Category Archives: Gun Rights

A hint of attention to the law

Posted on by

Usually when some state or local political type ignores the law (18 USC 242 as well as the 2nd Amendment) and attacts people exercising their constitutionally protected rights the Feds just look the other way. The impression I get is that they figure it’s just some uppity gun nut–so who cares? This time it’s a little bit different:

In a stern rebuke to the city’s high-profile crusade against illegal guns, the feds warned the Bloomberg administration that it could face “potential legal liabilities” if it continues to conduct sting operations that fall within the jurisdiction of federal agents.

…

According to a letter sent to City Hall, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and various U.S. attorneys’ offices have determined the city’s findings against the 15 dealers “do not rise to a level that would support a criminal prosecution.”

The letter – sent Tuesday by Michael Battle, director of the executive office for United States Attorneys at the Department of Justice – also scolded City Hall for engaging in sting operations involving persons “without proper law enforcement authority,” saying that could put the city in legal jeopardy. Battle added that City Hall could “unintentionally interrupt or jeopardize” criminal probes.

But of course, just like the classic deep south sherriff that is a member of the KKK, this politician doesn’t get it either:

Asked if the Bloomberg administration plans to stop conducting the sting operations, Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler said, “Not necessarily.”

“The city hasn’t violated any laws,” Skyler said defiantly, adding that the city will continue to pursue its civil lawsuits against the gun dealers.

Via Cam, Jeff, and Uncle.

Quote of the day–David Hardy

Posted on by

…there’s no doubt that the buyers broke the Gun Control Act, and that those who set them to it were liable as aiders and abettors, not to mention on a conspiracy theory. I’d assume that Bloomberg and company (1) figured it was worth it for the publicity and (2) figured that the laws don’t apply to the rich and powerful. They may just have been right on both.

David Hardy
February 8, 2007
US Attorneys slap down Bloomberg
Of Arms in the Law

Begging for your rights

Posted on by

This is what happens after you give up your right to keep and bear arms. You are reduced to begging to have even a small fraction of them restored:

Dear Home Secretary,

…

As I am sure your officials will tell you, there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that by banning legally-licensed cartridge pistols and closing legally-operating shooting clubs, we would all sleep safer in our beds. Yet today there are more hand guns on our streets than 10 years ago.

…

When London won the bid for the 2012 Olympics, the British Olympic Association and the governing bodies of shooting put forward a case to your department for legislative exemptions which would allow our pistol shooters and a large squad of sporting hopefuls to be granted dispensation under Section Five of the Act so that they could retain their sporting pistols at home without ammunition in order to do their daily ‘dry training’. Registered regional shooting clubs would also be designated as a place for weapons to be used.

It looked like a way forward could be agreed. The sports minister, Richard Caborn, assured the BOA that he had written to the Home Office giving his support for exemptions. An Early Day Motion in the Commons attracted significant support from all sides of the house and the public have, I believe, realised that target pistol shooters were victims of rough justice in the 1997 legislation. An e-petition on the No 10 website for the restoration of target pistol shooting under suitable controls is gaining signatures every day.

However, somewhere in your department the paper trail has stopped and the silence is deafening. Time is running out.

…

Target shooters are reliable, trustworthy and an asset to their communities – the kind of people your department want to support. Don’t you feel ashamed that most democracies have more faith in their citizens to participate in one of the oldest Olympic sports than we do?

Over to you Home Secretary – we need a decision urgently.

Yours sincerely, Kate Hoey
Labour MP for Vauxhall

Boomershoot 2007 is sold out with a waiting list of eight teams or I would again offer free entry to peasants from the U.K. They need get a glimpse of freedom even if it is just for a weekend.

Another case where all natural must be better

Posted on by

From a letter written by the National Park Service:

“Right to carry” laws do not protect visitors from wildlife. Most weapons carried for protection from wildlife are not adequate for that purpose. Untrained individuals attempting to protect themselves from dangerous animals often exacerbate the situation.

So I guess when a mountain lion is chewing on your head they want you to use just your bare hands or improvise weapons on the spot like sticks and stones. And I presume struggling and screaming won’t exacerbate the situation either. Maybe those National Park bureaucrats are of the type that think just because a proposed solution is “all natural” it’s better.

Update on the PNNL case

Posted on by

I got some interesting information from my lawyer today. I turned over the interrogatories I had been working on. Interesting quote from my lawyer, “Interrogatories are the punishment you get for filing a lawsuit.” I didn’t see it that way. I actually enjoyed it. Apparently it showed. My response was composed of 12 CDROMs (about 250,000 files) and over 300 pages of paper. He said he expects it will be one of the best responses the PNNL lawyers have ever seen. We reviewed some of the CD content and he got this big smile on his face. “Their lawyers would be able to retire on the billings they could charge for this.” My lawyer said he will not be able to retire on his billings because I did all the work.

He saw the PayPal donation button on my PNNL.info site and with a big smile said, “I wonder if they (the PNNL lawyers) will donate to your case? Let’s see, if we donate $10,000 that could result in $250,000 in additional billings…” I wonder if that would be considered unethical?

Yes, I know, it’s taxpayer money that will be used to pay the lawyers and any settlement that might be reached. But I got a call from someone today that has been working on that issue and believes he may be able to turn off that spigot. I’m not convinced he can but I’m working with him on it.

I managed to find a letter I thought I had lost from a different lawyer that contained some information which shut off an escape route for the felons. I gave this lawyer a copy and explained the significance.  He laughed and said that it might be very useful.

We talked quite a bit about the lawyer they chose; Jerome R. Aiken of Meyer, Fluegge & Tenney. What’s most interesting about this guy is that his claimed areas of practice are:

  • Agricultural Law
  • Appeals
  • Consumer Protection
  • Product Liability Law

My lawyer only does employment law and has been doing it for 13 years.

On the felony issue–the PNNL felons (not all on this list were involved and some that were are not on the list) could refuse to testify on points that could incriminate them. But that refusal to testify can be used against PNNL. My lawyer would love to have them “take the fifth”. If they don’t refuse to testify then that gives them two other options. They can tell the truth and risk the criminal charges from their confessions and still damage PNNL’s case, or they can lie. Barb is betting they will lie. But they might be surprised what an experienced trial lawyer can do to a liar. And if we can prove perjury, in addition to the penalties imposed by the court, they could lose their security clearances.

A long time ago I read The Art of Cross Examination and loved it. I can’t find my copy so I ordered another one tonight. I need to get through it before the depositions start in April. I also downloaded an audio version of Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail—Every Place, Every Time.

I wonder if Mr. Jerome R. Aiken will read Being underestimated by the enemy. It’s a little unlikely, even though it is one of those 250,000 files on one of those 12 CDROMs he will be receiving in a day or two. But one thing he probably will read, because it was on one of the 300 pages of paper, is this:

One of Huffman’s co-workers, who must remain anonymous (for fear of retribution from PNNL), knew Joe Huffman far better than McMillan and Hevland. In a meeting a few days after the firing, he told Huffman, “They haven’t got a clue as to what they stepped into.”

I’d love to see his face as he reads that.

Two last bits of sweetness… 1) my attorney’s female receptionist has a Concealed Pistol Permit and 2) my lawyer wants me to teach him to shoot.

Quote of the day–Roy Innis

Posted on by

The Deacons forced the Klan to re-evaluate their actions and often change their undergarments.

Roy Innis
As related by Ken Blackwell
[“The Deacons” refers to armed black men who used firearms to defend themselves against the KKK as told in the book: The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement.–Joe]

Another visit from the U.S. Senate

Posted on by

I could speculate but it would be as much wistful thinking as anything. Here is the target they found. Here is what I know about who did the viewing:

Domain Name   senate.gov ? (United States Government)
IP Address   156.33.24.# (U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms)
ISP   U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
Location  
Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  District of Columbia
City  :  Washington
Lat/Long  :  38.8933, -77.0146 (Map)
Distance  :  2,072 miles
Language   English (United States)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; InfoPath.1)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  

Resolution  :  1280 x 1024
Color Depth  :  16 bits

Time of Visit   Feb 5 2007 11:43:54 am
Last Page View   Feb 5 2007 11:43:54 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co…&hl=en&start=10&sa=N
Search Engine google.com
Search Words castle doctrine idaho
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm…Is What We Need.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm…Is What We Need.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time   Feb 5 2007 2:43:54 pm
Visit Number   132,033

Quote of the day–Larry Flynt

Posted on by

Majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights. Because you can’t have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Larry Flynt
[I could have imagined myself quoting Larry Flynt–but never with this sort of subject matter. It’s not the first time Mr. Flynt has surprised me either. It might not be the last.

Other people have slightly different versions of this, with a punch line something like “…finding a well-armed sheep”. Individual rights are only guaranteed when the minorities have a means of defending them; i.e. the right to keep and bear arms guarantees the rest.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Woody Bass

Posted on by

I am not going to hide how much guns disgust me. I think they are one of the, if not THE, most vile contraptions on earth.

To give you an idea how much, I wrote three papers in college on guns and gun control in one semester. I cannot begin to tell you how many extremely heated discussions I’ve had with friends and family about guns.

While I strive to understand how anyone can think that any one person should hold that much power – the ability to intimidate and/or take someone’s life with a gun. I can’t deny an individuals constitutional right to bear arms, no matter how painful it may be for me to accept.

But as far as I am concerned, no one needs a gun at all. Not you, certainly not me. Not good people. Not bad people.

The general public has no reason to own firearms such as semi-automatic guns or assault rifles and should be completely banned and destroyed, along with all the other types of guns (as far as I am concerned).

There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.

Don’t try the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument with me. I really despise that saying. Power changes people and guns provide more power than any one individual was meant to have.

Woody Bass
February 4, 2007
Are guns too accessible?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
[Interesting argument. I don’t think I have heard that one before in relation to gun ownership, “power changes people and people weren’t meant to have that much power”. It’s sort of a “it’s not natural” type of argument. My favorite response to that is, “You’re right, if people were meant to run around without clothes we would have been born that way.” Other possible arguments in this case could made be against cars, knives, clubs, antibiotics, and computers. Even the Amish could be made out to be “too powerful” with the right argument.

It’s also interesting that he “despises that saying” but doesn’t refute it.

He’s got mental problems.

I didn’t get into it with him. I just left a comment with Just One Question for him and let it go at that.–Joe]

Rage. Violent, unthinking, rage

Posted on by

I could only read part of Kevin’s post. After a couple paragraphs I couldn’t think straight. My mind was running wild with rage. Here’s a taste of what I read:

Witnesses to violent street crime should try to ‘distract’ attackers by honking their car horns or even ‘jumping up and down’. That’s according to Labour’s Police Minister.

The extraordinary remarks by Tony McNulty prompted an immediate, angry response from law and order experts, who described him as ‘irresponsible’.

The standard police advice to people who witness violent behaviour is that they should not get involved and immediately call 999.

But in an interview with the BBC’s Jeremy Vine, Mr McNulty said concerned citizens should ‘try some distractive activities’ instead.

This is in the U.K. and it’s unlikely I would be going there and even more unlikely now. But if someone was attacking someone in my family the only jumping up and down I would do would be on top of the attacker. If that wasn’t “distracting” enough I’d disassemble them as rapidly and as violently as I possibly could. Then I would get myself and my loved ones out of the country as quickly as I could before I had to repeat the process on any of the police that tried to arrest me.

I think some people need to read A Nation of Cowards.

Quote of the day–Bobby Seale

Posted on by

On the one hand, the guns were there to help capture the imagination of the people. But more important, since we knew that you couldn’t observe the police without guns, we took our guns with us to let the police know that we have an equalizer.

Bobby Seale
Co-founder of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (later shorted to just The Black Panther Party)
Also important to note is that the organization was primarily socialist in nature.

Another motive for gun control

Posted on by

It’s an excuse to party. Or at least that is what Robert Sandler suggests as he comments about the Mayor’s conference on combating “illegal guns”:

The mayor noted the additional “problems” more police would bring to the city. More police, for instance, would mean more arrests for an already grievously overcrowded prison system. This is already burdening the city with costs it can’t afford in addition to more court costs for prosecuting the criminals.
Which means the mayor is not against crime or criminals. He does not want a safer city. He wants to save money. The easy way to do that is with another gun law– which he will not enforce.
Or perhaps, it’s something completely different. An Anti-gun Summit is a good excuse to get away from doing the jobs the 140 mayors were hired to do–and party!

It’s sounds as plausible as anything else to me. It’s certainly not about making people safer.

Quote of the day–Robert Burton

Posted on by

Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion.

Robert Burton
[I have no idea what Burton was thinking of but it makes me think of socialists and gun control advocates.–Joe]

Taking orders for Kalashnikitty

Posted on by

It’s not something I would wear. But if either of my daughters (or “adopted daughter” Sara) or my wife would wear it I’d be glad to buy one or more for them.

Freedom isn’t free

Posted on by

You’ve heard that freedom isn’t free in the context of our military defending our freedom but there are other instances where this is also true. Zendo Deb points this out in her post Deacons for Defense and Justice:

The Deacons for Defense and Justice did not plead to be given their rights. They did not beg to be taken seriously. They made sure they were taken seriously. They took action and fought for their rights, and they defended themselves, their families and their communities from oppression and violence.

This ties in well with the book I just finished reading, Negros with Guns which Ry (I borrowed the book from him) suggested be required reading in school. I agree.

The basics of the lesson to be learned is that thugs and tyrants don’t give up power and thuggery just because you ask nicely or because the legislature or the United Nations says they should. They do it because of the threat, or in worst case the actual use, of force. I’ve said this before but it’s worth saying again:

Inalienable rights are not asked or pleaded for.  They are demanded and taken, by force if necessary.

Quote of the day–Michael S. Brown

Posted on by

Washingtonians are not stupid. We are aware that gun laws have failed miserably wherever they have been tried. Anyone who knows how to visit the FBI Web site can tell you that the most dangerous places in the United States often are the places with the strictest gun laws. Gun laws overseas have been no more successful. Asking the Legislature to give us more is a colossal waste of time and an insult to our intelligence.

Michael S. Brown, O.D.
Brown, of Vancouver Washington is a member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws; www.dsgl.org.
February 1, 2007
Evidence says gun laws don’t work
Seattle Post Intelligencer

The first step is admitting you have a problem

Posted on by

As Say Uncle points out:

Admitting you have a problem is the first step.

Kevin and Zendo Deb contribute their thoughts on this article too.

I’ve been pushing the similarities between the gay rights movement and the gun rights movement for some time now and trying to get some cross pollination (so to speak). I even have gotten some attention from the press for my efforts:

Gays take up self defense; Organization teaches safety, protection with handguns (Lewiston Morning Tribune)
Pink Pistols chapter begun in Moscow to protect gays (AP version of the above story)
Pistol-packing proponents of gun-owner tolerance (Seattle Times editorial)

I believe putting guns into the hands of lesbian, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc. (LGBTs) is a very powerful meme. In addition to helping save lives that tend to be at higher risk (from “gay-bashing”) here’s what it does for us:

  • It helps fracture the alliance between anti-gun bigots and the Democrats (or between the LGBTs and the Democrats–whichever way you want to look at it)
  • It gets guns in the hands of more voters (and the LGBT community tends to be more politically active than the straight population) who are motivated to keep them and carry them
  • It helps fracture the stereotype of gun owners as being rednecked, racist, gay hating, KKK types

We need to encourage this alliance as much as possible. And the alliance we have now is a fragile one. It only takes one jerk to undo a lot of work and we need to police our own to maintain this alliance.

It’s nice to know I got his attention

Posted on by

The anti-gun bigot that runs the so-called Freedom State Alliance website paid my blog a visit today:

Host name: adsl-75-34-22-226.dsl.chcgil.sbcglobal.net
Date: 1/31/2007
Time (UTC): 20:32:29
IP Address: 75.34.22.226
Page: /2006/10/26/Imitation+Is+The+Sincerest+Form+Of+Flattery.aspx
Referral: http://www.freedomstatesalliance.com/wordpress/wp-admin/
User agent: Mozilla/5.0+(Windows;+U;+Windows+NT+5.1;+en-US;+rv:1.8.1.1)+Gecko/20061204+Firefox/2.0.0.1

It’s nice to know he stops by every once in a while.

Quote of the day–Greg Hamilton

Posted on by

“Mission”

Translation: To stay alive when “scumbags” threaten your life.

From the Greg Hamilton to English Dictionary by Meredith Robinson
[As a private citizen your job is not to capture, punish, wound, or execute the scumbag. Your job is to make sure you and any innocent life you have taken responsibility for come out of the encounter in the best possible condition. Keep in mind the encounter is not just the few seconds or minutes in which you are face to face with the scumbag but can extend for years into the future including future encounters with the same scumbag (it is an ex-boyfriend that wants you dead?) with civil as well as criminal trials–which may have you as the defendant. When you are in “the situation” you will likely only have fractions of seconds to think about your decisions so you will need to think about what sort conditions will warrant what sort of actions. It’s going to be a rare case that you will want to restrain from pulling the trigger when the scumbag is at contact distance with a knife in hand and rare that you will want to pull the trigger when he is 20 feet away and running away. But there are exceptions and the time to think about those exceptions is long before you get into that situation.

When you are in a situation where there is no applicable ready made plan you need to keep your decision logic extremely simple. Hamilton, a professional self-defense instructor, captures the essence of that decision logic here. Concentrate on the mission and do only what is required to accomplish that mission. With days and weeks to think about it afterward you and others may come up with better things you could have done. If you do only those things that are relevant to that mission the results may not be optimal but they probably won’t be that far off.–Joe]

They make my head spin

Posted on by

This guy is totally incomprehensible to me:

Progressives can close this gun gap and make significant inroads with gun owners by staking out an aggressive position on guns that reflects both the majority view of gun owners and non-gun owners, and responsible policy positions to keep America safe.

This moderate view supports the Second Amendment, new laws like those designed to close the gun show loophole, and the strenuous enforcement of existing gun laws.

…

  • By a margin of 92-7%, voters support improving the background check system to make instant checks faster and more accurate (90-9% among gun owners). 
  • By a margin of 90-9%, voters support closing the gun show loophole (85-13% among gun owners, and 83-16% among those who have attended gun shows!).
  • By a margin of 77-21%, voters support renewing the assault weapons ban (66- 32% among gun owners).

Moreover, for every one of these proposed laws, voters overwhelmingly believe that a progressive can support each measure and still be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

If this is “strong support” for the 2nd Amendment I’d hate to see what opposition to the 2nd Amendment would be. Of course he doesn’t say actually say they are supporters of the 2nd Amendment. He just says voters will believe it.

It reminds me of the first “User Friendly” software came out in the late 80’s. The software vendors had a bunch of labels made up that said, “User Friendly!” and slapped them on all the boxes in the warehouses. The great majority of the people weren’t fooled then and we shouldn’t be fooled by this shyster either.

Update: I’ve been asked where the survey data is. What survey showed such numbers? I don’t know anything more about this particular survey that what is on the website I linked to. What I do know is that almost for certain the questions asked were carefully chosen to give the desired results. For more details on how this is done please see the, very technical and scientific, article Sorry, Wrong Number; Why Media Polls on Gun Control are so Often Unreliable (scroll down or do a search on the page).