Humorous Valentinus

In honor of the occasion (otherwise known as SAD - Singles Awareness Day, or more ominously as VD) for your consideration I'll offer two videos. The first from our favorite Token Libertarian:

& the second from miss Chaka Kahn

Oh what the heck, let's make this a trifecta after this anecdote:

What Hollywood and its studios often do to movies is downright criminal and tends to show that the folks way at the top aren't exactly turning down offers from NASA on a weekly basis so they may become slaves to art. Case in point, after a very positive screening of a picture in 1961 an executive with the studio went on a mini rant about how he hated the most prominent song in the movie and wanted it removed.  This infuriated the star, one miss Audrey Hepburn, so much that she - well reports vary from her standing up and stomping her foot as she said he'd remove the song "over my dead body!" to a more profanity filled protestation of the proposal. The song stayed in and despite it actually being a nicely written (and nicely performed by miss Hepburn) little ditty for its genre it has, ever since, in elevators and dentist's offices across the globe, been butchered more mercilessly than an eraser at a budget meeting run by Democrats in an election year. Shame as it really is a sweet little tune. And here it is.

An Offense In Speech

Public servant Rhonda Fields, satisfied that her efforts at disparaging the 2nd article of the Bill of Rights won't be reversed this year, has decided that pesky 1rst article is getting in her way:

Douglas County family affected by attempted suicide supports 'Cyber Bully Bill' Measure criminalizes electronic harassment

"Fields is sponsoring a bill (HB 15-1072) that would criminalize harassment via 'interactive electronic devices.'
'I think we need to send a strong message that there's going to be accountability associated when people use hate as a force of intimidation and harassment,' the lawmaker said."

If you click on that link embedded in the quote you'll see a .pdf of the bill in question. Public servant Field's bill would alter the current law outlining what harassment is, affecting only subsection e. Added are the words "directly or indirectly", "or directs language towards another person", and "or other interactive electronic medium".

That Ain't Right

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the people to obtain a permit to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That can be the only explanation for the title of this bill:

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (h/t SayUncle).

Make Our Beautiful State Free Again

Via The War On Guns, I found this article at Colorado Peak Politics that contained the following video of Lily Tang Williams testifying for the repeal of the Colorado magazine capacity ban. The lady has a website as well as a facebook page and a Youtube channel if y'all would like to tell her that y'all appreciate her taking the time to speak up for her Rights, and to try to make this state free once more.

The audio isn't the best so I'll include the text she read from below the jump

The Audio Of The First Round Of 2015

I spent a little time listening to audio of a committee hearing on various gunowner bills in Colorado. Here's a post on what those bills were. 

Here's a link to archived audio of Colorado legislative committee hearings. I couldn't find one for the Senate judiciary committee hearing. On the left hand navigation bar under House Committees click the State Veterans and Military Affairs link and look for February 2nd 2015.  This will open a pop up where you can listen to the hearing if you have a little over 9 hours to spare. I just started listening and they seem to be alternating between pro and anti testimony.

Bloombergs Money Was Well Spent

The Colorado House State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee met on Monday. Up for consideration were 5 pro-gunowner bills.

HB15-1127 would eliminate civil liability for businesses that allowed folks to carry concealed within their establishments.

HB15-1050 would repeal the state's universal background check law.

HB15-1009 would repeal the magazine capacity ban.

HB15-1006 would make the CBI respond to applicants for NFA firearms within 5 days of receipt with either an approval or a denial with an explanation of said denial. 

HB15-1049 would expand the state's "make my day" law to include businesses.

All except HB15-1006 were killed by a 6-5 vote along party lines. HB15-1006 was killed 7-4 with Dan Thurlow (R) joining the democrats.

If you're wondering why Thurlow would vote this bill down, so am I.

Meanwhile the Colorado Senate's Judiciary Committee passed out the 2 pro-gunowner bills it heard that same day on party line 3-2 votes.

SB15-086  repeals the universal background check law.

SB15-032 is a permit-less carry bill (person must be over 21 and only concerns handguns).

The Senate bill will go on to a full vote in the Senate, then if passed will head to the House, where likely they'll be sent to the same kill committee and be killed. Though it is possible with enough pressure they could pass. Possible is distinguishable from likely I'm afraid, but I see no reason to not apply as much of that political pressure as possible, if for no other reason than to make them squirm.

I could find no archived video of the hearings, but there is audio.

Here's a link to archived audio of committee hearings. I couldn't find one for the Senate judiciary committee hearing. On the left hand navigation bar under House Committees click the State Veterans and Military Affairs link and look for February 2nd 2015.  This will open a pop up where you can listen to the hearing if you have a little over 9 hours to spare. I just started listening and they seem to be alternating between pro and anti testimony.

In another post I'll try to wade through some of what was said.

Of Moose And Men

Brainard Lake Moose Kill triggers tighter restrictions for hunters.

Funny, some hunters are blaming this fellow who legally took a moose for the government making the rules more strict. Not the government agency that actually made the rules, or the progressive types who clamored for "something" to be done, but the "law abiding" hunter.

That's just silly isn't it? To blame someone that didn't do anything wrong for the actions of a group that wanted to justify their power over an activity? I'm just glad gunowners in general don't participate in that kind of nonsense. /sarcasm

When I first moved to Colorado I remember reading an article in the Rocky Mountain News about some people who moved into the suburbs of Boulder. They were on their back porch with their son, watching a deer mosey on through their backyard. Then a mountain lion decided to make a snack out of said deer. They were horrified. Why, their son, their precious little Timmy was watching the beauty of nature and this vicious predator committed an act of violence right in front of his eyes. That deer was being repressed, right before their eyes! And since the deer was brown it could have been considered a hate crime! So they called 911 and were very disappointed that the sheriff refused to drive out and arrest the miscreant ("Ma'am, we just don't have handcuffs that fit cougars").

The same folks who complained about a hunter taking a moose would have likely been upset if the hunter had four legs instead of two. The difference is that if the hunter had four legs they'd have been justly ridiculed for their reaction (just as I made fun of the couple that were surprised how big cats get their dinner). Whereas since it was an evil human doing the deed, then they failed to get their proper dose of mocking which would have hopefully prevented them from repeating this behavior.

But left unchecked, this kind of fuss will reduce the areas where hunters can actually hunt. Not because of the hunter, but because of a government agency that seeks to appease whiners that get upset at the thought of a person getting their dinner the old fashioned way.

First Round of 2015

The Colorado House committee on State Veterans and Military Affairs will hear some firearms related bills at 1:30 p.m. Monday, February 2nd. Two of them are repeals of the magazine capacity limit and the universal background check law respectively. The other three concern eliminating liability for businesses that allow folks to carry concealed, expanding the castle doctrine law to businesses, and forcing the CBI to act on NFA paperwork within a set amount of time.

The same day, same time the Colorado Senate's Judiciary committee will hear two firearm related bills; one concerning permitless carry, the other a repeal of the universal background check law. 

For links to texts of the bills in question as well as other info concerning firearms related bills during this legislative session, check out Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Billwatch page.

The Colorado Channel will be streaming the committee meetings live and I do believe they'll have an archived recording of it if you missed one.

Dobynsgate Updated

Here are some updates about Dobynsgate:

Jay Dobyns wikipedia page

From David Codrea (of The War on Guns fame)

Judge alleges 'fraud on the court' by government attorneys in Dobyns case

Revoked judgement in Dobyns case reveals further government misconduct

David Codrea and Jay Dobyns on Armed America Radio (auto-opening audio file)

From David Hardy (Of Arms and the Law fame)

Unsealed court files in Jay Dobyns case full of bombshells

More on Jay Dobyns case

Judgement in Dobyns case

Busy Day

Go read. And please spread it around - Facebook, Twitter, whatever. This should have much more coverage than it has so far.

Crazy

 Miss Claire pointed out two articles on mental health and gun ownership the other day. One was concerning the idea that too much time spent on the internet could disqualify someone from owning firearms. The other explains that more than half of the populace may have a diagnosed mental illness.

Mr. Vanderboegh points to an article that claims opposition to authority is a form of mental illness.(which is based upon the same source as the first article about internet habits; the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (5th edition) which was released in 2013.

Chipping in my 0.008 Drachma's, I stumbled across something else. The very weak and complicated links between mental illness and gun violence is an article concerning a study entitled Mental Illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American firearms (.pdf). Not exactly a pro-gunowner take on things, but it does refute the idea that all folks with mental illnesses are dangerous and it could provide some defense against the notion that background checks should be expanded to catch the mentally ill as they're not that much of a concern..

Now all of these together should make the notion of using mental illness as a disqualifier for firearms ownership a problematic and troubling proposition. If the definitions in the DSM-5 that are mentioned above are used, then we could all very well be "the wrong people".

For the halibut, below the fold will be a probably-not-safe-for-work director's cut video from our favorite rock star machine gun owners and the music video debut of Arwen Undómiel.

Dobynsgate

I assume that most folks that visit here are already keeping up with the other fine bloggers listed on the blogroll. Just in case it missed your notice I'd point you to this Examiner column penned by David Codrea in which he explains the allegations of fraud (by the presiding judge no less) against the ATFEIEIO and the DOJ in the Dobyns case.

I'm a bit rushed so no time for extensive commentary, and Mr. Codrea's piece has about all the information on the situation that's available, but I will point out that it'd be downright shameful if the mainstream media did not pick up on this story and run with it. Likewise, if any republican (or democrat for that matter) had a lick of sense, this case would be mentioned every time the question of the ATFEIEIO's or the DOJ's budget came up. 

A War Most Civil

In Marvel Comic's Civil War storyline, a conflict develops over the proposal of a Superhuman Registration Act. Tony Stark (Iron Man) supports such a law, on the basis that it is inevitable and if they are part of the process they can temper the bill so that the resulting law won't be as onerous as it otherwise would be. Opposition to the act is led appropriately enough by Captain America. Initially both sides engage in argument and debate, but after the act passes the pro-registration side starts to hunt down and actively combat the anti-registration heroes. It ends with the anti-registration faction surrendering to avoid further bloodshed, and Captain America imprisoned (and eventually assassinated).

Just twixt you and me, any strategy that leads to Captain America being offed by his own government is not a cool one.

Less Bad Is Worse

A few seemingly pro-gunowner groups have supported gunowner control laws, using the justification that the law was going to pass no matter what, but by supporting it they were able to enact changes that lessened its severity. It as inevitable but by supporting it they made a bad law less bad.

I disagree with damn near everything about this practice, and I openly question the motives and sincerity of folks who use such rationalizations, but let's look at the premise:

Law X would be bad, but it has enough support that it will likely pass. So support is given to Law X and some changes are made, transforming it from a severe law to a moderately bad one. Does this help overall?

By taking a severe law and injecting some measure of moderation into it then the immediate results is that it has less of a drastic impact in the short term, but in the long run it makes it harder to repeal. It is easier to convince a legislature to revisit and repeal a law that is a big change that negatively impacts people than it isif the law was only a moderate change. The same is true of court rulings, and most importantly convincing people to disobey such laws.

Let's say Law X would prohibit magazine with a capacity of more than 6 rounds. Due to the extreme nature of such a law it would not be difficult to persuade either a future legislature or a court that the measure goes too far by almost any standard, and encouraging non-compliance wouldn't be difficult. But if Law X were modified to prohibit magazines that held more than 15 rounds it would make compliance less onerous and consequently make it more difficult to convince a legislature or court of its burdensome nature.

In the short term it seems to help by lessening the damage done by a law, but in the long run it makes a law harder to repeal or have ruled unconstitutional. Further it makes intensifying the effects of a law by further additions over time more plausible. Law X prohibits 15 rounds today, but in 5 years it's reduced to 12, then 10, and finally after a decade or two it's down to the original 6 round limit. Going from unlimited to 6 in on swoop is pretty shocking. Going from unlimited to 15, then to 12, then to 10, then to 6 over the course of some years is less striking. People would gradually become accustomed to it and that would reduce pressure on the government to change such a law.

You know the old saying about gradually turning up the heat to boil a frog. Well imagine a pot full of frogs and when the heat is turned up too fast, some frogs yell to the chef "Hey! Turn it down or we'll jump out of the pot!". That is what the long term effect of "making a bad law less bad" is, and the folks who advocate it, no matter how well meaning, are in the long run hurting the very cause they claim to be aiding.

(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)

Was The Spent Spun

I'm using numbers from Dean Weingarten's Analysis of I-594's passage. 

Polls have shown over 90% support for background checks. The mainstream media was overwhelmingly supportive of I-594. Bloomberg, et al spent over $10 million to get this "universal" background check passed in Washington state.

$600,000 was spent to directly oppose Washington's "universal" background check initiative. The initiative passed with just shy of 60% in favor.

The strategy was to promote a competing measure to I-594. That competing measure was I-591. It was hoped that it would cause voters to vote for it instead of I-594, but if I-594 passed anyway that I-591 would be passed as well and negate I-594.  According to ballotpedia's I-591 page, about $1.2 million was spent promoting I-591.

What I'm wondering is if $600,000 was enough to drop theoretical support from 90% (according to more generalized polls - I'm seeing between 60% & 81%, counting undecideds on the high end but not countig them on the low end, for polls specifically about I-594) to a little over 59% (according to election results), then would spending that $1.2 million on direct opposition to I-594 instead of using it to pimp I-591 have caused I-594's defeat?

Perhaps we weren't outspent, but rather we misspent. 

Something to ponder if anyone tells you that we tried to fight "universal" background checks in Washington state and lost because Bloomie the Hut has too much money.

(Remember, appeasement is for chumps)

Bobbing For Appeasement

Like a 17 year old sci-fi geek who just got the Clockwork Angels Tour on Blu-Ray, I'm a bit rushed.

Et tu, Bob? Seems Bob Owens is playing Halifax to Gottlieb's Chamberlain.

To refute his, Gottlieb's and any others' counsel when they speak positively of appeasement, may I present for your edification:

Agin' Background Check Appeasement

The Wrong People

All We Are Saying Is Give Appease A Chance

Bouncing Background Checks

Also, Joe Huffman's thoughts on Background Checks and Neal Knox's tale about The Belgian Corporal.

To try to sum it up (though clicking those links will lead to a much more thorough understanding of the danger and futility of background checks) giving in on background checks will not accomplish anything for us in the medium to long run, as whatever short term gains we receive will be overshadowed by the harm background checks and our acquiescence to them cause us. It will erode the principals upon which we base our opposition to laws that intrude upon our Rights, while furthering the anti's cause. It will not stop the anti's, it will help them. It will not help us, it will hurt us. What we must do is fight, not just an expansion of background checks, but all background checks, even the ones we endure now. Surrendering is not fighting. A wise fellow once said that evil is never stopped by fleeing from it. I'd posit that evil is never stopped by compromising with it.

Remember, appeasement is for chumps.

Bouncing Background Checks

If you've read anything I've written in the past week (or ever) you've probably realized that I'm opposed to background checks under any pretext whatsoever. I think supporting any sort of expansion of background checks is an unwise move and definitely not the best option we have as gunowners. So, what should we do instead of appeasement?

The biggest problem we have regarding background checks (and proponents of appeasement continually bring this up to justify their position) is public opinion. Polls and initiatives so far have shown that a majority of people support background checks and/or their expansion. In large part this is because the mythology of background checks (i.e. keeping "the wrong people" from acquiring guns) is appealing to people. Most folks don't delve deeply enough into the subject to realize how ineffective background checks are at their purported goals, or how dangerous background checks are to them, or the potential consequences and co-requisites of background check expansion. This, as always, is the tactic that our opposition relies on; misinformed or ill informed electorates.

So what we should do is simple (which is not to be confused with easy). The solution to ignorance is education, not capitulation.We should inform the electorate. Here are my ideas on how to accomplish this:

All We Are Saying Is Give Appease A Chance

Let us take a look into a fairly reliable crystal ball I like to call history and see what will happen if we choose appeasement by supporting "universal" background checks in exchange for other concessions...

Let us assume we can get some modest gains in exchange for supporting some sort of "universal" background check. National CCW reciprocity is most likely, and perhaps another bone or two, such as suppressors or short barreled long guns being removed from the NFA,  It's possible we could see some sort of "restoration of Rights" process for non-violent offenders. There will of course be a provision that makes a federal database of guns illegal, as well as exemptions for family and spouses. It would likely only apply to sales or long term loans, gifts and trades. The devil being in the details it's no use to speculate about all the possibilities so let's just go with something general for this discussion.

So we support "universal" background checks at the national level. What then?

From The Billing Department

I wasn't sure if anything would be filed yet, it being only the first day of the session, but I did find some firearms related bills in the Colorado legislature.

State of the State

 That'd of course be My, the State. So how are things in The Centennial State you ask? In the words of Hoyt from John Boy and Billy's The Big Show, not too good.

If you're in Colorado, fear for your wallet and your liberty, and possibly your virtue as well:

The Colorado Legislature is back in session.

From My Cold Sled Hands

Dubuque, Iowa is the latest in a number of towns and cities that have banned sledding. Yep. Sledding. The bans appear to be limited to city owned property.

"We have all kinds of parks that have hills on them,' said Marie Ware, Dubuque's leisure services manager. 'We can't manage the risk at all of those places."

The risk they speak of is from lawsuits:

"...a $2 million judgment against Omaha, Nebraska, after a 5-year-old girl was paralyzed when she hit a tree and a $2.75 million payment when a man in Sioux City, Iowa, slid into a sign and injured his spinal cord."

I found some info on the Omaha case mentioned above. A family's two daughters hit some trees at the bottom of a hill while they were sledding. The family's attorneys claim the city is responsible because they knew the trees posed a hazard to sledders. Connelly v. City Of Omaha was decided by the Nebraska supreme court in july of 2012, affirming the appeals courts awards to the plaintiffs although modifying the amount of damages. Judge Narragansett could not be reached for comment.

Back to the original article:

"Most people realize that cities must restrict potentially dangerous activities to protect people and guard against costly lawsuits, said Kenneth Bond, a New York lawyer who represents local governments. In the past, people might have embraced a Wild West philosophy of individuals being solely responsible for their actions, but now they expect government to prevent dangers whenever possible.

'It's a great idea on the frontier, but we don't live on the frontier anymore,' Bond said."

At the part where they mentioned "New York lawyer" I  somehow just felt like I was being lied to, and instinctively put one hand on my wallet and the other on my Garand.

That is part of the problem though; progressives from more densely populated states try to use the "old west" rationalization to justify any encroachments on not only individual freedom, but individual responsibility as well. A question though - if it's not a frontier then what are all these carpetbaggers doin' 'round here? Come to edjumacate us hicks on our earth killing sled-risk-takin' ways? To enlighten us about how the collective matters more than the individual? That government is responsible for us in every way imaginable and must protect us from ourselves?

"...[Assistant city attorney Tom] Mumgaard said courts in Nebraska have decided cities must protect people, even if they make poor choices."

Ayup. That's exactly what they came out here to tell us about.

The good news is there is resistance to such efforts:

"In Omaha, the city banned sledding at a popular hill as a test one winter after losing a lawsuit, but decided to allow it again after most people ignored the restriction.

'It wasn't practical,' assistant city attorney Tom Mumgaard said. 'People wouldn't abide by the ban."

 Gee, imagine that - people ignoring a law. I wonder if this could have any implications for gun owners...?