Quote of the day—Chip Brownlee

People convicted of violent felonies were not prohibited from purchasing or possessing guns under federal law until 1934. It wasn’t until the 1968 Gun Control Act when that prohibition was extended to all felonies and to people with a history of drug abuse or mental illness. Background checks were not mandated by federal law until 1994, and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System didn’t start until 1998. States didn’t begin criminalizing domestic violence until the 1900s, and federal law didn’t prohibit people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanor offenses from getting a firearm until 1996.

Chip Brownlee
July 19, 2022
The Real Significance of the Supreme Court’s Gun Decision
[This is from The Trace.

It is nice for them to admit this. Because these laws are far newer than when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the Bruen decision will almost certainly mean these laws are vulnerable to being thrown out as unconstitutional.

It is long road but the signage to a win is easily visible.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lizbeth Adams @Lizbeth69108338

No one wants to take away your ‘right’ to own your small penis compensating firearms.

That’s a stu*id dog whistle for you gun nutters.

Lizbeth Adams @Lizbeth69108338
Tweeted on June 20, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

“No one wants to take away your firearms?” Really? Who are you going to believe? Her or your lying eyes?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow

The research also found that gun owners who are receptive to regulations feel alienated by the current national conversation. They have a fundamentally different view than most gun-safety activists and pro-reform politicians who don’t own guns. Whereas someone like me sees guns as dangerous, gun owners typically see them as a way to keep safe. Whereas I associate guns exclusively with harm, gun owners see them as a tool that can be used for good or bad purposes. This helps explain a widespread conviction among gun owners: that policy should focus on “keeping guns out of the wrong hands,” not on bans of certain types of weapons or attempts to reduce the number of guns in the country. Another survey found that most gun owners believe that gun-reform advocates ultimately want to take their guns away. This belief makes them mistrustful and reluctant to speak out for any reforms at all — the “slippery slope” argument.

Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow
September 21, 2022
Will Gun Owners Fight for Stronger Gun Laws? — A new group, which includes two former NRA lobbyists, is betting on it
[Yet another gun control group. How many have failed now? Yet they keep trying to put lipstick on the pig.

While she has a better understanding of her opposition than most anti-gun people she has certain important “facts” wrong. For example she apparently believes:

Siegel has found that the majority of gun owners support four laws shown to be effective: universal background checks, prohibitions for those convicted of violent misdemeanors, permits for concealed carry, and permits for gun purchases and possession. He estimates that if all four were implemented, firearm homicides would decline by 35 percent.

Technically this may be true. But it is extremely deceptive in it’s wording.

“Firearm homicide” includes defensive use of firearms. Even if it did only include murder by firearm it does not mean it would decrease the murder rate because criminals substitute other weapons when firearms become difficult to obtain.

There are other weasel words and phrases in this claim as well as outright lies which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

And the last point I would like to make is that she totally ignores the Bruen decision.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jolie McCullough

The U.S. attorney’s office said the law to prohibit those under felony indictment from obtaining guns does not interfere with the Second Amendment “because it does not disarm felony indictees who already had guns and does not prohibit possession or public carry.”

Jolie McCullough
September 19, 2022
Texas judge rules that people under felony indictment have the right to buy guns under the Second Amendment
[As I understand it, this Federal Prosecutor is making the argument that the law prohibiting the purchase of a firearm by someone with a felony indictment is constitutional because the person can continue to possess and carry any existing firearms they own. But can’t the defense attorney also claim because their client is allowed to keep and use any firearm they already own the law against purchase is nonsensical, serves no purpose, and the client has harmed no one despite breaking a law? Or is this one of those cases where you just have to say, “It’s just a law. It doesn’t have to make sense?”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frank Miniter

Gun-control groups want this freedom issue framed as a “safety issue,” with gun control as the solution; as in, if the elites just had the power to ban, confiscate or deeply restrict the use of firearms, they could save the people. That’s nonsense, of course, as history shows again and again that disarmed peoples are not and do not remain free; “safe” is not an adjective the people of Venezuela, to give one example, would now use to describe their situation.

Frank Miniter
September 21, 2022
This Is Not A Culture War
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Eric Schmitt

The creation of a Merchant Category Code for sales at U.S. gun stores will not only not accomplish its intended goal, but is rife for misuse and abuse. Missourians value their Second Amendment rights and oppose any attempts to create a de-facto gun registry. I’m proud to stand up for those rights and will oppose this decision by the major credit card companies at every turn.

Eric Schmitt
Missouri Attorney General
September 21, 2022
Missouri Attorney General slams credit card companies for violation of Second Amendment rights
[Twenty four attorneys general signed a letter sent to American Express, Master Card and VISA CEOs.  I can’t imagine this accomplishing anything more than some positive publicity for the signers of the letter. But it doesn’t hurt our cause any either.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Hardy

At the time of its enactment ATF had testified that crime with registered full autos were virtually nonexistent. I did quite a bit of research, and had only found 3-4 homicides in which one was used (two I think were by LEOs), over an 80+ year period (I also found one use in self-defense). So how could the 1986 ban be justified, except as a completely arbitrary decision? Bruen of course rules out balancing tests, but in practice that will weigh on every judge’s mind, “what will I look like if I strike that down?” For the 1986 ban, the answer would be “I merely struck down a law that had been aimed at a problem that didn’t exist.”

David Hardy
September 7, 2022
My latest law review manuscript is online
[When you think about it, a realistic path to legalizing access to new machine guns is pretty amazing compared to the dark ages of the 1990s.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Bob Adelmann

Here’s the loophole in the new regulation that software developers are exploiting: if the jig isn’t part of the “kit,” then there’s no firearm under the latest definition and hence no required background check. Specifically, the rule states that when an unfinished frame or receiver is “distributed or possessed with a compatible jig or template,” it is now automatically considered to be a firearm. Leave out the jig, however, and the” kit” is incomplete and doesn’t fall under the rule.

Bob Adelmann
September 14, 2022
New Software Negates Latest “Ghost Gun” Rules
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—VISA

We do not believe private companies should serve as moral arbiters. Asking private companies to decide what legal products or services can or cannot be bought and from what store sets a dangerous precedent. Further, it would be an invasion of consumers’ privacy for banks and payment networks to know each of our most personal purchasing habits. Visa is firmly against this.

VISA
September 13, 2022
Visa Warns Merchant Codes Won’t Show Customer Gun Purchases
[It would seem to me that VISA could decisively limit future activities by these anti-gun and other moral busybodies. They could cancel all credit cards owned by the politicians and activists who contributed to this B.S.

It won’t happen, but it’s a pleasant thought.

Quote of the day—Michael Brendan Dougherty

New York decided to add a First Amendment violation as a bit of sauce to flavor the violation of the Second Amendment. The law is clumsily crafted. It’s not entirely clear whether I would be committing a crime if I forgot to include a LinkedIn account that I had not used for three years but that did exist in the past three years. It’s not clear whether law enforcement could disqualify carry permits based on content from five years ago. Could my overheated remarks about Jesuits or the pope disqualify me? There is no guidance.

Michael Brendan Dougherty
September 9, 2022
September Begins Gun-Control Season in New York
[We need a Prosecute Rights Violators Season. I would like to suggest a season that starts every January 1st and ends December 31st.—Joe]

Quote of the day—In Chains @InChainsInJail

Imagine thinking “encouraging minorities to build their own firearms in order to defend themselves” is a “fascist” position to take.

These people are insane.

In Chains @InChainsInJail
Tweeted on September 13, 2022
[This was in response to this tweet by coderedamerica.com@coderedamerica

Replying to @RICECUTTA0 @OleGelo5 and @POTUS

@FBI @FBIWFO here is a great thread to follow especially with people like @SamuelWhittemo3 involved. Nothing spells fascist like a maga follower pretending to be a christian and promoting ghost guns.

Words mean things and there are dictionaries which can be referenced determine those meanings when you are unsure. But some people see words meaning whatever suits their purpose as the time. Others see them as just sounds they make which give them some sort of satisfaction.

My first awareness of this was in conversations I attempted to follow with a particular family. Read my comments at that link!

This family trait was a source of considerable bafflement and some amusement to me. But things didn’t really “click” for me until, as I reported in the linked post, I was told my inability to resolve a contradiction in what someone had said was unimportant:

Oh Joe, it doesn’t matter. We are just talking.

They were just making sounds at each other. It was sort of like humming to a baby to help it go to sleep.

Casual conversation is one thing. Legal definitions is another. My first recollection of having frustrations with this was in “assault weapon” ban of ‘94. What does “shall not be infringed” mean to these people? The issue was brought into clarity when I realized it was, at least sometimes, deliberate deception using the definition of words.

Other examples:

See also, Speech Is Not Violence by John Stossel.

And redefining, or perhaps more accurate in many cases “undefining”, words applies to people who job depends upon the precise meaning of words.

As much clarity as I discovered on my own since my first awareness 30 or 40 years ago, this is not a new thing. Greater minds than mine made the practice far more clear pointed out the dangers. Lewis Carroll is one such example in his book Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Circling back to the QOTD by In Chains above is something my daughter Jaime asked of me a few days ago:

Please look up the definition of “fascism” in your old timey dictionary*.

Here is the result:

Fascism The principles or methods of the Fascisti—Fascist, I. A member of the Fascisti. II. Of or pertaining to the Fascisti.

Fascisti … The members of a patriotic society in Italy, animated by a strong national spirit, and organized in connection with a repressive movement directed against the socialists and communists and the disturbances excited by them during 1919 and the years following, which regarded the government as criminally negligent in failing to deal with these disturbances, and took measure on its own account, often violent ones, to combat them, and which developed into a powerful party obtaining political control of the country in Oct., 1922, under its founder and leader, Benito Mussolini, as prime minister; hence, the members of a similar society or party elsewhere.

This definition is not the same as what is commonly used today but perhaps it has a hint of something more accurate than many people think. The people being called fascists typically are opposed to socialism and communism. But the violence component does not appear to have manifested itself.

So, is In Chains correct when he says, “These people are insane.”? Perhaps. I’m nearly certain some people redefining or undefining words have mental issues. Others, perhaps most, wish to be the master.


* “Old timey dictionary” means the unabridged The New Century Dictionary Copyright 1946, 1944, 1942, 1938, 1936,1934, 1933, 1931, 1929, 1927.

Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

The New York Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul are making a mockery of the Supreme Court’s ruling in June, which struck down the state’s onerous ‘proper cause’ requirement in June. While they’re playing politics, the rights of law-abiding New York citizens are being cavalierly trampled. We cannot allow that to happen just so anti-gunners in Albany can play games with the constitution, just to see whether they can get away with it.

The fact that New York’s new regulatory scheme essentially prohibits lawful carry in most public places is outrageous. The state is being too clever by half, and we’re confident that the federal courts, with the recent guidance from the Supreme Court on Second Amendment jurisprudence, will bring a quick end to this nonsense.

Alan M. Gottlieb
September 13, 2022
SAF FILES FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO NEW YORK’S NEW GUN CONTROL SCHEME
[It is no surprise (read the comments here) to us that the authoritarians cling to authority or that SAF, the FPC, and others will have work to do for many years. But we are making progress.—Joe]

Quote of the day—William English

Consistent with other recent survey research, the survey finds an overall rate of adult firearm ownership of 31.9%, suggesting that in excess of 81.4 million Americans aged 18 and over own firearms. The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner’s home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of thirty (3.2%) occurred at work.

William English
May 13, 2022
2021 National Firearms Survey: Updated Analysis Including Types of Firearms Owned
[Via a chain of links starting from Tom Gresham @Guntalk.

Of course, the ownership rate is probably higher because all the usual reasons. But the defensive use rates for those who admit to gun ownership is what interests me.

Read the rest of the abstract too. The demographics and the type of firearms (nearly 25 million AR-15 owners) may interest you.—Joe]

Make this work both ways

Via Chet, Richard, and other sources.

Interesting development. It’s another attempt at an end run around the 2nd Amendment:

Credit Card Code to Track Gun Sales Approved by Standards Group:

“I’m pleased that the ISO voted to advance a key step to prevent the next tragedy,” Lander said in a news release. “American Express, Mastercard, Visa and other credit card companies now have a responsibility to implement the new merchant category code, so that financial institutions can do their part to flag suspicious activity and save lives.”

Guns bought through credit cards in the US will now be trackable:

Credit card purchases of firearms in the US can now be tracked and purchases deemed suspicious can even be shared with law enforcement, according to a new measure approved by an organization that sets parameters for business transactions.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) voted in favor of creating a merchant code for firearms stores, according to Reuters.

Visa To Categorize Sales At Gun Stores In Win For Gun Control Advocates:

Visa’s decision will allow banks to make decisions with enhanced information on whether they will allow purchases at gun shops on their cards.

Visa, Mastercard, AmEx to start categorizing sales from gun shops:

Visa’s adoption is significant as the largest payment network, and with Mastercard and AmeEx, will likely put pressure on the banks as the card issuers to adopt the standard as well. Visa acts as a middleman between merchants and banks, and it will be up to banks to decide whether they will allow sales at gun stores to happen on their issued cards.

There were some attempts at balanced reporting. ABC and NBC had identical articles which included this:

Gun rights advocates argue that tracking sales at gun stores would unfairly target legal gun purchases, since merchant codes just track the type of merchant where the credit or debit card is used, not the actual items purchased. A sale of a gun safe, worth thousands of dollars and an item considered part of responsible gun ownership, could be seen as a just a large purchase at a gun shop.

“The (industry’s) decision to create a firearm specific code is nothing more than a capitulation to anti-gun politicians and activists bent on eroding the rights of law-abiding Americans one transaction at a time,” said Lars Dalseide, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association.

Credit card firms to code gun, ammunition purchases, making them easier to track:

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, on Wednesday morning, also tweeted in support of an MCC.

“Together we can help stop gun trafficking & keep New Yorkers safe,” she posted.

Opponents of the measure included the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

In a statement to The Center Square, Mark Oliva, the organization’s managing director for public affairs, slammed the move, saying the creation of the code was “flawed on its premise. Those who believe it will help law enforcement do not provide details on what should be considered suspicious purchases.”

“This decision chills the free exercise of Constitutionally-protected rights and does nothing to assist law enforcement with crime prevention or holding criminals accountable,” he said. “The Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics consistently shows in their own reporting that 90% of felons convicted of their crimes involving a firearm admit they illegally obtain those guns through theft or trading on the black market. Attaching codes specific to firearm and ammunition purchases casts a dark pall by gun control advocates who are only interested in disarming lawful gun owners.”

I have three takeaways:

  1. Continue using cash whenever I can (online is still going to be a card).
  2. Encourage others to use cash.
  3. Publicize and advocate boycotts for banks that refuse to let their cards be used for the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights.

Make this work both ways. They want to use it to cast a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutionally protected right. We can use it to out the enemies of the constitution and freedom. And by using cash you enable others to avoid paying our oppressors more tax money.

Update: This is a good article on the topic which includes more from the civil rights viewpoint.

Quote of the day—Ida B. Wells

Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves in Jacksonville, Fla., and Paducah, Ky, and prevented it. The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.

The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life. The more the Afro-American yields and cringes and begs, the more he has to do so, the more he is insulted, outraged and lynched.

Ida B. Wells
1892
Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases
[Via Jacob Sullman. A New Study Suggests That Black Southerners’ Access to Firearms Reduced Lynchings: The analysis reinforces the historical case for armed self-defense in response to racist violence.

A lesson for all ages and all people. You don’t have to shoot all of them. If you can take just one of them with you then we, as a group will win. There are always far fewer thugs than the total number of victims.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Yerachmiel HaLevi

I am a pro gun Israeli American & this is how & why I can justify gun ownership

Answer1

Answer4

Answer3

Answer2

Answer5

Yerachmiel HaLevi
August 26, 2022
Answer to this question on Quora:

Can a pro-gun American justify their nation’s gun laws to a Brit who believes that a gun-less society is safer?

[Runner-up answer by Peter Cress:

Nah. We already justified private gun ownership to the British back in 1776.

I would like to point out that beliefs are not facts. Anti-gun people appear to be divided into three categories:

  1. Those that are ignorant of the facts.
  2. Those that cannot be influenced by facts.
  3. Those that know the facts and want guns banned for reasons of evil
    intent.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Crazy? No. This is evil.

Via Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras:

Prepare appropriately.

Quote of the day—Brandon Soderman

You will increasingly see the gun prohibitionists now attempt to utilize the private sector to chill the Second Amendment since they can’t use governmental power to do so.

Over the next year when magazine bans and AWBs are struck down in the courts under the THT test you will witness a push to shame gun manufactures (we’ve seen a taste of that in congress), push shippers to refuse to ship firearms and accessories that democrats want to ban but can’t, and push the banking system to make gun purchases are difficult as possible.

The battle will now be shifting from the court system to the court of public opinion, it’s all they have left. We’re on the offensive now and they know it. Don’t take this as a sign of weakness on our side, but as a sign of their desperation as they get pushed back into the hole they crawled out of for another generation.

They’re desperate, take this sign for what it is and hold on tight. You’re about to witness a lash out like you’ve never seen.

Brandon Soderman
Facebook comment on September 7, 2022
[I think this is more than plausible.

We live in interesting times. Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Colion Noir @MrColionNoir

NY Governor Says Her Rights As Governor Trumps Constitutional Rights To Conceal Carry

Does this sound like a woman who is worried about the safety of her citizens or a TYRANT who is afraid to lose power over its citizens?

Colion Noir @MrColionNoir
Tweeted on September 3, 2022
[Hint: This is a rhetorical question.—Joe]

Banking rights?

Over the years we have seen banks close the accounts of gun stores simply because they sold a constitutionally protected item. This was wrong and the U.S. Senate telling them to back off probably helped.

I’ll grant that you might have to squint a little to see it but this is an analogous situation with the 1st Amendment:

Over the weekend, Rolling Stone broke the news that half a dozen of the bank’s clients had their banking accounts with Wells Fargo canceled with no previous warning. What do they have in common? Each has previously or is currently working in the adult entertainment industry. Some performers have held accounts with the bank for 25 years or more.

I’m a bit torn on this topic. Should a company (and/or an individual) be forced by law to do business with someone?

There is the wedding cake case for possible insight. There I was inclined to side with cake makers freedom of religion claim over the same sex couple wanting a wedding cake.

In the gun maker/distributor/seller and the adult entertainers banking cases I’m having a tougher time siding with the businesses. Sure, the Feds don’t have constitutional authority (like that has ever stopped them) to tell the banks they must do business with someone. Unless, of course, there is a “banking right” hidden in the constitution someplace. But the individual states could legislate such requirements.

Aside from the legal authority there are other issues. If a business can discriminate on the basis of occupation (assuming the risk is equivalent for the favored and disfavored occupations) then why can’t they discriminate on the basis of skin color, religion, gender, etc.? Perhaps, from a philosophical viewpoint, should they be allowed this freedom. But I’m not comfortable with that conclusion either.

Thoughts?