President Potato is Wrong

President Biden made a speech on gun control in New York. He said that

When the [Second] Amendment was passed, it didn’t say that anyone could own any kind of gun and any kind of weapon. You couldn’t buy a cannon when this Amendment was passed, so there’s no reason why you should be able to buy certain assault weapons.

President Joe Biden on gun control

The Amendment didn’t say that, for two reasons: First, the Amendments to the Constitution don’t say that people can do anything. The Amendments say that the GOVERNMENT can’t do things. The government can’t infringe on the right keep to bear arms, is what it says. Second, people DID own cannons. Privately organized and funded artillery companies in the colonies date all the way back to the 1630s. A century later, in the 1740s, there are records of Benjamin Franklin helping organize artillery companies while stressing that they were made completely of volunteers and armed at their own expense.

One of the driving forces behind the first major battles of the Revolutionary was because the British soldiers were coming to confiscate privately-owned arms – including cannons and mortars – such as ones that were being held by veterans of the French and Indian War as war trophies.

In fact, there were people who owned entire warships. See my post on this from 2013.

During the course of the Revolution, approximately 1,700 letters of Marque were issued to privateers. In the War of 1812, President James Madison issued more than 500 letters of Marque to privateers. These letters of marque created what was, essentially, legal piracy, and it was sanctioned by the government and even deemed necessary. So how did these privateers arm their vessels? With cannons that they purchased as individuals.

Our colonial navy had approximately 1,200 cannons on board less than 65 ships. The privateers, on the other hand, had almost 15,000 cannons – all privately owned.

The National Firearms Act of 1934, which is, by far, the most restrictive piece of Federal legislation related to the ownership of arms, says nothing about cannons. It wasn’t until 1968 that things we regard as modern artillery were regulated further when ‘destructive devices’ were added to the law.

But muzzleloading cannons, like the ones used during the Revolutionary War remain conspicuously absent in any legislation. You could buy a cannon as an individual in the Revolution era, and you can still buy one today as an individual.

The President then went on to say that the DOJ will be issuing restrictions on guns made at home within the next few weeks, what he calls a “National ghost gun enforcement initiative.” He also took a shot at the “assault weapon” boogieman.

You know, futures cut short by a man with a stolen Glock with 40 rounds. A magazine with 40 rounds. And it’s really a weapon of war. One of the things I was proudest of years ago when I was in the Senate, I was able to get these weapons and the size of magazines outlawed, that got changed, got overruled, but I don’t see any rationale why there should be such a weapon able to be purchased. It doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights to deny that.

President Joe Biden on the ’94 Assault Weapons Ban

The law didn’t get overruled. It expired. Because the law had a ten year expiration date built into it.

The President is also claiming that outlawing weapons doesn’t violate your right to own them. Since when?

Illegal Search

My wife and I recently had a date night. One of the places we went was to the Amway center to see comedian Gabriel Iglesias. When we entered the arena, we had to pass through magnetometers. I believe that this is illegal. Let me explain:

The Amway center is owned by the City of Orlando. They prohibit all weapons using this rule:

Although by state law, the City cannot regulate the admission of patrons with weapons, the vast majority of private event promoters who use the Amway Center do not allow patrons with weapons to be admitted to their events.

Every event that I have attended there has used those magnetometers. I sure would be interested in seeing the process for this. I am betting that there is a ‘standard contract’ that is signed that allows the city to hide behind this legal figleaf of claiming it is what the promoters want. Something like “sign here, this is our standard contract” and the contract has a clause in it that says “I promise not to allow anyone with weapons into my event.”

Why? Because Orlando is run by that fucking left wing asshole Buddy Dyer, who hasn’t seen a restriction on gun ownership that he doesn’t like. He has openly stated that he wants all guns to be illegal within the City of Orlando.

I also want to remind everyone that it is not illegal to enter this facility with a weapon. It is only illegal if they discover that you have a weapon, then ask you to leave, and you refuse. So I roll the dice and try anyway. Let’s just say that it is indeed possible to enter the Amway arena with weapons (plural) and not get caught.

Liberals on Rittenhouse

A liberal who admits that he didn’t watch a single moment of the trial, and who admits that he knows nothing about criminal law, is full of opinions on the Rittenhouse case, and claims that it sets a bad precedent: That anyone can pick up a gun and declare that they can go a “police a protest.”

He goes on to claim that this is an assault on free speech, because people will be intimidated because people can “show up with a gun” to stifle protests.

He claims that a person shows up to a protest with a gun is guilty of manslaughter, because a reasonable person should know that “something bad can happen” as a result.

Cage Weighs In

If you remember, there was quite a bit of disagreement on whether or not Baldwin was responsible for checking to ensure that the firearm he pointed at a staff member was safe, or if it was proper for him to accept another staff member’s word for it.

There are bloggers who insist that anyone who hasn’t made movies is unqualified to have an opinion. Perhaps Nicolas Cage has enough experience making movies for his opinion to matter. Cage explained that he believes it is an actor’s responsibility to be educated in the use of guns as part of their craft. Here is what he has to say on the matter:

You need to know how to fight. You’re going to do fight scenes. You need to know how to ride a motorcycle. You need to know how to use a stick shift and drive sports cars, and you do need to know how to use a gun. You do. You need to take the time to know what the procedure is. Those are part of the job profiles.

Nicolas Cage on the Baldwin ‘Rust’ shooting

Of course, we all know that rich and famous people follow a different set of rules from everyone else. For that reason, I don’t expect a rich, antigun movie star to be held legally accountable. Still, that doesn’t change his responsibility for what happened, even if he will never be held accountable.

I Wonder

The Manhattan DA has said he will not seek prison sentences for any crimes other than homicide or other cases involving the death of a victim, a class B violent felony in which a deadly weapon causes serious physical injury, domestic violence felonies, sex offenses in Article 130 of the Penal Law, public corruption, rackets, or major economic crimes, including any attempt to commit any such offense under Article 110 of the Penal Law, unless required by law.

Does that mean you won’t do time for owning an AR15 and a dozen 30 round magazines?

On Stupidity

Back in April of this year, Biden decided to take aim at the so-called “Ghost Gun” industry. This is what he had to say:

So the ATF decided to take aim at the DIY gun kits like the GST-9. As a result of this, they declared that selling an 80 percent firearm frame complete with all of the parts needed to turn that frame into a firearm is constructive possession and violates Federal law.

As a result, kit makers can’t put everything needed to turn an 80 percent frame into a firearm into the same box. So now they put them into two boxes, meaning that the rails for a Glock frame can’t be included in the same box as the rest of the (unfinished) frame. So now the rails come with the jig, which you must order separately.

Due to recently changed ATF regulations, we cannot legally include the jig or frame rails with the GST-9 frame. The jig and GST-9 frame must be purchased on our website as two separate items. Each jig includes one set of GST-9 frame rails. You will need to purchase one jig for every GST-9 frame you plan to build. Frame rails are ONLY included with the jig, not with the 80% lower itself.

https://www.80percentarms.com/products/gst-9-80-pistol-build-kit/

The jig with the rails can be in the same order as the frame and even ship at the same time, thus proving that efforts to control this industry are doomed to failure.

Charges?

The Santa Fe DA says this about Alec Baldwin:

“Guns don’t just go off. So whatever needs to happen to manipulate the firearm, he did that, and it was in his hands.”

Now I still think that Alec Baldwin has enough money and celebrity to get out of it. We all know that there are two sets of laws in this country: One for rich lefties, and one for the rest of us. That doesn’t mean that the law wasn’t broken, just that he will use connections to get out of it.

First and Second

Slate is always good for seeing the left’s faulty opinions, and this article is no exception. My first thought when I read the headline: “The Supreme Court May Elevate the Second Amendment Above the First” was something along the lines of, “Oh, what fresh idiocy is this?”

The article begins by pointing out that there are numerous restrictions on the time, manner, and place of free speech. Examples include rules that a ensure that expression does not interfere with their normal use. Rallies interfere with picnics and family gatherings. Parades and picketing block traffic and access to homes and businesses. The author then asks if firearms prevent the public from use and enjoyment of public spaces before going on to say:

Individuals may be injured and even killed when firearms are misused, improperly handled, or even when they are used properly. Even when a gunshot strikes the intended target, others may still be injured because the bullet may pass through the target and injure someone else or because the presence of the gun and gunfire cause a panic.

This is flawed, because the mere possession of firearms do nothing of the sort, any more than mere possession of a bible, political literature, or other materials that some find offensive interfere with the public’s use of a space. What the author is doing is conflating possession with use. No one is saying that people should be permitted to fire weapons in the middle of the street. The above argument is nothing more than the tired, old “yelling fire in a crowded theater” argument.

The author goes on to say:

the plaintiffs are not demanding the right to merely carry the firearm; they are demanding the right to use the firearm for self-defense. Thus, the fundamental question is not whether the presence of firearms threatens public safety but whether their use threatens public safety. The answer should be obvious, and the lessons of First Amendment jurisprudence should apply.

I actually agree. You see, using a firearm for self defense means that the person using that firearm is doing so to protect his own (or another’s) life from the unlawful use of force from a person illegally using that force. Just as a judge may prevent me from yelling out and disturbing his courtroom, no judge would argue that I cannot yell out to warn the occupants that the building is on fire, or that there is a man about to strike the judge with an axe from behind.

The author actually goes on to make a great point, and one which I agree with in principle, but I am betting not in the way that he is intending:

According to the court, “the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is unconstitutional.” The same should be true for firearms, and, arguably, this is where New York’s law fails. The requirement that applicants must show “proper cause” may be insufficiently clear and objective, allowing officials to exercise an unconstitutional amount of discretion.

If the court adopts this approach, it will follow a clearly marked path that will force New York to reconsider its standards for restricting guns in public, but allow it to still maintain some such standards. If the public forum doctrine is good enough for those seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights, it should be good enough for those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights as well.

My agreement here is that they should be permitted to require permits for concealed carry, as long as those permits are issued under clear, and unbiased criteria. I would accept shall issue- that is, anyone who completes a reasonable safety course and is not a prohibited person shall be issued a permit.

I am betting that isn’t what the author is thinking.

It isn’t taken if the thief doesn’t keep it

That is what the 9th circuit said today when it ruled that California’s ban on standard capacity magazines was not an unconstitutional taking.

Accordingly, the ban on legal possession of large-capacity magazines reasonably supported California’s effort to reduce the devastating damage wrought by mass shootings

and as far as the ban being a violation of the takings clause:

the government acquires nothing by virtue of the limitation on the capacity of magazines.

Therefore, they didn’t take anything. The Australians were disarmed in 1996. By 2020, nearly all guns were confiscated. This was the result:

Two months later, and the military began taking Australians off to the camps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGyc22ar2X0

The courts are not going to come to our rescue. There will soon be only two choices: Fight, or be taken away to the camps for our own safety.