Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Kurt Hofmann:

We are told that we are to lock up our guns, “for safety.” We are told that cops (and retired cops) must have unlocked guns . . . “for safety.” How does once having worn a badge make what’s safe for one person the exact opposite of what’s safe for the next?

Expanding this line of thinking, if it’s safer to disarm us completely because, after all, guns are no defense, then the gun control advocate should also be in favor of disarming police.  But they never are, because they know guns are a defense.  The surest way to disarm (pardon the pun) gun control advocates is to ask them if they favor disarming the police too?  When they demur, you can call them a hypocrite.

Kurt Hofmann:

Sanders’ idea of the “middle” would also ban semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifles–popularly, if inaccurately, referred to as “assault weapons”–and the “high capacity” (gun ban zealot-speak for “standard capacity”) magazines that feed them. This is the “middle”? Sending people to prison for buying the most popular class of centerfire rifles in America is his idea of respecting the rights of gun owners? Prison time for buying an 11-round magazine is the “compromise” he wants to sell us? Outlawing the most useful arms for defense of one’s home, one’s life, one’s family, and one’s liberty is part of the give-and-take he proposes?

Sanders is a communist like all other gun control advocates.

A blogroll addition at WoG.  Hey, I just noticed that I’m not blogrolled.

David’s latest at Oathkeepers.  I read the whole article, but David’s summation is the best: “Mirkarimi appears to fit that description. Initial charges of domestic violence were plea-bargained down to false imprisonment, allowing him to keep his gun. Not that he wants non-LEOs to keep and bear theirs. Hey, as long as he’s taken care of, why would the pesky Second Amendment and a ceremonial oath to the Constitution get in the way of an agenda?”

Mike Vanderboegh links this concerning someone’s pipe dream over how they define a “well regulated militia.”

“Here’s what a well-regulated militia actually looks like.”

1. First of all, assault weapons will be banned except for the National Guard. People who currently own assault weapons will be required to sell them to the National Guard which will distribute them to legitimate military units where they will be used for defense of the country.

2. Anyone wishing to buy a handgun will buy it from a police department. The police department will be allowed to make a profit on the guns they sell in order to pay for the systems’ gun owners’ database. These individual police department databases will be collected into a full national gun owners’ database and maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. Following a background check, the police department will issue the applicant a gun permit.

This person obviously wants civil war.

NJ.com on what it takes to legally transport a firearm into or through New Jersey.  I think the writer is wrong and that if you tried any of this you’d be arrested and charged with a felony.  Don’t follow this writer’s advice.

Molly Marshall, Baptist News Global:

Three important articles, first from Mike Vanderboegh:

So when the reset button gets pushed in the aftermath of the tyrants’ attacks and their defeat, they lose it all. Everything. Every tool of our oppression. This is something they should think about before they rouse their own people to righteous anger. They will lose everything they hold most dear — their power over us, their position, their appetite for our liberty, our property and our lives. That is what “reset” means to them in the context of the civil war they are determined to have. Everything.

Good point.  This is related to another article Mike penned concerning legitimacy, which will get some attention from me momentarily.

David Codrea, whos has a new gig with TTAG:

The way things are, there’s not much more hotel management can do besides offer condolences over their dead and wounded guests, stay in touch with authorities and report any findings to the public.

Hey, as long as the government feels safe from accountability from its citizens, everything is cool.  After all, that’s the reason for gun control.

Kurt Hofmann:

His criticism of those who invest in weapons manufacture is especially puzzling. Anyone, after all, who purchases a weapon could fairly be said to have invested in the manufacture of them. And as it turns out, the Pontifical Swiss Guard, who defend the Vatican and its most famous resident, are lavishly equipped with some pretty hefty investments in Sig-Sauer, Heckler & Koch, Steyr Mannlicher, and Glock semi-automatic handguns, personal defense weapons, assault rifles, and submachine guns, not to mention whomever manufactures the swords, halberds, and other more traditional weapons carried by his guards.

So, will the Vatican be melting all those guns and blades down, to be remanufactured into farming implements, or something similarly non-martial? If not, who is the real hypocrite here, Your Holiness?

Kurt turns his usual logical incisiveness towards the Vatican.  I saw all of that too, including the Pope’s ridiculous dive into AGW (which is just a massive global wealth redistribution campaign).  The pope is a clown.  I would care if I was Roman Catholic, but I’m not.  Kurt made just one mistake in the article – he called the pope “Your Holiness.”  There’s nothing holy about him.  Anyone who claims to be the vicar of Christ deserves the same condemnation the reformers gave him.  Gun control is just one more thing the pope will be accountable for before God.

Andrew Heller:

They hadn’t yet caught the person who murdered nine people in their own church in Charleston, South Carolina, and gun defenders were already telling the TV cameras, “Now is not the time to debate gun control.”

So when is the time? After his trial? After the next full moon? After the next slaughter? Or the one after that? Or the one after that?

The truth is it’s never the right time in this country to talk about guns or racism or the mentally ill, or why a toxic stew of all three so often leads to mayhem.

And that’s why nothing changes. Ever. Not after two disenfranchised high school punks murder their classmates. Not after a nut shoots up a midnight movie, killing 12. Not even after 20 children and six staff are slaughtered in their classrooms.

Nothing, no matter how horrific, moves us off the dime, which makes us cowards, fools or both.

It’s infuriating. And I frankly don’t understand it. Why do we accept this? Because the NRA says we have to? That’s crazy.

Oh Andrew, you’ve fallen for the claptrap hook, line and sinker.  The NRA has nothing to do with it.  We talk about guns here virtually every day, including the day of the shooting or thereabouts.  We’re not afraid to engage in a little truth-telling in these parts.

So if we’re going to have a conversation about guns, you and I, let’s get a few boundary conditions set up front.  We will never comply with weapons confiscations schemes.  We will also never comply with universal background check schemes, or bans against certain kinds of weapons.  None of that will be voluntary on our part.

That means that any of the schemes I strongly suspect you advocate will be met with civil war and blood will run on the sidewalks and in the streets.  I’m guessing you didn’t know that, or if you did you’re okay with it.  So now that nicety is out of the way, I’ll let you fire the first volley – pardon the pun if you will.

John Lott is making much over the recent church shooting in Charleston.

The horrible tragedy last night that left nine people dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., probably could have been avoided. Like so many other attacks, the massacre took place in a gun-free zone, a place where the general public was banned from having guns. The gun-free zone obviously didn’t stop the killer from bringing a gun into the church.

Well, yes, no and maybe.  There’s more to it than that.  I play second fiddle to no one in terms of carry of weapons, including open carry which John Lott doesn’t like.  John and I have been in the ring exchanging blows over this very issue (see both article and comments).  But it’s important to be accurate on this issue because what we learn is dependent on a correct understanding of the law and choices we make thereto.

(M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:

(1) police, sheriff, or highway patrol station or any other law enforcement office or facility;

(2) detention facility, prison, or jail or any other correctional facility or office;

(3) courthouse or courtroom;

(4) polling place on election days;

(5) office of or the business meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special purpose district;

(6) school or college athletic event not related to firearms;

(7) daycare facility or pre-school facility;

(8) place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law;

(9) church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body; or

(10) hospital, medical clinic, doctor’s office, or any other facility where medical services or procedures are performed unless expressly authorized by the employer.

The law is stupid and shouldn’t require “express permission” of the church officials.  But at least it does give the latitude to carry with permission of the church, and this isn’t defined in state law.  So for example, the church could have given permission for every man and woman over the age of 21 who has a concealed carry permit to carry in the church, up to and including posting at the door that carry of weapons is allowed with a permit (unfortunately, in a tip of the hat to racist Jim Crow laws, open carry is not currently allowed in South Carolina because Senator Larry Martin killed proposed legislation to make it legal, a sore spot with me that we will revisit as time goes on).

What does this mean?  Are worship centers in South Carolina gun free zones?  Well, sort of, if they so choose.  But they don’t have to be.  They can choose differently, and this pastor was a well-known advocate of gun control.  So you don’t miss it, let’s cover that again.  This pastor was a well-known advocate of gun control.

They chose to disarm.  The result is the same – sadly, men and women are dead.  But it’s important to get the facts straight so that the right things are learned from the horrible experience.

Kurt Hofmann:

… when a member of the audience at a speaking event asked Christie about the murder, and New Jersey gun laws’ role in it, he passed the buck just as quickly as he could

He’s always tried to shift blame to the Congress, when the entire executive branch reports to him.  The power of the governor’s office is huge to craft legislation, state up front what will be signed and what won’t, instruct the state attorney general to prosecute or not, and so on.  Furthermore, he thinks that we’ll forget his past concerning gun control.  Hell will freeze over before Chris Christie becomes president.  See also my own coverage of Chris Christie on gun control.

See this post by Mike Vanderboegh for the best extemporaneous speech I’ve ever read.

This is what governments do who are in financial trouble.  Plan accordingly.

Slain black pastor advocated gun control.  Bet he wishes someone in the church had a gun to stop the boy from killing him and his people.

Via reader Mack, The Texas Tribune:

The Texas GOP has abandoned an effort to issue an official statement on the 84th legislative session, divided over a proposed resolution that initially would have accused individual lawmakers of standing in the way of gun rights legislation.

The resolution that named legislators never made it out of a committee of the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC), and the full body never voted on a version of it with softer language. But the very prospect of it riled some party leaders, sparking heated debate about the committee’s role in the Capitol and seriously complicating party fundraising in at least one instance.

As proposed at the committee level, the resolution would have rebuked four Republican lawmakers for “their refusal to allow Constitutional Carry legislation or amendments to be heard in any form or otherwise debated on the merits of the issue at any time during the 84th session of the Texas Legislature.” “Constitutional carry” is the unlicensed carrying of firearms. The legislators named included House Speaker Joe Straus of San Antonio, Rep. Dennis Bonnen of Angleton, Rep. Larry Phillips of Sherman and Sen. Joan Huffman of Houston.

The GOP is mostly worthless at both the state and federal level, and America needs to start over in the political process.  The entire process and everyone in it need to go.  As for the four politicians who were leaders in the sellout, Texans know your names even if the resolution didn’t pass.  Gun owners have long memories.  As for the GOP leaders who got their girly-knickers in a wad over this, you’re in the same camp as the sellouts.  And Texans know your names too.

Guns.com:

Gabby Giffords’s super PAC is dropping six-figures into an ad buy in an effort to keep would be gun owners in North Carolina buying gun permits beforehand.

The group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, is coming out swinging with its television ad against a gun reform bill, HB 562, currently in the state House’s Rules, Calendar, and Operations committee that would end the current process of obtaining a Pistol Purchase Permit (PPP), from their local sheriff before one could buy a handgun.

Critics of the scheme contend that it is an outdated process and that current federal background checks more than replace the antiquated system. They further argue that the permit law has racist origins from the Jim Crow-era and was originally designed to deprive African Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.

However, gun control groups would disagree, calling the proposed change dangerous.

They have joined with the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association, a former member of which appears in the ARS ad.

“As a sheriff for 28 years, I fought to keep our communities safe. But right now, some in the legislature want to repeal background checks on handguns. This will make it easier for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns,” says former Sheriff Wayne Gay of Wilson County. “When Missouri repealed their background check system, homicides shot up. I need your help. Tell the folks in Raleigh we need to keep background checks.”

Besides the ad buy from the Giffords group, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety group and Moms Demand Action have done polling and purchased their own set of ad as well as hosted legislative lobby days and reached out through social media to keep North Carolina from repealing the background check requirement.

There is more at Fox8:

Instead buyers would only have to go through a federal background check.

It’s a type of screening local sheriffs say should be left to local government.

“It’s a more efficient and more thorough way to check,” said Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page.

It’s always best when collectivists self-identify.  It prevents us from having to do the hard labor of proving the point.  Congratulations to the Sheriffs of North Carolina, who have apparently sided with the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Jennifer Mascia (see here and here for Jennifer).  How does that make you feel?  You and Jennifer, common sympathies, world view and interests.

Good grief.  Just good grief.

More from the communist in chief:

Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the Administration’s “Unified Agenda” of regulatory objectives (see accompanying story), the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms. This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second. Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published.

[ … ]

With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be “clarifying” the rules concerning “technical data” posted online or otherwise “released” into the “public domain.” To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the “authorization” of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.

[ … ]

Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities. Prior restraints of the sort contemplated by this regulation are among the most disfavored regulations of speech under First Amendment case law.

Let’s cover the list.  No more American Rifleman Magazine (since it has technical data in it), no more descriptions over forums for how to reload or what recipe is best for certain situations, no more tactical training videos over YouTube, no more posting of results of ballistic gelatin, no more gun reviews, no more descriptions of how to field strip and clean firearms, and on and on the list goes.

It won’t work.  Obama will be defeated, now and in eternity.  Just like gun control doesn’t stop the availability of guns, Obama can’t stop the sharing of information.  And for his totalitarianism, Mr. Obama has earned a place in hell on judgment day.  In the mean time, the administration has declared war on you and your freedoms.  This is the next battlefield.

KFSM/KXNW:

Benton County Sheriff Kelley Cradduck says his deputies will not arrest anyone who openly carries a handgun.

“As long as the law is written as it is then we will not arrest any citizen for simply exercising their right to open carry,” the sheriff wrote on his Facebook page on Monday (June 1).

Cradduck said he posted his views on the issue because an overwhelming number of people have asked for his thoughts about open carry.

People committing crimes while openly carrying a handgun will still find themselves on the wrong side of the law, he noted.

“If there are other exigent circumstances involved, such as they are committing a crime while openly carrying, then they stand a good chance of being charged for whatever crime they committed, along with the charge of carrying a firearm without a concealed handgun license,” he wrote.

The controversy whether open carry is legal in Arkansas began after a bill was passed in the 2013 legislative session containing language some believe allows for open carry of handguns.  Dustin McDaniel, who was the attorney general at the time, said open carry of handguns is illegal in the state.

However, the current attorney general, Leslie Rutledge, said she believes the law, known as Act 746, allows for open carry.

“I interpret it to mean an individual may carry so long as he or she does so without the intent to unlawfully employ it against another person,” she told 5NEWS in a prepared statement on Monday. “But anytime law enforcement and citizens disagree on a law we need to ensure there is clarity to protect our citizens. I am committed to working with the General Assembly to clarify any confusion surrounding Act 746 and its intent.”

Cradduck said in his Facebook post that he will stand by his position until state legislators approve a measure clarifying the law.

“Until the legislative bodies come together and write the law very clearly stating if and where you may or may not openly carry without a license, then I will not permit my deputies to arrest individuals who are carrying their firearms in an open fashion,” he wrote.

In 2013, Washington County Sheriff Tim Helder said he agreed with then-Prosecuting Attorney John Threet that open carry is permitted. Threet, who later won election as a Circuit Court judge, said he didn’t plan on prosecuting gun owners who openly carry firearms in Washington County. Helder said he would use Threet’s opinion in instructing his deputies on the legality of firearm open carry.

In the comments to Communist Art Acevedo Kills Constitutional Carry In Texas we discussed the various exigencies and vicissitudes of what LEOs think, how judges are likely to decide cases before them and other issues surrounding open carry when the law isn’t clear.

In Texas the lack of a provision prohibiting LEOs from stopping open carriers to demand evidence of permit will be a problem, I predict.  In Arkansas we see now the problems associated with muddled laws.  A note to legislators is in order.  You aren’t doing anyone any favors by muddling the laws.  Not LEOs, not judges, not the people.  No one benefits because of your vacillation.