Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

So says Salon.

Take a minute and look at all the military-speak gun-culture nomenclature babble they slap down: “match-grade” and “muzzle brake” and “infinitely adjustable folding stock” and all the rest of that crap. That’s the way they market guns like the “Scorpion,” and you know what it is? It’s insane.

OK, their use of “insane” is a kind of gun-lover-hipster-speak, and the Scorpio isn’t a semiautomatic assault rifle like the ones used to kill 20 children and six teachers at Sandy Hook, or the the 50 Muslim worshipers in Christchurch, New Zealand, or the 17 students and faculty killed in Parkland, Florida, or the 58 concertgoers in Las Vegas. But it’s the same style of weapon, with the same style aluminum stock and ventilated “rails” alongside its barrel, and it’s got capabilities far in excess of what would be necessary for  any sort of legitimate civilian usage. “Loaded up with the faster 230-grain Berger round, I got hits on a 3-by-3-inch steel target at 2,000 yards,” the reviewer boasted. That is 1.13 miles, folks. This guy hit a target about the size of your forehead from over a mile away.

Who the hell needs to hit something, anything, from over a mile away? I’ll tell you who: an Army or Marine sniper, that’s who. They’re selling military-grade rifles to the general public. That’s what this sniper rifle is, and that’s what all the various iterations of the AR-15 style assault rifles are. Military-grade killing machines. All of them are for sale on the open market here in the United States of America. You can go down to your local gun store and buy one tomorrow. That means you’ll be able to set the damn Scorpion up on its bi-pod and hit a so-called “soft target” so far away you need a goddamn telescope to see it.

Oh, I can hear them now. The NRA and its ilk will tell you that this military-style assault rifle is just the thing to use hunting deer, or elk, or some other poor creature. But it’s really a killing machine, a thing you can buy that is designed for one purpose: to kill a “soft target” from up to a mile away. That is insane.

Even for your bolt action guns, they want to restrict the muzzle velocity, ballistic coefficient and bullet mass.  Funny how the sons and daughters of hippies and beatniks morphed into communists so fast, yes?  Say, maybe they were never really libertarians to begin with.  Perhaps all they wanted was liberty for them – and slavery for you.  Yes?

Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young grok the French revolution and Karl Marx.

From someone who has studied it.

“Registration is a pillar of gun control and has been in 150 countries for a century and a half,” he said.

“The first pillar is licensing … then you register the object … and then you make it clear that ownership of a firearm is a conditional privilege, which can be taken away.”

He said all three pillars were absent in the US, in NZ two pillars existed – strong licensing and a definite rejection of the right to bear arms.

“The middle pillar, the third leg on the stool if you like – registration – simply doesn’t exist in New Zealand … so like a two legged stool it’s an unreliable object.”

Statists the world over agree.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it:

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that “lost” them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn’t. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.

Now, maybe he sold them or they got lost or something. But it gives us a good target for investigation. A nice visit by the ATF or state police to find out if he really does still have those guns would be certainly warranted. It’s certainly not perfect. People may have gotten guns from parents or family, and not registered them. Perfect is the enemy of pretty darn good, as they say. This exercise isn’t so much to track down every gun ever sold; the main idea would be to profile and investigate people that may not have registered their guns. As an example, I’m not so concerned with the guy who bought that bolt action Mauser a decade ago and doesn’t have anything registered to his name. It’s a pretty good possibility that he sold it, gave it away, or got rid of it somehow. And even if he didn’t, that guy is not who I’m concerned with. I’m concerned that other guy who bought a half dozen assault weapons, registered two hunting rifles, and belongs to the NRA/GOA. He’s the guy who warrants a raid.

I don’t think the first author is correct, as it depends upon which state you live in and whether form 4473s have been made electronic and retrievable.

In any case, that is how they intend to do it.  Remember those words: “We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners.”

Ted Bromund:

The Sessions memo was backed up in January 2018 by a new Department of Justice policy that “prohibits the use of agency guidance documents in affirmative civil litigation in a manner that would convert such guidance into binding rules of conduct.” The ATF understood these directives to mean that it had to stop issuing public, industry-wide guidance or opinions—the very documents that could ensure uniform compliance in industry with existing regulations. When this author reached out to ATF for comment, the ATF stated that it was of course abiding by the former Attorney General’s memo, and that “we do not interpret the law.”

As a result of its understanding, the ATF now operates almost exclusively by private letters. It has not published a ruling on firearms or explosives since July 2017, and its only notifications on proposed rule-making since December 2017 relate to the politically-charged (and politically-motivated) pursuit of bump stocks.

This was not the outcome the Sessions memo envisaged. The memo makes it clear that “not every agency action is required to undergo notice-and-comment rulemaking…. [A]gencies may use guidance and similar documents to educate regulated parties through plain-language restatements of existing legal requirements or provide non-binding advice on technical issues.” The point of the memo was to prevent department rule-makers from using public guidance documents to evade the rulemaking process, not to stop them from issuing any public guidance at all. Education is not interpretation.

The ATF’s approach means that each industry member that asks a question about how to apply or interpret the rules gets its own private answer, an answer that none of its competitors knows about and which does not serve as a legal precedent. It means that no one in the industry has any certainty, not even the firm that asked the question in the first place, because the ATF can always change a decision it made in a private “no-action” letter later on. And it means that the ATF has almost complete discretion in how it regulates, because it is creating no precedents.

According to Jared Febbroriello, a lawyer working with firearms and defense companies “It is disconcerting that any agency that is tasked with interpreting the law might seek to restrict the public’s ability to access their interpretations but given the potential for criminal prosecution and the heightened risk for the loss of life, liberty and property that is associated with firearms one would think that ATF would be embracing complete transparency. Sadly, they are not.”

I do not thing any such stupid thing.  The administrative state won’t do anything in the interest of America or her citizens.  It exists wholly to serve itself.

The ATF does this sort of thing because there is a such a thing as the administrative state to begin with, but also, because Jeff Sessions is a crap-weasel of mammoth proportions who did nothing of any lasting value and lacked the guts to reign in the worst offenders.

And then again, we cannot exonerate the legislative branch who allows all of this, not the president who [a] agrees with it all, [b] lacks the guts to shut it down, [c] pretends it isn’t occurring, [d] claims that it cannot be stopped, or [e] secretly wants to use that administrative state to accomplish what no one else will despite what he tells the voters (e.g., the bump stock ban).

David Codrea:

Likewise, the Codrea Plaintiffs-Appellants (No. 18-cv-3086 (D.D.C.) in their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5-1, p. 24), Reply Brief (Doc. 18, p. 17), and Principal Brief before this Court (p. 29), requested a “systemwide preliminary injunction.”

Good.  The stupid way the court works the stay would only have been good for the specific plaintiff.

We shouldn’t even be here.  Thanks Trump.  And NRA (who gave you the original idea and cover for it).

News from New Zealand.

“We’ll be working with everyone to take those firearms off them and into a place of safekeeping,” he told media this afternoon.

“The first step is to do it voluntarily, we’ll then be working to ascertain if they haven’t complied and those people will be in all likelihood prosecuted,” Mr Bush said.

There were about 250,000 firearm holders in New Zealand, he said. People wishing to surrender their firearms must first contact police – either online or by phoning at 0800 311 311.

Referring to CCTV footage of the mosque attacks, Mr Bush said: I’ve seen that footage. It’s really disturbing. I don’t think that kind of thing should be in the public domain.”

Yea, I’ll bet you don’t.  There appears to be problems with it too numerous to catalog.  But as to confiscations, how is that going to happen?

“New Zealand is at a considerable disadvantage to countries that have had registries, because there’s no way of tracing the firearms because they don’t know who’s got them,” Mr. Alpers said. “We’re relying entirely on the honesty of the gun owner to turn it in.”

And there you have it.  That’s the value of a registry to the communists.

News from Connecticut:

Sen. Gennaro Bizzarro, R-New Britain, said he really “struggled” with his vote, but decided to vote yes.

“I sleep with my gun at my side,” Bizzarro said, to protect his family from any possible intruders. But, in the end, he went along with the majority and voted yes.

[ … ]

While also praising Kristin Song for her advocacy on behalf of her son, Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott said the bill has “one flaw.”

He said that flaw was “you must secure guns in a certain way.”

“I don’t believe we have a right to tell people what they should in their own homes,” Sampson said, adding in their own homes is what a gun owner’s right to “choose their own method” to secure a gun.

So what are you going to do, Bizzarro?  Abdicate your manly, God-given responsibilities to protect and defend your family because a bunch of nanny-state collectivists want you to be neutered?

And Rob, there’s more than one flaw in this legislation.

Who’s left – some folks from Ruger, Mossberg and Colt?  Get out.  Now.  You’re several years too late, perhaps, but late is better than never.  Never will be deadly.  Especially since you can see the future of firearms manufacturers who are left there.

Via David Codrea, news from Colorado:

It’s not even the law yet, but state Attorney General Phil Weiser is already telling sheriffs to resign if they follow locals laws passed in 26 counties that declared themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuaries.

But wait, there’s more.

Weiser blinked.

He also said this during his testimony in favor of the bill at a state Senate committee meeting:

“Any commission that says ‘I don’t want my sheriff upholding an unconstitutional law,’ they’re on solid ground,” Weiser said, adding that he expects the question to go before a court.

But Weiser, whose job it is to defend Colorado statutes, says he believes that if the red flag bill becomes law as expected and is challenged, it will be found to be constitutional and therefore must be enforced.

So county commissions passing the sanctuary laws and the sheriff’s following that order, are totally within the law to thumb their nose once the state bill becomes law, Weiser concedes.

And the bill is certain to become law, once it skips through a second state Senate panel and floor passage, and Gov. Polis signs it.

But the sheriffs have wiggle room until the constitutionality is tested in what could be a lengthy court battle.

I’m not certain he has the authority to demand enforcement of anything, much less something that runs so afoul of the constitution.  Exactly how he would enforce his edict that Sheriffs enforce red flag laws isn’t clear because he doesn’t say.

What is he going to do – send the state police after Sheriffs in 2A sanctuary counties?  LEO versus LEO?  What is he going to do if Sheriffs completely ignore the edicts of a judge – send state police after Sheriffs?  LEO versus LEO?  Frankly, he sounds like a lawyer that’s gotten a little too big for his britches.  He needs to be knocked down a notch or three.

From reader Jack, news from UNC:

Monday’s statement from the university confirmed that “members of a ‘Confederate heritage’ group walked onto the UNC – Chapel Hill campus from the Town of Chapel Hill via Raleigh Street to Cameron Avenue. At least one individual was in possession of a handgun. They were approached by UNC Police officers on the sidewalk in front of Memorial Hall and were asked to leave campus, which they did.”

It is generally legal in North Carolina for an individual to openly carry a firearm, unless otherwise prohibited.

“Due to immediate uncertainty Saturday about the application of these laws to the Cameron Avenue right of way, which is maintained by the Town of Chapel Hill, no arrest was made in this case,” university officials said Monday. But the statement continued by saying that any person bringing a firearm onto the campus in the future will be arrested and trespassed from the campus.

“The University is committed to the safety of our campus community. As it regularly does, UNC Police continues to monitor any information indicating a threat to the campus community from any group.”

First of all, I don’t believe the police would have had any right to force removal of the protestors should they have not been voluntarily willing to leave.

Second, if this area is a “right of way,” what right does UNC have to issue regulations?  Open carry is legal in North Carolina.  These protestors were doing nothing wrong or illegal as best as I can tell.  If they’re going to throw some piddly-ass assembly permit requirement at them, they’ve got to shut down every hippie playing his guitar on the sidewalk in Raleigh.

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.