Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

News from New Zealand:

Critics of the Government’s gun law changes say a loophole means that a lower-powered version of the assault rifle used by the Christchurch mosque shooter remains legal.

Police have confirmed that an AR15 WMR .22 semi automatic with military-style features does not fit the definition of a prohibited firearm under the new law, provided it is fitted with a magazine holding 10 rounds or less.

The mosque shooter used a more powerful, centrefire version of the AR15, with large capacity magazines, during his rampage, which left 50 people dead.

He had bought his weapons on a standard firearms licence and illegally converted them to military-style with easily obtainable parts.

The Government banned all centrefire “military style” semi-automatics, but less powerful rimfire .22 semi-automatics remain legal for people holding a standard firearms licence.

Those weapons range from rifles that use standard .22 long rifle (LR) ammunition to a cartridge more than two times as powerful – the .22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire), also known as the .22 MAG.

Northland man Michael Beckett said he warned the select committee considering the changes that the .22WMR would become the weapon of choice of AR15 owners and become a threat to the public.

He was surprised it had not been covered in the amended law and feared it was a loophole that would be exploited.

Beckett said the standard .22LR was more than sufficient for pest control on farms – he described the .22 MAG as a “double deadly cartridge” with 2.6 times the muzzle energy of .22LR.

Oooo … a “double deadly cartridge.”  Damn.  Must get one of those.

To my readers in New Zealand (I know I have some), don’t be satisfied with the crumbs that fall from the master’s table like a dog.  Not that I have anything against the nice little .22 WMR (Kel-Tec makes a .22 WMR carbine), but a rimfire cartridge will always be a rimfire cartridge.  It’s dirtier and less reliable than a centerfire cartridge.

You have a God-given right to what you have sitting inside your gun safe right now, and more.

David Codrea:

It’s fair to ask what protections will exist to prevent abuse and catch innocents up in a net that will strip them of rights and leave them on their own to fight a state with virtually unlimited resources?

What’s to stop false accusations, and incentives offered to make them?

Yes, the system will be abused, but I’ll go further.  Such abuse could only begin after an ungodly, unrighteous bill was signed into law.  There is no provision in the Scriptures for presuming to know the future and acting to punish people based on what you foresee they might do.  That’s God’s domain, not man’s.  In a Biblical economy, those guilty of divination are cut off from the people, a virtual death sentence.  See Leviticus 19:26-31, Leviticus 20:6, Deuteronomy 18:9-14, and many other passages.

The authors of this detestable thing have set themselves against God and upon the throne of the Almighty.

That’s not actually the title of the idiotic Bloomberg article.  It’s titled The Smart Gun Doesn’t Exist for the Dumbest Reasons.

Smith & Wesson still feels the wound it suffered two decades ago when it decided to invent smart guns.

The idea was to invest heavily in the development of personalized weapons that could be fired only by a single person: the gun’s owner. This was considered a nearly science-fictional proposition in the late 1990s, years before the world was filled with smartphones and finger sensors. But consumer backlash against the project drove the gunmaker to the verge of ruin, and Smith & Wesson recently told shareholders that the corporate bleeding touched off by this long-ago episode has never fully stopped. “Sales still suffer from this misstep,” the company said in a February filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The ordeal also didn’t lead to technical breakthroughs, and Smith & Wesson never brought a smart gun to market. Nor has Sturm, Ruger & Co., Remington, Colt, Winchester, Mossberg, or Glock. It’s not clear that any other major gunmaker has seriously tried.

No one involved can quite agree on who’s to blame for the standstill. Gun manufacturers fault difficult-to-navigate technology. Investors and entrepreneurs are sure that restrictive legislation has created a dead end. Politicians blame each other.

Nobody blames the free market. Nearly half of gun owners in the U.S. would consider buying a smart gun, according to a Johns Hopkins University study. (Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP, is a donor to groups that support gun control.) The promise of guns that can be used only by one person is that there will be fewer fired by accident or by someone who shouldn’t have access to a gun, and fewer sold on the black market.

This is the story of why the multibillion-dollar American gun industry hasn’t yet managed to make guns any smarter.

Stop right there.  Let me dissuade you from your fantasies, collectivists.  No gun owner actually wants something more complicated.  He wants to be able to work on his own gun rather than paying exorbitant fees for a gunsmith to rebuild or repair it.  He wants to be able to craft his own versions and variations.  He wants to be able to modularize it and put different parts on it if he deems it more comfortable, more ergonomic or simply better for him.

No gun owner wants yet another permissive in the process.  The U.S. military calls it the “kill chain.”  Even though you are probably repulsed by that term, we’ll use it anyway.  No gun owner wants yet another permissive in the kill chain.  That’s another potential failure that wasn’t there before.  And no gun owner wants another permissive in the kill chain that can be hijacked by either government officials or others.  This idea that half of potential gun owning America would actually drop cash on something like that is a lie you have told yourselves over and over until you actually believe it.

Trae Stephens isn’t afraid to put real money into a product most gunmakers are too anxious to touch. His venture capital firm, the Peter Thiel-backed Founders Fund, is noteworthy among its Silicon Valley peers for investing in defense and security. But two years spent looking at nearly a dozen different smart-gun startups aiming to raise seed or Series A rounds, valued in the six- to seven-figure range, haven’t turned up anything worth backing.

“I want to do this!” Stephens, 35, says with a wide grin at the firm’s office in San Francisco’s Presidio park. “But there’s just no way I can.”

It’s not easy finding a VC willing to speak openly about guns, let alone invest in them. There have been frequent calls for the technology industry to take on firearms, the type of stagnant industry that seems ripe for Silicon Valley disruption. President Barack Obama sounded the call for the Apples and Googles of the world to get into guns. “If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint,” he asked in 2016, “why can’t we do the same thing for our guns?” But funneling engineering resources into next-generation guns has proved anathema in the liberal Bay Area, even if the intention is to improve public safety.

Folks lament the demise of simpler automobile engines that could be maintained by the backyard mechanic.  Now many folks have to send their vehicle to be worked on by technicians who have been to school at Ford or GM to get repaired.  There is literally no way gun owners are going to make their firearms more complicated.  There is no way.

Wiring electronics into firearms feels like the inevitable next step for the tech industry, which has succeeded in putting motherboards in vacuum cleaners, microwaves, and doorbells. “I started to go down these long Google searches,” Stephens says. “Why is it the weapons we’re still using haven’t meaningfully changed since World War I?”

Because we like simple.  Simpler is better.  Again, wiring electronics into firearms is not the inevitable next step.

His research came up at a Founders Fund debrief with Thiel and the fund’s other partners. “I said, ‘Look, there’s zero chance that any of these companies will actually make money. Am I missing something?’ ” he said. “The answer was no. And that was it. End of conversation.”

And that’s it.  That’s all you need to know.  There’s more in the article, but they could have shut it down right there and been just fine.

And I repeat what I’ve said so many times before concerning “smart guns.”

Perform a fault tree analysis of smart guns.  Use highly respected guidance like the NRC fault tree handbook.

Assess the reliability of one of my semi-automatic handguns as the first state point, and then add smart gun technology to it, and assess it again.  Compare the state points.  Then do that again with a revolver.  Be honest.  Assign a failure probability of greater than zero (0) to the smart technology, because you know that each additional electronic and mechanical component has a failure probability of greater than zero.

Get a PE to seal the work to demonstrate thorough and independent review.  If you can prove that so-called “smart guns” are as reliable as my guns, I’ll pour ketchup on my hard hat, eat it, and post video for everyone to see.  If you lose, you buy me the gun of my choice.  No one will take the challenge because you will lose that challenge.  I’ll win.  Case closed.  End of discussion.

And to date, no one has taken the challenge.

John Crump writing at Ammoland.

Off the record, State Police sources told AmmoLand no magazines were turned in. We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get the official answer from State Police officials. Our first request went unanswered, so we sent another, then another, and so on until we finally received a response from the State Police.

SGT Kristina Pados of the New Jersey State Police responded to our FOIA request. She confirmed what our sources inside the New Jersey Police told us. The gun owners of New Jersey have surrendered no magazines.

However, she did state that local departments might have them.

AmmoLand reached out to local police departments across New Jersey and have not been able to find a single magazine turned over to the authorities. It would seem like the gun owners of New Jersey have decided to ignore the law most likely because it is unenforceable.

So what’s next?  Do the state police plan to go door-to-door busting in and searching for magazines?  I suspect not.

McClatchy.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham supports laws to temporarily revoke guns from people who might harm themselves or others, and he’s working on legislation that would give grants to states that pass such statutes.

It’s a controversial position among gun rights advocates, but the South Carolina Republican’s not worried about alienating his base.

“Not my base,” he said of his opponents of this issue, adding they are the “the fringe of the fringe.

“I think most Americans believe that multiple murderers shouldn’t have gun rights. Most Americans support background checks,” Graham continued. “The Second Amendment’s important to me, but it’s not a suicide pact.”

The “fringe of the fringe.”  That’s how Miss Graham sees you and me.  And she’s lying.  This bill isn’t about preventing “multiple murderers” from getting guns.  That’s already covered in the laws.  This bill is about removing God-given rights from people who have committed absolutely no crime whatsoever.

From the department of pre-crime, Miss Graham knows what you’re going to do before you do it.  And the voters of South Carolina will flock right to her corner on election day because of a few nice things she said about Trump, the other gun grabber who gave us the bump stock ban and suggestion for red flag laws, something even Obama never did.

Liars and soldiers of the Trojan Horse, they are.

So says some dude named Brian Hicks.

A substitute teacher in Alabama accidentally fired his gun in a first-grade classroom recently. No one was hurt, luckily.

In Michigan, a man threw his shoe at a cockroach — forgetting that’s where he kept his pistol. He literally shot himself in the foot.

And in New Mexico, a driver showing off his 9 mm to a friend in the passenger seat accidentally shot a woman … in the car next to them.

All these accidents occurred within the past month. Know what else they have in common?

They all happened in states that allow open carry, which means just about anyone can carry a gun anywhere, whether or not they know the first thing about firearms.

Well, there are a lot of categories under which we could put this formal logical fallacy, but let’s begin with affirming the consequent (or the undistributed middle).  The failures he mentioned could have been related to names, education, the first letters of the states they live in, or any of a number of things.  Brian is merely affirming that he knows the cause of the failures and that they all related to constitutional carry.  He has not demonstrated anything with this bit of misleading prose  Let’s continue.

And some folks wonder why South Carolina lawmakers are hesitant to pass an open carry law here.

Well, it’s not going to happen this year. The controversial legislation is unofficially off the table — because law enforcement is treating a social media post as a threat on Charleston state Rep. Peter McCoy’s life.

You read that correctly.

The Freedom Action Network of South Carolina posted an incendiary statement on Facebook blaming McCoy for the Legislature’s failure to turn this state into the Wild West.

This bit of emotional hyperbole is exactly the same as what they said in Texas before it became an open carry state, and it’s meant for ignorant people to read.  In fact, it’s what every state has said, and South Carolina is one of the few remaining holdouts, along with California, Hawaii, New York and New Jersey.  How about that, Brian.  Aren’t you ensconced a bit far to the South to be following the lead of New Yorkers?  Let’s continue with this messy commentary.

Most say open carry is foolhardy and dangerous.

They’re right. The proposed South Carolina open carry law would let anyone carry a gun onto school grounds and into public parks or bars without demonstrating they know the difference between a clip and a trigger.

I’m sure they do, Brian.  Law enforcement doesn’t like it when they can’t be special.  But I think you’re lying.  I don’t think you really want LEOs to be banned from openly carrying weapons, you just want people who aren’t special to remain banned.  But if you were honest, you’d see that it’s cops who perpetrate most of the negligent discharges, shoot most of the innocent people, and cause the most danger to the community.

Well, that about does it.  If you want to read the rest of Brian’s droll commentary, I’ve linked it.  But if you don’t like “propaganda,” Brian, how about a little truth-telling.  You’re a communist, just like the state senator who was looking for an excuse to terminate consideration of the open carry bill in S.C.  And the fact that the senate was already looking for ways to kill the bill makes us wonder what else was going on behind the scenes.

Reuters:

SYDNEY (Reuters) – A drive-by shooting outside a nightclub in the Australian city of Melbourne inflicted “horrific injuries” that killed a security guard and wounded three men, police said on Sunday, but there was no suggestion yet that the attack was terror-related.

Australia has some of the world’s toughest gun control laws, adopted after its worst mass murder, when a gunman killed 35 people at Port Arthur in the island state of Tasmania in 1996.

I thought when you had a gun buy-back, the criminals turned them all in just like everyone else?

The awful and childish Jake Tapper interviewed Eric Swalwell on guns.

California Rep. Eric Swalwell — a recently announced Democratic presidential candidate — said Sunday his call for a ban on assault weapons was not a step toward broader gun bans.

David Codrea:

Harris is pulling one of the oldest cons in the book, the “I’m a gun owner but” dodge, and in this case, her “but” is huge. Here’s another trick she’s employing: When she offers a couple of “gun laws” she believes she can pass off as “practical solutions,” note she prefaces them with the phrase “which include.”  That means there are plenty more she hasn’t mentioned. Then she ends her pitch with “Period,” as if that’s the end game.

It’s not. What she won’t do is define what new edicts would finally be enough for her to say “No more.” That’s because if she thought she could, she’d be going after a total monopoly of violence. There are some things it’s not prudent to admit just yet, especially since she’s now playing to a bigger crowd than California, and has to at least pretend to be “one of us.”

But it only matters to idiots who don’t know history.  The controllers never go after their own – they just go after their enemies so that they can’t defend themselves against [a] individuals, or [b] the state, or in other words, the controllers.

As reader The Alaskan always says, those who want to take your guns are planning on keeping theirs.  But of course, her position is essentially no different than that of Pete Buttiegieg or any other democratic candidate.

Finally, we all know that when Ms. Lindsey Graham sends her red flag gun confiscation bill to Trump, he’ll sign it.  It was Trump’s idea, just like the bump stock ban.  I fear that it someone sent him a new assault weapons ban, he’d sign that too.  I can see him wagging his righteous finger at us saying, “No one needs a weapon of war except …”

Because Ms. Graham is a controller too.  There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Ms. Graham and Kamala Harris.

So says the Greenville News.

The push for open carry gun laws in South Carolina has backfired after one of the bill’s supporters threatened a top state lawmaker.

In response, a state Senate subcommittee chairman postponed Tuesday’s hearing on the bill, effectively killing it for the year by ensuring it misses a Wednesday deadline to pass either the House or the Senate.

State Sen. Stephen Goldfinch, R-Georgetown, tweeted Monday he was postponing the hearing “until further notice.”

“Even though I’m supportive of Open Carry ideals, I will not stand by and allow threats to my friends,” Goldfinch wrote in support of S.C. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter McCoy, the Charleston Republican who received the threat.

McCoy is being monitored by law enforcement after a gun rights activist took to social media to suggest shooting McCoy for allegedly holding up an open carry proposal.

The open carry bill would allow lawful gun owners to carry their firearms, concealed or not, without a permit in South Carolina.

We really need for some South Carolinian to weigh in on this, but my spidey sense tells me something else is going on here.

It could be someone who didn’t think that he’s being monitored 24/7, like we all are.  Or it just could be a mercenary for some some controller who knows how to bounce his IP address around to avoid detection, who wanted to send the hearings into a tail spin.  In other words, a false flag.  You know it happens, more often than you think.

After all, the controllers can’t afford to lose the remaining holdout by South Carolina throwing off the shackles of control by elitists.