Monthly Archives: October 2010

What Joan Peterson believes – 2 No Private Transfers of Firearms

Our favorite gun grabber, japete, has a mission. She has swallowed the Kool-Aid and jumped on the “Close the Gun Show Loophole” bandwagon. Let’s see what that would entail.

The gun grabbers call it the gun show loophole for two reasons. First, they want to scare you with the false idea that a Federal Firearms Licensee (gun store owners) can bypass the law and sell guns to felons at gun shows without doing a Brady check on them first. This is obviously wrong since the Brady Bill that set up the National Instant Check System does not make exceptions for FFL holders based on where the sale takes place. An FFL holder MUST complete the proper forms and call the NICS hotline for every purchaser, regardless of where the sale actually takes place. Basically, the “loophole” only applies to private sellers.

The second reason that the gun grabbers call it the gun show loophole is because they want to hide the fact that what they want is to ban ALL private transfers, not just the ones at gun shows. We already understand that the “loophole” is due to the fact that the Brady bill (along with the Gun Control Act of 1968) does not apply to persons selling their private collection of firearms. People engaged in the business of selling firearms must conduct the NICS check. That means you may, if you wish, sell a gun you already own to any person that may legally possess it. You do not need to seek permission from an agent of the State in order to legally sell your gun. Assuming there is no State level law that makes it illegal to transfer the particular firearm (NC requires a pistol purchase permit, PA requires pistols to go through an FFL or the local Sheriff) you may sell anything you own.

Our opponents regard this as no better than black marketeering. They imagine that everyone who privately sells his or her firearm is selling it to a criminal who cannot legally purchase. They also know that if you have to file paperwork with the State regarding who you sold your gun to it amounts to a registry. Knowing who owns the firearms has long been a goal of the Anti-Rights people.

But how does this affect you? According to Federal law, a handing your firearm to your wife and walking away amounts to a transfer. Loaning it to you father to shoot woodchucks in his back 40 (well, 18 in Dad’s case) is a transfer. Leaving the firearm unlocked in your house and giving your girlfriend a key to the front door is a transfer. The Feds seem to absolutely love something that they call “Constructive Possession.” From their prospective, merely having access to a firearm is possession of that firearm. Don’t believe me? Read up on firearms ownership for people married to felons and other federally disqualified people. Basically, if you have a gun you have to keep it locked in a locker that the other person cannot access, or the feds will charge that person with possession.

Closing the Gun show loophole will eliminate all private transfers. Imagine having to consult with the police about taking possession of your father’s gun collection after he dies. Imagine them cheerfully writing down the serial numbers of everything from Dad’s carry pistol to Grandpa’s deer rifle and then entering it into their database. In the end, that is the result the gun grabber’s desire. They want to know who owns what. They can never show up at your house and demand you turn over whatever politically incorrect firearm you have unless they know you have it. They would have to go door to door and search each and every house to get them. And they know what response that would get.

Let’s be honest. This isn’t about stopping criminals from having guns. Anyone with half a brain knows that the same people bringing cocaine and heroin across the border would start bringing machine guns and RPGs if they thought that they could make a buck. Criminals will always have access to guns simply because guns will always be smuggled to them. This is about knowing what you own and how many. This is about you, not your gun. Gun control is never about guns. It is about control. They want control and your gun in your hand means they can’t control you. That’s why they have to pry it out of your hand first.

Quote of the Day – Why do you need all those guns

From the comments thread of Same Planet, Different World over at Say Uncle,

 “Why do I need this gun, those guns, or all these guns and gun-things? Well, I’ll tell ya.
Like any machine, firearms can malfunction or break. So, if you have one, you probably could stand to have another as a back-up.
Now, each of these firearms works best in a certain performance envelope. Your handguns are ideal for short-range, no-notice situations. Your rifles, depending on how they’re configured, are good for middle, long, and very long range situations. Your shotguns, depending on the load, are good for a variety of short to middle-range situations.
You may want some extra to lend to friends and family.
And you need this variety, you see, because you never know when and where some idjit is going to pop up and declare himself your lord and master with the authority to determine for you what you need and don’t need.”

(This works best if the last line is delivered in an ominous tone while looking the questioner in the eye. )

Concealed Carry ban in Wisconsin ruled unconstitutional

A County judge in Wisconsin has ruled that the State ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional.

In the case, authorities charged a Sauk City man with carrying a concealed weapon, after he admitted he had a knife in his waistband. He never threatened anyone….
In his decision, (Judge Jon) Counsell states the law forces citizens to “go unarmed (thus not able to act in self defense), violate the law or carry openly,” but notes displaying weapon’s openly isn’t a “realistic alternative.”

Isn’t a realistic alternative is right if what happens to you is the goon squad snatches you up for Obstruction of Justice, blinks on that, and then issues you Disturbing the Peace citations. Hopefully the State Supreme Court will see it the same way. You just know that the hoplophobes in Wisconsin won’t let this just go.

The beauty of this is, if the statute is unconstitutional, they will need another statute to replace it or they end up in the same category as Vermont, which has no law against concealed carry at all! Think of all the delaying tactics a Winconsin Senator or Representative could use to stop passage of a concealed carry license bill. Wouldn’t it be fun for them to rub it in the faces of all those Senators and Representatives who did the same to them? Payback is a bitch.

Japete hits bottom, digs

Japete, who lacks the ability to tell truth from falsity, has hit a new low. Not satisfied with scraping the bottom of her mental barrel, she has decided to pick the barrel up and start digging in the moldy ground below.

And insulting people who have suffered the loss of a loved one to a gun is inexcusable. Representative Carolyn McCarthy lost her husband to a mass murderer with a gun on a Long Island commuter train. Her son was seriously injured. Six people were killed that day. Senseless. I have been regularly insulted, though the people doing so take issue with my comments calling them out for insults.
Let’s hope the gun guys responding here don’t decide to act on their dangerous views and hatred. Some of these folks appear ready to fight against their own government. Isn’t that called treason? I’m just saying… Is this common sense?

You have to read the whole rant, and her initial comments to get a real feel for the impending mental breakdown. She’s off her beam. Well, assuming she had a beam to start with. She actually said in comments that she thought that Rep. McCarthy (she of “the shoulder thing that goes up” fame) should be immune to criticism because her husband got murdered. This is whole new ground. Imagine what sort of world we would have if as soon as you suffered any tragedy at all, you could never be criticized again! Wrong is wrong, no matter how many dead bodies you stack between yourself and reality. I left her a comment, though I sincerely doubt she will post it. I think this marks the end of her comments policy. To be fair, I’m amazed we haven’t already gotten to the last phase of Reasoned Discourse ™ – closing comments.



(japete) “In other words, it’s perfectly O.K. for people to belong to anti-government armed militia groups because of this act.”

Are you reading a different comment thread than me or are you just that dense? The Militia is ALL able bodied men age 17-45. Period, point blank, end of story. You can argue about it all you want but you are wrong. Your feelings about it are irrelevant. You are entitled to have your own opinion, you aren’t entitled to your own facts. It’s not the fact that you are lying when you falsely equate the Militia with a bunch of criminal crazies like McVey, it’s the fact that you think we are so stupid that we don’t know any better that is so insulting.

(anon)”but that does not immunize her from criticism.”

(japete)”Yes. It does”

Umm no, it does not. And this is the crux of your problem with us. You imagine that since you have the misfortune to be related to a person who got murdered that we will pretend that you are not totally illogical and completely ignorant. The same can be said about the Rep. McCarthy. She has absolutely no idea what she is talking about as is increasingly clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. Judging by your photo, you are not 12 years old. Stop thinking and acting like a 12 year old. You will not be permitted to legislate, nor will we permit others to legislate, based on your strong “feelings.” And stop whining about the insults. You are acting like a child. You are whining like a child does when the parent refuses to give that child a cookie.

“Ban these guns ‘cause my sister got shot!!!”
“But my sister is DEAD!”
Your proposals don’t work
“But my SISTER IS DEAD!!!”
How does that change the fact that your proposals are illogical and counterproductive?

Firearms legislation should no more be based on your (or Rep. McCarthy’s) legendary ignorance than should surgical procedures be based on my utter lack of medical knowledge.

1.       Learn what you are talking about
2.       Learn the difference between truth and falsity
3.       Then and only then should you attempt to show how your proposed actions will have the positive effect you imagine that they will have.

You have reached the end of your run. Now you know why Anti-gun bloggers (except Laci and self-admitted criminal and narcissist MikeB) don’t have comments. You are almost totally alone. No one will pitch in on your comments (besides MikeB and Laci) and you are getting slammed so hard, so fast that you can’t keep up. You misrepresent, lie, and just plain misunderstand almost every comment left at your site. Do yourself a huge favor and close your comments entirely before you embarrass yourself any further. We will just slam you on our own sites and leave you to enjoy your paranoia in peace. You live in a nasty fantasy world where every gun is pointed at you, where the only people that aren’t crazy are you and your anti-gun co-religionists, and where the death of your sister 18 years ago justifies your extreme bigotry. Stop pretending to be the victim.

Get yourself some mental help quickly. They have pretty good medications nowadays that can really help you with that paranoia. Get medicated, get counseling, and get better. And stop letting the Brady Campaign use you. They don’t have your health or safety in mind when they throw you to the wolves like this. They are using you and they will discard you the moment you are no longer useful to them. They care about you exactly as much as the Democrat party cared about Cindy Sheehan the day after Obama got elected, which is to say – not at all.

You can post this comment or not. I don’t care if anyone else sees it here. They can read it on my blog if they want.

Peterson Syndrome

In the comments of my last post, big dog of the Gunblogosphere and proprietor of the famous Boomershot (auto-start audio warning!) Joe Huffman reiterated his common refrain that some people lack the ability to determine true from false.

In simple terms, most people can tell the difference between truth a not truth. Normal people can evaluate evidence, weigh facts, and come to a conclusion about whether or not a given hypothesis about reality ACTUALLY REFLECTS YOU KNOW, ACTUAL REALITY!!!
I can tell you that fire burns or rocks are hard. You can disagree if you like. I can light a fire under your backside and hit you over the head with a rock. What I can’t ever make you do is accept that fire burns and rocks are hard. You have to evaluate the evidence you are given (hopefully not so dramatically in your normal life) and decide if fire, in fact, burns and rocks are, in truth, hard.

Some people are so wedded to the monologue inside their own heads that no matter how many times their butt burns or their head aches, nothing gets through. It’s a mental defect. Joe further proposes

To the best of my knowledge we don’t have a word or phrase for her type of mental defect. Perhaps Peterson Syndrome could be used…

So there you have it. She suffers from Peterson Syndrome. Now you know the symptoms, go forth and diagnose!

Update: This is what Peterson Syndrome looks like

Laws of North Carolina that need to change, Part 4 – Random Checkpoints

Time to take a short break from guns.

Today’s hobbyhorse is North Carolina General Statute 20-16.3a, which gives police agencies the power to conduct random checkpoints. Now it may surprise you that in modern America, the local gendarmes can throw up a roadblock on any random road and start demanding “Papers, Please.” I think they use the please simply to confuse you. Make no mistake, it isn’t a request and refusal will land you in a heap of trouble.

I learned about the checkpoints the hard way. It was the weekend here just south of Raleigh and I was driving my truck, bicycle in the back, off to a local park for a morning bike ride. To be fair, the police officer didn’t actually sound like Sgt Schultz. He seemed confused that I would object to his eminently reasonable request that I provide to him a government issued permission slip that authorized me to use the public highways.

Typically, police are required to have Reasonably Articulable Suspicion or RAS in order to conduct a Terry Stop, which is a brief investigatory detention to determine if a crime is, was, or is about to be committed. In simple English, the cops need to have a reason to hassle you. They can’t just pull you over for the hell of it.

The Supreme Court decided in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz that it was ok to pull people over at a DUI checkpoint if the criteria were neutral, say every third car. The issue is, that was for drunk checks, not license checks. In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Supreme Court decided that checkpoints whose “whose primary purpose” is “to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing”. Driving without a driver’s license is ordinary criminal wrongdoing, and is not the special case of drunk driving. In my case, I called the local police and asked the Lieutenant in charge of the Traffic division if it was Traffic Division that was conducting the stops. It was not. That tells me that they were looking for ordinary criminal wrongdoing. I doubt that they were looking for drunks at 9am on a Saturday.

Aside from the legalities and inferences of Constitutional Law (Penumbras and Emanations and all that) we should consider the propriety of it all. Why should we be subjected to a uniformed agent of the State demanding our papers in the middle of the road? We should demand that all police stops be based on individualized suspicion. If the cop doesn’t have a good reason to bother me, he should be required by law to leave me alone.

Why ignorant people should never make law

Your average gun grabber is ignorant about the subject of firearms. Don’t believe me? Last night I set a trap for my favorite gun grabber and she walked right into it. I described my guns the way Paul Helmke would have and this morning got the chance to watch her pee herself. Let’s go to the tape.
Joan would have you believe that since she doesn’t want to bann ALL guns, she isn’t really a gun banner. She just wants to ban some guns. Just the ones that YOU want. I think you might get to keep your single shot .22. A sample

So I thought, let’s see what she really believes. Here’s my comment
            You don’t want to ban guns.

The experienced gunnies here will see where I was going with this. Here’s her response.
There we have it. Nearly every trope. All she has to do is say something about “the shoulder thing that goes up,” and it’s all complete!

Of course you have trouble, this is because of your lack of understanding.

my “Bolt action rifle capable of penetrating a police officer’s vest at 400 yards” is a Remington model 700 BDL chambered in .243 Winchester.

The Remington Model 700 is probably the most common bolt action rifle sold, and the .243 Winchester bullet is the absolute minimum size useable for deer hunting in most states. Topped with a Burris 3×9 scope it is used mostly to shoot woodchucks in my father’s back yard. What would you say when your learned that most rifles are much more powerful?

My “plastic framed pistol” is a common Springfield XD in .45ACP. 

If you were even slightly aware of how firearms are constructed, you would know that the chances of it making it through a metal detector are nil. Same as every other polymer framed gun.
As for carrying a “loaded, hidden, deadly weapon,” I consciously copied the wording that Paul Helmke uses when he whines that there are concealed carriers (like me) out there. Of course I admit to it. It’s perfectly legal.

This is why you cannot be taken seriously. When you cannot understand the basics of common firearms. Rifles, almost without exception, will shoot right through a police officer’s vest because police vests are designed to stop pistol rounds. Probably half of all pistols sold now are polymer framed. The slide and the barrel are metal, and they are easily seen on X-ray and metal detectors. And loaded, hidden, deadly weapons is your organization’s scare phrase to describe lawful concealed carry.

Yes. you want to ban (most) guns and (nearly all) carry.
And that is why the ignorant should not be in charge of policy. Policy should be based on facts and evidence, not feelings.

What Joan Peterson believes – 1 No Open Carry

In a new series, here is #1 on the list of things Joan Peterson, Board Member of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership Violence and proprietress of Common Gunsense.

No Open Carry. The sight of a person carrying a firearm while not wearing a State issued uniform appears to be a huge bugaboo for Joan. Apparently she is so scared of the sight of firearms that she wants to ban open carry. Here’s the first instance of Open Carry discussion. Starbucks looked at the bottom line and realized that getting in the middle of a discussion about the limits of the 2nd Amendment wasn’t going to help them sell coffee. Their solution? Whatever is legal according to State law was legal in Starbucks. What does Joan think of Open Carry?





Clearly Joan has an issue with open carry. Let me let you in on the secret. Open carry is designed to re-normalize the carry of firearms in public. For the last 50 years a concerted effort has been underway to portray gun owners as dangerous. If you never see a gun except carried by a police officer or in the movies and TV used by a criminal, you forget that the typical gun owner is your neighbor.

When normal average people see that gun owners are normal average people, the stereotypes start to fail. When your average non gun owning citizen realizes that “gun control” affects Bob down the street more than the criminals, he starts to question the value of “one more law.” That’s the real reason Joan Peterson and the rest of her Brady cronies are up in arms (pun intended) over Open Carry. They know in their black little hearts that unless they can keep Susie Jane housewife terrified of teh ebil gunnzzz, they are finished as an organization. It’s why anti-gun fanatics spazzed out when they saw Sarah Palin with a hunting rifle.

It is imperative that the gun grabbers keep their fellow citizens as far away from the truth as possible. One of the best ways to make them all cry is to join a local Open Carry group and learn how you can be a positive force for change in your area. Do like I did Saturday in Raleigh and attend an open carry dinner. When you have fellow diners come up and speak to you, laughing about how no robbers better show up, you will learn how little your neighbors actually fear guns. Hiding in the gun closet makes you think that you are alone, in the minority. You aren’t. You might be the leading edge, but there are plenty who will be willing to follow you.

Sarah Brady is crying

So a Democrat is loading and shooting his (hunting) rifle at Cap and Trade.

So he’s feeling the heat from a Republican, and his go to argument is “NRA endorses me!!!”

This is how you know it’s basically over for the anti-gun forces. Now I would be impressed if he did the shooting with an AR-15.

Quick pro tip. Eye and ear protection is good.

Gleefully stolen from.
ht Snowflakes in Hell

Why is MikeB banned?

In the comments policies below I have made it clear that MikeB is not permitted to post comments. You may wonder why. You might even wonder who “MikeB” is. Here’s my reasoning for this comment policy:

I am a peaceable armed citizen. I’m not exactly a “law abiding citizen,” because there are unjust laws. One cannot be moral and decent while simultaneously honoring and respecting unjust laws. All the same, most of the time laws are just and should be followed. As an honest citizen, it behooves me to scrupulously avoid the company of the low, unjust, and the plain criminal. MikeB, by his own admission is such a criminal.

People who not only own firearms illegally, but are bold enough to brag about it on the internet are not the sort of people that I want to be associated with. This is entirely separate from the fact that he is a lying, link whoring, anti-rights troll. Rather than rehash it, go here to read about it. I always say that there is no point re-inventing the wheel. Linoge was kind enough to write it all down for us, so read it at his place.


Due to some blog unpleasantness, I offer this email exchange with the person in question


Those are pretty strong words you wrote.  Like I said to Breda once, I swear to god you’ve got me all wrong. Did you take Linoge’s word for all that? I know he can be pretty convincing in an overwhelming kinda way.

For example, calling that quote about my having owned guns legally and illegally bragging, where do you get that?  It was nothing of the kind.  It was an attempt to respond to serious questions on a comment thread ONCE. It was Linoge and Weer’d who took it and ran with it.

You even described yourself as “not exactly a law-abiding citizen” because of the immoral laws. Why do you use such a rigid measuring stick with me?  My description of myself could be explained in many ways which don’t make me a “low, unjust, and [the] plain criminal.

Another thing is, do you really want to ban people? Aren’t you opposed to that kind of thing in general?  Isn’t that the antithesis of pro-rights philosophy?  Please reconsider.

So far you’re the first that I know of who’s banned me even before I ever visited.  Now, why don’t you be the first to lift the ban.  Make a post about it. It’ll do you good and your readers too.


It is you who have got me all wrong. It is not Linoge’s words that have condemned you, it is your own. You told of how you are(were?) a criminal. I do not permit criminals in my house. You are and will remain unwelcome.



For curiosity’s sake, what did you mean when you described yourself as not really law abiding? Is that not the same as criminal, using your harsh judgment?




The main difference is that, at such time that I feel the law is immoral enough to warrant breaking it, I will do so publicly, daring the government to arrest me. If a man feels that a law is worth breaking, he should have the courage to do so in the same manner as Gandhi or MLKjr. Moral and honest civil disobedience to change a law is honorable behavior. Ignoring the law for one’s own convenience is selfish and

for a person who advocates increased gun regulation, i find it strangely hypocritical that you are proud enough of your lawbreaking past that you tell everyone online. Perhaps you are assuming that since you have no respect for the law, none of the rest of us do either. In that you are very mistaken. It is because I have a respect for the law that I insist that the law be moral and based in the Constitution. When I find that the law is neither, I will work to return the law to its proper foundations.




Thanks for elaborating.  I mean it.

Consider something.  You have no idea what I did or failed to do in the past.  That excerpt from a post of mine was the only time I mentioned that business until months later after being viciously attacked scores of times by some of the pro-gun guys.  Then I wrote of it again basically to say I wouldn’t share any more of my past. You just don’t have enough information to conclude that I’m proud of anything, or ashamed of it for that matter.

You can’t possibly think it’s morally right to condemn someone on evidence like that.

You also cannot conclude that I have no respect for the law.  I do. The fact that I disagree with you on what the 2nd Amendment means in modern society, like a lot of people do, is not grounds to think I have no respect for the law.

I’m inviting you to separate yourself from the likes of Linoge and Weer’d and Bob S.  There are ways to fight for your cause without stooping to their level, examples abound.

I’m sure you’ve looked at my blog, but I invite you to participate there. It’s one of the best discussions around.  There are always five or six regular pro gun guys putting up the good fight for your cause. I’d love it if you’d join them.  You know how most of the pro-gun blogs don’t like disagreement and argument, they prefer like minded commenters. That’s why I’m blacklisted from so many.  And the gun control guys are worse, most don’t allow comments at all, as is continually pointed out. If you don’t want me coming to yours, come to mine.  I mean it.

Whatever you decide, I’ve enjoyed chatting with you. 

Take care,




>You can’t possibly think it’s morally right to condemn someone on evidence like that.

Condemn, no. Ban from my house and my blog, yes.

>I’m inviting you to separate yourself from the likes of Linoge and Weer’d and Bob S. 


>I’m sure you’ve looked at my blog,

No i haven’t. Like I said, I’ve been around a long while watching you get banned for cause.