Category Archives: Gun Rights

Post Heller

Posted on by

In a few hours my world will change. I’ve been actively involved in gun rights since Bill Clinton (spit, spit) was elected. He was the reason I bought my first gun. My second gun was because of Diana Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and of course Clinton again. A significant part of Boomershoot and the website for Boomershoot was because of a law pushed through by Diane Feinstein.

Ruby Ridge was a motivator for my first gun too. I lived just a few miles from where that went down and know things that were never in the news reports. By the time the Butcher of Waco did her thing I was fully immersed and, as Barb will tell you, very difficult to live with.

Those were very dark days. Many leaders in the gun rights movement believed we had lost and were only fighting a holding action that merely slowed down the inevitable. I remember one prediction in the news group talk.politics.guns that captured the sentiments of many at the time. I didn’t save a copy because I didn’t want that sort of thing on my computer. I just went looking for it in the news groups archive–it took me 45 minutes to find it:

Robert Lewis Glendenning
Sep 4 1994, 10:39 am

Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.batf, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns, alt.conspiracy
From: rlgle…@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning)
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 16:21:41 GMT
Local: Sun, Sep 4 1994 9:21 am
Subject: Re: The Revolution

During the next 3 to 5 years, the Supreme Court will rule on a gun
case. This case will have national media attention, and every gun owner,
libertarian and proto-revolutionary will be watching closely.

If they rule by the plain meaning of the Constitution, it will be a
signal that we are moving back to Constitutional rule.

If they rule for the federal government, it will be a signal that
the gov has permanently escaped the Constitution. In this case,
I expect:

1) That every major federal building in the US outside of WDC and
army bases will be burned in the next 48 hours.

2) That the Federal gov’s ability to enforce laws will be restricted
by the lack of anybody willing to identify themselves as a federal
employee.

3) That many states will pass resolutions demanding return to
Constitutional gov, and opting out of federal control via the 10th.

4) That the US Congress capitulates by passing a revolution
pledging return to the Constitution, and listing a preliminary set
of laws which they intend to repeal. This list will include all
Federal gun laws.

Note that this is as close to a bloodless revolution as one can
imagine.

In preparation for these events, may I suggest that you learn all
about your local federal buildings?

Lew
—
Lew Glendenning rlgle…@netcom.com
The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the CONSTITUTION.

We are now hours from that moment Glendenning predicted. What will be the result? The only thing I am certain of is that neither of predicted potential outcomes will come to pass. Even if the Heller decision goes against us all the Federal buildings will be standing 48 hours and even 48 weeks later–barring an severe earthquake someplace. Overturning the D.C. gun ban and declaring the 2nd Amendment is an individual right won’t put the government “back on the path to righteousness” or any such thing.

Some people have been predicting (here and here for example) a favorable ruling on Heller will mean the anti-gun forces will find it difficult to raise money and get people excited if they know they can’t actually ban guns. Sort of like if they can’t win the fight with a knock-out they won’t even bother to stay in the ring and knock all the teeth out of their opponent. I’m not convinced of this.

When the south lost the war of northern aggression and all their slaves were freed did they suddenly start treating blacks as equals? No. They paid little regard to the Federal laws protecting blacks as they discriminated against, scorned, beat, and lynched blacks for 100 years after that decision was made. I believe we could still have a 100 years of political fighting ahead of us still. It could, for all practical purposes, be an eternal fight.

I don’t really think freedom is a natural state of mankind. Some semblance of freedom has only really existed for about 200 hundred years in a relatively small portion of the human population out of the roughly two thousand years that we have any sort of written history. I think the concept of “the tribe” is more important than the individual was a powerful meme that enabled our distant ancestors to be more successful than their individualist neighbors. That concept selected for anti-freedom mindset at a fundamental level in the personality of the human race. It was only in a small subset of the world population that the individual, the smallest minority, was regarded as important as “the tribe”. That resulted in a remarkable burst of economic and personal freedom that, in the big picture, was extremely shocking.

Western culture developed the concept of individual freedom and, in essence, conquered the world. It went against the inherent personality of all the civilizations and tribes before it. We did not breed that out of the human mind as that concept took root and flourished. At best it was suppressed in a sufficient number for a short (on the civilization scale) time. The group that values the individual is less inclined to kill or put the anti-individual person at a serious disadvantage of passing on their genes than the other way around. Hence you can think of the meme of individual freedom as sort of a recessive gene. The “tribe is more important” meme is more like a dominate gene. Hence freedom is likely to always be unfinished business.

So how will a positive Heller ruling affect us? As I said in my first line my world will change. I will be in a better position to claim the anti-gun people are bigots just like those that promoted the Jim Crow laws against blacks. If we are to come close to anything resembling a complete victory I believe that meme will be the key. We have to drive those bigots into political extinction. We can, and probably must, leverage concepts that already resonate with the majority of people. The comparison to minority (non-whites, Jews, gays, women, etc.) rights of all types is the most winning strategy I can think of. Sure the courts and legislatures will need to overthrow the existing repressive laws against us but that only comes after the public opinion has changed. They aren’t leaders. They are servants of the people and only enforce the will of the people. To win we must make the will of the people match our mindset. That is the job ahead of us.

If Heller goes against us my world will change in a different way. I don’t want to contemplate that scenario. That is the stuff of nightmares and dark ages.

I expect we will have some semblance of a win but still I’m sad. It could just be the late hour as I write this but a significant component is the freedom fighters that carried the fight for decades before I ever said a word or donated a single penny to the cause who didn’t make it to see this day. Neal Knox (and here) especially comes to mind. I met and talked to him at two different Gun Rights Policy Conferences. I was very, very impressed by him and I wish he could have seen this day. The best tribute we can pay to him is to win the fight.

Let’s celebrate and analyze the ruling for a few days then–Let’s roll.

Quote of the day–Daryl Manhart

Posted on by

Put simply, if the phrase “the people” connotes an individual guarantee in the First and Fourth Amendments, it logically follows that the same term, used in the same document (the Bill of Rights), in the same series of amendments within that document, should also be construed as guaranteeing the preservation of an individual, not “collective” right.

The next portion of the operative clause necessary to the determination of whose right the Second Amendment protects is the sentence predicate — “shall not be infringed.” This language indicates that “the right to keep and bear arms” was not created in the Amendment, but rather preserved by it. Id. at 382. The right to keep and bear arms was viewed at the founding as a natural right that preexisted the formation of the national government. Thus, the Second Amendment was guaranteeing its preservation by providing that it “shall not be infringed.” Case law from the late-nineteenth century expounding on the purpose for the Bill of Rights supports this interpretation of its plain meaning.

Daryl Manhart
February 11, 2008
Brief of Maricopa county attorney’s office and other prosecutor agencies as amici curiae in support of respondent.
[No Heller decision today. We are assured, by the Chief Justice, that the Heller decision will be announced tomorrow at 10:00 AM.

It was suggested to me by a fellow activist that we should celebrate the decision, assuming we get the expected result, by going out and drinking Miller beer. In a sense it would be “Miller Time”. I’m not much of a drinker of any type of alcohol so one of the first things I will be doing is going to the dentist to get my teeth cleaned. The next non-work thing I’ll be doing is having lunch with a fellow gun-nut. Then in the evening my Lautenberg victim friend is coming over to get his guns back. All his legal troubles have been resolved in a satisfactory manner–other than the expenditure of way too much money and time.–Joe]

Full-throated?

Posted on by

I never been called this before:

Joe Huffman, the full-throated Second Amendment activist

For some reason that brings to mind “deep throat” and there is no version of that phrase that applies to me. Particularly in the context of the Pink Pistols as was the case in this post.

It must be something new. The rest of the post was nice. I think it was a compliment.

Straw sales of Title II toys

Posted on by

Ry nails this one:

The private military company Blackwater has found an unusual way to skirt federal laws that prohibit private parties from buying automatic weapons. Blackwater bought 17 Romanian AK-47s and 17 Bushmasters, gave ownership of the guns to the Camden County sheriff and keeps most of the guns at Blackwater’s armory in Moyock.

Unusual, as in, illegal. Not only are these straw purchases, but they’re straw purchases of Title II firearms. Good for me, not for thee.

One might conclude this little arrangement might not last much longer:

The agreement between Blackwater and the Sheriff’s Office could be an illegal straw purchase, said Richard Myers, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A straw purchase, Myers said, is when one person fills out the federal firearms registration form to obtain a weapon for another person’s use.

“I prosecuted several when I was with the U.S. attorney,” Myers said. “If I were Blackwater’s attorney, I would be concerned about whether this is a genuine purchase or a straw purchase.”

Sheriff Perry said he did not consult a lawyer about the agreement until recently, when the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the FBI inquired about the arrangement.

My guess is the Feds will “decline to prosecute” and ignore the whole thing. Those laws weren’t really intended to apply to everyone. Just the people the Feds want to keep in their place.

It would amuse me if the Feds do push the issue and Blackwater and friends (the local sheriff) use the Heller decision to defend themselves. They would be a great “poster child” for our side on this issue.

Your turn

Posted on by

If you haven’t already done so you should make yourself heard on the issue of firearms in National Parks. Our opponents are not quiet on the topic and we must not be either. Here is what the bigots are saying:

The NRA Wants Loaded Guns in Parks. What do YOU Want?

That’s right, guns in parks. LOADED guns in parks. For some reason, the NRA thinks it’s a great idea to let anyone and everyone possess loaded weapons in our national parks. Visitor safety? Who cares, right? You care. And you know that our current policies are smart and sound, and protect the rights of gun owners and visitors’ safety equally. Allowing loaded guns in parks poses a threat to wildlife, park visitors, and puts our already over-burdened park rangers at even greater risk. The Bush Administration has opened up the regulations for comment. If they want comments, let’s not disappoint them. Submit your comments TODAY and tell them to keep the current regulations in place. Take action!

Here is what they are suggesting people say on the topic:

Millions of visitors visit our national parks each year. They visit the parks because they offer a glimpse into America’s heritage. They offer the unique opportunity for families to experience peace and reflect in a safe environment. But opening the national parks to loaded weapons could change that forever.

Today’s national security threats make the protection of these iconic places and the millions of people from around the world who visit them a serious concern deserving of special vigilance. Requiring guns to be stored and unloaded is no more onerous a limitation on the rights of law-abiding citizens than requiring them to be searched or pass through a metal detector to enter a federal building.

We cannot put the safety of visitors at risk because of the political agenda of one organization. I urge you to keep the current regulations in place.

There is a big difference between the interior of a federal building with armed law enforcement close by and the deep woods of some national park. Here are some hints. These are actual pictures I took in a National Park:


Here is the actual proposed regulation change.

Here, here and here is the best advice I have seen on what to say to our Washington D.C. servants.

Here is the electronic submission form.

Do the right thing and don’t let the bigots win this one.

Quote of the day–Lawrence G. Keane

Posted on by

Many Americans at the time of the constitution’s ratification feared that this national government – to be run by an equally unprecedented office of “President” – would become a new source of tyranny, replacing the British crown they had just overthrown. Accordingly, they sought protections from potential tyranny, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right “to keep and bear arms.” While, to some, the notion may seem quaint today, the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the individual right to bear arms ensured that the new national government would not be able to oppress the American people. That guarantee cannot now be read out of the Bill of Rights simply because times have changed.

Lawrence G. Keane
Brief of The National Shooting Sports Foundation, inc., as amicus curiae in support of respondent.
[For people that claim the U.S. is a “living document” that need not be amended to change the meaning ask them if that applies to the 13th Amendment as well.–Joe]

SCOTUS is releasing opinion(s) today

Posted on by

You can get live blog coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court action this morning if you go here. No guarantee D.C. v. Heller will be released. It could be later this week instead.

Update: Nothing on D.C. v. Heller today. Maybe later this week. Additional hints from the above link:

10:12
 Tom Goldstein –  The only opinion remaining from the March sitting is Heller.   The only Justice without a majority opinion from that sitting is Justice Scalia.
10:14
 Tom Goldstein –  The Court has announced that it will release opinions against at 10am Wednesday.   Because seven opinions remain, it will almost certainly have one additional day.   Based on past practice, that day likely will be Thursday.

Quote of the day–Albert W. Wallis

Posted on by

The gun control legislation enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 that banned handguns in the city (“D.C. Gun Control Law”) is an effective law enforcement tool that has promoted the public health and safety by reducing the level of handgun violence in the District of Columbia (“District”). Criminological studies evaluating the effects of the D.C. Gun Control Law have proven that it has reduced the rate of firearm homicides and suicides committed in the District.

Albert W. Wallis
Brief of professors of criminal justice as amici curiae in support of petitioners.
[Typically the District of Columbia, even with the draconian gun laws, has the highest murder rate in the U.S. So one has to wonder just how violent the people of the District of Columbia would be if they could own firearms. One must also wonder why just across the river in Virginia, with far easier access to firearms and the right to bear them in public, those people have such a low rate of violence. It is also worthy of note that they refer to firearm homicides and suicides, not total murder and suicide. I take this to mean they are only concerned if someone is killed, justified or not, with a firearm. Murders by people armed with knives, baseball bats, and broken bottles are not of interest. But this is a brief of professors, they don’t work with the real world, that should explain a lot.–Joe]

Letter to the Mayor of Montesano

Posted on by

As widely reported the city council of Montesano passed an ordinance banning gun owners from city parks. The mayor wisely vetoed it. Send your thanks to him. I did:

From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 2:21 PM
To: ‘mayor@montesano.us’
Subject: Thanks for vetoing the ordinance discriminating against gun owners.

What was the council thinking? Once they had established a precedent of discriminating against constitutionally protected individuals carrying firearms were they then going to expand the list of undesirables to Jews, homosexuals, and people involved in mixed race marriages?

Thank you for doing the right thing. 

Joe Huffman
Kirkland, Washington

Advertising your bitterness

Posted on by

The Apex of the Triangle of Death is selling signs to advertise your bitterness:

They have other signs available too.

Akins Accelerator lawsuit

Posted on by

There is an interesting article on the status of Akins and his accelerator in the Tampa Tribune.

I hope the ATF gets kicked in the teeth by the judge and jury.

Quote of the day–M. Carol Bambery

Posted on by

Violent criminals who may view women as easy targets find their jobs far less taxing in communities such as Washington, D.C. Researchers conducting the Institute of Justice Felon Survey confirm the common-sense notion that those wishing to do harm often think closely before confronting an individual who may be armed.

M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.
[I found 10 quotes to add to my database in this brief. I’m proud to say that of those 126 women state legislators 12 of them were from Idaho.–Joe]

Quote of the day–David B. Kopel

Posted on by

Petitioners implicitly claim that a typical citizen of the District who can pass a criminal records and mental records background check (such as the National Instant Check System) is at serious risk of committing murder. It is hard to imagine how such a population could be considered fit for home rule.

David B. Kopel
D.C. v. Heller
Brief of The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), The International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, Calif., Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, National Police Defense Foundation, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and The Independence Institute as amici curiae in support of respondent.

Quote of the day–Daniel G. Jarcho

Posted on by

The District’s handgun ban is a reasonable and constitutional restriction because handguns are less effective than other firearms for self-defense. Although they are designed to be more lethal than other firearms, handguns are smaller and harder to shoot accurately.

Daniel G. Jarcho
Brief of Violence Policy Center and the police chiefs for the cities of Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Seattle as amici curiae in support of petitioners.
[Yes, several police chiefs publicly announced their bigotry, ignorance of guns, and stupidly signed on to the brief from the VPC. If not for the seriousness of the matter and that some people might actually believe them the entire brief would be entertaining. Just the two sentences above are open for fisking on the following points:

  • There is no constitutional exemption for protection for “less effective” arms.
  • Handguns are not designed to be more lethal than other firearms (I thought the VPC wanted .50-caliber/”assault-weapons”/semi-autos/normal-capacity-magazines/”Saturday-Night-Specials” banned because it they were the most lethal).
  • Handguns are carried by virtually all law enforcement officers in the U.S. because they are effective for self-defense.

Reading the brief I just have to shake my head in wonder at nearly every sentence. They are ignorant of the history firearm technology or hope their revision of it will not be noticed by others. Sometimes consecutive sentences contradict each other. They live in an alternate reality and/or they have mental problems.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Earl Byrd

Posted on by

“We don’t appreciate being heels,” Clark* said, pointing out the pain it takes to tell an elderly widow who is living alone “that even though your husband bought the gun legally and registered it properly, you can’t keep it. Why that makes an innocent citizen a crook.”

It was a theme heard often in D.C. today, and surprisingly, it seems to gall policemen more than anybody else.

“You’re not controlling guns, you’re controlling people,” said Sgt. Jimmy King, a veteran robbery squad investigator.

“Honest citizens, the little old lady who’s not hurting anybody anyway is the real victim. We’re not stopping these bums killing each other, us, or committing armed robberies.”

…

Like most officers, King believes the court is the real answer.

“The court is not enforcing the laws we already have on the books,” he said, explaining: “There’s a law on the books today which allows a five-year additional sentence for any crime committed while armed, but it’s not enforced.”

King’s sentiments were echoed throughout police headquarters and by officers on the streets.

“I don’t know why they bother to make new laws, they don’t enforce the old ones,” said Fourth District Officer Andrew Way as he wrote a parking ticket yesterday.

Earl Byrd
D.C.’s Gun Registration
Wash. Star
Dec. 2, 1976
*Officer David Clark, one of two officers in charge of registration for the Gun Control Section of the D.C. police.
Brief of The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), The International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, Calif., Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, National Police Defense Foundation, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and The Independence Institute as amici curiae in support of respondent in D.C. v. Heller.
[The police in D.C. were not always parroting what the Mayor told them to say.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Steven M. Simpson

Posted on by

A critical step in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of the privileges and immunities of national citizens and of life, liberty, and property is to understand the evils its Framers sought to remedy. Among the many evils those Framers sought to cure, the systematic violation of the freedmen’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms was prominent.

The evidence of such concern is extensive. While Congress was drafting and considering the proposed Fourteenth Amendment and two pieces of interim legislation — the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill and the Civil Rights Bill — it received considerable testimony and evidence regarding the disarming of freedmen by state and local governments and militias.

Steven M. Simpson
D.C. versus Heller
Brief for the Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae in support of respondent.

All power flows from the barrel of a gun

Posted on by

In this country the people have the guns. This gives them the ultimate power. And this is likely to be confirmed on Friday by the SCOTUS. That isn’t the case in some places:

Robert Mugabe gave warning yesterday that he would not cede power if he loses next week’s election to the Opposition in his most explicit statement yet of his refusal to respect the result.

State-controlled media reported his comments to supporters at an election rally, the latest in a series of increasingly menacing threats as Zimbabwe counts down to the June 27 presidential run-off poll. Mr Mugabe’s military-backed regime has been carrying out a campaign of violence aimed at wiping out the opposition vote.

“We fought for this country, and a lot of blood was shed,” Mr Mugabe told his supporters. “We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X. How can a ballpoint fight with a gun?”

Good question. Ask that the next time someone tells you that we don’t need the 2nd Amendment because we have the 1st Amendment.

Dealing with Mayor Nickels

Posted on by

Phil and to a certain extent I have been reporting (and here) on the bigoted Seattle Mayor Nickels who wants to defy state law and ban concealed carry on city owned property.

The Apex of the Triangle of Death (aka the NRA) is giving some attention to this guy. Jump on their suggestions. Do what you can to put an end to this kind of intolerance.

Quote of the day–Richard K. Willard

Posted on by

The Miller court’s approach, which focused only on the relationship between the regulated arms at issue and the Second Amendment’s militia purpose was flawed because that approach would only allow individuals to possess arms suited for military use. Such an approach is obviously troublesome if it would allow private ownership of modern military arms.

Richard K. Willard
D.C. versus Heller
Brief amicus curiae Of The Heartland Institute in support of respondent.
[Indeed! Miller should be expanded to include arms suitable for private self-defense. That isn’t what Willard has in mind but that is what I’m hoping the SCOTUS concludes. Of course Willard, in supporting D.C., is also troubled that individuals should have the right to defend themselves against anything. One can only conclude the relationship between the state and the individual is that of a rancher and his cattle. The rancher dehorns the cattle so they cannot easily defend themselves or seriously injury each other. The rancher takes it upon himself to defend the cattle from predators, provide their food, care for the sick, and to slaughter them as it may suit him.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Jeffrey A. Lamken

Posted on by

For the Framers, the lesson of such uprisings was that “the rebellion of a people against a government established by themselves is not justifiable, even in an extreme case, and can only result in dishonor to the state, and calamity and disgrace to those who participate in it.” 1 Josiah Holland, History of Western Massachusetts 299-300 (Springfield, Bowles & Co. 1855) (emphasis added). Thus, in the Framers’ experience, it was not the possession of arms for personal uses apart from militia service (or against the government) that preserved ordered liberty. It was the States’ access to militias and similar state-controlled forces to protect their citizens that was essential. Modern experience confirms that view.

Jeffrey A. Lamken
January 2008
Brief supporting petitioners of amici curiae American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, Ceasefire NJ, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, Methodist Federation for Social Action, Clifton Kirkpatrick in his capacity as the stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Educational Fund to stop Gun Violence, Freedom States Alliance, American Jewish Congress, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Gray Panthers, Gunfreekids.org, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Illinoisvictims.org, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, Jenna Foundation for Nonviolence, inc., Karla Zimmerman Memorial Foundation, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Council of Jewish Women, New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, DC Statehood Green Party, North Carolinians Against Gun Violence Education Fund, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, Renée Olumbuni Rondeau Peace Foundation, Root (Reaching Out to Others Together) Inc., Union for Reform Judaism, Virginia Center for Public Safety, Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, and certain individual victims and families of victims of gun violence.
[I suppose they are forced to believe that if they hope to remain consistent. But I’m appalled so many Jewish organizations could sign on to such a belief system. Hitler was elected. The government of Germany of the 1930’s and early 1940’s was established by the people of Germany. Don’t the people that advocate the above doctrine realize what they are saying? There is no case in which the state should be forceably overthrown. Whatever the state decides is also moral and acceptable. They are saying the German Jews, the millions of Russians, Chinese, Laotians, etc. who were murdered by their own government had no right to defend themselves. It was their duty to passively accept their own annihilation. These people have mental problems and must be defeated.–Joe]