Category Archives: Gun Rights

In the NY Times?

Posted on by

I would have never expected to see things like this said in the New York Times about gun control:

“This is putting a Band-Aid on heart surgery,” said Gary P. Delagnes, president of the San Francisco Police Officer’s Association. He called it another “silly idea” from elected officials whose progressive ideas are not grounded in the realities of fighting crime.

…

“This is a triumph of symbolic politics,” said Franklin E. Zimring, at professor at the University of California at Berkeley Boalt School of Law, deeming the ordinance a “sure loser” in state court. Both daily newspapers in the city, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Examiner, cited the likelihood of a successful legal challenge as one key reason they recommend voters reject the measure.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, citing the likelihood of a successful court challenge, said he hasn’t bothered to take a position on the measure. “It’s a symbolic gesture,” Mayor Newsom said. “It’s a public opinion poll.”

Wow!  I must be hallucinating from eating too much Halloween candy or something.

Quote of the day–Dave Workman

Posted on by

Bravo for John Lott’s revealing research on the impact that concealed carry laws are having on crime. That such laws have been passed in 31 states, coinciding with passage of “Three Strikes” and “Hard Time for Armed Crime” legislation, is the real reason we are seeing a decline in reported violent crime. Those who have advocated restrictive gun control over the years, and other intrusions on the rights of individual citizens, are now being shown as the liars they’ve always been. In the wake of the Arkansas tragedy, I remain more firmly convinced than ever that gun control advocates are glad such shooting rampages to occur, simply in order to further their own agenda. The veneer is wearing thin, however, as from your own USA Today polling, the majority of respondents support gun ownership, and are now rejecting arguments that restrictions on our Constitutional rights will control crime.
   
Dave Workman
3/28/98
From http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/98/0326/icpro.asp (Link appears to be dead now)

Details on being arrested for a jacket

Posted on by

Three weeks ago I reported on the arrest of Shaun Kranish for wearing a pro-Second Amendment jacket.  Stephanie has pointed out there are more details available now.  This part interests me:

When asked if I had any weapons, I informed him that I did not, as he could plainly see. After Chief Drought frisked me to verify that was the case, i.e., that I was unarmed and defenseless, as school policy stipulates, we were able to continue our conversation. I began expressing my concern about the policy and explained how it puts the students at serious risk. We spoke about the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms. I informed them of the organization I started, and we talked a bit about the laws in Illinois. Both officers claimed many times to agree with my views and claimed to share my beliefs. At one point in the waiting room, I was about to quote Thomas Jefferson, when Chief Drought said I didn’t need to, as he knew all of the quotes as well. This seemed encouraging to me – a knowledgeable and informed law enforcement officer that believes in freedom.

The Chief then asked me to come in the back, so we wouldn’t have to speak in the waiting room. He led me into a room, shut the door, and we sat down and talked some more. I don’t remember the specifics of our conversation, but I think it was still centered around what I thought were the beliefs we shared. At some point, he told me he had some other things to do and that Officer Crumb would be taking over. Officer Crumb came in the room, and we talked some more. I could tell he was a very haughty man by his attitude and demeanor. He would constantly patronize me with agreeing confirmations and quirky smiles, but this didn’t bother me. To each his own – I was perfectly satisfied in discussing my beliefs.

The guy goes to the campus police station to discuss school policy on firearms and in order to continue the conversation he has to consent to being frisked.  I think the conversation should have been terminated then.  He is being asked to give up his Fourth amendment rights to exercise his First Amendment rights of discussing his Second Amendment rights.  I can’t see things getting any better here–and they don’t.

The other interesting thing is that the Gestapo claimed to share Kranish’s view of the Second Amendment and the illegality of Illinois law and campus regulation.  I would have to review some of my books, but I’m pretty sure this is a standard interrogation technique.  The interrogator establishes a rapport with the person being questioned and they open up and confess without even realizing that is what they are doing.  An example would be interrogating a wife beater the cop would say something like, “There are times when my woman gets out of line.  I haven’t hit her yet, but one of these days I know I’m going to.  She needs it.  She needs to understand who’s wears the pants in the family.  So what does your old lady do that just pisses you off?  How do you keep her in her place?”

Keep in mind that while in a conversation with the police you are required to be truthful and they are not required to be truthful with you.  While engaged in a discussion with the police of a repressive government such Illinois, New Jersey, California, etc. you should be even more wary than usual.  Kranish is an example for all of us.

Pistol steel match results

Posted on by

I’ve put the Lewiston Pistol Club October Steel match results on the web.  I came in second this time.  Much better than in August.  Practice makes a difference.

There are a few pictures there as well.

Quote of the day–Tench Coxe

Posted on by

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ….The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.

Tench Coxe
Pennsylvania Gazette
Feb. 20, 1788.

Quote of the day–Jeff Cooper

Posted on by

Family member and full-time California cop Gabriel Suarez, who is gradually working up to his Ace Rating in police actions, contributes the following:

Gun control is a band-aid, feeling good approach to the nation’s crime problem. It is easier for politicians to ban something than it is to condemn a murderer to death or a robber to life in prison. In essence, ‘gun control’ is the coward’s way out.

Jeff Cooper
From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 2, No. 12
27 September 1994

Quote of the day–Sarah Brady

Posted on by

I commend Senator Durbin, Congressman John Porter and the rest of our friends in the Congress for introducing this important legislation.  To allow this nation to return to cash-and-carry tragedies is unimaginable.

Sarah Brady
Chair of HCI (now The Brady Campaign)
February 24, 1999
Regarding a proposed federal law for a permanent waiting period for firearms purchases after the temporary waiting period expired when the “instant check” came online.
From http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=164 (as of October 27, 2005)
[This is how the other side works.  Get something through then incrementally “improve” it.  We need to do the same.  — Joe]

Cool story in the Washington Post

Posted on by

Gun positive coverage in the Washington Post. It must be April Fools Day.  Nope, but it is a gun positive story. Getting women and children involved in the positive use of guns makes a difference in the media perception of firearms.  Getting a third grade girl involved makes a big difference:

Girl, 8, Credited With Year’s 1st Bear Kill

2 Rounds Did In the 211-Pound Animal, Third-Grader From Western Md. Says

By Nelson Hernandez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Page B03

MOUNT NEBO, Md., Oct. 24 — There’s a new hunting legend in the mountains of Western Maryland.

Born to the woods, she’s 4 1/2 feet tall and 8 years old, with a shock of light brown hair and a steady trigger finger that put two bullets into a black bear’s chest cavity Monday, according to her and her father and granduncle, who were hunting with her. State officials backed the claim by Sierra Stiles and credited her with the first kill of Maryland’s second bear season since hunting the animals resumed after a half-century ban.

…


Sierra Stiles,8, put two bullets into a black bear’s chest cavity Monday in Western Maryland, according to her and her father and granduncle, who were hunting with her.

Of course there were people complaining about it:

The Humane Society of the United States, which has urged Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) to ban bear hunts, expressed concern Monday over the age of the hunter and noted that the first bear killed last year was a young bear.

“Governor Ehrlich is personally responsible for exposing young children and young bears to this cruelty,” read the news release.

But even that is a good thing.  It exposes them to even more ridicule.

Nice press coverage

Posted on by

It’s rare to get pro-gun press coverage on the politics of gun owner rights.  This article from the Gainesville Sun is so refreshing:

WASHINGTON – Ginny Brown-Waite pulled into a parking lot in Chiefland around midnight to rest her drowsy eyes before continuing her drive to a state legislative session in Tallahassee.

She awoke that night in 2000, she said recently, to four or five young men rocking her car and demanding she open up.

“I said, ‘No, I’ve got a gun in the glove compartment,’ ” recalled Brown-Waite, 62, who was then a state senator and now is a member of Congress. “You’d better leave.”

She was bluffing, but the men fled. And Brown-Waite later got a concealed weapon permit after training on a .357 magnum.

The experience helps explain why Brown-Waite, who owns a .38 and a .45, gets riled when the Second Amendment comes up, as it did last week when Congress passed landmark legislation to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits. After the vote, she lashed out at the “out-of-touch and dwindling minority of Congress” that opposes gun ownership.

Brown-Waite, one of at least three members of the Florida delegation to carry permits, shows that Florida isn’t just well armed. The state is a significant player in gun-control debates nationwide.

…

Brown-Waite, a 5-foot-2-inch grandmother, seems the last person to be “packing heat,” as she calls it, but she might be when in Florida.

“I have the permit,” she said, “and at least one weapon, I guarantee you.”

Yeah, the stereotype is she would be “the last person to be packing heat”.  But when you think about it you come up with a different answer.  Who is it that most needs a tool to equalize the odds in a violent confrontation?  It’s not the young, large, adult male.  It’s the weak and the slow. The people most likely to become victims of predators are the ones that should have the training and the tools to defend themselves.  Even though the Gainesville Sun didn’t come up with quite the right conclusion they gave everyone enough information they can break through the stereotype on their own.  And that is breaking through still another stereotype–about the MSM.  Thank you Cory Reiss, Gainesville Sun.

Quote of the day–Greg Hamilton

Posted on by

Shooting at the head is a tough one.  There’s really only two spots you can really do any good with a handgun.  The eyes.  Any higher and even if you do get through the armor you’ll only take off the top half of the brain that he never uses anyway.  It will be impressive with lots of blood, but it won’t stop him.  You have to take out the lower part of his brain, the monkey portion of his brain.

Greg Hamilton
Self Defense Instructor
Nov. 19, 1995

Quote of the day–Harry S Truman

Posted on by

I never give them hell.  I just tell the truth, and they think it is hell.

Harry S Truman
1884-1972
33rd President of the United States
Quoted in Look April 3, 1953
[And so it is when we debate gun rights with the anti-freedom bigots. — Joe]

Great idea for anti-gun establishments

Posted on by

Ever start to walk into a store and see a sign saying it was a “weapons free zone” or the equivalent thereof?  I have.  And I have gone through the effort to get people to write/protest and get the sign taken down.  It’s a lot of work.  Here’s another way to perhaps change things.  It’s a “business card” you leave with the merchant instead of leaving them your money:


Front


Back

Only $10/100.  I just ordered some.  I wish I had them with me now.  I am going to the Seattle area tonight and would drop one off at Half-Priced Books in Bellevue.

The perfect is the enemy of the good

Posted on by

The title of this post is a quote from Neal Knox. For those of you that didn’t know him he was a wonderful pro-gun activist. He was very politically savvy and someone I admired tremendously. He died last January (see this post for more detail about his contributions). It was a great loss.

I’ve heard variations of that on numerous topics over the years. One of my favorites, because I’m an engineer, is, “There comes a time in the life of every project when it’s time to shoot the engineers and ship the product.” I think it was Isaac Asimov (not sure on this) who wrote a short science fiction story about a planet or alliance that lost a war and became slaves (?) to a technologically inferior opponent–because of their technological superiority. They wasted time building more advanced weapons and ships to “win the war sooner”. There were schedule slips and unforeseen problems that came up and their inferior enemy with “good enough” weapons won the war.

It’s very easy for people to ignore our fourth dimension–time. What will or might happen while we are waiting just a little bit longer to make things ‘perfect’? This applies in politics as well as business, self-defense, and war.

I wrote up a long post the other day about the bill commonly called Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms in which I hinted at this but probably didn’t go into enough detail about why I both agree and disagree with the Gun Owners of America on what actually got passed. It was listening to Neal Knox and Alan Gottlieb debate tactics at GRPC 1999 that I had my epiphany on this. What I learned in a few short minutes was the “tools” they had available to them in Congress were far more complex than what we might think they are. They are more powerful in some ways as well as far weaker in others than we, non-lobbyists, understand. Giving an ally something you considered a “sell out” could be far more important long term than insisting they strictly adhere to the principals you both shared.

I like what the GOA said. I like that they are a “No compromise” pro-gun organization. I want them screaming bloody murder each time the wimps at the NRA let “the tiger eat a friend” so the rest of us get to “live just one more day”. And I think it was right for them to complain in this case too. Trigger locks are not for everyone and it is a “tax” on gun sales.

I also think that, as said in my previous post, “It’s just a couple of old dried bones. Let them have their bones until after the next election. We get some real meat out of this law.” The NRA-ILA, the CCRKBA and the others were right. Defeat the wolf at the door of the firearms manufactures, distributors, and retailers. Let the snakes in the grass have some bugs to eat. When we regroup and come back we can focus on killing snakes without a wolf gnawing on our butt.

ACLU and the Second Amendment

Posted on by

Once upon a time, long, long ago (over 20 years) I had a membership with the ACLU for one year. They still send me letters telling me the sky is falling and I need to send them more money. For at least the last ten years when I get one of those letters I write them a short note saying when they support the Second Amendment as an individual right I will immediately send them a check for $200.00 but until then they will get nothing from me. I use their postage paid return envelope and send it back to them. They haven’t changed their way yet and I’m not holding my breath.

To be fair, they have been on the same side as pro-gun people on some issues. And I have been told by one very high ranking pro-gun activist that at least one ACLU lobbyist carried a handgun in her purse illegally while on the job because it was such a dangerous town. Just because the top leadership of the ACLU has made a decision not to support the Second Amendment doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of them on our side. My guess is that a big part of the equation is that certain large donors to the ACLU are very anti-gun and being a pro-gun organization would cost them too much money.

See also my previous posts on this topic:

Advice for Democrats
I wonder if the ACLU will be interested
ACLU responds

PNNL.info site update or “The law doesn’t apply to us”

Posted on by

I updated my web site on the bigotry at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

The changes were about the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request I mentioned in this post.  PNNL responded this week saying:

PNNL completed a diligent, thorough search for responsive documents and was unable to find identify or locate any existing records consistent with your request.

As of May of this year those “records” (computer programs actually) did exist.  I created a lot of them.  My co-workers used that code (computer program code) in other projects.  Those computer programs were delivered to numerous customers.  If what they just told me was true then they would have had to rewritten numerous computer programs, tested them, updated all their customers with the new versions, ensured those customers deleted all the old copies, and deleted large portions of their source control archives–all within two months.  Some customers were delivered source code (I did training for one customer on it), those customers would have had to also rewritten their derived works, tested the resultant programs, and deleted their source control archives.   If they were able to do that then which government contract did they charge those efforts to?  I don’t believe they did any of that.  I believe PNNL chose to defy FOIA.

Barb said (paraphrasing), “What did you expect?  They don’t care what the law is.  They don’t have to follow the rules.”  Of course in the practical sense that is true even if technically they do have to follow the law.  I had two different lawyers tell me it looked to them that PNNL employees had committed a felony in the actions they took against me.  Those people, as near as I can determine, still work there.

Quote of the day–Dwight David Eisenhower

Posted on by

Public opinion wins wars.

Dwight David Eisenhower
1890-1969
General
34th President of the United States
[This is particular true in the war we are fighting against the anti-freedom bigots on the repressive gun laws in this country. — Joe]

Brady bunch CEO resigns?

Posted on by

According to David Hardy at Arms and the Law quoting Daphne Retter, Congressional Quarterly Staff, CQ Today, October 19, 2005:

“It’s not an easy job to get up every day and duke it out with the gun lobby,” Michael Barnes, president and CEO of the Brady Campaign and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Tuesday, “but it’s very important.”

Barnes resigned this week.

I have been unable to verify the resignation.  There is nothing I could find on the Brady Campaign nor the Brady Center websites about it.  Still, it is quite plausible.  They have been running up an impressive string of losses in recent years.  The “assault weapon” ban expired without a battle.  The passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms bill (I commented on this yesterday) just bit a big chunk out of their mission statement.  They have lost numerous court cases.  FL passed the law that affirms innocent people can meet force with force and all the Brady bunch could do was whine about it.  And then the press wasn’t as sympathetic to them as they would normally expect:

Workers for a gun-control group protesting a new law that they say could put Florida tourists in harm’s way got a mixed reaction at Orlando International Airport on Thursday.

At least one visitor admonished workers for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for what she called a manipulation of the truth.

“It burns me up that they twist stuff around to misinform the public,” said Tamryn Hunter, who was catching a flight back to Pittsburgh when she ran into the workers handing out leaflets warning about the law.

The paper even included this picture of Ms. Hunter showing that she isn’t someone you would consider the stereotypical NRA member.

We must not let these wins cause us to go into celebration mode and neglect what we really have to do.  We must drive these anti-freedom bigots into political extinction.  As Chris(?) Knox said in a Firearms Coalition Alert email I received last night:

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. The game, God willing, is never over.

Quote of the day–Charles Waddell Chesnutt

Posted on by

Those who set in motion the forces of evil cannot always control them afterwards.

Charles Waddell Chesnutt
The Marrow of Tradition
1901
[Gun control and national ID cards are prime examples. — Joe]

The air is out of the gun control balloon

Posted on by

The house passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms today.  As a libertarian and a 2nd Amendment purist (“What part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand?”) I’m opposed to the law.  It simply shouldn’t be necessary.  These cases should be thrown out of court after the first 30 minutes.  As a pragmatist I support it because things are not working as they should and we apparently need to engage in some dirty fighting rather than remain pure.  As Joe Waldron (see also his comments in this news release) recently stated in an email to the WA-CCW Yahoo group:

We’re giving up required provision of a $5 locking device (nothing says you have to use them, nor does it say you can’t bring your own device from your previous gun purchase; you give the lock to the dealer, he gives it back to you with the gun) for the most significant tort reform bill in recent history, a bill that will protect gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers from nuisance lawsuits that are killing the industry. These suits are filed with almost no chance of succeeding, but cost the industry millions annually to defend.

The alternative is to hold out for a “pure” bill… and watch it die again this year. And the manufacturers/distributors/dealers will continue to shell out $$$ in legal costs.

It looks like the bill went 90% our way, 10% the other way. Those are pretty good odds/returns to me.

I’m all for winning and getting a little bit dirty rather than losing and staying clean.  Yes, it might have some unintended consequences with the trigger lock and armor piercing ammo provisions in it.  More on that later.  But more important is the favorable impact it has both practically and politically.  As reported by Reuters:

Opponents said they would oppose it in the courts, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution.

But Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association said he believed the bill’s passage would mark a big setback for gun control advocates.

“I think the air is out of the gun control balloon, and I think what popped the balloon is politics and elections,” he said. He predicted that several dozen Democrats would join most Republicans in backing the legislation.

I wouldn’t say “popped”.  It’s been leaking out for a couple years now.  It’s getting more and more obvious to everyone that the anti-gun crowd is suffering a meltdown.  Of course they have mental problems to support anti-freedom legislation to begin with but can be dealt with another day.  But because the people at large, many of the politicians, and to some extent the mainstream media are recognizing how really whacked out they are we have made huge gains.  Politically we are no longer on the defensive at the Federal level and in most states.  We need to build and maintain momentum against these nut cases.  I’ve posted on this before:

And just yesterday John Stossel demonstrated they are out of touch with reality quite well in a column on Townhall.com:

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, “We’d be living in a state of terror!”

In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have “right to carry” laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.

But back to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms bill.  It will be signed by President Bush and it will become law within a few days or weeks.  It will save the firearms industry millions of dollars each year.  It might even save your local gun range money in reduced insurance costs.  That money will be in your pocket (you do buy guns and ammo and use them, right?).

There are two downsides of the proposed law; 1) The trigger-lock requirement the Gun Owners of America have been harping on and 2) the armor piercing ammo portion of the law.  The GOA had this to say in a recent pre-written email they wanted people to send to their representatives:

S. 397 takes us dangerously close to mandatory trigger locks, and mandatory trigger locks kill.  Just ask Mary Carpenter, who has had to live with the fact that two of her grandchildren were killed in 2000, because no one in the house could disengage the gun locking device that kept the family from protecting themselves against a pitchfork wielding thug.

Yes.  Mandatory trigger locks are a bad thing.  I have a t-shirt I wear that says Trigger Locks–Rapist Approved (they are closing this item out and only have a few shirts left so buy one now!) but every new gun I have purchased over the counter, as opposed to special ordered, had a locking device with it anyway.  The impact of this law is very nearly zero in cost and behavior for everyone.

The armor piercing ammo portion of the law does not change the definition of the armor piercing ammo which was my big worry.  It’s still:

(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.

What it does do is slightly reword some existing law and adds penalties for committing a violent crime with AP ammo.  The rewording has no legal impact as near as I can tell (I’m not a lawyer if this your life at stake talk to a lawyer).  This:

(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply to—

(A) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition for the use of the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;
(B) the manufacture of such ammunition for the purpose of exportation; and
(C) any manufacture or importation for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General;

(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply to—

(A) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for use of the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;
(B) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for the purpose of exportation;
(C) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for the purposes of testing or experimenting authorized by the Attorney General;

Becomes:

(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless–

(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;
(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or
(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery–

(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;
(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or
(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

So what is happening, in Joe’s model of the political world, is that the good guys are throwing a couple bones to the politicians that need to appease some anti-freedom people “back home”.  Those politicians can say, “I voted for the safety of our children by mandating trigger locks and against armor piercing ammo.”  It’s just a couple of old dried bones.  Let them have their bones until after the next election.  We get some real meat out of this law.

Gun dictionary updates part four

Posted on by