Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day–Clayton Cramer

Posted on by

Idaho has this reputation for being a bunch of anti-federal government crazies, but I don’t think that’s particularly deserved. I mentioned last February that Montana officials had warned the Supreme Court that Montana joined the Union on the understanding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right, and they might have to rethink that situation if the Court ruled wrongly on D.C. v. Heller (2008). Fortunately, the Court got it right, so there was no need for Montana to seize the Air Force missile silos there, and become the world’s lowest population and density nuclear power.


Anyway, it appears that the Montana legislature is preparing for the Obamination of restrictive federal gun control laws.


…


Adding to the amusement of this is that those who were upset about the Raich decision (and they were right to be upset, even if it was for a very stupid cause: marijuana) will have to admit that if California has the right to legalize marijuana that doesn’t move across state lines, free of federal intervention, then Montana has a similar right to tell the federal government that guns made in Montana are exempt from federal rules.


Clayton Cramer
February 25, 2009
Those Pesky Montanans
[Although I probably am as amused about this as Clayton people don’t “have to admit” anything. I literally know a person that will insist to your face that “the fence line is over there and has always been over there” even though you could break a leg stepping into the ancient fence post hole in front of you and get tangled in the rusty barbed wire as you fell. This same person also convinced a judge that it was legitimate self-defense after a neighbor caught him sitting on his ex-wife pounding on her face who was flat on her back on the sidewalk (had it been me that caught him the judge would not have been required to make a decision). Some people are just reality impaired and/or have an infinite capacity to lie.–Joe]

Times have changed

Posted on by

From reader Rob who makes reference to a previous post of mine when he says, “Abnormal behavior?” and sent me this picture:


Attention to detail may be lacking

Posted on by

The anti-gun people are celebrating yesterdays Supreme Court decision:



Gun control advocates hailed the ruling as a good sign following the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 decision that defined the Second Amendment as covering an individual’s right to possess weapons. That decision was the first time the Court had ever ruled so broadly on gun rights.


But the Heller ruling suggested that some reasonable restrictions to gun ownership would be allowed. “That’s a good sign that Heller is the limited ruling we thought it was,” said Daniel Vice, a senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.


They may be overlooking something. The Second Amendment was neither briefed or mentioned in the case. Hence, if my understanding of judicial process is correct, the court could not bring the Second Amendment or the Heller decision into the discussion. Thus, if someone else challenges the Lautenberg Amendment on Second Amendment grounds we could end up with a completely different decision.


Go ahead and dance Mr. Vice, your day to whine may be coming yet.

Abnormal behavior

Posted on by

Does anyone think it is “abnormal behavior” to read a book in public? How about putting a bumper-sticker on your car in favor of (or opposed to) a candidate for political office? How about requesting a lawyer before being questioned by the police? Or insisting on a warrant before the police search your home?

In all of the above the people of the United States are guaranteed these rights by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. So why would someone in their right mind say:

In case you haven’t noticed, the pro-gun lobby is working overtime to normalize abnormal behavior. Let us ask you a handful of questions.
Would you be willing to:

  • Sip hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you?
  • Attend a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt?
  • Stand in line at a bank to make a deposit as two men enter with baseball hats on and what appear to be guns in their pockets?
  • Board a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers carrying concealed weapons?

“Abnormal behavior”? Exercising a specific enumerated right in public is “abnormal behavior”? Perhaps in the Peoples Republic of China, Massachusetts, or Chicago. But it is a right. All of the above activities seem perfectly normal to me. I don’t know what his problem is. Is he one of those that didn’t want n***ers in the same restaurant with him too? Maybe he doesn’t want Jews handling his money either. And blacks need to sit at the back of the bus and give up their seats to good white folk too.

The only conclusion I can reach is that the guy isn’t in his right mind. He is the one exhibiting abnormal behavior. He must have mental problems, is a blatant bigot, or both. It’s time we treated these people as the bigots they are and condemn them to the political dustbin of history.

Montana got their attention

Posted on by

Someone at the U.S. Treasury department is checking out the proposed (and making good progress) Montana law telling the Feds to stuff it on guns that don’t cross the state border.


Via my SiteMeter:




























































































Domain Name   treas.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address   63.167.255.# (Sprint)
ISP   Sprint
Location  

















Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
Lat/Long  :  38, -97 (Map)
Distance  :  1,180 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; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  









Resolution  :  1152 x 864
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Feb 20 2009 9:55:17 am
Last Page View   Feb 20 2009 9:55:17 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://search.yahoo….e=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
Search Engine search.yahoo.com
Search Words 2009 montana legislature firearms protections
Visit Entry Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/01/16/quote-of-the-day-2009-montana-legislature/
Visit Exit Page   https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/01/16/quote-of-the-day-2009-montana-legislature/
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time   Feb 20 2009 12:55:17 pm
Visit Number   441,314

Quote of the day–M. Carol Bambery

Posted on by

The District would like to restrict women’s choice of firearm to those it gauges most appropriate rather than to allow rational women the ability to decide whether a handgun is more suited to their needs. Petitioner’s Brief cites two articles from firearms magazines in which a shotgun is mentioned as appropriate for home defense. Pet. Br. at 54-55. An assembled shotgun is certainly better than nothing and could provide deterrence benefits provided it is accessible to a woman. However, most women are best served by a handgun, lighter in weight, lighter in recoil, far less unwieldy for women with shorter arm spans, and far more easily carried around the home than a shotgun or rifle. Moreover, women who are holding a handgun are able to phone for assistance, while any type of long gun requires two hands to keep the firearm pointed at an assailant.


M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.
[It’s called Freedom of Choice. And ultimately the Supreme Court said it was a specific enumerated right too.–Joe]

I knew they were stupid but WOW!

Posted on by

You have to wonder if they need help figuring out how to breath when you hear of people like this:



Why can’t there be more stringent laws against guns in Salinas?


Salinas police Cmdr. Dino Bardoni was the first official placed in the hot seat tonight as a townhall meeting kicked off at Sherwood Hall on North Main Street.



The initial question was posed by Peter Valdez of Salinas, who wanted to know why gun locks couldn’t be enforced in the city – forcing gang members to lock their guns in order to transport them.




“Gang member are not going to adhere to the law,” said Bardoni, referring to how the criminals use illegal guns. “The problem is the outlaw element that is carrying the guns that we can’t control at this point.”



He is one of six panelists participating in a townhall meeting geared to community members who have concerns about the ongoing gang problems in the city that have so far killed six people in 2009.


The emphasis above is mine.


Unfortunately they probably not only know how to breath but have reproduction and voting figured out too. I figure that is the only explanation we have for the existence of all the people that want to ban guns.

A new sporting rifle on the market

Posted on by

 

 

I love the name they gave it–Sporting Rifle. Surely that must mean it is for “sporting purposes” and it can’t possibly be an “assault weapon”.

 

 

And did you notice the logo on the side of the receiver? STI!

 

I shoot a STI gun in competition, I carry a STI gun and you should too.

NRA wins in 3-0 victory

Posted on by

Via the Triangle of Death:



Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in support of allowing employees to store legally owned firearms in locked, private motor vehicles while parked in employer parking lots. This decision upholds NRA-backed legislation passed in 2004.


“This is a victory for the millions of American workers who have been denied the right to protect themselves while commuting between their homes and their workplace,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “This effort was aimed at skirting the will of the American people, and the intent of legislatures across this country while eviscerating Right-to-Carry laws. This ruling is a slap at the corporate elitists who have no regard for the constitutional rights of law abiding American workers.”


Keep in mind this only applies to states that have passed such laws. Currently that is only a handful of states.


I have mixed feelings on this. It’s a balancing act between property rights and gun owner rights. Generally I just remain silent rather than cheer for either side. But I have to admit it makes it more publicly acceptable to be a gun owner. Just as requiring a license to carry wouldn’t be necessary in a Utopian world it did make it more acceptable to the general public.

Improving Idaho gun laws

Posted on by

Mike reports:


We get them started young in Idaho

Posted on by

One of my neighbors just bought their daughter her first rifle.

Quote of the day–John Longenecker

Posted on by


As liberty purists say often, gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control. As non-gun owners, you no doubt are beginning to feel the pinch of restraint on your wrists as your freedoms are being taken away on government fiat, freedoms which seem to have nothing to do with guns. This makes all Americans united on one front: experiencing abuses of powers not granted by the people.


Officials have this penchant for claiming to lift our burdens in what they call compassion or social justice, but in fact lift our liberties as if we have a bottomless pit of freedoms and can afford to surrender up some for their projects. Justice herself then suffers, as, little by little, self-rule, independence, and opportunity are snuffed out.


…


The whole idea of disarming the supreme authority of this country is piggish. Who in their right mind elects to disarm themselves as the supreme authority? Who in their right mind takes the word of servants over their own better judgment and gives up rights for nothing? Who in their right mind doesn’t learn from past disaster of who really loses when guns are taken and who doesn’t?


John Longenecker
February 15, 2009
Gun Control: the very first pig with lipstick on it.
[As usual, when Longenecker writes nearly every paragraph qualifies as QOTD material.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Michael Gaddy

Posted on by

Rest assured, there will be a great majority who will not stand against
tyranny. Those who have “gone along to get along” and those who have
continually voted for the “lesser of two evils” will capitulate and surrender
their weapons, as cowards normally do. They will rue the day they failed to
support those who stood for liberty such as Ron Paul. Remember, they were
offered liberty, but chose instead to support the status quo, because, in
their eyes, liberty could not be elected.

Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008

Lame

Posted on by

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign is whining about the National Park rule change that allows some of us to defend ourselves using firearms in National Parks. They filed the lawsuit and one of the biggest whines is:



On April 3, 2008, the National Park Service’s Chief of Environmental Quality, Jacob Hoogland, warned that the rule “required additional NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis” and that “at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation.”


In the same vein, Michael Schwartz, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Chief of Policy and Directives Management, warned on May 14, 2008 that “The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis.  Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw.”


Paul, technically that may be true. I’m sorry my former governer Dirk Kempthorne didn’t dot that particular ‘i’. Let me do it for him now, “Environmental Assessment of the rule change: No affect.”


Now stop your whining and grow up.

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

Kerlikowske’s reported appointment to a post with the Obama administration reinforces the genuine concerns of American gun owners that the new president is not their friend. The new president has surrounded himself with people who have long anti-gun rights track records, including Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. By adding Gil Kerlikowske to his inner circle, Obama is simply confirming the adage that ‘you can tell a lot about someone by the company he keeps.


Alan Gottlieb
KERLIKOWSKE PICK MORE PROOF OF OBAMA’S ANTI-GUN AGENDA, SAYS CCRKBA
[As the economy worsens crime is likely to go up. I expect the administration to then attack gun owners as a scape goat. This will tend to distract the population from the economy as well as put those uppity gun n***ers in their place. With nearly all Obama’s advisors being exceedingly anti-gun I cannot imagine he won’t attack us during his time in office–Joe]

Advice to anti-gun people

Posted on by

From Newbie Shooter: Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis.


A sample:



Finally, taking your ball and going home is just sad.  You are arguing that you know better than I do… and that you want to take away my civil rights.  That’s a pretty serious thing.  If you can’t stand the criticism from the people you want to disarm, than perhaps you shouldn’t threaten them in the first place.

Quote of the day–David E. Young

Posted on by

First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained – shall not be infringed – nor shall the right be infringed. The Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.


David E. Young
February 8, 2009
The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’
[Unfortunately, intent and result are two different things. We still have a long way to go.–Joe]

What we have here is a failure to communicate

Posted on by

First I want to get something out of the way before I make my main points.

 

I’ve been laying it on Catherine pretty thick and she updated her blog post to include some of my comments such as suggesting she look up the definition of “shill”, and commenting on my equating our struggle for gun rights to other civil rights. I will partially concede one point to her. At least one dictionary defines “shill” merely as “to act as a spokesperson or promoter”. The definition I was working from required the person pretended no association with the group or organization being promoted. Except for the Merriam-Webster dictionary cited above all the other on-line definitions I found mention deceit (or similar such as “put under cover”) as a component of the definition:

 

 

 

Hence even though I promote the civil rights agenda of the NRA because I am open about being a (life) member of the NRA, an NRA certified instructor, and communicate with them fairly regularly I am not a shill of the NRA–except if you use Catherine’s and the Merriam Webster definition. Perhaps in our on-line war of words we should just drop the shill issue. We both have adequate justification for our positions and it’s a distraction from the important points.

 

The more important point is that despite being a lawyer and a BA in English magna cum laude she has a reading (and spelling but I don’t hold that against her) problem. For example she stated:

 

Some NRA proud propagandists (they displayed a badge stating “NRA propoganda” [sic] blogger)

 

But the actual badge doesn’t say that. The badge is:

 

Unorganized Militia Propaganda Corps

 

The badge does not say what she claims it says. Furthermore it does NOT have ANYTHING to do with the NRA. Not only doesn’t it say NRA, it is not affiliated with the NRA in any way other than there is a strong correlation between people that have those badges and a NRA membership.

 

Another example. She stated:

 

They only seek to ridicule viewpoints different from theirs in the most base and crude ways.  I will not engage in that.  See my comments.  That is my right.

 

She implies someone was trying to infringe her rights in some way. No. They, and I, tried to point out the flaws in her statements and I asked her Just One Question. She refused to engage on those issues and shut off the comments. Fine, it’s her blog she can do whatever she wants with it (within legal limits such as libel and certain limits on pornography, extortion, blackmail etc. which are not at issue in this case). As near as I can determine she had trouble reading the actual words said and imagined they said something completely different.

 

Because of her refusal to engage people did ridicule her and I did call her a bigot in regards to which had the following to say:

 

I have been referred to as a “bigot” because I have a different opinion. They equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights that African Americans had in this country, which is why I am a bigot?  Yet they say my view is narrow?  Such chutzpah to even to equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights.  That says a lot about just how extreme and fringe they are.

 

No. Not because she had a different opinion. It was because she without thought, is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from her own. She wants to ban “assault weapons” but refuses to address the facts they are probably protected by the Second Amendment, and restrictions on them have never been shown to improve public safety. Facts, as near as I can determine, are irrelevant to her beliefs and she continues to push her beliefs. That makes her a bigot.

 

In still another example that can be explained by her inability to read we have the issue of the D.C. v. Heller ruling. I gave her a link and quoted from it. This ruling clearly states the Second Amendment is a specific enumerated right that protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. That means gun ownership is, beyond any doubt, a civil right. Either she cannot read what the ruling clearly states or something else is going on. In any case that I can think other than some sort learning disability it is further confirmation she is a bigot.

 

Also of note is that my posts regarding the bigot at hand generated some hate mail. It’s been so long that this really made my day:

 

From: Skujins Andre [mailto:askujins@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 2:43 PM
To: blog@joehuffman.org
Subject: Comments on: Shills

Boy your title says it all mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger.  What a  complete asshole.  Hope your dog gets shot by your drunk buddies.

 

First off, I don’t have any dogs (my wife and kids have two small dogs that I occasionally interact with when I go home to Idaho). And two, I almost never drink anything with alcohol nor do I hang around with friends that are drunk. So what is appears what we have here is another person that is willing to apply false stereotypes to someone they don’t know because of their bigoted beliefs.

Quote of the day–Mark Philip Alger

Posted on by

Joe Huffman has his Just One Question. I have another:

 

If it is proper for a citizen to use force — even lethal force — to prevent or halt the commission of a felony (in the interest of preserving the life and property of the innocent), how much more-so to prevent an ongoing violation of a provision of the Constitution — given that the latter is the source of authority for the former?

 

When is it proper, for example, to use force to stop a legislator engaged in unconstitutional actions? Indeed, when is it required of those who have sworn oaths to… protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic…?

 

Mark Philip Alger
February 7, 2009
Our Curmudgeon…
[See also my Civil Disobedience web page. When you have an answer please share.–Joe]

And the bigots were made to pay

Posted on by

Via the Apex of the Triangle Of Death we get to read about San Francisco Paying NRA $380,000 for Successful Proposition H Lawsuits.


While it makes me happy the bigots had to pay up for conspiring to deprive people of their rights they should have been arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to time in jail as well. This sort of nonsense is going to continue until the laws against this sort of outrageous behavior are enforced.


Other bloggers have their view on the issue as well: