I've often said the courts, not the legislature, are our best hope in having the Right to arms respected. That should not be taken as implying the courts are honest, rational or even timely.
For 12 years Jim Maloney has been trying to have the courts declare that the possession of two sticks and a rope is not something that should be criminal in New York. Here's his web page giving updates and history on not just the one, but now three nunchuk cases in New York. The latest of which is a foreigner, just passing through a NY airport, being arrested for having nunchuks in his checked luggage (sound familiar?).
12 years for the original case. Twelve. Years. Post McDonald it was remanded back to the district court where it awaits further action. But 12 years to have a court say that owning a pair of sticks tied together with a rope is not a crime? Judge Narragansett would be rolling over in his fictional grave.
Oh, just coincidentally as they were serving another, totally, really, seriously, for true, unrelated warrant cause they'd never try to harass anyone or anything even though he was not guilty of what the warrant said and they for sure wouldn't trump up a charge and serve a warrant just to have an excuse to look for nunchuks, the NY State police just happened to find a pair of nunchuks in Mr. Maloney's home recently. He was arrested charged and convicted. It's a misdemeanor but a 2nd offense would be a felony.
I always found it ironic. Nunchuks were invented in response to a weapons ban so folks would have some means of protection against thieves and thugs, and here several centuries later the thieves and thugs have gotten around to banning nunchuks.
But the Right to arms is not just about firearms. Knives, swords, clubs and even sticks tied together are weapons that must be protected against government intrusion. And of course, machetes...
Sunday, February 22, 2015
This Is Sworda Ridiculous
A NY state senator wants to ban machetes (h/t SayUncle). The article itself as well as the concept behind it are fisk-worthy.
Norman Architecture
Norman v State (.pdf) was a case from Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal where the state's ban on open carry was challenged. Eugene Volokh, Sebastian and others have written about the case approvingly, because even though it upheld the state's ban on open carry it opined that a state could ban open or concealed carry, but not both. It had to leave at least one of the two options available.
The court used a two step test, the first step determined whether the law severely intruded upon the core Right (armed self defense outside the home), and the second step what level of scrutiny should be applied. The court decided that since it only affected one mode of carry, with the other available, that it was not a severe burden on the core right. The court went on to apply a light form of intermediate scrutiny - probably a bit more strict than rational basis, but not quite as harsh as actual intermediate scrutiny. The court also declined to consider an overbreadth challenge to the open carry prohibition.
The court erred in several places, and those who think this some sort of victory are mistaken.
The court used a two step test, the first step determined whether the law severely intruded upon the core Right (armed self defense outside the home), and the second step what level of scrutiny should be applied. The court decided that since it only affected one mode of carry, with the other available, that it was not a severe burden on the core right. The court went on to apply a light form of intermediate scrutiny - probably a bit more strict than rational basis, but not quite as harsh as actual intermediate scrutiny. The court also declined to consider an overbreadth challenge to the open carry prohibition.
The court erred in several places, and those who think this some sort of victory are mistaken.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Colorado's Solution
In this post I explained how the old guard of the Colorado GoP has been much more concerned with preserving its own power than with winning elections or helping gunowners. Here I'll try to explain what the Colorado GoP could do to repeal the gunowner control laws passed in 2013 (and before) if they were serious about protecting the Right to arms.
What they could do, if they were serious, is to put the brakes on everything. A legislative blockade, if you will.
What they could do, if they were serious, is to put the brakes on everything. A legislative blockade, if you will.
Colorados Problems
In a continuation of this post, I'll try to explain, to the best of my knowledge, how Colorado wound up where it is. And as usual I completely circumnavigate even the most fledgling attempt at brevity. So fill your glass, grab some snacks and remove any objects of a toss-able nature.
Colorado Corrections
Sebastian has some suggestions for what can be done to win Colorado back. Bless his little Yankee heart.
First, at least he's thinking enough about us trapped behind enemy lines to try to give us some supportive advice, and I really do appreciate that, and hope he (or none of y'all) will take this as me ripping him down. But there are a few corrections necessary:
As well as Sebastian's post linked above, I refer you to two previous posts of my own: Bloomberg's Money Was Well Spent and The Audio Of The First Round Of 2015.They both concern the pro-gunowner bills in Colorado so far this year.
SB15-032 (.pdf) was not a constitutional carry bill. It was a permitless carry bill. The difference is thus: this bill would have eliminated the permit requirement to carry a concealed handgun for anyone over 21 and "granted" the same "authority" and imposed the same limitations as a concealed carry permit. A constitutional carry bill would have simply eliminated the prohibition on carrying a weapon. With constitutional carry, a 20 year old could slip a 4" knife in her purse (currently it's 3.5" for a concealed blade) & not have to hand it over to a "peace officer" if she is for some reason detained. With this bill, a 20 year old who only owns a knife would be out of luck if that knife had a blade over 3.5 inches. This bill is an improvement, but it's not actually constitutional carry.
Almost all the house bills were shot down 6-5. One was lost by a 7-4 vote. That means 1 republican, in this case Dan Thurlow, voted with the anti-gunowners. I can speculate as to why, but I have nothing definitive.
Sebastian dislikes Dudley Brown, head of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. That's cool - I don't really care if folks don't like someone. Hell, I don't even care if folks don't like me. But RMGO has been the only pro-gunowner group in this state since I've been here. The NRA's state affiliate, The Colorado State Shooting Association, has been milquetoast at best, and outright hostile at times. When actual constitutional carry bills have been brought up in the past, we weren't busy fighting the anti-gunowners, we were busy fighting gunowners, mainly permit holders and instructors, and the CSSA (and at times the NRA itself ). I refer to you this very old (and of course very long) post of mine comparing Colorado's then brand spankin' new "shall issue" ccw law to the may issue it replaced and the better carry bill it stepped on. Also if you really want to know the sordid history of gunowner groups in this state (at least where it concerns RMGO and the CSSA and NRA) this piece by Ari Armstrong called A House Divided is worth the time.
I am not concerned if anyone thinks that Brown is personally a great guy or the biggest jerk in the world. What is important is that Brown knows Colorado politics and he almost always advocates the most principled position available, certainly more principled than the CSSA or the NRA to date. And by principled I mean having the most respect for the Right to own and carry weapons. I've disagreed with him a time or two, and it's not likely he and I will go out golfing any given weekend. But he and RMGO have been fighting for more freedom for me and everyone in Colorado. The NRA and CSSA for the most part haven't.
So no; Brown isn't a false prophet. Flawed perhaps, but not false. Until someone shows me an alternative RMGO is the only pro-gunowner organization in Colorado. Driving folks away from them, unless it can be shown that they've been supporting gunowner control, is counter-productive if you're pro-gunowner (which not all gunowners are).
Now, Sebastian says we must find republican "...candidates who can win in that state’s more socially liberal political climate."
Isn't that just precious?
That's been tried. That's how we wound up where we are. And it deserves a post of its own.
First, at least he's thinking enough about us trapped behind enemy lines to try to give us some supportive advice, and I really do appreciate that, and hope he (or none of y'all) will take this as me ripping him down. But there are a few corrections necessary:
As well as Sebastian's post linked above, I refer you to two previous posts of my own: Bloomberg's Money Was Well Spent and The Audio Of The First Round Of 2015.They both concern the pro-gunowner bills in Colorado so far this year.
SB15-032 (.pdf) was not a constitutional carry bill. It was a permitless carry bill. The difference is thus: this bill would have eliminated the permit requirement to carry a concealed handgun for anyone over 21 and "granted" the same "authority" and imposed the same limitations as a concealed carry permit. A constitutional carry bill would have simply eliminated the prohibition on carrying a weapon. With constitutional carry, a 20 year old could slip a 4" knife in her purse (currently it's 3.5" for a concealed blade) & not have to hand it over to a "peace officer" if she is for some reason detained. With this bill, a 20 year old who only owns a knife would be out of luck if that knife had a blade over 3.5 inches. This bill is an improvement, but it's not actually constitutional carry.
Almost all the house bills were shot down 6-5. One was lost by a 7-4 vote. That means 1 republican, in this case Dan Thurlow, voted with the anti-gunowners. I can speculate as to why, but I have nothing definitive.
Sebastian dislikes Dudley Brown, head of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. That's cool - I don't really care if folks don't like someone. Hell, I don't even care if folks don't like me. But RMGO has been the only pro-gunowner group in this state since I've been here. The NRA's state affiliate, The Colorado State Shooting Association, has been milquetoast at best, and outright hostile at times. When actual constitutional carry bills have been brought up in the past, we weren't busy fighting the anti-gunowners, we were busy fighting gunowners, mainly permit holders and instructors, and the CSSA (and at times the NRA itself ). I refer to you this very old (and of course very long) post of mine comparing Colorado's then brand spankin' new "shall issue" ccw law to the may issue it replaced and the better carry bill it stepped on. Also if you really want to know the sordid history of gunowner groups in this state (at least where it concerns RMGO and the CSSA and NRA) this piece by Ari Armstrong called A House Divided is worth the time.
I am not concerned if anyone thinks that Brown is personally a great guy or the biggest jerk in the world. What is important is that Brown knows Colorado politics and he almost always advocates the most principled position available, certainly more principled than the CSSA or the NRA to date. And by principled I mean having the most respect for the Right to own and carry weapons. I've disagreed with him a time or two, and it's not likely he and I will go out golfing any given weekend. But he and RMGO have been fighting for more freedom for me and everyone in Colorado. The NRA and CSSA for the most part haven't.
So no; Brown isn't a false prophet. Flawed perhaps, but not false. Until someone shows me an alternative RMGO is the only pro-gunowner organization in Colorado. Driving folks away from them, unless it can be shown that they've been supporting gunowner control, is counter-productive if you're pro-gunowner (which not all gunowners are).
Now, Sebastian says we must find republican "...candidates who can win in that state’s more socially liberal political climate."
Isn't that just precious?
That's been tried. That's how we wound up where we are. And it deserves a post of its own.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
A Few Things Volume One
A few thoughts on various subjects (some definitions to ponder, gunowner registration ain't acceptable, the proposed 5.56 ammo ban and why the "simple fix" won't work, on blaming gunowners for legislators' evil, the dangers of national reciprocity, what to do about gunnowners that don't show up, and politicians - not open carriers -are the problem) that'll likely tick off all both of my readers:
Monday, February 16, 2015
Garand Development Plan
Do you know how to make a Garand better? You can’t. A Garand within specifications is about as good a general purpose rifle as you could hope for. What you can do is make a Garand better for your specific purpose. Think a Garand is too short? You can add some length to it. Think a Garand is too long and heavy? You can reduce its length and weight. Want it chambered in a heavier or milder cartridge? That can be done. Add optics? There are several solutions depending upon your desire. It’s even possible, in theory – I haven’t tested this out yet myself – to make a Garand float! It’s not as easy or versatile as a shooter de la poodle an AR to optimize for your tastes, but a Garand can do a lot of things as is, and it can do a bit more with some work.
To illustrate I’ll walk you through what I’ve done and am doing (or at least currently plan to do) to some of my Garands:
To illustrate I’ll walk you through what I’ve done and am doing (or at least currently plan to do) to some of my Garands:
Saturday, February 14, 2015
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.
& 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".
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".
Thursday, February 12, 2015
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).
That can be the only explanation for the title of this bill:
The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (h/t SayUncle).
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, February 01, 2015
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.
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.
Friday, January 30, 2015
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
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.
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.
Friday, January 23, 2015
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.
Just twixt you and me, any strategy that leads to Captain America being offed by his own government is not a cool one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)