Category Archives: Politics

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

Posted on by

As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. A federal law along the lines of the Florida statute — overriding all contradictory state and local laws and acknowledging that the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a privilege and immunity of citizenship — is needed to correct the outrageous conduct of state and local officials operating under discretionary licensing systems.

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards page 30
[This essay was originally published in 1993 by The Public Interest.

What he says we needed 25 years ago, while closer than ever before, is still not a reality. Let’s keep pushing and get this item checked off our list.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Firearms Policy @gunpolicy

Posted on by

The anti-gun media has decided that it is more important to push their agenda than to tell the truth.

ConcealedCarryAndViolentCrime

Firearms Policy @gunpolicy
Tweeted on January 29, 2018
[The graph is a little difficult to understand so here is a bit of help. The shaded background colors are the CCW population coverage (units are on the right side of the graph), the maroon line with the 49% reduction label is the Violent Crime rate (presumably in per 100K people) with the units on the left side of the graph. The other crime types follow in a similar format.

We have the principles, the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and the data. All of them supporting the pro-rights side. The anti-gun media, cannot innocently claim ignorance or even stupidity. It has to be maliciousness. You have to ask, “What’s the real reason they continue to push their anti-gun agenda? They are pro-criminal, probably always have been and always will be and for a “good” reason.—Joe]

Exercise of rights at a minimum

Posted on by

This is very telling:

Wide-open policies on gun laws do not reflect the mood or makeup of most New Jerseyans. While they are not always successful, New Jersey gun laws are written to help keep the number of guns at a minimum. Fewer guns will make our law enforcement officers’ jobs that much easier, and make our streets that much safer.

What if the same principle was applied to other specific enumerated rights:

  • Keep books at a minimum (and ban the exceptionally dangerous ones such as The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, The Little Red Book, and all religious books)
  • Keep political speech at a minimum (and ban the most dangerous speech—that which advocates the policies of the political left (see the books above)
  • Keep the right to a lawyer present while being questioned at a minimum
  • Keep people of color from voting at a minimum

There are no second class rights. All these rights must respected and preserved. Essentially all New Jersey politicians need to be either prosecuted and/or be declared varmints with no bag limits and a decent bounty paid.

Quote of the day—Divemedic

Posted on by

I became a teacher after I retired from over 20 years as a firefighter and paramedic, where I spent part of my career working with the SWAT team. I spent years as an IDPA competitor, and I am a military veteran. I have carried a concealed weapon for more than 25 years. A permit that has allowed me to carry a weapon into McDonald’s, Disney, public parks, streets and sidewalks. Not once have I used that weapon in a threatening or illegal manner.

…

I would, if necessary, lay down my life in defense of the children that have been placed in my care. Even in Kindergarten. Possibly YOUR children, if you are reading this.

Except the politicians have declared that I am not permitted to do so, because they don’t trust me with a firearm once I cross an imaginary line and enter school property, even though they trust me to carry one everywhere else. So instead, I must sit in the dark, unarmed, unable to protect those children, hiding and waiting for help that may not come, wait with your children to die at the hands of a madman who didn’t obey your laws or your signs.

Divemedic
January 8, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—James Comer
[The foolishness of the “gun free zone” laws is so obvious one must conclude the politicians are incredible ignorant, stupid, and/or evil. As the data and bodies stack up I’m more and more inclined to place my bet on “they are evil”. More bodies gives them more opportunities to accumulate power.—Joe]

Representative Adam Smith on reciprocity

Posted on by

Almost a year ago I wrote my U.S. representative in Congress encouraging him to support concealed carry reciprocity. Here is his response:

AdamSmith20170323-0

AdamSmith20170323-1

A couple of things stand out. The first is that he says:

The responsibility of carrying a concealed handgun is massive, and ensuring the safety of the public at large by requiring background checks and training should be an absolute minimum.

People who have a Washington State concealed pistol license, CPL as it is called in Washington, should see something jump out at them over this.

Washington State doesn’t have a training requirement. Hence, if this were a problem, Smith should be able to show that Washington State CPL holders have more firearm accidents or engage in more illegal shootings than people from other states with a training requirement. No such data exists. Probably because it is so rare that such a thing happens.

I have to conclude that Smith was just rationalizing the decision he had already made.

Next, a twofer:

I will continue to advocate for putting policies in place that protect our children and communities while maintaining the rights granted by the Second Amendment.

His opposition to reciprocity is for “the children”! How many children in this country are shot each year by people with concealed carry licenses? My guess it is very close to zero. I’ve never heard of it happening. And I’m pretty sure the anti-gun people would make sure the mainstream media know about it. The same goes for someone with a concealed carry license shooting up a community. It has to be very rare. The data shows that, in Texas, compared to the police they are 10 times less likely to commit a misdemeanor or felon and over seven times less likely to commit a firearms violation of some sort. Other states show similar low rates.

Again, this has to be rationalization for his decision rather than rational thought to arrive at a decision.

“Granted by the Second Amendment”? This is a common “misunderstanding” but I expect my representatives in Congress to be informed. My guess is that there is a good chance this was deliberate rather than ignorance. It should be clear if you actually read the Second Amendment that it references a preexisting right rather than granting a right. This was made all the more clear in U S v Cruikshank:

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…

It is long past time for me to start educating my representative.

Update: I sent him an email:

In a letter you sent me on March 17th of last year you made claims which are not supported by, and/or are contrary to, the available evidence regarding people with licenses to carry concealed firearms and the Second Amendment. The full details are in my blog post here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2018/01/28/representative-adam-smith-on-reciprocity. The short version is that since Washington State does not require training for a concealed pistol license those opposed to reciprocity between states regarding licenses and claiming training “should be an absolute minimum” should also be able to point to evidence showing Washington State concealed pistol license holders are more prone to misuse of their firearms. To my knowledge no such evidence exists.

Furthermore using this criteria to oppose the law adversely affects the civil rights of residents of Washington State when they travel to states that will not issue licenses to Washington residents. Blocking reciprocity has a lesser impact on the rights of people of other states who can easily obtain Washington licenses for their travels to Washington State. You are acting against the interest of your own constituents by taking this stand.

Please read my blog post and reconsider your stance on this important civil rights issue.

Thank you.

Regards,

Joe Huffman

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Progressives who demand gun control sometimes tell me they want to prevent crimes rather than rely on punishment of the perpetrators.

If crime prevention is their preferred approach to these sort of things then why don’t they advocate for building “The Wall”?

Quote of the day—James Comer

Posted on by

Anytime there’s a tragedy like that you hear gun control advocates spin their liberal beliefs, At the end of the day, it’s illegal to carry a gun in a school and it’s illegal to shoot at anybody. And yet this 15-year-old broke those laws. You can’t legislate against evil.

I don’t think there’s a way to pass a bill to prevent something like that. We need better security in our schools. We have a lot of security at our courthouses. How do we increase security at schools? That’s what I’m going to be talking about.

James Comer
U.S. Representative from Kentucky
January 24, 2018
Rep. Comer advocates Goodlatte bill as DACA solution
[A bit of clarification.

You can legislate punishment for evil doers. But you can’t legislate a prevention for evil deeds.

In the case at hand the best solution is probably to legislate the removal of laws. Get rid of the laws that punish teachers and parents who bring guns to school for the purpose of protecting innocent life.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James A. Garfield

Posted on by

If there be one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire better than another, it is a brave man,—it is the man who dares to look the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil.

James A. Garfield
Found in The book of courage;: A little book of brave thoughts by Edwin Osgood Grover, page 55.
Copyright 1924.
[I was pulling a different book of quotes off a shelf in my library when this little book fell onto the floor. I didn’t recognize it. I don’t remember seeing it before, but I must have. Inside it had my grandmother’s name on it. She died in the early 1980’s.

This quote struck me as applicable to present day politics regarding gun ownership. For decades we have tried to “play nice” and just get them to leave us alone. Read The Gun Rights War (strongly recommended for anyone who considers themselves a gun rights advocate). There are numerous examples such as this, and this. we can conclude Knox is right when he says,

There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.

…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

These people will say whatever it takes, no matter how deceptive, and suppress factual data to achieve their goals. These are evil people and it is time we stand up to politicians who advocate for infringements upon our rights. We must tell them they have no business being a public servant. They belong in prison.

When we are soft and wishy-washy people lose interest and forget that you even said anything. Be firm. Be strong. Have courage and dare to win. Remember that one of President Trump’s most memorable lines from the debates with Hillary Clinton was, “Because you’d be in jail”. And he won. We can win too. —Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Koning

Posted on by

The standard statement by police commissioners and other politicians in high crime cities is “there are too many guns on the street”… I have never heard any of these idiots say “there are too many criminals on the street”.

This is why those are high crime cities.

Paul Koning
January 21, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Adam Smith
[As I have said before:

Problem statements drive the solution. Incorrect and unarticulated problem statements limit the range of solutions.

Defining the problem is sometimes the most difficult. And if you let your enemies define the problem you cannot win. The best you can hope for is that you don’t lose.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adam Smith

Posted on by

There are far, far too many guns in this country.

Adam Smith
U.S. Representative (WA-9)
January 29, 2013
Rep. Smith visits Bellevue High, discusses gun control and I-502
[And if there are “too many guns” what does that suggest needs to be done? Get rid of many of them, of course!

This is my representative in congress.

I have some work to do.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Dan M. Peterson

Posted on by

The national law enforcement organization PoliceOne conducted its Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes. Respondents were asked, “Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than ten rounds would reduce violent crime?” PoliceOne Survey, Question 6. The results were overwhelming: 95.7% (14,013) of the respondents said “no,” only 2.7% (391) said “yes,” and 1.6% (238) were unsure. This extraordinary consensus by law enforcement professionals that even a nationwide ban on magazines will not reduce violent crime is in stark contrast to the State’s position that banning magazines already possessed by law-abiding citizens is somehow a solution to violent crime.

Dan M. Peterson
January 12, 2018
No. 17-56081
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS AND STATE AND LOCAL FIREARMS RIGHTS GROUPS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
Page 18
An alternate copy of the brief is here.
[The referenced survey is here. An alternate copy of the survey is here.

We have the facts on our side. We have the police on our side. We have the U.S. Constitution on our side. And most importantly we have the moral philosophy on our side.

It’s time we politically crushed those who dare to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms and prosecute the perpetrators.—Joe]

Law enforcement say they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws!

Posted on by

I stumbled across a survey of police officers taken in 2013 on gun policy (back up copy here). Interesting. Very interesting. There were “15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes.”

Here are some highlights:

5. What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as “assault weapons,” would have on reducing violent crime?
                                                                                                                                     Response     Response                                                                                                                                       Percent            Count
 

Significant

 

  

   clip_image002[4]                                                                                                    1.6%

 

 227
 

Moderate

 

  

   clip_image004[4]                                                                                               6.0%

 

 885
 

None

 

  

   clip_image006[4]                              71.0%

 

 10,397
 

Negative

 

  

   clip_image008[4]                                                                               20.5%

 

 3,004
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image010[4]                                                                                                     0.9%

 129

                                                                                                                    answered question        14,642

 

6. Do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime?

                                                                                                                                    Response Response

                                          Percent    Count

Yes

  

   clip_image002[6]                                                                                                2.7%

 

 391

No

  

   clip_image004[6]   95.7%

 

 14,013
 

Unsure

 

   clip_image006[6]                                                                                                1.6%

 238
                                                                                                                        answered question   14,642


7. Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?
                                                                                                                                    Response    Response

                                                                                                                                      Percent         Count
 

Yes

 

  

   clip_image002[8]                                                                                     11.5%

 

  

1,684

 
 

No

 

  

   clip_image004[8]                  79.7%

 

  

11,663

 
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image006[8]                                                                                          8.8%

 

  

1,295

 

                                                                                                            answered question              14,642

 

11. Do you support the concept of a national database tracking all legal gun sales?

  

 

                                                                                                                              Response
                                                                                                                               Percent

Response
  Count
 

Yes

 

  

   clip_image002[10]                                                                   23.0%

 

  

3,334

 
 

No

 

  

   clip_image004[10]                     70.0%

 

  

10,155

 
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image006[10]                                                                                     7.1%

 

  

1,026

 

                                                                                                                    answered question

   14,515

 

19. Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?

  

 

 

                                                                                                                         Response
Percent

Response
Count
 

Yes, without question and without further
restrictions

 

  

   clip_image002[4]91.3%

 

  

12,968

 
 

No,
only law enforcement officers should carry
firearms

 

  

   clip_image004[4]                                                                    4.1%

 

  

586

 
 

Unsure/Neutral

 

  

   clip_image006[4]                                                                   4.5%

 

  

646

 

                                                                                                                    answered question

14,200


22. Considering the particulars of recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora, what level of impact do you think a legally-armed citizen could have made? Choose the statement that you feel is most accurate:

                                                                                                            Response  Response

                                                                                                                Percent      Count

Innocent casualties would likely have been avoided altogether

  

   clip_image002[6]                                                                               6.2%

 

 865

Casualties would likely have been reduced

  

   clip_image004[6]     80.0%

 

 11,215

There would have been no difference in outcome

  

   clip_image006[6]                                                                                 4.1%

 

 568

An active gunfight might have resulted in greater loss of innocent  lives

  

   clip_image008[4]                                                                                5.5%

 

 767

Unsure or prefer not to answer

  

   clip_image010[4]                                                                                 4.3%

 

 607

                                                                                                         answered question              14,022

This was what I found most interesting:

14. What is your opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions?

                                                                                                          Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count
 

Very Favorable

 

  

   clip_image002                                           48.8%

 

 7,004
 

Favorable

 

  

   clip_image004                                                                      22.2%

 

 3,181
 

Unfavorable

 

  

   clip_image006                                                                                     9.6%

 

  

1,382

 
 

Very unfavorable

 

  

   clip_image008                                                                                        7.2%

 

  

1,029

 
 

Unsure/Neutral

 

  

   clip_image010                                                                                  12.2%

 

 1,753

                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

 

15. If you were Sheriff or Chief, how would you respond to more restrictive gun laws?

                                                                                                           Response      Response

                                                                                                             Percent            Count
 

Not enforce and join in the public, vocal opposition effort

 

  

   clip_image012                                         44.9%

 

  

6,440

 
 

Not enforce and quietly lead agency in opposite direction

 

  

   clip_image014                                                                    17.2%

 

 2,468
 

Enforce and publicly support the proposed legislation

 

  

   clip_image016                                                                              7.9%

 

 1,132
 

Enforce and quietly lead agency in support of legislation

 

  

   clip_image018                                                                           10.0%

 

  

1,440

 
 

Unsure

 

  

   clip_image020                                                                  20.0%

 

  

2,869

 

                                                                                                          answered question              14,349

Over 70% have a favorable opinion to law enforcement not enforcing more restrictive gun law!

Over 60% would not enforce more restrictive gun laws if they were Sherriff or Chief! Less that 20% say they would definitely enforce more restrictive gun laws!

Tell this to the politicians who claim to represent you.

Keep this in mind when you consider your response to more restrictive gun laws.

Quote of the day—Todd Herman

Posted on by

Senate Bill 6146 and its House companion, HB 2666, would allow local governments — cities and counties — to determine their own gun regulation laws. With this passed, Seattle will sprint toward a massive and expensive over-reach for gun control in Washington state by attempting to ban all guns.

This will accomplish several things. The Seattle City Council will enjoy virtue signaling again; they will please their base of genital-hat wearing, business-hating, permanent adolescents. They will spend massive amounts of taxpayer money and they will create record spikes in gun purchases and massive donations to pro self-defense groups. Lastly, City Attorney Pete Holmes, who loves heroin use in Seattle, may get a free trip to Washington D.C. to lose in front of the Supreme Court.

Todd Herman
January 15, 2018
Washington gun control: Dems and Inslee play games
[You might think “ban all guns” is an exaggeration. But remember, Seattle already bans the carrying of slingshots and Airsoft guns. Do you think they will find real guns any more palatable?

Even if they don’t ban the possession of everything except the home possession of the exact model of gun Heller took home in Washington D.C. you can safely bet the result will be an extreme chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. See also this blog post comparing gun ownership in the U.S. to the plight of Jews in 1931 Germany.—Joe]

Anti-gun bills in Washington State

Posted on by

I received an email from Firearms Policy Coalition this morning:

The
State Senate Law and Justice Committee is going
to hear FIVE anti-gun bills THIS MORNING!

The
myriad of anti-2A legislation that this would bring is devastating.

  1. SB 6146 would allow local mayors and city governments
    run ramshod over your 2A rights.

  2. SB 6049 would ban any magazine that holds over 10
    rounds.

  3. SB 5463 would hold gun owners criminally liable for a
    thief breaking into their home.

  4. SB 5992 is the ridiculous “Trigger Activation Device”
    ban that would effectively outlaw most firearms accessories.

  5. SB 5444 which is the crown jewel of gun control:
    Washington’s “Assault Weapons” Ban.

We need to take action on these bills
NOW!

Stop These Anti-Gun
Bills!

There’s
very little time left for us to make our voices heard and block
them!

Send
a message to your legislators and tell them to OPPOSE SB 6146, SB 6049, SB 5463, SB 5992, and SB 5444 today!

If you click on their links it will take you to a web page that allows you to easily send letters to your Washington State legislative creatures.

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Posted on by

You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing. If you have been living in a world where outcomes are everything, you may have a very hard time understanding bureaucratic thinking or practices.

Thomas Sowell
November 27, 2003
Random Thoughts
[And so it is with the bureaucracies associated with gun ownership and explosives storage.—Joe]

The button

Posted on by

This has more than a little truth to it:

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Daughter Jaime describes the situation a little differently. She says it’s like President Trump has a laser pointer and the political left is a bunch of dogs chasing the dot of light.

I can see that.

Why are anti-gun people so violent?

Posted on by

From New Hampshire:

State Rep. Katherine Rogers, D-Concord, pleaded guilty to assault and was sentenced on Friday in Concord District Court in connection with a confrontation last year with well-known gun-rights advocate Susan Olsen.

The misdemeanor charge stems from an exchange between Rogers and Olsen during a recount of ballots for a state Senate seat in November 2016. Rogers was charged in August.
Olsen was allegedly sitting next to Rogers when Olsen asked Rogers to move the ballots closer. Olsen says that was when Rogers grabbed her and hit her on the side of her head.

And we have more details here:

Olsen stated that she said to Rogers, “If you strike me again, I will have you arrested.” She alleged that Rogers, a former county attorney, countered, “in a low, mocking, angry whisper,” something to the effect of “Hit me. I know you want to. Go ahead. Hit me.”

Olsen claimed that Rogers was “smirking” while she was speaking and then, reportedly leaned in further, “sounding almost like she was daring me,” and allegedly stated, “I know what you want to do. You want to shoot me.”

One of the signs of certain personality disorders is that they think they can read the minds of other people (ask me in person about some of my experiences with this). I strongly suspect a large number of anti-gun people have mental issues.

Why are these people so violent? Oh, I remember now. It’s in their nature.

Quote of the day—Tyler Yzaguirre

Posted on by

The only people who benefit from stricter gun control laws are criminals. That’s why states and cities across America should be looking for other, more promising ways to reduce crime.

Tyler Yzaguirre
January 7, 2018
To reduce shootings, look for better ideas beyond gun control
[The criminals are both the obvious robbers and thugs as well as the not quite as obvious politicians who lust after power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Larry Pratt

Posted on by

We don’t need any opinion from the ATF to tell us what “shall not be infringed” means. It means, among other things, there should be no ATF.  We don’t have a Bureau of Speech and Thought Control because that would be as unconstitutional as the ATF. Every day that agency exists is another day the federal government violates the Constitution.

Larry Pratt
Executive Director Emeritus Gun Owners of American
December 29, 2017
Gun Owners of America: Stop Funding the ATF and They’ll Leave Our Bump Stocks Alone
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Let’s open another front

Posted on by

In the last twenty years most of the progress we have made in the gun rights movement has been in the domain of self-defense. This is our strongest point. We now have concealed carry in nearly all states and even in Washington D.C. with Constitutional Carry (called “Vermont Carry” when I first got involved in the movement) making good progress.

Alan Korwin explains there is another front we can open on the war with the anti-gun forces using our strongest weapon:

The Gun-Free Zone Liability Act of 2018

  • Improving American Safety and Security
  • Eliminating Bias and Prejudice
  • Restoring Constitutional Values
  • Dropping the Pretense: “We don’t want your kind eating here.”

Establishes liability for harm caused by criminal conduct, when such conduct is wholly or partially enabled by limiting an individual’s right or ability to self defense.

We are far better off making the anti-gun people defend their weakest positions rather than let them attack with their strongest weapons. Both sides have limited resources. Make them expend their resources on defense rather than on offense.