Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Via WoG, this:

‘Hunting & Fishing’ ballot initiative: a thin veil covering the GOP’s apathy toward gun owners…

Other organizations may be happy with a hunting and fishing ballot initiative posing as pro-gun legislation, but we at GRNC are not fooled by a wispy, token gesture in the absence of real pro-gun legislative action. Second Amendment voters like you played a pivotal role in Republicans gaining and maintaining a supermajority in the NC legislature, but how has Republican leadership repaid you for this? Simple:

1. GOP Senate leaders, like Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, have spent a full two years ignoring gun owners, refusing to give GRNC’s ‘Permitless Concealed Carry’ bill (HB 746) even a hearing, let alone bring it to the floor for a vote.

2. Republicans in the NC House, like Speaker Tim Moore, have refused to give a hearing to the time-critical School Self-defense Act (HB 1039), which would help protect our vulnerable school children.

If that’s not a sharp enough stick in the eye, NC’s GOP Executive Director, Dallas Woodhouse, recently proclaimed on Facebook that the GOP will not move pro-gun bills during this session. And yes, you read that right, Dallas Woodhouse is not the Democrat’s Executive Director, he is the ostensibly “pro-gun” Republican’s.

4. Now, our state’s Republican politicians have further “repaid” you by putting forth a virtually meaningless ballot initiative, meant only to conjure thoughts of gun rights and to get conservative voters to the polls. Unfortunately, the ballot initiative does little or nothing to advance gun rights in our state. It definitely won’t protect school children, nor will it help you protect your family.

Good.  No one gets my vote by allowing me to pick up crumbs that fall from the master’s table.  I still want the idiotic, communistic system of CLEO approval for handgun purchases to be thrown out of the state.  I have a CHP for the simple and only reason that I cannot purchase handguns in NC without it.

Because NC republicans are communists.  Oh, and by the way, I don’t give a shit about your stupid hunting and fishing ballot initiatives.

TheAlaskan:

“Those who want your arms are planning on keeping theirs. Simple as that. To willingly disarm is to leave the field and forfeit the fight. The only “Authority” is God Almighty and He and history are on our side. The ferocity of righteousness will smite the minions of Satan, I just know it.”

Ammoland:

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) have announced that their extensive, 923-page opposition comment was filed with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding the agency’s proposed rulemaking to ban “bump-stock” devices. The FPC Comment and its 35 exhibits can be viewed online in their entirety at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-fpf-opposition-atf-bump-stock-ban.

The FPC Comment in opposition was filed on the groups’ behalf by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG) after President Trump directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to use executive actions to unlawfully and unconstitutionally expand the scope of statutes to force the dispossession and destruction of legally-acquired property–without just compensation–and subject possibly more than 500,000 Americans to severe federal criminal penalties.

Here is a summary of the arguments.

• ATF’s Proposed Rulemaking (docket no. 2017R-22) is procedurally flawed and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
• ATF’s proposed rule violates the Constitution in numerous ways, including:
  • I – Separation of Powers
  • I – Ex Post Facto Clause
  • Fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment
  • Rights to due process, fair notice, and just compensation for the taking of property protected under the Fifth Amendment
• ATF’s proposed rule exceeds its statutory authority
• ATF’s proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious
• ATF’s proposed rule is unconstitutionally vague
• ATF failed to consider viable and precedential alternatives
• ATF’s proposed rule is not supported by policy considerations
• ATF’s proposed rule “should be withdrawn and summarily discarded, or, in the alternative, ATF should elect Alternative 1 and abandon the proposed rulemaking in its entirety.”

I really appreciate the hard work these men put into attempting to stop really bad regulation that has potential far-reaching consequences in the future.

I have not had a chance to read all or even much of what’s there.  Suffice it to say that the ATF is legally required to read and respond, even if their responses are stolid and doltish.

I’d also like to reiterate that I’ve made my own comments, and James Wesley Rawles has made a large number of very astute comments.  I’ve also followed up my initial comments with the following queries.

1. Note for the record any and all registered professional engineers employed and/or contracted and remunerated by the ATF or DOJ, whose job it was to provide input, calculations, analysis or opinions on the technical issues pertaining to this rulemaking.  Provide those analyses for our review, and list the PEs by name, license number and state.  State laws for all fifty states require that such analyses be traceable and sealed or stamped by the PE.  If no PEs have reviewed the technical issues pertaining to this rulemaking, say so with specificity and clarity.
2. Note for the record any and all licensed professional gunsmiths employed and/or contracted and remunerated by the ATF or DOJ, whose job it was to provide input, analysis or opinions on the technical issues pertaining to this rulemaking.  Provide those analyses for our review, and list the gunsmiths by name, license number and state.  If no gunsmiths have reviewed the technical issues pertaining to this rulemaking, say so with specificity and clarity.

With all due respect to the lawyers who have worked hard on this, and the mechanics and fabricators who are far better than I am, the machinists who can do things I can’t, and the backyard engineers out there who can rig things I’ve never thought of, I request – no, I demand – that these last two questions be answered officially and in the public record.

A lawyer isn’t an engineer.  A mechanic isn’t an engineer.  A machinist isn’t an engineer – I mean by that a registered professional engineer who is licensed in one or more states.  An engineering license connotes legal liability and financial and fiduciary responsibility, to the point of lose of business and personal possessions and even bankruptcy.  Not even a professor of engineering holding multiple PhDs impresses me in the least.  A PhD isn’t a PE (professional engineering) license.

I demand to know what registered professional engineers were involved in the determination(s) made by the ATF regarding this rule change, their names, states registered, and license numbers.  I retain the right to litigate the lack of technical review and accountability and seek damages to gun owners by all available means, as well as seek censure of the PEs involved in this process.

Following up this post, this video documents the legal response to the Miami Beach Police Department thus far.  The LEO point that they are allowed to point weapons at armed men even if armed legally (for the purpose of officer safety) is idiotic beyond belief.

If that’s true, they should go around pointing weapons at everyone since anyone could be concealing a firearm.  At any rate, this point of logic will be lost on LEOs since .. well, just because.

Via WRSA.  Bad things.  That’s what.

Before the 1945 Soviet occupation of Romania, the people had the right to own guns. I remember my father telling me his dad owned a double barreled shotgun he used to hunt rabbits with as well as a Luger picked from the retreating German troops (German soldiers were getting rid of all their military equipment by simply throwing it out of the troop transport trains).

When the communists took power in 1949 following falsified elections, the first law they enacted was total gun  confiscation (for the greater good of course).Then after they made sure the population was disarmed they started the arrests, imprisonments, reeducation camps and killings.  So practically since 1949 it was illegal to own any firearms in communist Romania.

Then there is this very important observation.  Listen carefully dear men.

After so many years of restrictions and servitude for over two generations, the perception of the Romanian population about gun rights changed in worse; I must admit when I first came to the US I too was surprised to see how owning guns is something normal and affordable and I too believed guns in the hands of untrained people can be dangerous (and keep in mind I served 2 years in the military so I was familiar with firearms).

After so many years of war and occupation the overwhelming majority of the people were sick and tired of the war so they believed what the propaganda of the new regime was telling them. They were lied that the government will protect them, that guns must be surrendered for their own safety, that since the war is over there is no need for guns anymore.

I’ve made the same observation before, albeit thankfully without first hand knowledge.

Every single one of the genocides in the twentieth century – every … single … one – from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot to Idi Amin to the Turkish Ottoman Muslim extermination of the Armenian Christians, was preceded by gun confiscations.

Nothing good ever comes from surrendering your firearms.  The founders knew that and gave us the 2nd amendment – if we can keep it.  And again, make careful note that reeducation and propagandizing is all part of the larger strategy for subduing the American culture to the wishes of the controllers.

David Codrea:

Who thinks the Bloods, the Crips, the Latin Kings, MS-13, Vatos Locos, the 18^th Street Gang and all the others will have their activities curtailed in the slightest? Gun-grabbing Opposite Day “progressives” are sticking it once more to the “law-abiding” and creating even more incentives for a dangerous black market (and attendant “turf wars”) to flourish.

It’s always the peaceable men who suffer under the yoke of bondage.  It’s almost like they’re trying to turn otherwise peaceable men into fighters.

And I’m assuming that since New Jersey is such a safe place anyway, criminals won’t benefit from this, will they?

Via WRSA, this.

By means of RFID, the receiver is well-suited to act as the “custodian” of a firearm’s history by recording within an RFIC tag’s IC any pertinent information of any components that are part of the assembly. Information can be stored within any RFID IC that also contains programmable memory in addition to its UID. The storage of information occurs within the RFID tag, whose IC also has a programmable memory in addition to its UID.

[ … ]

An initial investigation identified the area covered by the pistol grip (which is typically nonmetal material) as the optimal location for the RFID tag. This area offers sufficient structure to house a small RFID tag flush-mounted on the surface. As such, the pistol grip can be installed without issue or any need to change the firearm assembly procedure. The pistol grip also provides added protection for the RFID tag.

I’m sure this will all work out real well.  I’m sure that no one will drill out the chip.  In fact, I’m so sure of it that the first company who tries to market something like this will go out of business the day they announce it.  There will be no need to drill out chips because no one will buy their product.

Gun owners have a long memory and almost never forgive.  Come to think if it, there’s this nugget.

The author would like to thank Stephen Rogg of Shawsheen Firearms for his help in keeping us safe at the firing range.

So who is Stephen Rogg anyway?  I’m wondering how long Shawsheen Firearms will continue to exist.  Traitors aren’t just those who sell their soul to the state.  It’s all of the helpers and quislings too.

Daily Camera:

Boulder’s two gun stores will not be able to issue certificates to owners of assault weapons that are grandfathered in under the city’s ban on the guns, which took effect last week.

The decision came after a brief discussion among City Council members Tuesday night as they considered tweaks to the ordinance outlawing the sale and possession of assault weapons, bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. Boulder, the council and several city officials are being sued in two separate cases challenging the measure.

Five amendments were proposed. On an 8-1 vote, council passed three: Removing an exemption for 30-round handgun magazines that are legal under Colorado law; allowing competitive shooters to travel through Boulder with assault weapons; and clarifying the language so that any individual not allowed to possess firearms under state and federal law could not receive a certificate of ownership.

Council member Mirabai Nagle was the lone dissenting vote. She opposed banning high-capacity handgun magazines that are legal under state law, grandfathered in via a 2013 measure.

“The gun community is not going to turn in their 30-round magazines,” she said, “so we just turned a bunch more people into criminals.”

She also voiced discomfort with disallowing gun stores from issuing certificates of ownership, which she argued would boost compliance. The rest of the council was swayed by arguments from the city attorney and police chief that background checks at private dealers would not be sufficient.

So here’s the picture.  The Form 4473 you signed and the background check you had when you bought the weapon just isn’t good enough.  They want another one, or in other words, they don’t just want another background check.  They want law enforcement to perform a more comprehensive system of checks that will ensure that you’re on a registry to own your “grandfathered” weapon.

And they say that they don’t really want a gun registry!  This whole thing is an exercise in nullification anyway, and the Boulder Council should be thrown out for their violation of Colorado law.

Never register your guns.  Never throw away your magazines.

So says Major JD Swinney of the US Army:

I am a gun owner. I grew up hunting and target shooting and am now an officer in the U.S. Army. I am comfortable with responsible gun ownership.

But I am also a father, and my heart aches at the sight of white crosses memorializing dead children.

Gun owners have a responsibility to help develop and support policies that manage access to guns not only in their own homes but in society as well, because to talk of the right to bear arms without advocating for the responsible exercise of those rights is irresponsible citizenship indeed. A logical place to start this conversation of responsible rights is with the AR-15 rifle.

Let’s be honest: the AR-15 is only optimal as a military weapon. The weapon is rugged, holds a lot of ammunition and is easy to maintain in working condition. War is a unique environment that requires a weapon with those characteristics, but do private citizens ever find themselves in such an environment?

Without some modification, an AR-15 is not especially accurate. It can be used for hunting, but it is not especially adapted for that purpose. The 5.56 mm, by far the most common round for the AR-15, isn’t especially great for home defense, either; nearly two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests there are better calibers for stopping assailants.

The remaining characteristic of the AR-15 is magazine capacity — those available can hold from five to 100 or more rounds. However most defensive shooting situations, where private citizens discharge a firearm, an average of four or fewer rounds fired. Recent history shows the only situations where the AR-15 ammunition capacity is put to use are war, police standoffs and mass shootings.

So why would the gun-owning community not favor place stricter controls on the sale and possession of the AR-15 and other high capacity semi-automatic rifles? Sadly, it is because the AR-15 has become a fetish object within the gun owning community. It is valued more as a symbol of the private citizen’s right to bear arms and less because of its usefulness as a tool.

The fetishizing of the AR-15 derives from the fact that they were once banned under Title XI, the “Assault Weapons Ban,” of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The 1994 “ban” was not renewed in 2004, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives data suggest that in the decade following the ban, the number of AR-15s manufactured in America rose from 100,000 to more than 1 million each year. The end of the assault weapons ban symbolized a reclaimed right, and AR-15 ownership came to embody this reclaimed right.

Groups such as the NRA make a case that the AR-15 is used mostly in legal ways by responsible gun owners. Referring to the AR-15 as a “modern sporting rifle,” they rebrand the gun in ways that aren’t military-related. And most AR-15s are used in legal ways.

But one should remember that the idea of using the AR-15 for hunting or competition shooting became popular after the end of the assault weapons ban, once greater numbers of people owned AR-15s, not before. The narrative that the AR-15 is an optimal tool for anything beyond combat is a fabrication of the gun industry.

This returns us to the idea that rights must come with responsibility. Perhaps gun owners should focus on the “well-regulated” clause within the Second Amendment as much as they focus on “shall not be infringed.” More gun owners should support common sense regulation of guns; to do so would be a display of the responsible exercise of rights. Because the AR-15 is valued for its symbolism more than its usefulness, it is uniquely suited for stricter regulation.

Finally, if gun owners do not give a little, they will have to give a lot when this current generation, which has grown up in the midst of mass violence, gains the power of the ballot.

Perhaps meaningful legislation is unlikely in the short term, but the only thing worse than incremental change is no change at all. If we do not come together on this, sadly, I fear there are more white crosses in our children’s future.

Yea, the 5.56mm is just an awful round as we’ve learned.  That’s why the US Army and Marine Corps have used it for the last half century.  So let’s follow his argument closely.

The round is absolutely horrible.  Just terrible.  Good for nothing.  There are better rounds available.  The AR-15 is valued for its symbol rather than its usefulness.  Now to his next main argument.

It’s not optimal for anything but combat.  Got that?  It’s useless.  But it’s valuable for combat.  Thus it’s “uniquely suited for stricter regulation.”

Unsaid: Every gun design on earth has been used for combat.  Shotguns were used by the US Marines in Now Zad, Afghanistan for room clearing operations.  The Marine Corps used Winchester Model 70s (bolt action) for sniping in The first Iraq war.  The Army (and now the Marine Corps) uses .300 Win Mag for sniping, and these are all standard, classic hunting rounds.

So the objection that an implement is used for war is irrelevant and strange, and he knows it.  This is rhetorical tactic, but a very bad one.

There are smatterings of rhetorical punches like this: Recent history shows the only situations where the AR-15 ammunition capacity is put to use are war, police standoffs and mass shootings.  Of course, this is false and he knows it.  He’s appealing to the ignorant among his readers.  He pretends to argue to gun owners, but in reality he’s appealing to ignoramuses.

Finally, take note that he is third-year graduate student in history at Duke University, a major in the U.S. Army, and a fellow with the U.S. Army’s Advanced Strategic Planning and Policy Program.  That’s right, he has taken an oath to which he never intended to be faithful.

He is heavily invested in the notion that armed men – whether the Army or local police – should be engaging in stability operations, and men and women shouldn’t have what they consider the best weaponry to effect self defense.  In other words, if you are an average men or woman, he hates you.  He cares not one whit for your life or wellbeing.

When a commentary begins with “I am a gun owner. I grew up hunting and target shooting,” ignore it.  There’s always a “but” coming very soon.  Gun owners and patriots don’t feel the need to burnish their credentials.  Especially ignore it if it continues with this: ” … and am now an officer in the U.S. Army. I am comfortable with responsible gun ownership.”

He’s burnishing his creds again, and then he’s lying.  No, he’s not comfortable with responsible gun ownership.  The rest of his commentary proves that he’s lying.  JD Swinney is in the same camp as the rest of the flag and staff officers who want to destroy the constitution.  They’re unfaithful liars, one and all.  Turn your back on such men.  In better times they would be hanged by the neck until dead for treason.

World Net Daily:

So let’s set aside the notion of firearms as amelioration of tyranny for a moment, which is the real reason for the existence of the second amendment.  Let’s focus on hunting.

Of primary importance to the ethical hunter is a quick and as-painless-as-possible dispatching of the animal.  A wounded animal is in pain.  Of course it’s true that hunters can find their products elsewhere, but Google can only do what it can do, so we can’t expect them to do everything.

Let’s also stipulate that good optics makes for a more successful hunt and more likely dispatching of the animal rather than simply wounding the animal.  What this means is that Google management wants and likes to see wounded animals from hunts.

What a bunch of retards.