Monday, January 28, 2019

New York Restrictions

New York, New York!

This is potentially A Really Big Deal, in that both the state of New York and the Supreme court (pardon the alliteration) have both determined that it is necessary to review the rights of a State to infringe upon the rights of American Citizens to freely exercise their Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to jump back into the national debate over gun rights after nearly a decade on the sidelines.
The justices agreed to consider a petition backed by gun owners’ groups asking them to strike down New York City’s strict rules for carrying legally owned guns outside the home.
?  Is it just me, or have the Supremes finally chosen the RIGHT issue to rule upon the 2nd Amendment?

"They" (New York Politicians) don't trust you to exercise your Second Amendment Rights ... safely.
The Captain's Journal: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Gun Rights Case Stemming From New York Restrictions: "I don’t want to hear another damn word about gun safety."
(You REALLY need to read the context provided by The Captain's Journal to understand the issue!)

Here's the crux of the NYC explanation for increased infringements on the 2nd Amendment:
Unlike golf clubs and musical instruments, firearms present public safety risks that the city has a legitimate interest in protecting against,” their brief to the court said. “Limiting their possession and use in public minimizes the risk of gun violence.”
Their argument against Citizen Ownership of Firearms follows the same old mantra:  ("if we keep honest citizens from owning guns, criminals will be denied access to firearms which are used to commit crimes".)

This is an obvious fallacy ... criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun.  Honest Citizens are "The Only Ones" who are ham-stringed by laws which make it more difficult to acquire the means of self-defense.

But I've said this before.  Haven't I?

Friday, January 04, 2019

The Generation Gun

The Generation Gun, in my family, was the 30 caliber (.30 WCF) Lever action rifle which my father claimed was the rifle he used to kill his first deer .... when he was 5 years old.

That's the thing about Generation Guns; they are so bound up in Tall Tales and Bull-Stuff; after a while you can't tell the difference between truth and "there's no story which cannot be improved".

(And yes, I realize I've talked about this before; bear with me.)

My father (Vernon The Geek) and his brothers {Orville The Geek) and his other brother ("Shorty The Geek") ... AKA "Floyd") would get together on Thanksgiving day, and swap stories about all the deer they had killed at extreme ranges and in inclement weather. As I have mentioned before, the stories always got better with each telling.

I once saw my father, Vernon The Geek, shoot at a deer from mountain top to the other, across a hiway (which was 100 feet below us. Then he made me climb down "our" mountain, and trudge up the opposing mountain ... to find and tote down the mountain.

Yes, he had mad The Impossible Shot with a Thirty-Ought-Six rifle which was older than I was. I was astounded.

But that was only the first time. The Geek Boys love the challenge of long-distance Mule-Deer Murder, and (I think) would pass up easy shots because they were "Too Easy".

Two years later, I saw my father kill another deer on a mountainside, too far away. I was fortunate that I was only Fourteen. years old, and too small to the drag the deer up to the ridgeline where they could load it on to the truck; I only had to lug Pop's rifle, and Uncle Shorty's gun, while they dragged the carcass a couple of hundred yards up the hill to where there was a road we could drive the pick-em-up truck to tote it home.
Of course, this never happened;
I never saw my father shoot across a road, which would have been illegal.

But that fat buck tasted mighty fine!

I miss the taste of venison; it was years before I could learn to appreciate beef.

Thursday, December 27, 2018

Politicians And Other Scoundrels

Are we becoming the "New Jersey of the West?"

Oregon is joining the ranks of anti-Constitutional states by toying with the enactment of laws which defy the Second Amendment.
More than one lawmaker cried on the House floor while discussing the damage that a raging person can do with a gun. The chamber's bipartisan adoption of the bill coincidentally came one day after a gunman killed 17 people at a Florida high school.
Will Not Comply!

What's the issue?  Oregon Legislators are considering inflicting even more oppressive restrictions on firearms ownership by law-abiding Oregonians.

And Oregonians are ignoring our own elected representatives, on the grounds that they do not "represent" our Constitutional Prerogatives.

We're not the first state to find ourselves defending ourselves against our own elected legislators:  consider New Jersey:

Open rebellion? | The Price of Liberty:
...  perhaps as many as one million residents of New Jersey have failed to turn in “high-capacity” magazines by the statutory deadline of 11th of December, 2018. This requirement (turn-in or take out of state) is part of a law signed into law in June. The penalty for being found with a magazine with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds, regardless of caliber, is a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and up to eighteen months in jail.  Having possession is a class four felony, which means that anyone convicted would permanently lose their right to own a weapon. 
Ex Post Facto Laws are those which make illegal an activity which was legal at the time the activity occurred.  buying a 15 round magazine They are odious because they impose a fine or other penalty upon the citizenry, and because they often require the citizen to relinquish previously legal possessions without compensation.

"Sometimes, the only way to win is not to play"

But even if compensated by the state, they are just one small step on the road to abrogating the rights of the citizen.   These laws are invariably political in nature and often unconstitutional ... as are the ban on "high-capacity magazines" in several states, soon coming to a state near you.

(Oregonians ... are you listening?)

If the Oregon legislature can impose a ban on "high-capacity magazines", they can impose a ban on the firearms which you purchased legally (which can
accept a high capacity magazine), which is a ban on the Second Amendment ...  which was enacted by the Founding Fathers of our country to protect the rights of the individual citizen against the hypothetical dictatorial government seeking to tyrannize its citizens.

Question:  if the Army can load a 30-round magazine, and you cannot ... how do you defend yourself against an Army which is tasked to undermine the Second Amendment?

That " Hypothetical Dictatorial Government" is here, now, and it's here to stay  ... unless you take action to protect your Constitutional rights in the face of a government, recently imposed by the Party which is becoming more powerful every day.

It is lead by "fearful people".

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the party in power will protect you; they will not.  They do not wish to acknowledge your rights, and they will undermine them until you have no rights at all, except those which are becoming increasingly inconsequential.

Such as the right to vote.

The party in power is not that which is elected, but that which counts the votes.

Don't you wish you had a voice in choosing who counts the votes?

Sunday, December 23, 2018


A scholarly thesis from 1990 addresses the negative public vision of firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens.

Essentially, it disputes the "common" thesis that people who own guns have anti-social tendencies:
GUNS, MURDERS, AND THE CONSTITUTION: As early as 1976, it was estimated that more had been written about "gun control" than all other crime-related topics combined.[2] Yet this pre-1976 academic literature was both fundamentally flawed and severely biased. The bias stemmed from the crusading zeal of academics who, by their own admission, could "see no reason ... why anyone should own a weapon in a democracy"[3] and who felt gun owners embodied an American soul that is "hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer."[4] Naturally, this bias led academic crusaders to discuss gun ownership as a social pathology rather than as a value-neutral sociological phenomenon. 
You may want to spend some time reading the entire study summary: I did.

I found that it supported the inalienable Constitutional rights which we currently enjoy. 

And if you want to discuss "Gun Control" with people who don't under stand why you wish to "own a gun", this may provide you with some useful talking points.

I don't now about you, but I soon tire of arguing my rights against the fears of friends and neighbors .. those who only read about one side of the issue.

This article talks about the "other side" ... our side.

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

"To Protect, and To Serve"

Parkland shooting: Judge says school, cops had no duty to protect kids:

, USA TODAYPublished 11:01 a.m. ET Dec. 19, 2018 | Updated 2:52 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2018
A Florida lawyer representing 15 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High students says he is "exploring all of our options" after a federal judge ruled that law enforcement and school officials had no legal duty to protect students during a Valentine's Day rampage at the school that left 17 people dead.  (emphasis added)
"Legal Duty" isn't necessarily the same as "Moral Duty".

*(H/T: David Codrea)*

Monday, December 17, 2018

"Stupid Is as Stupid Does"

You may recall Forrest Gump saying that line.

But now New Jersey has decided to compound their institutional stupidity:
 Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik slammed New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy over a gun law that bans off-duty officers in the state from carrying magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Kerik tweeted a leaked memo to law enforcement signed by Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo, which said violating the law would result in a fourth-degree crime.
NJ cops are protesting this law, on the grounds that it puts them at a severe disadvantage when they encounter criminal actions during off-duty hours and are required (by their terms of service) to intercede when possible.

The cops are also uncomfortable because the laws reduces their ability to defend themselves as "private citizens".

But what about the other "Private Citizens"? Don't they get to defend themselves?   

Out on the street, criminals can't differentiate between off-duty police (in mufti) and private citizens.    The difference doesn't matter to the mugger or the car thief who will steal your property while menacing you with a club, fists, knife, gun or just harsh language.   And if you take a few lumps during the process, or perhaps get stabbed or shot, isn't that better than a lot of "private citizens" running around with hidden guns in Trenton? 

(And cops can't tell the difference between armed private citizens and armed thugs, which is their story.)

If cops can potentially be under-armed with 10 round magazines, aren't their non-LEO neighbors equally at risk?

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Smarter than the average bear

ATF caves on "accessory" classifications.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Taxes and Firearms (ATF) has officially declined to impose regulations on devices which it has designated as an "accessory".  Specifically, those federal employees would not touch the "Bump Stock" issue with the proverbial 10 foot pole!
ATF Discontinues Accessory Classifications – Prince Law Offices Blog: if an individual or company submits an accessory to ATF for classification and it is not attached to a firearm, they won’t be rendering any decisions on it. Some readers inquired what would happen in a case where the accessory made the firearm subject to the control of the NFA. In the past, ATF has returned those items to individuals or companies that hold the appropriate type of SOT. If the individual or company lacks the appropriate SOT, ATF has not returned the item. To the best of my knowledge, ATF has not previously charged any individuals with GCA or NFA violations for seeking a determination.
You may be forgiven for considering ATF to be the one Federal Department which is staffed by "people who know better ...: