Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

David Codrea:

 … Citibank’s unwarranted attack on gun owners and the firearms industry by requiring businesses to discriminate against gun to lawful customers under 21, and barring the sale of so-called “bump stocks” and standard capacity magazines. Further, the global banking giant signaled its intent to drag manufacturers into its citizen disarmament schemes.

There are reasons why some of us who have our firearms purchases choices denied by corporate parasites find Citibank’s promotion of Jay-Z so hypocritical …

There are two ways to look at this.  The first is that the market will handle the problems and anyway, I cannot possibly boycott all of the businesses that cause me problems.  There will be no prohibition on guns that is successful.  As commenter Fred has pointed out, “prohibition doesn’t work … Markets see regulation as damage and automatically re-routes around it.”

On the other hand David points out that Citibank is the recipient of FedGov money, or in other words, our money.  It shouldn’t be, and it’s a testimony to the evil that grips our country that corporations can both receive tax monies and then work against the very rights that founded the country.

Other than governmental actions against such corporations, and/or boycotting every corporation that does things like this, I have no solution short of civil unrest.

Every time a new contract is issued for weapons and ammunition, the typical cacophony of comments follow.  Those who think that the FedGov has too many guns and too much ammunition weigh in, and invariably (perhaps some of them are trolls or paid commenters?) some people weigh in with support.

Terrorism.  Bad people.  Every agent with a gun needs range rounds and personal defense (PD) ammunition (JHP or whatever).  Think of how many rounds you shoot per year, and multiply that times the number of agents, blah, blah, blah.

The commenters yammer and yak and go on about how we need to support law enforcement, not understanding the deeper meaning of things.  That was true of the recently released contract on behalf of the DHS.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently awarded Federal Premium a major ammunition contract. Starting delivery in 2018, the contract provides for up to 180 million rounds of .40-cal. Tactical HST duty ammunition to multiple Department of Homeland Security law enforcement components and other federal agencies for up to five years. This contract will provide the organization’s agents and officers with .40 cal. duty and training ammunition.

“Law enforcement and federal agencies put it all on the line for our safety and freedoms,” said Mike Holm, said product director at Federal Premium.” They should expect nothing less from their ammunition.”

Notice the sleight of hand?  “Multiple Department of Homeland Security law enforcement components and other federal agencies.”  While wrapped in a patriotic cloak of border security, this contract so hidden as to its real import that you have no idea what’s in it or who receives the ammunition or for what purpose.

I suspect various commenters will come to the rescue of the FedGov on this one as well (I’ve seen it every time something like this is announced), but the fact remains that 180 million rounds is a lot of PD ammunition.  Note: this isn’t range ammo – it’s duty ammo.  I have faced the usual suspects before, like “Well, the FedGov has to protect the American nuclear facilities.”

No, I reply, go back and try again.  Commercial nuclear power plants owned by utilities in America must provide their own security, and sometimes they are utility employees, while sometimes they are contract workers.  But always, the FedGov has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Next up, “Well, FedGov must supply security for our nuclear weapons facilities.”  No, try again, I reply.  The real shooting in any incident effecting our nuclear weapons facilities will be done by Marine Corps FAST teams, and if you’re stupid enough to perpetrate an incident against such a target, you’re likely to be staring down the barrel of a Mark 19, operated by men who, as the Gunny would say, are “Ministers of death, praying for war,” and just waiting on someone like you.  I know some of them (or at one time I did).

Finally, the commenters always mention our national laboratories, and I’ve visited multiple labs on multiple occasions.  Most of the security is done by contract employees, and doesn’t get counted in any of the weapons or ammo purchases made by FedGov.

It is against this backdrop that this insightful report must be read.

In the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack, many Washington politicians tried to shift the conversation to the Second Amendment and called for an assault weapons bans. But former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, our Honorary Chairman, had another idea. In this interview on CNBC, Coburn said we should improve our system of background checks, but said it was IRS officials and non-military federal personnel who should be subject to an assault weapons ban, not the general public.

This week, our organization at OpenTheBooks.com released our findings in an editorial at The Wall Street Journal that quantified the growing federal arsenal. The number of non-military federal officers with arrest and firearm authority (200,000+) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). Spending on guns, ammo and military-style equipment at 67 federal agencies – including 53 regulatory, administrative agencies amounted to $1.48 billion between 2006-2014.

The IRS gun-locker is an example  of this growing federal firepower. Nearly $11 million was spent on guns, ammo and military-style equipment for 2,316 ‘special agents’ during this period. The IRS stockpile includes pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns with buckshot and slugs; and semi-automatic AR-15 rifles (S&W M&P 15) and military-style H&K 416 rifles. (See the OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – The Militarization of America.)

The recent growth of the federal arsenal begs the questions: Just who are the feds planning to battle?

In 1996, the Bureau of Justice Statistics officially counted 74,500 federal officers who had arrest and firearm authority. By 2008, the Bureau quantified over 120,000 such officers. Newly updated counts were supposed to publish by this July but the Bureau now admits that over 80% of federal agencies ignored or stonewalled responses to their latest survey. What are they trying to hide?

Even though our organization at OpenTheBooks.com estimated the number of non-Department of Defense federal officers at 200,000+, the current number of non-military federal officers and security personnel could be much larger. Here’s why:

• The feds refuse to disclose the number of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers, claiming a national security exception.
• The growth of officers within the 53 administrative, regulatory agencies since 2008 is uncertain. Our officer count estimate used a no-growth figure of 30,000 – the same count as in 2008.
• Likewise, the count within the Department of Homeland Security is unclear. We found conflicting sources citing figures at 70,000 and 63,000. We used the more conservative figure for our analysis.

At Health and Human Services (HHS), it’s also unclear just how many ‘special agents’ are currently employed. Yet, research uncovered a multi-million-dollar program for HHS ‘Office of Inspector General Special Agents’ that used a sophisticated military-style weapons platform with Special Forces contractors training the agents on domestic special operations.

Today, HHS is operating from a brand new “National Training Operations Center” within the Washington, D.C. area they describe as “an operational readiness, emergency response, crisis room and command post for HHS headquarters and staff.” That’s serious business for an agency supposedly preoccupied with “health” matters.

The author, Adam Andrzejewski, goes on, and you can read the entire report at Forbes.  But the founders were opposed to standing armies for good reason.

So if America’s founders would be disappointed in the United States today, how much of that disappointment, if any, might be directed at the military and what has come to be known as national security affairs? It is a question especially worthy of our attention, since the American people have repeatedly said in polls that, of society’s major institutions, the military is the one they most trust.

Let us start with the Preamble to the Constitution. Whatever the framers’ intent, however aspirational the wording, and notwithstanding the fact that national security wasn’t part of the vernacular of the day, the Preamble stands as America’s enduring security credo.

Its importance is essentially threefold. It lists providing for the common defense (in lower-case letters) as merely one — not the first, not the most important — of the national aims the governing apparatus called for by the Constitution seeks to achieve. Semantically, it captures the normative essence of military affairs as self-defense (not aggression, not power projection). And it thereby implicitly cautions against purchasing defense at the expense of these other strategic priorities — national unity, justice, domestic tranquility, the general welfare, liberty.

[ … ]

Madison famously provided one of the most powerful statements ever on war:

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Today, we live in a state of constant, potentially endless war — always, without exception, undeclared; invariably by choice (rhetorically disguised as necessity); frequently in secret (to increase the license to act, while minimizing oversight and accountability); often labeled war (to engender fear and urgency), but just as often labeled something other than war (for reasons of expediency, convenience and legal circumvention); initiated and prosecuted by a now permanently imperial presidency, largely devoid of congressional consultation and consent before the fact, sometimes even with minimal congressional notification after the fact.

Such concentration of executive power, such abrogation of legislative authority and responsibility, such marginalization of popular consent would seem to be the ingredients of tyrannical government the founders said the people had the right and the duty to overthrow.

It’s instructive and expedient to understand the FedGov and its actions under 3P’s: [1] Protect, [2] Perpetuate, and [3] Promote.  It isn’t by accident that the FedGov wants a disarmed population and continually presses gun control (supported all the way by the court system up to and including the SCOTUS).  A disarmed population is a corollary and a couple to government control and subjugation of the people.  An armed population cannot be subjugated – and thus the population must be disarmed.  It all works together, and without each part none of it works.

But in America that’s difficult, so one answer to the difficulty is to arm the FedGov better and with more.  Note well that the rulership has created a caste system of peasants who will protect the FedGov because it’s their livelihood.  Too old and not in good enough shape to join the military, and not desirous of the decrease in income, there is nothing much else a gun toting agent can do except work for the government.  Family support is a strong motivator, and provision for wife and children can cause all sorts of word twisting and reinterpretation of oaths and vows.  The job of this peasant class is to keep the other peasants in check.  It is to protect the rulership.

The rulership by its very nature perpetuates itself by patronage and largesse to its families, friends and allies.  This is the value of high taxation and federal ownership of land.  Finally, promotion of the FedGov and rulership occurs via the public education system where willing subjects are molded, and also through the MSM where willing “journalists” parrot talking points.

There are those who say that the constitution contained in it the seeds of this despair and destruction.  And there are those who say that we need a new constitution because the last one failed.  While I am no defender of the notion that the constitution was infallible or perfect, I don’t subscribe to this being the ailment or the proposed remedy.

If I’ve tried to teach anything in these last years, it’s that men are to blame.  The constitution is a covenant, or agreement with the appurtenant blessings and cursings for obedience and disobedience, respectively.  It is nothing more, and nothing less.  We don’t get rights to ownership of weapons from the second amendment – we get them from the very fountain of rights, the Almighty Himself.

But America has broken covenant with the Almighty.  After this, everything else is duck soup.  It’s easy to break covenant with men when you have no fear of God.  Blaming the constitution for the malfeasance of men is like blaming the marriage covenant for an adulterous spouse, and demanding a new marriage covenant because the last one let your spouse engage in infidelity is demanding more of the same and expecting a promise to mean something to an adulterer.

To answer the question posed by the author, “Just who are the feds planning to battle?,” the answer is that the answer is crystal clear for those who would see it.

Prior Featured: AR-15 Ammunition And Barrel Twist Rate

The Hill:

A pair of Democratic lawmakers are introducing legislation to require a background check for all firearm ammunition sales.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said on Monday they had introduced the bill, known as the Ammunition Background Check Act of 2018, arguing it would help close a “loophole” in the current law.

“Ammunition sales should be subject to the same legal requirements as firearm sales, and that includes instant background checks. … Closing this ludicrous loophole is a common-sense component of a comprehensive strategy to reduce gun violence,” Blumenthal said.

Wasserman Schultz added that it is “common-sense legislation” that would close an “absurd loophole.”

Understand this is what they would do to you.  This doesn’t have much of a chance of passing as things stand now.  But give the House to the democrats, and things get a little more dicey.  Give the presidency to the democrats, and things go down hill fast.  If the republicans thought they could get away with it, they’d do it too.

Don’t look to the supremes to undo this if it ever happens.  They won’t even take up cases for New York State where people cannot purchase weapons without CLEO approval, and cannot carry anywhere.

You and I don’t have enough ammunition.  Not even nearly.

Reddit/r/firearms:

Toomey Introduces Bill That Would Toughen Existing Gun Laws – Requires FBI to report prohibited persons to state LEOs when denied purchase

The bill can be found here.  I would expect this kind of thing from Toomey, who is a communist.  Most disappointing though is the redditors who like it.

Having read the bill, I’m on board with this. Its a shame it isn’t policy already, but I see nothing wrong with this bill as written.

And another:

I don’t think I hate this.

Well, I do.  I loath every man and woman who sits in their offices like the cowards they are, sends boys to war to perish, lose arms and legs and eyes and brains (from TBI), and then wants to prohibit them from purchasing a gun if they have ever been diagnosed PTSD or have someone else do their finances for them.

Realize that this is what the recent Omnibus bill does.  It forces the VA to report such names of veterans to the NICS, creating a situation in which a veteran doesn’t know he is prohibited from purchasing weapons until he is rejected from doing so, now having lied on Form 4473 and become an immediate felon.

I loath all of you who voted for such a thing, or who would vote for such a thing.  I hate you with a white, burning hatred for your cowardice and malfeasance.

I hate to do it, but I must embed a video, and this one is very good.  It comes to us from the only congressman who I can trust on gun rights.

So, good job, redditors, you idiots.  You just jumped in bed with communists.  To every politician who did this to honorable veterans whom you sent war, you can ES&D.  That goes for Toomey as well.

Reuters:

The teen organizers of Saturday’s nationwide “March for Our Lives,” aimed at toughening gun laws to help stop school shootings in the United States, have won kudos and cash from dozens of celebrities, helping to raise their national profile.

The April 2 cover of Time magazine will feature five students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida who have organized rallies, walk-outs and challenged U.S. lawmakers since the February 14 mass shooting at the school that left 17 students and staff dead.

Miley Cyrus, Ariana Grande, Jennifer Hudson, Demi Lovato and Common are due to be among performers at Saturday’s main march in Washington D.C., while “Trainwreck” actress Amy Schumer and pop star Charlie Puth are expected to headline a march in Los Angeles, organizers said.

“So inspired by the incredible students behind #MarchForOurLives. Can’t wait to join them in DC to perform and show my support,” Cyrus tweeted earlier this week.

“Proud of these kids,” Justin Bieber wrote on Twitter.

Winfrey, Clooney, director Steven Spielberg and Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg have donated an aggregate of $2 million to the “March for Our Lives” movement. Clooney and his wife Amal have said they would march with the students on Saturday.

“This is their moment,” Winfrey told Reuters Television in praising the students. “They are the new young warriors of the light.”

“Groundhog Day” actor Murray compared them to the young protesters of the 1960s who helped bring an end to the Vietnam War.

Reuters is lying.  The students didn’t organize anything.  Everytown is organizing and managing the entire process.  The students are just being used.

The lie notwithstanding, make no mistake about what’s happening here.  This is a religious quest for them.  The language (“warriors of the light”) has very direct theological import.

This is a worship service, and they wanted to have the high priests of paganism there to preach sermons to them.  Thus, the priests were made available.

I know I have readers who do not hold to my own theological views or my Christian beliefs.  But you can be sure that your gun controller enemies aren’t atheists.  Their religion is collectivism, and their god is the state.  You’re on notice that they’ve declared war on you.

I took this picture today at a local Dick’s Sporting Goods.

Edward, I told you that you couldn’t survive as a golf shop, didn’t I?  We’ve had this discussion, I know we have.

On a related note, I met a temporary manager of a local Gander Outdoors in Gastonia over the weekend (Rodney, who is the store manager in Tampa).  Apparently, the Gander in Gastonia is profitable, and they want to reopen it with all new firearms, all new gear, a new bike shop, new camping gear, and so on.

He told me “You know what’s funny?  I worked at the third Dick’s ever opened, and you know who my manager was?  Edward Stack.  It’s a shame what’s happened.”  We agreed that if he could wait a year (which they can’t because they’re going to reopen soon) they could probably hire most of the employees at Dick’s right down the road.

Edward, what happened to you?  Did the HR and corporate communications folks you hired change your soul, or have you always been a collectivist?

The Washington Post:

Edward W. Stack is chief executive of Dick’s Sporting Goods.

Throughout history, the United States has been a beacon of hope for the world — especially for people who appreciate and respect that we are a country founded on laws that have been enacted to guard our freedom and keep us safe.

As a gun owner, I support the Second Amendment and understand why, for many, the right to bear arms is as American as baseball and apple pie. But I also agree with what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion in 2008’s landmark Heller case: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

It is clear we have a problem with the gun laws in this country. They are not squarely focused on keeping all of us safe — especially our children.

There continue to be mass shootings — at our schools, churches and entertainment venues. Following each of these senseless, tragic events there’s a great deal of idle, fruitless talk in the halls of Congress, and then the conversation quickly comes to an end.

It’s our great hope and belief that this time will be different. It has to be different.

Maybe it’s because the survivors of the Parkland, Fla., massacre — and the thousands of students who made their feelings known for 17 minutes last week — are standing up and shouting “enough is enough” and “never again.” They are demanding that our elected officials come together to find solutions. These brave young men and women are not going away.

In the weeks since we at Dick’s Sporting Goods announced plans to stop selling assault-style rifles, plans to only sell firearms to those over 21 and other new policies, we have been striving to keep this conversation going. We have met with a number of lawmakers and have talked with many of our peers in the retail industry. We have spoken with strong-willed advocacy groups and visited with families in Parkland.

It is becoming increasingly apparent through our conversations that there continues to be deep skepticism that anything of substance will be done.

Some members of Congress are committed to change, but not enough are willing to set aside partisanship to find a solution. I continue to call on lawmakers in both parties to talk with each other with the expressed intent to act.

What’s also surprising is how many citizens and leaders in our government are not aware of the loopholes and inconsistences in our firearms laws.

Here are some to think about:

●You can’t buy a handgun until you’re 21, but you can buy an assault-style rifle at 18.

●You can buy a gun on the Internet from someone in your state without a background check, but a background check is required to buy a gun on the Internet from someone in a different state.

●Few states provide a list of those in their state who are banned from buying a gun to other states.

●A person deemed too dangerous to fly on a commercial plane is nonetheless legally permitted to purchase a gun.

We understand this is a complex issue and Congress has a number of constituencies with broad agendas. But we hope Congress will take notice of not only what students are saying but also what the private sector is telling it. Two of the three largest firearms retailers in the country have publicly said we are implementing our own policies for the sale of firearms.

This issue transcends our company’s bottom line. We suspected that speaking out would have a negative impact on our business. But this was about our values and standing up for what we think is right.

After we announced our new firearms policy, we were gratified that Walmart, Kroger, L.L. Bean and REI showed courage and leadership by announcing their own new policies. We hope others in the private and public sectors join us in this effort.

A group of us in corporate America have taken a stand, made hard choices and enacted reforms on our own because we firmly believe it’s the right thing to do for our kids and for our country.

The kids in Florida and across the nation have taken a stand and been brave enough to make their voices heard.

The majority of Americans are demanding that members of Congress take a stand and be brave enough to do their jobs.

Those who follow firearms, shooting, and tactical channels on YouTube know about the travails of Hickok45 on YouTube.  Venerable and old school, Hickok45 tests and comments on firearms manufacturers send him.  Sometimes he shoots his own firearms, but always, he shoots, comments and often provides history and mechanical commentary on the machines he is using.  Sometimes it is with admiration, sometimes slight disdain, but always honest and interesting.

Hickok45 met with disapproval from some redditors when he supported the NRA in light of the compromises the NRA recommended (e.g., bump stocks, enhanced background checks), but being a former LEO and old school like he is, I wouldn’t have expected anything else from him.  Just as interesting to me is Jeff Quinn of Gunblast, especially when shooting and commenting on revolvers, but always interesting.

Hickok45 met with several bans on YouTube for promoting products, but he never really did that and always appealed the decision, mostly meeting with reinstatement by those who run YouTube.  But all of these folks may need to find new homes.

Full30: I received an email from my Google/YouTube rep at 9:30pm tonight. He requested an emergency meeting tomorrow to discuss YouTube’s new policies regarding firearms content.

This is really bad. Please read this carefully and a couple of times, and let it sink in. 1/3rd of my videos or more will need to be removed. If you don’t have them removed in 30 days, your channel will be deleted for policy violations.

I wish this were a joke. It’s not. I feel horrible for reloading channels or NFA channels. Showing how to make ammo or even showing the installation of a silencer is prohibited. Hell, showing the use of a magazine larger than 30 rounds is prohibited! Belt feds are a no go.

I’ll try to find out as much as I can from my rep tomorrow. I mean, are legal machine guns and silencers being demonstrated really going to get us account strikes now?

Please read this guys… I’m in shock, but then I knew this day wold come. It looks like it’s here in 30 days. I’m at a total loss for words. ~Tim

Redditors are up in arms, because the Google guidance says the following.

“YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that:

Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g., private sales by individuals) or links to sites that sell these items.

These accessories include but may not be limited to accessories that enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire (e.g., bump stocks, gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, conversion kits), and high capacity magazines (i.e., magazines or belts carrying more than 30 rounds).

Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above. This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities.Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications.”

“Manufacturing a firearm.”  Reddit understands that this means if you teach someone to field strip an AR-15 or replace a bolt carrier group and check head space (Brownells), you fall into this category.  If you comment positively about a particular firearm, part, accessory, or manufacturer, you fall into these categories.

Their temporary answer is to start downloading targeted videos.  But make no mistake about it, they’re pissed off.  There is also no mistaking the fact that at the moment, there is no replacement for the information and firearms channels on YouTube.

This could possibly effect other related videos such as tactical instruction where firearms are discussed, such as with Kyle Lamb, Travis Haley, Chris Costa, and John Lovell.

I’ve long thought that an alternative needed to be developed to YouTube other than Live Leak, but to date there is nothing.  Suffice it to say that the progressives at Google are winning this battle.  What happens in the longer term war will be up to someone other than Google.

You might have noticed that I rarely embed or even link YouTube videos any more.  I’ve made my choice – has the rest of America?

lIJR.com:

In January, the Denver City Council approved a ban on the possession of bump stocks and police have told people they need to turn them in. More than two months later, police have not received a single one.

Denverite reports police told gun owners that if they “are in possession of a bump stock, and would like to turn-in their bump stock to the Denver Police Department, they can do so at any Denver Police Station.”

The council approved the ban by a vote of 11-1. “Congress failed to act. The legislature had not acted. And I saw an opportunity for Denver to lead the charge and create the momentum that we desperately need,” said Alan Kennedy-Shaffer, who introduced the measure.

The measure that was passed also removed the “grandfather clause” that enabled people to have a magazine with a capacity of 15 rounds or more if they bought it before 2013.

Well what the hell did you expect?  Get used to it.  This is good practice for when you expand that magazine ban across America, and for when you ban AR-15s.

Or as they say, “No.  Your move.”

Breitbart:

Their announcement comes after an anti-Second Amendment campaign resulted in over dozen companies cutting ties with the NRA. It also follows a New York Times’ suggestion that Visa and Mastercard could circumvent Congress and restrict “assault weapon” sales by refusing business with “assault weapon” manufacturers and/or dealers.

According to CBS San Francisco, Visa received a petition with 150,000 signatures, asking the credit card company to refuse to process purchases of “assault weapons.”

Visa responded, “We do not believe Visa should be in the position of setting restrictions on the sale of lawful goods and services.”

Well good.  I guess it’s possible to win these skirmishes after all, although I don’t know the decision process they went through.