Biden’s campaign website says, “Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.”
It also contains a link to the March for Our Lives’ “Peace Plan”, which calls for “a prohibition on any and all online firearm and ammunition sales or transfers, including gun parts.”
Breitbart News reported that one of Biden’s other gun control policy proposals includes a provision that could require every AR-15 rifle be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Unless there were some form of carve-out, this could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax per AR-15 that they own.
The National Rifle Association’s Andrew Arulanandam told Breitbart News that the current “low end” estimate of privately-owned AR-15s in the United States is 18 million. A tax of $200 on 18 million AR-15s means that gun owners could potentially be required to pay a collective $3.6 billion in taxes if this policy were enacted into legislation.
Breitbart News also reported that one of Biden’s proposals includes a provision that could require Americans to sell back their so-called “high-capacity magazines” to the government or be registered under the NFA. The latter, unless there were some form of carve-out, could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax for every high-capacity magazine they currently own.
Congress is considering a bill to require citizens to apply for a federal license before being able to purchase a firearm.
And the government would have the authority to deny a license, even if the applicant has no criminal history or mental health issues.
That makes this essentially a nationwide “red flag law.” The government can deny or revoke a license if they arbitrarily deem you to be a problem.
The proposed law would also tax firearms at 30% and ammunition at 50%.
Meanwhile, March saw record firearm sales.
The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System processed 3.7 million background checks required to buy firearms. That is the highest month on record since the system began in 1998.
When candidate Joe Biden was questioned by a Michigan auto worker today about his promise to take guns away and put Beto O’Rourke in charge of his gun confiscation program (both of which he did), Biden comes unglued and tells the Fiat Chrysler plant worker “you’re full of shit”. But it gets worse…
Joe Biden keeps poking his finger in the mans face, the auto worker tells Biden “this is not ok”, waving off the finger. Then Biden threatens to “take this outside”. Unreal, this candidate is very unstable. WATCH – (video might not last long):
The campaign team immediately realized things were spiraling out of control and took up positions to remove the candidate, but in such close quarters things didn’t work out well. Joe Biden’s unstable anger was very visible.
Biden also THREATENED TO SLAP the guy….bad optics…he also says he will put Blue Collar workers out of work and make them learn to “code.”…not cool when talking to BLUE COLLAR WORKERS in a NEW plant being built for them.
Biden — I’m Coming for YOUR GUNS
The guy should have pulled this video up on his phone and SHOVED IT IN BIDEN’S FACE!
You won’t be able to stay on your porch and defend yourself.
Your enemies are waging the early stages of full-spectrum warfare against Trad Americans.
If you don’t have people who will help you when loud noises and projectile exchanges begin, you will be handled by the State piecemeal.
Part of winning that game is the ally process, and thus the Mattis quote you have seen around here:
In this age, I don’t care how tactically or operationally brilliant you are, if you cannot create harmony — even vicious harmony — on the battlefield based on trust across service lines, across coalition and national lines, and across civilian/military lines, you need to go home, because your leadership is obsolete. We have got to have officers who can create harmony across all those lines.
Work hard on getting over the “to hell with so-and-so” resentment, if circumstances permit.
You really don’t have enough trained, provisioned, hard-hearted allies.
And time is flying.
It’s said that an eagle needs two strong wings so fly, but in American politics, the left-wing is trying to cannibalize the right, thinking that it will soar higher than ever before.
Although 36% is not a majority, it shows that a large segment of the population does not trust the general population with weapons to defend themselves. They do, however, generally support those guns in the hands of government agents, police, and the military.
If guns were to be forcibly confiscated from law-abiding Americans, it would not usher in a peaceful utopia as many seem to believe. Instead, it would undoubtably create armed conflict between citizens and the government.
Put simply, no matter how well-armed the government is, there is a large segment of the population that will never give up their guns without a fight. This is quite possibly the quickest way, and the only way, to start a civil war in America.
Not to mention the fact that gun confiscation is a long shot from being proven to reduce crime. The only thing that this form of gun control does do is reduce the power of the people to fight back against oppressive regimes.
If you want to know why gun control is a bad long-term strategy, try reading about the history of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, or Adolf Hitler’s regimes and how they took guns from their people prior to oppression and mass murder.
But sadly, a certain percentage of the population doesn’t care how it happens, as long as they eventually get a shot at their dream of utopia. “The end justifies the means,” as the old socialist adage goes.
However, many sheriffs, police officers, and members of the military have come out in fierce opposition to any kind of gun confiscation, even going so far as refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws or promising to deputize every citizen in order to bypass them.
There were 20.4 million Democrat primary voters in 2018, the highest number in two decades.
36% of 20.4 million is 7.34 million voters who want to confiscate firearms from Americans who have not committed a crime.
This contrasts with about 18 million voters who have firearms carry permits and roughly 100 million voters who own guns.
In addition to gun confiscation, the poll found that 39% of likely Democrat voters support eliminating private health insurance, forcing everyone into government dependency for healthcare, and 43% support reparations for black Americans, which would force white Americans who have never owned slaves or supported any kind of racism to pay African Americans simply for their skin color.
39% also support decriminalizing illegal border crossings, effectively opening the border completely and allowing any of the 700 million people currently seeking immigration to cross our border with no resistance and take advantage of our many generous welfare programs. America is also the top destination for would-be immigrants; about 24% of adults worldwide seeking to immigrate want to come to the US. That’s 165 million people to add on top of the 330,217,617 the US census bureau counted on the last day of 2019.
Additionally, 38% believe that we should provide free government-paid healthcare for all illegal immigrants. As fantastic as it would be to help 165 million people, a country with over 23 trillion dollars of debt just can’t sustain that level of immigration.
Finally, 38% percent of likely Democrat voters support legalizing abortion all the way up until just before birth.
Although there isn’t a majority for any of these issues, several Democratic presidential hopefuls have stated their support for each of these positions, including reparations, free healthcare for illegals, and gun confiscation.
In order to understand the disease we call politics in America, you have to see the great philosophical divide between the left and right. While the left is generally well-meaning, the policies that they support are not sustainable and often rely on forcing parts of the population to give up their rights and property for the benefit of others.
However, as Americans, we can only choose liberty or dependence; freedom or discrimination; civility or coercion. Attempting to attain both is as unwise as an eagle tearing off one wing thinking it will fly without restraint from the other.
(David Risselada) As the situation in Virginia continues to escalate the possibility that they are deliberately trying to lure patriots into committing acts of violence must be considered. It is the Hegelian dialectic at play ̶ create the problem by criminalizing legal gun owners, provoke the reaction and offer the solution. The final solution that is, the merging of the United States into a one world order headed by the United Nations. As crazy as that sounds, the groundwork for such a merger is well established after the United States committed itself to United Nation objectives with the signing of the United Nations Participation Act in 1945.
This law committed the United States to full participation in the U.N. while authorizing the president to appoint representatives and commit the United States military to conflicts based on U.N. objectives. To be more specific, congress would retain the power to determine the size and terms of military deployments but the power to determine what would constitute the type of crisis warranting their use would be solely up to the United Nations Security Council. That is a huge loss of American sovereignty in and of itself because the power to wage war, according to the U.S. Constitution, rests with the United States Congress alone. It was because of the provisions of this law that President Truman was able to commit troops to the Korean War without the consent of congress and instead, the vote of the U.N. Security Council on the pretext of an international emergency. The same could be said for many of the wars and police actions that would soon follow.
Dave Hodges, of the Common Sense Show, and Mike Adams of NewsTarget.com are claiming that they have uncovered evidence of a conspiracy to deploy U.N. troops in Virginia to confiscate firearms which democrats intent to outlaw. No solid evidence was provided by either Hodges or Adams. Hodges in fact, is infamous for publishing alarming articles claiming his information came from “his inside sources.” The idea that the U.N. would be used against Americans in gun confiscation is not new and is something that in the past, was likely to have one labeled as a conspiracy theorist. Sadly, all the pieces are in place for such an event to occur and because most gun owners in America have discredited the idea as a grand conspiracy, we will be caught playing catch up.
Many laws and policy objectives have been put in place that have led us to where we are now. Despite opposition from the public, the gun control agenda is gaining steam and more and more states are introducing legislation to outlaw semi-automatic firearms. In 1961 the U.S. government passed public law 87-297, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act. This is interesting because the law specifically states that there shall be no laws authorizing the reduction of our armed forces or the prohibiting of the civilian ownership of arms unless pursuant to the treaty making powers of the President. The House, after staging the fake impeachment spectacle, approved the finalization of the new trade deal with Mexico and Canada, the USMCA. This trade agreement further surrenders our sovereignty to the U.N. despite it being hailed as one of the great things Trump has done for the country. If this new treaty does create a so called North American Union under the control of the United Nations, then the situation in Virginia could easily be declared an “international emergency” giving them the sole authority to deploy peace keeping troops. As conspiratorial as it may sound this is laid out in law. There was also the U.N. Arms treaty. President Trump was hailed as being pro-gun when he withdrew from the treaty, which John Kerry signed as Secretary of State. In truth, it doesn’t matter if Trump withdrew from it if the USMCA becomes the law of the land.
The Arms treaty has several provisions which allow for nations who have signed on to appeal to the United Nations for help in disarmament affairs with nations that haven’t.
In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, model legislation, and effective practices for implementation. Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide such assistance, upon request. Each State Party may request, offer or receive assistance through, inter alia, the United Nations, international, regional, sub regional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations, or on a bilateral basis. A voluntary trust fund shall be established by States Parties to assist requesting States Parties requiring international assistance to implement this Treaty. Each State Party is encouraged to contribute resources to the fund.
The treaty also states that the ownership of firearms by civilians would be respected based on a nation’s laws. This is a provision that led many people to the false belief that it would have no effect upon U.S. citizens. As noted earlier, if the USMCA becomes the law of the land and the U.S., Canada and Mexico are merged into one entity, our constitution and bill of rights would be rendered virtually meaningless. Many states are now in the process of outlawing firearms, as noted earlier. Furthermore, the text in article 16 of the Arms Treaty could enable Mexico and Canada, who both have signed the treaty, to appeal to the U.N. for help in forcing the disarming of American citizens. American gun owners are being portrayed as radical extremists and our guns, as the cause of Mexico’s violence. Also, consider that every state with high rates of gun violence and strict gun laws, blames the neighboring states that do not. This is all deliberate propaganda to create the justification for U.N. involvement. Don’t forget that the Obama Administration signed many localities on to the U.N. Strong Cities Network, which puts international organizations in control of local law enforcement agencies. Is there a connection between this and what is happening in Virginia? That is unclear. Virginia has no cities listed as being members. New York, Georgia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Colorado however, are listed as being members in the Strong Cities Network.
While Hodges and Adams may not provide the direct quotes or sources of their claims, the stage is indeed being set for possible use of U.N. troops on our soil. This writer is making no claim that he knows of any plans, he is only providing the documented evidence which suggests the possibility. This is evidence that has been ignored for far too long on the grounds that it is nothing more than a whacked-out conspiracy theory. Too many people have lived under the misguided notion that it could never happen here. Something is happening and the situation is going to escalate, and it could very well be deemed an international emergency by the U.N., enabling them to deploy their peace keeping troops.
Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has appropriated a quarter million dollars to the “corrections special reserve fund” in the budget, in preparation for jailing citizens who defy his planned, dictatorial assault on their Second Amendment rights.
AP News is reporting that an overnight mass shooting in Chicago’s South Side left 13 people wounded, four are in critical condition on Sunday morning.
Fred L. Waller, chief of the Chicago Police Department’s patrol bureau, said ShotSpotter technology, gunshot detection software operating across the city, detected and recorded the shooting around 12:35 a.m.
Waller said the shooting was an “isolated incident.” He said a dispute occurred inside a South Side home when shots rang out. As people fled the house, another shooter was picking people off from an outside location.
Waller said three separate types of shell casings were found in and around the home.
“From outside, definitely there was two different shooters,” Waller said at a presser Sunday morning. “It looked like they were just shooting randomly at people as they exited the party.”
He said two people are being questioned in connection with the shooting. One of the suspects was carrying a revolver when detained.
A 29-year-old woman who declined to give her name to the Chicago Tribune, said, “It’s real f—ing sad. Your kids can’t grow up, you can’t do anything. This is what our life is going to be about [refering to inner-city chaos].”
Citywide, homicides have been trending lower for the past four years.
A surge in the murder trend was seen in 2015/16 after inner-city riots in Ferguson and Baltimore sparked unrest in other large metro areas.
So far this month, 22 homicides have been recorded, with 116 people shot. Of those shot, 15 died from their injuries.
The epicenter of 2019 homicides has been based in Austin, Garfield Park, and Englewood communities.
A shocking 80.5% of the shooting victims and or homicides this year have been of African Americans, 13.3% Hispanics, and 4.9% White.
Which perhaps goes a long way towards the reasoning why this ‘mass shooting’ fails to hit the mainstream media’s headlines – simply put, it does not suit the narrative of ‘white males’ killing everyone with guns.
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order … tomorrow they will be grateful.” – Henry Kissinger, 1991 Bilderberg meeting
(Natural News) A nefarious scheme is under way in Virginia to provoke shooting conflicts as a justification to invoke martial law, seize all firearms from private citizens and maybe even call for the UN occupation of America.
I’ve been researching and writing about these treacherous scheme for several days, and yesterday, Dave Hodges asked me to join him for an audio interview to discuss the subject…..
Things are getting really bad in Virginia. But this group isn’t going down without a fight.
Virginia – Monday morning, Law Enforcement Today reported on how Tazewell County, Virginia is crafting a militia to defend the Constitution in the state. And within hours, we were flooded with thousands of emails from people across the state – police officers, veterans, and patriotic Americans – who said they are joining.
And it’s a movement that’s gaining traction across the state.
(Daisy Luther) As Virginia lawmakers prepare to pass a draconian gun control bill that would make most guns in the state illegal, Tazewell County has formed an official active militia as per the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To all of those who like to mock gun owners and ask if they’re going to fight tyranny in a militia, Virginia’s answer is a clear and adamant “yes.” That’s exactly what they’re planning to do.
Virginia is the new battleground of the Second Amendment. After the most recent election, the state’s House and Senate are both Democrat majorities and they haven’t wasted a moment in attempting to gut the gun laws in what has historically been a permissive state.
The so-called “assault weapon ban” is SB16 and has that perilously vague wording we all know to be incredibly dangerous. In some interpretations, this law, if it passes, could make illegal the ownership or transportation of any semi-automatic gun because extendable magazines are available for it – and you don’t even have to have the extendable mags.
TINVOWOOT, (there is no voting our way out of this)
– No one is coming to save us
– We’re screwed until their parasitic system goes away
– Get harder than all the problems
– There’s gonna be a fight
– Let’s win
– Screw everyone who stood by and watched
Kill House Rules:
– Nobody is coming to save us
– Everything is your responsibility
– Save who needs to be saved
– **** who needs to be ******
– Always be working
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.
shall beis 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;
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 Adoption 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 usage 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 of power 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 entrusted 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.
BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today declared there is a “hidden agenda” behind the impeachment efforts of House Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and it is designed to tie up the U.S. Senate and derail efforts to confirm more pro-Second Amendment judges to the federal courts.
“It is clear to us that Capitol Hill anti-gunners are doing everything in their power to prevent confirmation of conservative judges who will adhere to the Constitution,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.
“By burdening the Senate with this nonsense, Democrats believe they can prevent confirmation of pro-Second Amendment judicial nominees during the final year of President Donald Trump’s first term.”
Gottlieb noted that the president is fulfilling perhaps his most important campaign pledge, which was to bring balance back to the federal courts. Restoring that balance could be the president’s greatest legacy, he said.
“The same people pushing impeachment have been staunch allies of the gun prohibition lobby,” Gottlieb observed. “Anti-gunners have been horrified since Day One of Donald Trump’s presidency that he was actually determined to rein in the activist federal court system by nominating judges who understand there are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, and that the Second Amendment really means what it says.
“More than eleven years after the landmark 2008 Heller ruling and more than nine years after the 2010 McDonald decision,” he continued, “some courts still act as though neither of those Supreme Court rulings existed.
But the president has been filling court vacancies with solid, intelligent jurists who understand the difference between regulated privileges and constitutionally-enumerated, fundamental rights.
Capitol Hill anti-gunners and their gun prohibitionist friends can’t stand it, and they’re using the impeachment crusade as a smoke screen to distract the Senate from doing its duty.
“This isn’t about impeaching the president,” Gottlieb stated. “This is about impeaching our Second Amendment rights. I guarantee that American gun owners are going to remember this in 2020.”
California adopted 15 firearms-related bills last Friday, including a controversial ‘red flag’ gun confiscation law which adds co-workers, employers and educators to the list of who can file a gun violence restraining order on those they say are a danger to themselves and others. Currently, only law enforcement and immediate family members can apply to temporarily confiscate peoples’ firearms. Most of the new laws take effect January 1, according to the LA Times.
Signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) after being vetoed twice by his Democratic predecessor Jerry Brown (who said that educators can work through family members or law enforcement if a restraining order is required), the gun confiscation bill is so broad that the ACLU said it “poses a significant threat to civil liberties” since guns can be seized from owners before they have an opportunity to contest the requests, and those making the requests may “lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment,” NBC San Diego reports.
All that’s needed for a co-worker or educator to file a complaint is to have had “substantial and regular interactions” with gun owners, along with permission from their employers or school administrators. Those seeking the orders will be required to file a sworn statement outlining their concerns.
The author of the bill, Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco, said that “With school and workplace shootings on the rise, it’s common sense to give the people we see every day the power to intervene and prevent tragedies,” citing a recent study which found that 21 mass shootings may have been prevented by a gun restraining order.
Meanwhile, a companion bill signed by Newsom and written by Democratic Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks allows gun violence restraining orders to last one and five years, though gun owners would be allowed to petition the state to get their guns back earlier. In another Ting-authored companion bill, gun owners who agree to voluntarily surrender their firearms can notify the court via a form, vs. a hearing which Ting says wastes time and resources.
The National Rifle Association (NRA)’s Amy Hunter, meanwhile, said of another bill signed on Friday (SB 61) which prohibits Californians from buying more than one semiautomatic rifle per month, and bans the sale of such rifles to those younger than 21: “This bill places burdens on law-abiding residents,” adding “It will not make anyone safer.”
Republican state legislators criticized the one-gun-a-month bill, as well as the state’s failure to remove guns from the thousands of felons and the severely mentally ill as they are already empowered to do so.
“Instead we continue to do more and more legislation that interferes with the law-abiding citizen’s right to own and possess firearms, which is their constitutional right to do,” said Yuba City Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher (LA Times).
According to the Times, other bills signed Friday by Newsom will:
Great video, and that entire group has sold-out California to China.
California is the beachhead for the Chinese invasion of America, estimates are that 5 million Chinese troops have been brought in, are pre-positioned for the Red Dawn take-down. They, along with troops from Africa, the mid-east, central America & Mexico, will be wearing UN Blue Helmets. Millions and millions of troops in position, all chomping at the bit to slaughter the Hated Americans. They don’t care if you are registered as Dem or Rep, they just want you dead!
Dave Hodges most recent update on the California situation. It’s crumbling fast. Those who don’t grasp the significance of the following link are lost and that is of their own choice, Xi has given them fair warning.
That was the ‘warm-up act’ to set the tone for the following:
California has sold-out to China, they are invading at the Port of Long Beach, Trump has sent in 10,000 Marines ….
We are on the verge of war and Mike Adams has a very sane and solemn rallying speech for American Patriots to get our minds oriented in the right direction.
Watch the video at the bottom of the article, Trump is about to ‘Pull It!’.
You’ll notice the guy with the nuclear football will be insisting on full due process for himself first.
(David Codrea) “Impeachment probe puts federal gun law deal in limbo,” The Connecticut Post reported Thursday. “New federal gun laws may be an early casualty of the enmity between President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats who have just launched an impeachment probe of the president.”
That was my reaction two days earlier after seeing the blaring headlines on Drudge.
“It looks like ‘universal background checks’ and ‘red flag laws’ are on the back burner,” I surmised. Even so, noting that Mr. Trump now really needs to keep his supporters rallied, a tweet from the president came across as bizarrely counterproductive:
“The Democrats are so focused on hurting the Republican Party and the President that they are unable to get anything done because of it, including legislation on gun safety, lowering of prescription drug prices, infrastructure, etc. So bad for our Country!”
Really? Now’s the time to demotivate the gun owners who put him in office? Not coming up with new infringements is what’s “bad”?
Evidently that attitude came as a surprise to gun-grabbing Senator Chris Murphy, too. He told the Post he assumed his support for impeachment would derail the deal. Instead, the White House reached out to him with assurances:
“They were pushing back on my pessimism,” Murphy said. “I’m glad to continue to talk to the White House.”
And of course, he described the “deal” offered up by the unsurprisingly disappointing AG William Barr as “flawed,” meaning it was not enough. News flash to Republicans: It never will be. The Dems will happily snap up every concession you offer them and then turn around and smear you as “extremists” and “pawns of the NRA” who “never compromise” as they advance step-by-step to the next goal, and then the one after that.
Why that lesson is evidently so hard for the GOP to learn is baffling. It’s enough to make you think they know perfectly well what’s going on, but need to continue with the “good cop/bad cop” charade until they no longer do.
So what is Donald Trump doing? Is he offering another “3D chess” feint to distract from the impeachment probe and keep it from going any further? Is he dragging thing on to keep the gun bills from advancing? Is he showing his true nature and figuring he can get away with whatever he wants because desperate gun owners have no other place to go?
If so, that’s a miscalculation, because like it or not, there are gun owners who have had it and are talking about giving up on elections and drawing lines in the sand. If Trump wants to win in 2020, he has to realize he can’t afford to give up those votes.
Through his own words and actions, this president, elected in large part on a “pro-gun” platform, has created tremendous doubt within the gun owner community. The fallout could result in a virulently anti-gun Democrat capturing the Oval Office, and then showing us what s/he can really do to expand on executive orders – especially if continued Republican fecklessness and betrayals result in the Senate turning blue as well.
As terrible as that prospect seems, there’s another concern that can’t be left unsaid if radical Democrat overreach makes the Party implode and Trump manages to get himself reelected in 2020: If he’s willing to betray us now, when he needs us, what won’t he dare sign when he’s secured a second term and no longer does?
TINVOWOOT, (there is no voting our way out of this)
– We’re screwed until their parasitic system goes away
– Get harder than all the problems
– There’s gonna be a fight
– No one is coming to save us
– Let’s win
– Screw everyone who stood by and watched
-Buy more ammo.
-Teach more Normies to run ARs and Glocks.
-Keep working on your area accountability files.
-Keep the faith.
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- On 10 September 2019, Colorado Congressman Ken Buck (R-CO) offered an amendment to the proposed bill to create federal grants for “Red Flag” bills in the House of Representative. The amendment was offered in the Judiciary Committee. Representative Ken Buck’s introduction of the amendment occurs in the first minute and ten seconds of the video on C-Span. “Red Flag” bills allow police to confiscate guns from people with a mere accusation they may pose a threat. In Red Flag bills, there is little due process.
An accusation is sufficient. No court appearance by the accused, or confrontation of witnesses, is required. There is no presumption of innocence. To regain their rights, the person accused has to prove they are “not* a danger. They may incur thousands of dollars of court costs to regain the property that was taken from them without due process.
Representative Buck’s amendment would allow law enforcement agencies, on probable cause of a person belonging to a criminal gang, to use “Red Flag” laws to take guns from gang members.
Representative Buck offered testimony that most murders and violent crimes involving guns are committed by gang members. The standard of probable cause is much higher than a mere accusation from a family member or other person who may have motivation to make false charges, about potential future conduct.
The amendment pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left. The Committee Chairman, Representative Nadler, said a taking guns from a person, for simply being on a database, would violate due process. Red flag laws require less evidence than probable cause for law enforcement officials. They only require an accusation of the potential of a threat.
Rep. Buck told Tucker Carlson he was opposed to the “Red Flag” bill being passed at all. His amendment was to point out the hypocrisy, to show the Democrats want to take guns from people without criminal convictions, but who demand full due process for the people most likely to be involved in violent crimes.
Rep. Buck says 80% of murders committed with guns are committed by gang members. He says over 90% of the crime committed in America are committed by gang members.
Representative Veronica Escobar (D-TX), brought up the problems of identity confusion in databases of gang members. John Lott has been pointing out the problems with identity confusion in the National Instant background Check System (NICS) database, especially for minorities, for years. Democrats have not had a problem with that.
Ms Zoe Lofgren, (D) 19th District, California talked of due process problems.
Rep Doug Collins (R-GA) brought up the hypocrisy of the Democrats in voting to ban all members of the “no fly” list, which has far more problems with due process than gang members lists, from buying guns. On 23 June, 2016, the Democrats staged a “sit-in” on the House floor, to demand people on the “no fly” list be banned from purchasing guns. From pbs.org:
Democrats staged an all-night sit in, demanding a vote on plan to ban anyone on the government’s terrorist no-fly list from buying a gun.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Nadler (D) New York, has this as part of a press release:
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) joined with Democratic colleagues to stage a sit-in on the House floor calling on Speaker Ryan and the Republican Leadership to bring forward common sense gun legislation that prohibits the sale of firearms to anyone on the terrorist watch list and closes the gun show loophole.
There is no “probable cause” to be put on a no fly list. There is no way to appeal being on a no-fly list. The standard to be on a gang member list is considerably higher. Yet Democrats were all for banning everyone who is on a “no-fly” list from purchasing a gun. When it comes to street gangs, however, any possibility of a lack of due process is an excellent reason to not have gang members red-flagged.
Why would Democrats, who show an overwhelming desire to disarm Americans, be so concerned about disarming people who are likely gang members?
Representative Buck says the Democrats want to disarm rural Americans, not gang members. It is a serious charge. Unfortunately, it fits the facts. Guns are concentrated in rural America. Most rifles, particularly semi-automatic rifles, are in rural America. Rural America has far less crime than urban America. Most deaths associated with guns in rural America are suicides committed by older white men. Most homicides in America are committed by urban gang members.
Rep. Buck says the Democrats wish to split law enforcement from rural America with these laws. He says that many law enforcement agencies in rural America do not want these laws, and do not want to enforce them.
Separating law enforcement from gun owners has long been a goal of those wishing to disarm the American population.
Source: by Dean Weingarten | Ammo Land
Leaked Gun Control Document:
Hawaii’s red flag law puts all gun owners at risk.
Imagine its 5am, the sun is just coming up.You awaken to the sound of your front gate opening. You start to get out of bed to check what’s going on and you hear what sounds like someone taking a sledge hammer to your front door. You reach for the handgun you keep in your bedside table and move to your bedroom door. You open the door a crack and as you do your front door bursts open.
You see the barrel of a gun come through the entryway. You instinctively raise your firearm and pull the trigger. Your wife is screaming behind you, your child’s bedroom door across the hall is opening and you see two more men coming through the doorway. The only thing you can hear is the ringing in your ears caused by the lack of hearing protection. You keep shooting as masked men force their way into your home. 3 shots, 5 shots, 10 shots, your gun runs dry. The men start shooting. The wall around you is peppered with shots. You feel a punch to the chest, looking down you see a growing red splotch. You fall to the ground just in time to see your child step into the hallway and start to run towards you. Your eyes close, never knowing if they made it to safety.
The men coming thru the door were police officers sent by the court to serve a Gun Violence Protective Order.
At a hearing on SB 1446, a state legislator asked HPD, what would the police department do if they were serving a Gun Violence Protective Order. The officers response was that HPD would use the The Specialized Services Division (SWAT) to execute the order. These officers use force to conduct warrants, searches and seizures. They don’t knock on doors and serve papers. They go in with one goal.
On July 2nd, 2019, Governor Ige signed into law, Act 150 (2019), referred to by the state as “GUN VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS” (GPO), more commonly know as Red Flag laws. This gives the government the ability to seize peoples’ firearms on the mere accusation that the person may be a danger to themselves or to others.
The legislators passed the law stating the following reasoning; “Nationwide, active shooters have inflicted great harm by killing and injuring innocent persons, sometimes in tragic mass shootings such as the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and-the 2017 Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs church shootings. In such cases, law enforcement or a member of the shooters family or household may have observed warning signs before the shooting, but depending on the jurisdiction, they may not have had the ability to petition a court to confiscate the shooters firearms and ammunition.”
The law as passed allows “law enforcement officer, family or household member, medical professional, educator, or colleague to obtain a court order to prevent a person from accessing firearms and ammunition if the person poses a danger of causing bodily injury to the person or another.”
All court proceedings for the petition for a GPO are done Ex Parte (with respect to or in the interests of one side only or of an interested outside party.) What does this mean? This means that the person who is being accused of being a danger has no idea that it’s happening. They don’t get to provide evidence or statements in their defense. The first time they here about the order is when the police show up to serve them and seize their firearms.
Once served and your firearms are seized, you may request a hearing with the issuing judge, to prove your innocence. Bear in mind, you have no idea who or what you have done to have your firearms taken away in the first place. If the Judge finds that you are a threat, then they will issue an order to remove your gun rights for a period of 1 year. The only way to stop this happening is to go to court, potentially spending tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees, to prove you’re not a threat to yourself, others or society in general. Also, remember that in the interim, the person who filed the GPO against you could now use that as method to get a TRO. This can become permanent. All they would have to do is state that they fear retaliation for their actions, potentially removing your rights to bear arms forever.
So, what happens if the GPO is denied? You then have to go to the police department and fill out a permit to acquire application for each firearm, wait 2 weeks before getting them back and if you own any firearms that are exempt from the registration process (Pre 1994) they will no longer be exempt.
What happens if someone lies to get a GPO? “A person who files a petition for an ex parte gun violence protective order or a one-year gun violence protective order under this part, knowing the information in the petition to be materially false or with an intent to harass the respondent, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” So, what does that mean? Nothing. They will walk away with little to no punishment because that’s how the law works in Hawaii.
Hawaii’s red flag law goes into effect January 1st, 2020. From this date, all gun owners in Hawaii will have to decide if that bump in the night is bad guys intent on harming their family, or the police coming to serve a GPO. As we have seen in recent years, a person coming into your home, yelling “Police!” does not mean they are a police officer. Time and time again, criminals are using this as a way to gain compliance.
To any police officer reading this that may be asked to execute a GPO, as a gun owner all I ask is the courtesy of knocking on my door.
Andrew Namiki Roberts
Director Hawaii Firearms Coalition
Watch President Donald Trump PUSH Congress to help pass Senator Dianne Feinstein’s sweeping gun control ban on “assault rifles”, other guns and constitutionally protected due process rights.
(AmmoLand.com) With deadly Red Flag laws popping off now in every state and GOP caving at the Federal level here are seven things you need to know to protect your property and rights in the face of the coming flood of red flag law misuses and abuses.
1) Privately photograph your firearms and record their make, model, type, caliber, serial number and condition, in case they “disappear” if seized by the Government. Store the information “off site.”
2) Have homeowner’s insurance and an umbrella policy. If a family member wrongfully uses a firearm, you may be sued for failing to “Red Flag” them.
3) Know your jurisdiction’s gun laws and make certain that you do not possess anything prohibited. This includes accessories such as prohibited magazines, bump stocks, etc. If these prohibited items are seized under Red Flag, you may also face criminal charges.
4) Have an attorney knowledgeable about guns and Red Flag laws ready to help you. You might want to consider getting a legal protection plan that may cover Red Flag seizures such as U.S. Law Shield. (See www.uslawshield.com)
5) Never physically resist a Red Flag raid. Gun owners have been shot and killed by the Government during Red Flag raids.
6) Ask for your attorney and do not make any statement until you first speak with your attorney. You have a 6th Amendment right to counsel – do not waive it.
7) Remember: Due Process now comes AFTER the Government takes your guns first.
(Jacqueline Alemany) The White House has been briefed on a proposal to develop a way to identify early signs of changes in people with mental illness that could lead to violent behavior.
Supporters see the plan as a way President Trump could move the ball forward on gun control following recent mass shootings as efforts seem to be flagging to impose harsher restrictions such as background checks on gun purchases.
The proposal is part of a larger initiative to establish a new agency called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency or HARPA, which would sit inside the Health and Human Services Department. Its director would be appointed by the president, and the agency would have a separate budget, according to three people with knowledge of conversations around the plan.
HARPA would be modeled on DARPA, the highly successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that serves as the research arm of the Pentagon and collaborates with other federal agencies, the private sector and academia.
The concept was advanced by the Suzanne Wright Foundation and first discussed by officials on the Domestic Policy Council and senior White House staffers in June 2017. But the idea has gained momentum in the wake of the latest mass shootings that killed 31 people in one weekend in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio.
The Suzanne Wright Foundation re-approached the administration last week and proposed that HARPA include a “Safe Home” — “Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes” — project. Officials discussed the proposal at the White House last week, said two people familiar with the discussions. These people and others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversations.
The attempt to use volunteer data to identify “neurobehavioral signs” of “someone headed toward a violent explosive act” would be a four-year project costing an estimated $40 million to $60 million, according to Geoffrey Ling, the lead scientific adviser on HARPA and a founding director of DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office.
“Everybody would be a volunteer,” Ling said in an interview. “We’re not inventing new science here. We’re analyzing it so we can develop new approaches.
“This is going to have to be done using scientific rigor,” he said.
But there are plenty of researchers and mental health experts who believe that mental health and gun violence aren’t necessarily linked.
Mental illness can sometimes be a factor in such violent acts, experts say, but it is rarely a predictor — most studies show that no more than a quarter of mass shooters have a diagnosed mental illness. More commonly shared attributes of mass shooters include a strong sense of resentment, desire for notoriety, obsession with other shooters, a history of domestic violence, narcissism and access to firearms.
In the immediate aftermath of Dayton and El Paso, Trump said he might support background checks for all gun purchases and “red flag” laws to deny guns to those deemed a hazard to themselves or others. But Trump on Tuesday called universal background checks off the table in a conversation with the head of the National Rifle Association, though he later denied saying that.
The president has said he thinks mentally ill people are primarily responsible for the spate of mass shootings in the United States. And this proposal is likely to be welcomed by Republicans and gun-rights activists who have argued the same thing.
“We’re looking at the whole gun situation,” Trump said last week. “I do want people to remember the words ‘mental illness.’ These people are mentally ill. . . . I think we have to start building institutions again because, you know, if you look at the ’60s and ’70s, so many of these institutions were closed.”
Trump has reacted “very positively” to the HARPA proposal, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions and has been “sold on the concept.” But it’s unclear whether the president has reviewed the new “Safe Home” component of the proposal and creating an entire agency would be a huge lift in Congress.
“Every time this has been brought up inside the White House — even up to the presidential level, it’s been very well-received,” a person familiar with discussions said. “HARPA is the health-care equivalent of DARPA, and it’s a great legacy project for the president, one he is uniquely positioned to get done.”
That person said that Trump could benefit in a variety of ways from getting behind a project like HARPA right now.
“There is no doubt that addressing this issue helps the president deal with two issues he has yet to find real success on: one is the health-care front and one is on the gun-violence front,” the person added.
Trump has a close personal relationship with Bob Wright, who founded the Suzanne Wright Foundation after his wife passed away from pancreatic cancer. Wright is the former chair of NBC and was in that job while Trump headlined “The Apprentice.”
Wright sees Ivanka Trump as the most effective champion of the proposal and has previously briefed her on HARPA himself, Wright said.
“It would be perfect for her to do it — we need someone with some horsepower — someone like her driving it. … It could get done,” said one official familiar with the conversations. “We’d be able to put every resource of federal government, from the highest levels of the scientific community to say: ‘This is how people with these problems should be treated and have limited access to firearms.’ ”
The HARPA proposal was initially pitched as a project to improve the mortality rate of pancreatic cancer through innovative research to better detect and cure diseases. Despite internal support over the past two years, the model ran into what was described as “institutional barriers to progress,” according to a person familiar with the conversations.
“He’s very achievement oriented and I think all presidents have difficulties with science,” Wright said in an interview. “I think their political advisers say, ‘No that’s not a game for you,’ so they sort of back off a bit.”
He added: “But the president has a real opportunity here to leave a legacy in health care.”
The idea is for the agency to develop a “sensor suite” using advanced artificial intelligence to try to identify changes in mental status that could make an individual more prone to violent behavior. The research would ultimately be opened to the public.
HARPA would develop “breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence,” says a copy of the proposal. “A multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis.”
S.M.A.R.T. = Secret Militarized Armaments in Residential Technology
The document goes on to list a number of widely used technologies it suggests could be employed to help collect data, including Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home. The document also mentions “powerful tools” collected by health-care provides like fMRIs, tractography and image analysis.
“Advanced analytical tools based on artificial intelligence and machine learning are rapidly improving and must be applied to the data,” states the document.
Those familiar with the project stressed it would not collect sensitive health data about individuals without their permission. The government is simply trying to identify risk factors when it comes to mental health that could indicate violent behavior, they said.
“Privacy must be safeguarded. Profiling must be avoided. Data protection capabilities will be the cornerstone of this effort.”
Proponents of the plan say that an agency like HARPA, which applies technology being used in other fields to develop medical breakthroughs, is long overdue.
“DARPA is a brilliant model that works. They have developed the most transformational capabilities in the world for national security,” said Liz Feld, the president of the Suzanne Wright Foundation, saying those techniques had yet to be applied to health care. “We’re not leveraging the tools and technologies available to us to improve and save lives.”
Start the following about HARPA at 2:46 mark…
The Trump administration is considering launching a social credit score-style system in coordination with Big Tech that would use spy data collected from Amazon, Google and Apple devices to determine whether or not an individual can own a gun.
(Cat Ellis) Due to the recent mass shootings, there is a major push for so-called “red flag” gun laws at both the state and federal levels. These laws are the latest tool for gun control advocates to confiscate guns from people based upon only tips and suspicion. No crime has to be committed to trigger an investigation or confiscation.
Red flag laws violate multiple rights protected by our constitution. The Hill has an excellent article on how red flag laws violate more than the 2nd Amendment, including:
Hopefully you’ll never commit a mass shooting, murder, or violent assault. But while you might not have a criminal connection to such individuals, you do share at least one thing in common: you both have unalienable rights. The right to face your accuser. The right to due process. The right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Every one of these rights are explicitly violated under red flag laws. (source)
What could possibly go wrong?
Just ask Brandon Wagshol and his dad, from the anti-gunner haven state, Connecticut.
Candidate Donald Trump promised the American people that he would protect our 2nd Amendment against all comers. No promise Trump made was more emphatic than his promise to protect the 2nd Amendment. But now President Trump has joined anti-gun Democrats and Republicans by becoming the loudest proponent for more draconian gun control laws, including universal background checks and “red flag” gun confiscation laws.
Donald Trump’s betrayal of the 2nd Amendment is inexcusable–and unforgivable.
The NRA is compromised and in complete disarray and will be no help. It is up to the people who voted for Donald Trump to stop this. If they do not rise up en masse NOW and let Trump know in no uncertain terms that he has lost their vote FOREVER if he enacts these egregious gun control and gun confiscation laws, Trump will go down in history as having enacted more communistic gun control laws than any president since Lyndon Baines Johnson in the 1960s.
In the above video, Pastor Baldwin presents the clarion call for everyone in America who cherishes their right to keep and bear arms to rally en masse against these police-state gun control laws before it’s too late. This is not about Republicans or Democrats, right or left or who wins an election. The right to keep and bear arms is more important than any election and any political party. The right to keep and bear arms is about FREEDOM. Please share this video with as many friends and loved ones as you can.
We only have a short time to stop these Orwellian gun control laws from coming into existence. We only have a short time to make Donald Trump accountable to his promise to protect the 2nd Amendment.
Gun control has always been a fever dream of the exceptionally un-gifted and ignorant by choice.
Your self appointed betters want you disarmed, silenced, asset-stripped and ultimately, dead.
Realize that by rejecting the Rule of Law, they have set us free.
We are independent. We owe them nothing, not respect, not loyalty, not obedience.
We Owe Them NOTHING!
May God have mercy on our Country.
Down load and save the following…
TINVOWOOT, (there is no voting our way out of this)
– We’re screwed until their parasitic system goes away
– Get harder than all the problems
– There’s gonna be a fight
– No one is coming to save us
– Let’s win
– Screw everyone who stood by and watched
(Ann Corcoran) I said I would write about American criminals from time to time, and I’ve told you that I watch CNN the first thing every morning as a way of seeing where the Leftwingers/Progressives are going on any given day.
Today, at CNN, the morning anchors were talking their viewers into thinking a Trump-induced recession was upon us, but they also reported on the gun violence in the Democrat-run city of Philadelphia.
They did report that the shooter, who wounded six police officers when officers came to serve a warrant on the man who ultimately opened fire, and said the shooter had a veritable arsenal of weapons and ammunition. But, I didn’t hear them mention his name, only that he was taken into custody.
Maurice Hill, we learn here at the Philadelphia Inquirer had a long criminal history.
(See that Townhall was on it overnight with a report about Hill’s criminal history.)
So, how did Hill get his guns including assault weapons? Are we going to hear anything about whether he had a background check? Are we going to hear anything about mental illness? Are we going to hear anything about who he hated (police?)? Are we going to be told that a background check would have kept him from owning guns? Did his family, friends and neighbors ever try to report him to the local police?
Are we going to hear anything about who his political heroes are?
I’ll bet that starting tomorrow, you won’t hear another peep about how the city of brotherly love harbors violent criminals with arsenals in their closets. Why? Because it runs against the PC narrative our mainstream media is peddling.
All the gun laws in the world are not going to keep the Maurice Hills from acquiring “weapons of war.”
And, you know where that leaves you—the law abiding American!
Second Amendment supporters, conservatives, and Trump backers are sounding warning alarms that Republicans in Congress, the party that has traditionally stood up for Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, are preparing to cave on demands from Left-wing Democrats to enact a federal “red-flag” law following the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton.
“Senate Republicans are uniting around [Sen.] Lindsey Graham’s bill that would effectively end your 2A rights,” Ammoland noted in a Thursday post following reports that the South Carolina Republican had ‘struck a deal’ with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) for a red flag bill POTUS Donald Trump’s own daughter, Ivanka, is pushing.
John Harris, the executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association, wrote in December 2018 that while red flag laws were all the rage among blue states, they “could at some point be federal.” Boy, was he prophetic.
NewsTarget noted the same month:
Red flag laws empower the state to label anyone as “dangerous” based solely on the recommendation of a friend, family member, or other acquaintance. The person being charged does not know they’ve been charged because they are absent from the court proceedings. Most often they only find out after police arrive at their place of residence, sometimes with guns drawn during pre-dawn raids, to confiscate their otherwise legally owned guns.
Known as “Extreme Risk Protection Orders,” red flag laws are insulting to the Constitutionin a number of ways, writes Philip Van Cleave in a separate Ammoland piece. In addition to injuring the Second Amendment’s ‘infringement’ clause, red flag laws also violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution as well — depriving someone of their property without due process, while essentially finding them guilty of something without a trial and without ever being charged or convicted.
This is the legislation that a growing number of Republicans — and, perhaps, the president — are now supporting. (Related: Analysis: Are Republicans really set to cave on gun control and ‘red flag laws?’ Don’t be so sure.)
Gun groups are lining up to oppose Republicans who support Graham’s bill, including the senator himself.
“Gun Owners of America has already vowed to support a primary challenger to Lindsey Graham because he is introducing this bill,” the group said. “And we will take note of any and all Republicans who join him in shredding the Second Amendment.”
Groups are warning that it is impossible to overstate how dangerous this legislation could potentially be, not the least of which because it is ostensibly supported by Democrats but also because of the potential it will be abused and misused by Democrat officials to deprive as many people of their guns as possible, and again — without a constitutional amendment, without a trial, and without being convicted of any crime.
Only suspected of maybe wanting to commit a crime. Perhaps. At some point. Or maybe not.
Graham’s legislation is also sinister because it wouldn’t create a red flag law, per se, but rather fund a federal “bribe pot” of money to ‘encourage’ states to pass red flag laws — like states were ‘encouraged’ to pass “RealID” and ‘encouraged’ to pass a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit once upon a time and ‘encouraged’ to lower alcohol blood levels. The Feds ‘encourage’ state compliance by bribing them with funds, as Graham’s bill does, or depriving them of money needed to fix roads and highways and bridges (even though the state’s taxpayers contributed money for such upkeep and repairs).
“To add insult to injury, Lindsey Graham is downright lying to the American people when he says that this bill would recognize due process,” GOA says, noting that red flag laws, by their very nature, must violate due process because guns are removed from homes and from gun owners without trials, without evidence, and without a crime ever having been committed.
Congress is not currently in session, but we expect this bill to be waiting for lawmakers when they return from their summer recess.
(Reconteur Report) You irrepressible commie halfwits think you’ve got the cards. You’re the idiot talking tough with the shotgun in your hand, and you’re about to get comeuppance. In Louis L’Amour’s memorable phrase, you’re about to have your meathouse torn down. With a mere couple of nutbags (mainly your own nutbags, nota bene) doing what nutbags do, you imagine you’ve got enough pull now to leverage your way into more asinine abridgments of the Constitution.
You haven’t, you won’t, and you really, really need to knock it off.
I remind you of this while you’ve got your limbs and most of your teeth all still attached.
We’re really not kidding.
You’ve had all the slices of our cake you’re ever getting.
Step. AWAY. From the table.
STFU, keep your hands in plain sight, and walk away, and you might live through this.
And for the cynical timid souls on the other side suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and normalcy bias, desist.
Heller and McDonald, and the appellate decisions that set that table, are now settled black-letter law, and everyone who cares knows that. In their bones.
You cannot unring that bell.
And ammo is as much a part of “arms” in the 2nd A. as the guns themselves, so that dog won’t hunt either.
People in CA watched one lone lunatic, Dorner, tie this state up from Oregon to Mexico, for a week…for one rogue ex-cop. The CHP wasn’t writing any tickets, because every cruiser was sitting on a freeway onramp, looking for him to show up. The paper-tiger LAPD was shooting at anything that moved, they were so fearful of the wrath of just one guy, and not a very bright one at that. (Which made it a fair fight, in the end.)
So the limits of your actual power are now common knowledge, even in the bluest states.
A lot of people thought we’d be facing ramped up anti-gun legislation long before now, because Shrillary and the Clinton Family Crime Syndicate looked like a shoe-in… until she wasn’t.
And serious people were ready, then, to open the ball you’re itching for now.
If TPTB were to decide they could set the last vestiges of the Constitution on fire, there’s more than a few that would take it upon themselves as a point of honor, not to wait cowering inside their homes, but to go out hunting OPFOR, 24/7/365. And they’d get more than one scalp apiece.
Two lunkhead “snipers” in D.C. tied the District up for a month, and none of their shots over 100 yards. What do you suppose will happen when the people involved can hit their targets at 600 yards all the live long day?
Twenty such would turn this country on its head.
A hundred would mean guerrilla war and martial law.
A thousand such, and it’s a war that Team Oppression will never win.
(Afghanistan ring a bell? Vietnam? Stop me if you’ve heard this one…)
And the conservative odds are that once it started, it wouldn’t stay twenty, a hundred, or a thousand.
It would be a million.
We barely have that many full-time military troops in the Army and Marines combined, right now, and were those troops to join in, they’d be attrited to nothing in a season or two, at the outside. And if they ever opened fire on anyone, they’d just swell the ranks of the insurgency a thousandfold, with every volley.
Not to mention a non-zero number who would switch sides at the first opportunity.
The military you think you’ll use wouldn’t be a force, it would be a resupply point.
Public officials would be in hiding.
And at that point, government ceases to function, or exist, in any real sense.
Once you have open warfare, you don’t have any America to save any more.
All you Leftards have is B.S. and bluster, and that never even won a playground fight, let alone a shooting war.
And most of the people you’d be facing have seen the elephant already, and been in shooting wars, real ones, not Antifa airsoft cosplay slap fights, nor the likes of Pete Williams and Shrillary remembering that time they parachuted into combat on a flying unicorn under sniper fire with the 82nd Airborne.
They already know what they’re doing, they have their logistics on their closet shelf, and they’ll take Leviathan apart with millions of bites, the same way ants eat an elephant.
This is not a zipper you ought to pull, but if you do, what falls on you after is going to be so awesomely terrible that you’ll stare in wonderment, right up until it smacks the ever-loving shit right out of your heads, and kills you with as much compassion as a bulldozer running over maggots.
All it needs is a single match, and the your side is flicking lighters in a room full of gasoline and gunpowder.
Now is not the time to bet on things going like they always went.
It’s not headed that way, and the physics of what will ensue guarantee the pieces won’t even come back after the explosions in the same time zone.
In short, minions of Leftardia and Stupidia, you have blundered into a minefield, on a pogo stick.
Stop what you’re doing, tiptoe out, and pray to whatever deity you think appropriate that you get away with your skins.
Because if you insist on pushing your revolution, you’re going to get the war of which you cannot grasp, and the results of which you cannot even conjure in your wildest fever-swamp nightmares.
And your opponents, who’ve been stacking in supplies and loading magazines, are shifting from backing away, and hoping the fight you long for doesn’t come, and instead coming to a feeling of thinking it’s about time to roll up their sleeves, and end you.
Not your party.
Not your progressive communist utopia.
For all values of that word.
Every goddamned traitorous last one of you. Followed by your spouses, your children, your pets, your semi-domesticated illegal alien hordes, your schemes, your putrescent institutions, your metastasizing socialist programs, and every festering vestige of pustulence you’ve spewed onto a country you do not understand, didn’t build, and over which you and yours will never rule.
Your pendulum is out of gas (and had you the wit, you might have noticed that in 2016, and gone home to pout quietly until you could function in polite society), and the pushback if you dare it, is going to be measured in megadeaths, if not actually megatons. Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and Pol Pot all had it your way. Look for those scales to be balanced, at your expense, in the upcoming sportiness you really do not want, and cannot comprehend.
And if the Deplorables you misunderestimated ever set out to do that, in earnest, people will talk about you and your fate for millennia, the way they talk about Carthage after the Third Punic War now.
You are running out of chances, and your continued efforts in the service of igniting that fuse are rapidly transitioning, in saner minds, from being a bug in the system, to being a feature of it, and a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
But we aren’t in a democracy, and never have been. A fact of which your Common Core miseducation has left you blissfully clueless.
We are and always have been a constitutional republic, which notes that the sheep hereabouts may be armed, lest the wolves forget the limits of their franchise.
And lest you misunderstand that reality, what’s going on the menu if you continue to agitate beyond your bounds, is you.
Trump is losing his core base because of his support for gun control.
Grassroots conservatives are pushing back against President Donald Trump after he came out in favor of moar gun control in the wake of last weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH.
“Trump supporters are extremely upset over @realDonaldTrump apparent support of red flag laws,” wrote Debbie Dooley, a board member for Tea Party Patriots, in a Twitter post.
“ANY Republican that supports Red Flag laws should [be] voted out of office. I won’t vote for them even @potus if he keeps pushing red flag laws,” she added.
Rick Manning, who is president of Americans for Limited Government, is joining Dooley in the revolt against President Trump for his support of red flag laws.
“I see Democrat presidential candidate after Democrat presidential candidate promising to ban and confiscate guns,” Manning wrote in his organization’s newsletter, the Daily Torch.
“And I see President Donald Trump supporting state red flag laws which will lay the groundwork for them to do it,” he added.
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) are leading the charge in the Senate, egged on by President Trump, to create legislation that would allow an individual to have their firearms seized by law enforcement if a judge determines they’re mentally disturbed. This precedent could be expanded by any Democrat or RINO in the future to encompass all conservatives.
“If the president of the United States himself is not safe from politically motivated abuse of the prosecutorial system, how can the average citizen trust that a law allowing legal, ‘temporary’ confiscation of firearms using ‘expedited due process’ won’t be abused by every risk-averse and politically motivated prosecutor in America?” Mr. Manning wrote.
“The left has sufficiently demonized anyone who supports Donald Trump that no legal ground can be ceded to give these loons of the left a lawful pathway to confiscate guns,” he added.
Regardless of the grassroots pressure, Trump seems undaunted in his push for gun control. He released the following tweet earlier today:
Trump may be jeopardizing his 2020 presidential chances with his push for gun control, as he loses his base doing the bidding of his enemies.
“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
Cited by David Codrea. His article at Firearms News is full of important commentary on the current state of affairs, and the apparent current support for a new AWB if only enough rulers would favor it.
Don’t miss the fact that Mitch McConnell feels pressured.
“The urgency of this is not lost on any of us,” McConnell said.
But he noted the bar for legislation includes passing the House, garnering 60 votes in the Senate and a presidential signature.
He did not rule out looking at a ban on assault weapons, but noted there is a dispute over whether the 1994 ban that expired in 2004 had showed results.
“It’s certainly one of the front and center issues,” he said. “But what we can’t do is fail to pass something. What I want to see here is an outcome, not a bunch of partisan back and forths, shots across the bow.”
It’s urgent. They must do something, because politics. Codrea points out that Trump has jettisoned his base of gun owners.
Since Donald Trump was elected, the gun community has seen the president bypass Congress and ban bump stocks, support over 21 gun purchases, a Department of State over 32-round magazine ban for civilian firearms exports, push red flag laws which destroy the 1st, 2nd, 4thand 5th Amendments, and a complete ignoring of the evisceration of the 2nd Amendment in the states of: CA, OR, WA, IL, NM, NV, VT, FL, NY, NJ, MA, etc… And then there is his statement that he “doesn’t like” silencers.
Yes, and I’ll point out one more time that Florida received an influx of Puerto Ricans after the hurricane who will likely vote collectivist, Trump won North Carolina by a small margin, and he is in trouble in Ohio, possibly Georgia and perhaps even Texas. The road to victory in the next election is narrow.
But it’s like that when you have no principles and undercut the very base you used to put you in office. We are where we are because enough people didn’t ask Trump the hard questions on his core belief in gun rights (or enough people didn’t listen when I asked the hard questions on core beliefs). It appears he doesn’t have any.
President Donald Trump responded to the El Paso and Dayton shootings in the worst way possible. He called for gun control, the death penalty for “hate crimes,” and more tech censorship. It’s a plan Kamala Harris would envy and if implemented, would let the federal government silence Trump voters on social media and take their guns. Trump also speculated that his plan should be paired with “immigration reform”—a term he left undefined, but conventionally used to mean Amnesty. Instead of defending his supporters or shifting the focus onto the Antifa Dayton shooter, he capitulated to the Main Stream Media narrative. He received no credit and Democrats and journalists continue to blame the president for the El Paso massacre (and some even for Dayton). The president’s disastrous response was one of the lowest points of his presidency and it may cost him re-election.
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.
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.
“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!
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.
New York state is still busily chipping away at gun rights and now they’ve introduced Obamacare for guns.
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.
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)
If you think this is crazy, stay tuned. It’s just going to get worse.
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.
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
A brief history on rulings associated with this ban is helpful:
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.
According to members of New Zealand’s largest firearm forum, Kiwi police are starting to go to gun owners’ places of employment, homes, and even visiting gun ranges in an attempt to gather information and get gun owners to relinquish their firearms.
Police are apparently trolling social media for leads on newly-prohibited firearms.
Additionally, it appears that New Zealand’s crackdown on semi-automatic long guns has claimed its first victim. According to Stuff which appears to be the New Zealand equivalent of The Patch . . .
A former Russian soldier who feared going back to prison tried to call his son before dying of a suspected suicide following a three-hour standoff with police.
The family of 54-year-old Troy Dubovskiy told Stuff he was sought by police after his property in the Christchurch suburb of St Martins was searched on Tuesday.
Police acted on information from the public.
His son posted a photo of him wearing a Russian Army Helmet and posing with an airsoft rifle on social media.
Dubovskiy’s 16-year-old son, who Stuff has decided not to name, said police searched the homes of his father, mother and grandparents after someone reported a photo the teen made his profile picture on Facebook five days ago.
The photo, which he first posted to Facebook several years ago, shows the teen holding a replica rifle and wearing a Russian helmet. The teen used the equipment along with his father while playing Airsoft, a team sport where people shoot each other with pellets using replica guns.
The boy’s father was a veteran of the Soviet and later Russian Army and spent time in Afghanistan and Chechnya while assigned to a special forces unit.
Democrat lawmakers are pushing a red flag law that will allow a court to issue confiscatory order empowering police to go to a gun owner’s home and take away his firearms. As of March 12, 2019, ten Colorado counties had declared themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” to signal that they would support their sheriffs in refusing to enforce the confiscation law.
Numerous sheriffs have subsequently taken a stand against the red flag law, and the Colorado Sun quotes AG Weiser saying those sheriffs “should resign.”
Weiser said he expects the law to be challenged in court, where he believes it will be upheld. Once upheld, he said sheriffs will be obligated to enforce it.
But Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams sees it differently. He told Fox News, “If you pass an unconstitutional law, our oaths as commissioners or myself as the sheriff — we’re going to follow our constitutional oath first.”
Logan County Sheriff Brett Powell said, “It’s time we quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and start funding our mental health facilities, instead of trying to take the rights from our people.”
The refusal of law enforcement officers to enforce the new restrictions plays into a longer history of so-called “constitutional” sheriffs
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the “first tranche” to reforms on gun laws – beginning with the immediate ban on the sale of semi-automatic and ‘assault’ rifles, six days after attacks on two mosques in Christchurch left 50 people dead. Notably, accused gunman Brenton Tarrant – specifically hoped his attack would lead to the restriction of gun rights.
“On 15 March, our history changed forever. Now, our laws will too,” said Ardern. “We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place.”
“The effect of this will mean that no one will be able to buy these weapons without a permit to procure from the police. I can assure people that there is no point in applying for such a permit,” she said, adding “In short, every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack on Friday will be banned in this country.”
The ban will apply to all firearms currently defined as “Military Style” or “Semi-Automatic” (MSSA), defined as a semi-automatic firearm – including shotguns – capable of being used with a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds.
Guns which are not affected by the ban include semi-automatic .22 caliber rimfire firearms with a magazine holding no more than 10 rounds, as well as semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine holding no more than five rounds.
🚨🚨OFFICIAL NEW ZEALAND GUN BAN Q&A sent out to reporters. I snagged this from @callapilla. She chopped it up into multiple tweets and I thought that was dumb. Here it is all at once. pic.twitter.com/dhiwtu2orc
— Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) March 21, 2019
Ardern also announced a gun buyback scheme that will cost between NZ$100 million and $200 million (between US$69 million and $139 million), depending on the number of weapons received.
Anyone who keeps their guns after an amnesty period which has yet to be announced will face fines of up to $4,000 and three years in jail – which is less jail time than a New Zealand resident could receive for downloading or sharing a video of the Christchurch attacks.
As far as “Tranche two,” Ardern said “There is more to be done and tranche two will look at issues around licensing, issues around registration, issues around storage. There are a range of other amendments that we believe do need to be made and that will be the second tranche of reforms yet to come.”
Currently in New Zealand:
· There are 245,000 firearms licences
· Of these, 7,500 are E-Category licences; and 485 are dealer licenses
· There are 13,500 firearms which require the owner to have an E-Cat licence, this is effectively the known number of MSSAs before today’s changes
· The total number of firearms in New Zealand is estimated to be 1.2-1.5 million
That said, Ardern told reporters that she has no idea how many assault rifles are in New Zealand. The police minister followed up, saying: “It’s part of the problem. The prime minister gave a figure for the buyback [$100m – $200m], the reason there’s such a large gap is we have no idea.”
CNN reported that Graham has long supported red flag laws, which allow a court to issue firearm confiscation orders for individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others.
House Democrats have already passed legislation during this Congress to criminalize private gun sales and extend the instant background check for firearm purchases. They are now pressing for $50 million in annual funding to bring academia into the gun control push.
The Democrats have also been vocal in their support for gun confiscation laws, and this is where Graham believes the left and right can come together.
He told CNN, “I haven’t really looked at the House package, but this is to me the area where we can come together.” Graham has scheduled a March 26 Judiciary Committee hearing on the confiscation orders.
California, Illinois, and Florida all have gun confiscation orders via red flag laws. California’s law did nothing to prevent the November 7, 2018, Borderline Bar & Grill shooting in which 12 innocents were killed. The law in Illinois did not prevent the February 15, 2019, shooting at Henry Pratt Company, where five innocents were killed. And the Florida law did not stop the August 26, 2018, shooting at Jacksonville Landing or the January 23, 2019, shooting at SunTrust Bank in Sebring. A total of eight innocents were killed in the two Florida shootings.
CNBC noted that Graham’s willingness to “[hold] a hearing on gun control is … a remarkable development in the GOP-dominated Senate.”
JEFFERSON CITY. Mo. (Feb. 11, 2019) – Bills introduced in the Missouri legislature would set the foundation to create a “gun rights sanctuary state” by banning state and local enforcement of most federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state in practice and effect.
Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield) introduced Senate Bill 367 (SB367), and Rep. Jeff Pogue (R-Salem) introduced House Bill 785 (HB786). Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulations” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
The bills include a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including
This would include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and more, such as Pres. Trump’s new bump-stock ban.
The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.
“Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such actions.”
The bills also include provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.
Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.
In other words, Missouri law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Missouri law enforcement again.
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional act to their much-needed end.”
Some gun rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a Republican Congress and an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017.
The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”
At the time of this report, neither SB367 nor HB786 had been referred to a committee. Once the bills receive assignments, they will have to pass their respective committees by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
Washington state recently introduced bills for some of the strictest gun laws in the country but they have some very important opponents: the sheriffs.
Long thought to be the last line of defense between authoritarianism and freedom, sheriffs are in a unique position. As elected officials, basically nobody has authority over them – not the judges, not the Feds – no one except the people who may or may not choose to re-elect them.
In November, Washington voters passed a ballot initiative, I-1639. To purchase a semi-automatic rifle, buyers must be over 21, undergo an enhanced background check, must have completed a safety course, and need to wait 9 days to take possession of their weapon. And that’s not all. A gun owner who doesn’t store his or her weapon “properly” can be prosecuted.
And that was just the beginning of the unconstitutional momentum.
Feeling the wind at their backs after the ballot, gun campaigners and liberal legislators have now gone even further in the new legislative session. Bills introduced in the last week to Washington’s Democrat-dominated legislature look to further restrict firearms. Some laws would ban high capacity magazines and plastic guns made with 3D printers. Others would mandate training for concealed carry permits, and remove guns and ammo during and after domestic violence incidents.
Washington’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, who proposed several of the bills, said in an email: “Now is the time to act. Washingtonians have made it clear that they support common-sense gun safety reforms.” (source)
Things are getting more and more difficult for gun owners in a state that has two very different demographics.
The state of Washington is similar to the United States in general. The vast majority of the population lives in a few large cities, distant from the rural and small-town folks in a lot more than just mileage. The left-leaning cities are in direct opposition to the more right-leaning rural communities, but the rural communities are under the thumb of the city voters due to numbers.
Back when they voted on I-1639, 27 of the 39 counties were against the measure, but because the twelve counties that voted FOR it were more populous, the initiative passed.
Does this sound familiar? If it weren’t for the electoral college in national elections, we’d probably have Hillary Clinton as our president, and she’s notoriously anti-gun for little people. The situation of gun owners would look very different right now if that had happened.
Now the state is divided because the counties that voted against the measure are refusing to be governed by unconstitutional laws to which they objected in the first place
And they’re supported by their sheriffs.
Klickitat County Sheriff, Bob Songer, Republic police chief Loren Culp, and Ferry County Sheriff Ray Maycumber are among those who have publicly vowed not to enforce the new unconstitutional gun laws.
In Ferry county in eastern Washington, more than 72% of voters rejected I-1639. In the county’s only incorporated city, Republic, the police chief Loren Culp asked the council in November to declare the city a “second amendment sanctuary”. That vote has been delayed until March, but in the meantime, like Songer, Culp says he will not enforce.
The sheriff in Ferry county, Ray Maycumber, told the Guardian that he would not be enforcing the laws either, at least until the NRA’s litigation is completed.
“There’s a window of time when I get to make the assessment”, he said. Should the NRA not succeed, he said, he would “consider if I want to go on in the job”.
…The refusal of law enforcement officers to enforce the new restrictions plays into a longer history of so-called “constitutional” sheriffs resisting the gradual tightening of gun laws. There are also hints, in the stance, of the doctrine of “county supremacy”, long nursed on the constitutionalist far right, which holds that county sheriffs are the highest constitutional authority in the country. (source)
Matt Marshall, the leader of the Washington Three Percent, is hoping to persuade other Washington counties to adopt local second amendment sanctuary ordinances. Next week, he meets with people in Lewis and Pierce counties to urge them to urge them to adopt resolutions not to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.
As elected officials, sheriffs have an obligation to their constituents and to the Constitution of the United States of America.
In 2013, El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini kicked the US Forestry Service out of his county.
The El Dorado County Sheriff says he’s not happy with the U.S. Forest Service, so he’s stripping them of their authority by keeping them from enforcing state law within the county.
Sheriff John D’Agostini is taking the unusual step of pulling the police powers from the federal agency because he says he has received “numerous, numerous complaints.”
In a letter obtained by CBS13, the sheriff informs the federal agency that its officers will no longer be able to enforce California state law anywhere in his county.
“I take the service that we provide to the citizens of El Dorado County and the visitors to El Dorado County very seriously, and the style and manner of service we provide,” D’Agostini said. “The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.” (source)
This kind of action is firmly supported by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In 1994, Graham County Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and Ravalli County Montana Sheriff Jay Printz successfully sued the Clinton Administration over the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas found that the Brady Act’s attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the tenth amendment.
“The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States.
…Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.” (source)
The decision upheld the power of county sheriffs.
Legally speaking, our county sheriffs are the last line of defense in the battle for gun rights.
Federal agencies do not have state powers. Due to the Constitution’s structure of dual sovereignty, the feds have no authority to enforce state laws. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. (source)
The next option is widespread civil disobedience, which we saw recently in New Jersey.
Thanks to a December 5 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, New Jersey’s ban on gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds took effect on December 10. By that date, all owners of heretofore legal “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) were required to surrender them to police, render them inoperable, modify them so they cannot hold more than 10 rounds, or sell them to authorized owners. Those who failed to do so are guilty of a fourth-degree felony, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 and up to 18 months in prison.
Try as anti-gun legislators and activists might, there is a difficult battle ahead for anyone who tries to disarm the American people. Between Constitution-supporting elected officials and American civilians who will not comply, the real Resistance seems to be ready… and armed.
Brasilia, Jan 15 (EFE).- President Jair Bolsonaro on Tuesday signed a decree facilitating gun ownership in Brazil, thus fulfilling one of his main campaign promises.
Giving the public greater access to weapons has been one of Bolsonaro’s flagship issues, and he had promised to take a hard line against criminality in a country where last year there were 63,880 known murders, an average of 175 per day.
Current law already permits people over age 25, without criminal records and with legal employment to own weapons once they prove that they are psychologically able to be trusted to possess them and can justify their need for them, requirements that now will be eased.
The measure does not – however – make it easier to carry weapons outside the home or, for instance, on the street.
Bolsonaro, who signed the decree at a ceremony at Planalto Palace, made reference to the nationwide referendum held in 2005 in which 63 percent of Brazilians voted against a proposal to completely ban gun sales.
“Given that the people made a sovereign decision in the 2005 referendum, to guarantee themselves that legitimate right to self-defense, I, as president, am going to use this weapon,” said Bolsonaro, displaying the pen with which he then signed the decree.
“The people decided to buy weapons and ammunition and we cannot deny what the people wanted at that time,” the president added at the signing ceremony, at which some of his Cabinet ministers, including Justice and Public Safety Minister Sergio Moro, were present.
At his inauguration on Jan. 1, Bolsonaro reiterated his desire to facilitate gun ownership for “good citizens” so that they can defend themselves and fight crime in one of the world’s most violent countries.
The measure, Bolsonaro said, seeks to allow “good citizens to be able to have peace within their homes.”
According to a survey (probably fake) published by the Datafolha institute late last year, the percentage of Brazilians who feel that owning guns must be “prohibited since it represents a threat to the lives of other people” increased from 55 percent in October, when Bolsonaro was elected president with a 55 percent majority, to 61 percent in December.
The decree will expire in 120 days unless it is ratified by the Brazilian Congress.
The CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods has admitted that the company’s anti-gun stance has negatively impacted business to the point where they are considering closing their Field & Stream stores in order to reduce overheads and save the whole business from going under.
Earlier this year, the sporting goods store submitted to pressure from liberal activist groups and raised their minimum age requirement for firearm purchases from 18 to 21. They also banned the sale of all assault-style weapons in their stores.
Now, after alienating their customer base by attempting to placate big-city liberals who do not even shop in their stores, Dick’s Sporting Goods is teetering on the brink of financial collapse.
Dick’s share price has dropped more than 4 percent since they adopted their anti-gun stance. Store growth has stagnated to the point that CEO Edward Stack has admitted they will likely be closing stores.
Edward Stack speaking at a conference held by Goldman Sachs in September, claimed that he anticipated the negative consequences of the company’s gun ban.
“Well I think it’s definitely a factor, and it’s nothing that we didn’t anticipate,” Stack said of the loss of business. “As we put out kind of our guidance for the year and our earnings guidance for the year, we knew this would happen when—we’ve made some decisions on firearms in the past and we’ve had a pretty good idea of what these consequences were going to be.”
Western Journal reports:
It’s definitely not a good business tactic to intentionally do something that will hurt business. Of course, Stack justified it by saying it’s “the right thing to do.”
“We felt that was absolutely the right thing to do. We would do the same thing again if we had a mulligan, so to speak, to do it again,” Stack said.
Stack can try to spin the company’s decline as some kind of moral crusade but it won’t matter if the company ceases to exist.
Investors don’t want to hear about the company doing “the right thing” if it causes significant losses.
Dick’s anti-gun crusade also soured their relationship with gun vendors.
“So, we’ve had some vendors who’ve decided based on our decision to not sell the assault-style rifle that was used in the Parkland shooting that they wouldn’t sell us any longer,” Stack said. “So, as you know, there’s been some people who said we’re not going to sell you any firearms anymore. We’re not going to sell you our product.”
It seems like the company’s gun ban has turned into a crisis. Both customers and vendors won’t do business with them anymore. It won’t be long until more investors start dropping them as well.
In an attempt to salvage their crumbling company, Dick’s is considering closing down all 35 of their outdoor-focused Field & Stream stores.
“My sense is that we can either take a look at closing that store, that concept, or re-conceptualizing it into a more of an outdoor-type concept,” Stack said.
It’s not surprising that customers want to take their business elsewhere. By taking such an anti-gun stance, law-abiding gun owners feel disrespected. Millions of Americans own guns and Dick’s told them to take their business elsewhere.
Dick’s turned its back on customers and they are paying the price.
(Ryan Saavedra) Arkansas law enforcement officials arrested 29-year-old illegal alien Luis Cobos-Cenobio and charged him with multiple crimes after dash cam video footage allegedly shows him opening fire on police after they pulled him over on Sunday.
Cobos-Cenobio “faces four charges of attempted capital murder and one charge each of fleeing, terroristic act, possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged a detainer request against Cobos-Cenobio following his arrest because he is an illegal alien, Breitbart’s Border and Cartel reported.
Cobos-Cenobio allegedly shot at police during a car chase and the officers returned fire. No police officers were hurt during the attack and Cobos-Cenobio reportedly was found with an “injury to his shoulder.”
Breitbart News reported that former U.S. Marine Ian David Long opened fired in the Borderline Bar & Grill on Wednesday, killing 12 people. He used a “legally-purchased” handgun to carry out his attack.
Crime Prevention Research Center’s (CPRC) John R. Lott reported that the Borderline Bar & Grill was a gun-free zone by law. CPRC posted a California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms form explaining that the state of California prohibits the carrying of firearms “in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.”
The state-mandated gun-free status of places serving alcoholic beverages to be consumed guaranteed that Ian Long would not have to worry about patrons shooting back once he began his attack.
In this way, the gun-free status of the bar played to his favor, and such gun-free policies have been benefiting criminals for over 60 years. CPRC reports that 97.8 percent of “mass public shootings” from 1950 to 2015 occurred in gun-free zones.
The February 14, Parkland high school shooting, the May 18, Sante Fe high school shooting, and the attack on Borderline patrons, show gun-free zones are still the attractive target.
Police in the Democrat haven of Maryland shot and killed a man in his home on Monday while serving a “protective order” under a new law which allows them to seize people’s guns without due process.
Since the new gun confiscation law went into effect on October 1st, police have carried out 19 such confiscation orders, which comes out to around one such seizure every other day.
From The Baltimore Sun:
We know TFB readers and viewers have watched a John Wick film and thought, “dang, I wish I could shoot like that.” Fortunately, James Reeves has your back: James and the TFB crew went out to Taran Tactical Innovations to meet and train with living legend Taran Butler – the man who trained Keanu Reeves for his role in the John Wick series of films. And while normally you’d have to fly out to Los Angeles, star in a movie, and get your studio to bankroll your training with Taran, TFBTV and Taran Tactical are teaming up to show you how to shoot like your favorite silver screen hitman for absolutely free. Save your gold tokens for ammo.
Bloomberg opens up the door to a rare look at the corporate finances of the world’s most popular handgun manufacturer and discovers sales have collapsed under the Trump presidency.
Before Donald Trump won the 2016 election, former President Obama was America’s best gun salesman. Americans were panic buying firearms, as if the apocalypse was tomorrow, partly due to the fear of stricter federal gun laws. AR-15 style rifles and Glock pistols were some of the most popular items paranoid Americans had to have, and of course, ammunition, meal kits, water, and underground bunkers.
Glock Ges.m.b.H., the most popular handgun company in the world, experienced a rather sharp decline in sales during President Trump’s first year in office. Bloomberg said Glock sold 36% fewer pistols in 2017 and revenue fell 35% to 464 million euros, the company is located in Austria, as per its latest annual report. Net income declined 58% to 67.9 million euros, following massive profits in the Obama era.
“Demand normalized in 2017, dealers adapted their excessive stock levels and many competitors had extremely aggressive pricing and promotions,” Glock said in the report. Glock expects another decline in 2018 but expects full-year sales to rise. The report also warned about how revenue is susceptible to currency volatility in international markets. There was no mention of trade wars or rerouting supply chains, as of yet.
Glock’s financials mirror US gun manufacturers like American Outdoor Brands Corp.’s Smith & Wesson or Sturm Ruger & Co., which have also reported a slump in sales since President Trump took office.
“Closely-held Glock-founder Gaston Glock’s family trust owns 99% of the company, and his estranged ex-wife Helga holds the balance–is under very limited disclosure requirements, making the company’s results a bit of a mystery. Glock doesn’t publish sales or financial results on its website but only files an annual report to the Austrian company register, where the document-a collection of scanned pages-is behind a paywall. The 2017 report is dated May 30 and was filed to the register at the end of September,” said Bloomberg.
Austria is by far the most significant source of handgun imports into the US, representing 1.2 million of the 3.3 million total in 2017. The reason, well, in the 1980s, Glock disrupted the firearms industry by offering a new pistol with higher ammunition capacity. Today it is carried by armies worldwide, from the US Army to British Special Forces.
With US gun sales still declining and the number of background checks (a proxy for sales) fell -5% in August from a year ago, the Obama gun bubble seems to have popped on Trump’s watch. One of many bubbles that are certain to deflate in the near term.
Politics is no longer the art of reasonable compromise; it has become an exercise in grudging, chafing tolerance, with one side consumed by a passionate hatred for the other side – a spreading hatred that threatens to consume both sides. America is at a tipping point, and the 2018 elections will likely determine which direction we take for a generation or more.
How to win while keeping the moral high ground:
1) Do whatever it takes to win,
3) Author the history.
“Hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who wield them.”
“Remember the first rule of gun fighting … have a gun.”
– Col. John Dean “Jeff” Cooper (1920-2006)
Publisher’s Note: I just finished James Hornfischer’s book on the Pacific War from 1943-45 and it was a great with a few flaws. I consider him one of the best naval historians alive.
Narrative history in the tradition of the pre-New Left historians. He suffers from Clancyesque triumphalism but it is worth the read nonetheless.
I mentioned in a post earlier that I was trying to make my way through the entire 1988-2018 library of the Military History Quarterly (this is the more popular hardback magazine series you may have seen. This is not the Journal of Military History which is published as an academic journal by the Society for Military History). It has been a slog but progressing.
I have also embarked on making my commutes to work more productive by listening to ProfCJ’s consistently excellent Dangerous History Podcasts. I can’t recommend them highly enough. Not only because I co-hosted his Irregular Warfare series with him but because it is damned good history that cuts through the nonsensical court history drilled into non-professional and professional historians alike by the government subsidized college mind laundries.
My T-shirts are selling like hotcakes and I and my youngest daughter thank you (she gets all the profit through the largesse of her loving father).
My forum is back up and running so please join in. It is like the 18th century Green Dragon Tavern but electronic. One dare not go there to fellate the King. The forum is larger once you join than non-users see on the ‘net.
I’d like to request that anyone who has read my book or both that are currently published please write a review no matter how slight.
The Mango Emperor has given you an opportunity to update your armory and train on the tools of liberty, don’t waste a minute. -BB
Most everyone who has read my screeds know that I hold the Constitution in low odor and consider it one of the greatest human slaver documents ever written; it took the Declaration of Independence, gutted it, reversed course and embraced the worst forms of centralization popular at the time and even borrowed from Roman governance in the past. It took the worst offenses of the Crown in London, localized them and started mimicking those very notions early in its career as the liberty destroyer in America.
But let’s get down to brass tacks on weapons ownership in particular. The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee anything even though it couldn’t be clearer in its intent.
Copperud avers: “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’
But clearly, American jurisprudence in the last century has seen fit to reduce the right to a privilege heavily regulated, taxed and socialized to something little better than indecent exposure to the feminized urban elites who view such ownership with disdain and disfavor.
“If you give a dime to any “gun rights” organization doing special pleading with the owners of the tax plantation and they help craft legislation and not eliminate laws and statutes, they are the king’s men and don’t give a rat’s ass about individual and private small arms ownership.
Exhibit A is the 1934 NFA, 1938 FFA, 1939 US v. Miller, 1967 Mulford Act (CA), 1968 OCC & SSA and GCA, 1986 FOPA, Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990), Brady Act (1993), AWB (1994), on and on and on.”
There is no political elite in the history of mankind who champions the unfettered ownership of weapons. Both parties in the US have been hostile to private ownership and no one wing of the uniparty is better than the other. The myth is that the Grand Old Politburo is the stolid booster of such ownership. Please recall who ran the Offal Office in 1986 and the consequent efforts by both Busheviks to regulate and eliminate important aspects of private weapons ownership.
Take a look at the voting rolls for the 1968 Gun Control Act. The GOP vermin were just as enthusiastic as the Democrats to impose these limitations on the private ownership of weapons.
There are two central questions to ask:
First, can self-determination be realized by the unarmed?
I’m an abolitionist which means I object to any government outside of self-government. This puts me officially off the reservation of acceptable dialog in “civilized society”. Hell, I am a single digit percentage of single digit percentage of the American polity as an abolitionist on the libertarian spectrum. Minarchists (cannibals who nibble instead of devouring other humans) comprise the lion’s share of the acceptable libertarian intelligentsia in polite society.
I have often said there are three pillars to ultimate liberty:
And all of these components obtain on a single concept: self-determination.
Can one fulfill the ideation of self-determination if you are unable to defend the notion itself against all comers?
All weapons control therefor has one primary objective: to ensure that the government no matter what flavor is unhindered in using any and all means to subdue and force its subject peoples in its tax jurisdiction to submit to alien authority outside of the individual.
That’s it in a nutshell.
This means that every single edict, EO, law, regulation or whatever flavor of government coercion instantiated is a declaration of war on self-determination.
Second, does the same government that makes claims to heavily regulate the private ownership of weapons consequently regulate the government ownership of weapons?
No, of course not.
And I thank the Gods every day that the coproach infestations in America are not only the fattest “profession” on American soil (that shows up in the workforce even though most apparatchiks in bureaucracies are on assisted living and overpaid at that) but also for the most part undisciplined, low information and among the poorest marksmen “required” to use weapons in any armed profession in America. In the end, when the violence brokers posing as “statesmen” finally call the ball and institutionalize a South Africa-style edict to disarm the Helots, the police will be the frontline spear of political will to make it happen.
Interesting times indeed.
Guns have two enemies – rust and politicians.
“An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.” – Clint Smith
Shopping for back-to-school items usually consists of calculators, pens, notebooks, and if your family is in the upper echelon of society — perhaps an Ipad. But with a nation in chaos and desperate to avoid another school shooting, it has become increasingly common for teachers and students, and even some parents to now demand bulletproof backpacks.
Right before our eyes, the nation is radically shifting as the pain from recent school shootings have swayed the cognitive thought process of many parents to accept militarization within education facilities.
Next thing you will know, the minivan is swapped out with an Audi Q5 Security (Audi’s first armored vehicle on a production line) and the children are all wearing kevlar infused backpacks similar to the tactical gear worn by US soldiers.
In the last 18 years, approximately 25 percent of all of the 160 mass shooting incidents took place in schools, according to the FBI. In response, school districts have taken drastic measures towards gun control on campuses, including surveillance cameras, security locks, metal detectors, bullet resistant windows, and even implementing resource officers during school hours.
After the horrific shooting of 17 kids at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018, the civilian defense industry as a whole experienced an influx of sales from school districts and worried parents. The hottest item on the block is the bulletproof backpack and there are several companies that have reported booming sales.
Florida-based Guard Dog Security specializes in non-lethal personal security and self-defense products designed to protect people from small arms fire. Guard Dog President Yasir Sheikh told Fortune, “demand has definitely gone up” in recent years, and explained that sales often increase after a school or mass shooting.
Sheikh added that the company has seen increased sales from parents buying bulletproof backpacks for the 2018 school year.
Guard Dog products recently went mainstream, which it seems as the company was able to attract a significant buyer that enabled them to launch their products in major retailers including Home Depot, Office Depot, Walmart, Amazon, and even Bed Bath & Beyond.
Masada Armor, based in the northern Israeli town of Julis, has attracted hundreds of American buyers – demanding bulletproof schoolbags in the wake of the South Florida shooting.
“We designed a bullet-proof backpack at the request of our distributors in the United States after the huge trauma caused by the February shooting in Florida,” Snir Koren, CEO of Masada Armor, told AFP on Thursday.
“Since then, orders from the United States have been coming in,” Koren said in Hebrew.
“In two months we have sold hundreds and are gearing up to increase production rates to 500 units per month,” he said, adding that the basic model, which weighs around three kilograms (six pounds), protects against 9mm pistol fire and sells for USD 500. For an extra USD 200, there is an improved version that protects against high-velocity rifles such as the AR-15 and the M-16 and Kalashnikov assault rifles.
In a sign of times, Fox News held a segment on bulletproof backpacks with the La Roux song,”Bulletproof” leading the intro, which caused La Roux to protest. She told Billboard: “Using ‘Bulletproof,’ a song I wrote about relationships, for a piece like this is abhorrent. I have never, and would never approve my music to be used in this way.”
Media Matters accused Maria Bartiromo of glamorizing bulletproof backpacks and clothing for kids in the back-to-school segment.
Bartiromo said, “Oh my goodness. It’s incredible that this has come to this though, that we need bulletproof clothing,” and then rapidly changed the subject. “Some of these things are quite fashion-forward.”
With the 2018 school year about to begin, it seems as the hottest item on many back-to-school wish lists are bulletproof backpacks. Great job America, the militaziation of education facilities is almost complete.
The Daily Caller’s Ottawa Bureau Chief David Krayden reports that the Trudeau government is moving toward a total ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada.
As CBC News reports, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has sent a letter of mandate to Border Security Minister Bill Blair that makes it clear in what the direction the Liberal government is proceeding.
“You should lead an examination of a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada, while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians,” Trudeau writes. Trudeau also reminds his newest minister about the task of dealing with illegal immigration – although Trudeau refers to the phenomenon as “irregular immigration.”
Blair is also tasked with implementing the Liberal government’s legalization of marijuana that comes into effect in matter of months and assessing a growing opioid crisis in the country.
So far, Blair’s only initiative to deal with the influx of illegals deliver funding to put the would-be asylum seekers into hotels.
Ever since the July 22 mass shooting, Trudeau has toyed with the concept of further increasing Canada’s already strict gun control. Toronto Mayor John Tory has actually asked for a handgun ban in the city.
“We’re looking at things that have been done around the world, things that have been done in other jurisdictions, looking at the best evidence, the best data, to make the right decisions to make sure that we are ensuring our citizens, our communities are safe into the future,” Trudeau told reporters after the shooting.
But Nicolas Johnson, editor of TheGunBlog.ca, told The Daily Caller Wednesday that the potential ban is “wrong.”
“A ban would be wrong on so many levels, from civil liberties to property rights to policymaking. You just don’t confiscate things from honest citizens in a free society.
The significance here is huge. We aren’t talking about a policy-brainstorming session, we’re talking about the elected leader of the country looking seriously at how to take away firearms from millions of men and women who are vetted by the federal police and who have done nothing wrong.”
The Communist South Africa State is opening the door for tyranny and genocide.
The Constitutional Court of South Africa recently ruled that 300,000 gun owners must turn in their firearms.
This judgement came in response to the North Gauteng High Court’s ruling in 2017 which said Section 24 and Section 28 of the Firearm’s Control Act were unconstitutional.
A report from The Citizen explains what Section 24 and Section 28 entail:
“Section 24 of the Act requires that any person who seeks to renew a license must do so 90 days before its expiry date Section 28 stipulates that if a firearm license has been cancelled‚ the firearm must be disposed of or forfeited to the state. A 60-day time frame was placed on its disposal, which was to be done through a dealer.”
Now that the High Court’s initial ruling has been overturned, gun owners who failed to renew their firearms licenses must hand in their firearms to the nearest police station, where authorities will then proceed to destroy them.
Many naïve political observers will paint this event as a casual gun control scheme, but any astute student of politics will recognize that the floodgates are now open for further encroachments – not only on the gun rights of South Africans, but also on others facets of theirs lives.
A look at South Africa’s current political climate will give us an idea of the potential ramifications of this gun control scheme.
Political Trouble Brewing in South Africa?
Though South Africa witnessed rising levels of economic freedom shortly after Apartheid ended in 1994, the country has taken a more interventionist path to economic development in recent years.
This situation is becoming more pronounced with the South African National Assembly recently voting 241-83 to amend the South African constitution to allow for land expropriation without compensation.
The socialist-leaning African National Congress (ANC) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) parties are leading the charge for expropriation under the banner of fixing racial disparities that have supposedly remained intact since Apartheid’s conclusion.
While land confiscation has not been officially finalized, South Africans should worry about the direction their country is going.
And how does gun control fit into this equation?
Gun Control: A Tool for Tyranny and Genocide
No matter how socialist apologists rationalize it, the redistribution agenda the South African government is pursuing will not be implemented passively. Ultimately, it must be carried out by force.
The kind of force socialists seek is a monopolized kind, which extreme forms of gun control like gun confiscation help facilitate.
The history of gun confiscation is one of repeated cases of tyranny and genocide.
From countries such as Cuba to the Soviet Union, aspiring demagogues have used gun confiscation to disarm the populace. Logically, an unarmed populace will put up little resistance against their tyrannical acts.
In South Africa’s case, farmers and their workers are already suffering ongoing attacks against their property. One could only imagine what it would be like for these persecuted farmers once they are stripped of their right to self-defense.
For many Americans who have enjoyed historically unprecedented gun rights, South Africa’s gun control experience may seem distant and strange.
But make no mistake about it, South Africa’s latest flirtation with gun control is not based on good intentions, especially when considering the political climate the country is enduring.
South Africa should serve as a fair warning to Americans of the dangerous consequences gun control poses.
They will steal the land of white farmers as they promised, and , in fact, it has already begun. The media is complicit by not reporting it.
Daily Mail reports that the former candidate, 30-year-old Kellie Collins, was a Democrat running for Georgia’s 10th Congressional seat. She pulled out of that race last year for “personal reasons” and was arrested last week on murder charges.
WSBT reports that Collins ran on “responsible gun regulation to protect the community.” And Online Athens quoted Collins’ campaign website saying she wanted to “(e)nsure a more careful monitoring process in gun sales from both retailers and private dealers to protect all parties involved and shield the community from the effects of firearms falling into the wrong hands.”
The body of Collins’ former PAC manager, 41-year-old Curt Jason Cain, was found at his home last week. Aiken County Coroner Tim Carlton ruled that Cain was killed with a firearm.
Cain’s car was missing from his home when his body was discovered, resulting in grand larceny charges for Collins as well.
While running for Congress, Collins told Girls Really Rule: “When your friends and family are depending on you to make ethical decisions that affect their lives for many years, a member of Congress should hold her or himself to a much higher standard than the bare minimum that many GOP members are currently using as a benchmark.”
A California “microstamping” law that requires new semi-automatic handguns automatically imprint bullet casings with identifying information has been upheld by the 9th circuit court of appeals in a 2:1 split decision – despite the fact that the technology doesn’t exist, reports ABC News.
The microstamping law – the first of its kind in the nation signed in 2007 by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, took effect in 2013. It requires that brand new handguns sold in California imprint the gun’s make, model and serial number in “two or more places” on each bullet casing from a spent round.
The result of the new law was Smith & Wesson, Ruger and other manufacturers opting to pull out of California.
Gun rights advocates have slammed the law, as the technology doesn’t exist to stamp bullet casings in two places as the law is written, and even if it did, criminals could replace or file down the firing pin and any other mechanism to “microstamp.”
The law became effective as soon as the California Department of Justice certified that the technology used to create the imprint was available. When this certification occurred in 2013, the State clarified that the certification confirmed only “the lack of any patent restrictions on the imprinting technology, not the availability of the technology itself.” In layman’s terms, the state was saying that nothing was stopping someone from developing the technology, so it was “available,” even though it wasn’t. –NRA-ILA
As a result, compliance with the law’s “dual placement microstamping” requirement was both practically and legally “impossible,” according to court documents from a lawsuit brought by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI). In support of their claim, writes the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the plaintiffs cited an existing provision of California law, Civil Code section 3531, which states “[t]he law never requires impossibilities.”
California gun rights advocates say the law effectively bans the sale of new semi-automatic handguns in the state.
And what did the 9th circuit say to that?
Too bad – as residents can still buy used handguns that don’t carry the yet-to-be invented microstamping technology, as well as any guns on a pre-approved roster – thus, the inability to buy a new semiautomatic handgun that’s not on the roster doesn’t infringe on the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense.
Writing for the majority, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said the inability to buy particular guns did not infringe the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense in the home.
“Indeed, all of the plaintiffs admit that they are able to buy an operable handgun suitable for self-defense — just not the exact gun they want,” she said.
McKeown, joined by Judge J. Clifford Wallace, also rejected the argument that the stamping technology was impossible to implement. –ABC News
Calguns foundation executive director Brandon Combs said that the 9th circuit used a less rigorous judicial standard in order to arrive at its “policy preferences.”
“Really what the 9th Circuit is saying and has said in other cases basically is as long as a person that is law abiding has access to one handgun inside of their home, then that’s it,” he said. “That’s the extent of their right. We think that’s quite wrong.“
Dissenting from the majority was Judge Jay Bybee, who cited conflicting evidence over whether the microstamping technology was even technologically feasible – and that if the state adopted an impossible requirement that no gun manufacturer can satisfy, it would not help the state solve handgun crimes and would illegally restrict gun purchases.
As Breitbart‘s resident Second Amendment columnist AWR Hawkins detailed in 2015, Maryland canceled a similar “ballistic fingerprinting” program after 15 years and $5 million dumped into the program resulted in no crimes solved.
The law did not call for “microstamping” like California’s – rather it relied on unique metallurgical “fingerprints” left behind by a gun’s firing pin. Each new gun sold in the state would need to be fired one time, and the resulting bullet casing sent to the state’s police headquarters. Unfortunately, while the forensic technology to match a bullet casing with a gun exists – the computerized system designed to sort and matched images of casings never worked – so the state canceled the program.
Of course, just wait until DNA identification is implemented:
The California DOJ along with local law enforcement across the state of California are going door to door to conduct so called compliance checks on state residents who registered their rifles as assault weapons. Since they are verifying to see if you are complying with the law, this is more of a door to door criminal investigation because some checks have already led to arrests.
The following information was provided by FPC. NEVER EVER consent to a search. NEVER EVER talk with a law enforcement officer without your lawyer present and having been provided with specific legal advice. NEVER EVER waive any of your rights unless you are damned sure you know what the consequences of doing so are.
DO NOT EVER consent to a search, NO MATTER WHAT. Even if the officers are friendly, you think it’s just a “simple misunderstanding,” or that you can talk your way out of the situation, do not consent to a search and demand a warrant. Remember that police themselves ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO LIE TO YOU in order to get you to consent to a search or provide reasonable suspicion of a crime.
– Ask if you are being detained or under arrest, or if you are free to end the encounter and leave.
– If you are not being detained or under arrest, politely end the encounter.
– If you are being detained or under arrest: TELL THEM (out loud) that you want to speak with your lawyer and that you are exercising your right to remain silent. Then, DO NOT SAY ANY MORE until you have a lawyer present and have been provided legal advice. (Courts have held that even if you tell them you’re exercising your right to remain silent, if you keep talking, anything you say may be used against you anyway.)
– Contact an attorney. Some lawyers with California firearms-related criminal / compliance experience include:
Adam Richards – Northern California
George Lee – Northern California
Don Kilmer – Northern California
Jason Davis – Southern California
John Dillon – Southern California
Report the issue to our Legal Action Hotline at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hotline, by e-mail, or call the or call toll-free at (855) 252-4510 (24/7/365).
All order followers are bad people.
All order followers are cowards.
More than 467 people in Florida have been ordered by the government to surrender their firearms since March under a new law passed after the deadly Parkland shooting in February, according to a local ABC broadcaster.
The Risk Protection Order, is a “Red Flag” law that Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) signed several weeks after former student Nikolas Cruz killed 17 people at Stoneman Douglas High School in March, allows the local government to disarm the civilian population if a judge determines they are a threat to themselves or others.
Under the new law, state officials have the ability to file risk-protection petitions against irresponsible gun owners in court, which could result in local law enforcement stripping that individual of the second amendment.
Recently, Sgt. Jason Schmittendorf, who is employed by the Pinellas County Sheriff’s office, told ABC News that Tampa Bay officers have “taken in about 200 firearms and around 30,000 rounds of ammunition.”
“You’ve got an AK-47 style here and an AR-15 style there. We’ve got some rifles and a cache of handguns,” said Schmittendorf, who showed the ABC News team some of the weapons confiscated under the new law.
Sgt. Jason Schmittendorf of Pinellas Counties Risk Protection Order Unit speaks with ABC reporter Katie LaGrone (Source/ ABC)
Here are some of the weapons confiscated by officers (Source/ ABC)
The Sheriff’s office has assembled a five-person team devoted to working only risk protection cases. Since March, the group has filed 64 risk protection petitions in court, the second highest number of cases in the state. Broward County leads with 88 risk protection petitions (as of early-July).
“It’s a constitutional right to bear arms and when you are asking the court to deprive somebody of that right we need to make sure we are making good decisions, right decisions and the circumstances warrant it,” explained Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri when asked by ABC News why he decided to form an entire unit dedicated to upholding the new law.
To get more clarity on Sheriff Gualtieri’s thought process, he also happens to be the chairman of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission, a task force designed to prevent future school shootings.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri (Source/ ABC)
Since March, ABC has learned that the new law has had over 467 risk protection cases filed across the state (as of July 24th), according to the FL Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DOACS). DOACS is in charge of gun permitting in Florida and is informed when a petition is filed. An agency spokesperson told ABC that “over a quarter of risk protection cases filed so far involve concealed license firearm holders whose license temporarily is suspended once the order is granted.”
However, attorney Kendra Parris — who believes the new law could be disastrous — disagrees with the idea that state officials are making the right decisions. “I think we’re doing this because it makes us feel safer,” said Parris, in an interview with ABC. “What’s wrong with that,” asked reporter Katie LaGrone. “It violates the constitution,” responded Parris.
Kendra Parris, Attorney, seen in an interview with reporter Katie LaGrone (Source/ ABC)
After four-and-a-half months of the new law, Parris believes Florida’s version of the “Red Flag” law has revealed some important grey areas that need to be addressed: including state officials targeting citizens with risk-protection petitions who do not have histories of violence or mental illness.
“These are individuals who are often exercising their first amendment rights online, who are protecting constitutionally protected speech online,” she said. “Maybe it was odious, maybe people didn’t like it but they were hit with the risk protection order because of it,” she said.
Parris told ABC News that she represented University of Central Florida student, Chris Velasquez, who made national headlines in March when Orlando police filed a risk protection petition after he spoke highly of mass shooters on social media.
In another case, Parris describes, a minor, who said she wanted to kill people on social media.
Parris mentioned that in both cases, the individuals did not own guns and both won their court cases.
“The people whom I’ve represented fought back because they care about their future not because they cared about owning firearms,” she told ABC.
Parris suggested that the law needs to be redefined to only target citizens with proof of gun ownership or who have histories of attempting to purchase one. In addition, she said the law needs to have a better understanding of who is an “imminent” threat and who is a “threat.”
“As it’s written now the harm can be in 6 months or maybe in a year this person will go crazy, we don’t know but out of an abundance of caution we need to get this risk protection in place,” she said.
According to ABC News, Pinellas County has the majority of risk protection cases in the state and most involve people with mental illness.
With “Red Flag” Laws popping up across the country, it seems as the government’s plan to strip civilians of their firearms is already in motion.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday that openly carrying a firearm in public is constitutional.
The ruling, issued by a three-judge panel, is a rebuttal to Hawaii’s claim that Second Amendment protections only applied to carrying a gun openly in one’s home.
Reuters reports that the case was brought by George Young, after Hawaiian official “twice [denied] him a permit to carry a gun outside.” A District Court ruled that the denial did not infringe rights protected by the Second Amendment, but the Ninth Circuit panel disagreed.
The ruling for the constitutionality of openly carrying a firearm in public comes a week to the day after a Ninth Circuit panel upheld the ruling which blocked California’s “high capacity” magazine ban.
Both rulings can be appealed for the Ninth Circuit to hear en banc. After that, the next stop for either ruling would be the Supreme Court of the United States.
On June 29, 2017, Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez blocked the ban to prevent law-abiding citizens from being criminalized. ABC News quoted from Benitez’s ruling, “If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.”
The “high capacity” magazine ban was the result of a Proposition passed by the majority of California voters, but Benitez said, “The constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”
The state of California appealed Benitez ruling and on July 17, 2018, a panel from the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling.
The panel voted 2 to 1, and the NRA-ILA reports that the two judges who voted to uphold the ruling “chided the dissenting judge for substituting his own discretion for that of Judge Benitez, who had the primary responsibility to evaluate and weigh the evidence in the case.”
The state of California can now appeal the case for the Ninth Circuit to hear en banc.
Don’t mess with Texas.
A Dallas woman shot a suspected carjacker in the head after he tried swiping her SUV at a gas station — while her two small children were inside.
“I’m not a killer, but I do believe in defending what’s mine,” explained Michelle Booker-Hicks.
Speaking to FOX 4, the mother-of-two recounted what happened Wednesday night at the local Shell station near Interstate 35 — where she nearly lost both her car and children in one fell swoop.
Booker-Hicks had been paying for gas when she saw the male suspect climbing inside her SUV and attempting to drive away, according to police.
Her 2- and 4-year-old sons were in the backseat.
“I proceeded to jump in…and asked the gentleman to stop, to get out the car,” Booker-Hicks said. “He would not get out of the car.”
The suspect turned around and looked at the frantic mother — “with his eyes bugged” — but kept going, she said.
“I reached into the middle of my armrest, to get to my glove compartment,” Booker-Hicks told FOX, noting how she had a gun inside. “That’s when I fired at him.”
According to police, Booker-Hicks shot the man once in the face and caused him to crash into a nearby telephone pole. He was transported to a local hospital for treatment and is expected to face kidnapping and carjacking charges.
“I hope that woke him up,” Booker-Hicks said.
On June 24, 2018, Breitbart News reported that commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles outfitted with “bullet buttons” had to be registered before midnight of June 30. And in a situation where the gun lacks a serial number, the owner of the firearm was required to apply for a serial number from the state before trying to register the firearms before the deadline.
So the rush is on, but CBS Los Angeles reports that the website has had problems recognizing certain firearm parts as law-abiding citizens sought to comply with registration requirement.
For example, Franklin Armory’s Jay Jacobson said he was trying to register some personal firearms but the California DOJ website kept misidentifying the stock on his firearm. He said, “I believe they may be calling this a telescoping stock. It’s only a fixed stock, it’s only minutely adjustable. Other than that, I can’t figure out why they have not allowed this to go through and what is frustrating is they don’t bother to tell you.”
Moreover, many “bullet button assault weapon” owners are allegedly foregoing registration altogether. Guns, Fishing, and Other Stuff’s Travis Morgan said his customers told them “there is too much drawback to it.” He said, “I have been told that if you register your gun as an assault weapon, DOJ has the right to search your house at any point in time they feel like it. I don’t want them in my house.”
Why would anyone register after the state has made perfectly clear their goal is confiscation and genocide?
It will be interesting to see what percentage of “bullet button assault weapon” owners register their firearms and what the state does, if anything, for individuals who tried to register their guns but were unable due to website glitches.
According to the Trace, a gun control journalism outlet, such use of zoning codes allows cities to “effectively ban firearm stores” in lieu of Congressional refusal to pass more gun laws.
Piscataway, New Jersey, is one of the latest townships to adopt this approach. They have no federally licensed firearms dealers in their township, and the town council hopes to use a zoning resolution to keep any licensed dealers from setting up shop in the future. Their resolution, according to the Trace, “bans gun stores from opening within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, health care facilities, and other sensitive locations. While the new zoning law does not explicitly forbid gun stores from opening in the suburb, it makes dealers subject to conditions that almost no location meets.”
Alameda County, California, served as an impetus for the Piscataway resolution. In Teixeira v. County of Alameda, plaintiffs argued that the county’s zoning codes violated the Second Amendment by stringently limiting a citizen’s access to firearms via prohibitions on gun stores. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiff, only later to have that decision reversed by the Ninth Circuit en banc in 2017.
The Ninth Circuit’s reversal was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, but Bloomberg News reported that the Court passed on the case. The Court’s refusal to hear the appeal allowed the zoning codes to stand, convincing other cities and townships that such zoning practices are constitutional.
New Jersey’s Democratic Governor Phil Murphy is floating a plan to increase taxes on buying and selling guns by up to 2,400%, according to guns.com.
Murphy estimates that the state will take in an additional $2 million in revenue from the tax, which would include raising handgun purchase permits from $2 to $50, and firearms ID cards required to own a gun or buy ammunition from $5 to $100. Permits to carry a handgun would skyrocket from $50 to $400.
In comparison, neighboring Delaware and Pennsylvania charge fees for carrying of $65 and $20 respectively.
Such taxes, of course, would disproportionately affect the poor – as rich gun owners can simply pay up for personal protection. Given that the average salary of a New Jersey armed security officer is $19.42 an hour, Murphy’s plan puts those who need to carry for their jobs under increased financial burden.
In a public signing ceremony for a six-pack of gun control measures last week, Murphy slammed what he characterized as the low fees of firearm licensing in New Jersey. “We must please responsibly increase the fees for gun licenses and handgun permits,” he said. “It’s long past time we did this. The last time these fees were increased was 1966.” –Guns
Gun dealers would also be affected by the change – with the cost of retail licenses to increase 10-fold from $50 to $500, while manufacturer licenses would jump from $150 to $1,500. The ATF charges similar fees of $200 and $150 respectively.
Murphy has rolled back several pro-gun reforms backed by the outgoing Chris Christie (R) administration, while shutting out Second Amendment groups and repeatedly blaming the gun lobby for the state’s violent crime. He’s also appointed a “gun czar,” attorney Bill Castner.
“Bill Castner will play an active role in enhancing the coalition and will help our administration to advance new common-sense gun measures and potential avenues for legal challenges to stop the scourge of gun violence,” said Murphy, adding “Leading the force for gun violence protection to build safer communities and protect families at the state level is of the utmost importance, and I am confident that Bill will generate ideas and solutions that will save lives.”
Murphy’s attorney general last week warned a number of gun parts makers they could face civil action for selling unfinished lowers and frames in the state and has been ordered by Murphy to publish a running “shame” list of firearm trace data. –Guns
So for those living in New Jersey and other states with high taxes on guns; the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, if you’re rich enough to pay for it.
A circuit court judge in Lake County, Illinois granted an injunction Tuesday that blocked the Chicago suburb of Deerfield from enforcing a ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
The injunction was granted 24 hours before that ban was to go into effect.
According to a press statement, the Second Amendment Foundation, the Illinois State Rifle Association and Deerfield resident Daniel Easterday filed a lawsuit against the local prohibition on the basis that it violates the state’s preemption law that was adopted in 2013.
The law amended the state statute to say, “the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid…”
Following the passage of the law, Illinois municipalities had a period of time in which to alter or adopt their gun laws, and Deerfield argued its ban was simply an amendment to prior ordinance that regulated firearms and became the first municipality to ban assault weapons following the Parkland high school shooting.
If the ban went into effect, any person found to have what the city government considered to be an “assault weapon” after Wednesday, July 13, would have faced a penalty of up to $1,000 per day.
“We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flew in the face of state law,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The village tried to disguise its extremism as an amendment to an existing ordinance. The ordinance bans possession of legally-owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense.”
“Worse, still,” he added, “the ordinance also provided for confiscation and destruction of such firearms and their original capacity magazines. It was outrageous that the ban would levy fines of up to $1,000 a day against anyone who refused to turn in their gun and magazines or move them out of the village.
This certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that “nobody is coming to take your guns.”
A life with no other purpose than to work and consume is actually lower than beastly, because the beast in the field only eats to live. It does not live to eat. Like all living things, it lives to make more copies of itself. For man, possessed of a self-awareness and the capacity to remake his environment, the purpose of life expands to the celebration of life by not only reproducing but leaving a cultural legacy for the next generation. The point of life is for old men to plant trees in whose shade they will never stand.
Traditional Americans used to be a nation.
They are now becoming an ethnic and political minority.
You already know what happens next.
They won’t stop.
Kent State graduate Kaitlin Bennett called out anti-gun activist David Hogg on Twitter Sunday, challenging him to an arm wrestling competition to decide the fate of The Second Amendment.
Bennet was pushed into the public spotlight when her graduation photo went viral because she posed with her AR-10 rifle and a graduation cap reading, “Come and take it.”
Hogg has yet to respond to Bennet’s challenge and has announced a nationwide gun control tour featuring 70 stops in 20 states.
Continuing to troll Hogg, Bennet posted a picture of him and assured her followers, “It’s alright guys, the 2nd amendment is safe.”
There are some questions I have about this arrest that are not answered in this report. And I’m not having any luck finding more information about this arrest on the internet.
Suffice it to say, if you are a gun owner in California you are in for a world of hurt and confusion. And you are required to soon register your “assault weapons” with the state.
According to the book, “California Gun Laws: A Guide to State and Federal Firearm Regulations (Fifth Edition),” the laws in that state are rapidly changing. From author C.D. Michel’s book:
“Updated to cover all the new laws passed during the 2017 California legislative session, the Fifth Edition of California Gun Laws: A Guide to State and Federal Firearm Regulations explores, explains, and summarizes all the new and existing federal and state laws that will affect California gun owners in 2018, including the new regulations for “assault weapon” registration. The Fifth Edition also contains brand new sections that discuss the legality of gun trusts and “bump stocks,” and it contains a number of technical revisions, case updates, and expanded explanations of the law. In this long awaited update to the most comprehensive legal guide to California’s firearm laws, renowned firearms lawyer C.D. Michel draws on over twenty years of experience to educate gun owners about California’s complex firearms laws and the potential legal “traps” into which firearm owners often unintentionally fall.
There are over 800 California state statutes regulating the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession, and use of firearms. There are thousands of overlapping federal laws regulating firearms that apply in California. And there are hundreds of administrative regulations, local ordinances, and California Department of Justice written and unwritten policies that also apply. With all of the overlapping regulations, it’s no wonder that confusion runs rampant among California gun owners, police, prosecutors, and judges. The Fifth Edition was written to dispel that confusion and equip you with the tools and updates you need to avoid mistaken arrests and prosecutions.”
KGET reports that on Thursday, May 17th, the District Attorney’s office filed a dozen felony gun charges against a member of a prominent farming family.
The California Department of Justice raided Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann’s home in Bakersfield last month, after he tried to register an illegally modified gun online through the state’s website.
What they found in his home, led to the DA filing charges: a dozen guns, 230 rounds of ammunition and two silencers, which they seized.
Records from the Secretary of State’s office list Kirschenmann as the CEO of Scott Kirschenmann Farms, Inc. — with the same lamont mailing address as Kirschenmann Farms, Inc. — the local grower known for its potatoes used by Frito Lay to make chips.
Kirschenmann is out on $150,000 bail, accused of 12 felonies for possessing assault rifles, silencers and a multi-burst trigger activator.
We went to Kirschenmann’s home Thursday afternoon to speak with him about the case, but there was no answer.
According to court documents, the DOJ began investigating Kirschenmann when he electronically submitted photos of an illegally modified AR-15-style firearm.
Retired KCSO Commander Joe Pilkington is a court recognized firearms expert. He could not speak directly to Kirschenmann’s case but says the laws are changing so frequently, it’s often hard to keep up with the latest regulations.
“Just in the last few years, there have been lots of changes in gun laws,” he said. “Making an effort, a good faith effort to comply with these really complicated laws, should count for something.”
A new state law requires assault-style weapons be registered by the end of June.
Pilkington recommends anyone who isn’t sure about the process go through a federally licensed firearms dealer. “There is this self-registration application on the Department of Justice website, but it may be better to talk to an FFL. Someone who has a license, to talk through whatever these complications are.”
Kirschenmann is scheduled to appear in court Monday. (This article was dated May 17th and I couldn’t find any information about what happened to Mr. Kirschenmann’s scheduled court appearance.)
NOBLESVILLE, Ind. (AP) — The Latest on a possible shooting at an Indiana middle school (all times local):
Suspect in custody after middle school shooting in Noblesville, Indiana
An eighth-grader says he counted 16 gunshots inside his suburban Indianapolis middle school during a shooting that authorities say left a student and a teacher injured.
Thirteen-year-old Chris Navarro says he was in an auditorium at Noblesville West Middle School when he heard the shots Friday morning about a minute before the bell rang for the change in classes. He says a lockdown was immediately announced over the school’s speaker. He rushed into a small room with three other people to hide.
Navarro spoke as he was reunited with his parents outside Noblesville High School, where the middle school students were bused after the shooting.
The teacher and student who were wounded in the attack were taken to hospitals in Indianapolis. The severity of their injuries is unknown.
Authorities say a male student at the school is in custody as the suspected shooter.
A male student opened fire at a suburban Indianapolis middle school Friday morning, wounding another student and a teacher before being taken into custody, authorities said.
The attack at Noblesville West Middle School happened around 9 a.m., police Chief Kevin Jowitt said at a news conference. He said investigators believe the suspect acted alone, though he didn’t release the boy’s name or the names of the victims, who were taken to hospitals in Indianapolis.
Indiana University Health spokeswoman Danielle Sirilla said the teacher was taken to IU Health Methodist Hospital and the wounded student was taken to Riley Hospital for Children. She didn’t know the seriousness of their injuries.
After the attack, students were bused to the Noblesville High School gym, where their families could retrieve them.
Erica Higgins, who was among the worried parents who rushed to get their kids, told WTHR-TV that she learned of the shooting from a relative who called her at home.
“I just want to get my arms around my boy,” she said.
Higgins said her son was shaken up but knew little about what happened.
“I got a ‘Mom, I’m scared’ text message and other than that, it was ‘come get me at the high school,'” Higgins said.
Gov. Eric Holcomb, who was returning from a trip to Europe on Friday, issued a statement saying he and other state leaders were getting updates about the situation and that 100 state police officers had been made available to work with local law enforcement.
“Our thoughts are with all those affected by this horrible situation,” Holcomb said.
Noblesville, which is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) northeast of Indianapolis, is home to about 50,000 people. The middle school has about 1,300 students from grades 6-8. The school’s academic year was scheduled to end next Friday.
The attack comes a week after an attack at a high school in Santa Fe, Texas, that killed eight students and two teachers, and months after the school attack that killed 17 people in Parkland, Florida. The Florida attack inspired students from that school and others throughout the country to call for more restrictions on access to guns.
Indiana’s Senate Democrats issued a statement in response to Friday’s school shooting expressing their condolences to the victims and calling for steps to prevent such shootings, including restrictions on guns.
Introductory Proviso: The following essay on possible gun confiscation is pure conjectural gedankenexperiment about the future that extrapolates from recent history and current trends. Nothing herein is seditious (per 18 U.S. Code § 2384), nor a call to arms, nor a threat to our government or to any individual, agency, or group.
The current mass media-driven “debate” on firearms (actually more like paternalistic lecturing or chiding) seems to be leading toward greater restrictions by Congress. The collectivist gun grabbers have the dream of ignoring the Second Amendment and somehow magically removing all detachable magazine semi-auto rifles from civilian hands. But it is just that: a dream. If they think that they can disarm us, then they are thoroughly deluded. I’ll explain why, with some simple mathematics.
The United States has the world’s first or second most heavily-armed populace, per capita. (It’s possibly second only to Yemen.) The number of FBI firearms background checks for transfers by Federally-licensed dealers from November 1998 to April 30, 2018 totaled 287,807,015. That isn’t all new guns. It of course includes many second-hand sales that cycled back through FFL holders. But it is still a staggering number. And it does not include any private party (“not through a dealer”) sales of used guns. That is thankfully legal in most states. Nor does it include guns that are legally made at home. (Typically made with 80% complete receivers.) Those home “builds” are becoming quite popular. Their ownership is mostly opaque to any would-be tyrants who might covet seizing them.
There are somewhere between 370 million and 420 million privately-owned firearms in the United States. Let’s just call it 400 million for a nice round figure. Most of those guns are not registered to particular owners. That is why there are only rough estimates. It makes me feel good to know that Big Brother has no idea where those guns are, and who owns them. When I last checked, the total U.S. population is 327,708,500. So that is about 1.2 guns per person. The adult population is around 249,500,000. And according to Wikipedia, the “Fit for service” Military Age Male population (men, ages 16-49) of the U.S. is just 59,764,677. That equates to 6.6 guns per Military Age Male in the United States.
Of the 400 million American guns, roughly 20% are single-shot or double-barreled, 60% are manually-operated repeaters (e.g., bolt action, lever action, pump action, or revolvers), and 20% are semi-automatic. There are only about 175,000 transferable Federally-registered full autos. That number would have been much larger by now but production was sharply curtailed by a hefty $200 tax (starting in 1934) and then there numbers were effectively frozen in 1986. It is noteworthy that if it were not for the National Firearms Act of 1934, selective fire guns would by now be in what the Heller decision calls “common use“. After all, it costs only a few dollars more to manufacture a selective-fire M16 than a semiautomatic-only AR-15.
With every passing year, the predominance of semi-autos is gaining for both rifles and handguns. (In sheer numbers produced, revolvers are becoming almost passé.) The biggest-selling handgun in the country is the Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm, followed closely by the Glock Model 19 9mm. Gaining rapidly is the highly modular SIG P320, which was recently adopted by the U.S. Army. All three of these are semi-automatic. Standard magazine sizes for autopistols range from 13 to 20 rounds. And the most popular rifles of the decade are AR-15s and their clones. Their standard capacity magazines hold 30 cartridges. (That isn’t “high capacity”.)
AR-15 and AR-10 variants are truly generic and have been sold under more than 120 brand names. The number of ARs (AR-15s, M4s, AR-10s, and variants) sold from 2000 to 2014 was approximately 5,672,900. Since then, AR-15 clones have become even more popular and ubiquitous with approximately 1.2 million more produced in 2015, 1.6 million in 2016, and 1.5 million in 2017. At least 1.2 million will be produced in 2018. It can be assumed that 99% of the ARs produced since the year 2000 are still functional. There were more than 2.3 million other ARs produced for the civilian market between 1962 and 1999. It is safe to assume that at least 95% of those of that vintage are still functional. So the total number of functional ARs in private hands in the U.S. is somewhere around 11 to 12 million. (As of May, 2018.)
Next we come to the more fuzzy math on the wide variety of other models of semi-auto centerfire rifles in private hands. They include detachable magazine, en bloc clip, and stripper clip-fed designs. Here are some rough estimates. (Some of these estimates are based on my own observations of the ratios of different models I’ve seen offered for sale):
Totaling the list above and adding it to the preceding estimate on ARs, there are 20 million semi-auto centerfire rifles that are in civilian hands here in the States. And that number is increasing by nearly 2 million per year. (More than half of which are AR-15 or AR-10 clones.) Again looking at the Military Age Male population (men, ages 16-49) of 59,764,677, that equates to roughly one semi-auto rifle for every three Military Age Males.
If a production and importation ban requiring registration were enacted, there would surely be massive noncompliance. For example, the registration schemes enacted in the past two decades in Australia, Canada, The Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, and the States of California and New York have been well-documented failures. They have been met with noncompliance rates ranging from 50% to 90%.
Even with an optimistic 50% registration compliance rate, that would mean only 10 million of the nation’s 20 million semi-auto rifles would have a current name and address attached, to allow eventual gun confiscation.
Let us surmise that following several years of a registration scheme there were an outright “turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America” ban. I predict that even if $1,000 per gun were offered, no more than 11 million would be turned in, by compliant and history-ignorant Sheeple. (An aside: They’ll probably call this a “Buy Back”, but that will be a lie. They can’t “buy back” something that they’ve never owned.)
So let’s suppose that a full Federal semi-auto rifle ban were enacted with a gun confiscation order issued.
This is where the math gets very interesting: There are only 902,000 sworn police officers in the United States. At most, about 80,000 of them have had SWAT training. There are only 5,113 BATFE employees–and many of those are mere paper shufflers. As of 2017, there were just 2,623 ATF Special Agents. The FBI’s notorious Hostage Rescue Team (HRT or “Hurt Team”) has a cadre strength that is classified but presumably less than 200 agents. Together, they comprise the pool of “Door Kickers” that might be available to execute unconstitutional search warrants.
If they were to start going door-to-door executing warrants for unconstitutional gun confiscation, what would the casualty rates be for the ATF, HRT, and the assorted local SWAT teams? It bears mention that the military would be mostly out of the picture, since they are banned from domestic law enforcement roles, under the Posse Comitatus Act.
Next, let’s do some addition and then divide:
80,000 SWAT-trained police
+ 2,623 ATF Special Agents
+ 200 FBI HRT Members
= 82,863 Potential Available Door Kickers
… presumably working in teams of 8, attempting to seize 9,000,000 newly-contraband semi-auto rifles.
Before we finish the math, I’ll state some “for the sake of argument” assumptions:
A lot of those are not safe assumptions. But for the sake of completing a gedankenexperiment, let’s pen this out on the back of a napkin, as a “best case” for an unconstitutional gun confiscation campaign. Here are the division equations:
9,000,000 ÷ 82,863 = 108 (x 8 officers per team) = 864 raids, per officer
Let that sink in: Every officer would have to survive 864 gun-grabbing raids.
Those of course are fanciful numbers. There will be a lot of false tips, and there will be many owners who keep their guns very well-hidden. Each of those raids would have nearly the same high level of risk but yet many of them would net zero guns. And it is likely that many police departments will wisely decline involvement. Therefore the “best case” figure of 864 raids per officer is quite low. The real number would be much higher.
How long would it be until mounting law enforcement casualties triggered a revolt or “sick-out” among the rank and file Door Kickers? For some historical context: Just four ATF agents were killed and 16 wounded in the Waco raid, and that was considered quite “devastating” and “traumatizing” to the 5,000-member agency.
Here is some sobering ground truth: America’s gun owners are just as well trained–and often better trained–than the police. There are 20.4 million American military veterans, and the majority of veterans own guns.
Rather than meeting the police one-at-a-time on their doorsteps, I predict that resisting gun owners will employ guerilla warfare strategy and tactics to foil the plans of the gun grabbers:
1.) They will successfully hide the majority of their banned guns. This is just what many Europeans did, following World War II. There are perhaps a million guns in Europe that were never registered or turned in, after the war. Particularly in Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Spain, and Greece, there is still massive noncompliance. It has now been 73 years since the end of WWII. So the gun registration noncompliance in Europe is now multi-generational.
2.) They will form small, fully independent “phantom” resistance cells. This is commonly called leaderless resistance. Such cells are very difficult to detect or penetrate. These resistance cells will carefully choose the time and location of their attacks, to their advantage.
3.) They will individually target the legislators who voted for unconstitutional gun ban legislation. This will make it almost suicidal for these legislators to return to their home districts.
4.) They will individually target any outspokenly anti-gun police chiefs.
5.) They will target all BATF agents and FBI HRT agents–first with intimidation, and then with targeted killings.
6.) They will pillage or burn down the facilities where confiscated guns are being stored and destroyed.
7.) They will anonymously phone in false police reports about gun control advocates. (This is commonly called “SWATing.”)
8.) They will use time-delayed explosives, time-delayed incendiaries, time-delayed bursting toxin containers, cell phone-triggered IEDs, computer program worms and viruses, and long-range standoff weapons to minimize the risk of being detected, apprehended, or killed. Likely targets will be Federal buildings, courthouses, SWAT training facilities, police training ranges, and especially the private residences of anyone deemed to be a gun-grabber.
9.) They will use anonymous re-mailers and VPN to encourage others to resist by forming their own leaderless resistance cells.
10.) They will begin a War of Attrition on the Door Kickers, with tactics such as these:
A.) Ambushing SWAT vehicles while in transit, rather than waiting for the SWAT teams to set up raids.
B.) Ambushing individual SWAT team members at unexpected times and places–most likely at their homes.
C.) Sabotaging SWAT vehicles, most likely with time-delayed incendiaries.
D.) Targeting SWAT teams or individual team members while they are at home, in training, or when attending conventions.
E.) Harassing and intimidating individual SWAT team members and their families. The systematic burning of their privately-owned vehicles and their unoccupied homes and vacation cabins will be unmistakable threats.
11.) They will individually target “gun control” advocates, organizers, and group leaders.
12.) They will individually target the judges that issue gun seizure warrants.
13.) They will individually target journalists who have vocally advocated civilian disarmament.
14.) Some owners of M1 Carbines, AR-15s and HKs in the resistance movement will convert them to selective fire. (They will assume: “Well, if it is now a felony to possess a semi-auto, then what is the harm in making it a full auto?”)
15.) They will be willing to wage an ongoing guerilla warfare campaign using both passive and active resistance until the collectivists relent. This would be something like “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland, but on a larger scale, with greater ferocity, and with far more weapons readily available. Unlike the IRA, which had to import arms, all of the the firearms, magazines, and ammunition needed for any American resistance movement are already in situ. It is noteworthy that the agreed “Decommissioning” the Irish Republican Army (IRA) was delayed for more than five years because of their remaining caches of arms, which by then included only around 1,000 battle rifles!)
I believe that once it was started, the whole affray would be settled within just a few weeks or months. American gun owners clearly have the numbers on their side. Once the shooting starts, the gun-hating politicians will quickly feel isolated, vastly outnumbered, and incredibly vulnerable. And when they realize they’ve lost their Door Kicker shock troops, they will capitulate. After some horrendous casualties in a brief but fierce civil war, the politicians would be forced to:
Without all six of those, the hostilities would continue.
The foregoing math on the roughly 20 million semi-auto rifles is not the full extent of the problem for the gun grabbers. Additionally, there are at least 50 million center fire handguns that would be suitable for resistance warfare. (And another 3 million being made or imported each year.) There are also perhaps 40 million scoped center fire deer rifles in private hands. The vast majority of those have no traceable paper trail. Fully capable of 500+ yard engagement, these rifles could be employed to out-range the tyrants and their minions.
Then there are the estimated 1.5 million unregistered machine guns now in the country. Except for a 30-day amnesty in 1968 that generated only about 65,000 registrations, they have been contraband since 1934. Their number is particularly difficult to accurately estimate, since some semi-autos such as the M1 Carbine, HK91/93/94 series, and AR-15 are fairly easy to convert to selective fire. Similarly, nearly all “open bolt” semi-auto designs are easy to convert to full auto. Large numbers of conversion parts sets have been sold, with little record keeping. Some guns can be converted simply by removing sear springs or filing their sears. Just a trickle of unregistered full autos are seized or surrendered each year. This begs the question: If Federal officials have been unable to round up un-papered machine guns after 84 years, then how do they expect to ever confiscate semi-autos, which are 15 times more commonplace?
As evidenced by the 1990s wars in the Balkans, when times get inimical, contraband guns get pulled out of walls and put into use. We can expect to see the same, here.
Now, to get back to the simple mathematics, here are some ratios to ponder:
The mathematics that I’ve cited don’t bode well for the gun-grabbing collectivists. If they ever foolishly attempt to confiscate semi-auto rifles, then it will be “Game On” for Civil War 2. I can foresee that they would run out of willing Door Kickers, very quickly.
I’ll conclude with a word of caution: Leftist American politicians should be careful about what they wish for. Those who hate the 2nd Amendment and scheme to disarm us have no clue about the unintended consequences of their plans. If they proceed, then I can foresee that it will end very badly for them. – JWR
Again, the preceding is pure conjectural gedankenexperiment about the future that extrapolates from recent history and current trends. None of the foregoing is seditious (per 18 U.S. Code § 2384), nor a call to arms, nor a threat to our government or to any individual, agency, or group.
Permission to reprint, re-post or forward this article in full is granted, but only if credit is given to James Wesley, Rawles and first publication in SurvivalBlog (with a link) It must not be edited or excerpted, and all included links must be left intact.
Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch demonstrates how to clear a malfunction from virtually any modern auto pistol.
A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” (aka, sport rifles) and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms. In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resistors,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.” Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.” READ the Op-Ed Piece HERE: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio…
In 1993, Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman of the group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership published a document titled “Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny,” which highlights the similarities between the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 and the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. Dedicated to the “tens of millions of victims of Nazi ‘gun control,” the book maintains that “the Nazi Weapons Law is the blueprint for ‘gun control’ in America.” The following is a synopsis of their points:
Is this hyperbolic fear-mongering, or are these type of restrictions being implemented?
The Democratically controlled New Jersey Assembly under Governor Phil Murphy has passed the following measures to tighten already stringent gun laws. Murphy asserts that “he supports these measures as “a public health matter” and wants legislation to encourage the sale of so-called “smart guns” which use technology to restrict who can fire them.”
Consequently, A2761 “reduces the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds [but] exempts firearms with .22 caliber tubular magazines from 10 round limitation.” People who “currently own magazines with more than 10 rounds could keep their firearms, though they would have to register them and pay a $50 fee.”
A2760 “revises the definition of destructive device to include certain weapons of 50 caliber or greater.”
In addition, Murphy has announced his “intention to reverse a Christie-era regulatory change that made it easier for people to carry concealed handguns in New Jersey.” Thus, “A-2758, defines what applicants for a handgun permit need to show in order to demonstrate a ‘justifiable need.'”
Hence, the state will determine “justifiable need.” Thomas R. Rogers, a New Jersey resident who passed the required background checks, completed required firearm training courses and met every other requirement to be eligible to obtain a permit to carry firearms in public was denied his Second Amendment constitutional right because he could not “establish a clear and present threat to his safety.” This despite the fact that he was robbed at gunpoint many years ago and now services ATMs in high crime areas.
Another proposal, A-2757, would require all firearm sales to be conducted through a licensed retail dealer, who would then have to conduct a background check on the intended recipient. Thus, the measure “is designed to require background checks for private gun sales, although the legislation has exceptions for transactions between family members, law enforcement offices and collectors.” Consequently, the bureaucrats decide.
It is ironic that Murphy is speaking against the backdrop of the JCRC (Jewish Community Relations Council), many of whom take a liberal stance and may not know the history of gun control and the Holocaust.
In Gun Control in the Third Reich, author Stephen P. Halbrook demonstrates how “effectively totalitarians and mass murderers have relied upon gun registration and other firearms controls to round up ‘enemies of the state.’ Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and Mussolini all seized upon gun laws to punish, incarcerate, and even exterminate their opponents, while permitting their own evil cliques to expand and strengthen the state and party monopolies on gun ownership.”
Particularly telling is the fact that it was not Hitler who initiated gun controls. Rather, “extensive gun registration and controls were actually implemented by liberal Weimar Republic leaders in the late 1920s.” It is also illuminating that “[t]he German subsidiary of IBM … provided the dictatorship with its new punch card and card-sorting system, allowing for an enormous amount of data … to be stored … per card. This was very useful to the ‘census’ reports that Nazis were assiduously compiling and cataloguing.”
Consider the massive accumulation of information that the IRS and now Facebook and other social media sites have been compiling on Americans. Then there are the incremental attacks on our First Amendment rights and the recent government assault on Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Moreover, in this day and age of identity politics, when one blithely checks off racial categories on college registration forms or is asked about gun ownership at the doctor’s office we should not be so naïve about possible nefarious intentions.
As documented in Halbrook’s book, “mayoral administration and appointed police leaders in Buffalo, New York declared their intention to descend upon the homes of recently deceased Buffalonians who, as determined by ‘crosschecking’ (no IBM punch card system needed in 2015) were also legally permitted gun owners. Their mission: to remove firearms from the decedents’ homes, while families and friends are still grieving and organizing their loved ones’ wills and affairs. In their plan, Buffalo officials would execute this ghoulish confiscation scheme before families had time to consider whether to apply for retention of the family firearm, or perhaps to make a gift to another relative or responsible party.”
It is not only Jews who should bear in mind the history of gun control. Nicholas Johnson documents this in Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms.
In fact, “African-Americans arguably have the richest tradition of gun-rights advocacy despite being targeted by and resisting local, state and federal gun-control measures since before America’s founding.” Thus, “[r]estrictions on black ownership of guns and racial conflict in the late 19th and early 20th centuries set the stage for the massacre and destruction of entire black communities.”
Clayton E. Cramer in “The Racist Roots of Gun Control” asserts that “the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century, the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that ‘they’ were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government.” Consider the double standard of celebrities and politicians as they surround themselves with several layers of armed security while lecturing Americans about gun control.
Cramer asserts that “the forces that push for gun control seem to be heavily (though not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class.”
More recently, in Greensboro, North Carolina, Mark Robinson spoke about the assault on “law-abiding gun owners.” Robinson stated, “I’m the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen who’s never shot anybody, never committed a felony. I’ve never done anything like that.”
But it seems like every time we have one of these shootings, nobody wants to put the blame where it goes, which is at the shooter’s feet. You want to put it at my feet. You want to turn around and restrict my right, Constitutional right that’s spelled out in black and white, you want to restrict my right to buy a firearm and protect myself[.]
It does not make any sense. The law-abiding citizens of this community, of other communities we are the first ones taxed and the last ones considered. And the first ones punished when things like this happen.
The majority of the people in this city are law-abiding, and they follow the law. And they want their constitutional right to be able to bear arms.
They want to be able to go to the gun show and buy a hunting rifle or sport rifle. There are no military grade weapons sold at the gun shows. An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. Anybody [who] would go into combat with an AR-15 is a fool. It’s a semiautomatic .22 rifle. You’d be killed in 15 minutes in combat with that thing. So we need to dispel all these myths, and we need to drop all this division that we got going on here. ‘Cause the bottom line is, when that Second Amendment was written, whether the Framers liked it or not, they wrote it for everybody. And I am everybody. And the law-abiding citizens of this city are everybody. And we want our rights, and we want to keep our rights[.]
Following the deadly Valentine’s Day shooting in Parkland, Fla., banks and credit card companies considered blocking consumers’ gun purchases as corporate America engaged in a marathon virtue-signaling session to prove to their customers that they too care about the lives of students being endangered by gun violence.
Of course, these bans would’ve likely been temporary. Banks could’ve quietly withdrawn the restrictions once the public furor quieted down. However, some banks and credit card companies are now considering a more permanent move that would transform them into foot soldiers in the deep state’s push to create a register of all gun owners. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that some lenders are now discussing ways to identify purchases of guns through their payment systems. This would effectively transform them into tools of the intelligence services by monitoring virtually all gun sales at sporting goods stores and other merchants that aren’t transacted in cash.
As WSJ explains, card networks like Visa and Mastercard can request approval for what’s called a merchant category code – or MCC – a protocol that’s governed by a Switzerland-based nonprofit. The code can be applied to gun merchants so that banks can flag new gun purchases using their credit cards.
The lenders are still discussing what types of merchants would receive the new code. Would it be all gun sellers? Or just sporting-goods merchants but not companies like Wal-Mart that primarily sell other products.
One bank has even had conversations with lawmakers about a bill to require merchants to report ALL purchases of certain “gun-related” products.
Currently, card companies, including networks and banks that issue credit cards, have little to no insight into gun purchases. Gun sellers fall into broader categories such as sporting-goods retailers or specialty retail shops. Big-box retailers that also sell guns are often assigned codes that include “variety” or “discount” stores.
An area of discussion, according to the people familiar with the talks: How far reaching a new MCC would be. This code could identify purchases made at gun dealers—but not at merchants that primarily sell other products, such as Walmart Inc.
Some talks have gone further. At least one large U.S. bank has had early conversations with lawmakers about potential legislation to require merchants to share information about specific gun-related products consumers are buying with their cards, according to people familiar with the matter.
As WSJ reminds us, banks have at times blocked purchases of certain items that they believed to be risky, or part of a legal gray area. They also act as the front-line of defense in monitoring payments for suspicious – possibly terrorism-related – activity. And in rare instances, banks have stopped doing business altogether with politically unpalatable groups like the government of South Africa during the apartheid era.
Citigroup has already started restricting purchases of guns using its credit cards to users over the age of 21 (because the last thing these banks want to see is the next mass murderer using a Citigroup-branded credit card to make a fatal purchase).
This would also open up a new can of worms, as banks would encounter similar problems to those facing Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies as they decide how they should handle all the sensitive user data they are collecting.
“A bank could say, ‘We’re not going to do business with gun manufacturers,'” said Jeremy Stein, a former member of the Federal Reserve board of governors who currently is an economics professor at Harvard University. “But when it gets into using the information, you’re getting into the same issues Facebook and others had problems with.”
A dividing line, he added, would be whether banks are monitoring transactions for criminality. “If it’s just a policy objective, even if I liked the policy objective, I’d think it’s worrisome,” Mr. Stein added.
Divisions exist within the financial-services industry, which previously has resisted pressure to restrict purchases of controversial products such as tobacco.
“We don’t think it’s a good idea for banks to decide what products and services Americans can buy,” Wells Fargo CEO Timothy Sloan said at the bank’s annual meeting last week. “It should not be up to me, to us, to decide that. It should be up to folks following the laws and folks making decisions.”
Banks have experienced some political blow back as a result of their relationships with gun owners. The American Federation of Teachers announced it would cut ties with Wells Fargo & Co. over the bank’s relationship with the National Rifle Association, as well as with several gun manufacturers.
But not as much as they would receive if they went ahead with the plan to flag all gun buys. With nearly half of Americans admitting to owning guns, we imagine most customers wouldn’t take too kindly to their shopping habits being recorded and sent to the government.
CBS News is reporting that the Chicago suburb of Deerfield, Ill., voted Monday to “ban the possession, sale, and manufacture of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to ‘increase the public’s sense of safety.’”
The ordinance adopted Monday states that the possession, manufacture, and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield “is not reasonably necessary to protect an individual’s right of self-defense or the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”
Further, CBS News reports that citizens “refusing to give up their banned firearm will be fined $1,000 a day until the weapon is handed over or removed from the town’s limits.”
Christina Capatides reports:
So, beginning June 13, banned assault weapons in Deerfield will include semiautomatic rifles with a fixed magazine and a capacity to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, shotguns with revolving cylinders, and conversion kits from which assault weapons can be assembled. And those are just a few of the firearm varieties banned. The list is long and includes all the following models or duplicates thereof: AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR, AR-10, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, Olympic Arms PCR, AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle, Dragunov SVU, Fabrique NationalFN/FAL, FN/LAR, FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle, SAR-8, Sturm, Ruger Mini-14, and more.
Yes, they did remember to include the infamous AR-15 among their list of “assault weapons.”
So, no one’s talking about taking your guns away, right? You’ll just be fined $1,000 a day until you hand your legally purchased AR-15 over to the authorities.
At least Deerfield will know it clarified that whole confusing “well-regulated militia” thing, interpreting it as a ban on just about any semiautomatic weapon they can name.
In what may be its grandest – if most hollow – virtue signaling gesture to date, BlackRock is planning to strip shares of major gun retailers like Wal-Mart, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Kroger from several “environmental social and governance focused funds” as the world’s largest asset manager races to cash in on the market for ESG products, which have been rapidly growing in popularity.
Effectively BlackRock is offering is offering gun-free versions of IWM and AGG. Why? So that even more people will buy its segmented, “socially responsible” products of course and feel good about themselves, while making sure that Larry Fink’s 2018 bonus is an all time high.
Even though Wal-Mart, Dick’s and other retailers raised the age limit for buying assault rifles to 21, among other measures, in the wake of the Valentine’s Day massacre at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., the Wall Street Journal reported that BlackRock will exclude these retailers on the basis that haven’t stopped selling guns altogether. Shortly after the shooting, BlackRock said it would speak with weapons manufacturers to “understand their responses” to the second-deadliest public school shooting in US history.
As Bloomberg further explains, the iShares MSCI USA Small-Cap ESG Optimized ETF, which will start trading on or about April 12, will track investment results of an index that is mostly made up of small-cap U.S. companies. BlackRock also filed an initial registration statement for the iShares ESG US Aggregate Bond ETF. Both ETFs will exclude producers and big retailers of civilian firearms.
While the asset manager is planning to offer a suite of new ESG products, its existing offerings have a total of $2.2 billion AUM – a paltry sum compared with the company’s $6 trillion AUM.
BlackRock plans to strip all gun sellers and retailers including Kroger from its current lineup of seven so-called ESG funds, which have some $2.2 billion in assets. Those products had minimal exposure to such firms.
It is also planning to offer new ETFs and pooled funds to 401(k) retirement savings plans that exclude gun makers and retailers. One of those ETFs will track the performance of a new bond index that is similar to the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index, but excludes issuers that make 5% or more or $20 million in revenue from gun-related products.
Furthermore, while BlackRock’s leaders would prefer its customers to interpret this as a noble example of corporate activism, there’s at least one ulterior motive that we can see: Publicly-traded weapons makers are struggling in the Trump era amid a slump in gun sales (many assume that Trump will protect their second amendment rights at all costs, and therefore there is no longer the same urgency to stock up on weapons that existed during the Obama era).
And while one might’ve expected the shooting to lead to renewed interest in these stocks (a pattern typically observed during the Obama era), both Sturm Ruger and American Outdoor Brands – the holding company of Smith & Wesson – have struggled in the wake of the Parkland shooting. Meanwhile, Remington, America’s second-largest gunmaker, recently filed for bankruptcy.
And when it comes to gun retailers – even giant companies like Walmart – Trump’s risking of a “tit-for-tat” trade war with China could damage the sector more broadly, as retailers are forced to hike prices to account for new tariffs.
And so it appears that once again a Wall Street giant is cynically couching its marketing in the guise of social justice. Sound familiar?
Source: tomfernandez28’s Blog
On February 14, 2018, a mass shooting occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Seventeen people were killed and seventeen more were wounded, making it one of the world’s deadliest school massacres. […] Seventeen people were killed and seventeen more were wounded.
Here are the names of the 17 individuals who were killed on February 14, 2018, in Parkland Florida:
Tributes.com is the online source for current local and national obituary news and a supportive community where friends and family can come together during times of loss and grieving to honor the memories of their loved ones with lasting personal tributes.
According to Florida Obituaries:
Here’s a screenshot of the Florida Obituaries page, showing the date (4/3/2018) and time (8:06 AM)when I took the screenshot (click image to enlarge):
Notice the box on the webpage and in the screenshot that allows you to search for a particular name?
I did just that, and conducted a search, using the date range of “last 90 days,” for each of the 17 individuals who allegedly was shot to death on February 14, 2018, in Parkland, Florida. In each case, I got the same result:
No results were found using your search criteria, so we increased the date range to ‘2000 to present’ and removed the city.
I repeated the search for all 17 names, this time changing the date range from “last 90 days” to “Date of Death: All”. In each case, I got the same result:
No results were found using your search criteria
There is a Martin Guillermo Duque who died in Miami, Florida, but he was 76 years old and the date of death was July 30, 2013.
H/t Tony Mead
We have the drill (dead giveaway)
We have an “evacuation” under fire (very stupid)
We have the video of people milling around behind the cop cars, in the line of fire, while the cops crouch behind the car doors. WTF?
We have the testimony. Obviously the alleged shooter is not going to be walking in the hall talking to the girl.
We have the “troubled youth” meme. (stand by for more Maoist mental health).
We have the AR-15 meme. “Limitless magazines”? What does that mean?
We have the pre-dated announcements (now standard for some reason)
There is already much more without belaboring the point. What these things prove is that they can control the media and lock down real information. I wonder if anyone has tried looking into wounded and killed yet?
Notice the flag in the background… this is Israel 2017…
Where teachers and other citizenry carry AR-15’s.
Where it’s mandatory that young people serve in the military and they are armed 24/7.
Where they eat right and don’t over medicate.
Where the murder rate for the whole country is a fraction of what it is in Nashville Tennessee.
Where parents teach respect and values instead of letting Disney and X-Box raise their children.
Where they Stand For Their Flag and would Defend It With Their Lives!!
WAKE UP AMERICA . . . WE DON’T HAVE A GUN PROBLEM . . . WE HAVE A SOCIETY PROBLEM!
Following the February 14th mass shooting at the Stoneman Douglas School in Parkland, Florida, a newly impassioned debate has erupted, as follows every mass shooting in the US, about how to prevent such events from reoccurring.
One side focuses on easy civilian access to military-style guns, such as the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The other focuses on the individuals who perpetrate these acts, in particular their mental health.
We wanted to contribute to the conversation by analyzing the gun manufacturers, to understand: how many such guns are being produced, how much revenue and profit is generated from their sale.
We found there are currently at least 23 different models of AR-15 available for civilian purchase in the US, from 18 different manufacturers. Of these, 15 are private companies, while 3 are publicly-traded. We found no clear correlation between mass shootings and changes in the gun manufacturers’ share price. Two of the three companies have diversified into outdoor products, and changed their corporate names to deemphasize their firearm brands.
In the most deadly 12 mass shootings in the US in the past decade, a total of 270 people were killed. In 8 of these shootings, an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle was used.
The most commonly used AR-15 was the Smith & Wesson M&P15, manufactured by American Outdoor Brands Corporation, used in 3 of the shootings. The next most commonly used AR-15 was the Bushmaster XM-15, manufactured by Remington Outdoor Company used in 2 of the shootings.
We examined financial filings of the public gun manufacturers to understand how many such rifles are produced and how much money is generated from their sale.
Public Firearms Manufacturers – Key Data
The table shows that all 3 of the public gun manufacturers have a stock market value less than $1 Billion, and all three have experienced declining stock market value, sales and profits during the past year.
Since the launch of the March for our Lives movement, it will be interesting to see if demand for firearms increases, stoked by fears among gun enthusiasts that stricter regulation may be ahead.
The largest US gun manufacturers
Previously named Smith & Wesson Holding Corp, the company rebranded as American Outdoor Brands in 2017.
American Outdoor Brands Corporation, Net Sales, 2015-17 ($ millions)
AOBC’s Long Guns revenue doubled from 2015 to 2017. In 2017, AOBC shipped 420,000 Long guns, of which 93% were to Consumers and 7% to the Professional channel such as law enforcement. From these figures, we calculated that AOBC generated an average of $428 per long gun shipped. The company employed 2,204 people as of May 2017, an increase of 19% from May 2016.
Vista Outdoor was incorporated in 2014 as a combination of Alliant Techsystems and other brands and businesses, which were combined into two business lines — Shooting Sports and Outdoor Products.
Vista Outdoors, Net Sales, 2015-17 ($ millions)
In Outdoor Products, Vista has 35 brands including Camelbak, Serengeti, Bollé and Eagle. In Shooting Sports, it has 12 brands including Savage Arms, which makes the MSR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Approximately 54% of its 2017 sales were in Firearms.
Sturm Ruger was founded in 1949 and manufactures rifles, pistols, revolvers, accessories and castings, including the SR-556 semi-automatic rifle. Unlike AOBC and Vista who have diversified into Outdoor Products, Ruger is a pure-play firearms manufacturer.
The company had 1,838 employees as at December 2017, a reduction of 13% from the previous year.
While not public, Remington publishes financial filings because it has publicly issued debt. Remington was founded in 1816 and manufacturers Modern Sport Rifles under the Remington, Bushmaster and DPMS brands, as well as Ammunition, and Outdoor Products.
Remington; Net Sales, 2014-16 ($ millions)
On March 25th, 2018, Remington filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, allowing it to restructure its $700 million debt while continuing its operations. Its owner Cerberus Capital Management reportedly plans to cease ownership of the company following the restructuring. As at March 30, 2017, Remington had approximately 3,500 employees, and is headquartered in Madison, North Carolina.
Shareholders in the leading gun manufacturers
This table aggregates the largest 5 shareholders in each of the 3 public gun manufacturers.
From this we see, there is a very high concentration of ownership in a small number of shareholders. For example, the top 5 shareholders in Vista Outdoors own 53% of the company. In Ruger, the top 5 hold 47%, and in AOBC the Top 5 hold over one third of the company. Across all 3, BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, holds 13% of the combined shares of these 3 companies, while Vanguard holds 9%, and Fidelity 7%. The 10 shareholders above hold 45% of the entire sector.
Share Price Movements Following Mass Shootings
We looked to see if there was any discernible pattern in gun manufacturer share price following the 12 most deadly mass shooting incidents of the past decade. We compared each company’s share price 1 day prior to the mass shooting to its share price 5 trading days after.
Across the periods, the median 5 day share price change was +6% for AOBC, +3% for Ruger and -1% for Vista. In total, 19 of the movements were positive and 11 were negative, roughly a 2:1 ratio of positive share price movements to negative. One possible theory is that high profile shootings spur consumer demand for guns, due to fears that the events may lead to stricter gun controls, and increased future demand then results in higher share prices.
The gun manufacturers’ view
Following the Stoneman Douglas shooting, the largest shareholder in American Outdoor Brands Corporation, BlackRock, sent written questions asking about AOBC’s response to the shooting, in which one of AOBC firearms, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 was used.
AOBC published a response reaffirming its role in preserving the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and emphasizing that it is a fully law-abiding organization, which obeys each of the hundreds of regulations that apply to it at the Federal, State and Local levels. AOBC wrote:
“While the vast majority of our products are used lawfully, we are aware that sometimes people engage in horrible, criminal acts with our products. However, calls for us to monitor the illegal use of our firearms are misguided, since doing so would be ineffective in preventing such misuse. In addition, such monitoring by us is not realistic or feasible. As a practical matter, it is no more realistic or feasible for us to monitor whether our legal firearms are used in criminal ways, than it is for a car manufacturer to monitor how often a drunken driver causes a tragic accident with one of their vehicles, or for a mobile phone company to monitor whether its mobile devices are used in terrorist activities.”
“We firmly believe that the best way to stop the criminal use of firearms and the violence associated with it, is to enforce the laws that already exist, and to focus stronger efforts on prosecuting those who break them.”
The vision of firearm manufacturers focuses on the fully legal use of their products for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense. When it comes to criminal usage, the manufacturers believe deeply that they are not responsible.
Following the Stoneman Douglas massacre, the March for our Lives movement has renewed calls for two laws in particular: to ban weapons designated “assault weapons” including AR-15 style rifles, and large capacity magazines. While media attention has focused most heavily on the NRA on one hand and gun control advocates on the other, we hope it has been helpful to examine the commercial organizations relevant to the debate, namely the companies that manufacture these firearms.
In an interview with NRATV’s Colion Noir, Killer Mike explained how the left equates gun control with progress and observed, “[They are] going to progress us into slavery.”
In the lead-up to the March 14 school walk out for gun control, Killer Mike said he told his kids, “I love you, but if you walk out that school walk out my house.”
“You can’t continue to be the lackey,” the Atlanta-based rapper and business owner said. “You’re a lackey of the progressive movement because you have never disagreed with the people who tell y
Noir pointed out how celebrities like George Clooney and Steven Spielberg pledged $500,000 to Saturday’s gun control march.
“Celebrities often don’t know what to do. They’re told what to do,” Killer Mike said, explaining how a famous rapper, who’s a friend of his, felt pressured into doing an anti-gun promo. Killer Mike told his friend that he’s very pro-Second Amendment” and that it is about the children for him — after a shooting on his daughter’s college campus (Savannah State University); “I talked to my wife and daughter after that, the decision was we’re going to go to Savannah, she’s going to get a gun and train more.”
“We’re raising a generation of kids where everyone gets’ a trophy. But in real life, everyone doesn’t get a trophy,” Killer Mike said. “In real life, the cops don’t come on time.
He observed that defending the Second Amendment is an issue where a division arises between people who might otherwise be political allies, saying, “We are a gun owning family. We are a family where my sister farms. We are a family where we will fish, we will hunt, but we are not a family that jumps on every single thing an ally of ours does because there are some things we just don’t agree with.”
On June 18, 2015, Breitbart News reported that Killer Mike reacted to a heinous shooting of nine innocents at Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church by saying, “What happened in Charleston is an act of terror committed by a terrorist. Simple & plain. I wish those folks in that church had been armed.”
When some fans reacted adversely, Killer Mike followed up his comments by talking about the number of citizens who attend NRA meetings while armed. He said, “I know no one attacks NRA meetings. Wonder why?”
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at email@example.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
Just like Hitler Youth enthusiasts, these fascists-in-training are told they’re “saving lives” for “a better future,” and that the only thing standing in their way is a bunch of violent gun owners who want to murder every baby in sight. (The irony of all these left-wingers actually condoning the abortion murder of babies, of course, is completely missed in all this.)
What none of these children are being told, of course, is that Hitler took away gun rights from the Jews before exterminating six million of them in the Holocaust. It’s so much easier to commit genocide, Hitler discovered, when the people you’re tying to murder can’t fight back. Echoing the madness of the Third Reich, the propagandist-in-chief of today’s lunatic Left anti-gun movement is David Hogg, a profanity-laced, foulmouthed student who is seething with anger and seems forever on the verge of outright calling for all gun owners to be exterminated by the government.
In a recent interview, shown below, foul-mouthed Hogg, a student at the Parkland school shooting in Florida, says that gun owners and the NRA are “pathetic f##kers who want to keep killing our children” and adds, “They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see those dollar signs.”
David Hogg’s profanity-laced rant was so obnoxious, arrogant and deranged that YouTube systematically censored all the profanity-laced David Hogg videos in order to protect his public image. (Yes, YouTube is now running interference for David Hogg, making sure his public image is squeaky clean while he ravages gun owners with the most deranged, foul-mouth language imaginable.)
Hogg, who has arisen as the chief propagandist in the left-wing fascist “Hitler Youth” army, is completely opposed to adding security to public schools, even though a recent school shooting was stopped in 60 seconds by an armed security resource officer. It seems like Hogg might actually wants more children to be murdered so that he can get more air time on CNN to push his radical, fascist-like Third Reich call for disarming all the people he personally hates (and wants to destroy).
Don’t forget that David Hogg was featured in a photo tweet by his sister, Lauren Hogg, promoting new Nazi-like armbands to demand gun confiscation from the American people. “David Hogg And His Sister Create Nazi-Like Armbands To Promote Gun Control,” reports Squawker.org:
Lauren Hogg, the younger sister of David Hogg and surprisingly not verified on Twitter, has created special armbands for gun control advocates to wear to school, the March For Our Lives demonstration, and anywhere else you think you can wear it and not get embarrassed. The band, of course, is to be worn on your arm, and the symbol in the middle resembles a peace sign. But does it really?
If the Hogg armband for gun control looks familiar, it should:
And here’s a photo of David Hogg sporting his “peace symbol” Nazi-like armband while demanding gun control:
Many people don’t remember this, but the Nazi symbol (swastika) also began as a peace symbol, but was of course twisted by Adolf Hitler into a symbol of tyranny and genocide. Many of today’s anti-gun Leftists are openly promoting a rainbow variation of the Swastika as a “symbol of peace:”
In today’s rally, David Hogg became a full-fledged propaganda politician-in-training, reading from an obviously scripted speech, full of flowery words and high ideals that covered over his real goal: The complete disarmament of all law-abiding Americans.
Hogg is actually calling for a “revolution” against gun owners, reports ABC News.
What kind of revolution? A violent revolution, of course. “Hogg ended his his speech with the black power salute,” reports The Gateway Pundit.
It’s extraordinary that David Hogg not only uses the same sort of vile, hate-filled rhetoric of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, but Hogg actually physically resembles Joseph Goebbels as the following photo reveals:
That’s Hitler’s top propagandist on the left, and David Hogg on the right. Both of these figures were heralded by state-run media; both invoke dangerous language of hatred, violence and profanity; and both demand that We the People give up our liberties so that the fascist tyrants can have absolute power and control over everything. They also both claim this is necessary “for the public good” and to “keep the children safe.”
It’s not difficult to see David Hogg replacing the Nazi soldier in this photo, holding the gun and firing a bullet into the head of a conservative Trump supporter while screaming, “IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!”
Once you give up your guns, of course, that’s when tyrannical regimes start cranking up the ovens and waging mass arrests of enemies of the state. Hogg, of course, is too young and ignorant to realize any of this, but he is proclaimed to have almost saint-like status by the anti-gun left-wing media, which despises individual liberties, truth, logic and reason. The very fact that their No. 1 spokesperson for gun control is an 18-year-old angry fascist-in-training tells you just how weak their position really is. (Seriously, this lunatic is the best they can drum up?)
Nobody seems to have told David Hogg that his outrageous rantings and foul-mouthed attacks on gun owners line up almost perfectly with Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and all the other gun control tyrants that have committed genocide and mass murder throughout history:
If you look at the people in history who supported gun rights for individuals, you find a fascinating cross-section of humanitarians and freedom-loving world leaders who changed the world for the better. They include Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi (yes, he supported self-defense) and even Martin Luther King, Jr., as gun rights helped black men arm themselves against racist violence that often targeted them.
The tyrants who supported gun control — like David Hogg — include Kim Jong Il, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama. All these people sought to strip away individual liberties and enslave their citizens under government control. Taking away their guns was, of course, the first step toward accomplishing that.
It’s important to note that in every single case of tyrannical governments demanding gun confiscation and the mass disarmament of the citizens, the justification given was “public safety.” Once the guns were stripped away, the genocide soon followed.
Apparently, they don’t teach history in public schools anymore. Or perhaps David Hogg received an “F” in history class. Either way, people like Hogg are malicious, dangerous crybullies who have been witnessed throughout history pushing aggressive rhetoric in a run-up to mass genocide and mass murder at the hands of government. Even today, Hogg essentially demands that government use guns to take away firearms from all Americans, thus proving that he’s actually “pro gun violence” as long as that threat of violence is monopolized by the government itself. (Hint: All the “anti-gun” politicians protect themselves with armed security personnel, proving they are pro-gun as long as they control the guns.)
This is the mindset of all totalitarian mass murderers, and David Hogg appears to be unwittingly marching down that same path, in lockstep with the tyrants of world history who ended up with blood on their hands, murdering over 262 million innocent people in just the last century or so. As this “Democide” chart shows, governments murdered over 262 million people in the 20th century, and nearly all these murders were preceded by the exact kind of gun control now being demanded by David Hogg and his cohorts:
Anyone who supports government mass murder should support David Hogg, because that’s precisely where his rhetoric often leads.
Watch my mini-documentary to learn why gun control leads to genocide:
For all those individuals who claimed door-to-door gun confiscation wouldn’t happen? Well, it just did… in Florida. The report came out on 3/16/18, entitled It Begins: Florida Resident’s Firearms, Ammunition Confiscated Under Gun Control Law.
Yes, here it is: Here it starts.
Apparently, the individual is a 56-year-old man who has not committed a crime: he just falls into a category of people that could “pose a harm to the public good.” Here’s an excerpt:
The Orlando Sentinel reports that “four firearms and 267 rounds of ammunition” were taken from the man, and he was “taken to a hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment.”
The seized firearms were listed as “a Ruger LCP .380 pistol, an M2 Mauser .45 pistol, a Charter Arms .357 mag snub nose revolver and a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun.”
The paper notes that “the civil ruling removing his access to guns and ammunition was granted under … new legislation — which permits confiscating guns from people who have not been committed but are deemed a potential risk to themselves or others, according to the order signed by Broward’s Chief Judge Jack Tuter.
What’s even worse is that they have incorporated wonderful elements of Communism, namely stoolpigeons and snitches within the family or by order of a judge. Yes, Communism is that system that many deny, along with Marxism, that concentrated on removing undesirables and nonconformists by sending them to psychiatric wards until they displayed “correct thinking.”
For those who are not aware: Communism is the end-state, resulting in the death of all the undesirables and the enslavement of the masses. For “primers” on Communism, read George Orwell’s “1984,” and J. Edgar Hoover’s “Masters of Deceit.” Yes, Communism is alive, well, real, and waiting…in the guise of labels such as “the Progressive Movement” and “Social Justice,” clarion calls for armies of fools and illiterates who wish to change the world to be utilized in the call.
Utilized, and then liquidated after their usefulness expires: History has shown it again and again, with the “showcase era” being the entire 20th century.
Here is an excerpt that illustrates how the Communists work…turning family members against one another, using the “gendarmes” of the police force outside of their normal role, and bypassing due process of law with the use of judges:
The confiscatory order also bars the man from making new firearm or ammunition purchases. On March 9, Breitbart News reported that Gov. Scott signed a $400 million gun bill that includes orders which allows a family member or law enforcement to petition a judge to order the seizure of an individual’s firearms. The bill also put waiting periods in place for long gun purchases, raised the minimum purchase age for long gun purchases (from 18 to 21), and banned bump stocks.
Neat term, huh? Confiscatory order. Right up there with “Eminent Domain,” and “Annexation.” Chef DeJure: “Stroke of the pen…law of the land.”
Instead of denouncing the order and upholding the Constitution, the judge, addressed as “Your Honor” but without any… is now selectively interpreting the law and bypassing the 2nd and 4th Amendments to the Constitution in one fell swoop. All of this has been initiated by a pseudo-Republican governor’s stroke of the pen… entrée de jure, courtesy of Rick Scott.
Illinois is passing a legislative ban and the mandatory turn-in of “prohibited” firearms by 18-20-year-olds. Other states are following. What is not accomplished by the federal government is being accomplished by the states. They’re using the youth and the pressure of the media and social media to mold the public into compliance. What they cannot engender in that department they’ll close with de jure legislation.
The problem with laws? Once they’re in place, they’re able to be enforced by men with badges and guns… forcing you to comply. By the time the law is scrutinized by the courts, it is too late. That court scrutiny is not a guarantee that things will be set straight: it’s most likely they will not be. They win by passing their laws, and you are a “subject.” You become the victim of the tyranny of the majority, and the “Your Honors” who are paid politicians and puppets, selectively interpreting, bypassing, and violating Constitutional law.
They are coming for the guns. Each new “venture” elicits a new response, an incremental shift of the paradigm, as they craft their socialist society. They must have the guns, and they will be coming d