Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

Category: Firearms

“I am the gun owner you hate”

What a terrific letter.

TO THE man I sat next to on my way in to Boston:

When I boarded the commuter rail, you were already in the midst of a spirited phone conversation and didn’t seem to care about how loud you were talking. You were talking with someone about the Paris train attack and the growing epidemic of gun violence in America.

You spoke about the “murderous NRA” and “bloodthirsty gun nuts” who were causing our schools to “run red with blood.” You spoke profanely of the Republicans who opposed President Obama’s call for “sensible gun control,” and you lamented the number of “inbred redneck politicians” who have “infiltrated Capitol Hill.”

I found myself amazed at the irony of the situation. While you were spewing your venom, I sat quietly next to you with my National Rifle Association membership card in my wallet and my 9mm pistol in its holster. You were only 12 inches away from my legally owned semiautomatic pistol. I suppose I didn’t look like the “bloodthirsty gun nut” you thought I should be. It apparently didn’t register to you that I could so cleverly disguise myself by wearing a fleece coat, Patriots hat, and khakis.

So, to the angry liberal who sat next to me on the commuter rail: I don’t hate you. I don’t have any ill feelings toward you. I don’t wish to do you harm. And I don’t regret sitting next to you. On the contrary; I feel bad for you. It must hurt carrying that much hate inside of you.

You obviously have strong opinions about this hot topic. So, let me say this as plainly as I can: If a bad guy with a gun had decided to walk onto that train and start shooting people, I would have been prepared and able to use my gun to defend my own life and the lives of everyone else on that train, including yours. Although you may hate me, a gun owner, I would risk my life for you.

Opinions and ideologies make a pretty thin shield against the bullets of a madman. Your liberal self-righteousness and ignorance may have made you feel superior and comfortable, but during that 40-minute train ride to Boston, my gun kept you safe.

A. Linden

Dighton

Obama goes after 2nd Amendment rights

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here you go:

Previous presidents were rightly relegated to lame duck status in their final year of office as members of Congress begin to look ahead to the next president’s priorities. Fresh off his annual vacation in Hawaii, President Barack Obama has found a way to overcome his lame duck status by simply usurping Congress and unilaterally taking action on his priorities.

After months of study on how to undermine federal law and centuries of constitutional protections, the president is planning to roll out a series of executive actions designed to undermine Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. While Obama has not revealed the specifics yet, anti-Second Amendment zealots close to the administration are saying that he will take executive action to enact regulations on the private sales of firearms and dump more money into enforcement agencies.

Obama is justifying his executive overreach by complaining that Congress has failed to act on gun control in the wake of highly publicized murders committed with firearms over the past few years. There are two things wrong with Obama’s justification. First, Congress did act. In the wake of the killings in Newtown, several gun control bills were offered and, after consideration and debate, Congress said no. What Obama is frustrated by is not that Congress failed to act, but that they did not do what Obama wanted.

The second problem with Obama’s justification for action is that it is no justification at all. Nowhere in our Constitution does it allow the executive branch to make law because the Legislative branch decided not to. In fact, our Constitution intentionally set up a process that requires both houses of the legislative branch and the executive branch to all act to pass a law. That system of checks and balances was designed by our founders to protect the liberties of Americans from the ravages of tyrannical rule. In this case, Obama’s agenda was checked. He did not like it, so he is planning to act unilaterally. Such are the actions of a tyrant.

The main action Obama plans to take is to manipulate rules and legal definitions to require background checks on the private sale of firearms. Obama will spin this action by saying he is “closing the gun-show loophole.” The so-called gun-show loophole is an invention of the anti-Second Amendment zealots to stir up opposition.

There are only three types of firearms sales. The first are sales by licensed firearms dealers. These sales are already heavily regulated and the sellers are required to conduct a background check before releasing the firearm to the buyer. Incidentally, the vast majority of sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers that already conduct background checks — as are online sellers.

The second kind of firearm sales are the illegal ones. Even in private sales, it is illegal for felons and crooks to purchase a firearm for the purpose of committing a crime, but it happens all the time. The vast majority of the crimes committed with guns are committed by a relatively small minority of repeat criminal offenders using firearms that are obtained illegally, possessed illegally, or both. The executive action Obama is planning to make will have absolutely no impact on these kinds of sales.

The third kind of firearm sales are private sales. These sales are anything from the investor who sells the occasional firearm out of her collection to the guy who trades his old shotgun for his neighbor’s snow blower. The law does not require a background check in these sales, but the anti-Second Amendment activists want to change that. The executive actions Obama is planning to make are targeting these kinds of sales with more regulations and cost, even though guns used in crimes are rarely obtained in these kinds of sales.

The reason that anti-Second Amendment folks target private firearm sales for regulation is because it would create a de facto national gun registry. Americans have rightly opposed efforts to create a national gun registry in the past because it is a precursor to all kinds of onerous restrictions, including outright gun confiscation. It is vastly more difficult for the government to confiscate what it does not know people have.

Lest we forget, the founders did not write the Second Amendment into our Constitution to preserve our right to hunt or protect ourselves. The reason for the Second Amendment is written right into the Declaration of Independence: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” The Second Amendment is one of those new guards.

In a nutshell, the actions Obama wants to take will not actually do anything to combat the problem of crimes committed with firearms that he cites as the reason for acting. And we have a president who is acting to unilaterally and unconstitutionally restrict the people’s constitutional right that was specifically put in place to protect the people from presidents acting unilaterally and unconstitutionally.

Obama may only have a year left in office, but he can do immeasurable damage to our nation and our liberties in that time that will take years to undo — if ever.

Speaker Ryan Weighs in On Obama’s Gun Lawlessness

He’s spot on here.

“While we don’t yet know the details of the plan, the president is at minimum subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will. His proposals to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected. No president should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally. The American people deserve a president who will respect their constitutional rights – all of them. This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it.”

In related news, watch for my column tomorrow.

California Gun Confiscation Law Goes Into Effect

Scary stuff.

A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.

It’s called AB-1014 and it comes after the mass shooting in May 2014 that claimed six lives in Isla Vista, California.

Before the shooting, the suspect uploaded a video to YouTube discussing his plans as well as a 107,000 word manifesto, both of which were circulated minutes before he began killing.

The new law will allow family members who believe someone may be violent to apply for a “Gun Violence Restraining Order.”

[…]

With AB-1014, a family member only has to have a gut feeling to petition for a temporary restraining order. For the process to start, a judge has to sign off on the order.

Incidental, the law provides that the firearms and ammunition should be returned to the owner upon expiration of the restraining order. Given how we’ve seen this work in other areas, how much of a hassle do you think that will be? And if the order is based upon the hunch of a neighbor, how does the accused prove that the order is wrong?

Obama Usurps Congress

Let me be clear… to use one of Obama’s favorite schoolmarm quips… the fact that Congress has chosen not to do something the president wants is not a justification for the executive to act alone.

“All across America, survivors of gun violence and those who lost a child, a parent, a spouse to gun violence are forced to mark such awful anniversaries every single day,” Mr. Obama said. “And yet Congress still hasn’t done anything to prevent what happened to them from happening to other families.”

And for you lefties cheering him on, consider how you will feel in about 14 months if a Republican president decides to act unilaterally on things like abortion, unions, immigration, etc. This is a tyranny that swings all ways, which is why our Founders designed our government to have the checks and balances it does. Obama doesn’t like the fact that he has been checked, but that does not justify unilateral action on his part.

“Millions Die As Texas Allows Open Carry. Just Kidding. Nothing Happened.”

Perfect headline.

Blood flowed in the streets as people engaged in “wild west” shootouts just hours after Texans began exercising their rights to openly carry holstered handguns, just as gun control supporters claimed would happen.

[…]

Oh, wait… nothing happened. Just as it did in the 45 states that had open carry before Texas did.

It’s almost like gun control supporters whip up hysteria based upon lies.

Lawless President to Act to Undermine 2nd Amendment

I fixed CNN’s headline for them.

(CNN)President Barack Obama is expected to announce in the coming days a new executive action with the goal of expanding background checks on gun sales, people familiar with White House planning said.

Described as “imminent,” the set of executive actions would fulfill a promise by the President to take further unilateral steps the White House says could help curb gun deaths.

Planning for the action are not yet complete, and those familiar with the process warn that unforeseen circumstances could delay an announcement. But gun control advocates are expecting the new actions to be revealed next week, ahead of Obama’s annual State of the Union address, set for January 12.

Obama appears to be focusing on two things. One is to spend more money on enforcing existing gun laws. I’m cool with that. The second would be to change the definitions of things to expand background checks for private sales or the so-called “gun show loophole.”

Here’s the issue in a nutshell… businesses that sell guns are required to conduct a background check before selling it. Private sellers are not. So if Uncle Ben wants to trade his ol’ shotgun for a snow blower with his neighbor, he is not required to do a background check on the neighbor. The gun show aspect is a farce that liberals use to drum up anti-gun sentiment by showing pictures of gun shows with their rows and rows of guns for sale. But in reality, the vast majority of sellers at a gun show are businesses and conduct background checks just like everyone else. So what the anti-gun folks are really after is requiring background checks for the private sales of guns.

Why is this a problem? There are three reasons. The first is that it creates an additional expense and hassle for people who haven’t done anything wrong. Uncle Ben is not the problem. The second reason is that while inconveniencing law-abiding folks, it will have virtually no impact on crooks. The bad guys will still sell guns illegally to each other. Many of them are already felons and not allowed to have a gun and that’s not stopping them. Why would this? So it’s a measure that imposes cost ant inconvenience on good guys while not deterring the bad guys at all. No thanks.

The third reason folks like me oppose requiring background checks for private sales is because it is a path to a gun registry, and a gun registry is an instrument used by tyrants throughout modern history to disarm the citizenry. Instead of forcing people to actually go down the court house and register their guns, background checks get there through the side door by creating a record of every time a gun is transferred. It would take a generation for almost every lawful gun in the country to be registered – just the lawful ones, because the crooks’ guns would still not be cataloged.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self-protection… it’s about an armed citizenry maintaining the capacity to violently overthrow their government if it becomes necessary. As the Declaration states:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

That’s hard to do if the people are arming themselves with plastic garden rakes.

So in the end, what Obama and his anti-liberty cohorts are wanting to do is impose additional costs and restrictions on law-abiding people that will have no impact on actually reducing crimes committed with guns while creating a precursor for a future tyrant to disarm Americans.

As I said before… no thanks.

Virginia AG Shreds Reciprocity Agreements

Consider this paragraph:

Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring announced Tuesday that the commonwealth will no longer recognize out-of-state concealed handgun permits, part of a national push to circumvent legislatures opposed to tightening gun laws.

So this is part of an effort for anti-gun zealots to usurp the duly elected representatives of the people. It’s lawless.

 

Obama Meets with Special Interests While Preparing to Break Law

Congress, schmongress.

Washington (CNN)As his administration prepares an executive order tightening access to guns, President Barack Obama met Wednesday with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a proponent of new gun laws who has become the chief enemy of the National Rifle Association.

[…]

Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s senior adviser who also attended the meeting with Bloomberg Wednesday, said this week that the executive orders would be reveled in “short order,” but refused to offer any more detailed timelines.

Time to Ban Guns

So says a writer at the collapsing New Republic.

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

I always appreciate it when anti-liberty folks are honest about their position on guns. At least we can have an honest discussion.

Maryland Scraps Gun “Fingerprint” System

Not a single case

Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the “fingerprints” of thousands of handguns was a failure.

Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of “ballistic fingerprints” to help solve future crimes.

But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.

Good for Maryland to recognize the failure after 15 years and stop it. There are plenty of failed government programs that have gone on for much longer.

Concealed Carry Holder Kills Goblin

At least someone is making Chicago a little safer.

CHICAGO (AP) — A customer with a concealed carry license shot and killed an armed man attempting to rob a Chicago neighborhood store, police said Sunday.

A masked man walked into the store and currency exchange about 7 p.m. Saturday on the city’s southwest side, displayed a handgun and announced a robbery to an employee, police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. The gunman then pointed his weapon at another employee and forced her to the back of the store.

The armed customer then fatally shot the man, identified Sunday by the Cook County medical examiner’s office as 55-year-old Reginald Gildersleeve. Other details about Gildersleeve weren’t released.

No one else was hurt during the incident.

Legislator Accused of Pulling Out Gun

This is a pure he said – he said that has all of the hallmarks of a set up. Notice that the anti-gun folks went to the media instead of the police.

Madison— Gun control advocates say a state lawmaker with a concealed weapon permit showed them his pistol during a visit to his Capitol office Wednesday, a claim that the lawmaker denies.

Rep. Michael Schraa (R-Oshkosh) is one of the Legislature’s staunchest opponents of gun control, unsuccessfully sponsoring a controversial measure last session to make it a crime for state and local police to enforce new federal gun laws.

Schraa, who says he consistently carries his 9mm with him, also signed on as one of three dozen co-sponsors of successful legislation this year that ended the 48-hour waiting period on handgun purchases in the state.

Both sides agree that Schraa had a civil discussion about gun control Wednesday with two retirees active in the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, but that’s where the agreement ends.

Jeri Bonavia, executive director of WAVE, said that two volunteers for her group from the Milwaukee area told her that Schraa had taken out his wallet and concealed carry permit from his left pants pocket and a small holstered pistol from his right pants pocket, with the retirees describing the holster as black. He showed the gun and permit while making a point about his support for gun rights, she said.

Bonavia said that after learning of the incident, she went twice to Schraa’s Capitol office after tracking it down, first by herself and then with the two volunteers. She said the lawmaker confirmed that he was carrying a concealed handgun in his right pants pocket by patting it multiple times but denied having displayed it.

“They were really shaken up more because they were accused of lying. They were really upset,” Bonavia said. “They were pointing at his pocket and saying, ‘Yes, you did, it’s right there.'”

Schraa said that was absolutely not true and questioned whether he was being “set up.”

Laylah Petersen’s Alleged Killer Used Stolen Gun

Do any of y’all anti-gun guys want to tell me which law we could have passed to prevent this guy from getting a gun?

Those two shootings aren’t the only ones resulting from a feud over the camouflage gun, according to court records:

It all started when Forbes asked a friend if he could hook him up with another guy, who had a gun for sale. The friend, with Forbes along, bought the camo 9mm, a clip and four bullets for $400. When he went home and hid it, Forbes went with him, staying the night because he had nowhere else to sleep.

Two days later, the man’s girlfriend said Forbes couldn’t keep sleeping there. Before he left, Forbes took the gun — but he didn’t tell his friend he had done so. When the man realized the weapon was missing, he called Forbes. A profanity-laced argument ensued, and Forbes threatened to kill him.

Anti-Freedom Nuts Look to Smoking Bans for Guidance

For those who thought that the anti-smoking campaign was about smoking or health… no, it was, and is, about control.

But with gun reform ideas dead upon arrival, some people are asking why they should tolerate guns in their workplace when they don’t tolerate, for example, smoking.

In the past, smokers were free to indulge in their chosen vice almost anywhere they pleased. Today, that’s no longer the case. Even a few short years ago, being barred from smoking in public places was thought to be a serious infringement on individual freedom. But today, lighting up in a restaurant can spark a sense of moral outrage from fellow diners.

You can walk into many restaurants and diners across America if you are carrying a loaded weapon and find yourself welcomed with open arms. But if you happen to be carrying a lit cigarette, you will be quickly shown the door.

The main driver of smoking bans was concern about human health. Naturally, then, shouldn’t the United States ban guns for health reasons, too? After all, just look at the statistics on gun-related deaths.

Concealed Carry on College Campuses

Representative Kremer and Senator LeMahieu has proposed a bill to require public universities in Wisconsin to allow people to carry a concealed weapon on college campuses.

Madison, WI – Today, Representative Jesse Kremer (R-Kewaskum) and Senator Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) released the Campus Carry Act, a bill that would allow students and faculty to carry concealed firearms in buildings on public college campuses.

Currently, it is legal to carry a concealed weapon on campuses, but the law allows universities to ban the practice as a matter of policy. Since the public owns the public universities, the proposed law would prohibit the public universities from prohibiting campus carry.

As usual, the Left and and anti-gun nuts are in full froth over the proposal. We are hearing the same discredited arguments we heard when concealed carry was initially proposed. But just like that time, Wisconsin is not, by any means, a pioneer here. In fact, it is quite common:

All 50 states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons if they meet certain state requirements. Currently, there are 19 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wyoming.

In 23 states the decision to ban or allow concealed carry weapons on campuses is made by each college or university individually: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.

Because of  recent state legislation and court rulings, eight states now have provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses. These states are Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. During the 2015 legislative session, Texas’ legislature passed a bill permitting concealed weapons on campus and making it the eighth state to permit guns on campus. The legislation will take effect in August 2016.

For all of those opposed to this law, please point to the negative impact in all of those other states that already allow it.

Father of Oregon Shooter Places Blame

Hey buddy… don’t force your beliefs on me.

“We talk about gun laws. We talk about gun control. Every time something like this happens, they talk about it and nothing gets done. I’m not trying to say that that’s to blame for what happened, but if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns, this wouldn’t have happened,” the father said.

Mercer said he has never held a gun. He doesn’t want to, he said. He laid out his personal philosophy on the issue: “I’m a great believer (in) you don’t buy guns, don’t buy guns, you don’t buy guns.”

Notice how he’s quick to blame guns but is appropriately reticent about blaming his son’s mental state until the investigation is complete.

Pressed on whether his son’s mental state could be to blame for the violence, Mercer declined to comment, saying he wanted to let police follow through, but he left open the possibility that his son’s state of mind could have been played a role.

Perhaps as he goes about assigning blame he should look to his evil son.

Concealed Carry Thwarts Assault in West Bend

From the Washington County Insider:

There was some excitement for a couple taking a Sunday evening, 8:32 p.m., stroll in Riverside Park after four men approached the pair and questioned the man about ‘his girl.’

One of the guys threw a punch at the suitor. He advised the boys he was legally carrying a concealed weapon. Upon hearing that news the foursome turned and hightailed it out of there.

Police caught up with the crew. One of them said they had gone to the park to confront an ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend and had mistakenly identified the victim as the new suitor.

The 19 year old who allegedly threw a punch was placed in jail for battery and disorderly conduct. The rest of the group, Two 19 years olds and one 18 year old, all from West Bend, were placed in jail for disorderly conduct.

Archives

Categories

Pin It on Pinterest