2 years, 2 months ago
Mark is certainly indignant over this trash judgment. I always learn something when I watch his analyses. Here is the case to which he refers. It really is pathetic.
2 years, 2 months ago
It can be found here.
Bhah. Weak tea.
It does the same sort of thing we’ve observed so many times before with either those who call themselves constitutional Sheriffs or otherwise state lawmakers. They won’t use their own money or personnel to enforce federal regulations they believe are unconstitutional.
Well then. The FedGov SWAT teams are shaking in their jackboots!
But this is an easy letter to sign. No state or county representative has to enable or assist in the enforcement of federal laws anyway. Nothing changes with this letter.
The only real step that will make any difference is the threat to arrest any agent of the federal government who crosses state lines to enforce these infringements, and then carrying through with the threats.
Even if a court couldn’t make good on a change, they could leave them in jail for a few months due to overburdened court systems, strip them of their weapons, gear and credentials, and drop them off at the state line with nothing but a felony arrest record.
2 years, 2 months ago
Svalbard is the world’s northernmost town. Norway is its sovereign.
The purpose of this video is to be educational regarding the laws and regulations around polar bear protection on Svalbard. Both Christoffer and I have a license to carry polar bear protection issued by the government on Svalbard. All the information regarding the laws and regulations mentioned in this video, come from the government’s website, and all the shooting practice is done at the official shooting range with the proper equipment and knowledge.
The video starts slow but builds into a sad tale of putting animals above humans, gun control, and agreement with government regulations. Alaska has no such problems right now, but that could change. Why care about this? Because what happens in Europe seems to infect America.
2 years, 2 months ago
This post could just as well be titled “The Legacy Media Sucks.” Here I cited a legacy media article on a settlement Lucky Gunner made with families of victims over verification of ammunition purchases. I sent a note to Lucky Gunner, and they kindly referred me to this post on their site.
It should come as no surprise that anti-Second Amendment activists will do and say anything to push their agenda, including using tragedy to further their cause. Following a 2018 shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, the activists at Everytown Law saw an opportunity to do just that. The Michael Bloomberg-funded group spearheaded a lawsuit against Lucky Gunner with one clear goal: to drive us out of business. They failed. This week, we announce the dismissal and settlement of that lawsuit.
We spent three years vigorously defending against this lawsuit and the many false allegations levied against our company and its employees. We refused to back down and were committed to fighting as long as necessary to prove we did nothing wrong.
Our loyal customers and suppliers know we follow the law. We are proud of that fact. In the end, a plaintiff and one of the victims of the shooting, Trent Beazley, even said, “Upon reflection and review of the facts, I believe that Lucky Gunner did not break a law.”
Clint McGuire, an attorney for several of the plaintiffs, echoed that sentiment during a press conference highlighting lobbying efforts to change Texas ammo sales laws.
“There is not a law in the State of Texas that requires ammunition sellers – whether they are brick and mortar or whether they are online stores – to require proof of age before they sell ammunition,” McGuire said. But he sued us anyway.
Ending this lawsuit now allowed us to achieve several goals. First, we protected our reputation for following the law. Second, we stopped wasting money on lawyers so we can put it to better use buying inventory for our customers. Finally, we avoided the risk that the jury would incorrectly apply the law, which could set precedent that would hurt your Second Amendment rights going forward.
They tried to get Lucky Gunner to bend, and they didn’t. This only increases my respect for Lucky Gunner.
This sure isn’t how the legacy media portrayed the settlement, is it? It looks like Grace Hauck simply parroted the words of the controllers. That’s not reporting.
2 years, 2 months ago
Survivors and families of the victims of a mass shooting at a Texas high school settled a lawsuit with companies that sold and shipped ammunition to the gunman, attorneys announced Thursday.
The “first-of-its-kind agreement” requires the seller to maintain an age verification system at the point of sale for all ammunition sales, according to Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund.
Everytown said it could not comment further on the agreement or say if there was a monetary settlement.
[ … ]
Under federal law, it is illegal for anyone under 18 to purchase handgun ammunition, and the age rises to 21 if the ammunition is bought from a licensed dealer.
Yet the gunman “seamlessly and quickly” made two purchases on the site, each in “less than two minutes,” according to the lawsuit. The suit alleged Tennessee-based LuckyGunner, LLC intentionally set up an online sales system through which it would not know or verify the ages of its customers.
They didn’t intentionally do anything except engage in legal commerce. If there were illegalities, they were on the part of the buyer.
I like Lucky Gunner and have bought from them before, but they are no different than any other online retailer. You verify your aga to proceed. That constitutes crime if you convey a falsehood, I would guess.
This is a bad precedent and I wish there had been another way than for Lucky Gunner to settle on this. This means they now come after every other retailer who sells ammunition online.
Not that I will get anything but a canned response, but I’ll reach out to them to see if there is more to this story than what was reported.
2 years, 2 months ago
From Twitchy.
” … both the AR-15 and M4 contain barrel rifling to make the round tumble upon impact … “
I’m willing to bet you didn’t know that’s the point of rifling, did you?
I am in absolute awe
I was today years old when I was informed, by an “expert” testifying for California’s DOJ, that an AR is an area effect weapon, a single .223 round can sever a human being in half, barrel rifling is what makes a round tumble upon hitting it’s target and… https://t.co/5VZ5vIWN4c pic.twitter.com/Qnl7Qr0uQC
— Bad Weapon Takes (@BadWeaponTakes) February 11, 2023
And not only that, semiautomatic rifles are more effective than fully automatic ones. Furthermore, it’s “very difficult to use as a defensive weapon, except as a blunt force instrument.”
It can cut a body in half, the semiautomatic version is more dangerous and effective than a machine gun, and it’s no good for a defensive weapon.
No, it’s not just you. No one else can make sense of this mish-mash either.
At this point it makes no sense to try to decipher this gobbledygook. But it does go to show just how badly the USMC has screwed up by promoting men like this, either idiots, or traitors, or both. The USMC should be ashamed, but probably isn’t.
The last vestige of reliable American defensive forces has been infected, corrupted, and turned into a sham and hollow shell. How sad.
UPDATE: Here is a rebuttal to the nonsense in the opinion of Tucker.
2 years, 2 months ago
I write in support of the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2023. I’m a gun owner and target shooter. My guns came from licensed firearms dealers after passing background checks. It’s essential that background checks are conducted and done before an individual acquires a firearm.
The proposed bill requires that all gun transfers go through a federal firearms dealer with exceptions for gifts or transfers between family members, sharing at a range or hunting. No rights are infringed with this legislation. The language of the bill specifically prohibits the creation of a registry.
Preservation of our rights requires common sense regulation. I urge my representatives in Congress to support the Background Checks Act of 2023 and ask everyone else to do the same.
Malcolm Smith, Charlotte
I suspect Malcolm is a liar and impostor. But then I suspect that about all such people who begin with “I’m a gun owner and I support [blah blah] gun control bill.”
If he’s not an impostor then he’s a tool and goober. Either way we’re not too concerned with Malcolm. This is yet another media attempt to press a narrative. How do I know? Because Malcolm’s letter is just that – a letter to the editor. He’s a nobody.
And yet, his brief letter to the editor at the Charlotte Observer hit the Google news feed, as if it’s important. After so many years of doing this I’ve learned a thing or two about how this all works. The legacy media presses a narrative, and if they need a stooge in Charlotte to make headlines about how good so-and-so is, they’ll fabricate him out of whole cloth, or if they don’t have to, they’ll elevate his opinion to the headlines like it’s a big deal. So what’s the big deal?
Congresscritters have reintroduced yet another universal background check bill, called the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. It has the support of Everytown, Giffords, and every other gun control group.
But no one actually believes that criminals are going to purchase guns via a Form 4473, and the only people this affects are peaceable law-abiding men who the FedGov want to monitor. That’s the whole point.
So this failed last year with the Democrats in control of the House. It will certainly fail again this year. No GOP House member wants to go on record right now backing a UBC bill.
The whole point of the post is to alert readers to the continuing efforts to infringe on your rights. The collectivists aren’t satisfied with the results of Bruen, and don’t care about any of that. They want your guns.
There are no good gun bills unless they undo gun control and abolish the ATF.
2 years, 2 months ago
This is horrifying, and why I hate (yes) the NRA. The Second Amendment defines itself. The entire purpose of the 2A is the definition of what’s allowed and the specific purposes for the allowance. The NRA is just awful. They always set a false premise that’s designed to reduce your freedoms. Everything they touch gets worse for Americans while they and the politicians get rich. The NRA must be destroyed.
A coalition led by the National Rifle Association this week sued to stop the Biden administration’s bid to regulate AR-style “pistols,” an effort that could prompt the Supreme Court to finally define what is allowed under the 231-year-old Second Amendment.
While its suit is specifically aimed at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and its flip-flop on regulating and taxing guns, it has the potential to both smoke out the court on what is legal under the Second Amendment and end years of practice by federal agencies and states to make up rules that Congress is supposed to set.
That’s where the AR pistol suit comes in. Until this month, the ATF said the guns equipped with arm braces to steady the firearms, especially for the disabled, were OK to buy with just a background check. But they have redefined them as a weapon covered by the Al Capone era National Firearms Act that requires a lengthy application, registration, photos and fingerprints, and a $200 tax.
In challenging the politically-charged flip-flop by ATF, Cotton hopes the case will land in the conservative and somewhat pro-gun Supreme Court and that it will be ruled unconstitutional. He expects that because the Bruen case reasoned that courts have to decide what is allowed based on what the nation’s founders meant in 1791 when virtually nothing was off-limits.
“Outside legal circles, Bruen is known primarily for holding correctly that citizens’ right to self-defense means they have the right to have the tools to defend themselves outside of their home. You can carry that self-defense firearm outside of your home,” said Cotton.
“But what a lot of people don’t realize is it also set a standard for how all gun laws, federal, state, and local, have to be evaluated in terms of does it pass constitutional muster. And that standard is we roll the calendar back to 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted, the technical words are ‘is there a historical analog for the proposed current law or the existing current law.’ That’s just a fancy way of saying, ‘Was that type of restriction in existence in 1791?’ If it wasn’t, then it can’t be now,” he said.
Cotton added, “That’s why so many of the things are falling right now.” He cited gun control laws in New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, Maryland, and elsewhere that are being pulled back to conform to the recent rulings.
He predicted that a fuller definition of the Second Amendment by the court could come within two years because so many new gun cases are being filed and likely headed to the high court.
The good news is that the NRA is not the lead plaintiff. The West Virginia and North Dakota AGs appear to be the lead on this, which may answer the prior question; why file in North Dakota? Not sure if the disabled veteran, who is also a plaintiff, is a resident of North Dakota, which may also explain that decision.
Whatever you do, dear friends of liberty, keep the NRA lawyers out of the courtroom if you want to keep your rights!
From the NRA page, there are no usable details other than this.
The case is captioned Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.[FRAC], v. Merrick Garland and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Other plaintiffs are: SB Tactical, B&T USA, Wounded Warrior Richard Cicero, and a coalition of 25 states led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, also including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
I don’t know anything about FRAC. It appears to be a lobbyist group that seeks consistent regulations. I’m not a fan of industry lobbyists suing over the Pistol Brace. They are not suing on behalf of individual rights under the 2A; they are suing for consistent regulation. I don’t want consistent regulations; I want none!
The clock is ticking on this; we’ll have to see if any of the suits can get traction and resolution in the remainder of the 120 days.
Herschel has been tracking this prior:
2 years, 2 months ago
The current count is six pistol brace lawsuits.
Texas Public Policy Foundation, et. al.
2 years, 2 months ago
More than 20 Republican-led states, along with gun rights groups and a disabled Army veteran, on Thursday sued the Biden administration over a new rule restricting sales of gun accessories known as pistol braces.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in North Dakota, the states said that the rule finalized earlier this year by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was “arbitrary and capricious” and violated the right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
This case is joined by the NRA. I guess they arm twisted and pulled enough money out of Wayne’s account for buying suits to assist with the lawsuit. I cannot locate a URL for the complaint.
Why on earth they’re targeting the state of ND I have no idea. They’re not likely to be successful there, and the whole goal should be to drive this to the supreme court. On the other hand, this might be the sacrificial lawsuit to do just that.
A much better chance comes from GOA, and the complaint can be found here. Friend of TCJ, Stephen Stamboulieh, is responsible for this fine work. It has been filed in Texas.
