Admitted subterfuge

Posted on by

Seattle Times opinion writer Jerry Large is no friend of gun owners but he did do us a bit of a favor by revealing to us that our opponents explicitly admit to deliberate subterfuge:

The panelists leaned toward discussing treatment of gun violence as a public-health issue, partly to avoid the blowback attached to the idea of gun control.

This tactic isn’t anything new. They have been doing it since at least the late 1990s. But this is the first time I have seen it explicitly admitted they were trying to call it something other than what it is. Gun control. The infringement of a specific enumerated right.

California crazy talk

Posted on by

Maybe it’s in the air they breath or something but California has more than its share of crazies. This is someone legally representing the state:

California argued that even under intermediate scrutiny, the State could give everyone a handgun and mandate it is the only gun you could use for self-defense in the home….and that would be enough. The Court seemed troubled by the logical extension of California’s argument that only one handgun was enough to allow the full and unencumbered exercise of Second Amendment rights. Peña counsel made it clear that the Constitutional analysis the State wanted to implement would logically allow them to restrict all handguns by caliber to only .22lr, or even to ban all handguns and only allow Tasers — an argument the District of Columbia made and lost on in Heller.

Can you imagine someone arguing that the 1st Amendment would not be infringed if the state gave everyone their one and only religious book and mandated it never leave your home or be replaced by some other book? Or that it doesn’t violate your freedom of association if the state were to assign you your job, social circle, and spouse? Or that it doesn’t violate your right to be represented in court by supplying your one and only defense lawyer? That would be crazy talk.

Okay, maybe the lawyer for California isn’t actually crazy. Maybe they were just doing the best they could while attempting to defend, as is their job, an indefensible law. I can buy that.

Politician crazy talk

Posted on by

These people have mental problems:

Senator Kevin de Leόn (D-Los Angeles) today announced he would introduce legislation to ban the sale, manufacture, purchase and trafficking of “ghost guns” unless they are pre-registered with the Department of Justice through a serial number and gun owner background check.  In order to receive a serial number, self-made or assembled firearm must include permanent metal components that cannot be detached and that are detectable as required by existing law.

…

“Gun parts can be obtained online or now with 3D printers made at home, leaving no way for law enforcement to ensure that prohibited individuals are not making ghost guns on their own,” said Senator De Leόn.  “No one knows they exist and there is no way to know if criminals or other dangerous individuals are circumventing firearm laws by making these guns.”

If the concern is, as it appears to be in the press release, that a gun can be easily made with a 3-D printer by someone prohibited from possessing a firearm then how is a law prohibiting such guns being made going to be more effective than the law prohibiting the possession once the gun is finished?

“Permanent metal components that cannot be detached”? I don’t care if it is riveted, glued, or completely encased in plastic, it can, almost trivially, be removed. Drill or grind out any rivets, drill a hole in the metal to insert a screw, heat the metal until it slightly melts the plastic and then pull it the metal out via the inserted screw. Then, if needed, refill the void with plastic/wood/fiberglass/whatever.

And that is if the guy pushing the “Print” button isn’t smart enough to delete the extra instructions for the 3-D printer to make the void for the metal part in the first place.

And in any case does this guy think such a law will be any more effective than laws banning recreational drugs? This is crazy talk.

I would expect to find more rational people in long term care at a psych ward. Maybe he hasn’t been taking his meds recently.

Quote of the day—John Spero

Posted on by

Yet another cowardly mass shooting committed by a left-wing neo-marxist shooter. The idea that we allow liberals access to firearms in this nation is truly frightening to me. Is having the IRS intimidating political enemies not enough for the left?

John Spero
December 14, 2013
Comment to Police in Colorado probe motives of dead high school gunman
[While a case could be made that keeping guns out of the hands of progressives/liberals/socialists/communists/but-I-repeat-myself would make society safer I think the reality would be different. Such a law would be no more effective than the laws prohibiting recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, from people. And that doesn’t even consider the principles involved such as equal rights, due process, and First Amendment issues.

The best that we can do is be armed and prepared to defend innocent life from these violent people.—Joe]

Enders Game

Posted on by

On Saturday night Barb and watched the movie Enders Game. We had both read the book and enjoyed it but had a minor conflict about watching the movie.

I kind of wanted to watch it. I had skimmed through a lot of the physical description of the zero-G games and was never really able to visualize the setting very well. If nothing else I wanted to see what that was like.

Barb was concerned the movie would spoil the book.

I agreed that movies are seldom as good as the book but they can be good even if they aren’t as good as the book. We agreed to see it anyway.

I enjoyed it. Barb was disappointed because a lot of the team building was left out but she thought they did a great job on the special effects.

EndersGame

Update: After reading this post last night Barb mildly protested that we didn’t really have a conflict about going to the movie. It was a very short polite discussion about whether we wanted to see this movie or something else. And we came to the same conclusion without any flaring of emotions. I agree with this but I didn’t, and don’t, have a single word or short phrase to describe that conversation. “Minor conflict” is prone to misinterpretation of the reality of discussion but with a strong emphasis on “minor” it does describe it.

Delusions are not “incredibly successful”

Posted on by

Brian Malte, of Handgun Control Inc. (aka The Brady Campaign), says:

The laws that Colorado passed are still on the books, and even the senators that were recalled said they would do it all over again for public safety. And when you have nine out of 10 Americans feeling strongly that background checks are the right thing to do, we will prevail. We’ll do everything we can to protect those gun laws, and we don’t think they’ll be repealed. We think they’re popular enough.

But law enforcement in Colorado says:

Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.

Beyond that are the court challenges to the new laws and the successful recall elections of three (two plus one resignation because of the recall in process) of the politicians who voted for the laws.

Malte says, “I think 2013 was incredibly successful.”

They passed laws which law enforcement is refusing to enforce, politicians are getting recalled over, are being seriously challenged in the courts and he thinks that is “incredibly successful”?

I think his group over reached, is headed for major defeats, and he is delusional.

These people have mental problems.

Quote of the day—rich roberts ‏@boris3324

Posted on by

@linoge_wotc @RSheibal @scaruso5555 @Keith1911 On the plus side a gun in the home will most likely kill an occupant. #NRAdicklesswonders

rich roberts ‏@boris3324
Tweeted on May 16, 2013
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday via a Tweet from Linoge! Plus a bonus celebration of violence against gun owners.

This was in response to:

Linoge@linoge_wotc

Ahh, the ignorance of #guncontrol #extremists. So very child-like. @boris3324 @RSheibal @scaruso5555 @Keith1911.

—Joe]

Quote of the day—Barrett

Posted on by

In the course of world history there have been officials that strip inalienable rights from the people that were given to all by our Creator. Most of these officials inevitably come to trial, some do not.

Intentionally violating constitutional rights by officials that have sworn to uphold them should have severe prison sentences.

With the clear vision of horrible events in history repeating itself, all manufacturers of firearms or related equipment remaining in partnership with such violators should have a respectable fear of being found with the guilty on their day of trial.

Barrett
February 20, 2013
Barrett’s Position Regarding the Assault on Liberty
[H/T to Paul Koning for his comment.

This is the firearms company Barrett.

Intentionally violating constitutional rights by officials that have sworn to uphold them does have severe prison sentences.

I look forward to the day, perhaps in Nuremberg (PA), when said officials and their collaborators are brought to justice.—Joe]

More on mental disorders

Posted on by

American Mercenary elaborates on some stuff I have been saying.

He pulled many of the symptoms of Emotional Regulation Disorder (aka Borderline Personality Disorder) from here and puts them in the context of our debates with anti-gun people. It’s scary accurate.

I’m certain these people have a mental disorder.

Barb and I both have personal experience with people that have these behaviors. I read many of the symptoms aloud to her as I was reading his post. It’s really spooky to read about someone you know from a list of mental disorder symptoms.

Signed copy of Emily Gets Her Gun

Posted on by

Today I received a signed copy of Emily Gets Her Gun: …But Obama Wants to Take Yours from her publisher.

Emily
WP_20131214_006

Thank you Emily. The book is great. And you didn’t really have to do that. I purchased the Audible version and listened to it weeks ago.

Here are earlier posts about her book:

Quote of the day—L. Neil Smith

Posted on by

I also declare that, like murder, crimes against the constitution have no statute of limitations (and never can, owing to the matter of conflicting interests involved). Those in the school system who smugly believe it’s smart or cute to strip away childrens’ rights for the sake of administrative convenience (or plain old sadistic pleasure) will someday face those former children in a jury box, possibly in a small town in Pennsylvania that will lend its name to the Nuremberg II tribunals.

L. Neil Smith
October 14, 2007
And Sow Salt on the Ruins
[It’s a really, really small town. But the sweetness of the name and the location, a little over 100 miles from Philadelphia, give it great weight in the venue selection.

H/T to Paul Koning in the comments.—Joe]

ITAR update

Posted on by

Last May I told of the risks posed to us by International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

Yesterday I received an email from a friend who is a NRA Instructor who had concerns about the implications. He wanted more information so I had a long chat with my “source” last night. He is a lawyer and he got the advice from another lawyer to “Not get involved.” This is a very risky area. When Hillary was head of the State Department there wasn’t a problem. But with Kerry things changed.

He contacted the Department of State and asked about Basic Firearm Safety training. He wanted to know if this was considered regulated under ITAR. The answer came back, “Yes.”

The law, as written, is very broad. Strictly speaking; telling a foreigner the NRA three safety rules could be construed as a felony. All firearms are considered munitions and cannot be exported without a license. Hence telling someone how to load the magazine of a Ruger Mark III is training someone on the use of export controlled munitions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/120.10
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/120.16
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/120.17

The advice is to not teach foreigners anything about firearms. This is also the advice from the NRA. From the NRA Instructors website:

NRA cannot provide any assistance in training foreign persons due to conflicting information from the U.S. Government regarding regulations pertinent to foreign persons and arms training. NRA cannot process any requests for assistance in training foreign persons. In view of the above, we regret to inform you that NRA cannot renew NRA firearm trainer credentials for any foreign national.

This is not good.

But what is “a foreign person”? My source emailed me the following “cheat sheet” to answer the question:

Status

 Can Possess? Can Train?

US Citizen or National (not otherwise prohibited)

 Yes Yes

Permanent resident (Green Card)

 Yes Yes

Tourist visa or waiver

 Yes No

Non-immigrant visa (H-1B,  J-1 etc.)

No No

Non-immigrant visa with valid hunting license or admitted for lawful hunting or sporting purposes

 Yes No

I reported back to my friendly neighborhood NRA instructor, he replied with more than a little concern and anger about the situation and then I watched as the hits accumulated on my web page from last May.

As my source told me last night, “I used to think we would all be sent to prison because DMCA violations. Now I think it’s going to be because of ITAR.”

Significance of police gun sales

Posted on by

Jersey City is attempting to get gun and ammo manufactures to help in their malicious attempts at infringing upon the specific enumerated right of the people to keep and bear arms.

But how significant is the police market? Do manufactures have a significant incentive to participate in this attempt?

Facts:

NICS checks (a proxy for private citizen gun sales):

  • 2011: 16,454,951
  • 2012: 19,592,303.

     

    Firearms in 2011:

  • Manufactured in the U.S: 6,541,886
  • Exported: 296,888
  • Imported: 4,844,590

     

    Approximate number of state and local police officers with arrest authority: (2008 appears to be the most recently available data) 800,000.

    Assumptions:

  • Police firearms include handguns, rifles, and shotguns and one firearm is purchased for each police officer every year. Resulting in each firearm being replace every three years.
  • One fourth of all law enforcement officers participate in the attempted infringement.

     

    Analysis:

    Using the given facts and assumptions the participating agencies would account for annual sales of about 200,000 firearms.

    The net new firearms supply in the U.S. is about 11,000,000 (U.S. manufactured plus imported minus exports).

    Private citizen sales, including used guns, is something on the order of 16,000,000 to 19,000,000 per year. Therefore civilian sales are a major portion of the total new firearms sales.

    The “back of the envelope” estimate is that even using the optimistic assumption that a fourth of sales to law enforcement officers would contribute to the infringement that would only account for less than 2% of all new gun sales.

    Any manufacture which considers going along with this will also give extremely serious consideration to the effect on Smith and Wesson when they collaborated with the enemy.

    Conclusion:

    Jersey City attempts to push manufactures into assisting them in their attempts to infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms will be ignored, if not actively rejected, by firearm and ammunition suppliers.

    Whoever thought up this screwball plan did not do, or is incapable of, simple arithmetic involving easily available data. But one should not be surprised. We know these people have mental problems.

    • Fair weather defense

    Posted on by

    Last time I went out shooting it was a beautiful, sunny day. Granted, it was nine degrees Fahrenheit and very windy, and my fingers were going numb to the point where I could barely load my guns, but hey; sunshine and beauty.

    There’s a lot of discussion about shooting in adverse conditions under stress, and then there’s also a lot of talk that goes along the lines of, “Hey I got this fabulous new gun, but I’ll have to wait ’till Spring before I can try it out.”

    For seven months of the year, there is a real possibility of snow on the ground here, and more so as you get higher in elevation. Maybe your practice should be around 7/12 cold weather practice in places like this then. You may find that your gun(s), which functioned well at 70 degrees, will start behaving in strange ways at zero and below.

    Remember Washington’s crossing of that icy river on that snowy night to attack the Hessians at Trenton? Yeah. That kicked ass.

    Do you know what it’s like policing your brass in three feet of snow on snowshoes while carrying all your gear on your person? Have you dropped a warm magazine in the snow when it’s zero degrees out? Yeah; it’s out of operation ’till you can warm it up and get the ice out of it. How does that slick new pistol hold work out when you’re wearing a heavy coat and standing on uneven ground on ice? What does your super bright flashlight do for you in a blizzard? What happens to the effectiveness of different types of batteries when they get very cold? Should you attempt to shoot while wearing gloves, or no? What do you do when snow falls out of a tree onto the exposed action of your rifle? What happens to the effectiveness of your optics at 10 degrees when you happen to breathe onto the ocular lens? Can you even turn the zoom control on your scope?

    Next time it’s snowing, windy, very cold and dark, maybe consider it an opportunity for some good shooting practice. If you enjoy the warmth and comfort of home on a stormy winter’s night, just think of how much more you’ll enjoy it after some good shooting practice.

    Gun Song – I Shot The Sheriff by Eric Clapton

    Posted on by

    A classic, live version. Originally by Bob Marley, but Clapton made the biggest cover of it. More about it here.

    Quote of the day—J.D. Tuccille

    Posted on by

    The end result of pushing through gun laws that people won’t obey is very predictable. You end up with a society in which people continue to own vast numbers of weapons regardless of the law. Connecticut may be on the way, sometime after the new year’s registration deadline, to turning itself into a replica of Germany, where up to 20 million unregistered firearms are held in addition to 7.2 million legal ones, or France, where as many as 17 million illegal guns overshadow 2.8 million legal ones.

    If you bother to learn from history, it shouldn’t be a surprise that people stop caring whether they’re “not a law-abiding citizen” when they lose respect for the law and the people who inflict it on them.

    J.D. Tuccille
    December 3, 2013
    Connecticut Shouldn’t Be Surprised That “Fewer People Than Expected Have Registered Weapons”
    [H/T to Sebastian.

    I expect the registration rate in Connecticut will be much lower than that in either Germany or France. And if you could get a police officer to talk to you about the “benefits” of the registration be prepared for a 10 minute profanity laced rant about how it makes their job more difficult. People that used to cooperate with police will now regard them as suspect and the enemy.—Joe]

    Basic Tajemnica video

    Posted on by

    Over at The Stars Came Back I posted a simple AVI that Paul put together of Helton’s first walk through of Tajemnica. He’s been playing with modeling it, doing some various graphic things. May post the “outstanding training value” image sometime soon, too. Getting nearly done with editing (yeah, I’ve said that before, I mean it this time).

    Markley’s Law in Playboy

    Posted on by

    This is in the 2014 Jan/Feb issue of Playboy magazine (page 238):

    WP_20131212_001

    As Barb said when I showed it to her, “I can barely get the joke.”

    Could it be they actually think in those terms and it make sense to them?

    Via email from Jay F. who says, “Perhaps the antis really are addicted to this sort of thing.”

    Small goals from small minds

    Posted on by

    I received the following email from CSGV which gives us insight into just how small their support base is. $3000 after a week of fundraising? And a goal of $10000? Wow!

    If the contributions were the suggested $20 then that means they have about 150 people who were willing to support them with actual money as opposed to just pressing the “Like” button on Facebook. Boomershoot attracts that many people who travel hundreds or thousands of miles and spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars to participate.

    Even though I am far from an expert on the subject I know they are totally clueless about writing a fundraising letter. But what do you expect from people who are totally clueless about the people and culture they want to destroy?

    Small goals from small minds.

    Continue reading →

    I fear for his job

    Posted on by

    Paul Barrett and I have a friendly but somewhat strained “relationship”. But today he wrote something I completely agree with. That he works for Bloomberg means I fear for his job. From his article in Bloomberg Buisnessweek, Why Gun Control Is Basically Dead:

    Dispassionate observers must question the simplistic liberal slogan that more guns equals more crime. The U.S. has seen a two-decade period during which private gun ownership has continued to soar (some 300 million firearms are now in civilian hands), while crime has diminished.

    …

    The strategy adopted by well-meaning activists post-Newtown may undermine their cause. Consider Moms Demand Action, which is allied with Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization started by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg Businessweek parent Bloomberg LP). Watts, the Moms leader, describes her campaign as “a war for the culture.” She talks about firearms as a symbol of an America she doesn’t “recognize.”

    Watts is fighting on the NRA’s preferred battlefield. Gun rights organizers have become expert at framing any gun control proposal as an attack on their culture. In a Dec. 6 “grassroots alert” to members, the NRA sounded its usual theme that President Obama and gun control backers push an agenda seeking to “fundamentally transform America” and will “exploit any occasion, no matter how crassly, to promote it.”

    Gun control advocates often appear not to appreciate that their country, for better or worse, has a widespread and deeply rooted gun subculture that isn’t going away. No lesser body than the Supreme Court, in decisions issued as recently as 2008 and 2010, has interpreted the Constitution as enshrining that reality.

    Barrett has spent a lot of time associating with gun people. It would be a stretch to say he is “one of us” but I think it is fair to say he understands and respects us while only partially agreeing with us.

    This understanding, his Harvard law background, his living in New York City, and his calm, cool approach means he has a better view into the political and culture gun rights war than most. That he says “gun control is basically dead” is a very good sign we are winning the war more than just superficially.