Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

I appreciate the folks on reddit/firearms keeping me up to date on the latest attempts at communist gun control in the North Carolina House of Representatives.  H.B. 86 is summarized as follows.

AN ACT TO REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON OR LONG GUN; TO REQUIRE A 72-HOUR WAITING PERIOD BEFORE A PURCHASED  FIREARM MAY BE DELIVERED OR OTHERWISE POSSESSED; TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON OR LONG GUN TO PERSONS UNDER A CERTAIN AGE; TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OR POSSESSION OF A BUMP STOCK OR TRIGGER  CRANK; TO REQUIRE THE SAFE STORAGE OF A FIREARM; TO REVISE RECIPROCITY LAW FOR A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT; TO REQUIRE THE REPORTING OF A LOST OR STOLEN FIREARM; TO REQUIRE ANY PERSON WHO OWNS A FIREARM TO CARRY FIREARM LIABILITY INSURANCE; TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF AMMUNITION MAGAZINES; TO REPEAL THE PREEMPTION OF LOCAL  REGULATION OF FIREARMS; AND TO ALLOW THE DESTRUCTION OF A SEIZED FIREARM.

I see that the totalitarians are shooting for the moon.  This has every fevered wet dream that has ever crossed the mind of the statists except outright ban of so-called “assault weapons,” which I’m certain would be in there without at least a hint that this bill might fail.

Age limits, waiting periods, fees to make it more expensive to own a firearm, charges for people who had access to a firearm when someone invaded their home and used it in self defense (i.e., “safe storage”), permitting for long guns as well as pistols, etc.

So instead of going in the right direction, which would be to do away with the pistol permitting scheme, which we all know is merely a way to raise revenue for the county sheriffs, they are going in the wrong direction, which is to expand this bastard program to long guns.

Well, allow me to take a very little time and help you to understand how most of us think about the issue of weapons.  We believe that ownership of the means of self defense and the amelioration of tyranny is a God-given right, not subject to amendment by men.  The constitution, which forbids what you are trying to do, is a covenant, an agreement between men concerning how we will live.  When either side breaks the covenant, it is forever broken, releasing the offended party from its obligations, and consequences necessarily follow from that.

All gun control, since God expects, even requires, that men defend home and hearth by whatever means is necessary, is wicked.

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.

The Almighty is the Lord of men, not tin pot dictators, and it is He who demands fealty.  Whether this bill gets a hearing, what ultimately happens means absolutely nothing concerning our rights.  It can only damn you in eternity as you attempt to supplant the edicts of a Holy God.  Our rights stand firm, do not change, and will not bend, since they are a function of the very character of the Almighty.

But just in case any of this isn’t clear enough to you, let me share what’s currently happening with and to the communists in Maryland, who are also attempting gun control.

Here I am with Wicomico County Sheriff Michael Lewis, who says he “will not comply” with onerous gun laws like long gun licensing and confiscation.

The brave gun owners of Maryland are saying, “We will not comply.”  And rest assured, whether North Carolina gun owners show up in droves or not to any such hearings in the North Carolina Senate or House, neither will we.

At some point, totalitarians must hear the word ‘no’.  Your move.

Sure they do.

The Duke Center for Firearms Law is searching for a scholarly alternative to the politically charged national debate surrounding gun rights and regulation.

Joseph Blocher, Lanty L. Smith ’67 professor of law, and Darrell Miller, the Melvin G. Shimm professor of law, created the Center to advance non-partisan scholarship about the Second Amendment. The two co-directors are joined by Jake Charles, Law School ’13, as the Center’s executive director.

Blocher said there is a lack of reliable scholarship on the Second Amendment and the constitutional questions it raises. These legal questions are especially important after the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, in which the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms for individuals’ private purposes, including self-defense.

“I think that there’s not enough attention paid in the scholarly community to this really important and complex and interesting and nuanced set of questions,” he said.

Complex and nuanced.  Remember that.

Compared to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Blocher said, the Second Amendment is seriously lacking in scholarship.

[ … ]

“One primary focus of my career has been how to accommodate two sometimes conflicting American traditions—that of gun rights and that of gun regulation,” Blocher said.

After law school, Blocher worked under Walter Dellinger III, who led the District of Columbia’s arguments in D.C. v. Heller and is now the Douglas B. Maggs professor emeritus of law at Duke. Blocher assisted with the briefing in support of the constitutionality of D.C.’s gun regulation.

[ … ]

Firearms law scholarship may also help create a middle ground in the current gun debate that is dominated by polarizing political views and the scholarship put out by advocates on both sides of the issue. Blocher and Charles hope that Second Amendment scholarship may help policymakers reach compromises that are both effective and constitutionally sound.

“People too often think that it’s a question of either rights or regulation—that if you support gun rights, then you can’t support any regulation and vice versa,” Blocher said. “And that’s just a false choice.”

Remember that too.  In their opinion the second amendment is seriously lacking in scholarship.  Shall not be infringed isn’t clear enough.  Let’s turn to another article on this same announcement, shall we?

He and Miller agree that gun rights scholarship is, by and large, unbalanced, suffering from hyper-partisanship and lack of rigor, which often make it even harder to find reasonable solutions to problems of gun violence. For example, there’s still scholarly disagreement on when a weapon is “dangerous and unusual,” and therefore unprotected by the Constitution; or the full extent of gun regulation in states and municipalities prior to the 1930s. “This has real consequences for firearms law and policy,” said Miller, the Melvin G. Shimm Professor of Law.  “The paucity of solid, balanced, responsible, and reliable scholarship on firearms law is bad for the academy, bad for the judicial system, and bad for the public.”

Hear that?  They’re here to protect you, dammit.  We need reasonable solutions to the wickedness of mankind resulting from federal headship in Adam.

Conceived as a resource by Saul Cornell, the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University,  and created in partnership with researchers at Duke, Fordham University, and elsewhere, the repository contains more than 1,500 examples of American gun regulations as well as historical European regulations that informed U.S. lawmakers’ thoughts on the issue.

The Heller and McDonald opinions relied heavily on history to define the scope of the right to bear arms, said Miller. “In fact, Justice [Antonin] Scalia says in the Heller opinion that you understand the contours of the Second Amendment by reference to regulations that are longstanding.” Yet the repository reflects the first catalogue of historical regulations.

“Part of our goal, with the repository and with the center, is to correct the misconception that gun regulation is a brand-new phenomenon,” Blocher said. “The 1,500 examples in the repository are only a subset of the different ways guns have been regulated in the United States. Any legal or scholarly analysis of the Second Amiendment has to take into account this history of gun regulation.”

They intend to correct the notion that the constitution doesn’t really mean that lawmakers can’t pass gun regulation.  They’re going to prove it with examples of gun regulation.  Now, let’s fast forward to the end of this dreadful piece.

The Center for Firearms Law is supported by grants from the Katie McGrath & J. J. Abrams Family Foundation, Crankstart, Everytown for Gun Safety, the Joyce Foundation, Andrew Marks, Howard & Nancy Marks, and Arthur & Toni Rembe Rock.

Oh, okay then.  It all makes better sense now.  Everytown and the Joyce Foundation is at the root of this abortion.

No man can do only what God can do, which is bring peace among His people, and show men how to walk humbly before God and love his neighbor.  No law, no man, no regulation, no system of government, no ordinance, and no leader can accomplish what only the Almighty can do.  But they don’t really want to end polarization.  They just made that up.

Instead, this startup depends on money from Bloomberg and other money sources they didn’t earn and to which they have no right.  The intent is clearly to be a repository for gun control laws, as progressives continue to work towards control over every aspect of our lives.

The polarization to which they speak isn’t a result of guns, nor of leaders, nor of laws.  The polarization is a symptom of the larger issue of a society which is breaking apart because of disparate world views.

So here’s a suggestion for topic number 1 for the upstarts at this oh-so-scholarly center.  How many victims of mass shootings perished at the hands of state actors in the twentieth century?

Here’s another question for the “scholars.”  What does God have to say about gun control?

David Codrea:

… the new climate in Florida where even some Republicans are scrambling to support citizen disarmament edicts. Pizzo is now pushing a bill that, along with “lock up your safety” infringements, makes “posting or publishing of a picture of a firearm, BB gun, air or gas-operated gun, or device displayed to resemble a firearm to social media” by minors a criminal act that will result in guns being “promptly seized by a law enforcement officer and disposed of,” and other penalties.

Don’t say the wrong things.  Don’t think the wrong things or we’ll charge you with a hate crime (don’t get me started on how stupid I think the concept of a “hate crime” is).  Don’t even post the wrong things on social media.  According to us, the controllers.  We make the decisions in appropriateness.  Not you.

Because public schools have become full blown communist indoctrination camps.

News from NYC:

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — The NYPD posted a photo on social media of a rifle and bullets that were seized during a domestic incident in New Springville.

Domestic Violence and Field Intelligence officers found the gun and ammunition during a home visit, according to the 121st Precinct Twitter feed.

The officers were conducting a home visit in the vicinity of Windham Loop and Marsh Avenue on Monday when they were made aware of a gun that was not registered, according to a spokeswoman for the NYPD’s Deputy Commissioner of Public Information.

No arrests were made and the weapon was confiscated, the police spokeswoman said.

A verbal dispute between a husband and wife prompted the visit from the Domestic Violence officers, according to a source with knowledge of the investigation.

The husband had failed to re-register the hunting rifle, the source said.

It’s hard to tell what the rifle is, but it’s not a rimfire gun.  It’s a carbine of some sort, but some reader can help with this I’m sure.

This is what we’re reduced to – the NYPD posting pictures to Twitter with hashtag #OneLessGun.  Proudly, no less.

Despicable.  Nothing good ever comes from calling the police to your home.  Why did they do that over an argument?  Why?

News from New Mexico:

Extensive advocacy work by proponents of stronger gun regulations in New Mexico has led to a new law that will require federal background checks for most gun purchases, including online sales and at gun shows.

Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who took office in January, signed Senate Bill 8 into law on Friday. It will take effect in July.

“We all have a constitutional right to be safe in our homes and communities,” Lujan Grisham said, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

At an emotional signing ceremony, the governor was accompanied by several young people, law enforcement officials, and gun reform advocates, the Associated Press reported.

The governor is an idiot.  There is no such constitutional guarantee and she can’t quote one.  As we had discussed earlier, there is a problem is utopia.

… in New Mexico, 30 of 33 county sheriffs have signed a letter pledging to not help enforce several gun-control measures supported by Democrats in Santa Fe, according to the state’s sheriff association. The sheriffs, who are elected, say they are heeding the wishes of voters in the counties they serve. More than two dozen counties in the state have enacted “sanctuary” resolutions backing the sheriffs and affirming that no tax dollars in their jurisdictions should go to enforcing the proposed laws.

[ … ]

Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said local officials should comply with state and federal law but declined to say what measures he would take if they don’t.

Local Sheriffs could stop this all in its tracks if they chose to.  The AG didn’t say what measures he would take because he doesn’t know what to do with men who hold weapons and refuse to comply.

Weapons.  Refuse to comply.  There’s a moral to that story, yes?

News from Washington:

For the third time in the last month, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has sent a letter to the mostly rural areas in Washington where county sheriffs have threatened to not enforce the new, stricter gun laws that state voters approved last year.

On Thursday, Ferguson and Gov. Jay Inslee sent a letter to 262 gun dealers in counties where sheriffs have said they won’t enforce the new law, known as Initiative 1639. The letters warned that the dealers are still responsible for following the law, which bars the sale of semi-automatic rifles to anyone under 21 and requires enhanced background checks for those guns.

“Certain officials in your county have publicly said they will not enforce Initiative 1639 because they believe it is unconstitutional,” Inslee and Ferguson wrote. “We want to prevent you and your business from finding yourself in legal jeopardy because of a misunderstanding of the law caused by statements made by elected officials in your area.”

Yes, it’s all so altruistic, isn’t it?  They want to prevent good people from running afoul of the new law because of misunderstandings.  How retarded.

The AG is like a little boy screaming on the playground, and he disgusts me.  This situation is similar to the one in New Mexico, but slightly different because in Washington there is now an age limit.  In both cases it’s difficult to see the state turning over cases to the FedGov for prosecution if Form 4473 is properly completed.

It would take local or county officials to effect arrests of people in person to person transfers (if the state becomes aware of them, a highly dubious assumption).

It’s likely that this law won’t have much affect on person to person transfers, but it remains to be seen if any Sheriffs will mobilize their deputies in the defense of persons (be they gun store employees or not) to run afoul of the law.

My bet is not.  A promise not to enforce the law isn’t the same thing as a promise to engage in gun battle with state police in the defense of supposed “sanctuary” counties or cities.

B J Campbell:

There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones. Gun ownership doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us less safe. A bivariate correlation simply isn’t there. It is blatantly not-there. It is so tremendously not-there that the “not-there-ness” of it alone should be a huge news story.

A correlation coefficient (R^2) of < 0.5%.  Worthless.

Be sure to read the rest of his piece, where he fisks the jobs that Mother Jones, Vox and others do with the data.  Spread it far and wide.

CNBC:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told CNN on Wednesday the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on gun control on March 26.

The influential committee chairman said the panel will discuss “red flag” laws, passed in many U.S. states, that allow courts to take away firearms from suspected dangerous individuals after receiving warnings from police officers or family members.

Red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection, enjoy bipartisan support and have been praised by the White House and the National Rifle Association.

Graham, who has become a close ally of the president, said he and Trump had discussed the matter. He noted that there was “a lot of common ground” on aspects of the proposal.

[ … ]

A month later, Graham and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced red flag legislation that ultimately never went anywhere.

So you see several important things here.  Lindsey V.2 isn’t so much really Version 2, but Lindsey V.1 with some makeup.  He talks big, but then when push comes to shove, it’s like putting lipstick on a pig.  Graham supports red flag laws.

Second, Graham has spoken to Trump, and apparently Trump is favorable, which we essentially already knew from his “take the guns first” comment.

Third, a republican senate is convening hearings on new gun control legislation.  I repeat, a republican senate.  And in two short years, in Trump’s closing arguments for your vote for presidency, he’ll say that he stands in the way of the bad people taking your guns and will never let your second amendment rights be infringed.

News from New Mexico:

ALBUQUERQUE – A bill to expand background checks on private gun sales in New Mexico that’s awaiting the governor’s promised signature is presenting a key question for law enforcement as it heads for her desk: How do they expect to enforce it?

Debate over the bill exposed a rift in the state over gun rights before it won final approval in the Legislature this week and was sent to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who has described it as common-sense reform.

A large majority of sheriffs has vowed not to enforce the law, arguing it burdens lawful gun owners and will be difficult to enforce. That’s because a gun most likely would have to be used in a crime before law enforcement could investigate whether it had been purchased unlawfully, according to the bill’s opponents.

But others, including Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza, say the measure will provide a public safety tool. For example, he said officers could follow up on complaints that felons or others restricted from owning firearms are obtaining them.

Doña Ana County Sheriff Kim Stewart said the measure offers deputies the ability to ask gun owners they encounter how they obtained a gun, just as they are now able to ask motorists if they are licensed to drive. It also offers private gun dealers increased opportunity to determine that they are not selling to a felon.

“I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask them to do this one thing,” she said.

The bill is the first of a handful of proposed gun reforms this year to clear the Legislature, despite outcry from dozens of sheriffs and others that the law may infringe on state residents’ gun rights.

In an interview, University of New Mexico law professor Joshua Kastenberg said the law is “constitutionally sound,” but that he sees both those for and against the measure having compelling arguments.

“It’s more a political policy debate,” he said.

[ … ]

Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace said he believes the bill violates his constituents’ rights.

As president of the New Mexico Sheriff’s Association, he organized a push for the county law enforcement officials to present draft resolutions to their commissioners declaring their jurisdictions Second Amendment sanctuaries. He said 26 out of 33 New Mexico counties have approved the resolutions.

New Mexico elected officials generally take oaths pledging to uphold both constitutions, as well as state laws.

What else would you expect a law professor to say?  There are two things here, the first being whether it should pass constitutional muster (it shouldn’t) and the second is whether it will as determined by the black robed tyrants who sit on the bench.  The answer is that it will, of course.

“Doña Ana County Sheriff Kim Stewart said the measure offers deputies the ability to ask gun owners they encounter how they obtained a gun …”  Answer: It’s none of your damn business.  Or better yet, “I’m being represented by my lawyer so you’ll have to pose the question to him.”  Don’t ever talk to the police, and don’t answer any such question.

Unless it’s a “Terry Stop” it’s unconstitutional, and if the stop is legitimate, don’t answer his questions.

As we watch the proliferation of gun control laws in America both at the national and state levels, you can expect to see more of this sort of thing, where local and state representatives, law enforcement officers and other authorities hand-wring over what to do with such unenforceable laws and regulations.  You can expect them to worry more about the danger to cops of trying to enforce things like this, and you can expect more cops and lawyers to fabricate all kinds of myths about what those laws allow them to do.

You can expect a requested swelling and bloating of the police state, but with unfunded liabilities approaching 300 trillion dollars, no money or personnel will be forthcoming.  And finally, you can expect more lies from the controllers about how this is a “common sense” proposal that will aid public safety.

News from down under:

There are calls for a national target to reduce Australia’s suicide rate as new statistics show 3,128 Australians took their own life in 2017.

This represents 262 more deaths than the previous year.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics released national data on Wednesday that showed intentional self-harm is now ranked the 13th leading cause of death, moving up from 15th position in 2016.

Australia’s suicide rate is now at 12.6 deaths per 100,000 people. This is equal to 2015 as the highest recorded rate in the past 10 years.

The counselling service Lifeline has urged the Morrison government to set a national target to achieve a 25% suicide reduction over five years.

Ah yes, it’s another government problem in need of another government solution.  Why don’t you blow up the nanny government and that may give people some reason to live again?

Say, how’s that gun control thing working out?