Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

6News:

BALLSTON SPA, NY (WRGB)–“I don’t have the capability, manpower to enforce it. I’m not going to enforce it.”

Sheriff Michael Zurlo stuck to his guns about a new mandate taking affect statewide.

State Police want anyone with a pistol permit issued more than four years ago to re-certify, a SAFE Act requirement that could lead to authorities seizing your guns if you don’t comply.

Zurlo, says his deputies won’t be taking part.

“I’m pro 2nd Amendment, against the Safe Act, and I’ll continue to fight for the rights of residents of Saratoga County. ”

[ … ]

The governor’s office referred us to state police..who argued, “through re-certification, state records on active pistol/revolver licenses will be accurate and up to date.”

Some gun owners actually agree.

“I could see where it could be not a bad thing to re-certify, to keep pistol permits up to date for a lot of people,” said Joe Welch, Jr.

Say, what’s in the water up there is New York anyway?  You have a Sheriff who says he’s not going to enforce collectivism on his gun owners, and the press is actually able to find a gun owner who differs with the Sheriff.

I guess that some dogs … er, peasants, are just happy to feed from the crumbs that fall from the master’s table.

David Codrea:

Lessons learned from one man’s struggle to challenge a gun purchase denial from the National Instant Check System give insights into how difficult it can be for a citizen to clear his name once the government has decided he’s a “prohibited person.” Fortunately, an Anchorage medical professional and “avid gun collector” [name withheld at his request] had the savvy, the wherewithal and the persistence to successfully fight a bureaucratic denial of his right to arms.

David later observes that “He did not submit prints until after the rejection and he got them for his CCW. He wanted additional evidence to challenge the denial. That means the original rejection looks like it was based on confusing him with someone else who was prohibited and whose prints were thus in one of the system they had checked — and when the dr. sent his in, they realized they did not match with the source they had used to reject him.”

Whatever.  There is no excuse for this.  First of all, the perfect solution is to get rid of the entire 4473 and NICS process, along with the ATF.  That way, there is no chance that rights will be denied by the federal government.

But since this is the mess in which we currently live, imagine the worst, most bureaucratic, most intransigent, and least concerned that a government body can be, and that’s what you have here.  I’m frankly amazed that he ever got his rights back.  His persistence served him well.

See folks, this is why we can’t have nice things.

Delaware Online:

A Delaware Superior Court judge upheld a ban on carrying firearms in state parks and forests for purposes other than hunting.

The challenge to the rule was brought by multiple plaintiffs, including the Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club – a 1,200 member organization in southern Delaware. In a civil complaint, they argued the administrative codes are “inconsistent with and pre-empted by” both state law and the state constitution.

The rifle club noted its members often like to camp at Trap Pond State Park or rent a cottage at Seashore State Park during nearby shooting competitions yet they are unable to do so because of the ban. Plaintiffs also argued a need exists to carry firearms for protection.

“A deprivation of constitutional rights can constitute irreparable harm,” the civil complaint stated.

Superior Court Judge T. Henley Graves said in his Dec. 23 ruling the regulations do not run “afoul” of the Delaware Constitution, nor did they contradict state law passed by the General Assembly.

“As for plaintiffs’ concerns for self-defense, the Court observes the need to respond to a threat with a firearm is diminished when firearms are prohibited in the area,” Graves said in the ruling.

The rules in question state it is “unlawful to display, possess or discharge firearms of any description, air rifles, B.B. guns, sling shots, or archery equipment upon lands or waters administered by the Division, except with prior written approval of the Director.”

[ … ]

DNREC Secretary David Small told the Associated Press he was pleased with the ruling.

“We do not believe that the unrestricted ability to carry weapons is consistent with our mission to provide every visitor with safe, enjoyable recreational experiences,” Small said in a prepared statement.

As Thomas Sowell recently observed, “The fatal fallacy of gun-control laws in general is the assumption that such laws actually control guns. Criminals who disobey other laws are not likely to be stopped by gun-control laws. What such laws actually do is increase the number of disarmed and defenseless victims.”

So the assumption on the part of the judge is that black bears won’t attack any camper or hiker in the park (or perhaps see this report if you want something closer to Delaware).  After all, it’s not as if Delaware has an issue with black bears.  And I’m also certain that Coyotes aren’t ensconced in Delaware now.

People are always peaceful, criminals check the laws before putting that weapon in the car, and laws actually control the decisions people make.  And judges always write decisions that come right out of the land of fairy tales.  Good Lord.  What do these eggheads learn in their “schools?”  I seriously wonder if this guy has ever been more than 100 yards from a coffee and pastry shop.

Here is what I recommend that Judge T. Henley Graves do about this issue.  Get yourself a tent, backpack and some camping gear and go hiking and camping in the state parks in the area.  You know, overnight.  Multiple nights.  With no weapon, and no protection from anyone or anything.  No cabin walls, no cell phone.  And take your wife and children with you too.

Report back to me on whether you trust the laws to keep bears, Coyotes and criminals away from you overnight.  If not, you’re a liar and hypocrite.

The Trace:

Just 22 percent of current gun owners who acquired a firearm within the past two years did so without a background check, according to a new national survey by public health researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities shared in advance with The Trace and The Guardian.

For years, politicians and researchers have estimated that as many as 40 percent of gun sales are conducted without a background check — a statistic based on an extrapolation from a 1994 survey. The new survey, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that the current proportion of gun sales conducted without a background check is about half of the oft-cited figure.

It’s amazing, yes, that the Annals of Internal Medicine can waste time on things like this when there are heart attacks, strokes, internal bleeding problems with anti-coagulants, cancer, and so on.  Good Lord.  There are real medical problems to be solved.  You’d think that aspiring doctors would be at least moderately interesting in practicing medicine rather than being political shills.

Okay, we’ve discussed The Trace before.  They are professional purveyors of fake news, and Google loves them and puts them near the top of their Google news search.  I’m sure you’re as surprised about that as I am.

Note to The Trace.  Your data is worthless.  Those who have purchased a gun without going through a background check – which is perfectly legal in most states – will not tell you they have done so.  I know.  I’m a gun owner, and I know they we think.

The second problem is that criminals have never gone through a background check to purchase weapons, and they never will.  The Trace misses two huge categories of people who constitute a large enough fraction of gun purchases that it casts doubt on the study.  The Trace doesn’t even know how to estimate the size of those two categories because gun owners will never … never … be honest with pollsters.

By the way, not that there would be anything wrong with purchasing guns from an FFL and going through the necessary Form 4473.  So I don’t think it would prove anything one way or the other even if accidentally The Trace is correct.

And I said I was a gun owner above.  I lied.  I lost all of my guns in a boating accident to the bottom of lake Keowee.  I cried a river of tears over that incident.

Victoria Advocate:

January 2016, people learned about a quirk in the Lone Star state’s gun laws.

People are allowed to openly carry a gun into the state’s 10 mental hospitals and 39 local mental health authorities.

State Sen. Jose Menendez, D-San Antonio, wants to prohibit openly carrying guns into those facilities, so he filed SB 220.

It’s not clear what the criminal penalty will be for doing so, though.

Menendez said he’s a gun owner and when he has time to spare, he enjoys hunting doves and quail.

“But I think we have to realize that even in the days where everybody wore a gun on their hip, there were certain rules,” he said.

Menendez tried to amend the open carry law last session to require people to wear holsters that would make it more difficult for someone to get a gun off another person. But his amendment failed.

“We don’t know what triggers the need for mental health and many of our veterans at times have issues that happen through no fault of their own, and I want to not put a stigma on this. I want to treat it, and I think this bill provides them a safe environment,” Menendez said.

Ah, there’s the obligatory “I’m a gun owner and hunt myself.”  But … there’s always a but.  And in this case Menendez manages to insult both the mentally infirmed and veterans.  How does that feel to you, those of you who are veterans?  You’re a danger if you see someone with a gun on their hip.  So says Menendez.

But it’s all a lie.  Those with mental health maladies have no greater propensity for violence than anyone else, and it’s pure bigotry to assert that they do, with words or with laws.  As for his stupid proposal on retention holsters, leave that to the gun owner.  Otherwise, we might just have to make laws concerning how well Menendez maintains his home so that there isn’t moisture and mold spores in the crawl space.

But if Menendez is small potatoes, Obama is a big time putz.

Last week, the Obama administration put the finishing touches on a new policy that would deprive recipients of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) of their Second Amendment rights. The administration will now characterize those citizens as “mental defectives,” thereby having their ability to own a firearm subject to the federal Gun Control Act.

Forget about being elderly and the need for an equalizer such as a firearm.  Also, forget about Leviticus 19:32.  Obama hates everybody except himself, and he may hate himself too.  Why doesn’t Obama forego all of that secret service protection, forego firearms himself, and instead of living right down the road from that other putz John Podesta, live in the place that catapulted him to stardom – Chicago?

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.