Category Archives: Gun Rights

We dodged a bullet

Posted on by

We temporarily dodged another attack on our civil liberties in California.  From Sacramento:

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has shelved a novel gun-control measure that would have required manufacturers to stamp microscopic serial numbers on all handgun ammunition sold in California.

Sen. Joe Dunn, a Garden Grove Democrat carrying the legislation for the attorney general, said he needed more time to resolve a heated debate over how much the potentially landmark tracking system would cost and who would pay for it. 

The bill, SB 357, has passed the Senate and is pending in an Assembly fiscal committee as the Legislature pushes through its final three weeks of this year’s session. The measure may be taken up where it sits next year, the second in the two-year session.

The legislation would require manufacturers to imprint or etch a serial number on the end of each slug or bullet starting in 2009. Boxes of cartridges bearing the same number could then be linked to purchasers with the swipe of a driver’s license at the time of sale.

…

Dunn said he will work during the coming months to resolve fears that his bill could pose a financial burden on some law enforcement personnel who are required to purchase ammunition for training.

“It’s a legitimate question that we will respond to,” Dunn said.

He was less optimistic about bringing manufacturers together with companies that have developed methods to code ammunition. Regardless, he predicted the measure will be delivered to the governor next year.

However, opponents say Lockyer and Dunn have yet to sell the proposal to much of the state’s law enforcement community.

Prominent organizations, such as those representing the state’s district attorneys and police chiefs, have declined to endorse the bill, noted Lawrence Keane, general counsel of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, an industry trade group better known as SAAMI.

“I think it’s pretty clear that law enforcement by and large is not supporting this effort,” Keane said.

Manufacturers say the proposal would force expensive changes on a high-volume, low-margin business. Keane and others have warned the required manufacturing modifications would either drive companies out of business or result in steep price increases.

It doesn’t bother them it how much it would cost private citizens or how a black market of out of state or stolen ammo would fill the “market niche”.  It only bothers them that it would be a burden to law enforcement.  I guess that means they serve the state and not the people.  Does the phrase “Police State” ring a bell with anyone?

Scary gun control stuff

Posted on by

For some reason I don’t think they chose the right picture to encourage people to support their efforts (the article is titled The world’s first global gun treaty enters into force):

Quote of the day–United Nations

Posted on by

On 24 September 1999, the Security Council convened its first meeting at ministerial level devoted to the issue of small arms. A report (S/2000/1092) was prepared with the assistance of internationally recognized experts following the ministerial meetings request that the Secretary-General “develop a reference manual for use in the field on ecologically safe (amended in report S/2000/1092 to read ‘environmentally sound’) methods of weapons destruction in order better to enable Member States to ensure the disposal of weapons voluntarily surrendered by civilians or retrieved from former combatants”. The report has been used as a guide in the preparation of this aide mémoire.

…

…

 

A DESTRUCTION HANDBOOK
Small arms, light weapons, ammunition and explosives
UNITED NATIONS
http://disarmament2.un.org/DDAPublications/desthbk.pdf

IPSC results posted

Posted on by

I have the results posted from the August 7th Lewiston Pistol Club match.  As I stated before I came in 4th overall.  Acceptable–considering the lack of recent practice.

Quote of the day–Thomas Jefferson

Posted on by

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.

Motto found among the papers of Thomas Jefferson.

Do I get bonus points for shooting in the dark?

Posted on by

Analog Kid at Random Nuclear Strikes is putting on the rifle postal match I am participating in.  Here is my entry, 100 yards, .300 Winchester Magnum, Blackhills Match ammo.  Except for the sighter target you can see a higher resolution version by clicking on the image.

Temperature was 74 F, indicated altitude of 2300 feet above sea level and my calculator said to use a sight angle of 3.75 MOA.  I took two sighter shots and figured it was good enough:


Two sighter shots.

After the first shot on the real target (below, ball #1) I started aiming at the bottom of the circle which contained the number. 


Completed target.

The shots on balls 10 through 15 were done by the light of my van headlights.  It was about 20:15 when I fired my last shot and getting very dark:


Quote of the day–George Washington

Posted on by

When firearms go, all else goes…we need them every hour.

George Washington

Quote of the day–Will Rogers/Anonymous

Posted on by

Diplomacy:  The art of saying “nice doggie” until you can find a rock.

Will Rogers

Diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggy” until you get a sight picture.

Anonymous adaptation
[“Sight picture” refers to having the sights on your firearm aligned on the target correctly. — Joe]

PNNL responds to my FOIA request

Posted on by

I scanned in the letter (page 1 and page 2) I received today.  Basically they said, “You have all the documents you are going to get.”  But they did give me a link to a website with at least some of the Policies and Procedures Manual.  This was a big help.  It explains a couple of things.  It includes list of things that can result in First Offense Termination.  It includes “dishonesty” and “unauthorized disclosure, access, or use of information that is proprietary or confidential to PNNL or its clients”.  Both of those items were in my termination letter and were totally unexpected and unjustified.  I was completely taken aback they said such things about me–particularly since they never confronted me and asked for any explanation about any such allegations.  It was only be including those things that they could justify a first offense termination.

It was also by going through this Policies and Procedures website that I was able to find out how they justified not sending my performance reviews.  I asked for my “Personnel File.”  They did send me my “Personnel File.”  What I was interested in was in my “Field File.”  I see…

I’ll post more as I learn more.  See also the new section at the bottom of the main page of the PNNL info site.

Quote of the day–Jeff Cooper

Posted on by

The Republic is in very bad shape – probably the worst since 1776 – but it does us all well to remember that the principles of the Founding Fathers stand as sound and irrefutable today as yesterday. We must bear in mind that “they” cannot disarm us. They do not have the legal power, of course, but neither do they have the physical power. An army may be defeated by another army, but the people of a nation cannot be, as long as they are aware of their principles and maintain their determination to observe them. We hope, of course, that “they” never presume to try, because “they” simply cannot do it. What the American people need is the viscera to tell “them” No! God grant that we still have the courage!

Jeff Cooper
Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 2, No. 2
31 January 1994
[Those were very dark days in the mid-90’s.  Most people forget how serious things were and how much they have improved. — Joe]

Quote of the day–Jeffrey R. Snyder

Posted on by

Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

Jeffrey R. Snyder
A Nation of Cowards
Published in the Fall, ’93 issue of The Public Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published by National Affairs, Inc.

If you believe in compromising on gun control

Posted on by

Gun owners compromised in England and now look at things.  The anti-gun owner bigots in England can’t be happy with a total ban on handguns!  Now they are going after imitation guns:

Steve Walker of GCN said “…our position is clear. If it looks like a gun it should not be allowed.”

Gill Marshall-Andrews, GCN’s chair, said: “No one needs a realistic imitation gun – except perhaps a re-enactment society.”

GCN is Gun Control Network.  Check out their objectives.  This is what you can expect if you attempt to compromise with them.  Who could imagine that two or more people outside of a mental hospital would insist there be a “Ban on the sale, manufacture and import of imitation guns and their possession in a public place.”?  Why does the newpaper consider the rantings of lunatics newsworthy?

Corporate versus human rights

Posted on by

As most readers will already know the NRA has called for a boycott on ConocoPhillips regarding their filing of Federal lawsuit against a state law prohibiting companies from firing employees who keep guns in their locked cars on company property.  In many circles this creates some mixed feelings.  Shouldn’t property owners (the company/stockholders/whoever) have the right to ditictate the conditions for the use of their property?  Good question.  An Yahoo groups email list I subscribe to (WA-CCW) had this posting from a lawyer which shed some new light on the topic:

From: wa-ccw@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Glenn Slate
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [wa-ccw] Has the NRA gone too far?

So here is my not so professional thought about your questions of
competing rights.  I admit it is a little unusual and unpopular right
now, but I think we all will recognize the correctness of the following
position in time.

The biggest difference here is not property rights vs. RKBA, but human
rights versus corporate rights.  Corporations are formed by the state,
they are given almost all the rights of a person, but they are not a
person.  In a competing rights situation, the corporations rights should
usually loose, as they are granted, rather than guaranteed.

A corporation is formed by an action of the state, in WA that is an act
of the Secretary of State.  WA has a state level preemption, so the
Secretary of State cannot ban CCW.  So how can the secretary of State’s
office create an entity and grant it right that the SoS office does not
itself possess?  That is to say if the Secretary is forbidden by state
law from restricting CCW in WA, how could it create a corporation and
then empower that corporation restrict CCW?

The problem with this issue becomes even more clear when you realize
that corporations need not be owned by individuals.  There is typically
no restriction on a state agency’s owning corporate stock.  So if we
allow corporation to ban CCW, couldn’t the city of Seattle for a
corporation to say  mange all it’s parks and lease the parks to that
corporation.  If they did so, could that corporation ban CCW in parks
under a private property argument?  How about to manage leased  bridges,
roads, parks, sidewalks etc.  Of course 100% of the stock would be owned
by the city, but all action would be taken by the corporation.

So the most basic (and socially disturbing) question is where did the
corporation get it’s personal property rights from?

They were granted by the state.  If the state agency could not restrict
your CCW rights, then it should not be able to grant that authority to a
corporation it formed.
Of course all this is up in the air if that state has no preemption, or
if it has a stature allowing the formation of a corporations with all
the rights of a natural person.  There will be lots of variation state
to state.

This is an entirely untested (and totally unpopular )theory, as our
culture seems to want to build corporations rather than restrict them.
  SO I strongly advice none of you to be a test case using this theory
(or any other is you can help it).

Remember I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer and this is most
definitely not legal advice.

—
Glenn Slate  |  mail to:gslate@emarket-group.com  | 503-445-8030
Corporate Counsel / Vice President of Client Development
eMarket Group, Ltd.  <http://www.emarket-group.com/>
eMerchandise <http://www.emerchandise.com/>

Quote of the day–Arthur T. Hadley

Posted on by

I was the first or second tank in the column that liberated a major concentration camp, Magdeburg…. There was a horror beyond the horror of all the dying I had seen. I learned a lesson that day. There are worse events than battle. When they come to take you off to the camp, fight. And people who tell you that you will be better off in the camps than resisting are not your friends.

Arthur T. Hadley
The Straw Giant, 1971

Quote of the day–Greg Hamilton

Posted on by

If it ever becomes time to shoot someone, shoot early and shoot often.

Greg Hamilton
Self Defense Instructor
Nov. 19, 1995

Quote of the day–Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

Gun shows hold a particular appeal for the pro-gun fringe… While McVeigh and Koresh may be two of the best known gun show customers, they are other lesser known but equally discomforting attendees. According to the January 23, 1995 issue of National Review, convicted serial killer Thomas Dillon began his murderous career by killing more than 500 dogs and cats, then moved on to humans allegedly killing at least five men. In 1989 he announced to a friend that he had quit killing animals and began inviting the friend to attend gun shows with him.

From the July 1996 Violence Policy Center study Gun Shows in America:
Tupperware® Parties for Criminals.
See: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/gunshow.htm
[Bigots spouting off–Joe]

Clueless “Gun Guys”

Posted on by

I subscribe to the Gun Guys email list and get rants about how terrible guns are on a regular basis.  Most of the time it’s just pathetic, bigoted, ignorant blather.  However todays rant includes part of a recent CCRKBA news release.   Even when it’s spelled out for them these clowns just don’t get it:

Howdy Partners,

We told you on Tuesday about the police chiefs of Wisconsin standing up with the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort against the proposed concealed weapons bill there.  Great cops like Oregon Police Chief Doug Pettit have been telling America what most of us already know: that allowing concealed weapons on the streets is dangerous for both cops and citizens.

It’s all the more disheartening, then, when out of the woodwork comes a group like the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms attempting to undercut the police chiefs’ message.  In a press release on a conservative site MichNews.com, CCRKBA’s executive director, Joe Waldron, tries to infer that Wisconsin’s police chiefs don’t know what they’re talking about:

“Wisconsin residents,” Waldron said, “certainly deserve to be on equal footing with armed criminals, because police can’t be everywhere. Glibly arguing that only police should have guns ignores the fact that criminals prefer victims who can’t fight back… Gun owners will tell you that a place where only police have guns is a police state. Wisconsin is still part of the United States.”

“Police state” hyperbole aside, Waldron hints that the Wisconsin chiefs are attempting to ban guns from citizens’ hands.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  What police chiefs have been saying all week, throughout Wisconsin, is that they’re against concealed weapons on the streets.  The gun lobby is currently pushing for a bill to “outsource” public safety by taking the concealed weapon permit process away from law enforcement and putting it into the hands of private companies.  They want to allow concealed weapons in hospitals, places that serve alcohol, and even children’s sporting events!  That’s what the police chiefs in Wisconsin are urging lawmakers against.  They, like many citizens, are concerned about the safety of both police and residents, and know that concealed weapons will only make matters worse.

Instead of listening to the experience of these knowledgeable officers, however, Waldron chooses to attack their judgement and suggest that the opposite of what they’re telling us is true.  Thanks, CCRKBA, but no thanks.

The worst that can be said from a scientific analysis of the data is that citizens carrying concealed weapons doesn’t improve citizen safety and most studies show improvement in safety when the potential victims are allowed the tools most effective in defending themselves.  The clueless don’t care about scientific data.  They are only interested in a small subset of opinions–the opinions that match their bigoted viewpoint of the world.

Don Kates on bigotry

Posted on by

First off, does anyone have an email address or website for him?  I can’t seem to find one. 

Second, while searching for an email address I found this speech by him.  It was from this speech I pulled todays quote.  I have often commented about anti-gun owner bigots and have praised others that use that term against the anti-freedom crowd.  Kates, in his speech, spells it out for us better than anyone else I have come across.  A sample:

… the gun control debate is not really about criminology but rather about bigotry and the effort of an influence group to force its morality on everyone by having it adopted as state and federal law. To see this it is necessary only to review some unfamiliar facts: the average gun owner is better educated and has a better job than non-owners; attitude surveys find gun owners neither racist nor sexist; liberals are only somewhat less likely than others to own firearms; liberals who do are no less willing to use them to defend their families; the only violence gun owners endorse is willingness to come to the aid of crime victims. Gun owners do not approve of police brutality, violence against dissenters, etc. Also, good Samaritans who actually come to the aid of crime victims are twice as likely to be gun owners as the general populace.

Though these facts have been uniformly established by numerous sociological studies, they will doubtless surprise you almost as much as they would the anti-gun movement and the media. After all the former (which is actually a gun BAN movement), with the enthusiastic aid of the media, have succeeded in stereotyping gun owners as violence-oriented yahoos — educationally, intellectually and morally retarded.

There is a word for people who inaccurately, unjustly ascribe negative characteristics to a whole group of others they dislike: that word is BIGOT.

You may not realize it but the language we use in our fight for freedom has a huge impact.  As Kevin at The Smallest Minority posted a couple days ago the mindset and world view are dependent upon the language we use.  If we let our opponents define the terms (think “assault weapons”, “sniper rifles”, “gun safety regulations”, etc.) we will lose.  We must define ourselves and our opponents.  Our opponents are bigots.  It’s demonstrably true.  Don’t let them or anyone else forget it.

Quote of the day–Don Kates

Posted on by

The gun control debate is not really about criminology but rather about bigotry.

Don Kates
Constitutional lawyer and criminologist
July 2, 1994
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Essays/Don%20Kates/Don%20Kates%20at%20Sacramento%20Rally

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

If anybody is an authority on lethal car crashes it would be Ted Kennedy.

Alan Gottlieb
Second Amendment Foundation
Referring to a report from MSNBC that “more officers are being killed in traffic accidents” than by guns and Kennedy’s desire for more gun control to protect the police.
http://www.saf.org/viewpr.asp?id=157