Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Shawn

Posted on by

There is only one outcome: The Supreme Court affirming that there is no right to carry a firearm outside of your home this meaning that there is no right to self-defense outside your home.

In the one in a trillion chance they rule for us the scope will be so narrow it will be rendered worthless and meaningless.

Shawn
April 27, 2021
Comment to Quote of the day—Independent Firearms Owners Association
[This was in in regard to NYS Rifle and Pistol Association V. Superintendent of NYS Police (No. 20-843) which was decided 14 months later on June 23, 2022.

I was pretty sure things were going go conclusively in our favor. I was certain enough that I offered to make a small bet with him. This would have been the first I had made since the one with Caleb back in 2008.

If you wish to stand by the odds given I would like to make a small bet with you.

The offer was silently declined. I really don’t understand why. I was only going to bet a single penny.—Joe]

Awesome shooting!

Posted on by

Via John R Lott Jr. @JohnRLottJr:

image

Forty-yard shots, on a (probably) moving target, who will be returning fire with a rifle if you miss and getting eight hits out of ten shots is awesome!

I think we have a new USPSA stage design coming out this weekend.

Quote of the day—In Chains @InChainsInJail

Posted on by

Imagine being upset that a wannabe mass murderer got put down.

In Chains @InChainsInJail
Tweeted on July 18, 2022
[This was in response to:

A “good Samaritan” is someone who helps you change your tire on the side of the road – not kills someone.

15 Boxes @HopelessLiberal
Tweeted on July 17, 2022

This was not a solitary response from the anti-gun people. There are a lot of them.

I’m not the first to observe this but these people like to dance in the blood of mass shooting victims. How else do you explain the outrage that the murderer was stopped so quickly by a private citizen?

It doesn’t take much extrapolation to lead you to wondering why you don’t see them expressing any concern about our march to socialism going through a Stalinist phase like the USSR and its deaths of 10s of millions.

Taken at Western Washington University on June 12th, 2022.

20220612_161031

I find it hard to believe they are ignorant of this risk. And they even sometimes “say the quiet part out-loud” (lots more here). Hence, I’m inclined to believe they see the deaths of millions of their adversaries as a “feature” rather than a “bug”.

Prepare and respond appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Carli Pierson

Posted on by

We’re way beyond what the framers ever had in mind for gun rights already. And for a selective originalist Supreme Court conservative majority, it’s hard to justify glossing over the history behind the Second Amendment.

Much like we did away with the 18th (prohibition) when it no longer served us, it’s time to do away with the archaic constitutional amendment holding Americans hostage in their own country.

It’s time to say, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, the Second Amendment’s gotta go.”

Carli Pierson
July 11, 2022
Americans can’t handle their guns. Time to repeal the 2nd Amendment
[Perhaps lawyers have their self awareness surgically removed as part of their schooling. How else do you explain the favorable mention of the failure of prohibition of alcohol and in the next sentence demand the enablement of a different type of prohibition?

In true lawyer fashion she ignores all the mitigating evidence in support of the right to keep and bear arms and insists the murderous behavior of a few individuals are proof beyond reasonable doubt that a group composed of roughly 40% of the population should be denied their freedom.

Can we demonstrate the bad behavior of a few individual lawyers then justifiably demand all lawyers be sent to prison? While I’m certain some people would give this serious consideration they are individuals as well and must only stand trial for their individual acts.

Pierson has thoughtfully provided the documentation for some of her crimes. I hope she enjoys her trial.—Joe]

If you need a disarmed society

Posted on by

Via Matthew Bracken:

image

Quote of the day—Kamala Harris

Posted on by

Because those weapons are available, and we have to stop allowing those weapons to be available to civilians living in communities of people who have a right to believe that they are not in a war zone.

Assault weapons were specifically and intentionally designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly. It is a weapon of war. If you’ve ever looked at, if I may be so blunt, an autopsy photograph to see what it does to the human body. And the fact that we can’t get Congress to renew – it’s not like we’re pulling something out of our hat. We’ve done it before as a nation – to renew the assault weapons ban, is outrageous.

You can support the Second Amendment. I support the Second Amendment, but we should agree we should not have weapons of war on the streets of America.

Kamala Harris
July 10, 2022
VP Harris calls for ‘assault weapons ban’ on guns ‘intentionally designed to kill’ people
[“Assault weapons” use account for smaller percentage of the murders than those committed using bare hands and feet.

I see the greater wounding potential as a feature. That makes it a good defensive weapon.

The Second Amendment is about the protecting peoples right to defending themselves from a tyrannical government. Harris either doesn’t understand the Second Amendment, or more likely, understands and realizes the Second Amendment is an impediment to her goals.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns. Harris and Biden are both advocates for enabling tyranny. Don’t let them get their way.—Joe]

Unconstitutionally vague?

Posted on by

Why is this not considered unconstitutionally vague:

Gun makers and dealers in California will be required to block firearms sales to anyone they have “reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk” of using a gun illegally or of harming themselves or others, under a new law that Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday that he had signed.

It’s a subjective requirement that goes farther than current background checks or prohibitions on selling guns to people prohibited from owning them.

The regulation is part of the new law creating a good conduct code for gun makers and dealers that also allows anyone who suffers harm from violations to sue.

…

The state’s firearm industry standard of conduct, starting in July 2023, will require those making, importing or selling guns to “take reasonable precautions” to make sure the weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands through sales or thefts.

That includes having “reasonable controls” to prevent sales to arms traffickers, straw buyers, those prohibited from owning guns, and anyone deemed to be at “substantial risk” of using the gun improperly.

Or is it deliberately written this way so as to cast a chilling effect upon the specific enumerated right and cause us to spend money challenging them in court?

And what about retailers being sued for discrimination for failure to sell on the basis of race and/or sex? Or the woman visibility upset because of her stalker being denied and later injured when unable to defend herself?

These characters really need to be prosecuted.

This didn’t end well last time

Posted on by

Via an email from Rolf:

Left-Wing Minister Wants to Confiscate Guns Owned by Members of Right-Wing AfD

A left-wing interior minister in Germany has launched a plan to confiscate all firearms owned by members of the right-wing political party AfD.

Interior minister of the German state of Thuringia, Georg Maier, wants to withdraw gun licenses from Alternative for Germany members, a political party that holds 81 seats in the German parliament and 9 seats in the European parliament.

“Maier, who belongs to the Social Democrat Party (SPD), has tasked his employees with establishing a working group on “Weapons and Extremists” to move forward on the issue,” reports Remix News.

“They plan to create the “AG WaffEx,” which would be located at the state administration office and help local authorities “in the processing of relevant cases.”

The move would ostensibly target “right-wing extremists,” but that list includes AfD members, over 30,000 Germans, who would have “appropriate revocation procedures” initiated against them under the plan.

AfD members who are hunters or marksmen and legally own guns would have them confiscated by the state, with Maier citing the reason that the AfD in Thuringia is “proven to be right-wing extremist.”

See also pages 57 and 59 in  ”Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny:

§ 12

A firearms acquisition permit is not needed by:

…

3. Departments of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and their offices as specified by the Fuhrer’s deputy;

…

§ 15

(1) Firearms acquisition permits or firearms carry permits are only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and only if a demonstration of need is set forth.

(2)  Issuance should not take place.

  1. to persons under 18 years of age;
  2. to persons under trusteeship and the mentally retarded;
  3. to Gypsies, or to persons who are itinerant like Gypsies;
  4. to persons under police supervision or known to have lost their civil rights, for the duration of police supervision or the loss of their civil rights
  5. to persons convicted of high treason, or against who facts are presented which give reason to suppose that they are actively subversive,
  6. to persons, who, on account of: deliberate attacks on life or health; public disorderly conduct or trespassing; resistance to government authority; an offense dangerous to the public or misdemeanors; for the punishable offense against property; a hunting or fishing offense legally punishable by more than two weeks imprisonment, if three years have not elapsed since the sentence was served. The punishment of imprisonment may stand as prescribed, be reduced, or commuted into a fine; in these case the three-year periods begins with the day on which imprisonment ends, or is reduced, or is converted into a fine. If this punishment is wholly or partly imposed after probation, the probation period should be added to the time period.

That was March 18, 1938. As an exercise for the reader, I’ll leave the determination of the details of what happened in the next few years to the Gypsies and others not favored by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Quote of the day—John Cardillo @johncardillo

Posted on by

The left pushed deviance and their hatred of America way too hard.

Normal Americans are finally pushing back much harder.

The tide is turning so the left is going to become even more demonic and vicious.

Take nothing for granted. Do not let your guard down. Buy guns and ammo.

John Cardillo @johncardillo
Tweeted on July 1, 2020
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kathy Hochul

Posted on by

We’re not going backwards. They may think they can change our lives with the stroke of a pen, but we have pens, too.

The founding of a great country that cherished the rights of individuals, freedoms and liberty for all.

I am standing here to protect freedom and liberty here in the state of New York.

Kathy Hochul
New York State Governor
July 2, 2022
N.Y. Lawmakers Respond on Guns and Abortion After Supreme Court Rulings
[This was shortly before signing a gun owner control bill:

The state’s new gun law bars the carrying of handguns in many public settings such as subways and buses, parks, hospitals, stadiums and day cares. Guns will be off-limits on private property unless the property owner indicates that he or she expressly allows them. At the last minute, lawmakers added Times Square to the list of restricted sites.

The law also requires permit applicants to undergo 16 hours of training on the handling of guns and two hours of firing range training, as well as an in-person interview and a written exam. Applicants will also be subject to the scrutiny of local officials, who will retain some discretion in the permitting process.

As Lyle has frequently said (paraphrasing), they demand the freedom to do evil.

They won’t stop until they are prosecuted or die off.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Editorial Board @ WSJ

Posted on by

When the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that segregated schools were illegal, many politicians in the South refused to obey. In Virginia opponents of the Court’s decision proudly called this “massive resistance,” and a decade of social strife followed. These days the massive resistance is on the political left, as exemplified by New York state’s new gun law that defies the Supreme Court’s late June ruling solidifying individual gun rights.

The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal
New York’s ‘Massive Resistance’ to the Supreme Court on Guns
Albany passes a law that willfully defies the ruling that the right to bear arms extends beyond the home.
[I find it very telling that in both cases it is the Democrats who are opposed to the exercise of civil rights to the point of defying the Supreme Court of the United States.

I hope they Enjoy Their Trial.—Joe]

Long live Clarence Thomas

Posted on by

I found this interesting:

Clarence Thomas is at the peak of his power

Clarence Thomas is suddenly, for the first time since his confirmation, the main character at the Supreme Court.

Why it matters: Thomas is more powerful than he’s ever been inside the court, and ideas that the legal establishment once treated as his quirky hobbyhorses now carry increasing weight.

…

The big picture: Thomas has spent years essentially laying out a whole parallel understanding of the law. He’s one of the court’s most prolific authors of solo dissents, according to Adam Feldman of Empirical SCOTUS, and has also written a slew of solo concurrences similar to last week’s.

  • Thomas doesn’t just write a dissent here and an additional point about a majority holding there, but rather has created a whole ecosystem of opinions that build on and reference each other almost in the same way as the court’s actual precedents, except for the fact that they are all one man speaking only for himself.
  • Thomas’ solo opinion in last week’s abortion case cited 11 of his past opinions, 10 of which were solo opinions. It drew more heavily from the Clarence Thomas Cinematic Universe than from the rest of the court’s historical precedents, dissents and non-Thomas concurrences.

But as the makeup of the court has shifted around him, Thomas’ views have gotten more influential. And that influence will only grow.

Thomas is a huge influence for good. Not just in the gun rights arena, but in rolling back the power of big government.

Which is more effective?

Posted on by

Via the NRA:

Which sign is more effective? It’s not rocket science…

image

Quote of the day—John @6102cd

Posted on by

A self-centered political philosophy.

“This thing scares me, so ban it” (guns)

“This thing is difficult for me to get, so provide it.” (Healthcare)

“I want to break this law, so don’t enforce it” (drugs)

John @6102cd
Tweeted on June 13, 2022
[In response to the question:

Ultra progressives seem to want both more laws (e.g., gun control) but also less punishment for breaking laws (e.g., criminal justice reform).

How can we interpret this seeming contradiction?

It appears to be a very strong hypothesis.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brad Polumbo

Posted on by

While our constitutional republic is meant to give the people the ultimate power over our government, the Bill of Rights specifically serves to constrain the will of the majority when it comes to individual rights. The idea was that some things are off-limits, even if 51% of the population would vote to restrict them. Pure, absolute democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. At different points in our history, things such as slavery, segregation, denying women the vote, speech bans, and more would have garnered majority support among voters. That’s why we added amendments to take these egregious injustices off the table.

In the same way, the right to defend your life is an inherent human right, one that the Second Amendment simply recognizes. And the very point of the Bill of Rights is that such rights aren’t supposed to be up for debate at the federal or local level.

Democrats should realize that it’s not an argument against the court’s ruling to point out that a majority of New Yorkers support restricting this right — it’s a reminder as to why the court’s decision is so desperately needed.

Brad Polumbo
June 24, 2022
What Democrats get wrong about Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

This is incredibly good news. The importance of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion in the New York right-to-carry case may not be fully understood until all of these other cases have gone through lower court review. What we’re seeing today could be the beginning of court actions that eventually fully restore rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Our attorneys are already reviewing earlier cases to determine which ones can be re-filed for further action based on the high court ruling in Bruen and we are confident other cases now remanded back for further review will also fare better in the lower courts.

It is also important that the high court granted all writs of certiorari in these Second Amendment cases as they were being remanded back for further review. That tells me we have a Supreme Court willing to rein in lower court activism and limit how far they will allow local and state governments to reach when it comes to placing burdens on the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerate right to keep and bear arms.

Alan Gottlieb
Executive Vice President
Second Amendment Foundation
SAF HAILS SUPREME COURT FOR SENDING BACK GUN CASES FOR FURTHER REVIEW
[See also SUPREME COURT REVERSES LOWER COURT RULINGS ON MAG BAN, “ASSAULT WEAPONS” BAN, CARRY BAN

The lower courts will, of course, drag their feet. My guess is that it will be months, at best, before we see real change in things like “assault weapon” bans and restrictions, and magazine bans.

But this does make for a very happy 4th of July.

And be sure to make your lists and document all the anti-gun politicians infringements of our rights. A right delayed is a right denied. Perhaps sometime in 2025 we will have a glimmer of hope that these criminals will be prosecuted.—Joe]

She probably doesn’t trust numbers

Posted on by

This is very telling:

She probably feels this way because she doesn’t trust numbers to give her the correct answer.

What gun for riots?

Posted on by

Do you want to know what type of gun used to be advertised for riots?

Skip the riot shotguns. Go straight to the real thing.

Read the fine print:

image

I expect that even with moderate application of the belt fed 30.06 there would be very few repeat offenders.

Originally tweeted by Sal the Agorist @SallyMayweather

Referred to me via a tweet from Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.

If a woman had the rights of a gun

Posted on by

Via sacrebleu14 / SA Hinchcliffe @sacrebleu141

image

She does awesome memes. Over the years I am certain I have posted dozens, if not a hundred or more, of them here.

FPC mission

Posted on by

From Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation:

Our Mission

  1. Establish a regulatory environment in which every individual adult in the United States who is not prohibited from exercising rights under an analysis consistent with the Constitution’s text, informed by American history and tradition, can:

    • Acquire and possess (“keep”) all bearable arms in “common use for lawful purposes”:

      including but not limited to semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns regulated as “assault weapons”;

      firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds; blades; and, other defensive arms.

    • Carry (“bear”) loaded, operable arms on their person and in their vehicles, in public, for self-defense and all lawful purposes;

    • Personally build (self-manufacture) arms, including by and through the acquisition and possession of the tools, information/files, and materials/supplies to do so; and,

    • Protect the resources, markets, and conduct essential to the above.

  2. Expand young peoples’ understanding and adoption of the philosophy of natural rights and private property, and the adoption and lawful use of the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, and other essential liberties to maximize preservation and expansion of freedom in future generations.

  3. Establish clear protections against prohibition and/or seizure of personal property, as well as unjust incarceration for the exercise of fundamental rights.

  4. Opportunistically leverage changing cultural, political, and legal environments to achieve tactical victories and divert enemy resources (i.e., funding and personnel) away from strategically critical areas to reduce enemy effectiveness.

  5. Upon achieving all of the above, establish a new vision and strategic objectives consistent with the Organization’s Purpose and expanded field of operation.

I support this. I like the way the content is expressed.

And from the Firearms Policy Coalition

OUR CURRENT AREAS OF OPERATION

CULTURE: Using the FPC Team of advocates:

  1. Grow and support a nation-wide network of informed, vocal individuals who actively promote the philosophy of natural rights and work to eliminate laws and policies that limit or otherwise conflict with liberty;
  2. Support policy changes consistent with the [FPC] Purpose and Mission;
  3. Encourage the People to draw a hard line and reject government expansion and interference with the People’s rights and liberty (i.e., “Fuck you. No.”).

I follow them on Twitter and I really like their constant engagement and feisty attitude.

Each month I donate, matched dollar for dollar by my employer, to the foundation