JPFO Alert: Marijuana Legalization and Armed Self-Defense Pose Legal Paradox

I certainly have no argument with a de-escalation of the "War on Drugs," but the confluence of that shift and the still aggressively waged "War on Guns" is going to make for some uncomfortable paradoxes, as I note in today's JPFO alert:

In the final analysis, anyone who wishes to avail himself of both the right to keep and bear arms and "legal" marijuana might be best advised to keep at least one of the two "off the books."

That will take work. Let's get to it.

And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, and Claire, you owe it to yourself to fix that.

JFPO Alert: ATF, Obama Administration Keep Tightening the Screws, by Executive Fiat

For the short term, at least, new federal gun laws are probably the smallest threat to private gun ownership in the U.S. As today's JPFO Alert reports, the Enemy is advancing their agenda as far as they can by fiat, rather than by legislation.

At risk of belaboring the point, let's note one more time that none of this draconian new restriction of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual involves any new legislation. That's particularly odd, when one reads what the BATFE says on its "ATF for Kids" page (yep--there actually is such an animal):

ATF cannot enact a law, nor can it amend the law.

Perhaps BATFE's policymakers should put themselves back in grade school, and read their own "Kids' page," because they seem to have forgotten that basic point.

And don't forget to see all the great recent alerts by Nicki, David, and Claire.

JPFO Alert: Bundy Ranch Showdown Proves Militias Can Stop Government Excesses

For the doubters out there, an armed militia can face down the greatest military superpower in the world, as today's JPFO Alert notes.

The issue here is that even if Bundy is wrong, enforcement of grazing fee requirements is not legitimately the work of heavily armed paramilitary forces. And the further issue is that for now, at least, when those paramilitary forces stared through their rifle scopes at armed private citizens staring through their rifle scopes, it was the government's eyes that blinked, with no injuries except to the feds' pride.

That injury itself is enough to prompt outrage in some circles. Sen. Reid is not alone in denouncing Bundy and his supporters as "terrorists." On the "progressive" discussion group site Democratic Underground, many participants are evidently angry that the showdown was not resolved with Bundy, his family, and his allies dying in a hail of gunfire.

JPFO Alert: Justice Stevens (Inadvertently?) Admits RKBA Unconnected to Militia Service

Today's JPFO Alert catches retired anti-gun Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens making some rather surprising admissions about the meaning of the Second Amendment.

If this "fix" is to change anything, must that not mean that the Second Amendment as actually written is unencumbered by any such limit on its application? To borrow an old analogy used by the forcible citizen disarmament zealots (as irreparably flawed as that analogy is), no one seems to have suggested that the First Amendment should be edited to say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, except with regard to yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater . . . " (unless that's one of Stevens' other five proposed amendments).

Catching up on JPFO alerts

Somehow, I failed to post links to the last three JPFO alerts I've written. We have:

• School's "Duty" to Treat Student as Terrorist for Holding a Pencil Wrong?
• Gun Rights Advocates Bid Farewell to Civil Rights Icon Otis McDonald
• "Smart" Guns, Their Surprising Critics, and Powerful Allies

And David Codrea, Nicki Kenyon, and Claire Wolf all have been putting out their superb work. Find it all here.

ATF war on EP Armory illustrates arbitrary inanity of gun regulation

But on a more fundamental level, why should it matter? Whether the frame is made first, and then filled in with plastic of another color, that will then have to be removed; or the to-be-removed portion is made first, and the frame formed around it--the aspiring builder gets the same thing, and has to do the same amount of work, either way. Selling a receiver made as outlined in the first example, though, without observing all the legal niceties required for gun commerce, would be a federal felony, while selling receivers manufactured by the second described technique, without any controls at all, is completely legal. How is the first scenario any more "harmful" than the second? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

Anti-gun congresswoman wants to make Yee's alleged crimes 'more illegal'

So the Leland Yee Gun Crime Reduction Act (maybe "Yee Law," for short) would nullify every federal, state, and local law that in any way regulates commerce in any weapon up to and including 155mm howitzers. This would reduce "gun crime," because the number of gun laws people could potentially break would be so greatly reduced. It would work in exactly opposite the way the Brady Campaign to Create Gun Crime does.

Now that's a gun law freedom loving Americans could get behind. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.

JPFO Alert: Ft. Hood Soldiers Turned by Policy into Targets

In today's JPFO alert, I share some memories brought to the fore by Wednesday's Ft. Hood shooting.

Just as we began the run, a mentally disturbed sergeant opened fire on us from the treeline, killing Major Mark Stephen Badger with his first shot, and then continuing to fire, apparently without regard to specific soldiers as his targets.

That ended up being 18 additional targets, all of whom survived, although one was paralyzed.

And we, the supposedly elite paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division, ran like frightened rabbits, because in a "gun-free" zone, the armed predator is king.

JPFO Alert: In Kentucky, Any 'War on Women' Will Face Armed Resistance

With iron-clad veto-proof majorities in both chambers, the Kentucky legislature has passed an important reform in favor of self-defense for victims of domestic violence:

The way the bill would work for domestic violence victims is that anyone who has an emergency protective order or a domestic violence order will be able to apply for an emergency temporary (good for 45 days) concealed carry permit, for which the training requirement would be waived (the applicant would still have to pass a criminal background check). If the permit holder does receive the required training at some time during those 45 days, the permit becomes like any other Kentucky concealed carry permit.

JPFO Alert: No Room for 'Politeness' in 2A Advocacy

Today we discuss the "pragmatic" view of gun rights advocacy, as articulated by NRA board member and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association president Tom King:

The idea that we must be more "polite," lest we frighten "the very people we want to attract to our side," ignores the nature of the right we are fighting for. The Second Amendment exists to guarantee the people's right to the means of killing aspiring tyrants and their hired muscle. There is no polite way to say that, as insurgencies tend to be more than a little "rude."

We must be "frightening," because the people who would trample our rights will only lose interest in doing so if they perceive a very personal risk to themselves in continuing on that course. They will have no reason to perceive such a risk if they see that our strategy is to cross our fingers and let judges tell us what our rights are, and when those judges tell us that those rights are effectively nothing, we then reduce ourselves to hoping that our liberties can win a popularity contest.

'Guns everywhere' in Georgia--why is that a problem?

There's a reason that the anti-self-defense zealots refuse to make a distinction between the concepts of "guns everywhere," and "guns everywhere except where there is no potential need for them." It's because even they lack the audacity to try to dispute the fact that no such distinction exists. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.