Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

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?

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.?