Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

While he makes an error at the first of the video concerning the number of gun owners (and near the last of the video as well), and while what he is proposing will happen does indeed violate God-given and constitutional rights, regardless of the notion of self incrimination, I think what he says is VERY important.

He highlights the connectedness of the world today, the ubiquitous nature of the internet-of-things, and the threat that poses.  It’s worth watching all the way through.

As always provide your thoughts in comments.

Amy Howe:

Earlier this month, New York City sent a letter to Scott Harris, the clerk of the Supreme Court, to inform the justices that a challenge to the city’s ban on transporting guns outside the city limits is moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. The Supreme Court did not accept the letter, perhaps because the challengers in the case objected. The challengers argued (among other things) that the letter was “premature” because the developments that the city cited as rendering the case moot had not yet gone into effect. With changes to both state and city laws now in place, the city returned to the court today, urging the justices to remove the case from their docket for the upcoming term.

Changes to the city’s rules, the city explained, will allow licensed gun owners to transport their guns to, among other places, second homes and shooting ranges outside New York City. Those rules went into effect on July 21. And on July 16, the city continued, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that changes state laws to allow licensed gun owners to transport their handguns to other places – again, such as second homes, shooting ranges and shooting competitions – where they are legally allowed to have them.

These developments, the city told the court again today, mean that the case is moot. The challengers, the city reasoned, had asked only for the “modest ability to transport their licensed firearms, unloaded and locked away separate from ammunition, to a shooting range or second home outside city limits” – which they now are able to do, the city stressed. The case should therefore be dismissed as moot or, at the very least, be sent back for the lower courts to decide whether it is moot.

I’m not sure I completely understand this.  Amy’s publication date for this post is July 22, the same evening I’m writing this.

We’ve already covered the NYC argument to the Supreme Court, as well as the response letter by Paul Clement.  Is there yet another letter from NYC to the Supreme Court after Clement’s response, and if so, it doesn’t seem to be linked at Amy’s place?

At any rate, if I interpret this correctly, NYC just won’t give up making stupid arguments.  Quite obviously, they’re afraid of what comes next.

Via David Codrea, this decision.

The Supreme Court has been careful to note that “longstanding prohibitions” like “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” remain “presumptively lawful.” Heller I, 554 U.S. at 626, 627 n.26…. [T]he same security interests which permit regulation of firearms “in” government buildings permit regulation of firearms on the property surrounding those buildings as well…

Second, the lot is close to the Capitol and legislative office buildings. Class possessed a firearm less than 1,000 feet away from the entrance to the Capitol, and a block away from the Rayburn House Office Building. Although there is surely some outer bound on the distance Congress could extend the area of protection around the Capitol without raising Second Amendment concerns, Congress has not exceeded it here.

Finally, as the owner of the Maryland Avenue lot, the government—like private property owners—has the power to regulate conduct on its property. See [Adderley] v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47 (1966) (observing in the free-speech context that the government, “no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated”); cf. Bonidy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 790 F.3d 1121, 1126 (10th Cir. 2015) (observing that when the U.S. Postal Service acts “as a proprietor rather than as a sovereign, [it] has broad discretion to govern its business operations according to the rules it deems appropriate”).

There are no interests in the regulation of firearms in government buildings or “sensitive” places.  That’s a figment of the imagination.  Criminals don’t obey the law, so a regulation won’t be enough to stop someone bent on evil.  Anyone intent on violating the prohibition on murder will gladly violate a prohibition on firearms possession.

So the first two paragraphs are pure mythology.  As for the third paragraph, I find myself in agreement.  Property rights supersede the RKBA on private property unless the government forces our presence on that private property.  For patrons of that parking deck, they should find another place to park.

EDIT: I see that by posting late and mis-reading the text I feel into their trap.  I still support property rights above everything, but in fact the FedGov does not have property rights.  They shouldn’t even own property.  My initial reading of the text indicated to me that a private corporation owned the parking deck.  That isn’t the case.

David Codrea:

Speaking of which, of the “21,000 children” they say “died from guns” [!] we find “There were 14,583 deaths for 18-21-year-olds…”

Good grief, we’re talking gang-bangers here. At least that puts to the lie any notion that “background checks” will be “universal.” We’re also talking legal adults, pediatrics childcare admissions criteria notwithstanding. We’re talking people old enough to vote, to marry, to serve in the military and on many police forces.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military is considering lowering the recruitment age to sixteen.  A “child” to the controllers as they argue for more control, and an adult [or whatever, it doesn’t really matter] to the controllers as they try to find people to fight their wars.

It’s almost like they just make up the rules as they go to suit them.  Whatever the case, they must maintain the monopoly on violence at all costs.

NYT:

WELLINGTON, New Zealand — More than 150 gun owners turned in semiautomatic weapons and gun parts to the police in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Saturday, the first day of nationwide gun buyback events after the government banned most such firearms in the wake of a terrorist attack on mosques in the city.

Mike Johnson, the commander of the district’s police department, told reporters that gun owners would be paid a total of close to $300,000 for the 224 now-illegal weapons handed over during the five-hour event.

[ … ]

“They were surprised that they were not able to leave with their firearms when they heard the prices and were not happy with them,” she said.

The most amusing thing about this is that it is reported as a success, but it involved only a few hundred gun owners.  What do you reckon word of pissed off gun owners will do to the coming swarms of people ready to turn in guns?  In related news, changes have come to New Zealand.  A national Islamic call to prayer was issued back in March.

What?  They couldn’t trust the government?

Resolve never to be disarmed.

Prince Law.

Late yesterday, I received an email from an individual containing a letter from ATF which was a response to a correspondence requesting the correct method to “measure a firearm with a ‘stabilizing brace’ and folding adaptor.” It was explained that the correspondence was sent in the form of an email over a year ago and that the person had received a response via email shortly after it was sent. This letter was unsolicited and came over a year after the original request and response.

[ … ]

Based on the letter, ATF is taking the position that because a stabilizing brace is not an integral part of the firearm, it is not relevant to the overall length measurement. Why does this matter? A number of individuals have been building AR pistols or other similar pistols that have utilized a stabilizing brace. Some have opted to add a vertical foregrip. However, based on this interpretation, those people may find that they have manufactured an “AOW”, which is subject to the restrictions of the National Firearms Act (“NFA”).

[ … ]

ATF has taken the position that once a vertical foregrip has been added to a firearm, it is no longer designed to be fired when held in one hand, removing it from the definition of a pistol, even though ATF previously lost this argument before the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Fix, 4 Fed. Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2001).

Further, ATF has consistently held that the overall length of 26 inches is the breaking point for concealability. Put another way, if the firearm has an overall length of less than 26 inches, it places it into a category of arms that could be considered to be regulated by the NFA depending on their other characteristics. If it has an overall length greater than 26 inches, it could remove it from those class of firearms, again, depending on their characteristics.

Law-making by memorandum.  Any time you change your mind, just write a new note.

Related.

Daily Caller:

The Supreme Court should dismiss a challenge to New York City’s gun transportation ban because a new ordinance will moot the case, city lawyers told the justices Wednesday.

The ordinance and a newly enacted state law will give the plaintiffs who challenged the transportation ban everything they have sought in court, making dismissal the appropriate course, city lawyers wrote in a letter to the high court.

The new city regulation gives petitioners everything they have sought in this lawsuit,” assistant corporation counsel Richard Dearing wrote. “The new state law, upon signature by the governor, will make the case doubly moot.”

If the case is not dismissed, the city will continue arguing the dispute is moot in a legal brief due Aug. 5. They will not address the merits of the controversy, Dearing wrote.

If, however, this Court prefers to allow briefing (and potentially oral argument) to play out, respondents will file a brief on the designated due date maintaining in greater detail that the case is moot,” the letter reads.

Respondents do not intend to address whether the Constitution entitles petitioners (or any other residents of New York City with premises licenses) to transport their handguns from their homes in the city to second homes, or to firing ranges or shooting competitions beyond municipal borders, where they have a legal right to possess them. Respondents no longer have any stake in that legal question,” it adds.

It’s men like this who give other lawyers a bad name and reputation.

Essentially, they have presumed to boss the Supreme Court around, and told them that the case should be dismissed because it is moot, but if the case isn’t dismissed, they’ll just argue extensively in front of the court, attempting to embarrass everyone there, that the case is moot.

Not only that, they’ve conceded absolutely nothing, except what the petitioners ask for.  They didn’t concede that the constitution has any bearing on this, and they won’t argue the case on those merits.

Take note of the legal tricks and shenanigans here.  If the Supreme Court decides that the constitution does have bearing, and that they do in fact have a right under the constitution to what they asked for in their petition, New York lawyers can respond by saying that the Supreme Court case is and was un-argued.  The Supreme Court decided something that wasn’t asked, something the SCOTUS really doesn’t like to do.  Now, the court can do just that, but my bet is that they won’t, not with Roberts at the helm.

They’re taking their ball and going home because they’re bitches.

The giddy celebrations of the American left over the wonderful New Zealand law seem to have subsided, and you don’t hear much about it any more.

It was one of the defining moments as New Zealand grieved after a pair of deadly mosque attacks: a near-unanimous parliamentary vote in April to ban assault-style rifles and similar weapons.

The lawmakers’ move was immediately acclaimed by gun-control advocates worldwide as an example of decisive collective action in a nation unified in horror by the March 15 assaults in Christchurch that left 51 people dead.

Then the momentum began to slow.

Growing opposition from New Zealand’s pro-gun groups has complicated efforts to round up the now-banned firearms under a buyback program. Lawsuits are threatened.

Gun-control advocates argue that compensation rates may not be fair and warn of a possible spike in black-market sales.

The government, meanwhile, is faced with a sobering set of challenges over how to enforce the new law.

There is no national registry for many of the weapons targeted by the ban, including the AR-15 – a semiautomatic rifle that has been used in mass shootings in the United States and is often at the center of American gun-control debates.

As a result, estimates of the numbers of newly banned weapons vary widely. So far, about 700 firearms have been voluntarily surrendered.

Authorities are “operating a little bit in the dark,” said Joe Green, gun-safety specialist and former arms control manager for the New Zealand Police.

[ … ]

Stuart Nash, the minister for police, announced last week that nearly 200 collection events would take place over the next three months in community hubs, including in some of the country’s largest sports stadiums.

“We urge people to stay calm,” Mike Clement, New Zealand Police’s deputy commissioner of national operations, told The Washington Post.

“We acknowledge that you’re a law-abiding citizen and through no fault of your own you now find yourself in possession of firearms that are now illegal,” he said, but he noted that once the amnesty period expires, there is no excuse for holding on to weapons.

[ … ]

But Yasbek pointed out that some of the banned weapons, including AR-15 rifles, fall into Category “A” in the New Zealand licensing system, which means they were not required to be registered in police databases and as such will be impossible to trace.

“These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence,” she said. “These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”

That’ll do it.  Call them “criminals.”  That’ll make them turn in the guns.  I’m sure their feelings will be hurt by the indictment.

On the other hand, if you declare them all criminals, what have they got left to lose?  Why not convert them all to fully automatic?  If they’re going to traffic in the black market now, what’s to stop them from acquiring more powerful weaponry?

That may be a less than fortuitous turn of events for the New Zealand police, yes?  Too bad.  Should have thought about that beforehand.

American Suppressor Association:

Last week, Rep. Jennifer Wexton (VA-10) introduced H.R. 3404, the Empowering Law Enforcement for Safer Firearm Transfers Act. Her bill, the text of which was published today, would give Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEO) 90 days to assert uninhibited veto power over NFA applications. The American Suppressor Association is opposed to this unconstitutional attempt to create a local veto provision in the NFA process.

As drafted, local law enforcement would have absolute discretion to deny any applicant the right to acquire NFA items. The bill, which has intentionally vague standards, would unlawfully extend judicial powers to local law enforcement, allowing them to summarily deny the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who have committed no crime.

Prior to the enactment of ATF 41F in July 2016, individual applicants were required to obtain a CLEO signature before submitting their Form 4. In many jurisdictions this amounted to a de facto ban on NFA ownership, as CLEOs could refuse to sign the application for any reason. Recognizing the overstep, the Obama administration eliminated the CLEO signoff requirement through regulatory reform by enacting ATF 41F.

Rep. Wexton’s bill is an unconstitutional step in the wrong direction that would do nothing to prevent violent crime. Under current law, requirements for comprehensive background checks are already in place. Every applicant on every NFA application must pass a check by the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before they are able to take possession of the NFA item.

The goal here isn’t safety, it’s control. As we’ve said before, the American Suppressor Association is unequivocally opposed to any attempt to ban or further regulate suppressors. We are unwavering in our support of the Second Amendment, as well as the individual right to possess suppressors.

I’m uncomfortable arguing that since everyone who purchases an NFA item already has to go through an NCIS there is no need for anything else.  The point is that there is no need for the NICS, and its very existence is an unconstitutional infringement.

Take note that this is a further empowerment of CLEOs, as if anyone thought the progressives would ever do anything else.  While this may go nowhere this term, it’s an indication of what’s coming when the progressives take back control of the House, Senate and W.H.

[From the video] It sounds like something a .gov would say, regardless of manifestation.

The owner of one of New Zealand’s largest ammunition companies has warned of a violent revolution if gun owners feel shortchanged by the Government’s gun buyback scheme.

Paul Clark’s company, New Zealand Ammunition, supplies both the Police and the Defence Force. He told RNZ‘s Checkpoint that many gun owners were planning to intentionally skirt the law by hiding their banned weapons.

He was “absolutely sure” that gun owners or organisations would appeal to the courts over the proposed prices of the gun buyback, and he was currently considering taking an action himself.

He said that if gun owners could not access the courts “the only alternative is revolution”.

When asked by host Lisa Owen what he meant by “revolution”, Clark said “Literally, what I just said. What have you got to lose? What other alternatives have you got in life?”

When Owen asked if he was talking about “a physical, violent, uprising,” Clark said it was likely.

“Yes, it could happen,” he said. “People are aggrieved. You’ve been screwed by a government for a crime you didn’t commit. How do you think that makes you feel?”

He said he knew of gun owners who were being radicalised as a result of the gun buyback.

“There’s a lot of pissed off people. It wouldn’t take a lot to set some people off. There’s some pretty heavy, strong, hard feelings out there.”

However, he said he would not go to police with the information he had, because “I didn’t create the problem, someone else did”.

He estimated that he would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of the gun ban, including orders that he has had to cancel.

On Thursday, Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Police Minister Stuart Nash announced the budget of the gun buyback scheme had been increased to $208 million.

A police price list showed that guns in new or near new condition would get 95 per cent of its base price, guns in used condition would receive 70 per cent of value, and guns in poor condition would see 25 per cent.

“Injury prevention program.”  It all sound so innocuous, yes?  But revolution.  What?

Over money?  A few dollars worth of firearms?  So what is it, my friends and readers in New Zealand?  Is it turn in your weapons, hide them, wait for fair payment, or revolt?

“Injury prevention program.”  Remember those words.  You might hear them again by another slick politician.