All posts by Carl Bussjaeger

Author: Net Assets, Bargaining Position, The Anarchy Belt, and more

9th Circuit is in a crack this time

Well done, Calguns Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and Madison Society Foundation.

Riverside, California Sheriff Stan Sniff Sued for “Discriminatory and Unconstitutional” Handgun Carry Policies in Federal Court
After purchasing a handgun with the intention of eventually lawfully carrying it for self-defense, plaintiff Arie van Nieuwenhuyzen asked the Riverside County Sherriff’s Department how he could apply for a “CCW” license to carry it in public. But the Sheriff’s Department told him that, because he was a legal U.S. resident and not a U.S. citizen, he could not even apply for a license under Sheriff Sniff’s handgun policies and practices. That, the plaintiffs say, is unconstitutional.

Here is the Complaint. Good reading.

As I said, the 9th is in a tough spot of their own making.

Historically, 9th Circuit Courts have done their damnedest to uphold almost every California infringement of Second Amendment rights, going so far as to support a law requiring nonexistent “microstamping”.

On the other hand, a 9th Circuit Appellate panel did recently rule in favor of open carry. And that’s a precedent that may apply here, since California doesn’t allow any unlicensed carry.

What really gets interesting is that van Nieuwenhuyzen is challenging a blanket policy, one which appears to be in violation of California state preemption laws.

Sniff’s department, rather stupidly, did not reject van Nieuwenhuyzen’s application on the usual (and bogus) “good moral character” grounds. They refused his application because he isn’t a citizen. That was a mistake.

While I’m sure most judges in the 9th would like to uphold that policy (and often rule in favor of the state versus any sane reality), Sniff et al screwed up.

To find for the sheriff, the judge would have to find that the policy of a blanket ban on noncitizen legal residents — regardless of “good moral character,” community standing, whatever — is in the interest of “public safety.”

That noncitizen legal residents are an inherent threat to public safety. Simply by existing.

I almost hope the judge (and the 9th Appeals Court) is that stupid. If legal residents are an inherent threat, just imagine what a threat illegal aliens must be.

That would provide a precedent to challenge every “sanctuary” policy for illegal aliens out there. You know, the illegal aliens that Democrats expect to be voting for gun control in the mid-terms.

Or the judge (and Circuit) could opt for sanity, and we still chip a –admittedly small — hole in arbitrary CCW denials.

Win/Win.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Interesting. WSJ contact about bump-fire stocks.

I just received an email purportedly from the Wall Street Journal’s James V. Grimaldi. It appears to be mailing list, not really to me specifically; it isn’t as if the WSJ knows me from Adam.

But the topic is the ATF’s Notice of Proposed Rule-Making on “Bump-Stock Type Devices.” It wants me to take a survey and verify contact information for possible interview.

Being the suspicious type, I did check email headers for routing, and a few other things. It appears to be legit.

The survey specifically quotes a comment I submitted; it seems they’re going through all 193,000 comments and trying to contact folks.

And…

Yep. I just got another email on a different account. Because I also submitted a comment on behalf of The Zelman Partisans.

Anyone else getting these emailed survey requests?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Just Do It

“9X% want…”

Put up. Or shut up.

I keep hearing this. I’ve been hearing it for years, in varying percentages, but always something considerably more than a mere super-majority.

But if you question why, if 95% of freaking everyone wants PPYI/AWB/waiting periods/free bubble-up/rainbow stew, the legislators won’t grant that wish, you’ll invariably hear that the NRA somehow owns everyone (despite the fact that Michael Bloomberg alone pours more money into campaigns that the entire NRA/ILA) and are stopping commonsense tyranny.

Or ask why, when universal universal background checks actually go to a vote of the people directly via referendum, the vote has never — even in left-wing Washington — gotten within 30 percentage points of the claimed ninety-whatever-they-claim-today. And that’s when it passes at all.They mutter something about the NRA buying the vote… of ALL THE INDIVIDUAL VOTERS?

Where’s my pile of money? Someone’s remiss in payment.

These are alleged adults, but the “NRA” is a bigger boogeyman to them than childhood’s monster-under-the-bed and the thing-in-the-closet combined.

[And manages to miss the little facts that the NRA backed: NFA’34, GCA’68, FOPA’86, Brady Bill PPYI, “assault weapon” bans, no-due process ERPOs, and bump-fire stock bans. And blocked constitutional carry. A gun control ally like that scares them?]

So here’s another question for them. A recent proposal was made to implement a total ban on firearms of any type, by anyone, via zoning laws.

Yeah, pretty silly, except for being completely unconstitutional and in direct contravention of judicial precedent on the very subject of 2A infringements through zoning laws.

Even in California.

I digress. Here’s the question:

If all you hundreds of millions (95% of 327 million is 310.65 million) of folks want to be gun-free, why not form your own privately owned and operated communities, in which everyone clearly wants to be gun-free?

TL;DR: If so many of you want to be totally gun-free, why do you need laws, and what are you waiting for? Just Do It.

95% want universal background checks? Just stroll down to your neighborhood gun store and pay him to run it. You’ll probably pay a surcharge as well, for the firearm handling fee since the gun will go in his bound book.

95% want some class of guns banned? Just turn yours in to the local cop shop. Better call ahead. You don’t need to wait for everyone else.

95% want gun registration? Just fill out this form and mail it to the ATF for their convenience. (And that will make a nice metric to show that 95% really wanted it, when the ATF receives 310 million letters all at once. Right?)

95% want bump-fire stocks banned? Under the coming rule, those will be NFA items, so mail them to the ATF, too. (And another nice metric; the ATF should receive roughly 475,000 stocks.)

I’m sure Chicago South Side zip codes will be well represented in those voluntary mailings.

Just do it. No one is stopping you.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Kirby, TX PD: Machinegun deception a matter of intent?

On Sunday, a person doing yard work discovered a pistol in the grass. In itself, that’s hardly news, as criminals do toss weapons after a crime, and this was stolen. But in this case, the “news” is in the police claims about the firearm.

After people find weapon in tall grass, Kirby police advise on what do if you find gun
Lt. James Laymon, of the Kirby Police Department, said the gun could have easily been fired. It was completely unsafe.

“This weapon was found with a round in the chamber and three rounds in the magazine, so it would have discharged if the trigger would have been pulled,” he said. “It was self-cycling, so it would have continued to do so three more times.

So Lt. Laymon is claiming this weapon is an illegal machinegun? Only a machinegun continues to cycle and discharge multiple times from a single operation of the trigger.

Not, “It would have discharged, and could be fired three more times.” It would have fired and continue to fire. Outside of military duty, relatively few people have fired an automatic weapon. Like myself, I think most people, upon hearing that a pistol had a round chambered and more in the magazine, would assume just another semiautomatic pistol. Specifying “continued to do so three more times” definitely sounds like an automatic weapon- a machinegun under the law. Prior to this, I have only seen “fire and continue to fire” descriptions used when the intent was to describe an automatic weapon. If Laymon inadvertently missppeaks so badly, I wonder if he should be speaking to the media in the first place.

Or testifying under oath in trials.

That appears to be a Springfield XD-S. That is not manufactured as an automatic weapon. One trigger operation, one shot. If it continues to discharge multiple times — “three more times” — after a single trigger pull, it is an unlawful machinegun.

I wonder…

  • Did Lt. Laymon simply make a remarkably odd error?
  • Is the lieutenant that ignorant of firearm operation?
  • Or was he deliberately fearmongering?

For that matter, is Lt. Laymon in the habit of involuntarily/negligently firing until magazine is empty, and assumes everyone else’s gun handling/safety is just as bad? Well… the FBI, I suppose. And I once worked with an officer who would pick up her shotgun with her finger on the trigger (prompting me to dive behind a truck, as she had it pointed at me); and to be honest, she did empty a revolver cylinder into a classroom building 180 degrees from the target she was supposed to be shooting. But they took her off duties with access to guns.

I asked. Kirby PD Chief Bois… answered replied.

The weapon in question was a semi-automatic handgun, not a machine gun. It was found with a round in the chamber and three more rounds in the magazine. This particular model of handgun does not have a thumb safety and if a child (or anyone for that matter) had found it and pull the trigger it would have gone off. Because it is semi-automatic it would have cycled another round into the chamber and required the trigger to be pulled again. We apologize for the confusion and hope this clears it up.

Note that he evades the question of why Laymon claimed — at a minimum — strongly implied to an unquestioning Patty Santos — that the pistol would have continued to cycle “three more times” after the trigger was pulled; i.e.- a machinegun under 26 U.S. Code § 5845(b). I clarified that.

Chief Bois,

_I_ am quite well aware that the Springfield XD-S is a semiautomatic firearm. It was _your_ lieutenant who asserted, to an unquestioning reporter, that the pistol would have cycled 4 times if the trigger had been pulled (which would make it a machinegun under 26 U.S. Code § 5845(b)). I am attempting to ascertain _why_ the lieutenant made that claim to the media.

The Chief said, “I believe that is clear the Lieutenant made a mistake in his choice of words during the interview.”

That’s some “mistake.”

And then, there is the matter of unquestioning reporter Patty Santos. Upon hearing a police lieutenant claim that a stolen and abandoned firearm would, when the trigger was pulled, fire and continue to fire until the magazine is empty, she should have demanded answers to more questions.

  • That is a machinegun?
  • How do you know, since it was just found?
  • Is it a registered NFA firearm? (I’ll cut her enough slack to allow that she might not realize the XD series went into production long after passage of FOPA.)
  • Where is the ATF, since they have jurisdiction over NFA items?

That first question would have exposed the simple fact that it was just another semi-auto, assuming honesty and knowledge on Laymon’s part.

Santos failed to do her job as badly as did Laymon.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Witkin Is Zoned Out

This little piece of witlessness made the rounds last week:

Can zoning laws settle the gun debate?
If there could be a “right” to be free of guns, the logical question is then how it should be asserted. The answer may be in zoning. Because gun rights are tied to personal security, there appears to be room for citizens to exclude guns in their immediate surroundings as one means of protecting themselves.

No.

The is no “right” to be free of guns owned by other people. Your rights do not extend to denying other people’s rights. One can choose to be free of guns by not owning one. One cannot choose to make anyone else not own a gun. You do not have a right to my property.

Because gun rights were tied to personal security, there appears to be room for citizens to exclude guns in their immediate surroundings as one means of protecting themselves.

Witkin cites Heller, and claims that a decision, which specifically ruled against firearms restrictions so onerous as to prevent possession, somehow supports… zoning laws that prevent possession.

For example, zoning at the neighborhood or even block level could allow people to assert a right to be free from guns. Zoning is a policy tool that courts have upheld even when it clashes with the constitutional rights of individuals, such as freedom of expression and the sale of guWill he volunteer to lead the stack in confiscation raids?ns.

And there he cites Teixeira to demonstrate that zoning laws can restrict Second Amendment rights. Wrongly:

The district court’s characterization of residentially-zoned districts” as “sensitive areas” is incongruous with Heller, which assumed that firearms could be restricted in sensitive places “such as schools and government buildings,” specifically in contrast to residences, where firearms could not be prohibited.

It seems unlikely that Witlesskin actually read Teixeira, any more than he read Heller. Teixeira did not uphold the restriction of 2A rights through zoning; it found that zoning which excluded a proposed gun store did not infringe upon a recognized right because there were other stores in the area where firearms could be purchased, and people could still possess firearms. That is the opposite of Witkin’s claim.

I repeat: Heller (and later McDonald) specifically ruled against firearms restrictions so onerous as to prevent possession.

No, you cannot zone away our rights.

Federal courts are pretty consistent in recognizing that one can’t simply wave away constitutional rights. Take a look at Winbigler v. Warren County Housing Authority, in which the plaintiff challenged a public housing lease provision banning firearms possession outright.

The Court hereby permanently enjoins and restrains Defendant WCHA from enforcing the following lease provisions:

5(h): The Resident, the Residents household members and household guests shall not: discharge or use firearms or fireworks, or store explosive or flammatory materials.

18(p): Any termination of this Lease shall be carried out in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations, State and local law, and the terms of this Lease. The Landlord shall not terminate or refuse to renew the Lease other than for serious or repeated violation of material terms of the Lease on the part of the Resident, all members of the Resident’s household and all visitors/guests of the Resident such as the following: Offensive weapons or illegal drugs seized in the Landlord’s unit by a law enforcement officer or to permit any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the Resident’s control to use, possess or have control over firearms (this includes keeping firearms on one’s body, in the dwelling unit, or in a vehicle which the Resident or a member of the Resident’s household as the use of or access to. Firearms are defined as any devices which will propel a projectile with sufficient force to injure, kill, or damage property regardless of whether it does so with an explosive charge, compressed gas, or by other means).

Georgetown University should be ashamed of publishing that ignorant drivel, and more so of the rights-violation advocacy.

You can’t do it. Not by zoning, not by lease, not by HOA restrictions. But ill-informed people like Witkin will keep trying, so let’s move on to the practical problem of enforcement, which he glosses over.

Ideally, enforcement of gun-free zoning laws should be generally light, such as civil forfeiture or forced sale of the firearm, but harsher on violent criminals who possess guns.

Compliance. He, as typically happens, left out the “How”.

Specifically, how Witkin would ensure everyone complied with his gun-free neighborhood laws. How will he locate and seize Grandma’s bedside table revolver? Door to door searches? With a warrant based upon, “Gee, judge; we just need to see if anyone might be breaking our law”? Perhaps he can pass a warrant-free zone law as well.

I wonder if he’s considered the implications of kicking in doors because he thinks the residents are well armed. When California legislators first considered their “assault weapon” ban, the head of the police union declared they’d see the largest outbreak of “blue flu” in history if they had to do door to door searches. Legislators immediately modified their bill.

Does Witkin believe everyone (law-abiding and criminal alike) will meekly turn stuff in? California got a 2.33% compliance rate with just registration. Connecticut thinks they might have gotten 13.44% compliance with their “assault weapon” registration scheme.

How will Witkin bell that cat?

Will he volunteer to lead the stack in confiscation raids?


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Rights through the eyes of a victim disarmer

Jamie Lee Curtis, notable anti-human/civil rights advocate, has peculiar ideas about how rights work.

“I am vocal about common-sense gun safety and gun laws,” she says. “For instance, I fully support an assault weapon ban, I fully support a bump stock ban.”

That doesn’t make her anti-gun, she clarifies. “I fully support the Bill of Rights. And fully support the Second Amendment. And have absolutely no problem with people owning firearms if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles – which are weapons also.”

What is it with victim disarmers and cars? Let’s try that on other rights.

Voting: I am vocal about common-sense voting laws,” she says. “For instance, I fully support a straight party ticket ban, I fully support a independent voting ban.”

That doesn’t make her anti-voting, she clarifies. “I fully support the Bill of Rights. And fully support the First Amendment. And have absolutely no problem with people voting if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles.

Searches: I am vocal about warrantless searches,” she says. “For instance, I fully support a stop & frisk, I fully support a no-knock warrantless drug raids.”

That doesn’t make her anti-privacy, she clarifies. “I fully support the Bill of Rights. And fully support the Fourth Amendment. And have absolutely no problem with people being searched if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles.

Speech: I am vocal about common-sense speech laws,” she says. “For instance, I fully support a ban on public rallies, I fully support government censorship.”

That doesn’t make her anti-free speech, she clarifies. “I fully support the Bill of Rights. And fully support the First Amendment. And have absolutely no problem with people speaking up if they have been trained in acceptable opinions, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles.

Gay Rights: I am vocal about common-sense marriage laws,” she says. “For instance, I fully support a ban on same-sex marriage, I fully support a sodomy ban”

That doesn’t make her anti-gay, she clarifies. “I fully support the Bill of Rights. And have absolutely no problem with straight people marrying if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles.

STFU, Curtis.

And I wonder… Curtis claims to be an alcoholic and past drug abuser. What is she doing handling firearms at all? Were those blank-only props?


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Poll: What do you expect of Associate Justice Kavanaugh?

Our new Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, has been sworn in after a highly contentious confirmation process. The majority of the media attention — Left, Right, and that which tries to limit bias — was focused on his character, as defined by — admit it — unsubstantiated allegations.* To the extent that his judicial history has been adressed, that has largely been limited to Roe vs. Wade, and to a lesser degree Second Amendment issues. For better or worse, Kavanaugh will be ruling on cases.

Update: PollDaddy keeps duplicating the 2A response for some reason. I’ve even gone back and deleted the one, and it comes back. On another poll, it deleted all my answers; I had to go back and reenter them. I think it’s time for a new poll service.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Physician, heal thyself

On the one hand, we have SAFE (Scrubs Addressing the Firearm Epidemic).

SAFE is naming gun violence for what it is – a health threat of epidemic proportion – in order to rally the medical community to fight for the interests of our patients. It is time for us to bring the same urgency and dedication to the task of eliminating gun violence as we have to exposing other health risks, such as cigarette smoking.

In the past couple of weeks, SAFE has been popping up all over the anti-rights media.

Why your doctor wants to talk about guns.

I wrote about them back on September 15, 2018.

“Stanford doctors lead national effort to stop gun violence
If a virus, bacteria or cancer killed 35,000 people a year, there would be an outraged demand for a cure, they say.”

Wait. What? He’s sort of right about cancer. It doesn’t kill just 35,000 people per year. It kills 17 TIMES that many.

Do you know what else kills more people than guns?

The tricky part of estimating doctor-related deaths is that — oddly conveniently for someone — there is no medical reporting code to indicate that a… drug overdose, for example… was, “Oops. My bad.”

Per CDC’s WISQARS: Firearms-related deaths, all intents:

  • 1999: 28,874
  • 2010: 31,672
  • 2013: 33,636
  • 2016: 38,658

You are 6.47 to 11.38 times more likely to die by medical professional than by gun. Those medical professionals who arrogantly deign to tell us firearms are the problem.

Medical reporting codes for firearms — yes, they code that — break it down by handgun, rifle, shotgun, accident, suicide, and homicide. Perhaps they need to break down their own killings by surgeon, resident, nurse, homicide, and accident. (Although I know of one hospital… choosing to go there might be classed as suicide.)

As for other numbers…

Estimates of gun owners range from 80,000,000 to more than 120,000,000. If each firearm-related death represented a single, discrete owner, then a mere 0.03% — three-hundredths of one percent — to 0.04% — four-hundredths of one percent — of gun owners killed someone with a gun.

There are an estimated 1,000,000 doctors in the US. If we similarly assume — just for giggles — that each medical death represents one doctor…

Whoa. 25% to 44% — forty-four; not point 44 — of doctors kill.

Statistically, that makes doctors 1,466.66 times more likely to kill than is a gun owner. (Interestingly, I ran this same analysis twenty years and came up with close to the same ratio: 1,400 times.)

Maybe they should change their name to Scrubs Addressing the Doctor Infestation.

They could call themselves “SADIsts.”

On the other hand, we have Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.

DRGO educates health professionals and the public in the best available science and expertise about firearms, including gun safety and preventing injury and death through wise use and lawful self defense. We teach what science shows—that guns in responsible hands save lives, reduce injuries, and protect property by preventing violent crime.

DRGO has a little better understanding of the relative risks. I suspect they’re better doctors, too.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

A Foregone Conclusion

As predicted, our pro-RKBA president — who would never put our rights under siege — is going ahead with the bump-fire ban. As urged by the NRA.

That is despite 193,297 comments, of which 85% opposed the rule.

Mostly based on physical reality.

So why is something this blatantly wrong — morally, constitutionally, and physically — going ahead?

“Why” is easy. 1) It’s the perfect lead-in for a complete ban on semiautomatic firearms. 2) Progressive Democrats and police-statist Republicans think they can get away with it.

The “how” do they think they can do this, how did a yammering pack of ignorami come to screech for it, is trickier.

Propagandizing media prostitutes, feeding utter garbage — lies, fake statistics, misdirection –to the masses.

Case in point: a Reuters article about Trump announcing the eminent rule fiat.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday his administration is just a few weeks away from finalizing a regulation that would ban so-called bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns.

They led with a lie: “fire like machine guns.” Which they don’t. It can sound like a machine gun, but the operation is pure semi-auto. And they know it.

Because I told them.

A year ago in Las Vegas, gunman Stephen Paddock used bump stocks on 12 of his weapons in a mass shooting that killed 58 people and wounded hundreds.

I called them on that claim, as well. No official report — and oddly, not even any unofficial leak which I’ve found — states what firearms were used by the shooter, with the sole exception of the revolver he used on himself. No ballistics data tying rounds fired to any specific weapon have been released to the public.

I told Reuters to provide a source, or retract the claim.

While machine guns are outlawed in the United States, bump stocks
are not.

While machine guns manufactured after May 1986 are outlawed in the United States, bump stocks are not.

Yeah, I called them on that bit of stupidity, which seems to be one of the secret-squirrel-official talking points being pushed recently. Reuters did fix that one.

One outa three ain’t… good.

The media magically made gimmicky training wheels into the weapon of choice of mass murderers everywhere… in an alternate reality.

In this reality, someone involved in the Vegas investigation told reporters that at least one of the shooter’s weapons was an illegal full auto conversion, in addition to the bump-fire stocked rifles.

Which would go far in explaining why bipods would be mounted on “bump-stocked” guns, when that would prevent them being bump-fired.

Within three days, bump-fire stocks became the designated boogeyman. Full-auto dropped from the narrative. Dropped. Never mentioned again, not even to say the person “misspoke.”

And that would far in explaining why the ATF — the official arbiters -gag- all things allowed and/or regulated in the firearms world… was not allowed to examine the shooter’s weapons. Admitting that the scumbag somehow broke existing laws to use real machineguns, and that the silly bump-fire stocked weapons were only emergency backup, would diddle the official OMG-ban-bump-stocks (and lead in for a semiauto ban) bipartisan line.

Trump gives a 2-3 week time frame for his new infringement. By the formal process, it could be as much as 90 days. But it is coming. What now?

Hard to say until we see the exact form of the rule. It sounds like bump-fire stocks will be — as expected — declared to be machineguns, which makes them illegal as they were manufactured after May ’86.

But Trump has been known to exaggerate -roll eyes- so maybe they’ll get classed with short-barrel rifles and shotguns; pay your money, keep your stock.

All I can recommend at this point is that you consider… compliance. The more malicious the better.

For instance, if the stocks are banned, and have to be turned in or destroyed, one might assume obsessive-compulsive bureaucrats will have a way to document that. Probably forms. Everyone might want to order a few… for every 200 stocks you “have.” Don’t forget spare forms in case you make a typo.

As for the stocks themselves? Just remember what a bump-fire stock really is. And every foot-long piece of PVC pipe that will fit over a buffer tube is a bump-fire stock. Dear Bog, my local Lowe’s has thousands of stocks.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Carol Bowne Right to Safety Act

In 2015, Carol Bowne had a restraining order against an abusive ex-boyfriend. But she was wise enough to know paper isn’t a good shield, so she tried to lawfully obtain a defensive firearm.

She waited.

And waited. For New Jersey to deign to grant her permission to protect herself.

Carol Bowne was murdered while awaiting government permission to obtain a defense firearm.

The murderer killed himself later… with a firearm that he possessed unlawfully as a convicted felon. Unlike Carol, he simply ignored the government’s edicts; those just for honest people.

Carol Bowne tried trusting the government.

She died. “A right delayed is…” deadly.

Federal delays of human/civil rights can be just as deadly and state and local violations. National instant criminal background checks (NICS) inherently delay rights. Maybe for a few minutes, maybe a few days, or possibly permanently.

Millions of firearms transaction have been denied by NICS. The Bradys and the victim-disarming confederates brag about it. But 93% of those millins of denials were false positives; violation of rights without cause. The false positive rate may be as high a 99.8%, if you judge by the lack of prosecutions for the remaining 7%.

The government doesn’t track false negatives; those incidents where some prohibited person somehow passes his NICS check. Take a look at the 4473. With name, address, place of birth, date of birth, sex, race, ethnicity, and a physical description, NICS can’t tell a prohibited John Smith from a law-abiding John Smith.

If they even bother with NICS at all.

88-91% of guns used in crimes are stolen, thus bypassing background checks. Only 7% of guns used in crimes were obtained through lawful channels. Presumably because theft is easier and cheaper than buying from an FFL.

And while NICS is mandatory for us law-abiding types, who aren’t out there committing the crimes, the Supreme Court’s HAYNES decision says felons can’t be required to self-incriminate by reporting their attempt to unlawfully obtain a firearm with a NICS check.

NICS doesn’t work. And it only applies to the law-abiding; not simply because the law-abiding are the only ones who’ll bother, but because they are the only ones required to do it.

Kinda makes you wonder why the Brady Bill was pushed as an anti-crime measure, unless violation of rights was the intent.

18 U.S. Code § 922(t)
(6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages—”
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

Violating rights was the point from the beginning. Violators are specifically protected from any consequences of their unconstitutional acts (or inaction).

Let’s write that up formally.

18 U.S. Code § 922
(t)
Strike “(6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the Federal Government or of any State or local government, responsible for providing information to the national instant criminal background check system shall be liable in an action at law for damages—”
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

and replace with

(6) Any local government or employee of the Federal Government or of any State of local government, shall be liable in a civil action for damages—
(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to a person whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section; or
(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a firearm.

Added: 18 U.S. Code § 922(t)
(7) It shall be a felony under 18 U.S. Code § 242 for any local government or employee of the Federal Government or of any State of local government to deny or impede the Second Amendment rights of any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District not prohibited from firearms possession under this section; and that offender shall be guilty as an accessory to the crime if the failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a firearm to any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District whose receipt or possession of the firearm is unlawful under this section results in a crime committed with the firearm.

It’s high time that those in government face consequences for screwing up, just as us little citizens must.

It occurs to me that someone might look up at the masthead at that, “No compromise” and think that I’m offering just that on preemptively-prove-your-innocence prior restrain NICS checks. Read that proposed text again.

Permits and licenses (which criminals bypass) impede rights.

Waiting periods (which criminals bypass) impede rights.

“May issue” denials (which criminals bypass) deny rights.

I’m not compromising. I’m giving the Second Amendment the teeth it lacks. Consider the “accessory” provisions of paragraph (7): that can allow for Felony Murder charges for violators.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail