Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

The Washington Post:

Maryland courts have seized guns from 148 people in the three months since the state enacted a law designed to take weapons from people who are danger to themselves or others.

Four of the gun owners posed “significant threats” to schools, an official told state lawmakers Tuesday.

Montgomery County Sheriff Darren M. Popkin (D), who has helped train police officers across the state about the “red-flag” law, said he could not provide details about the gun seizures — including those that could have led to school shootings — because of a confidentiality rule.

But, Popkin told the House Judiciary Committee, “these orders . . . are saving lives.”

As I’ve said before, the communist project is nearly complete.

Say, I was wondering, if the department of pre-crime is any good, why haven’t we seen a precipitous reduction in the number of spree crimes?  Surely, half of their predictions for the future should be accurate, right?  We require that of weather forecasters, don’t we?

Prophets, all of them.  Surely.  It also comes to mind that God required false prophets be killed in the O.T. (Deuteronomy 13:13).  I wonder how many of these forecasters would be willing to put their life on the line for their fortune telling and witch-doctoring?

CNBC:

In an unusual maneuver, Goldstein also used the case to raise the question of whether Trump’s acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, was constitutionally appointed.

Trump appointed Whitaker in November after forcing out Jeff Sessions. Critics immediately pounced on the appointment, arguing that it was unlawful because Whitaker had not been confirmed by the Senate to the post he held at the time of his elevation to acting attorney general.

Goldstein made his client’s gun rights case into a vehicle for resolving the issue and urged the justices to resolve both matters. He did so simply by asking the court to change the name of the case.

He asked the court to name the case Barry Michaels v. Rod Rosenstein, rather than Barry Michaels v. Matthew Whitaker. In briefs, Goldstein acknowledged that his argument was unusual but said he saw the issue as urgent.

“Yes, the Court can blink at that reality, decline to act, and move on,” Goldstein wrote in one November brief. “But history will regret that it did.”

The court declined Goldstein’s request to change the name of the case in addition to the underlying 2nd Amendment question.

Presumably, thus goes down one objection to the Trump bump stock ban, i.e., that it was approved by an unconstitutional AG (not the subject of this CNBC article).  It was, but apparently the Supreme Court doesn’t care to visit the question.

Via WRSA, at Survival Blog, Rawles has a great analysis of the current attempts by the statists to undermine recognition of your God-given rights.

It’s a very comprehensive analysis, and as always, Rawles is well worth the time.  Also as always, share your thoughts and comments.

UPDATE: My oldest son points out that this is from a year ago.  I asked him if that is important?  He says, “The Art of War” is necessary for understanding Trump.  It’s difficult to understand whether he’s serious or simply tactically owning or feigning positions.  My response: Then why the red flag laws and bump stock ban?

Via Uncle, this isn’t the Onion.  It’s real.

President Donald Trump raised the issue, unprompted, during a roughly hour-long televised meeting with Feinstein and other members of Congress Wednesday afternoon at the White House. “I think it’s something you have to think about,” Trump said at the gathering to discuss school safety. “It doesn’t make sense that I have to wait until I’m 21 to get a handgun but I can get this weapon at 18,” he added, referring to assault rifles.

Trump’s comments came the same day Feinstein and Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake formally rolled out their bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age for purchasing assault weapons and high capacity magazines from 18 to 21. The California Democrat, sitting directly to the president’s left at the White House meeting, interjected at one point, asking if he’d sign legislation to raise the age to 21.

Trump said he’d give it “serious thought,” even though he acknowledged the National Rifle Association opposed such a proposal. The president said he’d been “asked that question more than any other question” in the wake of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which killed 17 people.

He also didn’t rule out the idea of outlawing assault weapons, like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle gunman Nikolas Cruz used to mow down students and teachers at Stoneman Douglas High. Feinstein pitched her 2017 legislation to renew the ban at the beginning of the meeting, handing Trump a copy of the bill. She was the author of the original assault weapons ban that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994. It expired in 2004.

Later, the president asked Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin of West Virginia if they could fold Feinstein’s legislation (and another proposal from Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobucher) into their bipartisan background checks bill. “Can you add what Amy and Dianne have, can you add them in?” Trump asked. Feinstein’s gleeful reaction, smiling widely and appearing to plead with Toomey and Manchin, immediately began circulating on Twitter.

Don’t be surprised.  The “Let’s make a deal” president famously said during his campaign that “Everything is negotiable.”  By that he meant everything, including recognition of your rights.  We all knew that then, and we still know it today.  Nothing has changed.

Trump may be just a stupid hack with Northern progressive proclivities who doesn’t understand his base.  But then he could also be a Manchurian candidate for the deep state.  What else would explain his nomination of Sessions for AG, his leaving Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein in positions of authority, and his support for red flag laws and the bump stock ban?  Who knows except him?  In any case, time is running out, and the state is evolving to an even more draconian tyranny.

There is also the support by the NRA that organization will have to answer for.  Was their support just stupid, or was there some ulterior motive?

Concord Monitor:

A group of Republican state representatives are vowing to disobey a new rule banning firearms on the House floor, calling it “illegitimate” and dangerous.

In a letter to the Monitor , Auburn Rep. Jess Edwards and seven other members of his party denounced the new rule as unconstitutional, arguing that representatives had no obligation to follow it.

“We view Rule 63 as illegitimate,” the group wrote, referring to the new change, which passed the House last week. “We view Rule 63 as having the perverse effect of increasing the risk to everyone in the House gallery and chambers.”

They added: “Due to our willingness to exercise our constitutional rights and because any attempt to disarm House members is foolish public policy, we reserve the right to refuse to comply.”

In its Jan. 2 session – the first of the new year – the newly-Democratic  House voted to ban firearms and other deadly weapons  from the House floor, gallery, and anteroom.

Representatives are expected to turn in any weapons to State House security before entering the House floor on voting days, according to Shurtleff. Any representatives in defiance of the rule may be ejected or even arrested, the rule states.

The amended rule, a restoration of a policy last seen in 2014, set off a firestorm from the outset. In passionate speeches Wednesday, Republican representatives pointed to death threats they had received from members of the public and argued banning firearms would make them unsafe.

Interesting.  So is civil disobedience allowed only by lawmakers, or is it good for “ordinary” people too, you know, the peasants?

So what will happen to a peasant when he disobeys the idiotic nullification laws the cities in NH are setting up against state law?

Yes, sadly, it’s true.

Nevertheless, PFAW describes a ban on magazine capacity as a ban on “rapid-fire ammunition.” They do not explain what “rapid-fire ammunition” is–whether it is ammunition for a Glock 9mm, a Smith & Wesson .380, or a Rock Island Armory 10mm. The only clue they give is their emphasis on “assault weapons,” a moniker the left uses to describe semiautomatic rifles.

I’m wondering if this means we won’t have access to that shoulder thing that goes up either?

Prior:

• The Captain’s Journal » High Ammo Clips
• The Captain’s Journal » Automatic Bullets In Rapid-Fire Magazine Clips
• The Captain’s Journal » Duck Hunting With Bullets
• The Captain’s Journal » Guns, Accoutrements And Idiots
• The Captain’s Journal » The Fully Loaded Ammunition Cartridge
• The Captain’s Journal » The High Magazine Round
• The Captain’s Journal » Bob Owens On Open Carry In The Atlanta AIrport
• The Captain’s Journal » Mother Jones On “High-Caliber Rifles”
• The Captain’s Journal » The 40-Clip Magazine

By someone named Jazz Shaw.

Personally, I’ve never been quite as upset about background checks when compared to actual gun bans because ferreting out dangerous criminals who may be attempting to purchase a gun from an authorized outlet is actually a good thing.

I don’t know this person, but perhaps she could explain how such a thing would stop a criminal from getting firearms?  While she’s at it, perhaps she might write us an essay on how this system could be used as a gun registry, and thus as a precursor to gun confiscations like the statists want?

Perhaps she could take that as an assignment.  Yes, I think that would be a good assignment.

Outdoorhub:

Hundreds of gun owning Floridians have been ordered to surrender their firearms under a new ‘Red-Flag’ law signed by the governor just three weeks after a gunman entered Stoneman Douglas High School and opened fire.

The Risk Protection Order, signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, essentially strips a person’s second amendment rights if a task force team and a judge believe it is warranted – meaning if the person shows any signs of being a threat to themselves or others.

According to WFTS-TV, Sgt. Jason Schmittendorf, of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, said approximately 200 guns have been confiscated in Florida since the red-flag law was enacted. “Around 30,000 rounds of ammunition were also taken,” he stated.

The team has reportedly filed 64 risk protection petitions in court, which is the second highest number of cases in a Florida county – Broward County has the most, with 88 risk protection petitions filed since the law was ordered into effect in mid-March.

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri – who chairs the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission – shared this sentiment when asked about his decision to devote an entire unit to carry out the new law:

“It’s a constitutional right to bear arms and when you are asking the court to deprive somebody of that right we need to make sure we are making good decisions, right decisions and the circumstances warrant it.”

According to the report, every petition filed under the order in Pinellas County has been granted by the judge, with the vast majority involving people with a previous history of mental illness.

So here’s the gouge.  As long as they can get a community witchdoctor to say it’s okay, a judge will reflexively grant the petition.  So much for the justice system called “Department of pre-crime.”

If they were so dangerous, why hadn’t they already committed a crime?  Worry not about details, dear folk.  There is an entire unit devoted to carrying out this confiscatory policy.  I’m sure Trump is happy, along with the NRA.  For two more years, anyway.

The Guardian:

Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019.

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

Because prohibition never works.  Never.  Not once in history, with anything.  Ever.

The UK knows that and they want the defenseless, law abiding, peaceable man disarmed.  It’s not accidental.  It’s intentional.

David Codrea writing at Ammoland:

The stock I obtained, signed by inventor Bill Akins and still in its original packaging, was initially approved as “legal,” then was deemed “illegal,” subsequently returned for rework to remove the spring and once more deemed “legal.”  Now it is supposedly illegal again and if I don’t obey the order to rid myself of my twice-confirmed “legal” property, I’ll be branded a felon and subject to life and freedom-destroying punishments. For the record, I have no intention of using it and don’t even own the type of rifle it is made for. I own it, among other reasons, because I consider it a piece of firearms history, because it pleases me to own it, because the gun-grabbers don’t want me to, and because it is my right.

Yes, to all of the above.  But note that the ATF couldn’t possibly care less how much unjustified damage they do to life and property.  It’s their bread and butter.

It’ll be interesting to see where this goes, perhaps to the Supreme Court.