Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Story at WoG:

“Looks Like He’s Going to Get the Chance to Raise His Hand and Lie”

Via CNN: The Senate voted on Tuesday to confirm Steve Dettelbach as President Joe Biden’s pick to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Successful confirmation of the nominee is a victory for the Biden administration and comes in the wake of a string of recent mass shootings – in Buffalo, New York, Uvalde, Texas and Highland Park, Illinois – that have shocked the nation and led to calls for further action to address gun violence in America.

The confirmation vote marks a major milestone since the ATF has operated under a series of acting directors since its last Senate-confirmed leader stepped down in 2015, and the Senate last confirmed an ATF nominee in 2013.

Source.

A Bay State gun rights advocate is calling out Attorney General Maura Healey’s firearm licensing guidance in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision on guns.

Jim Wallace, writing on behalf of the Gun Owners Action League, is urging Gov. Charlie Baker to step in and block the AG’s move.

“We are aware of the joint ‘guidance’ released by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security,” Wallace wrote. “We are officially demanding that the so-called ‘guidance’ be retracted and revised as it does not reflect the decision handed down by the Court!”

Wallace is referring to guidance issued by Healey’s office and the EOPSS on July 1 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In that case, the nation’s highest court ruled a New York law restricting firearm licenses to those who could show “proper cause” to carry was unconstitutionally infringing on residents’ 2nd Amendment rights.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court in a 6-3 decision, specifically cited Massachusetts as a state with similar licensing laws.

Healey was swift to respond to the court’s decision, issuing clarifications for licensing authorities — in the Bay State, that’s usually the local police chief — explaining that the state’s “good reason” rule was no longer applicable.

“Following the Bruen decision, licensing authorities can no longer enforce the ‘good reason’ provision of the Massachusetts law, which allowed license restrictions or denials if an applicant lacked a sufficiently good reason to fear injury to person or property,” Healey and Public Safety and Security Secretary Terrence Reidy’s offices said in a joint release.

However, the state officials also said some restrictions within the law do still apply, specifically the provision that allows chiefs to determine if a person is “suitable for a firearm.”

So it’s no longer “may issue,” it’s now “may issue” depending upon whatever we think today.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Healey is a witch.  You didn’t think they would actually follow the law, did you?

They don’t just want a few guns.  They want them all.  The American controllers want to do exactly what Trudeau is doing now in Canada.

This seems like a bad move to me.  If they’re concerned about lawsuits (as she points out near the end of the analysis), the answer to me is as clear today as it was years ago.

Ditch controller states.  I’m not talking about UPS.  I mean gun manufacturers.  If gun manufacturers would simply refuse to distribute to states like California, New York and New Jersey, this problem would come to an abrupt end.

Here’s the catch.  They would have to stop distribution to LEOs too.  No sales to anyone.  No replacement parts to anyone.  No ammunition to anyone.  That includes especially law enforcement.

Let them have what they asked for.  No more guns to controllers, not more lawsuits.

But in the end, that’s not going to happen, so we’re left with UPS ditching gun owners, and gun owners having to find other ways to transport parts.

From Darrell Miller, a professor at Duke University (I don’t go behind paywalls).

Before Bruen, lower courts had held that national parks and the parking lots of rural post offices were sensitive, and had indicated that libraries, museums, hospitals and day-care centers may also ban guns.

I responded with this note.

National Parks haven’t been ruled “sensitive places” or any such thing.  You should check your facts before running your mouth (or cutting loose on your keyboard).

In 2010, Congress passed, and the president signed, a law legalizing guns in national parks (they were already legal in national forests, of course, as too with wilderness areas).

I did a FOIA request several years later to find out if there had been any increase in homicides.  There hadn’t.

To the contrary, within a year, the first person (after that law was signed) engaged in self defense and saved his life by killing an attacking bear as a result of being allowed to carry.

Dummy.

Degrees on top of degrees, all backed up by layers and layers of fact checkers.

To no avail.

The Daily Signal.

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

The quote was from Mao Zedong, founder of Communist China. Mao’s first act after gaining complete control of China in 1949 was to take away all guns from the population. It was a policy he began in 1935 as he took over each rural province. Anyone found with a gun post-confiscation was executed.

An estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with—by execution, imprisonment, or forced famine.

Mao killed more people than either Stalin or Hitler during World War II. And it all began after he took away the guns.

Dictators throughout much of history have disarmed their populations before they began their mass killings. Examples abound beyond Mao: Hitler took guns from the Jews in November of 1938, and Kristallnacht and the Holocaust followed; and then there was Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to name but a few.

[ … ]

Everybody ought to have a gun, Castro maintained—until he took over Cuba in 1959. At a rally in Havana before he assumed power, he explained: “This is how democracy works: It gives rifles to farmers, to students, to women, to Negroes, to the poor, and to every citizen who is ready to defend a just cause.”

Weapons ranging from Czech submachine guns to Belgian FN automatic rifles were handed out to 50,000 soldiers, 400,000 militiamen, 100,000 members of the factory-guarding popular defense force, and to many men, women, and children in Cuba’s 1 million-strong “neighborhood vigilance committees.”

Immediately after assuming power in 1959, Castro changed his position, following Mao’s rule that guns should not be in the hands of the people.

For three weeks after the Castro government was formed, Radio Havana warned, “All citizens must turn in their combat weapons. Civilians must take arms to police stations, soldiers to military headquarters.”

He did a fairly good job, but of course left out the Armenian genocide, Pol Pot’s reign of terror, Idi Amin’s reign of terror over the Christians in Uganda, Stalin’s starvation of Ukraine, and on and on we could go.

The lessons are universal and repeated throughout history.  Never turn in your firearms.  In 21st century America, you need more care and concern than that.

Home school your children, get off of social media, and be leaders of your family.  Keep your families in tip top working order, and always have plans to set in motion.

Via Ken.

California would be the first state to require gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover the negligent or accidental use of their firearms, if lawmakers approve a measure announced Thursday.

Even idiots know that insurance doesn’t cover intentional tort.  This is simply a way of punishing firearms owners.  They know that.  We know that.  Everyone knows that.

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.