Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Journal Sentinel:

My God.  Look at that thing!  Hey, I still haven’t heard any takers to my hard hats and ketchup challenge.

CNSNEWS.com:

(CNSNews.com) – “In 1994, you said that gun control is a dead end,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Attorney General-nominee William Barr at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday.

“Do you still believe that prudent controls on weapons won’t reduce violent crime?” Feinstein, a staunch gun control advocate, asked him.

“I think that the problem of our time is to get an effective system in place that can keep dangerous firearms out of the hands of mentally ill people,” Barr replied.

That is — should be priority number one. And it’s going to take some hard work. And we need to get on top of the problem. We need to come up with agreed-to standards that are prohibitors of people who are mentally ill. We have to put the resources in to get the system built up the way we did many years ago on the felon records and so forth.

We have to get the system working. And as I say, it’s sort of piecemeal a little bit right now. We need to really get some energy behind it and get it done.

And I also think we need to push along the ERPOs (Extreme Risk Protection Orders), so we have these red flag laws to supplement the use of the background check to find out if someone has some mental disturbance. This is the single most important thing I think we can do in the gun control area to stop these massacres from happening in the first place.

Later, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) asked Barr to update Congress on his view of the Second Amendment.

Barr said that even before the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, which upheld the individual right to bear arms, he believed that was so.

“I personally concluded that the Second Amendment creates a personal right under the Constitution,” Barr said.

It’s based on the Lockean notion of the right of self-preservation. It’s tied to that. And I was glad that — to see Heller come out and vindicate that initial view that I had. And so there’s no question under Heller that the right to have weapons is — firearms, is protected under the Second Amendment and is a personal right. At the same time, there’s room for reasonable regulation.

And you know, from my standpoint, what I would look for is — in assessing a regulation is, what’s the burden on law-abiding people? And is it proportionate to whatever benefit in terms of safety and effectiveness will be conferred?

As I said just a moment ago, let’s get down to the real problem we’re confronting, which is keeping these weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally ill. And I think all the rest of this stuff is really essentially rhetoric until we really get that problem dealt with, in terms of regulatory approaches.

Readers are advised to study every word of his testimony.  And then do it again.  This is very important.

Sessions was probably owned by the deep state in some manner or other, but in any event he was just stolid and dense.  He focused his energies on making sure we had huge resources devoted to combatting marijuana.  Barr seems much more smarter, and therefore much more dangerous.

As to whether the founders believed they were following the enlightenment and John Locke as opposed to the Apostle Paul and John Calvin, I cannot say.  Men much smarter than me – R. J. Rushdoony, C. Gregg Singer and Douglas Kelly – have engaged in detailed debates about that, and I encourage you to read their analyses rather than listen to me.  It’s likely based on what I know that there was a sufficient mix of enlightenment thinkers and Calvinists that each side could claim credit for what’s in the constitution, and it was the best compromise they could come up with given the makeup of the group.

As to the actual right to self preservation, I claim, without apology, that neither you nor I have such a right outside of the decrees of God stipulated in the Holy Writ.  And it’s there in clear detail, so yes, we have that right.  The right of self defense and defense of home and hearth lies in the decrees and therefore in the nature of God.  It is ensconced firmly there, not in the second amendment.  The constitution is a covenant between men, not a source of anything, much less human rights.

But according to Barr, there’s “room reasonable regulation.”  Regulation decided by men, running counter to God’s holy decrees if necessary.  And according to Barr, it’s necessary if the benefit to public safety outweighs whatever right a judge or politician says you have.

Red flag laws.  Trump likely knew all about Barr’s views before nominating him.  Barr will also likely give high priority to finding passage of such laws as constitutional.  He’ll put his best lawyers on it.  He’ll also work hard to come up with lists of “prohibited persons,” and who knows at this time what a prohibited person will look like?

He defers to community witch doctors deciding the fate of God-given rights based on “mental illness,” when it’s been demonstrated over and over again that mental illness, whatever that is, has nothing whatsoever to do with propensity to violence.  So he believes in myths and is willing to use the force of the DoJ to back up his beliefs.

These are dangerous times, and I predict Trump’s nominee will end up being one of the biggest threats to 2A rights in American history if he stays in his position.  Obama managed to do virtually nothing to restrict gun rights compared to Trump and his cabinet.  All with the approval of the NRA folks in Fairfax, VA.

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.