Dean Weingarten has a good find at Ammoland.
Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Let's briefly…… [read more]
WiscoDave sends this video. If a monkey can do it, then there’s no reason to stress test an AR-15 to see how many rounds we can put through it without cleaning before we destroy it.
In our discussions about fisking your local Sheriff and his deputies for their views of your rights, especially in the context of working towards constitutional Sheriffs who will prevent agents of the state and federal government from infringing on gun rights, it’s been easy to overlook a very important aspect of your local AO.
In a lot of urban and suburban areas, it’s commonplace to have separated law enforcement duties and authority between the Sheriff and a city or county/city police department. The Sheriff, under this framework, is responsible for serving warrants, security of the court, juries and the jail system. The police department is responsible for law enforcement in all other areas.
The pretext for this separation, which likely happened either from a state referendum or a change to state laws, is that the Sheriff, who is an elected officer, can then use his status to show favoritism to those who donated to his campaign, who are his friends, and family. Conversely, he can punish his enemies.
True enough, this has happened on too many occasions in American history, and where this has been done, the Sheriffs have themselves to blame for it, at least in part. But this also removes the highest elected law enforcement official from public review and voter approval. The other side of the sword cuts deep.
I assumed that this is the way Prince William County law enforcement works, since these are police officers, not deputies.
This is a remarkable video, made even more so by the fact that they knew they were being videoed and were still as abusive as they are. To begin with, photography isn’t a crime, and these officers know it.
They repeatedly make the claim that “we need you … ” normally ending in something like identify yourself. But the fact of the matter is that no one talks the law or rights. They don’t really need anything of the sort, they just want to fill out the right paperwork and put another name on a watch list.
They also repeatedly ask his “intent and purpose” with said videography. Again, that’s not important and isn’t any of their business. They have no constitutional right to know this information. They place this in the category of “suspicious activity,” but suspicious activity isn’t a crime. His detention wasn’t a legal “Terry Stop,” and the police officers greatly add to their problem later in the video.
When he was asked to remove his face cover, the videographer smartly asked them what they would do if he was a Muslim wearing head/face cover and it was his religious beliefs. They clearly state that they wouldn’t be able to force him to obey the order, and this is highly problematic because this means they won’t apply the law equally to everyone. The law is either constitutional or it’s not – regardless of religious views.
They further demand his DOB, which again isn’t based on any real need to know that information outside of putting him on a watch list. Then they ridiculously claim that he’s “disturbing the peace” since everyone is now watching him, that fact being based solely on the fact that the police stopped him. The police were the ones disturbing the peace, not him.
The legal problems this police department presents for itself are overwhelming, and if this individual has the money to pursue it, they are in for a legal fight. Finally, when the individual demands their identification, they claim they are under no obligation to supply that because “we’re law enforcement.”
The arrogance and haughtiness would be staggering if it weren’t for the fact that it is ubiquitous. I almost know what to expect these days when I view these videos.
The contact information for the department is: policedept@pwcgov.org.
The contact information for the chief of police is: bbarnard@pwcgov.org.
I’m left eye dominant but shoot with my right eye. It’s what I’ve always done, I’ve done it an awful lot, and my brain knows what I want to do now.
My Marine son described for me how the Marine Corps deals with eye dominance issues. The USMC doesn’t abide lack of conformity and uniformity.
He fixed eye dominance issues with his “boots” by putting a patch over their left eye for several weeks and giving them menial chores around the barracks. Soon enough, the brain reprograms itself. My eye doctor also described for me various experiments the Army did a number of decades ago with glasses designed to make the wearer see upside down and letting them live that way for a period of time.
Similar to the United States, firearms laws are set at the State level, with an additional layer of laws at the Federal level. With the States in Australia generally working closely together, there is only a small range of differences in laws between States, compared to the US.
To own any firearm in Australia you are required to apply for a firearms licence. Licences are broken up into several classes which you can qualify (each State has slightly different variations for names/categories), which are segmented into types of firearms – rimfire, centrefire, semi-automatic/pump action shotguns etc. A separate and more onerous class of licence is required for pistols which requires proof of ongoing membership within clubs, attendance of events and restrictions on the number of calibres of pistols owned at a time.
The application process is intentionally drawn out, with paperwork taking several months to be ‘processed’ (read: sit in a tray indefinitely). Should you pass the relevant background checks, training courses complete and fees paid, you can then apply to buy your first firearm. Each firearm purchase also requires approval and registration with the police – with the owner having to provide a justification of why they need to own the firearm. (and no, self-defence is explicitly noted as not a legal justification) You will be restricted with your options for firearms depending on what State you live in, with huge restrictions and effective bans for most of the population on many types of firearms including semi-automatics, automatic rifles, pump action shotguns, smaller framed pistols and a wide range individual firearms which the police have classified as unacceptable. (the common theme being anything scary looking, but can also include such benign things as many types of air rifles and even many childrens toys)
You are required by law to store your firearms with a safe – with laws differing slightly by State but in general you will need to have this mounted to the floor and walls of your home. The police can and will decide to inspect your property at their discretion to check the safe and its contents – but I’ll go into that more later.
In using your firearm you’ll either need to stick to the firing range or if you’re lucky on your or a friends rural property – but don’t upset your neighbours. Laws regarding the usage of firearms here mean that if you ‘scare’ nearby individuals (which can be as little as them hearing a gun firing) can potentially lead to your firearms being seized.
These laws overall are the most benign frustrations for firearms owners in Australia – which may be surprising for US firearms owners who enjoy much more protection of their freedoms. I’ll outline now what I see as the even more insidious part of firearms and laws on defence in Australia at this time which have come hand in hand with gun control.
Every State and Territory in Australia has provisions to allow for self-defence in varying degrees with some States in particular give reasonable protections which allow escalating force if someone is on your property etc. Sounds pretty reasonable? Not exactly. These self-defence provisions are only enforceable if you do not use a firearm (or other banned/restricted self-defence devices). If you use a firearm to defend yourself, your family or your property you’re likely to instead see yourself having your firearms seized, firearms licenced cancelled and a strong likelihood of criminal prosecution put against you.
This isn’t based off speculation either – we’ve had this happen repeatedly to legal firearms owners in Australia. In 2017 is a prime example – where a farmer used an unloaded .22 rifle to defend his young family from an intruder who was under the influence of drugs and wielding a knife. For his efforts to defend his family, his firearms were confiscated by the police and restrictions put on his wife’s licence denying her the ability to keep her own firearms on their property. Thankfully due to strong community push back and lobbying by the industry, David Dunstan was able to have his firearms returned. Unfortunately that end result isn’t the case for everyone however with David being fortunate to have not pointed the firearm at the intruder or firing any rounds making it easier to make the case against criminal prosecution for his efforts – those who have to defend themselves and use their firearms are more likely to potentially see jail time.
This absurdity means that under the gun control environment in Australia, if an armed intruder entered your home whilst you were in the middle of getting ready for a day at the range and firearm in hand, that you would be required to put down said firearm and instead face a significant disadvantage at protecting your life.
This extends to beyond firearms now in Australia, with almost every jurisdiction making it illegal to own pepper spray/mace/stun guns/tasers – leaving our most vulnerable at extreme risk of physical harm.
Of course, this happens when you hate God and thus hate mankind who was made in His image. It’s a death cult, with the preference being to see men perish, women raped, and children fatherless. It is the epitome of wickedness.
And again I’ll say it. People tend to see controllers as merely wanting to control other men for the sake of state safety, or in other words, so that the state has a monopoly on violence and can therefore propagate itself and its progeny.
There is some truth to this, but this truncates the explanation. The rest of the story is that most lawmakers are vipers and live in a den of sin. They want to see death and destruction, chaos and anarchy. They are of their father, the devil. You should see gun control in the same vein as the desire to see children sacrificed to Molech in modern society, i.e., abortion.
To them, the destruction of God’s image is an act and experience of worship. They aren’t really interested in anyone’s safety. They want to see human sacrifice.
As for the NFL, it’s hostility to the Second Amendment is no secret to Americans who care more for the right of the people to keep and bear arms than they do for bread and circuses. League gutlessness, on the National Anthem and in its “Standard of Conduct” mandating player defenselessness, tells us all we need to know. The hiring of ex-ATF honcho and Fast and Furious cover-up king B. Todd Jones as special counsel for player misconduct tells us a bit more.
I didn’t know that’s where Jones ended up. The NFL and Jones are a match made in hell.
And as for that matter, NASCAR has gone the way of the NFL. Good riddance to both of them. Not that I watched anyway.
RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia’s Senate Judiciary Committee passed several gun control bills Monday morning.
Those bills tackle everything from universal background checks (S. B. 70- Background Checks), one gun a month limit, (S.B. 69- One-Gun-a-Month Limit), red flag laws, firearms and ammunition to be controlled by localities (S.B. 35- Local Authority), as well as firearms being restricted at public events.
Each bill was brought before the committee and discussed at length with some amendments included. For five minutes opposers and supporters were able to speak on the bills.
For five minutes. The best argument against it is that it violates God’s laws. The simplest argument they can understand is that there isn’t an army big enough to enforce any of it if Virginians are determined in their opposition.
Several Senate Democrats have already said they are unlikely to back the governor’s ban on so-called assault weapons, such as the popular AR-15-style rifles – a key part of Northam’s gun-control package. The House version of the bill has also not advanced.
The assault weapons legislation has drawn the fiercest pushback, as gun-rights advocates accuse Democrats of wanting to confiscate such rifles from current gun owners. Northam has said he has no interest in doing so.
An estimated 8 million AR-style guns have been sold since they were introduced to the public in the 1960s. The weapons are known as easy to use, easy to clean and easy to modify with a variety of scopes, stocks and rails.
Oh my. Eight million is a very low estimate. I would guess twice that number. Anyway, reader Fred makes a good point when he says that the most dangerous thing to come out of the controllers is the red flag laws.
And listen to this statement of one communist from Arlington.
“For too many years this body has put the convenience of gun owners above all else,” said Democratic Del. Patrick Hope.
Change the wording a bit.
“For too many years this body has put the convenience of Christians above all else, allowing them freedom of speech, unmitigated access to worship and their Bibles” said Democratic Del. Patrick Hope.
How does that strike you? They are both God-given and constitutionally recognized rights, yes?
This video is long but interesting. Before watching, I have a few points to make to the chief of police in Speedway, Indiana. Yes, I sent you this link, Mr. Campbell.
First, your officers violated the constitution of the United States by detaining him without a crime having been committed. The original phone call didn’t report a crime, and you had no reason to suspect a crime. This wasn’t a “Terry Stop,” and you know it. Check with your DA. He’ll back me up on this.
Second, the officer on the right in the video is much too emotional for my tastes. I don’t think he has the temperament for the job. Additionally, he keeps talking about logic, and I don’t think he understands what he’s talking about. He should take a college course in logic before doing that again. They will explain the rules of classical logic, and how presuppositions and axioms are used to produce conclusions, or in other words, how to properly build syllogisms. The gun carrier you stopped didn’t violate any rules of logic in the video. He didn’t stumble into any formal logical fallacies.
Third, as to the officer on the left who kept talking about what the gun carrier was trying to “prove,” that’s an irrelevant line of questioning and makes no difference. It has nothing to do with anything, certainly not why he was being detained.
Fourth, the sergeant in the video asking the gun carrier to hand over his weapon for examination is the most nonsensical thing I’ve heard today. Any man who touches another man’s gun is an idiot. Any man who asks another man to handle his weapon is risking an ND, and is therefore an idiot. Any man who handles another man’s weapon (in a case like this) is risking an ND, and is therefore an idiot. I couldn’t care less if he is an “armorer” or not. The request was stupid.
Furthermore, the stated excuse for turning over the weapon, “To see if any modifications had been made to it,” was an invasion of his privacy and unrelated to his being detained. Your officers had absolutely no need to see his weapon. And finally, if he had converted his weapon into a fully automatic rifle loaded with AP rounds, less than a 16″ barrel on it, and an illegal can attached, it wouldn’t have stood up in court. I’m not going to waste our time explaining this since it’s all available if you review the Fourth Circuit case of U.S. versus Nathaniel Black (Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department). Ask your DA. He’ll back me up on this.
The government lied, “framed,” hid favorable evidence, and showed “contempt for the law at every turn” in their treatment of Michael Flynn, the retired three-star Army general and former Trump White House national security adviser.
Those charges were contained in a new filing in the government’s case against Flynn. And his attorney, Sidney Powell, was just getting started.
In the 27-page-filing, an add-on to her previous motions, Powell demanded charges be dropped against Flynn based on previously withheld exculpatory documents by the government and the IG report on FISA abuse.
Told you so. Repeatedly. And as for his exchanges with Pence, I consider the VP to be part of the deep state. I repeat.
He knew all about the nefarious deeds of the deep state. He was in a position to shine light on the deep state. To the deep state, he was a danger they couldn’t suffer. So the FBI lied, altered his testimony, and conspired to frame him. As a consequence, he has almost bankrupted himself with legal costs.
He knew who started the chaos in Libya, how the deep state worked, about Brownstone operations conducted by the deep state, etc., etc., etc. They couldn’t allow him to see the light of day. In fact, he’d better watch his six.
Oh. And don’t ever talk to the police, be they local or FedGov.
