Tag: Gun Rights

How is This Man a Supreme Court Justice

A piece has been posted about Supreme Court Justice Breyer and his views on the right to keep and bear arms:

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison,” said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison’s priority as, “I’ve got to get this document ratified.”

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

I think somebody needs to look a little more into our history (in fact here’s a good book and no that’s not an affiliate link). The right to keep and bear arms originated from the fact the citizenry were seen as the ultimate check against government tyranny. Arming the citizenry was combined with using a militia system instead of a standing army (which the founders saw as a threat to liberty).

In order for the citizenry to be a check against government tyranny the citizenry must be equally or better armed than the government. This is no longer the case as we have a standing army and restrictions against what a mere citizen such as you and me and obtain. Maybe coincidentally our government has become more and more tyrannical since World War II and the passing of the National Firearms Act (which restricted civilian access to machine guns, explosives, and other fun things).

Breyer claims to cite history but like most history taught in schools today it is revisionist history. If you look at the writing of our founders they were adamant that people have the right to keep and bear arms. They talked time and time again about the right of the people to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government. Our founders used European countries as examples of what happens when citizens are denied the right to keep and bear arms. Nowhere did any founder father claim the second amendment was inserted only to appears the states.

How did Breye become a Supreme Court Justice? It certainly wasn’t because of his understanding of history.

So How About that Microstamping

Somebody by the name of Ronni Chase was apparently murdered by a person using a firearm… in California which is impossible because they have such strict gun control laws. It seems one of the “mysteries” surrounding the murder was the lack of shell casings at the scene of the crime. Well the good boys at the local police department have finally come up with an explanation as to why there aren’t any shell casing:

Officials believe that the gun used in the slaying of Chasen was a .38-caliber revolver, a fact that would explain why no shell casings were found at the scene of the crime.

In revolvers such as a .38 caliber, officials explain, shell casings remain in the chamber after firing rather than being discharged at the shooting scene.

Well, no shit. That’s some mighty find investigating there. Lord knows it would take me a few days to figured that one out.

But this post isn’t here to dwell on the fact the powers of observation of some are in constant question. I want to have a brief discussion on something that anti-gunners have had a hardon for, microstamping. According to the anti-gunners microstamping is this amazing technology that marks the casing fired from a handgun with a serial number. Using this microstamped serial number police can trace the firearm used in a crime back to the owner. The anti-gunners like this technology so much they are pushing for laws to require such technology in every state of the Union. California is looking to pass one of these laws but are figuring out the actual implementation of this technology is pretty much impossible.

Those of us with a clue on firearms looked at this proposal and rolled our eyes. Hitmen aren’t stupid, in fact any successful hitman is actually pretty smart. They found a “loophole” to the microstamping laws even before they were laws. This “loophole” is called a revolver. Amazingly a revolver doesn’t just toss it’s brass every which direction, it keeps them in the chamber. This means no shell cases are left behind (as the police in the story figured out) and thus any microstamped serial number is going to be worthless. This is where the anti-gunners will probably push for a law requiring revolvers to automatically eject their brass upon firing because they’re morons who don’t know the first thing about firearms.

I’ll also mention that the media is going to shit bricks when they find out about our other “loophole,” brass catchers.

Gun and Literacy

Wow I just found some comedy gold via Snowflakes in Hell. It seems the Brady Campaign let one of their people off of the leash and she is spouting all sorts of bullshit.

The latest claim being made is people who shoot one another are equally distributed among the educated and uneducated. The Brady Shill also claims that most of these people weren’t criminals until they shot somebody. Sebastian smacks the Brady Shill upside the head with some actual facts which decimate the anti-gunner argument.

I wanted to make a statement on the Brady Shill’s following claim though:

Most homicides occur among people who know each other and often the shooter was not a criminal until he/she pulled the trigger.

Sebastian’s post shows this isn’t true at all. My question though is how is this statement relevant (to anything)? A fact to bring up is there isn’t a single first time criminal who was a criminal before committing their first crime. For example a person with no criminal history embezzles money from his company, he was not a criminal until he embezzled the money. A 14 year-old kid with no criminal history hacks into a state department computer, he was not a criminal until breaking into that system.

The Brady Shill seems to imply a desire to ban all potential devices that can be used by people to commit their first crime. Shall we ban automobiles? The first “crime” many teenagers commit is speeding when they get their driver license. Many teens weren’t criminals until the first time they exceeded the speed limit, so by the Brady Shill’s logic we need to control automobiles.

I believe in practicing what you preach so I believe it would be a good move by Brady Shill to prove her conviction and get rid of her computer. After all many malicious hackers were never criminals until they used a computer.

Chicago Gun Database Isn’t Ready

Somebody call the whambulance because Mayor Daley is sad that the Chicago gun registry database isn’t online yet:

“It is annoying” that the registry isn’t yet in place, Daley said when asked about the topic after the City Council meeting.

“They should have it by now,” he said. “I’ll find out why they didn’t do that.”

The mayor said he doesn’t know why the database isn’t available to police and firefighters yet, but said it shouldn’t have taken this long.

Yes it’s frustrating that Daley’s hard on for a police state isn’t being fulfilled yet. How much money do you think Chicago spent to create this database? How much money do you think they spent enforcing their unconstitutional gun restrictions? How many lives have been lost in Chicago because possession of a means of self-defense can only be obtained by those with means (it costs money to get a gun permit in Chicago)?

Oh and this line from Daley is golden:

“Maybe it’s bureaucracy. I would ask the superintendent,” he said.

You’d know all about bureaucracy now wouldn’t you? I’m curious about this database, is it required to be online before the city will issue handgun permits? If that’s the case I wouldn’t be surprised if this “delay” is a purposeful attempt at preventing the peasants of Chicago from having a means to acquire handguns. Of course if this database isn’t required to be online in order for the peasants to get handgun permits then it could very well just be incompetence (or a means for the police department to beg for more money by claiming the delays are due to a tight budget).

Either way the denizens of Chicago can rest easy knowing Mayor Daley is on the case. What case that is I’m not really sure though.

Joel Rosenberg Arrested

If you converse with many carry advocates in Minnesota you probably know the name Joel Rosenberg. He’s the author or Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota and a carry permit instructor. Yesterday he was arrested on charges of having possession of a weapon in a courthouse. The story doesn’t seem as straight forward as it’s being reported by the Red Star as this article has a bit more detail.

Either way it seems he carried his gun into Minneapolis City Hall and was requested to leave. According to a stated court order Minneapolis City Hall is a gun-free zone because it connects with the Government Center. I’m not sure how that works as Minneapolis often seems to have laws of their own that little or no sense.

With how convoluted this story is (it seems to be a bunch of he said she said) I haven’t a clue what to think. Although I don’t believe the Minneapolis City Hall can’t arbitrarily declare themselves a gun-free zone I’m not sure if any courthouse integrates into it and thus effects the law. It’s also stated that Mr. Rosenberg refused to leave upon the request of the police officer citing state law. I applaud anybody willing to stand up to an officer on a power trip but frankly I’m one to leave upon request without argument. It’s not that I feel like giving into an officer incorrectly enforcing a law, I just like to avoid conflict with other people when possible. What is really odd though is the story states Mr. Rosenberg was at City Hall on November 5th, allowed to leave, and was arrested yesterday, December 8th.

Mr. Rosenberg posted an open letter regarding the incident which the WCCO mentioned. Personally I find the wording in that letter inflammatory and rather poorly done. Multiple lines can be pulled out of context and perceived as threats. Let this be a note to everybody, be careful of the wording you use when conversing about firearms and self-defense topics. If you ever get involved in a situation you can guarantee some lawyer and the media will dig through your post history and try to use anything you’ve stated against you.

Either way this is going to be an interesting case to say the least.

EDIT 2010-12-09 10:30: Can and can’t are quite different and apparently I don’t know this. I changed “Minneapolis City Hall can arbitrarily” to “Minneapolis City Hall can’t arbitrarily.”

Stopping Violence Against Women

I often hear people talking about the problem of violence against women and their desire to find a solution. When you mention arming women many of these people will give you a long spewing of bullshit on how that’s not the solution. Well Mr. Addley of Canada gets it:

With regards to Russell Williams, we must all be reminded that none of the women encountered by him had a legal right to self defense of their own persons by reason of a readily available handgun.

Thanks to Wendy Cukier every women in Canada will remain an easy target for violence due to the fact that she will never be able to avail herself of the most effective and efficient force equalizer known today.

For if any of these young women had been able to legally carry a loaded handgun they would have possessed the necessary force to repel any menacing threat that could of come their way.

A .45 caliber handgun turns a 110 lb women into a 310lb behemoth.

I really like that last line. Nothing levels the playing field in a fight like a firearm. You can be the smallest and weakest person on the planet but if you have a firearm on your person you can stand your ground against the largest and strongest person alive. This is because of a simple fact, all people have an allergy to bullet holes.

I often find it ironic that the biggest supporters and participants in the right to carry are men. Woman should be far more gung-ho about carrying firearms as they are very likely to be targets of violent criminals. You can rest assured that a rape will be thwarted if a woman shoots her would-be rapist dead.

Lead Ammunition Ban Take Two

Remember when the Center for Biodiversity petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban all lead ammunition in the United States? Well the petition flopped and nothing came of it because frankly, it’s stupid. Now the dip shits at the Center for Biodiversity are suing the EPA:

Three environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday to force it to prevent lead poisoning of wildlife from spent ammunition and lost fishing tackle.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court by the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the hunters group Project Gutpile. It comes after the EPA denied their petition to ban lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle, which the groups say kills 10 million to 20 million birds and other animals a year by lead poisoning.

OK it was actually three sets of dip shits but I rest my case. The funny thing is the group is claiming 10 million to 20 million birds are killed each year by lead poisoning. Of course I’ve not seen any scientific study that demonstrates any proof of this and I believe if the death toll was that high we’d notice something was amiss. It’s not like 10 million to 20 million random corpses of birds would go unnoticed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Also between 10 million and 20 million? That’s one Hell of a cap in estimation. The fudge factor is literally 10 million birds, what kind of estimation is that and how did they come to estimate it? I also find it rather funny that the Center for Biodiversity believe they know the EPA’s authority better than the fucking EPA:

In August, the EPA denied the ammunition part of the petition, saying it didn’t have authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act. A few weeks ago, it rejected the fishing tackle portion, saying the petition didn’t demonstrate a ban was necessary to protect against unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, as required by the law.

In the lawsuit, the groups say that EPA erred when it said it didn’t have the authority to ban lead ammunition. They argued that the legislative history of the Toxic Substances Control Act makes it clear that components of ammunition – shots and bullets – may be regulated as chemical substances.

Believe me when it comes to authority government agencies know their boundaries and are always looking for ways to expand them.

Guns on Trains

I have good news for both of you Amtrak passengers. Starting December 15th you’ll be able to legally check an unloaded, locked, and cased firearm into baggage on Amtrak trains. What that means is you can do the same thing on Amtrak trains as you’ve been able to do on airplanes. There is something interesting in this article though:

Amtrak officials told the Bee that Amtrak, a federally funded train system, is retrofitting train cars for gun storage. There are no estimates of yet as to how many people will take advantage of the changes.

For some reason Amtrak has been doing it’s damnedest to bar passengers from transporting firearms on their trains. It seems they’ve found a potential delayer in “requiring retrofitting” of their train cars. As far as I know you’ve been able to check baggage on Amtrak trains forever so I’m unsure as of why they’d have to do any retrofit thus this seems to be s a delaying tactic. We’ll have to wait and see on that.

Oh, and of course the Brady Campaign has their bat-shit crazy unanchored in reality response to this:

Daniel Vice of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence countered that the rule change makes it easier for terrorists to bring weapons on trains with intent to do harm. He said his group and Amtrak police are pleased, however, to have won concessions requiring locked storage and 24-hour advance notice.

Yes because those evil terrorists wouldn’t bring a firearm on board without this ruling… that allows firearms to be transported in checked baggage just like on airplanes. I really wonder if anybody at the Brady Campaign has any roots left in reality or if they’ve all left this plane of existence for their deluded version of our world. What’s even more interesting is the following quote from Paul Helmke a couple of months ago:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he “doesn’t have problems with people transporting guns on trains so long as steps are taken to make sure they’re secured and properly stowed.”

I guess when your cause has no roots in reality it makes it easier to change your mind ever thirty seconds.

Wisconsin School Hostage Situation

If you haven’t heard there was a hostage situation in a Wisconsin school. Some punk kid came in packing two firearms and held his class hostage. Thankfully nobody was killed and the kid turned one of his firearms onto himself when the police arrive.

I’m glad to report the situation ended with nobody of consequence being injured or killed (a punk who takes a classroom hostage is not a person of consequence in my book). What’s interesting is how the situation is being reported. This was a hostage situation yes some news sites are still calling it a school shooting.

I think this story exemplifies the fact that crazy is crazy and makes a case yet again for allowing teachers to be armed in the classroom. This situation ended as well as could be hoped but most of the time we don’t hear such good news. Crazy people are dangerous and this story once again demonstrates the fact that people in our schools are helpless when one of these crazies come into the “gun free-zone” with firearms and an intent to cause harm. This crazy ended up holding 23 helpless people hostage with no real threat of retaliation should he decide to start killing those hostages (yes the police will eventually retaliate but if the crazy is planning on killing himself anyways it matters not). The best way to end a hostage situation is to prevent it from happening in the first place and the best way to do that is having a populace that can defend itself against the crazies.

St. Paul Police Steal a Gun

Here’s an interesting story involving a carry permit holder getting his gun stolen from him by the St. Paul police:

Thomas Hackbarth, 58, was stopped in his car on Nov. 16 after a security guard saw him with a gun in the parking lot about 5 p.m., an hour after the clinic closed. Police ordered him out of his car at gunpoint and handcuffed and questioned him before taking his gun and letting him go.

Hackbarth, who has a conceal and carry permit, picked up his gun from police on Tuesday. He was not arrested or charged, and police have closed the case, said police spokesman Andy Skoogman.

Basically the St. Paul police responded to a “man with a gun” call. That part made sense but the fact that they stole is gun from him without cause is appalling. The key here is they didn’t charge him, they didn’t arrest him, they just confiscated his firearm and left. Unless somebody is being charged with a crime the police have no right in confiscating property of a private citizen.

Stories like this are why I carry concealed, really well concealed. My gun sits in an inside the waistband holster with a shirt tucked in around it. Of course being this is a Red Star article they had to throw in a bit of bias:

Hackbarth said that he always carries his fully loaded gun, and understands why the security guard was alarmed.

Emphasis mine. The wording there is meant to create fear in the reader that a man not only had a gun, not only was it loaded, but it was fully loaded. For fuck sake the man was carrying a revolver, fully loaded means six rounds in most cases. Is he supposed to carry it partially loaded? Maybe he should play Russian roulette with an attacker. And people wonder why I call the Star Tribune the Red Star.

Did I mention Mr. Hackbarth is a state representative? I would love to see more representatives with carry permits who actively carry, good on him. Of course if I were him I’d also take action against the St. Paul police department for putting my life in danger by confiscating my means of self-defense without cause.