Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

ZBROJNICE.com:

Portugal has the most restrictive gun laws in all of Europe, apart from the UK. But in several aspects, Portuguese weapons law is more severe and extremely perverse because it has a lot of dubious subjective prohibitions. Therefore, our law is – by far – the worst I know in any democratic country. I believe it violates Constitutional Rights and the basic structure of our legal system that is constructed around the principles of the Portuguese Republic Constitution.

The Portuguese legal regime regarding weapons had a radical change in 2006. Before that, the law was based on a 1949 enactment. This underwent some minor changes in 1975 and later more significant changes in 1997, 1998 and 2001. Although quite old, it was a well constructed legal regime in terms of objectivity, technical definitions, and very well balanced when it comes to rights vs. prohibitions.

In 2003 the Government created a special committee. It’s alleged aim was to simplify legislation regarding firearms and weapons. Then in 2006 they proposed what became known as the new weapons and ammunitions legal regime “Regime Jurídico das Armas e suas Munições”, generally called as “RJAM”.

This new package of laws was a total fiasco, being significantly more complicated than the previous law. It included two major enactments – the base law No. 5/2006 and the sport/gun collection law No. 42/2006. Plus several decrees, dispatches, regulations and a vast multitude of lesser legislative acts.

Just the Act No. 5/2006 alone is more complicated and larger than all the laws that existed until 2006 combined. When gathered together with all the other new legislative acts, things became even more complicated and difficult to understand.

All these problems were aggravated because this new regime was, and still is, based in “legal definitions” and “legal classifications” that have several technical mistakes and are so ambiguous that they can be interpreted in various ways.

Meanwhile powerful anti-gun lobby was seeking further restrictions. And they succeeded. The base law No. 5/2006 underwent a major revision by Act No. 17/2009. Five more amendments followed ending with Act No. 50/2013 that has been the last major change in force until today. Now we are facing further changes in connection with the EU Gun Ban.

Was there any kind of grandfathering for the newly banned items?

No. If you buy a gun in a perfectly legal way and you own it because the law in that moment guaranties that it is legal, there is nothing that protects you, nor your property, if the next day the law changes and the guns you legally bought and own becomes forbidden. You can’t keep it anymore, and if you do, you will commit a criminal offense that is severally punished.

Changes of the original Act No. 5/2006 always lead to a more restrictive regime. Many items that were legal by 2006 became illegal and are now considered “forbidden weapons”…

And there is no end to that.

The EU Gun Ban implementation proposal now exceeds everything we have seen so far in terms of absurd prohibitions, abuse of power, disregard for private property and increase of subjective and dubious prohibitions. It is now being discussed by the Portuguese Parliament.

[ … ]

It also introduced new prohibitions, and changed in a more complex way some legal definitions, all ammunition with expansive bullets became strictly prohibited except the ones used in hunting. A specific example: the prohibition of rifles and shotguns that resemble “war weapons”. Due to that change, several legally owned firearms had to be reclassified from “C class” to “A class” and could not be used any longer.

Those firearms owners had to apply for a different permit that restricted them firearms to what we call “house detention”. That means the owner cannot have any round of ammunition that could fit those guns and the guns must be kept inside a vault or a safe house. Never being able to be used for any purpose than the simple possession inside that specific house, locked in a vault and without ammunition.

Vítor Teixeira’s repeating rifle Sako TRG 42. After 2011 change in Portuguese gun laws, this rifle (according to the opinion of the Portuguese Security Police (PSP) experts) could be classified as a “war weapon”, so Vitor chose to sell it off before the law was approved. Later, some of these where indeed confiscated by the police, but other (this is due to the subjectivity of the law) became – again – class C rifles.

Do read the entire interview.  That Sako is a very nice gun, and between the scope and gun he’s probably got $6000+ wrapped up in that weapon.  It’s now a paperweight because he (or its new owner) has no ammunition – or at least, we are to assume that he doesn’t.

The conflicting, confusing nature of the definitions and the various and sundry ways in which the regulations can be interpreted isn’t a bug – it’s a feature of all good gun control legislation.  The piecemeal erosion of rights is emblematic of what’s happening in the U.S. as we watch.  He said that the most recent gun control regime makes even more weapons illegal, and “there is no end to that.”

No, there never is.  And the Fudds who didn’t care about bump stocks may one day see their bolt action deer rifles locked in gun safes with no ammunition, unable to kill deer, because it’s considered by the controllers to be a weapon of war.

I’ve warned before about classifying guns as weapons of war versus hunting guns, or any other such bifurcation.  The U.S. Marine Corps used shotguns to clear rooms in Now Zad, Afghanistan.  They also used Winchester Model 70s in the initial stages of OIF as sniper rifles.  It didn’t bother them at all that Carlos Hathcock chose that very weapon in Vietnam (before its manufacture was outsourced to Japan, of course).

9mm Glocks, .45 ACP 1911s, bolt action rifles, high quality optics, night vision, knives, shotguns, body armor, and good comms gear are all still in use in the military and always will be (in some form or another).  The controllers think all of that is either a weapon of war or appurtenant to it.

Incremental cooperation with the controllers means gradual loss of liberty.  Compromise is for men who have no principles.  The only mistake the expert made in the responses was in his assertion that anything that is a God-given right can be “very well balanced when it comes to rights vs. prohibitions.”  That’s where all the problems began.

The controllers want to own that purview of mankind precisely because it is domain God has retained to Himself.  The state has set itself up as god, and there is no compromise good enough when the only acceptable sacrifice is absolute fealty.

News from South Carolina:

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) – Brad O’Neil is the part-owner of the Gun Vault in Pontiac.

He said he doesn’t see anything wrong with the renewed push for permit-less carry or ‘constitutional carry’ in South Carolina.

“The Constitution states the right to keep and bear arms. Which in itself means you can keep and bear arms,” O’Neil said.

There are bills filed at the State House that would allow anyone who can legally purchase a gun, to carry it on public places that permit it.

The bills also lay out some restrictions on where a firearm can be carried, openly or concealed. Those include police stations, polling locations on Election Day, courthouses and daycares.

Here we go again.  It happens every year.  The politicians tease this issue, and then it dies in committee.

So what’s going to happen this year?  Does it have a chance?  Will South Carolina finally leave the ranks of California and New York and decriminalize open carry?  It’s way past time, you know.

News from Kentucky:

The Kentucky House of Representatives has passed a permitless conceal carry bill.

Senate Bill 150, backed by the National Rifle Association, will now head to Governor Matt Bevin’s desk after a 60-37 vote in the House. It allows Kentuckians 21 and older who can lawfully possess a firearm to be able to conceal it without a permit.

Gov. Bevin said Friday afternoon to Gray TV that he would sign the bill.

“It doesn’t break new ground. It simply says that people do indeed have the right to keep and bear arms,” said Gov Bevin. “… For those people who are offended at this idea and don’t like it, there are other places in America where they could live.”

Gov. Bevin also said he is a concealed carry gun owner and that this bill is a constitutional carry bill.

Well, what does he mean by that?  Is this bill permitless carry, or constitutional carry?   Curious, I did just a little bit of research on open carry in Kentucky.

Kentucky law provides a strong background for permitting the open carry of firearms in most places. As such, there is little case law discussing the issue, because simply put, it isn’t illegal to openly carry firearms and the cases the do arise are not litigated to the point that they become case law. Even if an individual is charged, the cases will likely be quickly dismissed and will not remain in the judicial system to become legal precedent.

Because open carry of firearms is for the most part, legal in Kentucky, the statutes focus on concealed carry.

Um … what?  It’s difficult to believe that the government wrote something like this.  In adjacent paragraphs, they wrote the words “simply put, it isn’t illegal to openly carry firearms,” and “open carry of firearms is for the most part, legal in Kentucky.”

My dog could do a better job than that.  Maybe some open carriers can come in and clean this up for us, or perhaps you need to be exercising your right to openly carry more in Kentucky, and perhaps that’s the next confusion the legislature should get cleared up.

It sounds like the congress-critters and state lawyers have been taking drugs.  Somebody do an intervention, please.

News from Russia:

In the Tagansky District of Moscow, the police detained a 67-year-old woman, from whom they seized a pistol with live ammunition. The pensioner bought and stored the firearm illegally, the law enforcement officers established. The Muscovite was released on recognizance not to leave.

“According to the examination, the seized firearm is a Browning pistol and 8 cartridges of 6.35 millimeter caliber,” said the MIA’s Main Directorate in Moscow.

The investigating bodies initiated a criminal case under Article 222 CCRF (illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, storage, transportation or carrying of firearms, its basic parts, ammunition).

A 67-year old woman who likely has no other means of self defense.

Communists will be communists, whether in Russia or the U.S.  Perhaps there is collusion between the Russians and the controllers here in the U.S.?

It’s obvious to everyone that there is an ongoing polarization in America, in fact with increasing speed and ferocity.  In New York the claim by gun owners has routinely been that NYC is NYC, and upsate is a different beast.  They honor their gun rights around those parts.  I wonder how this will affect them?

Family members, school administrators and law enforcement officials can seek to get guns confiscated from people deemed by courts to be an “extreme risk” to themselves or others, under legislation signed Monday.

The “red flag” law, as it’s called, takes effect in 180 days.

That’s not just NYC.  Next up, from reader Mike, Oklahoma just passed constitutional carry.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Individuals will be able to carry firearms in Oklahoma without a permit or training starting Nov. 1, when a bill passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Kevin Stitt goes into effect.

The bill is the first signed by Stitt since he took office.

And there is dispute in Maryland.

Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis wants Maryland lawmakers to know he will not comply with any bill that restricts a person’s Second Amendment right.

Legislators heard testimony from constituents and public officials during a hearing on Monday that addressed 19 different bills related to firearms. When speaking to a room of people after testifying, Lewis reiterated his thoughts on these bills.

“We’re gonna let them know that we are sick and tired of being penalized for Baltimore City’s inability to control crime,” Lewis told the room in a video that circulated on social media. “If these bills pass, we will not comply.”

Lest he be considered a hero, here the rest of his argument and one of his reasons.

Lewis, who has worked in law enforcement for the past 35 years, said he was not opposed to every piece of gun legislation that has been introduced to the Maryland General Assembly. Rather, he only raises issue with the bills that would “further encroach or infringe upon law-abiding citizens’ right to bear arms.”

[ … ]

Another piece of legislation that Lewis took issue with is House bill 612, which would add a Colt AR-15 Sports H-BAR (heavy barrel) rifle to the list of regulated firearms in the state. Lewis said this bill, if passed, would lead to confiscation without compensation.

“There are bills that would truly make it a suicide mission for a sheriff deputy or a Maryland state trooper,” said Lewis, who personally owns multiple AR-15 rifles. “There are just so many reasons why this is unjust and unconstitutional.”

So what if the gun owners were compensated – would that make it okay to the Sheriff?  And what if there were enough officers to effect confiscation without it being a suicide mission?  Would he participate in such a thing?

He needs to have all the right reasons for opposition to gun control, and right now, he doesn’t.

Expect this kind of thing to continue, and increase in speed and intensity.  The left is lurching further leftward, as their heart tells them to do, and the right is splitting into two factions – those who will follow just behind the left, and those who will drift further right.

There are froggy times coming.

David Codrea:

“Codrea also asserts that the bump stock rule violates the Takings Clause because it fails to provide compensation to current bump stock owners who must destroy or abandon their property. Regardless of the merits of Codrea’s takings challenge, however, it does not justify preliminary injunctive relief.”

Just because she says so, and she has all the power.

Where we stand now is unless the D.C. Appeals Court grants the appeal with expedited treatment, on March 26 I and others will become felons if we do not surrender or destroy property previously deemed lawful by the same bureau now saying it’s not.

And the FedGov has filed an opposition to expedite.  Of course.

Good on David for soldiering on and going through what will likely be a losing battle.

Townhall.com:

I think there are areas where we can find agreement, like extreme risk protection orders IF THEY’RE DON (sic) RIGHT, but this will also take time to get the language right to ensure people’s rights aren’t trampled, which is absent in the liberal process. It’s hard to discuss this with people whose sole goal concerning gun control is expanding government power. Then again, what else is new when dealing with Democrats.

This is surprising coming from Matt Vespa, who is usually a fairly straight shooter.  So let’s offer a brief rebuttal, shall we?

First of all, it has to do with being a statist, not democrat, and democrats don’t have the corner on that market.  Second, this embraces a false view of the state.  The state isn’t God, and cannot know the future.  Divination and spiritists are forbidden in the Holy Writ and being wicked, and red flag laws are based on pre-crime judgments, that is, someone makes a judgment (sometimes based on the determination of community witch doctors, or Psychiatrists), that a threat exists enough to deprive a man or woman of his or her means of self defense.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with threats, which are already illegal.

Third, we needn’t delineate between gun control, and gun control for the purpose of expanding government power.  All gun control has as its purpose the expansion of government power, and all gun control is evil.  Fourth, rights are trampled with red flag laws, Matt needn’t attempt to ensure this doesn’t happen.  It happens as a function of the process itself.

I could go on, but I’ll let readers fill in the gaps.

Reuters:

A federal judge gave the Trump administration the go-ahead on Monday to ban “bump stocks” – rapid-fire gun attachments used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history – in a defeat for firearms rights advocates.

“None of the plaintiffs’ challenges merit preliminary injunctive relief,” Washington-based District Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote in a 64-page ruling.

[ … ]

Friedrich found courts have regularly recognized the ATF’s authority to “interpret and apply the statutes that it administers,” including the definition of a machine gun.

So in other words, because the courts have teamed up with the administrative state to empower themselves even further, it’s okay.  There’s precedent for it.  Congress doesn’t really matter if we give all authority to the administrative state anyway.

I see that David Codrea is already on this.

Judge Friedrich begins with the assertion that “According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the [Las Vegas] gunman used multiple ‘bump stocks’ in the attack, which increased his rate of fire.”  As contrary to most news reports, political claims and public opinion as this may sound, that has never been definitively established, or if it has, that information has not been made public. True, guns were recovered from the scene with bump stocks attached, but, as a Freedom of Information Act response documented, ATF was denied inspection access to weapons at the scene to determine if the ones used had been modified with “machine gun fire-control components or known machine gun conversion devices,” and to this day no report of technical examination has been released.

He further observes, “Who’s still asleep enough to still think this is “just about bump stocks” or still in denial enough to insist that it’s some genius 3D chess maneuver purposely designed to lose in the courts?”

That was my first thought when I read the report from Reuters.  Yea, what about that 3D chess match Trump is playing to make this all fail in court?  I’ve seen that sort of floated by Glenn Reynolds before, who also notes that this is unconstitutional.

I never once thought that Trump wanted anything but a bump stock ban since (contrary to what the Reuters article says) the NRA gave him cover for it.  He believes that gun owners are a monolith represented by the NRA, when in actuality, many if not most of us consider them to be to willing too compromise.

It’s as if Trump doesn’t really know who his base is, or doesn’t understand them, or doesn’t really care, or simply believes he can replace them with another base.

This is a bit wordy.

DENVER–The “Red Flag” bill moving through the Colorado Legislature has been the subject of plenty of debate, but as it stands now, for persons against whom even a temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) has been issued, there is a risk they could be trapped into inadvertently violating federal gun control laws.

House Bill 19-1177 requires that at the initial ex parte hearing (where the subject is excluded), and based on a judge finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the person meets the “danger to self or others” standard, a ruling issuing a temporary ERPO and search and seizure warrant to confiscate guns is required.

According to federal regulations provided to Complete Colorado by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) someone is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if found by a “court, board, commission or other lawful authority” to be, among other things, “a risk to himself or others.”

A strict reading of the federal law suggests that a person under any ERPO has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” by a judge and is barred from all gun ownership from the federal perspective.

The potential threat to gun owners is that even if the judge declines to issue the year-long order, there is still an adjudication and a temporary ERPO on record that arguably prohibits people from getting their guns back until another court proceeding required by federal law to relieve that disability is held.

As well, an ERPO that expires without further court action at the end of the statutory time period of 364 days doesn’t meet the standard for relief from the federal gun-ownership disability.

Prior to 2008, a judicial finding that a person was a danger to himself or others permanently revoked a person’s right to keep and bear arms. This disqualified many people suffering from temporary mental health issues from gun ownership for life.

The federal NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 provides, among other things, a pathway for people who were barred from gun ownership due to temporary mental illness to regain their rights once they are no longer in crisis.

The 2007 federal law says that a state can provide relief from the federal ban by creating a program for granting relief in state law. The law must provide that a “state court, board, commission or other lawful authority” grant the relief.

Colorado passed just such a statute in 2013 that is found at C.R.S. 13-5-142.5

When petitioned, the court may grant relief if it finds the person is “not likely to act in a manner that is dangerous to the public safety” and that the relief is not “contrary to the public interest.”

The catch is that only persons who have been “found to be incapacitated,” “committed by order of the court” to the custody of the state, or for whom the court has entered an order for short term treatment or for long-term care of a mental health disorder are eligible to petition for relief.

The bill does not address this situation, meaning that the subject of either a temporary or year-long ERPO might not be eligible to petition for relief under existing Colorado law.

Both federal and Colorado statutes say that persons taken in for observation on a 72-hour mental health hold or those who voluntarily admit themselves to a psychiatric facility do not qualify as being “committed to a mental institution,” which is another event that disqualifies gun ownership. But the Colorado ERPO bill doesn’t require a person adjudicated as dangerous to get any mental health treatment at all.

This potentially puts people who are issued temporary ERPOs pending a full hearing, those who are not issued an ERPO at the full hearing and those for whom an ERPO expired without further court action in the position of having to go back to court to relieve the federal prohibition, if they even know they must do so, only to find that they are not eligible to petition for relief under state law.

As I said, it was a bit wordy but I think I’ve got it.  The Colorado law may put people in “no-man’s” land where he can’t even use what little federal relief there is to get his property back or ever purchase firearms again.

But take note of the comment, which pointed me to this startling passage of the bill.

If a family or household member or a law enforcement officer establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm, the court may issue a continuing ERPO

Taken without any other context – which it would appear the way this passage is posed – it seems to say that mere possession of a firearm, if deemed unsafe by just about anyone connected to the person, can be a justifiable reason to disarm him.

Oh Colorado.  What have you done by letting so many Californians into your home?

I stumbled on this via reddit/firearms, but David Codrea has a number of links as well.  Look at what the boys at reddit have dug up.

You can Google Darlene Hooley and see here love for gun control and the Brady Center’s love for her.  So how did this all come up you ask?

Here’s their reply to the kerfuffle.

Not good enough.  Traitors.

I don’t own any Benchmade knives, and never will.  There are too many good companies out there (Ka-Bar, CRKT, etc.) to give my money to traitors.

How about you?