Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Very interesting read via reddit/firearms.

IN THE 12^th CENTURY, the crossbow was considered by many to be a weapon of mass destruction. Not only was it was remarkably accurate and deadly at vast distances, but shockingly, the bolts it fired could penetrate a knight’s armour. Crossbows meant that no breast-plated nobleman, prince or king was safe on the battlefield. Any low-born peasant with just a bit of training could kill a lord or sovereign with simple squeeze of a trigger — a platoon of crossbowmen could wipe out a kingdom’s aristocracy with just a few volleys.

And that was something Medieval elites feared might shatter the natural order of society.

Not surprisingly, the highest European authority of the day, the Roman Catholic Church, called for an outright ban on the weapon. And the Vatican wasn’t messing around — violating its decree could lead to excommunication, or worse: damnation of the soul. Strong language, to be sure. In fact, for much of the Middle Ages, the crossbow was considered to be one of the most destabilizing weapons in existence, not unlike today’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Or AR-15s?

The Libertarian Republic:

In what seems to be an attempted balancing act to play to both gun owners and the gun confiscation crowd O’ Rourke said, “If you own an AR-15, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly and safely.” He then followed up his statement by adding “I just don’t think that we need to sell anymore weapons of war into this public.”

[ … ]

“If you purchased that AR-15, if you own it, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly,” O’Rourke said. “We have this proud rich tradition [in Texas] of hunting, of owning guns for self-defense, for sport, for collection as you may own that AR-15 for, just because it is fun to shoot.”

Well now.  Ain’t that special.  There is a proud tradition in Texas of owning weapons of war, but since it’s fun to own weapons of war, those who already own them can keep them.  But be sure to use them responsibly, you hear?

Or he’s lying in order to placate the gun crowd.  But if you don’t change your mind soon, O’Dork, what’s going to be your strategy when the Kos-kids demand your head because you won’t come right out and say that you want them all registered and then confiscated?  You know that’s what’s going to happen.  Or at least your Alpha-handlers do.

Tisk, tisk.  Time’s a wasting.  Tell us your next move.

To be sure, there are those who are trying to get semi-automatic long guns before the ban, but these reactions are the most telling.

Some rushed to their trusted online dealers and stores to stock up on semiautomatic assault-style rifles. Others unlocked their secure cabinets, picked up their firearms and turned them in to police stations, no questions asked.

[ … ]

John Hart, a gun owner, said on Twitter that he has given up his AR-15 rifle and ammunition because his “convenience doesn’t outweigh the risk of misuse.”

Don’t worry.  I’m sure the government will protect and care for you.  They’ll show up at any shooting that occurs, and lay out the chalk lines, arrest the guilty, and comfort the grieving.

It’s always when weapons are banned.  Via Dave Hardy, this is an interesting read.

During 2012, Chávez’s approval rating reached 57% (higher than any point in time of Obama’s 2nd term approval ratings by a wide margin). Then he decided that it’s time to “disarm all citizens”.

The Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law” with the explicit aim to “disarm all citizens”. However before the law took effect, Hugo Chávez passed away on March 5, 2013 at 58.

After his death, the contitution required that a presidential election be called within 30 days. Chávez’s hand-picked successor, Nicolás Maduro (a former bus driver and Chávez’s vice president afterwards), was elected president on April 14th, 2013.

Nicolás Maduro, the new president, imitated most of Hugo Chávez’s policies. He also proceeded with the plan to disarm all citizen. The Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law was pushed and taken effect in 2013. With the economy seemingly well, and people were mourning the loss of Hugo Chávez, there was only minimal pushback from some pro-democracy opposition figures.

“Venezuelans didn’t care enough about it. The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government. Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.”

Javier Vanegas (28), a Venezuelan teacher

All legal commercial sale of guns and munitions were banned – except to government entities.

During the first year, the law wasn’t much of a success. There were only 37 recorded voluntary gun surrenders, while the majority of seizures – 12,603 – were done by force. Estimated number of guns in Venezuela at the time range from one to six million.

The next year (2014), Nicolás Maduro invested more than $47 million to enforce the gun ban.

Yet firearms black market thrive instead, and a large number of illegal firearms are still in the hands of criminals and the collectivos (Venezuelan government employed thugs).

Then economic disaster struck, as it always will in a socialist country.  The violence came with it.

Via reddit, “After the defeat of the controversial red flag bill, the New Hampshire legislature slips the same text into HB696 – a bill to increase protections for the elderly against abuse.”

The language reads as follows.

Upon a showing of an immediate and present danger of abuse, exploitation, or neglect, the court may enter temporary orders to protect the plaintiff with or without actual notice to defendant.  The court may issue such temporary orders by telephone, facsimile or any other methods approved by court rules.  Such telephonically issued orders shall be made by a circuit court judge to a law enforcement officer, shall be valid in any jurisdiction in the state, and shall be effective until the close of the next regular court business day.  Such orders shall be returnable to the circuit court where the plaintiff resides or to which the plaintiff has fled, unless otherwise ordered by the issuing judge.  If non-telephonic temporary orders are made ex parte, the party against whom such relief is issued may file a written request with the clerk of the court and request a hearing on such orders.  Such hearing shall be held no less than 3 business days and no more than 5 business days after the request is received by the clerk.  Such hearings may constitute the final hearing described in RSA 173-D:4, V.  Such temporary relief may direct the defendant to relinquish to a peace officer any and all firearms and ammunition in the control, ownership, or possession of the defendant, or any other person on behalf of the defendant for the duration of the protective order.

Well, you know communists.  If they can’t get something the honorable and righteous way (and since their designs are never with honorable or righteous intentions, nothing they ever do is honorable or righteous), they’ll just use any tactic at their disposal.

I don’t intend to comment generally on the shooting in New Zealand.  I’m sure enough has been said already, and besides, that isn’t what I wanted to focus on.

Changes are coming to New Zealand guns laws.  Big ones, if you believe the PM.  She’s hell bent on doing it.  Apparently there is support among the general population (and read especially this comment thread), but on the other hand, New Zealand gun sales have increased since the Christchurch attack.

David Codrea observes that the already restrictive nature of gun laws didn’t do a thing to prevent the attack.

Special license endorsement firearms require a “genuine reason” for possession, “including sports shooting, hunting, and collection. Owning a firearm for self-defence is specifically excluded, and prohibited.”

New Zealand requires criminal and mental health checks with third-party character references. It has licensing and registration “of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition.” It has domestic violence prohibitions.  Compare that to the “Universal Background Check” and “Red Flag/ERPO” edicts demanded for the U.S. as “common sense.” Private sales require a license, and “The buyer of a firearm in a private sale in New Zealand is obliged to pass official background checks before taking possession.”

The very same laws, by the way, the collectivists want for America.  But as we all know, stopping crime isn’t really the point of gun laws anyway.

As a bracing reminder of this, you might spend a minute rehearsing the twenty one mass shootings in Australia since their gun control laws went into effect.

And then ask yourself and your spouse, “Do we ever really want to rely on anyone else for protection of home and hearth?”

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?