Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

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?

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.