Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

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.

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.