Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Apparently, some dude is taking his AR pistol for a walk in every Oklahoma city and recording the interactions with police.

News from Georgia:

Haley said he sees most of the local debate over constitutional carry happening on the internet, on Facebook or gun-trading forums. Online, he says it feels like people with his stance are in the minority.

“Because they’re all gung-ho, you know? ‘I’m a Second Amendment supporter and in order to be a true Second Amendment supporter, I’ve got to support this, this has got to be the way it is,’” said Haley.

“The buzzword of ‘constitutional carry’, that sounds sexy, you know?” said Georgia House Rep. Alan Powell. “It’s a popular issue among the extreme Second Amendment supporters.”

Is there any other kind?

From our friends at reddit/firearms.  He says feel free to copy and paste, and he’s clearly set it out there for the good of mankind.  Thus, I reproduce it entirely.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

• Tench Coxe, A friend of James Madison and himself a Delegate to the Continental Congress, writing in support of the Madison’s first draft of the Bill of Rights, 1789.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

• James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

• Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

• Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

The founders were big believers in natural rights. The Bill of Rights did not grant us any rights, it recognized preexisting inalienable rights. The Supreme Court confirmed this way back in 1876:

The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. [READ THAT LAST SENTENCE TWICE] The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress

• United States v. Cruikshank.

It is both an individual and collective right. Find me one founder quote saying the 2A ONLY protects state militias. I’ll wait.

Recall when I said this?

Do you suppose this would look like great land armies getting into formation at the edges of great fields of battle and marching towards each other?  What do you think such a messy civil war in America would look like?  Bubba would be wearing a Ghillie suit, shooting a bolt action rifle, or a modern sporting rifle, and after the shot you will never hear from him again – until the next one.  And you’ll never catch him.  Police will have to decide what side to take, and if they take the wrong one, they will be dealt with in the middle of the night when they take their dogs out to pee in the backyard.

Insurgent will be mixed with progressive statist, and there will be no SEAL teams or nuclear weapons to which you can turn because you won’t know one from another.  There will be nowhere to target a nuclear weapon, and nowhere for a SEAL team to raid.  All of their close quarters battle preparations will be for naught when their own families are in peril due to civil warfare.  These aren’t Afghan tribesmen you’re dealing with.  These are engineers, mechanics, fabricators and welders, chemists, and the world’s best machinists.  If you think Afghanistan was rough, wait to see what civil war would look like in America.

If you have ever said something like, “You can’t win because the government has a land army and nuclear weapons,” here is the moral of the story for you.  You are an idiot.

Some statist is having wet dreams of civil war against conservatives again, this time at Washington Monthly.  She says this (I assume it’s a she).

The only way for these Civil War fantasies to work out for the right wing is for the government to join them, The gov’t may acquiesce now and then (like the sheriffs who won’t enforce the law), but when the shooting starts, one side has tanks and fighter jets, the other side has handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Even if the Texas Air National Guard and a few others go full treason, they are still woefully out numbered and out gunned.  Red Dawn is make believe, guys.

For the author to accuse “rightists” of fantasizing about civil war, they sure do seem to be spending a lot of time in this article and comments fantasizing about civil war on “rightists.”

So what can one pistol do against an evil regime?  Watch this video to find out.

“This happened in the city of Maturin, on the East side of Venezuela. The National Guard was coming hard and heavy against some protesters when one of them pulled out a pistol, took several shots and apparently hit one of the guardsmen.

They stopped their charge.”

And yes, I’m well aware that I have titled the post the same as Mike Vanderboegh, and I have done it intentionally.  Go read his analysis, which is still the best.

Recoil has the interview.  Here are some excerpts of it, with running commentary by me.

RECOIL: Before we get into the interview, is there anything that you would like to say to the RECOIL readership and the Second Amendment community about a Benchmade employee cutting up firearms with Benchmade equipment?

MATT ELLIOTT: Yeah sure, I think the story, and the consistent story here is that while this particular event is as it’s come to light for all of us is we’ve realized it’s something that people take high amounts of offense to, especially from the symbolism of it.

In fact, especially with that post going out with no real context behind it, I can understand the strong reaction from the market on it. The fact of the matter is that we’ve supported law enforcement, people’s right to carry, be it knives or guns, and the Second Amendment.

We also have supported military from the beginning of the company until now, none of that’s going to change moving forward. We’re still going to work with law enforcement; we’re still going to support our local police department, the Oregon City PD. I also want people that know that moving forward we will not be engaging in helping the police with those activities [cutting firearms], especially now understanding the way that people feel about it.

What does it mean to support law enforcement, people’s right to carry, and the military?  What does any of that have to do with the situation?  So far, this isn’t helpful.

R: There have been two main topics that have been the focus of comments on RECOIL’s original coverage of the incident. The conversation has become centered around political contributions, which we can get into in a bit, but more so the commitment of Benchmade to the Second Amendment and the Second Amendment community, which we imagine makes up a large part of your customer base. Can you share Benchmade’s stance on Second Amendment issues clearly for our readers?

ME: Benchmade from the beginning has been fully in support of Second Amendment rights. That’s not just a Benchmade thing as a brand; it’s a cultural thing as an organization. I can’t speak to every single person in the business but I myself, I’m a big supporter. I happen to be a life member of the NRA. I’m not alone in that at Benchmade, and moreover, I also think it’s important to make the point that it’s about carry for us and people’s right to carry state to state. And that isn’t just about guns for us. At the end of the day, we’re a knife company.

I think it’s important for us to be authentically who we are, and we’re a knife manufacturer. Now we are also the knife manufacturer that has really spearheaded and led the charge for as long as I’ve been working here, which is more than a decade. Long before that with the manufacturer of automatic knives and helping to break down doors around antiquated or outdated legislation that has been very restrictive.

When I started at Benchmade, I believe there were really only three states that allowed for carry of automatic [knives], and to date, that number has grown to 30 plus. I can’t speak to the exact numbers because I’m not an expert on the laws in every state. I’ve watched that number grow and grow primarily over the course of the last five to six years right.

Okay, I grok that they’re a knife company rather than a gun company.  But in the end as customers we’re interested in a full-orbed view of the second amendment and aren’t interested in companies that don’t protect those rights.  Why are they so surprised at the reaction they got?

R: Can you expand on how Benchmade supports organizations like the NRA?

ME: We have been members of organizations, the NRA included, for decades and are very proud of that fact. We will continue to support their efforts to support gun owners rights and the Second Amendment. We participate in programs that give discounts to members of these organization along with our long-running history of financial support, along with the other actions we have taken through our direct relationships with them and the community.

The NRA is the largest, most well-connected, well-funded gun control organization on the planet.  It doesn’t help their case to invoke support for the NRA.  This is getting worse as the interview proceeds.

R: Can you explain the political contributions listed on OpenSecrets.org that have been circulating social media?

ME: Oregon is a hotbed of knife makers, but also is a heavily Democrat-leaning state making most of the politicians with an interest in introducing legislation that is pro-knife often Democratic. When the donations were made to pro-knife politicians, it was about knife rights.

Gun owners are protected when traveling through states by the Firearm Owners Protection act; knife owners don’t enjoy that kind of protection. The Interstate Transport Act was a very important piece of legislation that Benchmade has been working to get passed for over five years, alongside the American Knife and Tool Institute.

This bill had co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. The effort requires bi-partisan support and we need to ensure we are reaching across the aisle and bringing both parties to the table. I don’t think most people are aware of how serious the penalties can be for certain types of knives in certain states …

I’m sorry, but I’m left unpersuaded.  I cannot for the life of me see that any of the democratic politicians to whom they donated are “pro-knife.”

R: Was this the first time that the Oregon City Police Department has asked Benchmade for this type of assistance?

ME: No, they have asked Benchmade two or three times a year over the last few years to assist them in cutting the firearms to be destroyed according to their policy to the correct size for the special destruction box. Since Benchmade has assisted law enforcement since day one, we agreed to render assistance in the past.

In other words, they’ve cut up firearms for the cops in the past, lots of them in fact.

R: What will be the answer to the Oregon City Police Department if they ask Benchmade to assist in cutting firearms into smaller pieces that fit inside of an incineration box?

ME: Benchmade now has a policy to politely decline to assist Law Enforcement in the cutting up of firearms regardless of reason. If the local law enforcement request assistance with other matters, we will be happy to accommodate them as long as doesn’t involve cutting firearms.

That should have been your policy all along.

R: Was it known that the police department was taking photos of the firearms being cut up by a Benchmade employee?

ME: The police department was given permission to take the photos even though the Benchmade policy is that there is no photographs allowed in the facility. We have launched an investigation internally to ensure that this type of incident never happens again.

In other words, you regret that you got caught.

R: Does Benchmade have any thoughts about the internal OCPD policy that mandated that firearms which were unable to be returned to their owner for whatever reason, be it legal or otherwise?

ME:  Since OCPD’s post went viral we have conducted an investigation into the entire event. We are hoping this can be an opportunity to have a more open discussion about the intricacies of such an important subject. We have learned a lot and as I said earlier, we will not be allowing this practice to happen in our facilities again.

Here is a brief rundown of those “intricacies.”  The politicians to whom you donated are communists.  Only communists cut up firearms.  Those firearms could have been sold to good, peaceable men and women to protect their hearth and home at a reduced cost, thereby rendering aid to those less wealthy than someone who can purchase the firearms new.  If you can’t change the laws where you live, the least you can do is not willingly cooperate in the communism they want to foist on the rest of us.

Note to Benchmade.  You did yourselves no favors with this interview.

Breitbart:

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schimdt led seven other Attorneys General in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States contending that the Second Amendment protects suppressors too.

The seven other AGs represent the states of Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. They are asking SCOTUS to review a United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decision that held that firearm accessories fall outside the scope of Second Amendment protections.

The Tenth Circuit specifically ruled that Jeremy Kettler could not be granted relief for being trapped between federal law and Kansas law regarding possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor. They reached their finding, in part, by ruling that suppressors are not protected under District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) because they are not “bearable.”

[ … ]

The AGs are asking SCOTUS to reverse that ruling. Their amicus brief states:

[The undersigned AGs] have a strong interest in protecting their citizens’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the lawful use of firearms—including for hunting or recreational shooting—is a venerable tradition in many amici States. This is especially true in Kansas, where its citizens recently and overwhelmingly voted to amend the State’s Constitution to reaffirm that an individual “has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose,” Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 4, and the right to “hunt . . . by the use of traditional methods,” id. § 21. The Tenth Circuit’s unsupported conclusion that firearm accessories are categorically excluded from Second Amendment protection threatens amici’s citizens’ right to enjoy these time-honored pursuits.

That suppressors aren’t “bearable” is an idiotic reason to suppose that the second amendment doesn’t apply.  How big do they suppose suppressors are?

In any case, I hate to see the AGs arguing that suppressors shouldn’t be excluded from the scope of the 2A because of “sporting purposes,” which as we all know has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2A.

I predict the SCOTUS will not grant it a hearing.

David Codrea:

Ironically, or not so much if you think about it, the same parties that petitioned the Court to hear the matter en banc oppose the motion to reconsider the order staying the case. After years of doing everything in his power to use the system for redress of grievances against a state with comparatively unlimited resources, Young wants his day in court, but the government is in no hurry to give it to him.

The progs love the courts only as long as the black-robed tyrants rule like they want.  Otherwise, they’re just a hurdle until they can be replaced with court packing or manipulated.  FDR would be proud.

I have been following this closely although not writing about it.  I travelled to Hawaii once (probably not again), and was astonished at the anti-2A sentiment there.  I hope the government’s case eventually goes down in flames.

The Guardian:

In Washington state, a freshly implemented ballot initiative and a raft of new bills may produce some of the tightest firearms regulations in the US. But standing in the way is a group of rural law enforcement officers who say point blank that they won’t enforce any of it.

The Klickitat county sheriff, Bob Songer, is one of them. He told the Guardian that the initiative passed last November “is unconstitutional on several grounds. I’ve taken the position that as an elected official, I am not going to enforce that law”.

Songer also cited ongoing litigation by the National Rife Association gun industry lobby and others which aims to demonstrate the laws violate both the second amendment and the state’s constitution. He also said that if other agencies attempted to seize weapons from county residents under the auspices of the new laws, he would consider preventively “standing in their doorway”.

In November, the state’s voters handily passed an initiative, I-1639, which mostly targeted semi-automatic rifles. As of 1 January, purchasers of these weapons must now be over 21, undergo an enhanced background check, must have completed a safety course, and need to wait 9 days to take possession of their weapon. Also, gun owners who fail to store their weapons safely risk felony “community endangerment” charges.

Feeling the wind at their backs after the ballot, gun campaigners and liberal legislators have now gone even further in the new legislative session. Bills introduced in the last week to Washington’s Democrat-dominated legislature look to further restrict firearms. Some laws would ban high capacity magazines and plastic guns made with 3D printers. Others would mandate training for concealed carry permits, and remove guns and ammo during and after domestic violence incidents.

Washington’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, who proposed several of the bills, said in an email: “Now is the time to act. Washingtonians have made it clear that they support common-sense gun safety reforms.”

Kristen Ellingboe, from Washington’s Alliance for Gun Safety, which has long campaigned for more firearms restrictions, said that “for a long time our elected officials thought that gun violence protection was somehow controversial, but they have been behind where the people of Washington are on this issue”.

But like other west coast states, Washington exhibits a deep cultural and political divide between its populous, coastal cities and its more sparsely populated rural hinterland.

I-1639 passed on a roughly 60-40 split; in the big, blue counties west of the Cascade Mountains, such as King county, where Seattle is located, the margins were even bigger.

However, 27 of Washington’s 39 counties rejected the ballot measure. Many of those counties are in the state’s more rural, sparsely populated districts.

It is in these counties that many – including sworn officers – are promising to resist the laws.

In Ferry county in eastern Washington, more than 72% of voters rejected I-1639. In the county’s only incorporated city, Republic, the police chief Loren Culp asked the council in November to declare the city a “second amendment sanctuary”. That vote has been delayed until March, but in the meantime, like Songer, Culp says he will not enforce.

The sheriff in Ferry county, Ray Maycumber, told the Guardian that he would not be enforcing the laws either, at least until the NRA’s litigation is completed.

“There’s a window of time when I get to make the assessment”, he said. Should the NRA not succeed, he said, he would “consider if I want to go on in the job”.

The “sanctuary” idea has caught on with other rightwing activists. Matt Marshall is the leader of the Washington Three Percent, a patriot movement group which has held several open carry rallies in downtown Seattle in the last year.

Marshall is attempting to persuade rural Washington counties to adopt local second amendment sanctuary ordinances. Next week, together with the Patriot Prayer founder and former Senate candidate Joey Gibson, he is addressing a meeting of Lewis and Pierce counties to try to persuade them to adopt resolutions which would mean that the gun laws were not enforced.

The refusal of law enforcement officers to enforce the new restrictions plays into a longer history of so-called “constitutional” sheriffs resisting the gradual tightening of gun laws. There are also hints, in the stance, of the doctrine of “county supremacy”, long nursed on the constitutionalist far right, which holds that county sheriffs are the highest constitutional authority in the country.

Oh no.  Please, not more of the nullification crap that’s never going to happen?  I don’t really care if there are Sheriffs who refuse to enforce these laws.

Here is my question for those Sheriffs: “When hard times come, and the state police, or the ATF, or some other agency, comes to enforce those unconstitutional laws, will you then use the power of your office to arrest those trying to enforce the laws and throw them in jail?”

Actually, I have two other pragmatic and related questions.  “Do your direct reports all support you in this project?”  And “Do you have an understanding with the local judges to keep them in prison so that your project doesn’t get scuttled on the legal system?”

Tell me those things, and then I’ll make up my mind on your project.

Yahoo:

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.

[ … ]

City officials argued that more liberal transporting policies in effect until 2001 were abused. While the policies were intended to allow gun owners to take unloaded guns only to target ranges outside the city, some guns were found loaded, or far from ranges, or on airplanes.

“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.”

Slate:

There are good answers to these questions. Right-to-carry laws, like those in Texas, appear to contribute to violent crime and increase homicide rates. Individuals carrying a weapon are more likely to escalate incidents of road rage and domestic conflicts into fatal shootings. Cities and states have a strong interest in curbing individuals’ ability to bring deadly weapons into the streets.

The bolded sections indicate the naïve belief in myths and fairy tales.  The myth is that prohibition effects law-abiding citizens in people who would otherwise be criminals.  The entirety of history runs counter to this myth, but myths and fairy tales die hard.

But the perpetrators (cops) don’t believe the myths.  They just don’t want to give up their “only one” rights.  The real believers are folks like the author at Slate, who must be mistaking the law abiding – who rarely will use firearms due to the knowledge that most prosecutors put another notch in the belt for every law abiding gun owner they can prosecute – for the real danger, i.e, cops.

Cops, who shoot Chihuahuas, invade the wrong home, pull guns on people for no good reason, kill each other in the line of duty, shoot the wrong person, routinely lose their guns, discharge firearms at moving vehicles in a busy intersection, engage in more wrong home raids, aim poorly, shoot unwisely and kill the wrong person, shoot people who are not the intended targets, fight with lawful gun carriers, cause negligent discharges, engage in more wrong home raids, engage in rolling gun battles where they discharge 600 rounds in crowded streets, shoot innocent people, burn toddlers in SWAT raids, lose their guns in dance floor moves, shoot innocent children, engage in more wrong home SWAT raids, have more negligent discharges, shoot heroes who stop shootings, shoot more heroes who stop shootings, shoot kidnapping victims, engage in more wrong home SWAT raids, use their guns like hammers, shoot more innocent people, shoot an innocent man during a SWAT raid, lose machine guns, shoot themselves, pull guns on the wrong people, engage in more negligent discharges, shoot photographers, shoot each other, violate the rules of gun safety, shoot innocent victims, unholster guns in road rage incidents, shoot dogs, kill more innocent people, shoot each other, point guns at each other, shoot more innocent people, engage in more rolling gun battles, have more negligent discharges, throw grenades at babies, shoot people with dementia, shoot their own children, shoot into day care facilities, shoot each other, engage in more wrong home raids, pull guns on seven year olds, shoot more dogs, engage in more wrong home SWAT raids, point guns at each other, violate the rules of gun safety and shoot each other, shoot more dogs, engage in more negligent discharges, shoot more dogs, point guns at each other, engage on more negligent discharges, shoot each other, engage in more negligent discharges, engage in more negligent discharges, kill more dogs, engage in more negligent discharges, engage in more negligent discharges, shoot each other, engage in more negligent discharges, kill more dogs, kill more dogs, engage in more wrong home SWAT raids, kill more dogs, point guns at politicians, fire guns in court, kill more dogs, engage in moe wrong home SWAT raids, engage in more negligent discharges, lose more machine guns, engage in more wrong home raids, engage in more wrong home raids, lose more machine guns, kill disabled war veterans in their own home, shoot each other, shoot more dogs, and I could go on for hours more.

So I don’t want to hear another damn word about gun safety.  Can you grok that?

And by the way just to reiterate what I’ve said so many times before, my rights come from the Almighty maker of heaven and earth, not the constitution.  The constitution is a covenant between men, nothing more.

Via WiscoDave, this observation from Selco:

I see here something which is much more dangerous than the fear of communism.

It is how people react to news or new laws about any weapon limitation. It’s how they talk about what the majority of them are planning to do.

Government at its core has the urge to control people in whatever way they can.  If you are more armed that means you are less controllable.

But if you are acting in a way that you are screaming from the rooftops how you “will defend your right to have (whatever) weapon (contrary) to the newest law” and how you’ll “be proud to own i, and to show it”  you eventually are not doing yourself any favors.

Do you really think that when the time comes that the government will send two pale clerks to search your home looking for whatever weapon?

Nope.

Here is how it might actually go down. This is one possible scenario:

First, you’ll be labeled as a terrorist, some weird guy who wants to overthrow the government. Maybe your photo will be posted somewhere stating that you are very sick, and that you pose a danger to society.

If you are a member of some group, let’s say a prepper group, you all will be labeled as terrorists first, and through the media, you can be portrayed as a domestic terror cell, to the point that your next door neighbor will help police to get you.

Do not underestimate the power of the government machine. You may truly be a fighter for constitutional rights and a real patriot, but in 3 days you can become a crazy terrorist that citizens will actually hunt down and shoot like a mad dog.

The point here is there is no point of publicly “yelling” about what you own and what are your rights to own.

Of course, you need to own weapons that you think it makes sense to own.

But why does everybody else need to know that, including government and government services?

The 2nd Amendment is very cool, and I like it very much, but here is the ugly truth:

It works only if the government wants it to work.

One day, when the government does not want it to work anymore it will be out of order, illegal, or even terrorist to practice it.

Sorry, it is not your inalienable right. The government lets you THINK  it is your inalienable right.

Here are two quick observations from me, not complete by an stretch and with many blanks that could be filled in, and then I have to be off to other things because of the busy season.

First of all, I’ve always believed that a wise man is measured in his words and tailors them for his audience, especially the words he speaks in public or writes for public consumption.  That’s all I’ll say about that.

Second, ownership of the means of self defense is certainly an unalienable right because it comes from God, not the state.  We’ve been through this many times before so there is no reason to rehearse it again now, but the constitution is a covenant between men.  The more important covenant is between God and man, and when man breaks it, he is in for trouble.

Preventing men from properly defending themselves, home, family and hearth is wicked, once again, because the right (and duty) come from God and His immutable nature, not mankind, government or any document.

That Selco doesn’t understand that taints his analysis, hollows it out and makes it vacuous.