never thought i would see the day

By now, you have probably heard the outstanding news that the District of Columbia’s outright ban on carrying a firearm outside of your home has been struck down as unconstitutional, but the absolutely awesome part of the ruling, in my opinion, is this section: 

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

I am not a lawyer, of course, but those people who are lawyers have indicated that this sentence means that DC now has permitless, Constitutional Carry, and will until such time as the DC city council enacts some sort of Constitutional carry permitting process. 

It is almost worth it to make the drive up to the Mall and quietly do a loop around the reflecting pool while carrying, but, personally, I do not want to be the test case. 

ingsoc would be proud

The rule of law is dead in the District of Columbia.

Of course, this is nothing new, given that the federal government calls that not-quite-state home, but this time around I am referring to the laws specifically governing that postage stamp of a municipality.

Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 2:

District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition, Division I, Title 7, Subtitle J, Chapter 25, Unit A, Subchapter VI, § 7-2506.01, section (b):

No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

Exhibit 3:

Letter from Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, to Lee Levine, Esq., dated 11JAN13:

Having carefully reviewed all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, as it does in every case involving firearms-related offenses or any other potential violation of D.C. law within our criminal jurisdiction, OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23,2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust.

Exhibit 4:

United States Marshal James Brinkley:

Despite the evidence Mr. Brinkley had been legally transporting the gun, his attorney Richard Gardiner said the D.C. Office of the Attorney General “wouldn’t drop it.” This is the same office now showing apparent reluctance to charge Mr. Gregory.

As someone with a bit more legal experience than me noted, "laws for thee but not me" are the very definition of "tyranny".

However, to go a slightly different direction than wfgodbold, the DC Attorney General claims they will not prosecute David Gregory for flagrantly breaking DC’s laws because…

…the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public following the previously mentioned events in Connecticut and the President’s speech to the nation about them.

Shiny. Then with that context well and truly established for the District of Columbia, I dare say it is time for a "Normal Capacity Magazine Demonstration" in the nation’s capital – after all, demonstrations are the very definition of "the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate", and if the demonstration took the effort to attempt to educate DC residents and lawmakers as to the simple fact that limiting the ammunition feeding devices of firearms will make no difference to criminals, well, we are addressing "firearms policy in the United States" as well. Of course, if you want to have some real fun, mix it up a little – try and feature every possible demographic, gender, ethnicity, and apparent income level combination in the crowd, just to see who gets arrested and who does not… or hand out Bluegun AR-15 magazines spray-painted black.

Something tells me a large number of those demonstrators would face a significantly more… interesting… experience than the kid-glove treatment a DC socialite enjoyed.

But, then, some animals are just more equal than others, are they not?

laws are for the little people

Oh, look, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is intentionally violating a photographer’s copyright.

Color me surprised.

No, not really. "Gun control" extremist organizations have a longstanding history of violating copyrights in their unending crusade to demonize and dehumanize firearm owners and carriers, which bring us back to an interesting point that comes up time and time again: if you do not respect one individual right – such as the right to self-defense – you probably do not respect any of them.

My evidence for this observation? Well, as mentioned, anti-rights cultists obviously do not respect our individual, Constitutionally-protected rights to self-defense and self-preservation by the very nature of their positions and desires, so that rather goes without saying.

However, moving deeper, gun control organizations and supporters go to radical lengths to silence dissent, even going so far as to tell people with different opinions to "shut up". The rights protected by the Second Amendment were out the window from the get-go, but apparently those protected by the First are worth nothing to these people either.

And now, here they are, violating multiple people’s rights to intellectual property – specifically pictures they took or pictures of themselves – without so much as a by-your-leave or "Image courtesy of [x]".

Methinks I see a pattern developing.

And this is all without even touching on the gratuitous, vicious, and vindictive nature of the smear piece that contains the copyright violations… I would remind Ladd Everitt that the last time he embarked on a similar specious character-assassination campaign, he got the CSGV’s Twitter account locked down for over two weeks due to his inability to keep his stalkerish, abusive, bullying mentality in check… and that was without a copyright infringement to throw on the stack. One really does have to wonder why Michael K. Beard keeps Ladd on the payrolls, given how much of a hot-headed, frothing-at-the-mouth thug the latter is on a regular basis… Or, on the flip side (and purely speculatively), one has to wonder how threatened Michael feels by Ladd that he is concerned about letting him go…

Thankfully, Oleg Volk has already issued a DMCA take-down notification to Google, so hopefully the image will be struck shortly and the image is now gone from CSGV’s weblog post, but Emily Miller will likely always have to deal with having been targeted by a particularly hateful, spiteful, and borderline-violent "gun control" organization. Whilst that superficially seems like something of a downer, there is a silver lining to joining that distinguished club: we get to watch, first hand, as the CSGV abandons its stated mission, slowly collapses, and augers into the ground as it pursues its staff’s personal vendetta against those who disagree with them.

I shall not speak for Emily, but I can live with a few disgusting personal attacks levied against me if it means I get to watch the modern-day equivalent of the KKK crash and burn.

Speaking of Emily Miller, though, I, along with countless other prorights webloggers, would like to thank you for standing up in public and documenting the draconian nature of the current version of D.C.’s firearm laws. One can only hope your shining the harsh light of the truth on the situation will result in further successful legal challenges against D.C.’s idiocy.

quote of the day – @jessecbrooks

Given the District of Columbia’s long, storied, and successful history with "gun control", and given that it is illegal to possess an "assault weapon" in D.C., that you cannot legally transport loaded firearms in D.C., that it is illegal to discharge a firearm in D.C., that it is illegal to shoot at the White House, and that it is illegal to attempt the assassination of the President, obviously this whole White House shooting story is nothing more than a complete fabrication designed to boost news ratings.

… [/sarcasm]

In reality, this shooting incident constitutes nothing more than yet another failure of "gun control", and yet another indication that "just one more law" will mean absolutely nothing to people who are intent on law-breaking. I am 100% certain that I missed a couple laws in my above attempt to document all of the ways the shooter behaved in an illegal fashion, and if none of those laws were sufficient to stem his murderous – if impotent – intent, then what makes you honestly believe that One More Law (TM) will make the slightest bit of difference in the world? To be certain, we do need some of those laws – attempting to murder anyone is wrong, no matter the target, and randomly discharging firearms in a metropolitan area, especially with malicious intent, should also be a punishable offense. However, what sets those laws apart from the rest? The notion of a "victim".

By their very nature, most firearm-related laws are victimless – who is the victim of me owning an "assault weapon" inside the confines of D.C., Kalifornistan, or any of the other states that have such laws? Who is detrimentally affected by that ownership? Who am I harming? The correct answer to all of those questions is, "Not a soul." However, if I were to take a firearm – any firearm at all, not just an "assault weapon" – and use it to assault, batter, injure, murder, threaten, or intimidate another person… well, then we have a victim, someone who I am specifically, directly detrimentally affecting, and that is where laws should come into play. Punish those who harm others, and leave the rest of us happily alone.

Unfortunately, that fine distinction is lost on the vast majority of "gun control" extremists, and like so many compulsive-obsessives out there, they tend to react… poorly… when faced with something outside of their comprehension, rather like @jessecbrooks did in the below conversation:

jessecbrooks1@jessecbrooks: Someone shot at the White House with an assault rifle from 800 yards away. I guess that’s his 2nd Amendment right, right? #guncontrol

@linoge_wotc: Nah, just yet another in a long line of documented failures of #guncontrol

@jessecbrooks: If #guncontrol experiences so many failures isn’t the fault of people like you that think that ANY weapon is ok to be legal?

@jessecbrooks: I guess since our 2nd amend rights grant us ability to own militaristic weaponry, I reserve the right to obtain a nuclear bomb

jessecbrooks2@linoge_wotc: Wow. Why should I bother talking to someone who has already decided my positions for me? Narcissistic, much? #fail

@jessecbrooks: That statement doesn’t even address the points I brought up to you. Just like the last one you made. #ignorant

@linoge_wotc: You made no points. You dictated my position to me. Why should I try to educate an idiot who does that? #fail

@linoge_wotc: Also, for future reference, if a sentence ends with a question mark, it is, by definition, NOT a "statement". #ignorant #fail

@jessecbrooks: Your failed attempts at intelletcualism are laughable and no rifle in the world can make up for your erectile disfunction.

jessecbrooks3@linoge_wotc: Thank you for proving #MarkleysLaw still holds true & proving yourself a childish #bigot. #guncontrol

@linoge_wotc: Also, by the by, it is spelled "intellectualism". #duh #fail #ignorant #idiot

(Note: the quotes in the screencaps are out of order… I have no idea why Twitter puts one response above one that was written before it. The text shows the accurate timeline.)

Congratulations, @jessecbrooks, you successfully went from zero to Markley’s Law in five tweets or less, and made the Quote of the Day in the process! I think that might be something of a new record. I will certainly not deny that I needled him, especially once it became obvious that he was interested in nothing more than childish namecalling and temper-tantrum-throwing (And, really, how can you pass up trolling someone who plays the "I’m smarter than you are!" card while simultaneously misspelling and misusing words?), but why are so many anti-rights cultists obsessed with other men’s genitalia? In addition to being rather rude, it verges on the "damned creepy" pretty darned quick.

Looking past this bigot’s bullyish attempt to dominate the conversation by dictating my talking points to me before I ever had the chance to express them, let us see if we can address his "concerns" in a forum that allows more than 140 characters per exchange.

To begin with, the news has not made this information public yet, but I would be very, very surprised if the firearm the shooter used was an actual, honest-to-God "assault rifle"; such devices are capable of fully-automatic fire, are regulated by the National Firearms Act, and are registered to their extensively-background-checked owners. Current indications are that he used an AK-47 clone, which would make it an "assault weapon", as meaningless as that phrase is.

Otherwise, no, "gun control"’s failures are not my fault. Its failures are solely and exclusively the combined fault of those who break the laws (i.e. "criminals") and those who seek to arbitrarily and capriciously infringe upon the individual rights of all people simply because some people cannot behave. Laws that seek to control the actions of men are invariably doomed to failure, because of that nasty little bugger "free will"; on the other hand, laws that punish those who harm others will only "fail" insofar as the offenders manage to escape punishment. By way of a prime example, consider England – an island with some of the strongest "gun control" laws in the world. You would think such a microcosm would be a wondrous world of unending "gun control" successes, when the reality is, not so much: that country’s firearm-related crime rate has grown seven times faster than its population. If "gun control" was a "success", it should have diminished, or at least remained constant.

That failure is hardly the fault of those who believe in self-defense (especially because such folks are disappointingly in the minority over there).

In this specific instance, none of the "gun control" laws in force in D.C. were able to stop this obvious nutbag from perpetrating his nutbaggery, and @jessecbrooks would have us believe that failure is our fault? Uhm, what? I did not make him go crazy. I did not encourage him to shoot the President. I did not put the gun in his hands. And the illegal arms trade throughout the world more than adequately shows us that absolutely nothing could have stopped any of that. Oh, it may have made it more inconvenient for the shooter, but since when has that stopped criminals?

Furthermore, he says "ANY weapon" like it is a bad thing, but note how he does not adequately provide an explanation as to why certain weapons are acceptable for civilian consumption, while others are not. History has proven to us that politicians have no mind for determining such things (need I remind you of the "shoulder thing that goes up"), and I would just as soon not allow them to do so. However, in the follow-up tweet, he goes straight for the hyperbole, and attempts to conflate "firearms" with a "nuclear bomb"; honestly, that reach is so heinously idiotic, I am not even going to bother addressing it.

That follow-up tweet also includes a pretty standard "gun control" extremist reading comprehension failure in that the Second Amendment "grants" nothing; it protects a pre-existing right. Hell, it even says that: "… the right of the people … shall not be infringed." Note how it does not say, "… this Amendment grants the people the right to…" or something similar. Let me tell you, being accused of "attempts at intelletcualism" (sic) by someone who does not even grasp that simple distinction is high-larious. 

Moving on, the phrase "militaristic weaponry" amuses me. Would @jessecbrooks freak out over this firearm? After all, it is nothing more than a bolt-action rifle with an integral, non-removable magazine, like so many "hunting" rifles throughout the world. Of course, it, or many of its millions of brothers, was also used by the Russian and Finnish armies to kill Nazis, Finns, and Russians. On the other hand, would he flip about this firearm, pretty much the most prevalent hunting rifle in America? If not, then would he mind my owning this variant?

In reality, not only is a firearm’s use in a military completely irrelevant to its effectiveness, lethality, or current use by its owner, but "militaristic weaponry" is exactly what the Second Amendment was designed to protect – after all, remember that the Founding Fathers wanted to be able to call upon the armed citizens of America for national defense if the situation should ever come up. What good would such a body of people be with outdated, unstandardized, and irregular arms? Who would want to command such a force, much less try to integrate it into the military? Simply put, the Second Amendment was never about hunting; it was always about defense, both of your own person and of our country.

In other words, @jessecbrooks failed at every turn, and when he realized I simply was not going to play the debate by his rules, he reverted to the same bullying tactics that probably served him so very well on the kindergarten playgrounds of his youth. I wish I could say his reprehensible behavior was something of an except for "gun control" extremists, but you and I both know that would be a lie.

His behavior is, however, a prime example of why "gun control", as a cause, rather than a policy, continues to fail at every available opportunity: rather than even consider the possibility of a dissenting opinion, @jessecbrooks launched straight into personal attacks, logical fallacies, augmentative thuggery, specious assumptions, and proving Markley’s Law true. With most people supporting it being like him, how could "gun control" turn into anything other than a fringe movement?