Tag: Gun Rights

Montana Man to Take On Federal Gun Regulations

Montana was the first state to pass a Firearms Freedom Act. What the Firearms Freedom Act does is exempt any gun manufactured, sold, and used exclusively in one state from federal firearm regulations. The federal government claims the ability to regulate firearms comes from their ability to regulate interstate commerce, but if no business ever crosses state lines then the federal government’s excuse for firearm regulations doesn’t apply. Unfortunately nobody has been willing to use one of these laws to go head to head against the federal government, until now:

With a homemade .22-caliber rifle he calls the Montana Buckaroo, Gary Marbut dreams of taking down the federal regulatory state.

He’s not planning to fire his gun. Instead, he wants to sell it, free from federal laws requiring him to record transactions, pay license fees and open his business to government inspectors.

For years, Mr. Marbut argued that a wide range of federal laws, not just gun regulations, should be invalid because they were based on an erroneous interpretation of Congress’s constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. In his corner were a handful of conservative lawyers and academics. Now, with the rise of the tea-party movement, the self-employed shooting-range supplier finds himself leading a movement.

Ignore the whole tea party movement comment, this has nothing to do with the tea party movement and everything to do with basic common sense any person living in America should be able to understand. If all business relating to an item stays within the borders of a state then no interstate commerce occurs and the federal government has no legitimate claim to regulating that item.

Mr. Marbut is manufacturing his own brand of .22 rifles in Montana. According to the Firearms Freedom Act any firearm falling under the legislation must be marked to indicate that the firearm is for exclusive use in the state it was manufactured.

Although I’m doubting Mr. Marbut will win (after all if the case gets to the Supreme Court they will likely rule in favor of the federal government as they are an arm of the federal government) but I’m hoping to be wrong. I’m glad somebody has finally come forth and called the federal government on their shenanigans and overreach by abusing the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

Government Doing What Government Does

Hear ye! Hear ye! The Department of Justice (DoJ) has decreed that all firearm dealers in states lying on the border to Mexico report multiple long-gun sales to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF):

The Obama administration implemented its most aggressive and controversial gun measure to date Monday when it ordered dealers in four Southwestern states to report multiple sales of semiautomatic rifles to the federal firearms bureau.

The rule, which had been opposed by the National Rifle Association and many members of Congress, takes effect immediately and is meant to stem gunrunning to violent Mexican drug gangs.

Let me get this straight, gun dealers are supposed to report multiple gun sales of long-guns to the ATF in order to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico? But the ATF is the agency that was caught allowing firearms to be smuggled across the border. Doesn’t that create a conflict of interest?

Remember that these gun dealers were the ones who tried to report suspicious purchases to the ATF and, instead of being told to not make the sale, were order to make the sale. This is a classic example of the government creating a problem, declaring the problem to be caused by a fault of the people, and then moving in with new regulations claiming that is the only way to fix the problem.

Make no mistake, these guns were not let across the border due to a lack of gun laws. The gun dealers tried to stop the sales but where ordered by the ATF to make the sales. That is what the congressional hearing over “Operation Fast and Furious” is about. The ATF were caught because two border patrol agents were murdered using guns that the ATF allowed to be smuggled across the border. The proper response to this situation would be to abolish the ATF immediately.

But blaming one of its own agencies isn’t what the government is all about; it prefers to use tragedies it has cause to further increase it’s control over the populace.

You’re Not Defending Your Stuff

Oftentimes conversations about defending your stuff crop up when talking about self-defense. Some advocate the use of lethal force to defend their property while others are completely against it. I think Weerd did a good jobs of puttings the concept of defending your stuff into perspective:

Thug Presents a weapon or implied weapon and in-so-many-words presents this offering point: “Give me your wallet or I will kill you.”

Now lets assume he’s not bluffing. There’s no way to tell, and the antis LOVE to give violent and dangerous people the benefit of the doubt. I think any rational person should see the error in that. I don’t associate with anybody who rob somebody or so much as THREATEN violence to get something they wish to take. The people willing to do something so dastardly are not the best and brightest of the world. They are not the people you should EVER trust, or give the benefit of the doubt.

As a general rule unless its some snot-nosed Ritalin-kid mouthing off, I’m going to assume they do indeed mean to kill me over something as trivial as my wallet.

It’s not about the stuff, it’s about the fact that somebody has a weapon pointed at you and is claiming a willingness to kill you if you don’t surrender whatever they’re after. In this case you’re not shooting the thug over your wallet, you’re shooting him over your life which is the whole point of self-defense. I’ve said this time and time again but it bears repeating, you can’t trust a person’s word when that person has made a threat against your life.

Maybe they will simply run away when you hand over your wallet or maybe they’ll decide to kill you and rid themselves of the only witness to their robbery. Perhaps your assailant is isn’t mentally stable (likely as they’re willing to kill for money) and thus logic can’t be applied. Your attacker may simply not believe you when you toss over you wallet and they want more. The point is you can’t give an assailant the benefit of the doubt because doing so may end up with your face down in a gutter hoping the paramedics arrive before your blood pressure drops to zero.

Second Amendment Foundation Wins Another Victory in Chicago

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and their super weapon, Alan Gura, won yet another gun rights victory in Chicago. SAF, alongside several other groups, filed a suit against the City of Chicago for the city’s ban on gun ranges within city limits:

BELLEVUE, WA – In a 3-0 ruling issued this morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has reversed a lower court ruling and ordered that court to issue a preliminary injunction against the City of Chicago on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation that prevents the city from banning gun ranges inside city limits.

Joining SAF in the original lawsuit were Action Target, Inc., the Illinois State Rifle Association and three Chicago residents, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen and Joseph Brown. Their attempts to obtain a temporary restraining order against the gun range ban were twice rejected by the district court. The Appeals Court ruling is severely critical of the lower court’s ruling.

One thing that I noticed is the National Rifle Association (NRA) is completely absent from the list of entities helping with the suit. Why do I feel that is important to point out? Because it demonstrates the effectiveness of SAF even through they’re a much smaller organization with fewer available funds. Many people who donate money to the NRA will often avoid sending funds to other organizations such as SAF because they believe those other organizations are too small to be effective. SAF is proving that isn’t true as they win more and more victories in the courtrooms.

I really enjoy SAF’s method of advancing gun rights. Instead of spending money to send lobbyists to Washington D.C. they’re fighting violations of gun owners’ rights in the courtroom. It’s a cheaper method that has proven itself to be incredibly effective, Hell this method got the second amendment incorporated against the states making outright gun bans illegal in the entirety of the United States. That victory was far more important than most previous gun rights victories because it will required a constitutional amendment in order for any state to outright ban the right of firearm ownership (although they’re still doing a damned good job at establishing everything by a blanket ban).

Congratulations goes out to SAF for winning yet another victory for gun owners of the United States.

Wisconsin to Get Legal Concealed Carry in Soon

It seems Governor Walker is set to sign Wisconsin’s carry bill in two days:

Gov. Scott Walker plans to sign a bill allowing Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons next week. Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie says Walker will sign the measure at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, July 8, at the Grand Lodge Hotel in Wausau. The bill would take effect on Nov. 1.

I’m glad that the bill will take effect shortly after being passed. This means, given proper reciprocity recognition, I should be able to carry my firearm for the Christmas get togethers I attend in La Crosse.

And These Are the People Charged with Protecting the People

When you have scumbags like this “protecting” people who needs criminals:

Any residents of St. Helena Parish caught riding around the parish with assault weapons will be arrested, Sheriff Nat Williams warned Tuesday.

“As far as them riding around with an assault rifle, it will not be tolerated,” he said. “Somebody with an assault weapon is no different from a criminal and will be treated the same way.”

Did you get that? If you carry an “assault” weapon you’re no better than a person who breaks into somebody’s home and steals all of their stuff. See Sheriff Douche Bag is a bit peeved because he’s facing competition in the intimidation field:

Some residents of the parish’s 6th Ward, angered by a rash of recent break-ins, have conducted informal patrols, sometimes while armed with AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, the civilian version of the U.S. military’s M-16.

Since the police haven’t been capable of reducing crime to the satisfaction of the people a different solution was enacted. Namely a group of people have decided to perform their own patrols and smartly decide to arm themselves. Of course the government likes to maintain its monopoly on violence and are none to happy with the idea of little serfs walking around trying to keep their neighborhood safe:

Williams and other officials met with leaders of the ward’s newly formed Community Watch on Tuesday morning to let them know that those doing the patrolling did not need to be heavily armed.

If that’s the case then why do the police need to be heavily armed? These people aren’t walking around because they wish to enjoy the fine evening air, they’re walking around because the crime has increased to a point that they believe something needs to be done. As these people are performing the duty of police officers (because it seems the police can’t do it) they could potentially face the same situations as police officers, that is some criminal scumbags attacking during the patrols.

The police always claim they need better weaponry because they’re outgunned by the criminals. The people patrolling the afflicted area are simply taking what the police have learned over the years and making sure the same mistakes aren’t repeated.

Sheriff Williams is nothing but incompetent authoritarian scum. The inadequacies of his department lead private individuals to work together in common defense (a great thing). Being an authoritarian though Mr. Williams is angry that somebody else is walking the streets in an attempt to reduce crime. I’m sure Mr. Williams sees the very act of people outside of his department trying to reduce crime as a lack of respect for his authority and feels it must be stopped at all costs. Well fuck that guy.

If people are attempting to correct the department’s inadequacies then they should be allowed to protect themselves equipment equal to what the police have. Hell since the people paid for the polices’ weapons those going out on patrol should be able to checkout defensive weapons from the police station itself.

I’d also like to throw out some major dibs to the author of this story for the following paragraphs:

Both the M-16 and the AK-47 rifles are capable of full automatic and semiautomatic fire, but special licenses are required to possess fully automatic firearms in the U.S.

True assault rifles are capable of being operated in fully automatic and semiautomatic modes, at the user’s option. They are designed for, and used by, military forces, but they also are used by some law enforcement agencies.

Thank you for being a moral author instead of one that makes false claims that people are walking around with machine guns. You are a good man Faimon A. Roberts, author of this article. I hope others can learn to follow your example when writing firearm related stories.

The Police Will Not Protect You

Those of us who advocate self-defense say it time and time again, the police won’t protect you. Not only has the Supreme Court ruled multiple times that the police have no duty to protect you but often time when called the police either show up well after the crime has completed, and that’s if they show up at all. The people of Alto, Texas are getting a real taste of this fact since the city laid off it’s entire police force:

Alto, Texas is preparing for a crime wave, after the small East Texas town put its entire police force on furlough, the Wall Street Journal reports today.

In an effort to save money, the city has laid off its police chief and four police officers for six months — longer if Alto’s finances don’t improve.

OK, it’s not quite as serious as it sounds because a nearby sheriff’s department is going to take over:

In the meantime, the county sheriff’s department will take over law enforcement duties for the town of 1,200, according to the AP. The sheriff’s department is already responsible for policing the nearby city of Wells, which laid off its sole police officer last year.

This still means that the town is going to have longer police response times since the sheriff’s department are likely spread thin already. Either way this is another classic example of why you should have a means of defense around your home (and on your person if possible). Not only are the police not required to assist you but they may go away on a whim because some town can’t balance its budget.

Having a firearm around the home is a good idea plain and simple.

Obama’s Comments in Regard to the ATF’s Smuggling of Firearms into Mexico

Obama finally made a public comment about the Gunwalker scandal and, following his usual tradition in speeches, didn’t actually say anything of substance:

My attorney general has made clear that he certainly would not have ordered gun running to be able to pass through into Mexico. … I’m not going to comment on — a on a current investigation. I’ve made very clear my views that that would not be an appropriate step by the ATF, and we’ve got to find out how that happened.

So he’s comment is really that he has no comment. I will say one thing about Obama, he certainly makes an ideal politician. He does nothing, says nothing of substance, and then claims credit for everything that goes well during his term in office. Hell he’s the exact same type of person as every president we’ve had since… well I have no idea but it’s a long time.

The government is doing everything they can to cover up the Gunwalker scandal. They don’t want the fact that they broke the law they’re supposedly upholding by ensuring guns were smuggled into Mexico. Not only were they breaking their own laws but their actions can also be linked directly to two murders. This is why the government shouldn’t be allowed to do anything, everything they touch turns instantly to shit.

If the result of this investigation is anything other than the complete abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) it will be a complete waste of time.

In Wyoming Permitless Carry Takes Effect Tomorrow

If anybody living in Wyoming is reading this blog note that starting Friday you’ll be able to exercise your right to self-defense by carrying a firearm without first having to beg the state for permission:

Starting Friday, Wyoming will join three other states in allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

Anyone who meets the same requirements to obtain a Wyoming concealed weapons permit can legally carry a firearm in any place that is not specifically prohibited.

Put Wyoming down as another state that actually respects its citizens’ right to have the best means of self-defense available to them.