Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Via Uncle, via Joe, and then ultimately to someone with the pseudonym Stonekettle on Twitter (have you noticed how these “we’re coming to take your guns and there’s nothing you can do about it” guys always leave out their real names?):

If we elect a new congress and we pass laws making gun ownership illegal for people like you, and the government comes to take your guns, what will you do?

What will you do? Be specific.

He goes back and forth with a few Molon Labe folks and still presses for details.  Again and again and again.

But here’s the deal, Stonekettle.  I know what you’re doing.  You want people to make threats and then you’ll turn them in to the FBI.  Or you want people to give the details of their plans, and you’ll turn it all over to the FedGov.  You’re just a FedGov troll, and not a very good one at that.

You don’t get to know my tactics, techniques and procedures, or anything about my plans.  You have to make your plans for me in ignorance.

But I do have a question for you, and if you can answer it, I’ll consider throwing you a bone.  Here is the question.

If we elect a new congress and we pass laws making gun ownership illegal for people like me, when anyone comes to take my guns, what will you do?

What will you do? Be specific.

Will you be a coward, sitting to the side and watching as others do your work?  Will you participate?  What will your tactics, techniques and procedures be?

I’m waiting.  Be specific.

Yeto Coolers has cut ties with the NRA Foundation, not that I care all that much.

NRA-ILA quoted NRA past president and USF executive director Marion Hammer saying, “Suddenly, without prior notice, YETI has declined to do business with The NRA Foundation saying they no longer wish to be an NRA vendor, and refused to say why.  They will only say they will no longer sell products to The NRA Foundation.”

It’s everywhere, from banks to corporations to homes among hand-wringing parents.

Two weeks after we learn this new parenting life skill in this oh-so-new century of ours, my husband Patrick is on the phone with a mom arranging a sleepover for Rosena. I hear him fumble his way through the gun question. From his responses, I assume the mom is acknowledging that they do have guns. Then there’s the sort of long, awkward silence that seems part and parcel of such conversations before Patrick finally says, “Well, okay, thanks for being so honest. I appreciate that.”

He hangs up and looks at me. “They do keep guns for hunting and protection, but they’re locked up and out of sight,” he tells me. “The mom says that the kids have never tried to get at the guns, but she understands the dangers.” (He had heard in her voice apology, embarrassment, and worry that the guns might mean no sleepover.)

I grimaced in a way that said: I don’t think Rosena should go, and he responded that he thought she should. The two of them then had a long conversation about what she should do and say if she sees a gun. She slept over and had a great time. A lesson in navigating difference, trusting our kid, and phew—no guns made an appearance. And now we know more about our neighbors and our community.

If you didn’t think you were in a [currently] low grade civil war or if you thought that the way to increase your capital with the population is go slink into the shadows, make sure your weapons are hidden, and negotiate and compromise, you’re nothing more than sheep for the slaughter.

I once openly carried because I hate concealed carry, and anyone who tells you that he can make concealed carry as comfortable as open carry is fabulating.  I still hate concealed carry, but now I open carry for a different reason.  I open carry “For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”  You’re part of a civil war.  You can act like it or just go ahead and give up now and save your folks the hassle.

David Codrea:

That Gorsuch is weak-kneed on “immigration” abuses raises serious questions of direct concern to gun owners (the fraudulent “single issue” excuse-making notwithstanding).

Just so that we understand why this is important for gun rights, you cannot see gun rights as disconnected from the world view that supports and frames such liberties.  I’ve dealt with this in detail before.

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

That’s why latinos favor gun control by a whopping 60% – 70%.  Flooding the country with Latinos means defenestration of your liberties.  That’s one main reason the progressives want it so badly.

Guns.com:

The International Association of Chiefs of Police on Thursday made public a letter directed at Congressional leaders voicing the group’s opposition to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act pending in Washington. The measures, H.R. 38 and S.446, respectively, would expand carry rights nationwide, in effect forcing states and local jurisdictions to respect all valid concealed carry permits, a move the letter’s signatories feel is a mistake.

“Mandated reciprocity would effectively override the permitting requirements of individual states, such as requiring safety training or prohibiting permits for people with multiple convictions for violent misdemeanors or drug or alcohol abuse problems,” the letter says in part.

Though made up of some 30,000 members, just 473 individuals from 39 states elected to lend their name to the letter. There are no active police chiefs who signed the letter from such conservative bulwark states as Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico or Nevada. In comparison, states with strict gun laws had numerous chiefs support the declaration. For instance, at least 85 signers were from Massachusetts departments and 55 from New York.

“This bill would override state laws determining who is qualified to carry a loaded hidden gun – laws which take into account the unique circumstances and needs in each state– and would force states to allow individuals to carry guns who are not qualified to do so under their own laws,” said Boston Police Commissioner William Evans in a statement issued by the IACP. “During traffic stops and other interactions with the public, our officers would have to be familiar with 50 different state’s laws on concealed carry permitting. Given the split-second decisions our officers frequently need to make, this is nearly impossible and can foreseeably lead to violent confrontations.”

That’s a blatant lie and they know it.  They know in the deepest recesses of their hearts that gun carriers are even safer than they are, and this has nothing whatsoever to do with crime.

They don’t want people to be able to effect their God-given duty of self defense except themselves.  This is the pinnacle of wickedness.  Every single person who lent their support for this lobbying effort is a liar and desires to see the deaths of innocent people, plain and simple.

Still, I’m with reader Fred Tippens on this issue.  Getting the FedGov involved in national carry laws is a profoundly had idea.  Let’s hope and pray that all states that oppose the right of self defense simply go bankrupt, and work towards that end.

NY Post:

They might as well have a had a hotline: 1-800-GIFTS4GUNS.

A former city cop spilled his guts Tuesday, telling Manhattan jurors about years worth of bribes he and his fellow officers received for doling out gun permits — everything from cash, prostitutes and expensive watches to baseball memorabilia and exotic vacations.

David Villanueva, an ex-supervisor in the NYPD’s License Division, said he and other cops — including officers Richard Ochetel and Robert Espinel and Lt. Paul Dean — were on the take for years from so-called gun expeditors.

In exchange, the officers doled out pistol permits like candy — even to people who should not have had them, Villanueva said.

One expeditor, he said, may have had ties to organized crime. Another got help with 100 gun permits over the years — “none” of which should have been approved.

Villanueva gave the testimony at the Manhattan federal court trial of John Chambers, a self-described gun lawyer to the stars accused of plying Villanueva with lavish gifts, including an $8,500 diamond-studded watch and tickets to Broadway shows, in exchange for gun permits.

So what’s the problem?  This is the way Banana republics and communist countries are supposed to work.  Bribery of government officials is a way of life in totalitarian states.

David Codrea:

From their position as stated on July 27, 2017:

“Bump firing is the process of using the recoil of a semiautomatic firearm to fire in rapid succession, simulating the effect of an automatic firearm when performed with a high level of skill and precision by the shooter… The rapid fire sequence in bump firing is contingent on shooter input, rather than mechanical input, and thus cannot shoot automatically”

From their position as stated on Sept. 13, 2017 (scroll to page 8):

“[B]ecause of the manual, skill based methods required to operate a bump fire device they are not machineguns.”

What has changed? Besides a political position ordered by superiors who would not be qualified to intern at the Firearms Technology Branch…?

Of course, nothing has changed, including the lack of integrity of the FedGov who cares not about officially approved lies and inconsistency.

From the comments there is this gem from someone named Dave Brown.

OK, when the pistol arm brace first came out we all said, better get one before they change their mind. WE all said the same thing when they said The Bump was OK. Get one before they change their mind. Me, I don’t need one as I have a few firearms I can bump without adding a stock, but even Bumping is considered a no no. As for Bump Stocks, they should never have been allowed, and you all know it. So quit being a Complainer, ask them to make a special Stamp for The Bump, and pay the price.

Of course, that’s true if you don’t believe in the second amendment.

David Codrea:

The way things are going in favor of the antis while “Republicans” are nominally in control does not look good. If Democrats sweep the midterms and then manage to impeach Donald Trump, expect them to go full bore, from “universal background checks” to “assault weapon” bans and more. Don’t think for a moment because fault has been found here with Republican disappointments that the other side of the aisle represents anything other than utter disaster for legal recognition of the right to keep and bear arms.

Oh, I don’t even think it’ll be necessary for them to impeach Trump.  I think he is in fact a lame duck president as I write this.  He doesn’t have the backing of Congress to do anything of significance, and even if he did, given his predilection to gun control, I’m afraid of what might happen.  A democratic Congress would seal the deal, and given the inactivity from the White House in the event of a democratic Congress and the unreliability of North Carolina and Florida, I suspect as I’ve said before, we have a little less than two years to get where we want to be.

Where we want to be doesn’t include the legality of bump stocks, repealing the Hughes amendment, removing suppressors and SBRs from the NFA items list, or national reciprocity.  I’m talking individually.  You understand that.

No, I’m not talking about the kind who wants to see everyone follow the rules of gun safety, as well as specific range rules.  I’m talking about this kind.

The guy wasn’t overly aggressive but before I even got all gear out he spotted my AR pistol with a KAK brace. he came right over and said “i don’t want to see that touch your shoulder, if you don’t like it you can leave” . The range was packed so I thought it rather funny how fast he zeroed in on my evil pistol that should not be owned by plebs like myself.

He then proceeds with an ignorant quip about it being a federal offense to not have the proper paperwork blah blah. I didnt argue I just smiled and said “ok”. I fired off a few from a cheekweld so he could get his powertrip ego stroked which worked and he left me alone. Seems like these types of people are all the same and predictable.

As soon as my yearly pass is over I will be taking my money elsewhere maybe a less fuddworthy range nearby. Just kind of astounds me that someone who spends as much time around firearms is ignorant of the law.

What a dick.  I hope they go out of business.

The Washington Times:

Reversing the usual script, Democrats praised one of President Trump’s federal appeals court nominees Wednesday while Republicans brought the tough questions for Mark Jeremy Bennett over his defense of gun control laws and free speech rights.

Mr. Bennett, a former Hawaii attorney general now nominated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, had backed a limited interpretation of Second Amendment rights that was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, also questioned Mr. Bennett over opposition to Citizens United, the Supreme Court case that overturned campaign finance restrictions and helped pave the way for the current system.

“You took positions, taking a very narrow view of what the First Amendment protects,” Mr. Cruz told him during a confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Usually it’s Democrats who fire the tough questions at Mr. Trump’s judicial picks, but Mr. Bennett won praise from them.

[ … ]

The Alliance for Justice, which has led the fight against Trump judicial nominees, said Mr. Bennett is an exception, and they won’t oppose him.

David Codrea makes the following remarks.

Just being a highly-placed Hawaiian political nominee ought to raise red flags. The state is a “leader” in citizen disarmament. If they ever do have another real catastrophe there, most citizens are going to find out how badly those who have been defrauding them of their birthrights have screwed them.

Add to that the fact that the Ninth Circuit, widely recognized as one of the most “progressive” (read “anti-gun”) courts, recently lost the one sane voice it had on the Second Amendment with the #MeToo-pressured resignation of Judge Alex Kozinski.

Obama gave us Fast & Furious, a number of very bad judges, and a lot of anti-gun rhetoric.  In a short tenure thus far Trump has given us a good justice on the Supreme Court, a bump stock ban, and new funding for the CDC to pump out anti-gun propaganda.

Ignoring words and focusing on actions, if the two presidents were in a contest to see who had done the most damage to observation of our gun rights, I’d be hard pressed to pick a winner.

There are some who might claim that being the 3D chess player Trump is, he is baiting the Senate, who didn’t oppose the bump stock ban, and some of whom will face reelection soon, to turn this nominee away and thus burnish their second amendment credentials before the election.

This view suffers from two fatal errors.  First, Trump himself will face reelection in the coming several years, and will need the support as badly or worse than the Senators he allegedly is trying to help.  Some of the gun owning public will remember this nomination.

Second, there is always the chance (and it may in fact be the highest probability) that the Senate won’t turn this nominee away and we end up with yet another totalitarian at the appeals level.

The contrary view is more likely.  This is who Trump is.  He is supposedly a supporter of the second amendment because he had enough money to pay lawyers to get him a concealed handgun permit, and because he sat for an interview with Field & Stream where he showed a predilection towards Fudds.

I wish I could say that seldom has the bar been so low for gun owners to lend their support to a candidate.  But that would be a lie.  The only historic limitation on gun owners whoring themselves out has been the availability of opportunities to do so.

Burlington Free Press:

Vermont gun shop owners reacted with anger and disappointment Thursday to the new gun laws signed by Gov. Phil Scott on Wednesday …

Adam Nilson co-founded Atlas Gunworks in North Ferrisburgh in 2016, together with his partner, Tod West, making competition handguns that start at about $4,000. Nilson said his business has doubled its revenue each year, and that he expects to do $2 million in business this year. He has 8 employees.

But they might soon not be working here.

“We’re going to leave,” Nilson said. “It was hard enough to do business here when Vermont was gun-friendly. Seeing how fast they did what they did, the writing’s on the wall. We don’t feel welcome here.”

Gov. Phil Scott signed the new gun laws Wednesday in an outdoor public ceremony in front of the Statehouse, facing a hostile crowd of gun-rights activists, together with supporters of the legislation.

Nilson, who grew up in Colchester, said he’s considering moving to Tennessee, West Virginia or North or South Carolina, “somewhere where they’re gun friendly.”

[ … ]

Henry Parro, who supported Scott with a $200 donation to his campaign from his business, said he was going to “reserve comment” on the new gun laws until he gets an interpretation of the laws from his attorney.

Like Datillio, Parro said he has “thousands” of high capacity magazines that would become illegal after Oct. 1.

[ … ]

One of the provisions in the new laws requires universal background checks for private sales. People who want to transfer a gun privately must visit a federal firearms licensee for the background check. There are exceptions for immediate family members and law enforcement.

Pidgeon said he will not be offering background checks for private sales.

“Anger and disappointment?”  What?  Where were you guys earlier before this abomination was signed?  He told you he was going to do it.  How can you now be disappointed that he did what he said he would do?

At any rate, as I said before, move South like all other gun manufacturing.  The North will have nothing left.  That’s perfectly fine with me.  Rock River Arms, Mossberg, Remington, Kimber, Springfield Armory?  Why are you still there?

The great thing about the ban is that if law abiding and peaceable citizens can no longer get standard capacity magazines, neither can the criminals, and so everyone will be on a level playing field when it comes to home invasions.  And since there is now universal background checks, the criminals probably won’t even be able to get guns.

That’s true, right?  The criminals can’t get them, neither guns nor standard capacity magazines.  Right?  And a level playing field between peaceable men and criminals is a good thing, right?  Each has an equal chance of winning, statistically speaking?  Everybody will play fairly, right?