Category Archives: Rights

“Christian Nationalists” vs “The Lamestream Media”

Imagine my shock to find out according to Heidi Przybyla on MSNBC, of course, the only people reading news and spewing opinions dumber and less informed than CNN, also #FakeNews, that I, and in fact many of you are “CHRISTIAN NATIONALIST!!” GASP! Heidi works for a bastion of truth known as “Politico”. And oh the shock, the horror, the NERVE!!! What has set little Heidi off? Is she off her meds? Someone said something she didn’t like? She saw a picture of someone she disapproves of? Closer to the first actually. I’m very sure Heidi went to college. Not to be confused with the institutions of higher learning in the past, no today’s “colleges” are institutions of higher indoctrination. And they turn out very ignorant people like Heidi.

Heidi’s shock and horror comes from a lack of understanding in an ancient, archaic document known to many of us as “The Declaration of Independence”. To make this even richer, Heidi is Politico’s “investigative correspondent”. I’m saying she’s overpaid.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–

I’m pretty sure Haym Solomon would be as shocked as I and many others are to find out we are “Christian Nationalists”. Haym Solomon is in large part responsible for the decisive victory of the War for Independence. Haym was Jewish.

Heidi says that regular Christians aren’t those nasty “CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS”, I’m guessing a few Christians are baffled and a few insulted that she thinks “regular Christians” don’t observe the Ten Commandments. It’s number two on the list, so it’s pretty high up there.

You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, nor any manner of likeness of anything that is in heaven above, that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them. For I the L‑rd your G‑d am a jealous G‑d, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

But this is just the latest in the media’s long train of lies. In fact, if you read this part

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Media,

and substitute the word “media” for government, you get at the real crux of it. How long do we continue to give the media a scrap of credibility?

The media lies, almost always. A nice summation from Tim Pool, with a video from Prager University.

https://www.prageru.com/video/lying-liars

More misguidance from the legacy media, but independent sources, like Tim Pool of Timcast that are becoming well known and are giving the other side of the story with suppressed information.

Voices like Tucker Carlson have an even bigger audience now that he is free from FOX and is far more open. The gloves and the filters are indeed off.

You’ll note most of these clips come from Rumble, as YouTube is part of the racist Google empire and they are big into the censorship game. Racist? You’ve heard about their Gemini chatbot, right?

The MSM, #FakeNews keeps telling everyone, keeps telling U.S. that Donald Trump is a fascist, and all his deplorable supporters are fascist and evil Christian Nationalist while they pump up Beijing Biden and the Biden crime family and the junta more than likely being run by Barry Sotero. So when they switch out Biden for Moochelle Obama later, it will really be Barry’s fourth term. But who is using lawfare to go after their leading political opponent? Who has political protesters being held in prison in conditions so bad some of the asked to be transferred to Gitmo? Who has the FIB going after parents at school board meetings and rounding up Grandmas who went to a protest? Not Donald Trump. But this isn’t about Trump, as Tim said. It’s about what the media peddles as purveyors of truth.

This is about a media that covered for child and puppy torturer and killer Anthony Fauxci, they hid the truth about an experimental injection that can and does change DNA. An injection that was always part of a DOD project, a DOD that has biolabs in Ukraine.

Why would anyone ever believe the media about a gun related story?

Who are the fascists?

This last one? This last one is a bonus, he’s from Scotland and there is so much truth I pray in this video. I pray it’s true. The voice of truth is like a balm of healing.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

This Is Why My Confidence In The Courts Is Bottoming Out

The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Cargill v. Garland, the challenge to Trump’s (yeah, he still owns it) bump-stock ban.

Now, it’s true that we still have Clarence Thomas, who is intelligent and willing to study facts at issue. But we also have Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“And when, you know, ‘function’ is defined, it’s really not about the operation of the thing. It’s about what it can achieve, what it’s being used for. So I see Congress as putting function in this. The function of this trigger is to cause this kind of damage, 800 rounds a second or whatever.”

That was after the government claimed that a semiauto rifle with a bump-stock can fire 600 rounds per minute. But Brown, with firearm knowledge exceeding that of John Moses Browning, knows better: 800 rounds per second.

Probably theoretically, higher, once you account for those magazine changes in that one second.

Just for comparison, the GAU-8/A Avenger seven-barreled, Gatling-style autocannon in the A-10 attack aircraft — the beloved “Warthog” — has a measly rate of fire of just 3,900 rounds per minute; twelve times slower that Jackson’s magical bump-stocked gun.

No wonder the Air Force wants to retire the A-10.

But back to bitter reality. We’re stuck with ignorant high court judges, who when even the banners inflated claims fall short, simply make up their own “facts” to rationalize the infringement of allegedly protected rights.

Oh, well; however SCOTUS rules, Thomas’ takedown of Jackson’s idiocy should be amusing.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Dictatorship

Dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. The term dictatorship comes from the Latin title dictator, which in the Roman Republic designated a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises. Modern dictators, however, resemble ancient tyrants rather than ancient dictators. Ancient philosophers’ descriptions of the tyrannies of Greece and Sicily go far toward characterizing modern dictatorships. Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda in order to sustain their public support.

I look at today’s political climate and I can’t escape the idea that this is where we are. Small group? Politicians and activist judges are trying to keep former President Trump off the ballot. Whether or not you love or hate him, people should have the chance to vote for the candidate they want to lead the country. That’s how it is suppose to work in a Constitutional Republic. Demoncratic policies are yielding the results one would expect from policies created and implemented by a bunch of college educated/indoctrinated marxists. Lower standards of living, shortages, poverty and crime are common in those sorts of 3rd world countries run by the left. The left is the left is the left, the world over. Now I think many people suspected on day one that Biden wasn’t really the President when he was signing all those executive orders and he said he didn’t even know what he was signing and an aide snapped at him “Just sign it”. Really? That’s how you talk to the President of the United States of America? No, this is Obama’s third term.

Extraordinary powers, like the power to force people into dangerous medical experiments. Like the power to shut down business. Except for the demoncratic politicians of course. Like the power to shut down free speech of those who tried to warn about the danger. Like the power to persecute those who question anything the government doesn’t want to answer for. Say, for example the validity of an election. Now demoncrats have been contesting elections for years. Stacy Abrams still claims she’s governor. A gaggle of them object every time a Republican wins the Presidency. Nothing ever happens to them, but they do deny the election.

Uses force or fraud to gain power? Goodness knows there was plenty of evidence that the elections of 2020 were not clean, and people attempted to make that knowledge known at the time it was happening the media #FakeNews either ignored it or lied about it. Then came the Georgia runoff election for two senators. As nothing had been done to fix the voting problem in Georgia, predictably the communists won. The group that documented multiple cases of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election even made a documentary. True The Vote recently won their case in Georgia about the senatorial runoff race against Stacy Abrams, video about 8 minutes https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/judge-issues-2020-election-challenge-ruling-facts-matter-5558563

Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote and Greg Phillips were the leads in the documentary 2000 Mules that did extensive documentation on the voter fraud of the 2020 election. It’s well worth watching, they explain their search techniques and have mountains of video proving their point. And they have been persecuted by the government for doing that. We’ll revisit this in a minutes.

But onto the propaganda aspect. The marxist talking heads called the “media” are having kittens by the batch about how if President Trump wins the election he will shoot demoncrats that don’t clap at his inaugural speech. Why democracy (rule of mob) won’t be safe! The only way to save democracy is by demoncrats destroying it. At least according to them. They can only save democracy by preventing a large swath of the public from voting for the candidate of their choice. They have equally pearl clutching guests on who solemnly intone that former President Trump can’t possibly hold office because of the 14th Amendment. An Amendment created to keep the members of the former confederacy from holding office after the civil war ended. But I don’t believe it was ever actually enforced. Since the mass formation psychosis operation known as “covid” the media has a successful playbook and they are sticking to it. But the establishment media has possibly overplayed their hand this time as they cover for the Obiden crime junta. People see that the costs of living are soaring, the Obiden junta is redistributing money from Americans to illegal invaders, crime is going up and the ever present attempts to disarm law-abiding Americans has not abated one whit. Many of “We the people” don’t like living under a marxist regime. Not one bit. But perhaps the lame-stream media is losing it’s credibility. People, I don’t think, believe them much anymore. Although msnbc’s loyal 7 listeners still tune in and hang on every word, and cnn’s 12 are still showing up to hear whoever hasn’t been arrested for some indecent act yet.

So what to do to win an election with an unpopular, corrupt, incompetent, demented candidate?

Going to the part of a dictatorship about terror, intimidation and removal of civil right, that brings us back to January 6th. A day the left loves, loves to talk about, loves to celebrate, a day made just for them. And it was.

Representative Clay Higgins, I just love this guy. Former military, former law-enforcement officer he has a no nonsense style and doesn’t let up. He’s sort of like a pitbull with glasses. Plus I like to listen to him talk.

I’ve mentioned before the documentary done by the Epoch Times that extensively covered the day with film obtained from people who were there as well as independent journalists. They interview people that were there and tell their stories, they have video of the murder of Ashli Babbitt and Roseann Boyland, killed in cold blood by Michael Boyd and Lila Harris. Things demented Joe Biden still lies about. I don’t know if it’s free to watch or not. After all this time it may be. https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary-4596670

There is now a part 2, https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/therealstoryofjan6part2-5548012

It’s pretty recently released so it may or not be free to watch.

The FIB is ramping up the terror and intimidation as they’ve said now they are going to go after people that weren’t even in the Capitol, but were just there. They’re being very public about it. They want the terror and intimidation, they want U.S. afraid to speak out, to donate to, work for or attend a rally. Their message is don’t even think about it.

Which brings me to this. Greg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht are not only fighters for truth, justice and the American way of life, they are also trying to help the January 6th political prisoners held by the Obiden crime junta. The January 6th political prisoners put together a video, it’s a time line of events that happened that day. Greg says it’s a little rough, but considering they made the video mostly by themselves, it’s amazing. It’s being hosted by open.ink set up by Greg. There is a huge collection of material there, not just this video and it’s well worth checking out. It’s a bit over 1 hour and is free to watch. From open.ink

J6: A True Timeline gives the audience a never-before-seen timestamped blueprint for the events of January 6, 2021, as they unfolded in real time. No other film to date fills the gaps or tells the story chronologically the way this film does. The film is also different from anything produced to date because a small group of protestors, some who are J6 defendants, have been the ones to collect hours of footage to help contextualize the events of the day. The film was funded and produced entirely through small donations and tens of thousands of volunteer man hours. The hope is that the film will provoke all Americans to be more curious about the true timeline of January 6.

I think we can see who is behaving like a dictator and who isn’t. Please pray for America, for many reasons and please pray for our January 6th political prisoners and their families.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Precedent Can Be Dangerous

Or even really dangerous, in the wrong hands.

For years, I’ve warned about the dangers of precedents; in laws, bureaucratic regulation, and judicial. My personal ball got rolling back inthe 1990s with the passage of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. CALEA was passed to “help” LE catch criminals, by making it easier to tap phone calls.

The Communications Assistance for law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a statute enacted by Congress in 1994 to require that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities to comply with legal requests for information. CALEA is intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance while protecting the privacy of information outside the scope of the investigation.

Sure. But it morphed into requiring the capability to monitor 10% of switch traffic at the same time; ten percent of all phones in the country. And remotely, so LE doesn’t even have to come to the switch office and physically tap a single line. It was expanded to include Internet traffic.

Then the PATRIOT Act to help catch terrorists.

What could possibly go wrong? Who could have foreseen that someone later would use those tools to monitor thousands of innocent Americans, or even spy on the opposition’s election campaign?

Well… “Who,” other than myself and thousands of other privacy advocates.

The Colorado Supreme Court just gave us a real doozy of a precedent: it just declared Donald Trump to be an “insurrectionist” ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot.

Love Trump or hate him (and I’m no great fan), the “reasoning” and “process” behind this decision is frightening; enough so that I’ll never travel to or through Colorado again.

The CO supreme court majority (there are three dissenters with some self-awareness) simply declared Trump to be guilty of insurrection. They deliberately and specifically denied the need for an actual charge of 18 U.S.C. § 2383 insurrection, a trial, evidence, or conviction. They specifically denied any requirement for Fifth Amendment due process. The accusation — in a civil case that Trump was not a party to — is all it takes for a life sentence of ineligibility to hold office or appear on a ballot.

Because Amendment 14, Section 3 is magically “self-executing.”

There is no Fifth Amendment in Colorado.

If this were to go to the US Supreme Court (and Trump says he’ll appeal), we might well learn there is no Fifth Amendment in the country.

But let’s look at the flip side of this insane precedent, under the almost-worst case scenario*:

Imagine down the road we end up with a hard-core right-wing administration; a Republican president perhaps, with as little respect for the whole Constitution as many current Republicans (don’t forget who saddled us with CALEA, PATRIOT, and bump-stock bans in the first place). Let’s say President Smith ran on a platform plank of doing something about the ATF, winning hearts and minds of American gun owners.

On the one hand, we have an agency whose specific job is to infringe on Second Amendment rights.

On the other hand, we have a precedent that says Constitutional amendments are automatically “self-executing,” and punishments for violation of the 2A don’t require indictment, trial, evidence, facing accusers, or defense. And one day, President Smith Tyrant simply send US Marshals to every ATF office in the country to round up every agent and employee, and drag their sorry asses off to the gulags, never to be heard from again.

Or… Federal Election Commission, meet the self-executing First Amendment.

You can probably think of one or two others that could use a dose of Constitutional self-execution.

So to speak.


* The worst case scenario would be SCOTUS making this a national precedent with the current administration, which proceed to rape the country faster and harder than it already is.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Commenting on ATF proposed Diktat, before Dec 7th

Ah yes, another day which will live in infamy. Goodness know people who love citizen control seem to be drawn to it.  I’m passing this along from a list I’m on, those that can drop a note, please do so.

The Department of Justice has put forth a proposal amending ATF regulations to implement the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that broaden the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms which would require that individual to acquire a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

This proposal defines, among other things, the following to be dealers:

Anyone who sells or offers for sale a firearm within 30 days of purchase.
Anyone who sells or offers for sale firearms that are new or like new in their original packaging.
Anyone who makes or maintains records in any form to document firearms purchases.

Any violation of this regulation would result in asset forfeiture, fines, and/or imprisonment. This proposed regulation is essentially a back door attempt to establish a national gun registry, which is illegal. A national registry is the first step for gun confiscation.

Before this proposal can go into effect there must be an opportunity for citizens to make comments for and against it. The Comment Period ends December 7th.

I am asking each of you to submit your comments objecting to this egregious proposal. You can do this by going online to Regulations.gov and referencing Docket Number ATF 2022R-17 or by mailing a letter (postmarked December 7th or before) to:

Helen Koppe

Mail Stop 6N-518

ATF Office of Regulatory Affairs

99 New York Avenue NE

Washington, DC 20226

Attached is a sample form letter containing objections you could put forth. Please read and select certain portions to state your objections. Do not copy anything verbatim, put it in your own words. There is a lot in there to pick from. 

Remember to be polite and respectful.

The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to defend.

RE: ATF 2022R-17
To whom it concern:
On behalf of __________, a _____ of __ (members, participants pick one), we are writing to
object to several provisions of the proposed 27 CFR Part 478. We operate what you would consider
to be a gun show. The proposed regulation goes far beyond the language and intent of the new
provisions of law set forth in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”). In particular the
proposed rulemaking is looking to 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(21)(C) and (22) for support for the definitional
provisions being supplied for presumptions as to those “engaged in the business” of selling firearms
and selling fire arms with an intent “to earn a profit” as set forth in the proposed regulation.
18 U.S.C. §921 (a)(21)(C) provides:
The term “engaged in the business” means–

(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who
devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or
business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of
firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales,
exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for
a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;
(emphasis added)
Please note this provision states to predominantly earn a profit. The presumptions put
forth in the proposed regulations presume that the sale of one firearm for a sum more than the
person paid for it constitutes a sale for a profit and requires the person to be a licensed firearms
dealer. We submit that this interpretation is beyond the statutory language to “predominately
earn a profit”. We also submit that it fails to take into account any other expense or time value
of money associated with the sale of the firearm, which is a part of any normal calculation of
“profit” and hence is beyond the proper basis of an interpretive regulation. Many of our
________ (members, participants) expend substantial sums to attend our events. These costs
would be factored into any reasonable definition of “profit”. But more importantly the
presumptions put forward are contrary to the statutory exceptions as to who is a dealer “but
such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of
firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of
his personal collection of firearms”. (see above) Many of our table holders are engaged in sales
for their personal collections. But the proposed presumptions do not recognize this exception.
Further, the proposed regulations conflate together “sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms
for the enhancement of a personal collection” and “for a hobby”. The two provisions are
separate. The “for a hobby” provision allows a person to sell, exchange or purchase firearms
on an occasional basis for a hobby, without being required to obtain a license. The “for a hobby
provision” and the “for a personal collection” provision are two separate and distinct items.
These provisions relate back as well to the provision of “to predominately earn a profit”.

Therefore, the person who purchases or sells firearms occasionally as a collector or for a hobby
is not a firearms dealer, and not required to be licensed. The proposed regulations do not
account for this and go beyond the statutory mandate.
The proposed regulations provide:
Section 478.11 provides in part:

Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or
retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting
special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a
pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation
on a part-time basis. The term shall include such activities wherever, or through whatever
medium, they may be conducted, such as at a gun show or event, flea market, auction house,
or gun range or club; at one’s home; by mail order; over the Internet; through the use of other
electronic means (e.g., an online broker, online auction, text messaging service, social media
raffle, or website); or at any other domestic or international public or private marketplace or
premises.
* * * * *
Engaged in the business—
* * * * *
(c) Dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker. (1) A person who
devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or
business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of
firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales,
exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a
hobby, or who sells all or part of the person’s personal collection of firearms.

* * *

Whether a person is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms requiring a license is
a fact-specific inquiry. Selling large numbers of firearms or engaging or
offering to engage in frequent transactions may be highly indicative of business activity.
However, there is no minimum threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that
triggers the licensing requirement. Similarly, there is no minimum number of
transactions that determines whether a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in
firearms. For example, even a single firearm transaction or offer to engage in a
transaction, when combined with other evidence (e.g., where a person represents to others
a willingness to acquire more firearms for resale or offers more firearms for sale), may
require a license. A person shall be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in

firearms in civil and administrative proceedings, absent reliable evidence to the contrary,
when the person—
a. Sells or offers for sale firearms, and also represents to potential buyers or
otherwise demonstrates a willingness and ability to purchase and sell additional firearms;
b.
c. Spends more money or its equivalent on purchases of firearms for the purpose
of resale than the person’s reported gross taxable income during the applicable period of
time;

* * *

(iv) Repetitively sells or offers for sale firearms—

i. That are new, or like new in their original packaging; or
ii. Of the same or similar kind (i.e., make/manufacturer, model,
caliber/gauge, and action) and type (i.e., rifle, shotgun, revolver, pistol,
frame, receiver, machinegun, silencer, destructive device, or ‘other’
firearm);

* * *

(4) Where a person’s conduct does not otherwise demonstrate a predominant intent to earn
a profit, the person shall not be presumed to be engaged in the business of dealing in
firearms when the person transfers firearms only as bona fide gifts, or
occasionally sells firearms only to obtain more valuable, desirable, or useful firearms
for the person’s personal collection or hobby.
The underlined language deviates substantially for the statutory provision of selling
firearms to “predominately earn a profit”. Selling or offering to sell firearms and being willing
to buy does not in and of itself evidence that this is being done to “predominately earn a
profit”. Most who collect firearms or engage in the sale of firearms for a hobby are willing to
buy or willing to sell, but this in and of itself is not establish by a preponderance that they are
doing so to “predominately earn a profit”. The provision that a person who spends more money

than their reported gross taxable income on purchasing firearms for resale, has no basis what-
so-ever in “profit”. Profit is based on a sum in excess of all costs. Not gross income. Further,

many retired people have a small gross taxable income compared to their assets. This provision
is not in conformance with the law.

The provision prohibiting sales of firearms that are like new in their original packing or
of a similar kind by manufacturer, model, caliber and type of gun is ludicrous. Virtually every
collector or hobbyist focuses their efforts on specific manufactures and types of firearms. They
are for the most part devoted to something. Further, like new in original packing firearms are
what is the most sought after of collectible firearms. These provisions do not constitute
reasonable presumptions by themselves of being engaged in the sale of firearms.
Several of the provisions relating to an “intent to predominately earn a profit presumption” are
erroneous. The provisions provide in part:

Predominantly earn a profit. (a) The intent underlying the sale or disposition of
firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents,
such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection. * * *
(b) The intent to predominantly earn a profit is a fact-specific inquiry. A person
shall be presumed to have the intent to predominantly earn a profit from the sale or
disposition of firearms in civil and administrative proceedings, absent reliable evidence to
the contrary, when the person—
(1) Advertises, markets, or otherwise promotes a firearms business (e.g., advertises or
posts firearms for sale, including on any website, establishes a website for offering
their firearms for sale, makes available business cards, or tags firearms with sales
prices), regardless of whether the person incurs expenses or only promotes the
business informally;
(2) Purchases, rents, or otherwise secures or sets aside permanent or temporary
physical space to display or store firearms they offer for sale, including part or all of a
business premises, o r table space at a gun show, or display case;
(3) Makes or maintains records, in any form, to document, track, or calculate
profits and losses from firearms purchases and sales;
The provisions presume intent to profit without any proof of profit, and shift the burden to the
seller of the firearms to prove otherwise and subject the seller to civil forfeiture of their firearms as
well 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(1). The changes in the law did not provide that a person could not advertise a
firearm for sale, put a price tag on it, place it for sale on the internet, or rent a table at a gun show. The
law specifically provides for occasional sales for gun collectors and hobbyist. The proposed

presumptions prohibit all such sales except maybe by word of mouth. These provisions are not in
conformance with the law.
Gun shows and collector club meetings with sales and purchases by non-dealers were not
prohibited by the BSCA. Had that been the intent of the BSCA it would have so stated. Had it stated
such, much opposition would have come forth. It is not proper to take actions by regulation that go far
beyond what Congress provided in law.
We respectfully submit that the provisions in paragraph (c) setting forth presumptions of
“engaged in business” and the revisions setting forth presumptions of “intent to earn a profit” are not
supported by the language of BSCA, and should not be adopted.
Sincerely,

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

A Mass Shooting Solution?

I ran across a peculiar column last week, but I held off commenting on it.

Mass Shootings: If No One Else Will Offer a Solution, I Will
While everyone is screaming to ban “weapons of war” or whatever the ridiculous phrase du jour is, nobody is offering any kind of solution. We keep saying we need to “have real conversations about mental health,” but we never do. So if we’re not going to ban firearms or have a kumbaya drum circle for mental health, and if no one else is going to offer a solution, I will.

That’s right, yours truly has a policy idea that might move us in the right direction. Because I am going out on a limb here, I’ll go ahead and say that I welcome other ideas, influences, and perspectives. All I ask is that we keep the disagreements civil when we comment down below. Lastly, I use the word “firearm” to cover any weapon that relies on a firing pin, as well as ammunition with a percussion primer. With this definition, make, model, or capacity does not matter.

The reason I held back is this proposal confused the heck out me. It appears at PJ Media, which is a fairly conservative outlet with — usually — a firm grounding in the Constitution and reality. Ashley McCully appears to be a regular contributor.

By McCully’s proposal is anything but Constitution- and reality-based. Before I tore her a figurative new one, I considered the possibiltiy that this is satire. The law she proposes reads like a far-left Dimocrat wishlist; it’s a thoroughly impractical, immoral, and unconstitutional rape of rights.

On the other hand we have the column’s URL: a-modest-proposal-to-prevent-mass-shootings-and-preserve-gun-rights-n1738194

That certainly hearkens back to the very model of literary satire. But was she writing satire, or did an editor pick that URL to poke fun at her “serious” proposal?

I attempted to contact her, but heard nothing for days. So I’m going assume that she meant what she said.

Here goes.

Regardless of how the firearm is purchased, gifted, bequeathed, or obtained, the individual taking receipt of the firearm must present a written statement from a licensed mental health professional endorsing the requesting individual as mentally stable and competent enough to possess a firearm.

That’s an interesting take on the Second Amendment, apparently now reading A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people who have been medically approved to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Up yours, Ashley. And you might want to run your idea past Clarence Thomas, because that requirement is a massive fail on the BRUEN test of “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

She’d be hard pressed to find and such law in our national tradition, seeing as how the very field of “psychology” didn’t exist until 1854, and didn’t get rolling in the United States until around 1875. And medical licensing? That wasn’t really a thing until the 1870s. And the first actually restrictive medical licensing law was passed in 1881, and only upheld by the Supreme Court in 1889.

In the event an individual is deemed mentally unstable and/or incompetent to possess a firearm by a licensed health professional, then it will also be deemed reasonable to search any and all property of the individual by law enforcement for the sole purpose of identifying and seizing deadly weapons, to include firearms. The written diagnosis by a licensed mental health professional will be declared suitable for probable cause for a warrant to be issued.

There are a couple of problems here. Begging permission to obtain a firearm, and failing to get that permission, is probable cause to ransack a home for the firearm he didn’t get?!

And currently, it would be a HIPAA violation for that licensed mental health professional to voluntarily forward that personal health information, the diagnosis, to the cops. You’ll need to amend 45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(i)), too, Ashely.

But that’s moot; because no sane mental health pro is going to issue certification.

If the requesting individual commits any crime with a firearm, the license of the endorsing mental health professional will be suspended throughout the criminal investigation. If the requesting individual is found guilty of any crime with a firearm, then the endorsing mental health professional may lose their license permanently and may be subject to criminal charges.

Note the lack of specification of time frame or what firearm is used. If someone gets a gun, lives peacefully for 30 years, then sudden decides to unlawfully pull a trigger — maybe of a gun that some other doc signed off on — the original doc loses his license and goes to jail. Both, in fact. What doctor is going to assume that perpetual liability? Since it would effectively be impossible to get approval, this effectively bans private ownership of firearms.

Speaking of liability…

Regardless of relationship, if a firearm is used to commit any crime by any person, the registered owner of that firearm will be held criminally liable.

If I jump through McCully’s hoops and get a gun, I would be criminally liable if a burglar broke into my house, shot me, tore my gun safe out of the floor, ripped it open with a plasma cutter, took one of my guns, and used it to rob someone else. Ashley’s liability language makes no exception.

Up yours with a prickly pear, Ashley.

Oh, and did you notice that “registered owner” bit? Yep, her wanna-be law presupposes registration. Language in other parts make it clear that the registry she so blithely assumes would include currently owned firearms, not just those bought under her new police state process.

I’m going to guess, like Hollywood writers who have cops checking gun registrations in southern states, McCully lives in a state that does have registration and stupidly assumes everyone else does, too.

Hint, Ashley: most of the country does not register firearms and owners. And in some states, Georgia and Florida for example, creating a registry is serious felony.

I’m skipping some other — mostly liability — points, and going straight to the finale. Which either solidly establishes this as satire, or Ashley as bug-f##k nuts.

Anyone connected to an individual who has been deemed mentally unstable and/or incompetent enough to possess a firearm and has had at least one firearm or deadly weapon seized by the State under Title II, including but not limited to family, friends, colleagues, roommates, associates, or acquaintances, must provide a secondary verbal and written affirmation that they will be held criminally liable for any crime committed by anyone involving the firearms for which they are registered owners.

You may need to read that a couple of time to parse it out.

If you know someone in passing — a neighbor down the street with whom you exchange greetings — that is a prohibited person for mental reasons…

…even if you don’t know it…

you must swear verbally and in writing (redundant, that) that you will be held criminally liable if said acquaintance… well, see the earlier burglary/plasma cutter scenario.

Ashley’s proposal doesn’t include any mechanism for identifying and contacting the prohibited person’s family, friends, colleagues, roommates, associates, or acquaintances, or anyone “connected to” and sharing their personal legal and medical history. So I’ll be damned if I know how you’re supposed to know to make that “affirmation,” much less to whom.

I would really prefer that is satire, but the fact that McCully wouldn’t respond doesn’t look good.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

SCOTUS: Enforcement Or Irrelevance

Pigpen51 left a comment on an earlier column regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals complicity in California’s brazen violations of the Constitution. He thinks the Supreme Court needs to make some rulings with absolutely no wiggle room to allow California — and like-minded oathbreakers — to continue enforcing bad laws.

I hope that they do so with, shall we say gusto, or extreme prejudice, or with a heavy gavel? Because if they leave even the smallest crack in the rebuke, no doubt the anti Constitution liberals will find a way to yet again hold things up

Crack? Taking advantage of a “crack” is what they did with the original Gun-Free School Zones” law. SCOTUS tossed it, so they passed a new bill virtually identical to the original, with “moved in interstate commerce” tacked on.

Mostly they don’t worry about cracks anymore. If a law gets tossed, they simply pass it again with the punctuation slightly altered, and declare that it’s new and SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on this one. That forces the pro-freedom types to waste time and money to fight what is essentially the exact same law. Blue state legislators and AGs don’t mind because it isn’t their money they’re wasting; it’s yours.

SCOTUS should have put a stop to that decades ago. Now, emboldened by SCOTUS’ failure to slap them down, they’re escalating. California just passed a couple more bills that clearly violate BRUEN. And they know it. Newsom said so, saying that they will not be bound by the “general, historical legal tradition” demanded by BRUEN.

“Newsom framed the move as a response to the “rights reduction” caused by gun laws that function under a “1790s framework,” a recording of the signing showed.”

And it wasn’t just Newscum saying it. It’s actually in the bill passed and signed. (It helps to read the “Whereas” rationalization preface to bills, and not just the hard action portions.)

No longer will they need to “keep kicking that can down the road.” If SCOTUS doesn’t start arresting these scumbags, they don’t need to “change the makeup of the court” that they’ll ignore anyway.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

More Victim Disarmament In California

Governor Newsom signed a couple of more bills yesterday, as if Commifornia didn’t have enough laws.

SB 2 raises the age to purchase any firearm to 21 years, and increases areas where firearm possession is banned.

within any state or local public building or at any meeting required to be open to the public

Governor’s Mansion, or any other residence of the Governor, the residence of any other constitutional officer, or the residence of any Member of the Legislature. (The governor’s mansion? Perhaps Newscum realizes how unpopular he’s becoming.)

the grounds of the Governor’s Mansion or any other residence of the Governor, the residence of any other constitutional officer, or the residence of any Member of the Legislature.

any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport

a public transit facility

an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.

They generously exempt “place of residence or place of business or on private property.” If you live in a school zone and want to take any firearm that could be concealed carried somewhere else, it must be unloaded and locked in a case and transported in a motor vehicle or locked in the trunk of the motor vehicle. That means if your sole means of transportation is foot or bike, you’re screwed. Same with public transit buses, unless the bus can pick you up directly on your private property, and drop you off on private property.

But just in case they might have missed an area, there’s 25850

A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city, city and county, or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county or city and county.

Streets, sidewalks, parks…

I’m sure all of California’s frustrated gangbangers are fretting over how this will impact their crime sprees.

But of you still want to buy a gun, and you’ve turned 21, prepare to shell out a lot more money. AB 28 adds a new 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. I expect ammo sellers in Nevada are pleased.

I’ll bet you’re thinking that these restrictions might run afoul of the BRUEN test of “general, historical legal tradition.” Newscum thought of that.

Newsom framed the move as a response to the “rights reduction” caused by gun laws that function under a “1790s framework,” a recording of the signing showed.

Yep, this was intended to out-right violate the BRUEN decision. Judge Benitez will have fun with this.


This column puts my personal contributions to The Zelman Partisans over 50% of all of our columns. I fear this makes TZP a little one-sided. Please, we welcome columns from other people. If you are interested in writing about 2A issues, particularly from a Jewish perspective, contact me.


Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

NM: Governor Stalin Sending In The Thug Enforcers

Well, assuming she can find any State Police officers stupid enough to sign those citations and serve them.

Gov’s office promises State Police will enforce gun ban
Even without that physical presence, the governor’s office intends to act.

“The order is being enforced, and citations will be forthcoming from the State Police,” said Caroline Sweeny, a spokesperson for Lujan Grisham’s office. ”To ensure officer safety, we will not be providing additional details at this time.”

Multiple people were live streaming the event in Old Town which turned into an open-mic lasting several hours for anyone in attendance, mostly armed with at least one weapon, to share feelings, concerns and possible threats in reaction to the order.

It appears Grisham expects the Staties to identifying “offenders” from video, and cite them for violating her unconstitutional diktat. Reportedly the Albuquerque police did have a surveillance “device” set up for the even, as they seemingly often do. But given the police chief’s opposition to the ban order, it seems doubtful that he’d assist them by providing video or still shots.

But several people live-streamed the event, so the governor may just pull that off the Internet. It wouldn’t surprise me if she tries geofencing the protest; but that leaves her with proving that a particular cell phone was carried by an armed person.

Next, she has to find someone willing to put his name on the citations, and open himself up to the expected 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights and 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law.

Finally, she needs a bunch of Staties brave and stupid enough to serve the unconstitutional citations on armed citizens.18 U.S. Code § 241 and 18 U.S. Code § 242, again.

Will the State Police do this? While the Bernalillo sheriff, Albuquerque police chief, and district attorney were quick to weigh in negatively, I’ve seen nothing as yet from the State Police.

The State Police web site is notably devoid of any contact data other than a physical address and a post office box; no telephone numbers, email addresses, or contact form (other than a way to compliment them). I finally located a contact form for the Department of Public Safety, under which the SP falls.

I sent this a few minutes ago.

Good day,

I am a firearms policy and law analyst for The Zelman Partisans. I have a few questions regarding enforcement of Governor Grisham’s and Secretary Allen’s action in banning public possession of firearms.

Given that the Albuquerque police chief, Bernalillo County sheriff, and the Albuquerque district attorney have all announced that they will not enforce the unconstitutional edict, is the New Mexico State Police going to enforce it, as Grisham has claimed?

Has the State Police considered the Second Amendment implication in light of the BRUEN decision test of general, historical legal tradition?

Has the State Police consider the ramifications of the NM state constitution, Sections 4 and 6?

If the State Police choose to enforce this, what action will you take against any officers who refuse to participate and open themselves up to 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights and 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law charges?

Given that at least three groups have already filed lawsuits (NAGR, GOA, and FPC, I believe), are you willing to be added to the lawsuits?

Are individual State Police officers willing to be added to the lawsuits?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your replies.

I’ll update if I receive a useful reply.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Idiocy And Deprivation Of Rights In Sherbourne County, MN

A young man in Minnesota is facing a September trial for the unlawful possession of two firearms without serial numbers. The problem with the charges is that the firearms in question were home builds; private manufacture, not commercial.

 

The County Attorney and law enforcement have charged Walker with violating MN 609.667 because his privately made firearms do not have serial numbers on them – despite not being required under federal law – and, in our opinion, not needed under Minnesota statutes.

Lessee. 609.667 FIREARMS; REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SERIAL NUMBER. does seem to require serial numbers…

Whoever commits any of the following acts may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both:

(3) receives or possesses a firearm that is not identified by a serial number.

…but, it not quite.

As used in this section, “serial number or other identification” means the serial number and other information required under United States Code, title 26, section 5842, for the identification of firearms.

So let’s take a look at 26 U.S. Code § 5842.

Each manufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm shall identify each firearm, other than a destructive device, manufactured, imported, or made by a serial number which may not be readily removed, obliterated, or altered, the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.

If you’re an idiot Sherbourne County deputy, county attorney, or judge mostly unfamiliar with federal law, that probably seems clear. They forgot to look at the chapter definitions, described in 26 USC 5845.

(a)Firearm
The term “firearm” means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

That chapter is talking about commercial manufacture and NFA firearms. Unless Walker‘s firearms are short-barrel rifles, or other NFA item, federal law does not require serial numbers. The firearms in question appear to be an AR-pattern 9mm pistol and an AR-10 with a 20 inch barrel. Not NFA.

My guess is that — unless someone hits the County Attorney with a clue bat, Walker will initially be convicted, the courts being what they are these days.

He should win on eventual appeal; though Ghu only knows how high the appeals will have to go. It’s going to be expensive, so if you can, you might contribute a little something to his GiveSendGo legal fund.

And once Walker’s record is cleared, he needs to sue the ever-loving s–t out of the idiot deputies and the County Attorney. None of them can claim good faith ignorance of the law since…

Walker informed the deputy of the federal laws around PMFs and not requiring a serial number if for personal use. And since he is a lawful gun owner, no restrictions on owning them. The deputies detained Walker for several hours, and confiscated his firearms.

Yes, the 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law lawsuit should be amusing. False arrest, deprivation of rights, malicious prosecution. I could probably think of a few more.

 

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 ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link

(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail