Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Honestly though, probably not written by him, but by some recent graduate of an Ivy League school who thinks she should work as a controller of other people.

Red flag laws allow us to take action when someone who has a gun begins to act erratically.

Red flag laws still require due process, and any removal of weapons is temporary. pic.twitter.com/IVPHgbrvhD

— Governor Tom Wolf (@GovernorTomWolf) June 16, 2022

Photos of guns, cryptic messages, none of which are illegal.  However, please note, those of you who are still on social media.  When you make a post on social media, it gets archived and is there forever.  Get off of social media.

One of the best comments on this is found here.

This is Randy, Jane’s angry ex. He used to beat Jane.

Jane is stunning and brave and owns a gun.

When her friend asks Jane if she is afraid of Randy getting out of prison, Jane posts a picture of her gun with the caption “Nah. I’ll shoot him.”

Randy is evil. He red-flags Jane, and after she has been disarmed by the police he stops by her house and beats her to death.

Happily, no one was shot.

But then, red flag laws aren’t meant for protection against evil doers.  They’re meant as a tool of disarmament for anyone and anything the authorities dislike.

Red Flag laws are still a favorite of Republicans. Tucker Carlson on Red Flag Laws

WoG has The Wish List. You have a Second Amendment right to buy firearms unless you’re mentally ill. TCJ has discussed at length the deeply problematic definition of mental illness. It’s just an opinion of a witch doctor.

This mother is a hero.

Pregnant Mom Evens the Odds, Fends Off Armed Robbers With AR-15

“A Florida woman who was eight-months pregnant and came out wielding an AR-15 rifle reportedly saved her husband and pre-teen daughter last week from a pair of violent intruders who’d broken into the family’s home,” Fox News reported.

“They came in heavily hooded and masked. As soon as they had got the back door opened, they had a pistol on me and was grabbing my 11-year-old daughter,” King explained.

He recalled being pistol-whipped and kicked in the head.

“It became real violent, real fast,” he said.

Just one more gun law and poof – utopia attained.

California Moves Full Steam Ahead With Two More Gun Control Laws

The Judiciary Committees in both the Assembly and Senate approved of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed bills that came on the heels of the tragic shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

The first bill, SB 1327, is an attempt to “limit the spread of illegal assault weapons and ghost guns.”

The second bill, AB 2571, limits a firearms manufacturer “from advertising or marketing any firearm-related product, as defined, in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.”

Harold Hutchison at Ammoland.

There are times when Second Amendment supporters rip the National Rifle Association over the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the 1993 Brady Act. Let’s be blunt; the bulk of the provisions in those laws probably should be repealed – or greatly modified – to properly reflect the Second Amendment.

But in 1968 and 1993, Second Amendment supporters were in a bad position. Second Amendment supporters faced a dire situation in 1968. There had been the high-profile assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. earlier in the year. President Lyndon Baines Johnson was pushing for licensing and registration.

As noted earlier, that was the “second problem” Nelson “Pete” Shields outlined in a 1976 interview. Once they have the guns registered and gun owners licensed, gun owners are in a dire situation. Look at England, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada if you don’t believe me. As such, the NRA back then made probably the best choice they could – limit the damage and prevent licensing and registration from happening.

The same situation was in place with the Brady Act in 1993. The real threat was a permanent waiting period. NICS has a lot of problems, and the NSSF has outlined the fixes that are a bare minimum, and Second Amendment supporters should work to make that happen. In an ideal world, there would be no NICS, but we’re not in an ideal world, and post-Uvalde/Buffalo, the conditions are decidedly less than ideal.

[ … ]

In the wake of Uvalde, there will likely be a push for “red flag” laws. In this case, with the heightened emotions, Second Amendment supporters should keep the long-term threats in mind …

Second Amendment supporters will need to work hard to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box, but part of that hard work will be effective damage control after events like Uvalde.

The presupposition behind this badly framed and entirely mistaken argument is that if we don’t compromise some, the collectivists will do worse to us.

But that presupposition is falsifiable.  The collectivists have already said what they want to do, and it is reflected in the wish list proposed by the House, i.e., a renewed AWB, magazine capacity limits, red flag laws, universal background checks, registration of all firearms by serial number, and on and on the list goes.

If they currently had that much power they would have already pushed through their agenda.  There is nothing to be gained from any sort of compromise.  As far as the voters go, you cannot convince a collectivist to vote for liberty by compromising.  It runs fundamentally against their nature.

His defense of the NRA is silly.  One commenter posts this in response.

But just so that you don’t miss it, make sure to read Harold’s piece.  He appears to be actually defending or speaking out in favor of red flag laws.

Source.

TALLAHASSEE — Incoming Florida House Speaker Paul Renner told a supporter his chamber would move a “constitutional carry” policy for gun owners in Florida in the next legislative session, according to a video surreptitiously recorded at a fundraising event last month and posted online.

In the video, which was filmed at a House GOP fundraising event in Ocala on May 17, a man pulls Renner aside and asks if expanding the right for Floridians to carry guns without permits would be a legislative priority.

“I can tell you, we’ll do it in the House,” Renner tells the man. “We need to work on the Senate a little bit.”

In an interview Wednesday, Renner said he didn’t know he was being recorded or who he was speaking with at the Ocala event, but confirmed the video’s authenticity. The Palm Coast Republican reaffirmed his support for “constitutional carry” legislation but said he didn’t call it a priority.

“The issue on constitutional carry is whether government should be playing a role in saying whether you can or can’t carry outside the home when you meet the basic requirements of being able to pass a background check,” he said.

In April, Gov. Ron DeSantis promised to deliver a bill allowing permitless carry before his time as governor was through. The support of Renner, who leads one of Florida’s two legislative bodies, would mean the policy would have significant momentum in the next legislative session.

Current Florida law requires handgun owners to obtain a license to carry their weapons in most public places. Open carry of weapons is mostly prohibited: Florida’s licenses only allow gun owners to carry guns concealed on their person. In order to get a concealed carry permit, a handgun owner has to take a training class that includes instruction involving the live firing of a loaded gun.

In other states, “constitutional carry” has allowed gun owners to carry their weapon without a permit — and thus without going through that training. Supporters call the policy “constitutional carry” because they argue the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms means Americans should be able to carry without the regulatory burden of obtaining a permit.

[ … ]

Passidomo on Wednesday pointed to Florida’s red flag law as a good balance between Second Amendment rights and protecting communities and schools. That law allows law enforcement to petition for a risk protection order if they believe someone is a danger to themselves or others. If a judge approves the order, firearms are removed from a person’s home. The process allows the person given the order to oppose it in court.

Luis Valdes, Florida state director for Gun Owners of America, who posted the clip of Renner to YouTube, said he planned to push for a permitless carry policy this legislative session. Valdes believes Passidomo will come around eventually.

“She is right now kind of being a little bit squishy on the issue, but I think with a little bit of political education, she would push the bill,” Valdes said in an interview Thursday.

For fighting the good fight in Florida for open carry, I recommend The Armed Fisherman.

And while some may disagree, I think this is the wrong order.  Florida police are far too arrogant and need their comeuppance.  We need to see people openly carrying in Florida.

When people get accustomed to seeing men carry weapons, and seeing that the sky doesn’t fall, then proceed to constitutional carry next.

I would be most dissatisfied with constitutional carry passed without open carry.

Where are the strong men in Florida?  Why is there no push to see this happen?  Florida apparently wants to be like Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Massachusetts.

Dean Weingarten.

Red-flag laws do not appear to produce measurable results. They can be very effective at undercutting fundamental Constitutional rights.  The wording used in this reporting, does not bode well:

will allow law enforcement to temporarily take dangerous weapons away from people 

Once taken, it can be complicated to regain possession of firearms from “law enforcement.” All weapons are “dangerous.” All people are potentially dangerous.

Temporarily often becomes indefinite, which often becomes permanent.

What is a “boyfriend loophole”?  It is not a legal term but rather Orwellian propaganda meant to deceive. There is no “boyfriend loophole” in federal law.

The term is meant as a way to expand the prohibited status of people who commit domestic violence to people who are in casual relationships. It is a way of expanding the list of people prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Misdemeanors are inherently less serious than felonies. The details here are important and unspecified so far.

Prohibition against a person buying guns for others.

There is already a prohibition against people purchasing guns for others in federal law. Watch for this to be expanded so than no one is allowed to buy a firearm for anyone else. This may be a way to push for a ban on private sales.

Enhanced background checks for those under 21. Almost certainly unconstitutional, this appears to be a waiting period measure. Watch for this to be used as justification to ban private sales.

Clarification of who is a gun dealer.  This is a double edged sword. A clear definition of what constitutes “doing business” has been sought for decades. It seems unlikely a good definition can come from this administration. Watch for a definition where it is hard to obtain a Federal Firearms License, but easy to be prosecuted for not having one.

As usual, I think Dean is right.  And as usual, the republican senators and congressmen are too stupid to see through the smoke, or too collectivist to care.

Wait for the details to come out.  No, I’m not saying wait for the details like some pols are saying wait for the details to decide whether to support this (like the fools at NRO).  I’m saying wait for the details and you will see just how bad this is and just how much trouble this causes to the gun community.

And then never forget the men and women who did this.

Source.

Illinois deer hunters will soon have more tools available to them during the hunting season after the signing of a recent law.

House Bill 4386, signed by Gov. Pritzker on May 27, allows for the use of centerfire, single-shot rifles for deer hunting in the firearm set as set by the director of natural resources every year.

These lighter rifles join the list of legal hunting firearms, which includes slug-ammunition shotguns, muzzleloading rifles and centerfire handguns.

The newly-approved firearms must still abide by site-specific regulations and use legal ammunition.

Additionally, the law makes it illegal, during deer hunting season, to possess or be in proximity of a non-centerfire rifle or a magazine capable of making a rifle not a single shot.

The bill goes into effect on January 1, 2023. You can read the text of the bill here.

Have y’all ever been to Ilinois?  I have.  Only to visit on a work assignment.

What most people don’t understand is that the corn belt runs through Illinois.  Miles upon miles upon miles upon miles of nothing but corn fields as far as the eye can see.

Here the controllers are “giving up” something for the deer hunters by giving them a rifle to hunt.  Single shot only.  I might have understood it a bit more if they had limited it to straight walled cartridges as they do in some states, but in this case, they want no semiautomatics, or at least, no magazine to be found near the hunter.

I’m glad I don’t live there.

Source.

After days of negotiations that worried Second Amendment advocates and law-abiding firearm owners due to talk of sweeping new restrictions, it seems like — for now at least — the Republican members of the bipartisan working group held the line on the strictest proposals, though they didn’t stop Democrats on all fronts in the talks that made many conservatives scratch their heads.

The bipartisan group of Senators — led by Chris Murphy (D-CT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) — announced their proposal for legislation they seem to think has a chance of making it through their evenly-divided chamber.

[ … ]

The proposal includes providing “resources” — likely grant incentives — to states if they implement so-called “red flag laws.” It also includes investing taxpayer dollars in mental health services for families and in schools along with school safety resources to “to help institute safety measures in and around primary and secondary schools, support school violence prevention efforts and provide training to school personnel and students.” The proposal announcement also says legislators will seek to include an “enhanced review period” for firearm purchasers under 21 years old.

Rather than passing a federal red flag law, they’re trying to buy off the states to do it for them using money we don’t have.

Here are a few predictions.  First, you can expect the usual suspects to go along with it (e.g., Cornyn, Collins, Graham, Romney, Thune, etc.).  Second, the red flag laws will be abused by taking away firearms from peaceable men without due process.  Angry wives or girlfriends divorcing or breaking up with their husbands or boyfriends will use this to their advantage.  Men, be careful with whom you cavort, search for godly women, be godly yourselves, and manage your households well.  Be a good leader and keep your home in proper order.

Third, nothing in this will amount to a hill of beans when it comes to actually making schools safer.  But that’s never the point of gun control, is it?  Fourth – and besides red flag laws this is the most significant change – you can bet your bottom dollar on one thing.  Any money that flows to public schools will have strings attached.  You can count on it.

So parents who were (justly) angry over critical race theory or gender confusion being taught to their children can get prepared to be angry all over again.  The strings may involve something like the requirement to teach CRT in order to get the funding for security.

Remember.  The senators and congressmen don’t write the laws.  They just vote on them.  The bottomless pit of money gets attached and spent, and the strings all get attached, as lawyers and congressional aids work through the details and create the resultant monster.  And it will end up being a monster that infringes on constitutional rights.  Mark my words and hold me to it.

You’ll have to pass the bill before you know what’s in it.

I have one final recommendation.  Home school your children.

“Shall not be infringed” should have limits. Politicians getting paid by the @NRA need to realize this too. What does the NRA do again? Nothing.

— Robert J. O'Neill (@mchooyah) June 2, 2022

I knew I didn’t like the guy.  A little too attention-seeking for my tastes.  There was also some controversy when the deed was done about who did it and how it went down.

Anyway, this is all the reason I need to dislike him.

Source.

A segment on CNN this Thursday featured experts demonstrating the power of semi-automatic weapons, specifically focusing on the AR-15, which has been the weapon of choice for many mass shooters in the United States over the past several years.

The Los Angeles Police Police (sic) Department pointed out to CNN that bullets fired from an AR-15 are powerful enough to pierce soft body armor.

Then, footage was shown from a ballistic lab where bullets were fired into a gelatin substance meant to mimic human flesh. When a handgun was fired at the substance, it created a single cavity through the substance and the bullet exited from the other side. A bullet fired from an assault rifle broke apart inside the substance and the damage was much more explosive.

“It basically goes inside the body and creates an explosion inside the body,” Wayne University ballistics expert Cynthia Bir said.

In another revelation, the following special reports are scheduled for CNN in the coming days.  (1) How CNN just now learned about the science of ballistics, (2) How any rifle round can penetration soft body armor, with a battery of tests and suite of analyses to prove it, (3) How CNN just now found out about ballistics gel, (4) How any rifle round exceeding about 2200 FPS at impact will cause hydrostatic shock and cavitation inside ballistics gel, (5) A side-by-side ballistics gel comparison between .270 Win PSP ammo and .300 Win Mag PSP ammo, (6) What a feral hog looks like after being shot by .30-06 PSP at 30 yards.

No … not really.

How do these people accept their paychecks with a straight face and without a guilty conscience?

Source.

In response, David Codrea links Thomas Massie.

What’s the easiest way to disprove the lie that the 1994-2004 “assault weapons ban” worked? Point out that after a couple of cosmetic changes, sales actually went up during the ban. Clearly those who have been duped were never in a gun store in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s. pic.twitter.com/AQxy7P9ErE

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 2, 2022

A friend over an email thread says this.  “The practical effect of the “AW ban” was that AK manufacturers had to remove the bayonet lug, and Ar manufacturers had to do that and remove the flash suppressor. In either event, they kept on making the same gun. How could that affect mass killings?”

Rational question to be sure.  From my perspective, I do calculations all day every day.  I see nothing even approaching a good statistical analysis of the data, and in my judgment the data is statistically insignificant.  Nothing whatsoever can be proven with it.

Anyway, I don’t care.  No one gets to tell me that because someone else misuses a product or tool, that means my perfectly legitimate use of it will be banned.