Category Archives: gun control

David Hardy on “compromise”

Gun Owners, Gun Legislation and Compromise (pdf). Why we’re right to distrust and reject “reasonable” compromise.

Abstract:

An important human aspect of firearms ownership and regulation includes the reluctance of gun owners to consent to measures that, viewed in historical isolation, appear quite limited. But this opposition is understandable if placed in historical context. During the rise of the modern gun-control movement in the early 1970s, gun-control proponents publicly proclaimed their objective was a complete or nearly complete ban on private handgun ownership. And they made it clear that lesser measures were but a means to that end. While they subsequently focused on those lesser measures, they returned to the objective of a complete handgun ban whenever that target of opportunity presented itself. When, in the 1990s, a focus on handguns became politically inexpedient, they switched the focus to semiautomatic rifles—notwithstanding their earlier avowals that rifles were not their concern.

Gun owners thus learned by experience that their opponents were not interested in genuine compromise, where each party gives up something to the other. Their opponents had no stopping point, no exit strategy, no “enough is enough.” Under these conditions, real
compromise is impossible. Any concession given would not be a stopping point, but rather a stepping stone to further restrictions.

This conclusion has been underscored by the experience of gun owners in states with restrictive gun legislation, where waiting
periods for purchase started at one day but were later increased to three, five, and then ten days. And initially limited restrictions have expanded to fill over a thousand pages of annotated text. Many of these measures serve no discernible purpose except to make legal firearm ownership as difficult, expensive, and legally risky as possible.

Intelligent actions are usually founded upon experience. Gun owners’ experiences have taught them one lesson: there is no true compromise to be had.

Et tu, background checks?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Background checks: inside the mind of Alan Gottlieb

Washington state gun owners are being smashed between a rock and a hard place. The disaster — which is bound to be bloody — will likely shape the gun-rights fight in states across the nation.

And the outcome for people far beyond Washington state may depend on Alan Gottlieb. Which terrifies me. And should terrify you.

—–

I was talking the other day with another gun blogger who hoped that after last year’s JPFO debacle I would have insight into Gottlieb’s mind. I have none. I’ve had the same thought; I wish I knew what Gottlieb could possibly be thinking. I’ve said I wished I could be a fly on the wall of that man’s brain. OTOH, I fear that experiencing Gottlieb’s thinking from within would make me puke.

But there are so many mysteries about what that man is up to! Why would a gun-rights advocate — any gun-rights advocate, anywhere — want background checks? Why would he want the federal control, the de facto gun registration, and the risk of confiscation that inevitably follow? How could he be so clueless about rights? So clueless about the threat to gun ownership? So clueless about how gun owners think?

And beyond that … how could a man who wants background checks continue to present himself — and be widely accepted! — as a gun-rights leader?

Of course he continues to be widely accepted partially because of SAF’s several successful lawsuits and partially because too many people don’t look at what he’s really doing. Most followers are also unaware of his sordid history. But more recently (and I expect ultimately more tragically) Gottlieb’s leadership is being accepted by some primarily because he has forced Washington state gun owners to choose between that rock and that hard place — between him and activist rivals who are overtly, unabashedly radical.

—–

Gottlieb has long ruled gun-rights activism in Washington state. He not only owns several major groups himself, but he’s on the board of others and serves as virtual puppet-master of yet more. Here’s just one example of how Gottlieb’s system works.

Many years ago, in the 1990s when it looked as if the antis were going to trample us all into the mud, I sat in on a legislative coordinating meeting of supposedly independent gun-rights groups in Washington state. The meeting was (no surprise) at Gottlieb’s headquarters and it was my first glimpse of what was going on.

There was no independence. There was one overriding mindset — don’t rock the boat. The one activist (a newcomer) who offered ideas that actually could have advanced gun rights (rather than merely holding the line) was repeatedly shot down. Not only shot down, but shot down with words I found mind-boggling and unforgettable: “Oh, we can’t ask the legislature for that. They’d never give us that.”

What kind of bargaining position can that be? Where would negotiators ever get if they started out only by asking for what their opponents are already known to be willing to give? That’s surrendering before the first battle!

But that was the state of Washington gun rights groups 20 years ago, designed and dominated by Alan Gottlieb. Matters appear to be worse now. After that, I always marveled that the state managed to have fairly decent gun laws, despite such wimpy “leadership.”

Well, I marvel no more. Since November — and thanks in large part to Gottlieb’s inexplicable “divide to lose” strategy — Washington has one of the most terrible state anti-gun laws. And the Billionaire Brigade is using I-594 as a battle plan to rampage through other states.

—–

I-594 might have passed anyway since it was the product of an enormous, multi-billionaire propaganda campaign. But Gottlieb initially made matters worse by throwing all his efforts not against I-594, but into a competing initiative, I-591. That went down in flames (and $1 million+ that could have been used against I-594 went down with it). But now Gottlieb, via his many puppet organizations, is trying to set himself up as the leader of the anti-I-594 forces.

He has filed a lawsuit against the new law while explicitly stating that he’s not trying to stop background checks. Even as state Rep. Matthew Shea prepared a bill to completely repeal 594, Gottlieb ally/partner/front group WAFLAG was focusing on getting gun owners merely to ask for fixes. As activist Kit Lange observed, “[Shea’s repeal] bill has not even been submitted yet, and they have already given up.”

You can’t “fix” a law that’s evil from its inception. And you can’t win if you already side with Michael Bloomberg on the most important points.

—–

Gun owners who are really aware of the issues and who understand that you can’t have freedom without standing firm on principles want nothing to do with Gottlieb or any of his front organizations. This means that some of the most angry, adamant, in-your-face activists have stepped forward. Gavin Seim’s armed, non-permitted “I Will Not Comply” rally in December outdrew Gottlieb’s January “legislative rally” by as much as 10-to-1. But when quite a few people with the “I will not comply” mindset also showed up at Gottlieb’s event, long-guns in hand, and carried their firearms into the House visitors’ chamber, it gave Gottlieb’s allies — and many inherently moderate gun-rights people — the excuse to call them all crazies and crowd closer to the false “safety” represented by Gottlieb.

Gottlieb has set things up so it’s either “side with me or side with the crazies” when it really just ought to be about getting I-594 declared dead. And getting the horrid monster buried at the crossroads with a stake through its heart so it can never rise again.

My heart and mind are with the “crazies.” But at the same time, I see how their tactics scare some activists away — and drive some activists right into the arms of Alan Gottlieb, despite his obvious, well-publicized sellout.

But as one activist from Graham, Washington, observes, the “crazies” are using those tactics as much to defy Gottlieb as to defy I-594. They are saying, “We will never allow you to ‘lead’ this battle. We won’t be polite and deferential as you sell us out. To hell with you.”

If Gottlieb had a clue about the rights of gun owners or the mindset of gun-rights activists, he would step out of the spotlight (and not just via the pretense that one of his puppets is really in charge). Being completely discredited on anything to do with background checks, he would recognize that he has no ability to lead (even from behind) on this issue. He would let somebody more principled unite the state’s gun owners. Instead, there he is, dividing — once again — so that our enemies can conquer.

Because Gottlieb stands in the way of any calm, strong, and principled leadership on gun rights in Washington state, he is helping Bloomberg win (just as he hoped to help Manchin, Toomey, and Schumer win at the federal level a year ago). Heartened by their victory in this first state, and strengthened by the lack of effective pro-gun leadership, the Bloombergians will rampage onward to the next state, which appears to be Nevada.

Good luck, Nevada. Good luck to us all. Except Mr. Gottlieb. May he choke on his own duplicity. May the power he so craves, the power he’ll stop at nothing to get, destroy him — before it destroys the rest of us.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Mixed-Bag Menachem

Several days ago I took Menachem Margolin, Chabad rabbi, and Director of the European Jewish Association, to task for his framing “Aliya” as a “Pavlovian” (as in simplistic, determinist, ring a bell and the dog drools) response as insulting, wrong-headed from a practical perspective, and ultimately contrary to Torah.

Rabbi Margolin, based in Brussels, Belgium (home of the European Union) has openly called for a major review, not only in France, but in all of Europe of their onerous hodge-podge of firearms laws. He does so with an eye towards making defensive firearms, ammunition, and training available to peaceful, law abiding Europeans; Jew and non-Jew alike. And he wants it sooner than later, because the threat is real, and imminent. He reportedly wants a little ”something in everyone’s pocket.” So far- so good.

He makes all the right bowing-and scraping noises about “working within the law”, not asking for “tanks or heavy weapons”. He emphasizes background checks, government supervision, etc. (ptui)

Bad enough that there is credence in some quarters that Jews have magical, shape-shifting powers and still have an appetite for blond-haired, blue-eyed goyishe cherubim for matzoh making ritual sacrifice… okay, okay, yes… the new narrative these days has the cherubim brown-haired and eyed, rather tan, and living in Gaza or Hevron. But Jews with Tanks and RPG’s?! That might precipitate a continent-wide conniption fit before the smart Jews pack up and leave altogether. So… “reasonable” is the resulting theme.

It is a bad place to start the negotiations with one’s rulers, but understandable, I suppose.

I still differ with him in his criticism of Israeli politicians calling for the Jews of Europe to come home to Eretz Yisrael. Is it political pandering? Of course it is. So what? Nu? They don’t pander in France, or England, etc.? Is the modern State of Israel Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden)? No. The risk to life and limb is generally small, and one can at least live upright and proud, among one’s brothers and sisters, in an often idiotic, frustrating, imperfect Country, that just so happens to be on (most of) the land promised to your people by G-d.

As a start, I suggest Rabbi Margolin call on each European country to immediately enact uniform possession and carry permits, valid for one’s residence, business, automobile, and person, issued on a “shall issue” basis, to any adult citizen or legal resident. The permit should cover any handgun or shoulder fired rifle through 20mm and any shotgun through 4ga. Ammunition and reloading supplies should be unlimited, save for demonstrably valid fire-safety considerations. Carry should also be valid for all forms of public transport. There shall be no restrictions on body armor. Excepting suspension upon conviction of a dangerous felony, the permit should be good for life.

Negotiate from THERE.

And meanwhile quietly get as many Jews out of Europe and into Israel as fast as we can.

Then we can take that same (initial) permit scheme and institute it in the Jews of Europe’s new and vibrant home, in the land of their forefathers. And “Judenrein” Europe can fend for itself, without their favorite scapegoat.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

When Seconds Count…..

The Police are just minutes away, just minutes away. How long have we been told by people control via gun control politicians and advocates that firearms owned by private citizen/subjects make U.S. “less civilized” less “safe” as a country? It seems to me that such statements usually come from people with a plethora of body guards. Either paid for with our tax dollars or their own fine salaries often earned by the movies they make. Paid for by us, the great unwashed masses.

 

Let’s start with England. In an effort to prove that sometimes the slowest zebra does in fact survive and multiply rather than being eaten by the lion, they are in a worse self-defense condition than they were in WWII.

 

After WWI England enacted the Firearms Act of 1920. Its restrictions on the private ownership of firearms was partly accomplished by screeching about a surge in crime that might occur because of the large number of firearms available following the war, well and due to fears of working class unrest. And then there was the previous version of the modern U.N. Gun Control treaty, the 1919 Paris Arms Convention, they needed to be able to control the overseas arms trade and they had to comply with that, right?

 

So when WWII rolled around, and after the Battle of Dunkirk when the British retreated and left behind a large amount of very useful hardware, which we would call weapons, they were in a very vulnerable state to fend off the killing machine known as nazis headed their way. What to do? Well, they appealed to their American (and well armed) brethren for help. A program called “American Committee for Defense of British Homes” established in 1940 by a group of Americans (well armed people) and headed by C. Suydam Cutting. They appealed for shotguns, rifles, ammo, steel helmets, binoculars from American Citizens (a well armed people) Since  the people protecting the home front had pitchforks. Kid you not. Makes me think of the line in the movie “The Patriot” where Cornwallis called the militia “farmers with pitchforks”. And yet, fast forward a few hundred years and it’s the Americans (well armed people) helping out their English brethren (home front with pitchforks) in defense of their country. Here’s a really good column about this. The Hession Rifle. Admittedly we could have just sent Chuck Norris, but he was born in 1940. Well, then again, he IS Chuck Norris.

 

So, after having found out that a disarmed nation is a vulnerable nation, the British vowed never to let that happen again! Just kidding. Nope, they are in a far worse state now. Even the British Olympic pistol shooters can’t train in England, Scotland or Wales. England is a country covered with cameras, they carefully record every crime and give a good idea of what and who the perpetrators are. Very useful for prosecuting crime! Stopping crime? Huh? SQUIRREL! Never mind England is thinking “knife ban” now. I mean what with crime being down and al, uh, oh, never mind! SQUIRREL!

I’m pretty sure they were thinking about it before 25 year old Fusilier Lee Rigby was murdered on 22 May 2013.

Rigby was off duty and walking along Wellington Street when he was attacked. Two men ran him down with a car, then used knives and a cleaver to stab and hack him to death. The men dragged Rigby’s body into the road and remained at the scene until police arrived. They told passers-by that they had killed a soldier to avenge the killing of Muslims by the British armed forces. Unarmed police arrived at the scene nine minutes after an emergency call was received and set up a cordon. Armed police officers arrived five minutes later. The assailants, armed with a gun and cleaver, charged at the police, who fired shots that wounded them both. They were apprehended and taken to separate hospitals. Both are British of Nigerian descent, raised as Christians, who converted to Islam.Immediately after the attack, several passers-by stood over Rigby’s body to protect him from further injury.

On lookers were powerless to stop the attack, though one helpfully filmed it. You’re talking about almost a quarter of an hour response time.

 

Fast forward to France, 7 January 2015. Masked muslims showed up at Charlie Hebdo, a magazine that was apparently in business to see how many people and religions they could offend. They went after Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and muslims equally. It’s called “Free Speech”. The magazine office were firebombed in 2011 after publishing a satirical cartoon about Islam. They didn’t let up. And on 7 January, 2 masked muslims showed up with AK-47s and a rocket launcher. Seriously? How the heck did they get a permit in France for that? France has very strict gun control! Oh look! A SQUIRREL!

 

Naturally, the Police were called. But we’re talking France. So two officers showed up on bicycles…unarmed. And found it necessary to flee. Then, as in Britain, a “special” Police unit that is responsible enough to be armed showed up. Of course, by then, 10 people wounded and 12 people were reported dead. Including another police officer, there’s video of him wounded and pleading for his life before he is shot in the head, by a representative of the “Religion of Peace”. Not sure if that was the representative that yelled “the Prophet has been avenged” and “Allahu akbar” as he walked the halls of Charlie Hebdo. Little side note here, “Allahu akbar” does not mean “G-d is Great”. It means “Allah is Greater”. Meaning greater than the whimpy loving G-d of the Jews and Christians, which are “People of the Book”. Oh look, a SQUIRREL!

 

So, back to the unarmed officers that arrived first. The murderers completed their job and left. And proceeded to go on to a printing house in the small town of Dammartin-en-Goele. Where they took people hostage. They told police they wanted to die as martyrs, so they rushed out at the police who obliged them. My thought would be “Ok, bury their bodies at a pig farm” But maybe that’s just me?

 

In a similar incident another representative of the “Religion of Peace” and his girl friend killed a police woman, who was probably unarmed and then holed up at a Kosher Grocery Store. The representative told a French TV station he had “coordinated” with the suspected Charlie Hebdo attackers and he belonged to the Islamic State group. He killed four of the hostages and threatened more unless the police let the Hebdo killers go.

 

What does it say about a country when the frequent refrain of “You don’t need a gun, just call the Police” is pointless. They are as helpless as the unarmed victims are. They die just as quick. SQUIRREL!

 

But the ever astute MSLSD had a Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson on who explained how much worse this would have been had it occurred in the United States.

“Just to keep it in perspective,” Robinson told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, “I don’t think we should imagine that the conditions and the threat are exactly the same in the United States as they are in France. They are different.”“In fact, one thing that’s different here is that weapons are universally available and so it is actually a very good thing that the tensions are not exactly the same because we would expect to have a lot more of that sort of carnage.”

Yeah, howdy! Was I ever shocked! #1 That armed citizens and armed police would just stand there and let themselves be shot. #2 Someone reads the WaPo? I thought it was just used for parrot cages and house training puppies, who knew? Somebody read it, because they had the columnist on TV to follow up. #3 MSLSD is still on the air? WOW, that is a devoted 12 bunch of people that are keeping them on the air! Oh look! A SQUIRREL!

But, to end on a positive note, since I’m so frustrated with the stupidity of countries that not only accept this kind of carnage, but enable it, I will share this tidbit of good news. Not all New York millionaires are idiots. Donald Trump made a statements that the gun control policies of France were enabling these types of massacres. WHAT? Gun control enables massacres? Oh look a SQUIRREL!

 

Running With The Squirrels

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

How Long Before The DSM Invents Diagnosis Of … Gun Incompatibility Disorder?

Gun-restriction advocates want nothing more than to restrain “predisposed” individuals before they transgress. The central authorities will decide who falls within this extremely plastic category. The same planners will act with the complicit assistance of the pseudo-scientific profession of psychiatry. Seriously: How long before the Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM # infinity) invents a diagnosis of gun incompatibility disorder? Against this kind of prior-restraint argument even Ivy league statists have argued, albeit with respect to limitations on speech only.

We are witnessing today a tremendous and ominous expansion of preventive law in the area of civil liberties. More and more, our controls are being devised not as punishment for actual wrongful conduct, but with a view to preventing future evils by a series of restrictions and qualifications that seriously jeopardize freedom …

In the spirit of prior restraint is the case of a veteran who presented with symptoms of insomnia and had his guns confiscated. (With the active encouragement of the liberty loving police force. It figures. The local police monopoly certainly made snide comments of displeasure on handing me my firearm license.) Via American Thinker:

New York State Police ordered the permanent confiscation of Mr. Montgomery’s registered handguns after he sought treatment for insomnia. The confiscation was ordered under Cuomo’s “SAFE Act” gun-control law.

The allegations in the case are downright scary. The complaint contends that Montgomery, a Navy veteran and retired police officer who rose to the rank of detective sergeant during his 30-year career, voluntarily sought treatment for insomnia at a hospital on Long Island in May of 2014 after relocating to a new home several hundred miles from his previous residence.

According to the suit, the hospital diagnosed the plaintiff as “mildly depressed,” and his clinical evaluation stated, “Patient has no thoughts of hurting himself. Patient has no thoughts of hurting others. Patient is not having suicidal thoughts. Patient is not having homicidal thoughts…” and “there is no evidence of any psychotic processes, mania, or OCD symptoms. Insight, judgment, and impulse control are good.” The suit further alleges that a psychiatrist told the plaintiff, “I don’t know why you were referred here. You don’t belong here.”

Nonetheless, the suit contends that five days after being discharged from the hospital, the local sheriff’s department showed up at Montgomery’s door and seized his four registered handguns, including his former duty sidearm, after the sheriff had been subjected to “repeated pressure” by the New York State Police, who claimed that Montgomery had been declared mentally defective and had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

The gun confiscation aforementioned is a logical conclusion to prior restraint legal arguments.

Mentioned above is the Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). The Rosetta Stone of the profession has grown since its inception in the 1950s from 60 categories of abnormal behavior to over 410 diagnostic labels and counting. Many of the disorders described in it are more about trend and niche than science.

In the late 1990s, I told readers of my Calgary Herald column about one Dr. John Ratey, a Harvard associate professor and a  well-respected, prominent psychiatrist, who claimed, in his 1997 book Shadow Syndromes, that quirky behaviors were actually mild mental illnesses resulting from brain dysfunction.

The lout who is appropriately obsequious with the boss because he knows where his bread is buttered, but who is less dainty with the wife, even thumping her occasionally, would be a candidate for compassion. He is after all doing battle with what Dr. Ratey terms “Intermittent Rage Disorder”. And the dad who dotes on his children while they are with him, but fails to mail them child support money as soon as they are out of sight, is simply afflicted with “Environmental Dependency Disorder”: He remembers his kids only when they are around. Is there proof for these sub-rosa disease categories? None whatsoever, although this has not prevented Ratey and many like him from coating their pronouncements with a patina of scientific respectability—and then cashing in.

Given the tenuous ties between psychiatry and science, how likely is it that “evidence” for new diagnoses will be marshaled in order to keep more people from being able to defend their lives and loved ones with guns?

Very likely.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Beware of legislators seeking anonymity

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) reports that a band of cowardly legislators quietly got together to form an association dedicated to relieving you of your gun rights.

These pusillanimous twits announced the creation of American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention (ASLGVP), claiming it’s a “non-partisan” effort to reduce gun violence further infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens across America, given Congress’ fail to do anything about the issue.

The NSSF reports that the “ASLGVP boasts having 200 members from all 50 states but the group will not release a list of their membership, due to a fear of “political backlash.”  So, outside of the eight members that participated in the inaugural press conference, no one knows who is or is not a member of this group.

We do know that non-partisan seems to be the biggest load of BS since “the check is in the mail” and “I’ll still respect you in the morning” went out of style.

Founding members include Adam Ebbin (D-ullard, VA) and Brian Kavanagh (D-olt, NY).

Ebbin is known for his “undercover video” in which he purchases a 30-round “extended clip” (is that like an assault clip?) without a background check. *GASP!*

Kavanagh’s latest claim to gun-grabbing fame is the introduction of a bill that would allow anyone who is concerned paranoid and hoplophobic to report anyone else to a court in order to persuade the court to issue a temporary order preventing the person from acquiring or possessing guns. Without a trial. Without so much as a legal standard. Just, “Oh! I feel threatened by my ex husband, so take guns away from him!

If these two gun-grabbing monkeys are any indication, this group is hardly non-partisan and has nothing to do with safety or reducing violence.

But more disturbing than that is the insistence on secrecy. Won’t release its membership for fear of “political backlash”??? What does this tell you?

The legislators know what they’re doing faces stringent opposition, and they want to keep it secret from the very people who put them in power.

They’re cowards, plain and simple. They don’t want to be accountable to their constituents. They don’t want to be held responsible by the people whose rights they betray.

Here’s the deal, people. Any legisleech who feels him or herself entitled enough to participate in an effort or initiative that quite plainly and obviously aims to infringe on basic, natural, Constitutional rights needs to be exposed for the liar, petty statist that they are.

Cockroaches aren’t fond of sunlight, so shine that light on any politician who seeks to keep secrets from you – the people from whom their power stems – especially if that secret aims to impact, hinder, or otherwise infringe on your natural rights.

Start with this horde of leeches.

leeches

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Is Gottlieb’s “new” JPFO about to get in trouble with the IRS?

That’s interesting.

Yesterday Dave Workman, the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner and frequently a proxy for Alan Gottlieb, announced that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has been added as a sponsor of a planned January 15 rally in Olympia, Washington, to oppose Bloomberg’s tragically successful Initiative 594. This rally is already supported (and apparently largely spearheaded) by Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, JPFO’s new owner.

This is interesting on two counts.

Why try to undermine the December rally?

First, the Gottlieb-promoted rally is clearly intended to steal thunder (and attendance) from another rally planned for this Saturday, December 13. Saturday’s rally has had tons of support from the day it was announced and will feature Mike Vanderboegh, Sheriff Richard Mack, and Ammon Bundy as speakers.

Gottlieb’s complaint against the December rally seems to be only that the legislature won’t be in session then. (Although the idea that Saturday’s rally is expressly for disobeying the law also seems to set a certain “conservative” element to tsking — as if we should obey tyrants as long as tyranny is imposed by vote.) So, just in advance of the December rally, he sets out to undermine it.

You’d think he would learn. In this year’s state elections, instead of opposing Bloomberg’s ghastly plan with all his efforts, Gottlieb set up his own competing initiative, I-591, and put all his energies — and money — into that.

So a million dollars that could have gone to fighting I-594 went down the drain of I-591 instead. (I-591 lost.)

Yes, you’d think Gottlieb would learn that “divide to win” isn’t good electoral or legislative strategy. Yet Workman’s article drips with contempt for Saturday’s effort and goes out of its way to point out reasons why attendance might be low.

That’s the first count on which the Gottlieb-supported January rally is “interesting.”

Doesn’t Gottlieb understand what JPFO is?

The second count is JPFO’s involvement.

The stated purpose of the January rally is to be “the first 2015 Legislative Rally against I-594 and other bad gun laws.” Note well: it’s a legislative rally. Workman elaborates: “[T]he Jan. 15 rally – when the Legislature will be in town – will allow citizens a chance to personally lobby lawmakers.” Note well: it’s for lobbying. Following the public portion of the rally, citizens will even be escorted to legislators’ offices. Note well: That’s an integral part of the event.

And JPFO is supporting this?

But JPFO is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. It is absolutely forbidden to engage in lobbying or any other form of “political” activity. It cannot oppose or advocate for any specific laws. It can’t take any electoral stance. It’s forbidden by its very nature from even saying something like, “Write to your legislator to demand the repeal of …”

JPFO’s only legal role is educational. It can shout to the rooftops about why the state’s new law is stupid and dangerous and a violation of fundamental rights. But lobby legislators or even encourage others to do so??? Let alone sponsor a rally whose sole, stated purpose is to connect gun owners with legislators. This is totally outside of what the IRS allows JPFO to do. (That link also claims that JPFO has only recently “expanded their mission to include research and education.” Which is as silly as it is bogus. Research and education has been JPFO’s sole mission from the beginning.)

Don’t get me wrong. I think I-594 should be fought with everything Washington state gun owners have to give. I don’t oppose the January rally. Let there be rallies, letters, lobbying, protests, and defiance aplenty until I-594 is stomped into the Pacific Northwest mud. But organizers of the January rally shouldn’t be trying to undermine the December event with the timing of their announcements or their subtle sneers.

And after lying fallow for months following Gottlieb’s take-over (other than continuing daily email alerts, there’s been no sign of activity from JPFO), JPFO’s first public mission should not be to destroy itself by participating in lobbying.

This will only put JPFO in the IRS’s eye and risk destroying everything Aaron Zelman worked to build.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Serving & Protecting Secondary To Monopolizing The Production Of Defense

If there’s something strange
in Ferguson
Who you gonna call?
Oath Keepers!
adapted from Ghostbusters

Stewart Rhodes, “Yale-educated attorney and former army paratrooper,” is the heroic founder of “The Oath Keepers,” which “claims to have active chapters in all 50 states, as well as an estimated 40,000 members – which,” according to Yahoo News, “would make it one of the fastest growing far-right organizations in the world.”

An Oath Keeper member, Sam Andrews, and his merry men rescued damsel-in-distress Natalie DuBose, proprietor of “Natalie’s Cakes and More,” which “was broken into and looted” in Ferguson.

“I didn’t have the extra savings or extra money to replace everything that was destroyed,” she told ABC News following the vandalism. “The threat of not being able to take care of your children makes you feel like less than a human being.”
DuBose’s story caught Andrews’ attention. He was watching the news at home 40 miles away.
“I can’t even imagine a governor that would leave a woman like this and her business to burn, like they did,” Andrews said. “But I value this woman as much as anything I’ve ever seen in my life.”

“Dressed in full camouflage and armed with an assault rifle and handgun – [Sam] climbs to the roof of a dentist’s office to begin his nightly surveillance. … the Oath Keepers …is … taking up armed positions on the streets and rooftops with the intent of protecting local businesses.”

He says he’s here to defend “the best part of America, the creative part, the small businesses, the hardest working people in the United States of America. To defend them from arson.”

Oath Keeper Sam Andrews sounds right, not far right, as Yahoo “News” would have it.

… What separates the Oath Keepers from other militia groups is that they recruit men and women of the military and law enforcement – vowing to disobey “unconstitutional orders” from what the group sees as an increasingly tyrannical president and government.

But what do you know? More often than not, the police is not on the side of private-property owners and their protectors.

St. Louis County Police declined an interview with ABC News, but confirmed that it is investigating whether the Oath Keepers are breaking the law by providing security without a license.

This must lead one to a sneaky suspicion that government controlled law-enforcement cares less about serving and protecting private property than monopolizing the production of defense.

St. Louis County Police has an illiberal partner in who else but the “Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism.” It “called the Oath keepers an ‘extremist, anti-government group.’”

What’s new?!

“Everything that they say [they] stand for is based on this notion that the world and the government is going to become a dictatorship to try to prevent Americans from having their freedoms,” said director Oren Segal.

Blah, blah, blah.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Never had any doubt

“You’re paranoid.”

“The government isn’t after your guns.”

“Nobody wants to confiscate your guns.”

“Registration doesn’t lead to confiscation.”

How many times have we heard gun control advocates snottily ridicule us for knowing our own history? For understanding the nature of statism?

“This isn’t Nazi Germany,” they say. “No one is going to disarm you and victimize you.”

“Registration is a safety measure,” they claim. “It’s a crime prevention measure.”

Is it? From Buffalo, NY comes a report that details a plan by the police department in that city to begin confiscating firearms of legal gun owners after their deaths.

Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derrenda said at a press conference last week that the department will be sending people to collect guns that belong to pistol permit holders who had died so “they don’t end up in the wrong hands.” The department will cross reference pistol permit holders with death records and the guns will be collected when possible, he said.

Derrenda said guns pose a threat if their owner is no longer alive to safeguard them, especially if a recently-deceased gun owner’s home is burglarized.

[…]

The state law says that if the permit holder dies, the estate has 15 days to dispose of the guns or turn them in to authorities, who can hold the weapons up to two years. LoHud.com reported that violation of the law by survivors is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine.

So how will the police department find out whether the deceased had a gun? Carry permits? ATF 4473 forms, which licensed firearms dealers have to retain for at least 20 years?

While not “technically” registration, these records give the authorities the tools they need to confiscate firearms – to steal them from the families of the deceased when they are grieving and vulnerable – to violate basic property rights.

And Buffalo isn’t the only place where this odious infringement on basic human rights has happened.

In Connecticut, cowardly politicians rammed through a registration requirement for all firearms they deemed to look scary.  Gun owners resisted, and the majority of what these pusillanimous twits call “assault” weapons remained unregistered.  A few tried to register at the last minute, before the suspense, they wound up in limbo. The state now had their ownership information, and began confiscation proceedings against these gun owners, claiming they illegally held their property.

The state is sending letters to 106 rifle owners and 108 residents with high-capacity magazines saying they can destroy the guns and ammunition, sell them to a federally licensed gun dealer, move the items out of state or sell them to somebody out of state, or make arrangements to turn them over to local or state police.

Those who fail to do so could face serious criminal penalties.

In California, a de facto registration law signed by Jerry Brown in 2011 required the state to retain background-check records of those who purchase guns (although it did not register specific guns to specific people.) And you know what happened? Reason magazine explained in January.

The new law will bolster a program that has generated much controversy. Earlier this month, legislators held hearings on the effectiveness of the Armed Prohibited Persons System, used to confiscate the firearms of California residents who are no longer eligible to own them. The California Department of Justice relies on the current ownership lists to identify gun owners and cross check those with lists of people who have been convicted of crimes or have been involuntarily committed for mental issues.

The state auditor found, in a report released in October, that the department has not sufficiently notified courts and mental-health officials of their reporting requirements. Despite a new $24-million state appropriation, the auditor found that the program has failed to take guns from nearly 21,000 Californians who have forfeited their gun rights.

Not enough for you?

Registration led to confiscation in Australia, and Barack Obama wants to make that nation an example for the United States. (Yes, I know the link is RT – the Kremlin funded propaganda machine – but in this case, it’s actually correct reporting.)

After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia, its government passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. They also implemented a mandatory gun “buyback” – also known as confiscation (with perhaps a nominal payment for the owner’s property).

Those who do not remember history are, indeed, doomed to repeat it. That is the warning Canadian news anchor Brian Lilley  gave his American neighbors last year when he emphasized that registration did, in fact, lead to confiscation in Canada.

And in my birthplace – the USSR – firearm registration was introduced in 1918, which led to confiscation of weapons from everyone but… you guessed it… members of the Communist Party, with a stint in jail for anyone who possessed firearms and wasn’t a member. This was how Communists cemented their power over the hated bourgeoisie – those business owners, capitalists, and other undesirables whom they wanted to keep defenseless.

Those of us who grew up in tyrannical holes understand only too well that registering people for exercising their natural rights can only lead to the demise of those rights. Those of us who have studied history understand this as well.

Those who ignorantly seek to treat their fellow Americans like criminals merely for daring to exercise their rights either forgot their history, or are ignoring it.

Those of us who remember history never had any doubt about the end result of registration.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Rights are not up for grabs or votes

Now that Election 2014 has come and gone, and Bloomberg’s Everytown initiative suffered losses in nearly every arena, forcing him to waste $50 million  on an effort Americans obviously oppose, it’s time to ask some questions about our rights.

Among the sea of rejection for the gun control mission, however, there were tiny spots of stupid that gave small victories to the gun grabbers.

Washington state (as if you hadn’t heard Gunsense drones crowing about it) has passed Initiative Measure 594 – a gun control measure that would require every person wishing to purchase a firearm – even those doing so via private sales – to get government permission to do so.

This, in essence, has banned private sales. When you insert a government transaction, done through an FFL, into a private transaction, said sale ceases to be private.

Was the initiative about safety? Anyone who has been following the gun rights debate for any length of time knows that safety has nothing to do with it.  Criminals, for the most part, do not get guns through legal channels.

Guns purchase

Basic economics indicate that as long as there is a demand, there will be a supply, and when you close off legal supply channels, the black market flourishes.

So it’s not about safety. So why is it that Washingtonians were so eager to cede their basic rights to government infringement, even though this measure has no hope of stopping crime?

Why hand over your rights so easily?

Make no mistake, these are rights.

The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that stems from the right to life and the right to defend your life. Why allow petty elected tyrants to control what tool you use to do it?

What about the right to property? Why would you allow the government to intrude on your right to dispose of your property as you see fit? If it rightfully belongs to you, why would you allow any government to control to whom you sell it?

And lastly, why would Washingtonians subject their natural rights to a vote in the first place?

Less than 50 percent of Washington residents voted in this election, and yet, they decided the fate of the natural rights of their fellow citizens – the right to dispose of their property, and the right to purchase it without government intrusion.

They decided this despite the fact that no loud, screeching, uninformed majority should ever be allowed to decide the fate of our natural rights with a push of a button.

That is not a decision any majority should be allowed to make.  And yet Washingtonians not only allowed the right to keep and bear arms and the right to property to be limited by their fellow state residents, but also allowed those rights to be put on the chopping block in the first place.

Rights exist. They are not and should not be up for discussion, debate, or a vote.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail