Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

The Washington Post Editorial Board.

It would be too laborious to fisk this completely, but let’s make a few important points.

First, notice the literary device right out of the gate.  Vigilantism = Rugged American Individualism, or at least it conjures that image.  They could have said that hard work and self reliance = rugged American individualism, or that a free market economy conjures images of rugged American individualism.

But they didn’t.  They equated rugged American individualism with vigilantism.  This is no mistake, for they like neither one.  The inside-the-beltway culture holds the collectivist value system in high regard.  It takes a village, you know.

Next up, they equate the offended with hunters whose way of life may be threatened.  Nonsense, say they.  Only this isn’t really what’s happening.  Hunters, many of them, still use bolt action rifles, and during black powder season they won’t even use centerfire cartridges.  Prior to that, it’ll be bow season, and the Eastern states still have an awful lot of bow hunters.

They alleged, if you read carefully, that some ne’er-do-wells are agitating this on.  It’s not the hunters who are to blame for this, it’s some careful political craft that hopes to make hay of the situation.  Except it’s not true.  To the collectivist mind, the peasants need leadership, and most often, the media elites see themselves as leaders, perhaps right right up there with elected officials.  If the peasants are revolting, it must be because of a peasant leader who’s agitating them on, perhaps even lying to them.  The real reason the peasants are showing up en masse is because someone has lit a fire, not because of anything they really believe.

This is delusionary.  The editorial board knows this and is whistling through the graveyard, or they don’t know this and are oblivious to the civil war they are about to foment.  This is the same mistake the collectivists make when they blame Trump for political polarization.  Trump, as I’ve said before, is a symptom of the problem, not the problem.  Trump didn’t cause polarization.  Trump was elected because America is already polarized.  For most gun rights folks, Trump is seen as a traitor, and his mistake is not being true to the constitution (bump stock ban, support for red flag laws, etc.).  It would come as a shock to the media elites that there are actually people in America who see things the way my readers do, far to the right of Donald Trump.  Flyover country is the “land out there,” not something they actually visit.

But most Americans don’t need leadership, and don’t vote the way they do, or own guns, or make any other decision, because a “leader” says this or says that.  Rugged American individualism doesn’t have the peasant / leader division.

Next up we have the reflexive defense of “red flag” laws.  That social media is planning to roll political beliefs into FedGov background information they either don’t care about or don’t know.  And the notion that an angry spouse can flag another spouse and have firearms confiscated by police (which we have seen before over these very pages), all without due process, they either don’t know about or don’t care.  They don’t know about any of this because they are the ones who look to leaders to tell them what to think, or they don’t care because what’s a few broken eggs for the sake of “community security?”  All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

And since I’ve given myself this segue, I would hazard to guess that most gun owners in Virginia would give up their bolt action deer hunting rifles before they would give up their AR-15s.  The ultimate threat against which arms are necessary is the state itself, not a deer or feral hog.  Gun owners aren’t revolting because they are afraid they won’t be able to take a deer this season.  Gun-free counties have a horrible record on liberties, a fact of history that probably doesn’t interest the editorial board of The Washington Post.

Finally, while unstated (or perhaps understated), notice the worship of the back-robed tyrants.  While it would be obscene to the board to deprive someone of life and liberty by, let’s imagine, executing someone named David on every other Friday for the purpose of bread and circuses, it’s not obscene at all to the board to murder 60 million unborn infants, or to throw a Sheriff in prison because he refuses to violate his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.

Because judges.  Statists have no higher law than judges who can say with a straight face that the law doesn’t really say what it most obviously does say.  It’s a priesthood of the highest order, those men and women who can absolve every sin, dictate imprisonment, and tell you the difference between right and wrong.

And thus, I suspect most Virginians won’t ever give up their AR-15s.  At least they didn’t comply in Connecticut and New York (with AR-15 and magazine bans), and so it isn’t clear what sort of mental gymnastics would make the editorial board believe that folks in Abingdon, Damascus, or Franklin County would comply with any new firearms laws.

If they believe that, they need to visit those places and ask some “peasants.”

Guns America.

Virginia gun owners have gathered by the hundreds at Board of Supervisors meetings in counties across the state to send a message to the newly elected Democratic legislature in Richmond.

As of this writing, 23 counties and towns have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries since Michael Bloomberg flipped the state legislature from red to blue earlier this month. Second Amendment sanctuaries exist in many states across the country, but no state has seen so many in such a short span of time.

“It’s sending a message to Richmond saying we don’t want any more gun control out here,” Philip Van Cleave told GunsAmerica. Van Cleave is the President of the gun-rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League, which has been fighting for Second Amendment rights in Virginia since 1994, when they helped turned the state from may-issue to shall-issue.

Van Cleave has been active in the gun rights movement in Virginia for over 20 years, and he says he’s never seen anything like this.

“Nothing even touches the activity in Virginia right now. A lot of gun owners were sleeping, but now they’ve woke the sleeping giant. All these gun owners that have been sound asleep have suddenly woken up.”

The numbers don’t lie. Of Virginia’s 133 counties and independent towns, 23 have already declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, and another 53 are considering the measure.

“There are more coming,” Van Cleave predicted. “That number’s going to jump quite a bit.”

County Board of Supervisor meetings are literally overflowing with gun owners hoping to send a message to Richmond.

One thousand people showed up at a Board of Supervisors meeting in Shenandoah County, for example, and 700 people attended a meeting in Washington County. The meetings in Amherst and Amelia counties were standing-room-only with crowds flooding the hallways and the front laws.

On a larger scale, gun owners—when they show up—represent a massive voting block in state elections. Van Cleave pointed out that in a state of 8 million people, there are 2 million gun owners and 600,000 hold concealed carry permits.

Van Cleave admitted that when a county declares itself a Second Amendment sanctuary, the gesture is mostly symbolic from a legal standpoint. While all county employees, including any police force, are bound by the resolution, sheriffs and county attorneys are independently elected in Virginia.

But Van Cleave also pointed out that many sheriffs follow the county’s lead, and many others have independently vowed not to enforce new gun control.

It’s a bit late in the game to be waking up when the collectivists have been active for a hundred years.

As for the allegedly symbolic nature of the resolutions, it will be symbolic until the hard times come.  When the state threatens to arrest county employees for refusal to implement whatever new laws they make, we’ll see where this all goes.

Either it’s a protest vote today and evaporates tomorrow, or real men and women go to prison when counties arrest state police for enforcing these new laws.  There are hard decisions coming for everyone.  And since the Sheriff and county attorneys are elected, the political work is just beginning.

There is a lot of catching up to do.

David Codrea.

Furthermore, by withholding the names of the companies, important information is being withheld from citizens who it appears are at legal risk. I hope your office can see that if the intent is to establish compliance with the law, decisions made by those citizens should be informed. I maintain that it is in the public interest to make that information known, and that should take precedence over the reportedly stated intent of AG James not to “direct business” to companies engaging in business that is lawful in other jurisdictions.

I think it would make it a good day to be able to reward those companies, and to piss off the AG of New York.

NCRenegade.

You need to check out the laws that they intend to pass once this new congress is sworn in January in Virginia. I’ll provide the link here….

Basically I will be breaking the law if I transport my rifles to my cabin when I go. My neighbors, what few I have near my cabin, are arming up and buying magazines, ammo, anything they can get their hands on. Now these folks are well armed already but they are stocking up. They have no intention of turning anything in and are willing to fight for their right to bear arms.

Since NCRenegade is a trusted source of information, I consider this to be a good sitrep on the state of thinking of at least some Virginians.  I think this modest conclusion would meet the requirements of good intel?

American Military News.

Virginia lawmakers are now considering a state law banning the ownership of certain semi-automatic guns deemed “assault firearms” and limiting the magazine capacity of other firearms in the state — and there are no clauses that would allow existing owners to continue possessing them.

Virginia state Sen. Richard Saslaw introduced SB16, which would expand the definition of an “assault firearm” to cover many different semi-automatic rifles and pistols. The bill would call for the ban of such firearms, barring people from purchasing, possessing, selling or transferring those weapons.

Among the changes in firearm definitions, the bill would expand the term “assault firearm” to include semi-automatic centerfire rifles and pistols with a fixed magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds. The bill would also ban semi-automatic rifles and pistols with detachable magazines that also have folding and telescoping stocks, barrel shrouds, and thumbhole grips and second hand grips.

Rifles, under the new bill, would not be allowed pistol grips, bayonet mounts, grenade or flare launchers, silencers, muzzle breaks and flash suppressors.

Virginians would not be allowed pistols that accept the magazine into the weapon at any other point than the pistol grip. Pistols would also have an unloaded weight limit of 50 ounces.

The bill also limits shotguns to a magazine capacity of no more than seven shells.

“The provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment,” the bill says, indicating increased imprisonments as one likely outcome of its passage.

Virginians will likely have to make hard decisions soon on their firearms, as well as declared “sanctuary” counties and their associated CLEOs and deputies.

Virginia Senate Bill No. 64.

SENATE BILL NO. 64Offered January 8, 2020Prefiled November 21, 2019A BILL to amend and reenact § 18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to paramilitary activities; penalty.

———-Patron– Lucas———-Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice———-Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 18.2-433.2. Paramilitary activity prohibited; penalty.

A person shall be is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof.

2. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities; therefore, Chapter 854 of the Acts of Assembly of 2019 requires the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission to assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.

This is a remarkable development.  One refreshing thing is that the masks have all come off now.  With control of the Senate, House and Governor’s mansion, the controllers want you to know where they stand and are willing to say so out loud and in the clearest possible terms.

Leaving aside the issue of whether one could ever demonstrate intent behind either the delivery or receiving of tactical training, what they really intend is to render illegal any training that involves CQB, small unit fire and maneuver tactics, or any combination of training in long range precision shooting, discrete communications, or battle tactics, techniques and procedures.  Only LEOs can have such training.

The truly remarkable thing is the stated reason: ” … intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.”  That the American fathers did that very thing and gave us separation from King George isn’t missed on them.  They don’t need more education – it’s their knowledge of history and human nature that has brought us to this point.  This is essentially their way of saying that any chance of separation is now gone, given that they have the reigns of power.

It’s appropriate at this point to rehearse the views of the founders and the citizens at the time of the war of independence.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

That was long but necessary reading.  Apparently Virginia has become the battleground du jour for the controllers.  They may be in for something a bit different than what they had bargained for.

The Western Journal.

An incident in New Jersey is testing just how far red flag laws can be pushed, and the results aren’t pretty.

The gun seizure comes as part of a heated court case between Alfred Conti and his former physician, Dr. Matthew Kaufman. The defamation lawsuit revolves around negative reviews left by Conti.

Months after the suit was opened, police stripped Conti of firearms and ammunition on Sept. 25.

The firearm seizure was put into action thanks to a red flag complaint made by Kaufman and his lawyer, the Asbury Park Press reported.

Before his guns were taken, it seems Conti was just intent on receiving treatment. Hurting from an apparent failed surgery, Conti was first kicked out of the clinic where Kaufman practiced, allegedly due to his aggressive behavior with staff.

Shortly after, Conti would write the negative reviews that sparked the entire lawsuit.

A month later, Conti called Kaufman’s lawyer several times, asking for the doctor to see him again in an attempt to end his pain. In one call played to the court, the injured man used vulgar language and threatened to bring the authorities into the matter.

Conti’s error appears to be in mentioning he knew where both Kaufman and the doctor’s lawyer lived in one of the calls.

However, both sides agreed that it doesn’t appear any threat was made.

Despite this, police acted on the red flag complaint and seized multiple pistols, a rifle and ammunition from Conti. According to police, the injured man cooperated peacefully as authorities disarmed him.

As red flag laws go on the books in more locations, cases like this that sit squarely in a gray area are virtually guaranteed to keep happening.

Although there needs to be an instrument of law to disarm people threatening violence, the real question is where the line should be drawn.

I go back to David Codrea’s dictum.  Any man who can’t be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without a custodian.  And frankly, I don’t believe in imprisonment anyway because it’s unbiblical.  The Scriptures favor retribution and restitution, and thus I believe in slavery when the crime of theft has been committed, and execution when murder, rape or kidnapping has been committed.  There is no such thing as a crime against the state, there are only crimes against individuals.  The best way to repay damages for theft is that the thief becomes a slave until the debt is paid.  So let me say it again.  I believe in slavery.  So does the bible.

But back to the point.  Guns are the least of the problems if the man is really intent on doing harm.  He could just go down to his local Lowe’s and buy fertilizer, or easier, a few cans of gasoline.

I prefer to sentence people for crimes when crimes are actually committed rather than relying on witchcraft to determine the future.  I don’t gamble, I don’t buy lottery tickets, and I don’t believe in witchcraft.

This came from reddit/firearms.  But the sources are mine.

Before.

Bolivia has enacted its first firearms legislation, which may be unlikely to have a dramatic impact on the country’s already low murder rate, but will at least provide the state with the tools to tackle arms trafficking.

Laying out strict limitations on who can own a weapon, the Firearms, Munitions, Explosives and Other Materials Control Law was passed on September 18 — four years after it was first proposed in 2009 — reported El Diario.

The legislation sets a six month period for current gun owners to register or turn in weapons before becoming subject to a maximum six year sentence for ownership or five year sentence for carrying an illegal weapon, with longer sentences for military-grade weapons, reported Los Tiempos. It also establishes a maximum 30 year sentence for any member of the security forces caught trafficking arms.

As well as regulating arms, the law allows for the production of “any kind” of weapon at the request of the armed forces or police, pending approval from the interior and defense ministries, reported La Razon.

After.

I am writing from Bolivia just days after witnessing the November 19 military massacre at the Senkata gas plant in the indigenous city of El Alto, and the tear-gassing of a peaceful funeral procession on November 21 to commemorate the dead. These are examples, unfortunately, of the modus operandi of the de facto government that seized control in the coup that forced the recently re-elected president Evo Morales out of power.

The coup has spawned massive protests, with blockades set up around the country as part of a national strike calling for the resignation of this new government. One well-organized blockade is in El Alto, where residents set up barriers surrounding the Senkata gas plant, stopping tankers from leaving the plant and cutting off La Paz’s main source of gasoline.

Determined to break the blockade, the government sent in helicopters, tanks, and heavily armed soldiers in the evening of November 18. The next day, mayhem broke out when the soldiers began tear-gassing residents, then shooting into the crowd.

I arrived just after the shooting. The furious residents took me to local clinics where the wounded were taken. I saw the doctors and nurses desperately trying to save lives, carrying out emergency surgeries in difficult conditions with a shortage of medical equipment. I saw five dead bodies and dozens of people with bullet wounds. Some had just been walking to work when they were struck by bullets.

A grieving mother whose son was shot cried out between sobs: “They’re killing us like dogs.” In the end, there were 8 confirmed dead.

The next day, a local church became an improvised morgue, with the dead bodies — some still dripping blood — lined up in pews and doctors performing autopsies.

You hate to see more examples of what history has already taught us, but those who refuse to learn the lessons of history suffer for their refusal.

News from Baltimore.

BALTIMORE (WBFF) – Baltimore City Solicitor Andre Davis said the city will consider suing gun manufacturers if lawsuits related to the Sandy Hook shooting are successful.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled Sandy Hook families can pursue legal action against Remington Arms.

Councilman Zeke Cohen brought up the matter at Tuesday’s city council hearing asking Davis what the city is doing to hold gun manufacturers accountable now.

Solicitor Davis told Cohen every city in America is monitoring what’s happening with the Sandy Hook lawsuits.

Davis said if they are able to succeed in their cases, Baltimore will then considering holding gun manufacturers responsible.

“America would be tremendously served if the courts could find a way to say to the gun manufacturers, ‘You do have some responsibility here,’ so we are very definitely monitoring it,” he said.

Former Baltimore City Police Commissioner Ed Norris says it’s civil remedy to a criminal problem that won’t solve anything.

“So you sue a gun company, and you win hypothetically, what has that done for the city of Baltimore? How have we improved? Are fewer people going to die? No. What is the point of this exercise? I just don’t get it,” he said.

Forget for a moment what a travesty of justice something like this is.  The point is that the Supreme Court refusal to shut down the Sandy Hook lawsuits may open the flood gate to lawsuits against every manufacturer in America, leading eventually to their bankruptcy.

Their goal, of course, is to do exactly that, with a few notables surviving for supply to law enforcement.  They shouldn’t be indemnified for their malfeasance, but this doctrine is so ensconced in the American “justice” system that the firearms manufacturers will be protected when cops shoot innocent people, just not when anyone else does it.

When the government kills someone, it’s called war.  If you do it, it’s called murder.  If a cop shoots an innocent person, it’s called the “thin blue line,” “serving and protecting,” and other claptrap.  If you do it you go to prison.

David Codrea.

“The Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments in February to decide whether a law prohibiting gun owners from carrying firearms while intoxicated should be applied inside a gun owner’s home,” the Associated Press reported Saturday. Seeing an opportunity for a new and intrusive way to catch more gun owners in the disarmament net, the gun-grabbers are arguing that upholding an arrest is necessary for “the safety of Ohio residents and responding police officers.”

That dovetails nicely (for them) with an overall strategy to disarm citizens convicted of driving under the influence. And it moves things from the public setting right into the home, which is where the long game goal has always been.

My former professor, Dr. C. Gregg Singer, used to point out that the temperance movement was a manifestation of the social gospel, which itself was social Darwinism, or further back, followed Hegel (German synthesis/antithesis and evolutionary philosophy).  Guns are the new alcohol.  Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine for the sake of his infirmities.  But “wine is a mocker.”  It depends on the person.  Guns protect the lives of the innocent, but kill the innocent, depending upon their use.  It’s the person behind the trigger, just as it is the person holding the glass.

It’s the same thing with Pete’s abject failure at understanding anything to do with Christian theology when he connects the Christian faith to a “world without weapons.”  In Pete’s world, no one really needs God, they just need themselves with good leaders, good as defined by Pete and his ilk.  The world isn’t really fallen, we just all need the Bohemian, peacenik, flowerchild Jesus as our example and the world will be a better place.  And little children love puppies, fluffy blankets and unicorns flying over rainbows.

There is nothing new under the sun.  Mankind tried this at the tower of Babel.  God knocked it down.  End of story.  Man cannot work his way to perfection, he has to believe in his heart and confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and that he can’t do nothing to save himself.  That’s the scandal of the gospel, and the reason so many men oppose it.

Opposition to the gospel is never an epistemological and philosophical problem.  It always has ethical roots.  Pete’s chosen lifestyle is evidence of his high-handed sin against the Almighty.

Gun control is just another tower of Babel, but I do find it ironic that this latest manifestation includes alcohol.  How appropriate.