Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

News from South Carolina.

CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCBD) – State lawmakers are considering a new open carry bill that, if approved, would allow guns to be carried inside grocery stores, on the beaches and at public events.

You would also see them in businesses across the state.

Charleston Police Chief Luther Reynolds and the group ‘Arm in Arm’ are working to stop what they call a “dangerous bill.”

“Open carry of handguns where we live, worship and shop is irresponsible and a threat to the safety of our children and families,” said Peter Zalaka with Arm in Arm SC.

The open carry bill is not expected to be up for discussion until lawmakers return in January 2020.

The only danger here is a cop who has no respect for his oath to the constitution.  Peter Zalaka – Arm in Arm with controllers.

Hey Peter, give me a single instance of a state that is in more danger now because they adopted constitutional carry?  Just one.  I can put you in touch with LEOs from Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma if you want.

Hey Peter, one more thing.  I know why you’re really opposed to the bill.  All of those businessmen in Charleston don’t want those awful poor people carrying sidearms openly, do they?  It might affect their hospitality industry income stream.  That would make your reasons disingenuous, and you a liar.

From a reader, news from the viper’s pit.

A new gun control bill calls for banks and credit card companies to track and provide transaction data to the feds on some firearm purchases as a way of tracking people who the government suspects might be planning mass shootings.

Rep. Jennifer Wexton’s (D–Va.) “Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act” would require the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to “request information from financial institutions for the purpose of developing an advisory about the identification and reporting of suspicious activity.” The bill’s aim is to identify a consistent purchasing pattern among people who buy firearms and firearm accessories in order to conduct “lone wolf acts of terror” and expose how the firearms market in the United States is exploited by would-be mass shooters.

“Banks, credit card companies, and retailers have unique insight into the behavior and purchasing patterns that can help identify and prevent mass shootings,” Wexton explained in a statement. “The red flags are there—someone just needs to be paying attention.”

George Orwell’s future is here.  Make a perfectly legal, sensible purchase, get a visit by the FedGov.  This is exactly what they intend.  Folding peaceable men into the dragnet doesn’t worry them, and isn’t a bug.  It’s a feature of the system.

Of course, you can always save cash, or withdraw cash from your checking account.  But you do feel the net getting tighter, yes?

Make your plans for purchases now.  Trump may be hungry enough for the soccer mom vote that he’ll sign anything, including this Orwellian abomination.

Via David Codrea, yes, you read the title line correctly.  Nanny state now wants to intrude into your home.

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.

Lawyers for a Clermont County man arrested in 2018 after he acknowledged having an unloaded shotgun while drunk say the law is unconstitutional when applied to homeowners.

They say a person’s sobriety or intoxication level should have nothing to do with possessing a weapon “in the hearth and home.”

Gun control advocates argue the safety of Ohio residents and responding police officers would be jeopardized if the court overturned the arrest.

A man’s home, where cops shouldn’t be anyway.  Now they want to control your actions inside your own home if you happen to have a gun.

It never stops.  Note.  The controllers never stop.  Compromise has always been a one-way street, because the pathological drive of the controllers is always to seek more control over your lives.

Via reader Fred, this comes from ZeroHedge.

Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow) filed Senate Bill 1081 (SB1081) for introduction in the 2020 legislative session. Under the proposed law, the Oklahoma legislature would “occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation in this state touching in any way federal or state extreme risk protection orders against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this state. “ In effect, only the Oklahoma legislature could pass any type of so-called red-flag law effective in the Sooner State.

The legislation also would declare that any federal red-flag law “which would infringe upon a citizen’s Constitutionally-protected rights including, but not limited to the right to due process, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to free speech, shall be null, void, unenforceable and of no effect in the state of Oklahoma.”

These declarations would have very little effect in practice, but SB1081 includes provisions that would make federal red-flag laws nearly impossible to enforce in Oklahoma. The proposed law would prohibit any  Oklahoma agency or any political subdivision from accepting any federal grants to implement any federal statute, rule or executive order, federal or state judicial order or judicial findings that would have the effect of forcing an extreme risk protection order against or upon a citizen of Oklahoma.

It would also make it a felony offense for any individual, including a law enforcement officer, to enforce a federal red flag law. In effect, this would bar state and local police from enforcing a federal red-flag law.

I applaud the effort.  But more is needed.  Hopefully this will be a model law for other states to follow, at least in the beginning.

The next steps will be a state law which prohibits any agents of the FedGov from enforcing said laws in Oklahoma, punishable by imprisonment.  The legislature must use its powers to prevent the state courts from reviewing constitutionality of the law by state courts (a tool the Congress has against tyrannical power by the supreme court, but has never used).  The law must further stipulate that federal court reviews of this law will not be honored in the state of Oklahoma.

I cannot locate this video anywhere else, and certainly not on YouTube (censors would doubtless remove it).

Reddit/firearms has it.  View the video as long as it’s up.  I recall a sign from a protester saying they needed a second amendment.

Yea, now more than ever.  Sadly, this is likely the last time these people will ever be seen.

Remember this scene.  Train stations.  It’s what totalitarian governments do to troublemakers.

CBS.

Dozens of Colorado sheriffs are ready to defy the law, including Steve Reams of Weld County, which is now a “Second Amendment sanctuary.” He says his first responsibility is to the U.S. Constitution. “There are portions of the law I just flat out can’t and won’t do,” he told Pelley.  “I’ll support the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of the state of Colorado and then, I’ll enforce the laws of the state of Colorado. When those things are in conflict you know you have to decide which one you are going to adhere to,” Reams said.

“When those things are in conflict.”  It sounds as if he understands the true nature of this, his mind is made up, and he’s a patriot.  Let’s see.

Reams acknowledges he could go to jail for defying the law, but if it comes to that he says he would file a lawsuit, “We’ll determine at that point if this Red Flag law is constitutional.”

Not so much, eh?  That’s the trouble with sanctuary cities or counties, state preemption of federal laws, or LEOs who say they won’t enforce unconstitutional laws.  Fulfilling that commitment is a test of character.

State preemption of the FedGov means arresting FedGov agents who attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws, not just refusing to enforce them yourself.  Sanctuary cites and counties must see this as more than a badge, statement protest.

This Sheriff wants to do the right thing, only as long as a black-robed tyrant tells him it’s okay.  His character is only good so far, and then he has to feed his family and stay out of prison.

And thus unconstitutional edicts win.  The way they always have, with tyrants who bully lieutenant tyrants into doing their will.

WVVA.

BECKLEY, W.Va. (WVVA) In the wake of several mass shootings across the U.S., several major retailers have started asking and, in some cases, requiring that customers keep firearms out of their stores.

But do these new policies go far enough to protect the public?

According to W.Va. Del. Brandon Steele, (R) 29th, legislation is needed to hold no-gun zones accountable in the event of a tragedy.

“If you’ve taken away that person’s ability to protect themselves, then it’s incumbent on you to protect them,” explained Del. Steele who is seeking a revision in state code.

While all Americans have the right to bare (sic) arms, Del. Steele said there are key exemptions in the state code that allow for no gun zones. Some examples include school and some businesses.

“You never know what’s going to happen. It’s been proven over and over, most of these shootings occur in no gun zones,” said Tom Acosta in Beckley.

[ … ]

“Look at the shooting in Florida where the officer didn’t go in, the government needs to be liable there. They were supposed to protect the kids,” said Del. Steele. “We’re not saying there should be no gun-free zones, what we’re saying is if you create one, it’s your duty to protect the people inside.”

It would make businesses think more than once about posting “No Firearms” signs on the door, yes?

It probably stands a small chance of passing.

So says the Connecticut Supreme Court.

They don’t really believe that a legitimate manufacturer would market anything “for criminal purposes.”  That’s self defeating, as criminals get caught, thus preventing future sales to said individuals.

That’s just legal-speak for “We don’t like you and want to see you go bankrupt.”

As for where the prog nanny state goes from here, you’ve heard the most concise admission you’ll ever hear from any prog.  They’re smarter than you and want to regulate your morals.  Not the morals of abortionists, but of you.  Morals is decided in the halls of Congress, or in other words, by the deeds of demons, gargoyles and pit vipers.

Go back to your labors, peasants.

Fox News.

In an 8-0 vote Tuesday night, the city council of Tacoma, Wash., approved new taxes on the sales of firearms and ammunition.

When the taxes take effect July 1, 2020, gun buyers will pay a $25 tax on each purchase, plus 2 cents per round on ammunition of .22 caliber or less, and 5 cents per round on all other types of ammunition, the News Tribune of Tacoma reported.

That’s doubtless in addition to the federal, state and county taxes.  This all continues the evolution to make gun owners pariah.

Older white men are the last and only part of the population who can be discriminated against, refused work, and laid off in favor of younger people or people of color.  Ask me how I know that.

And gun owners are the last part of the population who can be discriminated against regarding taxation and commerce.  We all know this without asking.

Statesman.

Ruling that the Trump administration violated U.S. law, a federal judge on Tuesday tossed out an agreement that last year allowed, for a brief time, an Austin company to publish firearm schematics, including how-to files for 3D-printed guns, online.

U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik in Seattle had previously blocked publication of the gun plans after Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, joined by 19 other states, filed a lawsuit challenging a July 2018 administration agreement that allowed Defense Distributed of Austin to publish gun blueprints online.

In voiding that agreement Tuesday, Lasnik said the policy change was not reported to Congress as required by federal law.

The administration also failed to offer any justification for changing a State Department policy that banned the publication of schematics for 3D-printed guns as “a threat to world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States,” the judge said.

“Some of its concerns related specifically to the undetectable nature of a gun made from plastic: because they could slip through conventional security equipment, the State Department feared that they could be used in assassination attempts, hijackings, piracy, and terrorist activities,” Lasnik wrote. “Because the agency action was arbitrary and capricious (in changing the policy without justification), it is unlawful and must be set aside.”

Ferguson said the ruling will improve safety.

“It is baffling that the Trump administration continued to work so hard to allow domestic abusers, felons and terrorists access to untraceable, undetectable 3D-printed guns,” Ferguson said. “Even the president himself said in a tweet that this decision didn’t make any sense — one of the rare instances when I agreed with him. I’m thankful the court agrees, too.”

Chad Flores, a lawyer for Defense Distributed, said the ruling will be appealed.

“The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech from all abridgment — including indirect censorship efforts like this one,” Flores said.

Taking a deep dive into politics, are you judge?  And since we’re so wrapped around the axle on Trump administration illegality, why don’t you toss the bump stock ruling too, since that was law-making bypassing Congress?

Oh, do your political concerns get in the way of that too?