Tag: Gun Rights

Prohibition Against Illegal Aliens Owning Firearms Upheld

Via Shall Not Be Questioned I learned that the 10th Circuit Court upheld the prohibition on illegal aliens owning firearms.

There isn’t much to say about this ruling beyond the fact it’s bullshit. Once again I travel astray from the common path many gun rights actives follow since I don’t believe any right is something granted by the state. If you are a human being you are a self-owner and as a self-owner you have a right to trade your labor for whatever mechanization you desire and defend yourself. This necessarily means you have a right to purchase a firearm and use it for your own protection regardless of your status as a citizen. In fact allowing the state to rule on rights is always dangerous because it sets a precedence that they hold domain over determine what that right entails and they will always rule in favor of themselves.

For some odd reason many gun rights activists hold the idea that illegal aliens should be prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. I find this strange because many of these very same gun rights activists claim gun ownership is a natural right. Let’s take a look at what a natural right is:

Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.

Natural rights, of which I would argue only one exists, are inalienable. The one inalienable right individuals hold is the right of self-ownership. One cannot trade ownership of self to another as ownership because one cannot grant control of themselves to others. Even in a state of slavery you have free will and may refuse to obey your master or even go so far as to rebel. As you hold exclusive ownership over yourself you have a right to defend yourself and use the product of your labor as you choose.

If you believe gun ownership can be restricted by the state in any way then you believe it is a legal right. I personally believe the right of gun ownership is nothing more than an extension of self-ownership since you trade your labor for the firearm. Because of this I don’t believe anybody can be prohibited from owning a firearm. Those who agree with this court decision must also agree that gun ownership isn’t a natural right but a privilege bestowed by the state.

Carry Permits Up in Hennepin County

Even though, according to some gun control advocates, gun ownership is down the number of carry permits being issued in Hennepin County are way up:

Applications for gun permits were up 54 percent from last year over the first four months of 2012, according to a report released Monday by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office.

Officials said the sheriff’s office has received 1,875 applications for permits to carry a gun over the first four months of the year. Over the same time last year, there were 1,220 applications that were received, an increase of 54 percent.

Last year was the second-busiest for new gun permit applications since the permit law took effect in 2003. Officials said renewal applications account for about 20 percent of total applications, and renewals are required every five years.

A 54 percent increase? That’s pretty good, especially when only 20 percent of the applications were for renewals.

They’re All the Same

Whenever somebody brings up the oncoming Romney vs. Obama race I’m always quick to voice my opinion that it’s really an Obama vs. Obama race. Romney and Obama are indistinguishable beyond physical characteristics. Saying this usually gets a rise out of both Romney and Obama supporters who believe their candidate is different from the other. Those who are asking gun owners to support Romney will point out that his election will slow down the race to socialism (which is really a race to fascism and the race was over decades ago) and strongly oppose my opinion that he’s the same as Obama. The sad truth is both candidates are exactly the same in the only matter that matters, they both believe in initiating violence.

My problem with these two candidates isn’t their views on guns, war, marriage, or the economy because their views on these issues are a symptom of something worse. What do all of these issues have in common? They all require the state’s gun to enforce.

Gun control laws are implemented under the threat of violence. If you purchase a verboten weapon the state will kidnap you and hold you in a cage. That’s what gun control is, that’s what every state decree is.

War is no different. Currently we have a voluntary military (until you’re in, at that point you become property of the state even more so than other citizens) but if the recruitment numbers aren’t high enough to wage the wars then the state will start another draft just as they did during the Vietnam War. Draftees will be offered the choice of being thrown in a cage or sent to war in a foreign land. The fact that the state can initiate a draft at all demonstrates the fact that we’re all slaves.

What about marriage? When the state makes a decree about marriage they’re violating peoples’ rights to voluntarily associate with one another. If the state choses to only recognize marriage between a single man and a single woman they are disallowing those who wish to marry people of the same sex or multiple people from entering into a contractual agreement. This is partially a byproduct of the state maintaining a monopoly on the court system and partially a byproduct of basing various government institutions on marriage status. Because of the monopoly on courts same sex partners can’t enter into the contractual part of marriage and because the state bases various institutions on marriage status same sex couples can’t apply for the same tax benefits as heterosexual couples. This is where the violence steps in, if a same sex couple decides to give the state the middle finger and pay their taxes as though they were married the Internal Revenue Service (revenuers) will bring down the hammer. The revenuers will demand more tax money and will go so far as kidnapping (or murder if the victims don’t come peacefully) and theft to get that money.

Economic matters are no different. When the state hands out money to favored businesses, generates regulations that harm their favoreds’ competitors, etc. they are brining the state’s gun to bear. A good example of this are regulations, most of which are designed in such a way to favor one set of businesses over another (usually the big politically well-connect businesses over the small guys who can’t afford lobbyists or offer cushy jobs to politicians when they exit their office). Environmental regulations are great for this as the book Political Environmentalism points out. During the acid rain scare the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated that all coal burning power plants install SO2 scrubbers to prevent sulfur from being released in the atmosphere. This regulation favored large power companies who could afford to install scrubbers and coal mines in the western United States. How did this regulation favor western coal mines? Simple, coal from the eastern part of the United States is low on sulfur content and burning it actually releases little sulfur, less than burning high sulfur western coal through scrubbers does. How does violence play into the equation you ask? Try building a power plant without the EPA mandated scrubbers while burning low sulfer coal and you’ll find out pretty quickly.

The bottom line is both Romney and Obama want to continue regulating all of these things and many more. There is no real difference between the two. Both candidates want to control your life and that’s the problem, that’s why no difference exists between the two. Whether you put a gun to my head to control what guns I own or what I eat is irrelevant to me, the fact you put the gun to my head at all is why I’m pissed off.

Florida Governor not Banning Firearms at the Republican National Convention

Some good news has come out of Florida, the state’s governor has decided not to heed the call of Tampa’s dictator so the area surrounding the Republican National Convention (RNC) will not be a gun-free zone:

Florida Governor Rick Scott has shot down a request by Tampa’s mayor to allow local authorities to ban guns from the city’s downtown during the Republican National Convention in August.

Citing Second Amendment protections in the U.S. Constitution, Scott told Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn that conventions and guns have co-existed since the nation’s birth and would continue to do so during the four-day event beginning August 27.

“It is unclear how disarming law abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law,” the Republican governor said in a letter on Tuesday.

Good on Rick Scott. If this RNC is anything like the RNC that took place four years ago in St. Paul there will be armed thugs marching down the streets smashing peoples’ property… and there will probably be other people besides those state agents present as well. Last election’s RNC was a fiasco and I know several people who were arrested, a handful more who were actually shot by fucking rubber shotgun rounds, and more yet that were pepper sprayed for the criminal act of nothing. I really don’t know how one would survive near the RNC without a firearm at their side.

Romney had Secret Meeting with Bloomberg

To those of you who have been telling us to support Romney to protect the rights of American gun owners let me just say… you’ve been suckered:

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee had a private breakfast with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg Tuesday morning at the the headquarters of the billionaire mayor’s philanthropic foundation. Romney’s campaign did not inform the press that the meeting would occur, although later confirmed that the men had met.

[…]

According to two people with knowledge of the Bloomberg meeting, cited by the New York Times, the pair discussed the economy, immigration, education and gun control over coffee and juice.

Romney is already having secret meetings with the biggest opponent of gun rights in this country, likely seeking an endorsement. As the head of Mayors Against All Illegal Guns I’m sure Bloomberg could be persuaded to endorse Romney if Romney promises gun control measures.

If you’re a gun owner and supporting Romney you’re making a sucker’s deal. He’ll get all the benefits (a National Rifle Association endorsement, campaign contributions from gun owners, votes, etc.) and we’ll get shafted. But the best part is that gun owners will have actively helped bring on their own destruction. I guess the state is great at hypocrites of people. When it comes to gun rights I think we’re basically screwed this election cycle (unless Paul manages to get the nomination) and the best we can hope for inaction on behalf of the president or a strong pro-gun majority in Congress.

A hat tip to Uncle for the story.

Everything I Don’t Like is a Loophole

If you don’t like something that’s legal the first thing you must do is label it a loophole. Don’t like the fact that a company is using the tax code as written? Claim that company is exploiting a tax code loophole. Don’t like individuals owning legally allowed firearms? As Uncle points out you must merely those individuals are exploiting a loophole:

California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. But one wouldn’t know that going to the firing range these days. AR-15s and AK-47s are the must-have guns of choice. How can that be?

Every time California tightens up the assault weapons ban, the gun industry finds a way around it. The latest example involves a tiny device.

[…]

That’s because the most popular guns at the range these days are semi-automatic rifles. In a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, how is it these military-style guns are legal?

Brian Normandy is an instructor at Jackson Arms. “As long as we don’t have a detachable magazine in it, it’s actually a legal firearm,” Normandy said.

Other states allow people to use their finger to pop out the magazine and quickly reload. It is called a detachable magazine, which is illegal in California.

The intent is to slow down the process of reloading the weapon. But many target shooters don’t like the reloading hassle. “For me to use this on the range, I would have to open up the receiver and top load it,” said Normandy.

To get around this, gun manufacturers are selling firearms to Californians with what is called a “bullet button.”

The user uses the tip of a bullet to release the empty magazine and pop in a new one. The button doesn’t work with one’s finger, so the magazine is considered “fixed.”

What? People owning firearms that are legal under California law? They must be exploiting a loophole! Wow… that sounds incredibly stupid when I type it out. When you think about it the people crying out against this “bullet button loophole” are really saying, “These people own something I don’t approve of and it’s entirely legal! I don’t like how the law is written therefore they must be exploiting a loophole!” It’s almost like claiming somebody is exploiting a loophole is a loophole in of itself. In fact I think I’m going to start calling this the loophole loophole.

This does demonstrate the fact that gun control advocates will never be satisfied. No matter how many hoops we jump through, not matter how cumbersome we make firearms to use, no matter how many days we make people wait to purchase a firearm the anti-gunners will never be happy. We can’t negotiate with these people because they only want one thing: a complete abolition of firearm ownership. There is no meeting these people halfway so we shouldn’t even consider doing so. In their eyes the only common sense gun control laws are blanket prohibitions. Why should be placate them? I say we give them a big middle finger and refuse to implement any of their beloved gun control laws. They won many victories in the ’90’s and kept coming back for more and we finally pushed back. Unfortunately many gun owners now believe we’re at a point where we can stop pushing, I say we keep pushing until every single gun control law currently on the books is entirely overturned. Every. Last. One.

Regarding the Supreme Court

With the upcoming election the most common scare tactic being used by those who advocate gun owners support Romney are possible upcoming Supreme Court nominations. For those who don’t know the president of the United States gets the privilege of nominating Supreme Court justices and those justices serve a lifelong term. Currently Romney’s camp are trying to scare people into voting for Romney by saying Obama will likely nominate Eric Holder as a Supreme Court justice. Honestly, if possible Supreme Court nominations weren’t on the horizon these people would likely come up with some of justification of why you should vote for Romney.

I’m not going to sit here and tell you who to vote for, that’s your business if you even bother to vote at all. What I want to consider is the Supreme Court itself and its implications for liberty. Many of the same people encouraging gun owners to vote for Romney are also individuals who think the Constitution is some kind of biblical document that was brought down by Moses from Mount Sinai. I hold a different view, I don’t actually like the Constitution all that much. Yes, it is better than most constitutions but I find the Article of Confederation far more desirable than the United States Constitution. Part of the reason I dislike the Constitution involves the judicial branch and the Supreme Court itself. The United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch in Article III:

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

From this single article of the Constitution has arisen a court that has the power to rule what rights individuals do and do not have. For example, the Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To laymen that wording seems very straightforward, everybody enjoys the right to own and use firearms without any infringement agains that right. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, allowing restrictions against this supposed right.

When the Supreme Court makes a ruling it becomes the law of the land. If the Supreme Court ruled that the state held the right to confiscate any firearm at any time would people role over and submit to the state agents going from house to house taking arms? Those who subscribe to the idea that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority of the matter of individual rights should, less they be hypocrites. To individuals like myself, who believe in the absolute right of self-ownership, the idea that nine men wearing robes can determine what my rights are is comical.

What if the Supreme Court did rule that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right that could be violated by the state? It’s an interesting thing to consider. If you don’t recognize the state’s authority the ruling of the Supreme Court becomes irrelevant outside of the fact violence will be brought against your person if you should violated their decree. If you do recognize the state’s authority then you must also accept their ruling and comply with it believing it is right.

Those who recognize the absolute authority of the Supreme Court must then admit that they believe rights are not rights but state granted privileges. At any point these privileges could be taken away by the ruling of a mere five people (since Supreme Court rulings are always based on the majority out of nine). If one judge had ruled against incorporation of the Second Amendment every state would have the right to prohibit the ownership of firearms. If that had been the case then the Second Amendment, which states the right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed, would have been a temporary right stripped by a single Supreme Court ruling. In essence, the five judges who ruled in favor of incorporation each held the power to strip a supposed right from the people of the United States. Think about that for a minute, five people in this country held the power to determine whether or not those of us living in the United States had a right.

To me, the idea that five individual can legitimately determine what my rights are is absurd. Could the Supreme Court then rule that the First Amendment isn’t actually applicable? They did, in seven court cases. If the Supreme Court had rules opposing in any single mentioned case we would not enjoy the supposed rights we do today.

Believing that the Supreme Court holds some kind of authority necessarily means you believe rights are not only privileges but temporary privileges. Even though the Second Amendment has been incorporated by the Supreme Court people are afraid that one of Obama’s nominees may reverse that decision in another case. Stop and think about that for a moment. The Supreme Court holds the power to determine what rights you do and don’t have and that determination can be changed at any time. Why isn’t anybody pissed about that? Aren’t rights supposed to be absolute? Doesn’t the Constitution protect our rights? What happens when a clause in the Bill or Rights opposes a ruling by a court established by the Constitution?

I don’t think people spend enough time considering topics like this. Perhaps we should spend less time worrying about Supreme Court nominations and more time getting pissed off at the fact our rights are temporary privileges that can be granted to taken by the state whenever five individuals in robes decide so. Frankly I don’t give a shit who is on the Supreme Court because I find that entire court to be a sham. They no more hold a right to determine what my rights are than I have a right to determine what your rights are.

Before somebody posts a comment saying, “Yeah the situation sucks but it is what it is so you have to vote for Romney” let me just say this: no I don’t. The situation sucks because people kept voting for the “lesser” or two evils. Every time somebody justified voting for the “lesser” evil they have been responsible for the situation we face today. I’m not going to be part of the problem and I sure as the hell am not going to be the guy who has to explain to his children why their life sucks so much. Do you know what really sucks? People who cow to the state. Something isn’t so just because the state says it. If the state said you had to kill your neighbor would you kill your neighbor? What if the state decided to reverse its decision on abolishing slavery, would you help round up fellow human beings to be sold as slaves? How far are you willing to be pushed until you finally say “No?” I’ve already reached that point, I’m down cowing to the state, and I’m no longer going to be an obedient little dog whose only decision is whether I should put a checkmark next to the (R) or (D). I urge those of you reading this to join me. Whether you vote for the Libertarian Party, Constitution Part, Green Party, Independent Party, or don’t vote at all is irrelevant to me. My only request is that you think and stop relying on the state to do your thinking for you.

If the Supreme Court rules that I no longer have the right to keep and bear arms I will disregard that ruling just as I would disregard any ruling stating I no longer have the freedom of speech. Because of this I don’t care who the justices are nor will allow myself to be suckered into voting for Romney based on what amounts to a ghost story.

According to Gun Control Advocates this Doesn’t Happen

A man with a carry permit in Utah managed to subdue a violent individual who had stabbed two bystanders:

A man stabbed two people at the Smith’s Marketplace grocery store in downtown Salt Lake City before being subdued by a bystander.

[…]

Police say a bystander with a concealed carry permit witnessed the attack and stepped in to keep it from escalating.

“(The bystander) was suspicious of what might be going on, and when he saw the stabbing, he just drew his pistol and challenged the individual,” which caused the alleged attacker to lie down on the ground, said Salt Lake City Police Lt. Brian Purvis.

By the time police officers arrived on the scene, the man was subdued and is now in custody.

According to gun control advocates this kind of situation should never happen. First they believe those of us who carry firearms are bloody thirsty monsters who are merely looking for an excuse to murder. In reality most of us are actually very peaceful and prefer to avoid violence. In this case a man carrying a gun was able to defuse the situation without the need for actually violence, presentation of the firearm alone was enough to make the stabber think twice about continuing his violent endeavor.

Second, proponents of gun control say only the police are qualified to carry firearm. What happens when the police aren’t there? The story doesn’t say how long it took for police to arrive but it was long enough for two people to get stabbed and another person to intervene and defuse the situation. Had that permit holder not been at the store it’s likely more people would have been stabbed. When a situation involving violence arises the most critical thing to be done is ending the situation as quickly as possible. The longer a violent individual is allowed to continue the more victims he or she can rack up.

Disarming individuals only makes it easier for the bad guys to reign supreme.

Tampa Mayor Trying to Ban Guns at Republican National Convention

Apparently the mayor of Tampa isn’t happy about Florida’s preemption laws that prohibit local municipalities from overriding state gun laws:

Frustrated by a Florida law that blocks all local regulation of guns, Mayor Bob Buckhorn expects to reach out to Gov. Rick Scott for help keeping concealed firearms away from protests during the Republican National Convention.

The 2011 state law pre-empts the ability of cities and counties to pass any laws regulating firearms or ammunition.

So while Tampa plans to ban a wide range of weapons (clubs, switchblades, Mace) and things that could be used as weapons (chains, glass bottles, water pistols) outside the convention, it cannot prohibit guns carried with a concealed weapons permit.

If ever a place existed where you would want a firearm it would be the Republican National Conventions (RNC). The RNC will be one of the very few locations that will have armed mobs both inside and outside of the building (honestly, I’m more fearful of the armed mob inside the RNC). What will be interesting is seeing if the newly passed law that makes it illegal to “knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions” anywhere the Secret Service is guarding people. At this point all the candidates have Secret Service protection, well except Ron Paul:

So the new law may certainly be enforced at the RNC. I’m guessing this year’s RNC will mirror 2008’s RNC, in which most of St. Paul was turned into more of a police state than it normally is (they had barbed wire and everything).

Feinstein National Carry Reciprocity Bill

I doubt anybody is surprised about this but everybody’s favorite hater of individual liberty has blocked the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012, oh and she’s citing the Trayvon Martin case because she likes to take entirely unrelated events and use them as justification for preventing individuals from having rights:

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Tuesday placed a hold on two controversial pieces of legislation that would force states that allow the concealed carrying of guns to recognize each other’s permits.

Feinstein informed party leadership that she would oppose the quick passage of two concealed carry reciprocity bills that critics argue would cause a “race to the bottom” in terms of concealed weapon law in the United States. The senator cited the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager killed in Florida, as one of the reasons she was applying the legislative brakes.

“Besides putting domestic violence victims in danger, the concealed carry reciprocity bills would also create potentially life threatening situations for law enforcement officers,” Feinstein wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

“In recent weeks, our nation has witnessed tragic gun violence in Sanford, Florida and in Oakland, California, which is only a short drive from my home. Notably, George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, had been issued a concealed carry permit under Florida law, even though he had previously been subject to a court order for domestic abuse of his ex-fiancée. Congress should heed the warnings of law enforcement and not force states to recognize the permits issued to individuals by other states.”

I’m a logical human being which is probably why I’m unable to understand Feinstein’s justification. How would the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act put domestic violence victims in danger or create life threatening situations for law enforcement officers? I’ll also hand her some exploitations of the tragedies bonus points for weaseling the Martin case into her statement.

Nowhere in the bill’s text is there any loosening of restrictions on those involved in domestic violence cases. Obviously this is par for the course when Feinstein is playing but she could at least try to give a sensible justification for hating individual rights. I’m also not sure how the bill would create a life threatening situation for police officers. How many permit holders have murdered police officers? I’m guessing the number hovers somewhere around zero. If somebody has so much disregard for life that they’re willing to murder another human being they certainly aren’t going to give two shits about laws prohibiting them from carrying firearms.

Furthermore Feinstein seems to believe that the lives of police officers are more valuable that you or mine. She doesn’t believe the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act could create life threatening situations for regular individuals, no, only for police officers.

As a voluntaryist I’ve explained my support for the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. It really boils down to the fact that the state can legitimately own property so any restriction they put on our right as self-owners is unjust, immoral, and unacceptable. No state has the right to prohibit me from carrying a gun, only rightful property owners can do that and only while I’m on their property. Carrying a firearm isn’t a violent act yet the state often reactions to people peacefully carrying firearms with violence. Feinstein would prefer the state continue to insert violence into an otherwise non-violence situation. It’s actually rather sickening when you realize how much politician love violence.