The perspective from a controller.

At this year’s National Rifle Association annual meeting, President Donald Trump invited some special guests on stage. The first was a young mother from Virginia, April Evans.

“One night in 2015 she was alone with her two-year-old daughter when an intruder broke into her home violently,” said Trump.

“April took care of it.”

The crowd swooned.

[ … ]

“But kind of underlying all of this is a presumption about crime that whatever happens to you it’s probably going to be strangers who perpetrate it,” said Carlson. “It’s going to be sudden, it’s going to be fast and it’s going to be violent. And really the only thing you have to do is figure out how to basically train your muscle memory to respond as fast as possible.”

What gets left out of that narrative, according to Carlson, is that most sexual assaults don’t look like that. Neither does domestic violence.

“You’re experiencing crime and victimization, not as a one-off, acute moment of violence, but it’s generally in the form of mental abuse, psychological abuse, financial abuse,” said Carlson.

According to the FBI, attacks from strangers make up less than a third of violent crimes against women. The vast majority of violence women face comes from people they know.

This is an amazing commentary.  It can’t be described any other way than open loathing of women who have defended themselves.  Do you sense the commentary dripping with sarcasm and hatred for women who won’t go silently into the night and perish for the sake of the social planners?

First of all I won’t stipulate to their alleged statistics on anything until I’ve had a chance to review the data and perform the calculations myself.  But let’s grant for the sake of the discussion that they’re right and only a moderate fraction of women defend themselves from strangers intent on raping them or invading their homes to do them harm.

The author’s argument is that she doesn’t care.  She is willing to grant that this fraction gets raped or killed for the sake of gun control.  Her argument is that because she isn’t convinced that this fraction, whatever it is, is worth it, she wants to control means of self defense for everyone.

Only the most crass, blinded and wicked person could develop and perpetrate such an argument.  It’s the same kind of person who seems to dominate the political scene today, with environmentalists who would rather men get eaten by animals than carry weapons in the bush, and women who believe in sacrificing their children to Baal for the sake of convenience or some other reason.

This category of person is dangerous.  They do not believe that mankind is made in God’s image.  They believe they have the right and knowledge to dictate the terms of survival to everyone else, and to them, you are just a statistic.

Never listen to these people except to refute them, teach your family and friends better, and know where the FUSA is headed long term.

Prince Law:

Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a 53 page majority opinion, a 2 page concurring decision by Justice Baer and a 16 page concurring opinion by Justice Dougherty which Justice Mundy joined, in the case of Commonwealth v. Hicks, which addressed whether the mere open or concealed carrying of a firearm constitutes reasonable suspicion of a crime.

[ … ]

“Before this Court, the Commonwealth again advanced its “radical position,” Hawkins, 692 A.2d at 1071, in the present iteration contending that police officers are not only entitled, but “duty bound” to seize and investigate the licensing status of every individual who carries a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania. Brief for Commonwealth at 11. We have little difficulty in again rejecting this proposition, because we conclude that the Robinson rule contravenes the Terry doctrine and, indeed, the fundamental guarantees of the Fourth Amendment.

Although the carrying of a concealed firearm is unlawful for a person statutorily prohibited from firearm ownership or for a person not licensed to do so, see 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105-06, there is no way to ascertain an individual’s licensing status, or status as a prohibited person, merely by his outward appearance. As a matter of law and common sense, a police officer observing an unknown individual can no more identify whether that individual has a license in his wallet than discern whether he is a criminal. Unless a police officer has prior knowledge that a specific individual is not permitted to carry a concealed firearm, and absent articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that a firearm is being used or intended to be used in a criminal manner, there simply is no justification for the conclusion that the mere possession of a firearm, where it lawfully may be carried, is alone suggestive of criminal activity.

If the consequence of our decision is that future courts afford meaningful Fourth Amendment protection to individuals engaged in other commonly licensed activities, that result is preferable to our allowance of governmental overreach that undermines the individual freedom that is essential to our way of life in this constitutional republic.

…

Crime and violence are ever-present threats in society, and it can be tempting to look to the government to provide protection from “dangerous” people with constant vigilance. However, the protections of the Fourth Amendment remain an essential bulwark against the overreaches and abuses of governmental authority over all individuals. Notwithstanding the dangers posed by the few, we must remain wary of the diminution of the core liberties that define our republic, even when the curtailment of individual liberty appears to serve an interest as paramount as public safety. “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

Consistent with the General Assembly’s reservation of the exclusive prerogative to regulate firearms in this Commonwealth, codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 6120, the additional requirement that an individual possess a license in order to carry a firearm openly within the City of Philadelphia is prescribed by statute, not by municipal ordinance. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108; see generally Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 152 (Pa. 1996).”

So the court did three things: [1] decreed that the mere carrying of a firearm in a concealed manner isn’t a reasonable suspicion of a crime (I would have to know the specifics of the case to be able to ascertain why this is important since if the firearm is concealed well, it wouldn’t be seen by anyone), [2] decreed that the mere carrying of a firearm openly isn’t a reasonable suspicion of a crime (apparently Pennsylvania has a permitted open carry system, and cops don’t have the right to stop someone who is openly carrying to ask about a permit), and [3] decreed that little tyrants in locales like cities or townships don’t have to right to upend this judgment.

Every once in a while someone gets it right.  I would think that after the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals viz. The Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, they would stop trying to argue that they have unlimited rights.

But also just as apparent is the fact that the police go from judge to judge, and court to court, until they find someone who agrees with them.

That’s the American way, yes?

News from New Zealand.

New figures show gun owners are holding back on handing in their firearms, because they’re waiting to hear how much the Government will pay for them

Figures released to Newstalk ZB by the New Zealand Police showed that, as of Sunday night, only 530 guns had been handed in since the ban on semi-automatic guns was finalised in early April.

There are around 250,000 licenced firearm holders in New Zealand and it’s estimated as many as 300,000 guns could now be illegal.

I laughed.

So many breathless articles here in America about how easy it was to make new gun control laws, unlike “Cowboy” America.

So much pining away and wishing for such a society by the progressives, so much desire for a state monopoly on violence.

And now, so much fail.

I laughed.

NSSF:

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has a record of no-nonsense support for the rule of law that clearly extends to respect for the Second Amendment and the firearms industry.

Chuck Canterbury is the President of the 350,000-strong Fraternal Order of Police who would bring to the Director’s office 26 years of law enforcement experience as well as 16 years’ experience in his current role. Canterbury retired as a major with South Carolina’s Horry County Police Department and was inducted into the South Carolina Law Enforcement Hall of Fame.

And as for the evidence for Canterbury’s support for the second amendment?

Canterbury also stood up to billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg after the anti-gun funder of Everytown and Moms Demand called the Fraternal Order of Police a “fringe group” for opposing the release of firearms “trace” data which is prohibited by the Tiahrt Amendment. Even Bloomberg’s own police commissioner Ray Kelly opposed the release of ATF trace data. ATF says it shouldn’t be released outside of law enforcement either. Bloomberg didn’t care when he misused this information in so-called “sting” operations against firearms retailers – without the knowledge of either ATF or his own police department – interfering with as many as 18 criminal investigations and forcing ATF to pull agents out of the field for their own protection.

There you have it.  He supports cop safety.  That makes him a second amendment supporter according to the NSSF.

Next up, the American Suppressor Association:

“As the regulating body of our industry, ATF has a tremendous amount of control over our ability to operate and create jobs,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of ASA. “Because of their influence over our businesses, the ATF Director is, for us, one of the most important politically appointed positions that President Trump will fill. His nomination of Mr. Canterbury, which does require Senate confirmation, falls directly in line with his campaign promise to work with the firearms industry and protect the Second Amendment. Mr. Canterbury’s resume and reputation highlight that he is the leader that ATF needs in order to become the bureau that they are intended to be.”

What bureau would that be?  What did the American founders intend a bureau like that to do, sirs?

The NSSF has never been a supporter of the second amendment, and with respect to the American Suppressor Association, I suspect that they have no desire to see suppressors unregulated.  If they weren’t regulated by law, they wouldn’t be able to charge $1000 a piece for their tubes with baffles.

Prior:

Further Fisking Of Chuck Canterbury’s Second Amendment Credentials

Fraternal Order Of Police Chief Chuck Canterbury Picked To Head ATF

TTAG:

In the coming weeks, my company will be making exciting announcements about new opportunities that are important to the future success of our business. We look forward to sharing that news soon as possible. Given the hard work and full-time attention that will be needed as our brands continue to grow, I’ve decided to step down from my position on the NRA’s Board of Directors. It’s been an honor to serve the five million members of the NRA and I will continue standing side-by-side with the millions of Americans who care deeply about defending the Second Amendment.

That’s a rather innocuous statement.  I wonder if this is as presented, or if there is more afoot than he let on in the statement?  Is there some fiduciary responsibility or financial or legal liability associated with being a member of the board from which he is escaping?

I know my readers and I have discussed that before.  The other alternative is that this is a move of protest.

News from New York:

A 64-year-old New York state man who was arrested for possession of an illegal handgun after he fatally shot a pair of prowlers rooting through his home Tuesday afternoon reportedly told the district attorney the weapon he used in self-defense was his dead father’s and he forgot to register it.

Ronald A. Stolarczyk was charged with felony possession of an illegal handgun, New York State Police said in a news release.

At about 2:40 p.m., officials say Stolarczyk interrupted a man and woman burglarizing his home in Deerfield, New York, located about four hours north of New York City. Stolarczyk then shot the two suspects, according to police.

But the 64-year-old was later arrested after authorities said they determined the handgun used in the shooting was illegally owned.

One of the alleged burglars, identified by state police as 57-year-old Patricia Anne Talerico of Utica, was pronounced dead at the scene. The second alleged intruder, her nephew, 27-year-old Nicholas Talerico of Utica, was transported to a hospital and died of his injuries.

“The word that we had originally was a possible home invasion, possible suspect running at large,” New York State Police Trooper Jack Keller told WSYR-TV. “We were able to quickly identify who those people were identified as…but also we were able to determine quickly that there was no one else and the public was not in danger at all.”

Police said they found items belonging to Stolarczyk at Nicolas Talerico’s home, indicating he may have burglarized his home before, WCSI reported. It’s unclear if Stolarczyk knew him.

Stolarczyk was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a firearm and was transported to the Oneida County Jail, where he’s awaiting centralized arraignment, according to state police.

The District Attorney’s office and police continue to investigate Stolarczyk and the potential motive of the burglars.

Because the only people made in God’s image in New York are law enforcement officers, we can’t let you do that.  You’re the real criminal here, and not only that, we will investigate you until we find a motive behind this that justifies the home invasion.

Just because.  Suck it.  They don’t call us controllers for nothing, capisce?

A reader sends the following references today.

First of all, Senators Feinstein, Warner, Schumer and DeWine claimed support from the Fraternal Order of Police when they introduced a renewed “assault weapons” ban in 2006.  This is exactly within Canterbury’s tenure, who has been president since 2003.

But is this accurate?  According to NBC news it is.

National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban. President Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.

To be precise, this report is from two years earlier when Bush was president, but it does show support for a renewed AWB (by the way, did you know that Bush had agreed in principle to renewal of the ban?).

Finally, the Fraternal Order of Police is credited with assisting Vice President Biden in formulating the language of the renewed ban, and FOP representatives were standing on stage during the presentation as a show of support for a renewed ban.

But according to Chuck Canterbury, who also supports universal background checks and complete law enforcement access to medical records, “I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment.”

So in addition to knowing that he is a gun controller, you now know that he is a shameless liar.

Breitbart:

His comments are in reference to legislation which would allow Texans to carry a handgun open or concealed without a permit for one week after a natural disaster is declared in the state. The Dallas Morning News reports that the legislation was passed by state lawmakers and is now sitting on Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) desk.

Texas already allows the carry of long guns without a permit. This means a Texas resident not barred from gun possession can legally carry an a lever action rifle, an AR-15, a pump shotgun, etc., without any permit in places where firearms are no prohibited. But handgun owners are required to have a permit for open or concealed carry. State Rep. Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) is pushing for the week-long, post-natural disaster carry period for handguns so Texans under duress can carry a gun for protection, regardless of whether they have a permit.

Acevedo said, “We experienced one of the worst disasters in Texas history during Harvey. The World watched as we all came together. This bill wasn’t needed then & isn’t needed now. This will embolden 20,000+ gang members & will not help LE. Let’s hope it isn’t signed.”

“The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.  There’ll be blood running in the streets.  Oh the humanity.”

He Art, why don’t you go shut down those 20,000+ gang members rather than spending your time on failed SWAT raids on innocent people?

David Codrea:

A disarmed citizenry would be national suicide. It would invite invasion. It would make the risks of a Red Dawn scenario more likely. Subversives who undermine what the Founders knew to be “necessary to the security of a free State” are quite literally giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies.

I always thought that Red Dawn was plausible without an armed citizenry.  Besides, now that the U.S. military has chosen to self destruct, what else is there beyond an armed citizenry?  Do you really think the military is any shape to conduct full scale, conventional warfare?

Really?  We couldn’t beat a bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan.  What makes you think we can beat a uniformed army?