Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Washington Examiner.

Some House Democrats will return early from the summer recess to advance gun control legislation, including a bill banning large ammunition magazines.

The House Judiciary Committee announced a Sept. 4 vote on a group of measures aimed at reducing gun violence.

“For far too long, politicians in Washington have only offered thoughts and prayers in the wake of gun violence tragedies,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said. “Thoughts and prayers have never been enough. To keep our communities safe, we must act.”

The Democratic-led House passed a universal background check bill in February, but the GOP-led Senate has ignored it so far due to a lack of significant Republican support.

House Democrats are nonetheless ready to advance additional gun control measures. Nadler, a Democrat from New York, said he’ll take up a measure that would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines which were used in a string of deadly mass shootings this summer.

The committee will vote to advance the measure on Sept. 4 and plans a Sept. 25 hearing on banning “military-style assault weapons,” Nadler said.

Nadler will also hold a Sept. 4 vote on the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would provide grants to encourage states to impose “red flag” laws allowing law enforcement to remove weapons from people who are deemed dangerous to themselves or others. The panel will also consider a measure that would establish procedures for obtaining extreme risk protection orders in federal court.

Finally, lawmakers will vote to advance the Disarm Hate Act, which would block the sale of guns to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime.

UBC, red flag laws, a new AWB, and gun ban for people who have said the wrong thing over social media.  This is a veritable cornucopia of gun control.

Good.  Let’s see just what everybody does now.  It’s upon us, and will continue to be upon us for years to come.  This will be a good time for flushing the communists out of the closet.

Townhall.

All we ask in exchange for Universal Background Checks is this: Stop collecting data about who’s buying what guns.  It’s like HIPPA privacy for gun owners.  A background check doesn’t require a database on gun owners and serial numbers any more than liquor laws require the government to know how often I buy my preferred spirit.

For ten bucks, any seller could phone in a buyer’s driver’s license number to find out whether the buyer’s prohibited from buying a gun (appallingly, the current check system is off limits to responsible private sellers wishing to conduct a check).  The new system could even be used by anyone to check out a babysitter or contractor.  This system would record only that the ID was checked and issued a confirmation number.   The seller can keep the confirmation as a defense to a false charge of selling to an unqualified buyer.  The system knows only that someone was checked but has no idea if they even bought a gun, let alone what model or serial number.

Stop there, and that’s the compromise we usually get: They get most of what they want, and we get nothing.   So here’s the real compromise: even firearms dealers will no longer have to keep a record (known as Form 4473) of who bought what – those eventually end up in government hands for databasing.  The dealer verifies his customer by ID, (just like a liquor retailer who cards a customer) but gun purchases are private.

Win-win.  We win our tyranny insurance, and they win the public safety they swear is their goal.  But their opposition to this type of genuine compromise belies their true goal of political control that requires their opponents to be disarmed.

Cue the crickets.

It’s difficult to tell from the rest of the commentary whether the author is playing a thought-game or he’s serious that he’d accept UBC with those stipulations.

But don’t speak for me.  I don’t accept UBC under any conditions.  That means any conditions.

Via David Codrea, I already knew this but it bears repeating.

The CFR and other illegal immigration supporting groups have made it clear that open-borders, global and regional governance over America, Amnesty for illegals, and full gun confiscation are their top agenda items.

I’ve told y’all about the CFR before.  Beware an organization like this one.

“The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”

I’ve mentioned the CFR when discussing child trafficking, precious gems, precious metals, oil pipelines, various military contractors, etc.  Members of the CFR include employees at the U.S. Department of State, Saudi oil tycoons, U.S. journalists, high ranking members of the U.S. military or former military (Petraeus, McMaster, etc.), former VPs (Dick Cheney), owners of large businesses in the military industrial complex, and on the list could go.  It’s the closest thing to a public face on the “deep state” as you’ll find.

They all want the same thing for you and yours.

NY Daily News.

An assault weapons ban that Democratic leaders have been reluctant to advance despite strong support among their rank-and-file members in the House just got its first Republican backer — Long Island Rep. Pete King.

You’re a liar, because you want LEOs to have whatever they want.  So you do see a need, not just a need for commoners to have what the rulers have.

Ammoland.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was notifying him that they have suspended his concealed handgun permit.

“On or about August 12th, 2019 in Osceola County, Florida, an injunction was entered restraining you from acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations,” the notice read.

The letter shocked Carpenter, who has never had a run-in with the law.

“When I opened the letter stating my CCW was suspended, I was shocked and confused,” Carpenter told AmmoLand News.

Figuring it was a mistake, Carpenter called the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to clear things up since he has never committed domestic violence against anyone. The representative told him he had to get a form from the Clerk of the Courts saying that there weren’t any actions against him.

Carpenter headed to Clerk of the Court’s office to retrieve the required form. When he got there, the Clerk informed him that there was an injunction against a Jonathan Edward Carpenter.

“What do I have to do to prove that you have the wrong Jonathan Edward Carpenter?” he asked the Clerk.

The Clerk instructed Carpenter to go downstairs to talk to the Osceola County Sheriff’s office to clear things up. Carpenter still figuring that it was just a mistake that the Sheriff’s office could quickly clear up went and spoke with him.

The Sheriff’s office supplied Carpenter with a copy of the injunction. In the statement, the plaintiff stated that she rented a room out to a “Jonathan Edward Carpenter” and his girlfriend. She alleged that this Carpenter was a drug dealer who broke her furniture and sold her belongings without her permission. He had a gun, and she feared for her life. She was not sure if the firearm was legal or not.

Read the rest.  And he still doesn’t have his firearms back.  I know I feel safer today.  Do you?

CNN:

Rex gives them.

CBS News.

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon on Thursday called for a national debate on whether an assault weapons ban that Congress let expire in 2004 would be effective “in keeping weapons made for war out of the hands of mass murderers.”

“In the national conversation around gun safety, we’re encouraged that broad support is emerging to strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger,” he stated. “The reauthorization of the assault weapons ban should be debated to determine its effectiveness in keeping weapons made for war out of the hands of mass murderers.”

David Codrea also saw this today and linked CNN which has essentially the same report. But here’s a warning to CEO McMillon.  We all answer for our decisions, including you.  Remember Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s warnings on gun control.

The Bible does contain a few direct references to weapons control. There were many times throughout Israel’s history that it rebelled against God (in fact, it happened all the time). To mock His people back into submission to His Law, the Lord would often use wicked neighbors to punish Israel’s rebellion. Most notable were the Philistines and the Babylonians. 1 Samuel 13:19-22 relates the story: “Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes, and sickles sharpened…So on the day of battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in this hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.” Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon also removed all of the craftsmen from Israel during the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:14). Both of these administrations were considered exceedingly wicked including their acts of weapons control.

Government interference with free trade – including that of firearms trade – has no place in the Biblical economy.  Your naïve, childish belief in fortune telling and forecasting the future (i.e., guessing who might commit crimes) is called divination, or witchcraft, in the Bible.  God considers it evil.  And a prohibition on the ownership of weapons interferes with the ability to defend hearth and home, which is tantamount to justifying theft and murder.

You’ve apparently “seen the light” on gun control, jumping in with both feet.  But that light you’re seeing might just be the lake of fire.  Be careful for your soul.

Via WiscoDave, William Sullivan writing at American Thinker.

“Machine guns were outlawed because there was no need that justified the risk.  Was that wrong, too?” Cuomo asks.

The short answer is, yes, that was wrong, too — if the Second Amendment is the measure.  And to be clear, the Second Amendment is the only sentence in the Constitution where an individual right to firearms is addressed.

Yet we find several conservatives aligning with Cuomo, in principle, suggesting that automatic weapons, or “machine guns,” have understandably been banned since ancient times (for us), and it was somehow justified as within the government’s right to do so.  For example, Josh Hammer writes at the Daily Wire that, “automatic weapons are already (for all intents and purposes) banned” under the NFA, so new gun control measures on a “cosmetically amorphous” semi-automatic “assault weapons” should not be needed.

That statement not only concedes the left’s position that the federal government had the right to levy such infringements upon the individual right to gun ownership in the first place, but more importantly, it’s not entirely accurate.

I’ll assume that Hammer knows his history, and that by “all intents and purposes,” he means that the NFA made it nearly impossible for the common law-abiding citizen to attain an automatic weapon only because the cost was prohibitive for most common Americans due to the heavy tax laid upon the purchase of one.  It was egregious for the federal government to craft such a law, but perhaps the more important distinction is that there was no federal law suggesting that an American citizen couldn’t legally own a properly registered and purchased “machine gun” for more than 50 years after the NFA was passed, because it was clearly understood that a federal “ban” on such weapons was an infringement upon law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment right.

In truth, automatic weapons were not actually “banned” in this country until 1986.  It wasn’t until the farcical passage of the Hughes Amendment as an addendum to the National Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 that ownership of any such firearm was truly “banned” by the federal government.

If you ever imagined that our elected betters are actively working toward the preservation of our constitutionally protected rights, watch this video of Charlie Rangel leading the House in a “voice vote” to allow the Hughes Amendment, and allowing only two minutes of raucous “deliberation.”  It is among the lowest and most ridiculous moments in the history of our American Congress — and that’s saying something.

It has been reported that President Reagan considered vetoing the FOPA due to the inclusion of the Hughes Amendment, but was convinced by the NRA to not do so, believing that the “Supreme Court would throw that measure out as unconstitutional,” thereby “correcting the defect in new law.”  That challenge to the unlawful “machine gun ban” never came.  And now, thirty-three years later, nothing could be more natural than Americans assuming that the federal government somehow has the right to ban whatever weapons it can successfully ban, even if it does so via legislative subterfuge.

If the “slippery slope” idiom ever has a meaningful application, this might be a good example of it.

In the end, it took 146 years of American history for the government to even make a sweeping effort toward a federal gun law restricting firearms among the law-abiding populace.  It took sly maneuvering to enact the first federal gun control, achieved only under the auspices of the government’s “right to tax” firearms, and an ensuing fifty years of the government purposely avoiding the notion of that government could “ban” any firearm (for fear of running afoul of the Second Amendment), before a Congressional circus in 1986 finally presumed that the government could actually “ban” automatic weapons.

Slippery slope indeed.  And this is why so many gun owners won’t budge any more.  Budging and compromising is what got us where we are today, with the expectation that Congress will only make more laws infringing on God-given rights, that they have a right and warrant to do that, and that the only recourse is to compromise and hold on to what little we can.

No more.

Fox News.

 WSJ: “Amid the increased discussion about gun control, some Trump advisers have urged the president not to throw his support behind any of the gun-control measures being discussed in Congress, including so-called red-flag legislation introduced by top Trump ally Sen. Lindsay Graham (R., S.C.), which aims at temporarily blocking dangerous people from accessing firearms. Some advisers have expressed concern that such legislation could violate the Second Amendment and alienate conservative voters. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son who often speaks with his father about his views on gun laws, has raised concerns about both red-flag legislation and about tightening background checks, according to people familiar with the matter.”

Prediction: Orange Man won’t listen to him.