Quote of the Day

If anti-gun lawmakers can continue to chip away at gun ownership, in any small, even meaningless, way, they feel vindicated in their efforts at disarming honest Americans.

Doug Howlett
March 5, 2024
Fixing What Ain’t Broke: Hawaii Seeks to Ban .50-Caliber Guns – The Truth About Guns

It’s not about public safety. And it never has been. For probably most people it is about the feelings. But it has also been about the safety of criminals. This includes the common everyday criminals as well as the government thugs and tyrants.

Image via Rolf.

Quote of the Day

Today, we join 27 other states in passing Constitutional Carry. I promised the folks of Louisiana that I would champion Constitutional Carry into law, and within two months, I have honored that commitment.

Jeff Landry
Governor of Louisiana
March 5, 2024
NRA-ILA | Louisiana Becomes Nation’s 28th State with NRA-Backed Constitutional Carry (nraila.org)

Twenty seven states out of 50. That is a good start.

Another 23 then we can start working on Canada, Mexico, and other human rights abusing nations. I think some economic sanctions would be a good start. If not, there are more “persuasive” options available.

Quote of the Day

The state court mistakenly did not regard the pistol or the billy to be the sorts of arms protected by the Second Amendment. Instead, only weapons of war were covered by the Constitution, according to Workman. As to other kinds of arms, Workman incorrectly observed,

in regard to the kind of arms referred to in the [Second] amendment, it must be held to refer to the weapons of warfare to be used by the militia, such as swords, guns, rifles, and muskets,—arms to be used in defending the State and civil liberty,—and not to pistols, bowie-knife, brass knuckles, billies, and such other weapons . . . .

(Emphasis added.). In short, Workman held that weapons of war are protected by the Second Amendment but found weapons like the billy are not weapons of war, and therefore are not protected.

Workman was wrong in concluding the Second Amendment does not cover arms like the pistol and the billy.

…

The Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to defend one’s self with dangerous and lethal firearms. But not everybody wants to carry a firearm for self defense. Some prefer less-lethal weapons. A billy is a less-lethal weapon that may be used for self-defense. It is a simple weapon that most anybody between the ages of eight and eighty can fashion from a wooden stick, or a clothes pole, or a dowel rod. One can easily imagine countless citizens carrying these weapons on daily walks and hikes to defend themselves against attacks by humans or animals. To give full life to the core right of self-defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms like the billy for lawful purposes.

Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Senior United States District Judge
February 23, 2024
Russell Fouts et al, v. Rob Bonta

2^nd Amendment rulings by Judge Benitez are always a pleasure to read.

I especially like the above parts. California should not have tried to defend this law. They ended up bringing up rulings to the attention of the courts and 2^nd Amendment lawyers that it was commonly understood that the 2nd Amendment protects weapons of war, and California is so far out of touch with reality that they banned possession of sticks which any eight year old could have picked up while walking through a park.

The unsaid part here is that if weapons of war are protected then these would be tyrants have to find mantra other than, “REMOVE WEAPONS OF WAR FROM OUR STREETS”.

Quote of the Day

For long time my own take is that if a person is too dangerous to have arms, they are too dangerous to be out running around free. Obviously those who wish to curtail or eliminate our right to arms think otherwise. As a society we simply MUST convict and lock away or do away with violent felons. Society’s tolerance of violent criminals is dumbfounding.

Carl from Chicago
July 12, 2023
Comment to Of Arms and the Law: Supreme Court case: US v. Rahimi

I’ve been saying that first sentence since at least the late 1990’s. Can anyone honestly demonstrate that it is wrong in some way?

It just seems so obvious and correct. Why doesn’t it catch on? What am I missing? Other than, of course, those in power don’t really want the violent crime problem solved.

Quote of the Day

Life is now hard for everyone, not only the stupid. We aren’t in Kansas or the 1980’s anymore. The people who did this to America and the American people have names and addresses. Many of the people they have screwed over are the ones with the 300 million guns they want to confiscate. At some point, those guns will need to be used. Then we’ll see whose life gets hard.

Jim Quinn
February 18, 2024
HARD DECISIONS USED TO LEAD TO AN EASY LIFE – The Burning Platform

The total number of guns in private hands in the USA is more than that. Some say 393 million, other say 466 million. And several years ago I recall reading estimates of 600 million. But let’s go with his number of 300 million.

How many jackbooted thugs and tyrants will be neutralized during the confiscation of, say, 10 guns? What if it were only one per ten guns? They will run out of diehard communist SOBs before they make a dent in the total number of guns. And a lot fewer of those useful idiots won’t be participating in the reconstruction of our country. And those who contributed to the hard times yet made it through will likely continue to pay a price their entire lives for their poor decision making.

Quote of the Day

SB 1160 will give the state better data and help us understand how many firearms are in private hands and who owns them.

Anthony J. Portantino
California State Senator (D – Burbank)
February 14, 2024
Portantino Introduces Bill Requiring Annual Registration of Firearms (msn.com)

The story of the Belgium Corporal was a warning, not a how-to manual.

Also, as is fairly well know, people who are legally ineligible to own a gun cannot be prosecuted for failure to register their guns. This is because it would be a violation of their 5^th Amendment rights against self incrimination.

These politicians are pulling out all the stops to infringe on our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. I do not think I have ever seen this fast of pace of antigun laws. I cannot believe they are under any delusion of the laws being proposed, passed, and affirmed are actually constitutional. Yet, the do it anyway:

• Biden Signs Gun Control Executive Order Regulating Firearms (msn.com)
• Hawaii’s high court cites ‘The Wire’ in rebuke of US Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights (msn.com)
• Ban on “assault” weapons is back as Colorado lawmakers target high-powered guns (msn.com)
• ATF Preparing Rule To Regulate Private Gun Sales, Requiring Background Check (msn.com)

I hope they enjoy their trials. All the alternatives will be very ugly.

Quote of the Day

According to Ballotpedia data from last year, of the 31 states that allow voters to publicly indicate their political party affiliation, roughly 48 million were Democrats and 36 million were Republicans. The rest were independents, unaffiliated or members of another political party. By comparison, there are an estimated 133 million gun owners in the country, or roughly 40% of the population – a massive number that dwarfs all party affiliations combined – according to the Pew Research Center.

If gun owners ever voted as one homogeneous bloc, we would be unstoppable. Unfortunately, we all know there are gun owners and then there are folks who own a gun. It’s like the difference between someone with an old Fender in their closet and Angus Young.

Lee Williams
How Will You Support The Second Amendment Today? Tomorrow? (jpfo.org)
May 23, 2023

I have nothing to add.

Quote of the Day

What’s the process by which we can turn states into territories again?

Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X February 7, 2024

Read the entire thread for a fisking of The Hawaii Supreme Court in State of Hawai’i, v. Christopher L. Wilson.

I would like to suggest taking it even further and turning them back into their own nation again. Then applying sanctions for their human rights violations.

California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York could use some tough love as well. Or, we could just prosecute the criminals.

I’ve been reading various takes on this wild ruling and almost all have been aghast at the brazen defiance of SCOTUS and invocation of Aloha spirit to justify their decision.

Almost all. There is one article, A State Supreme Court Just Issued Another Devastating Rebuke of the U.S. Supreme Court,  which claims:

It’s an amazing case because the Hawaii Constitution has a provision that is the same as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It literally uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. And Justice Eddins said: Even though the provisions are the same, we will not interpret them the same way, because we think the U.S. Supreme Court clearly got it wrong in Heller when it said the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms.

…

I feel like these state judges are in conversation with each other about developing an alternate vision of the law that can thrive in state judiciaries. As SCOTUS moves in the wrong direction, they’re showing us what the right direction might be, and giving us a little hope for the future.

I find it very telling this court and these opinion writers believe they have a better take on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment than SCOTUS, when all nine justices agreed that the 2^nd Amendment protects an individual right. They are lying, profoundly ignorant, and/or delusional.