FPC mission

Posted on by

From Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation:

Our Mission

  1. Establish a regulatory environment in which every individual adult in the United States who is not prohibited from exercising rights under an analysis consistent with the Constitution’s text, informed by American history and tradition, can:

    • Acquire and possess (“keep”) all bearable arms in “common use for lawful purposes”:

      including but not limited to semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns regulated as “assault weapons”;

      firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds; blades; and, other defensive arms.

    • Carry (“bear”) loaded, operable arms on their person and in their vehicles, in public, for self-defense and all lawful purposes;

    • Personally build (self-manufacture) arms, including by and through the acquisition and possession of the tools, information/files, and materials/supplies to do so; and,

    • Protect the resources, markets, and conduct essential to the above.

  2. Expand young peoples’ understanding and adoption of the philosophy of natural rights and private property, and the adoption and lawful use of the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, and other essential liberties to maximize preservation and expansion of freedom in future generations.

  3. Establish clear protections against prohibition and/or seizure of personal property, as well as unjust incarceration for the exercise of fundamental rights.

  4. Opportunistically leverage changing cultural, political, and legal environments to achieve tactical victories and divert enemy resources (i.e., funding and personnel) away from strategically critical areas to reduce enemy effectiveness.

  5. Upon achieving all of the above, establish a new vision and strategic objectives consistent with the Organization’s Purpose and expanded field of operation.

I support this. I like the way the content is expressed.

And from the Firearms Policy Coalition

OUR CURRENT AREAS OF OPERATION

CULTURE: Using the FPC Team of advocates:

  1. Grow and support a nation-wide network of informed, vocal individuals who actively promote the philosophy of natural rights and work to eliminate laws and policies that limit or otherwise conflict with liberty;
  2. Support policy changes consistent with the [FPC] Purpose and Mission;
  3. Encourage the People to draw a hard line and reject government expansion and interference with the People’s rights and liberty (i.e., “Fuck you. No.”).

I follow them on Twitter and I really like their constant engagement and feisty attitude.

Each month I donate, matched dollar for dollar by my employer, to the foundation

Exaggeration does not help their case

Posted on by

When I read something like this I am inclined to dismiss everything they say because of the exaggeration (emphasis added):

In overruling Roe v. Wade, and with it nearly 50 years of American law, and expanding the reach of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which is a jurisprudential innovation of more recent vintage, the Supreme Court wants the public to accept that history rules the present — and that our founding charter, which is hailed as a beacon of liberty pointing to a more perfect union, reflects rules set in stone that no judge should dare disturb.

This is just one example from the article.

I almost want to scream at them:

Judges must interpret the law as written! They don’t get to change it.

If the constitution needs to be changed to allow a new law, or strike down an existing one, then there is a process to change the constitution. USE IT! Do not expect judges to be some sort of super legislators.

Quote of the day—Chet

Posted on by

The problem is not Mental illness! In the best-case gun control is a stupid attempt to address a symptom of the breakdown of society. The ills of society that we are seeing is due to that very society and addressing the symptoms cannot fix the ills. It is society that has gone amuck. It is society that needs fixing.

Look back 50+ years. Guns could be purchase if you had the money. You could live in a shack if that is what you could afford. There were definite expected roles for men and different expected roles for women. Boys were given a gun on becoming of age usually in their early teens. There were jobs even for people on the lower half of the IQ curve. A single wage earner was sufficient to raise a family though it was preferable not to be a hired hand.

So today, it is women and POC that get the jobs and the promotions. What is a young man to think when society is saying that he has no role? That he is not wanted? Yet, he can look at what is being achieved and be alarmed.

Does recognizing reality make him mental ill?

Chet
June 12, 2022
Comment to Insightful observation
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—In Chains @InChainsInJail

Posted on by

We never claimed to be law-abiding.

Slaves were law-abiding.

We are peaceful.

Now, if you want to threaten our rights, our families, or our property, you can discover the limits of that peacefulness.

In Chains @InChainsInJail
Tweeted on June 14, 2022
[See also Huffman’s rule of firearm law.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justice Samuel Alito

Posted on by

In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.

What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside?

The dissent cites statistics about the use of guns in domestic disputes, see post, at 5, but it does not explain why these statistics are relevant to the question presented in this case. How many of the cases involving the use of a gun in a domestic dispute occur outside the home, and how many are prevented by laws like New York’s?

The dissent cites statistics on children and adolescents killed by guns, see post, at 1, 4, but what does this have to do with the question whether an adult who is licensed to possess a handgun may be prohibited from carrying it outside the home? Our decision, as noted, does not expand the categories of people who may lawfully possess a gun, and federal law generally forbids the possession of a handgun by a person who is under the age of 18, 18 U. S. C. §§922(x)(2)–(5), and bars the sale of a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, §§922(b)(1), (c)(1).1

The dissent cites the large number of guns in private hands—nearly 400 million—but it does not explain what this statistic has to do with the question whether a person who already has the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense is likely to be deterred from acquiring a gun by the knowledge that the gun cannot be carried outside the home. See post, at 3. And while the dissent seemingly thinks that the ubiquity of guns and our country’s high level of gun violence provide reasons for sustaining the New York law, the dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense.

Justice Samuel Alito
June 23, 2022
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
[I suspect that to Alito these are actually rhetorical questions. By now it should be increasingly clear anti-gun people are not rational. To many of them it is perfectly obvious that if someone, not an authorized government employee, possesses a gun they are “a bad guy”. That is their default way to determine good from evil. If someone has a gun they are evil and/or have intent to do evil, and should be taken into custody to prevent the crimes which they know will happen. That we want private citizens to be able possess guns is blindingly obvious proof that we want to create more criminals and crime. It’s “common sense” to them. No further discussion is needed.

And it happens at the Supreme Court of United States of America.

That is how messed up and prevalent their thinking is. It is how they justify summary execution and genocide for gun owners.

Prepare appropriately.—Joe]

World class trolling

Posted on by

I suspect Justice Thomas has had this teed up for many years and got a great deal of pleasure whacking the opposition in the face with it today:

Even before the Civil War commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America. After the Civil War, of course, the exercise of this fundamental right by freed slaves was systematically thwarted. This Court has already recounted some of the Southern abuses violating blacks’ right to keep and bear arms. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 771 (noting the “systematic efforts”

Thomas goes on at length with sections such as:

The reports described how blacks used publicly carried weapons to defend themselves and their communities. For example, the Bureau reported that a teacher from a Freedmen’s school in Maryland had written to say that, because of attacks on the school, “[b]oth the mayor and sheriff have warned the colored people to go armed to school, (which they do,)” and that the “[t]he superintendent of schools came down and brought [the teacher] a revolver” for his protection. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 658 (1866); see also H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 68, 39th Cong., 2d Sess., 91 (1867) (noting how, during the New Orleans riots, blacks under attack “defended themselves . . . with such pistols as they had”).:

Via LongWay001.

In other news, Mike B. and I exchanged some text messages this afternoon:

Mike: We need to start renaming streets, “Clarence Thomas Blvd.”.
QOTD candidate by Mike’s wife.

Joe: Smile
Hmmmmm… How about renaming NYC “Clarence Thomas City”?

Mike: Honoring the black man

Leftists opposed to freedom… again

Posted on by

Constitutional law is something to be disposed of and/or ignored ::

It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States. The first step is for a state the “court” has now forced guns upon, to ignore this ruling. Great. You’re a court? Why and how do think you can enforce your rulings?

Olbermann probably doesn’t know this, leftists seem to be ignorant or in denial of history, but other people once had a similar attitude about SCOTUS. The National Guard convinced them to change their behavior. There is another parallel which should also be pointed out to Olbermann. And that is, in that previous encounter it was also Democrats obstructing freedom.

Slippery slope

Posted on by

From What the Supreme Court’s Gun Ruling Means For Gun Control

So the future will depend, at least in part, on what state lawmakers try to do. Lawmakers in a state like New York or California could test the limits of the Supreme Court’s ruling by designating the subway, Broadway theaters or grocery stores as “sensitive places” where heightened restrictions can be applied. The risk for them, of course, is that the next Supreme Court ruling could expand gun rights even further.

It could be that the slippery slope is leaning in the correct direction.

I won’t be satisfied until the opposition knows the slightest misstep will be like a greased tin floor at a steep angle with a Federal prison cell at the bottom.

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

This just takes. The concessions are only things law and order GOP swamp creatures care about.

This bill is garbage and should be opposed, and any Republican who votes for this needs to be tossed out on their asses in a primary if they aren’t retiring.

Sebastian
June 22, 2022
Breaking Silence Over Gun Control
[The best thing I can say about it is that it isn’t as bad as I expected it would be.

All is not lost yet. It appears Senator Dianne Feinstein is improving the odds it will fail:

I just filed an amendment to the Senate’s bipartisan gun bill that would raise the age to purchase an assault weapon to 21.

I still think everyone that votes for it or contributes to the enforcement of it should be prosecuted.—Joe]

Another economy has collapsed

Posted on by

Nightmare becomes reality in Sri Lanka as govt has no choice but to declare economy has ‘collapsed’:

After months of shortages of food, fuel and electricity. Sri Lanka’s prime minister said this morning the country’s debt-laden economy has “collapsed.”

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe told Sri Lanka’s parliament today that the South Asian country is “facing a far more serious situation beyond the mere shortages of fuel, gas, electricity and food. Our economy has completely collapsed.”

I didn’t see the exact words but I strongly suspect the high price of oil on the world market contributed.

There are other economic stressors out there. The most obvious are wheat and fertilizer from the Ukraine/Russia region. There are countless others. Some are ripple effects from the war. Others are from other areas of the world and less direct such as the chip shortage and inflation.

There will be more collapsed economies in the coming months and perhaps years. The ripples and, perhaps even, tidal waves are just over the horizon.

We live in interesting times. Prepare appropriately.

Quote of the day—Gunther Eagleman @GuntherEagleman

Posted on by

Red flag laws will be determined by people who cant define what a woman is… Let that sink in.

Gunther Eagleman @GuntherEagleman
Tweeted on June 13, 2022
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

There’s probably some truth to this

Posted on by

Via Ivermectin and Artemisinin @triplecrown777:

One thing people need to understand about extremely kind, nice, and loving people, is that their other side is jus as extreme. It’s the hell they survive that makes them gentle. Don’t mistake their self-control for weakness. The beast in them is sleeping, not dead.

A couple decades ago a coworker from India told me it was well known and taught in the psych classes in his country the person most likely to kill you wasn’t the person easy to anger. Those types calmed down just as quickly and easily as they angered. The person that was always calm, gentle, and soft spoken was very difficult to make angry. But when they did get angry they would kill you even if it was days or weeks later.

My hypothesis for this is that the person who is frequently angry has learned to manage that state of mind from 10s of thousands of incidents growing up. One the other hand, the cool, quiet, gentle type, has hold experiences with extreme feelings of anger which number in the dozens and they are more likely to be overwhelmed by the emotions.

There may be a lesson to be learned here about rioters, emotionally driven anti-gun people and their long suffering victims.

Red flagging the red flags

Posted on by

For something in a Boston newspaper this is amazingly good:

“Even the best available risk factors can identify only a subpopulation in which the risk of committing a mass shooting is on the order of one in a million.” Are we prepared to curtail the freedom of 999,999 Americans who pose no threat in order to keep the one in a million away from guns?

The sweeping use of red-flag laws to withhold Second Amendment rights from anyone with the social characteristics common to mass shooters is akin to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s order to round up hundreds of thousands of Americans of Japanese descent in order to prevent espionage or sabotage during the war against Japan. Some terrible outcomes might indeed be prevented, but at the price of lost liberties on a wide scale.

Justified

Posted on by

I don’t see it as a cause for celebration. I view it as the best of the bad alternatives:

As more people get guns and carry permits, Philly sees a sharp rise in homicides ruled justified

Some see increased gun ownership and use in self-defense as bad:

“Guns are becoming too prevalent, whether they’re in the hands of licensed or unlicensed people,” Johnson said. “We’re becoming the Wild, Wild West, and soon everyone is going to have a gun, killing people ― justified or not.”

I think the majority of people realize gun people have been right all these years and are going to give our way a chance.

Worse than a nuke

Posted on by

There is some truth to this:

image

Via Director Dean @PrinzPlaymates.

Not all decades of democratic leadership result in Detroit like results.

But why risk it? Just nuke any city Democrats take over.

Quote of the day—Roberta X

Posted on by

Be careful what you believe.  Be careful what you wish for.  Dramatic narratives are appealing, but emotional engagement is no assurance of truth.  It’s just the easiest way to manipulate people.  Distrust all cheering crowds, and distrust even more the men and women for whom they shout.

Roberta X
June 12, 2022
A Pause For Reflection
[I am tempted to extrapolate that to say, “Truth does not need emotion to validate itself. Emotional engagement is an indicator you must examine the evidence and logic closely looking for deception and/or error.” But that’s not as succinct.

The problem is that long before we developed logic and formal processes to distinguish truth from falsity we had emotional shortcuts that served us and our ancestors reasonably well as far back as there were pea sized brains. Logic and rational thought is an extremely thin veneer on top of that emotional lizard brain core. People, others or ourselves, can either deliberately or unintentionally bypass than thin veneer and engage that emotional core with minor effort to great effect. It is a wonderful system for generating extremely fast decisions with minimal effort. This works well for probably 99+% of the decisions we make each day. But this emotional core can also override reality. It takes a lot of evidence and effort to correctly conclude the earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe if you have have spent 20 years believing it was flat, motionless, and were certain the sun and stars move in the heavens.

Reality is really, really tough. Don’t let emotion, especially that created by a charismatic leader, degrade your ability to discern truth from falsity.—Joe]

It is better*

Posted on by

Via UR a Smart Ass, Carl @Ur_a_Smartass_C

image

* You recognize the classical reference, right?

.22 LR ammo via Widener’s

Posted on by

Last month I received an email from Widener’s. This is the important part of our conversation:

I’m reaching out to see if you’d be interested in reviewing some ammo on blog.joehuffman.org. Product reviews are an opportunity to increase website traffic and build a stronger relationship with your audience.

Think of your readers for a minute. They likely see ads for ammunition placed by manufacturers every time they go online. Wouldn’t it be better if they were receiving real information from a trusted resource like your website? Given your experience in the industry, I thought you would be interested in receiving some free ammunition to review.

If you are interested in receiving some free ammo for an unbiased product review. I’m sure we can find a caliber or two to send your way. 

If there’s anything I can help you with, just let me know. Thanks!

—

What type of ammo do you have in mind?

My primary calibers are .22LR (Steel Challenge type matches and practice), .40 S&W (Steel Challenge and USPSA matches) , .223 Remington (precision rifle out to 500 yards), and .300 Win Mag (precision rifle out to 700 yards).

—

Thank you for the fast reply. That sounds great, below is a $250 gift card code for you to use to get started. After you add items to your cart, enter the gift card code and the website will walk you through the rest of the checkout process. Orders are processed through a secure server and fulfilled remotely by our warehouse, so your blogger identity remains anonymous to us.

I ordered 1,000 rounds of CCI Mini-Mags 22 LR 40 Grain CPRN and 500 rounds of Federal American Eagle Suppressor 22 LR 45 Grain CPRN. That was on a Tuesday. The following Tuesday the ammo arrived at my underground bunker in remote Idaho:

image 

I was a little concerned because the package had been damaged in transit. I’ve opened ammo shipments that looked similar to this and found hundreds of rounds rattling around loose in the box.

This time the interior packaging was more than adequate and the ammo was contained:

image

image

I’ve fired many thousands of rounds of the Mini-Mags with excellent results. Because of the high reliability it’s the only .22 ammo I use in competition. Hence, I didn’t bother to test it.

I was really interested in the Federal American Eagle Suppressor 22 LR 45 Grain CPRN. Would it work in my somewhat finicky competition gun? I had thought I had my suppressor in my range bag but I couldn’t find it. Without the suppressor to give some additional backpressure I thought there was zero chance of it working. I was wrong. I fired two magazines without even a hint of malfunction and with excellent accuracy.

That was almost a month ago.

Last week I put in an exhaustive search for my suppressor to finish off the review. I finally found the suppressor laying on a shelf in the gun safe rather than in a range bag or gun case like I expected. I went to the range for a late lunch one day (it’s about five minutes from work) and, as I had hoped, I had a few minutes when I was the only person in the bay. I put on the suppressor and took off the ear protection. There was the usual mildly intense pop with the first round then the rest of the rounds were not much more than the sound of the action of the gun cycling. Again, with perfect reliability and excellent accuracy.

Nice!

Thanks Widner’s!

Quote of the day—Nicholas Roske needs to learn to apply himself @DanLoney36

Posted on by

OK…silent generation? Whatever the hell you were. Thanks for all the impotent killers you trained

Nicholas Roske needs to learn to apply himself @DanLoney36
Tweeted on June 14, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

The quoted tweet was in response to someone saying they were a CCW instructor.

This claim takes some contemplation to even begin to respond to it:

It is not possible to manufacture, distribute or sell an AR-15 safely. We have decades of evidence. Its only use is to kill civilians and children. Its very existence creates a market for murder.

He apparently lives in a alternate universe from the one I am familiar with. In my universe tens of millions of AR-15s are safely in the hands of millions of citizens and are used to fire hundreds of millions of rounds each year. Yet blunt objects are used more frequently to murder people than are killed using an AR-15. And sharp objects such as knives are used far more often than blunt objects. Either all those 100s of millions of rounds malfunctioned or they are being used for something other than to “kill civilians and children”. Hence this guy is delusional and/or an evil liar.

This law expert is also well know for:

Saying an AR-15 is protected by #2A is like saying child pornography is protected by #1A

This one tells you all you need to know about him:

Ashli Babbitt? Love her. I love her so much, I think next time they should make a few dozen just like her

This removes all doubt:

Why are we pretending these #2A scum are human beings?

And this was directly to me before I was blocked:

It’s just a never-ending abyss of moral and intellectual failure with, for want of a better term, “people” like you I don’t care if the vast majority of mass shooters are Whigs. As long as these weapons are legal, children will die. It can’t be any more clear.

This is what he thinks of people who don’t agree with him. He dehumanize them and wants them dead. For more examples see here.

It was an interesting exchange. Links to SCOTUS decisions, criminology facts, and pointing out the errors of his ways were responded to with insults and additional bad legal takes. I had to wonder if he is paid to be a troll. He was clearly way in over his head and just kept going long after I left to go to the range.—Joe]

AR-15s versus tanks and planes

Posted on by

Via Mrgunsngear @Mrgunsngear

image

Via GhostGuns.com @GhostGcom

image

See also Boots on the ground.