Category Archives: Gun Rights

Useful numbers

Posted on by

I find some numbers very useful.

From pages 12 and 13 in Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2021 (alternate link here):

There are three relevant sets of numbers from the Pew survey:

— 30% of American adults say that they own a gun.

— 72% of the people who own a gun, say they own a handgun or a pistol.

— 11% of handgun owners say that they carry all the time, 26% say they carry most or all the time, and 57 percent say that they carry at least some of the time.

With a little multiplication, we find that:

— 2.4% say that they carry all the time.

— 5.4% carry most or all the time.

— 12.3% carry at least some of the time.

To summarize, the total number of permits in the US is at least 21.52 million. Add in people who legally carry without a permit, and the number clearly becomes much larger. While 8.3% of the adult population has permits, the percentage of Americans who say that they carry most or all the time is about 5.4%.

What does this mean in practice? It means that in most places where people are allowed to carry a concealed handgun, there will be someone carrying a concealed handgun. If the probability that any one person has a concealed handgun permit is 5.4%, in a room with 10 people (assuming that the probabilities are independent), the probability that at least one person will have a permitted concealed handgun is 43%. In a room with 20 people, that probability goes up to 67%. With 40, that probability rises to 89%.

I usually express it a little differently. I would translate and distill the numbers above into, “On average, about one out every 19 people you pass on the street is carrying a firearm.”

You cannot comply

Posted on by

Via Matthew Bracken:

ComplyYourWayOut

You can vote your way in but you have to shoot your way out.

Quote of the day—David Codrea

Posted on by

The Patriots at Lexington and Concord who refused government arms confiscation orders were all criminals in the eyes of the law. Coincidentally, their firearms all qualified as “ghost guns.”

… there is no reason for the government to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms unless it is going to be committing tyrannical offenses.

David Codrea
October 18, 2021
‘Ghost Gun’ Comments Show Sheriff Can’t Imagine Freedom
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

History buff

Posted on by

Via Rolf and @LaughtingEyes::

HistoryBuff

Right to Bear Arms

Posted on by

Via email from Rolf:

Recommended Age Range: 4-12

The Right to Bear Arms is a tool designed to assist parents in teaching children about the Second Amendment and constitutional liberties.  It highlights the time Charisma Cat attempted to take over the forest by using tricks, social shame, and manipulation to convince other animals to give up their teeth and claws.  Only the Bears refuse to surrender their arms.  You can guess what happens next.

I just ordered a copy for a Christmas gift for my grandson.

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

Nothing more clearly illustrates gun control lack of success than the situation in King County. It is reflective of the national trend revealed in the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2020, showing murders up by 30 percent nationwide. If restricting the gun rights of law-abiding citizens worked, this should not be the case.

Alan Gottlieb
CCRKBA Chairman
October 13, 2021
KING COUNTY, WA MURDER SPIKE TYPIFIES NATIONAL GUN CONTROL FAILURE
[Gottlieb’s statement presumes facts not in evidence. Namely, that the goal of gun control advocates is a reduction in violent crime.

Gottlieb knows their goal has nothing to do with reduction of violent crime. He said so 25 years ago. But the useful idiots and the mainstream media (yes, I’m repeating myself) believe that is the reason for and the achievable result of gun control.

I think it’s long past time to make the useful idiots aware of the truth and have them confront the liars. It would be a good first step toward the trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Pigdowndog @Pigdowndog

Posted on by

The “you” was generic. If anyone thinks they need a gun for ordinary daily living then that’s the very definition of paranoia. You’re wrong, I don’t want to ban a specific type of rifle, I want all guns banned for the general public. Fewer guns, fewer gun incidents. Simple logic

Pigdowndog @Pigdowndog
Tweeted on October 10, 2021
[Simple logic for simple minds. Logic only gives you correct results if you have the appropriate data.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Memorandum of Understanding

Posted on by

The ability of law enforcement agencies to share crime gun data across state lines will assist in their efforts to detect and deter gun crime, to investigate gun crime, and to identify and apprehend straw purchasers, suspect dealers, firearms traffickers, and other criminals.

Memorandum of Understanding
October 7, 2021
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT CONCERNING RECIPROCAL SHARING OF CRIME GUN DATA
[See also here.

Heavy sigh. There is so much fail (presuming good intention of the document writers) in this document. In just the short quote above it presumes several facts not in evidence:

  1. It presumes crime is a gun problem rather than a people problem. As Col. Jeff Cooper (IIRC) pointed out if you could eliminate all the guns you would still have a crime problem. If you locked up all the criminals you wouldn’t have a gun problem.
  2. It presumes some sort of magic happens when sharing data beyond criminal investigations (which is already possible without this MOU).
  3. It seems to presume there is some sort of advantage for criminal gangs to bring guns from out of state to sell in the individual states. But how can there be an advantage for a criminal in New York to obtain a gun from New Jersey and simultaneously there be an advantage for the criminal in New Jersey to obtain a gun from New York? Once the criminal commits a violent crime with (or without) a gun in either state they can be prosecuted for that crime regardless of where they obtained the gun.

But the presumption of good intentions is not justified.

One has to conclude, once again, that this isn’t about crime. It’s about demonizing gun ownership and terrorizing gun owners. If a gun is stolen from an innocent person this may assist the political criminals in the respective states to harass the victim of the property theft. They can and almost certainly will, be accused of selling the gun to criminals. I’ve known people who have had a dozen or more guns stolen. If a half dozen or more guns sold to a single person show up at crime scenes then law enforcement from these states are likely to be to making a very unpleasant visit to the innocent gun owner.

It’s clear these politicians view innocent gunowners as their enemy and it takes little imagination to believe they view the real criminals as their allies in their war against private gun ownership.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Pam Carlson (@PamCarlson3)

Posted on by

Big man sticking up for the tiny penis crowd trying to sic his tiny penis followers on me.  Better hope this doesn’t go the way you want.  Twitter has a harassment policy, you know.

Pam Carlson (@PamCarlson3)
Tweeted on September 27, 2021
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

This was in response to my blog post which automatically posted a link to it on Twitter.

I found this hilarious! She starts out by harassingly gun owners with childish insults. I merely quoted her and pointed out she appeared to be incapable of bringing anything but childish insults to the discussion. I did not advocate or even suggest anyone engage with her. In response, she projects her harassment of us as harassment of her and continues harassing us.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Puertorro in the US + (@wisemagius)

Posted on by

Hope one day you realize all you are is a deluded gun-runner.

You wrap yourself in a thin veneer of an imagined higher cause, ignoring the blood of innocents on you, all because of some tools you worship.

Puertorro in the US + (@wisemagius)
Tweeted on October 3, 2021
[This is what they think of you.

Of course it’s projection. Far more innocent people have been murdered because criminals had a legal monopoly on weapons than when weapons were legally available to all.—Joe]

Quote of the day—sploosh @SploooshSploosh

Posted on by

Frail Penis Coalition rails against president from 20 years ago to cover up their frail penises.. Doesn’t this get tiresome when there are 400 million guns in the US?

sploosh @SploooshSploosh
Tweeted on September 26, 2021
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! H/T to In Chains @InChainsInJail.

When the advocates for the criminals attempting to infringe upon a specific enumerated right have nothing but childish insults you know they are getting really desperate for quality workers. Are these people unpaid interns? Or are they registered sex offenders who cannot get any other job?

It doesn’t really matter. We have SCOTUS decisions they have nothing.—Joe]

A step in the right direction

Posted on by

Via email from Rolf.

Thousands cleared by judge’s ruling will seek gun arrest damages

A decision by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth in another fight over guns created by the local government in Washington means it could be getting costly for taxpayers there.

It’s because the judge’s decision “has cleared the way for claims for damages by as many as 4,500 people” who were arrested under the now-defunct law against carrying handguns in public.

The problem was outlined by constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who explained the specific case applies to six people, but the damages could be claimed by thousands.

“Those rising costs do not seem to register with the D.C. City Council,” he explained. “The city could appeal and argue that, at the time of the arrests, it was not clear that the underlying law was unconstitutional.”

Lamberth, however, already rejected that claim and ruled that the law was clearly unconstitutional when the city passed it.

The decision from Lamberth noted how D.C. effectively had “banned non-residents from possessing a firearm,” and prevented anyone “from carrying a weapon in public.”

It’s not a prosecution under 18 USC 242, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Quote of the day—Jim Bovard

Posted on by

The FBI’s power and federal legitimacy are far more tenuous than Washington recognizes. Beyond the nation’s big cities and the coastlines, federal authority hinges largely on the consent of local citizens. Once that consent vanishes, FBI agents are left to sit in their cars eating their lunches all by themselves. But plenty of pundits and congressmen still clamor for the government to confiscate everyone’s guns or forcibly inject their children. If the feds came in and started shooting mountain men who refused to surrender their firearms, they would likely quickly find themselves in a worse plight than Custer at the Little Big Horn.

Jim Bovard
September 27, 2021
He Thought I Was an Undercover Fed
[Consent of the governed is a concept in our country’s founding documents. With a nearly $30 Trillion debt, incredible overreach of the U.S. Constitution’s limits, and blatant violation of our specific enumerated rights, it is long past time to revoke consent.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs

Posted on by

We should have left our guns for the Australians not the taliban.

Kevin Sorbo @ksorbs
Tweeted on September 26, 2021
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

First treated as the Second

Posted on by

image

Via a tweet by JPFO.

Quote of the day—JPFO

Posted on by

The tyranny of BATFE must end. It’s corrupt purpose is self-evident: You would never consider leading the Aviation Administration with people afraid to fly—you pick pilots, aircraft designers, industry leaders, so the industry can flourish. By proposing an agency head who hates the industry under its thumb, it’s obvious what feds seek—not protection of our property and rights.

By trying to put people in charge who detest America’s 120 million gun owners, the federal government shows its disdain for the Bill of Rights. Can you imagine if this industry that supplies us with arms and keeps us all safe had people in government they could trust? No? Of course not, all the more reason to scrap this unconstitutional gang of criminals. We do not need hostile anti-rights partisans associated with the ungun cabal like the Bradys, Giffords, Bloomberg astroturf Moms. That’s like asking landlubbers to be lifeguards.

JPFO
September 24, 2021
WHAT IS THE LOGIC OF HAVING A FEDERAL AGENCY LED BY PEOPLE WHO WANT THE INDUSTRY TO DIE?
[It is a rhetorical question. Of course everyone knows what the logic is.

This latest insult of nominating David Chipman as the head of the ATF should go in the evidence file to be used at their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brandon Smith

Posted on by

Eventually tyranny has to put boots on the ground. A totalitarian system can function for a time on color of law and implied threats, but it will crumble unless it is able to establish a physical presence of force. Once those jackboots touch soil in a visible way and the agents of the state try to expand oppressive measures, rebels then have a free hand to disrupt them or bring them down. But this only works if there are objectives and enough decentralization to prevent misdirection of the movement.

Brandon Smith
September 22, 2021
Organizing Patriots In The Face Of Government Informants And False Flags
[Interesting post and associated comments.

See also my Boots on the ground blog post.—Joe]

Marge Greene should attend Boomershoot

Posted on by

I hope she “triggers” all the right people:

Boomershoot appears to be a good match for her public persona.

Quote of the day—Kevin D. Williamson

Posted on by

Gun control is not about gun crime — gun control is about gun culture.

…

That culture-war mentality produces a great deal of sloppy thinking and ignorant commentary. Consider the case of Gail Collins in Thursday’s New York Times. Collins is hopping mad about gun shows, about which she seems to know . . . not a whole lot. “Yeah,” she writes — really, “yeah” — “right now one easy way to buy a gun without having anyone check to see if you have a history of criminal convictions, mental illness or a domestic violence restraining order is to just plunk down some cash at a gun show.”

This is — and this part still matters! — not true.

…

Because this is a culture-war issue rather than a crime-reduction issue, Collins apparently has not bothered thinking much about the most obvious and most relevant question: Are guns bought at gun shows a significant contributor to crime?

Kevin D. Williamson
September 16, 2021
Gun-Control Laws Aren’t about Preventing Crimes
[The obvious and relevant questions are also inconvenient for people such as Collins. Other questions not mentioned by Williamson include, “Do you realize you are advocating for infringements on a specific enumerated right?” And, “Are you aware that conspiracy to infringe upon rights is a serious Federal crime?”

Perhaps such questions will come up at their trials.—Joe]

Complacency

Posted on by

Via email:

I write once in a great while when something hits me that I think you might be interested in putting in the blog, or just doing research on…
today is one of those days.  Usually I comment on the blog as “The Patriarch”

22 years ago, my father passed (no, not 22 years ago today).  A veteran of WWII, he brought home a bunch of weapons – a couple of Mauser 8mm bolt action rifles, and a single shot .22, which was apparently used for training on the Mauser.

And  Walther P-38. Matching serial numbers, and holster (it was found with a German Medical officers uniform).

When he passed, I got the pistol, and one of the Mausers.  Having hit a few rough times financially, I decided that I’d offer the pistol to my brother.  My brother has been hunting and fishing and general outdoors kind of guy (more so than I am, sadly, for many reasons)  We struck a deal and he said “ship it to me”.  This should have been my first clue.

I informed him that the law won’t allow me to ship it directly to him, so unless he wanted to drive from MN to Seattle, he needed to find an FFL to transfer it through.  This apparently surprised him.  So he sends me the address of a dealer.  Then I explained to him that I needed a copy of their FFL (for the shipper to verify the address), and why.  I called them, and they promptly got my that.

Now it gets even more interesting.  The FFL is asking for *my* FFL, but it’s not required, when shipping from WA, to ship through an FFL< only TO an FFL… which they researched and agreed with me about.  So, I ship it to them.

My brother goes to pick it up – I offhandedly mentioned that he would need to fill out the 4473 and do the NICS … a couple hours later he texts me and says that they informed him that he needed a permit to purchase.  He was way upset because he is moving at the end of the month and it will take time to get this permit.

I told him I thought it was weird he needed a permit to purchase when he wasn’t actually purchasing, and that this was weird because I thought WA firearm laws were wacky…

I was biting my tongue because I wanted to go on a rant about voting and getting people in gov’t that would respect the 2nd amendment, etc… but he wasn’t in the right frame of mind.

I was just a bit surprised that he hadn’t done the research first.

Anyway, it would seem that there are a lot of owners out there that are a bit complacent.  Not aware of what is going on in the halls of government.

Use it or not.

“The Patriarch”

I fear far too many gun owners don’t have a sufficient clue as to what is going on in many of the states. I’ve essentially given up on the legislatures and am betting (with thousands of dollars in donations each year to SAF and FPC) on the courts to reverse the infringements.