The Knox Update

Prosecution as Punishment

The Knox Update

From the Firearms Coalition

Prosecution as Punishment

The Troubling Case of Albert Kwan

By Jeff Knox

(October 8, 2009) People who “have nothing to hide” are often quite happy to answer any questions and consent to any intrusion a police officer might ask of them. They may even invite officers to “look around” if they want to. If you ask a good defense attorney how much you should cooperate with police, particularly when they are conducting an investigation in which you could possibly be a suspect, he will tell you “Not at all.” Don’t give them one word more than you must and never give them permission to search your car, look through your home, or examine any of your guns.

Continue reading Prosecution as Punishment →

The Knox Update

Training: Yes & No

The Knox Update

From the Firearms Coalition

 

Training, Yes – Mandatory, No 

By Jeff Knox 

(October 9, 2009) At the recent Gun Rights Policy Conference in Saint Louis, Missouri I had the privilege of introducing a couple of resolutions that were adopted by the assembly.  The first dealt with the recent attempt by Customs and Border Protection to classify certain "easy open" pocket knives as "switchblades," and subsequent efforts to amend the Federal Switchblade Act.  My resolution suggested that since the problem of switchblades and switchblade crime was primarily a figment of Hollywood and Broadway, and since regulating tools is never a reasonable response to bad behavior, that the rights community should support the outright repeal of the Federal Switchblade Act and any other such laws which are intended to modify behavior by restricting tools.  This resolution passed resoundingly with no real discussion.

My second resolution was a bit more controversial.  In it I suggested that, while training in the safe, legal, and appropriate use of firearms is strongly supported and should continue to be encouraged, government mandated training is anathema to liberty.  I pointed out that there is no statistical evidence that firearms accidents, mistakes, or abuses are any more likely in states requiring little or no training than they are in states with extensive training requirements.  The resolution put on the record the GRPC delegates’ opposition to government-mandated firearms training and their support for rolling back existing requirements where feasible.

Continue reading Training: Yes & No →

Informative

Jeff Knox: GRPC ’09

        One of the challenges of GRPC is the fast pace and very short time allotted to each speaker.  The topic of my panel was "Expanding Self-Defense and Right to Carry."  The point I wanted to make is that we, as a movement, have fallen into bad habits of using the language of our opponents to frame the debate and by so doing we weaken our case.  When we use phrases like "arming teachers" and "arming students," or say things like "responsible, licensed citizens should be allowed to carry guns in National parks…" we are undermining our own position.  There should be no debate about whether you have the right to defend yourself and your family.  There should be no question whether you have the right to have the means available to effectively accomplish such defense if needed.  Therefore there should be no talk of "allowing" or of "arming," but rather talk of "banning" and "disarming."  It is wrong that the means for effective self-defense is banned from college campuses simply because they are college campuses.  It is wrong that qualified students and faculty who take responsibility for their own protection everywhere else in their lives are disarmed simply because they are on a college campus.

        If we wish to expand self-defense and recognition of the right to carry, the first thing we must do is make sure that the language we use to frame the debate recognizes these as RIGHTS, not priviledges.

Continue reading Jeff Knox: GRPC ’09 →

Informative

California – Back to the Future?

Arnold Signs AB 962

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signs AB 962.  Ammunition record-keeping was one of the planks of the 1968 Gun Control Act that was proven not to work and repealed with the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act.  Count on similar pushes across the country.  Friends in Arizona consider blowing bridges across the Colorado River.  If you don’t see the video click the Read More link.

 

 

Continue reading California – Back to the Future? →

Chris's Blog

Obama Prize and California Ammo Registration

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize, The Governator signs ammo restrictions

What a week! The gushing from the Left over Obama’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize puts the prize on a level with the Oscars or the Tony awards — mere entertainment.  The strangest thing about the award is that it was given for a presidency that was less than two weeks old at the time nominations closed.  In other words, Obama won the prize for not being George W. Bush.  Frankly, there may be some merit for that position.  But my favorite reaction to O’s winning the prize comes from Reason magazine’s Nick Gillespie.  The YouTube video is classic.  Watch it here.

Speaking of entertainment, California’s governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a very bad bill requiring ammunition sellers to record each sale of "handgun" ammunition.  That apparently includes .22 Long Rifle.  Unknown whether it includes the 7.62 x 39 Russian for this handgun: 

Romanian AK Draco Pistol 7.62x39 caliber handgun

California statute defines "Handgun Ammunition" thusly:

"Handgun ammunition" means ammunition principally for use in
pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed
upon the person, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 12001,
notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in
ome rifles.

 

I’ve seen a handgun chambered in .45-70.  So does it apply there?  Given the broad brush that law enforcement seems comfortable using in all matters related to guns, I’d counsel California ammo sellers to err on the side of caution.  

Informative

Jeff Interview – Guns in School!

There is a young man putting together a documentary about the battle for our rights.  The working title is "Not Without a Fight" and he recently interviewed me for the film.  Here is the second of two clips from that interview he has posted on Youtube.  In this clip, I talk a little about guns and growing up, including a story about taking a Mauser "Broomhandle" to school.   Man I was a lucky kid!  (Click the title above or the "Read more" below to see the clip.)

300px-mauser_c96_m1916_red_9_7.jpg

Continue reading Jeff Interview – Guns in School! →

Informative

Jeff Interview – Belgian Corporal

There is a young man putting together a documentary about the battle for our rights.  The working title is "Not Without a Fight" and he recently interviewed me for the film.  Here is the first of two clips from that interview he has posted on Youtube.  In this clip, I talk a little about Dad and his conversion from a casual gun owner to a gun rights advocate and how his core belief effected me growing up.   (Click the title above or the "Read more" below to see the clip.) Continue reading Jeff Interview – Belgian Corporal →

The Knox Update

SCOTUS Takes a Second Look

Supremes Take a Second Look

By Jeff Knox

(October 2, 2009) On September 30, the Supreme Court announced that they were going to review the Second Amendment case McDonald v. City of Chicago and decide whether the Second Amendment applies at the state and local level.  Application of the Bill of Rights to the states has been a long and convoluted battle with the Second Amendment being the last major article left out in the cold.

As originally proposed and applied, the Bill of Rights was an expression of universal, natural rights, but was considered directly enforceable only on the federal government – except that it was a statement of principles to which all of the states in the union agreed.  Over the years there has been wrangling between states and the federal government regarding recognition of these rights, particularly in the years surrounding the Civil War as debates raged over the definition of a citizen and the rights such citizens enjoyed.  Chief Justice Taney presents these rights of citizenship – privileges and immunities – in a clear and unequivocal fashion in his infamous decision in Dredd Scott v. Sanford.  Part of the debate was over whether a person recognized as a citizen by one state was automatically a citizen of the United States and fully possessed of the privileges and immunities of such citizenship.  Justice Taney described these privileges and immunities to include, “the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

Continue reading SCOTUS Takes a Second Look →

Ammunition for the grassroots gun rights movement