Tag: Gun Rights

Open Carry is Different than Threatening People With a Gun

It’s time once again for some open carry drama. This time it’s being brought to use by the police of Gulfport, Mississippi. An individual of that town went into the local Wal-Mart with a shotgun and was racking shells into the chamber to intimidate shoppers. The local Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team arrived on the scene but opted not to arrest the individual. Their reason? Open carry laws:

The police chief of Gulfport, Mississippi, expressed his frustration with his state’s open carry laws after a man strolling through a Walmart Sunday night menaced shoppers by loading and racking shells into his shotgun, causing police to dispatch a SWAT team and evacuate the store.

According to Police Chief Leonard Papania, he would have arrested the unidentified man and his companion if he could for stretching the city’s police forces thin while panicked Walmart employees huddled in a safe room, WMC reported.

[…]

Using surveillance video police were able to track the men down and speak with them, but due to Mississippi’s open carry laws, the chief said his hands were tied after conferring with city attorneys.

“In our nation there continues to be violent events. Many of these tragic events start to unfold with very similar circumstances where individuals exhibit peculiar actions with firearms around large crowds,” he explained. “The actions of these two men could have inadvertently led to a very violent misunderstanding.”

Bullshit. His hands were not tied. There are numerous laws on the books that would have allowed him to arrest the individual. Terroristic threats and brandishing being two of them that come to mind immediately. Walking around a store racking shells into the chamber of a shotgun qualifies as threatening behavior and threatening behavior is illegal under many statutes.

A very obvious line exists between openly carrying a firearm and threatening people with it. Walking around with a holstered handgun or a slug long arm is nothing more than openly carrying a firearm and isn’t threatening in any way. Unholstering a handgun or unslinging a long arm and manipulating the controls in public without a present threat is an act reasonable people can assume to be threatening. I certainly would. And that’s what brandishing is, waving a weapon around in a threatening manner.

What this looks like to me is the police or city attorneys (or both) purposely making a bad situation because they are unhappy that open carry is legal. It wouldn’t be the first time law enforcement or government attorneys purposely made a bad situation by refusing to do their supposed jobs just to create public support for passing a new restriction.

The Hardships Involved with Supporting Both Gun Rights and Gay Rights

Readers of my blog and people who know me in meatspace are aware of my absolutist positions on both gun and gay rights. I’m one of those people who believes you should be allowed to marry whoever you want and defend yourself against those who would attack you for living a life they find unacceptable. Unfortunately gun and gay rights activists often clash. Many people on the gun rights side, being devout Christians and social conservatives, strongly oppose legalizing same-sex marriage. Meanwhile many gay rights activists, being devout neoliberals, strongly oppose repealing gun restrictions. Both sides believe their respective gods, those being the Christian God and the state, have handed them a divine mission to force the world into submitting to their central plan. Being stuck in the middle can I often find myself unwelcome in both groups. And it seems I’m not alone:

The right to marry clashed with the right to carry over the weekend in Olympia, Washington, when members of the state’s Libertarian Party were barred from a gay pride event because of their support for the Second Amendment.

Last weekend marked the 25th anniversary of the Capital City Pride festival in the Evergreen State, and the Libertarian Party of Washington planned to attend the festival and man a booth — just like in the years past. However, when an attendee called the event’s organizers to ask if open carry would be allowed throughout the festival, the libertarians suddenly found themselves barred from the festivities.

[…]

Other than the voicemail Holcomb received the day before the festival, allegedly no other members of the LPWA — including those who registered for the booth — were informed that the entire party was no longer welcome at the inclusive event. It wasn’t until a LPWA booth organizer, Edwin Pole, showed up at 8 a.m. on Saturday that he was told he could no longer attend.

“She was absolutely, really overacting,” Pole told TheBlaze in an interview. “We were complying.”

Pole told TheBlaze that both he and Holcomb showed up to the event unarmed, and that while the LPWA had discussed whether or not they wanted to promote gun rights in the booth this year, they ultimately decided against it long before the confrontation with Schlecht. Pole said LPWA members had been asked to show up to the festival unarmed.

This is the kind of inconsistent advocacy that really pisses me off. I make no apologies for being an absolutist when it comes to things I consider to be rights. Voluntary association, which is what I consider any form of voluntary marriage to be, and self-defense, which is what laws removing restrictions on carrying firearms enable, are two of those things. In fact I cannot take anybody seriously who calls themselves an advocate of rights and doesn’t entirely oppose any restriction against voluntary association or self-defense. That’s not to say I believe you are required to carry a gun or have to personally endorse same-sex marriages but if you support any state restriction against either I don’t believe you have any grounds to call yourself an advocate of rights.

So I get a little pissy when I see gun rights activists opposing legalizing same-sex marriages and gay rights activists opposing people’s ability to defend themselves. And I get especially pissy when I see either side justifying their opposition by tying the thing they hate to a horrible event or organization:

Pole said he personally paid the $100 for the booth himself and did not take a check Schlecht allegedly attempted to shove into his notebook Saturday morning. He said that while the check was to reimburse for the cost of the booth, it was “not sufficient” as it did not compensate LPWA for the additional money, time and resources the organization had used in an attempt to get ready for the festival.

Aside from the check, Schlecht provided the LPWA members with a handwritten note that explained Capital City Pride’s decision to take away their booth.

“You and your associates are completely free to exercise your 1st Amendment rights to free speech in & around our fair grounds,” the note signed by Schlecht said. “You and your associates are free to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. And be advised that your supreme insensitivity to the recent church shooting in Charleston will be duly noted by festival participants.”

Self-defense and the shooting in Charleston are in no way related. Not one damn way. The comparable action from the other side would be if a gun rights activist told a gay person that they couldn’t attend a gun rights rally on account of a mentally deranged gay man killing several straight people in an entirely different city. By trying to demonize gun rights supporters by insinuating they are somehow related to the shooting in Charleston Schlecht is being so blatantly dishonest that she should be embarrassed to the point of resigning her position. In fact if I were in charge of the event I would fire her immediately for such dishonest behavior. She doesn’t give a shit about rights so I see no reason she should be involved with an event advocating rights.

Speaking of the event itself, I’ve always been of the opinion that gay pride festivals should have as many firearms present as rainbow flags. Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community are frequent targets of violent attacks. The Stonewall riots, for example, were the result of one such attack by police officers. So if anybody should understand the need for having access to an immediate, effective means of self-defense it should be members of the LGBT community. It’s actually depressing to see so many gay rights activists also supporting the oppression of the LGBT community by opposing attempts to repeal restrictions on gun ownership and carrying.

Before I end this post I’d like to take a semi-related aside. Anybody who knows their history of esoteric politics may see a lot of similarities between this event and the idea behind the Guns and Dope Party. Back in the day a wise man realized that if you had all of the cannabis users and gun owners in the country united you’d have a majority of the voter base. The only problem was that the cannabis users and gun owners tended, and still tend, not to like one another. So he conceived of the Guns and Dope Party to unite the two factions and bring liberty to the land. Since you live in this tyrannical shit hole with me you know that the two groups’ hatred for one another won out. Sadly history appears to be repeating itself, which just further shows that divide and conquer is an effective strategy when you’re the ruler and want to prevent your power from being toppled.

Self-Defense Comes to Puerto Rico

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), whose site now requires enabling JavaScript to view textual content and therefore pisses me off to the point where I really considered not linking to them, notes that a court ruling in Puerto Rico has eliminated the island nation’s firearm registry and licensing requirements to purchase and carry a firearm:

As of now, according to Sandra Barreras with Ladies of the Second Amendment (LSA), the group that brought the lawsuit, “there is no regulation to purchase or carry (and) all purchases will be handled in accordance with federal firearms regulations.” LSA is affiliated with SAF through the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR).

The class-action lawsuit challenged various articles in Puerto Rico’s gun law, which the court declared unconstitutional. Because of the ruling, Barreras said, Puerto Ricans may now carry openly or concealed without a permit, and they do not need to obtain a permit before purchasing a firearm.

This was a class action lawsuit involving more than 850 individual plaintiffs, she reported to SAF offices. The news was greeted with delight, especially because in reaching its decision, the court cited the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases, and the recent ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia. Both the McDonald and Palmer cases were won by SAF.

It’s nice to hear some positive self-defense news coming from outside of the United States proper. I also find the amount of resources the state will stick into keeping the people under its rule from having an effective means of self-defense telling. Instead of simply abolishing the registry and licensing requirement as soon as somebody stated an objection the government of Puerto Rico enforced the laws and even invested resources into making an argument for keeping them in its own courts (when you can’t convince yourself registries and licenses are necessary then they truly aren’t). That really shows just how much states prefer their victims to be unable to fight back against both itself and any of its ilk (that is to say non-state robbers, attackers, and murders).

Uber Wants Defenseless Drivers and Passengers

I’ve watched ride sharing companies Uber and Lyft with a great deal of interest. The idea of having a system where vehicle owners can connect with people wanting ride to the benefit of both appeals to me. But I’ve always been put off by both services’ centralized nature. Centralized systems are too easy for the state to regulate or shutdown and lend themselves too well to the central authority placing every stricter rules on the users. Uber has decided to flex its centralized power by banning both drivers and passengers from carrying firearms while using its service:

Uber Technologies says it is banning firearms of any kind during rides arranged through the Uber platform, and drivers or riders who violate the rule may lose access to the platform. The rules also apply to Uber’s affiliates.

The company said Friday it changed its firearms policy on June 10 to make sure riders and drivers feel comfortable. In a statement, Uber said it made the change after reviewing feedback from both passengers and Uber drivers. Previously it had deferred to local law on the issue.

I could point out concealed means concealed and that Uber doesn’t have an legal authority so carrying while using its service isn’t criminal. But I firmly believe if a company doesn’t want to do business with me then I don’t want to do business with it. I’m also of the opinion that it should be up to the driver, the person who owns the vehicle after all, to decide what they do and do not want to allow in their vehicle. A decentralized ride sharing service would allows drivers to make such decisions.

This announcement is rather ironic though. Whereas most companies that announce gun prohibitions don’t have a history involving firearms Uber does. One of its drivers actually prevented a mass shooting:

A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.
cComments

The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.

With this new policy Uber is effectively saying it would have preferred if more people had died in that incident. I don’t want to do business with a company that doesn’t want to do business with me and I certainly don’t want to do business with a company that would rather people die than its drivers and passengers be armed.

A New Low for Gun Control Advocacy

The gun control battle was put to bed some time ago. Time and again the end of the world scenarios gun control advocates predicated failed to come to fruition. In fact violent crime rates have continued to decline even as gun restrictions have been loosened. Even though one could argue that the declining violent crime rate is unrelated to the loosening of gun restrictions the claim that gun restrictions reduce violent crime has been proven false.

Maybe it’s because they never learned critical thinking in school or it may be related to the fact that there’s a lot of money in shilling for gun control thanks to big money tyrants like Michael Bloomberg but gun control advocates can’t admit that their claims are wrong. So what’s a gun control advocate to do? Make shit up, obviously! And not just a handful of minor fabrications. The time has come for some new level bullshit. Now to prove gun control works real states must be compared to entirely fictitious states:

The state in question is Connecticut. In 1995, Connecticut tightened its laws for handgun purchases. It raised the age requirement from 18 to 21, thus cutting off part of an age group that’s statistically prone to violence. It also required purchasers to apply for a permit at their local police station, which would perform a more extensive background check. Finally, the permits would not be approved without proof of attendance of an eight-hour safety course.

So, there was a clear before-and-after the implementation of these laws to track gun-related homicides. The question is how to find an appropriate population to serve as a control for Connecticut.

Quite cleverly, the authors created one. Rather than looking for a single state that matches Connecticut’s demographics, they performed a statistical analysis that created a synthetic state that tracked Connecticut’s pattern of firearm homicides before the law’s passage. This state was composed of a weighted rate from a number of different states. So, for example, neighboring Rhode Island accounts for about 70 percent of the synthetic state’s composition, Maryland another 15 percent. Then the authors created a similar synthetic state that tracked Connecticut’s non-firearm homicides.

(Because the study period overlapped the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, where a number of Connecticut residents worked, that year was dropped from the non-firearm analysis.)

The synthetic state analysis also took into account a large number of factors that tend to influence rates of homicide, such as the percentage of the population at or below the poverty line, the percent between 15 and 24 years of age, and the number of police per unit of population.

For homicides from all causes other than guns, the synthetic state tracked Connecticut both before and after the passage of the 1995 gun control law. A few years after the implementation of implementation of the law in late 1995, however, firearm homicide rates diverged, with Connecticut’s continuing to drop along a previous trend, while the synthetic states (like the national average) saw this rate stabilize.

This is a level of fail that’s almost impressive. Gun control shills are so desperate that they’re now claiming gun control works because statistical studies of make-believe states say so. I could also prove whatever point I wanted if I based my claims on the results of a statistical study of a state I made up.

Go home gun control shills, you’re drunk.

Making It Doubleplus Illegal

Everything can be solved by a prohibition. At least that’s what the statists believe. Back in the day the movie Die Hard had everybody convinced that a Glock handgun was made of plastic and porcelain and could therefore get past metal detectors. Although this was entirely fabricated the politicians latched onto it and pass the Undetectable Firearms Act, which requires the inclusion of at least 3.7 ounces of steel in any firearm so it can be detected by metal detectors. With the advent of 3D printed firearms many politicians again have their panties in a bunch. Several of them have taken action and introduced a bill that would require metal be included in any firearm design:

Plastic guns can be even more dangerous than traditional firearms because they’re harder to detect, says Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.).

The Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act, backed by Israel and several other Democrats, would prohibit the manufacture of entirely plastic guns. The legislation would require a major component of every gun to contain enough traces of metal to be detected.

Israel plans to unveil the legislation Tuesday during a press conference at LaGuardia Airport in New York City, where he will draw a connection between his bill and recent high-profile airport security lapses.

“If detectable weapons can make it through security checkpoints, how can we expect to catch wrongdoers carrying undetectable plastic firearms?” Israel told The Hill. “What could be worse than a gun that can be used on an airplane, but cannot be detected on the security line because it’s plastic?”

“It’s time to modernize our airport security so the American people can count on it,” he added.

So entirely plastic guns will now be doubleplus illegal! That will obviously solve the problem!

The number of laws on the books is now so extensive that even the politicians don’t know them all. Manufacturing entirely plastic guns has been illegal for a long time. In addition to the fact this bill is entirely redundant we also have the fact that 3D printed firearms still fire regular cartridges, which are made of metal. A plastic firearm with no ammunition is a worthless weapon. There is also the problem of who is administering airport security:

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) failed a recent sting operation in which undercover agents sneaked fake explosives and weapons through airport security in 67 out of 70 tests, or about 95 percent of the time.

According to Israel (the politician, not the country) TSA’s 95 percent failure rating is one reason to pass this bill to make what is already illegal illegaler. I’m not sure how that makes sense since TSA hasn’t been missing plastic guns but actual metal guns. Something tells me Israel isn’t the sharpest tool in the congressional toolbox (but he is a tool).

It would be improper of me to not point out the most obvious flaw in Israel’s clever plan. Anybody who is willing to sneak a weapon onto a plane to kill people is not going to comply with a law that requires them to include metal in their 3D printed firearm. This law is therefore pointless on two levels.

Thou Shalt Not Discuss Manufacturing Firearms

The United States government has been trying fruitlessly to stifle the spread of any information it deems inappropriate for centuries (at least since the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts). Back in the 1990s the government was trying to restrict the sharing of information about of strong cryptography, claiming such algorithms were munitions (I’m not making this up). Now the government is doubling down on its stupidity and trying to prevent the sharing of information related to manufacturing 3D printed firearms:

As readers of Reason know well, Cody Wilson is living proof the government has already been acting on the belief they have this power to prevent certain technical details about gun making from spreading to the Internet without their approval—in Wilson’s case, CAD files to for a 3D printed plastic handgun. And they’ve already been sued for it by Wilson.

Wilson this morning tells me that in making this regulatory move public, it’s almost like the people he’s suing are begging for an injunction to stop them. The proposed regulation is even signed by one of the same people Wilson is suing, C. Edward Peartree, director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy. (One might argue that this is a person being sued in some sense backtracking to cover his own legal ass by stating that the seemingly objectionable actions he’s being sued over are settled lawful regulations, though I don’t know if a court would agree with that argument one way or the other.)

The State Department, Wilson says, could have gone to the next hearing on his case on July 6 “and say we are changing the rule, we will address [Wilson’s complaints about the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendment issues with their censorious practice], moot the case.” Instead they are “completely explicit” with these new announced regs, “doubling down” on their supposed power to require government license for certain kinds of speech related to weapons usable for self-defense.

Wilson says his suit had to try to demonstrate that the government had such a policy for prior approval of speech. Now the government is “saying our policy is literally that there is such a requirement and always has been.” Wilson seems to think it might make it easier to get an injunction against the government’s threats to him to take down from his servers information related to the home-making of plastic guns via 3D printers. We’ll see.

Attempts to restrict the proliferation of information don’t worry me. The state can write as many laws as it wants but in the end people will always ignore restrictions on sharing information. Thanks to strong cryptographic tools, which the state tried but failed to control in the 1990s, it’s trivial for people to post and read information anonymously. And the task will only become more futile as the state tightens its grip. Arrests, charges, prosecutions, and imprisonments will encourage more and more people to utilize tools such as Tor to protect their anonymity. As more people use these tools the task of the state to identify and attack sharers of information will become more infeasible.

This battle has been waging since at least the invention of the printing press and will continue to wage until humanity rids itself of the yoke of statism. But it is a battle that the state can never win because it is only a handful of individuals going against the collected creativity of the masses.

Basic Safety Equipment Legalized in Minnesota

The guys and gals over at Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) have demonstrated once again that, unlike the charlatans over at Minnesota Gun Rights, they can get shit done. Through some miracle of the gods suppressors will be legal to own in Minnesota starting on July 1st:

Minnesota became the 40th state to allow civilian ownership of National Firearms Act-compliant firearms suppressors with Gov. Dayton’s signature last week.

The bill began life as a House measure that, although it threaded its way successfully through that chamber as a stand-alone proposal, had to be folded into a huge judiciary policy bill that addressed a number of widely varied issues to survive in the Democrat-controlled Senate where it passed in a veto-proof 55-9 vote.

Although Dayton cautioned lawmakers that he would not approve a bill legalizing the devices, saying, “I’m not aware that there is any part of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that gives us the right to bear a silencer,” the Governor in fact signed the legislation without comment along with three other bills last Friday morning.

The bill contained other provisions that are helpful to Minnesota gun owners such as limiting the state’s power to confiscate firearms during an emergency situation. I look forward to finally being able to attach a piece of basic safety equipment to my firearms. It’s too bad that the National Firearms Act requires me to hand $200 over to the gun runners at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives for the privilege of using safety equipment but such as the way of the state (you can’t get anything nice without giving the mob its cut).

Handling a Self-Defense Situation

Christopher Cantwell, who officially endorse me as a social justice warrior, got himself into a rather unpleasant self-defense situation. I’ve heard him discuss it on Free Talk Live and read numerous opinions about how he handled the situation. As this story is an intersection of anarchism (Cantwell, even though many of his writings would indicate otherwise, does consider himself an anarchist as I’ve learned) and gun rights I thought I’d offer my opinion (and don’t say you didn’t ask for it, you’re on my site so obviously you want to know what I think).

From what I’ve read and heard the situation began when Cantwell came across a physical altercation and pulled out his camera to record it. The people involved in the altercation decided they didn’t want to be recorded and the situation quickly escalated to the point where Cantwell felt threatened enough to draw his gun.

Cantwell and I may both be anarchists but we likely disagree on more things than we agree on. I mention this because it’s something I share with many gun rights advocates (the disagreeing with Cantwell part, not the being an anarchist part) and the general attitude of many of them seems to be that Cantwell acted stupidly. Because of the video and what he said about the situation I’m left to believe that the primary reason they find what he did to be stupid is because they just generally don’t like the guy and are unwilling to compliment him. The reason I believe this is because he actually handled the situation well.

The first criticism being aimed at him by his detractors is that he involved himself in the situation. Anybody who has taken a self-defense class will tell you that involving yourself in altercations between unknown individuals is not a wise idea. Of course standing aside could result in somebody being murdered. Therefore the question becomes whether the legal liability is so great that your conscious will allow you to walk away as somebody is potentially being murdered. I think Cantwell took a good middle path by recording the altercation. By doing so really can’t be said to have escalated the situation since his “involvement” was nothing more than being a witness. He didn’t approach the group and command them to knock it off or take sides. Instead he did the same thing any security camera would do, bear witness and make a record of what happened.

When the people involved in the altercation took notice of him they initiated another aggressive situation, this time involving Cantwell. First they commanded him to turn off his camera and then approached him when he refused. At this point leaving the camera on was the wisest decision he could have made because it create a record that shows he didn’t instigate the situation and even made an effort to back away. That’s a key point, as the aggressors approached he attempted to maintain space by backing away.

Where I disagree with that he did is when he informed the aggressors that he had a gun. My quibble with this is that you remove the shock factor drawing your firearm has and potentially convince you aggressors to draw their firearms that you were unaware they had. Having surprise on your side is good in a self-defense situation because it can cause your aggressors to stop for a second as they process the new circumstance. This is a minor quibble though as the situation didn’t change. Warning them that he was armed didn’t convince them to back off nor did they pull weapons on him. In the end it was one of those mid-situation tactics that you really have to decide for yourself based on the situation at hand as it’s unfolding.

In the end he drew his firearm and that convinced his aggressors that they should stop approaching and threatening him. As with most self-defense situations involving the defender drawing a firearm the situation was resolved without any shots fired, which is the best possible outcome when things have reached that point.

I really can’t see where Cantwell committed any major self-defense faux pas. People could argue that he didn’t have to involve himself by recording the altercation but if it ended up in a murder people would probably criticize him for not recording it. By choosing to record the situation rather than break it up he ensured his involvement was minimal and stood little chance of escalating matters. It’s a good middle ground between legal liability and decency.

Self-Defense is Not Victim Blaming

I came across a link on my Facebook feed of a page showing pictures of women being photographed with the objects they carry to defend themselves. My first response was to note how poor the items pictured were for self-defense. But then I came across something:

She believes the objects they’re holding represent a “larger reality of victim blaming”.

[…]

“These loaded objects on key chains where trinkets should be really do portray how women are expected to always be on guard to protect themselves…when the rapists should not be raping,” she said.

Self-defense isn’t victim blaming, it’s simply being prepared for a potential life threatening situation. While I agree that rapists shouldn’t be raping the fact of the matter is the universe is a cruel place and only grants us the ability to control our own actions. That means we must prepare ourselves for situations created by other people. Rape isn’t the only scenario where one may have to defend themselves. Assaults, muggings, burglaries, attempted murders, and an extensive list of other violent crimes are all situations one can find themselves in that were created by somebody else. Having a means of self-defense is no different than keeping a first-aid kit in your vehicle. Life happens and sometimes it requires the application of bandages.

Victim blaming can only exist when there is a victim. Telling somebody to have a means of self-defense, not to walk down a dark alley alone on the bad side of town at night, wear a seat belt, and lock their doors at night are not instances of victim blaming because no victim exists. When victim blaming comes into play is after a crime has been perpetrated. If you tell a rape victim they were at fault for being raped because they didn’t carry a gun then you are victim blaming. The victim wasn’t at fault for the crime. Only the person who initiated the aggression holds any culpability.

Having a means of self-defense is an acknowledgement that bad people exist. It’s also an acknowledgement that you cannot control their actions but can take measures to increase your odds of resisting them. Victim blaming is the belief that a person is somehow responsible for somebody else choosing to attack them.