Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Some bad, some good.  A mixed bag.  It takes time, especially when dealing with people who have been taught that they are God.

Eventually, most of the current gun control laws will go down in flames except for the NFA.

First: Saving Our School Children from Tennessee Politicians

Tennessee politicians left our students defenseless, and we have to save them. A celebrity-seeking mass murderer killed students in a Nashville private school. That should be a wakeup call that the Republican controlled legislature and Governor have failed us again. We need angry parents to change the status quo and save our kids. As grim as this sounds, there is plenty of good news. We also know how to reduce and to prevent mass murder in our schools. Tennessee parents have been ignored for too long.

[…]

More parents want their children protected at school than want them unprotected. You might think that volunteer defenders at school are rare, but you would be wonderfully wrong. It surprised me too, but we found a higher fraction of teachers who were willing to be armed first responders than the fraction of people who carry concealed in public. (18 percent of teachers vs. 8.0 percent of the general public).

Much more at the link.

Next: (A poll) Tennesseans Want Dangerous People Removed from Community Instead of More Gun Laws

According to a poll published by co/efficient, most Tennesseans would prefer that dangerous people are removed from society rather than removing guns from the hands of potentially dangerous people.

“In the poll, Tennessee voters dramatically retreat from their soft support of proposed Red Flag Laws and do not see this as the solution to their safety concerns when informed that Red Flag Laws merely take guns away from dangerous individuals but do nothing to prevent them from causing harm by some other means. Red Flag Law support erodes even further when informed that there are existing laws to take threatening individuals out of the community right now,” the poll said. “Tennesseans largely support recently passed legislation that puts police officers in schools and believe enforcing the current laws on the books is an effective solution to keeping their families, communities, and state safe.”

Polls can be made to mean anything, but more is at the link.

If you own one of these things with a brace you have a decision to make. Doing nothing is still a decision. The article is about more than just the brace and covers AR pistols in .300 AAC Blackout among other things.

Like most people I can shoot more accurately with a rifle. An AR pistol with a brace is not a rifle but it does give at least three points of contact when used as intended. I bought a stripped lower receiver from my local gun shop and ordered a lower build kit from Palmetto State Armory. Online an upper receiver with a ten-inch barrel was ordered. Besides a red dot optic and flashlight, a detachable sling was desired. An SBA3 pistol brace was chosen because of the good reviews and the ambidextrous QD sling socket. After everything was assembled it became one of my favorite firearms. Accurate, low profile, in a caliber that had dozens of projectiles in weight and configuration with many suitable propellants that could be experimented with. But then came January of 2023.

The ATF rule 2021R-08F, almost 300 pages of nebulous wording of what classifies as a short-barreled rifle (SBR) includes overall length, weight, and eye relief of an optic. What it boils down to is if you have a barrel less than sixteen inches and a pistol brace the ATF now considers it an SBR.

Source:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WTVF) — For the first time since Tennessee’s Governor announced he’ll call for a special legislative session, Gov. Bill Lee answered questions from reporters.

“It is a very important conversation that I think Tennesseans want us to have,” said Lee.

But it won’t be an easy conversation.

Lee still wants to pass what he calls an Order of Protection law, which you may have heard called a Red Flag Law.

“We oughta find a way to separate those who are a threat to others and a threat to themselves from having access to weapons,” said Lee.

Under Lee’s previous proposal, someone would have to petition the court to remove someone’s firearms, using evidence and testimony. The individual would then have the right to defend themselves, and the decision would ultimately reside with a judge.

“I’ve put forth what I think is the framework for what will protect the citizens and protect second amendment rights, but there’s a lot of conversation to be had between now and then,” said Gov. Lee.

There is no framework linked at the source article nor is any cited or quoted.

But the first time Gov. Lee attempted this, it didn’t go well. At the end of the 2023 legislative session, not a single member of his own party agreed to sponsor his order of protection bill, as a direct response to The Covenant School shooting in Nashville.

That means for the upcoming special session in August, he’ll likely have to build a bipartisan coalition.

“I can’t predict what that will look like, but I will be working really hard to make sure we have Republicans, Democrats, lawmakers, the public, everyone has an opportunity to weigh in on it,” said Lee.

Never forget that banning firearms in schools is a factor in those shootings; the shooters themselves say so in their manifestos. And remember, it’s illegal to discriminate against sodomites so their guns will never be taken even though they clearly are under the influence if not possessed by the devils.

From handgun law dot us as pertains to school firearms carry in Tennessee:

Any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. 39-17-1309

it is a criminal offense to possess or carry weapons, including firearms, on those portions of the property of a religious institution being used for school purposes. The prohibition against carrying weapons applies only to those portions of the property of the religious institution being used for school purposes.

With permission from Private K – Universities a full time employee can carry on that property. The School must have a policy before carry is legal for that person. For more information read 39-17-1309 and check with the private school where you are employed.

TN DA opinion on Carrying in/on Property of a Church School.

His ego is incredible. He’s not stupid but so self-centered that he’s unwilling to learn; he’s an ignoramus. That’s not name-calling; it’s the correct term. Same with vaccines and shutting down the economy.

Former President Donald Trump defended his decision to unilaterally ban bump stocks, which he called “very unimportant,” during a CNN town hall on Wednesday night.

The Republican presidential primary frontrunner didn’t turn back on his support for the ban, which has since been found unconstitutional by two federal appeals courts. He said he consulted with the National Rifle Association (NRA) before issuing an order to the ATF to find a way to outlaw the devices. He said the group was supportive of his effort.

“As you know, the bump stocks are actually a very unimportant thing,” Trump said. “NRA I went with them, and they said, ‘it doesn’t mean anything, or actually all they do is teach you how to shoot very inaccurately.’ So, we did that.”

It’s a bill of accuracy.

Still, former President Trump defended his record on guns.

“There’s been nobody that’s protected the Second Amendment,” he said. “There’s, you know, like I have I protected through thick and thin, not easy to do.”

He later nods to Red Flag laws by bringing up “mental health.”

Interesting history of the O.K. Corral gunfight, by Dave Spaulding: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Includes photos and historical artifacts. Check it out and remember, the core issue is gun control.

Wyatt Earp, his brothers Virgil and Morgan, and Doc Holliday had a date with destiny October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, Arizona. Attempting to disarm local cowboys at the O.K. Corral, the ensuing gunfight on Fremont Street gained legendary status in Old West lore. Here we examine how it all began.

Welcome to Tombstone. Interestingly, this sign appears to be misdated. The accepted date for the O.K. Corral gunfight is Oct. 26, 1881. (Library of Congress photo, c. 1937)

I hate all federal gun laws. the Anti-federalists were right. Even this seemingly friendly law is nonetheless federal gun control and should be roundly rejected. If the federal government wanted to buy every man 16 to 46 an AR15 and pay for proper equipping and training that would be the only constitutional federal gun law acceptable under the 2A.

The Feds should stay out of state business. I promise you, they will make things worse with qualifiers, and limits because that’s what government does. All federal laws oppose individual, local, and state liberties. Even if the law is sound, once it’s done, they can later restrict self-defense by modifying it. It’s for that same reason among others that I’m against national reciprocity.

We told you last month about how the Washington Post was trying to resurrect the debate over “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws even when the example the newspaper focused on wasn’t even a case involving SYG. What those anti-gun “journalists” at the Post didn’t realize was that their resurrection of the “debate” topic has fueled a fire on the other side of the gun-control movement, with two strongly pro-freedom federal lawmakers now planning to introduce a national Stand Your Ground measure in Congress.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida, plan to introduce the measure soon. If passed, it would allow the use of deadly force to prevent “death or great bodily harm” without the duty to retreat that is still on the books in some states.

“States like Oklahoma and Florida recognize that in some cases, the use of lethal force is justified to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm,” Sen. Mullin said in a news release announcing the measure. “Every American should have the right to defend himself or herself against imminent threats to personal safety without the duty to retreat.

“I’m proud to introduce the Stand Your Ground Act in the Senate to codify these common-sense self-defense protections for all law-abiding Americans.”

The legislation specifically states: “A person is justified in using, threatening, or attempting to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using, threatening, or attempting to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses, threatens, or attempts to use deadly force in accordance with this paragraph does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using, threatening, or attempting to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.”

It will probably fail which is fine. More at the link.

This case has wider implications than just in Illinois. The SCOTUS is showing itself to be emphatic, insisting that its rulings be applied.

On May 1, Justice Amy Coney Barrett directed the State of Illinois and the City of Naperville to respond to the emergency application for injunction pending appellate review filed by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR).  As I explained in “An Opening Judicial Salvo in Defense of Illinois’ New Rifle Ban,” the U.S. district court (N.D. Ill.) denied a motion for preliminary injunction against the State’s ban on semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines, greatly departing from  Supreme Court precedent on the Second Amendment.

While that denial was being appealed to the 7th Circuit, Judge Stephen McGlynn (S.D. Ill.) found that plaintiffs in another challenge were likely to succeed on the merits that the law violates the Second Amendment, and he issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement.  See my post. The 7th Circuit immediately granted the State’s motion for a stay against the injunction in a one-sentence order without giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to respond.

So now the challengers have filed amicus briefs supporting NAGR in the Supreme Court, and we await a decision there.

While granting the emergency application in an interlocutory appeal of this type would be unusual, there are compelling reasons to do so here, as perhaps explained best in the amicus brief filed by Paul Clement and Erin Murphy on behalf of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).  As they note, there were only six states with bans last year when New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen was decided, and now there are ten.  “Instead of treating Bruen as an occasion to reconsider existing restrictions on constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, they have enacted new ‘assault weapon’ and/or ‘large-capacity magazine’ bans, with more still on the way.”  Quoting phrases from Bruen, they argue:

Rifles, pistols, and shotguns plainly “constitute bearable arms”—i.e., “instruments that facilitate armed self-defense,” …—no matter what kind of grip, stock, ammunition feeding device, or other features they may have. The right to keep and bear them is thus “presumptively protect[ed]” by the Constitution.  In breezily concluding that the firearms Illinois has banned are not even “Arms” covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, the district court in this case inexplicably ignored the test that Bruen articulated, and instead simply declared that “[t]he text of the Second Amendment is limited to only certain arms.”

The particulars of the Illinois case and some further history are at the link.

Red Flag laws are gun control. There’s no way around that fact.

“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” – 2 Corinthians 6:17

I have to bite my tongue here but will say, get out of the false church and touch not the unclean thing; “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” – 2 Corinthians 6:14

Brent Leatherwood is president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Never ever forget this fact, dear Christian brothers and sisters; ethics is just something the wicked use to justify their sin and is the pinnacle of modern self-righteousness.

Leatherwood looks just as you’d expect, a pretty effeminate (which is sin) do-gooder in his own mind, yet breaking the covenants of God by multiples. And I’ll say it again; this law will not be used against sodomites who obviously are devoid of spirit and unhinged in their minds by the devil, but it will be used against you!

The head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm, who is a Covenant School parent, is urging the Tennessee General Assembly to back Gov. Bill Lee’s proposal for an extreme risk protective order law.

“The Covenant School tragedy was the worst school shooting in our state’s history,” Brent Leatherwood, president of the Nashville-based Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, wrote in a letter to Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, R-Oak Ridge, House Speaker Cameron Sexton, R-Crossville, and every member of the legislature. “I am asking that you take steps now to ensure no school in Tennessee ever has to endure our nightmare again.”

Leatherwood’s letter, an appeal from both his personal experience and on behalf of majority Southern Baptist sentiment, comes amid uncertainty about the success of Lee’s proposal to prevent people deemed a danger to themselves or others from accessing firearms.

Lawmakers are rushing this week to wrap up the legislative session, a tight timeline that makes debate on the legislation difficult.

“Other voices are saying there is too little time left in this legislative session to consider such a proposal. Little credence should be given to that,” said Leatherwood, former executive director of the Tennessee Republican Party.

Woe unto all who vote in support of this; may the wrath of God abide on them!

Eugene Volokh.

The case arose before Bruen, when New York required a showing of special need to get a license to carry a gun for self-defense. The petitioner had argued that she needed a gun because she and her husband would often carry substantial sums of cash for business, but the New York licensing authorities responded that she “failed to explain why her stated self-defense needs were not already adequately and independently addressed by her husband’s recent acquisition of an unrestricted concealed carry license.”

The New York intermediate appellate court rejected that logic (Matter of DiPerna-Gillen v. Ryba, decided Thursday in an opinion by Justice Stan Prizker, joined by Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry and Justices Michael Lynch, Molly Reynolds Fitzgerald and Eddie McShan). The court’s main point was that, given the decision in Bruen, which came down while the appeal was pending, petitioner had a constitutionally protected right to carry, even without a showing of special need.

What a bunch of jerks.  They would force the husband to accompany the wife everywhere she went in order to obtain means of self defense, which might be a good idea at times, but comports more with Islamic culture than it does with Christianity.