What’s going to make me comfortable… is when people stop coming into this office and acting like there’s a debate about it. The debate is over. The guns are downloadable. The files are in the public domain. You cannot take them back. You can adjust your politics to this reality. You will not ask me to adjust mine.
Archive for category: Guns
Yeah, I know. Everyone is using that as the title of their post about Code Is Free Speech
For the few of you who don’t know, let me borrow some text from the site:
CodeIsFreeSpeech.com is a publicly-available Web site for truthful, non-misleading, non-commercial speech and information that is protected under the United States Constitution. The purpose of this project is to allow people to share knowledge and empower them to exercise their fundamental, individual rights. CodeIsFreeSpeech.com is a project of Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, and a number of individuals who are passionate about the Constitution and individual liberties. We wish to thank Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed for their courage, passion, innovation, and inspiration.
Download all the plans!
EDIT: It looks like Amazon wasn’t comfortable hosting the site and has shut it down. But, everything is already out there, so as soon as I find a good repository, I’ll post it.
EDIT 2 – BACK UP!
H/t John Richardson
Well, maybe one-and-a-half. Or three-and-a-half.
First, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation made the feds blink. In essence, the feds conceded that DD has a First Amendment to distribute CAD plans for 3-D printed gun parts, including parts to assemble an entire gun. RKBA activists often say that the Second Amendment protects the First, and this proved the reverse is also true. Another tidbit out of this agreement is that the feds stated that semiautomatic arms under .50 cal are not considered military arms – including platforms like the AR-15. That could have some downstream ramifications.
Second, is a 9th Circuit ruling that the Second Amendment extends to carrying weapons outside of the home. Since the Ninth previously said that states can prohibit concealed carry, that means that open carry is fully allowed for those states that fall under the Ninth’s jurisdiction. This is kind of a half victory, because I fully expect this to be overturned by an en banc ruling. OTOH, that just might be the impetus to kick it up to SCOTUS, who with a new judge might be willing to add to Heller.
No matter how you tally the results, we’ve scored some wins.
So, the big news over the weekend was a “shooting over a parking spot” where the shooter “got off because Stand Your Ground.” And the shooter was known for “being a problem and using racial slurs.” In short, the local news is spinning this for all its worth.
Let’s go to the film!https://youtube.com/watch?v=9nFtxkJ7ywg%3Fversion%3D3%26rel%3D1%26fs%3D1%26autohide%3D2%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26wmode%3Dtransparent
The shooter is probably an asshole. He may have used racial slurs in the past. He also did not initiate the attack. He was shoved to the ground and facing at least one attacker (man) and maybe two (man & girlfriend). Enough to make a disparity of force. Essentially, almost anyone in that position would meet the criteria for a self-defense shooting.
Shall we tally up everyone’s mistakes?
Girlfriend shouldn’t have parked in the handicapped slot. Really? You were in such a rush that you needed to park there?
Getting into a shouting match over a parking spot. Exactly what did you think shouting at someone over parking in a handicap spot will do? Prove your superiority?
Physically attack someone because he’s shouting at your girlfriend. Your first instinct is to attack? Exactly what was going through your head when that decision was made?
What is the common theme?
Check your damned ego!
The Atlantic published an article quoting a Yale professor on how ultimately the law rests on the use of violence. It’s pretty much just quoting Professor Stephen L. Carter, but the man’s writing is good enough that I’m going to lift the intro. Just RTWT.
Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence. Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.
This is by no means an argument against having laws.
It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal. Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff – or the SWAT team – or if necessary the National Guard. Is this an exaggeration? Ask the family of Eric Garner, who died as a result of a decision to crack down on the sale of untaxed cigarettes. That’s the crime for which he was being arrested. Yes, yes, the police were the proximate cause of his death, but the crackdown was a political decree.
The pithy saying is don’t advocate for any law you wouldn’t want someone to kill a member of your family over.
Cleaning up some open tabs. As my readers should know, Reason magazine is where I get a lot of my news and analysis.
California Supreme Court Rules Impossible Laws Are Constitutional Basically, the court says impossibility can be a defense, but does not invalidate the law. Okay, I can understand that concept in theory, but it has real world costs for people forced to defend themselves from overzealous prosecutors enforcing this bullshit law. This is the kind of legal wonky ruling that reduces confidence in legal thinkers.
Illinois Court Rules That Police Can’t Arrest A Person For Carrying a Gun Without Checking For Valid Permit. This kind of balances out the previous article. I’d say I was surprised it came out of Illinois, but their courts have been much better on RKBA than the legislature.
A federal judge has blocked Tennessee’s practice of suspending driver’s licenses for unpaid court fees without first determining if the debtors are too poor to pay. This is a good step to remedying the vicious cycle of fines, suspension, jail that plagued the lower income communities.
Reason Is Concerned That the Recent Loss by the Southern Poverty Law Center Could be a Threat to Free Speech. I understand the concern that defamation suits can have a chilling effect on speech, which is why I support strong Anti-SLAPP laws. I will also admit to my own schadenfreude against the SPLC.
DC Taxes the Hell Out of Ride Sharing to Prop Up Broken Metro System. In my trips to DC, I’ve never had to deal with the numerous issues plaguing the Metro. That being said, with the coming changes in vehicles (automation and electric), I can’t support additional taxes to rail that is on its way out, much less an agency as troubled as the Metro.
“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
Seemed appropriate since this week marks a decade since the decision.
I just renewed my membership to the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Why? Because I carry a gun for self defense. Doing so means that there is a non-zero chance that I might have to use that gun to defend myself or others. If that non-zero chance happens, I don’t have the resources – financially and knowledge – to navigate the legal system.
For less than $100 a year the network provides:
Attorney and legal expenses paid after a self-defense incident, including–
–Fee deposit paid to your attorney immediately after self defense for representation during questioning and other vital defense services.
–Bail assistance: The Network provides up to $25,000 to post bail on behalf of a member who has used force in self defense. Click here for details.
–Further funding for legal defense expenses after justifiable self defense if criminally charged or sued in civil court.
• Education: 8 full-length lectures on DVD and a 235-page book so you know what’s justifiable, what to expect and how to best interact with the criminal justice system.
• Guidance from our Advisory Board comprised of the recognized leaders in self-defense training: Massad Ayoob, John Farnam, James Fleming, Tom Givens, Emanuel Kapelsohn and Dennis Tueller, led by Network President Marty Hayes.
• Access to a growing nationwide network of attorneys and legal experts. Read more here.
• Monthly education and updates through our online journal.
“If you’re fighting homophobia but not hoplophobia you’re doing it wrong.
If you’re fighting hoplophobia but not homophobia you’re also doing it wrong.”
Reason posted an article asking of the NRA is too Republican. Here’s where I have to do some prep work to properly discuss this topic. First, yes, I am a member of the NRA and donate to the NRA-ILA (the political wing of the organization). It’s also important to remember that the NRA is not some monolith out of 2001. There are six million dues-paying members. They represent a wide variety of views, including on the Second Amendment. For this post, if I’m saying NRA, I’m going to be talking about the current executive leadership. The one that makes the day-to-day decisions.
Because, the NRA may not be too Republican, but it’s definitely too conservative. I don’t mind that when fighting for my Second Amendment rights, but the NRA has been stepping out into the wider debate on societal issues. (I despise using the term “culture war.”) To be fair, some of it was foisted on the NRA by the media and political players, but some of it appears to be playing to the large part of the base.
Except, I’m not in that base. I’m too liberal on social issues, too atheist, and too indoorsy. Or at least it seems that way when I look at who the NRA chooses to put in front of the cameras.
Here’s why I’m bitching. We exhort the vast majority of gun owners to join the NRA. Why should they when the NRA refuses to represent them? We castigate anti-gunners for lumping all gun owners with criminals, but then the NRA goes and does the same thing to anyone on the left of the political spectrum.
And can the NRA please just shut the fuck up about violent video games? There’s no good evidence that such a popular medium drives people to murder. What it does is alienate many of the people who would join us.
I am an NRA member, but there are days when I wonder if my limited money would be better spent.