Category Archives: gun control

Communist South Africa Orders Confiscation of 300K Guns

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.

Source: by José Niño | Gunpowder Magazine

***

Genocide Is Coming to South Africa as Communism, Racial Hate Grows

Genocide is coming to South Africa, the most productive country in Africa. Farm attacks on whites are a daily occurrence. The South African government is growing more and more radical.
The nation will soon be worse than Zimbabwe.

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.

Advertisements

Former Gun Control Congressional Candidate Arrested for Allegedly Shooting PAC Manager

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/08/Kellie-Collins-McDuffie-County-Sheriffs-Office-640x480.jpg

A 2017 Congressional candidate who ran on a gun control platform in Georgia was arrested last week and charged with shooting the former manager of her political action committee, according to police.

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.”

Source: by AWR Hawkins | Breitbart

CA Bullet-Microstamp Law Upheld By 9th Circuit, Even Though Technology Doesn’t Exist For Implementation

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. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/struck%20primer.jpg?itok=JJOD2oN4

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

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Roster_Breakdown.png?itok=kms4Yy_7https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Available_-_Area.png?itok=2qxm51jZ

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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Available_-_Columns.png?itok=Q3OQfuAl

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:

Source: ZeroHedge

It’s Happening!! Confiscation and Door to Door Compliance Checks Across California

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).

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/screen-shot-2015-12-07-at-9-28-09-am.png?w=500

https://reclaimourrepublic.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/gun-control-why.jpg?w=640

https://reclaimourrepublic.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/gun-troops-orders.jpg?w=640

***

Order Followers In The Police And Military Are Members Of A Global Cult That Is Destroying Human Freedom


All order followers are bad people.

All order followers are cowards.

 

Florida Launches Gun Confiscation Program, 467 Forced To Surrender Guns Thus Far

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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/gun-confiscation-600x360.jpg?itok=vZyCk1fF

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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Seargant-2_1532725006680.jpg_93577732_ver1.0_640_480.jpg?itok=3ocb1N7gSgt. Jason Schmittendorf of Pinellas Counties Risk Protection Order Unit speaks with ABC reporter Katie LaGrone (Source/ ABC) 

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Guns2_1532725006802_93577734_ver1.0_640_480.jpg?itok=mYYScEOVHere 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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Sheriff_1532725010871_93577739_ver1.0_640_480.jpg?itok=KIKaIEuhPinellas 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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Attorney_1532725010901_93577740_ver1.0_640_480.jpg?itok=GQOO5oFVKendra 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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-10.27.07-AM.png?itok=m2ySBkiR

Source: ZeroHedge

Ninth Circuit Rules Open Carrying Firearm in Public Is Constitutional

https://i0.wp.com/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Open-carry-courtesy-ammoland.com_.jpg

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.

Source: by ARW Hawkins | Breitbart

Ninth Circuit Panel Upholds Ruling Against California ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Ban

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/10/wi/ap/04/23m3ce7-640x419.jpg

A three-judge panel from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a June 29, 2017, ruling a against California’s “high capacity” magazine ban.

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. 

Source: By AWR Hawkins | Breitbart