Daugaard and Jackley Wrong Again: Second Amendment Does Not Protect Concealed Carry

Hey, did you notice that Dennis Daugaard and Marty Jackley were on the wrong side of another culture-war lawsuit last week?

South Dakota’s Governor and Attorney General signed on to amicus briefs in Peruta v. San Diego, a lawsuit challenging a California law requiring that applicants satisfy the following conditions:

  1. The applicant is of good moral character.
  2. Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
  3. The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the county, or the applicant’s principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business.
  4. The applicant has completed a course of training as described in Section 26165 [Circuit Judge William Fletcher, Opinion, Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego (#10-56971), 2016.06.09].

The brief Daugaard joined argued that citizens don’t have to demonstrate “good cause” to exercise their gun rights any more than we have to demonstrate “good cause” to speak, pray, or refuse to quarter soldiers. Governor Daugaard also signed onto the argument that concealed-weapon permit holders in Texas are far less likely to commit crimes than the general population and that the state thus lacks any compelling public safety justification. Governor Daugaard’s brief backed that claim with John Lott’s dishonest and well-debunked data.

Jackley and fellow A.G.s focused on arguing that bearing arms entails being able to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense outside one’s home. Jackley et al. contend that we can’t maintain a well-regulated militia if we can’t carry our guns past our doorstep.

Seven of eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit rejected South Dakota’s arguments on behalf the plaintiffs and held that the Second Amendment does not grant a right to carry concealed firearms in public. Ninth Circuit Judge William Fletcher pointed to language in Heller (2008) in which the U.S. Supreme Court, while affirming the right to keep firearms in one’s home for self-defense, acknowledged that the Second Amendment does not grant “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” and that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment….” Judge Fletcher says it was actually an overwhelming majority and all states that took up the question in the latter half of the 19th century that found neither the Second Amendment nor state constitutions including a right to carry concealed weapons in public.

Judge Fletcher tracks the history of the right to bear arms through 500 years of English and colonial law and restrictions on “pocket pistol[s], skeins, stilladers, daggers or dirks.” Fletcher’s majority opinion cites precedent from a variety of states, including a Georgia 1846 ruling saying that “suppress[ing] the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly… does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defense, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” A Louisiana 1850 ruling held that the Second Amendment “is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages an unmanly assassinations.”

With keen relevance to our post-Orlando discussion of the Second Amendment, Judge Fletcher notes a Texas 1873 ruling that construed “arms” as referring only to weapons “used for purposes of war”:

To refer the deadly devices and instruments called in the statute “deadly weapons,” to the proper or necessary arms of a “well-regulated militia,” is simply ridiculous. No kind of travesty, however subtle or ingenious, could so misconstrue this provision of the constitution of the United States, as to make it cover and protect that pernicious vice, from which so many murders, assassinations, and deadly assaults have sprung, and which it was doubtless the intention of the legislature to punish and prohibit [English v. State, 35 Texas 473 (1871), cited in Peruta v. San Diego, 2016].

A later West Virginia ruling upheld the idea that the Second Amendment applies strictly to “the weapons of warfare to be used by the militia… in defending the state and civil liberty” and not deadly instruments “habitually carried by bullies, blackguards, and desperadoes, to the terror of the community and the injury of the state.”

Daugaard and Jackley were thus arguing in favor of a right that does not exist. Hundreds of years of English law that informed the Second Amendment and subsequent interpretation of that amendment by our state courts make clear that the right to bear arms does not include a right to carry concealed weapons in public.

109 Responses to Daugaard and Jackley Wrong Again: Second Amendment Does Not Protect Concealed Carry

  1. I’ve seen the old cowboy movies where guys rode into town and went into the local saloon to shake off the dust and the local sheriff told them no guns allowed in town. Made them give up the big Colt on their belt and also the hidden Derringer in their boot or inside coat pocket. Yeah, they complained. But they accepted it.

    Seems to me that the 2nd Amendment talks about a “well regulated militia.” The Supreme Court has ruled that there exists an individual right to bear arms. So individuals are the “militia.” But folks like Mr. Jackley want to ignore the well regulated part.

    What kind of progress is Mr. Jackley making on building a database of mentally ill people ineligible to have guns? Can’t we all agree we want to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people?

    What kind of progress is Mr. Jackley making to ensure that felons and mentally ill people can’t walk into a gun show and walk out with guns?

    If the answer to the above questions is that Mr. Jackley is not making minimal or no progress, he’s not doing his job.

  2. Stace Nelson

    We continue to see movies and tv shows highlighting the Democratic institution of slavery in America. We still have SCOTUS rulings supporting that evil practice. Replays of that evil make it no less so today, same is the illegal disarmament of law-abiding Americans.

    If Liberals were successful in disarming all law abiding Americans, Who would be responsible for protecting those you have disarmed? Because they had failed to protect people I’m Detroit, Chicsgo, and every other location they have passed gun laws which strip law abiding people of their 2nd Amendment rights.

    The period of time in our country that inspired our founding fathers to include the second amendment, consisted of brutal acts by the British to supress the rebellion against British tyranny. Such acts included routine searches for any types of weapons that could be used in the rebellion, that our founding fathers were forced to conceal in order to avoid them being seized. Such weapons included the assault rifle of the day, a single shot musket rifle, and the rough pistols of the day.

    In early America every able-bodied man was part of the militia and was required to have a rifle, weapons, and sufficient ammunition to protect their own family as well as the community. “well regulated” did not mean written restrictions as inferred above, exactly the opposite. It meant that every person was properly armed and supplied as to perform their community militia duty.

    Contrary to common misperceptions, the only persons empowered to defend you everyday? Is you.

  3. Steve Sibson

    A later West Virginia ruling upheld the idea that the Second Amendment applies strictly to “the weapons of warfare to be used by the militia… in defending the state and civil liberty” and not deadly instruments “habitually carried by bullies, blackguards, and desperadoes, to the terror of the community and the injury of the state.”

    So the AR15 is protected by the Second Amendment. It is not the law-abiding citizens fault that bullies, criminals, and Islamic fascists also get their hands on them. In fact, we need those guns because such bad actors are a threat to our neighborhoods. If the gays don’t want to take on the responsibility, then fine. And when things like Orlando happened, they should not get away with having politicians like Obama and Hillary threaten to take our guns away from us.

  4. mike from iowa

    NRA headquarters in Philadelphia proudly displays the 2nd Amendment-minus the well regulated militia part. They apparently felt with an activist wingnut Scotus they could get away with ignoring that part.

    I can hardly wait for the rejoinder the 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit court in the land.

  5. Steve Sibson

    “John Lott’s dishonest and well-debunked data.”

    The art of propaganda is not what you say, it is what you leave out. The National Research Council concluded that “the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime”. And one member said, “I find that the evidence presented by Lott and his supporters suggests that RTC laws do in fact help drive down the murder rate, though their effect on other crimes is ambiguous.”

    Again, I am here to provide the readers of this blog the other side of the story. If you don’t like it, then don’t blame me. There is no solution that will eliminate crime, there is only our response to it. We have a right to respond to such fire, with fire. Don’t let Cory use slick language to make us think otherwise.

  6. mike from iowa

    Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose. (Unfortunately, this law is ambiguous and appears to be subject to interpretation with regard to restaurants with bars or other places licensed to serve alcohol which serve other purposes such as casinos and other places of entertainment. We have researched this issue including contacting the concealed weapons division of the Florida Department of Agriculture and have received this response. While this letter and its opinion are not authoritative, the general sense is that concealed weapons may be legally carried by a CWFL holder into a business that serves alcohol but not as a primary business, however a concealed weapons carrier should stay out of portions of that business where the service of alcohol is the primary function, i.e., the bar area of a restaurant.)

  7. Stacey Nelson completely skipped over the issues I raised of mentally ill persons and felons obtaining and possessing guns. These folks should not have guns period. Do you agree, Mr. Nelson?

    “Who would be responsible for protecting those you have disarmed?” Mr. Nelson asks. First of all, most people go their whole lives without needing protection in the form of firearms. The police are there to protect everyone. And who would be disarmed? Mentally ill and felons. Mr. Nelson is unclear whether he believes these people should be armed or disarmed.

    “[W]ell regulated” did not mean written restrictions as inferred above, exactly the opposite. It meant that every person was properly armed and supplied as to perform their community militia duty.” Here, Mr. Nelson is 1) ignoring the common and obvious meaning of a term; and 2) Advancing a socialist position where “every person” is issued a gun and ammo. Really?! Every person?!

    Mr. Nelson’s absolutist position also infers that “every person” should be able to possess and carry fully automatic weapons, bazookas, grenade launchers, … the list goes on – if “well regulated” doesn’t actually mean well regulated.

  8. Darin Larson

    As you can see by Stace Nelson and the gun lobby refusing to strengthen background checks, close the gun show loophole, do away with large ammo clips, or assist in keeping guns out of crazy peoples’ hands, they have no real interest in protecting people. Their only interest is the proliferation of guns above all else. It is a religion for them and they are true believers.

    Stace has never admitted that there is any limits on the right to bear arms. If that were the case, then we can’t legally limit our citizens from carrying around nuclear weapons. I certainly don’t think that is what the framers intended.

    The 2nd Amendment was made at a time when guns could shoot one round roughly every 30 seconds. One person could not kill hundreds of people in a span of minutes. A couple of people with bad intentions and armed with weapons that are legal because of the NRA could kill more people today faster than an entire artillery unit from the late 1700’s.

    The 2nd Amendment was also made at a time when the states were afraid of the power of the new federal government. This was about states rights, not individual rights. The notion that individuals needed weapons to overthrow our government from time to time is total bunk.

  9. Ben Cerwinske

    I tend to be on the fence when it comes to gun control. One thing I find curious though is it seems those who want increased spending for the military are the same ones who think purchasable weapons would be able to match modern military power.

  10. Stace Nelson

    @Rorshach do you really want to open that can of worms? Open till recently and I’m still in some circles LGBT is considered mentally illness. Those who commit Infanticide, considered a mental illness. Those addicted to coffee, mental illness. Those addicted to coffee, mental onus, those addicted to drugs, mental illness. Those addicted to sodas, mental illness. Most military veterans coming out of the service, PTSD mental illness. So very easy for people like you to wave at hand and claim mental illness and deprive people of their ability defend themselves.

    Let’s play your silly game, I challenge each and every liberal on here to provide an example in history where disarming the masses resulted in them be more safe.

  11. Notice how Mr. Nelson avoids taking a stand on whether felons should possess guns? Some leader. How about non-citizens? Should they be able to possess guns?

    Notice how Mr. Nelson also avoids addressing whether some weapons can or should be made off limits to civilians. Is the government right now violating the constitution by prohibiting fully automatic weapons from the masses?

    And yes. Mental illness is capable of definition. Listing of certain DSM codes and diagnosis by a medical doctor ought to suffice.

  12. David Bergan

    Hi Stace,

    You requested: “I challenge each and every liberal on here to provide an example in history where disarming the masses resulted in them be more safe.”

    I’m not a liberal, but here’s an example to chew on: AUSTRALIA

    The chances of being murdered by a gun in Australia plunged to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2014 from 0.54 per 100,000 people in 1996, a decline of 72 percent, a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed.

    In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, of which 98 were with guns. In 2014, with the population up from about 18 million to 23 million, Australia had 238 murders, of which 35 were with guns.

    It was the April 28, 1996, shooting deaths by a lone gunman of 35 people in and around a cafe at a historic former prison colony in Tasmania that prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.

    The country has had no mass shootings since.

    Kind regards,

  13. Notice how Mr. Nelson avoids taking a stand on whether mentally ill persons should have guns? Some leader.

  14. Steve Sibson

    “they have no real interest in protecting people”

    More false propaganda from the anti-gun left. I believe in protecting myself, my family, and my neighborhood.

  15. Steve Sibson

    “The 2nd Amendment was made at a time when guns could shoot one round roughly every 30 seconds. One person could not kill hundreds of people in a span of minutes.”

    So a six shooter revolver is not covered by the 2nd Amendment because it can kill 6 people in less than 30 seconds?

  16. [Steve, can’t you dedicate all this energy to writing a new blog post?]

  17. Roger Elgersma

    A civil right is for the common person, not just for those who can prove themselves exceptional. But for public safety we need to keep guns away from those mentally not competent to make good decisions just like we need to put some in jail who make bad decisions with knives, money or rape etc.. So we need to check on who is mentally competent and who are not. Not every mental patient has problems with guns. Some have problems with other things.
    In New York the police started searching anyone they pleased for a gun. Irritated a lot of people who got interrupted by the police on the way to work or whatever they were legally doing at the moment. But the murder rate went down. I am not saying that good results made it right to detain and search that many innocent people. We do not need to deny constitutional rights for safety. There can be legal ways to keep people safe. The same cops in New York killed a man by choking when they were trained on proper choke holds and that just for selling three cigarettes illegally. A local lawyer justified it by saying that the person had thirty arrests. Capital punishment by cop for selling three cigarettes is not right and for a lawyer whose whole life was doing due process and then saying it is ok for not doing due process since he had a record is not even being a lawyer.

  18. Roger Cornelius

    I know Cory, the last time unsuccessful blogger Sibson had a post up was when Trump was being protested in California. When was that Sibson?

    Instead Sibson tolls Dakota Free Press in order to bore readers like away.

  19. Good Sense


    do you have a picture of the plaque at NRA hq in Philadelphia?

  20. Sorry, Stace: trying to hang slavery around Democrats’ necks, while rooted in historical fact, isn’t going to swing votes today. We know which party has elected a black President twice and stands for inclusion today, and which party has nominated a racist misogynist to handle the nuclear button.

    As for who protects us? Not a bunch of vigilantes. We enter the social contract to escape the state of nature and create robust civil institutions to provide security and liberty… two things which do not exist in a world depending on uncoordinated individual might.

  21. John Wrede

    We should note a very important correlation the Stace Nelson raises, albeit likely in unawares. “In early America every able-bodied man was part of the militia and was required to have a rifle, weapons, and sufficient ammunition to protect their own family as well as the community. “well regulated” did not mean written restrictions as inferred above, exactly the opposite. It meant that every person was properly armed and supplied as to perform their community militia duty.

    Inserting language into the Constitution for convenience is a practice that needs to be challenged every time it arises…….. Precisely where; in the Constitution or anywhere else, does it provide for a “COMMUNITY” miliitia? The several states were the driving force behind militia development and service,and frankly, there is no mention anywhere, of any right of self defense in the sense of criminality or direct service to community.
    “”The militia are turning out with great alacrity both in Maryland and Pennsylvania. They are distressed for want of arms. Many have none, we shall rake and scrape enough to do Howe’s business, by favor of the Heaven.”John Adams to his wife, dated August 26, 1777. The point is exactly this, “every person was properly armed and supplied” to perform duty in the State Militia, not to carry about in public to defend against thugs and criminals. Storing firearms and ammunition in the home, for immediate use when called to state defense is consistent with Constitutional language and is consistent with Reagans contention that weapons and ammunition stored in the home are logically used in home defense. The Second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which contained a provision for raising a confederal militia that consent would be required from nine of the 13 States. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states. This is precisely the reason that the introductory language in the 2nd Amendment controls: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It can be successfully argued that had congress intended that everybody be armed and trained for personal defense and rendering public enemies inert, they would not have used the militia justification in the first place. There is nothing in that language that prohibits the states from regulating possession and use of firearms in a public place nor is there anything in the Constitutional language that can be inferred to mean that combat weapons are protected in the 2nd Amendment for use for anything accepting state or national defense. State police powers, inherent in the 10th Amendment, legitimize the firearm regulatory power of the states and that shows up rightfully in this ruling.

  22. Steve Sibson

    “The country has had no mass shootings since.”

    But is Australia “more safe”? Are they safe from tyranny? Are they safe from social justice bullies?

  23. mike from iowa


    Plaque is in hdqtrs in Fairfax, Virginia. My humblest apologies for misspelling Fairfax, Va as Philadelphia.

  24. mike from iowa

    The country has had no mass shootings anywhere solely or mainly because they were gun-free zones.

  25. Stace Nelson

    @Rorshach your nasty juvenile comments are one of the reasons the good people on here are deprived of more public officials interacting on Mr “H’s” blog. At this point I am done dignifying your idiocy with any responses. Feel free to take it up with me in person if you have the guts.

    @Darin Care to compare what each of us have done in our life times to protect our fellow man? You folks wonder why you are ignored and dismissed outright with such asinine, disrespectful comments.

    @John Wrede So? The only person on here who has supported the US & SD Constitution on the right to be armed, and who has repeatedly cited the historical facts behind it, did so unaware? That’s rich.

  26. In an ideal, civil society, we would not need firearms of any type, or a military, or even police officers. It would be wonderful, as there would be no crime, no hunger, and people would not want for anything. We would just all get along. No jealously, no hate, just peace and love.
    WAKE UP! We don’t live there. There are groups of people who believe their god is telling them to kill us. There are people with differing levels of mental illness who want to be noticed, so they get a gun and kills lots of people. There are parts of the Southwest that even law enforcement won’t go. This is not a nice place. We are from being ‘civilized.’ The framers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that we had the means to defend ourselves, our families, our communities, our state and our nation.
    Our nation is under attack! Are you ready to stand up and fight for what you hold dear?

  27. mike from iowa

    Can we start gunning the Pat Robertson’s of the world, MC?

  28. Richard Schriever

    Mssrs. Sibson and Nelson – precisely how many mass shootings have been prevented by law-abiding citizens bearing arms?

    Senator Lyndsey Graham complained yesterday that, We are at war, and yet we treat these acts (Orlando) as crimes.”

    My response to Senator Graham is to ask, “If we are at war, why are our arsenals (nearly unrestricted guns sales) open to the enemy?”

    A friend of mine posted to Facebook to the effect that he was a highly trained expert marksman with the M-16, and yet he was restricted from accessing the weapon of his specialty (it being kept under lock and key by the master at arms). If the US military doesn’t trust its soldiers to have free and easy access to weapons, why then are untrained, undisciplined civilians allowed to have essentially the same weapons lying about the house?

    Questions gentlemen.

  29. Stace Nelson

    A lot of personal opinions about history that are unsupported by actual history. At the time of the passage of the US Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment, private ownership of canon existed well after the Civil War. Such armament was capable of massive damage to groups of people and buildings.

    For those that claim law enforcement is required to risk their lives to protect those unwilling to protect themselves, please cite that article within the Constitution, or state statute, and compare that to Public announcements by certain police departments that told citizens they could not protect them.

    Original communities required all able bodied persons to protect themselves and the community as a whole. That was the militia. Contrary to the ignorance pushed above, the requirement did not come on the backs of the community. A weapon was a necessity for defense and to provide sustenance for their families.

    @Mr Bergen Do you know anyone in Australia? I do. Law abiding people are now helpless.

  30. mike from iowa

    Stace Nelson, does your arm ever get tired of patting you on the back? I’m this and I’m that. Get down with your bad self. How can you stand being an elected official when you can’t handle criticism on a web site? You post on here you open yourself up to criticism and differing points of view. You going to threaten all of us?

  31. mike from iowa

    The winning entry was the motto, “To Protect and to Serve” submitted by Officer Joseph S. Dorobek. “To Protect and to Serve” became the official motto of the Police Academy, and it was kept constantly before the officers in training as the aim and purpose of their profession.


  32. Mr. Nelson is a former Marine. Semper I.

  33. You’re wrong about so many things Mr. Nelson. You claim you’re the only person here who supports the 2nd Amendment? Seems to me you’re the only one who wants to redact the words “well regulated” from the 2nd Amendment.

    You would be surprised by my sizeable gun collection, which includes so-called assault rifles. I doubt if you know as much about guns as I do, Mr. Nelson. I support the 2nd amendment, including the “well regulated” part. There are people who shouldn’t have guns – for their protection and the protection of others. There are types of weapons that civilians should not have. Given the language of the 2nd amendment the discussion is about what kind of regulation is appropriate – not whether there should be regulation.

    I served you up a softball, Mr. Nelson, on the issue of felons possessing guns. You could have hit that one out of the park by agreeing with me on that issue. Instead you’re pretending like you got hit with the pitch. Some leader.

  34. mike from iowa

    But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?

    With a locally-based, well-regulated – under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority – militia. Today, we call this the National Guard.

    Article 1, Section 8, line 16 of the Constitution doesn’t put that two-year limit on the National Guard militia. Instead, it says, Congress has the right to: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

    And make no mistake about it – that militia was to be used to protect our “we the people” government both from foreign armies and from Americans who want to overthrow the government of the United States. Again, line 15 says Congress has the power to: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Nothing in there about taking down the US government.

  35. Stace and Steve seem to be committing the same error that Daugaard and Jackley did. Stace and Steve are distracting us from the core point of the Peruta ruling: the Second Amendment does not include a right to carry concealed firearms.

    Nothing in my original post or Judge Fletcher’s ruling talks about (Stace’s dog-whistle) “disarming all law-abiding Americans.” This ruling just says that states have the authority to regulate, restrict, and even fully ban concealed carry. That’s significant, and I haven’t heard any cogent response from my ammosexual friends.

    Sibson commits the additional error of thinking Peruta says military-grade weapons are legal. The ruling isn’t talking about tech specs. The Texas and West Virginia rulings refer to weapons of war in the context of war, “in defending the state and civil liberty”, not personal vigilantism. Those rulings provide the basis for the argument we need to tell Second Amendment absolutists that, no, citizen do not have a right to bear cruise missiles and nuclear warheads.

  36. Stace Nelson

    @Mike from Iowa Do you ever get tired of acting like a typical internet troll?

    @Richard Schreiver And even in that environment where people’s Constitutional rights are subverted under the claims of security, where thy are deprived of the ability to defend themselves, we had the mass killing on a military base in Texas.

    For all those that have never dealt with evil, good for you. I have. Whistle past the grave yards of all those who have been brutally murdered while defenseless, all you want. No matter how much you wail and scream about guns, it is NOT law abiding people that are the problem. Disarming good people does not defeat evil, it just ensures evil is able to kill more people without fear.

    You have an intelligent comment or question for me? (605) 770-7461

  37. Hey! Let’s all get past shouting “troll!” and familiar talking points and look at the new information here. This ruling, based on long-standing jurisprudence, says that concealed carry is not part of the Second Amendment. Let’s address that: what does a Second Amendment America look like without concealed weapons permits? Are gun advocates willing to go all open-carry?

  38. mike from iowa

    Nelson-my constitution says your full of caca del toro. Ever get tired of being dishonest and then trying to bully others?

  39. mike from iowa

    it is NOT law abiding people that are the problem.

    Mateen bought his guns legally because you right wing nuts don’t care enough about human lives to put the same restrictions on firearms as you do on women exercising their constitutional right to make their own health care decisions.

  40. A strict interpretation of the second amendment the judge is correct. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to carry a concealed weapon. However It doesn’t say anything about open carrying firearms. Let’s go ahead and open this can of worms

    When I spoke to the Sheriff of Minnehaha County, he told me most of the permits for concealed guns were not for personal protection, rather so they don’t run a foul of the law will doing normal every day activities. The one that worries him and he deputies is not the ones who follow the law, but the one who isn’t.

  41. mike from iowa

    You will see more Bundys, more standoffs with law enforcement. More people who feel they have a grievance with their government and have to settle it with guns.

    And, in the background, will be right wing pols pushing these people towards civil disobedience of the armed kind and feigning innocence when the bullets start to fly.

  42. RAGA at work. Marty hopes to be their swat team leader in his bid for more power and republican recognition. In bed w fossil fuels and fossil weapons terrorists (NRA).

  43. Make no mistake

    We are at WAR!

    The enemy is smart and resourceful. The 9/11 Terrorists used our own systems against us. This new breed of terrorist is being recruited over the internet. They seek out the loner, the one society walks on.
    Scary thought isn’t it.

    The best weapon we have is not a gun, but a handshake. Taking time to visit with your neighbors for parents, it means being parents, that means getting in your kids business. The enemy will smile, and slide up next to us and pretend to be our friend. They will use our differences to divide us, and put us against each other. We either learn to live together or we will die alone.

    The enemy has brought the fight to us, I hope you’re ready. When the lead start flying I hope I can count of you to be next to me protecting our nation.

    I know Cory to be a good man, and he really does want the very best for South Dakota, as do I. We just have different ideas of getting there. I also know that when it comes down to a real fire fight. He may not at my side, but, he won’t get in the way.

  44. Pure silliness MC.

  45. Darin Larson

    MC, you say “we are at WAR!” You are correct to a certain extent, but let’s keep our heads here.

    A little perspective on death in the US might be instructive. There are over 30,000 people who die in car crashes each year in the US. During the Vietnam War, when cars were less safe than they are now, we lost more people in one year in car crashes then all the deaths over the years in the Vietnam War combined. We kept driving cars then and we keep driving cars now even though more people die everyday then died in the horrible terrorist attack in Orlando.

    I’m not trying to minimize these terrible events, but if we do not keep things in perspective, we can react foolishly and do more harm to American interests than good. The wars in Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, come to mind. We managed to do more damage to our country in terms of dead and damaged soldiers and all the trillions spent on the wars than the damage inflicted by the terrorists on 9/11.

    We have to be smart about how we wield American power and not just reactionary in our policies. Moreover, to the extent we let the terrorists change our behavior and we start digging a bunker to live in as we cower in fear, they have accomplished their goal. Their goal is also to draw in the rest of Islam into their craziness by portraying this as a struggle of the West versus Islam.

    Let’s keep it real.

  46. David Bergan

    @Mr Bergen Do you know anyone in Australia? I do. Law abiding people are now helpless.

    Hi Stace,

    We all know that there are tradeoffs between freedom and security. The question is striking the right balance. Private citizens don’t have a right to own tanks or bombers… that’s a freedom we give up for the corresponding measure of security. In this thread it was suggested that the freedom we consider tightening up is that of felons and mentally unstable people having access to buying guns.

    That seems to me to be a very minor liberty to concede to gain a significant measure of security and peace of mind. I personally wouldn’t be inconvenienced one bit by such a law. My guns and gun-purchasing status wouldn’t be affected.

    The 2nd Ammendment stuff is a distraction… because we’ve already decided as a country that it is not an unlimited right. We’ve already made concessions, and they are sensible concessions. Private citizens don’t have a right to own tanks or bombers.

    Do you think that putting restrictions on gun sales for violent felons and the mentally unstable is a sensible concession?

    If not, do you think the restrictions on tanks and bombers are sensible concessions?

    Kind regards,

  47. MC concedes the point of Peruta and asks to open the open-carry can of worms. Peruta does not go there… but I think we should look at the 19th-century rulings, made in the context of a nation that was at war with Indians but went to its most deadly war (on our side) with itself, that affirmed what John W is talking about, the emphasis on the militia clause. “[W]eapons of warfare to be used by the militia… in defending the state and civil liberty”—that doesn’t seem to refer to pistols worn hidden in your vest or dangling from a holster in plain view; it seems to refer to weapons maintained at the ready for the next mustering of the Minutemen for a community purpose.

    MC calls on me to wake up to the fact that we don’t live in an ideal society. My recognition of that fact is precisely what moved me from Republican to Democrat: I realized that my youthful fantasies of everything running smoothly by free market rules and rugged individualism, without government “interference”, doesn’t work in a world of amoral corporations and immoral individuals. We need laws and robust civic institutions to ensure our rights to life, liberty, and property.

    At the heart of the suggestion that we must all arm ourselves for daily life is MC’s cry that we are at constant war, that we are in danger everywhere, and that our civic institutions cannot protect us. Therein lies the most dangerous fallacy: The social contract has failed! Every man for himself! The GOP nominee tells us we are a failed state and proposes to Make America Great Again™ by replacing our social contract with a tyranny of increased surveillance, a handcuffed press, excluded classes of brown people, rogue-state foreign relations, and guns in every hand.

    “Our nation is under attack! Are you ready to stand up and fight for what you hold dear?” I’m already standing and fighting, MC, for the idea that our nation can withstand attack and that the proper response to the threats of our day is America’s civic institutions and values, not armed anarchy.

    As Darin says, let’s keep our heads. We solve problems with our heads and hearts, not our handguns.

  48. Steve Sibson

    “Stace and Steve are distracting us from the core point of the Peruta ruling: the Second Amendment does not include a right to carry concealed firearms.”

    That ruling is not in our district and that ruling flies in the face of SCOTUS ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective one. Now that ruling was thanks to Scalia. If he is replaced with an pro-collectivist judge, then America will become a totalitarian state without any possibility of reversing course.

    “We need laws and robust civic institutions to ensure our rights to life, liberty, and property.”

    That will no longer be possible if the SCOTUS majority is pro-collectivist. The liberals are willing to give those individual rights up in order to deal with a “world of amoral corporations and immoral individuals” with an authoritarian/collectivist agenda where the amoral corporations have more control and the immoral individuals have more civil rights. The rest of us are bigots and deserve nothing.

    So what I am saying is those who have caused the problems are using those problems to justify further erosion of rights to life, liberty, and property. The Orlando shooting is a prime example. Allowing unchecked Islamic actors, who are too dangerous to allow on a plane, are now too dangerous to buy a gun. I say they are too dangerous to be allowed in our country. Ship them out, or put them in jail. If not, then further gun controls will only give them more ability to have their way with Americans having less abilities to defend ourselves from their crusade to destroy western civilization and replace it with an Islamic Theocracy.

  49. Steve Sibson

    “Sibson commits the additional error of thinking Peruta says military-grade weapons are legal. The ruling isn’t talking about tech specs. The Texas and West Virginia rulings refer to weapons of war in the context of war, “in defending the state and civil liberty”, not personal vigilantism. Those rulings provide the basis for the argument we need to tell Second Amendment absolutists that, no, citizen do not have a right to bear cruise missiles and nuclear warheads.”

    Personal vigilantism is what the Islamic fascist do. We Americans are part of the state. So defending ourselves is the same as defending that state. If we choose concealed carry, then we should have that as a right.

    The missile and bomb analogy is a red herring. Defending oneself with a concealed handgun is what were are suppose to be discussing here. The right to nuclear bombs as a tool for “self-defense” is not a solid argument. Same goes for cruise missiles.

  50. Jake Cummings

    Steve, hopefully conservatives eventually defend Muslim Americans’ 1st and 4th Amendment rights as stridently as our 2nd Amendment rights. I won’t be holding my breath.

    Mateen was an American citizen, and there is no quicker way to alienate law-abiding Muslims than to vilify them all. You seem to be a proponent of religious tests to ascertain a person’s propensity to commit acts of terror, so how do you propose we combat possible terrorist acts by American extremists like McVeigh and Eric Rudolph, as the former was purportedly non-practicing and the latter Christian? Also, both were military veterans, so should we apply your flawed logic and argue that all veterans, like Muslims, should be subject to increased scrutiny?

  51. mike from iowa

    We Americans are part of the state. So defending ourselves is the same as defending that state. If we choose ABORTION, then we should have that as a right.

    Fick’s tit for you.

    (My apologies for hijacking this thread)

  52. Steve Sibson

    Jake, I agree with the premise that we are picking and choosing which rights are to be allowed and toward whom they should apply. Like Mike, for example, just argued that a woman has the right to kill her baby, but the baby has no right to life until it is born.

    Now if we want to grant Americans, (who practice Islam) religious rights, then we should support the right to bear arms so that when they implement their religious jihads, we can at least have an opportunity to defend ourselves. Sadly, we are allowing their religious rights, allowing a known activist of Islam to be trained as a armed security guard, and then use his violent actions to say we need to take gun rights away from the rest of us (but in a gradual way so that it is called “common sense” instead of radical).

    So yes, you are right. Americans are picking and choosing which rights are will allow and who are allowed those rights. And through the use of propaganda, the electorate are being manipulated into creating the public opinion that dictates the winners and the losers of civil rights. The question then becomes, who is controlling the propaganda, and what is their real agenda? Because right now, that agenda is secret and unknown in regard to the masses.

  53. Douglas Wiken

    Around the time of the beginnings of the US Constitution, citizens had arms, but a central government armory had the only ammunition. Perhaps that is the condition writers of the Constitution were considering.

    It is not “near insanity” to allow insane and mentally ill to have military or near military capability weapons, it is complete full blown insanity. Perhaps the first question on whether a person should be able to purchase a gun of any kind, it “Do you believe that even the insane should be allowed to have weapons?” Answer “yes” to that, and your right to own a weapon should evaporate instantly.

    As indicated, car deaths are a factor no media mouths seem to mention. Of course selling unsafe cars and alcohol to drivers all also drive ad revenue for media corporations. My guess is that already since the Orlando “massacre”, more people have been killed by drunken “terrorists” on the highways.

  54. mike from iowa

    Doug Wiken- a better question to discern mental illness is asking people if they believe Drumpf#$k is qualified to be Potus.

  55. Jake Cummings

    Steve, apparently I am less a fatalist than you because I believe it is a matter of “if” a person engages in jihad, not “when.” Also, reports like this one (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nightclub-shooting-reveals-challenges-guard-oversight-164512943.html) indicate Mateen was first employed by G4S Security in 2007, which could precede his “radicalization.” However, you may also notice in the aforementioned article that one of Mateen’s colleagues allegedly reported that Mateen’s used anti-gay slurs and threatened physical violence. Unfortunately, the article notes that security firms have differing levels of screening throughout the nation, so a prudent first step could be to improve screening nationwide (e.g., implement annual screening requirements, as it appears Mateen was only screened twice).

    The Founders, and the 1st Amendment, grant us all religious freedoms not merely Judeo-Christians. As for abortion, a woman’s right to choose complicates that issue, and I would argue it is a separate issue from the one discussed here with this exception — if the state argues it has the right to limit individual choice, it must demonstrate compelling interest in doing so, as the state must in limiting 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights.

    Lastly, conservatives frequently, and misleadingly, lament liberals’ interest in seizing ALL firearms; however, proposals to limit access to assault weapons, high capacity magazines, etc. are clearly more limited in scope. Now, perhaps the fatalism that influences your jihadist perspective also causes you to believe such limited restrictions are a first step in our march to complete firearms seizure, but I would submit that weapons restrictions have been present throughout history, and that has not prevent firearms ownership from reaching its highest levels of today.

  56. Steve Sibson

    “Lastly, conservatives frequently, and misleadingly, lament liberals’ interest in seizing ALL firearms; however, proposals to limit access to assault weapons, high capacity magazines, etc. are clearly more limited in scope.”

    Conservatives understand the meaning of “shall not be infringed”. The military version of the AR15 so-called assault weapon is the M16. The only difference is that it takes a few seconds more to empty a clip in an AR15 than it does in a M16. Banning M16s has not eliminated gun violence. Banning AR15s will not eliminate violence. Now the liberals want to ban conceal carry. That will no eliminate gun violence. Even if you ban all guns, you will not eliminate gun violence, as we have already discussed in regard to Australia.

    The only way to prevent a total ban is to pay respect to “shall not be infringed”. I am sure the liberals have found propaganda that will show disrespect toward “shall not be infringed” that they will try and get the masses to believe. Of course it is much easier to get the masses to believe the propaganda if they are in fear of more Orlando and Sandy Hook events.

    The Anglo-Saxon new world order will not be implemented until we are disarmed. And neither can the Islamic Theocracy be implemented until we are disarmed. They will not be able to cut off our heads if we still have AR15s.

  57. Jake Cummings

    Steve, the 2nd Amendment contains an equally important phrase, “well-regulated.” I suppose SCOTUS will have to determine what regulatory restrictions are constitutional.

  58. Don Coyote

    @ Richard Schriever: “A friend of mine posted to Facebook to the effect that he was a highly trained expert marksman with the M-16, and yet he was restricted from accessing the weapon of his specialty (it being kept under lock and key by the master at arms). If the US military doesn’t trust its soldiers to have free and easy access to weapons, why then are untrained, undisciplined civilians allowed to have essentially the same weapons lying about the house?”

    AR15 receivers are incapable of burst or full automatic fire. Also if you change out an AR15 receiver you can insert one that will fire .22LR rimfire, .357. etc and a whole host of other caliber ammo. Great varmint rifle!

  59. Roger Cornelius

    Unsuccessful blogger Sibson, Sandy Hook and Orlando were not ‘events’, they the massacre of gays and innocent children.

  60. mike from iowa


    Get the next best thing to full auto for your next trip to kill massive amounts of coyotes in a minimum amount of time.

  61. Don Coyote

    While Peruta v San Diego is a disappointment for California residents, it really means little for South Dakota and the other States with shall-issue laws and more expansive Right to Bear Arms in their State Constitutions.

    SD Constitution Art 6, Sec 24: “Right to bear arms. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.”

    SD is much more specific in the language of citizens owning weapons for self defense and cleans up the confusing and ambiguous language concerning militia. California has no such clause in their Constitution.

    Absent any overriding Federal statutes concerning concealed weapon permits / open carry laws, the power to regulate these permits is left to the police powers in the various states. California’s may-issue permits are essentially left to the whim of the local sheriff as to whether or not you get a permit. South Dakota is a shall-issue state.

  62. mike from iowa

    etu John Adams? No- here is what he actually said-

    To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. — John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States
    Read more at http://wonkette.com/603017/second-amendment-nuts-so-mad-bill-oreilly-doesnt-want-them-to-overthrow-the-government#kMMVdSIDlDzyEabU.99

  63. Don Coyote

    @mia: $500 and a crap load of ammo will empty the wallet pretty quickly. Most reviews of the switch are calling it a range gimmick, fun but expensive and pretty useless. It’s also very tiring on the bang switch finger since you still have to squeeze it repeatedly.

  64. Steve Sibson


    Yes, it does say the purpose is to be well-regulated as in “trained”, such as the Orlando shooter was. I do take that to me that if we planned on exercising that right, I do have a responsibility to know what I am doing.

    Don, yes South Dakota’s Constitution makes it clear the right is an individual one. Unfortunately, there is a movement to destroy South Dakota along with the destruction of America. Propaganda is the key weapon to wreck their havoc.

  65. Jake Cummings

    What it means is still being determined, Steve. The world did not end when weapons such as sawed-off shotguns were banned, and one could argue that weapons such as AR-15s are far more destructive than sawed-off shotguns. In addition, one could argue that relaxing concealed carry restrictions is at least just as dangerous as allowing a sawed-off shotgun, thus such privileges should be examined with similar scrutiny.

  66. mike from iowa

    Don C- @ what “range” were the people on Orlando slaughtered?

    How accurate does one have to be at point blank or near point blank range?

  67. Don Coyote

    @mfi: Was a 3MR trigger used in Orlando? San Bernardino? Newton? Any mass shooting with AR15s? NO, NO, NO and NO! So your misinformation is even more irrelevant than it usually is.

  68. mike from iowa

    Misinformation my ass! I never claimed a 3MR trigger was used. You claimed an AR is not capable of full auto fire. The link to the trigger proves that it can be nearly full auto. The rest of your drivel is drool.


  69. mike from iowa

    Republican Sen. John McCain said Thursday that President Barack Obama is “directly responsible” for the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, because of the rise of the Islamic State group on the president’s watch. But he later issued a statement saying that he “misspoke.

    Here is Sinator John Cornball (DF Texas) in Democrat fillibuster

    “We’re trying to find out … whether this is an effort to find a solution and common ground or whether this is just an effort to try to embarrass people,” the Senate’s No. 2 Republican told The Hill Wednesday evening. “I haven’t yet concluded which one it is.”

    This is the empty suit one step above Marlboro Barbie in the Sinate.

  70. Guns are the only thing that poor people have that show their wealth. They have crappy jobs, they have crappy lifestyles so the only thing they have to show property ownership is guns and tattoos. Obama probably said it best in 2008 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/14/barackobama.uselections2008

    It is probably even more true today than it was then. Democrats have trouble with that because they refuse to find middle ground that could make sense. A ban on anything will never work as we tried that with booze here and we can read historical accounts of how that failed. Legislation is the key to it and maybe it starts at state levels.

  71. Steve Sibson

    “The world did not end when weapons such as sawed-off shotguns were banned”

    Nor did murders end.

  72. mike from iowa

    Omar Mateen, Adam Lanza, Dylan Roof, et al circa 1770s


  73. Jake Cummings

    Steve, I never said murders would end (as you are wont to mention, we’ll likely have jihadis running rampant), but the fact is that we have banned certain types of weapons, including “mods” that would be legal without the modification, hence my mention of sawed-off shotguns. Weapons that are at least as dangerous, such as AR-15s, should be subject to the same criteria.

  74. Steve Sibson

    Jake, yes the 2nd Amendment has already been infringed upon. And we still have murders. Britain has the strictest gun laws, but still a parliament member was murdered yesterday. France also has restrictions, but still fell victim to Islamic fascists themselves. Banning guns will not bring the solution. It will only leave us defenseless. And that is what Obama wants, as he remains soft on Syria and recognizes ISIL while wearing an Islamic wedding ring.


  75. Jake Cummings

    Steve, it is disheartening that you appear to find the origins of a man’s alleged wedding ring more damaging than an AR-15. For the umpteenth time, the proposal is not to ban ALL guns. It is to enact bans, or at the very least much stricter controls, on weapons whose destructive potential exceeds those which we have already banned/controlled.

  76. mike from iowa

    In the early ’60s, the Defense Documentation Center for Scientific and Technical Research (now the Defense Technical Information Center) released a 55-page study on the AR-15’s suitability for the South Vietnamese army. “The AR-15 Armalite rifle has been subjected to a comprehensive field evaluation under combat conditions in Vietnam,” the report began. It went on: “because of the controversy which has surrounded this weapon, particular care was exercised to insure that the tests were objective, thorough and adequately documented, and to insure that valid data and conclusions were derived therefrom.”

    The results, culled from evaluations by American “advisors” and South Vietnamese already deployed against the Viet Cong, were crystalline: “The lethality of the AR-IS and its reliability record were particularly impressive.”

    The report describes, with grisly detail, how the AR-15, chambered with the same .223 ammunition that it uses today, not only killed VC soldiers but decapitated and dismembered them:

  77. Steve Sibson

    Mike, the AR-15 in the study was the fully automatic version that is banned, not the semi-automatic version. How many of the 49 victims in Orlando were decapitated and dismembered?


  78. mike from iowa


    Nitpicky aren’t you and Coyote? In a crowded building with little chance of escape there is no need for full-auto. Like shooting fish in a barrel except you wouldn’t have to compensate for light diffusion through the water.

  79. mike from iowa

    As for whether any were decapitated-they’re still dead, ain’t they?

  80. Don Coyote

    @mfia: I see, in Iowegian speak “nearly full auto” = “fully automatic fire”. Glad you cleared that up.

    Of course what I said was that the AR15 receivers are incapable of full automatic fire, not a trigger modification. And they better be because fully automatic receivers for any rifle are illegal.

    The trigger modification may increase the firing rate but it still requires a separate squeeze of the trigger. And to reiterate, this trigger modification was not used in Orlando or San Bernardino or Sandy Hook.

    Also the military doesn’t use .223 ammunition but a NATO 5.56 load which generates a higher pressure producing higher velocity. While the same size, the higher pressure NATO cartridge shouldn’t be used in .223 receivers not designed for them.

    Also the damage produced by the Vietnam Era M16s came from their lower twist ratios on the slug inducing a more damaging tumbling effect. Most AR15s today produce a higher twist ratio sacrificing the tumbling for greater distance and accuracy.

  81. Steve Sibson

    “Like shooting fish in a barrel”

    That is exactly why I am against the gun control agenda.

  82. mike from iowa

    Coyote you are still nit-freakin’-picking.

    I never said the new trigger was ever used anywhere!!! You keep bringing it up. You said, ” the AR15 receivers are incapable of full automatic fire,”

    I showed a link that shows they can be modified to shoot nearly as fast as FAF. It is true, but you got hung up in implying that I implied these shooters used modified guns. That is a lie and you damn well know it.

    As for the damage done,who the eff cares? These gay people are just as dead, they can’t get no deader and all your deflection doesn’t change that!

  83. mike from iowa

    The AR-15 was designed to be a distance/accurate weapon, even in FAF mode. The specs say so.

  84. mike from iowa

    Lookee here,Coyote and Sibby-I can nit-pick,too.

    Planned Parenthood didn’t officially start until 1942.
    The US eugenics movement began to lose power in the 1940s and was completely discredited following the horrors of Nazi Germany. With modern advances in genetic testing, it is important to keep America’s eugenics history in mind.

    Less than 10 years of PP eugenics. In America it started around 1916-so at most your looking at 30 years.

  85. mike from iowa


    Drumpf#$k is never one to let a tragedy go to waste to score political points.

  86. Steve Sibson

    Mike, this ends your ability to push false propaganda:

    In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).


  87. mike from iowa

    Sibson-that letter proves nothing I said is false. Planned Parenthood started in 1942 and by the mid 40s Americans were so over it.

  88. Steve Sibson

    Mike, do you know who started Planned Parenthood?

  89. Don Coyote

    @IA Mik: Bzzzzzzzzz. Wrong again. Eugenics came to the US in the 1890’s. Connecticut passed a eugenics law in 1896 that prohibited anyone who was “epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded” from marrying. And then the race was on.

    In 1901, Stanford president David Jordan published an essay, “The Blood of the Nation: A Study in the Decay of Races by the Survival of the Unfit” in Popular Science Monthly claiming that human qualities such as talent and that conditions such as poverty were passed through blood. In 1904 at Cold Spring Harbor, NY, the Carnegie Institution started to gather data on millions of Americans and researchers started to plan how to remove inferior families, bloodlines and peoples from the population.

    The eugenics movement continued well into the 50’s with the North Carolina Eugenics Board shifting the focus of forced sterilization away from institutionalized patients to welfare recipients, primarily black women. The NC Eugenics Board continued in existence until 1977. Using South Dakota math, you are pushing 70+ years not the 30 years your crumby Iowegian abacus calculates.

  90. Steve Sibson

    And Mike, the eugenics movement is still alive. Like Hitler, they are now collecting the data:


  91. Steve Sibson

    Mike, when something becomes unpopular, the propagandists change the name. So instead of eugenics, it is now called sustainable development:

    The idea that the way to protect insects, fish and animals is by preventing human beings from having children is part of an approach known as Population, Health and Environment (PHE) which integrates population control into environmentalist initiatives.

    PHE dates back to the 1980s and is practiced by mainstream organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center, which is funded partly by the US government, aggressively champions PHE eugenics and USAID funds PHE programs and distributes PHE training manuals derived in part from Wilson Center materials.


  92. mike from iowa

    That letter from Sanger,who was against abortion btw, was a quote taken W.E.B.Dubois(and taken way out of context) and the Negro Project was to get birth control to Black women,not eugenics.As for PP and abortions, they never performed an abortion until after Sanger’s death.

    As for eugenics connected to Sanger,we’re still talking in the 35 year range.

  93. mike from iowa

    Sean “Handwringing” Hannity of Fake Noize is indirectly responsible for Muslim eugenics in Orlando,Florida.

    Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity has a family connection to the Orlando terror attack: His second cousin sold weapons to gunman Omar Mateen.
    Ed Henson owns the St. Lucie Shooting Center in Port St. Lucie, Fla. Mateen purchased the hand gun and assault rifle used in Sunday’s massacre from the store during two separate visits in early June.
    “Ed Henson, a highly decorated retired NYPD detective, who was also a 9/11 and Flight 587 first responder, is a second cousin of mine,” Hannity told Adweek’s TVNewser blog.

  94. mike from iowa

    This makes it an even 100 comments-WHOOPPEE!

  95. John Wrede

    Interesting how “topic drift” occurs so suddenly and with such veracity as to confuse everybody. I’ve walked the same pathway as Stace has and have a much different perspective on Law Enforcement necessity to risk their life in service to community. Swearing to uphold the law under oath is commonly understood to mean that the badge toter voluntarily puts himself in harms way and in fact, the training received attempts, in every way possible, to prepare the officer for those eventualities and help him survive.
    Civilian law enforcement is night and day different than enforcing UCMJ and nobody should assume that there is clear similarity between being a beat cop or a hiway patrol officer operating alone, sometimes hours from help and backup. No where close.
    Having said that, all the rhetoric thus far posted has cleverly moved the discussion well beyond the original issue and I have to believe that Stace and Sibby and a few others intended it that way. What this post and the ruling in Peruta means, in simple terms, is that 1.) the 2nd Amendment is subject to the regulatory whims of the several states; and 2.) the 2nd Amendment is not absolute. And for the record, those that say that the 9th Appellate Circuit case law has no application in South Dakota, you’d best go back and do some research on the collateral authority South Dakota has used on numerous occasions as either, plaintiff, defendant or in amicus. The facts are, South Dakota uses 9th Circuit Case law frequently, both in judicial process but also in policy making……… If South Dakota decided we wanted to repeal the concealed and open carry permitting we presently have, we could do so and it will stand up to constitutional muster; no differently than Reagan/Ford/Carters assault weapons ban….. Personal defense in the home can be accomplished with a handgun or a hunting shotgun a lot more efficiently than any combat weapon made. As for personal defense in public, Such high stress incidents present collateral damage potential the likes of which society shouldn’t tolerate any more so than mass homicide at the hands of the mentally deranged individuals with equipment that is designed specifically for killing people. The inventor of the original Armalite rifle has stated that he never intended for the weapons to be used in civilian applications. Frankly, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings a bit…….. I’m not anti-gun……… I’m just not mindless pro-gun worship. The solution to our safety and security is not found in the seemingly endless banter about second amendment rights. If we were to interpret the literal meaning of the 2nd Amendment using the plain understanding of the framers, every last one of us would be defending our homes with flint lock pistols and rifles and keeping a supply of black powder, patches and round balls of appropriate caliber by the front door………… To think that Adams and the rest of that constituency envisioned the development and sordid use of semi-auto combat cartridge rifles in contemporary society is grasping at fictional straws……. AR’s and clones for varmint and coyote hunting…… What happened to the sporting tradition of one shot, one kill?????? A lot of gun owners have forgotten their own values and historical roots.

  96. mike from iowa

    Scotus declined to look at Conn/New York assault rifle bans which means the bans stand.

  97. Bill Dithmer

    I have shot an AR15 modified like that. If everything was perfect, you could occasionally run a fifteen round clip through.

    I would say 1 in 10. And that gun as a distance weapon is kinda iffy. If you get a good one yes, a bad one just sprays lead. Talking to those that own and have been around them for many years, the good ones show up about a quarter of the time.

    I really thought people would have gotten the ARs out of their systems in the 80s.

    The Blindman

  98. Funny, Bill, that long-distance accuracy doesn’t seem to be a problem. We don’t get sniper attacks; we get young hotheads living out video game first-person-shooter slaughters where aim and accuracy don’t matter that much.

  99. mike from iowa

    Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and Carol Costello of CNN-

    PRATT: Yes, it was [a gun-free zone], because he was the only one, state law prohibited anybody else from having a gun, and so they were all unarmed. Once the dirtbag shot his way past the guard, it was open season on helpless victims. […]
    COSTELLO: It was a “gun-free” zone because it was a bar, and when people drink, the state of Florida probably doesn’t think it’s a very good idea to arm patrons …

    PRATT: Control the amount of booze you sell them, but don’t make them sitting ducks

    Read more at http://wonkette.com/603188/noted-gun-fondler-will-stop-mass-shootings-at-bars-by-stiffly-regulating-no-not-guns-silly#tbOL3CmSetC1PgMt.99

  100. More guns in bars! Yeah, that’s the ticket!

    The ticket to mayhem. Good grief.

    And wait: there was a good guy with a gun, and he didn’t stop the bad guy with a gun? Sure enough:


  101. mike from iowa

    Drumpf reminds one of another poster here who ignores reality to carry out his own narrative.

    Sincerely,if three trained professionals couldn’t stop this guy, John Q Drunk with a gun hasn’t got a chance. to be a hero.

  102. America’s 10 Biggest Gunmakers, http://billmoyers.com/story/fully-loaded-inside-shadowy-world-americas-10-biggest-gunmakers/

    1. “No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun,” a Sturm Ruger co-founder, the late William Ruger Sr., told Tom Brokaw in 1992. “I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20- or 30-round mags or my folding stock.” By 1994, with even Ronald Reagan voicing support, Congress banned high-capacity magazines as well as assault rifles.

    2. After New York state enacted stricter gun laws in 2013, Remington laid off workers at its 200-year-old factory there and moved production to Huntsville, Alabama, where it gets $69 million in state and local subsidies — or about $14 for every Alabama resident.

    3. In 2010, a VP of sales was indicted for attempting to bribe an FBI officer posing as an African emissary taking bids on a $15-million arms deal. And in 2014, Smith & Wesson agreed to pay $2 million to settle charges that it had bribed foreign officials in Pakistan and Indonesia.

    4. former Glock executive Peter Manown said in court after pleading guilty to stealing from the company. “He’s done, in my mind, a lot of things that are much worse than what Jannuzzo and I did. He makes roughly $200,000 a day — he personally. He spends money on mistresses, on houses, on sex, on cars. He bribes people. He’s just a bad guy.”

    5. In March 2015, German officials discovered that key evidence in the case had been stolen from the prosecutor’s office before it could be introduced at trial. Citing the ongoing investigation, German officials have blocked Sig Sauer from exporting guns outside the European Union. Sig Sauer fans in the United States need not worry: 477,000 of the company’s guns are made each year in Newington, New Hampshire.

    6. Mossberg & Sons eventually focused on shotguns; today it is the world’s largest producer of pump-action models, including a line of Duck Dynasty-branded ones. But assault rifles drive the company’s growth. As Bartozzi has put it, “that’s what people want.”

    7. Mark W. DeYoung, who is CEO of both Vista and Savage, may be the nation’s highest-paid gun company executive, earning $13.2 million in 2015. He…lobbies on behalf of “America’s hunters and anglers,”…keynoted by… Speaker of the House Paul Ryan in 2015. That same year… spent $390,000 on federal lobbying, mostly on bills concerned with defense appropriations and…also lobbied on the Toxic Substances Control Act, perhaps because in 2013 Massachusetts regulators fined Savage $6,000 for illegally dumping at least 50,000 gallons of industrial wastewater from its gun manufacturing operation into a sewer.

    8. Reese’s sons, the company’s current owners, …help[ed] beat back a proposed Illinois ban on assault weapons by threatening to move the company’s factory across the river to Iowa.

    In 1989, Dennis Reese admitted to offering bribes to US Army Colonel Juan Lopez de la Cruz… for help selling $3.7 million worth of firearms to the Salvadoran government. Reese was allowed to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for testifying against de la Cruz. But according to the Associated Press, the colonel walked after the jury decided Reese was not a trustworthy witness.

    Springfield has donated at least $1 million to the NRA.

    9. At a 2010 dinner, their son Franco Gussalli Beretta presented George W. Bush with a $250,000 shotgun engraved with “43,” the presidential seal, and a picture of Bush’s Scottish terrier. The custom-made firearm was a thank-you for a US military order for half a million pistols. In 2014, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam flew to Italy to meet with the Berettas. The company soon announced it would close its manufacturing headquarters in Maryland — where new gun-control laws were fresh on the books — and relocate to Tennessee, where it got $14 million in subsidies.

    10. The bullet went through the palm of his hand and into the chest of his 11-year-old son, killing the boy. Simms sued the company, claiming a flaw in the gun’s internal safety mechanisms caused his son’s death. The suit is one of numerous cases alleging that Taurus pistols are dangerously defective. The company has recalled nearly 1 million pistols and settled a class-action lawsuit by setting aside $30 million for damages, court costs and recall campaigns.

    5 other companies:
    keystone-The blue and pink guns are proportioned for youth shooters and according to critics can appear toylike. In 2013 in Kentucky, a 5-year-old playing with a Crickett accidentally shot and killed his 2-year-old sister.

    -“It’s all part of an industry effort to reverse a decline in shooting sports by exposing kids to guns at an early age. Sig Sauer now offers junior shooters a .22-caliber version of its AR-15.”-

    -Kahr Arms capitalized on the rising demand for powerful-yet-small handguns when concealed-carry laws began sweeping the nation in the 1990s. Its K-9 pistol was small enough to fit into a pants pocket. Emergency-room physicians blamed the spread of this type of gun from Kahr for the…rise in fatal gunshot wounds. Owner Justin Moon…“That’s why [Moon] did all this stuff with guns. He believes that [the Unification Church] is going to take over the world. He would say this all the time.”

    -In April 2013, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called for a ban on the .50-caliber Barrett M82 and M107 sniper rifles —(which are powerful enough to down helicopters, pierce bulletproof glass or kill from a mile away)- and then vetoed the bill…. According to the GAO, Barrett’s these rifles have been used by drug cartels, militia groups, outlaw motorcycle gangs, and terrorist organizations. The Branch Davidians wielded one during the 1993 Waco siege in Texas, forcing federal agents to use armored Bradley fighting vehicles. California and Washington, DC, have banned the guns. In February 2016 the Tennessee Senate passed a resolution designating the Barrett M82 the official state rifle.

    -Norinco makes shotguns sold mostly through online dealers such as CheaperThanDirt.com. It imports tens of thousands of guns into the United States each year. Owned by China’s Communist Party, the company provides weapons to the People’s Liberation Army and military clients that have included the government of South Sudan. In 2003 it was accused of transferring missile technology to Iran, prompting a two-year US import ban.

    -In 2000, Hi-Points were the third most common type of gun seized at crime scenes in 44 cities, according to the ATF. On average, Hi-Points reached criminals within a year of their original purchase. in 1999 one of his company’s semi-automatic rifles had been used in the Columbine mass shooting.

    In 2005, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sued the company…alleges that the company and its sole distributor were negligent in selling the pistol — along with 86 other guns — to a straw purchaser at a gun show. A judge tossed out the case under the 2005 shield law. In 2012 an appeals court reinstated the case, which remains in a New York court.

  103. good post:

    Friday, July 15, 2016

    Guns for All

    Now I’ve heard it all! You should store firearms in your children’s bedrooms for easy access, in case of a violent home invasion. At least that’s the advice of Rob Pincus of I.C.E. Training, a popular firearm instruction company.

    He offered that recommendation at a public presentation at the recent National Rifle Association (NRA) annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. For Pincus, this advice only makes sense since the child’s bedroom is the first place a parent will go when the invasion happens. And if you’re a good parent, you shouldn’t have to worry about your kids accessing the weapons without your permission. To hear him tell it, “if your kid is going to break into the safe just because it’s in their room, you have a parenting issue, not a home defense issue.”

    In response to an audience member, he also contended that “hidden,” instead of “locked or secured,” guns were perfectly acceptable. I guess Mr. Pincus didn’t read about the five year old who found a gun under her grandmother’s pillow five days before his speech, and shot herself dead in the head.

    Or maybe he didn’t know about the nine year old boy days earlier who shot himself in the hand with a gun he found on his lawn. Or did he know, or care, that at least 96 child shootings have occurred in 2016, where a minor accidentally shot themselves or someone else? And according to Everytown for Gun Safety, 278 such shootings took place in 2015.

    During the three days of the NRA convention, a five year old girl accidentally killed herself in Louisiana playing with a gun in her home. In Illinois, a three year old girl accidentally shot and killed a seven year old girl. Those are the ones that made the news.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that gun owning families keep their weapons locked, unloaded and separate from ammunition. About 40 percent of gun owning families actually follow those recommendations.

    And as to home invasions, the facts are that home burglaries in the U.S. are steadily declining, as is the number of violent crimes during the burglary. The roughly 100 homicides a year are far outnumbered by the accidental shootings by kids. And of course, there are a huge number of accidental shootings by adults.

    But Mr. Pincus is not alone in his gun pushing insanity. The Iowa House of Representatives recently passed a bill to allow children under 14 to legally use firearms, with parental supervision of course. One representative was lamenting the need for a militia of toddlers. She claimed the bill would insure it was perfectly legal for infants as young as one year old to handle firearms.

    One father at the NRA convention bragged about how his son had been handling guns since the age of three. He probably expected the seven month old he was pushing in the carriage to start soon.

    Sometimes one gets the impression the elder gun owners aren’t so concerned about teaching children gun safety as they are making sure their own addiction is passed on to the younger generation. And of course, the NRA, supported financially by the weapons manufacturers more than the hunter members, wants as many guns sold as possible. So they create a new children’s market, just like the tobacco companies. If they had their way, we’d probably follow Africa’s lead with child soldiers.

    The gun lobby also create new furniture companies, like Secret Compartment Furniture. How about a coffee table with a secret sliding drawer compartment where you can hide your handgun? Or what about an armoire where the top flips open to access your rifle?

    It’s lamentable that more respectable NRA members don’t rein in their leadership and support reasonable gun controls. It’s also lamentable how crazy the concealed weapon movement has become. If you drive, don’t make a mistake driving. If you teach, don’t offend a student. If you preach, don’t make a parishioner angry. It’s getting to the point where you have to be careful about looking at someone walking down the street, in the restaurant or any public place. What if they think you’re giving them the evil eye?

    It’s also lamentable that every other day there seems to be an advertisement or a front page article pushing guns in our own local paper. One would think the only happening at the Nature Center was target practice, for seniors or kids. It’s like, let’s engender a little more fear in the most vulnerable populations and teach them how to “defend” themselves.

    Let’s be honest. Anyone who conceals a gun in order to “defend” themselves is already prepared to kill another. It’s that simple. And given one’s mental or emotional stability, age or fear level, that other could be a spouse, a neighbor, a child, less likely an intruder.

    The NRA and their apologists like to project a brave and “tough guy” image. On the contrary, it’s their fear or anger driven cowardice, that makes them pack a pistol in their pants or even their child’s bedroom.

    Carl Kline

    Posted by Carl at 5:02 PM No comments:

    livingnonviolence blog 7.2016