Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Ammoland.

The text of the legislation as introduced in the 115th Congress states that it is unlawful to buy a firearm without a “qualified liability insurance policy” and that it is also illegal to sell to someone without said “qualified liability insurance policy.” Now, the definition the text provides is vague, beyond saying that the policy should provide “liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

It is not an overstatement to say that Second Amendment supporters can figure out just what sorts of mischief can take place. Operation Choke Point is just the start. Given the constant social stigmatization surrounding not just the exercise of Second Amendment rights, but against those who use the First Amendment to advocate in defense of our Second Amendment rights, some insurance agents may not want the business at all. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurance companies won’t engage in a form of “redlining” against certain firearms.

Even if those things don’t happen, the insurance is going to be yet another monthly expense for those exercising our Second Amendment rights. Even then, there would be questions: Would a new gun require an adjustment in the policy? Would rates go up for those with larger collections? The list goes on and on.

If firearms owners could even find companies willing to supply this “liability coverage,” whatever that is.

What I think is that Congress should pass legislation requiring communist insurance coverage before a candidate could file to stand election.

If found to be a communist, the insurance would cover the cost of your trial and imprisonment.

Views from SC.

“When you go to open carry, I think you are creating more problems,” Greenwood Police Chief T.J. Chaudoin said. “I think it would cause too many problems with the general public.”

Chaudoin said having someone walking down the street with 16 guns on their belt could cause people to panic or be afraid.

“This isn’t the wild west where everybody walks around with a gun on their hip,” he said.

Okay, goober.  I think we understand your view.

You haven’t been anywhere open carry is legal, so you think this causes the wild, wild west.  You should travel a little.

You support the second amendment, but not really, and want people to hide their weapons.

You think open carriers are able to carry 16 guns on their hips.  So this is just a joke to you.

A joke, as long as LEOs get to openly carry, because you’re special, and you do live in the wild, wild west.  Unlike “the poors” who cannot be trusted to openly carry like the special ones like you.

You’d fit better in New York.

Take it from pediatricians: open carry gun law will endanger SC children.

Multiple pediatricians, myself included, urged lawmakers to oppose H.3094, citing the wave of gun violence we have seen in our communities, including among our children.

Yet the bill passed easily in a 3-1 vote along party lines and could be approved by the full committee next week.

As a pediatrician, I find the fight against gun violence incredibly frustrating for one simple yet shocking fact: Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in South Carolina and in the United States.

For me, this is not just a statistic. This is a reality that I have experienced throughout my career, and it only seems to be getting worse.

Who you’re calling children are really criminal teenagers, and you know it.

I’ve seen too many children who were innocent bystanders in shootings. Once you’ve cared for a 4-year-old girl who was shot in her own front yard, it’s hard to believe that more visible guns in public places is a good idea.

Because of politicization, this significant threat to children’s lives is not given the attention it deserves.

If this were any other cause — cancer, infection, genetic disease — it would be recognized as the public health threat that it is, and our resources would be focused on a cure. Instead, we find ourselves battling the Legislature on a bill that would allow for guns to be displayed openly in places that are normally safe havens for our children, like our parks, playgrounds and beaches.

H.3094 would be detrimental to the safety of our community, and therefore the safety of our children, for several reasons.

First, research has already shown that a visible gun makes people more aggressive. These findings suggest that simple disagreements would be more likely to turn violent if a gun were involved. An unfortunate example of this occurred this month when an employee at a downtown Charleston bar was shot when a patron became upset over the bar’s earlier closing time due to state-mandated COVID-19 restrictions.

Second, open carry is opposed by law enforcement, including Charleston Police Chief Luther Reynolds, as it makes their job more difficult during active-shooter situations.

Oh, so we’re back to this?  An inanimate object can literally change the heart of mankind.  A steel object can make you more violent.

So here’s what I think, Ms. pediatrician.  “Anything that can be done with an openly carried firearm can be done with a concealed firearm.  It’s an amazing thing that we actually have to cover this ground again, but the fact that someone cannot visually ascertain the presence of a firearm doesn’t mean it’s not there.  Any confusion on this fact points to a second-grader level psychological problem.”

And I think you know it.  Therefore, this is just a ruse with you.  You’re not really anti-open carry.  You’re anti-gun, and that makes you out to be a liar.  You’re using bad statistics, unrelated anecdotes, and your “status” as a pediatrician to infringe on the right of a man to carry weapon in the manner he chooses.

And I think you know that the things you say happen don’t really happen because of open carry, and the fact that 46 other states have open carry proves my point.  Blood doesn’t run in the streets because of open carry.

But again, you know all of this.  You’re outside your lane, and badly so.  I may as well say “Take it from a 180 pound man.”  That makes me as much of an expert as you are.

I’ll file this one under gun control, because until South Carolina passes open carry, I put you in the same category as the controllers in New York.

News from NC.

This year’s version of legislation that would let gun owners with concealed weapons permits bring handguns into religious buildings that also host schools cleared a key Senate committee Tuesday, an early step in the lawmaking process.

Guns are already allowed in houses of worship, provided church, temple, mosque, etc. leadership allow them. But current law forbids guns on school campuses, and religious campuses that have their own private schools qualify as school campuses.

Senate Bill 43 would let people carry concealed on those campuses, outside of school hours only. Some pastors, and a number of Republican legislators, have been pushing the change for years. Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed a broader gun bill last year that included the change.

This year’s bill cleared the Senate Judiciary committee with at least some committee Democrats voting against it. There are several steps left before the bill is finalized.

The awful goober, Governor Roy Cooper, focused his message of a similar bill to be related to the provision for guns in churches attached to church-run schools.  Of course, this is just a stupid excuse since church schools aren’t open during worship services.

So unless the legislature can override another veto, this is wasted time.  Also, if you’re a NC resident and you wait for permission to be able to defend your family during worship, then the worship you offer God ignores His commandments and you need to revisit your commitment to the Almighty.

I have my disagreements with Larry Keane, but this piece at NSSF conveys buried but recently released views by the administration on so-called “smart guns.”

He’s right on one count. As vice president, he did deal with tech leaders to attempt combining authorized-user, or so-called “smart gun” technology into firearms. It didn’t work. It didn’t get to the point where it could even be properly tested.

[ … ]

Early on in the presidential campaign, President Biden claimed, “… we have the capacity now in a James Bond-style to make sure no one can pull a trigger unless their DNA and fingerprint is on it.” That’s some serious science-fiction fantasy technology. It makes for a good movie. In real life, it’s clumsy and failure prone at best and impossible at worst.

The president’s campaign trail claim of DNA-enabled smart guns is completely false. No one has introduced technology that would match a DNA sample to activate a firearm. However, attempts have been made at fingerprint-style authorized user-technology. Think of the way a fingerprint is used to open a smartphone. Now, think of all the times a smartphone won’t open when a fingerprint is applied. A little wet, not the right angle, dirty, God-forbid bloody… all these can cause a failure of the fingerprint lock to not activate the technology.

In a life-or-death situation when an individual is under duress and trying to activate the tool that would save their lives, swiping a fingerprint screen is the last concern. If your iPhone doesn’t open, you’re inconvenienced. If your firearm doesn’t work at the moment you need it you could be dead. That’s why study and survey work on this topic show that reliability is of paramount concern. Because the technology is not yet sufficiently reliable, there is very limited consumer interest in purchasing authorized-user equipped firearms.

[ … ]

Let me be explicitly clear, contrary to the false claims of gun control groups the firearm industry does not oppose the research and potential development of this technology being applied to firearms. Consumers are best left to decide what they want and the free market does a good job of weeding out bad ideas so good ones flourish. What NSSF strongly opposes, however, is the mandate of such technology, like what has recently been proposed by U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.). She introduced H.R. 1008, legislation that would mandate that every gun sold within five years be equipped with the unworkable technology. It goes further. It also would require all legacy firearms be retrofitted within 10 years. That’s sure to go over well with collectors.

Here Larry simply isn’t precise enough.  I would love nothing more than for investors to throw their money away on this only to find out that no one wanted it.

What we must oppose, however, is government (think here taxpayer) sponsored research.  But one of the real reasons for such stuff wasn’t discussed.

A trio of computer scientists from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York recently published research detailing a potential AI intervention for murder: an ethical lockout.

The big idea here is to stop mass shootings and other ethically incorrect uses for firearms through the development of an AI that can recognize intent, judge whether it’s ethical use, and ultimately render a firearm inert if a user tries to ready it for improper fire.

That sounds like a lofty goal, in fact the researchers themselves refer to it as a “blue sky” idea, but the technology to make it possible is already here.

According to the team’s research:

Predictably, some will object as follows: “The concept you introduce is attractive. But unfortunately it’s nothing more than a dream; actually, nothing more than a pipe dream. Is this AI really feasible, science- and engineering-wise?” We answer in the affirmative, confidently.

The research goes on to explain how recent breakthroughs involving long-term studies have lead to th

e development of various AI-powered reasoning systems that could serve to trivialize and implement a fairly simple ethical judgment system for firearms.

This paper doesn’t describe the creation of a smart gun itself, but the potential efficacy of an AI system that can make the same kinds of decisions for firearms users as, for example, cars that can lock out drivers if they can’t pass a breathalyzer.

This just gets better and better.  As I’ve said before, “Perform a fault tree analysis of smart guns.  Use highly respected guidance like the NRC fault tree handbook.

Assess the reliability of one of my semi-automatic handguns as the first state point, and then add smart gun technology to it, and assess it again.  Compare the state points.  Then do that again with a revolver.  Be honest.  Assign a failure probability of greater than zero (0) to the smart technology, because you know that each additional electronic and mechanical component has a failure probability of greater than zero.

Get a PE to seal the work to demonstrate thorough and independent review.  If you can prove that so-called “smart guns” are as reliable as my guns, I’ll pour ketchup on my hard hat, eat it, and post video for everyone to see.  If you lose, you buy me the gun of my choice.  No one will take the challenge because you will lose that challenge.  I’ll win.  Case closed.  End of discussion.”

Now, consider the superimposition of an AI ethical lockout on top of all of the other failure modes introduced by this “technology” (I use the word loosely, because improved technology is something that should make the machine simpler and less prone to failure modes, not more complex and more prone to failure).

Also as I’ve observed, the desire to control others is the signal pathology of the wicked.  In the instance of smart guns, the control is just remote rather than just at the point of purchase.

News from New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire House is considering recommending a constitutional amendment that would prevent future state laws from restricting firearm ownership, one of a series of gun rights bills proposed this year.

The proposal, officially called Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 8 would prevent the Legislature from passing any law “restricting the right to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories.”

But some gun rights groups say that the amendment needs to be workshopped, and could have unintended consequences for firearms use in the state.

New Hampshire’s constitution already contains a version of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which states: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the State.”

This legislation would add two following sentences. “The Legislature shall enact no law that limits the right of a person to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories in any manner that would create a greater burden than that in federal law,” the amendment states. “Any federal law that infringes upon rights guaranteed in this New Hampshire Constitution shall be unenforceable by New Hampshire law enforcement.”

Rep. Terry Roy, the bill’s sponsor, said the amendment was intended to protect firearm rights, and stop the see-sawing of gun legislation between Republican and Democratic legislatures.

“The reason I’m introducing this bill is because I’ve heard from many constituents that they are frankly a little tired of every two years, or four years, or whatever it may be, that power shifts in the State House, and they are concerned about having their rights infringed upon based on whatever political winds are blowing in Concord,” said Roy, a Deerfield Republican.

The constitutional amendment would recognize the federal government’s ability to pass its own firearms restrictions, Roy said, but it would prevent local and state law enforcement from enforcing it. Those new restrictions could only be enforced by federal agents, Roy added.

Roy said he would prefer the amendment to prevent any federal firearms laws from taking jurisdiction, but thought that it wouldn’t be constitutional.

This would be a step in the right direction for New Hampshire, but it doesn’t go far enough.  As for Mr. Roy, he’s kicking the can down the road.  This is all going to come to a head sooner or later, and when it does, the question of constitutionality won’t come up except in law offices here and there.

On the street, the people will demand what they are demanding in other states like Missouri, namely, that state and county LEOs arrest and charge federal agents for enforcing federal gun control laws.

You can run, but you cannot hide.  This is coming, and it’s better to get state legislators on board now with what must be done.

It proceeds apace.  This can be seen in recent movements towards gun control, or away from it.

Consider first the case of Utah.

Friday, February 12^th, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed HB 60 into law … House Bill 60, sponsored by Representative Walt Brooks (R-75), allows a law-abiding adult to carry a concealed firearm in the State of Utah, without first needing to obtain government permission. This ensures that citizens have their right to self-defense without government red tape or delays. Additionally, this legislation maintains the existing Concealed Firearm Permit (CFP) system, so citizens who still wish to obtain a permit may do so.

Next up, consider the cases of Wyoming and Missouri.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 4, 2021) – A bill introduced in the Wyoming Senate would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

A coalition of 19 Republicans and a Libertarian introduced Senate Bill 81 (SF81) on Feb. 3. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

SF81 is similar to a bill moving forward in Missouri.

The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:

• taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
• registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
• any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
• any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

As we’ve noted before, the state must be serious about it, serious enough to dispatch local and state law enforcement to arrest federal agents enforcing federal laws, with provision in the code to prosecute them.

There is also a permitless carry bill before the legislature in Tennessee.  Finally, South Carolina is considering open carry again.  It should be shameful to South Carolinians that the last holdout state on the last vote on dissolution of relations with Britain in the continental congress, their very own state, is also one of the final few states who disallows open carry.

If they’re able to hold the communists in Charleston, Columbia and Greenville in check, they may have a chance.  It’s died in committee before many times, and at least this time it’s getting a hearing.  We’ll see just how serious South Carolina is about driving a stake in the ground and saying, “Here I make my stand.”

Contrast that now with Rhode Island.

In our last email we referenced upcoming bills we knew were coming since some legislators had given us a heads-up. After their release we can confirm they are worse than anyone could have imagined and are, at this point, the most restrictive proposals in the country.

What’s so egregious about these bills? Just a single bill, their so-called high capacity magazine ban, would ban almost every single firearm on the market in addition to the ones you already own. Any magazine with a “removeable floorplate and the ability to be extended” will be illegal. This encompasses all semiautomatic handguns, rifles and some manually operated firearms. No purchasing, transferring nor grandfathering. It would require less effort to list the firearms you CAN own rather than the restrictions themselves.

Additional bills call for the removal of shall-issue gun permitting, a ban on most semi auto rifles and full medical release forms when purchasing a firearm.

And in California they can’t let a session go by without more anti-gun bills.  These are only a few of the examples we could cite.

These actions aren’t by accident, of course.  State and local governments know exactly what’s coming, and the resistance can be organized or chaotic, with bite, or without any, meaningful or meaningless.

Polarization is occurring, the pace has quickened, and the stakes for the future of liberty are very high.  It will all happen on the state and local level.  But make no mistake about it, sides are organizing and preparing the field.

News from Tennessee.

Is anyone surprised that those who risk financial loss (instructors for state-required classes) are opposed to this bill?

Recently introduced.

H.R.825 – To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention.

H.R.880 – To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to remove the exclusion of pistols, revolvers, and other firearms from the definition of consumer product in order to permit the issuance of safety standards for such articles by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

H.R.881 – To require the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service to submit to Congress an annual report on the effects of gun violence on public health.

H.R.882 – To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the sale or other disposition of a firearm to, and the possession, shipment, transportation, or receipt of a firearm by, certain classes of high-risk individuals.

Just in the interest of keeping you posted and properly informed.

Breitbart.

Soldiers were told the list came from the Department of Homeland Security and was an updated list of what federal and local law enforcement need to be “on the lookout for,” according to the source.

Henry “told us that if anyone gets caught wearing, buying, selling, affiliated with in any way, any of those things on those list, that the first thing he’s going to do is chapter us out of the Army. The second thing is, he’s going to handle the investigation by sending it over to the DHS,” the source said. “He didn’t quite outright say that we would be arrested, he used the word ‘detained.’”

Some of the imagery on the slides clearly refer to hate symbols, such as a swastika or other Nazi-related symbols. However, also included is “Pepe the Frog” — an internet meme frequently posted by members of the political right to troll the political left.

[ … ]

More worrying for some soldiers, however, is the list’s inclusion of imagery popular among members of the military long before the racial unrest of the summer of 2020, such as the “Three Percenters” symbol — the Roman numeral III with 13 stars around it.

In fact, until recently, graduates of the SWMG’s Trauma III course had the option to buy a shirt with a Three Percenter logo on the front, the source said.

“Now those shirts, all of them have to be thrown away, and cannot be worn again and they have to change the logo because it’s been associated with these extremist behavior,” the source said.

[ … ]

I was 18 when I got it. It was described to me as the percentage of colonists that rose up against the government of the British … . I was like, ‘Wow, that is such an American sentiment, a patriotic sentiment.’ Coming from a military family, I thought that really spoke to me. I always was proud to be an American. I’m very proud to be an American.

Rohrwasser also had the American flag, “Liberty or Death,” and “Don’t Tread on Me,” tattooed on him, but nevertheless apologized for the Three Percenters tattoo and had it removed.

The slides, which are marked “law enforcement sensitive,” describe the “Three Percenters” as a “North American militia movement/paramilitary-style group with members who adhere to a far-right/libertarian ideology with a primary focus on firearms ownership right and opposition to expansive U.S. federal government authority.

Well, firearms ownership is a right granted by God.  And most people with a brain and a conscience are opposed to totalitarianism.

Good Lord.  He apologized for a tatoo?  He had it removed?  That’s painful and expensive from what I understand.

So I guess we’re left to conclude that the DHS, to whom people with tattoos are to be turned over, think that the war of independence was immoral and would have been in support of continuing to be subjects of the king?

What else could we conclude?

Anyway, hopefully ‘Karen’ feels safer today.  That’s what most important.

Via WiscoDave.