Category Archives: Gun Rights

This is what we need

Posted on by

Via Wayne LaPierre:

Montana’s Castle Doctrine bill also contains a provision stating that if companies forbid employees from legally and lawfully carrying a firearm, and an employee is a victim of a crime, then the employee can sue his or her employer for failing to protect him (or refusing to allow him to protect himself).

This is wonderful! We need more of this.

One of my first firearms students was a lawyer and suggested something I have never had the courage to try. His suggestion was that employees who are otherwise legally able to carry a concealed firearm but are prohibited by company policy should have their lawyer send the employer a letter. This letter would state the employee would obey the company policy. But should a situation arise where the lawful possession and use of a firearm in the work environment could have saved the life or prevented serious injury to the employee or others that the company was on notice that it would be held liable because of the company policy.

If I was ever in a position where the job just didn’t matter that much I might try that as a means to change company policy. But in most situations I figure it would just result in the company putting you at the top of the list to get rid of should there be a real or imagined downturn in business.

In my list of BHAGs with the PNNL lawsuit is to make it such that having a “no guns” policy is direct evidence of an anti-gun bias. Hence if a gun owner gets fired the no guns policy lends credence to the claim it was his gun ownership that was the real reason. Just as separate bathrooms or drinking fountains for blacks would be evidence that a company had a bias against non-whites. We need to make the cost of anti-gun bigotry as high as we can and I am going to do my best to enable others to inflict a cost on other bigots.

Attention gun owning women in Seattle

Posted on by

Women in the Seattle area, you could probably do a lot of good for the gun rights movement in Washington State by attending this meeting tonight:

Gun Culture & American Democracy

Wednesday, January 10, 7:30 PM

Joan Burbick, professor of English and American Studies at Washington State University, has written a socio-historical introduction to American gun culture in a book entitled Gun Show Nation. The author of Rodeo Queens & the American Dream and Healing the Public, Burbick talks about the social, legal, and political history of gun culture and its current expression in contemporary America. She shows how the Second Amendment rights movement was born of the social unrest of the 1960s and highlights the paradoxical belief that the gun itself is capable of stopping violence. She concludes that for many white, middle-aged men, the gun serves as a powerful symbol of personal freedom and is representative of a mythologized frontier past. Downstairs at Town Hall, enter on Seneca Street. Presented by the Town Hall Center for Civic Life and Elliott Bay Book Company, the Seattle Post Intelligencer and CeaseFire.

$5

Tickets & info
Tickets are $5 at the door only. Town Hall members receive priority seating.

Directions and parking information is here.

Men in camouflage or “Vote from the rooftop” t-shirts with beer bellies would not be productive.

Quote of the day–Gun Guys

Posted on by

But the problem is that you don’t want anyone carrying concealed weapons around. Even in the hands of retired police officers, firearms are a threat.

Gun Guys
Ocean City, MD Reluctantly Changes Concealed Weapons Law
January 5, 2006
[Just so you realize how warped these bigots are. The very existence of firearms are threats, apparently not just to predatory criminals, but to all life.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Carol Solnom

Posted on by

I hate guns. In today’s society there is no need for the average citizen to own or carry a gun except to protect yourself from those who do carry guns and intend to use them in a crime. Oh, wait! I just contradicted myself. No. I just pointed out the vicious circle created by gun advocates. They say, “Guns don’t kill, people kill.” I’d say you’re correct. But the government and law enforcement have done a lousy job of keeping guns out of the hands of those who kill, and longer jail sentences are not the answer because that occurs after a crime has been committed.

Tighter gun control? I’ll go so far as to say ban guns. That’s the only way.

Carol Solnom
There’s no need for most to carry a gun
January 9, 2007
The Enquirer
[ Putting prostitutes in jail after they commit the crime is not the answer. We need to put chastity belts on all women except when under strict police supervision.

At least Ms. Solnom admits her hate. Such an admission is the first step to recovery.

Banning guns didn’t make people in the U.K., Canada, or Australia safer. It didn’t make people in Washington D.C. or Chicago safer. I have Just One Question for Ms. Solnom.–Joe]

Very nice

Posted on by

It’s possible we won’t have to liberate the U.K. after all. They may be in the process of liberating themselves if this report via Kevin is true and the trend continues.

Quote of the day–Robert F. Williams

Posted on by

This demonstration today shows that the Negro in the South cannot expect justice in the courts. He must convict his attackers on the spot. He must meet violence with violence, lynching with lynching.

Robert F. Williams
Page 26; Negros With Guns
[There is some amazing stuff in this book. The city of Monroe North Carolina refused to allow blacks to use the swimming pool. The black leaders asked for one day a week hence bypassing the issue of whites and blacks being in the pool at the same time. The city said it would be too expensive because they would have to drain and clean the pool after the blacks had used it (page 15).

The above quote occurred after a white rapist went to the home of a black woman who was eight months pregnant, drove her from her house, and then beat her. He caught her while she was trying to escape down the main highway and knocked her to the ground. Her six-year-old boy was running along the side and when the white rapist beat his mother the boy picked up a stick and started hitting the man over the head with it while his mother escaped. A white neighbor testified in court she saw the incident and that the mother came to her for help with her clothes torn from her. The white man was found not guilty (page 25).

When the blacks armed themselves, and without firing a shot, defended themselves an old white man in the crowd that was previously chanting, “Kill the niggers!” started screaming and crying like a baby (page 10). He then said, “God damn, God damn, what is this God damn country coming to that the niggers have got guns, the niggers are armed and the police can’t even arrest them!”–Joe]

Firing up the propaganda machine

Posted on by

On Friday the Seattle PI whined about new gun control laws were unlikely in Washington State anytime soon. Today they added more to the drumbeat for their bigoted agenda with this article and picture:

He was much larger than me and had a beefy football-player build and short dark hair — the bouncer type. He was going to get physical if I objected. He was ready to push as we walked quickly past the long row of tables covered with guns and ammunition, past the woman collecting money for admission. Talk to him, I said to myself. Talk to him. I kept telling him I didn’t work for the newspapers as he herded me to the exit.

“No pictures,” he kept repeating.

“No pictures,” he insisted one last time as he opened the heavy door and gently pushed me out. Then he closed the door and left me standing outside with my camera dangling from my hand. A hand-lettered sign appeared outside the entrance: NO CAMERAS ALLOWED.

Thirty minutes earlier I had walked into the public fairgrounds to attend a local gun show in Moscow, Idaho.

…

Wives were threats. Girlfriends were threats. They are the new scourges of secular life, hunting down unsuspecting men to get bucks and tear out their hearts. Women who talked too much were threats. And women who held public office and wouldn’t shut up were the scourge of the land. I also have picked up bumper stickers at gun shows that said: “I just got a gun for my wife. It’s the best trade I ever made.” Or handouts detailing the “Top 10 Reasons Handguns Are Better than Women,” ending with the No. 1 reason, “You can buy a silencer for a handgun.” I also had seen some pretty vicious materials on Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno. A new fear floated above some of the gun exhibits: judges, lawyers and voters were giving women too much power, and the women were using that power to take guns away from their husbands, their boyfriends and their constituents. A gun-grabber lurked in the heart of the liberated woman.

Please explain to me the difference between this sort of propaganda and the bigoted material that implies black men like to rape white women.

It probably doesn’t apply

Posted on by

Several months ago Say Uncle (I think it was him, if it was someone else and I got them mixed up my apologies for not giving the right person credit) suggested I see how the Southern Law Poverty Center was able to take private action against people that deprived others of their rights without going through Federal prosecutors. In my case against PNNL even though I have very strong evidence some people committed felonies against me the prosecutors aren’t interested in even investigating the case. Say Uncle pointed out that in what appears on the surface to be an analogous situation the SLPC took the bigots to court and got large settlements. Great point! How did they do that? Well, I found out. They utilized a different law. I had been looking at 18 USC § 241. SLPC used 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) which says:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
Yes, it’s all one sentence. It’s difficult for me to understand it but it appears to not apply in my situation. It would take a lawyer to research it and make sure but my non-lawyer opinion is that it is a bit of a stretch. What we have in 18 USC § 241 much more clearly does apply and I have had three different lawyers tell me they think so as well. The PNNL scumbags committed a felony and I don’t have a legal mechanism to get them into court over it and get a conviction against them.

Quote of the day–Joe Waldron

Posted on by

The lead-in to today’s Seattle P-I story about the future of proposed gun control laws in Olympia sounds good for gun rights advocates. But is it?

The true intent of the P-I is to build pressure on legislators to pass gun control legislation during the upcoming session DESPITE the fact that none of the proposals would have prevents Wednesday’s shooting at Foss High School or earlier high visibility shootings in King and Pierce counties.

We can expect to see more news articles and editorials in the coming weeks calling for passage of Seattle Mayor Nickels’ “reasonable gun control” agenda, an agenda that was first announced last May and was broadcast again the same day of the Foss HS shooting. Of course the interesting this is that while the mayor’s four point program has nothing to do with recent shooting incidents, it is identical to Washington Ceasefire’s gun control agenda.

Joe Waldron
GOAL Alert 1-2007 5 January 2007
[Mayor Nickels is aligning himself with the equivalent of the KKK and should be held accountable for this.–Joe]

Free ads

Posted on by

Say Uncle says:

That said, the NRA should use the internet more effectively. It’s good to see that Wayne LaPierre has a blog. There is a very active gun-blogging community and the NRA should openly support those folks. Link to good blog articles from your news page, mention us in your magazine articles, offer discounted membership in NRA through our websites, and other things. Hell, I’ll even give you guys free ads.

I’m up for the free ads too. And not just for the NRA and NRA-ILA. I’ll give free ads to the CCRKA, Firearms Coalition, GOA, JPFO, Mothers Arms, SAF, Second Amendment Sisters, and probably several others I forgot about or didn’t know about.

Click on “Advertise here” to create the ad and then send me an email to get a code that will give you the free ad.

Quote of the day–Richard Daley

Posted on by

Every time we seize an illegal gun, we reduce the probability that someone will be killed, injured or unfortunately robbed at gunpoint.

Mayor Richard Daley
Daley: Democratic control could lead to stricter gun laws
January 4, 2007
Northwest Herald
[I am nearly certain Mayor Daley doesn’t have a clue about probability or statistics. If he did then he would know his statement is false and that would make him a liar. Of course being a politician is frequently synonymous with being a liar so I have to acknowledge the possibility that Daley does know something about probability and/or statistics. Furthermore he can’t even make sense in a prepared sound-bite. The guns he and his goons are seizing aren’t illegal. It’s the possession of those guns by certain classes of people that is illegal under Chicago law. Never mind those particular Chicago laws are illegal. The article in which he was quoted was about Daley’s desire to make possession of even more guns illegal. His statistical basis for this objective was not addressed and for a good reason–it would not support his desires. Because of this one has to wonder what his real objective is. Daley needs to answer Just One Question.–Joe]

Updated Just One Question.

Posted on by

On the suggestion of “Al” I have updated Just One Question. It’s now:

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where the average person was made safer by restricting their access to handheld weapons?

The previous wording was awkward and a bit ambiguous. This is much better. I did tweak it just slightly from Al’s suggestion but still he deserves the credit for recognizing the poor wording and the appropriate correction. Thank you.

Update: Ry, in the comments, suggested even further improvements. I removed still another word after taking his suggestion. It’s now:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

Quote of the day–Matthew Bean

Posted on by

The Washington State Constitution provides that individual citizens of the state have the right to bear arms to defend themselves or the state, Article I, § 24.

The Washington State Constitution further establishes that citizens have the right to freedom of speech, Article I, § 5.

The Washington State Supreme Court has recognized the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Gardner v. Loomis Armoured, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931 (1996); Roberts v. Dudley. 140 Wn.2d 58 (2000).

The Washington State Constitution is a primary source to determine the public policy of the state of Washington. Roberts v. Dudley, Justices Alexander and Talmadge, concurring separately.

In advocating for the responsible use of firearms, Plaintiff engaged in conduct protected by both Article I, §24 and § 5 and in furtherance of the public good.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was terminated for exercising his rights guaranteed to him by the Washington State Constitution, in violation of the public policy of the State of Washington.

Matthew Bean
in Joe Huffman vs. Battelle Memorial Institute
Filed October 30, 2006
Benton County Superior Court
[I would like to say “Hi” to all the people from PNNL that have been visiting my blog and my PNNL.info website recently. Nice to have you stop by. I’m sure I’ll be talking to some of you in person and while you are under oath sometime in the future. Have a nice day–while you still can. To my friends still there and scared about being called to testify–I think I can avoid that in almost all cases. In one case I might have to have one person testify about something embarrassing (to them) but I’ll do my best to avoid it and then make it as bearable as possible if it’s a necessity. To my enemies in this encounter, wherever you are, I have a BHAG post coming up that addresses my plans for you in greater detail.–Joe]

My story makes the AP

Posted on by

Well… sort of. There’s only one outlet that actually ran it that I know of. I like their headline: Fired PNNL worker claims gun discrimination in lawsuit.

I just wish they had linked to my website that proves the case rather than just saying I “say” or “claim” something happened.

Oh well. It’s not the public that matters that much. It’s the judge and jury. And I got a 600% increase in traffic on that website from the newspaper story anyway.

Slogans versus logic

Posted on by

Kevin has an update for his The Other Side posting. The doctor that inspired him to write the post to begin with responded. Well sort of responded. He just said:

Kevin, thanks for writing. I am all for individual rights but life is sacred. Too many guns end up in the wrong hands. Whatever reason, the youth of North Philly too easily obtain firearms which are designed to seriously wound. Furthermore, the folks who wrote the constitution also owned slaves. Times do change and we have not demonstrated that the masses, unlike you, can responsibly control firearms. Peace, JK

“Too many guns” “Wrong hands” “Too easily”

That’s the problem with getting into debates with these people. They don’t respond to any of your logic or the facts. They just chant slogans. Our side does something like what Kevin did, tearing the guys entire position to shreds, and he just chants his slogans again.

In the update Kevin tears him to pieces, again, but it’s not going to do much good in the doctors case. It can do good for our side in that observers can see the emptiness of the “argument” the bigot presents and I am not going to discourage anyone from doing that. But for me, I’m tired of investing that much time into something that will just be dismissed with couple of sentences. This is why I came up Just One Question. Kevin actually used it in his original post and, of course, the doctor ignored it.

Oh, for your reading enjoyment, here’s another good exercise in logic and facts.

Quote of the day–Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posted on by

Do not follow where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.

Ralph Waldo Emerson
[This has also been attributed to Harold R. McAlindon. I am unable to find any dates for the life of McAlindon and I’ve never heard of him before today so I’m inclined to believe Emerson was probably first. Regardless, this is my plan in the New Year for dealing with the anti-gun bigots. There is no path in the legal world where I’m headed with PNNL. I hope to leave a trail of (figuratively) bloody bodies that others will follow in our fight to reclaim our freedom against the anti-gun bigots.–Joe]

Just another day at the range

Posted on by

With machine guns and flame throwers.

All perfectly legal and a good time was had by everyone. Except maybe the anti-freedom bigots reading about it at home.

Via Kevin.

One of the ways the anti-freedom people make progress is by asserting people like us are extremists, dangerous, and a “threat to society”. While in fact just the opposite is true. Even if you don’t want to take the time to assert (and/or prove) the anti-freedom bigots are a threat to society you can easily demonstrate the gun nuts (like me, Kevin, and his friends) are just ordinary people, are not extremists, and are only a threat to a tyrannical government. People, in general, want to be “in the middle” and “moderate”. By pushing the envelope in the freedom direction you make it easier for the “moderates” to be further from the anti-freedom bigots.

Do your part and don’t hide in the closet about it.

Quote of the day–Sam Ewing

Posted on by

The government deficit is the difference between the amount of money the government spends and the amount it has the nerve to collect.

Sam Ewing
January 1991
Readers Digest Quote
[I never thought of it that way before but I wonder if gun control is an attempt by the government to gain more nerve and reduct the deficit.–Joe]

Bigots in industry

Posted on by

I’ve said it before but talking with Lyle at UltiMAK yesterday I obtained some more evidence that gun owners are in many ways treated like blacks in this country were 50 or 60 years ago. Actual lynching don’t occur. Ruby Ridge and Waco come close in many respects but no ropes and trees were involved. But what does happen is marginalization, shunning, firings (mine and I know of three other people that had similar problems), and signs such as this one (St. Louis Missouri August 13, 2006):

When I see a sign like that I can’t help but think of signs like this:

From http://www.cah.utexas.edu/ssspot/lesson_plans/lesson_10.php
From http://www.cah.utexas.edu/ssspot/lesson_plans/lesson_10.php

And read through this list and find how many similar restrictions apply to gun owners. A sample:

  • Parks: It shall be unlawful for colored people to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the benefit, use and enjoyment of white persons.
  • Education: Separate rooms [shall] be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and [when] said rooms are so provided, such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent.
  • Libraries: Any white person of such county may use the county free libraries under the rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioners court and may be entitled to all the privileges thereof. Said court shall make proper provision for the Negroes of said county to be served through a separate branch or branches of the county free library, which shall be administered by a custodian of the Negro race under the supervision of the county librarian.
  • Railroads: The conductors or managers on all such railroads shall have power, and are hereby required, to assign to each white or colored passenger his or her respective car, coach, or compartment. If the passenger fails to disclose his race, the conductor and managers, acting in good faith shall be the sole judges of his race.

Back to what Lyle told me–One of the limiting factors to growth in his business (gun accessories) is building stuff fast enough. For over a year he has been trying to find more machine shops to build his stuff. He has had something like seven or eight companies tell him they don’t want his business because it is gun related. He has been unable to find any new suppliers in the last 18 months. Legally I support their right to refuse to do business with someone. For example I wouldn’t do business with someone making “ovens” for Nazis. And I don’t want my Modern Ballistics program sold to certain organizations opposed to basic human rights. But that so many companies have this bigoted viewpoint tells us a great deal about the attitudes of this country.

The advice I gave Lyle was, “Ask them if they have a similar policy about doing business with blacks.”

Confirmation (I think)

Posted on by

One of the rumors I have heard out of PNNL was that I had modified one or more of my sites to treat visitors from the lab differently and put “malware” on the labs network. This claim is totally false and I sometimes wondered if anyone actually thought that. Perhaps someone did because I found this. It’s a report on my PNNL.INFO website in regards to spam, adware, and spyware. A number of the sites for which I am the webmaster and have some relationship to the PNNL conflict are shown to have been tested by McAfee SiteAdvisor. Others for which I am the webmaster have not been tested. I’m wondering if the bigots were trying to verify their claims by submitting my sites for analysis. If so, they failed. McAfee loves me.

It’s a little bit of a stretch but it seems to me this is another bit of evidence the bigots were spreading falsehoods about me.