Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Reno Gazette-Journal:

The expansion of gun background checks approved by Nevada voters last month will not happen as expected, based on an opinion released Wednesday by the Nevada Attorney General’s Office.

Ballot Question 1 requires that private party gun transfers – with a few exceptions – be subject to a federal background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System administered by the FBI.

The FBI sent a letter Dec. 14 to the state of Nevada’s Department of Public Safety saying it would not conduct these checks. The department asked for a legal opinion on the letter’s ramifications.

Because the text of the new Background Check Act says private-party transfers and sales must be done through the FBI background check system, the Nevada Attorney General’s Office opinion states, “citizens may not be prosecuted for their inability to comply with the Act unless and until the FBI changes its public position and agrees to conduct the background checks consistent with the Act.”

In a statement, the attorney general’s office said, “without this central feature (the FBI background check), the Background Check Act cannot commence.”

The main reason given by the FBI for why it would not conduct the check is that “the recent passage of the Nevada legislation regarding background checks for private sales cannot dictate how federal resources are applied.”

In other words, it would require additional staffing or resources at the FBI to handle the work arising from Nevada’s expansion of background checks.

This is a surprising response from the FBI.  I would have bet good money against this answer, but I suppose we should be thankful for small victories.

The whole thing was absurd anyway.  Laws are not made at the ballot box by referendum.  They are made in Congress and Senate, signed by the chief executive.  George Soros and Gabby Giffords just didn’t want to try to do it that way.  It’s way too complex, and stands a good chance of failing.  It’s much easier to flood the state with dollars stolen from the smaller governments of the world as Soros and The Clinton Foundation topple them for oil.

Note to Soros and Clinton.  Suck it.  You’ll have to wait and try again another way.

David Codrea:

They evidently want the taxpayers to foot the bill for Democrat apparatchiks “to advocate or promote gun control” after Congress took funding away from their unmasked propaganda designed to render guns “dirty, deadly and banned.” They’ll “also seek ways to challenge state lawmakers who have invited millions of citizens to pack guns in public buildings and businesses,” go after “a crazy quilt of state and national gun laws … drawing upon public safety, antitrust and property laws,” and seek ways around the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Read the rest here.  Well, this points to a number of things we’ve discussed here.  First of all, we gun owners have no right to complain if we’re not involved at the local and state level.  Liberty, just like it’s infringement, begins at home.

But if the cases ever get to the federal level, remember that Donald Trump will fill some 100 court vacancies, all of them very important, and at least one Supreme Court vacancy (and hopefully several more), which for certain things are even more important.

You have to be involved not only at the state level, but remember to conduct your activism at the federal level.  It beat George Soros once, and it can do it again.  And who knows?  Perhaps Soros will be in hell soon.  Perhaps it’s time for group imprecatory prayers against the old wicked man.

Who would like to lead off?

Charleston Gazette-Mail:

Rural law enforcement officials have complex, subtle views about gun control and frequently favor more limited access to guns, according to new research from West Virginia University.

Sociology professor Rachael Woldoff said, for her paper, published this month in the academic journal Rural Sociology, she asked more than 20 sheriff deputies in a rural county about their views on gun control.

“It goes against this narrative that people from West Virginia are just ignorant. The NRA wants you to believe that, but they don’t really have views like that,” Woldoff said. “They’re much more nuanced.”

Their lengthy responses and discussion emanating from the questions was the first type of qualitative research of its kind, according to Woldoff.

Because of the limited number of responses, she is unable to make broad claims about rural law enforcement in the report, but Woldoff said further research is needed in the area.

The paper proposes rural police officers’ views on gun control stem from two competing influences: the culture of rural places where hunting and guns are usually integral parts of community life, and an officer’s responsibility to protect people from gun violence.

Woldoff began the study expecting the law enforcement officials she interviewed would favor fewer restrictions on guns, but that wasn’t the case.

Nearly all of the officers said they were against gun control, only later to contradict themselves, Woldoff said. Several officers told Woldoff people who have been diagnosed with depression should be barred from owning a gun, even if that meant compelling doctors to release medical records to the government.

Other officers who had served in the armed forces thought people who own guns should have to be better trained on how to use them. Every officer said there should be more thorough background checks of a person before he or she is allowed to own a gun.

“Many things about place identity are symbolic,” Woldoff said. “For instance, in West Virginia, it is important, symbolically, that you say you believe in certain things and to identify with the whole state, which is unusual.”Meanwhile, officers maintained they were “pro-gun.”

“Saying you’re pro-gun is just an identity,” Woldoff said. “A lot of people who are pro-gun still think our controls are not appropriate right now. Clearly they would say they were pro-gun, then two seconds later they’re asking for insane gun control measures.”

The professor’s own narrative gives us a glimpse into her bias, which is that the NRA wants to control a narrative on guns and hopes for idiots, while people are more “nuanced” than we give them credit.  Perhaps we can believe her research, perhaps not.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that we can.  None of this is really surprising.  LEOs perpetuate the myth that they are there to “protect people from gun violence.”  Officers aren’t there to protect anyone from anything, regardless of that bit of hyped propaganda.  It would have been much more interesting if the professor had taken a deep dive into that psychology and ascertained whether the officers really believed that or if this is simply play-acting.

If the answers are truthful, it is certainly the case that these LEOs support draconian gun control measures, from universal background checks to forcible release of medical records (while it is a demonstrable fact that mental maladies have no connection to propensity to violence).

Being pro-gun is just an identity, says the researcher.  Very well.  Remember that the next time you hear it from a LEO.  You’re educated enough to know how to drill down on this issue and find out the truth from them.

Via Uncle, this.  It’s Bill 88, and it reads as follows.

TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1230 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO LICENSE PLATE SPECIFICATIONS, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO ISSUE A STICKER TO EACH CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT HOLDER WHO IS A VEHICLE OWNER THAT MUST BE AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE OWNER’S LICENSE PLATE TO INDICATE THE VEHICLE OWNER IS A CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT HOLDER

Nice idea, dumb ass.  So thieves then know exactly where to go to steal guns.  And gun carriers are defined differently than everyone else, sort of like … Jews wearing six pointed stars.  Yes, that’s it.  That’s what I thought about when I read that text.

How about this instead.  This bill was proposed by State Senator Danny Verdin, who apparently is a republican.  Let’s have a new South Carolina tag that states that “Danny Verdin is a Nazi.”  I’m willing to bet that a lot of people would pay good money to get that specialty tag.  It would be a good source of revenue.

What is it about South Carolina these days?  First of all, we had to fight off Larry Martin, a republican, who opposed open carry and never let it get out of committee.  Now we have this piece of trash trying to lord it over gun carriers.

Why don’t conservatives act like conservatives and progressives act like progressives in South Carolina?  At least it would make it easier to identify the enemy.  And make no mistake about it.  Danny Verdin has declared himself an enemy of liberty.  Put a target on his back.  He is your next Larry Martin, folks.  Get rid of him.

David Codrea:

That works against liberty. I’ve met some fine Connecticut Bill of Rights defenders, including members of our Connecticut Oath Keepers chapter, and they’re as dedicated a group of patriots as any. The ones with their backs against the wall can be the most committed activists, devoting time, treasure and effort while fighting against overwhelming odds. These people have earned our admiration and gratitude for not giving up, and for showing those of us who don’t have it as bad as they do what it means to not give up. They deserve our encouragement and support.

Very well.  I vacillate between staying in and leaving states like New York and Connecticut.  Maryland is close, and if Virginia doesn’t get control of that communist governor, they might be looking down the barrel of similar conditions.

I hope my encouragement has meant something.  I’ve never failed to attack Chris Murphy when I had a chance, and Blumenthal is just as bad.  All of that said, at some point the fight may be over and it may be time to relocate.

Only the patriots in that position can make the decision as to when they’ve reached their limit.  Oh, and tell Blumenthal that I agree with him.  Trump should do something completely unexpected, like push for full repeal of the GCA and NFA.

News from Texas:

AUSTIN (KXAN) — The 85^th Legislative Session is just weeks away from beginning and when it comes to gun related bills so far 37 have been filed with most focusing on gun safety.

One of the big bills that passed during the last legislative session concerned concealed carry on college campuses. This year, State Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, has proposed two pieces of legislation that would allow universities to opt out of campus carry just like private universities. The second bill says cities with more than 750,000 people can pass an ordinance prohibiting open carry.

Another bill that appeared last legislative session is coming back for a second try. State Rep. Jonathan Strickland, R-Bedford wants to allow anyone to carry a legally owned firearm without having to obtain a state issued license, take a government mandated safety course, or pay a licensing fee. Strickland calls it constitutional carry because of the Second Amendment. During the 2015 legislative session it never made it to a committee hearing which is the first step in moving a bill forward.

Advocates for gun safety encourage everyone to get involved.

“It always helps to call your members and tell them you care,” said Andrea Brauer, Ex. Dir. Texas Gun Sense. “Members need to hear from their constituents throughout Texas. These issues are often framed as an us against them or an anti-gun verse pro-gun, it doesn’t have to be that way.”

Oh yes it does because that’s the truth of the matter.  You see what the progressives are doing, don’t you?  Person to person, one on one, grass roots involvement.

We gun owners have no room to complain when we don’t get involved.  Of the bills you saw above, they’re all just smoke screens and certainly anti-liberty, except one, i.e., constitutional carry.

You know what to do.  Ignore the doomsday, end of the world, panic stricken screams of law enforcement, and force this bill into committee and out of committee to the floor.   Light is the best disinfectant.  If everyone votes on it, you’ll know who to target in the next primary and election if they are haters of liberty.

David Codrea:

“Pro–gun control advocates mobilized and constructed an effective pro–gun control pressure group called the Emergency Committee for Gun Control,” Encycopedia.com documents. “The bipartisan organization was headed by Colonel John H. Glenn, Jr., a former astronaut and friend of Senator Robert Kennedy.”

The most significant federal legislation since the 1934 National Firearms Act, GCA ’68 “primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.” It also added marking requirements, denied guns to specific classes of “prohibited persons” and placed import restrictions on “non-sporting” weapons.

Make sure you read the comments as well.  I’ve dealt with the sporting purposes test before, and I consider it to be one of the worst abominations ever to be enacted into law.  It is certainly logically self referential and incoherent.

So I’m willing to grant that some men perform admirably when it comes to brave actions under duress, and John Glenn is one of them.  But David is much kinder to John than I would have been, or will be.  Bravery under duress while obeying orders is just that, and admirable depending upon the entire context.  Bravery of the Nazi SS troops while herding Jews into train cars isn’t admirable, nor was their bravery on the field of battle fighting for the wrong cause.

Here is the better test.  Rather than focus on what a man does while acting under orders and not in command, I’d rather know what he does when he is the one giving the orders.  The later rather than the former is the true test of a man’s world view and his character.  How does he treat others and how much does he respect their rights?

On that test, John Glenn failed, regardless of his prior bravery.

The Trace:

Three years ago, in a move intended to signal its profound devotion to gun rights — and opposition to new restrictions being weighed by Congress — the Kansas legislature passed a law that never had any chance of actually taking force.

The “Second Amendment Protection Act” declared that federal laws and regulations do not apply to any gun manufactured in the state, so long as it is marked “Made in Kansas” and remains within the state’s borders at all times after its production.

The law — which, again, was invalid from the outset — also applied to ammunition and firearm accessories made in Kansas. It declared that federal law enforcement agents would be guilty of a felony if they attempted to enforce federal laws regarding these products within state borders.

It’s clear now that the legislators who pushed forward the law were well aware of the unresolvable conflict with federal law and the U.S. Constitution, and that they assumed that Kansans would understand that the act was meant to send a message, not to be taken literally.

But some Kansas gun sellers and buyers apparently didn’t get the memo.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 bans the unlicensed possession, manufacture, and sale of silencers, machine guns, and sawed-off shotguns. Many gun enthusiasts argue that the restrictions on silencers are outdated, and that the devices eliminate noise pollution and may stave off hearing damage.

Shane Cox ran a military surplus store in southeastern Kansas, and after the law took effect, he began producing and selling his own silencers. He assured buyers that federal gun laws would not apply as long as the products stayed within state borders and even handed out copies of the new statute.

Jeremy Kettler, a disabled U.S. Army veteran, bought one of the silencers and posted a video about it on Facebook. Both men were soon charged with violating the federal laws that regulate silencers. Kettler bought the unregistered silencer “because of a piece of paper signed by the governor saying it was legal,” the Associated Press reported.

The Kansas statute purported to nullify federal law, much as states like South Carolina had attempted to do prior to the Civil War. But the Supreme Court has ruled that states simply don’t have this authority.

[ … ]

One of the bill’s co-sponsors, former state representative Jim Howell, told the AP that lawmakers knew the measure’s validity would be disputed. “I think these gentlemen understood that when they made a choice to do what they did,” Howell said, of the men arrested over the sale of silencers.

What a cowardly piss ant.  The legislator who pressed this threw his own citizens to the lions when it came to pushing and shoving, and Kansas buckled.

The author is an attorney for the Brady Center, and other than the discussion of the validity of nullification, I actually agree with him for different reasons.  The real culprit here is the state of Kansas.

I’ve said before, don’t even consider something like nullification unless you’re willing to go the mattresses for your people.  The lawmakers could have handed the governor the tools to deal with the federal intrusion, and the governor could have had the balls to do it.

But none of this obtained, and the citizens suffered as a result.  Unless you’re willing to arrest federal agents who attempt to enforce these laws and throw them in the state penitentiary with the other prisoners, don’t even consider nullification.

Nullification laws made for show are immoral.  Nullification laws made for real are admirable, but states have to be willing to back it all up with force.

Matt Vespa:

Sen. Barbara Favola says she doesn’t want to take away your guns. She just wants to know what you’re packing.

The Arlington Democrat is proposing to have the state study whether the registration of firearms in Virginia is feasible, because she believes arming police with a database of gun records would provide them with an additional tool to fight crime. But she knows even a study will draw opposition in Richmond.

[…]

“My guess is that there will not be a single Republican who will vote for this bill,” says Sen Richard Black (R-Loudoun). “The whole purpose of [the study] is to pave the way for the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens,” he adds.

[…]

Black says he doesn’t see the point of a registry, because only law-abiding gun owners would comply.

“Killers do not line up to register their firearms,” Black points out.

“Favola said she would become more aggressive on this front should this study show some public safety benefits.”  So let me see.  She wants a gun registry.  Let me think about it.  Okay, here’s my answer.

NO!

Your move.  And as for that part about becoming more aggressive, you go ahead and give that a try, little missy.

David Codrea:

The first “warning sign” is perhaps the most implausible – openly reading a gun magazine in a public school library, as if that wouldn’t trigger a hysterical administrative overreaction followed with, at minimum, suspension and a mandated psych evaluation …

It would be wrong to maintain such warning signs don’t exist. It goes without saying timely interventions might help make different outcomes. Still, it leaves the most important and relevant sign — the one that all but assures a killer’s “success” — completely ignored …

Read the rest.  Sandy Hook Promise is lying.  I’m so sure of it that I’ll offer this challenge.  Sandy Hook Promise cannot offer up even a single instance where a boy was reading a gun magazine in a public school library, watched a YouTube video on how to handle firearms, made shooting gestures in class, and went on to murder others while at school.

Can you?  Is anyone from Sandy Hook Promise reading this?  If so, I’ll eat my words if I’m wrong.  Give me a single example that’s a direct analogue to the one you show on that stupid video.  Prove to me that reading a gun magazine is evidence of planning a shooting of humans.  I dare you.  Comments are open.