The History of a Legal Theory: Right to Bear Arms

Law-ScaleAndHammerAs long-time readers know, we maintained a strict no-politics position for the first year or so of the blog. In the aftermath of a gigantic press by the President/media/billionaire-hireling contingent for more gun bans after the shooting of children by a nut case in Newtown, CT (who had got the guns by murdering his own mother), we’ve backslid on that quite a bit and occasionally let slip pro-gun political commentary. (Here. On Gab we’re politically unrestrained). We frankly prefer not to do it, and instead of talking politics we’d rather be geeking out over historic firearms and obscure events in military history, as well as expressing some SF Pride that has nothing to do with rainbow flags and quarterback manqué Colin Kaepernick on one hand, or grown men who dress up as Klingons or Wookiees on the other. NTTAWWT.

But this article is a bit of political, policy, and legal history. From time to time we marvel at the great strides that gun and self-defense rights in the USA (and, slowly, worldwide) have taken in our own lifetime. As long-term readers know, just 30 years ago most US states were quite restrictive on handgun carry (yes, you couldn’t get a permit in Texas, of all places). Gradually laws liberalized, and states went from can’t carry to can-with-permission-we-might-give-ya to mandatory-permission to, in almost 10 states now, your rights as a free man or women being permission enough. There is more to do, but history is moving in our direction.

History does not move, like an army, on its belly. It moves on ideas, on philosophy, and culture. Before every trend in today’s world, positive, negative or just plain sick, was a trend in the law, it was a trend in the culture, and before that it was an idea — which brings us back to the law. A few years before Florida opened the political movement towards shall-issue permits, it was an idea in the legal academy. Two things published this month should help you understand the genesis and growth of this idea.

The first is this obituary of legal scholar Don Kates, by legal scholar Gene Volokh. If you slipped a gun in your holster this morning, and you are not a servant of the State, you owe a debt to Kates, whether you have heard of him or not. With his passing, many law professors have expressed astonishment that one man could have been so influential in America’s understanding of fundamental laws and principles — when he, himself, was not a law professor. Whether that says more about Kates or about the self-regard of law professors is an exercise we’re pleased to leave to the reader.

The second is Nelson Lund’s analysis of the history of understanding the Second Amendment in the context of exceptional American liberties. It is abstracted on this page at Heritage, where you may also download the whole .pdf (highly in the context of exceptional American liberties.recommended). Proof of Lund’s genius is the degree to which he agrees with us. From the page:

Despite persistent elite enthusiasm for disarmament schemes, both the law and public policy have moved in the opposite direction during recent decades. Two developments stand out.

  • In the 1980s, a tiny group of lawyers began to publish scholarly analyses debunking the dismissive interpretation of the Second Amendment that dominated courts in the 20th century. Notably, almost none of this pioneering scholarship was carried out by professional academics in the law schools.[8]
  • In 1987, Florida became the first jurisdiction with large urban population centers to enact a statute permitting almost all law-abiding adults to obtain a concealed-carry license. Notwithstanding near-hysterical prophecies from many police chiefs and other putative experts, violent crime went down instead of up, and license holders almost never misused their weapons.[9] Florida’s successful experiment soon spread to other states, and social scientists have yet to find evidence of adverse effects on public safety.[10] It is now harder than it once was to stampede legislatures into enacting feel-good gun-control measures that do nothing to reduce crime.

As Lund makes clear, this whole thing is not inevitable, and it requires continued effort by those supporters of human rights and self-defense in the academy, the culture, politics, and the public to continue to improve this situation. He also illustrates how the homogeneous political elite, the Acela Corridor aristos, of both parties and all political flavors tend to bias against this right. It’s a most worthwhile document; to Lund from Kates’s failing hands falls  the torch of liberty, unextinguished.

May it long be a light for the world.

57 thoughts on “The History of a Legal Theory: Right to Bear Arms

  1. USMC LCpl Martinez

    This article’s very timely, Hognose, thanks!

    I gotta read up on these guys, will comment more on this soon! But let me pose a quick question (same one I posed to Pathfinder in the NRA thread),

    Everyone,

    Where do you draw that line? What is your definition of bearing Arms?

    1. bloke_from_ohio

      The language is clear. The right to keep and bear arms applies to all bearable arms. Knives are covered, as are swords, maces, hammers, pointy sticks, guns of all types, and probably man portable heavy weapons to boot. You can keep them, or own them. And you can bear them, or carry them from place to place with you.

      Perhaps there is an argument to be made about restricting citizens ownership of a fighter-bomber or artillery. But you used to be able to buy military aircraft and armored vehicles via DRMO, so I don’t really think it is a valid argument. Such appeals to absurdity are often the mark of incoming straw men.

      As far as the rest of it, “shall not be infringed” is pretty straight forward language. It does not get much clearer. Perhaps the sentence might be stronger (according to modern American English convention) if the verb was must instead of shall, but the intent and meaning is pretty much the same either way. It says, don’t infringe. And infringe is defined as “to wrongly limit or restrict” according to Mariam-Webster. Infringe comes from the Latin “in” for into and “frangere” for to break. Really clear when you look at it, and clear enough that it should not require much analysis to get.

      How these simple things are missed by people who are paid to do law stuff is beyond my comprehension.

      -Overly Educated Operations Analyst

      1. Cap'n Mike

        “How these simple things are missed by people who are paid to do law stuff is beyond my comprehension.”

        It makes sense when you realize that they reach a conclusion, and then go back and try to make the language support that conclusion.

        1. bloke_from_ohio

          You just had to crush my optimistic idealistic little libertarian heart don’t you Cap’n?

          Your right, and now I am sad. Perhaps I should go find a safe space. I would, but they are all full of weeping hilary supporters. And though liberal tears make fantastic gun oil, the noise is grating.

      2. USMC LCpl Martinez

        *** ” guns of all types, and probably man portable heavy weapons to boot. ” ***

        OK, so we got man portable heavy weapons, MK19s, M2s, mortars of all types, etc. Throw in shoulder fired missiles also? But definitely no tanks, artillery, fighters, etc. You draw your line at man portables, correct?

        *** ” And you can bear them, or carry them from place to place with you. ” ***

        Are you simply talking transport, or open carry or CCW/LTC in public these things (kinda too heavy , so you’d have to rig this up in your vehicle, or home ready to go). We’re not simply talking collecting these artifacts, this stuff has to be operational, good guy with an MK19/M2 type of deal, correct?

        My question is , bloke from Ohio’s got his line in the sand (with some clarification coming), where do others here draw that line? Mine is at ARs/AKs, so obviously MK19s/M2s are no go for me. But where do others draw that line?

        1. John Distai

          I had my pantsuit wearing colleague lecture me the other day, asking about why I needed a semi-automatic firearm. I responded “Why not?”. She then asked about hand grenades. I said I’d like some. I told her I wanted a LAW rocket as well. She really went nuts. Then she went through the whole irrational thing about how many rounds I should be able to have, etc.

          The crazy thing is, if the cops are now going to roll up with MRAPs, why can’t we have RPGs as a balance of powers against tyranny? Why restrict the common man, but allow those with badges to have access to these weapons? Where’s the equality in that?

          These weapons argument limiting factor arguments are a waste of time. Like talking about gays and abortion and such. No one is going to change their minds. Let’s just agree to disagree for our own various reasons, and go about minding our own business and being responsible for ourselves and our own families.

      3. USMC LCpl Martinez

        *** ” As far as the rest of it, “shall not be infringed” is pretty straight forward language. It does not get much clearer. ” ***

        bloke, so obviously that rare guy that thinks keeping & bearing Arms also means owning an operational LAV or artillery— probably drawing his line at F18s/Cobras —- his rights would be infringe, no?

        1. bloke_from_ohio

          A “line in the sand” implies an action should such a threshold be crossed. Obviously since I cannot go buy whatever weapon I want, my philosophical red line was crossed some time ago. To whit, the line was crossed before my father’s father was probably born with the passing of the NFA in 1934. And realistically, since my stance applies to all men who are created equal, the line was crossed when our nation was still in its infancy. Way back when, laws were passed prohibiting Africans Americans from owning powder because they were not officially people n all 50 states until about the 1960’s or some such foolishness. Since time travel is impossible I can’t go back and do something the day those laws were passed. No, my statement is merely a philosophical position on the issue that informs my conduct. It however does not dictate it. I am not an extremist in anything but rhetoric.

          My take on the 2nd amendment is pretty absolutist, as you can probably tell. But my default stance on most things is the more liberty the better. That said, I don’t expect the overnight repeal of all weapons laws codified since Cain chucked his first rock. But that is okay. As our author points out, we have been moving towards more freedom for my entire life. And I accept progress towards expanded freedom with a happy heart.

          Realistically though, I don’t want to see any of the liberties we still have eroded further than they are in the free states, and I would like to see those rights acknowledged in the unfree ones. I won’t resort to armed rebellion like some keyboard commandos claim should they come for black riffles or magazines over some arbitrary capacity mandate. I will instead continue to advocate for freedom for all mankind.

          Note earlier I said I wanted rights acknowledged and not restored. A natural right cannot be restored just as much as it cannot be eliminated. It can simply be ignored by those that would deny it. The right to keep and bear arms follows from the natural right to defend ones self. It is therefore a natural right and should be protected not just for Americans but for all men and women the world over. But, that is even more crazy talk than the earlier comment in today’s world.

          As for the straw man argument built into my earlier statement, ponder the following. When was the last time the Confederate Air Force or the air show guys with the F-101s robed a convenience store with their airplanes? Folks own stuff like artillery and mini-guns already. There is a whole community of guys who restore old tanks, and they have not used them for ill.

          The last time I heard about somebody getting killed by a privately owned armored vehicle in this country it was the users. They wound up blowing themselves up with hot hand load for their tank destroyer. Before that some poor sot fell off the front of a Sherman (or similar vintage vehicle) and got squished. But people go foom and splat with non-military hardware all the time. So the distinction is purely artificial.

          Prohibitions on the possession of things is morally repugnant to me. Such prohibitions promote false thinking. There is a reason the anti-gun crowd to fixate on the weapon used in a crime and not on the human actor. It is not the thing that should be prohibited, but rather what it is used for. Such thinking is dangerous because it is not only is the fodder for calls to restrict liberty, but it also can lead to the mistaken belief that the perpetrators of a crime are not actually responsible for their actions. If they are not responsible for their actions then they cannot be held accountable and cannot deserve punishment. C.S. Luis, and our humble blogger do a much better job taking my argument from that point on. Go look up the post Hognose did on it, i could not be more than a week or so old.

          To me, If you want to by an LAV or an F/A-18 and you can afford it, go for it. I see a national security concern that says letting lockheed sell a new F-22 to Joe sixpack is a bad idea. But when we retire those things long after I am dead, I cannot see why they should not be sold off. We will all be fighting with X-Wings by then anyway. The government really has no place telling you you can’t own them. They absolutely can tell you what you cannot do with them, like murder and so on. But sociaty tells us we cannot murder folks with your hands and feet either. Becuase agin it is not the thumbs, or the pointy stick, or the fighter-bomber that did the killing. It was the man who did it.

          Realistically, the cost and impracticality of owning a fighter or other high ticket piece of kit will keep most evil doers from misbehaving with it. Even the killdozer guy and the grand theft Paton tank guys were stopped by the impracticality of their chosen steeds. One built the vehicle himself and the other stole it, so it is not like the prohibition on heavy tracked killing machines did much. How often do the kinds of collectors treasures Hognose shows us wind up being used to knock up a 711? Astonishingly small is my estimate, and that is probably a liberal one.

          1. bloke_from_ohio

            Since the word bear means both to carry the weight of and to transport as in a vehicle non-man portable items must be covered. Private citizens provided cannons to the war effort in the 1770’s and I doubt they picked those things up and walked around with them. Even the Marines don’t make their guys do that!

            Moving forward, a good guy with a MK 19 is probably not tenable in the situations where the good guy with a gun meme is used. For one, the good guy is still accountable for everything that leaves the barrel of his weapon because as discussed above the person is the responsible party. The nature of the MK 19 makes its use in self defense (where the meme is most often applied) legally ill advised.

            Now if said owner of that fine machine wants to use it to turn money into noise, have at it. Just don’t point it anything you don’t want to destroy and so on. And don’t blow stuff up that is not yours.

            We already have laws against both malicious and negligent destruction of life and property.

          2. USMC LCpl Martinez

            bloke,

            That was a f’ing awesome response. Thanks.

            *** “My take on the 2nd amendment is pretty absolutist, as you can probably tell. But my default stance on most things is the more liberty the better. ” ***

            If you’re absolutist, I guess I’d be relativist?

            Honestly, I don’t know these ism’s and -ist’s , I’m just acting from my gut here, so when you said man portables I automatically super-imposed an image of a weapons company passing by carrying all their shit, but with the tacticool knuckleheads.

            First I pictured them with SAWs and 240s.

            I agree with you that LAV or Cobras aren’t robbing or killing anyone anytime soon, but realistically, the more accessible stuff , say a level up on the ARs/AKs , and essentially you have Libyan/Syrian technicals driving around in the boonies, and soon the streets, that’s the opposite side of this slippery slope.

            I remember that CS Lewis article, I think I even commented too, but I’m not so much concerned with say a home invasion or robbery, even active shooter, than I am with folks accidentally discharging these weapons on me, because they lack the discipline, and training.

            I’m a hard core Ron Paul Libertarian too (mostly for his int’l stance), but in this particular issue I’m operating from this other libertarian sentiment: “Your right to swing your Arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”

          3. bloke_from_ohio

            I get the not wanting a bunch of Hiluxes with AAA crudely welded into the back rolling around the streets. But, Libya has those because it is a hellhole warzone. It is not a hellhole warzone because of creative auto body work involving automatic weapons.

            Strapping a big loud money to noise conversion kit to a pickup might make for a good time at Knob Creek, but doing so to your daily driver on the way to Walmart is just asking for your hardware to get stolen. The victim of a gun theft is not legally responsible for evil committed with their piece by the thief or the new owner of the ill-gotten weapon. But, they are in a way morally. As such, gun owners must be responsible with their possessions.

            Few things are more infuriating than when Bubba in the next stall over flags you at the range. But, absent omnipotent knowledge and the gift of perfect prediction, you cannot punish Joe six pack for NDing until he actually does it. Otherwise it is pre-crime.

            A desire to instill safe firearms handling does not require banning of arbitrary classes or categories of objects. As has been repeated many times but still bears repeating, guns are neither inherently safe or unsafe they are just things. Instead it requires the instilling of a safety culture in and around gun culture. Eddy the Eagle and Cooper’s rules are a good starting point. Fostering a culture of responsibility and respect for the weapons themselves is another.

            It all boils down to don’t be an asshole, but that guidance applies to more in life than exercising second amendment rights.

          4. bloke_from_ohio

            My right does end at your nose and your rights at mine. However if I am not swinging my arms at anyone’s nose and neither are the vast majority of gun owners in America. Until such time that I (or anyone else) take that proverbial swing, I should be left alone to do as I wish.

          5. TF=BA

            I cannot agree mindlessly with what has been said above or below. However it is arguably the best internet commentary I have ever seen. For that I thank the provocateur, author and Hognose for bringing us together for discussion.

          6. LCPL Martinez USMC

            bloke, John M., Pathfinder, et al.

            These are awesome responses, thanks. I copy/pasted John and Path’s responses on here, for easy reading (instead of going back and forth, hope you don’t mind, Hognose).

            bloke’s gotten into the philosophical realm now (ie. pre-crime, etc.) and appreciate John’s historical take on this (I’ve just now gotten interested in this, since the AR/AK rules going live first thing next year here, lately I’m convinced that the above laws will phase out all the crazies here)—- so correct my history re gun laws/gun bans as needed.

            I just got back, so let me kick all this around in my head a bit while I catch up with some news and dinner…

            John M.:

            @LCpl Martinez–

            How old are you, son? How much experience do you have in the gun culture? Just what do you think the 2nd Amendment protects, exactly? The 2nd Amendment is a bunch of words on a page. 20 years ago, those words on the page “protected” just about jack squat in this country. What “protected” your freedom to go and buy a long-range, double-deadly sniper rifle (and make no mistake, that’s what your Rem 700 in .270 with a walnut stock and a scope is) was a bunch of people who spent oodles of time and money getting a bunch of stupid politicians voted down, and convincing a bunch of other scoundrels to stay bought in the face of media hostility.

            Before Heller in 2008, nobody on the anti-gun side ever gave a fig for the 2nd Amendment. And do you know what? Nobody on that team gives any figs for it now, either. But SCOTUS and the NRA have made it so that they have to -pretend- to give a fig about it, and that’s a HUGE victory for our team. And yesterday we came about 35 electoral votes from the 2nd Amendment going back to being dead letter in this country.

            You want to tell me about your state’s “rich hunting tradition?”

            Your state with its “rich hunting tradition” is about to require background checks on .22LR ammo that my dad bought over the counter, no questions asked, when he was 9 years old.

            Your state with its “rich hunting tradition” has sent a lady to the Senate for decades, who was responsible for banning popular semiautomatic rifles based on their cosmetic features, and who spoke openly to the news media about how she would have banned every single gun if she had had the votes in the Senate of the United States. Go ahead and Google it yourself: “dianne feinstein turn them all in”. Was it the 2nd Amendment that prevented her from banning every gun in America? No. It was votes in the Senate.

            The UK used to have a “rich hunting tradition” too. Ever heard of Purdey? Holland & Holland? Google them. They weren’t making those things to export to tacticool Charlies. Fat lot of good that “rich hunting tradition” did them in the face of rapacious politicians.

            You think that ARs and AKs only got popular after 9/11. That’s only vaguely true. The “47” in AK-47 stands for “1947,” as in “this thing was invented in Anno Domini 1947.” The AR-15 went to production before the Apollo Program even started. So why did ARs and AKs get popular all of a sudden? Because your “rich hunting tradition” Senator banned them in 1994. By some insane mercy, the ban expired in 2004, and people decided they’d better get one before they went out for bans again. And the politicians kept talking about buying them, so people decided that they needed to keep getting them while the getting was good.

            You think the 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a gun. That’s cute. What protects your right to own a gun is rough men who stand at the ready in Washington DC, ready to buttonhole Congressmen, Senators and Presidents, reminding them that their constituents are organized, informed and VOTE based on how their representatives handle gun issues. These rough men don’t care what the media thinks of them. They don’t care what the beautiful people think of them. They don’t care that they can catch the Acela train to Boston for the weekend. They don’t care that they can’t get their kids into the elite schools like all the other go-along-to-get-along guys in DC. They do a job for people like us, and they do it well. (*** just to be clear, we’re talking about high paid lobbyist, right? ***)

            So go ahead, hate the tacticool Charlies if you want to. Look down your nose on them. Hate their guts if you want to. But you had better recognize that their political power is your political power. And your deer rifle and EDC CCW piece sit directly behind their AR on the gun-banners’ lists. And a bunch of them voting for Donald Trump just rescued the 2nd Amendment from the garbage can.

            And you can find Wayne LaPierre annoying and distasteful if you want to. But you’d better have the good sense to recognize that your “rich hunting tradition” is buying you a steady slide toward the UK, and groups like NRA, GOA, California Rifle and Pistol Association, SAF, etc. are what’s standing between you and Australia.

            And what’s next on Australia’s rapacious politicians’ list? Lever-actions.

            -John M.

          7. LCPL Martinez USMC

            Pathfinder,

            Libya, Syria, even Pakistan, have those arms bazaars where you can get all the small to heavy arms you just mentioned.

            Libya and Syria for sure just 6 years ago were quiet places, Pakistan’s frontier would be another story. But the reason (or partly) Libya and Syria are hellholes now (outside and farther away from capital region) is because there were massive injections of small to heavy arms into the population. Now you can argue cause and effect, chicken or egg, but as it stands now a lot of arms plus pissed off people who will kill equals a hellhole. So that’s my ‘too much of a good thing can be bad’ argument.

            As for the 2nd A. being about some anti-gov’t exercise, I agree to a degree.

            But you have to understand that we live in a representative democracy, meaning you don’t personally go to DC to cast a white or black stone; you don’t personally investigate and prosecute crimes; and you don’t personally wage wars as an individual. So since there’s police, sheriffs, national guards, military, etc. you use those levers first in case of tyranny. I would argue the first line of this defense against tyranny are your police/sheriffs (not the first people you fight against, which sadly I’m seeing quite a bit these days both from the Black Lives Matter crowd and 2nd A. crazies , whether Oath Keepers, Sovereign Citz, etc. )

            That Red Dawn scenario you seem to be painting is not the point of the 2nd A. but more a symptom of not participating in democracy, ie. over here China (via anonymous cut outs) are buying up huge swaths of commercial and private lands , fighting tyranny both domestic and foreign means going thru county records, accounting stuff, etc. For me, fighting tyranny is boring stuff, firearms would then represent the last yard line, essentially you’ve failed fighting tyranny if you’re now needing to find battle buddies.

            I’m not saying you’re one of these crazies, man, but that is a mindset I don’t share re Red Dawn and Walking Dead, I’ll fight for the gov’t first (ala Smedley Butler) before I’d fight against it. My predisposition as a Marine is to be cynical and skeptical of those above me, but this throw the baby with the bath water line of thought (guns at the Bundy Ranch) I’ve actually seen along side the ‘no muzzle awareness and finger on the trigger’ knuckleheads. And I’d concede adds to my initial fear that I’ve been hammering at here. So thank for bringing this sentiment to light.

            Move? I’ve been doing that, man, been all over Socal and up north, guess what… this whole craziness is everywhere (hell, I shot in AZ and there was more of it there). I’m done moving around, at some point one has to call it and say, this guy’s right is affecting mine now.

            (and so we get to bloke’s points and John’s history… but I gotta get some stuff done first, so will be back to continue this… ps~ @@@ TF=BA LOL @ “provocateur” , I’m learning lots from this discussion as well and have added more opposing points to ponder , as i tweak my stance on this, so I too thank everyone giving me this education )

          8. LCPL Martinez USMC

            *** ” Few things are more infuriating than when Bubba in the next stall over flags you at the range. But, absent omnipotent knowledge and the gift of perfect prediction, you cannot punish Joe six pack for NDing until he actually does it. Otherwise it is pre-crime.

            A desire to instill safe firearms handling does not require banning of arbitrary classes or categories of objects. As has been repeated many times but still bears repeating, guns are neither inherently safe or unsafe they are just things. Instead it requires the instilling of a safety culture in and around gun culture. Eddy the Eagle and Cooper’s rules are a good starting point. Fostering a culture of responsibility and respect for the weapons themselves is another.

            My right does end at your nose and your rights at mine. However if I am not swinging my arms at anyone’s nose and neither are the vast majority of gun owners in America. Until such time that I (or anyone else) take that proverbial swing, I should be left alone to do as I wish. ” ***

            bloke,

            I’m using Nose and Arms here more as metaphoric, than literal—- sort of like light as both particle and wave. So to me that proverbial swing has been swung already, akin to a loud party, or someone burning stuff causing smoke to go my way, etc.

            Pre-crime (Minority Report is one of my favorite movies) is IMHO more akin to actionable intel, or Gen. Mike Hayden ‘s “We kill people based on metadata”. I don’t technically have to wait for that proverbial swing, based on a set of patterns , I ‘m clear to act … so to speak.

            Like I’ve said, I’m using my range experience along with all that I’ve seen re Black Lives Matter (although I DON’T see more blacks as knuckleheads in the range) and Sovereign Citizen-type individuals and/or groups… so the same way shore leave can be cut short in port in some SE Asian coastal town, ie. because too many sailors & Marines have caused too much problems ,

            I’m calling for stopping the AR/AK party.

            All that silliness I’ve seen at the range, exponentially increasing in scope, translates to ammo stockpiles that will affect me, my family, friends in case of fire, theft, etc.; translates to driving down the freeway next to a knucklehead with AR/AKs inside the trunk, weapon still on fire, so bouncing around squeezes off a round, etc. etc. Range silliness you see radiates out, it doesn’t stay in the range.

            Hognose wrote about the number of cops leaving their ARs adrift (as in gear adrift) , I’ve seen knuckleheads leave their stuff at the range as well, and this lack of awareness radiating out the range, I’ve also seen cars with open locks/ open windows, or all strewn about their house/apt. with their ARs and bags just ripe for the taking.

            So back to pre-crime, yeah, abstractly speaking there is no crime; but the pattern IMHO already justifies action, whether that be in the form of safety classes (which is far fetched given the population in question now) or we go back to late 90s and early 2000s days, where we could shoot rifles in the range and the next guy is 2 or 3 lanes away, and you could walk up to him/them, “whatcha shooting?” and all’s peaceful… nowadays, you got people yelling at each other, not listening to the range master, etc. it’s a cluster fuck.

            I guess there’s some nostalgia also operating in my thinking, but the pattern’s there, bloke—- the metadata’s in, maybe you guys are just seeing less of it, than I am.

          9. John M.

            @LCpl Martinez–

            Per your bolded section, I was talking about the NRA’s lobbyists in Washington, and to a lesser extent those of other groups like GOA.

            I have no idea if pro-gun lobbyists are well-paid or not. As far as I’m concerned, whatever they’re being paid, it’s too little. The fact that we’ve gotten through the Obama administration with net gains in Congress for the pro-gun side (guns in National Parks) rather than net losses is astounding, and a testimony to their effectiveness on both sides of the aisle.

            Lobbyists are like lawyers. They all suck until -you- need one. And if you need one, you’d darn well better get a good one.

            -John M.

          10. LCPL Martinez USMC

            John,

            Thanks for the clarification. It just struck me as a bit of over romanticism of insiders, the way I understand these lobbyists is that they’ll lobby for the highest bidder, just so happens NRA’s got bank— i’d be curious to as to the ratio of funds to lobbyists and state/local gun groups.

            As for your free rider argument, sounds like union talk to me. All this sounds too union-y IMHO, especially when I’m not in agreement of their policies , why do I have to thank high paid lobbyists and knuckleheads with ARs/AKs? They stand opposed to my sentiments.

            But all that aside, yeah , I have done some googling on 1994 and 2004 , and that’s exactly my nostalgic era I’m calling pre-AR/AK craze. I understand AR and AKs have been around, but inside my nostalgic era, I personally don’t recall seeing ARs or AKs within 1994 and 2004 (i’d be too young to care pre-1994), maybe you could shed more light on this era.

            I wasn’t privvy nor hip to all the politics at this time, but around 2004 was when my happy bubble started to slowly burst, granted I was part of this party.

          11. Hognose Post author

            I got my first AK in 1982. I somewhat unwisely traded an M1A1 paratroop carbine for it. Got the next one within a couple more years. I didn’t get an AR until I retired and didn’t have one “at work” any more.

            Then I started to build clones of all the AR versions I had in the service.

            Personally, I got out of hunting, and don’t even own a shotgun, but when the antis start screaming that everything with a scope is a “sniper rifle” and a Remington 870 is a “rapid fire child killer” (believe it or not, they have test flown these arguments already), when that happens, I’ll be there for the target shooters and snipers, because if we don’t hang together, everybody knows how we’re gonna hang.

          12. John M.

            @LCpl Martinez:

            The NRA may well employ lobbyists who work for the highest bidder. I care little if they employ syphilitic illegal immigrant lizards. Whatever they are doing, it’s working. I am very thankful that the NRA’s people do an unpleasant job on my behalf with people I don’t want to deal with. I don’t intend to be romantic about it.

            And the NRA doesn’t “happen to have bank.” They “happen” to have a boatload of people in this country who send them money. More importantly, they “happen” to have a boatload of people who back them up at the ballot box, so when the NRA’s lobbyists show up in Congressmen’s and Senator’s offices and let them know that they are scoring a vote, those people listen up because the NRA speaks their language: VOTES. The NRA spends a heck of a lot less on campaigns than people think. (They’ve recently been getting outspent by Bloomberg by something like 10:1.) They don’t have to spend much money on campaigns, because they have a significant voting bloc.

            I am not asking you to like the NRA, the NRA’s hired guns, or the AR/AK crowd. I am asking you to recognize that Mayor Bloomberg sees zero difference between any of those guys and you. Your hunting rifle makes him just as queasy as Hognose’s AK. I suggest that if you don’t like the people at the shooting ranges you go to, that you find some different places to shoot rather than selling your fellow gun owners down the river at the ballot box.

            And I repeat my assertion: the quickest way to end the AR/AK craze is to get politicians to quit talking about banning them. And the quickest way to do that is to punish the crap out of politicians who support gun control. Hit them in the primaries and hit them in the generals. Make sure gun control is as losing an issue as you can figure out how to make it.

            Look at it this way: you can argue with Dianne Feinstein about whether or not guns you dislike should be banned, or you can argue with her about whether guns you like should be banned. Does that help clarify the issue any for you? And since you don’t actually get to argue with Dianne Feinstein under any circumstances whatsoever, doesn’t it make sense to send old Wayne LaPierre a few bucks so he can do it on your behalf?

            -John M.

          13. LCPL Martinez USMC

            *** ” Look at it this way: you can argue with Dianne Feinstein about whether or not guns you dislike should be banned, or you can argue with her about whether guns you like should be banned. ” ***

            John, that’s been the whole point of my initial top post, essentially I’m saying define what Arms means. Render the slippery slope (both ways) argument by defining what Arms means, and then work from there.

          14. LCPL Martinez USMC

            *** ” the quickest way to end the AR/AK craze is to get politicians to quit talking about banning them. ” ***

            I’ve never taken Economics, but this is an economic view. And it’s an interesting claim. Why are people buying ’em? If most ARs and AKs were around 1,500 bucks you’d have less, I’m sure. Not many were around in my Nostalgic days simply because they weren’t legal.

            But I would argue that the steady drop of the price point of ARs, I think same for the AKs (since their popularity is more recent, ie. AK parties, etc.), plays a bigger role than the politicians (thought I’ll concede it’s part of it), since many of them are young.

            My reading of the knuckleheads I’m seeing is that they are Call of Duty gamers and/or airsofters simply leveling up, they’re not homogenous but I’d say their defining commonality is lack of military experience, who’ve equated these rifles to some sort of ego affirmation.

            Hence, my assumption that if you simply take out the cool tactical aspect that makes them pretend they are SEALs or Delta Force , then you can easily nip this in the bud.

      4. John Distai

        It seems that one part of the argument is missing. If I remember correctly, the Bill of Rights merely codifies your natural rights. It doesn’t grant you rights, it just explicitly state that rights that you have as the nature of man can’t be restricted by the government. Or at least that’s what I was taught in a YouTube video.

        1. LCPL Martinez USMC

          John Distai ,

          That’s a good point about rights. I posted a Thomas Paine letter (to Thomas Jefferson) on the other thread, in which he ‘s ruminating the same or similar sentiments. the Laws of Nature, ie. predator/prey; big fish eats little fish and so on, trumps “rights” which are essentially human concepts ,

          But these rights are what makes life more livable, unless of course we prefer living like Bushmen in the Kalahari or in constant warfare like in Afghanistan, so we form social compacts, where we trade certain “rights” for a better or more stable or more predictable life. I think this was where Tom Paine was when he placed self-defense as a social endeavor and not so much individual.

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but when WWII was over, WWII vets didn’t bring home Thomson sub-machine guns, BARs, etc. and demanded that the 2nd A. cover all sorts of man portable heavy weapons, they came home left all that weapon behind, and went to school and work. No need to carry around BARs and Tommy guns at home because America isn’t Afghanistan. So there’s always this give and take.

          My reading of this gun control NRA stuff is that it had more to do with the late 60s and 70s than gov’t tyranny concerns, basically it was Charles Bronson time, same times that produced LAPD’s SWAT (remember Delta Force went to LAPD SWAT to learn all that breaching stuff, and LAPD SWAT learnt by way of traveling to the desert and setting up kill houses, converting what they saw in the streets from the Black Panthers, SLA, etc. and just practiced over cases of beers, then they went up to Gates, namely a John Nelson who was a Marine (Recon?) Vietnam vet ).

          So in the course of this give and take in the 60s and 70s, the gov’t, mostly local (I guess also federal because of Vietnam and the Cold War) the gov’t didn’t play its role , in Tom Paine’s categorizing of self-defense (I’m sure law & order also) as this societal thing, which WWII vets enjoyed just wasn’t there any more , gov’t dropped the ball, hence citizens ala Afghanistan wanted to re-personalize self-defense,

          and from there on out, gov’ts and citizens have been trying to self-adjust or course correct, and now here we are talking about this. So for me this is all about give and take, hence Arms that can be kept and borne must be defined— and I’m happy with revolvers, pistols, rifles and shotguns, basically all the boring stuff you can’t tac’ out. Define it so both anti-gun and pro-gun sides have a basis , a minimum , to talk about…

          either way it’s going to be defined, the number of knuckleheads from my vantage is fast approaching tipping point, one or two more Bundy/Oregon stand-off or Black Lives Matter ala Dallas and the feds (not politicians) will think it as existential… so to go back to your point about gov’t not being able to restrict rights (civil or otherwise) , I disagree all rights are subject to negotiation (like I said, theres a give and take), the Japanese internment is a good illustration of this , in the end the gov’t represents the whole (and without gov’t its the Kalahari or Afghanistan, so might as well work within this spectrum, ideally somewheres in the middle).

          I’d argue that rights aren’t absolute, same as John_M’s :

          *** ” You think the 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a gun. That’s cute. What protects your right to own a gun is rough men who stand at the ready in Washington DC, ” ***

          1. Pathfinder

            If all you got out of my reply was some Red Dawn fantasy, then you really have no clue what the 2nd is about and why the Framers put it in there. And I don’t have the time nor the patience to try to explain it to someone who is being intentionally obtuse. It has been explained to you several times why the 2nd exist.

            I don’t care if the “knuckleheads “upset you. That’s their right. Where the hell do you get off telling them what they can and can’t own.

            You bring up WWII vets, but what you don’t know is that after WWI, vets brought back all kinds of arms. Because it was legal and that’s what you did when you defeated another country in war. They brought home pistols, rifles and MG’s. And nobody thought twice about it. WWII vets brought home pistols and rifles, but weren’t allowed to bring home full auto because of the NFA that had been forced through. And the NFA shouldn’t exist either.

            By what you have written, you have no clue what Oregon/Bundy Ranch was about. It was about government over reach. All other options had been tried. Their line in the sand had been crossed and they said no more.

            Libya and Syria. Really? The availability of arms is not the cause.

            From what you have written so far, I doubt you will understand this. I am sure some of the reader’s will though.

            I know what my line in the sand is.
            No, I won’t tell you what it is.
            But I am prepared to die for it.

          2. bloke_from_ohio

            LCPL,

            It all comes back to first principals, or the philosophical and moral underpinning of the argument. If liberty is the best possible state of man, and I submit it is, then restrictions on that liberty must be resisted. The fear of potential is not a legitimate reason to restrict liberty. That is true whether we are talking about 1st amendment rights, or 2nd, or 14th, or even 3rd.

            To the crux of the actual argument we are actually having. Your personal dislike of AKs and ARs means nothing for the right of Americans to keep and bear the same. It simply cannot if we are to live in a free society. If you don’t like ARs and AKs, you don’t have to own them. If you don’t like shooting near people that use them, you can find ranges where they are not popular. Or you can go out to the desert and shoot what you want when you want all by yourself. You can vote with your feet, and your wallet as well as you can in the ballot box. And unlike ballots, you can use your shoes and billfold on days other than Tuesday.

            Alternatively, you could try to convince other shooters to sell their MSRs and adopt whatever your preference is. Ideas exist in a marketplace as much as physical goods. But, like any other merchant don’t be surprised if people are uninterested in your idea.

            Just remember, people have absolutely no right to force what can only be described as a preference on other people. You may ask, nay demand that such weapons never be brought into your home or your property. After all, it would be your house and your rules. But outside your house, in the public square is not your house.

            I believe your fears of Tactical Tommy and his highway negligent discharge are overblown. Negligent behavior is already criminalized, and safe transport laws are in effect in all 50 states. The behavior you are afraid of is already illegal. And furthermore, as stated before such fear is not a valid excuse to restrict the rights of American citizens who have committed no crime.

          3. USMC LCpl Martinez

            *** ” If all you got out of my reply was some Red Dawn fantasy, then you really have no clue what the 2nd is about and why the Framers put it in there. ” ***

            Path,

            The first 9 Amendments (the 9th being my favorite) were direct reactions to what the British Crown did to the colonies. So the 2nd was there explicitly so to ensure that if a Red Dawn scenario happens again, namely from England (which did happen again in 1812), Americans would be able to fight back.

            So I’m in agreement that the 2nd A. is in part to ensure that tyranny can be fought, but when it comes to internal tyranny, ie. tyranny of the few vs. tyranny of the many, that’s the reason that the 10th does the same thing the 9th does but for the gov’t (ie. balance of power, electoral college, etc.), meaning

            the 2nd isn’t the default for fighting domestic stuff, citizens were envisioned by the Founding Fathers as taking part in the very gov’t that represents them, not to fight it like England every time something doesn’t go their way.

            So the wider more encompassing concept of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that citizens are expected to give and take, hence none of this is absolute.

            re 1934, good point, i’m sure gangsters with Tommy guns , bootleggers, etc. had a lot to do with that law. So there’s this constant adjustment society undertakes as a whole.

            You may be right that my concerns are immaterial (and I do agree that my solution posed here is in a big part reactionary), but I assure, I’m not the only one expressing this opinion. So everything’s not all hunky dory , there is something amiss, whether

            we all solve it one way or the other, the point here is that something needs to be done.

            (bloke’s and John D’s comments below are golden , so let me get back in a few… )

          4. Pathfinder

            ***re 1934, good point, i’m sure gangsters with Tommy guns , bootleggers, etc. had a lot to do with that law. So there’s this constant adjustment society undertakes as a whole.***

            And why did all of that happen? Because of government over reach. If the government hadn’t decided that nobody is allowed to drink alcohol, the bootleggers wouldn’t have done what they did. Never let a crisis go to waste, right?

            Public sentiment for more gun control is at an all time low. Except for places that left sanity and reason behind years ago. That includes California. They keep adding more and more restrictions.

            I wondered for years why gun owners in that state didn’t do more. But then I started hearing more and more comments from “gun owners” there and it all makes sense.

          5. USMC LCpl Martinez

            *** ” Public sentiment for more gun control is at an all time low. Except for places that left sanity and reason behind years ago. That includes California. ” ***

            Path, it’s not at an all time low (maybe John_M can correct me here, and give a wide angle historical perspective on this) but if you look at that graph below, I’m part of that 34% , me :

          6. USMC LCpl Martinez

            *** ” And why did all of that happen? Because of government over reach. ” ***

            Yeah, it happened mostly impart because of all that Evangelical stuff (granted they didn’t call it that, but it was 1900s revivalist movement).

            We can keep on working our way back throughout history, but my point here is that gov’t doesn’t operate in a vacuum , it responds to people … ie. the more clamoring for something and certain laws & policies get enacted. And that’s how this whole system works.

            And based on the statistics presented above, there’s another consensus forming, granted I’m with the minority here, but I’d argue that 34% (me) is growing.

          7. USMC LCpl Martinez

            *** ” Ideas exist in a marketplace as much as physical goods. But, like any other merchant don’t be surprised if people are uninterested in your idea.

            Just remember, people have absolutely no right to force what can only be described as a preference on other people. You may ask, nay demand that such weapons never be brought into your home or your property. After all, it would be your house and your rules. But outside your house, in the public square is not your house.” ***

            bloke,

            I agree w/ you re Market Place of Ideas , but to your last point above I’d add that along with that concept , hand in hand , is the idea of Public Good…

            wherein the “public square” is in play, this is where the give and take takes place, where certain values are enforced, as we’ve seen historically in gun control—- temporarily or permanently, ie. Path’s full auto after WWI and after WWII.

            So, I personally as an individual cannot demand from others, but as part of a community can, for the Public (or Common)Good.

          8. Hognose Post author

            I believe take your range misconduct issue would best be solved by the range management itself. Some range managers are reluctant to do anything about those shooters, fearing that if they correct them, the management then owns any subsequent misconduct by that shooter or other shooters. I can’t comment intelligently on the liability issue here, because I have no idea what the caselaw says. But I do believe a range can inculcate, if not impose, a safety culture.

            Sure, there are some aspects of modern AR shooter/video-gamer culture that are cringe-inducing. But I stop far short of using the authority of the state to compel people to have fun the way that I prefer they have fun.

            For example, I think shooting at Tannerite is kind of silly. But if you want to do it, knock yourself out.

            I do find the analogy of a high-performance car, a private airplane, or a motorcycle extremely app. In my experience, many of the people who see banning guns as a path to some social good are equally ready to ban anything else they don’t like: 700-horsepower cars, Japanese superbikes, “hate speech,” eating meat.

            Also, in my experience, none of the people who want to ban these things want to ban them absolutely, they only want to ban them for the “wrong” people, while permitting them for the “right” people.

            What the community can demand for the common good is, and should be, narrowly constrained. For example, I think the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision (which lets municipalities define “common good” as taking from one private citizen to give to another) was absolutely horribly decided. It would probably be all for the common good of the United States, again for example, to shut up people like David Duke and Fred Phelps. However, that is not within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. And the reason for that restriction is that, although the ground is barely sloping when you muzzle Phelps, but the next thing you know, you’re closing opposition newspapers like Putin.

        2. bloke_from_ohio

          LCPL,

          Why people buy things is immaterial to the debate. They buy things because they can. It is their right as Americans, be they “knuckle head” or not.

          That said, “knuckle heads” are buying ARs and AKs for the same reason everyone else including armies buys them. They are good riffles. They are light, accurate, and reliable. Everything that makes them good for the Soldier or the Marine makes them good for the the civilian. The ubiquity of MSRs in the market make spare parts and the knowledge needed to keep them running easy to come by. And the ammunition to feed them is reasonably priced and plentiful. This is in part because the popularity of the two platforms makes selling the ammo profitable and therefore manufacturers will invest in producing for them. It is a positive feedback loop called capitalism and it rules!

          I have studied engineering economics. The price of ARs is going down in the US because manufacturers have caught up with the demand for them. Demand may also have slumped as well, but I doubt it. After the AWB expired, more and more companies entered the market and increased the overall supply of previously banned products. They did this so they could make money selling the products people wanted. After all if nobody wanted an AR-15 in 1993 why were they banned in 1994? The fact that the AR-15 is not a hard design to make, and its status as a very mature design reduced the investment needed to enter the market as well as the inherent risk. Meaning, that by most analysis (obviously since lots of companies chose to start making ARs) the investment was a sound one.

          I cannot say with certainty (nor can honest professional economists) what the effect of the AWB and the threats at its resurrection truly did to the demand curves. Anecdotal evidence and correlation of sales following speeches leads me to believe that talk of bans is great advertising. Would be banners may not be responsible for soaring gun sales under the Obama administration, but they certainly don’t reduce sales. Similarly, I cannot absolutely conclude that a reduction in ban rhetoric would ease demand on a wide scale. It probably would. But I doubt we will get to see the data since would be banners have to grandstand about banning. It is what they do.

          1. John Distai

            @bloke – I have great envy for your Operations Research background. I wish I had known about that field much earlier in life.

          2. John Distai

            @LCL

            Something analogous to the AR/AK thing – The top speed limits in the US are somewhere around 75 mph. Yet we allow people to purchase cars and motorcycles that can go 140 mph +.

            Why do we allow people to have vehicles (dangerous weapons) that can do great damage at those speeds? They are nothing more than high speed killing machines. We need to ensure those street racers and performance car enthusiasts all put governors on their cars so that they can only do 75 mph.

            This weekend, I’m going to have a governor installed on my Toyota, so that when I floor it downhill, I can’t get past 75. Then I will request all the people that pass me in Porsches, Audis, and Corvettes do the same because they are a threat to me when they zip by and weave through traffic.

            Rather than complain, I’ll just drive in the right lane on the highway and do a couple of miles an hour under the speed limit. The people that want to zip by can use the left lane. I can drive safely and be relaxed and comfortable.

            I’m frankly more concerned about getting hit on my bike by someone texting while driving than I am about getting shot by a ND at the range. (When you drive a higher profile vehicle, you witness A LOT of this in the passing cars.)

            You seem like a very eloquent guy. If you get swept by a muzzle at the range, perhaps you can very humbly walk over and lightly touch the other person’s shoulder. “Excuse me sir (or madam). I have a favor to ask. I noticed that while you were handling your firearm, your muzzle swept across my body (or some other person’s). Unfortunately, I’ve had close family members killed by accidents at the range (lie if necessary). I’m sure you didn’t point your muzzle at me purposely, so I wanted to bring this to your attention. As a favor to me and the rest of the shooting community, will you please maintain awareness of where your muzzle is pointing and ensure it is pointed in a safe direction?

            I know there are some people that would get pissed off if you asked them, even if you asked in the most humble and gracious tones. I’d like to think that most people are reasonable, and if I reasonably and humbly approach them and gently tell them they are doing something wrong that can hurt me or others, I will receive a kind “thank you for bringing this to my attention. I’ll be more careful.” reaction. But then again, there are some people who are unreasonable, and then that requires de-escalation, disengagement and distancing.

          3. USMC LCpl Martinez

            *** ” I have studied engineering economics. The price of ARs is going down in the US because manufacturers have caught up with the demand for them. Demand may also have slumped as well, but I doubt it. After the AWB expired, more and more companies entered the market and increased the overall supply of previously banned products. ” ***

            bloke,

            I didn’t even know there was such a field. But that ‘s an awesome take on this. Whether it’s the low price or the ban rhetoric that’s causing the up-tick, who knows, but I’d also add social media and gaming in the mix , creating a perfect storm for this buying frenzy.

            Effectively making this whole thing a proliferation issue.

            *** ” Something analogous to the AR/AK thing – The top speed limits in the US are somewhere around 75 mph. Yet we allow people to purchase cars and motorcycles that can go 140 mph +. ” ***

            John Distai ,

            Your analogy would be closer to that Libyan/Syrian technical we talked about above, where the price would be too high to render it a proliferation issue. Whereas the low price for AR/AKs you invariably will have more—- again , becoming a proliferation issue.

            Our optics vary, because we’re all coming from different population areas, so what’s in effect an issue of proliferation over here, may not be over where you guys are at, but I’m willing to bet that general opinion amongst gun owners like me are on the rise.

            *** ” But then again, there are some people who are unreasonable, and then that requires de-escalation, disengagement and distancing. ” ***

            I’ve done all three, even unnecessarily escalated some to my dismay, I frankly don’t see any end in sight (gone are the days where you can politely unfuck someone at the range , since everyone thinks they’re all Dick Marcinko, LOL!).

            It’s proliferation— so if we follow RAND’s playbook, we can take it to its logical end of MAD, which I’m calling the absolutist view , which IMHO will not be sustainable , refer to the above statistics… ie. if folks from both parties are meeting half way up top of that chart,

            There’s a good probability that the bottom of that chart will also see a closing, a coming together of opinions. I’d love to hear John_M’s historical perspective on what Americans think of all types of gun control featured in that graph, and where trends are going.

            Gents, thank you for obliging me in this conversation, I’ve learned a lot. I can’t say I’ve change my mind, but there are definitely perspectives now that I need to take into account, that I had not thought of before. Again thanks.

  2. whomever

    “In 1987, Florida became the first jurisdiction with large urban population centers to enact a statute permitting almost all law-abiding adults to obtain a concealed-carry license.”

    That’s not right, unless you don’t think Seattle is a large urban population center. WA has been shall issue since the early 1960’s.

    1. Hognose Post author

      We can quibble about this. Some jurisdictions had long been shall-issue, and Vermont was subject to a unique court decision Constitutional Carry for a very long time. But subject to the new legal scholarship in the 1980s, that redefined the Standard Model as “2A is an individual right” as opposed to the mistaken New Deal “collective rights” reading, Florida was the first. I was sloppy to use the term “jurisdiction” while thinking “State, or Territory”. LTC law has a long and interesting history in the USA. It initially was intended racially or ethnocentrically; permits were a way to make sure that only white anglos had guns.

      1. whomever

        Just to be clear, Washington State has been Shall Issue since the early 1960’s (I’m reading your response to perhaps indicate that you thought I was saying only Seattle was shall issue).

        FWIW, I’m not trying to be pedantic. I just think it’s worth pointing out that there are more than 50 years of large state/urban experience w/ shall issue, not just the 30ish years since Florida – and with no training requirement, etc.

        (and, if I’m reading right, the mistake was Lund’s, not yours)

        p.s. It’s always funny to me how people overlook Washington’s law. I had fun all through the 90’s, as shall issue was passed in state after state. Some fellow WA resident would be bewailing that state X had gone shall issue. I’d ask what they thought would happen in WA if people could get permits. The universal answer was blood in the streets, etc. Than I’d mention that we’d had it already for 30 plus years. Jaws would drop. And this was when 5% of the adult population already had permits.

    1. bloke_from_ohio

      I am ordering a bayonet to go on my ghost* gun with the shoulder thing that goes up.

      *said gun is actually built on a serialized receiver because I am too unskilled and underequipped tool wise to complete an 80% blank to a satisfactory standard.**

      **I guess I just need to slap a barrel shroud on it to make up for that.

  3. LSWCHP

    Those last two sentences were poetry. Bless you, Mr Hognose, and bless your great republic on this historic day. I’ve been given hope that righteousness may yet prevail in these dark times.

    Best wishes from across the seas where things are not so great, and may the torch of liberty burn eternally in your country.

  4. Keith

    Well written sir. And a good review of this issue. Unfortunately your using facts again and you know the Progressives/Tranzis/Cosmos don’t like those. ;)

  5. Tom Stone

    I live in a 3rd world one party state (California) and will soon have to pass a background check to buy a box of .22 ammo.
    3rd world? Look at our childhood poverty rate, incarceration rate, roads, levee’s, schools…this where my ex and daughter live so I’m stuck.
    Trump won, better than the alternative on some key issues for me (2A,TPP) but not good.
    Let me clarify that a bit, Hillary Clinton was a horrifying choice, Trump I could hold my nose for.

  6. Simon

    That is boringly consistent.
    Here, we do not need a permit to buy .22LR in any form. We need a permit to buy handgun ammo, unless we have a rifle registerd to our name that uses this handgun ammo, in which case it is not a problem. You can buy softpoint rifle ammo without a permit, but you need the permit for FMJ (because it is military type). You can buy a semiautomatic shotgun if you have a pistol permit, but you cannot get a pump-action shotgun under any circumstances. Pump-action rifles are okay and only need a background check, no permit. Oh, and the telescopic coshes are forbidden if they are made of metal, but allowed if they are carbon-fibre with a metal insert.

  7. Docduracoat

    Here in Florida I used my concealed weapons permit as voter I.D.!
    First we get the hearing safe act passed and suppressors come off the NFA
    Then we get the entire NFA act repealed and no more jumping thru hoops to get short barrelled rifles, no permission needed to put a foregrip on a pistol, etc.
    As a baby first step, collect all the liberals’ tears and sell them as a gun lube!

    1. Alan Ward

      I stayed up watching the coverage on the four mainstream channels til the sweet, sweet, bitter end. I knew when Podesta came out that the witch would not concede publicly. Sure enough, five minutes later it was announce that Mr. Trump ( my new three favourite words -President Elect Trump) would speak. Then it leaked that she had called to concede. Typical Hillary, couldn’t face the music or the disappointed little progs.
      I went to sleep feeling much better than I had at 0100 Zulu!

      1. John Distai

        She was probably drunk. I think the best line I read after the election was:

        “Let’s all stand and bow our heads in a moment of silent remembrance for the 12 lamps that generously gave their lives tonight…”

  8. Winston Smith

    Just a sidenote here:
    Texas law before a concealed carry law was passed was that it was never a felony to carry concealed. Regardless of the # of offenses committed by getting caught carrying concealed, it remained a Class E misdemeanor. That’s the same level of violation as the ‘passing a noxious gas in public’ crime. The current carry law makes concealed carry without a permit a felony- THATS the reason Texas held out so long.
    Many of us preferred the old way, tho I admit eventually Universal Carry will prevail in TX and this law was a necessary interim.

  9. John M.

    “(highly in the context of exceptional American liberties.recommended)”

    Copy & paste error alert.

    -John M.

  10. John M.

    When I first started getting involved in the movement in the late ’90s, the idea of any state legislature passing a law to legalize what we then called “Vermont Carry” was pretty much unthinkable, at least to me. Now I’ve lost track of the number of Vermont Carry states. Is it 10? 11? 12?

    In the late ’90s, nobody but nobody on the anti-gun side ever said “I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but.” The 2nd Amendment was completely ignored by the other side, save to dismiss it when our team brought it up.

    The idea that the Clinton scary gun ban would quietly kill itself in the middle of one fine night, without so much as a whimper, was too much to hope for.

    There are dangers still afoot–many of them with Bloomberg dollars behind them–but these are huge advances. Yuge advances, I mean.

    And you are right, Hognose. It’s terribly difficult to write about guns without also writing about politics. It’s like trying to write about deer without writing about predators. Or trying to write about the German military without mentioning the War. (As Basil Fawlty would say, “Don’t mention the war!”)

    -John M.

  11. R.F.

    Wikipedia has done it again, they presage an event. That way, it will be more acceptable when it does happen. The last time was a week or two before the Russian Federation invaded the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine. They ran a history piece on one of the earlier conflicts with Russian on the Crimean peninsula, making it seem as though that peninsula is just one of those disputed territories that is always being fought over. Then the Russian Federation invaded the Crimean Peninsula.

    Today, Wikipedia has at the very top of its “In the news” column, the election of Trump; and directly across from that, in its “From today’s feature article”, is a stub of their William Howard Taft article.
    W. H. Taft was the 27th President of the United States and the 10th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the only person to hold both offices. This is exactly where Barack Obama is headed.
    After all, there is only so much a president can do to a country, but as Chief Justice; well the so-called liberals have always legislated from the bench. Now the most change-orientated president is going for the biggest bench in the land.

    1. Bart Noir

      What?! How in heck can BHO get on the Supreme Court without being appointed by the president? Are you saying that Mr. Trump will appoint him?
      I can’t see that happening.

      1. RF

        It may take Barack the Impaler four or five years to get there. Then again, with the Republicans controlling both the Executive and the Legislative branches, the left-wing “Democrats” will demand a balanced government by having a far-left Judicial branch.

        “Balance” is one of their favorite demands whenever the “Democrats” are not running the whole show; and when they do control everything, they talk about the “will of the people”.
        Tuesday, the “will of the people” spoke loud and clear.

        Obama, who got his primary education in Indonesia (his school application reads, Religion: Islam), has already altered the Supreme Court enough. One of his appointees is unqualified, she was never a judge (not even a traffic-court judge); the other should have been disqualified, as she belonged to a racist, separatist organization, La Raza (Sp.: The Race) whose founder espoused murder to achieve their aims: their own country carved out of the American southwest.

        America’s effort to right itself hasn’t ended with Donald Trump being elected, it has only begun. To quote a famous American, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

  12. Justin

    Now seems like a good time to go after some of the more noxious executive order bans. Sure would love a chinese ak for $300. What would it take to do that?

Comments are closed.