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.
“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.
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.”
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?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 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.”
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.
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.”
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.
Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch demonstrates how to clear a malfunction from virtually any modern auto pistol.
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?
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:
You wouldn’t think your kids could get suspended from school just because you exercised your constitutionally guaranteed rights off campus, but this is apparently what happened to one New Jersey family. It’s not that the school district jumped the gun, either — rather, the punitive action was prescribed by official policy. As Fox News reported Sunday:
A New Jersey high school came under fire Friday after it allegedly suspended two students over a gun photo taken during a family visit to a shooting range.
News of the unnamed students’ suspension circulated through a Lacey Township Facebook group, according to NJ.com.
Amanda Buron, a Lacey resident and family friend of one of the suspended students said one of the photos shared on SnapChat featured four rifles, magazines, and a gun duffel with the caption “fun day at the range,” NJ.com reported.
Buron said the two students received a five-day in-school suspension after the picture drew the attention of Lacey Township High School officials, who argued that it violated the school’s policy on weapons possession.
The school district shortly faced community backlash for the alleged suspension, with many calling for people to appear at the school board’s next meeting on Monday to protest the decision.
Unsurprisingly, district officials hid under their desks when asked for comment. As NJ.com reported, “Lacey schools Superintendent Craig Wigley said in an email to NJ Advance Media on Thursday that ‘information posted on social media is incorrect’,” but “declined to say what aspect of the accounts posted on social media is inaccurate.” He also claimed that he couldn’t discuss student-related “private matters.” This is a typical educator dodge.
What the district couldn’t dodge was the reality of an overreaching policy, which actually stated that “students could be suspended for up to a year if they are ‘reported to be in possession of a weapon of any type for any reason or purpose on or off school grounds,’” NJ.com further related.
This inspired pro-Second Amendment groups to threaten a lawsuit, as educators have no legitimate power to ban students from exercising constitutionally protected rights anywhere and everywhere and at all times — even off school grounds. It’s as if a government school prohibited students from expressing certain political viewpoints off campus; it would be the government suppression of free speech.
As the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs’ (ANJRPC’) executive director Scott Bach put it, after sending a cease and desist letter to the district, “Schools do not have the authority to chill the rights of their students off of school grounds, and this blatant infringement of constitutional rights will not be tolerated…. The policy has got to go,” NJ.com also informed.
And it did go.
NJ.com reported today that the “Lacey school district quietly changed” the policy, scrapping the off-school-grounds prohibition and eliminating suspension-length specificity. “‘Students are forbidden to carry any type of weapon or simulated weapon to school,’ the revamped policy states. ‘Strict disciplinary action and legal actions will result if this occurs,’” the news organ detailed.
While this change is welcome, the whole affair reflects the paranoia and irrationality surrounding the gun issue, a larger matter not remedied by one policy alteration. Just consider other Lacey district actions. For example, father Ed Cardinal related what happened to his son, a Lacey Township High School student who drives a pickup to campus: The teen was forced to remove from the truck a sticker depicting a gun — under threat of punishment.
Moreover, NJ.com reported Friday that “Cardinal also criticized school officials for a policy that allows them to punish a student for having anything they consider a weapon — even a dinner fork — as the Lacey resident noted.”
This anti-gun mentality typifies today’s government schools, yet it’s a departure from American tradition and reflects a disturbing pattern. It would shock many to know that boys in the 1940s and ‘50s would sometimes take rifles on N.Y.C.’s subways to school, as they had target shooting practice at the academic day’s end. Yet school shootings weren’t a problem.
This was a thing of the past by the time I attended N.Y.C.’s schools (in the Bronx) in the ‘70s. Nonetheless, we’d still sometimes take realistic-looking toy guns to school and no one batted an eye; this was simply what little boys did. Note, none of us ever pointed one at a policeman and got himself shot.
Now it’s degenerated to a point where students nationwide may not even have a “simulated weapon” in school. What does this say about our culture?
If you make people afraid of guns.
The next generation will get rid of them.
That, is the physiological brainwashing that is taking place.
Which will make it possible to enslave them.
This is going on world wide.
They control nearly all information.
They control nearly the whole government.
They can raise up whom they want, and destroy whom they want.
We are all being lead by misinformation.
Few see this matrix, most do not.
They control the school system, from kindergarten through Elite colleges.
The next generation is being groomed for “group think”.
The State has become God.
Nations are being inundated with new immigrants to overthrow their respective citizens.
All the while your children are taught that their should be no sovereignty, no borders.
We are being lead, instructed, groomed, into being a docile, obedient slave to the State.
It’s called, How to enslave the World.
The New World Order.
Demonstrators raise their fists in the air during a student-led march against gun violence at the Civic Center Plaza Wednesday, March 14, 2018, in San Francisco (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
Unfortunately, not all incidents involving pro-Second Amendment students have ended so well.
Another high school student, 17-year-old Christian Breault, a senior at Middleburgh Junior/Senior High School, in Middleburgh, N.Y., found himself physically attacked for standing up for the Second Amendment when his school participated in the nationwide walkout on March 14. After the school participated in the walkout, an assembly was held in the school, featuring local law enforcement and community leaders to talk to the students about school safety. Instead of safety, the assembly turned political, tensions rose, and Christian found himself targeted for defending the Second Amendment. His father, Brian Breault, spoke out about the incident on Facebook:
Today the school my son, Christian, attends participated in the National School Walkout for Gun Control and School Safety. The school held an assembly after the walkout bringing in community leaders and law enforcement to speak. Toward the end of the assembly they showed an Anti-NRA video vilifying the gun organization and its members (American citizens).
Following the dismissal of the assembly Christian engaged in a conversation with other students who felt the assembly was not handled well. Christian expressed he felt the Anti-NRA video was over the top and he found it offensive. Another student not involved in the conversation threatened him for his view on the video going as far as telling the school nurse that he would punch Christian in the face if he didn’t stop defending the NRA. The nurse told the student he could not say that and no further action was taken.
The incident did not end there. Later that afternoon, Christian was assaulted by the other student while he was leaving class. Christian was punched twice in the side of the head before defending himself. The teen’s father told PJ Media, “Christian defended himself, punching the kid in the jaw, causing him to fall to the floor. The kid got up and threw an object at Christian, which he deflected.” The student was suspended for three days, and Christian for a day, just for defending himself. When Mr. Breault asked why the nurse failed to report the threat of violence against his son, no explanation was given except that “they would look into it.”
Mr. Breault spoke with the principal about the incident. The principal “was very combative and condescending to my concerns of the breakdown in keeping Christian safe,” Breault said.
The video shown during the assembly was CNN’s “We Call B.S.” and features Stoneman Douglas High School senior and shooting witness Emma Gonzales giving an angry political speech attacking the NRA and members of Congress. No alternative perspectives were shown. The presentation of the video was approved by the principal. Breault, a member of the NRA, believes the video incited the violence directed against his son, and faults the school for failing to address the threat made against him that was witnessed by the school nurse.
Brian Dunn, the superintendent of the school district, later apologized for the presentation of the video:
Dear Middleburgh Central Schools community,
On Wednesday, March 14th, the Jr./Sr. High School held a school safety assembly for students. The purpose of the assembly was to give administrators and law enforcement the chance to speak with students regarding how the district handles school safety and answer any questions students may have had. During the assembly, a video was shown that changed the focus of the conversation from school safety to politics. This was not our desired outcome for the event, and we regret and sincerely apologize for that result.
Conversations are happening across America about how we can keep students safe in school. No matter where you stand on this issue, we can all agree that student safety should be our top priority.
Brian Breault told PJM he believes this incident could have been prevented—especially in the wake of the Parkland school shooting. “The warning signs were so blatant with the shooter, Nicholas Cruz, that the shooting could have been prevented,” he said. Breault believes the warning signs that the student who assaulted his son was also violent were obvious as well. “This kid comes from a troubled home and has been disciplined by the school in the past. Then a faculty member is aware that he’s made a threat, and completely drops the ball. We can’t allow our schools to take threats lightly anymore. Threats need to be taken seriously and warnings need to be recognized and addressed,” he said. After the student threatened his son, he was only told by the school nurse that he “can’t say things like that.”
It’s troubling that students aren’t being taught to respect the views of others who disagree with them and instead are resorting to violence to silence them. “I don’t understand how you can protest one form of violence with another form of violence,” says Breault.
And the worst part is that Christian, a deferred entry Naval recruit, was suspended for defending himself. Christian also spoke with PJM about the incident. “I personally feel my suspension shows the failure in our society and schools. My constitutional rights were violated by this student, and I defended my rights and myself from him,” he said. The school’s response to Christian defending himself from being physically attacked could have severe consequences for his future. “This goes on my permanent record, which can hurt my career in the Navy when I go for promotions and my investigation for my Top Secret Security Clearance,” he explained. Christian believes this sends a bad message to young people. “It teaches our young that they cannot defend themselves without being punished.”
At publishing time, Christian’s suspension for defending himself still stands and will be on his permanent record.
The Massachusetts puke charged with sending a threatening letter filled with white powder to Donald Trump Jr. that sent his wife to the hospital is an anti-2A commie bastard gun control advocate who has supported numerous anti-Trump political causes.
24-year-old Daniel Frisiello was arrested after a federal investigation traced the unsigned letters to him as a result of Frisiello also ordering a “glitter bomb” for one of the intended recipients using his own name.
“You are an awful, awful person. I am surprised that your father lets you speak on TV,” Frisiello wrote in the letter addressed to Trump Jr.
It also said: “You the family idiot. Eric looks smart. This is the reason why people hate you. You are getting what you deserve. So shut the f*** up.”
A cursory scan of Frisiello’s Facebook page confirms him to be a pro-communist gun control advocate who has endorsed and supported numerous anti-Trump political causes and campaigns.
Numerous posts over the last two weeks by Frisiello expressed support for the Parkland students who have been given platforms by the mainstream media to advocate for Second Amendment restrictions.
“Oh how karmas a bitch!” wrote Frisiello in response to companies ending their relationship with the NRA over the Parkland shooting. He also donated to the anti-gun March For Life which is set to take place later this month.
“Oh how I laughed! Karmas a bitch when you get money from the NRA!” wrote Frisiello in response to Senator Marco Rubio being confronted during last week’s CNN town hall.
Frisiello’s “likes” include numerous anti-Trump campaigns as well as pages such as “CNN Heroes,” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough and CONgressman Adam Schiff.
Frisiello also posted an image of a sign that reads, “Trump For Prison 2017.”
Oh, the irony.
Frisiello is charged with mailing threat to injure, false information and hoaxes.
President Trump told a group of lawmakers that they must do something to keep guns away from mentally ill individuals – even if that means raising the minimum age for rifle ownership to 21, Bloomberg reports.
His remarks appeared to contradict a CNN report from earlier in the week, which quoted anonymous White House aides saying Trump would soon walk back his support for raising the age limit.
But on Wednesday, in what the New York Times characterized as a “shocking” break with his Republican Congressional allies, Trump told lawmakers during a televised meeting in the Cabinet Room that easing gun owners’ ability to carry concealed weapons across state lines, a provision of the House-passed gun bill and the NRA’s top legislative priority, should be part of a separate bill, a strategy favored by Democrats. The House bill combining background check provisions with the loosening of concealed carry rules has stalled in the Senate after passing the House. Instead, Trump said he supports the proposal from Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., which he says is best positioned to pass. Sen. Amy Klobuchar agreed that the Manchin-Toomey bill is a “good place to start.”
“It would be so beautiful to have one bill that everyone could support,” Mr. Trump said as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, sat smiling to his left. “It’s time that a president stepped up.”
Per the Times, Trump repeatedly suggested that the dynamics surrounding the gun control debate had shifted, in part, because of his presence in the Oval Office – a remark that earned him cheers from Democrats.
Trump predicted his plan would pass with broad support, suggesting that he plans to win over a sizable chunk of the Democratic caucus.
Trump told his audience that raising the ownership age is “something you have to think about,” Trump said. He added that “people don’t bring it up” because the NRA opposes the policy. Trump had initially claimed that he would convince the NRA to go along with it.
As the Hill pointed out, he also said he supports confiscating guns from mentally ill individuals, a position vociferously opposed by Republicans.
“I like taking the guns early like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
He also said mentally ill people shouldn’t have guns.
“A lot of people are saying ‘oh you shouldn’t be saying that’,” Trump said. “But I don’t want mentally ill people having guns.”
To be sure, states don’t need to enact the exact same restrictions, Trump said. But “what does have to be the same is the background checks and all of the data.”
Per Reuters, Trump urged lawmakers to pass a comprehensive gun control bill as the national conversation surrounding gun control – a conversation that was triggered by a shooting at Marjory Douglas Tillman High School in Parkland Fla. The shooting left 14 students and 3 faculty dead, and more than a dozen injured.
Rebutting accusations that he is beholden to the NRA, Trump added that gun lovers have less power over him than lawmakers.
Earlier today, Dick’s Sporting Goods said it is “going to take a stand” and announced it would permanently ban sales of the AR-15 – the rifle used by Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz and several other mass shooters – from its stores.
The meeting with lawmakers was his fourth “free-flowing gun policy discussion” since the Valentine’s Day massacre in Florida, according to Reuters.
“We’re going to come up with some ideas,” Trump said.
“Hopefully we can put those ideas in a very bipartisan bill. It would be so beautiful to have one bill that everybody can support, as opposed to – you know – 15 bills, everybody’s got their own bill.”
Seven senators and representatives were invited to Wednesday’s session. The group included Democrats and Republicans who, according to Reuters, have diverse views on gun control.
Republican Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who have proposed legislation to fix holes in the background check system for gun buyers, and their Democratic co-sponsors.
Trump also said he back Cornyn’s bill while urging senators to add more items to the bill to make it more comprehensive.
* * *
The corporate statement was sent in response to the teen-aged gun control activists after the Parkland high school shooting.
“Our thoughts and prayers are with all of the victims and their loved ones. But thoughts and prayers are not enough,” the statement read.
The popular sporting goods retailer said they will no longer sell firearms to anyone under 21 years of age, and will no longer sell “assault-style” weapons in their stores and their Field & Stream stores. They also banned sales of “high capacity magazines.”
They admitted in their statement to selling a shotgun to the Flordia shooter in Parkland.
“It was not the gun, nor type of gun, he used in the shooting,” the statement read. “But it could have been.”
The corporate statement also urged elected officials to follow their lead for “common sense gun reform” arguing that if “even one life is saved, it will have been worth it.”
We implore our elected officials to enact common sense gun reform and pass the following regulations:
- Ban assault-style firearms
- Raise the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21
- Ban high capacity magazines and bump stocks
- Require universal background checks that include relevant mental health information and previous interactions with the law
- Ensure a complete universal database of those banned from buying firearms
- Close the private sale and gun show loophole that waives the necessity of background checks
Hundreds of high school students from five schools in Stockton, California were participating in an anti-second amendment rights protest that turned violent when several students threw rocks and damaged vehicles.
The students staged the protest last Friday by walking out of class in the wake of the Feb. 14 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, which left left 17 teachers and students dead in Parkland, Florida.
Police said the demonstrations became chaotic when about 100 of the 300 students tried to leave the school by jumping over a fence and other students created traffic problems by blocking off streets, according to Action News Now. The demonstrations proceeded to turn violent when students started throwing rock and damaged both police and citizen vehicles.
Five arrests were made, which included charges of battery on an officer, resisting arrest, taking an officer’s baton, and vandalizing vehicles.
One high school student said the protests were important because school shootings could take place anywhere.
“This is a very important thing to me and to all of us. Obviously, this matters. Yeah, it wasn’t in Stockton, but there has been shootings in Stockton just like the Cleveland shooting. This is important to every school. No matter where we are, this could happen. It doesn’t matter if you’re in Florida; it doesn’t matter if we’re in Stockton. No matter where we are there could be a gun on campus and someone could get hurt,” the student, Haley Wolfe, said.
Caslita Jones, a local college student, said she was on her way to classes when her car was hit by multiple rocks, shattering her rear windshield .
“I’m about to cry,” she said.
“I gave him a gun. I gave him a badge. I gave him the training,” Sheriff Israel told an NBC6 South Florida reporter in a video interview tweeted by Erika Glover. “If he didn’t have the heart to go in, that’s not my responsibility.”
His interview with the local NBC affiliate comes after the sheriff fell under increasing scrutiny for his department’s handling of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that left 17 people dead.
Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran called on Governor Rick Scott to suspend Sheriff Israel “for incompetence,” Breitbart News’s Jeff Poor reported. The speaker sent a letter to the governor that 73 House members joined him in signing. The Florida Constitution provides the governor with the authority to “suspend from office any state officer not subject to impeachment, any officer of the militia not in the active service of the United States, or any county officer, for malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony, and may fill the office by appointment for the period of suspension.” Sheriffs are covered by this provision.
Kyle Kashuv, one of the students who survived the attack, told Fox News Sunday that Sheriff Israel should resign, Breitbart News’ Pam Key reported. “He absolutely needs to resign,” Kashuv said. “He failed to act on so many different levels. And he himself is responsible for this massive failure. This could have been stopped by the FBI, and the sheriff’s department had they acted.”
Adam Baldwin responded to the sheriff’s interview, saying, “#TheBuckStopsOverThere.”
Never forget everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.
Free men do not obey Bolshie diktats and tyranny.
If you are a traditional American, you are already hated. You will be robbed at mob point and ultimately eliminated from the country of your birth.
We live in an unaccountable police state. Make peace with resistance because our choices are rather stark.
We’re living in times where fraud is the status quo and possession is the law. Where bad judgment is only associated with having screwed people you never suspected would take you out.
Not only will you not be able to vote your way out of this situation, but you also will not be able to avoid a bloody, terrible fight – except by submission.
The incoming controls are the outworking of Proposition 63, passed by voters in 2016.
On December 15 Breitbart News reported that California’s war on guns would broaden to include a war on ammo in 2018. These controls include a ban on any ammunition not purchased within the state of California. Moreover, they narrowly define legally purchased ammo as that which is acquired via a licensed dealer in the state.
These controls will not only lessen the supply of ammunition available to Californians, thereby driving up the price for bullets, but will also add processing fees to certain ammo sales, driving up the price even higher.
Right now Californians are buying ammunition at a frenzied pace, getting it at a cheaper price while they can.
Orange County Register quotes AmmoMan’s Eric Schepps, who said, “California has been consistently at the top of our sales, but the biggest difference is that in 2014, about one in 10 packages was going to California. Last year, it was about one in every five packages. Today, every other package we ship is going to a California ZIP code.”
Sales in California have been running well above AmmoMan’s normal sales all year, and have steadily climbed as we draw nearer to January 1.
Here are percentages on how far sales have run above normal each month:
Shepps said “folks that are intent on buying ammo ASAP.” And he said it is evident “there is more urgency among them as we head toward January.”
Gun owners in Hawaii who legally use medical marijuana have been told they have 30 days to “voluntarily surrender” their firearms to the police.
Residents in Honolulu, Hawaii, were recently informed that if they use cannabis for medicinal purposes, they will be given 30 days to “voluntarily surrender” their firearms and ammunition before the Honolulu Police Department begins confiscation.
A series of letters were mailed out from Police Chief Susan Ballard on Nov. 13, as confirmed by a report from Leafly, which noted that the letters appear to represent “the first time a law enforcement agency has proactively sought out state-registered medical marijuana patients and ordered them to surrender their guns.”
The letter from Chief Ballard starts off by claiming that its purpose is to inform the residents of a revised statute. “You are disqualified from firearms ownership, possession or controlling firearms. Your medical marijuana use disqualifies you from ownership of firearms and ammunition,” Ballard wrote.
The letter references H.R.S. 134-7.3, which dictates “Seizure of Firearms Upon Disqualification.” Ballard claimed that residents have until Dec. 13 to “voluntary surrender” their firearms, in order to be in compliance with the law.
“If you currently own or have firearms, you have 30 days upon the receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms, permit and ammunition to the Honolulu Police Department or otherwise transfer ownership.”
The letter claimed that “a medical doctor’s clearance letter is required for any future firearms applications or returns of firearms from HPD evidence.”
This order serves as another reminder of the clash between state law and federal law. While medical cannabis is legal in Hawaii and the state’s first dispensary opened in August, it is still illegal under federal law. In fact, according to the United States government, the cannabis plant is one of the most dangerous drugs in existence, and has no medicinal value whatsoever— despite a wealth of evidence that proves otherwise.
Even though cannabis has been legalized for either medical or recreational use in 29 states and Washington D.C., the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sent a letter to all firearms licensees in 2011, claiming that even if individuals have state-issued medical cannabis cards, it is still illegal for them to own firearms because cannabis is still a Schedule I substance under federal law:
“Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms and ammunition.”
As The Free Thought Project has documented, not only has pure cannabis never been found to make its user more violent, but research continues to prove its medicinal benefits. These studies include evidence that cannabis can stop HIV from becoming AIDS, that the majority of cannabis users give up prescription opiate medications, and that cannabis has a “significant” effect on killing cancer cells.
There is also a level of hypocrisy when taking into account the fact that many of the prescription drugs individuals are prescribed for illnesses and symptoms that could have been healed naturally with cannabis, contain dangerous and life-threatening side effects.
In fact, several of the recent mass shootings such as the Las Vegas shooting, which killed 58 people; and the Orlando shooting, which killed 49 people; were carried out by suspects who were under the influence of psychotropic drugs, which can cause aggressive or violent behavior.
He did this at the same time that he signed other legislation making it illegal for teachers to be armed on K-12 campuses for self-defense.
Liberal logic–teachers are not allowed to shoot back if under attack and criminals face no mandatory sentence enhancement for using a gun in carrying out an attack.
Assembly Bill 424 made it illegal for teachers to be armed for self-defense and Senate Bill 620 removed the mandatory enhancement for using a gun for crime. SB 620 removed the mandatory enhancement from the Penal Code and placed it at the discretion of the judge presiding over the case.
The ChicoER observed, “So on one hand Brown and the Legislature make it more difficult for a teacher to protect children against gun-wielding criminals, while on the other they reduce potential penalties for gun-wielding criminals.”
Bills like AB 424 and SB 620 were the result of lawmakers scrambling to find any remaining areas where gun bills could be passed. After all, California Democrats passed so many laws in 2016, via Gunpocalypse, that the bills they passed this year served to either extend extant controls or repeal mandatory gun penalties for criminals, as in the case of sentencing guidelines.
Yet as with older gun controls, these new controls only impact law-abiding citizens. We saw proof of this in “the wave of legal purchases” that preceded the implementation of the laws contained in Gunpocalypse. Law-abiding citizens were getting out and buying everything they could while doing so was still legal.
The ChicoER noted such purchases “tell us that new gun laws have their greatest effect on law-abiding shooters, not those bent on criminal or violent misuse. Gang members and other gun criminals, by their nature, don’t make legal purchases. Rather, they acquire weapons and ammo surreptitiously, in ways that don’t leave paper trails of ownership.”
1) The 2,300 Special Agents at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are allowed to carry AR-15’s, P90 tactical rifles, and other heavy weaponry. Recently, the IRS armed up with $1.2 million in new ammunition. This was in addition to the $11 million procurement of guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment procured between 2006-2014.
2) The Small Business Administration (SBA) spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to load its gun locker with Glocks last year. The SBA wasn’t alone – the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service modified their Glocks with silencers.
3) The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a relatively new police force. In 1996, the VA had zero employees with arrest and firearm authority. Today, the VA has 3,700 officers, armed with millions of dollars’ worth of guns and ammunition including AR-15’s, Sig Sauer handguns, and semi-automatic pistols.
4) Meanwhile, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agents carry the same sophisticated weapons platforms used by our Special Forces military warriors. The HHS gun locker is housed in a new “National Training Operations Center” – a facility at an undisclosed location within the DC beltway.
5) Loading the Gun Locker – Federal agencies spent $44 million on guns, including an “urgent” order for 20 M-16 Rifles with extra magazines at the Department of Energy ($49,559); shotguns and Glock pistols at the General Services Administration ($16,568); and a bulk order of pistols, sights, and accessories by the Bureau of Reclamation whose main job is to build dams, power plants, and canals ($697,182).
6) Buying Bullets in Bulk – The government spent $114 million on ammunition, including bulk purchases by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ($66,927); the Smithsonian ($42,687); and the Railroad Retirement Board ($6,941). The Social Security Administration spent $61,129 on bullets including 50,000 rounds of ammunition plus 12-gauge buckshot and slug ammo. The EPA special agents purchased ammunition for their .357 and 9mm revolvers and buckshot for their shotguns. While Bernie Sanders claimed that the biggest adversary to the United States was climate change, the EPA stood ready to fight in ways we couldn’t have imagined.
7) The DOE (Department of Education) is armed and ready with 88 law enforcement officers possessing arrest and firearm authority. They’ve purchased buckshot for their shotguns and 40-caliber ammunition for their Glocks. DOE special agents dress in body armor. Their spending on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment was up 25 percent during the last two years under the Obama Administration. Yet, in 2016, it took a pair of armed U.S. Marshals to arrest a man for his unpaid $1,500 student loan!
He goes on, with the Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, etc.
FedGov is arming up. You can take guesses why, and post them in comments. They are the standing army that the founders feared so much. And for very good reason.
Talk of the ban comes despite the fact that Barack Obama’s ATF approved bump stocks in 2010, labeling them an firearm accessory rather than a firearm conversion apparatus. In other words, a bump stock DOES NOT convert a semiautomatic into an automatic weapon. Rather, it allows the gun’s owner to mimic auto fire for short bursts.
According to the AP, Trump indicates his administration is considering support for the ban. Trump said, “We’ll be looking into that over the next short period of time.”
Trump’s statement came later in the same day that Counselor Kellyanne Conway suggested the White House was open to a “thoughtful conversation” on gun control. Conway’s statement came just days after White House press secretary Sarah Sanders refused to talk gun control, yet did signal such a talk would come in the future. The Washington Post reported that Sanders described Monday as a “day of mourning” rather than a day of policy, but she added, “There will certainly be a time for that policy discussion to take place.”
Eleven Republican politicians are currently open to the idea of gun control for bump stocks. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) is among those who have most recently voiced openness to the idea, intimating Congress “clearly” has to look into whether gun control is needed for bump stocks.
In the wake of the deadliest mass shooting in American history, the Left has predictably ramped up their calls for stricter gun laws with everyone from Chuck Schumer to Lena Dunham suddenly voicing their ‘expertise’ on everything from “Bump Fire Stocks” to silencers.
That said, it was perhaps President Trump, a candidate that enjoyed strong support from the NRA throughout the 2016 campaigning season, who most stunned gun owners yesterday when he refused to rule out new restrictions, saying only that “we’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes by.”
Now, as Bloomberg points out today, the fear of an imminent ban on “bump fire stocks,” a simple replacement stock that Steve Paddock allegedly used to turn his semi-automatic weapons fully-automatic, has caused a surge in demand resulting in resale prices nearly doubling overnight. Meanwhile, the demand surge for one manufacturer’s products was so massive it actually crashed their website.
The ATF didn’t reveal the manufacturer of the bump fire stocks police said they found in Paddock’s hotel room. Slide Fire, one of the companies that makes them, was overwhelmed with visitors to its website Wednesday, according to its Facebook page. “I can’t log on the website for some reason? I would like to purchase one,” wrote Robert Lopez Jr. “Probably overloading the website.”
“Need to get me a few before outlawed with the sad news in Vegas,” wrote Facebook user Matt Mclynn. Concerns that the product might no longer be available may have led to a rise in prices for the devices. In a comment on Slide Fire’s Facebook page, another user noted that prices for the devices were increasing on GunBroker.com, which bills itself as the “world’s largest online auction site for firearms and hunting/shooting accessories.” A used Slide Fire SSAR-15 bump stock had amassed eight bids and was selling for $315 on the auction site. The retail price on Slide Fire’s website for a similar device is $179.95, but it was sold out.
So how does a “bump fire stock” work? Well, for those who haven’t received a tutorial directly from Chuck Schumer yet, here is a demonstration …
Two days after an attacker opened fire on concert goers in Las Vegas, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) announced he was shelving legislation to deregulate suppressors.
After the Vegas attacker killed at least 59 and wounded over 500, Hillary Clinton tweeted:
Clinton’s tweet ignores the reality of the tactical superiority of the attacker’s position–he was on the 32nd floor shooting down on people who were trapped in a concert venue. To escape they had to funnel through exit areas, which further highlighted the attacker’s superior position. Yet Clinton thinks it would have been worse if his gun had had a “silencer”–i.e., a suppressor–on it.
Ryan has now shelved the Hearing Protection Act, which was introduced into Congress on January 9; it is the legislation containing suppressor deregulation. The Act does not legalize suppressors–as they are already legal–rather, it removes the burdensome process for acquiring them and erases the federal tax that must be paid in order to receive permission to posses one.
According to the Tribune, Ryan said of the legislation “is not scheduled right now. I don’t know when it will be scheduled.”
After tweeting against suppressors, Hillary Clinton tweeted against the NRA, blaming the group for the Las Vegas attack. Ironically, the legislation that Ryan shelved is backed by the NRA.
Neither Ryan nor Clinton suggest suppressors had anything to do with the Las Vegas attack.
Have you ever seen a deactivated firearm and thought to yourself, “I wonder if I can restore that piece to its former glory?” Obviously that’s super illegal in pretty much every country, which is why you probably quickly disregarded that fantasy.
Of course, there are always people who are willing to take that risk, especially if they can make a lot of money doing it. It’s a fairly common practice among arms dealers in the black market. A deactivated firearm is often just a few modifications away from a functioning firearm, so these pieces are ideal for underground gun manufacturers who want to get most of their gun parts without raising any eyebrows.
One such criminal operation was busted in Spain earlier this year. Spanish authorities managed to capture 10,000 illegal firearms that included rifles, machine guns, and handguns, as well as 400 grenades. Five people associated with the gang that owned these weapons were arrested in January after that massive stockpile was captured. The police have said that some of these weapons were “capable of shooting down aircraft.”
Since you’re probably a normal person who doesn’t spend a lot of time around black market gun runners, here’s what 10,000 firearms looks like:
The operation was run under the guise of a historical weapons workshop. They legally bought deactivated weapons online, restored them, and then sold them on the black market all over western Europe. They also used a sporting goods store as a front for their distribution operation, and they had equipment to create forged certificates of reactivation.
All told, the weapons confiscated by the police are believed to be worth around 10 million euros. Given the current state of Europe, the authorities fear that there is a serious risk of these kinds of restored weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.
It just goes to show, the law can only do so much to keep firearms out of the hands of these people. Even in the heart of western Europe where gun laws are incredibly strict, the outlaws will always find a way.
In this country, the people are the sovereigns and government is the servant.
It’s time to put force behind those words.
Officials travel armed. When a contingent of our officials visits any other country, they bring armed personnel in classic right-to-bear-arms manner. Life is dangerous and the ability to protect yourself is a reasonable and prudent thing, a fundamental human right of existence, a moral imperative. So they go armed. It’s only rational. Hillary and similar bring along enough firepower that if some of their group go one way while some head off in another, they’re both covered.
The same is true in reverse. When an ambassador from Trashcanistan comes to the United States, discreetly armed bodyguards accompany the party at all times, “laws to the contrary notwithstanding.” That’s lawyer-speak for “their right to carry supersedes any other rules,” or in plainer English, “We’re above those laws.” The ambassador might decide to personally carry too. I’m guessing Hillary does not.
There’s this whole “second system” of gun possession and carry here domestically, another layer of rules on top of the common ones you must follow, operating quietly with people in the know cooperating.
Where are the laws for this exception to every gun law on the U.S. books? How does this special class of people exempt themselves from laws controlling the rest of us?
No one is harmed by their exemption. In fact, community safety increases, because assaults on those armed people are naturally deterred, even defensible if needed. Should we the people maybe have Diplomatic Carry too? Is a diplomat’s life truly at more risk — or worth more — than any “commoner”? How does this comply with equal protection under the law?
Local authorities understand implicitly that these armed folks aren’t going to randomly shoot people, or settle arguments with gunfire, the same as you and me when we’re armed. They enjoy proper respect (even if they come from regimes that don’t deserve it). We on the other hand have rights denied haphazardly, even with Constitutional Carry. As good as it is, Constitutional Carry is not enough.
Americans need and deserve the next step, Diplomatic Carry.
The body politic moves slowly. After several decades of experience, police nationwide understand and operate just fine within a framework of millions of people traveling armed. As the number of people carrying arms for crime control has increased, assaultive crimes have decreased. The media generally calls this “a surprising decrease in crime that has the experts baffled.” All these people are walking around armed, expressly to forestall crime, and the media can’t understand why crime has dropped. But I digress.
Oh sure, armed forces within the U.S. — from local police to secretive agents our government is now filled with — keep a watchful eye on the armed diplomats, as well they should. They also provide backup in the event of need. The same as for us.
But in the big picture, diplomats have less need for an ever-present armed escort than the public. A rare few diplomats face death at the hands of the mobs. Thousands of citizens are murdered each year. Who needs protection more?
The freedom of Diplomatic Carry, a concept many of us can easily grasp, is mind boggling to the great unwashed. So insulated from any truth about firearms, victims of television and the government-run school system, they have imbedded ignorance that is hard to shake. Destructively misinformed kids and teachers compound the problem. I digress again.
Now, Diplomatic Carry is not going to happen overnight. Many voices will be raised in objection to such freedom.
And unfortunately, some opposition will come from people who consider themselves firearms enthusiasts. Establishing everyone’s uninfringed freedom to carry is scary, at least to some. But that’s OK. Real freedom is a house high on a hill.
Diplomatic Carry is a paradigm shift. A window into a world that could be, and ought to be, a lofty goal. Your right to your life and its protection cannot morally be denied. It is denied only by force, and there is only one viable countermeasure to force unfortunately, in this best of all possible worlds, and that’s countervailing force. I don’t like it, but there it is.
Diplomatic Carry is a new level of autonomy, of personal sovereignty. It raises the bar. In this country, the people are the sovereigns and the government is the servant. How do you justify the servants carrying arms if the masters cannot?
The only consistent position for free people to take is this:
Anything short of Diplomatic Carry is infringement.
The world does not care about you.
And the transnational socialists want you and yours first in slave chains, then dead.
I see and hear a lot of talk about how a national gun registration and/or confiscation would be the trigger that would spark a second American Revolution, as patriots rise up to resist the jackbooted thugs who are going door-to-door taking away people’s arms.
I have bad news for everyone who’s waiting for national registration or a mass confiscation so they can get their armed rebellion on: a national database of gun owners already exists, and a national confiscation effort will never happen. Ever. Instead, you’ll hand over your firearms peacefully. All of them, even the ones you paid cash for to some random guy on Armslist in the dead of night.
Here’s a look at how it will play out in our not-too-distant future.
Second Amendment supporters have been so focused on this one little corner of the Bill of Rights that they’ve let the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to protect citizens against unreasonable search and seizure, turn into dead letter.
The surveillance state that got started under Clinton picked up steam under Bush II, and Obama has expanded it even further. The NSA is tracking everyone, all the time, and they’re hooked into Facebook, Google, Amazon, and every other piece of web-based software that you’ve been using to shop for accessories for that AR you paid cash for (which your wife doesn’t even know you have).
If you don’t believe me, go read this article about just how much detailed info one private company, Facebook, has on you, including your web surfing, shopping, and even your driving and walking habits. Now think about the fact that the NSA is even less constrained by the law (and has way more resources) than Facebook and has access not only to Facebook’s detailed profile of you but to profiles created by many other sources, from your credit card company to your health insurance provider.
Oh sure, you may have gotten your hands on a few guns that would be impossible to trace, even by the NSA. Maybe you inherited a long gun from your grandpa, or maybe you met a guy in a gun show parking lot and paid cash and then never Googled anything related to that gun. So here’s a question for you: how many people like you exist, and how many of those type guns are suitable for urban combat against AR-15s with state-of-the-art optics? I know which of my guns are probably totally “in the black,” and I can’t imagine trying to mount an insurgency with any or all of them.
The fact is, most guys who have the kind of hardware suitable for a Civil War 2.0 have been shopping on Gunbroker or Armslist, and/or have filled out FFL paperwork like law-abiding citizens. I seriously doubt there’s enough firepower totally hidden from the NSA to sustain any kind of real rebellion.
So the registration ship has sailed. They know what you have and where to find you. Now, here’s how they’re going to get you to turn it over without a fight.
When the government outlaws semi-automatic firearms, they won’t send cops or troops door-to-door to take them. No, first they’ll send out letters saying they know what you have, and that you have to turn it over by a given deadline or face a penalty.
It’ll be up to you to prove that you’re clean, and that you’ve handed over everything. They’ll have a list, and if they think you’re still holding, they’ll hit you with asset freezes.
Imagine not being able to get any money out of your bank account or from your credit cards, because your assets are frozen. The federal and state governments already do this if you owe back taxes–a simple letter to your bank, and all of your cards stop working. (Here’s an account from one of our editors of how this actually happened to him.) The bank doesn’t care about you, and they don’t have the interest or resources to find out if the government’s claim against you is bogus. No, they’ll just freeze your assets until you get things sorted with the government and the government tells them to unfreeze it all.
The other thing they’ll do is take your children.
Do you think Child Protective Services is going to let your children live in a house with potentially dangerous firearms? No way. Your kids will get picked up at school and taken into custody, and a social worker will show up at your door with the cops. Only when a thorough search has been conducted and the authorities are completely satisfied that your property is 100% gun-free will they let you see your little ones again. After all, we have to protect the children.
You’re not going to shoot at those cops, either, because then your kids will just end up in the foster system as wards of the state.
Oh, I’m sure there are folks reading this who are so off-grid that none of the above can touch them. Their guns are totally invisible to the NSA, their assets are all in the form of cash and physically held precious metals, and their kids are home-schooled on a well-guarded ranch.
But is that blessed group big enough to overthrow a determined US government? No, it ain’t.
The measures outlined above–a de facto gun registration database courtesy of the NSA and its private-sector allies, asset freezes for non-compliance, and the threat of CPS visits that hold your children hostage–will be sufficient to take well over 90% of the lawfully held guns out of civilian hands, all without firing a single shot.
The bitter truth is this: there will be no confiscation shock troops for you and your buddies to shoot back at, and we will discover too late that the rights-defenders’ fantasy–of one, crystal-clear moment when it’s time for everyone to rise up as one and take it all back–has been the establishment’s biggest ally and freedom’s deadliest enemy.
Why do you think they’ve let you have guns for this long? Because those guns have given you a false sense of security and kept you from doing something truly dangerous, like mass-organizing to pull all your money out of the big banks and to vote out the incumbents.
So if you’ve sat idly by, fondling your firearms and watching the surveillance state expand while your paycheck shrinks, relying on your gun stash to bail you out when things hit bottom, then the joke’s on you. You’ve already lost the war, and when you hand over your weapons it’ll be the last (and mostly symbolic) step in a process of total subjugation that slipped up and swallowed you while you were distracted with building your gun collection.
You may hate me and everything I’ve said here, but deep down, you know I’m right.
Update: A number of commenters are misreading this article. The headline doesn’t say I’ll hand them them over — it says you will. And yeah, I’m trolling you a bit with the tone of this piece by saying what you “will” and “won’t” do, but it’s because I’m trying to slap you awake. The main point that’s being made is this: if you’re waiting for a door-to-door confiscation, or even a national gun registry, then you’ll be waiting forever. Folks who like to talk about a causus belli will need get more creative in coming up with a “bright line”, because the ones so many of you are waiting for won’t ever appear. If this article has spurred you to think more clearly about what the end of liberty might actually look like, and about what you’ll do under scenarios other than the classic door-to-door confiscation scenario, then it has done its job.
You probably think Facebook and Google are throwing off geysers of money by dominating an industry known as “online advertising”, but those of us who’ve spent time on the inside of this beast know the industry by its true name: mass behavior modification.
It’s only a matter of time before these two companies openly go on the attack against American gun ownership, and when they do, they’ll form a foe far greater than any we’ve faced before. If you don’t believe that they can turn the tide of public opinion on firearms, a tide that lately seems to be going in our favor, then you’re not paying attention.
Consider the following three articles:
Go ahead and click through to the above. I’ll wait. Just skim them for now, but when you get a moment definitely go back and read them. They’re not from your favorite conspiracy site, and the people sounding the alarm have impeccable, mainstream academic credentials. You may think you’re immune to most of the techniques outlined above, but you’re not. And even if you were, what matters is that the country as a whole is not immune, not by a long shot.
To understand just how effective these manipulation techniques are, you need only consider how large Facebook and Google’s profits have grown based on their ability to get users to buy things via advertising. These companies’ ability to alter user behavior on a mass scale has been validated again and again by the one entity that you just can’t fool, and whose judgement isn’t clouded by political agendas: the market.
With all of this in mind, consider the very latest news on Google’s Jigsaw project, which is a deliberate use of all of its tools and techniques for the purposes of explicitly political behavior modification–first against would-be jihadis, and next against right-wing “radicals”.
GOOGLE HAS BUILT a half-trillion-dollar business out of divining what people want based on a few words they type into a search field. In the process, it’s stumbled on a powerful tool for getting inside the minds of some of the least understood and most dangerous people on the Internet: potential ISIS recruits. Now one subsidiary of Google is trying not just to understand those would-be jihadis’ intentions, but to change them.
Jigsaw, the Google-owned tech incubator and think tank—until recently known as Google Ideas—has been working over the past year to develop a new program it hopes can use a combination of Google’s search advertising algorithms and YouTube’s video platform to target aspiring ISIS recruits and ultimately dissuade them from joining the group’s cult of apocalyptic violence.
The Intercept reports on Google’s plan to turn the aforementioned tool against right-wingers:
A GOOGLE-INCUBATED PROGRAM that has been targeting potential ISIS members with deradicalizing content will soon be used to target violent right-wing extremists in North America, a designer of the program said at an event at the Brookings Institution on Wednesday…
“We are very conscious — as our own organization and I know Jigsaw are — that this [violent extremism] is not solely the problem of one particular group,” Frenett said.
“Our efforts during phase two, when we’re going to focus on the violent far right in America, will be very much focused on the small element of those that are violent. The interesting thing about how they behave is they’re a little bit more brazen online these days than ISIS fan boys,” Frenett said.
He noted that this new target demographic is more visible online.
“In the U.K., if someone in their Facebook profile picture has a swastika and is pointing a gun at the camera, that person is committing a crime,” Frenett said. “In the U.S., there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. So we found that when we’re looking for individuals that are genuinely at risk of carrying out violence, that they’re relatively open online.”
Adnan Kifayat, head of global security ventures at Gen Next Foundation, said he is optimistic about applying the ISIS approach to North America. “Our interest is in countering extremism … particularly in the homeland,” he told The Intercept.
Taking all of the above into account, what comes next is crystal-freaking-clear: a coordinated, private sector, mass behavior manipulation campaign aimed at stigmatizing and suppressing gun ownership and disguised as an effort to “do something” about the “gun violence epidemic” and “right-wing extremism.”
When the CDC was in the heyday of their smear campaign against guns, a PR effort that a prominent CDC official likened to the public campaign against smoking, that was just the warm-up. Those guys with their billboards and their op-eds were just pikers compared to the power of Google and Facebook.
When these two private sector behemoths, who know everything about you and who are wildly successful in using that knowledge to manipulate you, turn their sights on the “public menace” that is guns, then you’ll long for the days when the anti-gun movement was mostly just sad astroturf groups funded by a single New York billionaire. These companies can flip national elections, state and local elections, and public attitudes, all in secret and without spending nearly the kind of (traceable) money that Bloomberg does.
I don’t know what to tell you to do about it. I’m just warning you that it’s coming. These companies will begin to manipulate public opinion on gun ownership, and it will have an impact. It’s going to be up to us to figure out how to counter it.
President Barack Obama has forgiven 107 federal inmates who were convicted of gun crimes during his administration while at the same time pushing for stricter gun controls, according to a story in The Washington Times.
According to the Times report, of those 107 who were either pardoned or had their sentences commuted, their dealings with a gun included:
Yet this is the President who repeatedly calls for reform to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
“This is the most incredible hypocrisy,” Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told the Times. “The president has commuted the sentences of dangerous criminals who were convicted of gun-related charges. But then, he does everything in his power to block law-abiding gun owners from purchasing firearms.”
The Times reports Obama has forgiven a total north of 600 federal inmates, more than his nine predecessors combined. And just last week gave this explanation as to why.
“Our focus really has been on people who we think were overcharged and people who we do not believe have a propensity towards violence,” the Times quoted Obama.
Apparently 107 felons who carried guns while selling drugs don’t count as having a propensity for violence.
“On one hand, the Obama administration is attempting to limit law-abiding Americans from exercising their Second Amendment right and protecting themselves from harm,” Sen. Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala., told the Times. “On the other hand, the president will let criminals with firearm-related offenses off easy.”
Even the Libertarian ticket is sold out to suck up Republican votes in an attempt to swing things Hillary’s way.
Take Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s vice presidential running mate William Weld.
The man was not just a signatory but a main chairman on the Council on Foreign Relations’ North American Union document, and he has personally described Hillary as an “old friend” he used to share an office with when they were investigating Watergate together where they formed a “lifelong bond” (see video below).
Now he’s also talking like Hillary when it comes to “scary” guns.
Via Red Alert Politics:
“The five-shot rifle, that’s a standard military rifle; the problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon, and those are independent criminal offenses,” Weld said. “That is when they become, essentially a weapon of mass destruction. The problem with handguns probably is even worse than the problem of the AR15.”
Weld also said he believed no one on a terrorist watch list should be allowed to purchase guns, even though, as the Huffington Post pointed out, it isn’t too hard for an innocent person to end up on the list.
Not exactly a very pro-freedom position from the Libertarian Party.
As Bearing Arms put it:
So according to Weld, I can take an old military rifle like a Mosin Nagant… attach clips to it… pull a pin… and then it will turn into a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.
Yep. Sounds like Weld wants to pander fear liberal left-style and destroy the 2nd Amendment just as much as his lifelong pal Hillary does.
Let this be as clear as day: Hillary Clinton will come for our guns. That is not a theory or a wild idea. She has said it, her aides have been caught on camera saying it, and she will do it if she is elected in November. We must never forget that.
When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they specifically made the Second Amendment to give the people a guaranteed right to bear arms and protect themselves. If the Amendment wasn’t that important, it wouldn’t have been so close the beginning.
At the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton said: “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns.” Well, she is a liar; just like Obama.
Clinton lies to the public about her true plans to abolish the Second Amendment, but the centerpiece of her campaign will be gun reductions. This is just another example of Clinton not understanding the American people, civil liberties, and the rights afforded to us under the Constitution.
Clinton thinks it is a bigger deal to take our guns away rather than addressing a real issue: abortion. She should be forbidding people from aborting children unless there are extenuating circumstances like rape or incest.
In the 1994 congressional elections and the 2000 presidential contest, Democrats ran a pro-gun control platform, and it destroyed them. So, now they claim “out loud” that they respect the Second Amendment, but once elected, they try to ban our right to protect.
Every time a tragedy happens in this country, what do Obama and Hillary say? They argue we need to reduce and take away guns. How about they spend time trying to address people with mental illnesses rather than trying to take away law-abiding citizens rights?
Last time I checked, it was jihadi terrorists or Black Lives Matter thugs that are shooting places up, not common, law-abiding Americans.
This year, Hillary Clinton has decided she will campaign on being anti-Second Amendment. This was a losing strategy in 1994 and 2000, so she can take that approach if she wants. Hillary is commonly on the wrong side of history.
Hillary’s 2016 platform mentions “the rights of responsible gun owners” but says nothing about the extent of those rights or the legal basis for them. There is no “half” or “partial” right to the Second Amendment—We The People control the entire part of.
We are legally allowed to protect ourselves from the government and any enemy when dictators like Hillary Clinton try to use the government to take away our protection.
The Second Amendment’s excision from the Democratic platform is consistent with Clinton’s opinion that District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense, was “wrongly decided.”
At the very least, that position means Clinton thinks the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to use guns for self-defense in the home, since the law overturned in Heller made it impossible to exercise that right.
But Clinton’s disagreement with the Supreme Court seems to go even further. In an interview last June, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed her to say whether “an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right.” She repeatedly dodged the question.
“If it is a constitutional right,” Clinton said, “then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.” That is nothing more than political correctness. She is all but only admitting she does not believe people have a constitutional right to firearms but that even voters who do believe that should be OK with her gun-control proposals.
She wants to ban so-called assault weapons, repeal the federal law that shields gun suppliers from legal liability for criminal misuse of their products, create new categories of people who are legally disqualified from owning firearms, and extend the federal background check requirement to all gun transfers.
Imagine how unsafe we would all be if the criminals had guns but the law-abiding people didn’t? Or, now that we have 13 million illegal aliens in this country and more Syrian refugees are coming, do we not have the right to protect ourselves anymore? Hillary doesn’t think we need protection. Remember, she argues Islam is peaceful.
In other words, Clinton wants to restrict the kinds of guns Americans can legally buy, take away people’s constitutional rights without due process, and block gun purchases by consumers, people with nonviolent felony records, and anyone who was ever forcibly treated for suicidal impulses. These are not policies that someone who takes the Second Amendment seriously would favor.
Let me fill you in on a secret: a majority of the mass shootings that have occurred in this country would NOT have prevented under Hillary or Obama’s gun control legislation’s. Obama and Hillary are using these poor families’ situations to push for gun control measures.
If after all of this you still don’t believe me, here is a Clinton delegate admitting her grand strategy while being filmed. The delegate had no idea she was being recorded, so she spoke freely. She is close to the Clinton campaign, too, by the way. She knows what the real plan is.
The time is now, folks. We cannot allow this woman to take over our country and trample on the Constitution. If she wins, we will live in a country that allows 13 million more illegal aliens into this country, more Syrian refugees, and she will try to limit our Second Amendment. Share this everyone you know so that if she wants to come and take our guns, she’ll have to come down here and get them herself. We won’t go out without a fight!
The Obama administration is facing congressional scrutiny for blocking more than a quarter-million military veterans from owning guns. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reported more than 257,000 former members of the military who cannot manage their finances to the FBI’s list of people who are not allowed to own guns, Republicans claim, even though “it has nothing to do with regulating firearms.”
“The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is effectively a national gun ban list and placement on the list precludes the ownership and possession of firearms,” Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a recent letter to VA Secretary Robert McDonald.
The VA is responsible for appointing a fiduciary to help veterans who it determines cannot manage their own finances, but the agency is also taking the additional step of reporting these veterans to the “mental defective” category of the FBI’s background check system, even if they do not pose a danger to society, the senators allege. The senators called the practice “highly suspect” and said veterans’ ability to manage their own finances is “totally unrelated” to whether they should be prohibited from owning a gun. “Under the current practice, a VA finding that concludes a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments effectively voids his Second Amendment rights,” the senators wrote. “At no time in the process does the VA determine a veteran to be a danger to himself or others, a key determinant for whether someone is a ‘mental defective,’ precluding the right to own firearms,” they added.
In a separate letter to Senate appropriators, Grassley requested lawmakers block the VA from continuing this practice in the upcoming budget negotiations. Grassley also complained about the practice in another letter sent last year to the Justice Department. Republicans hope the congressional inquiries will pressure the VA to stop the practice. The VA noted in a statement to The Hill that it is legally required to report veterans who are “mentally incompetent” to the FBI, which then decides whether to prohibit these former soldiers from owning guns.
“From time to time, media has reported that VA ‘confiscates’ veterans’ firearms,” a VA spokesman said in a statement. “This is simply not true. VA has no authority to confiscate or ‘seize’ anyone’s firearms.” [The Hill, Tim Devaney — March 23, 2016]
Many before us have fought for our freedoms… and, many before us have died for our rights…
Many before us have shed their blood… and, many before us have given their lives.
Do you really think WE will ever allow this to be taken from us…??
You better think twice !
Rhode intimated that some find it strange that an Olympian speaks out on political issues back home, but she believes the times demand it. She said, “I’m definitely becoming more vocal because I see the need.”
According to The Guardian, Rhode said:
We just had six laws that were passed in California that will directly affect me. For example, one of them being an ammunition law. I shoot 500 to 1,000 rounds a day, having to do a background check every time I purchase ammo or when I bring ammo out for a competition or a match – those are very, very challenging for me.
Rhode is referencing the six gun controls Brown signed into law on July 1, part of what was referred to as “gunpocalypse.” That legislation included a bill that outlawed the possession of “high capacity” magazines and another which expanded the state’s “assault weapons” ban. It included another bill that requires ammunition purchasers to go through a background check every time they purchase ammunition.
Ammunition background checks will certainly be used to build a database on ammo owners in the same way that California has used firearm purchaser background checks and firearm registration to compile a database on gun owners.
Rhode sees hindrances to freedom at every turn with these new gun laws–not hindrances to criminals, but to law-abiding citizens.
The Guardian asked Rhode about gun control as a response to “mass shootings” and crime in general. Rhode responded:
When you look at these events that have been occurring, they’ve been occurring in some of the strictest gun law countries in the world. You have Paris, you have San Bernardino, which was actually in a gun-free zone, so, yeah, it’s actually something that you take into consideration.
For me personally, I realize the first responsibility of a police officer is to respond to an incident and for me personally, in that five minutes or 10 minutes or 20 minutes in some cases that it takes for them to get there, how do you want to stand there? I would rather have my second amendment right.
Rhode is a triple gold medalist.
“Irish Democracy,” the phenomenon by which the general members of a polity resist the mandates of their would-be rulers by simply refusing to comply with them. It is a low-cost form of civil disobedience, but one that can be very effective at times: Mohandas K. Gandhi was entirely correct in his famous declaration to the British powers that they would eventually be forced to simply pack up their tiffin pails and go home, because 300,000 Englishman could not control 300 million (at the time) Indians if those Indians didn’t cooperate.
One way of considering the radical potential of simple noncompliance is the “10 percent synchronous subversion factor,” the proposition that if 10 percent of the U.S. population refused to (for instance) pay taxes or answer jury-duty summonses, then the rules would have to change, because they would be unenforceable: There aren’t enough tax agents, constables, slots on court dockets, or jail cells to enforce the rules against 32 million Americans if they should decide to refuse to comply with a given law.
For example, the prospect of local-yokel police going door to door anywhere in California, Fallujah-style, trying to collect nonconforming firearms from people on unconstitutional alphabet .gov agency no rights lists is humorous to contemplate. In kind, contemplating the same sort of development in Texas or Wyoming is rather less amusing, because at that point the model of resistance would stop being Irish democracy and almost certainly would mutate into something a lot more like Lexington and Concord. No decent, patriotic person wants to see that.
Nor does one relish the idea of police forces being obliged to choose between attempting to enforce an illegal and unconstitutional order and ceding the interpretation of constitutional law to mob-ocracy. Even for those of us who understand why the Second Amendment exists and who endorse the reasoning behind it, trusting in the prudence of large, armed crowds of 21st-century Americans requires an act of faith well in excess of the evidence.
The hallmark episode of Irish democracy in the American setting is Prohibition, which is a cautionary tale — and not only for the would-be modern prohibitionist. Prohibition demonstrated several things to the American public, which took the lesson to heart: Politicians are entirely capable of making stupid laws when in the grips of voguish thinking; the American people are more than capable of ignoring and subverting those laws; that subversion often is met with ruthlessness and brutality on the part of law enforcement, but enforcement is by no means even-handed; hypocrisy, like alcohol, is a useful social lubricant in moderation but debilitating in excess; social tensions reveal who has political power and who doesn’t, casting a harsh bright light on Lenin’s fundamental question — “Who? Whom?”; and law enforcement is just as corruptible as any other institution. Prohibition did a lot of damage by providing an enduring model of organized crime, but it also undermined Americans’ faith in the rule of law as such: Favoritism in enforcement, bribery, and institutional incapacity severely damaged the law’s prestige. We have never really quite recovered.
Our new prohibitionists are a lot like the old ones. The nice corduroy-clad liberals in places such as Georgetown and the Upper West Side use guns as a stand-in for the sort of people who own guns in much the same way as the old WASP prohibitionists used booze as a stand-in for the sort of people who drank too much: Irish and other Catholics, especially immigrants, and especially poor immigrants. The horror at “gun culture” is about the culture — rural, conservative, traditionalist, patriotic, self-reliant or at least aspiring to self-reliance — much more than it is about the guns. It’s the same sort of dynamic that gets people worked up about Confederate flags or poor white people with diabetes who shop at Wal-Mart. A little dose of Irish democracy is an excellent thing in response to that, especially when it is coming from California and Connecticut rather than Oklahoma and Alabama. But winning the fight on gun rights while losing the fight on the rule of law is the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory. It is necessary that we also prevail politically and legally, which we have been, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the NRA and affiliated groups, as well as the increasingly sensible view of the American public that what’s wrong with mass shooters has more to do with the mental-health system — and that what’s wrong with Chicago has something to do with that, too, inasmuch as the inmates are running that particular asylum.
The Supreme Court has been more than clear, on more than one occasion, that the Second Amendment says what it means and means what it says. We also have a long legal and constitutional tradition that prohibits stripping people of their civil rights — including their Second Amendment rights — without due process, generally in the form of an indictment and a trial and a conviction. If the Democrats want to do away with the Second Amendment, let them begin the amendment process and see how far they get. We should challenge them to do so at every opportunity. In reality, the Democrats have declared war on the First Amendment, voting in the Senate to repeal it; they have declared war on the Second Amendment at every turn; they also have declared war on due process and, in doing so, on the idea of the rule of law itself, beginning with the notion of “innocent until proven guilty.” That isn’t liberalism — it’s totalitarianism. That’s a winnable fight, and we should welcome it.
TAMPA, FLORIDA — President Barack Obama’s immediate leveraging of the atrocious Islamic terror attack in Orlando toward new gun control reforms may be predictable — yet the circumstances involving the professional background of Omar S. Mateen could prove a breaking point for his fellow anti-gun activists. As the debate eventually moves toward the Second Amendment, activists must answer how the most prevalent mass shooter in American history cleared background checks, medical examination, registration and dozens of hours of mandated training.
“We have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well,” President Obama noted in a White House press conference today. The Administration’s typical pivot toward promoting background checks, health evaluations and related registration procedures will likely not see as much air time in the days ahead – for good reason.
Florida resident Omar S. Mateen was registered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as a private security officer with an additional Class G Firearm License. Compared to a standard civilian concealed carry permit issued by the same Department, Mateen was required to undergo the full battery of common gun control measures floated after mass shootings.
Before acquiring a Class G permit, Mateen completed the requirements for the prerequisite Class D protocol. The Basic Security Officer Training process requires the completion of a 40 hour course over four consecutive days by a school or instructor licensed by the State of Florida. Mateen had to clear a criminal background check to satisfy the requirements and be legally able to work in the United States. He was required to renew his Class D Security license annually. Breitbart Texas’ review of Mateen’s Class D record found that license number D2723758 was set to expire on September 14, 2017.
Mateen’s Class G firearm license was far more detailed. The gunman completed an additional 28 hours of guided instruction focusing on legal statutes governing the permit and responsibilities therein (12 hours); operational safety and firearm mechanics (8 hours); and a firearms qualification exam in a shooting range for eight hours. He passed a 96-round shooting proficiency battery. Thereafter, Mateen’s criminal background was reviewed again pursuant to the application and submitted to a separate medical evaluation that certified he had no conditions that “would preclude [Mateen] from performing duties in an armed capacity.”
Class G licensees must register proofs of identity, citizenship/legal residency and fingerprints with application documents as well. Like Class D holders, Class G requires annual proficiency testing as well. Omar Mateen’s Class G license (G2704169) would have expired on September 13, 2017.
When executing his duties under the Class G license, Mateen could carry up to two semiautomatic pistols or revolvers ranging from .38 to .45 ACP calibers.
The .223 caliber assault rifle and 9mm pistol used in the mass shooting were confirmed to be legally purchased by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in a tweet published Sunday afternoon.
BREAKING: ATF Orlando “We have completed urgent traces on firearms involved in #Orlando shooting. Firearms purchased legally.”
— ATF HQ (@ATFHQ) June 12, 2016
The Wall Street Journal reported that beyond the Florida licensing requirements, both previous FBI probes into Mateen’s conduct and potential terrorist connections could not be verified a threat worthy of further action.
On February 13 2014 Breibart News reported that a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s “good cause” requirement. Thereafter–under pressure from State Attorney Kamala Harris–the court announced that it would rehear the case en banc. Today that en banc ruling resulted in the “good cause” requirement being upheld and Americans being told they have not right to carry a concealed gun in public.
The case–PERUTA V. CTY. OF SAN DIEGO–was filed by concealed permit applicants who think the “good cause” requirement infringed their Second Amendment rights in San Diego and Yolo Counties. On February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit panel sided with the Plaintiffs, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is, in and of itself, a sufficient cause for bearing arms for self-defense. Moreover, that it is a sufficient cause both inside and outside of one’s domicile.
The San Francisco Chronicle quoted from Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s majority opinion, in which he emphasized that “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”
But the en banc ruling went in the opposite direction, upholding the “good cause” requirement and unequivocally stating that Americans have no right to carry a concealed gun outside the home for self-defense. Writing in the majority opinion, Judge Williams Fletcher said, “We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
…Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said he’s also concerned that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign will drive more right-leaning voters to the polls and imperil the gun-control initiative.
“I think it’s too risky to put a lot of hard work, decades of hard work, before the voters of California. We don’t know if it passes or not,” de Leon said. “But if we can get it done in the legislative body, the question is, why not do it?”
“So I’m going to speak out. I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA,” Clinton asserts.
“And we’re going to do whatever we can. I’m proud when my husband took them on and we were able to ban assault weapons but he had to put a sunset on it so, 10 years later, of course, Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them.”
“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton urged.
“Here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment and I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
“The location and date of the recording are unknown. It sounds like an intimate room and was likely recorded on a cell phone or similar device. The Republican National Committee, which posted the clip on YouTube, has not provided additional details,” writes Kyle Olsen.
Hillary’s appetite for gun control has cropped up on the campaign trail numerous times.
Last month during an event in Philadelphia, Clinton vehemently agreed with a supporter who urged her to use executive orders to restrict the Second Amendment.
During a round table discussion in New York, the former Secretary of State nodded along vigorously as a member of the panel described gun owners as terrorists.
“Citizens are the terrorists, right?” the woman states as Hillary nods multiple times. “We’re so worried about terrorism but we have terrorism on our own soil,” she continued.
Hillary’s daughter Chelsea also gave a speech following the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia urging Democrats to exploit his absence to pass strict new gun control laws.
When we previewed Venezuela’s upcoming hyperinflation, which in January was predicted to be 720% and as of this moment is likely far higher…
… we said “This Is What The Death Of A Nation Looks Like” and said “there is no good news in any of the above for the long-suffering citizens of this “socialist paradise” which any minute now will be downgraded to its fair value of “socialist hell.“
Subsequent news that Venezuela was now openly liquidating its gold reserves while its president, in an amusing twist, announced last week, that henceforth every Friday will be a holiday, (the term there was a slightly different meaning) to cut down on electricity usage (while blaming El Nino for its electricity rationing) merely confirmed that the end if nigh for this once flourishing Latin American nation.
Sadly, while we have been warning for years about Venezuela’s inevitable, economic devastation, we said it was only a matter of time before the chaos spreads to broader society and leads to total collapse.
That may have arrived because as even the FT now admits, after visiting the main Caracas morgue, Venezuela risks a descent into chaos.
But back to the morgue of central Caracas, where FT correspondent Andres Schipani writes that the stench forces everyone to cover their nostrils. “Now things are worse than ever,” says Yuli Sánchez. “They kill people and no one is punished while families have to keep their pain to themselves.“
Ms Sánchez’s 14-year-old nephew, Oliver, was shot five times by malandros, or thugs, while riding on the back of a friend’s motorcycle. His uncle, Luis Mejía, remarked that in a fortnight three members of their family had been shot, including two youths who were shot by police.
Sounds a little like Chicago on a Friday… only in Venezuela things are even worse: “an economic, social and political crisis facing Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s unpopular president, is being aggravated by a rise in violence which is prompting fears that this oil-rich country risks becoming a failed state.”
Even the morgue employees are asking if they should give up.
“What can we do?” Mr Mejía asks. “Give up.” The morgue employee in charge of handling the corpses notes that a decade ago he received seven or eight bodies every weekend. These days, he says, that number has risen to between 40 and 50: “This is now wilder than the wild west.“
Critics say that the Venezuelan government is increasingly unable to provide citizens with water, electricity, health or a functioning economy which can supply basic food staples or indispensable medicines, let alone personal safety.
In other words, total socioeconomic collapse. This is what it looks like:
Last month alone, Venezuelans learned of the summary execution of at least 17 gold miners supposedly by a mining Mafia, the killing of two police officers allegedly by a group of students who drove a bus into a barricade, and a hostage drama inside a prison at the hands of a grenade-wielding criminal gang. On Wednesday, three policemen were killed when an armed gang busted a member out of a lock-up in the capital.
At least 10 were killed in a Caracas shanty town after a confrontation between local thugs armed with assault rifles, while a local mayor was gunned down outside his home in Trujillo state last month. There are widespread reports of lynchings.
All this is creating a broad unease that Mr Maduro is unable to maintain order… There is a lack of basic goods. Analysts warn that the economic crisis risks turning in to a humanitarian one.
Some refuse to acknowledge that a state erected on so much oil wealth can be a failed state:
“Failed state is a nebulous concept often used too lightly. That’s not the case with today’s Venezuela,” says Moisés Naím a Venezuelan distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The evidence of state failure is very concrete in the country that sits on top of the world’s largest oil reserves.”
Alas, a failed state is precisely what Venezuela has become: Venezuela is already one of the world’s deadliest countries. The Venezuelan Observatory of Violence, a local think-tank, says the murder rate rose last year to 92 killings per 100,000 residents. The attorney-general cites a lower figure of 58 homicides per 100,000. This is up from 19 per 100,000 in 1998, before Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez took power.
It gets worse, because in addition to a soaring murder rate, the government itself is implicated.
“Venezuelans are facing one of the highest murder rates in the hemisphere and urgently need effective protection from violent crime,” said José Miguel Vivanco HRW’s Americas director. “But in multiple raids throughout the country, the security forces themselves have allegedly committed serious abuses.”
Their findings show that police and military raids in low-income and immigrant communities in Venezuela have led to widespread allegations of abuse, including extrajudicial killings, mass arbitrary detentions, maltreatment of detainees, forced evictions, the destruction of homes, and arbitrary deportations.
And like all other failed governments, Maduro’s administration is quick to deflect blame, instead accusing violence within its borders on Colombian rightwing paramilitaries “engaged in a war against its revolution.” But as David Smilde and Hugo Pérez Hernáiz of the Washington Office on Latin America, a think-tank, recently wrote: “Attributing violence in Venezuela to paramilitary activity has been a common rhetorical move used by the government over the past year, effectively making a citizen security problem into a national security problem.”
For many Venezuelans it no longer matters who is to blame. “It is a state policy of letting anarchy sink in,” says a former policeman outside the gates of a compound in Caracas.
The FT adds that the former police station now houses the Frente 5 de Marzo, one of the political groups that consider themselves the keepers of socialism’s sacred flame. The gates bear the colours of the Venezuelan flag and are marked with bullet holes. The man believes there is something akin to a civil war going on.
“Venezuela is pure chaos now. It seems to me there is no way back,” the former policeman says. He is right.
* * *
And since words can not fully do a failed state justice, here is a video clip from Jeff Berwick showing the reality on the ground in the country where “socialism’s sacred flame” is about to go out for good … WATCH what’s really going on in Caracas !
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is coming for your guns.
Oh, don’t expect her to say that during a campaign speech covered by the media or in an op-ed in The New York Times. But when she’s among friends and doesn’t realize she’s being recorded, she’s apparently a little more open about her plans.
The Washington Free Beacon recently obtained an audio recording of Clinton’s remarks to what was obviously a liberal, anti-gun crowd at a “small private fundraiser in New York” — which is the only kind of crowd to be found at a Clinton fundraiser in New York, most likely.
Clinton told donors that the Supreme Court was “wrong on the Second Amendment.”
“And I am going to make that case every chance I get,” she added.
Clinton must have felt right at home with the enthusiastic crowd and her Greenwich Village host, convicted felon John Zaccaro. Perhaps after her remarks she sought his advice as to which minimum security federal prisons had the best cafeterias, but that’s only speculation.
Clinton has expressed support in the past for a ban on “assault weapons” similar to the largely ineffectual ban passed by Congress and signed into law by her husband, President Bill Clinton. That ban was allowed to expire under President George W. Bush.
“I was proud when my husband took (the National Rifle Association) on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later, of course, Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton.
That’s because Bush knew that such bans do little more than impinge upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans — something Clinton, despite her constant claims to be the “experienced” candidate for president, doesn’t appear to have figured out yet.
Clinton also criticized the NRA and promised to work to counter the lobbying influence of the organization.
“I’m going to speak out, I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA,” she said. “And we’re going to do whatever we can.”
“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” Clinton added.
What she didn’t explain was “why.” Why, exactly, is this idea “just despicable”? How many gun owners have legally carried an AK-47 or similar weapon into a supermarket and committed a crime? Have there been 100 such crimes? A dozen?
And if the answer is none — and one would think she’d be spouting examples left and right if she had any examples to spout — then what exactly would the point of a ban on such behavior be?
I think we all know the answer to that question, but you can listen to her comments here (if you can stand it) and decide for yourself:
U.S. President Barack Obama is not just the world’s best gun salesman, he’s also the world’s worst gun control spokesperson.
Despite immediately politicizing every single shooting event in recent years by using his bully pulpit to lecture the American public on why citizens must give up their rights to feel safe, his message has fallen on deaf ears. Why?
Mainly because a man who consistently orders drone strikes on women and children all over the world, intentionally bombs a Doctors Without Borders hospital into oblivion, and who launched more shady wars across the globe than George W. Bush, doesn’t exactly hold much credibility as a humanitarian pacifist looking to “save the children.”
We learned the above just last month, which makes the latest findings on how Americans view gun control consistent with previously observed attitudes. Meanwhile, Nick Gillespie over at Reason explains the latest poll results from Gallup, and highlights how Obama continues to force an alternative agenda on the American people:
The first major action taken by Barack Obama in 2016—a set of new gun-control measures mandated via executive order—is aimed at a threat that Americans don’t spend a lot of time worrying about.
In its latest survey of Americans, Gallup finds that “dissatisfaction with government,” not guns or even terrorism, tops the list of concerns:
Obama’s new actions against guns include expanding background checks; changing definitions of mental illness in a way that limits who is able to own guns; increasing the number of federal agents charged with tracking gun sales and crimes; and more.
Because violent crime, including gun-related crime and murders, is way down, gun-control issues don’t generally capture the public imagination the way that they would in a world of increasing murder rates. In the same Gallup survey that listed “dissatisfaction with government” as the top concern for each of the past two years, “guns/Gun control” was considered “the most important problem” by 2 percent of respondents, about the same who listed “lack of respect for each other” and pollution.
Yet Obama pushes forward with measures that even he acknowledges “will save few lives,” almost certainly more out of politics than an interest in dealing with the most serious problems facing the country.
Obama’s willingness to always pivot to issues that are not front and center, along with his willingness to expand the role of the state in virtually every aspect of our lives from health care to mass surveillance is surely a big part of the reason why people are consistently worried more about government than anything else. In this, of course, he’s had plenty of help from Republicans and his fellow Democrats, which also helps to explain another Gallup finding released this time last year: “In U.S. New Record 43% Are Independents.”
Now let’s look at the detailed breakdown from Gallup. It’s not even close, gun control barely registers.
For related articles, see:
‘Gun violence restraining order’ law raises questions from pro-gun groups and lawmakers about civil liberties and how effective it will really be.
The statute allows for law enforcement or ‘immediate family members’ to ask a judge for a restraining order if they feel that someone is a danger to themselves or others. Photograph: Julie Dermansky/Corbis
A California gun statute going into effect on 1 January gives the police or family members the option to petition the courts to seize the guns and ammunition of someone they think poses a threat, the first law of its kind in the country.
But the “gun violence restraining order” law, passed last year, has raised concerns from lawmakers and pro-gun groups about civil liberties and questions about how effective it will really be.
Modeled after firearms prohibitions in domestic violence restraining orders, the statute allows for law enforcement or “immediate family members” to ask a judge for a restraining order if they feel that someone is a danger to themselves or others. The order would also bar the person from purchasing a firearm by placing them on the state’s do-not-buy list.
Former California assemblywoman Nancy Skinner introduced the bill, AB 1014, in 2014, just two days after a 22-year-old man, Elliot Rodger, went on a murderous rampage in Isla Vista, California, killing six people and then himself.
“The shooter’s mother and his father were aware that this man was basically threatening violence,” Skinner, a Democrat, said this month. “They did everything they felt they had the ability to do to try to intervene to stop their son from doing something violent, but they didn’t have any tools.”
Republican assemblywoman Melissa Melendez said she voted against the bill because she believed it violated due process by seizing guns without a hearing for 21 days. She did successfully amend the law’s language to allow for a gun owner to sell or store their guns with a licensed firearms dealer.
To request a firearms restraining order, a petitioner has to tell the court why they believe someone presents a danger to themselves or others because they are in possession of a gun or intend to get one. The petitioner also has to explain why a restraining order is necessary to keep the subject of the order from harming anyone.
If the order is granted, a judge can issue a temporary firearms restraining order within 24 hours. The subject would then be served with the order and would have to surrender their guns and ammunition within 24 hours.
Before the order expires, a judge decides at a hearing attended by both parties whether to terminate the order and return the subject’s firearms and ammunition, or extend the order for a year.
Before the order expires, a judge reviews evidence – which can include written witness testimony, photos, damaged property, threatening messages – and decides at a hearing attended by both parties whether to terminate the order and return the subject’s firearms and ammunition, or extend the order for a year.
“It’s really designed so that if you really feel that the person you’re concerned about is really making credible threats of violence to themselves or others that you can get the police to act very quickly,” Skinner said.
But you “still have a due process so that if the person feels like that was acted on maliciously and they can demonstrate that they’re not really a threat or they’re not at risk – they can get their weapons back in a pretty quick period of time if that’s the case,” she added.
It will become clearer after petitions begin to flow through the California courts what kind of evidence, minimally, could result in the issuance of a temporary firearms restraining order.
If the order is extended for a year, a gun owner may petition the courts once to get their weapons back during that time. After that, they may petition again if the restraining order is renewed for a second year.
“Every once in a while, there will be a case where a family knows that someone needs serious help and shouldn’t have guns,” said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “But it’s not going to be a panacea.
It’s not going to radically change the number of mass shootings or even slightly change the number of mass shootings. And it’s not going to likely have significant effect in reducing gun violence just because it’s going to be used only exceptionally.”
Still, for some pro-gun groups any gun control is too much regulation, and an infringement on second amendment rights.
“In California we have no more loopholes. They have already tried and done everything regarding gun control,” said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. “It’s a knee jerk reaction that would do nothing to prevent the incident that inspired it.”
The term “immediate family member”, according to the new law, includes a range of relatives, blood ties or not. It also includes anyone who has “within the last six months, regularly resided” in the same household.
Additionally, court documents state that even if you don’t have the necessary relationship, you may notify law enforcement of a potential problem, and an officer could investigate and file a petition for the order.
According to the California department of justice, as of 11 December 2015, there were 13,305 people actively prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.
Posted 2nd Amendment-Right To Bare Arms, The Arms Trade Treaty – UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, U.N. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), United Nations Disarmament, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Researchin
– First Arms Trade Treaty Conference of States Parties Concludes in Cancun.
A quiet development, which has escaped the attention of both the American people and the media, comes with the a warning to all gun owners: Disarmament.
Conventional arms – The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, ammunition/munitions, can be denied to civilians by the the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which will enter into force on 24 December 2015.
The U.N. is hailing the ATT as a new chapter in collective efforts to bring responsibility, accountability and transparency to the global arms trade.
This last summer, at a resort in Mexico, representatives of the U.S. government met with delegations from other countries to gauge just how far America is willing to go in letting the United Nations repeal the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.
The First Conference of States Parties (CSP) to the Arms Trade Treaty was held from August 24 to 27 in Cancun, Mexico. Attendees promulgated rules for future meetings, set budgets for enforcement of the terms of the treaty, and, perhaps most importantly, established procedural rules that will determine how much power agencies of the international body will have over future domestic enforcement mechanisms.
In a statement issued at the conclusion of the conference, representatives of the European Union praised Mexico for taking leadership in the effort to eradicate “illicit arms” from the globe and promised that the EU would “actively contribute” in the enforcement of the terms of the treaty worldwide.
It is ironic that Mexico would assert itself into the arms control controversy given that the country is notoriously dangerous and is known as the home of some of the region’s bloodiest violence, most of which is perpetrated by gangs who live in defiance of existing gun laws and would undoubtedly feel no compulsion to comply with any additional attempts to squelch the shooting. Mexican globalists insist that there is an “urgent need” to ramp up enforcement of the disarmament treaty as the guns being bought, sold, traded, and manufactured by their northern neighbor — the United States — could and has easily worked their way into Mexico and the only way to prevent that potentiality is to eliminate civilian access to weapons in America.
Assistant Secretary of State Thomas M. Countryman (shown above) represented the United States at the conference. He made it very clear in his official statement that he was on board with accelerating the move to