Freedom

Knife rights update

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

As previously noted here and here, there were issues with the way US Customs and Border Patrol was reclassifying certain knives. It would have risked instantly criminalizing millions of law-abiding US citizens as well as removing many useful tools from everyday use.

I received an email update from the KnifeRights.org folk:

Customs Officially Backs Off

In a letter to Representative Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Customs and Border Protection has officially backed off their proposed revocations and rulemaking in recognition of the Amendment that was passed by the Senate which would add a new exception to the Switchblade Act covering assisted and one-hand opening knives, at least until the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill is acted upon in Conference Committee.

You can read the letter here <http://www.kniferights.org/Customs_response_07212009.pdf> , but the key paragraph reads “The amendment would effectively obviate the need for CBP’s proposed revocations and render the current issue moot. Additionally, due to the numerous comments received in response to the proposed revocation, it is unlikely that CBP will take any further action prior to passage of the Appropriations Act.

This is about as close to a victory as we can come at this time. It may not be over until the fat lady sings, and we actually get the Amendment through Conference Committee, but for all practical purposes, we shouldn’t have to worry about Customs reaching into your pockets for your pocket knives anytime soon. Do take note that Customs has included some ambiguous wording in their letter, leaving their options open, no surprise. But, make no mistake, they have gotten the message; don’t mess with our pocket knives!

This is a welcome bit of progress, and it shows how a vigilant citizenry is the only check against government running amuck across our lives. There’s still work to be done, but so far so good.

Just exactly how much is too much?

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Linoge wonders about the same thing I’ve always wondered: just how much is too much?

Whenever someone says “too many” or “too much” or even “too little”, that always brings an implication of “just the right amount.”

So what is that right amount? Someone will say that “oh that’s too much/little” and then I’ll reply asking them “OK, then what’s the right amount?” and no one can ever answer that…. unless it’s a knee jerk “one is too many” sort of reaction, like Linoge mentions.

Give his post a read.

Sen. Murray supports states rights (when it’s convenient)

/ hsoi

Joe Huffman has a nice little back and forth between himself and his US Senator Murray.

Joe’s original email was regarding support for the Thune Amendment. Says Sen. Murray:

Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue.

Joe’s response:

Since you are of the opinion that legislation to regulate the use of firearms is, and should remain, primarily a state issue I presume I can count on your support of efforts to remove firearm regulations at the Federal level. I would like to suggest you introduce legislation to undo the continuing infringement of our rights inflicted by the following Federal firearms laws:

• National Firearms Act of 1934
• Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Hughes Amendment
• The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Once those are infringements have been successfully resolved I will be glad to provide you with a list of other Federal firearms laws that need to be eliminated as well.

Go read the whole thing.

Well done, Joe. I’m doubting you’ll get a response, or if you do that it will be anything more than boilerplate “thank you drive through”. Still, one can have a little hope that a worthwhile response may come from the Senator.

So what do you do?

/ hsoi

Caleb recounts how he just went to a concert and had to disarm himself. I’ve run into this same situation.

This is why we cannot be one-trick ponies, relying upon guns alone. To carry other weaponry such as a knife, collapsable baton, pepper spray (women will likely be able to get away with this more than men can) — a layered approach. But of course, even those may not be permissible given the venue. Thus all you are left with are your wits and your hands.

This is why it’s good to know how to use your empty hands.

But this is why it’s even better to know how to use your brain, keep your wits about you, be aware, and follow that first rule of self-defense: ABC — Always Be Cool. That seems to hold even moreso in a context like a concert, where cool is so much what it’s about.

Sotomayor and the NRA

/ hsoi

It took a while, but the NRA has officially come out against Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination for SCOTUS.

Certainly the NRA brings up Sotomayor’s anti-2A record:

Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

But I think a bigger judicial issue is involved, and one that should concern all US citizens, including those that may be pro gun-control:

The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment.  History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation.

This is a larger issue (14A), and one generally hostile towards protecting and preserving the freedoms this country was founded upon.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.  In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States.  Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

If she’s going to make such mistakes and disregard the ruling of the highest court — the one she’s now attempting to gain a seat upon — what sort of respect does she have for that court? And what sort of behavior is it to be so disregarding? Can the American Citizens trust such behavior?

What will make this rather interesting is apparently the NRA will count the Sotomayor vote towards NRA grade/score. We’ll see what happens.

Gun control works

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

… just a question of who does it work for.

Over at Howard Nemerov’s website, a little back and forth in one article’s comments lead to Howard writing a full follow-up article asking if civilian gun ownership causes bloodshed.

His conclusion? Gun control works:

Don’t like Jews or Catholics? Hitler disarmed them and then murdered millions in concentration camps, along with Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.

Hate Christians? After Uganda banned guns, 300,000 were rounded up and murdered.

Don’t like “smart” people? After banning guns, Cambodia rounded up and murdered over one million of them.

Hate people who disagree with you? After the Soviet Union established gun control, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

Of course, if it works or not all depends whose side you’re wanting it to work for.

Howard continues:

By comparison, the Second Amendment has actually saved millions of lives. It also protects your right to religious freedom, your pursuit of happiness, and your opportunity for upward mobility. It raises the cost for thugs who want you rounded up and murdered.

It also shows that anybody who is against the civil right of self-defense is a person who hates your life, liberty, and happiness.

Why would you want to be disarmed before such a person?

Indeed, why would you?

For all those that love the protections 1A gives to the God-given rights enumerated therein, remember that it’s 2A that helps to preserve those rights. The facts of history bears this out.

It’s not about guns, it’s about liberty

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Howard Nemerov examines if the Second Amendment to the US Constitution actually works.

But he goes further than that:

According to some, every crime victim must successfully use a gun to fight off an intruder, and every criminal must be unable to use a gun in furtherance of their enterprise, or else the Second Amendment is a failure and should be removed from the Bill of Rights.

Curiously, these complainers never apply the same criterion against other rights. Since their comments seem to consistently evoke counter-points from other readers, it would seem their exercise of free speech isn’t getting them anywhere, so are they going to lobby for repeal of the First Amendment?

OH! They already have!

McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.

Fairness Doctrine.

Old Media coverage of the civil right of self-defense.

Their actions identify them as anti-Liberty. It’s not about guns.

Joe knows this guy from East Germany…

/ hsoi

… and tells us about him.

A few choice quotes:

He hates the communists. “Communism makes people lazy. Yah!”

And this is most telling:

“Joe”, he said, “People complain about how unequal things are with the rich executives in a capitalist society. But it’s just the same under communism–it’s the politically connected that have the money and the people that aren’t connected don’t have anything. I know. I lived it. Communism, it’s very bad.”

I still got it

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Had a nice Independence Day weekend with the in-laws.

Up at the father&mother-in-law abode, they have a “tank” — basically, a pond. When they expanded its size about 4 years ago, they stocked it with some fish. My kids have been on a fishing kick lately, so they wanted to go fishing and fishing they got. Actually, this was more “catching” than it was “fishing”, but still great! Oldest caught a catfish and 2 largemouth bass. Daughter caught a catfish. Youngest caught a catfish and a couple bluegill. All the keepers were about 2-3# in size, bass were 14-16″ and catfish 19-21″. Kept 5 total fish, and some were thrown back. It was a big learning experience for Youngest because he’d get some fight on his line then the fish would throw the hook… Youngest got upset about it, but he has to learn that sometimes that’s what happens. A few minutes later it even happened to me and Youngest saw it (just a few feet from shore, and Youngest even got to see the fish throwing the hook) — see? even happens to Daddy!

Nevertheless, a good time catching fish. Brought them back up to the house and I learned that my fish cleaning skills are still with me. I haven’t cleaned a fish since I was a teenager (either haven’t fished or have only fished catch-and-release), but I still got it. We’re going to have some fried catfish and bass for lunch today.

After that, went to my brother-in-law’s place. Kiddos got to swim. Ate good food. Fireworks too. Since we live in the city (Austin only allows things like sparklers and snakes) and typically have burn bans, we don’t get much for fireworks. But my brother-in-law had no such issues so they bought all sorts of things. Kids got to shoot some stuff off, see some rather big shells going off. It was quite cool for them to finally get to experience fireworks beyond the little dinky things that we might get to do on occasion.

It was a hot, tiring, weekend. But ever such a good one. Family’s important. Spend time with them. I don’t often hear people saying “gosh, I wish I spent more time at work” but often you’ll hear that folks wished they spent more time with their kids and family.

Anyway, I’ve got some fish to fry.

When in the course of human events…

/ hsoi

…it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the power of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and the Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Read the rest of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. Remember why this country was founded.