Respecting the First Amendment through the Second

Posted on by

And people wonder why we don’t want law enforcement to have discretion when we apply for a discreet carry license:



Paul [Dorr] was denied a permit precisely because Sheriff Weber believed that his free speech rights offended the majority of voters in Osceola County….


In denying Paul a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections. Ironically, Sheriff Weber, sworn to uphold the Constitution, in fact retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our Nation who ratified the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791.


Imagine how some deep south pot-bellied sheriff would used “discretion” in issuing licenses to the people with dark colored skin in his jurisdiction. There might be a conflict of interest with his duties as the leader of the local chapter of the KKK.


Abuse of discretion is still going on in places like California. This needs to be corrected.


H/T to Ted for the email (and some bloggers for the) pointer.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

I cannot recall when the U.S. Congress ever approached anything like a NRA “theme store”. Other than getting the regulation against firearms in national parks thrown out (ETA: and being able to check your gun onto Amtrak) what law has the NRA been able to get legislated out of existence in the last 20 years?

Alternate reality. It has to be an alternate reality these people live in.

[This is a set up for a set of cartoons related to a NRA proposed theme restaurant in Times Square. Many people may not realize there was such a proposal.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Stephen Markley

Posted on by

Gun safety and regulation is a battle so lost, it’s barely worth flipping a hand at and saying “bah.” One might have thought following clear demonstrations of why a society awash in cheap, easily purchased handguns is a pretty f***ing stupid idea. Columbine, Virginia Tech, the South Side of Chicago–meh, who cares? Think about how many guys’ penises feel bigger because they’ve fired a gun.


…


But it’s totally not even a subject worth arguing over. Frankly, I don’t even know why I’m writing about it. Even perfectly sane, rational friends of mine are in love with the idea of gun ownership for all (small penises likely being a key ingredient). But this atmosphere of hyperventilation about “gun rights” (what a moronic term) now manifests itself around the country in the form of court challenges to some highly reasonable laws.


…


But again, I don’t care. Guns have permeated our culture so thoroughly, become trafficked in such heavy volumes and have such an ironclad grip on our political class that it’s not even worth thinking about. Have your guns, have your 30,000 gun-related deaths each year, have your fun.

Oh, and have your obviously insufficient penises.


Stephen Markley
July 9, 2010
Gun Control Is a Completely Pointless Battle
[I find his obsession with penis size and telling us how much he doesn’t care “interesting”. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.–Joe]

More bad news for the Brady Campaign

Posted on by

Roberta reports the Better Business Bureau gives the Brady Campaign a failing grade.

Sebastian reports how the good guys get A’s.

Charity Navigator gives them a score of 43.74 compared the NRA Foundation at 60.85.

In the most blatant example of doublespeak I have seen outside of an Orwellian novel GuideStar categorizes them as “Civil Liberties Advocacy”. “Someone” should write a review for GuideStar on the Brady Campaign.

The Brady Campaign is having financial problems and they have low charity ratings which hurts their fund raising. Sounds like a death spiral to me.

Those Racist Lefties

Posted on by

Michelle Malkin gets mail.


She has obviously struck a nerve.


I’ll keep reminding people that the KKK were virtually all Democrats, until it is taught in public schools nationwide, and Bill Clinton with Obama get together for a national public service ad and apologize to the world for the KKK/Democrat association.


I wanted make a bigger point about the slinging of insults, often including some rather well contemplated sexual insults, when you have no argument, but I just don’t have the energy.  Then there’s the even bigger point of that against which we are fighting.  It doesn’t reason and it doesn’t have empathy or compassion.  It doesn’t even want to be seen as reasonable, if spending the energy to appear reasonable isn’t necessary.  It longs for a situation in which all pretense of reason and compassion become unnecessary.  It’s hate with a life of its own, and it will flow from one person or group to another.  As such we should understand that this isn’t personal.  You can defeat this person or that group of people, and the monster lives on.  Hell, am I starting to sound religious?  You may call it that if it makes you feel better.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

Again, limiting the potential “solutions” by misstating the problem.

Quote of the day–Sheriff Richard I. Mack

Posted on by

Washington powercrats want to create an unarmed nation. It’s all pretty simple. They are uneasy about a gun-toting constituency that believes in a constitutional right and duty to resist oppressive federal government. They continually assume additional power not granted them by the Constitution. Efforts to repeal the Second Amendment are underway.

…

A day of reckoning is inevitable. Will guns be outlawed and taken away, leaving little vestige of constitutional freedom? Armed Americans (hopefully) will not submit willingly. On the other hand, a disarmed citizenry will have no choice but to behave like sheep. The pioneers of freedom who wrote the Declaration of Independence were considered traitors by a despotic British government, but they were not sheep. Neither did they intend their descendants to be.

Sheriff Richard I. Mack
From My
Cold Dead Fingers–Why America Needs Guns, Third Edition (“Final Chapter”), pages 156 and 157.
[This book was written in the mid 1990s. That was a very dark time for the future of gun ownership. Now, with gun control well on it’s way to the dustbin of history, freedom activists are considering moving on to issues such as food control. My work with gun control won’t be done until there are successful prosecutions of anti-gun politicians and law enforcement people for violation of 18 USC 242 and donating money to the Brady Campaign is as socially toxic as membership in the KKK is today.

I think my next cause will be the elimination of the TSA (A Security Theater) or the war on some drugs.–Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

I guess women shouldn’t be allowed to possess firearms then.

I “wonder” if there were people making “jokes” like this about “allowing” women to vote and to drive automobiles too.

What I really wonder if this artist would still have any publications purchasing his work if this had been about any other topic than gun ownership.

Quote of the day–Robert Verbruggen

Posted on by

The Supreme Court’s decision gives Americans a lot to think about — from the “privileges or immunities” clause to the Court’s proper role in enforcing the Constitution. But whenever we discuss gun control, we need to remember that a government capable of gun control is capable of tyranny. Both the majority opinion and Thomas’s concurrence in McDonald — following in the steps of works such as Stephen P. Halbrook’s Securing Civil Rights — perform the crucial service of explaining how important that fact was in the wake of the Civil War.

Robert Verbruggen
July 7, 2010
Gun Rights Are Civil Rights
[Via Jeff.

We need to hammer this point whenever we can. The specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. We are civil rights workers and leaders. Those that oppose us are bigots who wish to deny us and people in general an inalienable right.–Joe]

I would prefer it were prosecutions

Posted on by

The NRA just filed suit against Chicago again.


Sebastian has more details. I’m pleased but would prefer it were Federal Marshals hauling Daley and gang away in handcuffs with prosecutors considering the maximum penalties. But considering where we are compared to 10 or 15 years ago I can’t complain.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by



A little different flavor than usual. This is because Rob Robideau wanted a “good gunny cartoon“. This doesn’t quite qualify but it does show that some artists do “get it”.

Quote of the day–Robb Allen

Posted on by

We are winning, slowly but surely, and this is because logic, reason, and morality are on our side.


Robb Allen
July 6, 2010
When I say Read the Whole Thing
[15 years ago I would have said this wasn’t going to be enough and I began my preparations accordingly (which is part of the reason there is Boomershoot). And perhaps it wasn’t.


We had some luck and I think our opponents made some stupid blunders. I would like to think that luck and opponent blunders were not required but when I think about those dark days I can’t help but believe things could have ended up very differently if only a couple key battles had gone the other way.–Joe]

Experts Surprised…

Posted on by

…again.  One wonders how often an “expert” can express surprise at an outcome and still qualify as an expert.


Breaking news!  Apparently it can get hot in New York in the summer.  Amazing.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by



This is a rather odd and telling way to represent a civil rights leader.

Quote of the day–Alan Gura

Posted on by

The Second Amendment is itself a reasonable, common-sense gun law–it provides powerful security for a fundamental individual right.


Alan Gura
June 29, 2010
McDonald – A Victory for the Second Amendment
[We should start using this when people start talking about “common-sense gun laws”. Just say, “It has already been enacted. We just need to enforce it.”–Joe]

Shotgun versus steel

Posted on by

I participated in a USPSA match at the Lewiston Pistol Club today. After the pistol match we had a shotgun side match.


I forgot to turn on my video glasses for the first string. On the second string I tried some “Low Recoil” ammo. I had to hand cycle every round fired with that ammo. I gave all my remaining ammo of that type to someone with a pump action shotgun.


My third string went well. I probably could have cut at least three or four seconds off my time had I not had so many misses, I had counted my shots so I had not taken the time to drop the hammer on an empty chamber, and I had practiced my reloads. I also don’t think I have fired a shotgun in at least a year. Here is the video from the shooters point of view:




Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

 

 

 

The artist apparently doesn’t realize this has never been an issue at the level of the Supreme Court. Even the Cruikshank decision in 1875 and the Miller decision in 1939 supported the individual rights interpretation. And if they would have read the Heller decision they would have realized this was settled law two years ago rather than something new with the McDonald decision last week.

 

But, by definition, bigots have little need of facts to maintain their belief system.

 

[H/T to Reese who sent me an email with the link to this cartoon.]

Quote of the day–NRA-ILA

Posted on by

Most people who are familiar with the Violence Policy Center (VPC) know that the Court’s decision appears to doom the very thing for which the little anti-gun fringe group was formed–a total ban on handguns.


As it happens, this also appears to have sent Josh Sugarmann, Kristen Rand and their one or two fellow VPC employees into conniption fits. After the Court’s decision became known, at least the Brady Campaign pretended to address the decision’s substance, claiming it gave a green light to the states to impose every form of gun control short of a total ban on handguns. But VPC, used to living fat off the dole from the Joyce Foundation, hysterically claimed that “People will die because of this decision” and “areas of the country with the highest concentration of gun ownership also have the highest rates of gun death.”


Scary sound bites indeed. But VPC’s religiously-held belief that increasing the number of privately-owned guns necessarily causes firearm-related deaths to increase is proven false by the fact that, since 1991, as the number of firearms in the U.S. increased by about one-third, the firearm-related death rate decreased by more than one-third. The best estimate is that guns are used for protection 3-4 times more often than to commit a crime, and the disparity between defensive uses and criminal homicides with guns is much greater.


NRA-ILA
July 2, 2010
VPC’s Self-Induced Plunge Into Irrelevancy Continues With Knee-Jerk Reaction To McDonald Decision
[Conniption fits indeed! And maybe some sort of psychosis. In addition to the delusion that increased gun ownership means increased violent crime the people at the VPC have a hallucination that the NRA is a lobbyist for gun manufactures rather than a civil rights group for individuals.


Someone should remind them to take their meds on a more regular basis.–Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by



The artist limits “the solutions” by posing “the problem” as he does. Just as we would, and should, if we pose the problem as a civil rights infringement problem. I’ve posted on this general topic before (and here).


As a wise engineering manager once told me, it is more important to define the problem than discover a solution. We can’t let the anti-freedom bigots define the problem.


Alan Gura spoke about this some with us bloggers at the NRA convention this year. He is of the opinion the NRA is an expert at legislation and lobbying but that in our current situation civil rights lawsuits are most effective. This is not to say that we can’t have two or more solutions to the same problem but that we should recognize the problem can be framed multiple ways and that depending upon the framing we change the solution set. And with those changing solution sets it may be that a different set of experts are needed.

Quote of the day–Robert Bork

Posted on by

In a constitutional democracy the moral content of law must be given by the morality of the framer or legislator, never by the morality of the judge.


Robert Bork
Speech
American Enterprise Institute, 1984
[The dissent in the McDonald case does not seem to have adhered to this principal or if they did they were living in an alternate reality.–Joe]