Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—John Hood

Posted on by

The federal government has lost its proper moorings to its founding document, and that the Framers of the Constitution would be horrified at much of what is even being debated in Washington, D.C. these days (quite apart from which side in the debate they might, upon reflection, endorse).

North Carolinians should take the lead in this important cause. We are (or used to be) “First in Freedom” for a very good reason. We used to be the cantankerous old coot at the constitutional garden party. It’s time we became him once more.

John Hood
March 9, 2020
Let’s spoil the garden party
[It really is a states issue to bring the Feds back in line with the Constitution. But it’s going to take more than one state to do it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it requires a constitutional convention of the states. And that gets us into scary territory.

The second best approach I see is the sanctuary movement and related activities. Just look at what’s happening with legalization of marijuana. It’s still against Federal law but so many states are ignoring the Feds and businesses in those states are getting away with it. When will this start happening with suppressors, machine guns, 4473’s, and NICS checks? Or even W-2’s, 1099’s, and 1040s?—Joe]

COVID-19 exemption to the Bill of Rights

Posted on by

Via email from Jason.

Apparently there is a COVID-19 exemption to the Bill of Rights. At least a judge found one. I just looked at my copy of the BoR and didn’t find it. But I guess Federal Judges just have better eyesight than I do. Here is what he said:

Given the significant number of identified and projected cases of COVID-19 in this
District and the severity of risk posed to the public, and given the above public health
recommendations from local public health authorities, it is hereby ORDERED that, effective
Monday, March 9, 2020:

1) All civil and criminal matters scheduled for an in-Court appearance before any district or magistrate judge in the Seattle or Tacoma Courthouses, including any associated
deadlines, are CONTINUED pending further Order of the Court;

2) All grand jury proceedings in this District are CONTINUED pending further Order of the Court;

3) With regard to criminal matters, due to the Court’s reduced ability to obtain an adequate spectrum of jurors and the effect of the above public health
recommendations on the availability of counsel and Court staff to be present in the
courtroom, the time period of the continuances implemented by this General Order
will be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, as the Court specifically finds that the
ends of justice served by ordering the continuances outweigh the best interests of the public and any defendant’s right to a speedy trial, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§3161(h)(7)(A);

4) Case-by-case exceptions to the continuances provided herein may be ordered for nonjury matters at the discretion of the Court after consultation with counsel;

5) This Order does not affect the Court’s consideration of civil or criminal motions that can be resolved without oral argument.

Here is the clause in Federal Law he refers to:

A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

I understand the practical matters involved. And I’m not sure I disagree with the action taken. But it does worry me that such precedence will be misused in the future.

How many times have we heard about “The Gun Violence Epidemic”?

Fill in the dots as appropriate.

Quote of the day—anon

Posted on by

She demonstrates total ignorance and admits complete incomprehension of the subject and its complexity, and then demands we listen to her and take action on the topic.

anon
March 9, 2020
Comment to Quote of the day—Lori Haas
[Excellent point.

The arrogance, as pointed out by Lyle, is very telling.

I have my doubts about the severity of the suggested punishment, but that is a concern for her judge and jury a later date.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Lori Haas

Posted on by

I just could not understand why people cared so much about a piece of hardware and the inconvenience of a small segment of our population taking priority over saving lives. I just found that inexplicable.

Lori Haas
March 8, 2020
Not going away: Virginia Tech families fight for gun control
[Wow! She is totally clueless and/or totally evil.

And notice that it’s one of those fractally wrong statements. There are at least three false item in just that first sentence.

This is what they think of you and the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Widener’s Blog

Posted on by

Cooper understood that legislating guns away from the public was only a small part of the problem. The larger issue was a false social construct. One that was intent on disarming the populace of reason and will, of the mindset to act when necessary. He was not just talking about the direct attack of a mugger, but the steady erosion of “society” through the demand of conformity in defenselessness. Whether it be against criminals on the street or those in the capitol. Small wonder his copious quotes are often questioned by those who refuse to understand the virtues of violence.

Widener’s Blog
March 5, 2020
Historic Profile: Jeff Cooper
[Reading his profile made me miss him again.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justice Gorsuch

Posted on by

The executive branch and affected citizens asked the court to do what courts usually do in statutory interpretation disputes: supply its best independent judgment about what the law means. But, instead of deciding the case the old-fashioned way, the court placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government.

That was mistaken.

…

Despite these concerns, I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review. The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before final judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the same problems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.

Justice Gorsuch
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DAMIEN GUEDES, ET AL. v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 19–296. Decided March 2, 2020
[I have never owned a bump stock and almost for certain never will. For long distance work a bolt gun serves my needs best. For close up work aimed fire from a semi-auto appears to be optimal.

As near as I can tell a bump stock is best suited for converting money into noise. While I can understand that could be a reasonable use of someone else’s money it’s generally not something I want to do with my money.

That said, just because I don’t anticipate the use of one for myself I regard the ban on bump stocks to be extremely concerning. The law quite clearly does not forbid the ownership or use of a bump stock. Yet the administration insisted the law means something entirely different from what it says. This sort of behavior is not acceptable.

While there is still a decent chance SCOTUS will correct the mistake it is important to note that a right delayed is a right denied.

If it were up to me the court will slap the administration down so hard their ears ring as if they had a dozen bump stock equipped rifles emptying 100 round magazines simultaneously near their unprotected ears. Then I would recommended them for prosecution under 18 USC 242 and tell them, Enjoy. Your. Trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Stephen Gutowski

Posted on by

Gun sales soared in Virginia as Democrats passed several new gun-control measures during February, according to an industry report.

Nearly 66,000 background checks were performed in Virginia in February as the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature weighs a number of strict background checks—a steep increase from the 40,381 checks performed in February 2019. Virginia experienced one of the most dramatic upticks in background checks—a strong indicator of total sales—in the nation, according to data released by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). Gun sales are up nationwide with average growth rates of 16.7 percent, according to the report, but the surge was especially dramatic in Virginia where checks rose by 63.4 percent compared to 2019.

The spike in Virginia gun sales, which have increased for four consecutive months, shows that guns remain at the forefront of many residents’ minds.

Stephen Gutowski
March 5, 2020
Virginia Gun Sales Surge as Dems Pass Gun Control — Monthly sales up 60 percent from 2019
[If the anti-gun people were data driven and really believed “there are too many guns in the hands of private citizens” their behavior would be just the opposite of what they have been doing for decades. This is just one more datum demonstrating the error of their ways.

Spelling it out for them:

Every time there is serious talk, or the actually passage , of a law increasing the restrictions on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm the sales of firearms increase.

This was true during the Clinton administration and passage of the Brady Bill and the “assault weapon” ban.

This was true during the Obama administration and their frequent attempts to increase restrictions.

This was true in the fall of 2016 when it appeared Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidency and increase restrictions on gun ownership.

Increasing restrictions on guns cause people to buy guns!

The rate of sales would decrease if restrictions were to decrease because people would think they could always get a gun later if they really needed one.

One has to conclude they are not data driven and/or they don’t really want a decrease in the total number of guns in circulation.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

Biden’s mask is completely off. He’s not just a doddering Democrat pushing to become president, he’s an extremist anti-gunner who just promised to put a gun prohibition fanatic in charge of his administration’s gun policy.

Alan Gottlieb
March 3, 2020
Beto Will Be Biden’s Gun Grabbing Point Man; ‘It’s War,’ Says CCRKBA
[As if most of us didn’t already know this.

But, in political terms it does bring complete clarity to the issue. The leading Democrat candidate for President of the U.S. has made clear he intends to confiscate the most popular rifle sold today.

Respond appropriately.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Carl Bussjaeger

Posted on by

As I was reading the bill, an interesting point struck me. I ended up going through it multiple times to be sure, because something I usually see in these victim disarmament schemes doesn’t seem to be there.

There is no exception in the bill for law enforcement or the military.

Should this monstrosity pass, I’m going to invest in popcorn futures. The show, when law enforcement realizes this applies to them, will be extremely entertaining.

Carl Bussjaeger
February 29, 2020
New York Bill Would Mandate Individually ‘Coded’ and Registered Ammunition
[Interesting. There are multiple ways this might play out if were to become law.

Here’s how something similar worked in Washington State.*

Suppressors were legal to own but illegal to use in the state. There was no law enforcement exception. The cops either didn’t notice or didn’t care and happily, and openly, purchased and trained, with suppressors.

No one said anything (or at least not so that it drew a lot of attention). The private citizens purchased suppressors and went “out of state” to use them. They also quietly took video of the cops using them at the public, in state, ranges. The local gun rights groups had a big video stashes of cops using suppressors.

The guns rights groups asked the legislature to change the law making suppressors legal to use in state. Quietly pointing out the existing law was unenforceable because the first time some prosecutor attempted to enforce it against an otherwise innocent private citizen the defense attorney was going to get a pile of video tapes of cops committing massive numbers of identical crimes.

Suppressors became legal to use in Washington state and remain so to this day.

What should, but is unlikely to, happen is that we all buy popcorn and enjoy watching the lawmaker’s trial. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t save then information for his trial. Just in case.—Joe]

* There is certainly some “poetic license” taken in this story. It’s my interpretation of what might have happened, based on some casual plans told to me several years before suppressors became legal.

Public safety

Posted on by

Via sofa @room101_

PublicSafety

It was, of course, in response to Rolf.

Quote of the day—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Posted on by

To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions

…

Ideology – that is what gives the evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume One) page 174.
[Via Extreme Retribution Punishment Orders: ‘Red flag’ laws are the death of due process and the Constitution.

We have some extremely evil ideologies in the world whos followers believe they are the good guys.

Nearly 170 years ago Thoreau put it more succulently.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rolf

Posted on by

The other side doesn’t care about facts. They care about power. The normies don’t get that. My approach now is to push the appropriate buttons.

I know why the cavalry wanted the disarm the Indians. I know why the Soviets wanted to disarm the Kulaks. I know why the KKK wanted to disarm the blacks. I know why the Nazi wanted to disarm the Jews and Gypsies. They all did it in the name of ‘public safety.’ Why do YOU want to disarm people so only the cops to have guns? You sound like a rapist telling his victim ‘don’t make a scene and come along quietly.’

Rolf
February 29, 2020
Comment to Quote of the day—Tamara K. @TamSlick
[Nice!

I’ve been formulating my question strategy for the next Townhall meeting.

I’m thinking something along the lines of:

  • What will it take to get to the point where we can ban all private gun ownership and confiscate all of them? And are you working to get us there?
  • What are you doing behind the scenes to further gun safety?

This, in conjunction with posting the video of the answers online, should be useful in the next election as well as their trials.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Molly Carter

Posted on by

What has the 20th Century shown us about gun control? That an unarmed country is not a safe country. That when citizens don’t have the right to bear arms, governments can and do grow too large and become a threat to their people. That in the 20th Century, governments murdered four times as many people as those that were killed in all the world’s wars during that same time period. That millions more people were killed by their own governments than by criminals.

Molly Carter
American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Firearms
[The first publication of this essay is unclear to me. It was sometime in 2019 or earlier. I found it on many sites with the most recent being Zero Hedge (via email from Tony P.).

Reading it I was struck by so many references to materials from the 1990s that I suspected it was over 20 years old. Even the quote above appears it may have been derived from an article written by the late Mike Vanderboegh in June of 1999. This, however, does not detract from the substance. The truth is still the truth.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Tana Senn

Posted on by

I’ve never thought about it.

Tana Senn
Washington State Representative, 41st District
February 22, 2020
This was in response to the question, “What sort of gun law do you think would violate the Washington State constitution?”
[The Washington State constitution says:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

My guess is that she has never read it. Another guy at the town hall meeting asked a related question and she went off with something about the militia. Which, of course, might have been relevant if we didn’t have the Washington State constitution protection for the right to keep and bear arms clause and the Heller decision. The Heller decision, of course, making it very clear the militia clause does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to the militia.

I got the last question of the meeting and I decided to directly ask her to address the Washington State constitution clause. The QOTD above was the beginning of her response.

The rest of her response was about hunters, she has “no problem” with hunters—as long as they don’t use “military type guns” which are only for hunting humans. She was a bit more hesitant but also said she didn’t have a problem with people who wanted to have a gun to defend themselves.

But, of course, the Washington State constitution does not give lawmakers a “military type gun” loophole to write laws restricting individual possession and use of firearms.

I find her response very telling.

If she has never concerned herself with the limits to the power she has under the constitution this isn’t going to stop. Whatever restriction she and her type can get passed this year or next, or the year after is just another step toward the practical, if not literal, elimination of the right.

I was telling someone else about what Senn said and I got a surprising response:

Crazy must run in the family.

It turns out that Senn is is a first cousin, once-removed of former Washington state Insurance Commissioner Deborah Senn. Deborah Senn had a reputation such that many people suspected she was a sociopath and perhaps had other psychology issues.

My live tweeting of the meeting:

This should be good evidence. I hope she enjoys her trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—UBY: @ZubyMusic

Posted on by

Nazism was attempted once. It killed 6 MILLION+ people and the ideology was abandoned. Those who promote it are rightly shunned.

Communism has been attempted multiple times, in multiple nations. It has killed 100 MILLION+ people. Yet many still think it’s a ‘good idea’.

UBY: @ZubyMusic
Tweeted on February 20, 2020
[It’s amazing the price people are willing to pay for “free” stuff.

It would appear to me that the only way to avoid repeating the many lessons in the history of communism and socialism is to increase the cost on those who attempt to implement it rather than on those it is implemented on.

Never give up your guns.—Joe]

It’s back….

Posted on by

Two days ago I reported the good news that an oppressive gun control bill severely restricting magazines with capacity more than 15 rounds was defeated.

In the comments John Hardin suggested:

they could just convert it into an Appropriations bill, which has a longer deadline

This is exactly what they did:

A proposal to ban the sale of high-capacity gun magazines in Washington died after not receiving a vote by a key deadline Wednesday evening, but gun-control advocates quickly reloaded with a new proposal.

House Democrats failed to put a bill up for debate that would have banned magazines holding more than 15 rounds. It needed to pass the House by Wednesday to continue being considered in the 2020 session.

The bill was pulled from consideration by the full House after Republicans filed 120 amendments to be debated before a final vote on the bill could be taken, Speaker Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma said.

…

Later Thursday a new bill calling for a ban on the sale of magazines holding more than 15 rounds was filed in the House with a provision that would allow it to ignore the deadline.

Along with the policy that limits the number of rounds, it also calls for a buyback program that would compensate gun owners who turn in as many as five high-capacity magazines to the Washington State Patrol between this July 1 and June 30, 2021. To pay for the program, it proposes repealing the tax exemption for the sale of precious metals or bullion.

Bills that require the state to spend money or levy new taxes aren’t subject to Wednesdays if they are included in the General Fund budget. The House and Senate will release their supplemental budget proposals Monday.

I find it “interesting” they plan to tax sales of precious metals to pay for the confiscation of our magazines.

My representative and Senator have a townhall meeting tomorrow:

10:00 – 11:30 AM
Saturday, February 22
Bellevue College
Room N201
3000 Landderholm Circle SE
Bellevue

. I plan to attend. I already submitted questions via a webpage they provided.

Quote of the day—Lyle

Posted on by

The underlying message in such talk of “gun violence” and “felons with guns” etc. is that violence, per se, is not the problem. If violence were the problem then the particular weapons being used wouldn’t be the central focus as they are now. They wouldn’t even be an issue.

Turning the populace into cattle, for the benefit of the “common good” (the rulers’ good) is the issue, and that means there must be disarmament.

So of course this is not, and has never been, about crime or violence or “public safety”. In the minds of the power-mad, common criminals are not the problem. Rather, YOU are the problem which needs to be “solved”; the more principled, peaceful, law-abiding and productive citizen patriot. The truth is a threat. You are the threat.

Lyle
February 20, 2020
Comment to Quote of the day—ReelFun.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—ReelFun

Posted on by

the shooters in seattle a week ago have over 60 felonies between them and several each with firearm convictions. Why are they out of jail and on the street with more guns after those convictions? anyone with more than one conviction with firearm should be in jail for decades, not on the street after 30 days. Start there and there is all the data you need. put in jail felons with firearms period.

ReelFun
February 19, 2020
Comment to Pass bills to reduce firearm violence through research, limiting magazine capacity
[Truth. But, almost for certain, it will never happen in Seattle.

One of the reason this suggestion is almost never heeded by the progressives is because such criminals are their demographic. Remember, felons in prison who identify as Democrats outnumber all other political affiliations combined by a factor of two to one. Another reason is that firearm restrictions are not about reducing violent crime. It’s about making the average citizen more dependent upon the state and giving power and control to the government.—Joe]

Good news

Posted on by

A couple days ago I urged Washington State residents to contact their representatives about HB 2240 which would restrict firearm magazine capacities.

That bill and a bill requiring concealed carry permit holders to have mandatory training, among other things, was defeated.

Whew!

Washington office of firearm violence prevention

Posted on by

Via email from Luis we have this:

This bill just passed the senate, the implications are that, is almost certain that it will passed the house and become law.

This is a tax payer funded, new agency, to take your 2nd amendment rights, capable of issuing  grants to Bloomberg gun control organizations.

Heavy sigh.

If it were an agency with a charter to prevent criminal violence I won’t mind too much. But the way it is worded they could easily conclude that eliminating the use of firearms for self-defense is a positive goal and spend taxpayer money to achieve that goal.