Category Archives: gun control

Missouri Bills Take on Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future

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

  • taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect on firearms ownership;
  • registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
  • any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
  • any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

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.

EFFECTIVE

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.

LEGAL BASIS

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”

WHAT’S NEXT

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.

Source: by Mike Harrarey | Tenth Amendment Center

Advertisements

The Real Resistance: Washington State Sheriffs Refuse To Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws

Washington state recently introduced bills for some of the strictest gun laws in the country but they have some very important opponents: the sheriffs.

https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/sheriff_0.jpg?itok=VYZTJ_la

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.

What are those new gun laws in Washington?

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.

Washington is a reflection of the rest of the US.

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.

Some Washington law enforcement officers are refusing to enforce these laws.

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.

This isn’t the first time that sheriffs have stood up against unreasonable 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.”

The power of county sheriffs was upheld in the Supreme Court.

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.

County sheriffs are the last legal line of defense.

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.

How many of New Jersey’s 1 million or so gun owners have complied with the ban by turning LCMs in to law enforcement agencies? Approximately zero… (source)

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.

Source: ZeroHedge

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

President Bolsonaro Decrees Expanded Gun Ownership Access For Brazilians

https://i1.wp.com/aldianews.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_image/public/articles/15023373w.jpg

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.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/b1.jpg

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.

Source: by EFE | Al Dia International

 

Dick’s Sporting Goods Facing Store Closures – Anti-2A Stance Backfires

https://cdn.newspunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/dicks-678x371.jpg

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.

Source: New World Order Report

WATCH: Illegal Alien Opens Fire On Police During Traffic Stop, Report Says

https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2018/11/illegal_alien.jpg?itok=_uv07VzO

(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.”

WATCH:

Source: New World Order Report

Site of Thousand Oaks Mass Shooting Is A Gun-Free Zone

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/06/Gun-free-zone-dirty-Illinois-Joel-Pollak-Breitbart-News-640x480.jpg

The site of the Thousand Oaks, California, mass shooting was a state-mandated gun-free zone.

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.

image

Source: by AWR Hawkins | Breitbart