Idaho Campus Carry

Posted on by

I’ve been working on campus carry, really, since 2007. In 2008 I was forced to write some words, in order to get the preemption bill passed, that recognized the right of the universities to regulate firearms on their campuses. I have felt shitty about that since then. The best thing about S1254 (besides adding one more blade to the swiss army knife-like enhanced license) is that the language I wrote in 2008 is repealed. My sin was washed away today.

There is really a lot less than meets the eye to S1254. The colleges and universities were never granted authority to do something that was really none of their business in the first place and they didn’t even bother to provide any security to make sure that their policy was followed. The institutions pretended they had the authority to adopt policies banning guns. They were never willing to negotiate with people who felt they should be allowed to have a choice to carry a concealed weapon while on campus; they thought they could win through sheer bluster as they had before, and this is what they got for their arrogance. The people of Idaho and the legislature have decided that they want uniform firearms rules across the state. The private non-criminal behavior of adults who choose a means to defend themselves against rape, robbery, etc. is no more a legitimate concern of college administrators than it is of city or county governments. One final thought: If the universities were truly committed to making their campuses gun free zones why haven’t any of them deployed metal detectors and the whole panoply of security we are familiar with at the airport and other secured locations? They knew how to truly banish guns if they had wanted to and yet they chose to protect their campuses from the “menace” of firearms with a piece of paper that only the law-abiding would respect.

Idaho has campus carry

Posted on by

S1254 was signed by the Governor today.

Um…

Posted on by

A man saw our ad in a magazine, got onto our commercial web site, had the wherewithal to find and click on “send us mail” at our web site, and then wrote the following;

“I saw your Ad in a recent issue of Shotgun News Mag. Please…let me know where I can purchase your products.”

Avoiding the urge to launch into scathing, blistering sarcasm requires patience and understanding. I’ve not always been patient or understanding. In fact I’ve actually taken pride in NOT being patient or understanding, if that makes any sense, and have often taken pride in my ability to express sarcasm in the most eloquent, mean ways with maximum insult, puffing myself up at someone else’s expense. The first step is recognizing the urge for what it is, and then realizing that my job is customer service, that I’ve been contacted by a perspective customer, which is the only reason why I am here. I’ve often said that we should be heartened by the fact that we are inspiring people to get onto the internet for their very first time (and yet even in that statement there is a twinge of sarcasm, no?).

Hello. My name is Lyle and I am a sarcasmoholic…

One day at a time.

Butt out?

Posted on by

Well now this is interesting.

==================
Wyoming, a deeply pro-gun state, has taken the lead in the case, spurred by Gov. Mead, who called the New Jersey law a threat to citizens’ freedom everywhere.

“This decision out of New Jersey impacts the right to keep and bear arms outside the home,” Mead said. “So I felt it was necessary to have the [state] attorney general support a petition to the Supreme Court to hear this case.”

Some in New Jersey are pushing back on the intervention from outsiders. A Feb. 18 editorial published by the website NJ.com called on them to “butt out.”
==================

“Butt out.” The Southern states said very much the same thing back in the middle 1800s, claiming the right to enslave other people and the right to be “free” from outside meddling in that endeavor. There is of course no such right, as there is no “right” to violate any right. That simple and obvious concept is what brought us Incorporation Doctrine.

I don’t like that term “deeply pro-gun”. It’s not quite as bad as “severely conservative” but it is barking up the same tree. How about simply “pro-human rights” as in, “Wyoming, a more pro-human rights state”…? Better yet, “less intrusive upon human rights” or “a less coercive state” would provide a more realistic perspective. That is if we care about perspective with regard to basic principles.

Quote of the day—Dustin Pardue

Posted on by

Nobody is coming to take your guns and weapons. The National Rifle Association, which lays its roots as an off-shoot of a faction of the Ku Klux Klan, wanted you to think so, didn’t they? … In fact, no piece of federal legislation was ever presented in regards to gun restriction in Washington, DC under President Obama that limited gun ownership.

Dustin Pardue
March 10, 2014
Editorial: A pragmatic look at gun control
[Wow! Nearly every sentence in this guys editorial is opposed to the known facts in my universe. I have always discounted the possibility of those sci-fi plots with everything being the opposite of our universe. I always figured that as soon as a few major things are different the universes would radically diverge. In a short period of time, like in a decade or ten, there would be little resemblance between the two universes. But here we appear to have evidence to the contrary.

In Pardue’s universe the NRA was apparently formed by Confederate veterans instead of Union vets and helped supplied arms to the KKK instead of the victims of the KKK such as Robert Williams.

And in his universe Senator Feinstein never introduced the Assault Weapon Ban of 2013.

The divergence from our universe just goes on and on in this guys post. Another example is where he quotes the what in our universe is the 1875 Cruikshank decision but in his occurred in 1876:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

In our universe there is more to the quoted sentence which changes the meaning:

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; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

So, I wonder if this is sufficient evidence to confirm the existence of alternate universes. I almost wish it were true. I could use the money from a Nobel Prize in physics. But I suspect the truth is this guy is just another passenger on an overloaded crazy train and there isn’t any money to be had from identifying the existence of something as common as crap for brains.—Joe]

Free availability of guns

Posted on by

Via Cemetery’s Gun Blob:

Free availability of guns is madness. Ban them all!

There is so much stupid in the thread that I could only deal with one or two sentences of it at a time.

As we know the number of guns in private hands as increased dramatically in the last decade or two while the crime rate has fallen so the availability of guns is beyond my comprehension why someone would think it is madness and demand they be banned. On the other hand believing it to be practical or wise to attempt enforcing a ban on them is madness.

But what I really want to know is; In what alternate universe can we find these free guns?

Online firearm sale fraud

Posted on by

From the ATF:

Advisory Letter

Online Scams Using Fraudulent Federal Firearms Licenses
March 7, 2014

TO ALL FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES AND FIREARM PURCHASERS

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is providing the following information to make you aware of fraudulent online firearms sales. Some individuals are using fraudulently altered Federal firearms licenses to sell but never deliver firearms online.

A typical online scam starts with an online firearm advertisement. Purchasers who respond to the advertisement by telephone or email receive an invalid, counterfeit copy of a license that appears to be valid. After sending payment, the purchaser never receives the advertised firearm(s) and the fraudulent seller removes the original online advertisement and contact information.

To help you avoid this scam, licensees are reminded that only transactions between licensees require the furnishing of a certified copy of the license. Licensees should consider only providing the basic license number to individuals (e.g., 1-75-12345). The individuals can use FFL eZ Check to confirm the validity of the license number before sending payment for firearms advertised online. FFL eZ Check is on the ATF website at http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/applications-FFL-eZ-check. If you have general questions regarding the FFL eZ Check system, you may contact the Federal Firearms Licensing Center at 1-877-560-2435.

You may also wish to contact other Federal, State, and local resources regarding internet fraud, to include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (www.IC3.gov), the Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov), your State’s Attorney General’s office (http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-5-31st-editiion/attorneys-general.pdf) and your local law enforcement agency.

If you are a Federal firearms licensee who believes your license has been fraudulently used, stolen, or compromised, please contact your local ATF field office as soon as possible for assistance. A list of local field offices can be found at http://www.atf.gov/content/contact-us/local-atf-office.

I find it interesting that con-artists are using a government issued licenses as a means of gaining the trust of their victims. An FFL license was never intended to be used in such a manner. Had it not existed it is likely other, and better, means of seller verification would have evolved such as it has on eBay and other online seller web sites. Hence it could be argued that the Federal Government, via the ATF, has enabled fraud. But then most government is a fraud so it shouldn’t be too surprising that fraudsters are enabling each other.

Daylight savings

Posted on by

Our culture (root word being “cult”) is insane. Our government types apparently believe it is in their power to re-order the very rising and setting of the sun. They’re gods, and we’re insane enough to go along with it.

My brother sent me a text from Kalifornia on Sunday, asking me if I was saving any daylight at that very moment. I told him that it was beyond my power to do so, that I had called the bank asking to open a daylight savings account and they just laughed at me. That sparked quite the conversation.

I eventually told him that I could in fact save daylight using PV panels and storage batteries. He then told me that that wouldn’t do, because using stored electricity to make artificial light wasn’t saving “actual daylight”. I then said that we could, in theory, with the right technology, reproduce the same spectral content of the sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface, that energy, like currency, is fungible, that conversion to stored energy in batteries and subsequent re-conversion to artificial sunlight is in fact “saving daylight”, and that since this is daylight savings time, this then is officially the time to be working on such technology.

Regardless; if you want to get up and go to work or school at a particular time, that’s entirely between you and your associates. Government certainly has no business getting involved.

As it is, when a business says its hours are such and such, you don’t know what that means until you have their address, get out your time zone map, and then call the governor’s office in their state to see of they participate in “daylight savings time”.

We’d all be better off it it was the same “time” everywhere. You already know when the sun rises and sets during certain times of the year where you live, and that isn’t going to change significantly in your lifetime. If you’re unsure, look out of a freaking window.

Maybe I should start posting my business hours in UTC and leave it at that, but how many people even know what that means? As often as not, when I tell someone during a phone conversation that we’re on Pacific Time, their reaction is one of incredulity; “Oh…Really?!” (surely I must be mistaken). I’ve only lived here my whole life, but then the particular time zone I’m in is purely a matter of legislation and as I said; we’re all batshit insane, so my time zone status could have been changed without my noticing.

Quote of the day—Standing Wolf

Posted on by

The Constitution is a restraining order against the federal government. I’m not going to say a word about the effectiveness of restraining orders against criminals.

Standing Wolf
[This is the signature line used by “swgunner” on various forums.

They make a very good point. And, of course, this subtly points out the necessity of the Second Amendment as a backup plan for dealing with governments/criminals.—Joe]

Campus carry in Idaho

Posted on by

Via email from “Alpha Mike” regarding campus carry in Idaho:

Campus carry passed 50-19-1 (Cindy Agidius was conveniently out of town for the vote).

Call Governor Otter’s office if you support. Don’t call if you oppose.

http://gov.idaho.gov/ourgov/contact.html

The phone number is 208-334-2100 or use the link above to send an email.

See also the news on the topic:

Our opponents are saying (via email):

Despite strong opposition, SB 1254 (guns on campus) passed the Idaho Senate and House. It’s now on the way to the Governor, so this is our last chance to stop it.

Senate Bill 1254 would strip the authority of state-supported colleges and universities in Idaho to regulate in matters relating to firearms. Currently, all state-supported colleges and universities in Idaho prohibit the possession of firearms on their campuses.

Specifically, this legislation paves the way for retired law enforcement and individuals – students, faculty, staff, and visitors – who possess an enhanced permit to carry concealed weapons to bring loaded handguns onto campus grounds and buildings, including classrooms, libraries, and student recreation centers. Firearms would be prohibited in (1) student dormitories and (2) “public entertainment facilities” with a seating capacity of at least 1,000 provided signage is posted at each point of entry. In addition, the legislation does not restrict the open carrying of a firearm in the above mentioned places.

Contact Governor Otter now to tell him that guns (concealed and openly carried) don’t belong on our college campuses. Veto this bill (S.1254) >>

Please take action today and share. Thanks.

Andy Pelosi
Director
GunFreeKids.org and the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus

In other words GunFreeKids wants colleges and universities to continue their bigoted policies of creating Second Amendment free zones. They are either so ignorant or evil that they want to continue the policies that enable the Virginia Tech massacre.

Encourage Governor Otter to let my daughter Kim and others attending and working at colleges in Idaho to be able to defend themselves with the best tools available should they need to stop an attack. We need to eliminate another set of “gun free” killing zones and this is a battle we can easily win and provide yet another example of how the right to keep and bear arms is not a “recipe for disaster”.

Update: My email to Governor Otter:

Please sign SB 1254 allowing my daughter (University of Idaho) and others attending and working at colleges in Idaho to be able to defend themselves with the best tools available should they need to stop an attack. Virginia Tech was a “gun free” school but actually was a killing zone where innocent, law abiding, people were helpless against one person with a gun and evil intent.

The Virginia Tech shooting was a rare event but lesser attacks are not. Please sign this bill and eliminate these embarrassing “Second Amendment Free Zones” from our state.

Regards,

Joe Huffman
The View From North Central Idaho
https://blog.joehuffman.org/

Quote of the day—owlstead

Posted on by

Ah, Dilbert another person like Stony. A person with a tiny one that needs to over compensate.

owlstead
September 9, 2013
Comment to In Colorado Recall, It’s Michael Bloomberg vs. the NRA
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Countdown deal

Posted on by

For that that are interested, and have not already bought a copy, there is a “countdown deal” going on at Amazon for The Stars Came Back, running through the Ides of March (because it’s a killer deal). Right now it’s $0.99, then up to $1.99, then back to regular price. (Quick edit just in case it’s not clear: it’s an e-book only at the present time, though I’m working on a paper version… and other things)

Best comment on a one-star review, where the person called it “garbage,” and said “it’s in a screenplay format. Who even does that?” someone replied with “Stephen King.”

Quote of the day—The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Posted on by

Courts around the country have overwhelmingly rejected gun lobby arguments that there is a right to carry hidden, loaded firearms in public.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
January 9, 2013
Brady Center, Victims’ Families, Law Enforcement Urge Federal Appeals Court To Review and Reverse Ruling Invalidating Illinois Restrictions on Carrying Guns in Public
[There are very few battles which the Brady Campaign/Center have left to fight and only a small chance of winning them. Times change and it is time that the Brady’s changed with them. I would like to suggest they declare bankruptcy and close up shop or else start advocating for a cause with a greater chance of success like preventing sad puppies or something.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert A. Heinlein

Posted on by

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein
1942
Beyond This Horizon
[I went looking for this quote when making a comment the other day and found I had never posted this on my blog. It’s such an important and famous quote for our culture I decided that I should include it even though it is going to be rare that someone reading my blog will have not seen or heard it before.

While I agree with the first sentence I’m not so sure about second. I think there is something else going on. I think the more significant changes that occur are in the armed person(s) rather than those around them. I have carried a gun nearly every day for nearly 20 years and while it is difficult to recall exactly how I felt and acted before I started carrying I think the mostly subconscious thought process goes something like the following.

I shouldn’t, and don’t need to, let my emotions dominate in a conflict with another person. I have a gun. If my emotions rule me I might use it when I should not. Should my adversary get so far out of line that I, or another innocent person, be in physical danger I can probably handle it because I have a gun. There is no need to “get back in their face” if they are getting all wound up. I can let them blow off their steam and coolly observe and be prepared to defend with decisive force rather than attempt to confront them early in their emotional escalation. Hence my response to conflict tends to be more subdued than unarmed people. This, in most cases, results in the other side deescalating or at least not getting completely out of control. When both parties are armed the response on the other side is also subdued and we arrive at the observed result of “an armed society is a polite society.”—Joe]

Possible path in CT

Posted on by

Following the gun and magazine restriction news I didn’t like who things were playing out. Looked like there were way to many ways to make it turn ugly all around. While I’m sure someday tyrants will need to be used as tree-watering sources, I’d really rather not have it happen during my life- revolutions are expensive. I thought of a possible path out after watching this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuDRIpER4TM

Stage an arrest of a “known offender” as a test case. Arrange for someone with an “unlawful” magazine and a barely illegal rifle (maybe something like a Nylon 66, or whatever the most innocuous technically illegal arm you can find) who is retired and can afford to spend a little time in jail. Roll the cameras, arrest and charge him, and have everyone on the scene know what’s going on so that nobody gets shot. Get him before a judge that day, and have a temporary order to put a hold on the law until it can be officially decided by a court. That gives the police an out to not enforce the law, but it also gives the citizens an out because it can’t be held over them for anything else so things do go all Waco on anyone. It gives everyone time to “let the court sort it out” without claiming any unnecessary lives. It also gives time for a new legislature to be elected if needed, because it will become a more well-understood topic by a broader range of the population.

Quote of the day—David French

Posted on by

The Left has to change the subject to vigilantism because the case for self-defense is so manifestly obvious. Is the state respecting the fundamental rights of citizens — including their right to life — if it mandates passivity in the face of violent attack? Of course not. It does, however, respect the right to life when it empowers self-defense while also prosecuting those rare few who seek to mask murderous intent behind a self-defense pretext.

Protecting the right of self-defense is just. Mandatory disarmament is not.

David French
February 24, 2014
Dear New York Times, Self-Defense Is Not Vigilantism
[In other words, as is usual, they have to lie to win.

It is the right to self-defense that is our strongest point in the debate and the one they will lose when the debate takes place in the U.S. In some other countries and cultures a reference to the right of self-defense will get a blank stare.

I would like to suggest those who find the right of self-defense incomprehensible should be encouraged to leave this country. Surely they would be more comfortable in a time and place where the government had or has a monopoly on violence such as one more of the following (from here):

And that doesn’t even include Uganda, Nazi Germany, communist China, and Stalin’s USSR.—Joe]

Quote of the day—FightingIrish

Posted on by

Your assumption that we only take their guns away by physically confiscating them is very simplistic and not very imaginative. We take their guns, and I assume yours, by taking away the cachet of gun ownership. We did that with cigarettes. We take their guns away by having reasonable restrictions on what arms are tolerated in civil society and where they can be present. We take their guns away by teaching our children that pulling a trigger is not a valid form of expression.

FightingIrish
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns away.—Joe]

Quote of the day—baldguy

Posted on by

As long as the community of gun owners prove themselves to be unable or unwilling to keep their weapons secure from people who would kill, a national gun ban would be the only right & reasonable solution.

baldguy
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

“Gun control” in a nutshell

Posted on by

This in response to Uncle‘s post about NJ banning tube-fed 22s;

Well sure. If criminals already enjoy a government-enforced monopoly on more powerful guns, why not grant them a government-enforced monopoly on some of the most popular rimfire 22s as well?

It makes perfect sense to me– A corrupt government has more to fear from honest citizens than from other corrupt individuals, and so they’ll invariably attack, impugn and attempt to weaken honest citizens in every way imaginable. It comes from a simple and obvious (and entirely correct) threat assessment.

“We struggle not with flesh and blood, but with Principalities, and corruption in high places.”

That’s the long and short of it. It’s all you need to understand about weapon restriction (and politics in general). To put it even more simply; To consolidate power you must weaken the individual.

If there is a Prince of Darkness, this is his motto. So what then is the antidote? Strengthen the individual of course, and it starts with you.

More on single action v double action

Posted on by

This is in response to Uncle‘s response to this article.

First, we don’t need the new term “TDA” (Traditional Double Action). That’s the same as DA, which we’ve been using for a long time, as opposed to DAO. So we now have DA, DAO, and TDA. See the problem– So what does DA mean anymore? Do we now have to go back and revise all the old texts, adding the “T” in front of “DA”?

Anyway; I’ve never really understood the debate. If you have a DA and want to operate it as a SA, to avoid the “transition” then nothing is stopping you. Load it, put it on safe, and holster it cocked and locked, or ease the hammer down and then cock it before you shoot, just like your trusty, rusty old 1911. You need never encounter a DA pull unless you want to.

And for some reason this subject only comes up in a discussion of auto pistols. With revolvers, I don’t hear anyone complaining about all the double actions out there (and they’re always carried hammer down and have no safety switch). Does the “transition” no longer matter after you’ve thumbed the hammer back as opposed to having it cocked automatically? And you want to talk about light trigger pulls– you won’t find a lighter SA trigger than the one on a good factory-stock DA revolver.

I’ve never understood why SA v DA is this huge f’ng issue when we’re talking pistols, but it never comes up with regard to long guns. The most popular sporting and defense rifle in America is SA, with no de-cock, and no one blinks or ever thinks to consider thinking about it. Same with the Mini-14, 30 Carbine, M-14, M1 Garand, AK, et al, ad infinitum– The hammer’s out of sight, so it’s out of mind, just like the Ruger Mark II/III which we also never discuss as being a SA with no de-cock.

So REALLY this is more of a public perception issue than anything else— If you can SEE the hammer AND it’s on an auto, we’ll argue about it, but if not, “derp”. I guess that’s why Daewoo came up with their goofy action such as on the DP51– It’s cocked and locked, just like your AR-15, but it LOOKS like the hammer’s down. The old Lever action rifles are of course single action, with no de-cock and no safety per se. It’s also a training issue, so make sure you practice with what you have.

One of the coolest designs I’ve owned was the Beretta TomCat. It’s DA and has a de-cocker, but with its tip-up barrel you can load or unload it without cocking the hammer, so I always carried it like a revolver (hammer down, off safe) and to un-load it you just tip the barrel up and drop the cartridge out. The little 32 ACP scared me though, so I traded it away.

At one time I thought it would be cool to have a DA AK or AR. You wouldn’t operate it or carry it any different from the SA versions, but the only difference would be that it would give you a second strike capability. Then I realized that cartridges that actually do fire on a second strike are a sub set of those that fail to fire on the first, and so in many cases you’d be wasting time on the second, or third, or fourth strike compared to chambering a fresh round. On several occasions I’ve hit primers so many times that they were mashed WAY into the primer pocket, or rotated rimfire rounds to hit another part of the rim, and they never did fire.