The Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas because those people were religious nuts with guns. Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns. Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock?
P. J. O’Rourke
I don’t think it will pass, at least not in it’s current form, but this bill would make most of my guns illegal in Washington State. My bolt action Boomershoot rifle has a muzzle brake therefore these anti-freedom bigots want to call it an assault weapon and ban it (wrong). Both of my carry sidearms are capable of holding more than 10 rounds (18+1 in one and 15+1 in the other). I think I can get a 20 round magazine for one of them. I think I’ll order one right now…
Nope. The highest capacity magazine for my STI in .40 S&W doesn’t hold 20 rounds. It holds 22! I bought two. I should received them in two to five business days. Just because these bigots want to ban anything over 10 rounds in a magazine I’m now going to be packing 45 rounds of 180 grain hollow points, nearly a full box, when I carry.
As I said in the comments for the online order at Shooters Connection, “I read banned books. I shoot banned (or soon to be banned) guns.”
Update: I was too angry when I wrote the above and wasn’t thinking clearly. Bolt action rifles aren’t covered by the proposed ban (yet). The short version of the legalese below is that nearly all my semi-auto firearms are to be banned. If already have such a firearm you can either turn it in, with no compensation, to the police for destruction (once such an evil gun has been in the hands of private ownership it cannot ever again be trusted, even in the hands of the police), register it, or deactivate it. The registration option means you have to not only allow the police to visit your assault weapon storage facility yearly you have to pay them to do that and to do a yearly background check on you. Yes, this bill was introduced in 2005. But it will be back in the next session. The battle for freedom never ends.
Here’s the details from the anti-freedom bigots in Washington State:
(18) “Assault weapon” means:
(a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle
5 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a
6 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also
7 possesses any of the following:
8 (i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located
9 rear of the trigger;
10 (ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any
11 configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a
12 folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the
13 firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of
14 the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below
15 the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
16 (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or
17 configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a
18 telescoping stock;
19 (iv) A barrel shroud;
20 (v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
21 (vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that
22 can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
23 (b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine
24 at any location outside of the pistol grip;
25 (c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,
26 or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept
27 more than ten rounds of ammunition;
28 (d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
29 (e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
30 (f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an
31 assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or
32 under the control of any person.
33 (19) “Detachable magazine” means a magazine, the function of which
34 is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing
35 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any
36 tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.
37 (20) “Barrel shroud” means a covering, other than a slide, that is
38 attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel
p. 5 SB 5475
1 of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the
2 barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without
3 burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension
4 of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially
5 or completely encircle the barrel.
6 (21) “Muzzle brake” means a device attached to the muzzle of a
7 weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
8 (22) “Muzzle compensator” means a device attached to the muzzle of
9 a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
10 (23) “Conversion kit” means any part or combination of parts
11 designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault
12 weapon.
13 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW
14 to read as follows:
15 (1) No person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase,
16 sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon
17 conversion kit, except as authorized by subsection (3) of this section.
18 Any assault weapon or assault weapon conversion kit the manufacture,
19 possession, purchase, sale, or other transfer of which is prohibited
20 under this section is a public nuisance.
21 (2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her
22 control at one time both of the following:
23 (a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or
24 shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine; and
25 (b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains
26 more than ten rounds of ammunition.
27 (3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any of the
28 following:
29 (a) The possession of an unloaded assault weapon for the purpose of
30 permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency in this state.
31 Any assault weapon relinquished pursuant to this subsection shall be
32 destroyed;
33 (b) The transfer of any assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer
34 or dealer to a law enforcement agency in this state for use by that
35 agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes;
36 (c) The possession of an assault weapon that was legally possessed
SB 5475 p. 6
1 on the effective date of this section, but only if the person legally
2 possessing the assault weapon has complied with all of the requirements
3 of subsection (5) of this section;
4 (d) The possession of an assault weapon that has been permanently
5 disabled so that it is incapable of discharging a projectile.
6 (4) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any person:
7 (a) While lawfully engaged in shooting at a duly licensed, lawfully
8 operated shooting range;
9 (b) While lawfully participating in a sporting event officially
10 sanctioned by a club or organization established in whole or in part
11 for the purpose of sponsoring sport shooting events.
12 (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was
13 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person
14 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:
15 (a) Within ninety days following the effective date of this
16 section, submit to a background check identical to the background check
17 conducted in connection with the purchase of a firearm from a licensed
18 gun dealer;
19 (b) Unless the person is prohibited by law from possessing a
20 firearm, immediately register the assault weapon with the sheriff of
21 the county in which the weapon is usually stored;
22 (c) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of
23 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to
24 ensure compliance with this subsection;
25 (d) Annually renew both the registration and the background check;
26 (e) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or
27 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use
28 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while
29 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of
30 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the
31 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container
32 during transport.
33 (6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any person
34 in this state who, after the effective date of this section, acquires
35 title to an assault weapon by inheritance, bequest, or succession,
36 shall, within thirty days of acquiring title, do one of the following:
37 (a) Comply with all of the requirements of subsection (5) of this
38 section;
p. 7 SB 5475
1 (b) Dispose of the assault weapon pursuant to subsection (3)(a) of
2 this section; or
3 (c) Permanently disable the assault weapon so that it is incapable
4 of discharging a projectile.
5 (7) The sheriff of a county may charge a fee for each registration
6 and for each registration renewal pursuant to subsection (5) of this
7 section. However, such fee may not exceed the costs incurred in
8 administering the registration program established under subsection (5)
9 of this section.
10 (8)(a) Any person convicted of violating subsection (1) or (2) of
11 this section is guilty of a class C felony.
12 (b) Any person convicted of violating subsection (5) of this
13 section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
14 (9) Any violation of this section shall also result in the
15 immediate revocation of the registration of every assault weapon
16 registered to such person.
17 (10) This section does not apply to:
18 (a) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies,
19 or other law enforcement officers of this or another state while acting
20 within the scope of their duties;
21 (b) Members of the armed forces of the United States or of the
22 national guard or organized services, when on duty;
23 (c) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to
24 possess assault weapons; or
25 (d) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing,
26 or dealing in assault weapons, or the representative or agent of the
27 person who is properly licensed under federal or state laws to do so
28 and who is acting within the usual and ordinary course of the business.
From the Greg Hamilton to English Dictionary by Meredith Robinson:
Dry Fire Target: Fluffy (or Cat).
Greg Hamilton
Firearms Instructor
[I’ve been doing a lot of dry fire practice the last couple days because of the IPSC match tomorrow. We have two dogs and two cats in the house. I may sometimes tease Barb and Xenia about using the pets for dry fire practice but I never actually do that. It violates a fundamental gun safety rule. And in my classes I tell the story of a guy that accidently shot the family cat in the family room that way.–Joe]
I found this very interesting tidbit from my sitemeter:
| Domain Name | usdoj.gov ? (United States Government) | |||||||||||||||||||
| IP Address | 149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice) | |||||||||||||||||||
| ISP | US Dept of Justice | |||||||||||||||||||
| Location |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| 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; DOJ3jx7bf; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1) |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Javascript | version 1.3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Monitor |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Time of Visit | Dec 1 2006 5:11:13 am | |||||||||||||||||||
| Last Page View | Dec 1 2006 5:11:13 am | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Length | 0 seconds | |||||||||||||||||||
| Page Views | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Referring URL | http://www.topix.net/us/atf | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Entry Page | https://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/11/30/don-t-drop-your-guard/ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Exit Page | https://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/11/30/don-t-drop-your-guard/ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Out Click | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Time Zone | UTC-5:00 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visitor’s Time | Dec 1 2006 8:11:13 am | |||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Number | 116,927 |
http://www.topix.net/forum/us/atf gathers news and blog mentions of ATF and people at the US Department of Justice (hi!) visit those websites. I wonder what they thought of me saying “The ATF has no constitutional authorization to even exist let alone enforce illegal laws.”
Of particular interest to me is that the “User Agent” string of the browser included the unusual item “DOJ3jx7bf”. This item looks like it might be a unique identifier for a particular Department of Justice computer. If so then one can find out what that particular computer/user has been viewing on all websites that you have access to the logs file for.
Hence, with the proper tools and a bit of smarts, one can watch the watchers. To that effect here is a sample which includes the search terms “harvey milk gay activist”, “guns & jenny price”, “john+pepper+ipsc”, “dirty+gun+barrel+picture”, “tannerite”, and the always popular “how to make a bomb”. We can also see some of the other sites our “friend” has been visiting. Examples include http://nfttu.blogspot.com/, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229822, and http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/001891.html.
One must not get too paranoid about being watched. This applies to both webmasters as well as our “friend” at the DOJ. As I was reminded by a fellow blogger at the Gun Bloggers Rendezvous a couple months ago, there are known friendlies in the government. I don’t have any particular hostility toward any of the government workers I have met (certain politicians are different story–I would like to invited Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, and some others to permanently leave the country with nothing more than the clothes on their backs). But no matter how friendly they are most Federal workers are doing jobs that have no constitutional authority.
Note to my guests from the USDOJ and/or the ATF: You are quite welcome to leave a comment, send me an email, or get a legitimate job.
It’s like dealing with a pack of five-year-olds who are so developmentally stunted that they will never be able to learn anything every day it’s a repeat of the same old simple lessons: wipe your bottom before you pull your underpants up, not after!
Andrea Harris
Uncomfortably numb
November 26th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Regarding dealing with advocates of “global warming”.
[It could just as well have been said about people in the anti-self-defense movement. Sometimes every single thing they say is wrong and/or can’t possible work. Such as in this case.–Joe]
I was listening to the audio book version of Surely Your Joking, Mr. Feynman! the other day and Feynman told of trying to teach his artist friend about science in return for the artist to teach him about art. It turned out that Feynman was a much better artist than the artist was a scientist. In fact the artist couldn’t get anywhere with science. And Feynman observed that it wasn’t just artists. It was pervasive in our society and perhaps in the human species. I’ve run into it myself some even with people that appear at first glance to be above average in intelligence. The concept that Feynman expressed was that people think engineers and scientists can do anything. You just have to tell them what you want and they could build it if they wanted to. People think of us as magicians.
One of the examples Feynman mentioned was that he was asked to be an adviser to the military and after some reluctance agreed to attend a meeting or two to see if he could contribute. One of the problems the military wanted help solving was the refueling of tanks. As they advanced on the battlefield they would run out of fuel and needed to be refueled. Why didn’t the scientists just create an engine that used sand for fuel? Then the tank could just have a little scoop on the bottom and refuel itself as it moved along.
We are not magicians. There are physical laws that we not only don’t know how to break but can’t be broken. We may find a loophole someday but that is a very risky bet. Politicians make laws that everyone knows how to break but I’m not sure people in general understand the difference.
To make things worse our politicians write laws as if we actually are magicians. The universal biometric identification card, fingerprints, airplane security searches, and “ballistic fingerprints” are just a few of the examples that are applicable to my domain of blogging. And what happens when science doesn’t come through like the advocates want us to? They bury their head in the sand and insist it’s working even when it’s not and cannot possibly work. People will want to believe something so bad that they will believe it despite evidence to the contrary.
In the cases above there is a fundamental problem that many people don’t realize exists. It’s a MUCH different problem that many other hard problems scientists and engineers have been able to solve. You used to hear things like, “If we can put a man on the moon why can’t we [fill in the blank]?” At one level I understand the feeling. Putting a man on the moon is so outside of our everyday experience that it would seem to be impossible. So why not solve something that would seem to be simple like identifying people? The fundamental difference is in one case you are “fighting” a nearly static “enemy”, “Mother Nature”, and in the other cases you are “fighting” an active thinking opponent.
I’m reminded of a quote that relates to this topic:
Campaigns to bearproof all garbage containers in wild areas have been difficult because, as one biologist put it, “There is a considerable overlap between the intelligence levels of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists.”
Richard Wabrek
The opponent you are defending against in the case of the identification, airplane security and garbage container problems is constantly getting smarter. The earth, it’s atmosphere, the moon, gravity, and the dumbest tourists are not getting smarter.
Because of this fundamental difference in the nature of the problems any solution you find against an active opponent is likely to be short lived. In the case of a bear or a virus it may be possible to find a permanent solution. In the case of human opponents I think that in all cases it will be an unwinnable arms race. Solutions will come and with time and some smarts the opponents will defeat them with perhaps as little as one billionth as much money and effort as the solution builders put into it. The only question will be is, “Did we spend our money wisely on that solution?” Did we buy enough time before the solution was defeated to make the expenditure worthwhile? Or could we have spent that money on something else that would have been a better return on the dollar?
This concept can be extended even further. Think of the war on certain drugs and firearm bans. There is an active human opponent the solution provider is fighting. Those are battles that cannot be won.
Paul Helmke is President of the Brady Campaign/Center to Prevent Gun Violence (better known in civil rights circles as “The Brady Bunch”). Here are some things to watch out for–straight from the horse’s ass mouth:
The new Congress could send the public a positive message of its concern for safer communities by taking common sense steps like eliminating current restrictions on publicizing data about the source of guns used in crimes, strengthening the enforcement powers of law enforcement agencies including the ATF, making it harder for criminals and terrorists to buy guns by requiring background checks for all gun sales, and restricting sales of military style weapons and the ammunition that’s used in those weapons. Steps like this help make us safer and will score political points for those who support them.
Emphasis is mine. Even casual users of guns should go immediately on alert about the ammunition even if they don’t about the “military style weapons”. The most popular American guns use ammunition that was first used by the military. .45 ACP, 30.06, .308, .223, 9mm, 12 gauge shotgun. That doesn’t even include the less popular but still “interesting” calibers like .50 BMG.
And of course this point ignores all the other great points that could be made about their anti-freedom wish list. Examples include:
Via Arms and the Law.
I wouldn’t normally mention this sort of thing on my blog. I’m not into bathroom humor, like some people I know. And this video is nearly ten minutes long which is way too long for most blog readers. But the police marksman and the total breakdown of civil society make it good enough to warrant my mention. Via Samantha.
Ms. Peters’ career in gun control got its start in Australia, where she was an important contributor to that country’s current gun ban. By 2005, the rate of sexual assault in Australia increased 36% from its pre-ban 1995 rate, while the U.S. rate decreased 14.6%. Women are now raped over three times as often in Australia as they are in the United States.
The rate of sexual crimes against women in the UK increased 63.0% since pre-ban 1995. Women are raped and sexually assaulted nearly twice as often in the UK as the U.S. Meanwhile, British police ignore Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “civil,” as in: “orderly; well-governed.” The detection rate for sexual offenses dropped from 39% in 2003-2004 to 34% in 2004-2005, indicating poor governance: a 13% lower efficiency by police in bringing perpetrators to justice. Yet according to Peters’ interpretation, Australia and Britain promote women’s rights better than the U.S.
Is a society that accepts a drastic increase in the violent victimization of females more civil, or less?
This is a relevant question, because it appears that Peters believes such societies are more civil, as her IANSA is a major player in the U.N. effort to ban civilian firearms.
That’s just a sample.
Peters is a very big player in the international anti-civil rights movement. Pointing out the terrible consequences of her successes should be high on the list of civil rights activists. To get more familar with Ms. Peters you might also want to get a DVD of her October 2004 debate with Wayne LaPierre (hint to people wishing to buy me a Christmas gift–it’s only $5.95).
The right to revolt has sources deep in our history.
William O. Douglas
US Supreme Court Justice
Say Uncle reminded me of something and I had to go look it up. If you ever get a chance to hear Alan Korwin speak he’s just as brilliant in person. Here is his take on the words we use. A sample:
They want you to say
(and you lose if you say):It’s better to say
(and they lose if you say):pro gun pro rights gun control crime control anti-gun movement anti-self-defense movement semiautomatic handgun sidearm concealed carry carry or right to carry assault or lethal weapon household firearms saturday night specials racist gun laws junk guns the affordability issue high capacity magazines full capacity magazines Second Amendment Bill of Rights the powerful gun lobby civil rights organizations
…the Second Amendment is not for killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians, like [in] Grozny, [or back in] 1776, when they take your independence away!
Bob Dornan
Congressional Record, 25 January, 1995
I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns. No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals . . . we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns. Until we can ban all of the firearms, then we might as well ban none.
Senator Howard Metzenbaum
[Just so you know what most in the gun-rights movement have discovered after only a modest amount of research. It’s not crime control that drives the people that want to ban guns.–Joe]
Update: Due to interest in an accurate citation of this quote I went looking some more. I looked yesterday but wasn’t able to find anything satisfactory. Here are some hints:
If I were to spend more time on this I would look for transcripts of the debate on the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. But I don’t really have the time.
Of course I do not regret the Bond days, I regret that sadly heroes in general are depicted with guns in their hands, and to tell the truth I have always hated guns and what they represent.
Roger Moore
[Daniel Craig isn’t the only actor to play Bond and dislike guns.–Joe]
Courage and conviction are powerful weapons against an enemy who depends only on fists or guns. Animals know when you are afraid; a coward knows when you are not.
David Seabury
[Good advice when you in a situation where you fear for your personal safety. We teach this concept in NRA Personal Protection classes.–Joe]
Citizens have the natural right and the common sense duty to protect themselves, their families, their communities, and their property…guns are the equalizing tools of self-protection, utopian lamentations notwithstanding.
Edgar A. Suter
Pretty interesting if you are a mechanical engineer type.
If somebody brings up guns I’m going to shoot ’em.
James Carville
November 22, 2006
Democratic strategist
Election changes hue of red states
News Observer via Alphecca
[I’d like to suggest someone makes sure Mr. Carville gets some good training and lots of practice time at the range.–Joe]
I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.
Michael Dukakis
Then governor of Massachusetts, 1986
[Todays QOTD was inspired by this post from Say Uncle.–Joe]
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
Joseph Stalin
[And hence, you can conclude that the left has a vested interest in not wanting people to think as well as own guns.–Joe]
