Of Life and Liberty

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

A letter response from Diane Harkey about AB962

I wrote to her and the other committee members letting them know that I thought this bill was an atrocious piece of garbage. Here is her response.

Dear DJK,

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding our mutual gun rights in California. First, let me be clear - I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I do not support AB 962 and will oppose it in Appropriations Committee.

I believe AB 962 puts more limitations on the rights of legal gun owners. This bill will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or dangerous people living in our communities. Limiting the transfer or sale of ammunition to 50 rounds per month, the equivalent of one box of handgun ammunition, will have a devastating impact on legal firearms retailers. Average sales volumes regularly exceed the proposed limit, which would subject the majority of firearms business owners to a new set of bureaucratic rules and regulations regarding licensure, storage and sale procedures. This would force many small businesses that rely on ammunition sales as their primary revenue to incur additional costs in order to comply with the provisions of AB 962. As one may guess, such costs would definitely be passed along to the consumer. This burdensome and unnecessary regulation would drive a sizable number of retailers out of business altogether.

Further, AB 962 would hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to transfer ownership of ammunition between private parties such as family members by requiring individuals to be licensed by the Department of Justice if the 50-round thresholds are exceeded.

This outrageous proposal adds yet another layer of red tape where appropriate regulation already exists and infringes further upon individual freedoms of every California citizens’ Right to Bear Arms.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to make your voice heard – I stand with you on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff at (949) 347-7301 if I may be of further service.

Sincerely,

DIANE L. HARKEY

Assemblywoman, 73rd District

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

What is a "Three Percenter"? III

What is a "Three Percenter"?
During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders' Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

The "Gun Show Loophole"

Published December 28 2008

Local view: Firearms prohibitionists take their meddling to people’s living rooms

By: Russ Stewart , Duluth News Tribune

A week before Minnesota’s firearm deer season I visited my 86-year-old father. He regaled me with an entertaining stream of tales from his 70 years as a deer hunter in the north woods. He lamented his failing eyesight and then rose from his ancient recliner and went to the closet where he keeps his guns. He took out a battered old case and handed it me. “I want you to have this.”

I knew what was inside. A Savage model 219 single-shot 30-30 rifle. My father bought it in 1944 for $12. It’s well worn after more than 60 years of hard use. It was an honor to be given such an heirloom. Over the past few years my father has passed on most of his modest collection of firearms to his children and grandchildren. It is his way of passing on our family’s heritage.

However, if some people had their way, my father would be a felon the next time he passed on a firearm to a family member. These people complain about a so-called “gun show loophole,” which, if you were to accept the rhetoric of firearm prohibitionists, is responsible for an endless stream of death and carnage.

In truth, attempts to close the “loophole” are really attacks on cherished freedoms that have been quietly enjoyed by millions of Americans since the founding of our nation. With the exception of those unfortunate residents of a few nanny-states, citizens of the U.S. always have been able to gift, buy, sell and trade firearms without the interference of government.

But if people like Duluth’s Joan Peterson, a member of the national board of trustees of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (and the author of the Dec. 9 Local View commentary, “ ‘Gun show loophole,’ still open in Minnesota, must be closed”) are able to enact their legislative agenda, this liberty will be extinguished. The sad part is that if they are successful, crime rates would be unaffected. It is well established that only a tiny fraction of guns used to commit crimes come from gun shows. But that doesn’t stop the prohibitionists from scaring people with exaggerated stories.

Peterson wrote that we need to pass a law to “require unlicensed sellers to perform background checks on buyers at gun shows and other venues.” What she didn’t write was that these “other venues” include my father’s living room. The proposed legislation requires a background check for every private firearm bought, sold or gifted. So when Peterson claimed the proposed law “wouldn’t change anything for law-abiding citizens,” she was simply wrong.

Another thing firearm prohibitionists won’t tell you is that in order for a universal background check system to be effective, every gun would need to be registered with the government.

There are those who would take offense at my use of the term “prohibitionist” to describe members of groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Northland Million Moms, but actions speak louder than words. While speaking of “reasonable gun laws,” they advocate a program of incremental prohibition of private firearm ownership.

Our nation already has more than 20,000 laws relating to firearms, and 99 percent of them are an affront to liberty. As new laws are introduced in response to Brady Campaign scare tactics, I am reminded of the words of Ben Franklin: “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

I’ve got news for the prohibitionists of the world. My father won’t give up his freedom to pass on his legacy without government interference — and neither will I, nor will my family, nor my friends. Nor will millions of other freedom-loving citizens. The passage of a new set of gun-control laws would simply create a new class of felons out of formerly law-abiding citizens.

And that may have a set of unintended consequences all its own.

RUSS STEWART of Duluth served two terms on the City Council and is a professor at Lake Superior College.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

This is RICH!! or In-fu**ing-credible!!

How much contempt do these TSA agents have for this guy....just because he's got a wad of cash on him. Do they do this to celebrities who often probably have 3-10 grand in cash on them all the time??

Stossel

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Fixing California's Ecomomy, Crime, Energy, etc...

Why not tap into the cashflow that could come from California's marijuana market?? It could mean an estimated $1B per year!

Friday, February 27, 2009

Backpedaling on the new "Assault Weapons" ban...

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d27-Backpedaling-on-the-new-assault-weapons-ban

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Matches and Quarters - What's a Chumbolone?

Chicago Politics at it's best. One brother starts fires in and the other steals cash from the city they work for.....and they both get treated like royalty. Mayor Daley should really be strung up and starved. I just hope Rod Blagojavich starts talking about these "improprieties" in public. I mean....we can see the stuff happening before our very eyes but nobody will believe it until Blago or some other jagoff like maybe Chris Brown, Ashley Judd, or Jay Z say it on tv..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-matches-bd-15-feb15,0,6060540.column

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Academia = pants shitters and cry babies

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d11-Children-of-men

The Western Oregon Journal headline was alarming enough:

Mid-morning arrest startles students...Individual brings weapons on campus in violation of state law

My goodness. Did authorities just stop a proto-Cho before he could unleash psychotic mayhem?

Well, uh, no.

It turns out student and United States Marine Corps veteran Jeffrey Maxwell, who fit the description of someone committing the heinous crime of loitering on campus, was sitting at a study table, and:

although Maxwell did have a loaded firearm on his person, he did not use it in a threatening way and was cooperative with the police.

Maxwell had a valid permit for possessing concealed weapons...

Oh, but that doesn't matter, maintained campus police:

"Even if you have a concealed weapons permit, you can't have a weapon concealed on your person if you're going to be in any buildings on campus."

...Western firearm and munition policies are administrative and correspond to Oregon University System policies, which are not necessarily the same as state regulations.

"We go one step further and say, look, no weapons are allowed on campus, period"...

Oh, a "gun free zone." Where haven't we seen that work out for the best?

Still, the thing is, hysterical student newspaper headlines notwithstanding, violating administrative policy is not a crime.

Furthermore, Oregon Firearms Federation tells us, Maxwell "is statutorily exempt." As the facts of the case bear out:

The WOU student who was falsely arrested and charged with possession of a firearm in a public building, had all his criminal charges dropped by the Polk County DA tonight.

End of story, right?

Well, uh, no. The gunhaters must have their pound of flesh. A college tribunal, consisting of "four unnamed students and one staff member of WOU" bent to the will of "prosecutor" Patrick Moser, Acting Coordinator of Campus Judicial Affairs.

Maxwell's request for a public "trial" was denied. The students sitting in judgment couldn't specify a charge. The fact that they lacked legal authority was deemed "not relevant."

The tribunal that tried Marine veteran Jeffery Maxwell laughed after suspending him from Western Oregon University and sentencing him to:

a "psychological evaluation stating he is not a threat to himself of others" and

a mandatory "ten page paper" " with references, "citing, but not limited to:
1) the importance of following the law, even through civil disobedience.
2) the importance of accepting responsibility for one's actions
3) and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others."

Children sitting in judgment of a man. Their sentence: Prove you're sane for the crime of having the means to defend yourself. Prepare and sign a forced confession.

There's the type of society I want to live in.

Still, I could have fun with that paper. We all can.

How would you address the three required points?

Maybe I'll compile that into a 10-page paper, and send it in to Prosecutor Moser and his little Jugendgericht.

------------

Anti-gun land bill

From Gun Owners of America:

Lost in all the news of the massive bailout bill that just passed the Senate is another enormous bill, one that increases federal control of public and private land.

Of particular concern to gun owners is that the bill, S. 22, will greatly expand the amount of land controlled by the National Park Service. NPS land is currently subject to a gun ban.

While President Bush took steps in the waning days of his presidency to reverse the ban, the new regulations apply to persons who carry a concealed firearm with a permit. Non-permit holders and open carry are not explicitly addressed.

Norfolk, VA City Council takes a whoopin from citizens...

http://likeagun.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/a-big-w-for-a-bmwag/trackback/

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Gun Rights Examiner by David Codrea

Another entry at Examiner from David Codrea - http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d5-A-failing-grade

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Cowtown Cop on Open Carry

http://cowtowncop.blogspot.com/2008/12/open-carry-debate.html

The Open Carry Debate
from Cowtown Cop by Cowtown Cop
What do you think of Open Carry in the State of Texas?

I am hearing more and more attention paid to the open carry debate in the media. By and large the general negative thrust of what the media are saying is this.

1. More people carrying guns will result in an “Old West Mentality” with gun battles erupting from every minor disagreement.

2. Concealed Carry is a deterrent to crime in that the criminals have to guess whether or not you are carrying a gun.

3. Openly carrying a gun will make you a target for criminals.

4. They don’t want stupid people carrying guns.

To confront the first point head on we have the example of many other States in our great Nation that permit open carry of a firearm and we do not see that they have degenerated into a lawless society populated by steely eyed gunmen who are wide in the shoulders and narrow in the hips, who stand six foot tall in their sock feet, when they had socks that is. But I digress into a cheesy western novel, on to the next point.

Your average criminal doesn't even try to “guess” if you have a gun. Your average criminal is looking for someone who is distracted or unaware of their surroundings. If you look like an easy target then you are a target. If you seem somewhat alert and on guard the criminal will pass you by and pick an easier target. Having a concealed weapon does not in itself deter an attack. What deters a criminal is the fact that if you have gone to the trouble of legally carrying a firearm you probably have put some thought into being aware and alert to your surroundings. In effect you no longer look like an easy target.

The third objection gives common criminals a lot of credit they don’t deserve. If carrying a gun made you a target for criminals then there would be some evidence of attacks on person who are known to be armed. This just doesn’t happen. Think of a gun show, lots of people with guns walking to and from their vehicles, yet there are almost no attacks? Police officers work the streets every day but the instances of them being attacked for the purpose of disarming them are relatively rare.

You know, that last one, I don’t really relish stupid people carrying guns either. Unfortunately our society has not yet supported my plan to eradicate stupidity by letting ME choose who gets it. On a more serious note, we cannot legislate against the majority just because of a few idiots. The precedent shows that the vast majority of folks who decide to carry a firearm will act in a responsible manner. Yes, there will be some dummies that do stupid stuff with their guns but we have the means to deal with that. Besides, we let stupid people drive cars don’t we? If you do something stupid with a car we call it an “accident”. If you do something stupid with a gun we call it a crime and we put you in jail.

The last thing I have heard from people who are plainly afraid of guns and don’t want anything to do with them is this. “I live in a “good” area, I don’t go to “bad” places after dark, I lock my doors at home and in my car when I drive, I feel safe, I have an alarm, the police are there to protect me from harm, WE DON’T NEED ANY MORE OF THOSE SCARY GUNS.

These people are not willing to accept that their comfortable lives might not be so safe and secure. The statistics show that you will most likely know the person who commits a violent crime against you. You will most likely be at home or close to it in your “good” neighborhood. You will most likely have family members present or near by when it happens. And when it does happen you will have your mistaken belief in safety and security forcibly torn from you in the face of a brutal and harsh reality.

I have talked to some broken, violated and emotionally destroyed people who could do nothing but hope that their attacker would have mercy on them. They can no longer afford to believe that something else will protect them.

On the other hand I have talked to people who have fought back and won. These people are usually exhilarated to be alive and proud of their success in defending themselves or their family. These people do not suffer the same as the ones who could do nothing.

If the legislature can make it a little easier for good folks to protect themselves from harm I am all for it.

Monday, December 22, 2008

On a day like this 158 years ago....California became a state

http://passtheammo.com/2008/12/california-still-the-same/

Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 158 years ago?

California became a state.
The State had no electricity.
The State had no money.
Almost everyone spoke Spanish.
There were gunfights in the streets.

So basically, it was just like California today; except the women had real breasts and the men didn’t hold hands.