Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

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.

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.