Category Archives: gun control

New Zealand Gun Owners Forced to Hand In Firearms, Shortchanged by ‘Buyback’

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) – Dozens of Christchurch gun owners on Saturday handed over their weapons in exchange for money, in the first of more than 250 planned buyback events around New Zealand after the government outlawed many types of semi-automatics.

Police said they paid more than 430,000 New Zealand dollars ($288,000) to 169 gun owners during the event. The money was paid directly into the bank accounts of gun owners.

New Zealand lawmakers in April rushed through new legislation to ban so-called military-style weapons after a lone gunman killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques in March.

The government has set aside more than NZ$200 million to buy back weapons such as AR-15 style rifles, although many gun owners remain unhappy with the compensation on offer.

Under an amnesty, gun owners have until December to turn over their now-banned weapons.

Police said at least 14,000 guns around the country are banned under the new legislation. There are an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million guns in New Zealand and 250,000 licensed gun owners.

Under the buyback scheme, gun owners are compensated between 25% and 95% of the pre-tax price of a new gun, depending on the condition of their weapon.

People who own guns that are not banned under the new laws can also turn over their weapons during the amnesty, although they won’t get any compensation. Police said a half-dozen such weapons were turned in during the Christchurch event.

Police are using hydraulic machines to crush the gun barrels and firing mechanisms of the weapons that are handed in, rendering them inoperable, before disposing of them.

Mike Johnson, an acting district police commander, said the Christchurch buyback had been a success and the attitude of gun owners “outstanding.”

Police Minister Stuart Nash said the results from the first collection were very encouraging.

New Zealand has commemorated the victims of the Christchurch mosque shootings by broadcasting the Islamic call to prayer nationwide during a two-minutes’ silence, with the Prime Minister and many other non-Muslims donning veils for the occasion.

“Many of those who handed over firearms commented how easy the process is, how the prices are fair, and how police made the whole event go smoothly,” Nash said in a statement.

But Nicole McKee, the secretary of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, said the government was shortchanging gun owners by trying to complete the buyback on the cheap.

She said gun owners were forced to rely on police assessments of the condition of their guns and weren’t getting paid anything for the thousands of dollars they had spent on tax as well as certain accessories and ammunition.

“They do want to abide by the new laws but they have no incentive and they’re having fingers pointed at them and are being treated like criminals,” McKee said. “They’re angry at the way they’re being treated.”

The council has launched a crowd-funding campaign to raise money to fight against possible further government-imposed gun restrictions.

McKee, who declined to say how much money they had raised, said they hadn’t received any money from the U.S. National Rifle Association as far as she was aware.

She said the group wasn’t in communication with the NRA, other than receiving a note of sympathy from the U.S. organization after the March attacks.

Hera Cook, a public health researcher who co-founded the group Gun Control NZ after the March attacks, said that before the massacre, most New Zealanders had no clue how easy it was to get hold of weapons capable of being used for mass killings.

She said she hopes the government enacts further gun control measures, including creating a register of guns and introducing shorter license periods for gun owners.

She also said some of the gun owners complaints about getting short-changed or treated badly appeared to have some merit, and that “wasn’t a good look” for the government.

Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian white supremacist, has pleaded not guilty to terrorism, murder and attempted murder charges following the March attacks. He remains in jail ahead of his trial, which has been scheduled for next May.

Source: by  | Breitbart London

Advertisements

New York Man Arrested After Shooting Home Invaders

Flagrant disregard for right to self-defense.

An upstate New York man is facing firearms charges after lawfully defending his home from two burglars.

Ronald Stolarczyk of Oneida County, 64, is being charged with felony possession of a weapon used against two burglars who broke into his house. Stolarczyk heard voices in his garage one day in May, and went on to vocally warn the strangers who had entered his home. When the two burglars started coming up the stairs, Stolarczyk shot them both with a Rossi .38 Special revolver. Both suspects later died.

Officers who responded on the scene and the Oneida County District Attorney later determined that Solarczyk had lawfully defended his own home from two intruders. But he was later charged with felony gun possession by the DA for his possession of the weapon, which was handed down by his deceased father. New York requires a series of registration permits and licensing for all firearms, even those that are passed from father to son. Stolarczyk never registered his ownership of the gun after his father died.

Stolarczyk is currently in jail, unable to afford the $10,000 bail required by the court for his freedom.

A legal fund in support of Stolarczyk’s defense has surfaced on GoFundMe. As of Sunday, pro-self defense donors have raised more than $22,000 for the New York homeowner to defend himself from charges from the state of New York.

Welcome to the Orwellian nightmare dreamed of by progressives- in which freedom-loving patriots lawfully defending their home from burglars will be prosecuted for the unforgivable sin of owning a small revolver without the state’s permission.

Source: by Richard Moorhead | InfoWars

Max Igan (thecrowhouse) – Definitive Interview

“The illusion of freedom will continue for as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will take down the scenery, move the tables and chairs out of the way, then they will pull back the curtains and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” – Frank Zappa

“Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell

When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. – Plato

“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” – Richard Feynman

“I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons, knocking on a door. It opens. I’ve been knocking from the inside.” – Rumi

Universal Law/sovereign law trumps all others:

1. No man or woman, in or out of government shall initiate force, threat of force or fraud against my life and property and, any and all contracts Im a party to not giving full disclosure to me whether signed by me or not are void at my discretion.

2. I may use force in self-defense against anyone that violates Law

3. There shall be no exceptions to Law 1 and 2.

TURN OFF YOUR TELEVISION!

THROW AWAY YOUR SMART PHONE!

Gun Rights Group Targets Trump’s ‘Anti-Gun’ ATF Pick

Chuck Canterbury, presumptive Trump nominee to head the ATF

In a national email, the National Association for Gun Rights announced that the Trump administration just made an anti-gunner the next ATF Director. Chuck Canterbury is the presumptive nominee at the ATF based on an announcement made on Friday.According to the NAGR President Dudley Brown, Canterbury has a “long history of publicly supporting and endorsing anti-gun policies, anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, and anti-gun high ranking government officials.” As President of the National Fraternal Order of Police, Canterbury has supported anti-gun Supreme Court Justices like Sonia Sotomayor and former Attorney General Eric Holder, who ran the notorious Fast and Furious gun running program. On top of that, Canterbury supported the expansion of the federal government’s gun registration schemes. Brown reported that Canterbury’s FOP is “currently lobbying AGAINST Constitutional Carry, even though the vast majority of law enforcement officers support the right to carry.”In Brown’s view, this is “troubling news.” Ultimately the no compromise leader called for an ATF Director “who wants to tear down gun control, not expand it.” Brown then promised to keep NAGR members informed of everything that goes on during this process.

Canterbury walking in uniform on right

President Donald Trump Says Take Guns ‘Early’ Without Due Process

Source: by Jose Nino | Big League Politicks

New York Wants To Force All Gun Owners To Buy A Million Dollar Liability Policy

New York state is still busily chipping away at gun rights and now they’ve introduced Obamacare for guns.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/kxt7bzhb5or01.jpg?itok=yPKwmTQ_Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

Legislators are hard at work trying to force every gun owner in the state (who isn’t a cop or active military) to purchase and maintain a minimum $1 million liability insurance policy.

§ 2353. FIREARM OWNERS INSURANCE POLICIES. 1. ANY PERSON IN THIS STATE WHO SHALL OWN A FIREARM SHALL, PRIOR TO SUCH OWNERSHIP, OBTAIN AND CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN A POLICY OF LIABILITY INSURANCE IN AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS SPECIFICALLY COVERING ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANY NEGLIGENT OR WILLFUL ACTS INVOLVING THE USE OF SUCH FIREARM WHILE IT IS OWNED BY SUCH PERSON. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SUCH INSURANCE  SHALL RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF SUCH OWNER’S REGISTRATION, LICENSE AND ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE TO OWN SUCH FIREARM.(source)

Hmmm…privilege? I had no idea it was called constitutional privileges. I’m going to have to go back and fix some articles really quickly where I called them “rights.”

New York wants to make it impossible to own a gun. Although the bill clearly states it’s been read twice, it’s rife with grammatical errors, almost to the point of illiteracy. (I italicized them for ya.) But I digress. Under the heading “Justification” the bill states:

Injury and death by gun has increasingly become a problem in U.S. and in New York State. In the wake of recent mass shooting incidents in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut; there has been a nationwide attention on gun control and public safety.

According to FBI Crime Report, there were 445 firearm murderin New York in 2011 and 517 firearm murder in 2010. However, there is little attention on the economic impact these shootings have on the victims and their families.

This legislation establishes and requires gun-owners to obtain and maintain liability insurance policy prior to such ownership. By having this insurance, policy in place, innocent victims of gun-related accidents and violence will be compensated for the medical care for their injuries.

In such cases where the gun was stolen, the original owner is typically not liable unless the weapon was stolen through negligence on the part of the owner.

This insurance policy will also serve as an incentive for firearm owners to implement safety measures in order to conduct the activity as safely as possible and only when necessary.

This isn’t the first time recently that New York has proposed something outrageous.

In December of last year, they proposed a bill that would require anyone in NY who wanted to buy a gun to turn over their internet search history and their social media passwords. Seriously. According to Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, “A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm.”

Previously, I wrote:

Applicants to purchase a gun would be required by law to turn over their social media passwords to accounts like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram, and they’d have to allow police to see a year’s worth of their searches on a year’s worth of searches on Google, Yahoo, and Bing.  As well, anyone renewing their permit for a pistol would be subject to this invasive investigation.

Now, for those of you sitting there saying, “That’s fine, I don’t use social media and I use Duck Duck Go or StartPage” this is great – for now.

How long do you think it would be before other outlets like blogs where you comment or these different search engines are added to the list of things that are searched? Trust me, if it gets passed, this is a greasy slide straight to the bad place. (source)

If you wondering what they’d be looking for, wonder no more.

Police would be required to look for evidence the applicant searched for or used racist or discriminatory language, threatened the safety of another person, inquired about or alluded to an act of terrorism, and, finally, “any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer.” (source)

How arbitrary is that? It’s basically down to whether the officer likes you and your beliefs our not.

Think for a moment about how much the investigating officer’s bias would come into play here. In some ways of thinking, people who say “all lives matter” are considered the epitome of racism even when taken out of context.

And what about a couple of women talking about a breakup using heated language in a conversation about the ex who has become the enemy? Are they really going to act on it or are they just blowing off some steam?

Then I think about my search history regarding terrorism – I’m a blogger, for goodness sakes. My search history is a dark place.  What if you’re researching what kind of gun you want to buy and you’re looking up things like “stopping power” or some other thing the anti-gun folks consider “scary” that is a completely legitimate question in reality?

And “any other issue deemed necessary” is just far, far too broad to provide any comfort whatsoever that the investigations would be fair and impartial. All of this is completely subjective. Anyone with a dark sense of humor, regardless of their sanity or upstanding citizen-ness, is going to be in for a hard time. (source)

It’s all just another paver on the highway to total gun control.

If you think this is crazy, stay tuned. It’s just going to get worse.

Source: ZeroHedge

Kamala Harris Vows As POTUS To Impose Sweeping Gun-Control Plans Via Executive Actions

Monday night’s CNN Town Hall was one of the first opportunities for the top Democratic presidential contenders to come together and share their views on allowing child rapists, terrorists and murderers to vote, and other formerly radical policies that have somehow found their way into the Democratic mainstream.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/Screen%20Shot%202019-04-23%20at%205.41.51%20AM.png?itok=JY5gDyF6

As each candidate vied to outdo one another, California Sen. Kamala Harris, widely rumored to have the party’s implicit backing as the “establishment choice” in a widening field of nearly two dozen candidates, boldly declared that she would take executive action to force federal agencies to write new rules on gun control should Congress “fail to act”. Continue reading

Judge Issues Partial Stay in CA ‘High Capacity’ Mag Ban

Epic legal effort allowed California residents to purchase high capacity magazines during a seven day window for the first time in nineteen years.

***

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez issued a partial stay in the judgement against California’s “high capacity” magazine ban.

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/04/SJM-L-MILGUN-0111_2-640x480.png

A brief history on rulings associated with this ban is helpful:

  • On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that Benitez blocked the implementation of California’s “high-capacity” magazine ban two days before it was to go into effect. He noted that the ban could not survive the test of Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ruling. He noted “When the simple test of Heller is applied … the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment.”
  • On July 17, 2018, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez’s ruling by a 2-to-1 vote, but sent the case back to Benitez for reconsideration.
  • On March 29, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Benitez again ruled against the ban, issuing an order barring California Attorney General Xavier Becerra from enforcing the ban.
  • On April 2, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Becerra was requesting a stay on the March 29 ruling, pending outcome of appeal.

Benitez has now issued a stay on the March 29, 2019, ruling, effective at 5 p.m. on April 5, 2019, while subsequently upholding the June 29, 2017, ruling as a means of protecting individuals who purchased “high capacity” magazines between March 30 and April 5.

The case is Duncan v. Becerra, No. 2:17-cv-56-81 in the U.S. District Court for Southern California.

Source: AWR Hawkins | Breitbart