Gun grabbers in the U.S. are a subset of a larger group of weapons prohibitionists. While most American anti-gun activists accept the idea of self defense with less-than-lethal weapons, their overseas cousins are not nearly so broadminded. And that fanaticism could have some unintended consequences.

As many of you probably know by now, a 17-year old Danish girl successfully used pepper spray to defend herself against a possible “Rapefugee” in Sønderborg, Denmark. She’s now facing a fine for doing so. The reason being that pepper spray and similar less-than-lethal weapons are illegal in Denmark. Thus the anti-weapon extremists have set up a system wherein victims of violent crime can be charged for defending themselves.

But as Eugene Volokh points out, the weapons prohibitionists’ zeal could have some unanticipated results…

Note also what I call the anticooperative effect of law. Some people might react to this by not carrying pepper spray. But if a woman is carrying the pepper spray illegally and successfully fends off an attacker — or unsuccessfully tries to do so — will she go to the police so the attacker can be caught and his next attack prevented? Or will she keep quiet, since she doesn’t want to be prosecuted herself? (Note that pepper spray possession is apparently just punishable by a fine: not likely to greatly deter people from carrying, but likely enough to deter many pepper spray users from going to the police.)

I have to admit that my first reaction to the story was “Why did she go to the cops?!”. I doubt I’m the only American gun owner to have that reaction. It’s this nearly instinctive reaction that makes counting defensive gun uses in the U.S. so hard to do. Most of these involve simply showing a firearm to a potential attacker. The attacker, not wishing to be injured or killed, sensibly leaves. But after that, who in their right mind would call the cops to report themselves for what could be seen as “brandishing”? It’s this fear of prosecution for what is, in reality, a righteous act that causes so many gun owners to not cooperate with the police.

In a perfect world, the ideal reaction would be for the gun owner to report the incident so that, as Volokh points out above, “the attacker can be caught and his next attack prevented”. But, anti-gun extremists have created a legal climate that exposes the law abiding to criminal liability. The end result is that the criminal gets to walk away and try again with someone who isn’t armed.

News Privacy Self-defense

It’s long been true that the ATF will stop a transfer if a gun buyer admits to using controlled substances like marijuana. The prohibition certainly wasn’t universally successful as it requires self reporting. The joke has always been that if you admit to smoking weed on your 4473, then you’re already too baked to have a gun. But now, that could change.

As we’ve reported before, Obama’s latest executive orders and rule making have opened the door to violations of doctor-patient confidentiality that would have resulted in jail time before. While there’s a danger that some creative diagnoses could deny Americans their 2nd Amendment rights, that’s still in the realm of “maybe”.  A more immediate threat, however, exists for Californians and others who hold State-issued medical marijuana identification cards.

The Obama Administration has a goal of stripping as many Americans as possible of their right to keep and use firearms. Obama has already moved to disarmed disabled veterans who can’t balance their own checkbooks. MMIC holders in California and other States that have legalized medical marijuana use won’t be far behind. While those States may encourage the use of medical marijuana, they’re also “Blue” States that are dominated by Obama loyalists. If you have an MMIC, you can be sure that you’ll be thrown under the bus in short order by your State government.

We asked Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders for his opinion on the matter, but he wouldn’t stop playing the bongos long enough to respond.

News Privacy

Is political dissidence a sign of mental illness?

Back when the USSR was a going concern, political dissidence was, in fact, treated as a mental illness. Dissidents were regularly confined to psychiatric hospitals. ChangeskiThe government wasn’t necessarily being malicious; the apparatchiki who sent them there really did believe that opposition to Marxism was a sign of mental or emotional instability. But could that happen here?

There is a recognized psychological disorder in children called Oppositional Defiant Disorder. And now there’s a movement in the mental health community to expand the ODD definition to include adults. In children, calling this behavior a pathology is understandable. This is defiance for its own sake; where the child might even admit that they’re harmed by their own behavior. And there can be adults who similarly show defiance for its own sake rather than as a reasoned response. But what about defiance to authority based upon deeply held personal conviction? No one would call that a pathology; even if the individual suffers harm for his belief.

…unless, there were some other motivation to do so.

Adult ODD isn’t a real diagnosis that a health care provider can submit a bill for. There is no ICD-10-CM code for it. There is, however, a broad, catch-all diagnosis for adults called “Personality disorder, unspecified“. The description is:

  • A diverse category of psychiatric disorders characterized by behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture; this pattern of deviation is pervasive and inflexible and is stable over time. The behavioral pattern negatively interferes with relationships and work.
  • A major deviation from normal patterns of behavior.
  • Personality disorders are long-term patterns of thoughts and behaviors that cause serious problems with relationships and work. People with personality disorders have difficulty dealing with everyday stresses and problems. They often have stormy relationships with other people. The exact cause of personality disorders is unknown. However, genes and childhood experiences may play a role. Symptoms vary widely depending on the specific type of personality disorder. Treatment usually includes talk therapy and sometimes medicine.
  • When normal personality traits become inflexible and maladaptive, causing subjective distress or impaired social functioning, they can be considered disorders.

One can see how, with a little creative license, motivated clinicians could tar many an RKBA or TEA Party activist with this diagnosis. We’ve also discussed how Obama’s latest executive orders remove legal impediments to sharing formerly confidential patient information with the Federal government. And indeed, this may the “the long game” the president is playing where the States (read: Blue states) are not simply given permission to share this data, but are encouraged to do so. Congress has been a dead end for his schemes, but he has his loyalists in many State governments. His orders and new rule making may be an end-around to nullify Congress’ authority by pushing action down to the State level. Is there any possibility that legislatures in places like Sacramento or Albany wouldn’t rubberstamp this President’s demands?

There is a serious need to improve reporting of adjudicated mental defectives to the NICS system. But there must also be due process involved; clearly defined ways to get on to and off of the Government’s list of prohibited persons. There must also be a nearly fanatical dedication to doctor-patient confidentiality by all concerned. There are already people out there avoiding help with mental or emotional conditions out of fear of being stripped of their rights. Obama’s orders to State level apparatchiki are not improving this situation.

News Privacy

Writer Lynda Waddington, in a post at the Rapid Falls Gazette, recounts her own bout with anti-gun nuttery wherein she works herself into a lather over a time when she worked herself into a lather over a gun she didn’t actually see. No, it doesn’t quite make sense to me either.

First, a little in the way of disclosure: I spotted the headline for this op-ed piece a few days ago. I didn’t write about it then because it fell into the category of “that looks far too stupid to spend time on.” As an example, the “black stormtrooper” kerfuffle fell into that category. (Go look that one up on your own. I still can’t work up the courage to face the stupid there.) The title of the piece by Waddington is Why your gun makes me nervous. It screams stupid. It’s like writing a piece about why someone else’s coffee maker makes you nervous. “But… guns!” Waddington or Michael Bloomberg might shout. Guns and coffee makers carry roughly the same risk for those who know their owners; some, but not enough to wet oneself over.

That didn’t stop Waddington from spending 13 paragraphs detailing her imagined fears over a “bulge” she spotted under a man’s jacket at a bookstore. Not a gun, mind you; a bulge. Within minutes she had worked herself up into such a panic that she fled the store. And this is where it really gets stupid: Her remedy for her panic is to control others who are engaged in legal behavior.

And as it turns out, she lost her mind over a piece of medical equipment.

News Privacy Self-defense

As most of you probably know by now, Pew’s polling results on gun rights versus gun control have shown a tectonic shift in American opinion. A clear majority now say that protecting gun rights is more important than gun control. At HuffPo, writer John Tures wonders if years of waving the bloody shirt have backfired on gun control advocates. Tures writes:

Supporters of gun control have sought to highlight the vast number of shootings that have occurred in recent years. But while it seemed to make sense, it may not have been a good strategy. They need to highlight examples where tough gun laws reduced shootings. Otherwise, such publicity may only reduce support for gun control.

Yeah… Good luck with that highlighting gun control success stories thing. But I digress…

Things may be worse than the Antis imagine. Tures points out that the high water mark for gun control support was in 1994 when the “Clinton Gun Ban” was passed. But if that’s true, then why did passing that law doom the Democrats to lose their control of Congress? I suspect that part of this contradiction can be explained by people lying to the pollsters. Saying you oppose gun control, back then, was like saying you support wife beating; and the Media made sure that was how 2nd Amendment supporters were treated. Thus the polite answer was to tell the nice pollster that you want more gun bans. This would mean that it’s possible that many more Americans actually supported gun rights back then.

So what changed? There are a few possible answers:

  • Poll respondents are being more honest now about their support for gun rights

This would be bad news for gun control proponents because it would mean that their point of view was never really popular. For most of our history, Americans have embraced gun rights and gun ownership. The earlier poll results suggested, particularly to the Antis, that America was changing. This may never have been the case.

  • Poll respondents weren’t lying, but they’ve really changed their minds

This would be bad for the Antis as it would signal that they’ve lost their mojo. They’ve long known that America is a very big ship and big ships take a long time to turn. In this case, that ship has turned back on course by itself. It took them 143 years to go from the ratification of the 2nd Amendment to the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and another 60 to get to the “Assault weapon” ban. It only took 14 years to go from the AW ban to Heller: another 6 to get to this poll.

The worst possible explanation is that guns and gun rights are more popular now than they were 20 years ago and Americans are still lying through their teeth to the pollsters. This would signal a far greater level of support for the 2nd Amendment than even this poll shows. That would sound the death knell for the gun control movement in the United States.

News Privacy Self-defense

No, still no answers to this mystery. I still can’t explain what’s going on inside your crazy, anti-gun, relative’s head. But I think that I do have an idea about where some of the crazy is coming from. I think that it’s related to something that I like to call “Health Nuttery”

Have you ever tried to look up something that’s health related on Google? Unless your query is extremely narrow, you’ll find yourself deep in a quagmire of crazy. This is “Health nuttery”; the place where people loose their minds over particular, health related subjects. Their monomania leads them to start entire websites dedicated to telling you what you should or should not eat, drink, smoke, do, or even think about doing with your body. They endlessly blog, tweet, and post to Facebook about how you’re killing yourself because you aren’t following their advice. As an example. if you Google “Health benefits of coffee” and “Health risks of coffee”, each will generate around 50 million results. That’s health nuttery in action.

Anti-gun nuttery is very similar. In both cases, the nutter obsesses over something that someone else is doing. Think Michelle Obama getting a case of the tight jaws because you’re eating a Double-Double for lunch. In the same way, your crazy cousin is hyperventilating because he knows that you’re in a gun store, a thousand miles away, looking at a stripped lower. In neither case, is the nutter being harmed by your actions. That Double-Double, even if it’s Animal style, isn’t going to add so much as a nanometer to FLOTUS’ waistline. Nor is your cousin going to be harmed in any way by that lower. But their idée fixe remains; so much so that both want government agents to enforce their beliefs on you at gunpoint. They’re going to save you even if it kills you!

Privacy Self-defense

Statistically speaking, about half of your relatives have guns in their homes. In some extended families, it’s more; in some it’s less. We also all have relatives who don’t own guns, but they respect your right to own one. They may not like the fact that you own a gun, but they keep that to themselves. You’re not hurting anyone and they know it. They may not like guns, but they’re sensible about the subject.

Then there’s that relative.

If you look at the anti-gun movement, you quickly see that these are people with an unhealthy fixation on firearms. These are the true “gun nuts”. And every last one of them is related to someone who owns guns. Conversely, every last gun owner probably has at least one of these people rustling around in the leaves somewhere in their family tree.

Yup… That relative.

You know the one I’m talking about. Whenever there’s an incident involving firearms, they take to Facebook or Twitter like Batman taking to the Batmobile. “Ah ha!” they shout with glee; “It’s happened again!”. And I do mean glee. They sound truly happy to learn that something awful has happened and that they have another opportunity to tell the world how right they are. But what they lack is any sense of perspective. We live in a nation of 300,000,000 people. Something bad happens somewhere, to someone, everyday. That some of these bad things involve firearms is not a surprise; nor  does it necessarily indicate any sort of societal problem. Far more mayhem is accomplished day in and day out with cars, but we don’t have any crazy cousins calling for a ban on cars. (Not out of safety concerns, that it.)

But guns are different. And if you’re hoping that I’m about to explain why, then you’re out of luck. I can’t tell you why your sister-in-law gets unhinged over  guns. I can’t tell you why she bitterly clings to long-ago debunked anti-gun studies or posts them to Facebook every two weeks. I can’t tell you why she acts like she’s deaf when you tell her that more people are killed with hands and feet in the US every year than are killed with any sort of rifle, let alone “assault” weapons. I can’t tell you why her every Tweet is a Michael Bloomberg talking point. I wish I could answer these questions because then we might be able to understand the antis and their special brand of crazy.

For now, they remain a mystery.

Privacy Self-defense


California: San Francisco Magazine Confiscation Begins on Monday, April 7 Protect Yourself and Your Property!

Posted on April 4, 2014

Last November, San Francisco politicians enacted an ordinance banning the possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds (so-called “large-capacity” magazines).  This ordinance will make illegal magazines possessed by a vast majority of San Francisco gun owners, and criminalizes the transportation of these magazines through the city.

The ordinance takes effect on Monday, April 7.

While this ordinance will not prevent violent crime or mass shootings, it sadly does limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners to choose to use these magazines to defend themselves and their families.  As most gun owners already know, magazines holding more than ten rounds are standard equipment for many popular pistols and rifles.  These standard capacity magazines are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for a variety of lawful purposes, including self-defense.  San Francisco’s magazine prohibition affects lawful gun owners’ ability to defend themselves, especially in situations potentially requiring more than ten shots.  Since this ordinance does not provide for an exemption for self-defense, you should carefully consider your best alternative options.

Although legal challenges are still pending that may ultimately result in this ordinance being struck down, San Francisco residents and those who drive through the city need to know their rights to avoid being prosecuted for violating this counterproductive new ordinance.

The unfortunate reality in San Francisco, Sunnyvale, New York, Colorado, Connecticut and other places where ill-conceived gun laws are turning honest citizens into criminals, is that gun control laws are fostering an environment of non-cooperation between police and law-abiding citizens who would otherwise be happy to assist police in their investigations.  Sadly, good citizens who are put at risk by laws that deprive them of their Second Amendment rights now need to also know and exercise their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

Compliance Options

 The San Francisco ordinance prohibits the possession of “large-capacity magazines” anywhere “in the City and County of San Francisco.”  This ordinance was to take effect on December 7, 2013, with a ninety-day window to begin complying with the ordinance.  After the NRA filed a lawsuit challenging the ordinance, the City agreed to push the enforcement date back by an additional thirty days until April 7.

 So law-abiding gun owners residing in San Francisco now have until Monday, April 7 to comply with the City’s magazine ban or risk running afoul of the law.

 Anyone who fails to comply is subject to criminal misdemeanor penalties, including fines and jail time.  If you still possess any magazines over ten rounds after April 7, do not attempt to surrender them to law enforcement, as that could subject you to arrest and prosecution. Contact an attorney.

 Possession by Police Officers’ of Personally-Owned Magazines Is Also Banned

The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office has interpreted this ordinance to exempt only official duty magazines when possessed by off-duty law enforcement officers.  There is no exception in the San Francisco ordinance for the many magazines that are personally-owned by active law enforcement officers, nor for retired officers.

Police officers working in or traveling through San Francisco (perhaps en route to one of the several shooting ranges in the area) also face potential criminal liability if they enter the city with magazines holding over ten rounds that were not issued to them for official duty purposes.

What is Considered a “Large Capacity Magazine”

San Francisco’s definition of a “large-capacity magazine” is identical to that found in California Penal Code section 16740.  This includes any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds.  There are three notable exceptions:

  1. Any feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot hold more than ten rounds;
  2. Any .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; and
  3. Any tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

This definition is applicable whether the magazine is assembled or disassembled.  There are also several uses and categories of individuals that are exempt from the magazine ban.  Those exemptions can be viewed here.

You can store your magazines outside of San Francisco.  Be aware, however, that storing your magazines with friends or family outside of San Francisco may qualify as an “unlawful transfer” under state law.  Renting a storage unit or safe-deposit box in your name for storing the banned magazines may be the best option – at least for now.

Know Your Rights, and Assert Them!

Every gun owner who travels in and around San Francisco should beware if they possess magazines that hold over ten rounds.  The San Francisco magazine ban does not exempt visitors to the city or even those just passing through, even if the magazine is in a locked container.  If you are stopped by police and found in possession of a banned magazine, you may be criminally liable.

Residents and those traveling through the city should be prepared in the event police question you about the way you store your firearms or magazines in your home or car.  Typically, police ask questions about whether there are any firearm in your home or car, what type of magazines you may have, how those magazines are stored and who has access to them.

Even if they don’t have a search warrant, police officers are trained to get you to make incriminating statements or admissions that will give them grounds for a warrant or a search.  To learn more about this police practice, readProtect Yourself! California’s Politicized Gun Confiscation Program Threatens Uninformed Gun Owners.  In Section V of this memorandum, the firearms law attorneys at Michel & Associates explain how the police utilize “knock and talks” to try to get incriminating information from uninformed gun owners.  To access this document click here.

If the police knock on your door, try not to talk to them!  Unless they have a search warrant, try not to even open the door.  Instead, provide the officers with this flyer, and tell them that you assert your right to remain silent and want to have an attorney present (actually say those words).

  • Do not “consent” to a search of your person, possessions, car or home.  Insist on a search warrant.  If they don’t have a warrant, refuse the search entirely and close the door.
  • If they have a search warrant, let them in, stand back and say nothing except that you want to call your lawyer.
  • Consult a lawyer immediately. Ask to make a phone call for this purpose.

 For more information and materials on protecting and asserting your Fourth and Fifth amendment rights, visit HERE.

 Status of Legal Challenges

Lawsuits supported by the NRA against San Francisco and Sunnyvale seeking to overturn these magazine bans were filed shortly after the ordinances passed.

Lawyers with Michel & Associates sought preliminary injunctions in court to prevent both Sunnyvale and San Francisco from enforcing these laws while the cases are litigated.  In late February, the U.S. District Court denied the injunction request in the San Francisco case.  On March 5, the U.S. District Court denied plaintiffs’ request for an injunction to stop the Sunnyvale magazine possession ban from going into effect.  Plaintiffs appealed later that same day.

On March 5, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was asked to enjoin the law from taking effect.  On March 6, the courtdenied the request for an emergency stay while the underlying dispute is litigated on appeal.

On March 10, an emergency request that the ordinance be enjoined was filed with a Supreme Court Justice who handles such motions in the Ninth Circuit.  Statistically speaking, these emergency requests are rarely granted, and Justice Kennedy denied the emergency request.  It is not surprising that Justice Kennedy did not grant this very rarely issued extraordinary relief.  As the courts themselves make clear, this type of denial is not a reflection on the merits of the underlying appeal, which is still going forward in the Ninth Circuit.

Now the first legal brief is currently due in early May, and law enforcement and civil rights groups are already lining up to support us in that effort to stop these infringements on Second Amendment rights.

Nonetheless, as a result of these rulings, the magazine possession bans are in effect as of March 6 in Sunnyvale, and April 7 in San Francisco.  This important Second Amendment issue now continues on appeal and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since the Sunnyvale case is already on appeal, the San Francisco case was temporarily dismissed.  But it will be re-filed upon conclusion of the Sunnyvale litigation.

Help Stop These Laws from Passing in Other Jurisdictions

Let us know if you hear of things pending in your city!  With your help, we can defeat these proposals before they become law.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd has made clear its intention of continuing to push anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s agenda throughout California.  Sunnyvale’s Mayor claims that residents from several neighboring cities, including Mountain View and Los Altos, have already reached out to him to push the same or similar measures in their cities.  Former state Assemblywoman Sally Lieber claims the campaign for gun control in Mountain View has already begun.  And the City of Los Angeles has been considering, among other measures, a magazine ban for some time now.

You can assist in the fight to defend gun owners’ rights in California courts by donating to the NRA Legal Action Project today.  For a summary of some of the many actions the NRA has taken on behalf of California gun owners, including the tremendous recent victory in the Peruta case, click here.

Second Amendment supporters should be careful about supporting litigation efforts promised by other individuals and groups without access to the necessary funding, relationships, firearm experts and experienced lawyers on the NRA’s national legal team. The NRA’s team of highly regarded civil rights attorneys and scholars has the resources, skill, and expertise to maximize the potential for victory.

Legal News Privacy

Please call your U.S. Senators and Ask Them to Oppose the Confirmation of Vivek Murthy for U.S. Surgeon General

The National Rifle Association strongly opposes the confirmation of Vivek Murthy, as Surgeon General. Click here to see a recent interview with NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox on Fox News.
The Surgeon General has the important tasks of providing the American public with information to better inform decisions related to their health and directing much of the federal government’s public health efforts. In order for these roles to be carried out effectively, the public must trust that the Surgeon General’s actions are based on empirical and scientific evidence, rather than political or ideological motives. In this regard, Dr. Murthy’s record of political activism in support of radical gun control measures raises significant concerns about his ability to objectively examine issues pertinent to America’s 100 million firearm owners and the likelihood he would use the office of Surgeon General to further his preexisting campaign against gun ownership.
Vivek Murthy agrees with President Barack Obama, Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Senator Dianne Feinstein’s radical anti-gun agenda.  Dr. Murthy advocated on many occasions for the banning of lawfully-owned firearms and even worse – using tax dollars for the federal government to buy them back.  Furthermore, Dr. Murthy proposed stripping the vital privacy protections for gun owners in the “Affordable Care Act” so that doctors and insurance companies can keep information on lawful gun owners.  It’s clear that Dr. Murthy would be a prescription for disaster for America’s law-abiding gun owners.
Please call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and let them know that you oppose the confirmation of Vivek Murthy for Surgeon General.
The actions you take today will help protect the 2nd Amendment.  Please encourage all your friends and family to call as well.

News Politics Privacy

When the California microstamping law was being debated, many people commented that the stamping marks could be easily defeated. But what didn’t occur to a lot of them was that you can’t polish away what isn’t there. The purpose of the microstamping law wasn’t to put little scratchy marks on firing pins and chambers. The purpose  was to halt the sales of new handguns in the State. And it has succeeded in doing just that. The serialization that the law requires is impossible to do with current manufacturing technology and the California market isn’t big enough to justify the expense of its development.

Now we have SB808, the “Ghost Gun” ban. Like the microstamping law before it, the purpose of this new law is to stop law abiding Californians from doing something that is not only legal, it’s Constitutionally protected. Just as you have a right to purchase a new handgun, you have the right to make your own firearms. Furthermore, you have the right to engage in these activities without Big Brother looking over your shoulder. (Just in case anyone is wondering why an otherwise law abiding citizen would have an interest in circumventing these laws.) But unlike the microstamping law, SB808 is far easier to get around. Rather than removing what isn’t there, beating SB808 only requires that one add something: A number.

The proposed law would require that anyone making their own firearms register those guns with the State and serialize them. OK… So now imagine that you’re an investigator with the CA DOJ’s firearms division. Your job is to catch those nefarious Californians who had the temerity to take a cutting tool to a piece of plastic or 7075 Aluminum and mill it into a dreaded .30clipcalibershootymagazineassaultbulletsecondthingy. You’re visiting a shooting range and you see someone shooting an AR-15. From where you’re standing behind the big, yellow safety line, you can see that it has a serial number.

How do you know that it’s legit?

Unless you can see from where you’re standing that the serial number is “12345”, how do you know that the gun was really registered with the State?

You, as a crack investigator with the DOJ, suspect that this particular ne’er-do-well Californian is one of those ne’er-do-well Californians, but what’s your probably cause for asking to see the serial number or the registration? Why him and not the guy at the bench next to him?

Do you see the problem now?

A “legal” gun has a serial number engraved on it. But it doesn’t follow that any gun with a number on it is legal. Other than detaining anyone found with a gun to check serial numbers, there’s no way to tell at a glance if a gun with a serial number is legal or not.

This isn’t to say that it doesn’t matter whether or not SB808 passes. It does. Every unconstitutional law that gets on the books is one more threat to our freedoms. SB808 may not affect us much, but it can be the legal foundation for worse. Furthermore, the last thing we want as a people is for this to become a nation of scofflaws.

We like to proclaim ourselves “a nation of laws, not men”. This is because man is fickle and easily swayed by his passions. What he approves of today may outrage him tomorrow. Man’s emotions are a poor guardian of justice. Thus we write laws that replace subjective whim with objective rules. But for those laws to work, we must all respect them. And for them to be respected, they must be respectable in the first place. No people will obey laws that inspire in them nothing but contempt.

And this is the true danger of legislation like SB808. They are contemptible laws and invite the population to violate them. They take Justice and pin a “KICK ME” sign to her back.

Anti-gun Legislation Privacy State