Beto Exposes Democrat Party Confiscation Plan And The Party Is Pissed!
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.”
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:
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.
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.
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.”
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.)