We should do our best to identify possible shooters and if possible, consciously work on not creating new shooters. The only way to do that is to either ban guns or learn as much about shooters as possible.
Althea Brown
June 10, 2014
Comment to Bullet-Resistant Blanket Could Protect Kids Against School Shootings
[Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
From CalGunLaws.com:
The ultimate example of a complete refusal to confront reality. This is the answer of sheep. “Baaa, baaa, if I lay still and play dead maybe the wolf won’t eat me. I’ll be especially protected by this bright ass orange target thing. Nobody could possible figure out I’m under here.”
It’s not just that our country is becoming so divorced from reality that our solutions to problems have crossed the line to full-on completely mentally retarded, they have become completely and utterly insane.
Greg Hamilton
June 24, 2014
Facebook post about this product supposedly to protect kids from being shot at school.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
The University of Idaho has announced their new policy on concealed carry (FAQ here). This was forced upon them by the legislature (and Mike contributed a great deal to this) and the administration is obviously still hostile to people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Some school authorities have come right out and said, “The Second Amendment does not apply to schools.”
If someone sees a person with a gun:
…the safest course of action is to call the Police Department by dialing 911. They will respond and make contact with an individual to determine if that person is an authorized permit holder and is carrying a weapon legitimately.
This is the recommended procedure even if all appearances are the individual is legally carrying.
But the issue that bugs me the most is:
Q 14. Are authorized permit holders allowed to possess or store their weapons in married student housing?
A – No. Any building located on or within the campus area owned by the University to house persons residing on campus as students is considered a “student dormitory or residence hall” under the law, and possession or storage of weapons in married student housing is prohibited.
How is this not in direct violation of the Heller decision?
At least daughter Kim, once she gets her enhanced CWL, will be able to carry when she is on campus. That’s a big improvement.
Thank you Mike.
I am for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the right to bear arms….lets have that constitutional convention.
Neil Chasan
June 18, 2014
Comment to Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority
[Sorry Chasan. The Second Amendment only recognizes and protects the preexisting right so even if you could repeal the Second Amendment we would still have that right. And even worse for you is that gun owners would vigorously defend that right in absence of the Second Amendment.
This is no different than if by some great deception and fraud the First or 13th amendment were repealed. Those rights would still exist and those rights would still be exercised if Chasan and/or his ilk did attempt to infringe those rights.
And if Chasan thinks he can take my guns and ammo then he should come on over to my place and try. It turns out he is a “neighbor” (I cross Mercer Island, where he lives, nearly every day on my way to work). But then we all know he doesn’t want to do the dirty work. He wants someone else, with guns, to do it for him.—Joe]
For years the anti-gun people talked about terrible it was that people could buy guns even if they were on the terrorism watch list:
The Brady Campaign even coined the phrase “terror gap”. Their web page (http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/terrorgap) has since been taken down and the phrase cannot be found on their website (but you can find it on bradynetwork.org) but it was an issue they tried to get traction on (see also this search result).
And during that entire time we tried to tell them such action by the government would violate due process protections. They ignored us.
We were right. Again. And it is not just on the constitutionality of using such a list to deny someone their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. The present implementation of the “no fly list” itself is a violation of due process:
A federal judge on Tuesday found unconstitutional the methods by which the federal government places U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents on a “no fly” list without letting them see the evidence against them, or letting them contest it.
…
“Accordingly, on this record the court concludes the absence of any meaningful procedures to afford plaintiffs the opportunity to contest their placement on the No-Fly List violates plaintiffs’ rights to procedural due process.”
The right to travel isn’t clearly spelled out like the right to keep and bear arms. A judge could (and may still) find a weasel worded way of saying you don’t have to be to able travel by commercial airplane as long as there exist private airplanes you can hire. Hence due process protections for the right to keep and bear arms should be even greater than for the right to travel.
This also has implications for mental health restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms which is something the anti-gun people are trying to implement.
Earlier today I saw this Tweet from @ATFHQ:
PHOTO: ATF & local partners take 73 illegal firearms off the streets of Bridgeport and New Haven CT.
The first thing that crossed my mind is that if those guns had been lying around on the streets near where I lived I would have been happy to pick them up without charge.
But that’s not what they meant by “firearms off the streets”. They actually forcibly took them from the people in possession of them.
The deceptive wording of taking them “off the streets” is intentional and serves a political purpose. Imagine the different political implications if were true and they instead said they took the “guns away from gangs.” Or they took the “guns away from violent felons.” Or they took the “guns away from white trash.” Or they took the “guns away from African-Americans.” Or they took the “guns away from Tea Baggers.” Or they took the “guns away from Jews.”
Some of those actions would not get a rise out of me. Others would have me calling for them to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Sure, Twitter isn’t an environment where the nuance of the operation can be explained. But even in their press release it is ambiguous how many of those guns were in the possession of violent felons when they took them:
The operation, headed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), resulted in the seizure of more than 73 illegal firearms and is expected to result in the prosecution of 154 individuals on federal or state charges.
By their own words not all of those people could have been illegally in possession of firearms.
And look at the resources invested to get just 73 firearms “off the streets”:
In March 2014, the ATF and the Bridgeport and New Haven Police Departments launched “Operation Samson” a multi-layered initiative targeting violent criminals and illegal firearm possession and firearm trafficking in New Haven and Bridgeport. As part of the initiative, approximately 40 ATF special agents and personnel from Connecticut and across the country were deployed with New Haven and Bridgeport Police to conduct numerous covert operations. The combined law enforcement team brought a range of expertise to the operation, including tactical, technical, analytical, undercover skills and supervisory experience.
Several other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies supported the initiative as investigations expanded into other cities and towns in Connecticut and across state lines.
The initiative employed intelligence-led policing to determine where to place resources in order to have the greatest impact. During Operation Samson, law enforcement personnel conducted approximately 425 operations, which included undercover meetings, controlled purchases of firearms and narcotics, and the execution of search and arrest warrants. As a result, a total of 80 individuals have been charged, or are expected to be charged, with a variety of federal firearms, narcotics and robbery violations.
40 ATF people, plus local cops, executed 425 operations over the course of three months to confiscate 73 guns? Assuming those guns were taken from violent gangs how long do you think it takes for the gangs to replace them? Maybe a week? Or is a day more realistic?
Another thing that pushed a button for me was what the U.S. Prosecutor said:
There is no higher calling in law enforcement than preventing violent crime,” stated U.S. Attorney Deirdre M. Daly.
Perhaps she would understand my concern if the force of government were to be used to prevent her from committing an act of prostitution or adultery by requiring she wear a chastity belt remotely controlled by government morality officers. Government has no business preventing crime through the arrest and prosecution of people when there are no victims. They should only be allowed to punish those who have victimized others.
But most importantly who were those guns really taken from? They don’t really say. The words they use appear to be deliberately ambiguous. Were these firearms taken from people who had not victimized anyone?
Taking guns “off the street” is deliberately deceptive. It makes it easy for everyone to be accepting of what may be totally inappropriate behavior. We shouldn’t let them get away with it. Make them be specific about their actions so people can better judge their actions and hold them accountable.
From Chicago:
Chicago aldermen on Wednesday unanimously passed what Mayor Rahm Emanuel said is a “tough, smart and enforceable” ordinance that allows gun shops within city limits but regulates where they can exist and mandates that all sales have a video record.
…
firearms dealers will need to pay a $3,800 licensing fee and abide by a 72-hour waiting period for guns and a 12-hour waiting period for rifles and shotguns. A should [sic, perhaps they mean “store”] will also only be able to sell one gun per month per buyer.
Furthermore, retailers would face zoning restrictions would not be permitted to exist within 500 feet of any school or park.
I look forward to them being slapped down even harder by the courts. I suppose the courts have to get prosecutors to file charges and give them a trial for violation of 18 USC 242 and can’t just convict and sentence them on the spot. Although I’m pretty sure they can rule the new law is in violation of the previous court orders and demand they comply or be fined.
It’s time for them to give the Bill of Rights some respect so I’m in favor of all of them getting a felony conviction and spending a few years in prison. Perhaps they would have time to learn about the constitution while there. They could think of it as an educational experience.
BANNING GUNS WILL END CRIME. BAN ALL GUNS FROM EARTH.
Peace Lover
June 24, 2014
Comment to The real gun problem is mental health, not the NRA
[Simple solutions from simple minds.—Joe]
In addition to offering the opportunity to view extensive wheat variety trials, the field day will introduce a first in wheat breeding – a new variety released jointly by the University of Idaho and Washington State University.
The new soft white winter wheat will be named UI-WSU Huffman in honor of UI College of Agricultural and Life Sciences’ alumnus Bradley Huffman, who suddenly and tragically died last year at age 22. Bradley grew up near Cavendish on a family farm operated by his parents, Doug and Julie Huffman. He worked in the university wheat breeding program throughout his undergraduate training. During this time his contribution to the breeding program was significant, said UI plant breeder Jack Brown.
This new variety offers “high yields under dryland conditions, with excellent quality and good resistance to two important wheat diseases, Cephalosporium stripe and yellow stripe rust,” said Brown, who oversaw the variety’s later development and release.
UI-WSU Huffman is a joint release because it resulted from a cross between Bruneau, a cultivar developed by former UI wheat breeder Bob Zemetra, and a wheat breeding line developed at Washington State University.
The new variety will be licensed by and marketed exclusively by Limagrain Cereal Seeds. All of the seed royalties that would normally be allocated to the cultivar breeder and the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences will go to the Bradley Huffman Scholarship for Plant Breeding and Plant Sciences to commemorate Bradley Huffman’s life.
Brad was my nephew. He died just a little over a year ago.
In the “it’s a small world” category, Jack Brown, quoted above, has kids that went to school with mine. Almost 20 years ago he was also on the same bus as my ex-wife and I when we went on a multi-day field trip with the kids to Oregon to learn more about the Oregon Trail. He was Brad’s boss at the University of Idaho. It was his idea for the naming of the wheat and the scholarship in honor of Brad and he pushed it through the bureaucracy.
Why don’t you do this every day?
Ben
June 21, 2014
[This was after shooting a dozen or so boomers at a surprise private Boomershoot party. It was for his birthday.
Ben and three others drove from the Seattle area to the Boomershoot site. There they helped Barb and I make about 60 reactive targets and clean up Mecca. We then went to the tree-line and while Barb mounted the targets on stakes I gave them some safety and shooting instructions.
They were all essentially new shooters. I positioned them about 30 yards away and with an AR equipped with a low powered scope shot from a bench. The seven inch targets were easy pickings. There were almost zero misses.
Only one of them had ever fired an AR style rifle. Occasionally I had to remind them of one of the safety rules but they did well. And of course that new shooter smile was made all the bigger with his first shot detonating a boomer..
—Joe]
Update: More pictures.
Cleaning up Mecca while Barb shrink-wraps the rest of the targets.
Cleaning up the mixing equipment.
Barb, both my brothers, and I went for a walk yesterday to check out one of the WiFi Nanostations I put up to get a new internet connection to brother Doug the last time I visited the farm. Doug just has a temporary installation for the solar power and the mounting of the Nanostation is still the steel fencepost I used but it is still working:
The signal strength at this station was about 10 dB lower than the last time I was there and by realigning the antenna we regained 3 dB but we were unable to account for the other 7 dB loss.
It was only a short distance away so I suggested we visit the highest point on the farm. According to the GPS on my phone the altitude is 3161 feet (+/- 10’) above sea level.
From there I had brother Doug take a picture of Barb and I:
As you can see in the background there is a very nice view from there. Some of the geological features are 30+ miles away.
From the New York Post (H/T @michellemalkin):
The wild night began Saturday in a tavern in College Point, Queens, where boat owner Craig Gallo, 51, James Benenato, 60, and Mary Ann Belson, also 60, began chatting between drinks, another source said.
Neither of the two men had met Belson before.
Gallo, who lives in New Jersey and works for a financial company on Long Island, invited them aboard for a moonlight cruise. And before very long, the boat was rocking.
The joyride ended abruptly at the end of Runway 22, where the boat got impaled on a lighting stanchion.
…
Before the wreck, “a consensual three-way sex endeavor was going on,’’ the source added.
“There’s a moral here: If you’re feeling amorous aboard a boat, I suggest you drop your anchor before you drop your pants.’’
I don’t have a boat but perhaps this is news you can use.
Oh boy! The latest copy of: Tiny Penis Magazine is out! #NRA #TeaParty #tgdn #pjnet #UniteBlue #tcot #gunsense pic.twitter.com/UEMdp5bTgl
Ron *Ron-DMC* Hall @RonHall46
Tweeted June 6, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a Tweet from Linoge.—Joe]
Even if there had been two, not 74 gun incidents after Sandy Hook, the government and the people should endeavor to change gun laws.
Nelson Linscott
Kittery, Maine
June 17, 2014
Gun control is just common sense
[And just what changes does he imagine will reduce the number to one or less every 18 months?
Don’t ever let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
This does not mean the end of the Second Amendment. We can respect gun and hunter rights and still curb gun violence. Australia has done it. Other countries have done it.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
June 20, 2014
Other Opinion: Gun control advocates need to push issue at American polling places
[“Australia has done it”? By confiscating almost all semi-auto long guns? That is not allowed by the Second Amendment.
Guns “in common use” are specifically called out as being protected in the Heller decision. And if you want to look at the Miller decision only guns with a militia purpose are protected. Hence a confiscation scheme like Australia’s would be illegal and would be vigorously resisted in this country.
Furthermore the Second Amendment does not protect hunting. So don’t bother bringing that straw man up.—Joe]
Via Bitter:
A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit by a hunters’ group that had challenged Pennsylvania’s long-standing ban on Sunday hunting, saying she saw no proof the hunters’ constitutionally protected rights were being harmed.
While I think it should be beyond the power of the government to ban hunting (at this time I’m not going to argue about regulation of hunting) I really have to squint to see the Second Amendment protecting hunting. I think it probably is the correct decision.
I think this is something we really can and should use to our advantage. We frequently hear that the anti-gun people don’t want to take our hunting guns away. Now, if they say that, we have a very powerful argument against them taking non-hunting guns.
Since the Second Amendment doesn’t protect hunting, and it is an individual right, then the Second Amendment must be to protect non-hunting firearm ownership. If not then the Second Amendment has been defined into meaninglessness.
With the evidence we have for the Second Amendment protecting firearms having a military purpose we now can insist the Second Amendment protects AK-47’s, AR-15’s, M-16’s, 50 BMG’s, and any other militia small arms.
Most gun owners in this country are rural bumpkins who don’t have any education at all.
Tiffany Miller
June 17, 2014
Comment to Hillary Clinton On Gun Control: We Can’t Let ‘A Minority Of People’ Terrorize The Majority
[This is what they think of you.
Via her Facebook page we have some more insight from our intellectual superior:
Bigotry, prejudice, and ignorance. It looks like someone has a problem with diversity.—Joe]
From SPD Blotter:
When officers contacted the man—who had apparently torn out patches of his own hair—he refused to provide officers with his identity, giving them a fake name. Then he took off running.
Officers chased the man, who stopped mid-flight, picked up a large rock and turned back toward officers. Police told the man to drop the rock, which he did, before he again fled down the street, stripping off his remaining clothing as he ran.
Officers eventually found the now-completely naked suspect lying on his back in a planting strip in the 2000 block of Minor Ave E—about a half-mile from the scene of the original incident—and took him into custody.
The man told officers he had taken cocaine, methamphetamines, LSD and other unidentified drugs earlier in the evening.
After officers arrested the man, he began scratching all over his body, asked officers for his clothes, and then complained he was too hot.
…
Police weren’t immediately able to identify the man, who was unable to provide police with his real name or home address.
If the guy had tried to throw the rock at someone there is a fair chance it would have been sufficient grounds to shoot him. Don’t get your brain so scrambled with drugs that someone else is justified in scrambling it with lead. The high you get from the drugs isn’t worth the downer from the lead.
You haven’t seen a lot of outrage over the Abramski case in the gun blogosphere. It’s been mostly just a statement of the facts (see here, here, here, and here). There are some dissents (here and here) but while I agree Abramski didn’t do anything wrong in regards to the intent of congress he clearly did violate an ATF regulation. We were hoping to get the adults to put the ATF bully in their place for writing regulations unsupported by law. That didn’t happen.
That regulation should not exist because it doesn’t reflect the intent of the law in all cases. The law was intended to prevent guns from being sold to people forbidden by law from owning a gun. The question 11.a on form 4473 asks (bold in original):
Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.
The instructions do not include an exception for the situation Abramski found himself in. Hence it is clear that Abramski violated the letter of the regulation when he said that he was the actual buyer.
If I only focus on the narrow issues affecting of this case I see two things to complain about. 1) The prosecutor should never have pursued this case. Abramski didn’t deliver the gun into the hands of someone forbidden to own it. Didn’t he have a cases where there were victims to spend his time on? That the government was lied to over something this minor just doesn’t seem to be worth prosecuting over. 2) Herschel Smith explains the second issue in much better words than I can:
Regulations take on the force of law after comments responding to entries in the Federal Register are summarily ignored by the agency doing the regulating. It makes little sense to respond with comments when the regulator’s mind is made up. These regulations frequently far surpass the law in breadth, scope, depth and magnitude.
…
this kind of regulation seems onerous compared to what Congress wrote, but it is latitude given (and taken) by the federal regulators. If there is a problem with legislating from the bench, there is even a worse problem with regulating by the executive branch from inside the beltway. The problem will continue (and grow) as long as the public abides the abuse.
I haven’t read the briefs leading up to this decision but I don’t think the supporters of this case should have taken it to the Supreme Court. The only way they could have had a good chance of winning is if they had a lot of case law that supported attacking the lower court ruling on the basis of the overreaching regulation contrary to the law.
In order to get the case law to support slapping down zealous regulators we need to attack them on something less contentious like regulations forbidding the aging of cheese on wood shelves. But in those cases the regulators are going to cave like a school yard bully confronted by an adult without giving us the case law we need to confront the bullies in the ATF.
