignorance on their part is incredibly willful.


    In regards to #2, if they are smart enough to count votes they are smart enough to count crimes solved. It is not because they are that stupid.


    In regards to #3, this might be true in some cases. They are so blinded by grief over the loss of a loved one that they are not thinking rationally. But this is not the case for the vast majority of gun grabbers.


    In regards to #4, this is the only answer I can come up with that makes any sense. Those that want to register firearms and/or their owners so they can enable the elimination of gun ownership.


    Molôn Labé.

    Facts? Who cares?

    Posted on by

    From a reader submitted editorial:



    But in Iowa, when a gun discussion was brought up, it referred to hunting and those scraggly guys wearing the camouflage and driving the rusted Ford pickup. Instead of hearing about which person got shot over the weekend, I was hearing something along the lines of “Boy, I ‘m going to gut that coon I shot on Sunday and hang it up in the garage!”


    Great stereotype you got there buddy. Did you learn all about the validity of stereotypes while you were attending Klan orientation?



    The Brady Campaign is a U.S. organization that supports both gun control and gun owners’ rights.


    Can anyone name just one gun control law the Brady Campaign opposed? Does the KKK support both n****r control and civil rights? How can this person think that is even possible?



    If Obama is able to pass stricter gun laws, hunters will suffer and be at an uproar. If Obama doesn’t change anything in regards to gun control, those grieving mothers and communities will be screaming in his ear, asking why he hasn’t done anything about it.


    The classic bolt action deer rifle and shotguns used for bird hunting are the furthest down on Obama’s list and as a class of guns are probably the least used in crimes. I don’t expect Obama will even hint at restricting them. Rifle ammo, maybe. But not the firearms.


    Such ignorance! Why aren’t they embarrassed to have their words seen or heard in public?

    Quote of the day–Tracy Ambeau Hanson

    Posted on by

    Do we really need a gun-fashion police? I just want to be able to exercise my Second Amendment rights without interference from the District government.


    Tracy Ambeau Hanson
    March 9, 2009
    SAF CHALLENGES D.C. HANDGUN BAN SCHEME



    [The above picture is from David. See also more on the lawsuit story from David. I find it incredible amusing SAF found a woman of color as the plaintiff in a case about discrimination against a gun that is the wrong color. How much more blatant can the discrimination be before people start realizing the people attempting to infringe our right to keep and bear arms are bigots?


    Thank you Ms. Hanson, SAF, and Calguns Foundation.


    SAF is getting monthly, tax deductible, donations from my paycheck with matching donations from Microsoft. What are you doing to help?-Joe]

    Substance or Hypocritical Posturing? Which one works for you?

    Posted on by

    The following started as my comment at Say Uncle, but I decided it needed its own post.  It’s in response to the now age-old maneuver of calling for more enforcement of existing anti-gun laws rather than passing more, and considering ourselves clever negotiators.  It doesn’t matter who said it recently.  It’s been said for many years;


    “…should enforce existing laws rather than propose additional laws they said could infringe on Second Amendment rights.”


    Additional laws “could” infringe?  What; existing laws couldn’t infringe on Second Amendment rights?  Not a single one of them?  Next time someone’s house is busted into, guns are confiscated and destroyed, lives are turned upside down over a technical violation when no one has harmed or threatened any other person, you’ll be perfectly OK with that?  It’d be great, so long as no one bothers you with more laws?  You thought Ruby Ridge was cool, and you want more of the same, so long as it’s convenient for you?  You want to keep innocent people in jail over paper-work errors, or over an inch of barrel length or a quarter inch of buttstock?  Would that make you a proud supporter of the second amendment or a sadistic and immoral jackass with anti American tendencies?  You decide.


    Lets put this into perspective; “The Justice Department should enforce existing laws against negroes rather than propose additional laws that could infringe on Civil Rights.”


    That sounds stupid as all hell, doesn’t it?  How many people would take that as a pro Civil Rights stance and call for more of it?  Yet we have been conditioned over the years to think that’s perfectly acceptable language when discussing second amendment rights.  Any politician says something stupid like that and we think, “Yeah, Baby!  You tell ’em!  That guy’s on OUR side, Man!”


    Oh, how far we have fallen.


    Would we sit idly by and accept a federal department of alcohol, tobacco, negroes and explosives (BATNE)?  Do you like the juxtaposition there?  Lovely, isn’t it?  Should anyone sit by and accept such a thing as an inevitability, and proudly claim that as a clever, politically “reasonable” stance?


    If you reject the idea that gun restrictions equal crime control, and instead believe (as do I) that gun laws are not only counterproductive to their stated goals and an attack on liberty, but unconstitutional, you don’t call for more enforcement of them.  What would be the point in that, unless it’s an unprincipled attempt to appear “reasonable” to people who know nothing of the issue and nothing of the constitution’s history?  For that matter, what law enforcement officer who has taken an oath to the constitution could in good conscience enforce any gun laws against peaceable citizens?


    Are we trying to appeal to the sensibilities of idiots at the expense of our credibility, at the expense of the constitution, at the expense of reason, at the expense of public harmony, and at the expense of liberty?  Yeah; that makes us look like geniuses.  Sure it does.  Or cowards.


    It’s hypocritical.  It’s McCainian (to perhaps coin a new term).  It’s relying on ignorance for public support.  It’s what Republicans do when they listen to their super-smart advisors.


    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to clean my guns.  And to “fondle” them.  You know, ’cause I have a small penis or something.

    Democrats–the party of gun control

    Posted on by

    Alan Gottlieb via CCRKBA says:



    “Once again,” he said, “Democrats are revealing themselves as the party of restrictive gun control. If the citizens of Washington, D.C. have a right to full congressional representation, they also have a right to own the firearm of their choice. For Democrats to argue that one right is more important than another – especially after last year’s Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment – they are engaging in world-class hypocrisy.”


    …

    “Democrats argue that the right to representation is not related to the right to keep and bear arms,” Gottlieb said, “but that’s nonsense. This country was born because our founders were being taxed without representation, and because British troops tried to disarm the citizens. Those issues are just as equal today as they were 230 years ago, and Democrats on Capitol Hill need to understand that.”


    I keep wondering how close we are to the taxes and disarmament thresholds of another country being born. The Democrats may also be the party that creates a revolution.

    Good name but bad association

    Posted on by

    Via Say Uncle news from New York City (emphasis mine):



    On Tuesday 03/03/09, at approximately 12:00, members of the NYPD’s Firearms Suppression Division executed a search warrant at 864 Jewett Ave., within the confines of the 120 PCT. Upon conclusion of the warrant, a total of 80 firearms had been seized from within the home. One individual was taken into police custody and charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon.


    “Firearms Suppression Division” should be the name of a successful corporate entity and never associated with a police department. Can you imagine the screams of protest, and rightly so, if the NYPD also had a “Faggot Suppression Division” or “Jew Suppression Division”?


    Those boys in blue need a serious spanking. 18 USC 242 comes to mind as a good first step.

    D.C. now wants statehood

    Posted on by

    Because the Senate told them they are going to have to abide by the Second Amendment the D.C. City Council now wants the district to become a state. Do they think that will change things? Just because Alabama and Mississippi are states doesn’t mean they can disregard the 13th Amendment.

    Engaging the enemy

    Posted on by

    Via an email from Gullyborg:



    This is hot news here in Oregon and it needs to be spread across the blogosphere:


    http://oregonwarvets.typepad.com/owva_blog/2009/02/owva-prepares-to-litigate-against-western-oregon-university.html


    My friend Greg runs OWVA. He is committed to providing Maxwell with whatever help he needs to sue the crap out of WOU. But it will take money, so please post about this and encourage readers to contact OWVA to contribute to the Maxwell case.


    Basically a retired Marine was legally carrying a pistol while attending Western Oregon University. He was suspended for a year for exercising his rights and “In addition to his unlawful discipline, WOU humiliated the 30 year old, veteran Marine by mandating that he receive psychiatric evaluation and write a ten page paper on civil obedience before his readmission into the university.”


    The WOU bigots are the ones that need to fired, prosecuted under 18 USC 241, receive a psychiatric evaluation, and write a ten page on respecting civil rights. Help Oregon War Veterans Association make it so.

    Recognition of Second Amendment a nightmare

    Posted on by

    D.C. may have to give some recognition to the Second Amendment and the Heller decision and what do the anti-gun bigots have to say about it? They think it’s “a nightmare”:

    What should have been a day of celebration last Thursday turned into a nightmare for the District, however, when the Senate approved its version of the “D.C. House Voting Rights Act” S. 160, with an amendment drafted by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

    I wonder if they also think recognition of the 13th Amendment was a nightmare as well?

    Update: I left the following comment:

    And those other states with the “weaker gun laws” have much lower rates of violent crime.
    There is Just One Question that needs to be answered:
    Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
    The answer is no. Violent crime rates were not improved (unless you cherry pick the data very carefully) in D.C. after the gun ban. And after asking that question for over four years I have yet to get an answer which any anti-gun person would be proud of.
    One has to wonder what the real motive of people associated with anti-gun organizations is. We know restrictive laws on firearms don’t make people safer so what is it they hope to accomplish?
    I can only conclude they are of the same type of mindset that would have screamed the 13th Amendment was going to be a “nightmare” as well. Hence, I am lead to believe the anti-gun organizations of the 21st century are the equivalent of the KKK of the 20th century.

    Comments are moderated so “reasoned discourse” will break out in 3, 2, 1, …

    Update2: After five hours the comment has still not appeared.

    Update3: After nearly 57 hours the comment has still not appeared but other comments, supporting their position, left after mine have shown up.