Category Archives: Jeff’s Blog

Jeff's Blog

Hello Gun Lobby!

Much of what you see here you might later see as a the core of a full column in The Knox Report which is a regular feature of Shotgun News and many club and organization newsletters, or featured in our own newsletter, The Hard Corps Report. This area will serve as my notes and brain-storming zone for other writing so you'll see it here first.

Please let me know what you think of the information you find here and the work that we are doing.

Yours for the Second Amendment,

Jeff Knox

Philosophical Wars

As expected, and intended, my latest Knox Report column has upset some in the, "All is lost; let's start a shooting war" camp.  It is mind boggling to me that intelligent people could be so short sighted and misguided as to think that killing people and blowing things up is somehow going to make things better for our grandchildren.  They seem to think that because only about 5% of the populace supported the idea of seceding from the English Empire back in 1776, that their "magic number" is 3% and they think they have that because some survey suggested that 3% of the population thinks violence against the government is justified or could be justified today.  What they fail to take into account is the "bluster factor" of people who will agree with such a statement, but who don't really mean it, and the radical other side – the people who support the terrorist tactics of the Animal Liberation Front and radical Leftists like Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.

What I want to know is, where are the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Adamses and Hancocks?  Who do these Bozos think is going to lead the new America out of the ashes and back to its Constitutional glory, and why arent these giants running for public office and leading the political revolution?  What do they think China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are going to be doing while their merry little band of terrorists is busy crippling our nation and trying to foment rebellion?  What exactly do they expect the "end" of their rebellion to look like?  How are our children and grandchildren going to be better off?

Revolution is like cannibalism; it can be justified, but only when there is absolutely no other choice for survival.  Anyone who talks revolution but isn't actively and diligently working hard every day to elect quality people to office at every level and to educate the elected officials already in office about their core responsibilities, is just a bag of hot air who would rather talk about sacrificing everything – and possibly act on that talk – than do the hard work and make the sacrifices necessary to solve the problems within the system our founders created. 

When our forefathers revolted against English rule, they were in an untenable situation.  They had no vote in the legislative body.  They had no say in their government.  They had no voice in regulatory matters.  They were mere subjects and had no means of redressing wrongs.  That is not our situation today.  We have a voice.  We have a vote.  We have the means to talk directly to our elected officials and our fellow citizens, and we have the means to fire politicians who don't listen to our council and to replace them with politicians who understand their jobs.

It is not easy and it is often frustrating, but it is not impossible and our situation is not hopeless.  Things might be headed further in the wrong direction with the coming elections, but such swings are part of a pendulum and that pendulum will swing back in our direction again – unless some self-proclaimed freedom fighters screw it all up and convince the majority that liberty is too dangerous and freedom too costly.  That's exactly what happened in 1995 when Timothy McVeigh decided that he was going to get the revolution rolling by blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma City.  The pendulum was already swinging back to the right.  The public was fed up with the federal government's anti-liberty actions and had sent a large crop of, mostly very conservative, mostly firs-time politicians to Washington to start straightening out the mess.  The "far right" was building and growing and, while there was a loud "lunatic fringe" element to the militia movement, the overall motion was in the right direction – until McVeigh took his action.

The destruction of the Murrah Federal Building caused a backlash that continues today.  Where once "unorganized militias" and groups calling themselves "patriots" with a focus on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, suddenly there were empty shells and the name "patriot" became tainted and remains suspect to this day.

Timothy McVeigh – and the gun show philosophers who fueled his misguided sense of patriotism – did more to hurt the cause of liberty than Janet Reno and Bill Clinton could have ever dreamed.  One misguided moron with a rifle can do more harm to the fight to restore our gun rights than a thousand Barack Obamas or Hillary Clintons.

So I say to Mike Vanderboegh and those who believe as he apparently does: If you want to start a violent revolution, go do it in Iran, or Cuba, or Mexico, but don't bring you destructive, self-defeating, chest beating into my fight for the Constitution and liberty.  If the time comes when we must resort to violence to restore our republic, I will be in the vanguard, but until that time comes, I will dedicate my life – as my father dedicated his life – to using the Constitution, and the rights and limits it illuminates, as the most powerful weapon for preserving it and the republic.


Be sure to read the column by clicking here and Mike Vanderboegh's rebuttal by clicking here.  As America slips into a dark period, it is important to realize exactly who our enemies are on both sides of the political spectrum.

Sportsmen for Obama?

The following is a press release put out by the owner of the web site .

I encourage everyone to read it, pass it on, and visit for more information. –JAK

Contact Jeff Settle
October 30, 2008

Boulder, CO, Oct 30,

Sportsmen for Obama? Rejects Obama's Claim to

Support the Second Amendment.

Objective analysis of Obama's voting record, in the federal and Illinois
Senates has been performed. The record includes fifteen separate votes
against gun owners and manufacturers.

Only a single vote for gun owners has been found. The bill Obama voted for
prohibited the confiscation of firearms in case of an emergency. This bill
came in front of the Senate in 2006, probably after Obama decided to run
for the presidency.

Obama's gun control votes and statements made before his presidential run
also indicate a candidate hostile to the Second Amendment as defined by
the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller. He has publicly declared:

• he was in favor of local law suits against gun manufacturers,
• he supports for prohibiting gun shops within five miles of any school,
• he is against concealed carry by law abiding citizens,
• he favors one gun a month laws,
• he favors ‘assault weapons bans’,
• he has favored a ban on all semiautomatic firearms,
• he favors limits on handgun ammunition,
• he favors limits on 'assault weapon' ammunition,
• he believes that state and local entities should be able to implement
their own gun control,
• and last month stated he would not have enough votes to start gun

“Obama’s supposed gun control position as a presidential candidate are so
counter to his previous words and votes that Obama comes across as someone
who will say whatever his audience wants to hear.” said Jeff Settle, owner
of Sportsmen for Obama?.

A survey by Sportsmen for Obama? indicates that the gun rights issue is a
loser for those that are aware of Obama’s gun rights history.
Specifically, of our readers, 32% of readers will not vote for Obama
because of his gun control position whereas 9% will vote for him because
of his gun control positions.

Sportsmen for Obama? ( is a derivative work of
Gun Law News ( ). Its purpose is to highlight Barack
Obama’s words and actions on gun control in a nonpartisan manner. Federal,
state and media website links are cross referenced to allow readers to
verify information.


For more information about the Sportsmen for Obama? project or to schedule
an interview, contact Jeff Settle at 303-882-1294 or by e-mail at

Rifle Maker Backs Obama – RESIGNS!

Dan Cooper was asked to resign his position with the rifle company he founded after the following story broke in the general media and swept through the firearms comunity.

Cooper has stepped down as CEO and is no longer associated with Cooper Arms.

Somethimes you've just got to wonder what the Hell some people are thinking – if they're thinking at all.

Maybe Cooper drank the Kool-aid from the National Hunters and Shooters Association, the Democrat/Brady front group posing as a gun and hunters rights organization.  Whatever the reason for his decision, it has cost him and could destroy the company he built just because his name is still on it.

Here's the original story:

WASHINGTON — Dan Cooper, a proud member of the National Rifle Association, has backed Republicans for most of his life. He's the chief executive of Cooper Arms, a small Montana company that makes hunting rifles.
Cooper said he voted for George W. Bush in 2000, having voted in past elections for every Republican presidential nominee back to Richard Nixon. In October 1992, he presented a specially made rifle to the first President. Bush during a Billings campaign event.
This year, Cooper has given $3,300 to the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama. That's on top of the $1,000 check he wrote to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign in 2004, after he was dazzled by Obama's speech at that year's Democratic National Convention.

Unbelievable Canadians

This story out of New Brunswick, Eastern Canada is just too bizarre to let lie and explains why it is important to resist efforts to create ever broader "buffer zones" where firing a gun is prohibited.

The whole issue is that the guy is accused of firing a gun closer than the minimum 400 meters away from a residence.  Look at the details of this story.  The owner of the residence was out hunting himself and heard a shot that sounded like it was "close to his house."  He took a day off from work to investigate the shot and found where a deer had been dressed 150 yards behind his house.  He called the forest rangers who investigated and found blood near the house, measured the distance, found a spent shell a few yards away, and a crease in an Alder tree.  They also found four wheeler tracks.  They called in the dogs and tracked down a guy in his home.  They also had an aerial photograph taken of the area.  They confiscated the guy's rifle and his deer and put him in jail.  All for firing a gun 150+ meters away from a residence where no one was home.  The whole thing went to trial where the crew from Miami CSI presented forensic evidence from the deer autopsy and the judge decided that the guy was being less than truthfull about the whole thing so he found him guilty – of firing a gun closer than 400 meters away from a residence.

He was fined a couple of hundred bucks, probably lost his hunting license for a year – though I wasn't clear about that – and faced a month in jail if he didn't pay up.  He also lost his rifle.  No word on what happened to the deer carcass.

How on earth does this warrant so much attention?  The aerial photography cost more than the fine and the value of the gun put together!  And they probably have laws in Canada requiring that the gun be destroyed rather than sold to another hunter who might go out and abuse it like this guy did.  The whole thing is just mind boggling.  –JAK

Hunter guilty of discharging firearm too close to residence

 Published Wednesday October 15th, 2008

Judge finds accused's testimony not credible

By Madeleine Leclerc

A hunter's version of events did not ring true for Grand Falls provincial court judge Jacques Dejsardins who found Gerald H. Sisson guilty on Sept. 30 of unlawfully discharging a firearm within 400 metres of a Burntland Brook residence on Oct. 22, 2007.

Judge Desjardins gave his decision in the case a day after Sisson's trial was completed on Sept. 29.

The issue was whether Sisson had shot a deer within 400 metres behind Erin Jenkins' residence or outside its perimetre. According to the Crown's case, the deer had been shot approximately 153 metres from the back of the residence, while Sisson offered evidence to the contrary during his trial.

Continue reading Unbelievable Canadians

More Media Outrages

    It is absolutely outrageous that the media is giving any credence at all to the Democrat/Brady shill group American Hunters and Shooters Association.  The Brady's and the media were "shocked, shocked I say" when they discovered that one of their volunteers was apparently working for pro-gun interests – even though all of the reports indicate that the woman was an active and effective worker who was very successful in her anti-gun activities.  Contrast that to the media fawning over AHSA and treating them as a bona fide gun rights organization even though the founders and leaders of the group have long records of support for gun control groups and are closely linked to anti-gun Democrat politicians.  Reading AHSA president Ray Schoenke's blog is like reading Brady Campaign director Paul Helmke's; they use the same talking points and phraseology and could easily be interchanged.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were both written by the same Brady staffers.

    Even so, the media insists on treating this bogus organization – which has virtually no members – as a credible voice for gunowners and "a competing gun rights organization" to NRA (Glen Johnson – AP).

   This is not a case of the media being bamboozled by slick political operators.  This is collusion in the worst degree.  Any "journalist" that treats AHSA with any credibility at all is doing so because that "journalist" personally supports the views expressed by AHSA – especially as they oppose the NRA.

    Such yellow journalism is outrageous and inexcusable.  Media watchdog organizations and journalism societies should be calling foul and the "journalists" participating in and perpetuating this charade should face disciplinary action.

Bailout Alternative

    I usually don't stray from topics involving guns, but if things on this whole bailout mess continue as they've been going, I'm afraid guns will be involved sooner or later.

    Everyone is upset about the Bailout plan, but I've heard few alternatives suggested – the most common being send everyone to jail and let Wall Street melt down and the one where the government should give us all a million dollars so our dollar would really be worthless…  

    Here is an alternative I got from my old friend Dave Ramsey ( that actually makes sense and doesn't cost 700 Billion dollars.  I don't know if this is Dave's idea or one he picked up from someone else, but it's a good plan and needs to be read by every elected representative in the country.  Remember that little politicians and party activists often have unlisted numbers for the big politicians so don't be shy about spreading this around.


The Common Sense Fix
Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic
nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the
answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support
any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I
submit the following three-step, Common Sense Plan.
a. Insure the sub-prime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type
insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant
market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
b. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance,
they must do two things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent
to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into
the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a
chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or
the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of
foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any
deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage
companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again
limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and
executive team members as long as the company holds these
government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming
executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.
c. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of
the current proposal.

a. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only
subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being
forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the
underlying mortgages and real estate.
b. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate
stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer

a. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the
real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating
tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the
taxpayer nothing.
b. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many
will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but
it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all
Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up
instead of down.

This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time
for all of us, as Americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.

Job Well Done?

   I have long been a critic of the movement to militarize police.  I believe that it is important for police to have the skills and equipment necessary to deal with extraordinary situations, but the trend has been toward using these tactics and equipment in very un-extraordinary duties.  Combine aggressive tactics with an unacceptably low standard for acquiring "No-Knock" and "Announce and Enter" warrants and you have a recipe for catastrophes.

  What should be simple arrests or a startled resident grabs a gun and either shoots a cop by mistake or gets shot themselves unnecessarily. Continue reading Job Well Done?

The Courts – Post Heller

    There was much specualtion right after the Supreme Court came down with their decision in DC v. Heller as to how the decision would be interpreted and implemented by the lower courts.  Some insisted that Heller's clear declaration of the Second Amendment protecting an individual right with no conection to militia service would revolutionize the whole argument and result in the toppling of gun laws like dominoes.  Others worried that the things intentionally left out of, and excluded from Heller would result in radical interpretations bolstering existing and future laws and doing more harm than good.

    If the cases which referrenced Heller in the first two months after its announcement are any indication, the gloom and doomers were closer to right than the sunshine and roses folks.  While there hasn't been much in the way of outrageous misuse of Heller, neither has there been much in the way of recognition of the rights and protections recognized in the case.  The most disturbing result has been a tendency of courts to continue to use precedents which were founded on the premise that the Second Amendment is a "collective right."  Such precedents should no longer be considered as they are in conflict with the holding in Heller, but courts are still using them.  They are also ignoring the gaps that removing those cases leave.  The Federal Appeals court for the 9th Circuit recently supported a lower court's decision to include specific information about the Second Amendment in their instructions to a jury.  The instructions read as follows:

     “A person does not have the right under the Second Amendment, or under any other provision of the Constitution, to possess a machinegun. A person does not have a right, under the Second Amendment, or under any other provision of the Constitution, to possess a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches that the person has not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.”

    Neither the trial court nor the appeals court explained where these "facts of law" were derived.  The merely explained that Heller did not reverse them.  While this is a correct interpretation of Heller directly, it does not answer the core question: What is that statement based on?  Heller specifically declined to address such issues directly in their holding, but the holding did change a principle that has been fundamental to the sustinance of gun control laws for 70 years, the notion that the Second Amendment only applies to members of State Militias subject to government regulation.  Remove those discredited precedents and what is left to support the notion that the Second Amendment does not protect rights to own machineguns?  Just because Heller dodged the issue does not give other courts the right to ignore it too.

    To read about the cases which Heller has impacted so far, click here to go to Eugene Volokh's excellent web page. 

Jury Rights Day, Sept. 5

Jury Rights Day ~ September 5

Jury Rights Day ~ September 5
On September 5 of this year, FIJA activists across the nation will once again celebrate the right of jurors to render a verdict based on conscience by handing out literature, writing letters to the editor, appearing on interviews, and speaking to groups. For more information, go to
September 5th marks the 338th anniversary of the trial of William Penn – a trial that laid the foundation of our First Amendment Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Peaceable Public Assembly. Many Governors have signed Proclamations in recognition of Jury Rights Day.
In 1670, Quaker William Penn of London was arrested, pled not guilty, and subsequently argued against England’s Conventicle Acts, which forbade the practice of religions other than the Church of England. The Judge instructed the Jurors to find Penn guilty. The Jurors’ refusal to enforce a bad law led to the Court jailing and withholding food and water from the Jurors.
On appeal, the right of Jurors to base their verdict on their best judgment and conscience, despite existing law and court instruction, was affirmed, and cemented the seldom-used but important right of “Jury Nullification of Bad Law” in all our legal systems—the ultimate right of the people to control their government.
These underlying common law concepts firmly establish the fact that Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict. As well, jurors are not required to give a reason for the verdict they render. The fundamental right of Jurors to render their verdict based on conscience is basic to the preservation of Justice, and to our Lawful Society.

• Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict.
• Jurors cannot be required to give a reason for their verdict.
• Jurors have both the authority and the human duty to render a verdict based on their individual sense of justice and their conscience.

Receive a free information packet by calling 1-800-TEL-JURY. Visit

For Immediate release
21 August, 2008
324 words
Iloilo Marguerite Jones, Executive Director

Offensive Democrat Rules

DNCC '08  America's Town Hall – Terms and Conditions

Submissions may be video or text.  Submissions must not: [snip] contain profanity, pornographic, or sexual content, content promoting alcohol, illegal drugs, tobacco, firearms, or weapons, hateful content of any kind (including racism, sexism, etc.), content that promotes violence or harm to another living creature, or any other offensive, obscene, or inappropriate content (emphasis added)


So the Democrats, who support the Second Amendment, and all sorts of gun control schemes, also lump guns and hunting in with pornography and illegal drugs.

Read the whole thing Here. 

Personally, I find their rules offensive and very telling.

Thanks to Mike Stollenwerk of for the tip about this.