Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

His blog, No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money via Gun Free Zone.

According to Uncle (in an email to me), Google accused him of selling guns, which of course is ridiculous.

John seems to think it might be related to his criticism of the NRA.

I don’t claim to know.  I do know that if you’re using BlogSpot (owned by Google), you’re subject to their terms and conditions.  Get off of it.  Back up your content.  Pay another host.  Say goodbye to Google forever.

So Orange Man’s daughter has called for federal red flag gun confiscation laws.

“Congress should enact Red Flag laws/ Extreme Risk Protection Orders in EVERY state and increase resources dedicated to mental health support.”

Prior to the election I visited reddit/The_Donald enough times to learn that not only was it a cult of personality, part of that personality had to do with Ivanka.

Quite literally, the readers were pushing for her candidacy for president immediately after Orange Man.  She’s pretty, said they.

So now how do the cult members feel about it now that pretty girl wants to take their guns based on the word of a single angry person and a midnight signature by a corrupt judge?

It’s all over the news.  There is DeWine who wants new red flag laws in Ohio.

Then there is Senator John Thune who now supports red flag laws, along with potential other gun control.

Next up is U.S. representative Mike Turner, from Dayton, who doesn’t just support red flag laws, but apparently a new AWB and magazine restrictions (Oh, and by the way, Mr. “I strongly support the second amendment” has a 93% rating from the NRA).

There are others, of course.  Pat Toomey was always a sellout, and will be so again.  But the key here is that he is being joined by a chorus of GOP voices this time.

I expect universal background checks, national red flag laws, magazine restrictions, and new age limits on firearm ownership.  Trump will surely sign all of that into law.  Whether this will include a new AWB is anyone’s guess.

In case any republican ever thought that this is any way to get gun owners to show up at the polls, go check out the deliberations at reddit/firearms and see what they think about sellouts.

One … term … president.

AANP:

Far too frequently, NPs are treating victims of mass shootings in hospital settings or helping them manage their recovery long after the media coverage subsides. AANP continues to support policymakers putting politics aside and focusing on common-sense reforms that reduce access to automatic weapons and high capacity magazines, increasing the age to purchase certain firearms and strengthening the federal background check system, while maintaining the individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

In addition, AANP supports state and federal investment for additional research to look at this major crisis, including a focus on the root causes of gun violence and expanding access to mental health treatment to communities in the aftermath of these tragedies.

There is no “access to automatic weapons” unless you have $25,000 or more to buy a pre-ban (1968 GCA) machine gun.  What you really meant to say is that you support restricting access to semi-automatic weapons.  They tried that in New Zealand.  Out of an estimated several million semi-automatic firearms, to date the turn-in rate stands at around a thousand, give or take.  This is massive noncompliance in a country that doesn’t have a second amendment.

There are tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of semi-automatic firearms in America.  Do you really believe Americans will comply with orders to turn in semi-automatic firearms?  Really?

But if you demand compliance via door-to-door confiscations, what you’re really asking for is civil war.  In that case you’ll be treating a lot more people than you do now.

Is that what you want?  I would suggest you stop watching so much television – it’s bad for your mental health – and get out a little more into the highways and byways of America and learn the people.

Guns.com.

“Because the Court concludes that semiautomatic assault rifles are essentially indistinguishable from M-16s, which Heller noted could be banned pursuant to longstanding prohibitions on dangerous and usual weapons, the Court need not reach the question of whether semiautomatic rifles are excluded from the Second Amendment because they are not in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense,” said Staton, an appointment by President Obama. Prior to stepping up to the federal bench, Staton was a lawyer in private practice in San Francisco and a California Superior Court judge appointed by Gov. Gray Davis just before he was recalled.

Staton also quoted that the rate of fire of such guns, listed in the order as “300 to 500 round per minute rate” makes semiautomatic rifles “virtually indistinguishable in practical effect from machineguns.”

Wow.  I wish I could pull the trigger 300-500 times per minute for a full minute.  I’d vie for book of world records.  Move over, Jerry Miculek.  The boss is on the block.

But … there’s that sticky issue of legal definitions (like the single pull of the trigger being the difference between semi-autos and machine guns).  I guess judges don’t have to worry about things like legalities.

Via David Codrea, the ATF flexes its muscle.

Because county sheriffs have issued CCP permits s without completing a full NICS check, firearms have been transferred to felons and other prohibited individuals in violation of federal law, thereby creating a substantial public safety concern. For this reason, the standards set forth in the Brady law require us to find that Alabama’s CCP permits no longer qualify as a NICS check alternative. In the interest of public safety, and effective immediately, FFLs in Alabama may no longer accept CCP permits as an alternative to a NICS check. Unless another exception applies, a NICS check must be conducted whenever you transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person even if the individual presents an unexpired CCP permit.

First of all, I agree with the second comment at David’s place.  I have no sympathy for the Alabama Sheriffs.  Virtually ever one of them is a gun controller.

Second, I disagree with the notion that the ATF gets to decide how a Sheriff complies, but this is what happens when you have a FedGov that licenses FFL (as opposed to the righteous practice of no FedGov involvement at all).

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.