Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

News from Florida:

LAKELAND — A 32-year-old woman was arrested on June 15 when she gathered her husband’s guns to turn them over to the Lakeland Police Department.

According to Courtney Irby’s arrest affidavit, she told police her husband had been taken to jail for trying to run over her with a car. Irby said she went to Joseph Irby’s apartment on Village Center Drive in Lakeland and searched for the guns she knew he had.

When she told a Lakeland police officer she had the guns with her to turn them in, he replied, “So are you telling me that you committed an armed burglary?” and Irby answered, “Yes, I am, but he wasn’t going to turn them in, so I am doing it,” according to reports.

Oh don’t even think that the cops had any sympathy for the husband or disagreement with the confiscation of guns.  The main problem here for the cops is that she broke the law.  It would have been okay if the cops did the deed.

Don’t you know – we can’t let people enforce the law, only LEOs can do that.

Breitbart:

Here are seven reasons why action against suppressors is politically risky:

1. A Suppressor Has Been Used in One Mass Shooting — A suppressor was used on one of the two guns in the Virginia Beach mass shooting. In other words, of all the mass shootings and/or high profile shootings constantly beamed into homes via the establishment media, a suppressor was used in one of them.
2. Police Still Heard the Gun Shots and Moved Toward Them to Find the Gunman — On May 31, Breitbart News reported Virginia Beach Police Chief James Cervera’s observation that police officers located the Virginia Beach gunman by moving toward the sound of his gun shots.
3. Suppressors Are Not Silencers — The fact that police moved toward the sound of the gunman’s shots, and that witnesses recalled hearing shot after shot, illustrates the fact that suppressors are not silencers. Rather, they are mufflers that remove the dangerous, high pitches associated with a gun shot.
4. Suppressors are Already the Most Highly Regulated Firearm Accessory in America — The acquisition of a suppressor requires the submission of fingerprints and photographs, and an in-depth background check. It requires the would-be buyer to pay a $200 federal tax and to register the suppressor with the government. The process of doing these things takes seven to nine months. The would-be buyer is then allowed to come in and receives a federal tax stamp, showing the suppressor is in the buyer’s name, and the buyer is then allowed to take possession of his suppressor.
5. Suppressor Acquisition Involves Many of the Democrats’ Favorite Gun Controls — As seen in the above paragraph, acquiring a suppressor involves a background check and registration, as well as fingerprinting and photographing the buyer. Yet when these gun controls fail–even in a single instance–Democrats push for more, more, more.
6. Suppressor Ownership is Legal in 42 States — The American Suppressor Association reports that suppressor ownership is legal in 42 states. Many of these states allow use of suppressors in hunting, for the noise-reducing benefits that hunters and the environment gain through suppression use.
7. Smacks of Bump Stock Ban — The fact that suppressors are not silencers; that they have been used in only one mass shooting; that police in that shooting could still hear the gunshots and run toward them; that witnesses could hear the shots and run from them; and that suppressors are legal in 42 states (which only magnifies their infrequent use in crime) is reminiscent of the way bump stocks were banned after they were used only once in a crime. Ironically, the one criminal use of bump stocks, and the criminal use of suppressors, were related in that the accessories were legally purchased both instances, then used against citizens in a situation where the citizens could not shoot back.

This doesn’t even begin to touch the risk he faces, and there may be no way to mitigate the risk even now.

First of all, let me say that if suppressors completely silenced a gun shot, there still wouldn’t be a basis for banning them.  “Shall not be infringed” means what it says, and you and I know it.  I just hate it when people stipulate the high ground to the opposition, inasmuch as admitting that in certain circumstances it just may be a good idea to regulate something-or-other.

Trump has already alienated gun owners with: “Take them first, follow due process later”, his choice of AG, his choice of ATF head, his bump stock ban, and now his statement of hatred for suppressors.  With his bump stock ban he turned more than half a million peaceable men into felons overnight with the stroke of a pen.

He thinks, or he has been told by his idiot advisors, that stunts to appease the Fudds will fix his problems with being a gun control advocate.  His idiot advisors are wrong in the superlative degree, and he will find that out in little more than a year.

But I said that “it wouldn’t surprise me to see a bill pass the House and Senate headed for Trump’s desk to outlaw them completely, something that is no more than a muffler intended to save the hearing of target shooters and sportsmen.”

True to form, when the controllers see an opening and a weakness, they’re waiting to pounce.

Gun silencers like the one used in a recent lethal shooting in Virginia Beach would be banned under legislation that U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey introduced Friday.

The Democrat unveiled the legislation at news conference in Trenton alongside Democratic Trenton Mayor Reed Gusciora and representatives from the gun-control group Moms Demand Action.

Well, Mr. 3D-chess is in a pickle now, yes?  He’s gone on record saying that he hates suppressors, and that they are looking at what can be done.  The democrats have the House, and effectively the controllers hold the Senate.  They’ll send him a bill, and you can count on it.  What will he do then?

If he signs it, he will finish the alienation of the balance of the gun control crowd.  There are many more suppressor owners than bump stock owners.  If he doesn’t sign it, he’ll be pointed out as an inauthentic liar.

Does he even care at this point which it is?

David Codrea:

Unsurprisingly, Biden either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he does and doesn’t care that he’s spreading lies. While we’ve seen numerous abortive attempts over the years to bring the technology to market, recent ones involve technologies relying on fingerprint recognition, bracelets and rings, and embedded RFID chips. If DNA is to be added into the mix, it would be interesting to see that idea fleshed out, including how the sample will be extracted and then analyzed to allow for immediate firing by “authorized” users under all conceivable real-world conditions.

Herschel grins and chuckles, begging for someone to take his challenge.

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.

Yet another note to the controllers.  Just ponder how awesome it would be for you to get a picture of a gun advocate eating crow (or in this case, his hard hat), covered with the thing he hates the most, Ketchup.

I beg you again, controllers, take my challenge, signed and sealed with the stipulations – you get me eating crow, or I get my choice of guns.

Any takers?

Advocates for Self Government:

Biden was the Senator who introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990. In this same tweet, Kirk called out Biden saying that he “has done more to allow school shootings than the NRA or any Republican ever has.”

Although Biden deserves the brunt of the blame for creating this terrible piece of legislation, Kirk conveniently ignores on a key point in his Biden hit—the 1990 GFSZA was signed by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

It takes two to tango in today’s status quo of ever-expanding government. Gun rights have not been excluded from this trend. Indeed, the Democrats held both chambers of Congress during that time. However, it stands to reason that a Republican president, who is supposedly “pro-gun”, would veto such legislation. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

[ … ]

Generic Republicans can huff and puff about being pro-gun, but they too have been complicit in advancing gun control. As a matter of fact, it was a Republican Governor, Rick Scott, who signed Florida’s most expansive gun control law to date following the Parkland shooting.

There is something more at play with regards to why gun control continues to move forward. It’s not just about electing the “right” Republicans.

Ultimately, it boils down to changing the culture and the political environment around politicians in order to get them to behave accordingly. Bad politics follows bad ideas.

The author still hasn’t put his finger on exactly what’s wrong.  He understands the ailment, but not its cause.  Thus he cannot prescribe a cure.  Here it is for you.

In God’s economy, there are three institutions: Family, Church and State.  When either usurps the role of another and takes to itself the province belonging elsewhere, it is an affront to God’s laws.

God has decreed that the family would raise children and teach them moral values as well as create a society of education, work and play.  The Church is the moral institution for the family – not against it, but as an aid.  The state’s rightful task is to punish evil-doers and protect boundaries of the state.

It isn’t the state’s proper function to teach ethics, encourage morals, attempt to eradicate sin, or enhance man’s behavior towards good.  That is a usurpation of the power and authority belonging to other institutions.  It also isn’t the job of the government (the state) to dispense grace, e.g., largesse, meals, clothing, goods, wares, etc.  That’s the province of the family and church.

God never blesses disobedience to His law-word.  He will never bless the state’s usurpation of the province of another.  That is an insult to the Almighty, high-handed sin, a declaration that the creature is wiser than the creator, the same sin that afflicted Adam.

Republicans have bought into the great lie just like democrats.  That’s why republicans often lead the charge for do-gooder, meddling, nanny-state programs to lift the poor out of poverty and control over weapons to combat crime.  Those programs will always fail.

Only obedience to God’s law will be blessed.

News from New Zealand.

“Some of the offered prices for higher-end firearms are well out of kilter,” Nicole McKee, a council spokesman, was quoted by The New Zealand Herald as saying.

McKee said gun owners are “angry and they’re frustrated” because the government reneged on a promise not “to rip us off.”

You didn’t really expect otherwise, did you?

“The component prices are horrible robbery,” David Tipple, who owns a gun shop where the Christchurch shooter bought weapons, tells the Herald.

Tipple says he expects to lose “tens of thousands of dollars” in the buyback. Even so, he encourages owners to hand in their illegal weapons.

“We want them to comply,” he said. “Let’s get them paid quickly so we can get compliance. Nobody wants a black market.”

Oh, I suspect most gun owners want a black market.  Regardless of what anyone wants, that’s what’s going to happen.

TechDirt:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just handed down a refresher [PDF] on a few legal issues, most notably what is or isn’t “reasonable” when it comes to suspicion. Police officers thought an anonymous tip about a man carrying a gun and someone running away from them created enough suspicion to chase down Daniel Brown, stop him at gunpoint, and search him for contraband.

Contraband was found, leading to Brown’s motion to suppress. The lower court said this combination — an anonymous report of a gun and Brown’s decision to run when he saw the police cruiser — was reasonable enough. Not so, says the Ninth Circuit, pointing out the obvious fact that a person carrying a gun can’t be inherently suspicious in a state where carrying a gun in public is permitted.

In Washington State, it is presumptively lawful to carry a gun. It is true that carrying a concealed pistol without a license is a misdemeanor offense in Washington. See RCW §§ 9.41.050(1)(a) (“[A] person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol . . . .”), 9.41.810 (explaining that any violation of the subchapter is a misdemeanor “except as otherwise provided”). However, the failure to carry the license is simply a civil infraction.

There was no reason for officers to assume Brown’s gun was unlicensed. Since carrying a gun in Washington is “presumptively legal,” the officers would have needed more info than they had to perform a stop to just to ask Brown for his carry license. The anonymous tip officers received said only that a YWCA resident had approached the desk and said they’d seen a man with a gun. No further information was given by the tipster.

Faced with the weakness of the tip and the presumptive legality of gun ownership, the police then argued Brown might have been illegally “displaying” his gun to “cause alarm.” But the court denies this argument — first raised on appeal — as being no better than assuming Brown’s mere gun possession was enough to justify a stop.

Faced with this reality, the government now argues that the officers suspected that the manner in which Brown was carrying his gun was unlawful: it is “unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm . . . in a manner, under circumstances, . . . that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.” RCW § 9.41.270. Never mind that nothing in the record could support such a finding. No evidence shows that the resident was alarmed at the time she reported seeing the gun. There is no report that she yelled, screamed, ran, was upset, or otherwise acted as though she was distressed. Instead, the 911 call reported only that the resident “walked in” and stated “that guy has a gun.”

Finally, the government argued that Brown’s decision to flee when he saw police officers was inherently suspicious. Again, the court says this is wrong. While fleeing officers can be suggestive of wrongdoing, it is only one factor and it’s one heavily influenced by the deteriorated relationships many law enforcement agencies have with the communities they serve.

[ … ]

The public isn’t obligated to stop just because an officer says, “Stop.” … If law enforcement doesn’t like the way this decision breaks, it really can’t blame anyone else for the public’s reaction to the unexpected presence of officers.

Good for them, and I’m extremely surprised to see this come from the Ninth Circuit.  LEOS have to be told, and told, and told again the same thing, and they never learn, or just don’t want to.  The problem is, of course, that there are no repercussions from ignoring the court’s opinion because the courts and LEOs are all on the same side.  They are one and the same, even if one is technically the executive and the other technically the judiciary.

This is very similar to a decision by the Fourth Circuit concerning Mr. Nathanial Black.

Nathaniel Black was part of a group of men in Charlotte, North Carolina who local police officers suspected might be engaged in criminal activity. In particular, Officers suspected that after seeing one of the men openly carrying a firearm – which was legal in North Carolina – that there was most likely another firearm present. When police began frisking the men one by one, Mr. Black wished to leave, but was told he was not free to leave. Officers chased Mr. Black and discovered that he possessed a firearm; it was later discovered that he was a previously convicted felon. Mr. Black was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence against him. His suppression motion was denied, he entered a guilty plea preserving a right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, and he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, determined that the officers had improperly seized Mr. Black, suppressed the evidence against him, and vacated his sentence.

Because open carry is legal in North Carolina.  See, carrying a weapon isn’t a valid reason to stop people, innocent or not.  Black was in fact a felon in possession of a firearm and the Fourth Circuit let him go and vacated his sentence, as they should have.  Innocence or guilt has nothing whatsoever to do with anything concerning rights, the behavior of the police, and precedent.

But LEOs don’t learn the law these days, so sadly, I know more about it than most cops do.  And you do too.

GRNC:

To GRNC supporters from GRNC president Paul Valone:

The good news is that, at least for now, you have won a great victory. The Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) for S90 has been pulled from the Judiciary Committee calendar and will not be considered tomorrow. If you had planned to attend the meeting, please do not go… at least for now.

It has come to our attention that Senator Dan Britt has been responding to the many respondents to GRNC’s alert by telling them we are incorrect about the bill. At least initially, Sen. Britt apparently didn’t understand his own bill… perhaps because it was the NC Sheriff’s Association that fed him a bill of goods. Now that he apparently understands the problem, he has professed the best of intentions. We will take him at his word.

Why Sen. Britt was wrong about the S90 PCS
In its current form, the S90 PCS would indeed make concealed handgun permits discretionary by adding essentially the same subjective “good moral character” clause which sheriffs have been using to arbitrarily deny pistol purchase permits for many decades. It would do so under a new GS 14-415(a1)(2) by requiring applicants for concealed handgun permits (which it now calls “Class A” permits) to also qualify for pistol purchase permits (renamed “Class B” permits).

The language is, at best, vague. We can argue forever whether its vagueness limits or actually expands sheriffs’ arbitrary “discretion,” the bottom line is this: 1919 Jim Crow language originally intended to deny guns to blacks has no place in modern statutes, and especially not in a hugely successful “shall-issue” concealed handgun statute which GRNC got passed back in 1995, and which has produced a huge plummet in NC violent crime ever since.

Why a ‘fix’ won’t work
We appreciate that Sen. Britt has offered to “fix” the language to remove the “moral character” clause from the concealed handgun language. While a nice gesture, doing so fails to address the problem that the S90 PCS is flawed not only in execution, but in concept.

The portion of the PCS dealing with pistol purchase permits (a/k/a “Class B” permits) purports to be an improvement because it “authorizes” (yes, “authorizes”) applicants to purchase as many handguns as they want over 5 years for a higher $25 fee. Ignoring for a moment, that “authorizing” handgun purchases turns a right into a privilege, and that people of lesser means, who can afford only one defensive handgun now experience a 500% “tax increase” (from $5 to $25) to buy a single handgun, please consider the following.

Six years ago, thanks to the efforts of GRNC and then-Sen. Buck Newton, as part of restaurant carry bill H937, the NC Senate voted to repeal our Jim Crow pistol purchase law in favor of point-of-sale checks as done in nearly all other states. Unfortunately, when the bill was sent to the House, then-Speaker Thom Tillis insisted the measure be removed.

By contrast, what the NC Senate is doing now is to cement our Jim Crow purchase permit law permanently in place, permanently enshrining it in such a way to make full repeal all but impossible. It is often said that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” In this case, the mediocre is the enemy of the morally just.

Sheriffs association: All about money and power
At issue is the role of the NC Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA) in this debacle. By all indications, they wanted the “moral character” clause added to concealed handgun permits and were, perhaps, disingenuous in their negotiations with Senate bill sponsors.

As GRNC VP Don Pomeroy notes, in at least its original form, the PCS lines the pockets of NC sheriffs while hanging the NC Department of Public Safety out to dry.  Language in this bill would strip 100% of the permit fees currently shared with NCDPS and create a cash windfall by giving that money to sheriffs increasing their current share of the permit fees by over 100%.

Moreover, the PCS would have given sheriffs power over to whom they issued either pistol purchase permits or concealed handgun permits… if they issued such permits at all.

The second you turn your head, the communists are at it again.  They never sleep, do they?  There isn’t a single God-given right you have they wouldn’t take to themselves if they could, there isn’t a single dollar you or anyone else has that they wouldn’t take if they could, and there isn’t a single bureaucratic machine they don’t like.

That’s right.  Your single guess was good enough, and you got it right.  North Carolina CLEOs and the Sheriff’s association.

Or in other words, the communists.

Thanks to Paul Valone and GRNC for their diligent work on this and similar issues.  We’d be in a pickle without them.

Harold Hutchison at Ammoland.

When it comes to defending our Second Amendment rights, there are a lot of potential fights. We are seeing attacks on multiple fronts, along with efforts to move forward on some other issues. But what should be the biggest priority? Do we fight bump stock and suppressor bans? Do we focus on getting judges who will enforce our Second Amendment rights? What about the many fights at the state and local levels of government?

We have to understand that there is only so much time in the day, and only so many resources. What legislation do we push? We could focus on constitutional carry in a state, but it would mean we ignore other Second Amendment issues, like maybe passing state-level protections against corporate gun control by banks and companies like Salesforce.

Similarly, at the federal level, given the current situation, we can’t really pass pro-Second Amendment legislation. But what can be done is to keep the confirmation of judges who will uphold Heller. Another thing that the Senate can do: Hold hearings. It might seem like a show, but with proper work, those hearings can put pressure on companies like Salesforce. In addition, there is always the chance to force votes on vulnerable anti-Second Amendment Senators.

But it also comes down to making decisions. President Trump did go along with an administrative bump-stock ban that was more about being seen to do something than actually addressing a problem. He’s also making some comments on suppressors as well. But at the same time, he is making the kinds of judicial nominations that will keep our Second Amendment rights safe for decades – unless the Supreme Court is packed.

It’s another way of setting priorities in defending the Second Amendment. Do we fight a short-term skirmish over bump stocks and suppressors, or do we focus on getting judges who can throw out anti-Second Amendment laws passed in places like California and New Jersey? Reasonable Second Amendment supports can make arguments either way.

As Duane Liptak said on this site a while back, those who choose to primarily focus on judges are not thrilled with the suppressor comments or the bump stock ban – but they are dealing with a political landscape as it is, and adjusting their tactics and strategy to deal with it. We are at the mercy of events, too.

[ … ]

Defending the Second Amendment is more than just saying “No.” Often it’s about making hard choices about what legislation to push – or whether efforts need to be spent on other issues. Second Amendment supporters need to keep that in mind, or we could lose our rights.

Funny, that.  I thought I was at the mercy of a sovereign God.  As it turns out, it’s something pedestrian like current events.

Now I’m not kidding when I say this, but when I first read the commentary I skipped back up the top to see if Sebastian was writing for Ammoland now.  It sounds just like something he would say.

There is no need for the controllers to work on much of anything.  All they have to do is shout “boo,” and the retreatists run home and cry, “Hold me uncle Bob, I’m askeered.  Give the bad man what he wants so he’ll go away.”

There isn’t anything so difficult in saying ‘no’.  It’s easy.  It takes no work – it takes a single breath, or a single commentary, or a single letter, or a single act of civil disobedience.  It takes little time, it takes no money, and it requires no refocus of attention from the more difficult things like repeal of intolerable acts against us.

But we live in such a cowardly culture today that supposed gun rights defenders willingly give away recognition of right after right, virtually inviting more intolerable acts, for no gain whatsoever and nothing won, as if that is somehow wise and scholarly.

What a sorry ass world we live in.

Via Codrea, this from a prog.

“Basically, the Second Amendment is about killing Indians, taking their land, and increasingly, slave patrols,” Dunbar-Ortiz tells Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer in the latest installment of “Scheer Intelligence.” The “Loaded” author lays out the genocidal genealogy of the right to bear arms, and explains that, at its root, it ensured the ability of white men to oppress people of color in order to steal or keep stolen land, and to control slaves through slave patrols.

This is interesting because in arguing against ownership of weapons, the communists always go too far and admit too much.

Consider.  He inasmuch as admits that weapons can be a catalyst to tyranny in the wrong hands, and given the fallen state of mankind, any hands can be the wrong hands.

What he tacitly admits but doesn’t say so, is that he wants weapons concentrated in the hands of tyrants instead of the people who would be tyrannized, i.e., you and me.

The communists never want or argue for the complete absence of weapons, just weapons owned by you and me.

But just like weapons can be used to tyrannize, they can also be used to ameliorate tyranny.  That’s what the communist can never allow.

Via GunsSaveLife, Illinois State Senator Julie Morrison.

Funny how momma hen controller always finds it easy to send other people out to do her dirty work, yes?