Guns.com:

With the stroke of a pen Tuesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) turned a controversial bill into law that will allow third parties to sue municipalities over local gun codes stronger than the state’s.

The measure, added as an amendment to a metal theft bill, had passed the state legislature earlier this month by wide margins. It allows groups such as the National Rifle Association to stand in for local citizens in challenging gun city and county control ordinances stronger than the state’s own laws in court.

With Corbett’s signature, the new law will take effect in 60 days, potentially dozens of strict city and county firearms laws under the gaze of gun rights groups such as the NRA, who called the bill Tuesday, “the strongest firearms preemption statute in the country.”

Now for federal threats:

Members of Congress who want to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms will never give up. Fortunately, through our states we can effectively render any new federal gun laws powerless by using a legal doctrine upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

This is done by depriving the feds of any enforcement assistance by local law enforcement agencies in their state, a doctrine known as “anti-commandeering.”

Essentially, it provides that state legislation can prohibit state law enforcement from aiding the federal agencies attempting to enforce federal gun laws.

In other words, the federal government cannot require a state to carry out federal acts. The federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but the state isn’t required to help them.

Is this legal?

It is according to the US Supreme Court. For 150 years it has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of anti-commandeering laws.

Relevant court cases include:

* 1842 Prigg v. Pennslvania: The court held that states weren’t required to enforce federal slave rendition laws.

* 1992 New York v. US: The court held that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

* 1997 Printz v. US: The court held that “the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”

* 2012 Independent Business v. Sebelius: The Court held that the federal government can not compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for Medicaid programs already in place.

What do you notice to be common between these articles concerning advocacy for state’s rights?  Answer: turning to the courts for moral and legal justification.

The new law in Pennsylvania would be impressive if only it had prepared the infrastructure to send state law enforcement after local authorities if they didn’t observe our rights.  Nullification of local regulations combined with spending some quality time in the hoosegow for the local politicians would send a strong signal to those who would ignore the law.  Frankly, I cannot imagine a weaker state government than one which passes a law only to have cities and townships ignore it, and then have to turn to the courts to tell the local authorities to obey the state laws.  It’s embarrassing and scandalous.

And turning to the federal courts to tell ourselves that it’s okay to ignore the federal authorities when their edicts violate the covenant upon which they are supposed to labor and lead is equally embarrassing.  More than simply not aiding federal authorities in their totalitarian measures, state law enforcement ought to be sent to arrest said federal authorities, throw them in the state penitentiary, and throw away the key.

Kurt Hofmann:

An interesting new concept in “smart guns” is now reaching technological maturity, according to All Outdoor. This device, made by Yardarm Technology, has a purpose significantly different from previous “smart guns,” and the idea (for now, at least) is to apply it only to cops’ duty weapons … Still, though, if cops can be forced to adopt this technology, laws mandating it for the rest of us are possible, too …

Yea.  Don’t think for a second that the control freaks will stop at law enforcement.  If it actually gives us proof of principle (and I’ll believe it when I see it), they will want to mandate it for all of us.  This I cannot abide.  Besides, the better option for cops that abuse their rights to self defense with people and animals (and even more animal abuse) should have their weapons confiscated, not re-engineered.

David Codrea:

The guy has proven time and again, oath to the Constitution be damned, his true allegiance is to unrestrained government. As presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, BuzzFeed noted, Walton “dramatically expanded the ability of the federal government to use controversial techniques to gather intelligence on Americans both at home and abroad that have outraged civil libertarians.”  Walton was appointed to that position by Chief Justice John Roberts (the guy who betrayed his backers on Obamacare).

I’ve run across this guy in my reading, and he is an enemy of the constitution and thus an enemy of America.  And Chief Justice Roberts is equally a traitor to the country.  But the damage that Walton has done on the FISA court is untold and will have to play out over decades, if not longer.

Also read David’s latest on the political terrain in Connecticut.

Via Uncle, free survival books.

Why are anti-gunners so violent?

Mike Vanderboegh has a sneak picture of a new facility Malloy and Lawlor have built for us.

Via Uncle, this from Wes Siler.  I’ll leave the background and setup to Wes but copy in the money quotes to this post.

In all of our visits, we’ve never seen any cops. It’s just a small little bar and a campground way out in the middle of nowhere. I’d hazard a guess that they showed up this time to look in on events. While it was a “biker” camp out, these bikers were mostly 20 and 30 something creatives living and working in Los Angeles, Ventura or surrounding areas. The weekend is a chance for them to let their hair down and wear their leather jackets, but it’s not exactly what anyone would consider a rough crowd. The event is advertised online.

The deputies must have seen us leave and followed us back to our tents. No sooner had we sat down and cracked a beer (totally legal), we saw flashlights approaching and, when they were 20 or 30 feet out, heard a man shout, “Who’s dogs are these? Get them under control or I’ll shoot them!”

Both Wiley (85lbs) and Sansho (75lbs) are big dogs and they do sometimes growl, bark or generally act like dogs do when a stranger approaches us in the middle of the night. Neither one is remotely aggressive or dangerous in appearance. Just a couple of fluffy house pets who are good with kids and other dogs and people in general. They did not act in an aggressive manner as the police approached and were not rough housing either; they were exhausted from being the centers of attention in a crowd all night.

Two cops, in uniform, were standing in the center of the campground’s drive, one had his weapon out of its holster, pointed at the dogs. Two other men, who we assumed to be cops were also present. They wore black jackets and were clearly with the police, but did not identify themselves as such. One remained behind the two uniformed deputies, hovering back in the shadows, while the other circled around our little campsite to approach it from the other side. The dogs were taking turns sniffing each other’s butts and peeing on a bush.

Ty and I stood up, hustled to cover the 20 or 30 foot gap between us and the cops and dogs. Ty was immediately able to grab Sansho, but Wiley heard the commotion and scooted around behind the cops before I was able to get my hands on him.

During the 10 or 15 seconds it took for me to grab Wiley’s collar and clip on his leash, the cop who hadn’t drawn his gun remarked loudly, “You do not appear to have control of your animals.” To me, that sounded like he was saying that as a precursor to shooting them or as a suggestion towards further action.

“He’s just a little puppy!” I responded.Wiley is 21 months old and, while a big dog, is still just a goofy, floppy little baby that cries in my arms when he gets scared.

The cop with the gun then approached me and explained in great detail how he was authorized to shoot any dogs he felt were a threat. “I can shoot any dog that approaches me,” he said holding his gun, in a gloating manner. “All I have to say is that I feel they’re a threat.”

I’ve explained this before.  If law enforcement officers cannot handle animals – dogs, horses and other ranch and farm animals – they are pussies.  If they are scared of dogs, they have absolutely no business going after violent criminals or pretending that they are there to “protect and serve,” as the lie goes.

They need to spend their weekends for several years working at a ranch, farm, or dog breeder to learn to handle animals.  This is simple boyhood stuff that their daddies should have done with them when they were young.  If they didn’t, then the officers can blame their worthless daddies and settle the issue with them.  They have no business taking their frustrations, failures and inadequacies out on peaceable folk.

In the mean time, before extensive retraining, the Sheriff should pull his officers back from duties where they may be exposed to animals since they are frightened of them.

News From Australia:

Tougher legal measures against people who supply illegal firearms have been announced by the SA Government.

Attorney-General John Rau plans to extend measures he announced back in July, to include people complicit in firearms crime.

Under previous plans, serious firearms offenders would face mandatory jail terms and there would be few circumstances where a sentence could be suspended.

Mr Rau said the Government would now extend the measures to complicity.

“This means anyone who sells or supplies an illegal firearm will be liable for any offence committed by the person to whom they provide the firearm,” he said.

“So if you provide someone with an illegal firearm and that person commits murder using that weapon, you will also be charged with being an accessory to that crime.”

Mr Rau said the toughening of measures had been prompted by the murder of Adelaide teenager Lewis McPherson in 2012 and the recent jailing of the man who sold the gun to the killer.

“The purpose of this of course is to make it very clear to those people who trade in firearms you are accountable for the harm that these illegal firearms are causing in our community,” he said.

Follow the link above.

Judge Paul Muscat said guns should be totally banned to prevent them from falling into criminal hands.

He said the 1996 guns buyback scheme in the wake of the the Port Arthur massacre had not removed illegal firearms from the community.

“Our community now lives in fear of offenders armed with firearms. In the wrong hands, guns are deadly,” he said.

He said most licensed gun owners took the responsibility seriously, but guns still had no place in a civilised society.

“In my view, the possession of firearms serves absolutely no legitimate purpose in our society … people want guns, they do not need them,” he said.

“Even a licensed firearm owner can misuse a gun under the wrong circumstances. They are human after all, prone to making errors of judgment.

“The sooner firearms are totally banned, the better off our society will be. No-one should be able to keep guns at their home [as] many guns end up being stolen from licensed owners.

Rather than go after the gangs and criminals who use firearms for harm, the law goes after anyone who sells guns, and don’t let this fool you.  This means firearms dealers as well.

This is what cowards do.  They go after the peaceable rather than the violent.  They are scared of the violent, so it’s easier for the bullies to beat up on the ones who won’t fight back.

Midland Daily News:

Since this verse comes up frequently in discussions of gun control, let’s destroy this argument once and for all. First, let us examine the full context of the verse by including the following two verses. “He said to them, ‘But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfillment.’ And they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘It is enough.’

The New Oxford Annotated Bible has this to say about the passage. “An example of Jesus’ fondness for striking metaphors, but the disciples take it literally. The sword apparently meant to Jesus a preparation to live by one’s own resources against hostility. The natural meaning of verse 38 is that the disciples supposed he spoke of an actual sword, only to learn that two swords were sufficient for the whole enterprise, that is, were not to be used at all.”

Anyone who has read the Gospels knows that Jesus was fond of metaphors. Matthew 23:24 – “You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Or Mark 10:25 – “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Clearly, Jesus had no intention of inflicting either of these painful actions upon any camels. So, presuming that everything Jesus said was to be taken literally is groundless.

Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep, etc.) to teach universal truths, and the same is true of the two swords. This interpretation is supported by Matthew 10:34: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword,” (another verse often misquoted by gun advocates). In proper context, Jesus did not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide families nonphysically.

Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman labels a literal interpretation of Luke 22:36 as an absurd contradiction. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus teaches peace.

[ … ]

Therefore, the words of Jesus in Luke 22:36 are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords. His meaning is that, wherever they went and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries. They would be met with violence, followed by rage and persecution. The phrase expresses the danger they will be exposed to.

Obviously the author is a believer in German so-called “higher criticism” (Source, Form and Redaction criticism).  This is so “yesterday” that most churches who believe this are dead or dying and certainly waning in influence.  But apparently they are still around causing trouble for folks.

To be sure there are different types of literature in the Bible, allegory, apocalyptic and so on.  Each in turn must be interpreted within the correct hermeneutical framework in order to get the right meaning.  But this particular assessment violates the most basic principle of all interpretation.  The more complex passages are interpreted in light of the simpler, and any deliverance you might concoct that runs contrary to the warp and woof of the balance of Scripture is obviously wrong and you need to go back to the beginning and try again.

Even if Jesus had intended to convey an additional (or even another) interpretation of what he said there, He didn’t rebuke them for having the items they counted in order to answer the master’s question.  The disciples weren’t holding metaphors – they were holding fixed-blade swords.  Jesus didn’t tell them to throw them away, even if our detractor is correct in his assessment of the passage (and I claim that he’s not).  The disciples had swords before Jesus told them to find themselves a weapon, and they had they afterwards.  The assessment fails at every turn.

Additionally, as I mentioned before, this assessment fails to consider the warp and woof of Scripture.  I have never turned to this passage for demonstration of the right and even duty of self defense.  As I’ve summarized before:

I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying.  As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue.  Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.

God’s law requires [us] to be able to defend the children and helpless.  “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.”  I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

This same sort of thinking can be applied on a larger scale to states and nations as so expertly done by professor Darrell Cole in Good Wars (First Things), relying on the theology of both Calvin and Aquinas.  But this is a bridge too far for some Christians who are just now dealing with the notion that they might be in danger.

Now a word of advice for the pastor who proffered this laughable interpretation.  It’s things like this that cause congregants to lose respect for the pulpit, and nothing screams the irrelevance of the sermon more than the Biblical impossibility of the pronouncements of the pastor (or in other words, the inconsistency of what he says with the balance of Scripture).  It’s just best to leave your own political aberrations out of the pulpit and teach the Bible.

Prior: Let Him Who Has No Gun Sell His Robe And Buy One

David Codrea:

A blues music video lampooning Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper made its debut Sunday evening on Salem Radio Network’s nationally syndicated “Armed American Radio” program with host Mark Walters. “Hickenlooper Blues,” which highlights the way the reelection-seeking chief executive has contradicted himself on Colorado’s politically toxic new gun laws, is being released on the heels of admissions by no less a source than Bloomberg News that the governor “faces [a] voter gun-control backlash.”

This issue of backlash is important.  In New York, for instance, voters are not “getting over” the recent gun control initiative there.  For all of you politicians out there who are flirting with the idea of universal background checks and other such idiotic measures like gun prohibitions, just remember.  Gun owners never forgive, and never forget.  If you cross the line to the dark side, you can never come back.

Thanks to David Codrea for compiling the information in the report (and humorous lyrics).

CNN:

This notion — that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to fire upon federal officials, or their local police, or sheriffs or even U.S. military personnel — is common among right wingers. But it’s one thing to hear, say, goofball Ted Nugent honk off that way. (The Nuge, by the way, has boasted about how he avoided taking up arms in defense of his country during Vietnam.) It is another to know that someone with those loopy views is one step away from the United States Senate.

The Washington Monthly blogger Ed Kilgore has asked the right question — the one any Iowa voter should be putting to Ms. Ernst: “Since you brought it up, exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or a soldier in the head?”

Good question, Ed. Is it OK to do so if, say, the Supreme Court stops the counting of votes so as to give the presidency to the candidate who got fewer votes? I don’t think so.

How about segregation? If ever American citizens were oppressed by their government it was African-Americans under Jim Crow. Thank God we had Dr. King and not Ms. Ernst leading the civil rights movement.

Perhaps Ms. Ernst reserves her bloody right to truly egregious government actions, like ensuring affordable health care, even to folks with pre-existing conditions? Lord, I hope not.

[ … ]

Don’t believe me? Ask George Washington. Gen. Washington, as president, forcefully rejected the notion that American citizens had a revolutionary right to take up arms against their government — even against the most hated government officials enforcing the most hated government program. President Washington and his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, sought to enforce a tax on whiskey, which Congress passed in 1791. A group of Pennsylvania whiskey distillers objected, violently. In what was known as the Whiskey Rebellion, they refused to pay the tax and burned the home of the federal tax collector.

Washington personally led 13,000 troops to crush the rebellion (the only time a president has commanded troops in the field). Washington was willing to shed blood to ensure no one took up arms against his or her own country.

To argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to turn their guns on their government is to repudiate the actions of George Washington, as well as the Constitution itself.

I say this as a gun owner — and I’m not just talking about some puny 9 mm like the one Ms. Ernst brags about. At last count I have 22 guns. I use them to hunt, shoot targets, and bond with my family. My grandfather was a hunter and gun owner, as is my father, as am I — as are my sons.

But neither we, nor Ms. Ernst nor any American has the right to turn those weapons on American military personnel, peace officers or other government officials.

The last refuge of a gun control scoundrel is to claim that he has guns, and the more of them the better.  But I couldn’t care less if he has 2200 guns.  As the saying goes, beware of the man with one gun.  He probably knows how to use it.

Begala’s invoking of George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion is rich.  Only someone like him could ignore the fact that the entire continental congress in effect turned their guns on their own government, and commissioned George Washington as general to lead the effort.

But Begala quickly turns his attention away from the founding fathers to examples of things that would cause a man to turn a weapon on his own government.  Socialized medicine?  Nope.  Racism and Jim Crow laws?  Nope.  But how far does this go Paul?  Where would you draw the line?

Would it be okay with you if the government showed up at your doorsteps one day to confiscate your grandchildren to take them off to be put to death because they happened to be born different?  What should the parent of a Down’s syndrome child think when this happens?  What about Jews, Paul?  What about Catholics, Paul?  You’re a Catholic (at least nominally).  A number of religious clerics went along with Hitler’s plans.

But there were good men too, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller who opposed Naziism to their own demise.  In which camp are you, Paul?

I have a feeling that Paul Begala can’t answer the question.  Note that God was never invoked in Begala’s missive, but it is in my own title.  That’s because to a collectivist, there is nothing more supreme than the state.  Not the right to vote, not the right to be free, not the right to bear arms, not the right to use them.  To the collectivist, the state is god.  And if you have no threshold that can be crossed, no trigger than can be pulled, literally no action that the state can take and be opposed by you with force of arms, you’re no different from those pictured above.  And I’m glad I don’t know you.

David Codrea:

The Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are appealing a settlement in the case of Dobyns v United States, a post by retired agent Jay Dobyns on the Clean Up ATF member forum announced Friday. In September, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Francis M. Allegra awarded Dobyns $173,000 and denied government royalty claims against Dobyns for his book, “No Angel: My Harrowing Undercover Journey to the Inner Circle of the Hells Angels.”

Apparently this isn’t over yet.  And it could get good.  Via Mike Vanderboegh, Dobyns speaks thusly:

I’m coming with all of it.  With all the information that they thought slipped through the cracks.  All the dirt that they thought the Judge would never see or know about.  I told you to trust me and that the trial opinion was going to be brutal.  It was.  Now trust me again.  The behind-the-scenes story of what took place and that I was choking down is going to get let out and it is very bad.  Disgusting bad …

I’m saying here and in the open. Obama, Holder, DOJ Attorneys, ATF leadership – you are punks and bitches.

You’re not going to look good in orange jumpsuits with “DOC” on the backs.  Don’t drop the soap, sleep with your backs to walls and make sure your pod doesn’t allow broom handles to be present after lights out …

I’m gunna see to it that you are braiding cornrows wearing halter tops and lipstick before this is over.

Outstanding.  I look forward to the coming festivities.

Mike Vanderboegh is waxing lovingly about the “grease gun.”

Cheap, easy to make, great for shooting bad guys

It is no secret to my friends that the M-3A1 “Grease Gun” has long been my favorite submachine gun. (It is also no secret to the ATF, apparently, since three times in the 90s snitches tried to offer me one for sale in a “can’t miss” deal. Each time I picked up the phone and called the state police and the snitch went away. The devil, it must be said, knows your temptations better than you do so be prepared to resist them.)

And of course, because of the ungodly abomination that is the Hughes Amendment, we can’t have one.  I’ll add that such a device would have been close to useless to my son in Iraq.  Marines today are trained to use their carbines with such short time between trigger pulls that they can discharge three rounds in about the same amount time that it would take a fully automatic weapons to do the same, even without the gun in select fire mode.  And this conserves ammunition.

Of course, he shot both the carbine and the SAW, and went through DM (designated marksman) school, and not many of us can afford to shoot half a million rounds in a 1.5 year workup for combat.  But assuming that we can always get better than we are with more time and practice, there is one thing I would like to duplicate from the grease gun.  Caliber.

I just can find a good pistol caliber carbine in .45 ACP.  There are plenty of 9 mm (RRA has a 9 mm carbine and I like RRA guns), some .40, but no .45 that I can find (and I don’t want a gun that is based on MAC-10 design unless I can be assured that it functions far better than the MAC-10 which is total crap).

Uncle: “The .gov spent $1B to destroy $16B worth of ammo. They could have sold it. Or given it to me and I’d have destroyed it absolutely free. And there’d have been a party.”  Yea, a lot of us feel that way about the government and ammunition.

Questions from Cleveland:

My son brandished a wooden train track in a plastic bridge.

“It’s a shooter!” he said, pointing it at me. “I’m spraying you in the face with water.”

“We don’t shoot at people,” I said, by rote. It was an oft-repeated directive when my little brother was into guns and cowboys.

But my mind was churning. Where did my almost 4-year-old get this stuff? How did he know what a gun was? We don’t own any guns, aside from a water blaster shaped like an alligator. He’s never seen any violent TV show or movie. Is playing with guns just inborn in boys?

“This connection is likely — like most things — a combination of genetics and environment,” said Joshua Weiner, an Arlington, Virginia-based psychiatrist who specializes in children and adolescents. “Boys probably have some yet-unknown gene which contributes to this behavior.”

Just like girls must have some ingrained penchant for shoes and purses. My 20-month-daughter adores purses, whether it’s my purse or a kids gardening tote she stuffs with trains, puzzle pieces and plastic food. She drags them around the house. And she is constantly playing with my shoes, particularly a pair of shiny tortoiseshell ballet flats.

At first I didn’t want to encourage the purse-and-shoe thing. It’s such a stereotype. “But she’s just emulating you,” said my mom. So I gave in. I gave her an old Lululemon bag to stuff. And I bought her a fluffy bunny purse for Christmas.

I don’t intend to ever buy my son a toy gun.

But I’m not especially worried that he pretends to have one, especially if in his dreamworld his gun shoots water. Should I be?

Probably not.

No study has proved that pretend gunplay leads to violent behavior. And most child experts agree that forbidding gunplay only makes it more powerful and enticing.

Besides, gunplay can even help kids make sense of their world, by letting them “kill” bad guys.

God made men and women to be different, and gave the responsibility of provider and primary protector to the man.  It’s His design.  Since it is His design, he gave men and women the genetics and disposition to effect those ends.  Of course these genetics and dispositions can be turned towards evil, but so can just about anything else.  That’s irrelevant to the primary goals.  It has been this way from the beginning of time.  Understand it, don’t fight against it.

I’m glad I could clear that up.

Another instructive video by Jerry. I want one of those – and a range set up to use it.