Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Via Codrea, I learned about the recent IFMA FFL and firearms manufacturers licensing scheme, which basically does the following.

Earlier today, the Illinois State Senate passed bill SB-1657 by a one-vote margin. While its prospects are still unsure in the House, if signed by Governor Bruce Rauner, the new law will mandate state licensing for all Illinois gun dealers. It will also restrict all others in Illinois to nine firearm transfers per year.

The lobbyist for the Illinois FirearmsManufacturers Association (IFMA), Jay Keller, traded that group’s opposition to the bill in exchange for a carve-out, removing Prairie State firearms manufacturers from the licensing requirements.

Two companies provide the bulk of the funding for IFMA: Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms.

To be clear, the original version of SB-1657 did not exempt manufacturers from the licensing regulations. At the time, Jay Keller and IFMA opposed it.

At a March Senate hearing, however, Keller stated that IFMA would drop its opposition to SB-1657 and go neutral if legislators gave the state’s gun makers a pass. State Senator Don Harmon delivered on his end of the deal with an amendment exempting big box stores and manufacturers from this scheme.

With that amendment, IFMA dropped its opposition to the bill,going neutral on the witness slip. That serves as a very public position on a bill in Illinois politics.

Perhaps this is the whole story.  Or perhaps not.  From here it gets really confusing, with the Springfield Armory statement as follows.

Springfield Armory has always fought hand-in-hand with the NRA, NSSF, ISRA and many others for legislation that fiercely protects the Second Amendment, individual rights and the industry as a whole. Our fight continues today as some members of the Illinois legislature are pushing to overregulate the industry through Gun Dealer Licensing Act (SB1657).

“At the time of my initial statement to the media, I was ill-informed of the ramifications of this bill and its detrimental effects to the Second Amendment, which I have personally fought to protect my entire life. I can tell you now, we at Springfield Armory are unequivocally 100 percent against this bill and will continue to work with the NRA and others to ensure that it is defeated,” said Dennis Reese, Chief Executive Officer, Springfield Armory.

Springfield Armory, like Rock River Arms, was not aware of the actions taken by our trade association, IFMA, until after the fact. We take this situation very seriously and are looking into how this very unfortunate lapse in communication occurred.

Springfield Armory has fought and defeated legislation like this in Illinois for the past 15 years. We are wholeheartedly against this bill and will fight to see it defeated as the unnecessary and harmful overreach that it is.

Rock River Arms has responded thusly (so far).

RRA Moderator
Posted: Yesterday 4:38:04 PM EDT [Last Edit: Yesterday 4:43:02 PM EDT by RRAMODERATOR] RRA’s owner is at NRAAM in Atlanta, where he is meeting with a number of people about this. While many of the necessary people are in Atlanta, some are not which is complicating things. RRA has been opposed to this bill (and earlier bills prior to it for more than a decade) and is still in 100% opposition to it. Both our exemption and the change in our lobbyist’s position from “opposed” to “no position” were surprises to us. We found out after many of you, and have been trying to make sense of it since. A statement will be forthcoming as soon as it is possible to make one that is accurate and complete. It may still come out today. Thank you all for your consideration and to the many who have been willing to give us the benefit of the doubt. Steve/RRA

Perhaps the lobbyist for the IFMA acted on his own.  Or perhaps not.  We need to know the truth about this, as customers and their loyalty, and the health of two very good companies, and the lives of their workers, hang in the balance.

Look, I’ve got it.  Every company worries over things like a well-trained work force, retention of good employees, and forcing workers to relocate to far-away states which are much more gun friendly, leaving behind extended family, perhaps some with dependent care issues.  This is an absolutely sordid situation to be faced with.

On the other hand, some companies have relocated, such as Magpul and Remington.  Customers have rewarded Magpul, and the Remington plant in Alabama is reported to be doing very well.  Customers punished Smith & Wesson for their fornication with Bill Clinton and the gun controllers years ago, and with the situation as it is today, if this occurred again I seriously doubt Smith & Wesson would recover as it has.

Ruger makes fine revolvers and so we don’t need S&W if they were to go out of business, everyone makes a polymer pistol (so the M&P isn’t an absolute necessity), and many more manufacturers are making 1911s (although buyer beware, it’s much harder to make a quality 1911 than a plastic double stack gun).  There are too many AR-15 manufacturers to count now, with quality makers such as Daniel Defense, LaRue Tactical, Knight’s Armament, and Head Down.

I am a huge fan of RRA as readers know.  But if RRA and Springfield Armory were complicit in passing this legislation, they will suffer from it.  RRA distributors will stop asking for delivery and prices will plummet, although I expect RRA to survive.  If Springfield participated in support of this bill (or lack of opposition to it), I expect them to fold their tents.  They will not survive.  They don’t make anything unique enough to survive in the face of the competition.

I hate this for both RRA and Springfield, but you just simply cannot jump in bed with the controllers and be forgiven by the customers.  Gun owners won’t tolerate it – if you doubt what I’m saying, read the comments to this reddit/r/firearms thread.  If there is more to this story than we see, RRA and Springfield need to come clean and address the issues forthrightly – immediately.

UPDATE from RRA concerning IFMA.

The State:

A bill that supporters argue would strengthen Second Amendment rights could be a disaster for the image of the Grand Strand, officials in multiple jurisdictions said.

On Tuesday, Myrtle Beach Police Chief Warren Gall said a measure under consideration in the general assembly could make law enforcement’s job more difficult, because it would be legal to carry a weapon openly as long as a user doesn’t intend to use it for an unlawful purpose. But police can only prove someone intended to use a gun unlawfully after a crime has occurred, he said.

The bill, which has passed the S.C. House of Representatives and moved to the Senate, does not require a permit for open carry.

“I don’t think they’re going to pass it this year. But imagine walking down Ocean Boulevard on Easter weekend, Fourth of July weekend, Memorial Day weekend, Labor Day weekend, and everybody down there is carrying a pistol on their side because they can,” Gall said.

Myrtle Beach has recently seen a string of shootings, many in the downtown area near or on Ocean Boulevard. Officials are grappling with multiple ways to calm the atmosphere there, but Councilwoman Mary Jeffcoat said controlling the flow of firearms could be an impossible task for local police.

“I don’t know how many people in town have guns,” she said Tuesday. “I don’t know if we’ve even guessed how many people have guns, but I bet it’s a lot of them. I’m surprised we don’t have more shootings on weekends.”

[ … ]

Chief Joseph Hill of the Horry County Police Department previously worked in Virginia, which allows open carry. He said that he hadn’t seen issues with it there, but said in his personal opinion, a proliferation of guns in public could run counter to the intended brand of the Myrtle Beach area — a family friendly resort town.

“Where are you gonna strap it when you’re in your flip flops and your shorts on the beach?” Hill asked.

“I don’t think it will work here,” he said. “I don’t have any personal objections to it other than it doesn’t fit the culture of Myrtle Beach.”

Myrtle Beach Police Chief Warren Gall may know something we don’t.  We already know how weak-kneed the South Carolina legislators are, but perhaps the chief knows something about stalling tactics.  The authors of the article let that pregnant line of questioning slip away from them.

Here’s another pregnant line of questioning.  If Chief Joseph Hill of the Horry County Police Department has worked in Virginia before, which is an open carry state, and which also has beaches, then why can’t it work at another beach like Myrtle Beach, S.C.?  And for that matter, if North Carolina is a “gold star” traditional open carry state, also with magnificent beaches like Emerald Isle and the Outer Banks, what the hell is Hill talking about?

What image are they trying to protect if crime is rampant in Myrtle Beach anyway?  Hey, if you want to handle crime in that area, why don’t y’all target those thousands of homeless, drug addled beach dwellers in between Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach?  Yea, you know the ones I’m talking about, don’t you?  The ones who live just off the beach in makeshift shanties and card board boxes.

Your dirty little secret – the one you try to hide from all those Canadians and Northerners who come down to S.C. for some fun and frolic in the beach.  That is, during the times when High School students aren’t going to the beach to get inebriated and have sex with each other in hotel rooms their parents know nothing about.

Hey South Carolina LEOs!  You don’t have room to tell me anything about open carry and image.  Go fix your own damn problems and leave my rights alone.  And authors Chloe Johnson and Elizabeth Townsend, do a better job of pushing the envelope with your writing.  Why don’t you ask the hard questions?

Roger J.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
From ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, Part I, Chapter 1, ‘Arrest’:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the down-stairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

Translated from the Russian by Thomas P. Whitney

The Post And Courier:

Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen wants to stop the General Assembly from enacting a law that would allow gun owners to carry their guns concealed or openly without having to get a permit, and he’s enlisted area residents to help him get the job done.

[ … ]

Mullen says the law would make it more difficult for law enforcement employees to do their jobs since they wouldn’t be able to question people only for openly carrying their weapons.

“People are going to be calling us and wanting us to intervene, and we’re going to have to tell them because of the law, we’re not able to do that,” he said …

“At least we know when were dealing with a concealed-weapons carrier, they’ve gone through a background check and gone through training,” he said. “And it creates another opportunity for small situations, verbal altercations or minor disagreements, to lead to serious injuries or even death.”

Dramatic, yes?  Altercations, even death!  The problem is that he’s lying.  As a long time resident of a “Gold Star” traditional open carry state, I know that nothing of the sort happens.  And chief Mullen knows all of this too, but like LEOs everywhere, he wants to maintain control and the revenue stream that comes from gun permitting.  Mullen shouldn’t look at it as if he isn’t “able to intervene.”  He should look at it as an opportunity to educate the public on the rights of citizens of South Carolina.  He would rather intervene, since he is an old school collectivist.

Next up, Alabama LEOs.

Treadaway said an example of how the permit requirement is an important tool for law enforcement came last week when Birmingham police stopped a pickup with no headlights on. The officers noticed an AR-15 on the back seat, which was not illegal, Treadaway said. The driver admitted to having a pistol in the truck and did not have a permit for it.

That led to his arrest and a search of the truck, which turned up two pipe bombs and illegal drugs, Treadaway said.

“That’s a prime example that if this law passed, the concerns of law enforcement is that tool would be taken away,” Treadaway said.

It all sounds so dramatic, yes?  Except it wasn’t the lack of a permit that tipped the LEOs off to something else in the automobile, it was the willingness of the perpetrator to confess on the spot that he had a pistol in the truck.  Actually, if he had run his headlights, he never would have been stopped to begin with, so none of this has anything to do with permitting or open carry.

You can take it as an article of faith, that when asked about constitutional carry, LEOs everywhere will come up with the most dramatic excuses for why it’s a bad thing and will lead to blood in the streets and difficulty to maintain law and order.

Except that the history of open carry states shows that they’re lying every time.  So why ask them at all?  Ignore the LEOs when considering the rights of citizens.  After all, they aren’t constitutional scholars.

WCSC:

CHARLESTON, SC (WCSC) – A Lowcountry police department has formally taken a stance on a Senate bill which, if passed, would allow anyone who can legally purchase a gun to carry it in the state openly or concealed.

The Charleston Police Department tweeted an update on its Twitter account Monday night sharing the department’s opinion on Senate bill S. 449 reading in part:

“Please understand what this bill creates – the ability for anyone who can legally purchase a firearm, many who have not completed a background check to determine whether or not they are prohibited purchasers due to the location and manner of the transfer or received any type of training, to walk our streets and neighborhoods with a handgun on their hip, in a bag, or under their jacket without any review or training.”

This may be the most mangled use of the English language I’ve ever witnessed.  I’m still actually having trouble with it, but together we’ll try to parse it.

First of all, there is the issue of the choice of the word “ability.”  This is odd, and the department – whomever that is, perhaps the chief of police, perhaps his secretary, perhaps an attorney – may have meant “legality,” or “legal viability,” or “legal ability.”  Anyone who has the money has the ability to purchase virtually anything.  In other words, the lack of some sort of state approval means nothing whatsoever concerning whether a person can do something, only whether a person may do something under the law.

Second, if we can get past the word ability, the phrase “who can legally purchase a firearm” says more than they want it to say and destroys their argument (if you can call this an argument at all).  It’s problematic because they acquiesce to the notion that the user or owner of the firearm has obtained the firearm legally (via form 4473) by stipulating so in the prefatory remarks, and then demur by saying that the owner or user may not be a legal firearm owner because, and I quote, “many who (sic) have not completed a background check to determine whether or not they are prohibited purchasers due to the location and manner of the transfer or received any type of training …”

They should have said “many of whom.”  Actually, they shouldn’t have said anything at all.  This is yet another oddball statement.  A “prohibited purchaser” cannot legally purchase a firearm via form 4473 (not that I agree with federal gun laws, I’m just attempting to logically parse this screwed up statement).

Person-to-person transfers are still legal in South Carolina, requiring neither form 4473 nor CLEO approval, nothing about that changes with this bill, and what all of this has to do with constitutional versus permitted carry is not addressed in this confusing statement.  Presumably the chief was referring to the fact that the CLEO permitting process will not have been followed for carry of the firearm (purchase of a firearm doesn’t require CLEO approval, but carry of a firearm [legally] does require CLEO approval).

But that’s what this debate is all about.  No one is denying that the bill, if passed would annul the requirement for CLEO approval for permitting to carry.  That’s its virtue, not its cunning.  Additionally, someone may walk around with a gun in a pocket, bag, on their hip or under a jacket anyway without CLEO approval.  If it isn’t seen, LEOs wouldn’t have opportunity to stop them since all detainments must be a so-called “Terry Stop.”  CLEO approval isn’t stopping criminals from carrying weapons.

The title of the article says that the Charleston Police Department weighs in on open carry, but the objections so far have to do only with bypassing the CLEO process for concealed carry and weapons transfers.  So it’s possible that the author of the short article didn’t even understand the issue.  Or it’s possible that the article is mistitled since the proposed law both bypasses the CLEO permitting process and legalizes open carry at one time.

Perhaps the chief has taught his officers that if someone isn’t carrying openly, the person isn’t carrying at all.  But wait, open carry is still illegal in South Carolina, and I doubt that officers in his employ assume that criminals aren’t carrying firearms and only permitted carriers have weapons.  We are left to wonder if the chief cares to weigh in on open carry.  Then again, let’s hope not.  His statement might be even worse than this one.  At least if he does issue such a statement, he should take a grammar course first, and perhaps a suitable course in logic and rhetoric.

Prior:

Constitutional Carry Update In Alabama, Texas And South Carolina

Constitutional Carry Passes Alabama Senate, Setting Example For The South Carolina Senate

South Carolina Police And Lawmakers Are In A “Shootout” Over Carrying Guns

Laws Against Open Carry Are For The Purpose Of Shaming Gun Owners

South Carolina Senate Hearings For New Gun Laws

Mark Chesnut:

Three states—Alabama, Texas and South Carolina—are currently vying to be the next state in the nation to do away with the requirement for law-abiding gun owners to be licensed by the government to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense.

This expansion of the “permitless,” or constitutional, carry movement represents a continuation of a march toward freedom occurring throughout the country.

On Tuesday, the Alabama Senate passed that state’s version of an NRA-backed permitless carry measure—Senate Bill 24—by a 25-6 vote. The bill now heads to the House, where it will likely be assigned to the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee.

Put simply, SB 24 would eliminate the requirement to obtain a permit to lawfully carry in the state.

[ … ]

In Texas, the House Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety on Tuesday also passed a permitless carry measure. HB 1911, which passed in the committee by a 6-2 vote, eliminates the requirement for obtaining a license to carry for law-abiding citizens who would otherwise meet the eligibility requirements to qualify for that license.

[ … ]

Meanwhile in South Carolina, efforts to pass permitless carry legislation are also moving forward. Like the House version, the Senate bill—SC Constitutional Carry Act of 2017—allows those who are legally permitted to own, carry or purchase a firearm to do so without having to obtain a permit. Open carry, which allows for a person to carry a firearm exposed on their person, also would be permitted.

Since the last time we discussed the status of constitutional (and open) carry in South Carolina, it’s been difficult to get a read on the status of things.  The House has passed a bill, while the senate is currently debating one, it seems.

But Martin requested the panel suspend discussion on his bill, and instead pick up the House bill to increase the proposal’s chances of becoming law by the end of session the first week of May.

“I just want to give people their constitutional rights to carry,” Martin said.

You see where this is headed, don’t you?  The house was able to get something done.  The senate, not so much.  They have their own version, and if they pass something different than the house, it will have to be “worked out in committee,” likely not getting done before they leave.

And it will all have been done by design.  It appears that Shane Martin wants to move things along, but he has run square into the blocking schemes of the collectivists.  Dean Weingarten points to a potential score in our column, though.

There are 27 Republicans in the Senate, and 18 Democrats. Mere numbers are not the entire story when it comes to passing legislation.  In 2016, the Constitutional Carry bill was bottled up and killed in a Senate subcommittee. Senator Katrina Frye Shealy (R) Lexington was one of the primary opponents. She is still on the Judiciary Committee, which is a likely place for the bill to be sent in the senate.

This year she is listed as a sponsor of SC S0449, which is a senate bill quite similar to H. 3930.  If she actually supports Constitutional Carry in 2017, it would be a significant change.

Contact your senators yet again and let them know where you stand.  This is easy, and we all know it.  Use Robert’s Rules of Order, make a motion, second the motion, “call the question” (or stop debate), and vote on the motion.  It’s easy.  I’ve done this many times in church government.  It can be done in two minutes or less.

You know it can be done, state senators, I know it can be done, and my readers all know it can be done.  We’re privy to the games you play, and “we tried ever so hard but couldn’t reconcile the house and senate bills” just won’t do.  That isn’t good enough.  That will never be good enough again.  That excuse has run dry.

So who wants to be the laughingstock?  Who wants to stop constitutional carry, folks?  South Carolina, Alabama or Texas?  Who among the three of you wants to look the most like communist China?  Who wants to prove themselves the most corrupt?  Who wants to paint that target on their backs?  Speak up.  We’re waiting and watching.

David Codrea:

… enough clues exist to speculate that banishing USCCA may have something to do with NRA recently launching very similar insurance products competing with those offered by USCCA. Bearing in mind that USCCA acknowledges meeting with NRA over “shared goals,” it’s fair to note how similar NRA’s new Carry Guard service is to USCCA’s established program. Both offer three levels of services with similar price points (named after metals), and both offer magazines and memberships.

It goes without saying that if the NRA could find the balls to cooperate with other likeminded organizations, its effectiveness would be the beneficiary.  You understand that, right?  I don’t even have to say it, or I shouldn’t have to say it.

So I’m glad David brought this up.  Let me turn to the comments for a moment.

He who represents himself in court is a fool.

Kansas or not your self defense shooting will not be as cut and dried as it is in your mind. If you are so up on the law you should know that you are entering a system that is set up for obtaining your conviction. Police and prosecutors make a living and a name convicting people (not looking for the truth).

Could you post bail today? Could you afford to miss work. Do you own a home? If your shooting is at all questionable you may lose everything.

Many people only think of the scenario where there door gets kicked in in the middle of the night. Go ahead and shoot.

Let’s say that your are in a parking garage in Vegas and three scary thugs start talking nasty trash to your girlfriend. You lift your shirt as a warning to scare them away. You just committed assault because you scared the idiots and in theory you could do 10 years.

How will you afford the professional witnesses that will testify on your behalf? They don’t work for free and airline tickets and hotels aren’t free. Then the trial may be delayed and you have to fly them back to court all over again.

Statistics say that a proper defense is about $50,000 minimum. The USCCA will cover you up to $300,000 for under $20.00 dollars a month. Do you have car insurance? Homeowners insurance? By the way homeowners insurance probably won’t even cover your bail.

The USCCA gives you one number to call from jail and the operator/councilor stays with you from bail until the trial is over.

Think hard on it.
Las Vegas Craig
Stay Safe

And then there is this.

I got 13 emails in 7 days from USCCA. Few have any valuable information. Some rehash the same old cases about somebody who needed the insurance. They are all just trying to sell the insurance or get me to visit the web site to sign up for the daily drawing. If they can give away $1000 a day to purchase a handgun, it suggests to me that they have a very high profit margin.

I don’t know what the truth is.  I do know that we live in perilous times, with the entirety of the legal system tilted against gun owners.

So how about my readers weigh in on this.  Do you have such insurance?  Do you think you need it?  Are you prepared to finance your defense?  Have you compared plans out there to see which one is the best?

Remember we discussed Muslim open carrier Ehab Jaber, specifically within the context of Christian fear and trembling?  Well, there have been developments in the case (via reader Mack).

Twelve days after a Muslim man sat in his car in the parking lot of our Sioux Falls Christian Worldview Weekend brandishing 5 weapons, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and told us to be scared and terrified, he has finally been arrested and charged. But it is even worse than we thought. You can read the initial article on this incident here. 

News reports state that police found his weapons in his house along with meth. My blood ran cold when I found this out. METH? You mean we could have had a guy jacked up on drugs, combined with his ideology, putting 500 men, women, and children at risk at our Christian conference? Why was he not arrested that night or even questioned? How did he stay on the streets for 12 days with guns and meth? He even posted on his Facebook page he had 1,200 rounds of ammunition in his car.

On April 19th the Muslim man went on another Facebook rant and posted the following:

“But if you still have animosity, we can shoot it out. I hope you’ve been practicing your quick draw …and your aim became I am 25,000 rounds deep.”

Remember the Lincoln County prosecutor told WND:

“I’m not aware of any record. He’s a host and a server in a very high-end steak house here in Sioux Falls and everyone who works with him enjoys working with him. We can’t run roughshod over people’s First Amendment rights, or their Second Amendment rights,”

Brandishing weapons and making terroristic threats is not a First or Second Amendment right. The same prosector and police that seem to defend the Muslim in the news media have now arrested and charged him? Why could they have not done this on April 9th and avoided the political correctness, double-standard, putting Worldview Weekend and the community at risk and making themselves now look completely inept and negligent? If they charged him on April 21st with terroristic threat they could have done so on the evening of April 9th.

I believe the citizens of Sioux Falls should be demanding the resignation of the Sioux Falls Police Chief and the recall of the Lincoln County State Attorney for letting this man be on the street for 12 days when there was an abundance of evidence that this man was a threat to the public.

The political and law enforcement failure on this is HUGE. The police could have and should have arrested him Sunday night, April 9, 2017 when they saw his Facebook videos while our conference was STILL going on. I know they saw them because the off duty police officer we hired told me about them while our conference was still in session.

Instead of him being arrested that night, this man was free to roam armed and possessing METH for 12 days!

Ha!  Some Muslim.  If ISIS had caught the asshole with Meth they would have put him to death, or perhaps taken pity and only cut off his hands so he could never do that again and be an example to others.

As for me, I couldn’t care less if he smokes meth until his head explodes.  But what we learn from this article is interesting indeed.

So the cops are worthless and inept.  So what?  They are pretty much everywhere.  And from what I understand the arrest had to do with Meth rather than threats.  Get used to it, Christians.  As I said, “gun up.”

The most interesting (and pitiful) thing we learn is the reaction from people who were there.  The poor man’s “blood ran cold.”  He wants protection by the police.  How did the police fail him?  How could this have happened?  The outrage of it all!

Christians in America are in need of a serious, hard core intervention.  They claim to hear the voices of other Christians around the world who are suffering because of their faith, but yea verily, the police in America won’t let that happen to good Christians in America, to read the ranting of the author.

My goodness.  Hard times are coming, sir.  Hard, hard times.  Law enforcement will implement and effect the wishes of the rulers, and the rulers do not have your interests at heart.  You’d better gun up now and try to keep that blood from running cold.  You’d better steel yourself, calm your nerves and prepare for battle.  It’s interested in you even if you aren’t interested in it.

TheAlaskan:

“Those who demand that you surrender your arms, are planning on keeping theirs.”

The Blaze:

A South Dakota Muslim, who was escorted out of a Christian conference after protesting it with foul language, took to Facebook Live to tell viewers they should be “terrified” as he flashed multiple firearms in his car.

The man in the video is identified as Ehab Jaber is a South Dakota resident who is self-described as being formerly from  Saudi Arabia. According to World Net Daily, Jaber infiltrated the Christian Worldview Weekend conference on April 9 at the Hilton Garden Inn in Sioux Falls, as they were discussing the Islamic persecution of Christians around the world.

[ … ]

Jaber, wearing a shirt that read “I’m American, I’m a Muslim, I open carry, I conceal carry, and I’m dangerous only if you’re stupid,” and carrying a Koran reportedly began disrupting the proceedings and live streaming the conference on his phone.

Jaber went to his car, and still sitting in the parking lot, once more took to Facebook Live where he began complaining about how many people were in attendance. It was then that Jaber asked “ya know, if you want to be really scared?”

Jaber then reached behind him and began displaying various handguns and an AK-47, each time saying “be scared.” Pulling out an extended magazine and an AR-15 he added “be f***ing terrified.”

But here’s the thing, Jaber.  I’m not scared or intimidated one damn little bit.  I’m not even the slightest bit nervous.  Jaber is only taking his cue from the Qu’ran, and his example from the hoards of barbarians in the Middle East.

Tragic stories of Christian experiences under the Islamic State continued to emerge throughout the month of January.  A Christian doctor who forfeited the chance to escape his Syrian village after ISIS had captured it because he wanted to stay and help the sick and needy, both Christian and Muslim, was kidnapped by the Muslim terrorists and ordered to renounce Christ for Muhammad.  When he refused, they publicly slaughtered him.  Similarly, after ISIS ordered another Christian youth in Syria to embrace Islam, he too refused and was slaughtered for it.  His mother-who was prevented from burying her martyred son’s body-recalled that when ISIS first invaded their village, he reminded her of Jesus’ assertion in the New Testament: “If you deny me before men I will deny you before the Father.”

After ISIS raided the home of Zarefa, an elderly Christian woman in Iraq, they discovered crucifixes and Christian icons. “They forced me to spit on the Cross,” she recalled. “I told them that it was not appropriate, that it was a sin. He said that I must spit. ‘Don’t you see that I have a gun?’ he asked me. I said to myself, ‘Oh, the Cross! I am weak, I will spit on you. But Lord, I ask you to take revenge for me. I cannot escape from this.'”  According to the report, “The shame is still visible on Zarefa’s face when she recounts the memory; her town, Qaraqosh, is liberated now, but she is still recovering from the traumatic two years that are only just behind her.”

Hmm … let me see.  Spit or perish.  Well, I don’t approve of those options.  How about this option.  Eat this .45 ACP 230-grain fat boy down the throat, goat fucker.

Yea, that’s it.  A much better option.  If you don’t like that option, I’ll give you the option of 5.56mm.  So there you have it.  .45 ACP or 5.56mm.  Those two are much better than spit or perish.  Listen to me, Christians.  You’d better “gun up” now rather than later.  If you don’t, you and your Bohemian hippie flower child pacifist peace-and-love will be run over like a freight train.