Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Following up his bomb on the NRA BoD, Lt. Col. West updates us and fills in the gaps.

As a Battalion Commander in the 4th Infantry Division, 2d Battalion, 20th Field Artillery, I told my soldiers, before we deployed to Iraq, that the most expendable person in the unit was me. No single individual is more important than the unit they are called upon to serve.

America needs the National Rifle Association in these troublesome times. But our Constitutional Republic needs the NRA focused on its core competencies, its mission: to train and educate this nation on marksmanship and responsible gun ownership, and to ensure we will never be subjects, but armed individuals . . . citizens.

Read the rest here.  Most interesting, however, is what some of the comments say.  This one is rich.

To those of you who seem to be ANTI NRA, Stuff it . If the NRA goes down, TURN IN YOUR GUNS. You people are surely haven’t looked at the other side. OR your out to help the LEFT kill the second . Five million plus two million is a very large number , two million minus five million is to loose the second. This GOA and NRA LIFE member thinks that you should think about what you are doing . Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.

So it sounds as if the author, “Rich Z,” needs a historical primer.  Via Kenny, commenter Skytrooper reminds us where we have been and where we are.

“Before there was an NRA/ILA to fight to protect our rights” — You conveniently “forgot” to mention the fact NRA officials support the BATFE and every current federal anti-gun law.

“the Democrats wove into their DNA the desire to disarm America.” — The two most vehemently anti-RKBA SCOTUS justices, Warren Burger and John Paul Stevens, were appointed by Republicans, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Who created the BATF in 1972 then told journalists there was no anti-gun law he wouldn’t support and how he regarded the private ownership of firearms as an “abomination”? Republican Richard Nixon.

Who signed the Mulford Act in 1967 banning the open carry of loaded firearms in California, endorsed the Brady Bill in 1991 then wrote members of Congress in 1994 urging them to vote for Bill Clinton’s “assault weapon” ban? Republican NRA Life Member Ronald Reagan.

Who voted for GCA-68 when he was a member of Congress, signed an executive order in 1989 banning the importation of many superb semiauto firearms then appointed anti-RKBA liberal David Souter to SCOTUS? Republican NRA Life Member George H.W. Bush.

Who supported the same anti-gun laws as Al Gore and John Kerry and, like Barack Obama, wanted to make Bill Clinton’s “assault weapon” ban a permanent statute in 2004? NRA-endorsed Republican George W. Bush.

Who signed Massachusetts’ “assault weapon” ban into law then touted his zeal for strict gun control? Republican Mitt Romney, NRA’s choice for president in 2012.

Who wrote a book, The America We Deserve, in which he wanted to make it harder for everyone to purchase a firearm, supported “assault weapon” bans, and criticized Republicans who “walk the NRA line?” Who contributed a fortune to liberal anti-gun Democrats, joined with Hillary Clinton in wanting to forbid Americans from being “allowed” to purchase a firearm without any due process of law then directed BATFE officials (without a shred of legal authority) to misconstrue the definition of automatic firearm under NFA-34 to ban “bump stocks”? Republican Donald Trump, NRA’s choice for president in 2016.

Kindly identify a single current Republican member of Congress seeking to repeal any federal anti-gun statute, every one of which is supported by Wayne LaPierre & Company.

“While we know the National Firearms Act” — You mean NFA-34 which NRA officials supported in 1934 and still do today?

“The National Rifle Association was caught off guard by this.” — Oh, please. Once handguns were removed from the original version of NFA-34, the NRA endorsed it. Four years later, top NRA officials endorsed FFA-38.

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” — NRA President Karl T. Frederick, testifying before Congress in favor of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938

“The NRA of 1934 was not the political juggernaut that it is today.” — You mean the “political juggernaut” that did nothing to oppose the 1986 machine gun ban signed into law by Ronald Reagan? You mean the “political juggernaut” that lobbied in 1993 to make the Brady Act more onerous than Sarah Brady sought by having it apply to all firearms sold by FFLs, not just handguns? You mean the “political juggernaut” that did absolutely nothing to oppose the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment which made GCA-68 even more oppressive? You mean the “political juggernaut” which rolled over and played dead when Donald Trump banned “bump stocks”? You mean the “political juggernaut” which routinely endorses anti-RKBA politicians, just so long as they’re Republicans?

“We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” — NRA Executive Vice President Franklin Orth, testifying before Congress in favor of a ban on the mail order sales of firearms (without bothering to explain what possible difference it made whether Lee Harvey Oswald bought his rifle by mail order or at a local sporting goods store)

“The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.” — American Rifleman magazine, March 1968, p. 22

“The measure as a whole [GCA-68] appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.” — NRA Executive Vice President Franklin Orth, 1968

Question: “Are there any anti-gun laws which the NRA supports?”

Answer: “The NRA fully supports the Gun Control Act of 1968.” — NRA-ILA head Tanya Metaksa, speaking before the National Press Club (televised on C-SPAN2) on 16 May 1995

Question (from CNN’s Larry King): “Does the NRA want to abolish the BATF?”

Answer: “Not only does the NRA not want to abolish the BATF, the NRA doesn’t want to restrict the BATF in any way.” — NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, appearing on CNN on 18 May 1995

“We think it’s reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. … We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government.” — NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Congressional testimony, 27 May 1999, hearing before 106th Congress, House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime

“I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban” — George W. Bush, 13 October 2004; NRA’s choice for president in 2000 and 2004

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe that they help protect us and provide for our safety.” — Mitt Romney, 2002; NRA’s choice for president in 2012

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” — Mitt Romney; NRA’s choice for president in 2012

“I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. … The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.” — Donald Trump (from his book The America We Deserve); NRA’s choice for president in 2016

That about sums it up, and also explains why Mr. West is having to do what he’s doing.

News from California:

But when the Parkland shooting happened in 2018, killing 17 students and teachers, Levi’s decided to go further. Bergh published a letter about the country’s epidemic of gun violence and the company set up a $1 million fund to support organizations that are working to put in place “common sense regulations or laws that would prevent guns being in the hands of people who shouldn’t own a gun,” he says.

Chip Bergh, born in Bronxville, N.Y., and who by the way also spent four years commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Army.

It’s important to realize just how many commissioned officers in the U.S. military do not believe in their oath, similar to Pete Buttigieg, both of whom favor draconian gun control.

The left will always seek out proper credentials for their heroes and leaders, and one box that frequently gets checked is time in the military.  Never assume that time in the military means what you think it should mean.

Swissinfo:

Voters have endorsed a controversial reform of Swiss gun law to bring it into line with European Union rules.

Final results show the reform winning 63.7% of the ballot on Sunday. The result was much closer in some rural regions, though voters in canton Ticino were the only ones to reject the legal amendment.

Ownership of semi-automatic weapons will now require regular training on the use of firearms and a serial numbering of major parts of some guns to help track them.

Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter welcomed the outcome, saying it made Switzerland more secure by improving the traceability of firearms and increasing the exchange of information with other European countries.

Isn’t it interesting how [a] countries that have rejected the Holy Writ and God’s immutable laws, lose interest in self protection and resort to self loathing and wish for death, and [b] the globalist, open borders world view always seems to go hand in hand with disarmament?

Len Savage sends the following pages released as part of his FOIA request on the bump stock ban.

Now, let’s pose some questions for readers to consider.  First, why are these pages marked SECRET/NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals)?  Second, if you were Paddock, why would you voluntarily choose to shoot an AR-15 with a bump stock in a crime you intended to perpetrate when you could shoot a fully automatic weapon?  Third (and I’ll keep asking this until I get an answer), why did the FBI refuse to allow the ATF to examine the crime scene weapons?

Apparently, the most important requirement for government “service” is that you are willing to hide things from the public and release only information you see as beneficial to your cause (whatever that might be).  In other circles, that’s called lying.

In the absence of any further information, I’ll continue to believe my own son’s analysis after listening to the consistency of the rate of fire over video: “He was using a fully automatic weapon.”  And my son has plenty of time under his belt shooting fully automatic weapons.  Bottom line – I’ll believe my son over the FedGov.

First, there is the state of Washington.

OLYMPIA – Washington law will ban “ghost guns” made with 3D printers, remove the rights of a person who is found incompetent to stand trial to have a firearm and tighten a requirement for a concealed pistol license.

Firearms can be removed from the homes of teens who are the subject of an extreme risk protection order because they might hurt themselves or others.

It’s a veritable smorgasbord of laws, a controller’s wet dream.  The statement about 3D printers is a smokescreen, peddled to the press in order to sew fear among the ignorant.  This is about stopping home production of machinery, specifically firearms, which is allowable under federal law.

Next up, the state of New York.

ALBANY — Lawmakers in the state capital are preparing to pass a bill barring so-called “ghost guns” from the Empire State.

With the press peddling yet another picture of Cody Wilson, the real intent is to ban firearms that have no serial number, i.e., those made in the home or garage.

Not to be outdone, the U.S. House of Representatives is preparing to make this a national law.

A bill recognizing the destructive potential of “ghost guns” has cleared a critical step in Congress and is now poised for a vote on the House floor. The House Committee on Homeland Security gave its stamp of approval on Wednesday to legislation that would direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prepare an annual threat assessment on so-called “ghost guns.” These are firearms typically made at home with 3D printers or assembled from kits that lack traceable serial numbers.

These ghost guns “pose a challenge to law enforcement, particularly when used by violent extremists,” according to a onetime DHS threat assessment. One estimate put the number of ghost gun precursors sold in the past decade in the hundreds of thousands.

The legislation, sponsored by Democratic Congressman Max Rose, is one of the first steps Congress has taken to address this emerging threat to public safety.

“In my conversations with law enforcement officials I have every reason to believe this is an urgent matter,” Rose told Newsweek. “This is a massive hole in federal legislation that allows for weapons to be shipped from state to state without any background checks.”

These guns themselves don’t confer any tactical advantage over a traditional weapon, but they are easier to acquire without having to navigate a potentially treacherous black market crawling with federal agents and informants. The weapons can be assembled from DIY kits that provide prefabricated components for nearly 80 percent of the completed firearm, allowing the buyer to finish crafting the weapon at home using common metalworking tools.

Of course law enforcement, including the DHS, supports something like this.  And in a moment of accidental honesty, they admitted what they’re really going after – 80% lowers.

Because the first rule of control is to know who everyone is and what they have, so that it can be taken from them in the future.

UPDATE: Google (YouTube) must have gotten the memo, because they aren’t allowing any DIY firearms to be monetized.

Philip Van Cleave, writing at Ammoland.

AmmoLand News’ pundit John Farnam recently wrote a thought-provoking article on how gun owners should behave in states that have adopted “Red Flag” laws, where your guns can be confiscated for an arbitrary amount of time-based on someone else’s word that you are a danger to yourself or others.

Under Red Flag laws your “due process” won’t come for weeks or months after they have already confiscated all your firearms, with no actual crime having been committed. And how does one even PROVE that they are not dangerous? And if a person is truly dangerous, why don’t the Red Flag laws make any attempt to have the “dangerous” person taken into custody or to get them help?

Red Flag laws violate the the following Amendments to the Constitution:

• 2nd (right to keep and bear arms)
• 4th (protection against unreasonable search and seizures)
• 5th (right to due process, just compensation, self-incrimination)
• and 6th (right to confront accusers, cross-examine witnesses, have a public defender).

John and I are looking at this situation from two different angles. John’s advice is meant to keep gun owners from being victims of Red Flag laws by having them stay under the radar. That is a laudable goal meant to save as many gun owners as possible from falling in the unconstitutional Red Flag web. John suggests hiding your gun ownership to as high a degree as possible. Only people with a need to know should know.

[ … ]

Red Fag laws are not about saving lives. They are about gun confiscation, plain and simple. While keeping a low profile will reduce your chances of becoming a victim, you will still never know if that 4 am knock on the door is coming anyhow.

I think we have to go in the other direction. We need to go on the offensive. We need to remind our fellow Americans, and politicians, that there are over 80 million of us and we are NOT going to go quietly into the night. In fact, we are not going to go anywhere

Well, this is an interesting commentary and worth discussing in my opinion.

For me that horse left the barn years ago.  I chose not to blog anonymously, so I’m not “gray man.”  I haven’t told anyone exactly what I have or where, or whether I even have any firearms, but my opinion is plain and simple for everyone to read.  Google and PageRank are powerful.

So apparently Farnham argues essentially for being gray man.  The first rule of gun club is that you never talk about gun club.  The second rule is when in doubt, refer to the first rule.

Van Cleave is arguing for the opposite.  Where do my readers stand?

David Codrea:

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, challenging restrictions on transporting licensed firearms outside the home. Beck and Stamboulieh represent George Young in his complaint against the State of Hawaii for denying him a carry permit.

[ … ]

“Mr. Young has now been on appeal in the Ninth Circuit since December 24, 2012 (six years, four months and twenty days) and there is still no end in sight. Mr. Young will be seventy years old this year in September.”

I was unaware of this case.  That’s a new one on me … if you don’t want to deal with the issue, apparently like the Ninth Circuit, then just ignore it.

“It is apparently just fine for him to be taken from his home country to fight in Vietnam with high powered weaponry but then to forbid him to carry a handgun outside his home for self-defense in Hawaii,” the brief continues. “Mr. Young served his country with honor only to return and be treated as a second-class citizen by Hawaii, and unable to fully exercise his Second Amendment rights.”

I always find this argument a bit off-putting.  It assumes the consequent.  Of course the Ninth Circuit, and most other progressives, will think it’s okay to send him off to fight the country’s wars only to come home and be unarmed.  That’s the idea – the state has a monopoly on violence, even for self defense.

The proper defense would have left that part out and focused on God-given rights and duties, and the constitution as a covenant between men, currently dishonored and abandoned.

Via WoG, “HR 1186 would ban all magazines that hold a capacity of more than 10 rounds. This will only punish law-abiding gun owners and hinder their right to self-defense.”

It supposedly has a decent chance of success.  Hey, what do you bet our “As long as I’m in the White House they won’t come after your guns” President will sign the bill into law?

News from New Hampshire:

Ruger CEO Christopher Killoy responded during the meeting that rolling out a line of these weapons would be a financial loser.

“While people think there is often a great market for ‘smart guns,’ or user-authorized technology, we are not seeing it,” he said.

The company’s decision to not pursue smart guns frustrated Colleen Scanlon, an activist investor with Catholic Health Initiatives, which is based in Colorado, where a school shooting on Tuesday killed one student and injured others.

“We find management’s decision dangerously short sighted. It ignores a significant business opportunity, as well as one of the most promising prospects for reducing gun violence,” Scanlon told shareholders.

Last year, Scanlon and other faith-based activist investors successfully persuaded Ruger shareholders to adopt a resolution requiring the company to produce a report investigating the viability of smart guns and how the company assesses risks related to gun violence.

[ … ]

Ruger did appear receptive, however, to another demand of activists: that the company meaningfully engage in conversations with faith-based shareholders, who have criticized Ruger’s refusal to meet.

Oh nice.  So now Ruger has agreed to waste time and resources meeting with the same sort of “faith-based” groups (read here, “Jesus was a Bohemian, pacifist, beatnik, flower child hippie, so we should be too”) that are pushing them to meet with these groups.  They’re all in it together.

Once again.  To all gun manufacturers, make sure a majority of your stock is owned by employees.  Ruger did not work behind the scenes to buy out these shares over the last year and leverage their power (e.g., splitting the stock and buying half of it?), and that may have been a mistake.

This is why the Holy Writ requires two witnesses to convict.  And in case you had to be told (I hope you don’t), be careful how well you manage your home life.  I personally have a very good friend whose wife was unfaithful to him, demanded a divorce (that he didn’t want), and took half of everything he owned in court, along with alimony payments.  If red flag laws existed at the time his guns would be owned and operated by the police today.  And not one bit of the whole ugly affair was his fault.

AR-15: Lock on it.

Cop: Tries to cycle the charging handle three times before he concludes it is not loaded.

Good Lord.