Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

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.

News from Colorado:

The school does not have a school resource officer, but the school does have private security, Kluth said. School staff notified emergency dispatchers “almost immediately” after the first gunshots were fired, and deputies were on scene within two minutes and engaged the suspects, Spurlock said.

Sorry folks, but that’s not nearly fast enough as this incident goes to show.  A lot of people can get hurt in two minutes, and that’s a fast response time for most PDs.

This recapitulates a conversation I had with someone on Sunday, after I heard a pastor say of the police on campus, “They are here to protect you and keep you safe.”

That’s a lie.  The police know it, and the congregation should be told the truth.  This is especially true of small congregations who don’t have the financial resources to hire cops to sit or stand around.

The job of keeping families safe falls to the same people who provide for them, teach them and nurture them: heads of families and their spouses.

And note again that this was a gun free zone, a soft target, just like many church congregations are on Sunday.  It’ll keep happening until people learn to protect themselves and those for whom they have been given charge.

David Codrea:

“It was brought to Hawaii Firearms Coalition’s attention during this year’s legislative session that not one single firearms owner has been entered into the service. However, for more than two years, the state has been requiring firearm owners to sign a waiver (of their constitutional rights) and collecting the fees associated with the FBI Rap Back service.”

The state’s position is that new firearm purchases are going to require fingerprints and coerced “consent,” if you don’t you won’t get a permit, you have to pay fees and to be unenrolled, “a registrant must show documentation that all of his or her registered firearms are no longer in Hawaii, or have been sold.”

We’ve known for a very long time that gun permitting was a way for CLEOs to raise revenue.  This is just icing on the cake for them.  Oh, and not to mention, infringement of God-given rights and registration with the FedGov.

In the spirit of this post at ZeroGov, The Federalist has some alarming news.

Adam Kilgore, general counsel for the Mississippi Bar, offered the following hypothetical to a group of experienced civil and criminal lawyers.

A man has been fired from his job. He is upset. He hires you as his attorney. You are of the opinion he has an excellent case and file a complaint on his behalf. You later discover he possesses a permit to carry a firearm. He also has a so-called enhanced carry license. While his case is wending through the courts, your client goes to a public area outside his former workplace. He displays signs that say he has been wrongfully fired. The man has no history of criminal activity, violence, or threatening anyone.

The instructor asked the class what actions, if any, a lawyer should take. It seemed obvious to me there was no reason to do anything except proceed with the client’s case. I (Jude) would also advise my client to avoid confrontations with anyone who worked for his former employer and what he might consider saying if approached by the media.

While I was forming an answer, many lawyers immediately said they would terminate the attorney-client relationship and contact law enforcement to report their client was potentially dangerous. The only reason offered was his firearm permits.

I have to admit, I was flabbergasted, for several reasons. First, I live in Mississippi, which is among the reddest of the red states. Second, the attorneys—let me call them gun-phobic—were proposing to violate the attorney-client privilege, which establishes one of the most sacrosanct confidential relationships. (American Bar Association “Rule of Professional Conduct” 1.6). As with most things, there are exceptions. They generally pertain to a client who is about to commit a criminal act or engage in fraudulent behavior.

The lawyers who proposed to call the police cited ABA Rule 1.6 (b)(1). It states “[a] lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: … to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.”

To them their confidentiality agreement means nothing at all.  The fact that you even have firearms means that removing them from you is necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.

How easy do you think it would be to overcome such an indictment from your own lawyer in front of a judge?  And yet, it can happen with literally no warning, no basis in fact, and no regard for your God-given rights.

Be careful what you say, and to whom you say it.

John Richardson:

We’ve long said that if you want to make sure you get pro-gun politicians elected to Congress and the various state houses, we have to start pushing candidates at the local level. It is the rare candidate that starts out running for office at the state or national level. For every Donald Trump, there are thousands and thousands of other politicians that started with the school board, town council, or even just a town or county appointed committee.

Everytown has just made endorsements for three candidates at the school board or city council level. The fact that they are pushing gun prohibitionists at this level says a number of things. First, they are actually using Bloomberg’s money to start building an actual grassroots. Second, they recognize that candidates start local and then move up from there. Third, it is an expansion of their efforts from the state level to the local level since they have no had success (so far) at the nation level.

Well, it depends upon whether you believe red flag confiscation laws are a local or a national success for the controllers.  In some sense they’re national, given that the NRA gave them cover and Trump reassured them it was the thing to do.

It may also be said that a true grass roots movement isn’t really about the people in charge so much as the people who put them there.  In other words, what’s really important is what the people think, not the politicians.

On the other hand, they are educating the future electorate, and in that they will be profoundly successful.  This is Horace Mann’s communist project bringing fruit.  I see Bloomberg and Mann in the same mold, just with Bloomberg being stupider.