Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

News from The Far Side:

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on Thursday said that high court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, who Stevens once lauded in one of his books, does not belong on the Supreme Court.

Speaking to a crowd of retirees in Boca Raton, Stevens, 98, said Kavanaugh’s performance during a recent Senate confirmation hearing suggested that he lacks the temperament for the job.

The same man who said this.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

I collect, cull and communicate the data.  You’re smart enough to decide.  On a positive note, it’s nice to hear that mankind is no longer affected by his sinful nature and his only intentions are good, all of the time.

Who knew?

News from the Northeast:

Sensing controversy, Gov. Phil Scott privately asked Vermont lawmakers to drop a limit on the size of gun magazines from a package of firearms regulations that was about to pass the Legislature this spring.

The governor was unsuccessful, and in April he signed the magazine limit along with other firearms laws.

“I advocated for them to consider taking that out because I knew that it was going to be a hot-button issue for many,” Scott said in a recent interview. “But I wasn’t persuasive enough for them to take it out. We’ll live with that.”

[ … ]

Scott has distanced himself from the magazine ban during his re-election campaign, saying in one Republican debate that the restriction “wasn’t my idea.”

Scott now says he has no plans to seek a repeal of the magazine ban if he wins re-election.

“I think we’ve had enough of the gun discussion at this point in time,” Scott said.

Ah, I see.  You wanted to get in bed with the controllers.  But you now regret it because you’re afraid you might lose power and don’t really have any scruples at all and believe nothing.  Therefore you regret the decision.  But not enough.

So let’s just forget all about it.

We’ve discussed guns enough.  Bless your heart.  Is that how you think this works?

NJ.com:

The U.S. District Court, in a ruling handed down late Friday, said New Jersey’s law doesn’t “prevent ownership of any type of gun and does not restrict the quantity of ammunition a gun owner may possess.” Rather, it “merely restricts the quantity of bullets a magazine may hold.”

The decision continues: “To illustrate, a citizen who owns a gun, 30 rounds of ammunition, and two 15-round magazines prior to the (new law’s) enactment will be permitted to retain his gun, ammunition, and three 10-round magazines.”

Be thankful, peasants.  Love your bondage, ye scum.  You can still have your 30 rounds.  So says the black robes.

And anyone who thinks that the priesthood will be their salvation is a fool.

Nasdaq:

Proxy service firms Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis are calling for American Outdoor Brands (NASDAQ: AOBC) investors to follow the lead of those at Sturm, Ruger (NYSE: RGR) and force management to draft a report stating that management is monitoring acts of gun violence in the country and the risks they represent to the company.

American Outdoor Brands — the former Smith & Wesson — is hosting its annual meeting on Sept. 25, and a number of activist healthcare and religious groups have jointly submitted a shareholder question for approval. Earlier this year, a similar effort succeeded at Ruger.

The ballot question asks the company to do three things:

• Monitor violent events in which Smith & Wesson products are used.
• Prove the gunmaker is working to produce safer firearms and related products.
• Assess the risks to the gunmaker’s reputation and financial well-being from gun violence in the U.S.

In a report issued by ISS, the corporate governance outfit endorsed the proposal as a way to prove American Outdoor Brands’ board of directors is keeping the long-term risks of gun violence in mind.

Reuters reported that ISS concluded, “There is reason to believe that smart gun technology could be employed to make guns safer in the U.S. and that any engineering problems could be overcome if there was a market for the product.” So-called smart guns use technology to make sure the weapon is in the hands of its owner before it fires.

[ … ]

Sturm, Ruger CEO Chris Killoy accepted the vote by investors, saying, “shareholders have spoken,” but he also went on to point out, “What the proposal does not and cannot do is to force us to change our business, which is lawful and constitutionally protected.”

While American Outdoor Brands undoubtedly feels the same way, it’s possible it will have a very different result than Sturm, Ruger did.

First, Ruger’s meeting was held at a hotel and an activist representative appeared and made an appeal to shareholders; American Outdoor’s meeting is an online-only event. (It’s the second year the gunmaker has conducted the annual meeting this way.) And as noted above, institutional investors own a smaller proportion of American Outdoor stock, making it a little more difficult to compile enough votes in favor. The meeting is also further removed from the Parkland school shooting, while Ruger’s event was more contemporaneous with it and emotions were more raw.

As I’ve said before, if you open your stock to investors (go public) and you’re subject to the political whims of money-people, you’d better make sure your employees own a majority of the stock and can reject things like this.

I see both Ruger and Smith & Wesson as vulnerable.

Chicago Sun-Times:

A man with a concealed carry gun license stepped from his car on Thursday and shot the suspected shooter of a Cicero police officer.

Good for him.

Had the good Samaritan not joined the gun battle, the Cicero cop might not be alive today, and the accused shooter might have gotten away.

We remain unconvinced, all the same, that concealed carry is good for Chicago or Illinois. There is no convincing evidence — just the occasional anecdote — that permitting people to walk around with concealed guns deters crime. There is credible evidence, on the contrary, that concealed carry leads in the long run to more crime.

Hang your argument on a single anecdote, and you can defend almost anything.

Yea, I’m sure this was the only instance in the history of the world in which anyone was ever saved by someone else carrying a gun.  And I’m sure no one ever saved his or her own life by doing that.  In fact, I don’t even know why cops carry guns.

Good Lord.  Do they hire second graders to write these editorials?

News from Wisconsin:

Yes, a lot less people were killed or injured because the cops got there.  Not because poor victims are asking the question, “Do you hide or do you run?”  Rather than saying, “Remember, unholster, proper grip technique, ensure round is chambered, find perp, present, get good sight picture, discharge.”

Well, she did what all of America has been trained to do.

DFP:

Davis’ “bullet bill” ordinance would build a new structure for purchasing ammunition around law enforcement approval. Potential buyers would need to undergo a mental illness background check with their local police department or the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. They would also need approval for each purchase – except at gun shows, where showing a certificate of a previous mental illness check would be sufficient.

Finally, the ordinance would raise taxes on ammunition and use the funds for gun safety and gun rights education – teaching “about the second amendment, about how to use a gun safely and about gun violence,” Davis said.

[ … ]

If he gets the ordinance passed in Wayne County, Davis said, he would like to see it implemented at the state and, eventually, federal level.

Since they haven’t been as successful as they would like in gun control, they want ammunition control, gun manufacturer bank account control, and mental state control.  Because controllers got to control.  It’s who they are.

I expect the statists will do this at the federal level as soon as the power structure changes just a little bit in Washington.  At it will, soon enough.  These are trial balloons at the local and state level right now.  Expect this to expand.

I don’t believe anyone who proposes such a bill should ever be able to get a “certificate of mental wellness.”

Via WoG, GRNC responds to the credit poachers.

As GRNC volunteers continue to diligently monitor the state for “State of Emergency (SOE) Gun Bans,” it seems that other organizations are taking credit for our successes. No one, not credit poachers like the Firearms Policy Foundation, nor any other organization that “sends a letter” can claim credit for the work GRNC has been doing for years—work that made SOE Gun Bans unlawful and forced government entities to repeal these bans.

GRNC has now added Littleton, NC to our list of hurricane Florence successes. This morning, we were alerted to a declaration of an unconstitutional SOE gun ban in Littleton and our volunteers immediately contacted them, citing the law. Before Littleton, it was Leland, Carolina Beach and Roanoke Rapids. Fortunately, and in nearly all of these cases so far, discussions with municipal leaders have been cordial, and they were happy to correct the problem once they understood the illegality of their declaration. Kudos to Carolina Beach and Littleton for being particularly receptive during our discussions with them.

As a local organization, we are happy to say that our relationships with these municipalities remain properly cordial as we help the municipalities identify and correct these problems.

I’ve met the good folks of GRNC at a gun show in Charlotte and talked extensively with them.  I like them and want to remain cordial with them, and I’m glad they take this approach (perhaps there is something to the notion that a message is received better when delivered with honey instead of vinegar).

And I never thought that a letter from the FPF or FPC did the trick.  My post preceded the letter, and I didn’t think my post did the trick either.  But I simply cannot consider the folks in Leland allies or friends.  They are enemies of liberty because of what they did.

Had they not been stopped by GRNC, they would have put peaceable and good men on the road with road robbers, highway thieves and murderers, and nefarious men of all kinds who could have done their family harm.  Hopefully, no one obeyed their immoral and illegal edicts.

They showed their predilections and predispositions with this edict.  Their beliefs run contrary to moral and Godly thought.  Their actions ran afoul of state law, and thus they are either criminally culpable or negligent in their ignorance to the point of malfeasance in office.  They should be in prison.

Postscript: It isn’t clear to me whether GRNC should be referring to Leland rather than Littleton, or I shouldn’t have connected this to Leland (although the FPF letter was sent to Leland).

Prior:

Update On Leland, North Carolina, Prohibition Of Weapons During Hurricane Florence

Leland, North Carolina, Prohibits Transport Or Possession Of Weapons Outside Of Private Premises Ahead Of Hurricane Florence

As best as I understand the appeals court ruling for Hawaii open carry, they determined that open carry cannot legally be prohibited if concealed carry is also prohibited.  Of course, if I had made the ruling, I would have determined that no man can legally or morally dictate to another man how or where he can carry his weapons.  But Hawaii is appealing that decision.

The state and Hawaii County filed a petition today asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a three-judge panel’s ruling that Hawaii’s legal requirement for getting a license to carry a firearm in public violates the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.

The three-judge panel of the court handed down a 2-1 opinion in July in the case of a Hilo man’s lawsuit against the state and the Hawaii Police Department. George K. Young Jr. sued in 2012 after then-Hawaii Police Chief Harry Kubojiri twice rejected his application for a license to carry a firearm.

State firearm laws prohibit carrying a firearm in public except to transport it to and from places where it can be purchased and used legally, such as from a gun shop to your home or to the police department for registration. The firearm must be unloaded and in an enclosed container.

The chief of police of each county is responsible for handling firearm registrations and issuing firearm licenses. The law allows for the chief, in exceptional cases, to grant a license to carry a loaded revolver or pistol to an applicant who shows reason to fear injury to himself or his property.

The 2-1 opinion said the exceptional case requirement impinges on the right of a responsible, law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm openly for self-defense outside of his home.

According to the state and county’s joint petition, the panel’s ruling is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Hawaii law. The panel, it says, invalidated Hawaii’s law on the ground that it limits open-carry license to security guards and other people whose jobs require protecting life and property.

“But that is just wrong,” the filing says. The law makes open-carry license available to any qualified individual who “sufficiently indicates” an “urgency” or “need” to carry a firearm and who is “engaged in the protection of life and property.”

Hawaii Attorney General Russell Suzuki has issued an opinion that clarifies that the law extends to private individuals as well as security officers and that it advises the police chiefs that victims of domestic violence, anyone who faces a credible threat of armed robbery or violent crime may be eligible for open-carry licenses.

But attorneys for Young said today that the reality is that the state rarely issues any open-carry licenses — only four in the last 18 years.

“The bottom line is that the state doesn’t issue permits,” attorney Alan Beck said.

Let’s be clear.  Everyone faces a credible threat because of the sinfulness of mankind.  Anyone, at any time, in any location, may be the victim of a crime against their person.

They know that and don’t care.

To satisfy these requirements, an applicant must demonstrate, among other things, that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens.

“Substantially.”  Not by a little, but substantially.  Note that most of the folks who hold this view believe in the protection of various animal life and the environment.  Humans aren’t good enough for protection.  So says the communists in Hawaii.  And no, the police aren’t there to protect you.  That’s just a children’s fairy tale.

On September 10th I brought up the Leland, North Carolina, prohibition of weapon transport or carry during hurricane Florence.  On September 11th, the Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation sent a demand letter that ended with the following statement.

Leland’s State of Emergency Notice should immediately be amended to strike the offending language creating this unlawful and unconstitutional weapons prohibition. Should the Town fail to do so, and/or attempt to enforce the same against any resident, it stands exposed to civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.

But while Leland issued a modified edict via Facebook (how laughable is that?), the damage had been done.  It essentially said that the prohibition applied only to those who were already prohibited.  In other words, that which was already illegal was “more illegaler and bader.”

Nothing explains the initial choice to violate state code by the initial edict, and nothing can undo the fact that the edict was criminal on its face.

I will continue to follow this.  This isn’t a resolution.