That article title comes from CNBC, not me.

The Supreme Court seemed unlikely to deliver a major win for gun-rights activists during arguments on Monday in the first significant Second Amendment case the justices have heard in nearly a decade.

The case was challenging a New York City gun regulation that barred the transport of handguns outside of the city, even to a second home or firing range. After the court agreed to hear the case, though, the city did away with the regulation and the state passed a law that prevented the city from reviving it.

While court conservatives including Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito seemed eager to use the case to address the reach of the Second Amendment, it appeared likely after an hour of arguments that Chief Justice John Roberts would side with the court’s liberals to dismiss the matter altogether as moot in light of the repeal of the regulation.

Paul Clement, who argued on behalf of three gun owners in New York and a state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, argued that the case was still active because his clients could potentially seek monetary damages in the future.

Clement also argued that even under New York’s new regulations, his clients could still be penalized if they did not travel directly to a firing range outside the city, such as if they stopped for coffee.

But Richard Dearing, an attorney for New York, said that the city guaranteed that gun owners would not be prosecuted for such stops. And he said that any challenge to the new regulations would have to be argued in a future battle.

“There may be a controversy here. But it’s a new controversy that will have to be litigated in a new case,” Dearing said.

Clement, who argued for 20 minutes, had little time to address the merits of New York’s gun regulation. Instead, he spent nearly all of his arguments fielding questions from the court’s liberal wing about why the justices should rule on the case at all.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked the first question of the day, sounded off on a theme that would be heard throughout.

“The state says: Thou shalt not enforce the regulations. So, what’s left of this case?” Ginsburg asked.

The court’s other liberals also wrestled with Clement over whether it was proper for the court to decide the case.

“You’re asking us to opine on a law that’s not on the books anymore,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama-appointee.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, said he did not think it was bad “when people who have an argument settle their argument.”

Roberts asked few questions throughout. But at one point, the chief justice asked Dearing if it was possible that individuals who violated the old regulation could be targeted in any way by the city, even though it is no longer in force. Roberts also asked whether gun owners could still seek damages if the high court were to find the case moot.

Dearing responded that the gun owners would face no consequences for any past violations of the regulation, and he left open the possibility for damages, though he suggested there could be a time limit.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is known to have an expansive view of the Second Amendment, did not ask any questions.

One wrinkle during arguments came from a difference in opinion between Clement and Jeffrey Wall, the Justice Department’s principal deputy solicitor general, who was arguing in favor of the gun owners.

Gorsuch asked Wall whether he agreed with Clement that the potential for gun owners to be prosecuted for stopping for coffee while traveling to a gun range kept the case alive.

“Why isn’t that good enough?” Gorsuch asked.

Wall said it was a “close call” and a “hard question” but stopped short of endorsing the argument. Instead, Wall emphasized that the gun owners could still seek monetary damages.

All in all, the justices spent just a few minutes probing the key constitutional question that gun-control activists feared would be on the table and that gun-rights groups hoped the court would address.

“Jeffrey Wall, the Justice Department’s principal deputy solicitor general … was arguing in favor of the gun owners.”

Sure he was.  He didn’t even know if the possible overbearing enforcement of the revised law kept the case alive.  He wasn’t even smart enough to jump on the plank Gorsuch gave him.  Or perhaps he was, and this failure was nefarious.

Good job, DoJ.  Good job, Barr.  Good job, Trump.  You presented a divided front to the Supreme Court.  Y’all can all mark this one as a colossal failure.

And as for the Supreme Court, along with the statists on the court, everyone except Gorsuch and Alito (and also presumably Thomas) let this go, allowing New York to impose yet more restrictions in the future, requiring the next case to be brought back, if it even makes it that far.  Roberts did exactly what we expected him to do.

So if you thought that the black-robed tyrants were going to help you by recognizing your God-given RKBA … sucker!

The Washington Post Editorial Board.

It would be too laborious to fisk this completely, but let’s make a few important points.

First, notice the literary device right out of the gate.  Vigilantism = Rugged American Individualism, or at least it conjures that image.  They could have said that hard work and self reliance = rugged American individualism, or that a free market economy conjures images of rugged American individualism.

But they didn’t.  They equated rugged American individualism with vigilantism.  This is no mistake, for they like neither one.  The inside-the-beltway culture holds the collectivist value system in high regard.  It takes a village, you know.

Next up, they equate the offended with hunters whose way of life may be threatened.  Nonsense, say they.  Only this isn’t really what’s happening.  Hunters, many of them, still use bolt action rifles, and during black powder season they won’t even use centerfire cartridges.  Prior to that, it’ll be bow season, and the Eastern states still have an awful lot of bow hunters.

They alleged, if you read carefully, that some ne’er-do-wells are agitating this on.  It’s not the hunters who are to blame for this, it’s some careful political craft that hopes to make hay of the situation.  Except it’s not true.  To the collectivist mind, the peasants need leadership, and most often, the media elites see themselves as leaders, perhaps right right up there with elected officials.  If the peasants are revolting, it must be because of a peasant leader who’s agitating them on, perhaps even lying to them.  The real reason the peasants are showing up en masse is because someone has lit a fire, not because of anything they really believe.

This is delusionary.  The editorial board knows this and is whistling through the graveyard, or they don’t know this and are oblivious to the civil war they are about to foment.  This is the same mistake the collectivists make when they blame Trump for political polarization.  Trump, as I’ve said before, is a symptom of the problem, not the problem.  Trump didn’t cause polarization.  Trump was elected because America is already polarized.  For most gun rights folks, Trump is seen as a traitor, and his mistake is not being true to the constitution (bump stock ban, support for red flag laws, etc.).  It would come as a shock to the media elites that there are actually people in America who see things the way my readers do, far to the right of Donald Trump.  Flyover country is the “land out there,” not something they actually visit.

But most Americans don’t need leadership, and don’t vote the way they do, or own guns, or make any other decision, because a “leader” says this or says that.  Rugged American individualism doesn’t have the peasant / leader division.

Next up we have the reflexive defense of “red flag” laws.  That social media is planning to roll political beliefs into FedGov background information they either don’t care about or don’t know.  And the notion that an angry spouse can flag another spouse and have firearms confiscated by police (which we have seen before over these very pages), all without due process, they either don’t know about or don’t care.  They don’t know about any of this because they are the ones who look to leaders to tell them what to think, or they don’t care because what’s a few broken eggs for the sake of “community security?”  All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

And since I’ve given myself this segue, I would hazard to guess that most gun owners in Virginia would give up their bolt action deer hunting rifles before they would give up their AR-15s.  The ultimate threat against which arms are necessary is the state itself, not a deer or feral hog.  Gun owners aren’t revolting because they are afraid they won’t be able to take a deer this season.  Gun-free counties have a horrible record on liberties, a fact of history that probably doesn’t interest the editorial board of The Washington Post.

Finally, while unstated (or perhaps understated), notice the worship of the back-robed tyrants.  While it would be obscene to the board to deprive someone of life and liberty by, let’s imagine, executing someone named David on every other Friday for the purpose of bread and circuses, it’s not obscene at all to the board to murder 60 million unborn infants, or to throw a Sheriff in prison because he refuses to violate his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.

Because judges.  Statists have no higher law than judges who can say with a straight face that the law doesn’t really say what it most obviously does say.  It’s a priesthood of the highest order, those men and women who can absolve every sin, dictate imprisonment, and tell you the difference between right and wrong.

And thus, I suspect most Virginians won’t ever give up their AR-15s.  At least they didn’t comply in Connecticut and New York (with AR-15 and magazine bans), and so it isn’t clear what sort of mental gymnastics would make the editorial board believe that folks in Abingdon, Damascus, or Franklin County would comply with any new firearms laws.

If they believe that, they need to visit those places and ask some “peasants.”

From reddit/firearms.

I was called over the intercom ~2 minutes before people started boarding. I was asked to hand over my key so they could bring it to TSA as they needed to get into my bag. I was not allowed to accompany the key. I made it clear that I am not comfortable with their systematic way of committing felonies; however, this is common practice at Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, please see this inquiry which I sent to TSA as both a Security Issue and a Request for Information on November 22nd (anticipating they may ask for the key again).*

A person from Southwest brought the key to TSA and ~10 minutes later another man from Southwest came back with both my spare locks and the key to my original locks. He asked me if I could unlock the spares so they could put them on the case as TSA had cut my other locks. He also stated, “They thought there was a gun in there.” To which I replied, “There are… that’s why I declared them.”

In my opinion the TSA at this airport is guilty of a felony. It is against the law to turn over access to a firearm to someone you don’t know and who is not under your control.

It also disagrees with the TSA’s own rules, where the only person who is allowed to have a key to the lock is the firearm owner.

As I’ve said before, the TSA is an irredeemable, unmitigated clown show.  The TSA can trot employees out all day long (and I see this especially before heavy holiday flying) telling people that it’s really simple and here are the rules, follow the rules and you’ll be okay, blah, blah, blah.

I’ve had the TSA ask me to open my case in the ticket line (Charlotte), take me back behind walls and try to pry my case open (Charlotte), take me back behind walls and ask me to open my luggage, after which she threw my clothing asunder, literally unpacking my luggage and stuffing the clothing back inside the luggage in wads, and never once even showing interest in the firearm case (Phoenix), take me to an X-ray machine and take pictures of my luggage, never once showing interest in opening the luggage and examining the firearm case (Denver), force me to drop my luggage on a conveyor that started at an outside, unsecured location (Denver), ask me to open my firearm case and swab my firearm with a patch (for God only knows what reason), etc.  I could go on.  This isn’t the entire laundry list.

I am tired to death of hearing that it’s the fault of the airline company since the rules vary with each company.  No … they … don’t.  Airlines don’t do firearm or case inspections.  That’s just a pathetic excuse.

Here’s a tip for the TSA.  As long as you act like uneducated goobers and ignore your own laws, you have no right to complain if passengers don’t take them seriously either.

Guns America.

Virginia gun owners have gathered by the hundreds at Board of Supervisors meetings in counties across the state to send a message to the newly elected Democratic legislature in Richmond.

As of this writing, 23 counties and towns have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries since Michael Bloomberg flipped the state legislature from red to blue earlier this month. Second Amendment sanctuaries exist in many states across the country, but no state has seen so many in such a short span of time.

“It’s sending a message to Richmond saying we don’t want any more gun control out here,” Philip Van Cleave told GunsAmerica. Van Cleave is the President of the gun-rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League, which has been fighting for Second Amendment rights in Virginia since 1994, when they helped turned the state from may-issue to shall-issue.

Van Cleave has been active in the gun rights movement in Virginia for over 20 years, and he says he’s never seen anything like this.

“Nothing even touches the activity in Virginia right now. A lot of gun owners were sleeping, but now they’ve woke the sleeping giant. All these gun owners that have been sound asleep have suddenly woken up.”

The numbers don’t lie. Of Virginia’s 133 counties and independent towns, 23 have already declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries, and another 53 are considering the measure.

“There are more coming,” Van Cleave predicted. “That number’s going to jump quite a bit.”

County Board of Supervisor meetings are literally overflowing with gun owners hoping to send a message to Richmond.

One thousand people showed up at a Board of Supervisors meeting in Shenandoah County, for example, and 700 people attended a meeting in Washington County. The meetings in Amherst and Amelia counties were standing-room-only with crowds flooding the hallways and the front laws.

On a larger scale, gun owners—when they show up—represent a massive voting block in state elections. Van Cleave pointed out that in a state of 8 million people, there are 2 million gun owners and 600,000 hold concealed carry permits.

Van Cleave admitted that when a county declares itself a Second Amendment sanctuary, the gesture is mostly symbolic from a legal standpoint. While all county employees, including any police force, are bound by the resolution, sheriffs and county attorneys are independently elected in Virginia.

But Van Cleave also pointed out that many sheriffs follow the county’s lead, and many others have independently vowed not to enforce new gun control.

It’s a bit late in the game to be waking up when the collectivists have been active for a hundred years.

As for the allegedly symbolic nature of the resolutions, it will be symbolic until the hard times come.  When the state threatens to arrest county employees for refusal to implement whatever new laws they make, we’ll see where this all goes.

Either it’s a protest vote today and evaporates tomorrow, or real men and women go to prison when counties arrest state police for enforcing these new laws.  There are hard decisions coming for everyone.  And since the Sheriff and county attorneys are elected, the political work is just beginning.

There is a lot of catching up to do.

David Codrea.

Furthermore, by withholding the names of the companies, important information is being withheld from citizens who it appears are at legal risk. I hope your office can see that if the intent is to establish compliance with the law, decisions made by those citizens should be informed. I maintain that it is in the public interest to make that information known, and that should take precedence over the reportedly stated intent of AG James not to “direct business” to companies engaging in business that is lawful in other jurisdictions.

I think it would make it a good day to be able to reward those companies, and to piss off the AG of New York.

NCRenegade.

You need to check out the laws that they intend to pass once this new congress is sworn in January in Virginia. I’ll provide the link here….

Basically I will be breaking the law if I transport my rifles to my cabin when I go. My neighbors, what few I have near my cabin, are arming up and buying magazines, ammo, anything they can get their hands on. Now these folks are well armed already but they are stocking up. They have no intention of turning anything in and are willing to fight for their right to bear arms.

Since NCRenegade is a trusted source of information, I consider this to be a good sitrep on the state of thinking of at least some Virginians.  I think this modest conclusion would meet the requirements of good intel?

American Military News.

Virginia lawmakers are now considering a state law banning the ownership of certain semi-automatic guns deemed “assault firearms” and limiting the magazine capacity of other firearms in the state — and there are no clauses that would allow existing owners to continue possessing them.

Virginia state Sen. Richard Saslaw introduced SB16, which would expand the definition of an “assault firearm” to cover many different semi-automatic rifles and pistols. The bill would call for the ban of such firearms, barring people from purchasing, possessing, selling or transferring those weapons.

Among the changes in firearm definitions, the bill would expand the term “assault firearm” to include semi-automatic centerfire rifles and pistols with a fixed magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds. The bill would also ban semi-automatic rifles and pistols with detachable magazines that also have folding and telescoping stocks, barrel shrouds, and thumbhole grips and second hand grips.

Rifles, under the new bill, would not be allowed pistol grips, bayonet mounts, grenade or flare launchers, silencers, muzzle breaks and flash suppressors.

Virginians would not be allowed pistols that accept the magazine into the weapon at any other point than the pistol grip. Pistols would also have an unloaded weight limit of 50 ounces.

The bill also limits shotguns to a magazine capacity of no more than seven shells.

“The provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment,” the bill says, indicating increased imprisonments as one likely outcome of its passage.

Virginians will likely have to make hard decisions soon on their firearms, as well as declared “sanctuary” counties and their associated CLEOs and deputies.

Virginia Senate Bill No. 64.

SENATE BILL NO. 64Offered January 8, 2020Prefiled November 21, 2019A BILL to amend and reenact § 18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to paramilitary activities; penalty.

———-Patron– Lucas———-Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice———-Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 18.2-433.2 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:

§ 18.2-433.2. Paramilitary activity prohibited; penalty.

A person shall be is guilty of unlawful paramilitary activity, punishable as a Class 5 felony if he:

1. Teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

2. Assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, explosive, or incendiary device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to employ such training for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder; or

3. Assembles with one or more persons with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons by drilling, parading, or marching with any firearm, any explosive or incendiary device, or any components or combination thereof.

2. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities; therefore, Chapter 854 of the Acts of Assembly of 2019 requires the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission to assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4 of the Code of Virginia, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.

This is a remarkable development.  One refreshing thing is that the masks have all come off now.  With control of the Senate, House and Governor’s mansion, the controllers want you to know where they stand and are willing to say so out loud and in the clearest possible terms.

Leaving aside the issue of whether one could ever demonstrate intent behind either the delivery or receiving of tactical training, what they really intend is to render illegal any training that involves CQB, small unit fire and maneuver tactics, or any combination of training in long range precision shooting, discrete communications, or battle tactics, techniques and procedures.  Only LEOs can have such training.

The truly remarkable thing is the stated reason: ” … intending that such training will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.”  That the American fathers did that very thing and gave us separation from King George isn’t missed on them.  They don’t need more education – it’s their knowledge of history and human nature that has brought us to this point.  This is essentially their way of saying that any chance of separation is now gone, given that they have the reigns of power.

It’s appropriate at this point to rehearse the views of the founders and the citizens at the time of the war of independence.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
– St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
– Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

That was long but necessary reading.  Apparently Virginia has become the battleground du jour for the controllers.  They may be in for something a bit different than what they had bargained for.

John Crump writing at Ammoland.

Gun Owners of America has obtained the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [ATF] Industry Operations Manual used by Industry Operations Inspectors (IOI). The gun-rights group received a copy of the document after submitting multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request the federal law enforcement agency.

This copy is the first time since the 1990s that the manual has been made public. The ATF was not quick to supply the information to GOA, but continued pressure by the gun-rights organization forced the ATF’s hand. The document does have a few redactions, but it does give enough information to help out FFLs by understanding what the ATF is looking for in their inspections of FFL and gun shop retailers.

And thus it may be helpful to some of my readers.

I truly wish they wouldn’t put documents on Scribd.  There is a direct PDF link for those of you (like me) who don’t wish to “log in” with any ID.