Thursday, November 17, 2011

Sea Change.

Unless you were active in the gun rights thing sixteen or seventeen years ago, you really can't grasp how big yesterday was.
Picture: It's late '94 or maybe even early '95. You're standing in a gun store, fingering a used Glock magazine, wondering if you should shell out the fifty bucks. Maybe...

In 1989, George Bush had signed an executive order that banned the importation of scary-looking "assault weapons", introducing the term 'pre-ban' to the mainstream gun-owner lexicon.

Then in '93 a law called the "Brady Bill" had passed. Prior to this, you could walk into a store, fill out a form, and walk out with a gun. Now there was all kinds of fuzzy stuff that nobody really understood; forms that needed filling out and carrying to the cop shop, ill-defined waiting periods... (If you never tried to buy a gun in the bizarre interregnum between the passage of the Brady Bill and the institution of NICS, count yourself lucky. It was a goat rope. And selling them was worse.)

And then in '94 came the Assault Weapons Ban, which spread George Bush's imported AWB to cover domestically-produced arms as well.

So in early '95, there was no doubt in most any gun-owner's mind, based on the events of the last couple decades, that we had seen our last legal magazine that held more than ten rounds, that folding stocks were destined to become features on collector's safe queens, rather than something that let Miata owners take their carbine to the range, that it was only a matter of time before they came after all semiautos or banned carrying guns or something.

Usenet and the early 'Web were crawling with rumors about "Brady II" or "AWB II" that would impose "arsenal licenses" or ban everything but pump shotguns and revolvers. (Some of these things, like digital Mary Celestes, still wash ashore in my inbox, encrusted with the binary barnacles of a decade's worth of 'Fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:...) There were essays on the 'net about the grim dystopian future of '05 or '06, where President-for-Life Bill Clinton had invited in the UN and little kids were finking out grandpa to the gun gestapo, fingering where the family had cached its precious ancestral trove of .30-30s.

If you had showed up in that gun store of 1995 and told everybody that you were a time traveler from a 2011 where the AWB had sunset; 'Vermont-style' carry was now 'Vermont/Alaska/Arizona/Wyoming-style'; the House of Representatives had just passed, by a hefty margin, a national CCW reciprocity bill; there was a shooting-based game show on prime-time national TV; and you could buy a collapsible-stock AR carbine with a bayonet lug in Wal-Mart, the people in the gun shop would have laughed in your face and told you to stop telling tall tales. And not about the 'time travel' part, either, because that was plausible by comparison.

EDITED TO ADD: For a good view of where the gun rights mood stood back in the day, here's a thread from May of 2000 at The gimmick of the opening post is that it was from the horrible future of 2010...


Anonymous said...

Good point. The bad thing about democracy is that it lets The People do stupid things.

The good thing about it is that it lets The People correct their mistakes (sooner or later).

Prohibition, anyone?

Tam - encrusted with the binary barnacles of a decade's worth 'Fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:...

I'm stealing this!

Jay G said...

This is about the most accurate summation of the gun movement in the past 20 years I've seen yet...

Pakkinpoppa said...

When I was 21, we had NICS.
Ohioland, we had the "prudent man" doctrine, meaning if one toted a gun, he may not get a big "F" if he could prove being a "prudent man" in carrying said gun but would still be a pricey proposition.
Ohioland also still has the machinegun clause, however. If you have more than 31 aboard your blaster, it could be considered a machinegun unless it is a 22. Don't know of anyone ever charged with it, but don't plan on being the first either.

ExurbanKevin said...


There's a pervasive pessimism in the firearms community that the entire world is going to hell in a imported, UN-approved, fair-trade organic shade-grown hand basket.


But with the sunsetting of the AWB, Heller, McDonald, and now this, there is a cheery side to life, too.

And we still need to be be on guard against things like the BLM shooting ban. We're winning. Let's act like it.

Pakkinpoppa said...

We did get carry capability, and I've had the "license" to exercise a supposed "right" for quite a while but....sigh....a couple Goobernators made sure it wasn't easy. The Vermont style in Hamilton County lasted all of what, a week, before the "state" had to step in and promise to maybe, one day, possibly, work on carry and we get what we got. Oh well, at least we don't have to carry openly in our vehicles anymore, but the "Low-Way" interstate patrol is not very "carry friendly." Do not get pulled over by them.

Kevin Baker said...

I met my wife-to-be in 1993. I was 31 years old. Prior to meeting her, I'd never really been in the company of someone who was not part of the Southern "gun culture." All she "knew" about guns she learned like most people - through the media. It was quite a surprise to me. I mean, I knew what was going on with the AWB and various gun-control groups, but I hadn't really realized before that that these people were serious, and they seemed to be winning.

I got pissed, and I got active. Apparently so did a lot of other people, because if you'd told me then what you stated above, I would indeed have laughed at you.

Amazing, simply amazing. It almost makes me think we can pull our country back from the brink of economic disaster.

Then I look at the rest of the world, and realize that we have no hope in that regard at all.

abnormalist said...

For the record, I own a Miata (SCCA Street Prep C class toy) and you can still carry a surprising amount of guns to the range. I've carried at one time

Two shotguns
four rifles
three handguns
safety gear
and targets

And I didnt even need to use the passengers seat (except to put my lunch)

.45ACP+P said...

I fear what the reciprocity law will become. I love what it intended to do. When the Fed sticks its nose under the tent, the rest of the camel is never far behind. Be prepared for Federal restrictions and "common sense" regualtions added to this over time. It is who they are and it is what they do. If I am more free in 5 years I shall continue to celebrate. If I am less so, I at least lost while crying out in the wilderness.

Nancy R. said...

Just in time to celebrate in conjunction with National Ammo Day on Saturday!

AND I'm saving this post for Sweet Daughter. When she’s older, it will be the equivalent of me telling her how I had to *walk* to school in the snow. Uphill. Against the wind. Both ways.

Tam said...


"I fear what the reciprocity law will become. I love what it intended to do."

Then, respectfully, you have not read it.

Anonymous said...

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." -- Bill Clinton, 1994

I may have botched that attribution a little.


Zendo Deb said...

And the fact that the People's Republic of Illinois is the only state that still outlaws concealed carry.

Sure, you have to be big shot in California, and Hawaii concealed carry permits are kind of like Bigfoot. Everyone has heard of them but no one has seen one.

Still, the times they are a changin'

Borepatch said...

I have to say, you need to add "... and Borepatch had gone from thinking the AWB was OK to being a gun nut".

Some of us made this journey from a different starting place. That may be one of the reasons that the bill passed to handily last night.

Zendo Deb said...

The one thing that hasn't changed, and I don't understand why they can't get better material, is the lies the anti-gunners trot whenever a state votes on concealed carry.

Even when Florida passed shall-issue all those years ago, it wasn't the first state with such a law. Washington state has had it forever. But that didn't stop them from predicting blood-baths, and Wild West Shootouts. (Or stop them from doing the same thing today.)

NJDave said...

While I'm happy it passed the house, it still seems to be nothing more than a symbolic measure...

I figure it will most likely pass the Senate, get vetoed by the Pres and that will be the end of it.

And even if by some miracle it does pass, I'll get to watch all my out of state friends carry in my home state of NJ where I still can not and most likely never will be able too...

I vote every election day, and my district seems to go 2:1 for the D side of the aisle...

Always a pessimist, wake me up when this actually means something tangible.

Boat Guy said...

The Virginia Citizen's Defense League was founded in 1994. Still the most effective state organization I've seen.
As ExurbanKevin notes; there's still ongoing efforts like the proposed BLM reg. Remember this is an administration that achieves by Executive Order what it cannot implement by law.

Tam said...

Major Caudill just sent me an email about Brady II!

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

I made it back! This is T-Bolt! I used to blog. I'm from the future. I got my time machine to finally work, and am speaking to you from 2038. Most gunnies have at least a couple of M240B's and ammo is plentiful in the future. But the jackbooted federal agencies all have personal force fields and phaser guns. And they rule with an iron fist. No, really, they have a device that makes their flesh into iron for brief periods, it's kinda cool when they aren't smacking you upside the head. But I digress. We aren't allowed to possess a phazer, and couldn't conceal them if we wanted to because TSA makes us go everywhere nude. Don't vote for Chelsea Clinton for president!

Anonymous said...

If you had related that to me back then I would have probably started backing away from "that crazy woman" as I made for the nearest exit.

Odds are pretty good I could have to as I lived in Doraville and went to every show on the Northside and was in and out of all the nearby gun shops weekly looking for additions.


karrde said...

Can I hope to tell my kids the same thing about the TSA, their pervo-scan machines, and their gropers?

Or am I dreaming?

bluesun said...

As someone who has only gotten into guns the past few years, and have never know what it was like to only have a 10-rd magazine, thank you so much for helping is to get where we are right now.

Pakkinpoppa said...

If you live in the "left" coast or, for that matter, a soon-to-be bankrupt state on the other end of the nation, ten round magazines that are difficult to release are likely all you know about as well.

Tam said...


"If you live in the "left" coast... ten round magazines that are difficult to release are likely all you know about as well."

This would come as a surprise to citizens of Washington and Orygun.

Bubblehead Les. said...

For the "Sake of the Children," who have been fed a load of crap in what is called laughing called "History" Classes nowadays, here is a piece of Primary Source Documentation. On a Magazine I have next to me are printed the following words: "Smith & Wesson, Springfield MA. RESTRICTED: Export, Law Enforcement, and Government Use Only, S/N 9XXXX."

It is stamped on the Body of an 11 Round Magazine to a Smith 4043. 11 Rounds. Back in the 90's, after the Brady Bill, if I wasn't authorized to own it because of my being a Non-LEO, I was facing Federal Time for having a magazine that held ONE more cartridge than allowed by the Feds. One.

Sad thing is, some "VolksRepubliks" still have this Silliness as Law, and they Enforce it on a State Level.

Hopefully, the House Bill will be passed by the Senate, but I have my Doubts. But even if it gets through the Senate, I think Obama will Veto it to Appease Chuckie and Patty and Mickey B. and all the other Antis out there. And, even if he doesn't Veto it, I'm sure there's some Federal Judge who will stop it, because it "Violates a VolksRepubliks States Rights." Then it will have to go up to the Supremes.

So, yes I'm happy the Bill got Passed. But I don't expect it to become the Law of the Land for awhile.

But it sure is nice to NOT be living under the 90's Guns Laws, either.

Joel said...

Grr. Anybody want to buy a $50 M1A magazine? Anybody want ten of them? I was so sure they wouldn't repeal that ban...

Never, never take investment advice from Joel. That is all, message ends.

Jim said...

One of the side pleasures of H.R. 822 passage is the relative scarcity of horrified editorials. This, of course, just emphasizes your general point that we've been rather persuasive over the past few years.

Actually, I'm kind of nostalgic for a good bloodbath prediction. Maybe I'll hop on over to the Brady site.

rickn8or said...

"I had to *walk* to school in the snow. Uphill. Against the wind. Both ways.

Ya got off light. Most of us did all that PLUS fight hostile injuns.

As happy as I am to see H.R. 822 pass and appreciate how big a milestone it is, I doubt very seriously that Whorehouse Harry will ever let it come to a vote in his little fiefdom.

Garrett Lee said...

As for fitting a rifle in a Miata, one of my friends actually showed up at our cabin in NC with a MN91/30 stored in the trunk. I don't know how he did it, but he got it in there and back out again without bending sheet metal. I was in shock.

Anonymous said...

With a stroke of a pen, my P228 as designed magazines became high capacity magazines. I some how did not fall victim of their new wickness and threaten to shoot anyone more then ten times.

I do recall working on the range and watching with great interest as folks traded in G-17 or G19 with 5 mags. The three spares were sold for $45 a piece. Grandfathered magazines were worth a bundle.


Steve said...

As much as I have been enjoying our winning streak, I'm going to save my celebration for the day when I can actually strap on a heater in New Hampshire, drive through Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey en route to my destination without risking the next few years of my life in prison.

Tam said...


Sorry, but the country will probably have completely balkanized before then.

The other thing that the general advance of gun rights at the national level points out is that there really are, increasingly, two Americas. Read back through the comments to this post and compare the remarks of Marylanders and Joiseyites to those of us in the rest of the country... :(

tanksoldier said...

This is a big day, no doubt.

However, never forget that the privileges they deign to grant us today can as easily be revoked tomorrow.

benEzra said...

Brady II was real enough....H.R.3932/S.1878, 2004 session, truly dystopian legislation. Thankfully, by that time gun owners had started to wake up, and the bill went down with a stake through its heart. I think even by that time, the Bradyites had realized that they had badly overplayed their hand.

I wonder how many millions of gun-rights activists the Bradyites created with their "assault weapon" fraud and their demonization of gun-owning nonhunters. I'm one of them; I was 23 when the ban passed, and it was a defining moment.

And BTW if you snagged a preban Glock mag in the early ban era for $50, you got a deal. IIRC my wife paid around $100 for a 15-round G19 magazine in 1996 or 1997.

Rifle mag prices weren't nearly as affected as imports of preban former-NATO/Warsaw Pact mags picked up the slack, thank goodness. I paid $9.99/ea for 30-round AK mags in 2003.

Tam said...


"Brady II was real enough....H.R.3932/S.1878, 2004 session, truly dystopian legislation."

That was only one of dozens of bills and proposed bills the appellation was hung upon. I was getting hastily mimeographed sheets warning me of "Brady II" when Newt was still Minority Whip...

LonelyMachines said...

I lived through all of that. I ran a phone bank for the NRA opposing the import ban when I was in high school. Everybody yelled at us for interrupting their dinner and hung up. I tried to mobilize people to oppose the AWB in 1993. Even went on TV. Reaction? "I don't need no machine gun, so it ain't my problem."

These are the same people who screamed "OMG $100 for hi-cap Glock mag? How did this happen? And, why didn't you do something about it?"

In the late 1990's, if you had told me that we'd have a Supreme Court victory affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms (and a subsequent one incorporating it), I would have made a comment about flying pigs.

If you'd told me that we'd have a Democratic President with a history of hatred for guns, and a Congress controlled by Democrats, I'd have told you that we could expect nationwide registration.

Instead, guns owners are the mainstream. The whole cultural attitude about us has changed for the better, and we've made gains in a political atmosphere I once would have thought hopeless.

1 With A Bullet said...

$50 for a Glock mag would be about half price at some of the Houston gun shows during the late nineties. People were buying them for $90 used and $120 new. In 1995 I bought a 2nd gen G17 with 3 std cap mags for $400 out the door and thought I'd stolen it.

Tam said...


The only people I've met who are bigger masochists than gun owners are Evangelical Christians.

I have sat in a Southern Baptist megachurch and listened to the pastor thunder "And when those soldiers come through those doors, and command everyone who believes in Jesus to stand up, will you be willing to die for him?" and I thought "Huh? You can't even buy beer on Sunday in this state. Where are these soldiers supposed to come from?"

I don't think we're really comfortable unless we feel like a persecuted minority.

Anonymous said...

"Usenet and the early 'Web were crawling with rumors about "Brady II" or "Awb II" that would impose "arsenal licenses" or ban everything but pump shotguns and revolvers."

These kind of bills were proposed by various legislators on a regular basis. Fortunately, they all died in commitee or suffered some other kind of legislative stillbirth.

The closest I remember any of these things actually getting to passage was when the Republicans were trying to pass lawsuit protection for gun manufacturers (remember when Da Mayor and his ilk thought he could win the War on Guns in the courtroom?). The Democrats attached a rider that would have renewed and "strengthened" the original AWB. Kennedy, Kerry, and Whatzername from San Fran were high-fiving over their supposed victory, but turned out to be a case of pre-hatching chicken counting, 'cause the bill was quickly withdrawn.

I also remember the gun forums alive with the latest NRA conspiracy, which was that they had made this deal with the K-K-F gang to please their corporate gun manufacturer masters. Funny how, when the NRA told the sponsors to kill the bill rather than pass it with this travesty attached, the conspiracy theorists didn't blink - within 5 minutes, there was a whole new layer to the conspiracy theory to explain how the NRA foiling their own wicked scheme was actually just part of an even larger and more wicked scheme.

And so it goes.

Although I acknowledge the last 10 years have been very good overall, I do wonder about the longer term future. Seems like whenever I go to the range, it's mostly older dudes and I'm the young whippersnapper at 46. If there were hordes of younger shooters out there to vote against politicians who support the 2030 version of the AWB, I'd be a lot more sanguine.

Carmel IN

tanksoldier said...

The problem is its not JUST gun ownership. We've had victories in that arena, but courts have recently declared that the government doesn't need a warrant to put a tracking device on your car. The police can kick in your door with no warrant, probable cause or justification and you have to let it happen. Agents of the federal government can stop and strip search you because you want to walk from one part of a public place to another, and take a ride in somebody's privately owned vehicle. Socialized medicine is the law of the land, and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is the mantra of the majority of Congress. Just like the FUDs who didn't need a machine gun in 1993, many gun owners are placated by the gains in their primary area of concern: gun rights, while remaining oblivious to the power gained by the government and the rights lost in other areas.
Even if it doesn't pass the Senate HR822 IS a victory and no mistake... but it is just one victory in a never ending war.

Tam said...


See, and there's the other problem. This post is about gun rights. Gun rights, as a narrow focus, potent grassroots movement, has been kicking ass and taking names for the last ten years like nobody's business.

I believe that you want to talk about overall libertarian-style freedoms, right?

Well, those are fucked. Sorry. We can't even get two people to agree what they are.

Don M said...

In California it is still 1978. Governor Brown is still Governor. We have waiting periods, assault weapon bans (and .50 BMG ludicrously is classes as an assault weapon.)

Still with a .45 ACP revolver, a double barreled 12 gauge shotgun and a M-1 Garand, I am not quite naked. My .44 Navy cap and ball under the seat would be just as effective in social work as it ever would have been.

I argue that under Article IV, Priviledges AND Immunities, California has to recognize other states CCWs, with the Constitution directing a judicial protection for life and property for visitors to the state. That limitation to state power preexisted the 14th Amendment, and was not affected by the erroneous Slaughterhouse cases.

Anonymous said...

Late '94, early '95? I was downtown Chicago where even thinking about guns was illegal . . . and I was one of the few that knew things would get better.

Guess what? Things will be even better in 10 years.

Shootin' Buddy

Drang said...

Check out Message 51 from that TFL thread

Steve said...

I remember a press conference after the passage of Brady and the AWB where a gloating Bill Clinton was asked something to the effect of "what about the rights of gun collectors?" He sneered in response "they're just gonna hafta get a new hobby"
There was a window of time where Clinton thought that he had won it all and was going to enact British style gun laws in the US during his term.
I can't confirm or refute this one but maybe one of you can; around that time G Gordon Liddy was reporting on his radio show that members of the military (Marines I think)were polled regarding their willingness to use force against American citizens in door to door gun confiscations. If I remember correctly, Liddy reported that about two thirds said they would refuse. Again, I have no corroboration but maybe someone else remembers the story.
I'm also 46 and for years I was also the young guy at my club but since '08 I have seen a lot more young folks and familes at the range. Obama definitely woke people up.

Comrade Misfit said...

how many panicky letters and emails did you get about "HR 45 will take all of our guns away!!"?

I received plenty of them. After awhile, I had a formatted debunking reply all ready to go.

Steve said...

The thing about libertarian-style freedoms is that everyone wants to legalize their own vice but not anyone elses.

Tam said...


Google "29 Palms Survey" to fall down that rabbit hole.

It generated a lot of Tin-Foilery, including some pretty wild speculation in New American, the Bircher house organ.

Wally said...


I understand the angst. Really, I do. Because I felt it in the '90s.

And, I don't think the battle is over; far from it, we're just in the opening stages.

That said, I think - as a couple of you have pointed out above - we have some ground to cover. As Soldier pointed out, "Even if it doesn't pass the Senate HR822 IS a victory and no mistake... but it is just one victory in a never ending war." No one said wars are required to be short, nor easy to win. They're just worthwhile to fight.

This statist/socialist/big government crap started when our grandfathers were children; it's not reasonable to believe that it will be ended before our grandchildren are grown. But, it will be ended.

Panamared said...

I am encouraged by recent changes in gun laws, but I am still working for direct sale adds in men's magazines, and machine-guns for sale in hardware stores.

Will they ever understand, shall not be infringed?

Anonymous said...

The number of women shooting And owning is the real bright spot today.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised no one else here said it, but I'm good and happy this bill has no chance of passing. Like any good libertarian I'm a big fan of states' rights and prefer that the feds go get f'ed.

Letting the federal government stick its nose into this arena will almost certainly lead to them attempting to change the rules later on in the game. Leave it a state's rights issue so that we still have the option to vote with our feet.

Anonymous said...

"Like any good libertarian I'm a big fan of states' rights and prefer that the feds go get f'ed."

Say it with me, "states have no rights". Not a single one.

States have powers. People have rights.

No state has the power to deny people (of any ethicity, Chief Justice Taney) their privileges and immunities which includes the right to carry a gun.

Amendment XIV, §1, 5 mandate that the feds do this. 822 is a Constitutional duty.

Shootin' Buddy

Don M said...

So the next thing is to update Title 10 Section 311 to permit women as members of the unorganized militia.

I am pretty sure most folks would like a practiced Tam on their team rather than an old, slow, and inaccurate guy like me.

Tam said...

Anon 2:31,

"Like any good libertarian I'm a big fan of states' rights and prefer that the feds go get f'ed"

Not very libertarian of you. What other human rights do you believe states may trample and still be allowed to remain in the union? How about the Eighth? If Pennsylvania started cutting off feet for jaywalking, would you defend that on Tenth Amendment grounds?

If a state wants to violate the Constitution, including any of its Amendments, then it shouldn't be allowed to play in our reindeer games. (Conversely, if a state wants out, for whatever reason, the federal government has no business making it stay.)

azmountaintroll said...

I am opposed to invoking The Commerce Clause to override state laws, regardless of how much I disapprove of those laws. It is perilous to use the Enemy's weapons against them.

Justthisguy said...

Ah, yes. The Crime (of) Bill. I remember it well. That caused me to finally get going and arm my self at last.

Joe Huffman said...

@Tam, I think it was worse than you remember.

Kristophr said...

azmountaintroll: 822 is an Article 4 matter. Not a commerce clause matter.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:31 - you're welcome to your beliefs (this is America) but perhaps you should read the constitiution. You see, this is a constitutinal republic - part of joining said republic is adhereing to said constitution which grants certain unailable rights to the citizens of the states that choose to join the republic.

That is the entire idea of America - it's what made America great and despite the walks down the wrong path from time to time it is what will allow the US to remain great. We have the blueprints we just need some competent craftsmem to not F the whole thing up.

This bill is great victory, not just for gun rights, but for all rights as that it is attempting to force the states to honor the agreement that they made when they joined the union.

Jeff J

atlharp said...

Uncle has a link to Amazon where you can get a AR Lower Receiver from S&W. Imagine the thought of that in 2000?

WilhelmDurand said...

Indeed, this is most excellent.

It is interesting to analyze the distinctions between the areas where the Left is inevitably winning, and the area (singular?) where it is losing.

I think I would chalk up the victories for the gun rights crowd largely to the effect that revolutionary influences have on the Leftist machine.

Tam said...


"I am opposed to invoking The Commerce Clause to override state laws, regardless of how much I disapprove of those laws. It is perilous to use the Enemy's weapons against them."

The Commerce Clause is not involved.

See: "Full Faith & Credit", "Privileges & Immunities", and the 14th Amendment.

Ancient Woodsman said...

Lots of interesting chatter about a very important subject. Thanks for the post - it was well-timed and pertinent.

Got in the industry in the early 1980s. The '86 FOPA was a neat thing as finally we didn't have to deal with mailing & holding those pesky green 4473s for 'contiguous state' sales of long guns. As a customer now, I miss the old yellow 4473 and as a sales person counting "eight 'no's' and you're good to go".

The Bush I AWB, Brady Bill, '94 AWB, and everything else were indeed dark times for the free.
But in the early '80's? Wow. What a time to be a gun fan!

Thanks for the post. It was a good read, well-written.

Anonymous said...

i was 20 when i took part in the counter protest to the "million mom march" (remember that?) i certainly thought things were going to be pretty much down hill from there given nothing more than the disparity in turnout between the two sides. it's nice to occasionally be wrong.

Justthisguy said...

Tam, at the church I attend, the Pastor and Deaconess have been known to march up the aisle to the altar, each of them carrying big two-handed swords.

God send the Right!

(at the last night in the Garden, Jesus reccommended that the Apostles arm themselves)

On a Wing and a Whim said...

As someone who wasn't paying much attention to gun rights until recently, thanks to all the folks who worked to get us here.

As for folks who worry about gun owners greying - the best way to fix that is to invite people out and make it fun. Now that I'm in TN I no longer get to join ladies' night at my favorite Alaskan range, but I've provided food and additional chaperoning for more than a few days out with teenagers bringing new friends to learn to shoot, and watching Oleg make sure that no matter how a model feels about guns when they first darken his door, they leave with a grin and a trail of shattered clays, shot-up soda cans, or holes on paper targets.

the pawnbroker said...

"No state has the power to deny people their privileges and immunities...Amendment XIV, §1, 5 mandate that the feds do this."

Heh. Freudian?

"states have no rights".

They do have one, but secession too is denied by the feds.

"...if a state wants out, for whatever reason, the federal government has no business making it stay."

Yes. And as shown by this post, federal repression of freedoms can be -will be- overcome.

Anonymous said...

45ACP+P Said:
"I fear what the reciprocity law will become. I love what it intended to do. When the Fed sticks its nose under the tent, the rest of the camel is never far behind. Be prepared for Federal restrictions and "common sense" regualtions added to this over time."

I think this stuff is exactly what Tam was talking about. If we can't act like we're winning, always afraid to move because we're too concerned about future loss....then we're done.

Truth is, the anti-gunners would love to impose the restrictions with our without HR 822. Google 'Boxer concealed carry standard' to see what I'm talking about.

Let's keep the anti-gunners on the run so they can't turn and shoot back at us.

Kirk Parker said...


"Anybody want to buy a $50 M1A magazine?"

I'd love to buy some! I could always use more magazines!!

I'm not paying you $50 for them, however...

Secret Squirrel said...

As somebody young enough not to remember that era, and who is now able to purchase firearms with only moderate anal probing (hey, I'm in Maryland)...

Thank you, guys. Really.

Anonymous said...

c 2002, John Ross (author of "Unintended Consequences") asserted that "In many ways, things are better for us [gun owners] now than they have ever been in the past."

Cond0011 said...

"(Some of these things, like digital Mary Celestes, still wash ashore in my inbox, encrusted with the binary barnacles of a decade's worth of 'Fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:...) "

Wow. Going in my quote archive, Tamara.

Vagabond said...

"Not very libertarian of you. What other human rights do you believe states may trample and still be allowed to remain in the union? How about the Eighth? If Pennsylvania started cutting off feet for jaywalking, would you defend that on Tenth Amendment grounds?"

"Cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't mean what you think it does. It is a legal term of art, and it means "an arbitrary punishment not prescribed by statute." A state can pass a law that says you can be disemboweled in front of your children, so long as the legislature has approved that as a punishment. It was put in the Bill of Rights to prevent individual [Federal] judges from passing arbitrary and capricious sentences.