Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day–Milton Friedman

Posted on by

Every friend of freedom must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence.

Milton Friedman
[Friedman was referring to casual drug users but in regards to firearms things are even worse. There are people, such as Chris Matthews, who want an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on ZERO evidence (H/T to Jeff and Uncle). And of course we already have that for our airplanes. What baffles me is that millions of people put up with it every day with only minor whining.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Don Kornreich

Posted on by

I believe the Supreme Court’s review should not be limited to the construction of the Second Amendment. The court also should consider whether its enunciated constitutional right of privacy extends to an individual’s right to possess a handgun in his home.

[…]

The Supreme Court has held that the zone of privacy applies only to “fundamental” personal rights. Also, the privacy of one’s home has been particularly important to the court: thus, in Payton v. New York the court described the zone of privacy as unambiguously applying to an individual’s home.

Therefore, the Supreme Court should consider not only whether an individual’s right to possess a handgun in his home is expressly protected by the Second Amendment; but, in addition, whether the possession of a handgun within one’s home is a fundamental right protected under the court’s recognition of a zone of privacy.

Don Kornreich
The Second Amendment, gun control and the right of privacy
Originally published January 27, 2008
[Excellent point.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Anonymous

Posted on by

Thank you for saving my life, and to the rest of you thank you for fighting for this man’s right to protect me and my child. Tell him for me that I will no longer be part of the group who invades his home, and tries to tell him how to store his guns. Tell him I will never be part of any group who tries to make it impossible for him to buy his tool he used to save me. And tell him I will never again tell him how to raise his children properly, because obviously I was oblivious to the fact that responsible people such as him know how to raise their children better than I do.

Anonymous
Forgive me, for I have sinned.–An About Face After Being Saved by a Gun Owner
Via Uncle
[This is one of those stories that is almost too good to be true and I’m suspicious. I could email the person that supplied the story, Brian Clifford, but I haven’t. If someone finds out it is a fabrication please let me know.

Update: More suspicion of fakery.–Joe]

Visual acuity and long range shooting

Posted on by

One of the things I frequently dwell on is the ability of people to see their targets at Boomershoot. My informal tests concluded I could see 1 Minute of Angle (MOA) objects with good contrast and lighting. An email from a list I’m on confirmed that conclusion:

Contrary to common perception, 20/20 vision is not “perfect eyesight.”

It is common to refer to 20/20 vision as being “perfect eyesight,” but by definition it is “normal” visual acuity. 20/20 means your eyes can resolve a spatial pattern separated by an angle of one minute of arc. Put another way, 20/20 vision signifies that you can see at 20 feet (the first number) what a normal person can see at 20 feet (the second).

However, it is common for young people to have visual acuity around 20/15 or 20/12. Recent innovations in corrective eye surgery suggest that 20/10 acuity, or even 20/5, may be possible.

Wikipedia reports the following:

Visual acuity depends upon how accurately light is focused on the retina (mostly the macular region), the integrity of the eye’s neural elements, and the interpretative faculty of the brain. [9] “Normal” visual acuity is frequently considered to be what was defined by Snellen as the ability to recognize an optotype when it subtended 5 minutes of arc, that is Snellen’s chart 20/20 feet, 6/6 meter, 1.00 decimal or 0.0 logMAR. In humans, the maximum acuity of a healthy, emmetropic eye (and even ametropic eyes with correctors) is approximately 20/16 to 20/12, so it is inaccurate to refer to 20/20 visual acuity as “perfect” vision. 20/20 is the visual acuity needed to discriminate two points separated by 1 arc minute. The significance of the 20/20 standard can best be thought of as the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff. When used as a screening test subjects that reach this level need no further investigation, even though the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 or 20/12.

[…]

Normally visual acuity refers to the ability to resolve two separated points or lines, but there are other measures of the ability of the visual system to discern spatial differences.

Vernier acuity measures the ability to align two line segments. Humans can do this with remarkable accuracy. Under optimal conditions of good illumination, high contrast, and long line segments, the limit to vernier acuity is about 8 arc seconds or 0.13 arc minutes, compared to about 0.6 arc minutes (20/12) for normal visual acuity or the 0.4 arc minute diameter of a foveal cone. Because the limit of vernier acuity is well below that imposed on regular visual acuity by the “retinal grain” or size of the foveal cones, it is thought to be a process of the visual cortex rather than the retina. Supporting this idea, vernier acuity seems to correspond very closely (and may have the same underlying mechanism) enabling one to discern very slight differences in the orientations of two lines, where orientation is known to be processed in the visual cortex.

So, if you have fine straight lines in your scope and are aligning with another line on your target you can align things about 4.5 times as accurately than you can with a scope that doesn’t have straight lines (think “post” type reticles) or targets with straight lines.

I’m wondering if this accounts for some of the increased consumption of the square targets we have been using the last couple of years compared to the round targets we used previously.

This tidbit has obvious application to snipers, and perhaps less obviously, to their camouflage.

Why do they push irrelevance?

Posted on by

Sebastian asks, “Why is it that anti-gun folks love pushing bills in response to tragedy that would in no way shape or form have even remotely prevented it?”

It probably was a rhetorical question but it fit in so well with the book I’ve been listening to, Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand, that I felt compelled to offer some answers.

There are several plausible answers to Sebastian’s question and they are not exclusive, it could be several of them are correct depending on the individual and the tribe they belong to. More on “the tribe” later but first a quote from Rand, page 9:

Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it–intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved–as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but the hatred for America. Why hated? Because America is the living refutation of Kantian universe.

Today’s mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man’s mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man’s life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century. This is the enemy you are facing.

And from page 41, where the tribe reference originates in this post:

As an example of the principle that the rational is the moral, observe that the anti-conceptual is the profoundly anti-moral. The basic commandment of all such groups, which take precedence over any other rules, is: loyalty to the group–not to ideas, but to people; not to the group’s beliefs, which are minimal and chiefly ritualistic, but to the group’s members and leaders. Whether a given member is right or wrong, the others must protect him from outsiders; whether he is innocent or guilty, the others must stand by him against all outsiders; whether he is competent or not, the others must employ him or trade with him in preference to outsiders. Thus a physical qualification–the accident of birth in a given village or tribe–takes precedence over morality and justice. (But the physical is only the most frequent apparent and superficial qualification, since such groups reject the nonconforming children of their own members. The actual qualification is psycho-epistemological: men bound by the same concretes.)

With that background I offer several possible answers to Sebastian’s question. All come, perhaps in a somewhat obscure manner, from the first few chapters of Rand’s book.

  1. Because the gun is a means of individual power and threatens the power of the collective. The more power an individual has the less it needs the collective. They believe the collective is more important than any, and in fact all, individuals and therefore must be suppressed by any means possible to preserve the collective.
  2. The tribe of the people of the gun are outsiders to the tribe of the people of the non-gun. Anything that harms the outsider is good because outsiders are viewed as threats to the tribe.
  3. The question assumes facts not in evidence. In particular the question assumes the anti-gun mind is capable of understanding cause and effect. Therefore the question has little or no meaning within the context of the anti-gun tribe advocating restrictions on guns.
  4. Because they are incapable of distinguishing action from accomplishment. These are the same people that protest, demonstrate, and chant. Action for the sake of action is their “currency”.
  5. The leaders of the anti-gun movement know the truth but also know that the majority of people are so philosophical bankrupt they can be persuaded to use the force of government against innocents to further their own agenda.

STI GP6

Posted on by

Just announced:

With the GP6, STI International, Inc. delivers a compact SA/DA polymer pistol which serves equally well either on or off duty. With its integrated tactical rails, it is equally suitable for Military, Law Enforcement or Civilian carry.

Built on a light weight, highly durable polymer (Polyamide GF 30) frame, the GP6 incorporates integrated tactical rails and textured side panels, front and rear straps. The GP6’s all steel slide is tri-topped with front and rear cocking serrations and features a fixed 3 dot sight system. The controls consist of ambi-thumb safeties, an ambi–slide release, firing pin safety, and a user configurable magazine release for equal ease of use in either right or left handed configuration. The barrel is 4.25” in length featuring an innovative rotational lock up system. Long term durability testing units have fired more than 110,000 shots without any change in internal geometry. The GP6 comes standard with a storage case, 2 magazines, and sight keys.

The GP6 is currently available exclusively in 9mm.

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

Quote of the day–John Roush

Posted on by

This is a really bad idea. It would run counter to our tradition and the principles on which we operate our community.

John Roush
Centre College President
Campus gun bill is likely to die–Various officials oppose proposal
January 22, 2008
[Roush was referring to a bill that would allow people to bring guns onto college campuses — and use them if they were threatened. Yes, I suppose it would run counter to their principles. I suspect those principles are those espoused by Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Bunch, who in the same article said, “The colleges and universities are the ones who should be making the decision on how to keep people safe.” I wonder what those principles are exactly.

One of the following I suspect:

  • Sheep are supposed to obey their owners and only bleat whenever they are threatened with death or permanent injury.
  • The individual is of no concern to their society. Only the collective is important.
  • All people are considered of equal value. The predator has just as much right to not be harmed as the victim.
  • You are not authorized to make decisions for yourself. The Central Committee will make your decisions for you.

Regardless of the principles Roush and Helmke subscribe to they are at extreme odds to the principles I subscribe to and are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.–Joe]

Government is a source of insecurity

Posted on by

There are some aspects of security the government is and should be responsible for. But when you give the government too much “responsibility” (power) it becomes a source of insecurity. Guns are probably the example most of my readers will readily identify with. The government has a need for weapons but it must never have a monopoly on weapons. To do so would change the fundamental relationship between a free people and their government.

Information is a weapon as well. Giving the government too much information puts innocent people at risk. Read IBM and the Holocaust or for a hint read my Jews in the Attic Test and think about it a little bit.

Here we get still another glimpse of why governments collecting data on people is risky:

Here’s an ugly prediction that you can take to the bank: as the amount of data that the feds collect on innocent civilians grows, so will the number of people who are victims of crimes that were made possible by unauthorized access to a government database. I’m not just talking about identity theft, though that is a huge danger with Real ID, but violent crimes as well. As I explained in the OneDOJ post linked above, this prediction is just Metcalfe’s Law at work:

This is, of course, a fundamental problem inherent in the very nature of any massive, centralized government data-sharing plan that spans multiple agencies and connects untold numbers of state and federal law enforcement officers: the usefulness of such a system to any one individual (a white hat or a black hat) grows roughly with the square of the number of participants who are using it to share data (Metcalfe’s law). So the more white hats that any of these programs manage to connect to each other, the more useful the network as a whole will be to the small handful of black hats who gain access to it at any point.

There is another ugly prediction you can take to the bank when these incidents happen: The politicians will always propose solutions that involve more money and more power being handed over to the government.

Let the District Have Its Gun Law

Posted on by

In an opinion piece in the Washington Post and an article in the Seattle PI (via Uncle) about a brief filed in the Heller case the following argument is made; The Federal government should allow local control. The local know what is best for their society, and what is needed to reduce crime with the type of people they have in their cities and states. Apparently this argument generates considerable traction. I, on the other hand, am shocked that anyone could subscribe to such a concept.

What happens in my mind is that the word “ni**er” or a variation thereof is substituted for variations of the words gun, and gun-owner in all their arguments. And the 13th Amendment is substituted for the 2nd Amendment and the argument is reevaluated. The wording of both is absolute in both. If you are to argue that “reasonable restrictions of firearms” is acceptable then you must also argue that “reasonable involuntary servitude” is acceptable.

As an exercise do that on your own with the following paragraphs from the WaPo piece. Imagine the year is 1866 just after the 13th amendment was ratified:

In Heller, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s ban on handguns on the grounds that any law banning any single type of “arms” is, necessarily, a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. We believe this is wrong.

[…]

There are hundreds of state and local gun control laws. Each of those measures was enacted by local elected officials in response to local needs and desires. And each of those local governments is called on to balance people’s desire to possess weapons for self-defense against the obligation to protect public safety.

In the District — where handgun violence is particularly acute — our elected mayor and council struck this balance by prohibiting handguns in the home but permitting rifles and shotguns. Congress could have overturned this decision, but it did not.

People in other parts of the country might have struck this balance differently. In fact, many jurisdictions have permitted handguns when the District’s elected officials have not.

But the question is not what is the right policy for the District but who should make that policy. The standard the Supreme Court should apply in the pending gun case is whether the District’s gun law is reasonable. And “reasonable” means that the law is a reasonable public safety response to the city’s handgun violence and protects residents’ right to possess other types of arms for self-defense.

The plaintiffs in Heller would prefer a gun control law different from the one enacted by the D.C. Council. But the Supreme Court should not defer to the plaintiffs and use the Second Amendment as a vehicle for federal courts to micromanage gun laws in this country.

Instead, as Justice Anthony Kennedy said in a case we quoted in our brief, local legislatures should be allowed to devise “various solutions” to local problems “where the best solution is far from clear.” That is what our mayor and council did. The Supreme Court should uphold their decision.

These bigots would do well to remember this quote:

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture.  They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.

Alan Dershowitz
Quoted in Dan Gifford
The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason
62 TENN. L. REV. 759 (1995)

But then I can’t help but sometimes think my comparison to the 13th Amendment won’t get that much traction with the socialists even when it is presented to them. The socialists do want to treat the 13th Amendment as they do the 2nd. The only difference between 1865 and now is that the socialist want government to own all the slaves instead of individuals. The elimination of the 2nd Amendment is just a bump on the road to their true goal. As the slave owners of 150 years ago knew, you can’t allow your slaves access to weapons or you would have a revolt on your hands.

Update: Similar exercises are available for the reader in the Solicitor General’s brief in D.C. v. Heller. An example is this snippet:

As the court of appeals correctly held, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. But like other constitutional rights, that individual right is subject to reasonable restrictions, must be applied in light of context and history, and does not provide any protections to individuals who have never been understood to be within the Amendment’s protections.

STI SteelMaster

Posted on by

Announced just a few days ago:

Inspiration from STI International’s proven race pistol design led to the creation of the STI SteelMaster; a shorter, lighter race pistol for faster target acquisition and reduced muzzle flip and dip. With patented 2011 technology, a 4.15″ classic slide, Trubor compensated barrel system, and STI’s revolutionary Recoil Master, the STI SteelMaster delivers all the advantages of a full size race pistol in a smaller, lighter, faster reacting, and less violent package.

Built on the patented modular steel frame with polymer grip, the STI SteelMaster utilizes the innovative Trubor compensated barrel which is designed to eliminate misalignment of the barrel and compensator bore or movement of the compensator on the barrel. The shorter Trubor barrel system in the SteelMaster gives an even greater reduction in muzzle flip and the shorter slide decreases overall slide cycle time allowing the shooter to achieve faster follow up shots. The slide is flat topped with slide lightening cuts on the front and rear to reduce weight, and custom “Sabertooth” serrations. With an overall weight of 38.9 oz, the SteelMaster is significantly lighter in weight than full size race pistols. The SteelMaster is mounted with a C-More, 6 minute red dot scope with blast shield and thumb rest. Additional enhancements include aluminum magwell, stainless steel ambidextrous safeties, stainless steel high rise grip safety, STI’s “Spur” hammer, STI’s RecoilMaster guide rod system, & checkered front strap and mainspring housing.

The STI SteelMaster is available in 9mm.

In compettion I shoot a STI gun, I carry a STI gun and you should too.

I didn’t know that

Posted on by

According to the ATF website if you have black tip 7.62 NATO or 7.62×39 steel core ammo it is considered illegal armor piercing ammo. But .223 green tip and 30.06 black tip are not considered illegal:

List of Armor Piercing Ammunition

bullet KTW AMMUNITION, all calibers. (Identified by a green coating on the projectile)

bullet ARCANE AMMUNITION, all calibers. (Identified by a pointed bronze or brass projectile)

bullet THV AMMUNITION, all calibers. (Identified by a brass or bronze projectile and having a headstamp containing the letters SFM and THV)

bullet CZECHOSLOVAKIAN manufactured 9mm Parabellum (Luger) ammunition having an iron or steel core. (Identified by a cupronickel jacket and headstamp containing a triangle, star and dates 49, 50, 51, or 52. The bullet is attracted to a magnet)

bullet GERMAN manufactured 9mm Parabellum (Luger) having an iron or steel bullet core. (Original packaging is marked Pisolenpatronen 08 m.E. May have black colored bullet. This bullet is attracted to a magnet)

bullet MSC AMMUNITION, Caliber .25. (Identified by a hollow point brass bullet. NOTE: MSC ammunition Caliber .25 identified by a hollow point copper bullet is not armor piercing)

bullet BLACK STEEL ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION, All Calibers, as produced by National Cartridge, Atlanta, Georgia.

bullet BLACK STEEL METAL PIERCING AMMUNITION, All Calibers, as produced by National Cartridge, Atlanta, Georgia.

bullet 7.62mm NATO AP (Identified by black coloring in the bullet tip. This ammunition is used by various NATO countries. The U.S. military designation is M61 AP)

bullet 7.62mm NATO SLAP (identified by projectile having a plastic sabot around a hard penetrator. The penetrator protrudes above the sabot and is similar in appearance to a Remington accelerator cartridge)

bullet PMC ULTRAMAG .38 Special caliber, constructed entirely of a brass type material, and plastic pusher disc located at the base of the projectile. NOTE: PMC ULTRAMAG 38J late production made of copper with lead alloy projectile is not armor piercing.

bullet OMNISHOCK, a .38 Special cartridge with a lead bullet containing a mild steel core with a flattened head resembling a wad cutter. (NOTE: OMNISHOCK cartridges having a bullet with an aluminum core are not armor piercing.)

bullet 7.62x39mm with steel core. (NOTE: these projectiles have a steel core. Projectiles having a lead core with steel jacket or steel case are not armor piercing)

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CARTRIDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION:

bullet 5.56MM (.223) SS109 and M855 Ammunition, Identified by a green coating on the projectile tip.

bullet U.S. .30-06 M2 AP, Identified by a black coating on the projectile tip.

The distinction in the law is made on the basis of whether or not it is handgun ammo. Apparently because there are sufficient numbers of handguns that will fire the 7.62×39 (huh? I didn’t know there were any!) and .308 cartridges they declared it handgun ammo.

I love the part about the .25 ACP ammo with a brass bullet is considered AP but with a copper bullet is just fine. Considering what most experts think of the .25 ACP round I find it incredibly amusing our Congress Critters consider it AP.

Just another one of the contributors to Huffman’s rule of firearms law.

Update March 12, 2013: The original link is dead but this has the same content. I am fairly certain the definition of AP above is obsolete. The current definition is 18 USC 921(a)(17).

Hitting on all cylinders

Posted on by

In the past there has been some criticism of the NRA’s response to the current administration’s brief in the Heller case. Some thought it was a bit tepid. The latest alerts from the Apex of the Triangle of Death will quiet most critics. Here are some of the points they make:

This post was brought to you by a wheelbarrow full of cash from the Apex of the Triangle of Death.

Honorable mention in the Darwin Awards

Posted on by

Lots of people are having fun with this (video):

Of course nearly everyone is thinking this is a good thing. So maybe we should make this sort of thing more likely to happen. Urge your legislative critters to pass holster control instead of gun control laws. Only the good guys should have holsters.

Of course expect the anti-gun people to put this accidental shooting in the “bad thing” column.

Quote of the day–Ben Franklin

Posted on by

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Ben Franklin
[I have heard many variations of this and so few give credit to Franklin that I’m not certain it is he that deserves it. For example see the following quote from a (now deceased–his gun inventory is available) friend of mine. In any case, this quote is a follow up to yesterdays QOTD.–Joe]

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Liberty is two wolves attempting to have a sheep for dinner and finding a well-informed, well-armed sheep.

Lance 07/SOT
Lance Haserot
gunrunnr@moscow.com
May not have been original from Lance.
He did use it as his signature in email on 10/31/97

More thoughts on the DOJ brief

Posted on by

It’s probably because I’m “different” but Sebastian’s statement here just strikes me as odd:

The gun vote was a primary driver for making sure Bush won the White House in 2000 and 2004, and the NRA endorsements he received played a big role on that. The Heller case is arguably the most important struggle gun owners have ever faced, and I don’t think its unreasonable to demand something greater than lukewarm support from The Administration on this matter.

The first thought that crosses my mind is, “Did someone think we got a receipt when we gave Bush our votes?” In other words, are people irritated because Bush was “paid off” and didn’t stay paid off? But that is probably just because I think differently than most.

Bush said, essentially from day one, that he would sign the AWB if it came to his desk. Yet gun owners voted for him because he was better (much better) than the viable alternatives. So what should we expect? He didn’t say he was our lover, he just said he wasn’t our enemy.

I’m not happy with the DOJ brief, but I can’t say that I’m at all that surprised or even particularly unhappy with it. It’s better than the alternative had Gore or Kerry been elected.

And via local (Troy, Idaho) IPSC/Steel shooter Mike Brown is a lawyer and offered these thoughts on the DOJ brief:

The Solicitor General here is defending the interests of his client (the US Government). While the brief explicitly reaffirms that the Justice Department’s position is that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right they are apparently concerned that the DC circuit opinion establishes a two pronged “categorical” test for whether a weapon is protected:

  1. if it bears a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” and
  2. is “of the kind in common use at the time” the Second Amendment was adopted.

Their fear is that if the Supreme Court adopts this test then ALL federal gun control could be struck down especially where it concerns weapons that are especially suitable for militia service (i.e. full auto M4 carbine). The Solicitor General is arguing for a more wisy washy standard to be applied so that “reasonable” regulation of firearms are allowed.

As a sidebar on this topic: the Oregon Supreme Court adopted the same kind of standard for determining which weapons are protected under their state constitution- that is why switchblades are legal in OR: they are the “modern analogue” of swords which were in common use at the time of the adoption of the state constitution.

New Orange Book is available.

Posted on by

The ATF has released the latest version of their book on explosives law known as the “orange book”. I haven’t received my copy yet but it can be downloaded here.

I keep my copy in my laptop computer case for easy reference. Sometimes I know the rules and the law better than the ATF inspectors they send out. If you are going to play with Tannerite or Target-Master targets you should know both local and Federal law. Then don’t do stupid stuff.

Cleaning up your mess

Posted on by

Via Uncle.

As I said the other day, I get requests from people wanting to blow stuff up but they aren’t interested in cleaning up the mess. Some messes can’t be cleaned up. This guy’s mess may affect all gun owners:

It may have started as a goofy stunt, but tonight a 30 year old Red Wing area man is in hot water with authorities, after detonating a powerful bomb in back of his home yesterday afternoon. “When you can take a steel box, a dump truck box, turn it into scrap metal and send it 1/4 mile away… that’s a bomb,” reasoned Goodhue County Sheriff Dean Albers, whose detectives are investigating the case.

The suspect admits buying 100 pounds of an explosive material advertised as ‘Tannerite’ from an internet website. The compound is most commonly used by long range target shooters, who aim at 8 ounce cans and know they’ve hit their mark when they explode. The suspect’s device was the equivalent of 200 of those cans. “He had placed it inside of a barell inside the bed of an old dump truck, and shot it it with a 50 caliber rifle from 300 yards away,” explained Albers.

When seconds count the police are only minutes away

Posted on by

Via Sebastian and Laurel (also from North Idaho).

Required viewing for those that think the police can protect you. Many minutes into the 911 call the police still haven’t arrived. This is why I’m a NRA Personal Protection instructor.

Be sure and read the newspaper story too.

Quote of the day–Stephen R. Rubenstein

Posted on by

It is also significant that the Second Amendment refers, not to “a right of the people,” but to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” The Framers’ use of the definite article indicates that the Amendment was intended to secure a pre-existing right rather than to create a new one.

[…]

The Court should affirm that the Second Amendment, no less than other provisions of the Bill of Rights, secures an individual right, and should clarify that the right is subject to the more flexible standard of review described above. If the Court takes those foundational steps, the better course would be to remand.

Stephen R. Rubenstein
January 2008
Chief Counsel Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20226-0001
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae
[This is from a brief filed in favor of D.C. in the Heller case. If I read it correctly they are concerned that the ATF could be put out of a job because they might no longer be able to regulated the manufacture and sale of firearms and maintain their registry of machineguns. Hence, they want to be left with some power to regulate firearms. I’m not a friend of the ATF (individuals at the ATF is something different) but D.C. surely cannot consider them much of a friend either.–Joe

Sad stuff

Posted on by

I’ve read so many books and articles on the Holocaust that I’d have difficulty enumerating them. The thing that always amazed me was that the Jews didn’t fight back. Sure, the German Jews had registered their guns years before the Weapons Control Act of 1938 and would have had difficulty holding on to many of them when the thugs had a list of the guns in that home. But theft and ambushes on the police or isolated soldiers with the goal of capturing firearms and ammunition could have helped put weapons back in the hands of the victims. But except for the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and a relatively small band in Russia there was virtually no resistance. With hindsight is seems so obvious that retention of firearms could have saved a lot of innocents lives. Israeli Jews seem to have the seen the light in regards to firearms in the hands of civilians so why don’t most (yes, I know of JPFO) American Jews get it?

From the American Jewish Committee:

January 11, 2008 – New York – The American Jewish Committee filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court today, asserting that the District of Columbia’s strict gun control laws do not offend the Constitution. The case, D.C. v. Heller, will be the first gun control case before the Supreme Court in sixty eight years.

“Gun control laws safeguard liberty, rather then restrict it,” said AJC General Counsel Jeffrey Sinensky. “Democracy can only flourish when the government is permitted to protect its citizens from harm.”

The amicus brief argues that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess firearms for personal use, but rather “was designed to enhance state and local authority to protect life and liberty through the maintenance of militias composed of the local populace.”

AJC filed the brief with a coalition that includes the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress, National Council of Jewish Women, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

AJC has a long history of supporting gun control laws, including the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, the federal Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989, and the Brady Handgun Prevention Act of 1993.

Just a little refresher from a previous post about how governments “protect their citizens from harm”:

§ 1

Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§ 2

Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§ 3

The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§ 4

Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§ 5

For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§ 6

This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938

Minister of the Interior

Frick