Quote of the Day — Oregon Ballot Measure 114

From the highly-restrictive "gun control" ballot measure that narrowly passed (50.83% to 49.17%) on Tuesday:

A permit-to-purchase issued under this section does not create any right of the permit holder to receive a firearm.

[Full text of the measure available here at Ballotpedia. PDF warning.]

This is from the Section 4 — specifically, Sectiom 4(6)(a) — of the measure that mandates a permit-to-purchase for all non-family firearm transfers (remember that Oregon prohibited private transactions outside immediate family members a few years ago). To qualify for a permit-to-purchase, an applicant must:

• Complete an application (form to-be-determined) with legal name, current address, telephone number, place and date of birth, physical description, and any other information the agency issuing the permit deems necessary;
• Sign the application in front of the permit agent;
• Provide proof of completion of a firearm safety class approved by law enforcement;
• Provide government-issued photo ID;
• Submit to fingerprinting and additional photographing by the permit agent;
• Submit to a criminal background check through the Oregon State Police (OSP) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — more on this in a moment — and,
• Pay the fees associated with the fingerprinting and background check, which the measure says shall not exceed $65 (read: shall be $65).

The measure also allows up to 30 days for the permit-to-purchase background check (and if you think the permitting agency getting an answer back early means you'll get your permit early, I've got a bridge in Alaska for sale at a great price). Presenting a permit-to-purchase to the gun dealer, as required by this measure, also does NOT replace the OSP-run background check at the point of sale OR its $10 fee.

The fingerprint card gets sent to the FBI as part of the process, and this bit is "interesting" — from the measure, Section 4(1)(e): "The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall return the fingerprint cards used to conduct the criminal background check and may not keep any record of the fingerprints." Does the State of Oregon have the authority to tell the FBI what information it may and may not keep? I doubt it.

But back to the QOTD above. While I understand that neither the U.S. or State Constitutions nor any legislative bill or ballot measure "create" any rights, this line's appearance in the text would mean that even after jumping through all the hoops, passing all the checks, and paying all the fees, a permit holder could still be denied a firearm.

The effective date is not stated in the measure (which is another "interesting" aspect), but is assumed to be 30 days after passage, or December 8, 2022. That doesn't give permit agencies much time to standardize forms, review and approve "safety classes", or implement an entire permitting scheme, does it?

It's not hyperbole to say this measure is a major blow to the firearms industry in Oregon. I already know of multiple dealers whose plan in the face of this is to sell their existing stock (which due to panic, should be done by this weekend) and then either close up shop or move out of state. Nobody will be able to buy or sell a firearm until permits-to-purchase are in-hand, which will be 30 days after the effective date, assuming "safety classes" are available (more on this in another post). That's at least a month of zero legal firearm sales.

And this is only one section of the measure. I'll have more to post on it in the coming days.

Yes, it's going to be challenged in court, especially in light of SCOTUS' Bruen decision, but that will take time and resources. In the meantime, we have to live with it.

Stay safe out there.

An Open Letter to Mika Brzezinski

Lifezette:

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski said Monday on the show that supporters of the Second Amendment who don’t want to talk about gun control in the wake of Sunday’s mass Texas church shooting are “cowards” — even though two armed Texans reportedly chased the gunman down.

Dear Mika,

I am a Second Amendment supporter who is perfectly willing to talk about "gun control" after the atrocity in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I'm not alone, either. There are many, MANY of us out here.

But you and your boy-toy, Joe Scarborough, will never allow me — or any of us, for that matter — on your show. Hell, I doubt either of you would even be willing to post anonymous comments here.

Why is that?

Is it because you know, deep in your two-sizes-too-small hearts, that the pro-Second-Amendment side of this conversation has facts, evidence, scholarly research, and SCOTUS decisions supporting our point of view, while you have name-calling?

Is it because you don't want to be intellectually trounced challenged on national television?

Is your self-styled public image as the all-knowing moral compass of America too delicate to risk in a real, honest-to-God unscripted dialogue?

I wonder....

You said, "Like exactly when can we have this conversation? You're cowards."

Let me make this absolutely clear: We're having this conversation right now. We've been having this conversation for upwards of 30 years! We have it again after every terrorist attack and after every time some disaffected loser decides to take out his perceived personal grievances on innocent victims! Every. Single. Time! We never stop having this conversation, because there is always someone like you who says our rights should be restricted and we need to have a conversation.

Here's the truth, whether you choose to see it or not: The conversation has been happening all around you. You have just never truly participated.

And I for one resent being called a coward, when you choose to not participate directly in that conversation you claim you want to have, and which I have been actively engaging in for years.

Who's the coward here? (Hint: I'm here, and I'm not going anywhere. I don't even edit or delete comments, unlike many pro-"gun-control" bloggers. Ergo, it must not be me.)

So any time you feel like you want to have that conversation — REALLY have that conversation, with someone who talks back — feel free to drop by and leave a comment. Hit up my e-mail (it's right up there in the upper-right corner of the blog), and we'll talk. I'll even be polite and not resort to name-calling and/or histrionic wailing! But you'd better bring your A-game, because I will be quoting SCOTUS, citing rigorous scholarly research, using logic and reason, and bringing facts and truths you may find inconvenient and prefer to ignore.

Until then, you can keep your self-deluded moral supremacy to yourself.

Sincerely,

Archer

[via David Codrea]

On Mr. Jake Mace — Kung Fu and Tai Chi Master, and Idiot

Anybody out there ever hear of a Mr. Jake Mace, of Phoenix Longevity Arts?

I recently ran across his YouTube channel, and as a practitioner of martial arts I found myself enjoying his take on techniques I know (usually by a different name) and learning a few new things, too.

Unfortunately, he has an "opinion about guns", too.

No, he's not strictly "anti-gun", per se. He's... well...

I'll just let him say it:


My attempt at a transcript (bold emphasis in original)*:

Hey, everybody, it's Jake Mace, with JakeMace.com.

During meditation, my unconscious mind and the universe send me thoughts sometimes, and I wanted to share with you guys one of these thoughts today.

I live in the U.S.A. and a lot of people around me — friends, and family members — they own guns, and they use guns. A lot of them have guns, but they don't use guns; they just feel safe having a gun in the house protecting them — "protecting them".

And the way that I've always thought about guns, comes from the path of a martial artist, Chinese kung fu and tai chi guy, who thinks about guns like he thinks about any other weapon in the martial arts.

And so when I have brand new students join my program, they first learn empty-hand skills, of some grappling and some striking, some fitness, conditioning, breathing, meditation, and stance work.

And then once they have that down they go on to the bo staff. The bo staff is the first weapon that they learn how to use, and you guys have been getting our bo staff DVD and bo staff from JakeMace.com.

Once they learn the bo staff they go on to many other weapons in a proper order: nunchucks, short stick, then they go on to the broad sword, sometimes they go on to daggers, chain whip, and the highest state of weapon is the straight sword, called the jian. The Chinese martial artist values the straight sword as the elite of the elite in terms of weapons.

And in my opinion the reason why this is is because back in ancient China, of all the modern-day weapons that were available to the ancient warrior, the straight sword was the most advanced form of weaponry of the time.

I've been to the Bing Ma Yong, the Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an, China, and you can see that China was the first ones to bronze and chrome out their weapons, so that when they would go against an opposing army it was no contest! The chromed out steel weapon or bronze weapon is infinitely stronger and more modern, and therefore better at killing, than a futile weapon of the other countries at that time.

But China has a tumultuous past, and many of those ancient warriors died out through the ages, through the millennia. And so in today's world, guns and bombs are the most advanced form of human weaponry.

And so it blows my mind when a lot of human beings, especially in my social circle in America here, have guns, because guns should be valued as a weapon that is more advanced than even straight sword. And so I feel that if you're going to own a gun, and use a gun in life, you should have to earn your keep by learning bo staff, nunchucks, stick, dagger, broad sword, chain whip, sai, etc., etc., on up the chain, and prove your worth to get to the gun level.

And the reason why this is important is because when you are able to buy the most elite weapon just because you give somebody money, and you now own a killing tool right in front of you, you don't have any of the discipline, and the focus, and the training, that goes behind the responsibility of owning a killing tool of that magnitude.

So I'm curious right now, what do you guys think? In the comments down below, tell me your thoughts. Do you think that anybody should be able to get a gun, the "most modern form of killing" in today's age? Or should a gun owner have to prove themselves with horse stance, empty-hand fighting, grappling, stick fighting, bo staff fighting, chain whip, dagger, and on up the chain, and then, when they're a 5th Black Master of whatever style that they're studying, they have a ceremony, bow to the teacher, and the teacher presents them a certificate of mastery, with a gun on top. Because now you have the focus, training, determination, and responsibility that goes behind owning the gun.

Because if you guys are like me, the more skillful the martial artist that you meet, the better the fighter that you meet, the martial artist with more deadliness in their hands and more training in their experience, is usually the most responsible with that training possible.

I can't tell you how many gun owners are so proud of their guns, they want to show them off to all their friends all the time. Well, I'll tell you what: a martial arts master doesn't go into their friend's situation, into a social situation, and show of all their punches and kicks and throws and grappling, OK? They're humble about it, and they keep their killing abilities safe and humble on the inside. I think gun owners should do the same thing.

So tell me in the comments down below what you guys think. I really want to know what you guys think. Hit 'Like', subscribe to my channel, and get yourself the training, because as martial artists, we have to prove ourselves on up the chain, from empty-hand, weapon, to ultimate killing tool, because if we don't train, we won't have the responsibility and the focus needed to handle a weapon of that magnitude.

Thanks for watching guys. I can't wait to see you back here for our next video, and also on any of my social media, like Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.

In short, he's OK with you having a gun for self-defense, but only after you've also trained for a couple decades in empty-handed defense and a plethora of traditional martial arts weapons (bo staff, nunchaku, three-section staff, butterfly sword, broadsword, chain whip, straight sword) to develop your focus, discipline, and humility** the exact same way he has. Then, and only then, would he "allow" you to own a gun.

Needless to say, anyone older or more frail, or who doesn't have time or money to devote several hours of every day — for several years — to training (read: anyone with school, a job, life, or family), need not even apply. The Carol Bownes of the world, who need a means of self-defense right now, are equally on their own.

In his mind, the prerequisites of gun ownership — focus, discipline, and humility — can only be learned via martial arts. So if you instead chose to spend your child- and young-adulthood in school and college and earned an advanced degree in a STEM discipline, learning skills like logic, advanced mathematics, critical thinking, analytics, etc., you still don't have the focus or discipline to own a gun. Nope, you don't know kung fu, so even though your life's work keeps his lights on, keeps his car running, and — oh, yeah — keeps the spectacle of the Internet alive so that he can continue posting videos ... you aren't worthy of owning a tool to defend your life.

There's a word for this mindset: elitist.

It's a basic "might makes right" mentality. If you don't already have the might, you never will.

What's interesting to me is not only how devoted he is to elitism and "might makes right", but also how far off he is from the very principles of kung fu he professes to teach. Taking kung fu as a tangible skill, it is very much like a gun: a smaller, less-physically-strong defender can prevail over a larger attacker, or even several attackers. Often, just the difference in carriage — the confidence and posture with which the intended victim moves — is enough to deter an attack even before it starts. The defender doesn't even need to be a "master"; in many cases, mere proficiency is good enough.

I did leave a comment or two on that video (hey, he asked for it, didn't he?). However, YouTube's comment filter being what it is — a giant ball of mystery fail to anyone outside YouTube Corporate HQ — you cannot view my comments unless you are logged into YouTube or Google as me. Therefore, here are the screenshots for posterity (click to embiggen):

If you feel like leaving your own, maybe you'll have better luck getting through YouTube's insanely stupid filter.

Or, you can not feed the troll. That's OK, too. :)

Stay safe, and don't give your money to charlatans pretending to be experts.
------------
* - Wow. Writing out that transcript and putting [strong] tags on his emphasized points makes him sound even more off-base than I originally thought, and that's saying something.
** - We won't even get into how "humble" a person could be, when they make their living showing off on YouTube.

Do So-Called "Large-Capacity Magazine" Bans Actually Do Anything?

A common demand from the anti-gun crowd following any "mass shooting" event is to ban so-called "large-capacity magazines". The idea is that if mass-murderers have to stop "spray firing" their "semi-automatic bullet hoses" and reload more frequently, fewer people will be killed.

But does it actually help anything?

Criminologist Gary Kleck says no.

As it turns out, the killers who commit these heinous murders fire, to put it bluntly, take their time. Their rate of fire is slow enough that reloading is a trivial exercise — one that certainly doesn't require Jerry-Miculek-level skills.

Even so, in areas where standard-capacity magazines are already banned, it's equally trivial for the killer(s) to carry several limited-capacity magazines, or even multiple firearms.

Kleck's methodology was interesting; he narrowed his research to "mass shooting" events with more than six victims (in contrast, the "standard" anti-gun definition is only four victims). He did this to attempt to rule out most if not all shootings using standard six-shot revolvers, and thus to truly focus on the use of magazine-fed firearms.

The results speak for themselves. From the linked article:

Even with this restrictive definition of a mass shooting, Kleck found that large capacity magazines – defined as holding over 10 rounds – were used in only 21 of the 88 incidents (24%). So, in 76% of the incidents, a large-capacity magazine ban would have made no difference in any event.

Kleck then goes on to analyze further the 21 incidents in which a large-capacity magazine was used. In every case, the shooters carried either multiple guns or multiple magazines. Therefore, even without a large-capacity magazine, the shooters could easily switch guns or magazines.

So I can now expect the antis to act like grown-ups, apologize, and stop trying to enact bans that are scientifically shown to be ineffective. I will (continue to) be disappointed, but I can expect it.

And I am also looking forward to reading Kleck's full paper (which spans 60+ pages) when it's released.

Stay safe.

[Hat tip: A bunch of people; this one's been getting around.]

Interesting Legal Case Out of Pennsylvania

Amish man challenging photo ID requirement to purchase a firearm.

As reported by Legal Insurrection:

As Obama stumps for gun control in Chicago, an interesting case has been filed in an effort to protect both religious liberty and the Second Amendment. An Amish man from Pennsylvania attempted to purchase a gun via legal channels and was denied because he did not have a photo id [sic], and he did not have that photo id [sic] because of his religious beliefs.

The Amish in Lancaster Country believe that a photograph of themselves is the equivalent of a disallowed “graven image” and thus refuse to allow themselves to be photographed. This is a religious exemption/exception that has been readily acknowledged and accepted by state and local government who have issued photoless ids [sic] and drivers’ licenses to Amish people. [links omitted]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, and what other areas of religious freedom — Obamacare religious exemptions, non-participation in same-sex "marriage" ceremonies, personal prayer in public spaces, etc. — this will affect.

Especially since the state and local authorities have acknowledged their long-standing religious views and made appropriate concessions, like issuing photo-less IDs and drivers' licenses that are equally valid as their photo-including counterparts.

The federal law (specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922[t][1][c]), however, is quite clear: no FFL can transfer a firearm to anyone without a valid photo ID. Leave it to the federal government to make exercising a basic, fundamental right mutually exclusive to exercising other basic, fundamental rights.

Like I said: interesting.

Stay safe.

ALERT: Oregon Gun Owner Action Required!

That didn't take long.

Barely two months after S.B. 941 (Oregon's shiny new "universal background check" law) went into effect, and two weeks after the mass killing at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, we have the anti-gun crowd's new demands for infringing our rights.

From Oregon Firearms Federation, we have a partial list (shamelessly copied from the alert, [with my thoughts in brackets]), including but not limited to:

• Central registration of all firearm owners and their weapons, and coordination of this data with criminal, mental health, and domestic abuse records at both the state and federal level. [Holy S@#t, they're going after the big fish, here.]
• Enactment of a 28-day waiting period on all firearm purchases. [Four weeks? Isn't that a bit excessive?]
• Institution of a license requirement to possess or purchase a firearm, with obtainment of a license requiring a gun safety course, an evaluation of personal history and mental well-being, and a thorough background check. [So Oregon will require some hybrid of Illinois' FOID card and Washington, D.C.'s gun license?]
• Requirement of a license to buy, sell, or transfer a firearm and ammunition, including through registered weapons dealers, private sales, individual transfers, and family transfers. [Knocking down all the exemptions in their already-extreme S.B. 941, I see, along with requiring another, separate license to transfer a firearm or to purchase ammunition.]
• Require that weapons be stored unloaded, in a gun safe, with a trigger lock. Possession of these safeguards should be necessary to obtain a firearm license. [Weren't "firearms must be stored incapable of being fired" laws struck down in D.C. v. Heller?]
• Render concealed carry illegal, and ban the open carry of a loaded firearm. [Weren't effective outright bans on carry struck down in multiple Ninth Circuit cases (of which Oregon is a part), including Peruta v. San Diego County?]
• Restrict ownership of automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and handguns to existing owners and require their storage at a licensed gun range. [There's currently no licensing scheme for "gun ranges". Are we going to set that up, or will this become a de facto ban? And again, weren't bans on whole classes if firearms also struck down in D.C. v. Heller?]
• Ban any clip or magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. [You knew this was coming, right? At least they're now recognizing a distinction between "clip" and "magazine".]

These proposals, if passed, would represent a severe blow not only to gun ownership in Oregon, but to home- and self-defense.

Most, if not all, of these demands are blatantly unconstitutional, but I doubt our Legislature (with a Democratic super-majority) or unelected anti-gun Governor will care much. They'll see "new gun laws" and jump at the chance of passing them.

I hate to beg, but please, please, please hit up OFF's mailing form (at the bottom of same link) and strongly consider donating to the cause of fighting these outrageous proposals, none of which — separately or together — would have prevented the UCC murders.

It's time to act.

Stay safe.

Political Correctness Kills A Woman

Killed by Paroled Illegal Alien With Multiple Felonies, Multiple Deportations -- And a Free Pass 

Gun Crime - Or Government Crime?
  

Kathryn Steinle
ibtimes.co.uk

         Kathryn Steinle, 32, was shot to death at a popular San Francisco tourist spot, a victim of political correctness as surely as if the elites themselves pulled the trigger. 

         The man being charged with her murder is a thug, a drug addict, an illegal alien deported five times, a criminal with seven felony convictions, four involving narcotics, and on parole for yet another crime. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, 45, aka: Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate and Juan Jose Dominguez de la Parra, is a despicable man. Yet, he was allowed to travel the border and this country seemingly at will, avoid further deportation courtesy of the Obama administration, and go largely unpunished for his crimes. Then on the first day of July, a man who should have been behind bars or a thousand miles away, took a gun he wasn’t allowed to have as a felon, in a city that disarms its law-abiding, and went to a tourist attraction looking for someone to kill. Without a word, from behind, he shot a random stranger through the heart.  

         Sanchez’ latest outrage started back in March, when he was turned over to San Francisco police on an

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez
kcra.com

outstanding drug warrant by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE officials issued a detainer at that time, requesting notification prior to his release so arrangements could be made to take custody. Except, ICE knew that SF had declared itself a “sanctuary city” and that the request would not be honored. ICE effectively, cynically washed their hands of him. Sanchez was also in violation of his ongoing Texas parole. His legal status, his prior convictions, his parole violations didn’t matter: SF freed him to prey on an unsuspecting populace.  

          A few months later, Katy Steinle, a beautiful, vibrant young woman lay dying in a pool of her own blood, begging her distraught father to help her.  

        There can be no better - or worse - reason for why we fight for our Second Amendment Rights. No greater proof of why we must be our own first responders. We Are On Our Own. We must stay strong and capable of defending ourselves. We cannot afford to do otherwise. Not when our own government favors criminals over the law abiding. Not when feel-good sentiments trump reason and justice. Not when our government seeks to remove our most effective means of self-defense against the evil they nurture.  

        Fight!

On the New National Reciprocity Arguments …

Current Supreme Court of the United States
(source: Wikipedia)

There's been some conjecture around the gunnie Interwebs about the SCOTUS decision in Obergefell v. Hodges paving the way to getting nationwide, 50-state-plus-DC recognition of concealed carry licenses. Bob Owens talks about it here, Miguel here, and Massad Ayoob himself polls his readers about it here.

The arguments make sense. You could take the verbiage in the majority opinion and replace any text referring to "marriage license" with equivalent text for "concealed carry license", and it would read the same. Case in point (from Bob Owens' article):

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. […]
(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.

It's no mental stretch to change that text to refer to carrying a defensive firearm in all States. In fact, it's trivially easy to make that edit.

However, you can virtually guarantee the usual suspects among the States won't see it that way, and very likely neither will the courts. Getting a national reciprocity via the Fourteenth Amendment ruling is still going to be an uphill battle, if it's ever allowed to happen. The Supreme Court receives hundreds or thousands of petitions every year, and has every authority to refuse to hear a particular case, and they're not required to give any reason for such a refusal.

Current reciprocity on an Oregon resident concealed
handgun license. Blue states are fine, red are not.
(source: USA Carry)

In short, all they have to do to maintain the patchwork of carry and reciprocity laws is … nothing.

And when it comes to carry and reciprocity, they've been doing just that for a very long time. It's patently ridiculous to assume — given the legal talents of attorney Alan Gura, the legal teams at the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA, plus all the various state-level groups — that this avenue hasn't been considered or that petitions haven't been written or submitted to SCOTUS.

Of course they have! But the Court has not accepted any cases. I don't mean to be pessimistic, but I don't believe that will change any time soon.

I don't mean to be even more pessimistic, but if the Court does decide to hear a case pushing carry reciprocity under the Fourteenth Amendment, I believe they will decide the "public safety" concern over firearms carried by private citizens in public spaces is enough to merit upholding the patchwork. "Intermediate scrutiny" (which is also a relatively recent fabrication of the Court), and all that.

It won't be the right decision, but it will be "official". It will be "settled law". Justice Scalia's dissent will become the stuff of legend, but his voice will be in the minority and thus will have no bearing.

(source)

And the Supreme Court will have finally affirmed its complete irrelevance and illegitimacy by creating a "right" that isn't addressed anywhere in the Constitution — which under the Tenth Amendment means it must be "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" — and then turning around and trampling an enumerated Right that is directly protected by that same Constitution when a violation of the enumerated Right is challenged using the same arguments.

Which is why I believe national carry reciprocity must be pushed legislatively. If the bill dies in Congress, we've lost nothing, but we've made the anti-rights crowd expend energy fighting it, and we've put Congress-critters on record supporting or opposing our fundamental rights. We can always try again next year.

If we take a chance before the Supreme Court and lose, we'll have lost for at least our lifetimes.

And that's my two cents on the matter. Please feel free to weigh in in the comments; I'd like to hear your opinions, too.

Have a happy Independence Day! And stay safe.

Updated: Oregon Gun Owners: Your Weekend Activism

Sen. Floyd Prozanski
(source: OregonLive.com article)

By now, many of you may have heard of Senate Bill 941 (PDF warning), introduced by one of our resident perennial gun-grabbers, Senater Floyd Prozanski.

I can sum up my feelings on this one in four simple words:

This. Bill. Must. Fail.

This is a bill for the infamous "Universal Background Check" (UBC). It is a ban on private transfers of firearms, with a few exceptions. A violation of this bill, should it become law, is a Class A misdemeanor on the first conviction, and a Class B felony on any subsequent convictions. Penalties for the first conviction are up to a year in prison, a fine of up to $6,250, or both. Subsequent convictions: up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.

But wait (as the late, great pitch-man Billy Mays used to say), there's more: Background checks in Oregon are not run through NICS for free. Oh, no; that would be too simple. They're run by the Oregon State Police Background Check Unit (OSP BCU), who charges $10 for the "service" of running that check for you.

But wait, there's still more: The "dealer number" for the OSP BCU is still not available for "civilians" to use. Nope, if you want to do a private sale/transfer, you and the buyer/seller will have to appear, in person, before a federally-licensed gun dealer, who can call and run the check, charge you the OSP BCU's $10, plus whatever the dealer chooses to charge for the "service".

And, if you're the seller, you would be required to follow all the "record retention" laws in regards to the paperwork concerning that sale, as if you were a dealer. Penalties are the same as if you were a dealer whose "bound book" didn't quite measure up to ATF inspection.

Oh, yeah, and OSP BCU is the group that creates the registry of commercial firearm transfers, and this bill now extends the same guidelines and requirements to private transfers. Welcome to full registration, folks!

So I'll repeat what I said above: This. Bill. Must. Fail.

You're weekend activism homework: Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (where the bill currently resides) and urge them to vote against passing this travesty to the Senate floor. The members are (click to e-mail):

• Sen. Floyd Prozanski — 503-986-1713
• Sen. Jeff Kruse — 503-986-1701
• Sen. Sara Gelser — 503-986-1708
• Sen. Ginny Burdick — 503-986-1718
• Sen. Kim Thatcher — 503-986-1704

You might have noticed that Sen. Prozanski is not only the author of the bill, but he's also the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee where the bill currently resides. Hardly seems fair, does it?

[UPDATE: 3/30 5:00 pm] Written testimony can be submitted to the whole committee staff by e-mailing it to SJud.Exhibits@state.or.us. They prefer written materials to be in PDF format, but the advantage is that any materials submitted become part of the public record attached to the bill. According to the agenda for the day, "The committee meeting record will remain open and testimony will be accepted until 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 1." That's the deadline. [/UPDATE]

Let's do what we can to kill it in committee.

Thanks, and stay safe.

VIDEO: The Hickenlooper Blues

Presented without (much) comment beyond this: Any Colorado readers we might have, there's only one week left! Post it, share it, spread the word! Vote the bum out!

(via the Examiner.com article, ‘Armed American Radio’ premieres ‘Hickenlooper Blues’, by David Codrea)

Sunday Funnies

"Borrowed" From Modern Musket and We Will NOT Be Disarmed

Love those guys.

Support the Polite Society Podcast and the RKBA

Not Paul - But Close Enough
(absurdintellectual.com)

One of the true heroes of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms movement is Paul Lathrop. He's the majordomo of the Polite Society Podcast, a gun rights internet broadcast that twice weekly examines all the breaking firearms news and hot issues. His ‘cast melds the talents of several leaders of the RKBA movement, and is always a must listen as well as being highly enjoyable. What isn’t apparent; Paul does all this podcasty magic with a simple laptop, mixer and Google+, often from the front-office of his 18 wheeler. He’s a past-master at wringing the most out of his equipment. Now, he’s looking for a bit of financial assistance to further expand his efforts in support of the 2^nd Amendment.    

In his own words:

"The Polite Society Podcast is trying to raise funds to purchase and ship equipment to Phoenix for the 2015 Gun Rights Policy Conference. The GRPC is an annual conference that features some of the biggest names in the gun rights world speaking about the fight to maintain and restore our 2nd Amendment rights. While it is a free conference to attend many cannot make the trip, and the folks at the Polite Society Podcast are planning on streaming the conference so that anyone anywhere in the world can get information to help with the struggle to regain our freedoms. Previous speakers at the conference have been people such as Massad Ayoob, Dr. John Lott, Allan Gottlieb, Alen Gura, Tom Gresham, Chris Knox, and many many others.

The effort is to raise $1250 for additional equipment and shipping. I am going to be getting the audio feed from Charles Heller for the audio portion of the stream, however I still need to bring my mixer, microphones, etc so that we can do interviews live during breaks. Part of the equipment that I have to buy is a wireless transmitter so I can feed the audio from his mixer into mine for broadcast." 

http://www.gofundme.com/fg2dhw

Click here to support Video Equipment to stream GRPC 2015 by Paul Lathrop

This is a very worthy cause – and I’ll happily be kicking I've happily kicked in to Paul's important effort to support our gun rights.

Newest from Alan Gura: The Second Amendment as a Normal Right

Alan Gura
(source: Wikipedia)

It's been said before, and I'll say it again: Alan Gura is the MAN! His latest analysis has been published in the Harvard Law Review: The Second Amendment as a Normal Right.

(Almost) needless to say, it's worth reading the whole thing. It's not terribly long but contains vital — yet easily overlooked — points.

Now, I'd heard that the Second, Third, and Fourth circuits upheld "good cause" requirements (under whatever name they give them) for carry licenses, while the Seventh and Ninth circuits struck them down*, but it's interesting to see an analysis of exactly how and why those conclusions happened.

I for one don't like having to rely on the courts. I believe Mr. Gura himself concedes that taking a case to court is a crap shoot, and a 5-4 split is a MUCH closer margin than I'm comfortable with. The Ninth circuit's approach - assuming the right exists and questioning whether the legislation should, rather than acknowledging the legislation exists and therefore questioning whether the right does - should not be a novel approach to Second Amendment jurisprudence. It should have been a given, a default. It should have been how these cases were always decided. Still, it's good to see at least one circuit taking it seriously.

Another thing that's been said before: The courts don't treat any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights the way they treat the Second. If they allowed a fraction as many "reasonable restrictions" on the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments, the country — liberals included — would be outraged.

(Hat tip to Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned)

------------
* - Strictly speaking, the Ninth's decision specifically says it's not striking the requirement, only the practice that says self-defense does not constitute "good cause". But as Mr. Gura writes, it's hard to imagine how the effect would be different.

True Believers Confronted By Truth

While this link isn't gun related per say, it does examine the fanatics that compose the activist core of the climate change movement. It's a story of true believers confronted by those inconvenient truths known as facts. The result is often increased levels of rhetoric, emotion, hysterics, demonstrations and sometimes violence. In their need to triumph, the true believers will say and do anything, including outright lying and making even crazier demands.

The Crumbling Climate-Change Consensus
Extremists’ rhetoric heats up as their case falls apart. 
  
And Then They Came For The Bolt-Actions

Congressional Candidate Just Wished Ebola on NRA

Now does it sound gun related? I give you the Brady Bunch, Bloomby, SCGV, the Mad Moms, etc. You can't ignore the politicians, however, they're apt to be just mercenary.
  

Click to Imbiginate   (obamacartoon.blogspot.com)

And it's from John Fund.  Come on, John Fund...


Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.
     George Santayana

HT: NRO, Mark Vanderberg and Bob Owens

More on Washington's I-594

Quite possibly the worst gun bill ever, possibly second only to bills with the word "ban" in the title.

Source: NRA's VoteNo594.com page

From Lee Williams at the Herald-Tribune:

You're at the range.

A longtime friend comes over and asks if he could try your handgun, as he's contemplating buying one.

Of course you agree. That's what gun owners do.

If this scenario occurs in Washington State after the passage of Initiative 594, both of you have broken the law.

Initiative 594 would classify this as a transfer -- something that would require paperwork, fees, a waiting period and if it involves a handgun, government registration.

There's been a lot of misinformation about this bill, but make no mistake: it's a bad one for gun rights. Mr. Williams calls it "ill-conceived" and "poorly thought out", but I think he's being too generous; there's no way something this damaging is an accident.

Its supporters tout it as a simple background check bill on firearm sales/purchases with no registration.

The reality? The bill is 18 pages (what 18-page law is "simple"?) and specifically names transfers (broadly defined with very few exemptions), not "sales". As for registration ... I-594 doesn't need it; if passed, it will piggy-back on an existing-but-little-known Washington law requiring that people purchasing handgun sales through dealers undergo a background check and submit paperwork for Washington's handgun registry.

Yes, Washington has a handgun registry.

And I-594 would require that nearly all handgun "transfers" (broadly defined, remember?) go through a dealer's background check, which means nearly every handgun transferred in Washington will be required to be registered, including "private" sales and temporary loans. In the case of temporary loans, the paperwork must be filled out, background check passed, fees paid, and handgun re-registered, on both sides: when you loan the gun, and when you get it back.

If you're in Washington State -- or even if you're not but you know people in Washington -- please help spread the word. Read Lee Williams' article (it's short), check out the NRA's Vote No on 594 page, and if you like, print off their "pocket guide" (PDF warning) for a handy-dandy list of talking points and dispelled myths.

Source: WAGunRights.org

And while you're chatting with Washington folks, do what you can to promote SAF's Initiative 591. It's a half-page, two sentence measure -- supported by law enforcement groups and nine (and counting) individual county Sheriffs -- that provides that a) background checks in Washington comply with a uniform national standard (a.k.a. the FBI's NICS check), and b) firearms cannot be confiscated or seized by law enforcement without due process.

If I-594 passes, you can expect similar ballot initiatives to come to your area, and be funded by billionaires trying to buy your local elections and your rights. We need to shove this in their faces and make it clear this tactic is a waste of their money.

[UPDATED TO ADD:] Dave Workman weighs in (again):

"Gun prohibitionists continue to portray themselves as underdogs when they have a $7 million advantage, and are asking $1,000 to co-host the [Seattle Mayor Ed] Murray event, $500 to sponsor it and $250 to support it.

Nobody is asking for money to attend the [pro-gun] Westlake Center Park rally. This is grassroots possibly at its finest...."

Just so we're all clear on which side has the monetary advantage, and which side is being honest about who has the monetary advantage. [/UPDATE]

(Hat tip: Herschel at The Captain's Journal)

Moms Demand Action - But Not Truth

Moms usually demand the truth, especially when looking over a broken lamp at a snot-nosed brat. (I speak from experience.) That doesn't seem to be the case with Bloombergs's astroturfing Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Shannon Watts, founder of the shrewish ant-gun org, has told a whopper, and few seem interested in calling her on it.

Watts/Troughton & Bloomby
(Ruth Fremson/The New York Times)

Watts of Moms Demand Action: Good guy ‘has never’ stopped bad guy with gun

Never? Mein Gott.

CNN's Victor Blackwell's convoluted, artificially constrained question asked Watts “Is there an example in school shootings or a mall shooting or these public facilities, where that has been wrong? Where a bad guy with a gun has been stopped in any other way or by a person other than a law enforcement officer with a gun or by killing himself?” MDAG's Watts replied “This has never happened. Data shows it doesn’t happen.”

Wow.

Jeanne Assam Stopped Church Attack
(arprice.com)

Even without Google Assisted Memory, I can think of quite a few instances where a good guy (or gal) with a gun has stopped a mass killing. Those in schools, churches, shopping malls,theaters, etc. have benefited many times from an armed citizen's actions. Anecdotal evidence even suggests that the mere possibility of a CCW being present caused a spree killer to specifically chose a theater disarmed by a gun-free sign. To answer with an absolute "Never"... Well, Watts was either wildly incorrect or she deliberately misspoke - i.e. lied.

It wouldn't be the first time. 

Nick Meli Stopped
Clackamas Mall Shooting
(kgw.com)

We often justly damn the gun control industry for their emotion laden misrepresentation of the facts. They're so welded to their position that they're compelled to make the most outrageous lies. Winning at all costs, by any means is their goal; as (wait for it) the ends justify the means. It should come to no ones surprise that Shannon Watts is herself a disingenuous construct. Thanks to Miggy's (Gun Free Zone blog) work, we find that Watts is also known as Shannon Troughton, a high-powered executive with extensive experience as a professional shill; excuse me: corporate communications and political public affairs officer. In the 1st Freedom Sep 14 issue article; Not Watts She Seems, the NRA also examines the the false front that is Shannon Watts. She's hardly the carefully crafted stay-at home mom portrayed in the media. In that context, a finely nuanced, bald face lie in support of Bloomberg's anti-gun agenda can certainly be expected.   

It is important that we do not sink to the level of our foes. Watts/Troughton has been given a free pass - we would not. In any case, we should not want to be like them.   


"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
       Daniel Patrick Moynihan



HT: Guns.com, Gun Free Zone, CNN, NRA 1st Freedom

Bloomberg/Watts' Revenge - Kroger in the News Again

Alternate title: "Store Wars: The Empire (State) Strikes Back"*

(source)

Some time back, we reported that Kroger opted not to bow to pressure from Shannon Watts' and
Michael Bloomberg's gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety, to ban the peaceable carrying of firearms in their stores. Kroger's perfectly reasonable statement (emphasis added):

The safety of our customers and associates is one of our most important company values. Millions of customers are present in our busy grocery stores every day and we don’t want to put our associates in a position of having to confront a customer who is legally carrying a gun. That is why our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to ask customers to be respectful of others while shopping. We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue and we trust them to be responsible in our stores.

 Like I said: perfectly reasonable. Law-abiding folks will abide by laws, responsible folks will conduct themselves responsibly, and respectful folks will respect others. In other news, water is wet (ZOMG, insert dramatic "Dun dun DUUUUNNNN!!" sound here).

Naturally, though, when dealing with megalomaniacal billionaires (like Bloomberg) and control-freak busy-bodies (like Watts), you just knew this wouldn't go over well.

And so it hasn't. Forbes reports (emphasis added):

Michael Bloomberg-backed gun control group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America launched its first ever large-scale corporate campaign on Thursday with an advertising spend of six figures aimed at pressuring Kroger, the country’s biggest grocery chain, to change its firearms policies.

Yep. A six-figure advertising campaign against Kroger, for the audacity of telling Hizzonner to shove it where to go and what to do there to leave them alone and let them make their own decisions on what will and will not be allowed at their own properties.

The ads themselves are pretty pitiful, too, following a pattern familiar to those of us who remember Moms Demand Attention Action's previous campaign against carrying in schools:

Seriously, I wouldn't want to see that in the store, either.
"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service," man!
Click to embiggenate, or spare your eyeballs and don't.
(source: Moms Demand Attention Action)

So again, I'm asking that we, collectively, throw Kroger some business and thank them for upholding the rule of law, and our rights. They did right by us - even it if was just refusing to get caught in the middle - so we need to do right by them.

(Hat tip: Bitter at Shall Not Be Infringed)
------------
* - With the most sincere apologies to George Lucas.

A Price of Freedom - The 2nd Amendment's Defining Moment

Several days ago we celebrated a ruling that struck down the majority of California’s 10 Day Waiting Period law as un-Constitutional.  SAF Wins on Waiting Periods In California!

At the same time, the petulant boys and girls of the California Loonieslature were churning out a host of very bad anti-gun bills.  2014 California Gun Bills

One step forward -- Four steps back.

Cali Pols Hard at Work (iaconoresearch)

It's relatively easy to pass legislation, especially in California’s overwhelmingly one-party, looney left legislature. It's what those busy little biebers do to avoid honest work. Paid for by the much-abused taxpayer, the avalanche of new laws each year makes living and working in the Grate State of California a head-swimming experience. Especially, if you are one of the elite’s despised minorities: a businessman, smoker, or gun owner. 

SCOTUS (Bokertov)

Fighting bad laws in Court is an expensive, one-at-a-time, years-long process. Often the California fight must go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) with the progressive leanings of the local courts and the lovingly defamed Ninth Circus Court of Appeals. That torturous path can take decades. At times, it seems that the tide of anti-gun legislation is an all but an unstoppable flood. 

However, there’s hope, according to a Forbes article: The Second Amendment's Defining Moment. In a very gun rights favorable piece, Frank Miniter points out the Heller and McDonald decisions are starting to be incorporated in the host of lawsuit brought after the SCOTUS decisions. The aforementioned 10 Day Waiting Period case being a prime example of the changes Heller is making. Even where the RKBA loses, as in the Maryland Assault Weapons case, the decision was made by deliberately refuting the Supreme Court decisions. It should be pointed out to the district court judge that You. Can’t. Do. That. As such, the decision will likely be overturned by a higher court. 

These court victories have not come by happenstance. They are the product of far-seeing visionaries, decades long commitments and significant amounts of long-term funding. Heller/ McDonald were a long time coming, starting with legal research and legal journal publications supporting the Second Amendment. Then came the metric sh!tload of lawyers filing carefully chosen and coordinated lawsuits. It took money - a lot of money - much of it coming from the people, through organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA. As the post Heller/ McDonald suits are pressed through the legal system, with each win, an  all-important precedence is established. Perhaps, just perhaps, choking off the flood of anti-gun laws at the source.

Takeaways:

• Elections matter. The President appoints the Federal judges and the Senate confirms them. Hold your nose if you must, but vote Republican for Senate if you want to limit the number of progressive, anti-Constitutional judges confirmed. But, by all means VOTE!
  
  
• Donate to the organizations that are suing and winning for us. Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation has proven to be a Past Master at the three-dimensional chess that is gradually pulling down the anti-gun edifice. Other, ill-considered suits, with the wrong plaintiff at the wrong time, have hurt our cause.

I’m donating to the proven winners: SAF, CalGuns, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the NRA-ILA

 

            FightON!!!