Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

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.

Remember I just recently said this?

… in the case of Indiana, we’ll have to fight (in many cases) the police, and in other cases progressive clerics.

On queue, a blue costumed special person weighs in.

“I believe people have the right to carry a gun, but the basic licensing requirement helps ensure that the people allowed to carry are the ones who are carrying,” Fort Wayne Police Chief Steve Reed said. “I think there would be even more guns in the wrong hands without it.”

Because LEOs are just like you and me, only better.

So if he believes in a right to carry a gun, but believes that he gets the right to override that right, then it isn’t really a right like he claims, and he was lying all along.

The chief gives you no means to contact him via writing to tell him what you think.  You recall what I said about men who don’t give contact information, right?

David Codrea:

OXFAM? They’re the international citizen disarmament zealots who are conjoined with IANSA to stump for a global gun grab. If they get what they want, they won’t “respectfully request.” And it will be mandatory.

What’s David talking about?  Check here to find out.  Their full statement is as follows.

The debate in the U.S. over gun safety and gun rights is as complex as it is divisive. As a former army officer, a father and business leader, I’ve heard the arguments from all sides. And, as CEO of a 163-year-old company whose products and presence rest at the intersection of culture and community in more than 110 countries around the world, I feel a tremendous responsibility to share our position on the issue, now, at a time when clarity is paramount.

Providing a safe environment to work and shop is a top priority for us at Levi Strauss & Co. That imperative is quickly challenged, however, when a weapon is carried into one of our stores. Recently, we had an incident in one of our stores where a gun inadvertently went off, injuring the customer who was carrying it.

So, while we understand the heartfelt and strongly-held opinions on both sides of the gun debate, it is with the safety and security of our employees and customers in mind that we respectfully ask people not to bring firearms into our stores, offices or facilities, even in states where it’s permitted by law. Of course, authorized members of law enforcement are an exception.

With stores in Paris, Nice and Orlando, and the company’s European headquarters in Brussels, I’ve thought more about safety in the past year than in the previous three decades of my career because of how ‘close to home’ so many incidents with guns have come to impacting people working for this company.

We operate in hundreds of stores across every state in the U.S., and laws are different in each one. We know that the presence of firearms in our stores creates an unsettling environment for many of our employees and customers. We also know that trying to enforce a ban could potentially undermine the purpose of the ban itself: safety. With that in mind we’ve made this decision as a business – a request not a mandate – and we sincerely hope responsible gun owners will respect our position.

It boils down to this: you shouldn’t have to be concerned about your safety while shopping for clothes or trying on a pair of jeans. Simply put, firearms don’t belong in either of those settings. In the end, I believe we have an obligation to our employees and customers to ensure a safe environment and keeping firearms out of our stores and offices will get us one step closer to achieving that reality.

Sincerely,

Chip Bergh

You know he’s lying because he wasn’t careful to craft what he said to hide his lie.  He focused on “safety,” but then excepted law enforcement.  If you except law enforcement then you acquiesce to the notion that someone needs to be armed for self defense, namely LEOs.  He could just as easily prohibit LEOs from carrying on the premises, but doesn’t.

He knows that LEOs commit gross negligence with firearms all the time, so the issue isn’t really about safety.  It’s about making a political statement and ensuring a monopoly of force on the part of the state.  Here’s a quick note to Chip.  You lost the election, and nothing is more popular in America than guns.  Levi’s jeans is certainly no competition for the firearms industry.  And if I was on the BoD for Levi Strauss, I’d make sure you groveled in front of cameras to get loyal customers back.  And then I’d fire you.  Because you suck.

I see that the evil despot Fidel Castro is dead.  Good riddance.  I’ll toast his demise with a good glass of wine tonight.  He is in hell now, an appropriate place for him to spend eternity.

Like all communist dictators, he enriched and engorged himself and his cronies while the poor people of Cuba starved to death and perished in filthy hospitals.  The people of Cuba couldn’t enjoy the God-given right of self determination and worship as they saw fit, and couldn’t work without having to give the majority of it to the awful men who ruled over them.  It’s fitting that the only two world “leaders” who mourned Castro’s death are the awful Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau.

Donald Trump does much better, and Ted Cruz spews venom at the memory of Castro.  I grew up with the Castro regime, but it you’re young and don’t know about the man, you can learn all you need to know about him to interpret the rest of his life and work in three words.  Armas para que?

The Cuban revolution was no American one, and Castro’s embracing of communism after convincing the world he was a freedom fighter should remind all who can think of the “fool me once” adage.

As should Castro’s pointed question when making his case that the people no longer had legitimate need of guns, and that his administration should be the only ones wielding a monopoly of violence.

Read the rest of David’s piece for an eye opener concerning a previous position take by Guns Magazine.  David also points out that “Castro moved against private gun ownership the second day he was in power. He sent his thugs throughout the island using the gun registry lists — compiled by the preceding Batista regime — to confiscate the people’s firearms.”

Very well.  That places him squarely in the camp with ISIS and the Northeastern and West Coast democrats.

Fox News:

The Obama administration on Wednesday announced a series of specifications for smart-gun manufacturers, born out of the president’s January executive action aimed at curbing gun violence.

But there’s a catch to the new set of guidelines: They’re voluntary.

“This project was designed to spur the growth of enhanced gun safety technology – and not to mandate that any particular individual or law enforcement agency adopt the technology once developed,” the Department of Justice wrote in a blog post.

That’s not a blog post.  They don’t allow comments.

Smart-gun guidelines.  Voluntary.  Probably because they couldn’t go through the rule making fast enough to force it on federal employees (the only people they have control over short of law making by Congress).

But take note that your tax dollars have been spent on developing this wasteful foolishness.  They just couldn’t convince the law makers to go along with it, but they wanted to publish this anyway.

This is what collectivist lame duck looks like.  Still controlling, but powerless and frustrated.  Pathetic.  Worthy of ridicule.

The Washington Post:

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump — who said he has a concealed carry permit — called for the expansion of gun rights Friday, including making those permits applicable nationwide.

In a position paper published on his website Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a “total failure.”

“Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own,” Trump wrote.

[ … ]

Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver’s license, Trump said.

“If we can do that for driving — which is a privilege, not a right — then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege,” Trump said.

[ … ]

Trump said the current background check system needs to be overhauled because “very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check” and get their guns illegally. Trump said that criminal and mental health records also must be included in background checks.

Well, health records were a feature of my CHP, but I object because (a) this is still a government permission slip, and (b) I still claim [rightly] that mental health maladies have nothing to do with propensity to violence.

But for the time being, I’ll take what I can get.  Of the possible revisions to the federal law and code on guns, I am most in favor of the following.

1. First, a national carry law.
2. Second, removal of the SBR from the NFA items list.
3. Third, removal of suppressors from the NFA items list.

In that order.  What would you like to see happen?